Hampton UniversityHampton UniversityHampton UniversityHampton UniversityHampton UniversityArArArArArchaeological Prchaeological Prchaeological Prchaeological Prchaeological Project:oject:oject:oject:oject:A Report on the FindingsA Report on the FindingsA Report on the FindingsA Report on the FindingsA Report on the Findings

Andrew C. EdwardsWilliam E. PittmanGregory J. BrownMary Ellen N. HodgesMarley R. Brown IIIEric E. Voigt

Maps and Graphics by:Kimberly A. WagnerTamera Mams

July 1989Re-issued June 2001

Colonial Williamsburg Archaeological Reports

Hampton UniversityArchaeological Project:

A Report on the Findings

by

Andrew C. EdwardsWilliam E. PittmanGregory J. Brown

Mary Ellen N. HodgesMarley R. Brown III

Eric E. Voigt

Prepared Under the Supervision ofMarley R. Brown III, Director

The Department of Archaeological ResearchThe Colonial Williamsburg Foundation

Williamsburg, Virginia

Submitted to:William R. Harvey, President

Hampton University

July 1989Re-issued June 2001

Photo 1. Aerial view of sites.

i

Report Production

Project Director: Marley R. Brown III

Project Archaeologist: Thomas F. Higgins III

Contributing Authors: Andrew C. EdwardsWilliam E. PittmanGregory J. BrownMary Ellen N. HodgesMarley R. Brown IIISusan R. AlexandrowiczEric E. VoigtAmy KowalskiJudy Ridner

Consultants: Cary CarsonFraser NeimanIvor Noël Hume

Drafting: Kimberly A. WagnerLucia Vinciguerra

Photography/Layout: Tamera A. Mams

Technical Editor: Gregory J. Brown

Technical Assistance: Shelly Liebler (2001 Reprinting) Ron Lippert

This report replaces the first printing in 1989, which included all of the text and graphics following in Volume 1,and a roughly 1000-page artifact inventory in Volume 2. This inventory has not been reprinted, but is availableon CD from the Department of Archaeological Research, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

ii

iii

Table of Contents

Page

Report Production ..................................................................................................................... iList of Figures ........................................................................................................................... vList of Photographs .................................................................................................................. viiList of Tables .......................................................................................................................... xixPreface ..................................................................................................................................... xiAcknowledgments .................................................................................................................. xiii

Chapter 1. Research Design and Management Summary .................................................. 1

Chapter 2. Environmental Considerations ........................................................................... 5

Chapter 3. Project Methods .................................................................................................. 7

Chapter 4. Historical and Cultural Background ................................................................. 11

Chapter 5. The Prehistoric Sites (Mary Ellen N. Hodges) ................................................... 17A. Site 44HT36 .............................................................................................................. 17B. Site 44HT37 .............................................................................................................. 27C. Analysis of Prehistoric Finds ....................................................................................... 35

Chapter 6. The Historic Site--44HT55 ............................................................................... 45A. Description of the Major Features .............................................................................. 45B. The Structures at HT55 .............................................................................................. 71C. Faunal Analysis (Gregory J. Brown) ........................................................................... 78D. Oyster Shell Analysis (Susan R. Alexandrowicz) ......................................................... 95E. Paleobotanical Report (Eric E. Voigt) ........................................................................ 100

Chapter 7. Artifact Analysis--44HT55 (William E. Pittman) ............................................... 113

Chapter 8. Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 175A. The Prehistoric Sites ................................................................................................ 175B. The Historic Site ...................................................................................................... 176

References ......................................................................................................................... 179

Appendices1. Muster of 1625 ........................................................................................................ 1952. Catalogs of Tobacco Pipes ....................................................................................... 1993. Faunal Data .............................................................................................................. 2354. Data Recovery Plan .................................................................................................. 247

iv

v

List of Figures

Page

1. Context record ................................................................................................................. 8 2. Soil pH values ................................................................................................................ 10 3. Map of area showing conjectural early seventeenth-century property lines ........................ 12 4. Overall drawing of 44HT36 ............................................................................................ 19 5. Feature section drawings—44HT36 ................................................................................ 21 6. Soil chemistry—44HT36 ................................................................................................ 28 7. Overall drawing of 44HT37 ............................................................................................ 30 8. Feature section drawings—44HT37 ................................................................................ 33 9. Soil chemistry—44HT37 ................................................................................................ 3610. Prehistoric pottery—44HT36, 44HT37, and 44HT55 ..................................................... 3911. Detail of Structure A ....................................................................................................... 4612. Posthole sections—Structure A ....................................................................................... 4713. Detail of Structure B ....................................................................................................... 4914. Posthole sections—Structure B ....................................................................................... 5015. Detail of Structure C ....................................................................................................... 5216. Posthole Sections—Structure C ...................................................................................... 5317. Detail of Structure D ....................................................................................................... 5418. Posthole sections—Structure D ....................................................................................... 5419. Detail of Structure E ....................................................................................................... 5620. Posthole sections—Structure E ....................................................................................... 5621. Detail Plan—Trash Pits A/B ............................................................................................ 5822. Section—Trash Pit A ...................................................................................................... 5923. Section—Trash Pit B ...................................................................................................... 6124. Section—Trash Pit C ...................................................................................................... 6225. Section—Trash Pit D ...................................................................................................... 6326. Section—Trash Pit E ...................................................................................................... 6427. Section—ditch feature .................................................................................................... 6528. Overall drawing, 44HT55, showing location of slot fences ............................................... 6629. Section drawings—slot fence trenches ............................................................................. 6730. Section drawing of well ................................................................................................... 7031. Soil chemistry—44HT55 ................................................................................................ 7132. Detail plan of Structures A-E ........................................................................................... 7233. Detail of cellar wall—Structure A .................................................................................... 7534. Detail of cellar steps—Structure A .................................................................................. 7635. Detail of cellar floor—Structure A ................................................................................... 7636. Kill-off patterns—pig, cow, and sheep/goat ..................................................................... 9037. Oyster shell anatomy ....................................................................................................... 9638. Oyster types and salinity regimes ..................................................................................... 9739. Oyster tongs ................................................................................................................... 9940. Corn cob morphology ................................................................................................... 104

vi

List of Figures

Page

41. Percentages of ware types represented .......................................................................... 11942. Vessel form/function ...................................................................................................... 12443. Window pane angles ..................................................................................................... 14044. Drinking beaker foot fragment on projected vessel form ................................................. 14245. Harrington histogram—entire site .................................................................................. 14846. Harrington histogram—site by feature ............................................................................ 14847. Harrington histograms—well, Trash Pit A, and Trash Pit B ............................................. 14948. Harrington histograms—Trash Pit F, Trash Pit H, and Trash Pits F and

H combined .............................................................................................................. 15049. Imported marked pipes, probable origins ...................................................................... 15150. Marked pipe concentrations .......................................................................................... 15151. Pipe bowl capacities—average cubic displacement ........................................................ 15352. Krauwinckel jetton ....................................................................................................... 16853. Harrington farthing, Type 2 ............................................................................................ 16854. Bale seal ....................................................................................................................... 16855. Dutch pipe .................................................................................................................... 20156. Imported clay tobacco pipes ......................................................................................... 20157. Imported clay tobacco pipes ......................................................................................... 20758. Imported clay tobacco pipes ......................................................................................... 21259. Decorated imported clay tobacco pipe stems ................................................................ 22460. Domestic clay tobacco pipes ......................................................................................... 22761. Domestic clay tobacco pipes ......................................................................................... 231

vii

List of Photographs

Page

1. Aerial view of sites .................................................................................................... facing i2. Aerial view of 44HT36 ................................................................................................... 183. Section/excavated plan of Feature 42 .............................................................................. 234. Aerial view of 44HT37 ................................................................................................... 295. Detail of human bone in Feature 1001 ............................................................................. 316. Site 44HT36 during excavation ....................................................................................... 377. Examples of Mockley ware ............................................................................................. 408. Aerial view of 44HT55 ................................................................................................... 459. Quarter-section—Trash Pit B .......................................................................................... 60

10. Detail of cow skull in well ................................................................................................ 6811. Detail of brick cellar—Structure A ................................................................................... 7712. Turtle plastron ................................................................................................................. 8513. Cut deer antlers .............................................................................................................. 8714. Reconstructed cow skull ................................................................................................. 8715. Red earthenware strainer, interior and side views with profile ......................................... 11716. Unglazed earthenware flask, Mexican (?), with profile .................................................... 12017. Thumb-impressed earthenware storage jar, with profile .................................................. 12518. Red earthenware pipkin handle, with profile ................................................................... 12619. Unglazed pipkin lid, with profile ..................................................................................... 12620. Locally-made earthenware storage jar, with profile ........................................................ 12821. Iberian oil jar mouth, with profile ................................................................................... 12922. French earthenware storage jar, exterior and interior views with profile ........................... 12923. North Italian slip marblized porringer handle, with profile ............................................... 13024. European slipware fragments, with profiles .................................................................... 13125. North Devon slip-sgraffito dish, with profile ................................................................... 13126. Portuguese/Spanish majolica plate, interior and exterior views with profile ...................... 13227. Portuguese/Spanish plate, interior and exterior views with profile .................................... 13328. Portuguese/Spanish majolica plate fragment from the Jamestown Collection ................... 13329. Portuguese majolica bowl, interior and exterior views with profile ................................... 13430. Portuguese majolica bowl rim fragment from the Jamestown Collection .......................... 13431. English delftware jug, with profile .................................................................................. 13532. English delftware drug jar, with profile ........................................................................... 13533. English delftware polychrome platter, interior and exterior views with profile ................... 13634. Dutch delftware dish base, interior and exterior views with profile .................................. 13635. Bellarmine jug neck, with profile .................................................................................... 13736. Westerwald blue and grey stoneware jug neck fragments, with profile ............................ 13837. String-trailed glass container fragment, with profile on projected

vessel form ............................................................................................................... 14138. Stemmed wine glass base, with profile ........................................................................... 14339. Glass linen smoother handle, with profile on projected form ........................................... 143

viii

List of Photographs

Page

40. Spoon bowl with maker’s mark .................................................................................... 16441. Bone “needle” .............................................................................................................. 16442. Bone comb ................................................................................................................... 16643. “Lace” .......................................................................................................................... 16644. Lathe-marked plaster .................................................................................................... 16945. Roofing tile fragments .................................................................................................... 16946. Overall, structural postholes and cellar of Structure A, ground view ................................ 17747. Imported clay tobacco pipes ......................................................................................... 21648. Imported clay tobacco pipes ......................................................................................... 220

ix

List of Tables

Page

1. Feature Summary—44HT36 .......................................................................................... 252. Feature Summary—44HT37 .......................................................................................... 323. Prehistoric Ceramic Sherds ............................................................................................. 374. Vessel Profiles and Rim Diameters, Mockley Ware .......................................................... 395. Earthfast Virginia Buildings .............................................................................................. 756. Allometric Values ............................................................................................................ 817. Taxa Identified in the Hampton University Assemblage ..................................................... 838. Relative Dietary Importance ............................................................................................ 889. Estimated Meat Frequencies by Period ........................................................................... 89

10. Habitat Preferences of Identified Fish .............................................................................. 9211. Habitat Preferences of Identified Reptiles/Amphibians ...................................................... 9212. Habitat Preferences of Identified Birds ............................................................................ 9313. Habitat Preferences of Identified Mammals ...................................................................... 9314. Oyster Shell Attributes by Percentage ............................................................................ 10015. Oyster Shell Attributes by Raw Count ........................................................................... 10116. Oyster Shell Attributes—Summary ................................................................................ 10217. Oyster Shell Size .......................................................................................................... 10218. Botanical Remains in 44HT36 Samples ......................................................................... 10719. Botanical Remains in 44HT37 Samples ......................................................................... 10820. Botanical Remains in 44HT55 Samples ......................................................................... 10921. Ceramic Ware Type Quantification ................................................................................ 11822. Ceramic Vessel Form Quantification .............................................................................. 12123. Ceramic Vessel Function Quantification ......................................................................... 12324. Tobacco Pipe Decorations from 44HT55 ...................................................................... 14425. Binford Pipe Stem Dating Calculations .......................................................................... 14626. Maker’s Marks on Imported Tobacco Pipes ................................................................. 15327. Artifact Function Categories .......................................................................................... 15628. Summary of Food Preparation and Consumption Items ................................................. 17029. Summary of Cutlery Items ............................................................................................. 17030. Summary of Tools and Equipment ................................................................................. 17131. Summary of Weaponry and Armor ................................................................................ 17132. Summary of Personal Items ........................................................................................... 17133. Summary of Textile-Related Items ................................................................................. 17234. Clothing Pin Distribution ................................................................................................ 17335. Summary of Trade-Related Artifacts .............................................................................. 17336. Summary of Furniture-Related Artifacts ......................................................................... 17437. Summary of Architectural Artifacts ................................................................................ 17438. NISP, MNI, and Pounds of Usable Meat ...................................................................... 23739. Biomass ....................................................................................................................... 24040. Age Distribution for Domestic Pig ................................................................................. 243

x

List of Tables

Page

41. Age Distribution for Domestic Cow ............................................................................... 24442. Age Distribution for Domestic Sheep/Goat .................................................................... 245

xi

Preface

In 1979, a plowed field on the Hampton Uni-versity campus containing site 44HT55 wassurveyed by Howard MacCord for the Vir-

ginia Department of Highways and Transporta-tion (now the Virginia Department of Transporta-tion). This survey was conducted as part of theexamination of the right-of-way for a proposednew extension of state Route 143. MacCord didno excavation, but identified a seventeenth-cen-tury domestic site, 44HT55, on the basis of a sur-face sample of imported and locally-made claysmoking pipes and a few fragments of tin-enam-elled earthenware and Rhenish stoneware. Basedon this material, MacCord attributed the site tothe third quarter of the seventeenth century.

The parcel was again examined in 1980 byMark Wittkofski, staff archaeologist with the Vir-ginia Division of Historic Landmarks. Wittkofskidid some limited subsurface testing in the area of44HT55, finding two features: a narrow trenchidentified as support for a paling fence, and an-other wider trench. Wittkofski concluded that:

A phase three excavation will be requiredfor 44HT55 if it becomes threatened by anyconstruction. Limited testing indicated thesite had good preservation of subsurfacecultural features. Since much of Hamptonhas been heavily urbanized, this site couldprovide important information concerningthe changes which took place in the lowerTidewater region (1980:6).

Subsequent construction of the Route 143extension and interchange did not affect 44HT55,and the site was left undisturbed until the springof 1987. Knowing of the site’s existence, Hamp-ton University officials arranged with the localchapter of the Archaeological Society of Virginiato examine site 44HT55 further and salvage any

significant remains prior to the development of ahousing complex and shopping center by the uni-versity.

The Kicotan Chapter of the A.S.V. begantheir investigation of the site by digging a numberof test trenches in the plowed field. Almost im-mediately, they encountered a brick-lined cellar.Other trenching activities in the vicinity revealedseveral features, which, along with the cellar, werepartially excavated by the Kicotan Chapter. Af-ter these discoveries were made known, univer-sity officials sought professional advice. MuseumDirector Jeanne Zeidler contacted the TidewaterCultural Resource Center at the College of Will-iam and Mary, and the discoveries made by theA.S.V. were reviewed in the field by T.C.R.C.officials. Discussion with Hampton University rep-resentatives indicated the possibility of fundingthrough a United States Department of Housingand Urban Development (HUD) grant to help fi-nance the project. In view of the recommenda-tions made in Wittkofski’s 1980 report, the Cen-ter suggested a proper Phase II investigation ofHT55 be undertaken concurrently with a com-bined Phase I and II study of the entire develop-ment parcel. The T.C.R.C. completed this workin mid-September 1987, as part of a cooperativeagreement with the University (see Appendix 4).

Upon completion of the Phase I and II in-vestigations, the university asked the ColonialWilliamsburg Foundation’s Department of Ar-chaeological Research to carry out Phase III ex-cavations on the three sites (44HT36, 44HT37,and 44HT55) identified by the T.C.R.C. Fieldwork headed by Thomas F. Higgins III began onOctober 27, 1987 and was completed in earlyMay 1988. This is a report of those findings.

xii

xiii

The Hampton University ArchaeologicalProject was successfully completedthrough the efforts of a great number of

interested and dedicated people. The authorswould like to thank the following for their contri-butions:

Hampton University

William Harvey, University President, for hisinterest and encouragement.

Charles Wooding, University DevelopmentDirector, for his efforts in coordinating re-search interests with construction efforts, aswell as for his patience and understanding.

Jeanne Zeidler, University Museum Direc-tor, who deserves special thanks for her partas liaison between the University and theFoundation, securing space and equipmentfor the effort, and offering support and en-couragement to the archaeological team.

Additionally, the Maintenance and Landscapedepartments at Hampton University are es-pecially thanked for helping numerous timesby providing equipment and supplyingneeded electricity to the site. The R.O.T.C.Department allowed the field crew to usetheir facilities and was, thankfully, not tooupset about the holes in their parade ground.

We are also grateful to the Audio-Visual De-partment for loaning us a brand new IBMModel 30 computer for database manage-ment.

Department of Historic Landmarks

Tony Opperman and Randy Turner, for theiraid and suggestions regarding the interpre-tation and excavation of the aboriginal sites.

Bruce Larson, for his help in guiding the Foun-dation and the University through the com-pliance requisites.

Colonial Williamsburg

The field and laboratory crew who expertlyexcavated all three sites in spite of a longand cold winter and the sixty-mile round-trip commute:

Thomas Higgins, Project ArchaeologistLucie Vinciguerra, Field TechnicianCharles Thomas, Field TechnicianNathaniel Smith, Field TechnicianMeredith Moodey, Field TechnicianWilliam Sheppard, ExcavatorGunnar Brockett, ExcavatorJames Card, ExcavatorAmy Kowalski, Laboratory TechnicianJudy Ridner, Laboratory TechnicianJulie Bledsoe, Laboratory TechnicianWalter Schmidt, Laboratory Volunteer

Kathleen Pepper, Laboratory Technician,who supervised the Hampton laboratory ac-tivities and offered her help and guidance.

Joanne Bowen Gaynor, who provided gen-eral supervision and advice in the faunalanalysis.

Nan Reisweber, Department of Archaeologi-cal Research secretary, who provided ad-ministrative support.

Robert C. Birney, Sr. Vice-President, whoapproved the project and offered his sup-port.

Cary Carson, Vice-President, Research, whooffered administrative support as well as hisexpertise in seventeenth-century vernaculararchitecture.

Ivor Noël Hume, Foundation Archaeologist(Retired), who also visited the site, offeringhis expert advice on both the interpretationof the features and identification of many ofthe artifacts recovered.

Acknowledgments

xiv

Rob Hunter, Dave Muraca, and PatriciaSamford, who offered their help in the field,pitching in when needed the most.

Dave Doody of the Colonial WilliamsburgAudio-visual Department arranged for thehelicopter and expertly photographed thesites from the sky.

Tom Olds, who often volunteered his muchappreciated efforts, both in the field andlaboratory.

Susan Wiard, who contributed her preciseand invaluable editorial skills for the artifactanalysis section.

Others

Fraser Neiman of Yale University, who pro-vided his expert advice on vernacular archi-tecture.

Professors Norman F. Barka of the Collegeof William and Mary and Jay Custer of theUniversity of Delaware, who likewise gaveus the benefit of their expert opinions.

We would also like to acknowledge the invalu-able assistance of the staff of the VirginiaDepartment of Historic Landmarks in Rich-mond, the National Park Service facility atJamestown, and the Departments of Birdsand Herpetology of the SmithsonianInstitution’s National Museum of NaturalHistory for access to their collections forcomparative study.

1

Site Significance

The development of the area on the Hamp-ton University campus in which the his-toric and prehistoric sites were located

was accomplished, in part, with financial assis-tance from the United States Department of Hous-ing and Urban Development (HUD). As a result,federal mandates require that the significance ofthese sites be assessed in terms of the criteria foreligibility to the National Register of HistoricPlaces. For nomination, a site must be:

A. Associated with significant events in thebroad patterns of national history,

B. Associated with the lives of persons sig-nificant in our past,

C. Representative of a time period, ormethod of construction, or the work of amaster, or

D. Capable of yielding important informa-tion about the past (from Brown andBragdon 1986:2).

Clearly, all three of the sites take on respec-tive importance primarily in the character andquality of the information they contain. As withmost archaeological sites, this information is mostdirectly related to the first and fourth of the Na-tional Register criteria. Evaluating the researchpotential of these sites more specifically is a mat-ter of identifying the relevant historical and cul-tural patterns and processes to which they relate,and specifying the categories of archaeologicaldata recovered which will help to understand theseevents and developments. Much of the intellec-tual and procedural framework for this evalua-tion is based on a comprehensive historic preser-vation plan for the James-York peninsula, Towarda Resource Protection Process: ManagementPlans for James City County, York County, Cityof Poquoson, and City of Williamsburg, pre-

pared by the Colonial Williamsburg Departmentof Archaeological Research in 1985 and 1986(Brown and Bragdon 1986).

The Prehistoric Sites—44HT36 and 44HT37

Study Unit III in Colonial Williamsburg’s 1986resource protection plan for the Peninsula ad-dresses several research questions pertinent tothe investigation of sites 44HT36 and 44HT37.On the basis of radiocarbon analysis and associ-ated diagnostic artifacts, the prehistoric sites atHampton University can be dated to the latterpart of the Middle Woodland Period (500 B.C.-A.D. 1000). This traditional chronological unit fallswithin a broader era of cultural adaptation, span-ning the period 2000 B.C. to A.D. 1000, definedin Study Unit III.

Referred to by some as the Woodland I Pe-riod (Custer 1984, 1989), this era is distinguishedby the emergence of a more sedentary lifewayamong the Native American populations of thePeninsula and the larger Middle Atlantic Region,although the exact processes involved with thischange remain unclear. Earlier, populations withinthe region were characterized by forest-basedeconomies, high residential mobility reflecting sea-sonal resource availability, small group size, anda portable tool assemblage. Beginning ca. 2000B.C., however, the archaeological record displaysevidence for the development of intensive river-ine and estaurine adaptations and increased resi-dential permanency by larger group aggregates.Technological innovations through the period in-cluded the development a ceramic container tech-nology, the construction of food storage facilities,and the development of plant horticulture. Thelatter is believed to have initially involved the in-

Chapter 1.Research Design and Management Summary

2

tensive use of wild, herbaceous annuals, with truedomesticates integrated at a later date.

Using guidelines from the management plan,sites 44HT36 and 44HT37 were excavated withthe intent of adding to existing knowledge of thesocial, economic, and demographic organization,subsistence activities, and material culture of Na-tive American peoples during this era. Prior toidentification of these specific sites, the HamptonUniversity project area had been judged likely tocontain prehistoric archaeological remains due toits topographic setting and proximity to estuarineresources. A previous archaeological survey(Wittkofski 1980) had recovered small surfacecollections of aboriginal pottery and stone toolsin the nearby fields. The first clear indication ofthe potential prehistoric significance of the areacame, however, during Phase I and II testing bythe Tidewater Cultural Resource Center in thesummer of 1987, when it was discovered that pitfeatures were preserved below the plowzone atsites 44HT36 and 44HT37. The presence of pitfeatures suggested these sites represented resi-dential bases involving the storage of plant foods.A preliminary date for the sites was provided bythe recovery of Mockley ware, a shell tempered,cord marked and knotted net impressed ceramiccommon on late Woodland I Period sites withinthe Coastal Plain of Virginia, Maryland, and Dela-ware.

In order to address the specific research ques-tions posed in the management plan, data recov-ery strategy at 44HT36 and 44HT37 includedthe excavation of the majority of the pit featuresexposed at the sites and analysis of their depth,breadth, and contents in order to determine theirprobable function. Material suitable for radiocar-bon analysis was collected to date the occupa-tions and to provide additional information on theoccurrence of Mockley ware. Soil samples werecollected, treated, and analyzed by apaleoethnobotanist to determine which wild ordomesticated plants were used by the inhabitants.Rather than limiting the investigation to the small,non-contiguous test units initiated during the PhaseI/II investigation, expansive excavation areas were

exposed at each site with the hope of obtaininginformation on the overall plan and internal struc-ture of the settlements—whether shelters, cook-ing, and other activity areas existed, and, if so,how they were arranged.

Excavation and analysis of the sites suggestedthat they represent small, residential bases. Un-fortunately, only limited information was gener-ated on the plan of the settlements. Within theexcavation area exposed at 44HT37, some clus-tering of pit features was evident, but no evidencefor structures was found at either site. Either noneexisted, or any evidence had been destroyed bysubsequent plowing or landscaping. The extremelysmall size of the artifact assemblages, which werecomprised almost exclusively of ceramic sherds,precluded sound spatial analysis. The excavation,on the other hand, did produce some potentiallysignificant data relevant to an understanding ofceramic and horticultural development during theMiddle Woodland Period. Radiocarbon analysisof charcoal associated with ceramics and plantremains from the sites yielded some of the earli-est dates yet obtained within the Middle AtlanticRegion for shell tempered ceramics (first centuryA.D.) and for the possible limited cultivation ofmaize (fourth century A.D.).

The Seventeenth CenturySite—44HT55

Study Unit X in Colonial Williamsburg’s resourceprotection plan, “Establishment of Colonial Soci-ety: Development of Tidewater Society andEconomy A.D. 1630 - A.D. 1689” outlines “thedevelopment of a distinctive Anglo-Virginianlifestyle in response to the conditions of the Chesa-peake” (Brown and Derry 1986). During thisperiod, the plantation system emerged, based onthe cultivation of tobacco and a reliance uponbound and slave labor. The so-called “operatingplan” for this study unit identifies a broad range ofproperty types that should be recoverable as ar-chaeological sites. These include plantations ofboth large and small planters, tenant farms, pub-lic buildings, taverns and other commercial sites.

3

Until recently, however, there has been a bias to-ward the recording and excavation of domesticsites associated with the planter elite, such as thoseat Kingsmill and Governor’s Land, both in JamesCity County (Brown and Derry 1986).

The Hampton University site is of special im-portance primarily because, although it was prob-ably occupied by a fairly wealthy or socially-prominent household, it was never, at least in theseventeenth century, part of any large private landholding. It was, in fact, probably tenant land thatwas not part of any permanent estate until it waspatented in 1642. Even then it was not a familialholding, but part of a 116-acre tract which likelyincluded several other similar domestic complexes.Site HT55, in fact, probably because of its asso-ciation with the large tract patented by the Vir-ginia Company, was part of a rural enclave in whatwas becoming a relatively urban area (althoughlittle of Hampton itself, then only part of ElizabethCity County, ever actually became heavily urban-ized). It remained such until acquisition by Hamp-ton University in 1938. Thus the full-scale exca-vation of the site has afforded archaeologists theopportunity to add significantly to the understand-ing of the material culture of the English popula-tion in second quarter seventeenth-century Vir-ginia.

What, then, are the archaeologically-discernable things which distinguished the land-less tenant farmers in the second quarter of theseventeenth century from the landed gentry? Is ittheir houses and their possessions, or is it some-thing less tangible, such as their political connec-tions, education, or ambition? The architecturalghosts and the rubbish left to posterity at sitesfrom this period do not seem to point to any onefactor which would explain or define these his-torically-known differences. Almost all of thehouses built in Tidewater from 1625 to 1650 wererelatively small, earthfast structures composed ofwood, whether home of lord or laborer. Addi-tionally, some of the same ceramic types found atJamestown, the core of the elite, and at Causey’sCare, on the periphery, were also found at HT55.The artifacts recovered from HT55 seem, in fact,

to indicate that the residents of the site had suffi-cient wherewithal to purchase both ceramics andglassware of a quality suggestive of a high stan-dard of living.

The question of social and economic statusof the folks living at 44HT55 can be addressedthrough a variety of sources, but there are fewdefinitive answers. Since there appears to be noevidence that the property served as a glebe-housefor the nearby church, an automatic status indica-tor, that of the clergy, cannot be assumed, norcan it be used, unfortunately, to seek clues re-garding the economic well-being of ministers dur-ing Virginia’s early period.

Looking for insights into the status of the site’sinhabitants through their architecture is also ques-tionable ground on which to tread. As pointedout in Chapter 6, social dichotomies betweenmasters and indentured servants were not as well-defined in the first half of the seventeenth centuryas they were in the second half. This is reflectedin the architecture of the houses as well as in thehistorical record (Neiman 1980), and even in thegeneral layout of the domestic complex. Servantsoften lived in virtually the same rooms as their“masters.” In the Muster of 1625 (Appendix 1),Robart Thrasher and Roland Williames appar-ently lived in one house with their servant, JohnSacker. John and Elizabeth Haney and Nicolasand Mary Rowe also lived with their servantsThomas Moreland and Ralph Hood, as there isonly one house listed in these musters. Neiman(1980) found a reference which, off-handedly,mentions a “Negro” servant sitting and drinkingwith his mistress, a situation unlikely to arise onlyfifty years later.

It has been demonstrated by Neiman andCarson that houses built by the elite, or at leastthe “upper echelon” of society, appear to havebeen constructed in much the same manner asthose belonging to people on the lower end of theeconomic ladder. Even planters who could prob-ably well afford brick houses, or at least framehouses with brick chimneys, had houses con-structed entirely of wood with chimneys of mud.There are notable early seventeenth-century ex-

4

ceptions, of course, such as Piercey’s house atFlowerdew Hundred (Barka 1976), which had abrick and stone foundation along with the woodenposts and a large double brick chimney. But thiswas an exception; the earthfast structures atKingsmill, Epps Island, Pettus, and Drummondplantations were the norm.

Site HT55 consisted of five seemingly mea-ger structures. Atypical of most post-in-grounddwellings, Structure A contained a tile-floored,

brick-lined cellar—not a feature as easily or ascheaply constructed as the more common wood-lined ones. It also sported two sets of brick stepsleading into the cellar, although the chimney(s)were constructed of wood and mud. Evidently,safe storage of food, a consumable, was moreimportant to the owner than a more elaborate andattractive house. The house met the needs of theinhabitants for about 30 to 40 years, althoughextensive repairs were apparently necessary.

5

The Climate

Weather on “the Peninsula,” as the areabetween the York and James Riversis locally known, is characterized by

relatively mild winters and warm summers, butnot without extremes on both ends of the ther-mometer. John Smith accurately described thearea’s climate in 1624:

The Sommer is hot as in Spaine; the Wintercold as in France or England. The heat ofsommer is in June, July, and August, but com-monly the coole breeses asswage thevehemency of the heat. The chiefe of winter ishalfe December, January, February, and halfeMarch. The colde is extreame sharpe, but herethe Proverb is true, that no extreame longcontinueth.

The winds here are variable, but like the thun-der and lightning to purifie the ayre, I have seldomeeither seen or heard in Europe. From the South-west came the greatest gusts with thunder andheat. The Northwest winde is commonly cooleand bringeth faire weather with it. From the Northis the greatest cold, and from the East and South-east as from the Barmudas, fogs and raines (Smith1624:21).

Captain Smith also describes the quickchanges sometimes exhibited in Tidewaterweather, a fact to which anyone who has lived inthe area for much time can attest. Statistically,however, the peninsula’s weather is rather mild,the average July temperature being 77.7°F, andthe average in January 40.3°F. Annually, the av-erage is 59.1°F. Summer temperatures can, onoccasion reach above 100°, and winter nightsplummet to near 0°, but both extremes, especiallythe latter, are rare. Annual rainfall averages about42 inches, approximately 8.6 inches of which maybe recorded as snow (Virginia Peninsula Indus-trial Council [V.P.I.C.] 1976).

Resources

Total land area of the peninsula is about 262,400acres, roughly half of which is forested (much less,of course, in the Hampton area). Forests are pri-marily composed of pine, oak, and hickory trees.The local ground water is generally acidic andcontains high amounts of iron, making it unfit formost purposes. At depths below 200 feet, a highsalt content pervades all well water in the Hamp-ton area. All of the surface water around Hamp-ton is quite salty, supporting a great deal of ma-rine life including fish, oysters, clams, and crabs(V.P.I.C. 1976).

Geology

Hampton and the peninsula are located on thevery eastern edge of Virginia’s Coastal Plain, ageologically-old area primarily composed of“loose, unconsolidated beds of sand, gravel, clay,and marl” (Virginia Governor’s Office 1968:30),below which is Cretaceous and Tertiary sedimen-tary rock (Andrews 1981). As Hampton is lo-cated at the very tip of the peninsula, it is at thelowest elevations (site HT55, for instance, is about10 feet A.S.L.). On the upper part of the penin-sula, near Williamsburg, elevations may be as highas 120 feet A.S.L.

The Hampton University sites are at the mouthof the James River as it empties into the Chesa-peake Bay. The Bay, probably the greatest influ-ence on the early adventurers, is still today anextremely important waterway. Affording protec-tion from the sea, as well as a great abundance ofmarine life, the Chesapeake Bay has an area of4,300 square miles, a shore line of 4,500 miles, isabout 165 miles long, but has an average depthof only 20 feet (Power 1970). The early impor-tance of Hampton is directly related to its strate-gic location in the part of the Bay across from

Chapter 2.Environmental Considerations

6

Norfolk—the entire area composing a commer-cially-important region known as HamptonRoads.

7

A. Excavation

The Native American Sites

The methods and techniques used to carryout Phase III excavations on the threeHampton University sites were stuctured

to obtain the types of data pertinent to address-ing several research questions discussed in Chap-ter 1. The two Native American sites—44HT36and 44HT37—provided a unique opportunity tobroaden the current knowledge of the materialand culture history of aboriginal populations in theTidewater region during the latter part of theMiddle Woodland Period.

Phase I and II test excavations performed bythe Tidewater Cultural Resource Center at theCollege of William and Mary revealed subsur-face features with few or no cultural remains inthe topsoil overburden. When ColonialWilliamsburg began the Phase III study, this over-burden was therefore stripped by machine untilfeatures were evident. A grid was established overthe sites, and the features were subsequentlymapped and given appropriate numerical desig-nations. All features were sectioned, either inhalves or in quarters, depending upon size. Aknown percentage of the fill from each feature inexcess of 2000 ml was retained for wet-screen,flotation sampling, and chemical analysis. The re-mainder of the fill was screened through one-quar-ter inch or one-eighth inch mesh hardware cloth.The carbon samples collected were sent to BetaAnalytic Laboratories for radiocarbon dating.Artifacts recovered from the sites were generallytransferred to the on-campus laboratory for pro-cessing at the end of each work day, but itemsrequiring special treatment could be taken to thelab within minutes of their discovery.

The recording method used on the aboriginalsites was the same as that used on other Colonial

Williamsburg sites. Features were given consecu-tive numerical designations as they were mapped.Layers within the features were given context num-bers as they were excavated, and all pertinentinformation relating to the feature or context wasrecorded on forms designed for computer entry(see Figure 1). This information was later trans-ferred to computer using dBase III-compatibledatabase management software. Major featureswere photographed in plan and section.

The Historic Site

Excavation and recording techniques employedat HT55 were essentially identical to those usedat the Native American sites. Previous archaeo-logical investigations, years of surface collection,and other considerations prompted the strippingof topsoil and plowzone from the site, exposingthe subsurface features. The area was griddedinto the customary ten-foot squares in order tofacilitate mapping of the large site. Again, featureswere given sequential numbers as they weremapped. Each unit was mapped on a 1:24 scale,producing a composite site plan. All features weresectioned and a portion of the fill retained forchemical, flotation, and wet screen sampling. Mostfeatures were photographed in plan and section.

B. Soil Analysis

Flotation(Charles Thomas and Lucie Vinciguerra)

Soil samples recovered from the Hampton Uni-versity sites were transported to the Departmentof Archaeological Research facilities inWilliamsburg for flotation. The flotation deviceused in processing soil samples consisted of twomain sections. The base was a 15-gallon cylin-drical NALGENE tank with two holes drilled

Chapter 3.Project Methods

8

Figure 1. Context record.

9

through the wall near the base. One hole was fit-ted with a plug to serve as a drain for emptyingthe tank between samples, and the other with anL-shaped length of copper pipe running upwardthrough the bottom of the tank. An adjustablespray nozzle was attached to this pipe.

The upper portion of the device was con-structed of a 20-quart utility tub, with a shallow,rectangular hole cut near the upper edge, and abroad, flat spout attached. The bottom of the tubwas removed and replaced with a 24-by-24 brassmesh cloth (wide diameter: 0.014"), which re-tained all particles greater than 0.0277" (0.70mm). The tub was selected to create a snug, wa-ter-tight fit when pressed down into theNALGENE tank.

Aluminum baking pans with bottoms removedand replaced with 40-mesh brass wire strainercloth were used for collection of the floated ma-terial. These would collect particles of at least0.0175" in diameter.

Water was run into the base tank from thebottom until it filled the NALGENE tank andspilled over the spout. Then, at high pressure, astream of water was directed through the screento create turbulence. The soil was sprinkled intothe sample bucket, the lighter fraction of whichwas carried away through the spout and into thecollecting tray. The sample could be agitatedslightly by hand to break up any highly coherentsoil, if necessary. The process continued until therewas no further suspended material visible in theflow to the collecting tray. The tray was then setaside for air drying while the heavy fraction wasretained in the screen fitted in the NALGENEtank. The water was drained and the sample ex-tracted between each process.

This method of collecting flotation samplesminimizes the handling of delicate material, whichis especially fragile when wet. The standard poppyseed test, i.e., placing 100 poppy seeds in a samplebefore it is processed and counting them after flo-tation, produced an average recovery rate of95.5%. This test was run periodically in order tomonitor the conditions of the screens, adhesives,and fittings.

Chemical Analysis

Soil samples taken from the three sites were ana-lyzed by the Virginia Department of Agriculturefacility at Blacksburg for the following elements:potassium (K), phosphorus (P), calcium (Ca), andmagnesium (Mg). Soil pH and the amount of hu-mus were also measured.

Although the constituent element analysis wasvery revealing, the latter two tests revealed littleof major archaeological interest. All of the samplestaken were slightly acidic (Figure 2), both thecontrol samples and those taken from specificfeatures. However, the pH value of the soils issignificantly affected by rainwater and modernfarming practices, and it is likely that these are theprincipal factors being measured. The pH valueof the soil simply gives an archaeologist an ideaof how well some items, such as bone, shell, andmetals, will be preserved in the ground. Theslightly acidic conditions suggest that all of thesematerials were adversely affected, but probablynot drastically so.

The presence of high levels of potassium inthe soils of features is generally an indicator of thepresence of wood ash. Phosphorus, on the otherhand, seems to indicate the presence of humanwaste material and is usually extremely high in his-toric-era privies. High calcium levels are gener-ally indicative of the presence of decaying shell orbone within a feature or layer (Pogue 1989). Largeamounts of calcium will remain in the soil after thesource has seemingly disappeared. Although thesamplers were routinely tested for magnesium,which may be important for the health of somecrops, its archaeological significance is yet un-known.

C. Artifact Analysis

Artifacts recovered from the field were broughtto the archaeological laboratory established onthe Hampton University campus. As quickly aspossible, the artifacts were washed according toD.A.R. laboratory standards, dried, sorted intocategories, and labeled with site and provenience

10

number. Oyster shell and brick fragments wereseparated, counted, and placed in temporary stor-age. The oyster shells were later sent toWilliamsburg for analysis.1 The remainder of arti-facts were coded according to type and enteredinto a custom dBase III-compatible program onan IBM Model 30 microcomputer provided bythe University. The processed artifacts wereplaced in open-rack storage in the laboratory untilthe analysis was complete. All faunal material wasremanded to the Zooarchaeological Laboratoryfor analysis, and any artifact in immediate need ofconservation was transported to the main lab fa-cility in Williamsburg for treatment.

Ceramics and smoking pipes werecrossmended under the supervision of the Col-lections Supervisor. The smoking pipes and someceramic vessels were also removed toWilliamsburg for analysis. The aboriginal artifacts

from all three sites were also transported to themain laboratory for analysis by a prehistoric spe-cialist.

All materials from the sites were returned tothe custody of the University Museum at thecompletion of all reporting activities. Chapter 7of this report is a full discussion of the artifactsfrom the historic site. Artifacts from the prehis-toric sites are discussed in Chapter 5.

D. Paleobotanical Analysis

This study was assigned to consultant Eric Voigt.His report is included in Chapter 6-E.

E. Faunal Analysis

The zooarchaeological study of site HT55 wasconducted by staff archaeologist Gregory J.Brown. His methods are described below; hisreport is included in Chapter 6-C, with tables anddetailed data in Appendix 3. Faunal remains fromHT36 and HT37, which were both sparse andbadly fragmented, were not analyzed.

Figure 2. Soil pH values.

1 A report on the analysis of the oyster shell recov-ered from 44HT55 was submitted by SusanAlexandrowicz and is included in Chapter 6D ofthis report.

11

The scope of the historical background ofthe Hampton, Virginia area will be prima-rily limited to a discussion of events tak-

ing place (and to people living or doing business)on the east side of the Hampton River during theseventeenth century. The domestic complex atHT55, which is the primary focus of this report,was established, inhabited, and abandoned be-tween the third and seventh decades of that cen-tury, and little archaeological evidence exists atthis site which would add significantly to the in-terpretation of later periods in Hampton’s longhistory.

The known culture history of the NativeAmerican peoples who have lived in the Hamp-ton Roads area, especially during the first half ofthe first millennium, is necessarily limited by thesomewhat meager amount of archaeology donein the immediate vicinity over the past severaldecades. The sites at Hampton University are,perhaps, best understood within a regional con-text which would include the Virginia Coastal Plainand the larger Middle Atlantic area.

A more comprehensive, non-site-specific his-tory of the Hampton area can be found throughthe following sources:

McCartney, Martha1983 Phase II Archaeological Survey of a

Proposed Dredging Site in theHampton River, Hampton, Virginia.Report prepared by UnderwaterArchaeological Joint Ventures forLangley and MacDonald, Inc.

Tyler, L. G. (editor)1907 Narratives of Early Virginia, 1606-

1625. Charles Scribner’s Sons, NewYork.

Hughes, Sarahn.d. Elizabeth City County, Virginia, 1782-

1810. M.A. thesis, College of Williamand Mary, Williamsburg.

Starkey, M.L.1936 The First Plantation, A History of

Hampton and Elizabeth CityCounty, 1607-1887. Hampton.

A. Seventeenth-Century Hampton

Several weeks before Capt. Christopher New-port, Capt. John Smith, George Percy, and theirparty formally established the English foothold inNorth America at Jamestown, they were enjoy-ing the hospitality of their new-found (but short-lived) neighbors at Kicotan, an Indian town hav-ing “eighteen houses pleasantly seated upon threeacres of ground” (Smith 1608). It is believed thatKicotan probably stood in the area presently oc-cupied by the Veterans Administration Hospital.Recognizing the strategic importance of theKicotan area, especially Point Comfort, fromwhich the mouth of the James River could beguarded against the Spanish threat to the south, afort (called Fort Algernon) was built there in 1609.Two additional forts, Henry and Charles, wereerected at the mouth of the Hampton River on itseast and west banks, respectively. Fort Henryprobably stood between John’s Creek and Straw-berry Banks, on the shore of Hampton Roads.The military buildup was effective in more waysthan one, as the Indians were driven from Kicotanunder orders from Sir Thomas Gates in 1610(McCartney 1983).

Both Thomas Dale and William Stracheywrote that two to three thousand acres of landhad already been cleared by the Indians atKicotan. Although they were not specific, this land

Chapter 4.Historical and Cultural Background

12

was probably located on both sides of the Hamp-ton River. The land on the east side of the river(again about 3000 acres) was designated Com-pany land and used to provide a place for thosepersons coming to the colony at the VirginiaCompany’s expense. It was also used to housethe military contingent protecting the area fromenemy attack, be it derived by land or sea(McCartney 1983).

In 1619, at the first meeting of the House ofBurgesses, the name of Kicotan was changed tothe Corporation of Elizabeth City. At that time,and until 1637, Elizabeth City also included thearea now known as Norfolk and Virginia Beach.Elizabeth City was then the most populous of thefour corporations. Virginia Company records in-dicate that 349 persons were living there in early1624. Over a hundred had died during the diffi-cult years following the Massacre of 1622, eventhough Elizabeth City had fared well in compari-son with other areas.

The Muster of 1625 begins to shed the firstlight on the specific history of site HT55. It, fortu-nately, separates those persons living on the westside of the river from those living on the east (seeAppendix 1). Unfortunately, it does not indicatethe exact location of the homesteads or show howmuch land was involved in each. It does namenames, however; names that can, in some cases,be traced though the patent records to other tractsof land on both sides of the river.

The first surviving mention of a lease or patenton the east side of the Hampton River near HT55is in a lease of 50 acres to Lt. Thomas Flint on 23February 1626 (page 77 of the original patentbook). It leases the land and houses in the IndianThicket, an area between two creeks (John’s andJones) which had been occupied by Capt.Whitacre. This was former Company land adja-cent to Fort Henry Fields, the present site of theVeterans Administration Hospital. This land is in-

Figure 3. Map of area showing conjectural early seventeenth-century property lines.

13

cluded in Capt. Francis West’s muster of 1625.Two patents and two pages later in Patent BookI, 50 acres is leased to Rev. Jonas Stockden, who,in the 1625 muster, is listed as living on the westside of the river. The boundaries of his lease arequite specific: 50 acres on the eastern side of theSouthampton River, within the Company’s Landat Elizabeth Citty, abutting on its south side aCreek parting this from the land in occupation ofLt. Flint, commonly called the “Indian HowseThickett,” north on another Creek, west on saidriver and east on the Maine woods. This was re-corded on September 8, 1627 (Nugent 1979).

The next lease listed involving the area near44HT55 is in Patent Book I, page 90, to Chris-topher Windmill, Planter, for 60 acres abuttingsouth on the plantation called “Indian HowseThickett,” formerly granted to Lt. Flint. The tractwas bounded on the north by the “ground of JonasStockden, Minister, dec’d.,” and on the west bythe Southampton River. The lease is dated 20September 1628. This appears, at first glance, tobe in virtually the same spot as Stockden’s 50acres, as both parcels are bounded on the westby the river and on the south by “Indian HowseThickett.” However, Windmill’s lease is boundedon the north by Stockden’s land.

The next lease after Windmill’s is that of WalterHeyley (also Ely or Heley), who, according tothe patent, was an “Ancient Planter.” While Heleywas not on the list of ancient planters compiledby Nugent in Cavaliers and Pioneers, he waslisted as a resident of the east side of the Hamp-ton River in the 1625 muster. His lease, made onthe same day as Windmill’s, was for 50 acresabutting south on the land of Jonas Stockden, andnorth toward the head of the river. The east andwest boundaries are not mentioned.

Two months later, Windmill was granted an-other lease, this time of 50 acres, which boundedsouth on a creek going towards the land of WalterHeley, west on the Southampton River, and easton the main land. This may be the land upon which44HT55 was located (see Figure 3).

Christopher Windmill came to Virginia in theBona Nova in 1619. In 1625, when the musterwas taken, he was 26 years old, attached to thehousehold of John Ward, and living on the eastside of the river. By 1632 Windmill had died andhis wife inherited the lease which was promptlyconveyed to Francis Hough, her new husband.Hough assigned the northern parcel of Windmill’sland to Joseph Hatfield in October 1632, and thesouthern 60 acres to Henry Coleman in Januaryof 1633 for unknown considerations. Hatfield,ironically, had come to Virginia in 1619 on theBona Nova with Christopher Windmill, and livedon the east side of the river in 1625 attached toSgt. William Barry.

The 50-acre parcel leased by Hatfield in 1632was apparently part of a 116-acre tract patentedby Henry Poole on October 17, 1642. The tractincluded land “previously leased,” bounded onthe west by the Hampton River, on the south bythe Glebe, and on the north by Henry Coleman.The Glebe Land is thought to be part of the old50 acres leased to the Reverend Jonas Stockdenin 1627, and includes the site of the so-called sec-ond church (McCartney 1983). By this timeColeman, to the north, had acquired the land origi-nally leased to Walter Heley. Henry Poole soldthe whole 116-acre parcel to Richard Hull onOctober 15, 1655. It was not long after that datethat site HT55 was abandoned.

The approach taken to the settling of theHampton area during the first half of the seven-teenth century was obviously a bit different thanthat of the hinterlands, where leases and patentsof over 1000 acres were common. It was differ-ent, too, from the Jamestown area, where leasesand patents at the time were seldom in excess ofa few acres and often less than one (Nugent 1979).This is evidence that Hampton was neither a townnor a particularly rural area, but a dispersed sys-tem of small land holdings. Even today, the citiesof Hampton, Newport News, and Norfolk aremore sprawling than cities such as Richmond, withrelatively small, sometimes undiscernible down-town areas.

14

B. Prehistoric Context

People first inhabited the Peninsula of Virginiaapproximately 12,000 years ago, toward the endof the Late Pleistocene. From roughly 10,000 to8,000 B.C., referred to as the Paleo-Indian Pe-riod, Native American populations were adaptedto a regional environment different from that oftoday, a result of cooler climatic conditions stillaffected by the last of the “Ice Age” glaciers. Fewmaterial remains of these people have been foundon the Peninsula, and our knowledge of theirlifeways comes primarily from archaeological sur-vey and excavation conducted elsewhere in Vir-ginia and in other parts of North America. Moremobile than later inhabitants of the region, thePaleo-Indians’ primary means of subsistence wasthe hunting of larger game animals supplementedby general foraging for plant foods.

As climate warmed during the Holocene, theregional environment changed to approximatemore modern conditions. The archaeologicalrecord provides evidence for a change in culturaladaptations during this period, to an environmentincreasingly characterized by deciduous forestgrowth and more pronounced seasonality in theavailability of resources. While hunting still playeda major role in subsistence, Native Americanpopulations made increasing use of plant re-sources. Sites from the Archaic Period, roughlydated from 8000 to 2000 B.C., are found in awider variety of environmental settings than pre-viously, but settlement systems were still charac-terized by a high degree of residential mobility.

The archaeological record for the next threethousand years, 2000 B.C. to A.D. 1000, is re-markably different. As discussed in Chapter 1,the Woodland I Period is characterized by thedevelopment of intensive riverine and estuarineadaptations and increased residential permanencyby larger group aggregates. Several regional syn-theses have addressed the archaeological recordof this period (Custer 1984, 1989; Gardner1980). Locally, however, it is apparent that rela-tively little work has focused on this period, es-pecially when compared to the amount of histori-

cal archaeology accomplished to date on the Pen-insula. A listing of relevant projects includes thefollowing investigations, which range from surveysto full-scale excavations:

• Chickahominy River Survey (Barka andMcCary 1969)

• York County Survey (Derry et al. n.d.)• New Quarter Park Survey (V.R.C.A.

1978)• Kingsmill Survey (Reinhart 1973)• Second Street Survey (Hunter, Samford,

and Brown 1984)• Governor’s Land Survey (Reinhart and

Sprinkle n.d.)• Route 199 Survey (Hunter and Higgins

1985)• Mulberry Island (Beaudry 1976)• Oakland Dairy (Mullen, Geier, and

McCartney 1980)• Fort Eustis (Opperman 1984)• College Creek (Reinhart 1978)• Powhatan Creek (Reinhart 1976)• Carter’s Grove (Muraca 1989)• Croaker Landing (Egloff et al. 1988)• Various York County projects (McCary

1958; Rountree 1967)• Skiff’s Creek (Geier and Barber 1983)

Research on other sites within the VirginiaCoastal Plain includes these additional projects:

• Maycock’s Point, Prince George County(Barka and McCary 1977; Barber 1981;Opperman 1980)

• White Oak Point, Westmoreland County(Waselkov 1982)

• Chicacoan Locale, NorthumberlandCounty (Potter 1982)

• Great Neck, Virginia Beach (Painter1967, 1979, 1980a, 1980b; Geier 1986;Turner and Egloff 1984)

As reviewed in Colonial Williamsburg’s re-source protection plan (Hunter and Higgins1986), this body of research suggests that settle-ment systems during the Woodland I Period in-volved residential groupings of two types. These

15

included residential bases occupied by what hasbeen termed the “macroband,” a social and eco-nomic unit comprised of several families, and thoseoccupied by a subgroup of the larger unit, the“microband,” perhaps comprised of a singlenuclear or extended family. Both types of basecamps are commonly found situated on elevatedlandforms adjacent to high-productivity riverineor estuarine settings. The archaeological recordalso includes procurement sites which were oc-cupied for a short period of time while specificactivities involved in the utilization of a particularresource were carried out.

While the settlement systems of the Paleo-Indian and Archaic Periods were also character-ized by the fission and fusion of population groups,the residential bases dating from the Woodland IPeriod suggest a higher degree of sedentism. Evi-dence of structures and large pits, possibly usedfor the storage of plant foods, has been found atseveral sites dating from the middle and later yearsof the period (Custer 1989; Geier 1986; Turnerand Egloff 1984). Analysis of faunal assemblagesindicates that some sites were occupied for ex-tended periods spanning several seasons (Bar-ber 1981; Whyte 1986). The areal extent of basecamps and the extensive midden deposits asso-ciated with some of them (Barber 1981; Geier1986) suggest that the population size of the ag-gregate units may have been larger than duringpreceding periods.

The Woodland I Period is also characterizedby several changes in the use of food resources.The earliest evidence for the use of shellfish withinthe region dates to ca. 2000 B.C. (Potter 1982;Waselkov 1982), and shell midden sites are quitecommon later in the period. Site locations andfaunal remains indicate that fishing was also animportant subsistence activity. Evidence forchanges in the use of plant foods is less direct,since relatively little data on this subject has beenaccumulated in the region to date. The presenceof large pit features at some sites does suggest,however, that certain plant foods were harvestedintensively at levels sufficient to enable them to bestored for later use.

While plant foods included mast crops suchas hickory nuts, walnuts, and acorns, which werealso important during earlier times, research in theSoutheast indicates that a variety of starchy andoily seed plants were beginning to be cultivatedas early as the first millenium B.C. (Yarnell andBlack 1985). Cultivated plants included types ofmaygrass, knotweed, and barley little differentfrom wild forms. Cultigens such as bottle gourdsand squash, sunflowers, marsh elders, and che-nopods were also grown. The best evidence forearly corn in the Southeast dates to the fourthcentury A.D., but this domesticate is not found inabundance until the Missippian Period, when theearliest beans appear (Yarnell and Black 1985).More locally, plant remains of chenopod and knot-weed have been found in fifth century A.D. con-texts in Herico County (Gleach 1985). Corn hasbeen radiocarbon dated to A.D. 1030 + 75 atthe Point of Fork site in Fluvanna County (Mouer1985) and has been found in several componentspostdating A.D. 1100 at the White Oak Point sitein Westmoreland County (Waselkov 1982:311).

One of the most important and diagnostictechnological advances characterizing the Wood-land I Period in the Middle Atlantic Region wasthe introduction of a ceramic container technol-ogy. Major trends in the development of prehis-toric ceramics in the Virginia Coastal Plain havebeen summarized by Egloff and Potter (1982).From ca. 2000 B.C. and continuing for a shorttime into the Early Woodland Period, NativeAmericans within the Middle Atlantic Region hadproduced durable containers from steatite (soap-stone), a material not indigenous to the CoastalPlain but found in various places in the adjacentPiedmont province. Steatite was carved into roundor oval bowl forms with flat bottoms and smalllug handles. The earliest ceramic containers manu-factured in the region appear ca. 1200 B.C.

These early ceramics were commonly pro-duced in shapes similar to stone bowls, someemploying steatite as a tempering agent (MarceyCreek ware) and others employing materials suchas crushed schist or grog (Bushnell and CroakerLanding wares). By at least 500 B.C., a sand

16

tempered ceramic tradition in which coil-construc-tion was used to produce concoinal vessels pre-dominated in the Middle Atlantic Region, withtypes such as Accokeek and Popes Creek warefound in the Virginia Coastal Plain. This traditionwas replaced in at least the Outer Coastal Plainwith a shell tempered technology by the first orsecond century A.D. Mockley ware, a shell tem-pered, cord and knotted net impressed ceramic,predominates in the archaeological record untilca. 900 A.D., after which it was replaced by theshell tempered, fabric marked ceramic typeknown as Townsend ware.

Remaining aspects of the known material cul-ture of the Woodland I Period include tools andornaments made of stone, bone, and shell. Diag-nostic projectile points for the period include avariety of large stemmed points with narrowblades, broadspears, small points with contract-ing stems, and large triangulars (Custer 1989).Points commonly associated with Mockley wareceramics within the Virginia Coastal Plain duringthe late Woodland I Period include the PottsCorner-Notched and Side-Notched, Fox Creekand Selby Bay, Rossville, and large triangular types(Egloff et al. 1988:14-17; Geier 1983:96-118;McCary 1953; Potter 1982:330).

While research elsewhere within the MiddleAtlantic Region has shown that populations at thistime were participating in far-reaching exchangenetworks involving raw lithic materials and fin-ished artifacts (Custer 1984, 1989), there is pres-ently less evidence for this in the Virginia CoastalPlain. Occasionally tools of exotic materials, suchas rhyolite, are found, but lithic assemblages aredominated by quartz and quartzite which are avail-

able locally. In the far Outer Coastal Plain of Vir-ginia where large cobbles of quartz and quartziteare not accessible, tools were fashioned from smallpebbles of local jasper, and bone seems to havereplaced the use of stone for many items (Geier1986; Painter 1980a). Tools and ornaments fash-ioned from bone and antler included projectilepoints, awls, flakers, cups, and decorated pins(Painter 1980a; Potter 1982:276-330; Turner andEgloff 1984).

Mortuary patterns characteristic of Wood-land I populations are not well understood for theVirginia Coastal Plain, since few burials have beendiscovered, and those excavated have beenpoorly reported on. Thus far, there is no evidenceof complex mortuary centers such as those asso-ciated with the Delmarva Adena Complex or thatfound at the Island Field site in Delaware (Custer1984, 1989). Excavations by James MadisonUniversity at the Great Neck site in Virginia Beachuncovered two possible Woodland I Period buri-als. One burial contained the primary inhumationof a single individual, while the other held severaldisarticulated fragments of human longbone. Theformer was placed in a semi-flexed position withinan oval pit with sloped walls measuring 4.1 byover 1.6 feet. The disarticulated remains werecontained within a roughly rectangular pit, 3.0 by2.3 feet in plan and over 0.8 feet deep, and ap-peared to be interred along with trash deposits(Geier, Cromwell, and Hensley 1986:85-91). Atthe Currituck site in coastal North Carolina, datedca. 800-600 B.C., Painter has found a variety ofburial types including individual and mass primaryinterments, along with secondary bundle burials(Painter 1977).

17

A. Site 44HT36

The presence of site 44HT36 (Photo 2) wasfirst indicated during the Phase I and IItesting carried out by the Tidewater Cul-

tural Resource Center of the College of Williamand Mary during the summer of 1987. Test unitsplaced in the University’s R.O.T.C. parade groundrevealed a minor concentration of aboriginal ce-ramics and several associated features. A 108-by-66 foot area in the northwestern section ofthe parade ground was stripped of sod, late top-soil, and plowzone, revealing a total of 55 fea-tures containing prehistoric or historic deposits(Figure 4). The prehistoric and historic compo-nents of the site are summarized below, with de-tailed information on selected features providedin the section following.

It should be noted before discussing the fea-tures at sites HT36 and HT37 that both sites werecharacterized by a very sandy subsoil. Becauseof this substrate, excavated dimensions of fea-tures may not truly represent the original dimen-sions of pits. It is likely that feature walls haveslumped and organics within the fill have migratedinto the surrounding matrix. This characteristic ofthe sites also made it difficult to determine whethersome features were prehistoric pits or natural treeholes.

Prehistoric features at 44HT36 are somewhatscattered across the excavation area opened atthe site, not displaying the tighter clustering seenat site 44HT37. Those features most clearly iden-tified as dating from the prehistoric period are dis-tributed within an area defined north-south by gridlines S90 and S150 and east-west by grid linesE30 and E60 (see Table 1).

At the northern end of this area, at least fourprehistoric pit features were identified. The larg-est of these was Feature 42/47/48/122, whichmeasured 4.7' in diameter and 3.8' deep. Char-

coal derived from the bottom layer of the pityielded a radiocarbon date of A.D. 20 + 70 years.Situated within twenty feet west of Feature 42were three smaller pits. Features 13/14 and 4/5/6 were roughly 3.0' in diameter and 1.5' deep.Still smaller was a fourth prehistoric pit, Feature38/40/41, which was located adjacent to Fea-ture 13/14. The fill of each of these four featurescontained a number of prehistoric artifacts, pri-marily ceramic sherds, while the second layer inFeature 38/40/41 also contained bits of shell.

The remaining features at 44HT36 positivelyidentified as dating from the prehistoric periodwere located thirty to forty feet south of thosediscussed above. Feature 71 was 2.75' in diam-eter and 2.7' deep. Feature 19/20 was a shal-lower, oval pit measuring 2.6' by 1.1' in plan andextending to a depth of 1.2' below subsoil level.

If only the features discussed above are con-sidered prehistoric, the archaeological remainswithin the excavated area of 44HT36 suggestperhaps two non-contemporaneous encamp-ments occupied by small groups of people. Therewere several other features uncovered at the sitewhich are of possible prehistoric origin, however(these are discussed in greater detail below). Ifthese features are indeed prehistoric, interpreta-tion of the prehistoric occupation at 44HT36 ismade more difficult. Given the present capabili-ties of archaeology, it is impossible to determineif the complex of prehistoric features representsone large encampment or several non-comtemporaneous ones. The rather small num-ber of artifacts recovered in the excavation wouldsuggest, however, that the latter interpretation isthe correct one.

The archaeological evidence also suggests thatprehistoric remains at 44HT36 are representa-tive of a semi-sedentary population. While nostructural remains were discovered, the size ofsome of the pit features would be compatible with

Chapter 5.The Prehistoric Sites

18

their use as storage facilities. Therefore, it is likelythat the encampments established here were ei-ther occupied throughout one or more seasonsor were used as caching areas to be returned toat a later time. The vast majority of ceramics re-covered from across the excavation area are shelltempered, cord and knotted net impressed, indi-cating the site was used during the late WoodlandI Period. The radiocarbon date of A.D. 20 (+70) derived from charcoal in Feature 42 confirmsthis affiliation.

Historic-period occupation of site 44HT36is represented primarily by post hole features. A

total of 21 historic post holes were positively iden-tified within the excavation area, none of whichappears to define a structure. Eight post holes,however, comprise a prominent fenceline, prob-ably erected no earlier than the mid-nineteenthcentury, when the area was part of Tabb Farm.The fence runs north-south along grid line E60and includes the following features (listed fromnorth to south): Features 142, 1/2, 10/11, 16/17,107, 105, 127/129, 133, and possibly 102/103(not mapped). Several other post holes were lo-cated within a ten-foot radius of grid point S160E60, including Features 102/103, 127/129, 132,

Photo 2. Aerial view of 44HT36.

19

Figure 4. Overall drawing of 44HT36.

20

134, 135, 136, 137, and 140. At the northernend of the excavation area, three larger post holeswere found: Features 64/66, 94/96, and 98/100.Two additional post holes, Feature 111/112 and114, were idenitified in the excavation area westof the ROTC Road.

In addition to post holes, two other historicfeatures were identified at 44HT36. Feature 73,located in grid unit S90 E90, was a large, some-what oval pit, 4.0' long, 2.1' wide, and 0.6' deepwith very straight walls and a flat bottom. Bothprehistoric and historic artifacts were containedin the fill. Feature 33/36/37, located in grid unitS110 E40, is also suspected to date from the his-toric period. Although the feature fill yielded onlyone fragment of fire-cracked rock, the pit is rect-angular in plan and profile, and roughly the samesize and shape as Feature 73.

For a number of the remaining features un-covered during excavations at 44HT36, it couldnot be positively determined whether they datedfrom the prehistoric or historic period. Most ofthe features were relatively small, shallow pitscontaining one layer of fill and yielding few or noartifacts. Among the features located at the north-ern end of the excavation area fitting this descrip-tion were at least two, Features 60 and 62, whoseplacement strongly suggests that they representhistoric post holes. In cross-section, both havevery straight sides, with flat bottoms at a depth of0.5' below subsoil level. These features also lieroughly in line with Features 64/66 and 98/100,known historic post holes, and both are situatedat a similar distance from post hole 64/66. Otherfeatures of somewhat similar shape and size situ-ated at the northern end of the excavations areainclude Features 25, 26/30, 27, 49, 52, and 69.These pits range in size from 1.5 to 2.5' in diam-eter and vary in depth from 0.5 to 0.9' belowsubsoil level. Few contained any artifacts, and,with the exception of Feature 26/30, all containedonly one discernible layer of fill.

Features 34 and 51 may also represent his-toric post holes. Both contained small depres-sions at the center of their bases. In Feature 34,this depression strongly suggests the seating for a

post. The evidence for Feature 51 is less clear; itis larger than Feature 34 and contained a numberof burned prehistoric ceramic sherds. Features34 and 51 do lie roughly in line with a post hole,Feature 140, at the southern end of the excava-tion area, however. A line drawn connecting thethree would lie parallel to the prominent historicfence line running through the excavation areaalong grid line E60.

Features at the southern end of the excava-tion area for which cultural affiliation is uncertaininclude Features 8, 43/45, and 76. Ranging insize from 1.9 to 2.5' in diameter and in depth from1.1 to 1.8' deep, these pits could represent his-toric post holes. Feature 43/45 contained severalprehistoric sherds in Layer 43, an orange sandyfill. Layer 45, a core of dark brown sandy loamcontaining charcoal, somewhat suggests the re-mains of a burned post. Features 8 and 67 con-tained only one layer of fill yielding no artifacts.The cultural affiliation of a somewhat larger pit,Feature 116, located in the western section of thesite, is also uncertain.

Several non-cultural features were also iden-tified within the excavation area at 44HT36. Thefollowing features most likely represent filled treeholes: Features 22, 46, 77, 79/81, 86/90, 88,120/123, 124/126. The fill of three of these dis-turbances, Features 46, 79/81, and 120/123,contained small amounts of prehistoric debris.

Description of Features

Feature 4/5/6 (see Figure 5) was a roughly cir-cular pit measuring 3.1' by 3.3’in plan and ex-tending 1.7' below subsoil level. The walls of thefeature were relatively straight sided and the basegently rounded. Three layers of fill could be dis-cerned within the feature.

Layer 4, the uppermost deposit, consisted ofbrown sandy loam with some charcoal inclusionsand was about 1.0' thick. This layer containedthe vast majority of artifacts recovered from thefeature. Included were 42 shell tempered sherds:22 cord marked, 18 knotted net impressed, 1plain surfaced, and 1 unidentified. A minimum of

21

Figure 5. Feature section drawings—44HT36.

22

five vessels are represented in the assemblage: 3cord marked and 2 knotted net impressed. Fourhighly-weathered sherds were also recovered. Thelayer also contained a fired coil of a fine, sandypaste ceramic, 1 quartzite flake, 1 quartzite mano,4 fire-cracked rocks, and a quartzite cobble. Oneseed identified to Gramineae (Grass family) wasalso recovered.

Layer 5 was the second layer of fill in the pit,consisting of about 0.4' of light brown sandy siltmounded slightly higher in the center of the fea-ture. The layer contained 4 sherds, all shell tem-pered: 3 knotted net impressed and one cordmarked.

The bottom layer of the pit, Layer 6, con-sisted of tan sandy clay about 0.3' thick. Includedamong the fill were 3 shell tempered sherds: 2knotted net impressed and 1 plain. One small frag-ment of quartzite with water-worn surfaces wasalso recovered.

Feature 7 was an oval pit, 2.0' by 1.5'. Thefeature had steeply sloping sides extending to anearly pointed bottom 1.8' below subsoil level.Fill consisted of greyish-brown sandy loam whichcontained no artifacts.

Feature 13/14 (see Figure 5) was a circularpit 3.0' in diameter and 1.3' deep with slopingsides and a flat bottom. The upper layer of thefeature, Layer 13, extended to 0.7' below sub-soil and was filled with brown sandy loam. Thelayer yielded 9 shell tempered sherds: 6 cordmarked, 2 knotted net impressed, and 1 uniden-tified, representing a minimum of three vessels.Three quartzite flakes were also recovered. Thebottom of the feature was filled with a pale brownsandy clay which contained no artifacts. Layer14 was 0.6' thick.

Feature 19/20 (see Figure 5) was a roughlyovate pit measuring 2.6' by 1.1'. The walls slopedabruptly to a flat bottom 1.2' below subsoil. Themain feature, represented by Layer 20, was filledwith mottled orange clay containing charcoalflecks but no artifacts. Artifacts were recoveredfrom a pocket of fill, Layer 19, lying at the eastend of the pit. Approximately 1.0' in diameter and1.0' deep, Layer 19 consisted of dark grey-brown

loam. Three sherds of shell tempered, cordmarked ceramic representing one vessel werecontained in the fill.

Feature 22 was a circular pit with three lay-ers of fill which may represent a tree hole. The pitwas 3.4' in diameter and extended to an overalldepth of 1.5' below subsoil. Root disturbanceswere noted at the base of the feature on its north-ern side. In profile, the pit had rounded slopingwalls and a rounded base. The central fill of thefeature consisted of a pocket of dark brownsandy soil 1.4' in diameter and 1.0' deep. A layerof grey-white, dry, compact soil extended underthis fill on one side of the feature. The bottomsand edges of the pit were filled with an orange-grey sandy clay with some charcoal flecks. Noartifacts were recovered from the feature.

Feature 25 was a small circular pit, 1.5' indiameter and 0.9' deep. The walls of the featuresloped inward to a rounded base. Fill consistedof a grey-brown sandy loam which contained noartifacts.

Feature 26/30 was a circular pit, 2.5' in di-ameter containing a smaller pocket of fill. Themain feature, Layer 30, had roughly straight wallsand a flat bottom lying 0.55' below subsoil level.Fill consisted of brown sandy loam mottled withorange clay. Layer 26 was a pocket of darkbrown mottled loam with flecks of charcoal situ-ated roughly in the center of the main pit. Thedeposit was 1.3' in diameter and extended to thebottom of the main pit. Neither layer of fill con-tained any artifacts.

Feature 27 was a circular feature, about 2.0'in diameter and 0.55' deep. The pit contained anupper layer of dark greyish brown sandy loam1.2' in diameter and 0.25' deep. Below this layerwas mottled tan and brown sandy loam. No arti-facts were recovered from the feature.

Feature 33/36/37 was a rectangular pit mea-suring 2.3' by 3.9' and containing three layers offill. The walls of the pit were straight-sided, ter-minating at a flat base 1.35' below subsoil level.The upper layer of the pit, Layer 33, consisted of0.2' brown sandy loam with some charcoal fleck-ing. Below this was Layer 36, consisting of 0.6'

23

of light sandy silt with some pebbles. The bottomlayer, Layer 37, consisted of 0.55' of tan sandyclay. One fire-cracked rock was recovered fromthe uppermost layer of the pit.

Feature 34 was a circular pit, 2.5' in diam-eter, consisting of 0.7' of greyish sandy loam fillcontaining only 1 shell tempered, cord markedsherd. The walls of the feature sloped graduallyfrom south to north and abruptly from north tosouth.

Feature 38/40/41 (see Figure 5) was a cir-cular pit 2.2' in diameter and 1.45' deep with threelayers of fill. The walls of the pit were nearly ver-tical and the bottom was flat. The uppermost fill,Layer 38, consisted of 0.5' of dark brown sandyloam with some charcoal flecking. Next was Layer40 which consisted of 0.65' of tan sandy loamwith shell and charcoal inclusions. The bottomlayer, Layer 41, was 0.3' thick and composed oforange sand clay. Artifacts were found only in theupper two layers of fill. Layer 38 contained 2 shelltempered sherds, 1 cord marked and 1 knottednet impressed, and one quartzite flake. Layer 38yielded a single quartzite flake.

Feature 42/47/48/122 (see Figure 5) wasoriginally identified during Phase II test trenching,at which time approximately one-quarter of thefeature was excavated. The remainder of the fea-ture was removed during the Phase III excava-tion. The feature was circular in plan, about 4.7'in diameter at the surface of subsoil. The walls ofthe feature sloped inward from subsoil level to adepth of 1.3', after which they descended verti-cally to a depth below subsoil of 3.8'. The lowerportion of the feature was roughly 2.5' in diam-eter with a flat bottom.

Four layers of fill were discerned within thepit. Layer 42 varied in depth from 0.4' to 1.2'below subsoil level, sloping from the sides to thecenter. The fill consisted of grey-brown sandyloam with some charcoal flecking. The layer con-tained 6 shell tempered sherds: 3 knotted net im-pressed, 1 cord-marked, 1 plain, and 1 with anunidentified surface treatment. Another sherd witha fine sandy paste and knotted net impressed sur-face was also recovered. Two seeds from Nyssa

spp. (Black Gum) were recovered in the flotationsample from the layer.

The next layer in the pit, Layer 47, existedonly on the eastern side where it was about a footdeep, sloping towards the middle. The fill con-sisted of dark brown sandy loam with orangesandy clay mottling. This layer contained 3 sherds,all of which were shell tempered. Two were cord-marked and the other unidentified. Layer 122sloped from the west, under Layer 47, almostextending to the eastern side. It was about 0.7'deep, consisting of dark brown sandy loam.

At the bottom of the pit was a layer of brownsandy loam with charcoal flecks approximately1.6' deep. Layer 48 yielded 27 shell temperedsherds, all cord marked, which represent a mini-mum of six vessels. A large, flat, quartzite cobble0.8' long was found lying horizontally about 0.4'from the base of the pit (Photo 3). The cobblehad two small flakescars but otherwise exhibitedno evidence of use. A radiocarbon date of A.D.20 ± 70 years (1,930 B.P., Beta-25913) wasderived from charcoal recovered from this layer.

Feature 43/45 was a circular pit approxi-mately 2.5' in diameter and 1.2' deep with twolayers of fill. In profile, the pit had steep slopingsides and a rounded bottom. Layer 45 was a 1.3'diameter circular concentration of charcoal in adark brown sandy loam matrix which extendedfrom the top of the pit at subsoil level to a depthof 1.0'. Layer 43, which surrounded Layer 45and underlay it, consisted of orange sandy fill with

Photo 3. Section/excavated plan of Feature 42.

24

some charcoal flecking. No artifacts were recov-ered from the charcoal concentration, but Layer43 contained 10 shell tempered ceramic sherds,9 cord-marked and 1 unidentified. A minimum oftwo vessels are represented in the collection. Afragment of fire-cracked rock was also recov-ered.

Feature 46 was a circular pit, 2.8' in diam-eter. The fill consisted of grey/tan sandy loam withsome charcoal flecking. The sides were steeplysloping to a narrow, but flat bottom, 3.2' belowgrade. It is possible the feature is a tree hole. Oneshell tempered, knotted net impressed sherd wasrecovered from the fill.

Feature 49 was a small, 1.8' diameter pitsome 0.6' deep. Its fill consisted of dark brownsandy loam with some unidentified pottery recov-ered near the surface.

Feature 51 was a 3.0' diameter circular pitabout 0.7' deep. The fill consisted of dark brownsandy loam. The sides of the pit sloped gently toa rounded bottom. The pit contained 16 shell tem-pered sherds: 12 cord marked, 3 knotted netimpressed, and 1 unidentified. One vessel is rep-resented by the net impressed sherds, with a mini-mum of three vessels represented by those whichare cord marked. The sherds from one cordmarked vessel and the net impressed vessel areburned, as is an additional unidentified sherd re-covered from the pit.

Feature 52 was a circular pit with overalldimensions at subsoil level of 2.0' in diameter. Onlyone layer of dark brown loam fill could be dis-cerned in the pit, although the feature narrows to1.1' in diameter at 0.9' below subsoil level. Noartifacts were recovered.

Feature 60 was a small, roughly circular pit,1.3' in diameter and consisting of 0.5' of darkbrown sandy loam. The sides of the pit werestraight and its bottom flat. Some charcoal inclu-sions were noted. The pit contained 6 shell tem-pered sherds, all cord marked, representing amaximum of 3 vessels.

Feature 62 was an irregular, somewhat cir-cular pit, 2.2' in diameter and 0.5' deep, filledwith dark brown sandy loam. The sides of the

feature were vertical and the bottom flat. One shelltempered, cord marked sherd was recoveredfrom the fill.

Feature 69 was a circular pit, approximately2.0' in diameter and 0.5' deep, filled with darkbrown sandy loam. The sides of the pit were nearlyvertical and the bottom was flat. The fill contained9 shell tempered sherds, 8 of which were knot-ted net impressed and 1 plain. One recently shat-tered fragment of quartzite was also recovered.All of the sherds from this pit could have origi-nated from one vessel, with the plain sherd com-ing from near the base.

Feature 71 (see Figure 5) was a large circu-lar prehistoric pit with a diameter of 2.75'. Thefeature was 2.7' deep, consisting of dark brownsandy loam fill. The sides sloped steeply to arounded bottom. No stratigraphy could be de-tected in the pit. The fill contained 43 shell tem-pered sherds: 31 knotted net impressed and 12cord-marked. Analysis of the ceramics suggestedthat a minimum of 7 net impressed and 4 cordmarked vessels are represented in the collection.Lithic materials recovered include a quartzite shat-ter fragment, 4 fragments of fire-cracked rock,and a burned cobble. One Galium (Bedstraw)seed was also recovered.

Feature 73/75 was an oval pit about 4.0'long and 2.1' wide. The northern end of the fea-ture lay outside of the excavation unit, so exactdimensions are not known. The sides of the pitwere vertical with a very flat bottom about 0.6'below subsoil level. The upper layer of the fea-ture, Layer 73, consisted of dark brown loammottled with tan sand and silt. Some charcoal in-clusions were noted. The layer was about 0.3'thick and contained 22 sherds of shell temperedprehistoric ceramics, 21 knotted net impressedand 1 cord marked, and 1 small quartzite biface(a side-notched point preform). All the net im-pressed sherds recovered from this feature prob-ably originated from a single vessel. Historic arti-facts recovered from Layer 73 included 1 frag-ment each of coarseware and pearlware, 1 nail,bricketage, slag, and coal. The lower 0.5' of thepit was filled with Layer 75, a tan sandy clay with

25

TABLE 1.FEATURE SUMMARY—44HT36

Feature No. Grid Unit Exc? Plan Dimensions Depth Interpretation

1/2 S90 E60 yes rectangular 1.1' by 2.0' 1.0' historic post hole/mold4/5/6 S90 E40 yes circular 3.2' diameter 1.7' prehistoric pit8 S90 E40 yes oval 2.0' by 1.5' 1.8' prehistoric or historic10/11 S100 E60 yes rectangular 1.0' by 1.9' 0.8' historic post hole/mold13/14 S140 E30 yes circular 3.0' diameter 1.3' prehistoric pit16/17 S110 E60 yes rectangular 1.2' by 2.2' 1.1' historic post hole/mold19/20 S130 E30 yes oval 2.6' by 1.1' 1.2' prehistoric pit22 S110 E50 yes circular 3.4' diameter 1.5' tree hole25 S100 E40 yes circular 1.5' diameter 0.9' prehistoric or historic26/30 S110 E30 yes circular 2.5' diameter 0.55' prehistoric or historic27 S100 E40 yes circular 2.0' diameter 0.55' prehistoric or historic33/36/37 S110 E40 yes rectangular 2.3' by 3.9' 1.35' probable historic feature34 S110 E50 yes circular 2.5' diameter 0.7' prehistoric or historic38/40/41 S90 E30 yes circular 2.2' diameter 1.45' prehistoric pit42/47/48/ S100 E50 yes circular 4.7' diameter 3.8' prehistoric pit 12243/45 S130 E60 yes circular 2.5' diameter 1.2' prehistoric or historic46 S90 E70 yes circular 2.8' diameter 3.2' tree hole49 S80 E70 yes circular 1.8' diameter 0.6' prehistoric or historic51 S90 E50 yes circular 3.0' diameter 0.7' prehistoric or historic52 S80 E50 yes circular 2.0' diameter 0.9' prehistoric or historic60 S80 E50 yes circular 1.3' diameter 0.5' prehistoric or historic62 S80 E70 yes circular 2.2' diameter 0.5' prehistoric or historic64/66 S80 E60 yes square 2.1' by 2.1' 0.3' historic post hole/mold69 S90 E80 yes circular 2.0' diameter 0.5' prehistoric or historic71 S140 E50 yes circular 2.75' diameter 2.7' prehistoric pit73/75 S90 E90 partial oval 2.1' by 4.0' 0.6' historic feature76 S160 E40 yes circular 1.9' diameter 1.1' prehistoric or historic77 S120 E70 yes circular 1.8' diameter 2.8' tree hole79/81 S120 E70 yes oval 1.5' by 3.0' 1.6' tree hole86/90 S160 E50 yes oval 3.1' by 3.7' 0.8' tree hole88 S80 E60 yes irregular 4.4' by 4.1' 0.8' tree hole94/96 S90 E80 yes rectangular 1.5' by 1.7' 1.6' historic post hole/mold98/100 S80 E80 yes rectangular 1.5' by 1.6' 1.4' historic post hole/mold102/103 S130 E60 no rectangular ————— — historic post hole/mold105 S130 E60 no rectangular 1.0' by 1.8' — historic post hole107 S120 E60 yes rectangular 1.2' by 2.2' 1.0' historic post hole109 S90 W90 partial irregular 7.0' diameter 2.0' tree hole111/112 S90 W90 yes rectangular 0.6' by 1.0' 0.15' historic post hole/mold114 S80 W90 no rectangular 0.6' by 0.8' — historic post hole116 S140 W90 yes oval 2.2' by 2.8' 1.0' prehistoric or historic118 S140 W70 yes irregular 4.7' by 6.8' 1.2' probable tree hole120/123 S130 W40 yes circular 3.0' diameter 2.6' tree hole124 S130 E40 partial irregular ————— 0.7' tree hole127/129 S140 E60 no rectangular 1.0' by 2.2' — historic post hole/mold131 S100 W70 no oval ————— — —————————132 S160 E60 no rectangular 0.8' by 1.0' — historic post hole133 S150 E60 no rectangular 0.8' by 1.8' — historic post hole

26

TABLE 1 (cont’d).FEATURE SUMMARY—44HT36

Feature No. Grid Unit Exc? Plan Dimensions Depth Interpretation

134 S150 E60 no square 1.0' by 1.0' — historic post hole135 S150 E60 no rectangular 0.8' by 1.0' — historic post hole136 S150 E60 no rectangular 0.8' by 1.0' — historic post hole137 S140 E60 no square 1.0' by 1.0' — historic post hole138/139 S140 E60 no rectangular ————— — historic post hole/mold140 S160 E50 no square 1.0' by 1.0' — historic post hole142 S80 E60 no rectangular 1.0' by 2.0' — historic post hole

brown loam mottling. No artifacts were recov-ered from this fill.

Feature 76 was a circular pit, 1.9' in diam-eter, consisting of brown sandy loam with char-coal flecking. It was about 1.1' deep, with almostvertical sides and a flat bottom. Several large, about1", charcoal inclusions were noted in the fill, butno artifacts were found.

Feature 77 was a small circular feature about1.8' in diameter, with a small pocket of oystershell in the center at subsoil level. The pit was2.8' deep and had irregularly vertical sides slop-ing to a nearly pointed bottom. The pit may haveoriginated as a tree hole. There were no finds.

The plan of Feature 79/81 was obscured bya natural disturbance, but an oval feature approxi-mately 3.0' by 1.5' was suggested. The featurewas filled in two levels. The main fill, Level 81,was a mixture of very dark grey/brown sandyloam, orange clay, and tan sandy loam extendingto a depth of 1.6'. The walls of the feature wereirregular; the bottom basically flat. The fill con-tained 13 shell tempered, cord marked sherds,representing a minimum of 2 vessels, and 1quartzite flake. Layer 79 was a small (1.4' by 1.0'),irregularly ovate deposit of dark grey fill, con-taining 4 shell tempered, cord-marked sherds, allfrom one vessel, and 1 quartzite flake. The de-posit was situated roughly in the center of Layer81 and extended from the surface of subsoil to adepth of 0.6'. The soil disturbance noted aroundthe periphery of Layer 81 suggests that Layers77, 79, and 81 may represent separate layers of

fill within a large tree hole which once existed ingrid unit S120 E70.

Feature 86/90 was a 3.1' by 3.7' oval, ba-sin-shaped pit 0.8' deep. The main body of fill,Layer 86, consisted of dark brown sandy loamcontaining many charcoal fragments, but no arti-facts. The east side of the feature sloped irregu-larly, whereas the west side was steep and regu-lar. The bottom was irregular as well, with nu-merous tree root holes extending from the baseof the main pit. Layer 90 was a small (0.75' di-ameter), conical deposit contained within Layer86. The fill consisted of brown sandy loam andextended from the surface of subsoil to a depthof 1.9'. Small flecks of charcoal and ash werenoted in the fill, but no artifacts were recovered.Feature 90 probably represents the remains of atap root associated with the tree hole representedby Feature 86.

Feature 88 was an irregular pit, probably atree hole, measuring 4.4' by 4.1' in plan and 1.1'deep and consisting of grey/tan sandy fill. Thesides sloped gently to an irregular bottom. Thepit contained 7 shell tempered sherds, 6 knottednet impressed and 1 unidentified, which wereprobably recovered from a shallow lense of darkerfill in the southern half of the feature at subsoillevel.

Feature 109 probably represents anothertree hole. The feature consisted of large soil stain,irregular, but approximately 7.0' in diameter. Aportion of the feature was excavated, revealing

27

about 2.0' of brown sandy loam on the east side.No artifacts were recovered.

Feature 116 was an ovate feature approxi-mately 2.2' by 2.8' in plan, filled with dark brownsandy loam. The feature was about a foot deep.The north side of the pit sloped very gently to arounded bottom, whereas the south side wassteeper. Some charcoal inclusions were noted.The fill contained only 1 shell tempered, knottednet impressed sherd.

Feature 118 is likely the remains of a treehole. The feature consists of a deposit of darkbrown, sandy loam 6.8' by 4.7' in plan and 1.2'deep. The bottom of the feature is highly irregu-lar, shallow at one end and deep at the other. Thefill yielded one shell tempered, cord markedsherd, one knotted net impressed sherd with afine sandy paste, and a cobble core of quartzite.

Feature 120/123 was a large pit, probablya tree hole, with two layers of fill. The core of thefeature, Layer 120, was a roughly circular de-posit of grey-brown sandy loam 3.0' in diameterand extending to a depth of 2.6'. The sides of thedeposit sloped steeply to a flat bottom. This fillcontained 1 shell tempered, cord marked sherdand four quartzite cobbles, three of which showedsigns of having been burned. Two of the cobbleshad flakes removed, probably a result of testingthe quality of the lithic material. Layer 123 of thefeature was an outer ring, about 4.8' in diameter,of brownish orange sandy clay containing somecharcoal flecking. The walls of this deposit alsosloped steeply and did not extend beyond thedepth of Layer 120. No artifacts were recoveredfrom this fill.

Feature 124 was a very irregular featureconsisting of two layers. Part of the feature ex-tended beyond the excavation area, so only thenorth-south dimensions (2.0' to 4.4') are known.Layer 124 consisted of 0.3' of light brown sandyloam and Layer 126 of 0.4' of light brown loam.There were no finds.

Soil Chemistry (Figure 6)

At HT36, 10 samples showed significant amountsof potassium well above the control sampleamounts. Layer 47, part of a large prehistoric pitalso containing Layers 42, 122, and 48, testedhighest in potassium content, with 48 ppm (partsper million) more than the control sample, whichhad an average of 22 ppm. All of the layers con-tained prehistoric ceramics and charcoal fleck-ing. There was no visible evidence of ash, but theprimary components may have been leached outof the soil over the past 2000 years. Feature 20,a small pit also containing charcoal and pottery,tested high for potassium as well.

Only one feature, Feature 71, contained sig-nificantly high amounts of phosphorus, measuring80 ppm above the control (6 ppm). The pit wasabout 2.5' in diameter and over 2.5' deep. Pot-tery and cobbles were found near the surface.

Again, only one feature tested high for cal-cium and was the only feature containing morecalcium than the control samples. The feature,Feature 120, contained only a few fire-crackedrocks, ceramics, and a few charcoal flecks, butno shell or bone. The feature, which was prob-ably a tree hole, may have contained a largeamount of animal bone or shell, which may ac-count for the high reading.

B. Site 44HT37

As with 44HT36, the presence of site 44HT37was first indicated during the Phase I and II test-ing of the proposed development parcel by theTidewater Cultural Resource Center of the Col-lege of William and Mary during the summer of1987. Phase III investigations were directed pri-marily toward the recovery of information fromthe prehistoric Native American component at thesite, although historic features were present aswell. The area opened by the ColonialWilliamsburg Foundation in Phase III excavationsencompassed a total of 7070 square feet (Photo4; Figure 7). The prehistoric and historic compo-

28

Figure 6. Soil chemistry—44HT36.

nents are briefly summarized below. More de-tailed descriptions of selected features, presentedin numerical order, are provided in the sectionfollowing. A list of all features identified at 44HT37is provided in Table 2.

Two clusters of prehistoric features were evi-dent at 44HT37. In the vicinity of grid point N220W140, at least three closely-spaced pit featureswere found. These include Feature 1001, a smallsecondary burial containing the remains of twoindividuals, and Features 1002/1005 and 1003/1018, two small shell-filled pits both about 2.0feet in diameter with the latter 1.2 feet deep. Aradiocarbon date of A.D. 40 (+ 80 years) wasderived from charcoal from Feature 1003/1018.Feature 1006, another pit located nearby, mayalso be part of the cluster; however, the size,

depth, and configuration of this feature pit leaveopen the possibility that it may represent an his-toric post hole. Feature 1021/1022, which wasnot excavated, likely represents a filled tree hole.

The other group of prehistoric features at44HT37 is located roughly ninety feet south fromthe first cluster, in the vicinity of grid point N130W160. At least two pits, Features 1024 and 1030,were identified here. These features were largerand deeper than the two shell-filled features inthe other cluster and measured roughly 3.0 feet inboth diameter and depth. Charcoal recoveredfrom Feature 1024 yielded a radiocarbon date ofA.D. 300 (+ 70 years). Again, other features lo-cated nearby are of possible prehistoric affilia-tion, although the evidence is ambiguous. Feature1036 is a little larger in plan than Feature 1038, a

29

known historic post hole, but the depths of thetwo features are the same. Feature 1095, whichwas not excavated, is of similar size to Feature1036.

In the northeast section of the site, Features1097, 1119, 1120, and 1121 were identified. Asomewhat scattered group of small pit features,probably originating from the prehistoric period,was also uncovered in the northeastern corner ofthe excavation area. These include Features 1043,1054, 1059, 1062, and 1080. A number of addi-tional features of possible prehistoric origin wereidentified at 44HT37, but were not able to beexcavated within the time allocated to the project.Feature 1115, which contained dark brown filland oyster shell, was situated in the vicinity of theFeatures 1001, 1002/1005, and 1003/1018.Features 1107, 1108, 1110, and 1093 were lo-cated in the vicinity of grid point N190 W150.The latter was represented by a large circular stainof brown loam 3.0 feet in diameter.

Several large tree hole disturbances wereexcavated at 44HT37, and some of these con-tained significant amounts of prehistoric debris.Feature 1007/1015, located ten feet west of Fea-tures 1001, 1002/1005, and 1003/1018, con-tained a small deposit of oyster shell near the sur-face of subsoil, while the remainder of the fill con-tained a number of prehistoric ceramic sherds (onefragment each of brick and glass were also re-covered). The upper layer of Feature 1026/1087/1089 contained two fragments of bone tools aswell as a sherd and a quartzite flake. This featureis adjacent to Feature 1093, a large, unexcavatedpit of possible prehistoric origin. Other probabletree disturbances which were excavated, butyielded little or no artifactual debris, include Fea-tures 1023, 1039, and 1042.

A late Middle Woodland Period date for theprehistoric occupation at 44HT37 is indicated bythe association of almost exclusively shell tem-pered, cord and knotted net impressed ceram-ics, comparable to Mockley ware, with the ex-

Photo 4. Aerial view of 44HT37.

30

Figure 7. Overall drawing of 44HT37.

31

cavated features. The radiocarbon dates of A.D.40 (+ 80 years) and A.D. 300 (+ 70 years) de-rived from charcoal contained in two of the fea-tures support this attribution as well. The pres-ence of pit features at 44HT37 as well as the pres-ence of a secondary burial suggests a settlementtype of some permanency. The size of the settle-ment remains unclear, although it seems most likelythat the two small clusters of features representnon-contemporaneous encampments. The num-ber of prehistoric artifacts recovered as a wholefrom the site is low, and few if any prehistoricfeatures were identified in the area separating thetwo clusters. In general, the archaeological evi-dence suggests use of 44HT37 during the latterportion of the Woodland I Period was character-ized by repeated, intermittent establishment oflong-term encampments by small groups of Na-tive American peoples.

Historic period occupation of site 44HT37 isrepresented by the remains of two fence lines as-sociated with the nineteenth-century Tabb Farm.These fences are roughly parallel and run east-west. At the far northern end of the excavationarea, one fence is represented by Features 1106,1100/1101, and 1102/1103. Five post holes com-prise the other fence, located at N200; these in-clude Features 1047/1069, 1051/1071, 1104/1105, 1049/1067, and 1065/1063. Other scat-tered post holes identified across the site are listedin Table 2. A large modern drainage ditch, Fea-ture 132, ran northwest-southeast through theexcavation area.

Description of Features

Feature 1001 was a roughly circular, 2.0' diam-eter prehistoric pit containing human bone in itsupper level (Photo 5; Figure 8). The fill consistedof brown sandy loam about 0.5' deep with inclu-sions of shell. The feature was bowl-shaped, withrounded sides and bottom. The human remainscontained within the feature represent a second-ary burial involving at least two individuals. Re-covered from the pit were two right femurs, onefrom a juvenile and one from a mature individual,

and a right tibia which probably belongs to theindividual represented by the larger femur. A fewother unidentifiable fragments of bone were alsorecovered. The feature fill contained no other ar-tifacts.

Feature 1002/1005 was a small circular pre-historic pit, about 1.8' in diameter. No depth wasrecorded. Fill consisted of dark grey sandy loamcontaining snail shells, oyster shell, animal bone,1 shell tempered, cord-marked sherd, and a smallamount of carbonized wood. The feature ap-peared to have been filled in at least two levels.Layer 1002, which comprised a core area about0.5' in diameter, appeared to have been depos-ited after the fill of Layer 1005, which containedthe majority of shell, had settled.

Feature 1003/1018 (see Figure 8) was asmall, circular prehistoric pit roughly 2.0' in di-ameter and 1.2' deep with sloping sides and arounded base. The inner fill of the feature, Layer1003, was a pocket-shaped deposit, 1.3' in di-ameter and 0.7' deep. This dark, greyish brownsandy loam contained many oyster shells as wellas 13 sherds of shell tempered, knotted net im-pressed ceramic representing a minimum of twovessels. A radiocarbon date of A.D. 40 ± 80 years(1,910 B.P., Beta-25914) was derived from char-coal in Layer 1003. One Galium (Bedstraw)seed, one Quercus spp. (Oak) acorn cap, and 1Carya spp. (Thickshell Hickory) nut shell wereidentified in the analysis of a flotation sample fromthe feature. The lower fill of the pit, Layer 1018,

Photo 5. Detail of human bone in Feature 1001.

32

TABLE 2.FEATURE SUMMARY—44HT37

Feature No. Grid Unit Exc? Plan Dimensions Depth Interpretation

1001 N200 W140 yes circular 2.0' diameter 0.5' secondary burial1002/1005 N220 W140 yes circular 1.8' diameter — prehistoric pit1003/1018 N220 W150 yes circular 2.0' diameter 1.2' prehistoric pit1006 N230 W150 yes circular 2.0' diameter 0.5' prehistoric or historic1007/1015 N220 W160 yes circular 5.6' diameter 3.4' tree hole1021/1022 N230 W150 no circular 1.1' diameter —- tree hole1023/1035 N180 W140 yes irregular 8.2' by 5.3' 5.8' tree hole1024 N130 W160 yes circular 2.8' diameter 2.8' prehistoric pit1026/1087/ N200 W160 yes circular 7.0' diameter 3.5' tree hole 10891028 N200 W170 yes rectangular 0.8' by 1.3' 0.3' historic post hole1030 N140 W170 yes circular 2.7' diameter 2.9' prehistoric pit1032 N180 W150 no linear ————— — modern ditch1036 N130 W160 yes circular 1.8' diameter 0.9' prehistoric or historic1038 N130 W170 yes square 1.0' by 1.0' 0.9' historic post hole1039 N170 W150 bisect circular 3.2' diameter 1.1' probable tree hole1042 N250 W150 quart ——— ————— 4.0' probable tree hole1043 N200 W110 yes oval 2.0' by 1.5' 0.8' possible prehistoric pit1045 N200 W160 yes rectangular 0.5 by by 1.2' 0.9' historic post hole1047/1069 N210 W120 yes rectangular 0.4' by 1.1' 0.8' historic post hole/mold1049/1067 N210 W120 yes rectangular 0.5' by 1.3' 0.9' historic post hole/mold1051/1071 N200 W140 yes rectangular 0.65' by 1.3' 0.9' historic post hole/mold1054 N240 W90 yes circular 2.0' diameter 0.7' prehistoric pit1059 N230 W100 partial circular 2.3' diameter 2.0' prehistoric pit1062 N240 W110 yes circular 2.2' diameter 1.2' prehistoric pit1065/1063 N210 W110 yes rectangular 1.1' by 1.2' 0.75' historic post hole/mold1074/1076 N200 W170 yes square 1.2' by 1.2' 0.75' historic post mold/hole1080 N210 E110 yes circular 1.4' diameter 0.6' possible prehistoric pit1093 N190 W160 no circular 3.0' diameter — possible prehistoric pit1097 N210 W150 no circular 1.3' diameter — possible prehistoric pit1104/1105 N210 W130 no rectangular 1.1' by 0.9' — historic post hole/mold1106 N250 W170 no rectangular 1.2' by 1.5' — historic post hole1107 N200 W160 no irregular ————— — possible prehistoric pit1108 N200 W160 no irregular ————— — possible prehistoric pit1110 N190 W160 no oval 0.6' by 1.1' — possible prehistoric pit1113/1114 N230 W170 no rectangular 0.7' by 0.8' — historic post hole/mold1115 N230 W140 no oval 0.65' by 1.1' — possible prehistoric pit1117/1118 N210 W100 no rectangular 1.0' by 0.9' — historic post hole/mold1119 N230 W110 no circular 1.3' diameter — possible prehistoric pit1120 N230 W110 no circular 1.1' diameter — possible prehistoric pit1121 N240 W110 no circular 3.1' diameter — possible prehistoric pit

33

consisted of light brown sandy loam with someclay content. This deposit contained 9 shell tem-pered, knotted net impressed sherds, represent-ing a minimum of 2 vessels. Four small cobbleswere found in Layer 1018, situated around theperimeter of the fill of Layer 1003. Although onesmall fragment of glass was also found in Layer1018, the feature is believed to date from the pre-historic period.

Feature 1006 was a small, circular pit,roughly 2.0' in diameter consisting of mediumbrown sandy loam. It was about 0.5' deep, withirregular sides and bottom. One fragment of fire-cracked rock was recovered.

Feature 1007/1015 was a large circular pit5.6' in diameter and 3.4' deep, which likely rep-resents a tree hole with various fill deposits. Thecentral part of the feature (Layer 1007) was filledwith a dark grey-brown sandy loam which graded

Figure 8. Feature section drawings—44HT37.

to a medium grey-tan sandy loam. This depositwas bowl-shaped with steeply angled sides anda rounded bottom. It contained both prehistoricand historic artifacts. Prehistoric artifacts included35 shell tempered sherds (19 cord marked, 12knotted net impressed, 3 plain, and 1 unidenti-fied), four low-fired, untempered lumps of clay,and one quartzite flake. One fragment each ofcolorless non-leaded glass and brick were alsorecovered. Also present in the fill were 1 cf.Cyperaceae (Sedge family) seed, 1 Galium(Bedstraw) seed, and some carbonized wood.Layer 1015 was a small, semi-circular deposit ofdarker fill and oyster shell contained within Layer1007. The deposit was 1.6' long and extendedfrom subsoil level to a depth of 0.6'.

Feature 1021 was a small, circular depositof dark grey sandy loam about 1.1' in diameterwhich appeared to be contained within a larger

34

tree hole disturbance. Within the center of Layer1012 was a pocket of charcoal (Layer 1022).Neither deposit was excavated.

Feature 1023/1035 was a very large irregu-larly-shaped feature measuring 8.2' north-southand 5.3' east-west, and consisting of dark brownsandy loam. The feature appears to be a tree hole.Two layers of fill were excavated. The upper-most layer, Layer 1012, was 0.5' deep on its northend, dropping to 2.8' just south of its center, thenback up to 0.5' at the south end. One fire-crackedrock spall was recovered. Layer 1035 was thesecond layer in the large pit, consisting of darkbrown sand with many pebbles and some char-coal flecking. At about 0.8' below subsoil thisdeposit extended 6.0' in diameter. The north wallof the feature sloped to a flat bottom, whereasthe south wall was almost vertical. The depositextended to a total depth of 5.8' below subsoillevel.

Feature 1024 (see Figure 8) was a circularprehistoric pit, 2.8' in diameter, consisting of darkbrown sandy loam and containing flecks of char-coal, shell, and pebbles. The east side of the pitsloped at about 40°, whereas the west side wasnearly vertical. A small, flat bottom was found ata depth of 2.8' below the surface. The featurecontained 7 shell tempered sherds: 6 knotted netimpressed and one cord marked. A radiocarbondate of A.D. 300 ± 70 years (1,650 B.P., Beta-25915) was derived from charcoal samples ob-tained from this feature. Paleobotanical remainsfrom the feature were quite significant and includedthe following: a pine cone fragment (Pinus spp.),carbonized wood, 1 thickshell hickory nut frag-ment (Carya spp.), 1 nut fragment of the Walnutfamily (Juglandaceae spp.), 1 bedstraw seed(Galium spp.), 1 seed of the Smartweed family(Polygonaceae), and 1 possible maize kernelfragment (Zea mays).

Feature 1026/1087/1089 appears to havebeen a large tree hole with several layers of fillintruded by a recent drainage ditch. As repre-sented by Layer 1089, consisting of light to me-dium brown sandy loam, the main feature was7.0' in diameter and 3.5' deep with a deeply

rounded profile. Within this depression were twosmaller deposits. Layer 1087, a fill deposit of darkgrey and medium brown sandy loam, was 2.0' indiameter and 3.4' deep with steeply sloping sides.A smaller deposit (Layer 1026) of very dark greysandy loam with oyster shell was contained withinthe upper 0.7' of Layer 1087. Layer 1026 was1.0' in diameter. The only deposit within the fea-ture to yield artifacts, Layer 1026 contained 1shell tempered, knotted net impressed sherd, 1quartz flake, and two fragments of polished ani-mal bone representing either tools or ornaments.

Feature 1030 (see Figure 8) was roughlycircular prehistoric pit, 2.7' in diameter, contain-ing brown sandy loam fill with charcoal flecking.The sides of the pit sloped steeply from the eastand gradually from the west to a depth of 2.9'.Artifacts recovered include 1 shell tempered,knotted net impressed sherd and 3 chunks of fired,unshaped sandy paste ceramic.

Feature 1036 was a small, 1.8' diameter,circular pit consisting of brown sandy loam. It wasirregularly bowl-shaped with a depth of 0.9'. Therewere no finds.

Feature 1039 was probably roughly circu-lar; however, the recent drainage ditch appearsto have removed half the feature. The original fea-ture was probably about 3.2' in diameter and mayrepresent a tree hole. The profile indicates it wasbowl-shaped and 1.1' deep. The greyish-brownsandy loam fill contained no artifacts.

Feature 1042 was a large pit uncoveredalong the northern edge of the excavation area.Fill consisted of light brown gravelly sand. Theportion of the feature excavated revealed a pro-file approximately 4 feet deep with steep sidesand a rounded bottom. There were no finds.

Feature 1043 was an ovate pit measuring2.0' by 1.5' and consisting of brown sandy loamcontaining some charcoal flecking. Sides werebowl-shaped with a rounded bottom 0.8' belowsubsoil level. The feature contained 5 shell tem-pered sherds, 4 of which are knotted net im-pressed. The remaining shell tempered sherdshowed an unfinished exterior surface with scrapemarks over unwelded joins between coils. The

35

feature also yielded one sherd of a fine, sandypaste ceramic with knotted net impressed sur-face; one fired, unshaped lump of sandy clay; and2 fragments of fire-cracked rock.

Feature 1054 was a 2.0' diameter, circularpit consisting of medium brown sandy loam withoyster shell inclusions. The walls of the featuresloped slightly to a rounded base 0.7' below thesurface. Ceramics recovered from the feature in-cluded 15 shell tempered sherds, 14 knotted netimpressed and one cord marked, likely repre-senting a maximum of three vessels. An additionalshell tempered, cord marked vessel is also rep-resented (the vessel collapsed into numerous tinyfragments in excavation). Two fragments of fire-cracked rock and some carbonized wood wasalso recovered from the feature.

Feature 1059 was partially obscured by theadjacent baulking. The feature was probably cir-cular, approximately 2.3' in diameter. The sidessloped steeply to a narrow, flat bottom about 2.0'below grade. The fill consisted of grey-brownsandy loam. Inclusions of charcoal flecks wererecorded. The pit contained 1 shell tempered,knotted net impressed sherd.

Feature 1062 was a circular pit about 2.2'in diameter. The fill consisted of medium brownsandy loam. The feature was bowl-shaped, withsloping sides and a rounded bottom some 1.2'below grade. Two shell tempered, knotted netimpressed sherds were recovered, each repre-senting a single vessel.

Feature 1080 was roughly circular, 1.4' by1.5' consisting of brown sandy loam with con-centrated oyster shell. The pit was 0.7' deep.

Feature 1093 was roughly circular stain, 3.0'in diameter consisting of brown sandy loam. Itwas not excavated.

Soil Chemistry (Figure 9)

Only one feature, Layer 1002 in Feature 1002/1005, had a notably high potassium content. Thelayer was a small pocket of fill, ca. 1.0' in diam-eter, containing some oyster shell and charcoal.The same feature also contained significant

amounts of phosphorus, indicating the possibilitythat this was a place where human wastes weredeposited.

Several features at HT37 contained signifi-cant calcium levels: Feature/Layers 1002, 1003,1015, 1054, and 1087. Calcium can indicate thepresence of decaying shell or bone, and all of thefeatures or layers contained oyster shell in abun-dance, probably leading to the high readings.

C. Analysis of PrehistoricFinds (Mary Ellen N. Hodges)

Ceramic Artifacts

Ceramics were overwhelmingly the most abun-dant type of prehistoric artifact recovered in theexcavations, although the entire collection fromall three sites totaled only 571 sherds. Apart fromradiocarbon dates derived on charcoal from threefeatures at HT36 and HT37, ceramics provedthe most informative of the recovered artifacts indetermining the cultural affiliation or date of oc-cupation of the three sites. In general, the ceram-ics indicated a late Woodland I (2000 B.C.-A.D.1000) date for sites HT36 and HT37. The exca-vated area designated as site HT55 was largelydominated by historic features relating to a colo-nial-period occupation. The ceramics associatedwith the few prehistoric features identified withinthis area, as well as those incorporated into colo-nial contexts, are evidence of earlier prehistoricoccupations dating from the late Woodland I Pe-riod and the Woodland II Period (A.D. 1000-1600).

Study of the ceramic collections from thethree sites began by sorting the sherds by size.Only those sherds measuring greater than 2 cm inany direction across the interior or exterior sur-face were examined further. Analysis proceededby sorting sherds into groups defined by attributesof temper, paste, and surface treatment. Otherattributes relating to manufacturing techniques,such as rim profile and preparation and vesselshape, were also noted. Vessel size was assessedthrough an estimate of rim diameters obtained by

36

comparing the curvature of rim sherds against atemplate on which concentric circles in incrementsof 2 cm in diameter had been drawn. The collec-tion included very few rim sherds, however, andthose fragments which could be measured com-monly represented no more than five to ten per-cent of the total vessel rim. Only one of the sherdsexamined bore any decoration other than cord ornet marking on the lip, an attribute which is prob-ably more a by-product of shaping the rim with awrapped paddle than a result of intentional deco-ration.

Frequencies of wares and types discussedbelow are based on sherd counts made prior tomending (Table 3). Mends within features werenoted in the artifact catalog, but no attempt wasmade to mend between features. Estimates of thenumber of vessels represented within each fill layer

are provided in the descriptions of features forHT36 and HT37. It should be noted that exami-nation of the sherds suggested, in general, thatvery few vessels were represented in individualfeatures.

Three ceramic wares, comparable to thosepreviously defined for the Virginia Coastal Plain,were identified in the collections. These includedMockley Ware, a shell tempered late WoodlandI Period ceramic characterized by cord marked,net impressed, and plain surfaces (Stephenson andFerguson 1963:105-109); Townsend ware, dat-ing from the Woodland II Period and character-ized by a shell tempered paste and fabric im-pressed surfaces (Blaker 1963:14-22); andRoanoke Simple Stamped, another shell temperedware, dating from the late prehistoric and earlyContact period (Blaker 1952; Harrington 1948).

Figure 9. Soil chemistry—44HT37.

37

Photo 6. Site 44HT36 during excavation.

TABLE 3.PREHISTORIC CERAMIC SHERDS

44HT36 44HT37 44HT55

SHELL TEMPER:Cord 126 23 100Knotted Net 102 72 58Fabric — — 7Simple Stamped — — 17Plain 4 7 5Unidentified 6 2 18

SANDY PASTE:Cord — — 4Net 2 3 —Unidentified — — 1

UNIDENTIFIED: 5 — 2

TOTAL 245 107 212

38

A few sherds with a fine sandy paste and cordmarked and net impressed surfaces were alsoidentified. This ware could possibly be typed asPopes Creek, estimated to date ca. 500 B.C. toA.D. 200 (Egloff and Potter 1984:99; Stephensonand Ferguson 1963:92-96). The paste of thesesherds is more compact than the Mockley warein the collections.

The vast majority of sherds recovered fromthe three sites relate to the Mockley series. AtHT36, where a total of 245 sherds were recov-ered in the excavations, 238 were classified asMockley ware. Of these, surface treatments on52.9% were cord marked, with 42.9% knottednet impressed, and 1.7% plain, smoothed sur-faced (it is likely that the plain surfaced sherdsfrom both HT36 and HT37 represent vessel sec-tions from just below the rim or near the base).Surface treatment on 2.5% of the Mockley sherdswas unidentifiable. The remainder of the collec-tion from HT36 consisted of two sherds with afine sandy paste and knotted net impressed sur-faces, and five sherds whose poor condition pre-vented classification.

The assemblage recovered from HT37 wasalso dominated by Mockley ceramics. Of a totalof 107 sherds, 104 were classified as Mockleyware (Figure 10). Three sherds with a fine sandypaste and knotted net impressed surfaces werealso recovered. Among the Mockley ware, 22.1%were cord marked, 69.2% knotted net impressed,6.7% plain, and 1.9% unidentified.

The collection from HT55 is more diverse(see Figure 10), although Mockley ware againpredominated. Of a total of 205 shell temperedsherds, 158 (77.0%) were classified as Mockleyware. Of these, 63.3% were cord marked and36.7% were knotted net impressed. Seven sherdsrecovered were assignable to the

Townsend series based on their shell temperedpaste and fabric impressed surfaces. Seventeensherds were classified as Roanoke SimpleStamped. Of the remaining shell tempered sherds,five were plain surfaced and eighteen had badlyeroded surfaces and could not be definitely as-signed to a ware group. The remainder of the

ceramic collection from HT55 was comprised offive sherds with a sandy paste, four of which werecord marked and one unidentifiable. Two addi-tional sherds were not assignable to any waregroup.

The Mockley ceramics from the three sitesconformed fairly well with Stephenson andFerguson’s (1963:103-109) original definition ofthe ware based on an assemblage from theAccokeek Creek site on the Potomac River inMaryland, as well as with subsequent descrip-tions of occurrences within the Coastal Plain ofVirginia (Egloff and Potter 1982:104; Photo 7).The sherds commonly fractured along joins be-tween coils. Coil manufacture was also indicatedby one sherd recovered from HT37 (Feature1043), with a plain surface and scrape markswhich had not completely obliterated the joinsbetween coils. Rim profiles and rim diameters sug-gested that both jar and bowl forms were present,although only jars were found in the assemblagefrom HT37 (Table 4). Of four basal sherds re-covered, two were subconoidal, one conoidal,and one rounded with a slight flattening. The pres-ence of flat bottomed vessels similar to the “bea-kers” described by Painter (1977; see also Egloffet al. 1988:28-32) was possibly suggested byone knotted net impressed sherd from HT55which appeared to originate from the base of thevessel wall, a position where these types of ves-sels commonly have a thickened, ring-like bulge.Rims on the Mockley ceramics from HamptonUniversity were sometimes thinned or beveled,with the lips either smoothed or marked by cordor net impressions. Vessel wall thickness mea-sured on rim sherds ranged from 0.5 to 0.95 cm.Interior scoring was noted on 13% of the sherdsfrom HT36 and HT37 and less than 1% (onesherd) of those from HT55.

The group of sherds which was identified asMockley ware within the three assemblages fromHampton was quite variable in paste composi-tion. A small number, about five percent, of theMockley ware sherds from HT36 and HT37 werecharacterized by shell temper in a silty paste withno sand admixture. The remainder of Mockley

39

Figure 10. Prehistoric pottery—44HT36, 44HT37, and 44HT55.

TABLE 4.VESSEL PROFILES AND RIM DIAMETERS, MOCKLEY WARE

44HT36 44HT37

PROFILE (n=23): Straight 9 5 Slightly Everted 2 3 Incurved 4 —

RIM DIAMETER (n=10): Straight Profile 34-38 cm 20 cm Slightly Everted ———— 26-30 cm Incurved 10-14 cm ————

40

Photo 7. Examples of Mockley ware.

ware sherds from these two sites had a pastewhich contains shell and sparse to moderateamounts of rounded sand grains ranging in sizefrom 0.5 to 3.0 mm in diameter. Approximatelytwo-thirds of the sherds with a sandy paste alsocontained finer particles of sand which gave thepaste a gritty texture on the surfaces, with theexteriors somewhat smoother to the feel than theinteriors. The interior surfaces of many of thesherds with the gritty paste were degraded, withthe outer layer of clay peeled off. Some of thesherds had a more compact paste, however. Allthree paste varieties were also present in the as-

semblage from HT55, but estimates of the pro-portions of each were not made.

Mockley ware has been described elsewhereas containing, in addition to shell temper, varyingamounts of sand, limonite, and organic matter inthe paste (Stephenson and Ferguson 1963:104;Egloff and Potter 1982:103). Sherds of mixedsand and shell were noted in assemblages fromthe Croaker Landing site (44JC70, 44JC71) onthe York River (Egloff et al. 1988:26), and sandand organic matter were described as commoninclusions within the Mockley ware recoveredfrom James Madison University’s (JMU) exca-

41

vations at the Addington (44VB9) andSherwood’s Forest (44VB92) sites at GreatNeck in Virginia Beach (Smith and Andrews1986). It was also noted by JMU archaeologiststhat shell was a common inclusion in the paste ofthose ceramics from Great Neck identified asMount Pleasant ware, a sand tempered, lateWoodland I Period ceramic with cord marked,net impressed, fabric impressed, and plain sur-faces defined by Phelps (1983:32).

The meaning of this type of variability in pasteis unclear at present. Egloff (Egloff et al. 1988:26,75, 78) concluded that the sherds from CroakerLanding with both shell and sand in the paste mostlikely represent local variation in the clay sourceused to produce Mockley ceramics, although hesuggested that the paste variety may represent anearly temporal phase within Mockley ware. Inthe Outer Coastal Plain of southeast Virginia, as-sessment of the meaning of variability in paste iscomplicated by the fact that shell temper and sandtemper traditions have been suggested to havehad distinct distributions during the late Wood-land I Period. Phelps (1983:32) has noted thatMount Pleasant ware is distributed on inland andcoastal sites in the northern half of the North Caro-lina Coastal Plain. Mockley ware has been foundin this region on only a few sites along the ChowanRiver, and shell temper appears as a common traitonly within the Woodland II Period.

Because of variability in paste, differentiatingbetween Mount Pleasant and Mockley wares insoutheast Virginia is complicated. The two waresare apparently contemporaneous. Radiocarbondates on Mount Pleasant components in NorthCarolina range from around A.D. 200 to 800(Phelps 1983:32). In Virginia, Mockley ceramicshave been dated from A.D. 460 to 875 at theMaycocks site in Prince George County on theJames River (Barka and McCary 1977) and fromA.D. 260 to 460 at the Great Neck site in Vir-ginia Beach (Egloff et al. 1988:26). Apart fromthe relative proportions of sand versus shell, ves-sels identified as Mount Pleasant and Mockleyware at the Addington and Sherwood’s Forestsites are virtually identical in terms of manufactur-

ing methods, vessel thickness and form, surfacetreatment, frequency of interior scoring, and deco-ration (Smith and Andrews 1986:30-48, 80-98).As they are currently defined, the most strikingdifference between the two wares is the additionin the Mount Pleasant series of fabric impressedsurface treatment (Phelps 1983:32). TheMockley series includes only cord marked andnet impressed types. It may be significant that onlyone out of sixty-eight Mount Pleasant vesselsidentified at the Addington and Sherwood Forestsites was fabric marked (Smith and Andrews1986: 30-48, 80-98).

The possibility that mixed sand and shell inthe paste of Mockley ceramics represents an earlyvariation in the ware cannot be eliminated on thebasis of evidence from the Hampton Universityassemblages. Two of the radiocarbon dates forthe occurrence of Mockley ware at HamptonUniversity are rather early considering other dateswhich have obtained for the ware. Charcoal re-covered from Feature 42 at HT36 yielded a dateof A.D. 20 ± 70 (1,930 B.P., Beta 25913). Thefeature contained thirty-six shell tempered sherdswith a sandy paste: thirty cord marked, three knot-ted net impressed, one plain surfaced, and twounidentified. One net impressed sherd with asandy paste was also included. At site HT37, adate of A.D. 40 ± 80 (1,910 B.P., Beta-25914)was obtained on charcoal from Feature 1003,which contained all sandy paste, shell temperedsherds: nine knotted net impressed and four plainsurfaced. The plain surfaced sherds probably rep-resent a single vessel base. A third radiocarbonsample on Mockley ware yielded a later date,however. The date was obtained on Feature 1024at HT37, which yielded ceramics similar in pasteto those from the other two dated features. Char-coal from Feature 1024 was dated to A.D. 300± 70 (1,650 B.P., Beta 25915). The feature con-tained five shell tempered sherds with a sandypaste, four knotted net impressed and one cordmarked, and two knotted net impressed sherdswith a fine sandy paste.

The two earlier radiocarbon dates obtainedfrom the prehistoric sites at Hampton University

42

contribute to a growing body of evidence that ashell tempered ceramic tradition appeared in theCoastal Plain of Virginia during the middle por-tion of the Woodland I Period (Egloff et al.1988:30). Painter (1977) has identified an earlyshell tempered ceramic in the outer Coastal Plainof southeastern Virginia and northeastern NorthCarolina which, because of its similarity to MarceyCreek ware, is believed to date ca. 1200 B.C.At the Currituck site in North Carolina, Painterhas obtained radiocarbon dates ranging from 810-660 B.C. on sherd, sand, or shell tempered, flat-bottomed “beaker” vessels with either cord, net,or fabric impressed surfaces (Painter 1978). Theearly dates derived from the Hampton Universitysites also lend support to Custer’s (1989:276-277) suggestion that the Mockley ceramic tradi-tion spread from south to north along the Atlanticcoast, with its origin in the outer Coastal Plain ofsoutheastern Virginia.

Very little can be said about the Late Wood-land Period ceramics recovered from site HT55.No rim or basal sherds or decorated fragmentswere included among the seven fabric impressedand seventeen simple stamped sherds in the col-lection. These shell tempered ceramics were gen-erally characterized by a silty paste. Simple stamp-ing was accomplished with both flat, thong-likeand more fibrous materials.

The small number of Townsend and RoanokeSimple Stamped ceramics at HT55 does suggestrather limited use of the site during the Late Wood-land Period. In fact, very few, if any, features as-sociated with this period were identified at thesite. Townsend ware has been radiocarbon datedin Virginia from A.D. 945 to A.D. 1590 (MacCord1965; Outlaw 1978; Potter 1982:239-242;Waselkov 1982:286-287). Roanoke ware is sug-gested to have appeared very late within the pre-historic period. The ware has been found in earlycolonial contexts at Fort Raleigh on Roanoke Is-land, North Carolina (Harrington 1948) and atwhat is believed to be the site of a colonial trad-ing post at Kecoughtan in Hampton. A radiocar-bon date of A.D. 1515 was obtained by Painter

from a pit at Great Neck in Virginia Beach con-taining mainly Roanoke ware (Fleming 1981).

In addition to vessel fragments, the ceramiccollection from HT37 contained several fired,unshaped clumps of clay which may be waste fromceramic manufacturing activities. The clay is gen-erally of a sandy texture. None of the clumps wasobserved to contain any shell inclusions. The de-bris was recovered from Features 1007, 1030,and 1043. The latter feature also yielded the sherd,described above, on which the coil joins had notbeen obliterated.

The only other prehistoric ceramic artifactrecovered in the excavations at Hampton Uni-versity is a shell tempered, Townsend ware rimsherd which was pressed into the face of a his-toric ceramic floor tile before the tile was fired.The exterior face of the sherd is visible and isdecorated just below the lip with two bands ofvertically-oriented notches which seem to havebeen formed by pressing a short length of dowelinto the clay.

Lithics

The sites at Hampton University are remarkablefor the very small number of lithic artifacts con-tained in the assemblages. The collection fromHT36 contained only six flakes, three each ofquartz and quartzite. Two of these bear corticalsurfaces. One quartz biface was recovered fromFeature 73, considered to be an historic feature.The artifact was a preform to a small side-notchedpoint. Feature 4 yielded a quartzite mano. Theremaining lithic artifacts from the site were aquartzite cobble core and a few fragments of fire-cracked rock.

Site HT37 yielded only two flakes, one eachof quartz and quartzite. Aside from a few frag-ments of fire-cracked rock, the only other lithicartifact recovered was a fragment of a small quartz-ite projectile point with a contracted stem, whichmay be of the Rossville type (Ritchie 1971;Stephenson and Ferguson 1963). Both the stemand blade are broken. Width at the shoulder is

43

2.43 cm. Radiocarbon dates from the northeast-ern United States compiled by Gleach (1985)suggest the Rossville point was in use from about500 B. C. to A.D. 400.

A total of 340 flakes was recovered fromHT55. Of these 267 are quartz (78.5%), 63quartzite (18.5%), and two jasper (0.6%). Theremaining flakes included one each of green slateand sandstone. Also recovered were six flakes ofa distinctive material referred to as oolitic quartz-ite (Bottoms 1968), characterized by quartz grainsembedded in a chalcedony-like matrix. Two hun-dred sixty of the flakes in the assemblage (254quartz, six quartzite) were recovered from Fea-ture 407, a large shallow basin which also yieldedthe remnant of a quartzite core and the tip of aquartz projectile point. Three Mockley cordmarked sherds were also recovered from the fea-ture.

Five additional bifaces were recovered atHT55. These, which were in an early stage ofreduction, include three of quartz and one ofquartzite. Feature 33 yielded a fragment of a small,unidentifiable quartzite projectile point, the baseof which had been broken. Two modified flaketools were identified in the assemblage, one eachof quartz and quartzite.

The excavated assemblage also included fourground stone tools. One is a possible metate frag-ment of quartzite sandstone which has been fire-cracked. Two other artifacts, which were recov-ered from the same historic context, appear tohave been used to abrade other tools. One was arectangular block of sandstone, approximately 3cm long and 2 cm wide, with two parallel lineargrooves incised on a face and an edge. The otherartifact was a cobble of fine-grained sandstoneabout 9 cm long, 4 cm wide, and 1 cm thick. Oneface of the cobble had been abraded to a very

smooth surface, and one edge had been squaredoff from abrading. The remaining ground stoneartifact was a schist cobble, roughly 7 cm in di-ameter with a maximum thickness of 2.3 cm, re-covered from Feature 203. The cobble has shal-low pecked depressions on each face, suggest-ing its use as an anvil stone. The feature alsoyielded 19 Mockley sherds, 17 cord marked and2 plain surfaced.

Three notable artifacts were recovered atHT55 while cleaning the surface of the subsoilafter removal of the plowzone. One was a tear-drop-shaped, bifacial endscraper of quartz, 4.85cm long with a maximum width and thickness,respectively, of 2.37 cm and 0.75 cm. A small,stemmed, quartzite projectile point of the Savan-nah River type (Coe 1964) was also recovered.Small variants of the Savannah River type havebeen radiocarbon dated to about 2000 B.C. atthe Plum Nelley site (44NB128) inNorthumberland County, Virginia (Potter1982:276-329). The dimensions of the point fromHT55 were: total length 4.13 cm; shoulder width2.91 cm; stem length 1.07 cm; stem width at base1.50 cm; and maximum thickness 0.74 cm. Theremaining artifact was a triangular-shaped bifaceof quartzite, probably a projectile point preform.The tip has been chipped slightly, but the existinglength was 4.35 cm. Basal width and maximumthickness were, respectively, 2.50 cm and 1.11cm.

Bone and Shell Artifacts

Fragments of two unidentifiable polished bonetools were recovered from Feature 1026 at HT37,which also yielded one Mockley knotted net im-pressed sherd. At HT55, one tubular shell beadwas recovered.

44

45

A. Description of theFeatures (Photo 8)

A detailed description of each of the sev-eral hundred individual features found atsite HT55 would be unnecessary—an

exercise in drudgery for the writers and a surecure for insomnia for the readers. The completedrecords for each of these features and their con-texts are included in a separate volume on file atColonial Williamsburg’s Department of Archaeo-logical Research. The field drawings and photo-graphs are also on file at the D.A.R.

There are certain features, however, whichare an integral part of the interpretation of the site

and the reader may be served by having detaileddescriptions. These include features comprisingthe five structures, the well, trash pits, and slotfence lines.

Structure A

The remains of Structure A were composed of abrick-lined cellar and numerous post holes (seeFigures 11 and 12). The post holes represent theplacement of three transverses, an east, central,and west, around which the two-bay building wasconstructed. The post holes will be described inpairs, beginning with the eastern transverse.

Chapter 6.The Historic Site—44HT55

Photo 8. Aerial view of 44HT55.

46

Feature 5 was the northeast post hole ofStructure A, measuring 2.65' in length, 2.41' inwidth, and 1.25' in depth. It was roughly rectan-gular, containing brown sandy loam fill and postmold 76. The fill also contained a small amount ofbrick, a speck of mortar, and a little charcoal fleck-ing. The post mold measured 0.85' by 0.60' by1.17' and was rectangular as well. Its fill was adark brown sandy loam containing somebricketage, mortar, and charcoal.

Feature 8 once contained a post which was arepair/replacement for the one previously stand-ing in Feature 5, so indicated by its intruding thelatter feature. The roughly rectangular post holemeasured 2.4' by 1.8' x 0.72' and contained asandy clay fill with some brick, mortar and char-coal. The post mold, Feature 9, measured 0.84'by 0.60' by 0.72', was also rectangular, and con-tained dark brown sandy loam fill.

The southeastern post hole group is, ofcourse, the corresponding set for the east trans-

verse. Post hole 363, with post mold 364, arethe original southeast structural posts for Struc-ture A. The post hole was large, measuring 3.0'by 2.5' by 1.56', rectangular, filled with mottledbrown sandy loam, and containing some shell andcharcoal. The post mold, Feature 364, was 0.7'square and 1.6' deep. It contained only darkbrown sandy loam with no apparent inclusions.

Post hole combination 132/133 was the re-pair post for 363/364, but was not intrusive. Fea-ture 132 was a square hole with straight sides toa depth of one foot, then sloping towards the cen-ter, below the post mold. It measured 1.7' by 1.7'by 1.25', containing mottled fill with shell, brick,mortar, and charcoal inclusions. The post mold(133) was also rectangular (.85' by 0.55') with aflat base resting on a clay cap of redeposited sub-soil. The fill was a clay and sandy silt combinationwith brick and charcoal inclusions.

The original post hole for the north centraltraverse was Feature 347. No mold was visible,

Figure 11. Detail of Structure A.

47

Figure 12. Posthole sections—Structure A.

48

its having been obliterated by a later repair. Thepost hole was large, measuring approximately 3feet by 2 feet, but extending only 0.7' below sub-soil.

Replacement post hole/ mold 344/345 in-truded 347 and was probably a later repair. Posthole 347 was roughly 2.0' square and 0.75' indepth. It was intruded by post hole 341, a yetlater repair. Post hole 344 contained brown sandyloam fill with heavy orange clay mottling and someshell bits. Post mold 345 was about 0.8' by 0.6',rectangular with a depth of 0.7'. It was filled withdark brown sandy loam.

Post hole/post mold 341/342 appears to bea subsequent repair to the north central traverseof Structure A. The post hole consisted of brownsandy loam mottled with clay and loam. It mea-sured 2.1' by 1.8' and was about 1.0' in depth,containing some shell and brick inclusions. Postmold 342 was roughly 0.7' square and also about1.0' deep. This post mold contained a Harringtonfarthing minted in 1613 or 1614.

The southern corresponding post for the cen-tral traverse on the south side of Structure A wasrepresented by Feature 316, which was about1.8' square and 1.1' deep. Its fill contained abrown sandy loam mottled with clay and somebrick bits and charcoal flecks. Post mold 317 waslarge, about 1.0' square, though partially obliter-ated by later repair post hole 30/330. Post hole30 consisted of grey-brown sandy loam and mea-sured 1.7' by 1.7' by 1.3'.

The north original post hole/post mold for thewestern traverse was composed of Features 131/129. The post hole (131) was rectangular, mea-suring 1.7' by ca. 2.0', the western edge havingbeen destroyed when repair post hole/post mold126/128 was placed. Post mold 129 consistedof dark brown loam and measured 0.5' square.Repair post hole 126 measured 1.9' by 1.5' andcontained a 0.5' square post mold (128).

The southern post hole of the same traverseconsisted of original post hole 77 with post mold79, and repair post hole 74 with its post mold 76.Post hole 77 measured 2.7 by 2.4 by 0.9', wasroughly square, and had vertical sides and a flat

bottom. The fill was mottled light and dark greysandy loam containing a significant number of sev-enteenth-century artifacts, shell, bricketage, mor-tar fragments, and charcoal. It was the only origi-nal post hole in Structure A which contained arti-facts in large numbers. Its post mold, Feature 79,consisted of dark grey sandy silt, was roughly0.65' square and 0.75' deep. It, too, containednumerous artifacts and other material. The repairpost hole, 74, had sloping sides and a flat bottomunder the post mold (76). The hole measured 2.2'by 1.6' by 0.7' and contained grey sandy silt/loammottled with orange clay, some artifacts (prima-rily iron), shell, bricketage, mortar, and charcoalinclusions. The post mold (76) was round, with adiameter of 0.8' and 0.9' in depth, consisted ofdark grey sandy silt and contained some artifactsas well as shell, brick, and charcoal in smallamounts.

Post hole/post mold 353/354 was locatedmidway between the post holes making up theeastern traverse. It may have held a gable postnext to the cellar, but since no corresponding posthole was found on the western end of the struc-ture it is more likely that it served as a fireplacesupport. A passage was added when the cellarwas constructed. Post hole 353 was roughlysquare, ca. 2.0' by 2.0' by 0.95', and filled withbrown sandy loam. Its post mold (354) was rect-angular (0.5' by 0.6') and about 0.85' deep, filledwith dark brown sandy loam. No inclusions werenoted.

Structure B

Structure B was also a traverse-raised, two-baydwelling located only a few feet to the west ofStructure A (Figures 13 and 14). It exhibited, asdid Structure A, signs indicating several repairepisodes. A description of the post holes and moldassociated with Structure B will begin with thesouthernmost traverse.

Post hole/post mold complex 320/321 waslocated at the southeastern corner of StructureB. The post hole was rectangular, 2.5' by 2.0'and 1.8' in depth. The fill consisted primarily of

49

orange clay with tan, grey and brown sandy loammottling. There were no artifacts or inclusions inthe fill. The post mold was about 0.6' square, filledwith dark grey sandy loam. No repairs were evi-dent.

The corresponding post hole/post mold onthe southwestern corner of the structure was des-ignated Feature 306/307. The post hole measured3.2' in length and at least 2.7' in width, with adepth of 2.1' It was, however, intruded on theeast side by a repair post and a twentieth-centurycow burial. The fill was primarily orange clay (re-deposited subsoil) mottled with brown sandyloam. Some bricketage was found in the fill, butlittle other cultural material. Its post mold (307)was roughly 0.7' square, 1.8' deep, and containeddark brown sandy loam with some brick bits andcharcoal. Repair post hole/ post mold complex303/304 intruded the northeast corner of 306 andwas in turn intruded by the modern cow burial.Feature 303 was 1.7' in length and probably about

1.5' wide, with a depth of about 2.0'. The postmold, 304, was 1.8' deep, roughly 0.8' squareand filled with dark brown sandy loam with somebrick and charcoal bits.

East-central post hole 276 measured 2.6' by3.0' and was 1.9' deep. It was intruded on theeast side by a slot fence trench connecting Struc-tures A and B. The fill was a mixture of loam andclay with shell, brick, and charcoal inclusions. Thepost mold (277) was about 0.8' square and 1.8'deep. Its dark sandy loam fill contained only nails.

The west-central framing post hole/mold, 291/292, was intruded by Features 289/288 on thenorth side. Post hole 292 was rectangular, mea-suring 3.3' by 3.0', had steeply sloping sides anda flat bottom, two feet in depth. The fill consistedof alternating bands of clayey redeposited sub-soil and sandy loam, containing aboriginal pot-tery, tin-enamelled earthenware, case bottle glass,lead shot, and 7 nail fragments. A nearly wholebrick was embedded in the upper part of the fill.

Figure 13. Detail of Structure B.

50

The post mold, 291, was circular, 0.8' in diam-eter, containing brown sandy loam fill andbricketage, along with a nail and a domestic pipebowl fragment. The post mold extended to thebottom of the post hole.

Repair post hole 289 was smaller than 291,roughly 1.6' square and 1.4' deep. The south edgewas steeply sloping, whereas the north sloped

more gently to a flat bottom. The fill was hard-packed clayey redeposited subsoil with tan sandyloam mottling. Two nails, one piece of lead shotand a fragment of daub were recovered from thesection. Post mold 288 consisted of dark brownloamy fill, was circular, about 0.7' in diameter,1.3' deep, with a flat bottom extending about 0.15'

Figure 14. Posthole sections—Structure B.

51

below the bottom of the post hole. The mold con-tained two nails.

The north-east post hole, 163, measured 3.0'by 2.6' was rectangular and intruded by repairpost hole 162 on its south end. The fill was 1.6'deep, mixed orange and yellow clay mottled withlight brown sandy loam, containing aboriginal pot-tery, a nail, and two brick fragments, shell, andcharcoal. The post mold, 165, was roughly 0.8'square, also 1.6' deep, consisted of dark brownsandy loam containing no artifacts, but some brickand charcoal flecks.

The post hole/mold complex intruding thesouthern part of the original post hole were Fea-tures 160 and 162. Feature 160 was roughly 2.0'by 1.6' by 0.9', rectangular, consisting of mixedclay fill, and containing aboriginal pottery and tworoofing tile fragments. The post mold (162) wasalso roughly rectangular, 1.0' by 0.8', consistedof dark grey sandy loam fill and contained a frag-ment each of aboriginal pottery, tin-enamelledearthenware, two nails, and a domestic pipe stemfragment.

The northwest post hole complex (472/473)was intruded by repair post hole 470. Feature472 was roughly 2.8' square, 1.6' deep, consist-ing of brown sandy clay and containing one nail,and some brick and charcoal fragments. The postmold (473) was about 0.8' square, 1.7' deep,flat-bottomed and contained fill consisting of darkbrown sandy loam containing two nails and a fau-nal bone fragment. The intrusive repair post holecomplex 470/471 obscured the southeast cornerof 472/473.

Post hole 470 was irregularly-shaped, mea-suring 2.4' by 1.7' and 1.7' in depth. The fill con-sisted of brown sandy loam mottled with orangeclay containing one fragment of container glassand some brick and charcoal fragments. The postmold (471) was roughly 0.4' square, also 1.7'deep and consisted of brown sandy loam fill con-taining one nail fragment. Both the hole and themold had relatively flat bottoms.

Post hole/mold 115/116 was located betweenthe two southern framing posts and probablyserved as a fireplace support as did Features 353/

354 in Structure A. Post hole 115 measured 2.1'by 1.7’and was 2.02' deep. Both sides weresteeply sloping and the bottom flat. The post mold(116) was rectangular, 0.6' by 0.7', resting on thebottom of the hole cut.

Structure C

Structure C (Figures 15 and 16) was probablythe first building erected at HT55. It was rectan-gular, approximately 20' by 40', oriented east-west. The building consisted of eight post hole/post mold complexes forming three long bays.

The northernmost post hole of the easterntraverse was designated Features 271/270. Thepost hole was rectangular, measuring 2.75' by 2.1'and 1.05' in depth.

It had steeply sloping sides and a flat bottom.Fill was re-deposited subsoil mottled with topsoilmixed when the post hole was dug. No artifactsor inclusions were evident. The post mold (270)was nearly square, 0.8' by 0.7', and also 1.05' indepth. Its fill was dark brown sandy loam andwas sterile except for one brick fragment.

Post hole/post mold 283/284, located at thesoutheastern corner of Structure C, were severelytruncated by the later east-central framing postfor Structure B. The north-south measurement for283 was 2.2', but the east-west length was unat-tainable. The post mold, 284 was 0.7' north-southand was probably square.

Post hole/mold 138/139 was roughly rectan-gular, 2.45' by 2.18', and was 1.0' deep. The fillwas re-deposited orange clay subsoil with brownsandy loam lenses. Artifacts recovered were onefragment of aboriginal pottery, a flake, and a frag-ment of English flint. The post mold (139) was0.8' in diameter, circular, and consisted of tansandy clay fill mottled with brown sandy loam.One nail, one straight pin, and a glass linensmoother handle were recovered from the 1.0feet of fill.

Feature 295 was probably roughly circular,measuring 2.4' in diameter, but had been subse-quently intruded on the west side by the west-central framing posts from Structure B. The post

52

mold (294) was also roughly circular, measuringabout 0.9' in diameter and filled with brown sandyloam. Both the hole and mold were about 2.3'deep.

Post hole 172 was roughly rectangular, mea-suring 2.7' by 2.3' with a depth of 1.6'. The sidesof the post hole were basically straight, slopingtoward the base to a flat bottom. A lens of lightgrey sand was found beneath the post hole. Thefill was otherwise typical and contained no arti-facts or inclusions. The post mold, 173, wasroughly 0.6' square with very dark grey sandyloam fill. There was a clay deposit below the posthole, raising it 0.3' above the bottom of the post

hole. No artifacts were recovered, but inclusionsof brick bits were noted.

Feature 368, the eastern post hole, wasroughly 2.3' square and contained brown sandyloam mottled with orange clay fill. Shell and char-coal inclusions were recorded, but no artifactswere recovered. The post mold, 369, was 0.6'square and contained dark brown sandy loam fill.No artifacts were found.

The northwest corner post hole, Feature 179,was somewhat smaller than the others, measur-ing about 2.0' square. The bottom of the posthole, about 1.4' below the surface was flat androunded in plan. The fill was re-deposited subsoil

Figure 15. Detail of Structure C.

53

mottled with brown sandy loam, containing noartifacts or inclusions. The post mold, 180, wasrectangular, 0.65' by 0.50' and extended to adepth of 1.06'. Its dark brown sandy loam fillcontained one nail and a roofing tile.

The southeastern post hole for Structure Cwas Feature 315. Unfortunately, it was almostentirely obliterated by the later southeast cornerpost of Structure D.

Structure D

This southeastern corner post hole, Feature 279,was part of Structure D (Figures 17 and 18), abuilding which obviously postdated the abandon-ment of Structure C. The post hole was nearlysquare, 2.2' by 2.1', and intruded by Structure Epost hole 265 on its southern edge. It was 1.85'deep consisting of brown sandy loam mottled withorange clay and containing three nails, a domes-tic pipe stem, faunal bone and some bricketageinclusions. The post mold (280) was 0.7' square,contained dark brown sandy loam with orangeclay inclusions, and was 1.85' in depth. Onewrought nail and a sliver of wood were recov-ered from the fill.

Post hole/mold 169/170 once represented thenortheast corner post for the structure. It was ir-regularly shaped, measuring 2.5' by 2.0' with adepth of 2.0'. Its fill was the typical orange sandyclay re-deposited subsoil with brown sandy loammottling, containing only one aboriginal pottery

sherd and a few brick and charcoal bits. The postmold, 170, was ovate, 1.0' by 0.6', and also at-tained a depth of 2.0'. Its fill consisted of darkbrown sandy loam and contained, in addition tobrick, shell, and charcoal inclusions, nails, casebottle glass, English flint, a straight pin, and uni-dentified iron and lead objects. The presence ofthis material in the post mold fill may indicate thatthe post was pulled up, allowing surrounding de-bris to enter the resulting hole.

The northern post hole/mold in the middletraverse, Feature 149/150, was a large, nearlysquare post hole, measuring 3.0' by 3.08', attain-ing a depth of 1.8'. The post hole’s sides werestraight and its base flat. The fill was re-depos-ited subsoil mottled with brown sandy loam con-taining, in addition to brick and charcoal inclu-sions, two sherds of aboriginal pottery, a frag-ment of container glass, two nails, a copper alloythimble, a bit of bog iron, and a faunal bone. Thepost mold, 150, was rectangular, 1.2' by 0.9',2.1' in depth, consisting of light brown and greyloam mottled with tan sandy clay, and containingthree aboriginal pottery sherds, two nails, a do-mestic pipe bowl and stem, and six fragments ofunidentified iron.

The corresponding post hole/mold in the cen-tral traverse, Feature 337/336, was approximatelythe same size and shape as 149/150, measuring3.0' by 2.9' and 2.0' deep. The fill was also re-deposited subsoil mottled with brown sandy loamand contained a great number of historic artifacts:

Figure 16. Posthole sections—Structure C.

54

Figure 17. Detail of Structure D.

Figure 18. Posthole sections—Structure D.

55

three aboriginal pottery sherds, two bluecoarseware pieces, one faience sherd, oneWesterwald fragment, twelve nails, one straightpin, two fragments of daub, faunal bone, brick,shell, charcoal, and an assortment of domesticand imported tobacco pipe stems and bowls. Thepost mold, 336, was surprisingly small, measur-ing only 0.6' by 0.4', filled with dark grey sandyloam and containing a case bottle fragment, a nail,and two faunal bones. The large amount of cul-tural debris found in the post hole was somewhatunexpected. There seem to be two explanationsfor the material, the structure was originally con-structed a long enough time after Structures Cthat trash had built up around the site and wassubsequently deposited in the hole, or the posthole was disturbed by later post hole 299.

The northern post hole (Feature 223) in thewestern traverse was a large, 2.8' square featurewith a post mold, 224, in its southwest corner.The 1.45' deep post hole contained re-depositedsubsoil mottled with brown sandy loam fill andnumerous seventeenth century artifacts, similar to149. The post mold was irregularly shaped, mea-suring 1.1' by 1.0' with a depth of 0.8', substan-tially less than that of the post hole. The fill wasgrey sandy loam mottled with orange clay con-taining four nails, an iron buckle, daub, and bone.Shell, brick and charcoal inclusions were alsonoted.

The southwest corner post hole in Structure D,Feature 312, was a large, 2.5' roughly square posthole almost entirely obscuring the southwest cor-ner post hole for Structure C. The post hole was1.7' deep consisting of orange, tan, grey, and darkbrown loam mottled with light tan silt, and con-taining such historic artifacts as coarseware frag-ments, Westerwald, nails, window lead, flint, pins,bog iron, pipe bowls, pipe stems, iron, bone andoyster shell. The post mold, 313, was relativelysmall, measuring 0.7' by 0.6', and almost square.Its dark brown loamy fill contained nails, copperalloy tacks, bone, shell, chalk, pipe stems andbowls, and a possible iron knife blade. It, too,was approximately 1.7' deep.

Feature 349 was a post hole located on themiddle east end of the structure, probably serv-ing as fireplace support post. It was irregularlyshaped, approximately 2.2' by 1.9', consisting of0.8' of brown sandy loam fill containing two nails,one case bottle fragment and two faunal bones.The post mold, 350, was circular, 0.6' in diam-eter and consisted of dark brown sandy loam fillcontaining two nails, one faunal bone, and oystershell.

Structure E

The final building, Structure E, was the last to bebuilt at HT55, replacing Structure D when it ap-parently fell into disrepair (Figures 19 and 20). Itshares no walls or post holes with the previousbuildings, was ca. 20' wide, 24' long, and madeup of six framing post holes. This building ap-pears to have been side-raised, rather thantraverse-raised like the majority of the others. Twosmall off-set post holes on the western end of thebuilding may indicate a fireplace.

Feature 219 was the northeastern corner posthole for the structure. It was almost square, mea-suring 2.5' by 2.2' and containing 1.5' of orangeclay mottled with brown sandy loam fill. Two ab-original pottery sherds, two nails, a flake, and alarge amount of bricketage was recovered fromthe fill. The post mold, 221, was 0.8' circular,containing brown sandy loam, but no artifacts.

The southeast corner post hole, Feature 265,was rectangular, measuring 2.2' by 2.4'. The bot-tom of the hole was square and flat some 1.5'below the surface. The brown loam mottled withorange clay contained shell, brick, and charcoalinclusions along with a considerable number ofseventeenth-century artifacts (see Artifact Cata-log, Volume II). The post mold, 266, was circu-lar, 0.7' in diameter, consisted of dark brown silt,and contained a case bottle fragment, nails, pins,pipe stems, a pipe bowl fragment, and bone. It,too, was approximately 1.5' deep, with a flat bot-tom.

North-central framing post hole 157 measured2.1' by 2.6', was rectangular and 1.65' in depth.

56

Figure 19. Detail of Structure E.

Figure 20. Posthole sections—Structure E.

57

The sides were steep and straight, the bottom flat.The fill consisted of light yellowish brown claymottled with brown, grey and black sandy loam.Artifacts recovered were numerous, includingaboriginal pottery, 21 nails, daub, brick fragments,imported and domestic pipe stems and bowls,and an unidentified iron object. The mold, 158,was 0.9' circular, with slightly irregular sides anda flat base resting on about 0.2' of packed clay.Artifacts recovered included widow glass, 6 nails,brick, and bone.

South-central post hole 299 was 3.0' by 2.4'rectangular, consisting of light brown sandy loammottled with clumps of yellow clay. The sideswere straight and the bottom flat. Artifacts re-covered included 15 nails, one window came, anEnglish flint, one clothing pin, mortar, brick frag-ments, shell, and domestic and imported smok-ing pipe fragments. The post mold, 298, was 1.0'by 0.9' by 1.6', consisting of loose, soft, darkbrown sandy loam. A depression in the bottom ofthe post hole suggests that the post was drivenpast the bottom of the hole or sank under theweight of the building. Artifacts recovered includedaboriginal pottery, clothing pins, 2 domestic pipebowl fragments, and 2 domestic pipe stem frag-ments.

The northeast corner post hole, Feature 176,was nearly square, measuring 2.4' by 2.3' with adepth of 1.6'. Its sides were straight and its bot-tom flat; the fill consisted of orange sandy claymottled with tan and grey sandy loam. Artifactsrecovered from the feature included two aborigi-nal pottery sherds, redware, case bottle glass,nails, flint, an iron clothing hook, imported anddomestic pipe stems, with brick, shell, and mor-tar inclusions. The post mold, 177, was about afoot square, contained dark brown sandy loamfill, but only one nail and another clothing fastener.Brick, shell, and charcoal inclusions were alsorecorded.

Two small post holes, Features 373 and 374,were located between the two western supportposts. Both of these post holes were small anddid not contain post molds. They probably func-tioned as supports for an entrance or possibly a

chimney. Post hole 373 was about 0.9' squareand only 0.7' deep. The fill was grey/tan sandyloam with orange clay mottling and contained anail, brick fragments, and oyster shell. The bot-tom appeared to be slightly rounded. Post hole374 was slightly rectangular, 0.7' by 0.9', and only0.35' in depth. The fill was identical to that of 373and its bottom was also slightly rounded. Arti-facts recovered included six fragments of tin-enamelled earthenware, a nail, and an importedpipe stem.

Non-Structural Features

In addition to the five buildings erected at 44HT55during the first half of the seventeenth century,several other non-structural features that requiredetailed descriptions. These include the two largetrash pit just north of Structure A (Trash Pits Aand B), the well, Trash Pits C, D, and E, the slotfence trenches, and the boundary/drainage ditchin the north central area of the site. Features orlayers making up a larger entity were given so-called “macro-feature” designations and wereconsidered related in the artifact analysis.

Trash Pit A

First uncovered by the Kicotan Chapter of theArchaeological Society of Virginia during thespring of 1987, Trash Pit A (Figures 21 and 22)was a large, circular pit some 10 feet in diameter,filled with structural debris, oyster shell, bone, andhundreds of seventeenth-century artifacts. The firstlayer (Layer 3) in the pit consisted of dark brownsandy loam with densely-packed oyster shell,brick, and charcoal patches. The second layer,directly under 3, was Layer 12, which consistedof a reddish brown sandy loam containing densebrick and mortar concentrations. Inclusions ofshell and charcoal were also noted. Layer 21 wasmade up of dark greyish brown sandy loam con-taining a large amount of oyster shell, brick chips,and charcoal scattered throughout. Layer 42 wasa relatively thin depositional layer within the trashpit sealed by Layer 21. It consisted of dark, grey-

58

Figure 21. Detail plan—Trash Pits A and B.

59

ish-brown compact, sticky sandy clay containingbits of charcoal. Thickest near the middle, thislayer lacked distinct edges. Shell, brick, and mor-tar inclusions were also noted. Layer 43 was apocket of pale yellowish grey sandy silt lying justunder the western edge of Layer 42. It appeared

to have been washed into the pit. The fill wasclean (no inclusions) but contained a few artifacts,including a unidentifiable Spanish (?) silver coin.Layer 44 was an additional washed-in layer onthe eastern side of the pit overlain by Layers 56and 21. It consisted of loose brown sand blend-

Figure 22. Section—Trash Pit A.

60

ing indistinctly into Layer 42 along its westernedge; it contained only some brick fragments,oyster shell and a nail.

Layer 56 in Trash Pit A was a very thin (ca.0.1') deposit of pale grey sticky clay below Layer42 and resting on the bottom of the pit. Somebrick chips and oyster shell inclusions were re-corded. Layer 63 was next to the bottommostlayer in Trash Pit A, consisting of brownish-yel-low re-deposited subsoil fill containing only a fewbrick chips and charcoal flecks, but no artifacts.Lying just below 63, Layer 84 was a thin depositof orange sandy clay mottled with pale grey,brown, and black loam which blended graduallyinto the subsoil below. It contained very smallquantities of shell, brick, and charcoal, along withone aboriginal pottery sherd, two fragments ofcase bottle glass, three nails and some bone.

A discussion of the artifacts recovered fromTrash Pit A and how they relate to other finds onthe site, may be found in the artifact inventoryand artifact analysis chapters.

Trash Pit B

Trash Pit B (Figure 23; Photo 9) was locatedadjacently west of Trash Pit A, just north of Struc-ture A’s cellar. It, too, was first uncovered by theKicotan Chapter in the spring of 1987. This pitwas roughly square, approximately 9.5' across,consisting of various layers containing many sev-enteenth-century artifacts. The top layer in the pit,Layer 4, was made up of dark brown sandy loamwith a high concentration of oyster shell and hun-dreds of artifacts from the occupation period. Al-though the bottom of this layer was rather irregu-lar, it was approximately a foot in thickness.

Layer 19 was located just below Layer 4 andconsisted of a heavy concentration of purple ashwith charcoal. In addition to an abundance ofpersonal and domestic material over 25 fragmentsof lead relating to shot making were found in thislayer. Layer 28, a deposit of sandy clay, appearsto have been dumped or washed in from thesouth side before the deposition of Layer 19.

There were no inclusions or artifacts recoveredfrom the deposit.

This clean fill covered Layer 46, which con-sisted of brown loam mottled with sandy clay.Excavation of Layer 46 revealed that the bottomof the trash pit contained two large holes ca. 4.5'by 2.0', filled with two feet of Layer 46. The holeswere parallel, divided by subsoil 0.5' wide at thetop and one foot wide at the bottom. The pur-pose of these holes is as yet unknown, but mayhave served as underground storage prior to theconstruction of the cellar. The holes were appar-ently fill purposefully and rapidly, as few artifactswere found in the fill. Only the portion of the pitabove the holes appears to have been filled gradu-ally with household debris.

Trash Pit C

Trash Pit C was a roughly circular feature about6.0' in diameter located in the western part of thesite near a series of trash deposits along the west-ern slot fence. The pit was the largest of thesedeposits and was located only about 9.0' north-west of the well. The top layer of the pit was ac-tually made up of several lenses (see Figure 24),none of which extended across the entire feature.The fill in Layer 25 consisted of 1.8' of very darkbrown sandy loam with an extremely heavy con-centration of oyster shell. Brick and charcoal in-

Photo 9. Quarter-section—Trash Pit B.

61

Figure 23. Section—Trash Pit B.

62

Figure 24. Section—Trash Pit C.

63

clusions were also noted, but not in anywhere nearthe concentration of the oyster shell. Over 900artifacts were recovered from Layer 25. Numer-ous lenses representing many discreet depositsmade up the lower layer (Layer 41) in Trash PitC. The fill was basically grey sandy loam withpatches of purple ash and washed-in lenses oforange clay, some 0.6' deep. Shell, brick andcharcoal were noted inclusions. Layer 41 con-tained 114 artifacts and around 80 pieces of ani-mal bone.

Trash Pit D

Trash Pit D was roughly circular, about seven feetin diameter and 1.75' in depth (Figure 25). Thetop layer, Layer 49, consisted of dark brown sandyloam with a very heavy concentration of oystershell, very similar to Trash Pit C. About 1.2' indepth, Layer 49 contained about 600 seven-

teenth-century artifacts. Layer 64 was the sec-ond deposit in Trash Pit D, consisting of a 0.15'-thick lens of light tan sandy loam, mottled withgrey sandy loam containing inclusions of shell,brick, mortar, and charcoal, in addition to a goodassortment of seventeenth-century rubbish. Be-low 64, another lens (Layer 67), about 0.2' deepconsisting of grey ash was located. Inclusions ofshell, brick, mortar, and charcoal were recovered,in addition to artifacts such as coarseware, ab-original pottery, case bottle glass, nails, pins,aiglets, coal, and domestic and imported smok-ing pipe fragments.

The bottom layer in Trash Pit D was Layer68, a re-deposited subsoil layer about 0.2' deepcontaining only charcoal inclusions and aboriginalpottery and flakes. This layer may represent soilwashed-in between the time the pit was dug andits initial use as a trash receptacle.

Figure 25. Section—Trash Pit D.

64

Trash Pit E

Pit E was an irregularly-shaped pit located about15' west of Trash Pit D in the northwestern sec-tion of the site. On the surface the feature wasabout 8.5' long, 6.0' wide on the eastern side and4.0' wide on the western. About 0.7' below thesurface, however, the pit became rectangular, ap-proximately 7.0' long and 2.4' wide, very muchlike a grave feature. The top fill (Layer 87) ap-peared to have been disturbed somewhat by thegrowth of a later tree, but consisted of dark brownsandy loam with inclusions of shell and brick (Fig-ure 26). Although it appeared to be a trash pit,relatively few artifacts in comparison with the othertrash pits, were recovered from the fill. The bot-tom surface of 87, and therefore the top surface

of Layer 97, was undulating, about 0.7' deep atthe deepest point. Layer 97 completely filled thegrave-like part of the feature also resting on thebottom of the upper part of the pit. The fill was afine tan sandy soil containing no inclusions andonly five fragments of aboriginal pottery and twosherds of English coarseware. Although the fea-ture appeared to be a human grave shaft, virtuallyidentical to those excavated at contemporary sites,no trace of human remains could be found. Per-haps the intended occupant recovered from hisillness or the soil in 350 years completely ab-sorbed the bones. Since most people in that timeperiod were buried without the benefit of cloth-ing, no aiglets, buckles or buttons would havebeen interred with the body and thus none subse-quently survived.

Figure 26. Section—Trash Pit E.

65

“The Ditch”

A ditch, approximately 3.0' wide was found inthe northwest section of the site, some 5 to 6 feetwest of the main north-south slot fence. The fea-ture began about 7 feet northeast of Trash Pit D,and extended 30 feet northward beyond the limitof excavation, toward Settler’s Landing Road. Insection, the ditch was trapezoidal in shape, thatis, wide at the top, with sloping sides and a nar-row, flat bottom (Figure 27). The fill was com-posed of three layers: about 1.4' of dark greysandy loam, a 0.2' lens of tan sandy silt, and thebottom layer of brownish orange sandy clay abouthalf a foot deep. Sixteen fragments of case bottleglass, a fire-cracked rock, a flake, and some fau-nal bone were recovered from the first layer inthe section excavated. No finds or inclusions werenoted in the lower two layers. The function of thisditch is unclear. It may have been constructed asa drainage ditch to remove excess water fromthat area of the site. The silt and sand in the bot-tom seems to indicate that the ditch had been leftopen for some time and was probably not usedto support a palisade or other type of fence. Al-though the few artifacts recovered from the fea-ture did not indicate a fill date, it may have beenconstructed after the north-south slot fence justto the east. Had the two features been contem-poraneous, it is likely they would be parallel toeach other, but in reality they are not.

The Slot Fences

Among the more distinctive features discoveredat HT55 were the ten slot fence trenches foundthroughout the site (Figures 28 and 29). The fenceremains are similar to those found atWolstenholme Towne in James City County (I.Noël Hume 1979) and at Nansemond Town inSuffolk (Luccketti n.d.). The fences, which stoodabout four to five feet high, were constructed bydigging a trench 6 to 8 inches wide and a foot orso deep, placing upright planks in the ditch, andsecuring them by packing dirt around their bases.The planks would be placed so that they touched

each other, forming a wall similar to a palisade.This type fencing was used primarily to confinesmall yard animals in certain areas and prohibitthem from entering others, such as kitchen gar-dens or well surrounds.

The western half of the site contained twoslot fences, one (Slot Fence A, Features 286 and69) running north-south approximately 97 feet,beginning near the southern edge of excavationand continuing north, out of the excavated area.It seemed to serve the function of separating thedwellings and outbuilding from the western thirdof the site. The trench was about a foot wide and0.3' deep, consisting of dark grey sandy loam withshell, brick, and charcoal inclusions. Artifacts re-covered from the small area excavated includedtwo nails, some bone, and an imported pipe bowlfragment and stem. An east-west slot fence (Fea-ture 69) intersected Feature 286 about 30' northof its southern reach, forming a right angle. Thisfence slot continued to the west for about 50',ending before the western edge of excavation. Itwas about a foot wide and 1.2' deep, with visiblesoil stains indicating the planking, both in plan andprofile (see Figure 30). The fill was primarily dark

Figure 27. Section—ditch feature.

66

Figure 28. Overall drawing—44HT55, showing location of slot fences.

67

Figure 29. Section drawings—slot fence trenches.

68

brown sandy loam with orange sandy clay re-deposited subsoil packed in around the planking.It was apparently constructed or re-dug after thenumerous small trash pits in the area were in use,as it intrudes nearly all of them. In addition to theshell, brick and charcoal inclusions, numerousartifacts were recovered. This debris probablymade its way into the slot fill when it was dugthrough the trash pits.

Several more slot fences which seem to formtwo enclosures were located on the south side ofStructure A. Features 371 and 455 (Slot FenceB) form a 26' square enclosure attached to thesouth side of Structure A, beginning at the south-west corner of the cellar, extending 26', making aright angle, running another 26' westward, thenmaking another right angle and running 26' backto the southwest corner post of the structure.There is a one-foot gap in the southeast corner ofthe enclosure which probably served as an en-trance into the enclosed area. Feature 371, theslot extending southward from the cellar, consistedof brown sandy loam mixed with orange sandyclay subsoil and contained two fragments of leadglazed coarseware. It was about 0.8' wide andonly 0.2' deep. Feature 455, the west and northextensions of the slot, was also about 0.8' wideand 0.3' deep, consisting of dark brown sandyloam, containing coarseware, slipware, twoaiglets, nails, case bottle glass and bone. Bothslots were undoubtedly much deeper when theywere dug, the site having lost about a foot or moreof soil to plowing.

Feature 432, also designated Slot Fence A,was the slot fence extending from the southeastcorner of the cellar of Structure A southward about40' to the edge of excavation. Its actual length isnot known. It is flanked on the east by a line ofpost holes about eight feet apart, which make aright angle at the corner of the cellar and extendanother 45' eastward to the eastern edge of theexcavated area. Feature 432 consisted of brownloam mottled with orange sandy clay re-depos-ited subsoil and contained shell, an aboriginal pro-jectile point and a faunal bone. This 0.8'-wide

slot was about 0.7' deep, but no plank stains wereevident.

Slot Fence C (Feature 112) was located 34feet east of 432, oriented parallel to it. It begansome 20 feet north of the southern edge of exca-vation. Its southern extent is not known, but it isassumed that it makes a right angle, forming anenclosure by intersecting 432 somewhere in theunexcavated portion of the site. Feature 112 con-sisted of dark brown sandy loam fill. The featurewas not excavated.

Slot Fence D (Features 278, 452, 453, and454) extended 34' from the northeast corner ofthe cellar northeastward at about a 45° angle toStructure A, to the edge of excavation. Some 22'along its length, Slot Fence Feature 453 extendedtowards the east, forming a “Y-shaped” trench.From its intersection with 278, it ran about 20' tothe eastern edge of excavation. The actual lengthand configuration of the two trenches is unknown.Feature 278 consisted of orange sandy clay withdark patches of brown sandy loam but containedno artifacts. Feature 453 consisted of dark brownloam, was about 0.4' deep, containing no finds.

Just south of slot fence trenches 278 and 453was an “L-shaped” slot feature (Feature 452/454), which formed a 12' by 24' enclosure withgaps at the northeast and southwest ends. Fea-ture 452 began about 2' east of 278, running 24'east at which point it made a right angle running 8'to the north (454). Both consisted of dark brownsandy loam about 0.8' wide and 0.4' deep, butcontained no artifacts.

The Well

The well for HT55 was located primarily in unit250S 280E in the southwest quadrant of the site,about 18' south of Slot Fence A and 16' west ofFeature 286. It was roughly circular, with a di-ameter of about 7.4'. Water was encountered atabout 8 feet below grade. As is the case withmost wells, it had been recognized as a conve-nient trash receptacle after it lost its usefulness asa water supply or during a clean up project as thesite was vacated. Thousands of artifacts, shells,

69

and pieces of animal bone were recovered fromthe well fill, all dating no later than the third quar-ter of the seventeenth century. Discussions of theartifacts from the well and its faunal material areprovided in Chapters 6C and 7; the following is aphysical description of the ten layers of fill re-corded during excavation (see Figure 30).

The top layer of the well, Layer 107, wascomprised of dark brown sandy loam with or-ange mottling and some yellow sandy washed-inlenses. The layer was rather flat and 0.7' in depth,contained heavily-compacted oyster shell in ad-dition to brick, mortar, and charcoal inclusions.The second layer, Layer 175, varied in depth from0.25' to 1.4', was comprised of orange sandy claywith mottling of dark brown sandy loam. Oystershell, brick, and mortar inclusions were noted.The third layer, Layer 182, was about 0.8' thick,sloped from east to west and was composed ofdark brown ashy loam with a very high concen-tration of brick rubble. Shell, brick, mortar, andcharcoal inclusions were present.

The fourth layer, Layer 191, also sloped fromeast to west, indicating the well was likely filledby debris being thrown in from the east, a logicalassumption since the dwellings were to the eastof the well. This layer was 2.2' thick, and com-prised of light grey sandy loam with brick, mor-tar, shell, and charcoal inclusions. The fifth layer,Layer 241, was about half a foot thick, consistedof greenish sandy soil, and also sloped from eastto west. Inclusions of shell, brick, and charcoalwere recorded. The sixth layer, Layer 242, wasabout 1.7' thick and comprised of a dark sandyloam with a very high concentration of brickrubble, much charcoal and ash as well as someoyster shell. The intact skull of a cow (Photo 10)was found in this layer. It is the oldest known com-plete cow skull recovered from any archaeologi-cal site in this region, and thus is of great scientificinterest.

The seventh layer, Layer 275, was about 1.2'thick and consisted of yellowish orange sandyloam with shell and brick inclusions. The eighthlayer was comprised of about 0.7' of orange washor evidence of slumping of the surrounding sub-

soil. The last cultural layer, Layer 297, was ap-proximately 0.5' thick and consisted of dark greyclay mottled with lumps of compact brown sandyloam. Shell, brick, and charcoal inclusions werenoted. Excavators dug two feet below Layer 297to be sure no further layers existed which wouldcontain any cultural deposits; all that was encoun-tered was two feet of orange coarse sand, graveland water.

Prehistoric Features

Four features of probable prehistoric origin wereidentified at HT55. All contained Mockley wareceramics as found at sites HT36 and HT37, sug-gesting that they date from the Late Woodland IPeriod.

Three of the features are relatively small, shal-low pits, all bowl-shaped in profile. Feature 155(S260 E280) was 2.0' in diameter and 0.85' deep.The orange, brown sandy loam fill contained 4sherds of shell-tempered, cord-marked ceramicand 2 flakes, one each of quartzite and green slate.A slightly larger pit, Feature 203 (S250 E340)was filled with grey-brown sandy loam with flecksof shell. Extending 0.9' in depth and 2.3' in diam-eter, the feature yielded 19 shell-tempered sherds(17 cord-marked, 2 plain) and a small schistcobble possibly used as an anvil stone. Feature

Photo 10. Detail of cow skull in well.

70

Figure 30. Section drawing of well.

71

194 (S160 E370) was 2.2' in diameter and 0.4'deep. Eight shell-tempered cord-marked sherdsand 6 quartz flakes were recovered from the fill.

Feature 407 (S150 E380) was a large ovalpit, very shallow in depth. The feature measured4.5' by 3.5' in plan and extended only 0.35' be-low subsoil level. The bottom was irregular. Fillconsisted of light tan-grey sandy loam containing3 shell-tempered, cord-marked sherds. In lightof the very small number of lithic artifacts recov-ered during the Hampton University excavations,Feature 407 was remarkable in that it also con-tained 254 quartz flakes (most smaller than 20 sqcm in plan), 6 quartzite flakes, the remnant of aquartzite core, and a fragment of the blade tip toa quartz projectile point.

Chemical Analysis

Although chemical analysis was carried out atHT55, few of the sampled features contained sig-nificant amounts of potassium or phosphorus (seeFigure 31). Those containing high levels of cal-cium (Features 77 and 79) both contained oystershell, probably leading to the high readings.

B. The Structures at HT55(Figure 33)

Note: The authors are indebted to Cary Carsonof Colonial Williamsburg’s Department of His-torical Research and Fraser Neiman of YaleUniversity for their insights regarding the se-quence and construction methods of the struc-tures at 44HT55. Both Cary and Fraser are noted

Figure 31. Soil chemistry—44HT55.

—

72

authorities in the realm of post-in-the-groundconstruction techniques and the archaeologythereof. Fraser is presently building a classifi-cation system for these types of structures.Much of the interpretation comes from per-sonal communication and correspondencewith both scholars and from their publicationson Tidewater impermanent architecture and onthe Clifts Plantation Site in WestmorelandCounty, Virginia.

During the course of excavation at HT55 andduring the process of sorting what was found, theseveral earth-fast structures delineated there ac-quired clever names such as Structure A, Struc-ture B, etc. The letter designations, however, havelittle to do with the chronology of the site. Struc-ture A, for example, was so named because itwas, from the beginning, the most obvious, hav-ing a brick-lined cellar and due to the fact its posthole configuration was not obscured by super-position on a previous structure. When first un-covered, the remaining buildings appeared, fromthe ground surface, to be a confusing mess of postholes, some intruding others which, in turn, in-truded still earlier features. It was not until they

were mapped, in fact, that the various buildingsand their sequences could be untangled.

Structure C appears to have been the firstbuilding erected at the site. The paucity of his-toric artifacts in the post hole fill attests to the factthat little was lying around on the surface whichcould have subsequently been backfilled with theposts. It was also the largest structure built atHT55, measuring 20' north-south by 40' east-west. Four pairs of posts framed three larger-than-average bays, two measuring 13' and theother 14'. The other four structures at HT55 havebays of 10', except Structure E which sports two12' bays. Buildings forty feet long generally havefour bays rather than three; to illustrate this point,and the uncommonness of Structure C, below isa partial list of ca. 40' earth-fast buildings discov-ered in Virginia with approximate constructiondates and number of bays:

Another variation on the interpretation of theconfiguration of the post holes of Structure C hasbeen suggested by Cary Carson (C. Carson, per-sonal communication). He suggests that the seem-ingly errant post holes along the northern side of

Figure 32. Detail plan of Structures A-E.

73

the structure (Features 166, 276, and 146) mayhave been used in conjunction with structural postholes 138 and 172 to form two door jams, with166 and 146 used as door posts. The presenceof door posts, of course, would mean the build-ing was without the benefit of a raised floor. Thelong 20' bays may mean, as well, that the buildingwas constructed as two 20' by 20' structures builtas one unit. As Carson points out, however, thelack of a corresponding center post to 226 onthe south side of the building casts doubt on thispossible interpretation. The lack of any evidenceof a fire hearth may mean that one was not presentwhile the building was in use.

There is another possible explanation for thethree “errant” post holes. They may have beenused simply as bracing or shoring on the northside of the structure, the face of the house char-acteristically receiving the brunt of the harshestweather.

As stated, no signs of a fireplace or hearthwere found in the ground, nor could one’s place-ment be conjectured from post positions as wasthe case in the other structures. Neither was thereany evidence of a floor raised on sills. Unfortu-nately, all such remains supporting or denying suchdetails were destroyed by the plow.

Structure C’s relationship with Structures B,D, and E is rather obvious; they could not havebeen standing at the same time. Its relationship

with Structure A, however, is a bit more ambigu-ous. Structures A and C could have coexisted;however, Fraser Neiman has suggested that thiswas unlikely for two reasons. First, the large trashpits adjacent to Structure A were probably dugfor clay used to daub the walls and chimney (?) inStructure C. The trash pits would probably havebeen filled before Structure A was erected be-cause of their very close proximity. Secondly,Structure B almost assuredly existed concurrentlywith Structure A, since they appear to be con-nected by a short slot fence, and, of course, inorder for Structure B to be built, Structure C hadto have been torn down.

Just how long Structure C did remain stand-ing is unknown. However, since there appearedto be no evidence of repair to any of the framingposts, it probably survived less than twenty years,possibly even as few as ten (Carson 1981).

Chronologically, the next building or build-ings to be erected at HT55 was or were Struc-tures A, B, and/or D. The only certainty regard-ing the next construction phase is that Structure Ewas built after Structure D’s demise. Judging fromthe number and kinds of artifacts recovered fromthe framing post holes, Structures A and B wereprobably the next built after C. Only one posthole in each of the buildings, original to their con-struction, contained any artifacts in significant num-bers. These were post hole 292 in Structure B

TABLE 5.EARTHFAST VIRGINIA BUILDINGS

Site Name Site No. Date(s) Size No. Bays

Kingsmill Tenement II 44JC39 ca. 1625 40’x18' 4 baysMartins Hundred Site B 44JC113 ca. 1625-50 44’x22' 4 baysMathews Manor 44NN44 ca. 1650 41’x19' 5 baysFlowerdew Hundred 44PG65 1619-1630 42’x16' 2 baysFlowerdew Hundred 44PG65 1619-1630 41’x24' 4 baysClifts Plantation 44WM33 ca. 1670 41’x18½’ 5 baysJohn Washington 44WM204 1656 40’x21' 4 baysJamestown Island Bldg. #71-77 ———— ——— 40’x18' 5 baysDrummond Site 44JC43 ca. 1648 36’x18' 3 baysLittletown Quarter 44JC39 1625-50 41’x18' 4 bays (Kingsmill)

74

and post hole 77 in Structure A. Nearly all of thepost holes in both buildings, however, containedsome brick or “brick bits.” Daub was recoveredfrom post hole 289 and a roofing tile from posthole 163, both in Structure B. The presence ofseveral roofing tiles and “brick-like” material mayindicate that one of the earlier structures may havehad a tile roof, similar to the 1619-1630 stonefoundation house at Flowerdew Hundred (Barka1976).

In contrast to Structures A and B’s lack ofartifacts, Structure D contained significant quan-tities of seventeenth-century material, indicatingquite a lot of activity had taken place on the siteprior to its being built.

Structure A (Figures 33-35) probably beganas a 16' by 20', two-bay structure (each bay tenfeet wide), perhaps existing concurrently withStructure B, a similar two-bay 20' by 18' dwell-ing. As mentioned earlier, the two buildings wereconnected by a slot fence after their construction.The purpose of the fence may have been to re-strict the passage of animals corralled on the southside of the buildings. Both structures exhibitedextensive repairs to virtually all of the original fram-ing posts, indicating they were in service for anextend period of time.1 Since the site appears tohave been abandoned early in the third quarter ofthe seventeenth century, the structure may havebeen erected as early as 1630-35.

Both structures contained a post hole at onegable end of the structure without a correspond-ing post at the other. This may indicate the pres-ence of fireplaces as noted in Figure 11. Therewas no other evidence of fireplaces or floors.

Sometime during the course of its use, a pas-sage and a brick cellar were added to the eastend of Structure A.2 The cellar was brick-linedand tile-floored, probably 3 to 4 feet in depth attime of construction (Photo 11). The cellar had

two entrances, one from the interior and anotherexterior bulkhead entrance from the north. Noneof the brick work was held together with the ben-efit of mortar; instead, clay was used betweenthe bricks as an adhesive. The bricks were smalland generally poorly fired. The floor tiles wereabout 8" square, similar to those found at theWalter Aston Site in Charles City County (Styrna1984) and at Nansemond Town in NansemondCounty (Luccketti 1988), among others. Surpris-ingly few artifacts were recovered from the exca-vation of the cellar; in fact, although there is noextant record, nor can it be proven, the cellarseemed to have been excavated and re-filledsometime within the last hundred years. Eventhough there were no artifacts to support this “feel-ing,” it was shared by the senior author and com-mented on by visiting archaeologist Ivor NoëlHume.

If this was the case, it is unfortunate, sincevaluable archaeological information was probablylost forever. The remaining evidence, however, isquite revealing. Structure A appears to have hada typical West Country plan, similar to remainsdiscovered at Clifts (44WM33), the Hallows site(44WM6), and Martin’s Hundred Site A (Carson,personal communication). Carson suggests thatthe lower brick room may have been used as awork area, perhaps above a parlor. He also pointsout that the cellar appears to be wider than theremainder of the structure, especially on the northside. Since the bulkhead steps to the cellar are onthat side, a lean-to may have once extended offthe northeast side, protecting the bulkhead andkeeping the cellar dry.

Structure D was a small, 15' by 20' houseconsisting of six framing posts forming two 10'bays, similar to Structures A and B. It, too, hadone errant post hole at one gable end, probablyindicating a fireplace. There was no evidence toconfirm or deny that it was contemporaneous withStructures A and B, but all three probably stoodtogether at some point. There were no repairs toStructure D’s framing posts, and indeed the ex-istence of Structure E indicates that D was re-

1 If oak was used, probably 20-25 years, if locust orcedar, then as much as 40-60 years (Carson 1981).

2 The dwelling at Site A, Martin’s Hundred, was simi-larly altered, but by adding a passage and anotherroom, rather than a cellar.

75

Figure 33. Detail of cellar wall—Structure A.

76

Figure 34. Detail of cellar steps—Structure A.

Figure 35. Detail of cellar floor—Structure A.

77

moved entirely and replaced, rather than beingrepaired.

Structure E was a bit larger that D, measur-ing 20' by 24' and consisting of two 12' bays. Itsfireplace, however, appears to have been placedat the west gable end as indicated by post holes373 and 374. The structure was almost certainlythe last building erected at the site. Its construc-tion may coincide with the major repairs made toStructures A and B.

The Hampton site has provided severalearthfast buildings to the burgeoning archaeologi-cal inventory of such structures, which were com-mon but unique to the Chesapeake throughoutthe seventeenth century. These houses were prob-ably quite typical of the pre-1650 “Virginia house”of the period. The interior walls were not plas-tered, but likely covered with clapboard, as werethe exterior walls and roof. It is unknown whetherany of the dwellings had a raised floor on inter-rupted sills, and any archaeological evidence ofburied wall studs would have long-since beenplowed away. It is possible that an interrupted sillcould have been constructed, providing a woodenfloor, but there is no evidence for one. It is not

unlikely that any of the structures at HT55 wereof block construction (sills resting on woodenposts), as this type of construction was appar-ently not common until the early eighteenth cen-tury (Neiman 1978). The presence of daub inseveral of the features in and around the buildingssuggest that the chimneys and probably some wallswere made of mud-covered wood as well. Anyevidence of brick hearths would likely have beenremoved by later plowing in the area.

Careful archaeological technique and experi-ence can explain how they were built, that is,whether they were transverse raised, post-to-plate, block, puncheon, etc., but history must in-terpret why they were so pervasive in this region.The best explanation of the phenomenon can befound in Carson and others, “Impermanent Ar-chitecture in the Southern American Colonies”(1981) and in Fraser Neiman, “Domestic Archi-tecture at Cliffs Plantation” (1978). “Imperma-nent” is indeed an adequate description of theearthfast structures built during this period. Fire,termites, and rot over the past 350 years havedestroyed all such buildings in Virginia. The onlypost building dating to the seventeenth century

Photo 11. Detail of brick cellar—Structure A.

78

left in Tidewater is Cedar Grove in Ann ArundellCounty, Maryland, built in the latter part of thecentury. This house was preserved only becauseit was encased in a more substantial structureduring the next century (Carson 1981; Neiman1978). Why such structures which we see todayas totally inadequate were constructed pervasivelyfor over a hundred years is an interesting ques-tion answered by both Carson and Neiman.

The first and most logical reason for buildingsuch structures was the feeling of most of the earlycolonists that Virginia was simply a place thatwould provide an opportunity that was unavail-able in England—a chance to get rich quickly andreturn home as soon as possible. With this in mind,the embellishment of one’s living space would becostly and time-consuming (Morgan 1975).

“Costly and time-consuming” brings up an-other very important reason for building a homeconsidered today rude and uncomfortable. Theprice of building a house in the colonies was thirtypercent higher than that of England, and it couldtake a much longer time (Carson 1981:168). Bycutting the cost of building materials, using woodwhich was plentiful and free, and reducing laborcosts by simplifying the construction techniques,one could erect a serviceable shelter which wouldbe expensive but not outrageously so (Neiman1980). Neiman points out, however, that eventhose members of the elite such as Pettus, JohnWashington, and Governor Drummond, whocould afford houses of brick, lived instead inearthfast houses. So the economic reasons areperhaps the ones that started the building prac-tice, but not necessarily the ones that perpetu-ated it. Instead, he suggests that 350 years agothere was a very different view of what was im-portant and what was not.

Although post-in-ground buildings are con-sidered “impermanent” and “rude” by twentieth-century standards, they fulfilled the architecturaland housing needs of Virginians in the seventeenthcentury. None stand today, but then how manyapartments, condominiums, and houses that well-serve the needs of today’s sophisticated Virgin-ians will survive to the year 2330? As Neiman

suggests, ground-to-plate architecture was theanswer to a particular problem at a particulartime—obviously a very successful answer.

C. Faunal Analysis(Gregory J. Brown)

Introduction

Animal bone is among the most important mate-rial on an archaeological site, providing not onlyevidence of diet but also some indication of foodprocurement strategies, marketing and redistri-bution, seasonality and activity scheduling, envi-ronmental conditions, and even trade relations andthe effective use of the surrounding resources. Thestudy of archaeological faunal remains—called“zooarchaeology”—investigates these and othertopics, using data and techniques from archaeol-ogy, anthropology, history, zoology, and animalethology.

Much of the faunal data gathered in theChesapeake is summarized in a major work titled“Colonization and Subsistence Change on the 17thCentury Chesapeake Frontier,” by Henry Millerof the St. Mary’s City Commission. Miller’s workprovides by far the best synthesis of our presentstate of knowledge about the foodways of earlycolonists, and it will be referred to often in thediscussion below. Other important sources includestudies of the food remains from Clifts Plantation(Bowen 1979) and the Maine (Barber 1978), aswell as contemporary natural histories (Beverley1947; Hemor 1957), traveller’s accounts (Durand1934), and studies of seventeenth-century foodand foodways (Spencer 1982).

Despite this work, however, there are still sig-nificant questions in seventeenth-century Chesa-peake zooarchaeology. Many were raised duringa 1987 planning conference on Chesapeakefoodways (Gaynor et al. 1985), which concludedthat a comprehensive and multi-disciplinary re-search program is needed in order to understandboth seventeenth- and eighteenth-century devel-opments in the field. On the archaeological end,this involves continued research on a variety of

79

sites such as those at Hampton University, whichwill provide a fuller and much richer database todraw upon.

The Hampton University historic site(44HT55) contained some 13,884 individual el-ements, 3584 identifiable and 10,300 unidentifi-able. This is a much larger assemblage than mostof those cited in Miller’s 1984 work, and indeedis one of the largest bone assemblages from anyhistoric site in the area. The percentage of identi-fiable elements—26%—is roughly similar to thatseen on other local sites, reflecting relatively goodpreservation conditions and relatively little post-depositional disturbance.

Methods

All animal bone from the Hampton University sitewas bagged by context and washed. The bonewas then sorted into “identifiable” and “unidenti-fiable” components—identifiable bone being de-fined as bone which could be classified at least tothe taxonomic level of Order. Unidentifiable bonewas subdivided into several major taxonomicgroupings: fish, reptile or amphibian, bird, bird orsmall mammal, mammal, small mammal, mediummammal, large mammal, or undetermined. Thebones were also subdivided on the basis of ma-jor element categories—long bones, flat bones,ribs, vertebrae, crania, mandibles, teeth, spines,and scales. Each particular taxon/element group-ing from each particular context was then countedand weighed, receiving a so-called “unique bonenumber” for use in the computerized database.Once entered, the unidentified bone was put aside.

Each identifiable bone was labelled with itscontext number and its own unique bone number,in order to facilitate future tracking. These boneswere identified by reference to comparative skel-etal collections, in most cases using Joanne BowenGaynor’s collection in the Colonial WilliamsburgDepartment of Archaeological Research. Someof the birds, and all of the reptiles and amphib-ians, were identified using the collections of theDepartments of Birds and Herpetology of theSmithsonian Institution’s Museum of Natural His-

tory. In all cases, bones were identified on thebasis of species-specific morphological charac-teristics; when such characteristics were virtuallyidentical in several species, the bone was identi-fied to a higher taxonomic level such as genus orfamily.

Due to the lack of specific morphological in-dicators in some elements (particularly ribs and,to a lesser extent, vertebrae), many of these ele-ments were grouped together at the level of Familyor Order. It should be noted, however, that muchof the “Family Phasianidae” material is probablychicken, and much of the “Order Artiodactyla”material is probably pig. When an element wasjudged to be very likely (but not undoubtedly)associated with a particular taxonomic category,it was labelled “cf.” (literally, “compare”). Theseelements were generally lumped along with thedefinitely-identifiable elements in most of the analy-sis below.

Two categories—Artiodactyla I and Artio-dactyla II—were used to group certain elements.Loosely based on terminology used by Crader(1984), Artiodactyla I is defined as members ofthe Order Artiodactyla (even-toed ungulates)which include pig, deer, sheep, and goat. Becausepig bones can often be separated from those ofthe latter three taxa, Artiodactyla II is defined asmembers of the Order Artiodactyla which includeonly deer, sheep, and goat. These latter threeshare many morphological characteristics, butonce again deer bone can often be distinguishedfrom that of sheep or goat. The latter two, how-ever, are extremely similar skeletally, so much sothat they are most often lumped together as sheep/goats (sometimes called “ovicaprids”) by mod-ern analysts.

The identifiable bones were entered into adatabase created in Ashton-Tate’s dBASE IIIPlus. Recorded information included unique bonenumber, context number, taxon, element, side,portion that was present, epiphyseal fusion state,relative size, tooth type and wear, weight, andpresence or absence of modifications such asburning, weathering, carnivore or rodent chew-ing, and butchering.

80

Collection Methods

All soil from the site was screened through one-quarter inch mesh. Portions of selected contextssuch as the well were also wet-screened throughone-eighth inch mesh. Flotation samples weretaken, but little if any identifiable bone was re-covered.

It has been argued that screening is extremelyimportant in order to provide a representativesample of all faunal remains (Payne 1972). Manyof the sites described by Miller (1984), however,were excavated using the “hand-picking” method;it appears, based on a gross comparison of thepercentages of small fragile bones in the varioussites, that similar recovery was obtained, and thusthese sites can profitably be compared with theHampton University assemblage (and the other“screened” sites in Miller’s sample).

Methods of Analysis and Aggregation

Artifactual and architectural data suggests that thesite was occupied for a reasonably short period,circa 1630 to 1660. Aside from a few moderncontexts, therefore, all faunal material was aggre-gated into a single assemblage. The data will betreated as such in the work below, except forcertain specific instances where the analysis ofseasonal indicators or preservational bias requiresthat particular features be analyzed independently.

Four different methods of quantification havebeen used: number of identified specimens(NISP), minimum number of individuals (MNI),usable meat weight, and biomass based on skel-etal allometry. Each has its staunch adherents, butit is generally recognized that there are faults ineach method. Because they have individualstrengths and weaknesses, they will be briefly dis-cussed here.

The NISP method involves simply countingand comparing the numbers of identified elementsfor each taxon. It is certainly the most basic mea-sure of relative importance, and many analystshave suggested recently that it has been criticizedunfairly (Grayson 1984). It is clear, however, that

there are problems with this approach. It is skewedtoward animals with fragile, easily broken bones;it does not account well for situations where asingle animal is disproportionately represented bymany bones (as is the case with the cattle foundin the Hampton University well); and it obviouslymust be transformed in some way to indicate that,for instance, the bones of a cow represent farmore meat that those of a rabbit.

The MNI method is used to mitigate prob-lems of element interdependence. First proposedfor archaeology by paleontologist Theodore Whitein 1953, it is based on the determination of thesmallest number of animals that could have ac-counted for the faunal remains. In practice this isaccomplished by pairing lefts and rights, andcounting the largest number of unique elements(all paired bones plus unpaired elements). Fol-lowing current practice, in this study size varia-tion and morphological differences will be usedas factors when pairing elements, thus producinga larger and more accurate MNI count.

Although this seems a conservative and safeapproach, the MNI method has been accused ofhaving certain important biases. The counts varysignificantly with changes in sample size and dif-ferences in the way that the units are aggregated.One approach is to use the entire site as a singleassemblage (which is done here), and to deter-mine MNIs for the site as a whole. It is also pos-sible, however, to determine MNIs individuallyfor each feature or group of features, under theassumption that the bones deposited representdifferent animals than those deposited in otherfeatures on the site. The cumulative MNI countusing this latter technique will be generally higher,but lacking good archaeological evidence for thefunction and contemporeity of features it is diffi-cult to determine which count is more accurate.

Nonetheless, MNI counts are the basis ofmost modern zooarchaeology. They are used inthe third major method of quantification, which issimply a transformation technique resulting in acomparison of actual usable meat. The “poundsof usable meat” method involves multiplying theMNI count for each taxon by the average amount

81

of usable meat produced by an individual of thatspecies. These figures have been used for the rela-tive importance comparisons in Miller (1984),along with many others. They are of course alsosubject to the same bias as the MNI counts onwhich they are based, along with a distinct biascaused by our uncertainty about the actual aver-age weights of animals in the past. Modern meatvalues are highly unreliable; the figures used inthis study are based on the estimates producedby Miller (1984).

The final method of quantification is based onskeletal allometry: the principle that any two di-mensions of an animal’s body (for instance, boneweight and total live weight) will vary in a rela-tively predictable fashion. Used most innovativelyby Elizabeth Wing of the Florida State Museumand Elizabeth Reitz of the University of Georgia,this study of “biomass” involves determining thebone weight for a particular taxon and inserting itinto a regression equation based on empiricalstudies at the University of Georgia (for the allo-metric constants, see Table 6). The principalproblems with this approach involve the accu-racy of these modern estimates to the allometricrelationship of past animals, as well as the signifi-cant changes in actual bone weight that can becaused by burning and “post-depositional” de-calcification.

Several other attributes of the assemblagewere studied as well. The relative proportions ofelements were determined for the major taxa, inorder to test preservational indicators as well asto determine possible butchery and disposal meth-ods. A feature containing an abundance of hard,dense bones or teeth and very few softer, lessdense bones, for instance, should be viewed withcaution, since preservational conditions such assoil acidity may have destroyed a significant por-tion of the original “death assemblage.” Such afeature suggests, in fact, that many taxa such asfish and certain birds may no longer be repre-sented at all, and this must be borne in mind forall other related analyses.

Aside from preservational bias, however, el-ement distributions are also useful for indicatingbutchery and disposal practices. It is often thought,for example, that the remnants of meals shouldbe distinguished by a relative abundance of longbones and vertebrae, while butchery waste dumpsshould contain mostly non-meaty elements suchas phalanges and sesamoids, along with cranialparts. In the seventeenth- and eighteenth-centuryChesapeake, however, no such distinction is vis-ible on most sites.

Animal husbandry is another important sub-ject that can be studied. The age structure of theanimal populations buried on the site can be de-termined by evaluating epiphyseal fusion and/or

TABLE 6.ALLOMETRIC VALUES(from Reitz and Cordier 1983)

Taxon N b log a r2

Mammal 97 0.90 1.12 0.94Bird 307 0.91 1.04 0.97Turtle 26 0.67 0.51 0.55Snake 26 1.01 1.17 0.97Chondrichthyes 17 0.86 1.68 0.85Osteichythyes 393 0.81 0.90 0.80Non-Perciformes 119 0.79 0.85 0.88Perciformes 274 0.83 0.93 0.76Sparidae 22 0.92 0.96 0.98Sciaenidae 99 0.74 0.81 0.73

82

tooth eruption and wear. Epiphyseal fusion distri-butions have been used in this study, followingmethods described by Chaplin (1971), and willbe discussed shortly.

Tooth eruption is potentially even more dis-criminating, since the times of eruption have beencarefully studied in livestock management. It hasbeen suggested, however, that eruption stageswere different in the past, and it is the values forhistoric populations given by Silver (1969), Payne(1973), and Bull and Payne (1982) that are nowgenerally used. Tooth wear study is becoming in-creasing popular as well, although the stages areless readily accepted (except Payne’s [1973]study of sheep and goats). Nonetheless, an ac-curate age distribution is only possible with a fairlylarge sample; none of the taxa from the HamptonUniversity site contained enough teeth to makesuch a study profitable.

Finally, osteological measurements can beused to help establish the probable size of theanimals themselves. The study of so-called “di-mensional allometry,” however, is not far ad-vanced, and it is generally difficult to determineeven the average size (much less the range ofvariation) for animals in the historic past. Althoughnot used for specific analysis, therefore, the os-teological measurements of the Hampton Univer-sity material were taken in order to contribute toa database being compiled at the University ofGeorgia, so that this significant avenue of inquirycan be better followed in the future. All measure-ments taken of this assemblage followed the tech-niques described by von den Dreisch (1976). Thedata is on file in the Department of Archaeologi-cal Research of the Colonial Williamsburg Foun-dation.

Taxa Represented in the Assemblage

The Hampton University assemblage containedapproximately 14,000 bone elements represent-ing forty-eight species: one crustacean, ten fish,two amphibians, seven reptiles, fourteen birds,and fourteen mammals (see Table 7). Roughlytwenty-six percent by total number, and seventy-

nine percent by weight, were identifiable to at leastthe level of Order. A brief description of the spe-cies identified will be presented below.

Crustaceans

Twenty-two crab claws were found on the site.The Chesapeake blue crab (Callinectes sapdius)is still widely distributed along the Atlantic coast,living in waters ranging from low- to very highsalinity (Lippson and Lippson 1984:127). It wasalmost certainly taken much as it is today, mostlikely from near-shore waters. Commercial dis-tribution of crabs, however, was virtually non-existent until better facilities for pickling and salt-ing both fish and shellfish were developed.

Oysters (Crassostrea virginica) were alsofound in great abundance on the site. Since theyare the subject of a separate analysis in this vol-ume, however, they will not be discussed here.

Fish

Fish remains from the site included many of themost common species in the Chesapeake Bay:sturgeon (Acipenser spp.), gaff-topsail catfish(Felichthys felis), striped bass (Moronesaxatilis), sheepshead (Archosargusprobatocephalus), black drum (Pogoniascromis), red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus), Atlanticcroaker (Micropogon undulatus), seatrout(Cynoscion spp.), and requiem shark (FamilyCarcharhinidae). The most abundant by far werethe black drum, the gaff-topsail catfish, and theAtlantic croaker.

The black drum is principally an open-waterfish adapted to bottom-feeding on mollusks andcrustaceans (Lippson and Lippson 1984;Hildebrand and Schroeder 1928). It is relativelycommonly found on seventeenth-century ar-chaeological sites, occurring on eight of thetwenty-one sites or phases described by Miller(1984). According to Lippson and Lippson(1984:191), “schools enter the Bay in spring andsummer . . . [where] larger black drums are con-centrated in deeper channel waters, often on clam

83

TABLE 7 (cont’d).TAXA IDENTIFIED IN THE HAMPTON UNIVERSITY ASSEMBLAGE

CRUSTACEANSCallinectes sapidus (Blue Crab)

FISHESAcipenser spp. (Sturgeon)Felichthyes felis (Gaff-Topsail Catfish)Morone saxatilis (Striped Bass)Family Sparidae (Porgies)Archosargus probatocephalus (Sheepshead)Pogonias cromis (Black Drum)Sciaenops ocellatus (Red Drum)Micropogon undulatus (Atlantic Croaker)Cynoscion spp. (Seatrout)Carcharhinus spp. (Bull or Milbert’s Shark)

AMPHIBIANSBufo spp. (Toad)Rana spp. (Frog)

REPTILESSternotherus odoratus (Stinkpot)Kinosternon subrubrum (Eastern Mud Turtle)Pseudemys spp. (Painted Turtle or Cooter)Malaclemys terrapin (Diamondback Terrapin)Order Squamata (Snakes)Family Colubridae (Non-Poisonous Snakes)Elaphe guttata (Corn Snake)Thamnophis sirtalis (Eastern Garter Snake)Crotalus horridus (Canebrake Rattlesnake)

BIRDSArdea herodias (Great Blue Heron)Gavia immer (Common Loon)Phalacrocorax spp. (Cormorant)Phalacrocorax auritus (Double-Crested Cormorant)Cygnus columbianus (Whistling Swan)Anser spp. (Goose)Anser anser (Domestic Goose)Branta canadensis (Canada Goose)Anas platyrhynchos (Domestic Duck/Mallard)Aythya spp. (Bay Duck)Gallinago gallinago (Common Snipe)Family Phasianidae (Quail, Pheasants, and Partridges)Meleagris gallopavo (Turkey)Gallus gallus (Chicken)Colinus virginianus (Bobwhite)Bonasa umbellus (Ruffed Grouse)Ectopistes migratorius (Passenger Pigeon)Turdus migratorius (Robin)

MAMMALSDidelphis virginiana (Opossum)Sylvilagus floridanus (Eastern Cottontail)Order Rodentia (Rodents)

84

or oyster beds or around wrecks or rock piles.”Most likely they were caught in these habitats, inthe relatively near-shore channels at the mouth ofthe Bay.

The much smaller Atlantic croaker, a cousinof the black drum, would have been found in shal-lower waters. According to Lippson and Lippson(1984:111), “small croakers called pin heads,about eight inches long, congregate close to shorein the lower half of the Bay.” They could be caughteither using a line or in a gill net, and were onceextremely plentiful.

The gaff-topsail (or sea) catfish lives prima-rily in tropical and temperate waters, around rivermouths, bays, and harbors (Robins et al. 1986;Hildebrand and Schroeder 1928). It is a scav-enging bottom-feeder which can be taken usingeither lines or nets (Reitz and Scarry 1986). Thewhite catfish or channel catfish (Ictalurus spp.)was identified in seven of Miller’s twenty-one sitesor phases. Based on the configuration of the fron-tal bones of the cranium, however, the HamptonUniversity specimens were more likely sea cat-fish, which were not identified in any of the sev-enteenth-century sites which Miller describes.

Less common fish remains from the site in-clude sturgeon, sheepshead, striped bass, reddrum, and seatrout. The Atlantic sturgeon(Acipenser brevirostris), in particular, was animportant food fish for the early colonists; around1607 John Smith stated that “only of sturgeon wehad great store, whereon our men would so greed-ily surfeit, as it cost many their lives” (Wharton1957:6). All of these fish, however, were eatenreadily, and are listed among the natural wondersdescribed by Robert Beverley in his 1705 workThe History and Present State of Virginia(Beverley 1947).

A single shark vertebra was found in one ofthe features associated with Structure C. It ap-pears to represent either a bull shark(Carcharhinus leucas) or a Milbert’s (or blue)shark (Carcharhinus milberti). While the largerbull shark does frequent the mouths of bays andharbors, it is not recorded by Hildebrand andSchroeder (1928); however, they state (1928:48)that the Milbert’s shark is more common in theBay than any other shark except the spiny dog-fish.

TABLE 7.TAXA IDENTIFIED IN THE HAMPTON UNIVERSITY ASSEMBLAGE

MAMMALS (cont’d)Sciurus carolinensis (Grey Squirrel)Sciurus niger (Fox Squirrel)Castor canadensis (Beaver)Sigmodon hispidus (Hispid Cotton Rat)Canis spp. (Dog or Wolf)Procyon lotor (Raccoon)Felis domesticus (Cat)Equus spp. (Horse or Ass)Order Artiodactyla I (Sheep, Goat, Deer, or Pig)Order Artiodactyla II (Sheep, Goat, or Deer)Sus scrofa (Domestic Pig)Odocoileus virginianus (White-Tailed Deer)Bos taurus/Equus spp. (Domestic Cow/Horse or Ass)Bos taurus (Domestic Cow)Capra hircus (Domestic Goat)Ovis aries/Capra hircus (Domestic Sheep or Goat)

85

Amphibians

Amphibian remains from the site came mostly fromthe well, and most likely were accidental deathsrather than the remains of meals. Almost all werefrogs (Rana spp.); some 647 elements, compris-ing at least twelve individuals, were recovered.

Reptiles

Reptilian remains included both snakes and turtles.Identifiable snakes included the corn snake(Elaphe guttata), the Eastern garter snake(Thamnophis sirtalis), and the canebrake rattle-snake (Crotalus horridus). Like the amphibians,these animals most likely died accidentally on thesite and were not used for food.

The most common turtle was the diamond-back terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin), which wasrepresented by twenty-six elements from at leasttwo individuals. A virtually-complete terrapin plas-tron (Photo 12) was found in the well, along witha variety of long bone elements. Small quantitiesof other turtles were also discovered, includingthe stinkpot (Sternotherus odoratus), the East-ern mud turtle (Kinosternon subrubrum), and apainted turtle or cooter (Pseudemys spp.).

Birds

The birds recovered on the site included both wildand domestic taxa. Most common were theAnseriformes—ducks and geese—and the Gal-liformes—such as chickens and turkeys. A smallnumber of wild shore birds, however, were alsofound, along with a few terrestrial game birds.

The Anseriformes included domestic goose(Anser anser), Canada goose (Brantacanadensis), whistling swan (Cygnuscolumbianus), domestic duck or mallard (Anasplatyrhynchos), bay duck (Aythya spp.), and anumber of unspecified ducks and geese that mayhave been either wild or domesticated.

The wild waterfowl were predominantly mi-gratory, arriving in the spring or fall. Their pres-ence thus has direct implications for seasonality

and scheduling activities. Both the whistling swanand Canada goose, however, spend most of thewinter on the Bay (Miller 1984), and thereforewere most likely taken in these months. A varietyof other wild ducks and geese have been foundon other local archaeological sites, and it is likelythat a great many were available—particularlyduring the spring and fall—on nearby ponds,marshes, and shorelines.

Other birds inhabiting the shoreline were alsotaken, including common loon (Gavia immer),snipe (Gallinago gallinago), great blue heron(Ardea herodias), and double-crested cormo-rant (Phalacrocorax auritus).

The Galliformes were overwhelming chicken(Gallus gallus), but also included a few others:turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), bobwhite(Colinus virginianus), and ruffed grouse(Bonasa umbellus). It is likely that all except thechicken were wild species inhabiting nearbywoodlands.

Other terrestrial birds included the passengerpigeon (Ectopistes migratorius). Once excep-tionally common, in the early 1610s WilliamStrachey (1849:126) noted that:

Photo 12. Turtle plastron.

86

A kind of wood-pigeon we see in the win-ter time, and of them such numbers, as I shoulddrawe . . . the creditt of my relation concern-ing all the other in question, yf I shouldexpresse what extended flocks, and how maniethousands in one flock, I have seen in onedaie, wondering (I must confesse) at theirflight, when, like so many thickned clowdes,they (having fed to the northward in the daytyme) retourne againe more sowardly towardsnight to their roust . . .

It has been estimated that there were roughlythree million pigeons in America around 1600; bythe late 1800s, however, they had become ex-tinct (Schorger 1973). Two passenger pigeonbones—a coracoid and a carpometacarpus—were found at the site.

The single passerine bird—a robin (Turdusmigratorius)—was almost certainly an acciden-tal death rather than a food source.

Wild Mammals

Wild mammals recovered from the site includedopossum (Didelphis virginiana), Eastern cotton-tail (Sylvilagus floridanus), grey squirrel(Sciurus carolinensis), fox squirrel (Sciurusniger), beaver (Castor canadensis), raccoon(Procyon lotor), cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus),and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus).

Most important in terms of diet, by far, wasthe white-tailed deer, which formed a very sig-nificant source of meat for the site’s inhabitants.Deer were common in seventeenth-century Vir-ginia, before much of their woodland and brushyscrub habitats were eradicated, and were a sourceof great wonder to the early colonists.Overhunting, however, apparently caused manylocal population depletions, and the fluctuationsin the availability of these resources probably werea major factor in the colonists’ eventual prefer-ence for more stable and easily-controlled do-mestic livestock. Although deer hunting was stillvery popular by the mid-seventeenth century, rela-tively few deer bones are present in most eigh-teenth-century archaeological assemblages.

Deer did offer some significant advantages,however. Not only was the meat utilized, but otherproducts of the animal were exploited as well.Two saw-cut pieces of antler (Photo 13), for ex-ample, suggest that the antler tips were being cutfor use as tools—possibly as leather-workingawls.

The opossum, cottontail rabbit, squirrel, andraccoon inhabited the nearby woodlands andbrushy scrub environments, where they existed insome numbers. Beavers and raccoons could betaken around marshes, ponds, and swamps.

Domestic Mammals

The major domestic mammals—cow, pig, andsheep or goat—were by far the most importantcontributors to the meat diet of the occupants,supplying some 75 percent of the meat as mea-sured using the biomass method (see below). Cow,in particular, was extremely important, supplyingboth the greatest number of elements and thegreatest amount of meat in the assemblage.

The domestic cow (Bos taurus) was broughtover from the Old World almost immediately af-ter settlement began. Cattle prospered in the newenvironment, although it has been suggested thatthey were not exceptionally well-cared-for. Theywere mostly allowed to roam free, and by 1633the predations of carnivores (and local NativeAmericans) upon cattle herds was one reason forthe erection of a six-mile-long palisade across theJames-York peninsula.

Of course, the typical seventeenth-centurycow was much smaller than the modern breeds,apparently providing only some 400 pounds ofusable meat per adult animal (Miller 1984). Thereis considerable interest in determining the physi-cal characteristics of these early cows, and thus itwas remarkable that the well fill contained, at adepth of about six feet, a virtually-complete adultcow skull (Photo 14). The skull, which most re-sembles a modern Devon in morphology, pro-vides a clear and important picture of the generalappearance of these animals in the early colonialperiod.

87

The domestic pig (Sus scrofa) was the sec-ond most important source of meat for the colo-nists throughout the seventeenth and eighteenthcenturies. Pigs were allowed to roam free in thewoods, subsisting on what food they could scav-enge, and thus required little care. Miller (1984),in fact, has suggested that it was this foraging abil-ity, along with a prolific reproductive rate and fastgrowth rate, which made them an ideal source offood on the Chesapeake frontier. Probate inven-tories indicate that, before 1660, almost every-one had one or more pigs; in contrast, in the ear-lier periods only one-third of inventoried house-holds owned cattle (Miller 1984:297).

Sheep (Ovis aries) or goat (Capra hircus)was not nearly as important as cow or pig. Sheep,being particularly vulnerable to natural predators,were hard to raise successfully in the Tidewater,and they were found in consistently low numbersin the twenty-one sites or phases described byMiller. Photo 14. Reconstructed cow skull.

Photo 13. Cut deer antlers.

88

Other domestic mammals recovered in rela-tively low numbers include horse (Equuscabellus) and domestic cat (Felis domesticus).Three bones—a mandible, humerus, and tooth—may represent the remains of either domestic dog(Canis familiaris) or wolf (Canis lupus).

Dietary Contribution

Relative dietary contributions were assessed intwo ways—using pounds of usable meat and bio-mass values (see Table 8). Both methods sug-gested that cattle were far and away the mostsignificant food resource, accounting for 57.6percent of the pounds of usable meat and 62.0percent of the biomass. Pig was second in im-portance, representing 26.4 percent of the poundsof usable meat and 13.8 percent of the biomass.Next in significance were wild mammals—prin-cipally white-tailed deer—which accounted for

7.7 percent of the pounds of usable meat and 3.6percent of the biomass. Fish were also a majorfood source, with 4.4 percent of the pounds ofusable meat and 2.1 percent of the biomass.

Despite the presence of a variety of wild gameand fish, it is clear that the occupants relied quiteheavily on domestic livestock. The major domes-ticates—cow, pig, sheep, goat, and chicken—accounted for 87.2 percent of the pounds of us-able meat and 76.1 percent of the biomass, asopposed to 8.4 percent and 3.6 percent, respec-tively, for wild mammals and birds.

This reliance on domestic livestock, particu-larly cattle, is mirrored at the other sites describedby Miller, where, except for the Maine Site, cowaccounted for anywhere between 42.19 and72.16 percent of the total amount of usable meat.Likewise, pig was consistently the second mostimportant food source, ranging between 11.22and 36.64 percent. At the Maine Site (the earli-

TABLE 8.RELATIVE DIETARY IMPORTANCE

NISP MNI Usable Meat BiomassNo. % No. % Lbs % Kg %

Dom. Mammals 2015 31.0 41 31.1 6240.0 86.7 275.10 75.2 Pig 650 10.0 21 15.9 1900.0 26.4 50.51 13.8 Cow 1250 19.2 13 9.8 4150.0 57.6 226.69 62.0 Sheep/Goat 95 1.5 6 4.5 190.0 2.6 14.86 4.1Dom. Birds 260 4.0 16 12.1 38.0 0.5 3.20 0.9 Chicken 245 3.8 13 9.8 20.0 0.3 2.83 0.8Commensals 679 10.4 20 15.2 0.0 0.0 0.87 0.2Wild Mammals 123 1.9 12 9.1 552.8 7.7 13.32 3.6Wild Birds 48 0.7 14 10.6 50.0 0.7 0.61 0.2Turtles 32 0.5 5 3.8 5.0 0.1 0.62 0.2Fishes 1444 22.2 20 15.2 314.5 4.4 7.66 2.1Crustaceans 22 0.3 4 3.0 0.8 <0.1 <0.01 <0.1Indet Mammals 1617 24.8 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 63.21 17.3Indet Birds 268 4.1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.31 0.4

Dom. Taxa 2954 45.4 77 58.3 6282.0 87.2 279.17 76.3Wild Taxa 1669 25.6 55 41.7 919.1 12.8 22.21 6.1

TOTAL 6508 132 7201.1 365.90

Note: Includes cf. specimens; 7376 unidentified vertebrate not included. See Appendix 2 for individual taxa.

89

est of all those described) the order was reversed,with pig accounting for 38.93 percent and cowfor 25.95 percent of the total usable meat (Miller1984:395-417).

These similarities can be seen most easily in achart produced by Miller (Table 9), which breaksdown the mean percentages of usable meat bythree temporal periods: 1620 to 1660, 1660 to1700, and 1700 to 1740. In the earliest periodcow accounted for some 44.26 percent of thetotal usable meat, followed by pig at 24.65 per-cent, deer at 16.83 percent, and fish at 10.66percent. As one can see from a comparison withTable 8, cow was slightly more important at theHampton University site, with deer and fish cor-respondingly less important.

Mean percentages for the period 1660 to1700, however, are much more skewed in favorof domestic mammals, and the Hampton Univer-sity data thus clearly suggests a temporal place-ment in the latter part of the period 1620 to 1660.

Livestock Management andHusbandry Patterns

Given the extraordinary contribution of domesticmammals in the diet of the colonists, even duringthis early period, it is important to understand some

of the details of animal husbandry. Most of thesepatterns, of course, were imported with the colo-nists; Trow-Smith (1957) and Miller (1984) giveuseful summaries of livestock management in En-gland during the sixteenth and early seventeenthcenturies. Many patterns, however, had to changeto accommodate differences in climate, predatorpressure, reproductive rate, and animal use be-tween the Old World and the New.

Livestock husbandry can be investigatedarchaeologically using so-called “kill-off patterns”derived from the bones themselves. As an animalmatures, the bone grows outward from variouscenters of ossification (in long bones, the diaphy-sis or shaft and two or more epiphyses—at leastone on either end). When growth stops, the car-tilaginous plates separating the diaphysis and epi-physis themselves ossify, and the epiphysis is saidto have “fused.” As this stage of skeletal maturityvaries among different elements for any individualspecies, it is possible to separate fused and unfusedbones systematically and to construct whatamounts to an age distribution for that species(see Figure 36).

These age distributions provide importantclues about the ways in which the animals wereused. For example, the pig distribution from theHampton University site indicates that some 70%of the animals were apparently killed in their first

TABLE 9.ESTIMATED MEAT FREQUENCIES BY PERIOD

(after Miller 1984:294)

Mean Percentage1620-1660 1660-1700 1700-1740

Cow 44.26 65.39 65.62Pig 24.65 21.94 25.46Sheep/Goat 0.74 1.95 3.50Domestic Fowl 0.18 0.30 0.35Deer 16.83 5.38 6.17Small Mammal 1.38 0.31 0.26Waterfowl 0.65 0.19 0.16Terrestrial Fowl 0.29 0.28 0.23Turtle 0.25 0.32 0.23Fish 10.66 3.92 0.90

90

year, with a lesser number killed before 30 monthsand a few low percentage killed after this time.Pigs obtain their adult weight fairly early, by theage of about twelve months. It appears that mostwere slaughtered soon after, possibly so that theydid not require further care. Given their freedomto roam in the woods, however, another causemay have something to do with the relative easewith which younger animals could be caught, incontrast to older, presumably wiser, animals.

The distribution for cow suggests that the greatmajority were slaughtered after two years of age,with roughly equal percentages killed between twoand three years and between three and four years,

and a slightly higher percentage killed after fouryears of age. This would be expected in a so-called “subsistence-based” agricultural economy,where cattle were raised for a variety of purposes.Although a small percentage were slaughtered asveal calves, most were raised to maturity and onlyslaughtered when they had obtained their opti-mum weight at about two years of age. As shownby the high percentage of older cattle, however,many were retained as breeders, milk producers,or draft animals.

The distribution for sheep or goat shows thatall animals were apparently killed after the age offorty-two months. This suggests that sheep were

Figure 36. Kill-off patterns—pig, cow, and sheep/goat.

91

being raised for their wool, and only killed andeaten after the quality of wool began to decline atsix or seven years of age. Relatively few animalswere kept, judging by the total number of ele-ments—probably due to the difficulty of protect-ing them from disease and natural predators.

Site Catchment and the Use of theEnvironment

In a 1979 review article, Donna Roper defined asite catchment as “that area for which a site (ormore properly, the inhabitants of a site) derivedits resources” (1979:120). First used in archae-ology by Claudio Vita-Finzi and Eric Higgs(1970), it is a useful conceptual tool for explain-ing resource use and exploitation. Given the lackof a comprehensive environmental and ecologi-cal reconstruction for the Hampton University site,however, it will be treated here on a fairly grosslevel.

Generally speaking, the faunal remains fromthe site suggest that the occupants were exploit-ing a variety of local habitats, including wood-land, brushy scrub, marshlands, inland swamps,shoreline tidal flats and channels, and even per-haps open Bay waters. Tables 10-13, takenlargely from Miller (1984:123-136), shows thenormal habitat preferences of the species identi-fied on the site.

It is likely, in fact, that the abundance of smalllocal “micro-environments” in the region was amajor reason for its settlement in the first place. Ithas long been recognized that archaeological sites,both prehistoric and historic, tend to cluster atthe junction of environmental zones, where thereis access not only to the main resources of thosezones, but also to the abundance of wildlife thatinhabits the transitions. Bay and stream shore-lines are among the most prolific of all transitionenvironments—a fact recognized not only by theearliest Virginia settlers, but also by settlers dur-ing later periods.

In these highly-diverse “ecotones,” the his-toric-period settlements were often built atop ornear the remains of earlier prehistoric occupa-

tions. This is of course the case at the HamptonUniversity site, where the historic occupation waslocated only some 1000 feet south of a cluster ofMiddle Woodland-period prehistoric sites, andin fact, it is likely that HT55 itself has probablyobliterated most traces of an earlier prehistoricsite in the same location.

The Hampton University assemblage doessuggest that the enormous species diversity in thearea of the site was being exploited. At least forty-two wild taxa were used in some way. Nonethe-less, analysis of the data leads inescapably to theconclusion that it was domestic livestock, and notthe natural products of the local environment, thatwas the subsistence base of the occupants. De-spite the faunal diversity of the area, the settlersrelied heavily on cattle, and to a lesser extent pigs,and almost undoubtedly shaped their own envi-ronment accordingly—clearing fields for grazing,protecting them from predators, and foregoing acertain amount of hunting and fishing.

The heavy reliance on domestic livestock—atrend which would become more and more per-vasive in the eighteenth century—may have sev-eral causes. Miller (1984) suggested three: thatlivestock was a form of economic security in alargely exchange-based economy; that they pro-vided a means of passing on an inheritance toone’s children; and that they provided the settlerswith a subsistence system which was very muchlike the one that they or their parents grew upwith in England. In the end it is this last reasonwhich may be most important of all; by raisinglivestock in a traditional British manner, the occu-pants of the site were able to subsist without rely-ing solely on a rich, but still probably unfamiliar,local environment—one which in addition wassubject to periodic seasonal fluctuations in bothquantity and diversity.

Nonetheless, the rearing of domestic livestockdid not totally obviate the effect of the environ-ment on the site’s occupants. It appears that therewere plagues throughout the seventeenth century,among them a major cattle plague in 1672-73that “killed many thousands of animals in Virginiaand Maryland” (Miller 1984:297). At such times

92

TABLE 10.HABITAT PREFERENCES OF IDENTIFIED FISH

(after Miller 1984:135-136)

Tidal Low Oligo- High Meso- Meso- Poly-Fresh Haline Haline Haline Haline

Blue Crab X X X X XSturgeon — X X X XSea Catfish X - —Striped Bass — X X X XSheepshead X X XBlack Drum — X XRed Drum X XAtlantic Croaker — X X XSeatrout — X XMilbert’s Shark — — X —

Note: X = primary habitat— = secondary habitat

TABLE 11.HABITAT PREFERENCES OF IDENTIFIED REPTILES/AMPHIBIANS

Fresh Brackish InlandMarshes Marshes Swamps Forest

Toad X X XFrog X X X XStinkpot X XMud Turtle X X XPainted Turtle X X XCooter X X XDiamondback Terrapin X X XCorn Snake XGarter Snake X X X XCanebrake Rattlesnake X X

Note: X = primary habitat— = secondary habitat

93

TABLE 12.HABITAT PREFERENCES OF IDENTIFIED BIRDS

(after Miller 1984:125)

Open Fresh Brackish InlandBays Marshes Marshes Swamps Forest

Common Loon X XGreat Blue Heron X X XDouble-Crested X CormorantWhistling Swan XDomestic Goose X XCanada Goose X X —Mallard X X —Bay Duck X —Snipe X XTurkey XBobwhite XRuffed Grouse XPassenger Pigeon XRobin X X

Note: X = primary habitat— = secondary habitat

TABLE 13.HABITAT PREFERENCES OF IDENTIFIED MAMMALS

(after Miller 1984:123)

Transitional Inland CoastalForest Zone Swamps Marshes

Opossum X X XEastern Cottontail X — —Grey Squirrel X —Fox Squirrel X XBeaver — X XCotton Rat X XGrey Wolf XRaccoon X X X XWhite-Tailed Deer — X — —

Note: X = primary habitat— = secondary habitat

94

wild resources would play a much more promi-nent role. Likewise, since many stock animalswere allowed to roam free in the woods andswamps nearby, they were reliant on the botani-cal resources of these areas for their food. Theslash-and-burn method of land clearing, not onlyfor pasture land but more importantly for tobaccofields, not only altered the natural balances of thesefaunal and floral communities, but actually cre-ated a whole new set of habitats with a new set ofwildlife. It would be interesting to measure throughtime the changes in site catchment size, local re-source diversity, and environmental equilibriumsas the area around Hampton University wassettled and developed; such a study, however,will require a much larger and more diversifieddatabase than we presently have gathered.

Seasonality and Scheduling

Nonetheless, the presence of migratory water-fowl and other transients in the assemblage sug-gests that some clues can be discovered regard-ing seasonality and scheduling. Seasonality refersto the periodic fluctuations in the variety and na-ture of the resources themselves, as conditionedby migrations, reproduction, and variation in theanimal’s yearly cycle. Scheduling, on the otherhand, is defined by Kent Flannery (1968:227) as“a cultural activity which resolved conflicts be-tween procurement systems”—in other words, amechanism by which humans were able to effec-tively make selective use of seasonally-varyingresources in a relatively efficient manner.

A brief look at the assemblage indicatesclearly that, like most in the Chesapeake, the sitewas occupied year-round. It is likely, of course,that wild resources such as migratory waterfowlwere exploited most heavily at particular times ofthe year, and that at these times other resourceswere exploited a little less heavily (a schedulingdecision). This is even true in a subsistenceeconomy based on domestic livestock; since meatpreservation was difficult, most animals wereprobably slaughtered in the late fall or early win-ter when the colder temperatures would serve tokeep the meat somewhat fresher.

It appears that this slaughtered livestock wasthe majority of the diet throughout the winter andearly spring, and that there was a shift toward agreater reliance on wild mammals, turtles, and fishin the summer and early fall. Migratory waterfowlwere probably taken at their periods of greatestabundance, in the spring and fall (Miller 1984:272-273).

This seasonal round can be used to investi-gate larger questions as well. Miller (1984) wasable to define the depositional period of a varietyof features using the faunal remains which theycontained. Such analyses of course presume thatthe feature was filled relatively quickly, and thatthe fill was not redeposited soil from elsewhere inthe yard (which could have been originally de-posited during another season). Thus a seasonaldetermination is possible only for features suchas the trash pits, and not the well, which wasprobably filled using nearby sheet refuse and trashdeposits that had built up over a period of years.

Several of the trash pits from the HamptonUniversity site were analyzed in this way. TrashPit A, for example, contained the remains of sev-eral fish (striped bass, sheepshead, black drum,Atlantic croaker, and seatrout), as well as turtlesincluding stinkpot and diamondback terrapin. Asingle bone from a mallard or domestic duck (Anasplatyrhynchos) represents the only possible ex-ample of migratory waterfowl. In composition thisassemblage appears to most resemble Feature28A from Bennett Farm Phase I, which Miller(1984:439) suggests was deposited in the sum-mer.

Trash Pit B, on the other hand, contained aneven wider variety of fish (sturgeon, catfish, stripedbass, sheepshead, black drum, Atlantic croaker,and seatrout), along with stinkpot, Eastern mudturtle, and several snakes. Migratory waterfowlinclude Canada goose and mallard or domesticduck. Pig bones were relatively common (51 outof 502 identified to Class), but only six cow boneswere recovered. This relative scarcity of domes-tic livestock, and presence of migratory water-fowl, turtles, and fish, suggests a spring to sum-mer deposition.

95

Other trash pits suggest a fall to winter depo-sition. Trash Pits C, E, G, and H, for example,include almost all domestic livestock. Althoughrelatively few bones were recovered in some ofthese features, it appears that they were depos-ited during a period when few waterfowl or fishwere being taken.

Finally, Trash Pit D suggests deposition overa relatively protracted period. A variety of fishwere found, along with two types of turtles—sug-gesting deposition in the spring or summer. How-ever, domestic livestock, particularly cow and pig,were fairly abundant as well, suggesting somedeposition in the winter.

Conclusions

The faunal remains of the Hampton University sitereveal important information about diet, environ-mental utilization, and animal husbandry in theperiod 1620-1660. They do not, however, pro-vide the complete picture regarding food andfoodways; additional data from oyster shell analy-sis, paleobotanical research, and documentarystudies must be factored in as well.

The information gathered at the HamptonUniversity site suggests that, as on most contem-porary archaeological sites, domestic livestockwas by far the most significant food source, ac-counting for the vast majority of the meat con-sumed. Significant contributions, however, weremade by wild local resources, including deer, smallmammals, wild terrestrial game birds, migratorywaterfowl, turtles, and a variety of near-shorefishes. The occupants apparently utilized most ofthe wide range of ecological communities in thearea, taking advantage of the diversity of re-sources that had naturally been presented to them.

D. Oyster Shell Analysis(Susan Alexandrowicz)

Oysters have been and still are a very importantfood in Tidewater Virginia. Historically, they werenot only plentiful and easy to procure, but also

tasty and nutritious. No special tools or skills wererequired to gather them, and they were availableyear around if necessary, although more abun-dant in some seasons of the year than in others.

In recent years archaeologists have begun toexamine oyster shells from historic sites in orderto attempt to learn not only during which seasonsof the year oysters were gathered, but also whichenvironments were harvested and how the oys-ters were then processed. For example, they havetried to determine whether they were roasted, howthey were shucked, and where the beds were lo-cated.

A sample of 5678 oyster shells from elevencontexts from HT55 were collected and processed(see Tables 14-17). Of these, only the shells mea-suring greater than three inches (a total of 2874shells) were analyzed. Shells smaller than this sizeexhibit few of the criteria which were used to ana-lyze the oysters, so they were simply counted andeliminated from further analysis. Unfortunately,however, the strategy for collecting oyster shellsevolved during the fieldwork, so the quantities andtypes of shell from any particular context may notbe identical to collections made from another con-text.

Eight of the contexts from which oysters weresampled came from pit features, and the otherthree contexts were from the well (Feature 107).Briefly, Context 3, Feature 4 (Trash Pit B) wasa pit of dark brown loam and shell; Context 18,Feature 19 was a large trash pit of brown sandyloam and ash located just off the northwest cor-ner of the cellar; Context 26, Feature 25 (TrashPit C) was a very thick layer of shell mixed withbrown sandy loam in a refuse pit on the west endof the site property; Context 39, Feature 38was dark gray loam and shell in the top layer ofTrash Pit G; Context 42, Feature 26 consistedof charcoal and purple ash with many washed-inlenses and shell; Context 50, Feature 49 (TrashPit D) was a dark brown sandy loam pit filledwith many artifacts; Context 67, Feature 58,the second layer in Trash Pit H, was dark brownsandy loam and shell; Context 69, Feature 60,the second layer in Trash Pit G, was dark brown

96

Figure 37. Oyster shell anatomy.

sandy loam with ash and shell; and finally Con-text 182, Feature 191, Context 216, Feature242, and Context 237, Feature 275 were allwell layers.

Analysis

A number of attributes were examined and re-corded for the samples. First, it was noted whethera shell was an upper (right) or a lower (left) valve.Uppers are distinguishable by a ridge in the cen-ter of the hinge which fits into a correspondinggroove in the lower hinge. Uppers are also typi-cally flatter than the more cup-shaped lowers andthey also usually have a smoother, whiter surfacewhich has been less pockmarked by other ma-rine organisms.

Only valves which had a complete hinge wereexamined. First it was noted whether the valveitself was complete. If a valve was complete itsheight-length ratio (HLR) was generally calculatedto determine the environment in which the oystergrew, since an oyster’s shape is influenced by itsenvironment. Oysters have been categorized intofour types determined by their HLR and otherphysical characteristics (Kent n.d.:30).

As described by Brett Kent, an oyster whichgrows on a firm sandy substrate will develop amore or less round profile with a HLR of lessthan 1.3, the height being measured from the hingedown and the length being measured perpendicu-lar to the height at the widest point across (Figure37). This type of shell is referred to as a “sandoyster.” Sand oysters usually grow individually,unattached to other oysters. “Channel oysters”have a HLR of greater than 2.0, which meansthat they are very long and narrow. They are longbecause they grow in deep water on a muddybottom and so they have to reach up through themud to get clear water. Another type of oysterwhich has a HLR of greater than 2.0 is a “reefoyster.” It is easy to distinguish from a channeloyster because it grows in clusters instead of in-dividually and it is proportionally much smallerthan the large channel oysters. The last type ofoysters is the type which was most commonly

found at HT55. This is the “bed oyster,” whichhas a HLR of between 1.3 and 2.0; it grows on amixture of sand and mud and it may or may notbe clustered to other oysters.

Other attributes were examined as well. Clus-tering was noted by the presence or absence ofother oyster valves or attachment scars on thelower valves for over half their length (Kentn.d.:33). Ribbing and coloring was also exam-ined. These two characteristics develop on valvesas a result of how much sunlight an oyster re-ceives. Therefore, sand oysters, which typicallydevelop in intertidal areas, are much more likelyto exhibit deep purple coloring on their exteriorsurface and strong radial ribs which originate atthe shell’s hinge than are channel oysters, whichare found in deeper water (Kent n.d.:30). Thisribbing and coloring also is more apparent onlower valves than on the uppers, which are typi-cally smoother.

Oysters can tolerate a wide range of salinityso, just as there are four general types of envi-ronment in which an oyster grows, oysters havealso been categorized into four regimes based onthe relative salinity of the water in which they grew.Basically, according to Kent, these are indicatedby the presence or absence of boreholes pro-duced by small (Cliona trutti-type) sponges andlarge (Cliona celata) sponges, both of which at-tack the oyster valves. If there are no boreholesin the shell produced by these sponges the waterin which the oyster lived was not very saline. Thisis because, in low-salinity environments, thesponges could not live; even the oysters would

97

find this a particularly stressful environment (Domsand Custer 1983:8), since the variety of plant andanimal life in areas of low salinity is less than inadjacent areas of higher salinity (Galtsoff,1964:398). These low-salinity zones are definedas Salinity Regime I, where the water would havea salinity of less than 10 parts per thousand (ppt)for about half the year, and seldom becomesgreater than 20 ppt. If the oyster valves exhibitboreholes from only the smaller sponges, theyprobably came from Salinity Regime II, wherethe salinity would be less than 10 ppt approxi-mately one-quarter of the year, less than 15 ppthalf of the year, and greater than 20 ppt at sometimes. Oysters from Salinity Regime III will showboreholes mostly from the small sponges, but willalso have some large boreholes. They would havebeen found in water which had salinity less than15 ppt occasionally and greater than 20 ppt forone-quarter to one-half of the year. Finally, oys-ters which grew in very saline water, where thesalinity seldom fell below 15 ppt and usually wasabove 20 ppt, are defined as coming from Salin-ity Regime IV (Kent n.d.:41).

The presence or absence of other boreholescaused by polydora worms and boring clams wasalso recorded. Polydora worms, which live insubtidal mud, enter the oyster at the margin be-tween the two valves and leave distinctive doubleholes around the edge of the oyster. Boring clams,which are found in water with low salinity, leave ahole which is relatively small at its mouth but whichopens up to a large cavity within the shell. How-ever, unless there is some erosion of the oystershell which makes this cavity visible, it tends tobe rather hard to determine whether a hole wascaused by a boring clam or by a C. celata sponge.

It was also noted whether or not there wereany barnacles or net-like bryozoan sponges at-tached to the oysters, although it is unclear as towhether these are very useful as indicators of en-vironment or salinity.

Results

From this data several patterns emerged (Figure38). First, 57% of the shells were classified as

bed oysters, which are found in a mixture of sandand mud. The fact that 86% of the sample hadpolydora worm holes also suggests that the shellsgrew in a muddy subtidal environment. Less than20% of the shells exhibited moderate to heavyribbing, and less than 5% exhibited moderate toheavy coloring which also indicates a subtidal en-vironment. Only 12% of the sample were classi-fied as sand oysters, and less than 6% were clas-sified as channel oysters. Thus, most of the oys-ters did not come from either intertidal zones rightalong the shore or from very deep waters. Over70% of the sample exhibited either no or onlysmall cliona holes, indicating water of low salinity.However, boring clams, which are found in water

Figure 38. Oyster types and salinity regimes.

98

of low salinity, were definitely noted on only 4%of the sample, although, as was noted, boring clamholes were difficult to identify.

Site HT55 is located between two smallcreeks or inlets off the Hampton River, whichwould provide the best conditions for the growthand development of an oyster population (Goode1887:731; Galtsoff 1964:400). Kendall andHaven’s 1982 report on oyster leases along theHampton River supports basically what the oys-ters themselves indicated—that, although the mainchannel of the river varies in depth from approxi-mately nine to fourteen feet, most of the bottom isshallower than five feet. Hence, historically, riveroysters must have been gathered in fairly shallowwaters.

Kendall and Haven also stated that “the bot-tom was mud except for some sand near theshore.” This should come as no surprise, sincemost of the oysters found at HT55 were bed oys-ters, which grow in a mixture of sand and mud. Itis interesting to note that of the four oyster leaseswhich were examined in 1982 by Kendall andHaven, two of which are on the same side of theriver as HT55 and two of which are on the oppo-site shore, the one which has the greatest densityof oysters per acre (67%) is the one located ad-jacent to the site.

Although it may be tempting to project back-ward in time and say that this may have also beenthe case when the site was occupied, there are anumber of dynamic factors which influence thegrowth and development of an oyster commu-nity. Factors such as the character of the bottom,water movements, salinity and temperature of thewater, and food supplies all affect the oysters,while sedimentation, pollution, competition, dis-ease and predation will all work against the popu-lation (Galtsoff 1964:398-399). In addition, hu-mans, while essentially predators, may also aidoyster beds through seeding to extend their natu-ral environment.

Historical Research

From historical research it seems that oysters wereextremely plentiful in Tidewater Virginia. Records

from as early as 1607 comment on how the “oys-ters lay on the ground as thick as stones”(Wharton 1957:5). In fact, during the seventeenthcentury, there are numerous accounts of settlersand “Indians” surviving on little more than oys-ters. Apparently oysters were generally easy toobtain even without a boat or canoe, and oystersin the lower James River could even be pickedover by hand at low tide (Wharton 1957:26-27).With a boat even more oysters could be gatheredwith ease, as it was recorded in 1687 that “al-most every Saturday my host…had only to sendone of his servants in one of the small boats andtwo hours after ebb tide he brought it back full.These boats…can hold as many as fourteenpeople and twenty-five hundredweight of mer-chandise” (Wharton 1957:35).

It was also recorded that oysters were usu-ally caught on Saturday at ebb tide with tongs(Wharton 1957:37-38). The practice of tongingfor oysters goes back to the Native Americans,who taught the colonists in Tidewater Virginia howto use tongs not unlike those still in use today(Jackson 1988:66; see Figure 39). This was prob-ably a method which was in use near 44HT55 togather oysters. By 1701 travellers to the area stillwere amazed at the incredible abundance of oys-ters and told of banks of oysters so large thatships must avoid them (Pearson 1942:218; Jack-son 1988:63). However, there was little organizedindustry dealing with oysters until the nineteenthcentury (Wharton 1957:41) which made unlim-ited opportunities for exploitation during the timesite HT55 was occupied.

Oysters played an important part in the dietof Virginians and are mentioned again and againin the historical literature. Generally, oysters wereconsumed during the fall and winter months andwere avoided during the summer (or, more collo-quially, in any month without an “R” in its namebecause it was considered to be unhealthy to eatthem then (Pearson 1942:217; Jackson 1988:62)and they were said to cause fevers (Wharton 1957:38). However, historic references were foundwhich refer to eating oysters in every month ex-cept May, April and August. It seems that in theearly seventeenth century oysters were eaten in

99

Figure 39. Oyster tongs.

the summer just to keep from starving, and thatby the late eighteenth century some people cameto disregard the widespread superstition aboutnot eating oysters in the warm months.

Actually, there are valid reasons for not con-suming oysters during this period of the year, be-cause the oysters are spawning or have justspawned and thus are played out and less tasty(Jackson 1988:62). Oysters are at their best asenergy-producing food between August and No-vember because of the glycogen which they havestored during the summer (Russell 1923:9). Inaddition, the oyster responds to the salinity of thewater; low salinity makes the oyster swell up byabsorption of water, and the opposite effect oc-curs when the salinity increases, generally fromJune or July until October, apparently as a resultof altered osmotic pressure. The percentage ofproteins in oysters is highest in the spring and sum-mer and lowest during the rest of the year, whilethe percentage of carbohydrates varies in an in-verse manner (Claassen 1986:34). The “fatten-ing” of oysters in the autumn is as a result of theaccumulation of these carbohydrates (Russell1923:4).

Oysters were, and still are, prepared in a widevariety of ways in Tidewater Virginia. Historically,oysters were smoked and dried, served raw,stewed caked in fritters, made into dressing, fried,pickled, fricasseed, scalloped, curried, deviled,broiled and brochetted, in salads and soups andso on (Wharton 1957:46; Jackson 1988:68).They were also roasted, and oyster roasts havebeen a Virginia institution which was inherited fromthe Native Americans. Four percent of the oys-ters sampled at 44HT55 did show signs of beingroasted, but it is unknown how the other oysterswere served. The contexts which contained themost roasted oysters were Context 39, with atotal of seventy-eight oyster valves (38% of theshells from that feature); Context 3, with a totalof seventeen valves (7% of that feature); andContext 237, with fifteen shells (13% of thatlayer). By contrast, Context 26 contained thirty-five roasted oysters, only 2% of the 1708 valveswhich were analyzed from that feature.

Conclusions

The sample of oyster valves from HT55 seems tocomprise a predictably homogeneous collectionas analyzed so far. The majority of shells from alleleven contexts were categorized as bed oysters,which are found in a mixture of sand and mud.Over 86% of the total number of shells analyzedcontained polydora worm holes; since theseworms live in mud they indicate a muddy envi-ronment for the oysters. In every analyzed con-text, the majority of the shells contained no clionaholes, which indicates that they grew in water ofrelatively low salinity. There is also consistency inthe amount of ribbing and coloring; most havelittle or none, which means the oysters were foundin deep enough water so as not to receive muchsunlight. It would be interesting to conduct sea-sonality studies on the shells to observe what otherpatterns, if any, emerge. Unfortunately, time and

100

fiscal constraints precluded this exhaustive ananalysis.

This study of oyster shells from HT55 is partof a continuing attempt by Colonial Williamsburg’sDepartment of Archaeological Research to ana-lyze oyster shells from historic sites; two previousstudies, yet unpublished, have been conductedon shells from the Peyton Randolph and ShieldsTavern properties within the Historic Area. As werealize the potential of what it is oysters can tell usabout how, from where and when they were gath-ered originally, it is hoped that with more refinedcollection strategies further research we can gleaneven more information from shells collected fromfuture excavations.

E. Paleobotanical Report(Eric E. Voigt)

Methods

All 114 paleobotanical samples were scanned forcarbonized seed, wood, cultigen and plant re-mains. An American Optical Microstar Stereo-scope with a magnification range of 7-45X wasused in the identification of all carbonized plantremains. Identification of paleoethnobotanicalmaterial was made through comparison of ar-chaeological material to known modern materialfrom the University of Missouri-Columbia/Ameri-can Archaeology Division Paleoethnobotany

TABLE 14.OYSTER SHELL ATTRIBUTES BY PERCENTAGE

Context No. 3 18 26 39 42 50 67 69 182 216 237

Uppers 34.0 19.7 39.5 35.3 25.7 28.7 47.1 42.6 30.0 29.1 35.7Lowers 65.6 80.1 60.5 63.7 74.3 71.3 52.9 56.8 70.0 71.0 63.5Complete 100.0 83.1 80.0 51.0 65.7 65.3 100.0 74.1 100.0 100.0 87.0Ribbing None 56.8 38.0 51.1 44.6 45.7 48.5 65.7 49.4 52.0 48.0 36.5 Slight 34.0 45.1 31.0 29.4 20.0 36.6 25.7 24.7 36.0 38.5 32.2 Moderate 9.1 15.5 13.5 24.0 34.3 14.9 8.6 22.2 12.0 14.0 26.1 Heavy 0.0 1.4 5.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 5.2Color None 86.3 57.7 65.7 72.1 71.4 81.2 87.1 81.5 76.0 85.5 65.2 Slight 12.4 31.0 28.4 24.5 28.6 18.8 11.4 17.3 18.0 12.8 32.2 Moderate 1.2 8.5 5.4 2.5 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.2 6.0 1.7 1.7 Heavy 0.0 2.8 0.4 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9Clustering 52.3 46.5 26.5 26.5 48.6 30.7 25.7 35.2 30.0 31.6 28.7Cliona None 66.8 47.9 51.5 57.8 54.3 70.3 65.7 82.1 66.0 77.0 91.3 Small 13.7 9.9 14.1 13.2 5.7 14.9 10.0 6.8 18.0 13.7 5.2 Sm/Lg 17.8 31.0 26.5 25.5 31.4 11.9 24.3 10.5 16.0 8.5 3.5 Large 1.7 11.3 7.9 3.4 8.6 3.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.9 0.0Boring Clam 1.7 5.6 5.1 5.4 2.9 2.0 1.4 3.7 0.0 0.9 1.7Polydora 92.5 93.0 90.0 81.4 94.3 98.0 98.6 88.3 100.0 96.6 87.0Barnacles 24.1 15.5 9.6 6.9 2.9 5.9 4.3 4.3 12.0 6.0 11.3Bry. Sponge 36.5 84.5 8.8 5.9 0.0 5.0 11.4 4.3 32.0 21.0 2.0Type Sand 26.1 0.0 8.8 20.1 8.6 5.0 11.4 5.6 38.0 27.0 19.1 Bed 45.6 69.0 53.6 57.3 48.6 76.2 78.6 68.5 38.0 59.8 76.5 Reef 23.7 14.1 20.2 11.6 14.3 9.9 7.1 11.7 6.0 1.7 0.0 Channel 4.1 1.4 7.0 2.0 11.4 3.0 7.1 6.8 10.0 2.6 1.7

101

TABLE 15.OYSTER SHELL ATTRIBUTES BY RAW COUNT

Context No. 3 18 26 39 42 50 67 69 182 216 237

Uppers 82 14 675 72 9 29 33 69 15 34 41Lowers 158 57 1033 130 26 72 37 92 35 83 73Complete 241 59 1361 104 23 66 70 120 50 117 100Ribbing None 137 27 872 91 16 49 46 80 26 56 42 Slight 82 32 527 60 7 37 18 40 18 45 37 Moderate 22 11 231 49 12 15 6 36 6 16 30 Heavy 0 1 78 4 0 0 0 6 0 0 6Color None 208 41 1123 147 25 82 61 132 38 100 75 Slight 30 22 485 50 10 19 8 28 9 15 37 Moderate 3 6 93 5 0 0 1 2 3 2 2 Heavy 0 2 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Clustering 126 33 453 54 17 31 18 57 15 37 33Cliona None 161 34 880 118 19 71 46 133 33 90 105 Small 33 7 241 27 2 15 7 11 9 16 6 Sm/Lg 43 22 452 52 11 12 17 17 8 10 4 Large 4 8 135 7 3 3 0 1 0 1 0Boring Clam 4 4 87 11 1 2 1 6 0 1 2Polydora 223 66 1533 166 33 99 69 143 50 113 100Barnacles 58 11 164 14 1 6 3 7 6 7 13Bry. Sponge 88 11 150 12 0 5 8 7 16 24 23Type Sand 63 0 151 41 3 5 3 9 19 32 22 Bed 110 49 916 117 17 77 55 111 19 70 88 Reef 57 10 345 23 5 10 5 19 3 2 0 Channel 10 1 120 4 4 3 5 11 5 3 2

102

TABLE 16.OYSTER SHELL ATTRIBUTES—SUMMARY

No. %

Uppers 1073 37.3Lowers 1796 62.5Complete 2311 80.4Ribbing

None 1442 50.2Slight 903 31.4Moderate 434 15.1Heavy 95 3.3

ColorNone 2032 70.7Slight 713 24.8Moderate 117 4.1Heavy 12 0.4

Clustered 874 30.4Cliona

None 1690 58.8Small 374 13.0Small/Large 648 22.5Large 162 5.6

Boring Clam 119 4.1Polydora 2486 86.4Barnacles 290 10.1Bryozoan Sponges 344 12.0Type

Sand 348 12.1Bed 1629 56.9Reef 479 16.7Channel 168 5.8

TABLE 17.OYSTER SHELL SIZE

Context No. Greater than 3" Less than 3" Total

3 241 323 56418 71 110 18126 1708 1482 319039 204 423 62742 35 11 4650 101 69 17067 70 162 17069 162 253 415

182 50 48 98216 117 38 155237 115 60 175

103

Laboratory collections, the University of MissouriHerbarium, and through reference to publishedidentification manuals (e.g., Martin and Barkley1961; Panshin and deZeeuw 1970).

In general, identification of seeds is accom-plished by comparing morphological characteris-tics of the archaeological sample to those ofknown, modern taxa. Species differences are notalways apparent and critical diagnostic charac-ters (e.g., awns, outer seed coat, and color) of-ten are lost in carbonization. Wood charcoal isidentified by examination of the internal anatomyof a specimen and the use of a key developed forcarbonized-wood identification. The arrangementof vessel elements, rays, and parenchyma tissueare used in the identification of archaeologicalspecimens.

The Paleoethnobotanical Record

Plant remains from archaeological sites, whetherfrom middens, hearths or features, represent onlya fraction of the possible ranges of plants used bya particular human group. It is important to re-member that the paleoethnobotanical record, i.e.,plant remains and their depositional contexts atarchaeological sites, is a product of the differen-tial occurrence of—and the interaction among—various environmental and behavioral site-forma-tion processes (Voigt 1989). Some of these for-mational processes include differential preserva-tion among plant taxa in their carbonized anduncarbonized states, chances of the remains en-tering the archaeological record through intentionaldiscard or accidental carbonization, and pedologi-cal factors (Asch and Asch 1981; Johannessen1984; Lopinot 1988; Wagner 1989).

Assumptions about the relative economic im-portance of plant taxa to human groups are basedon: (a) the frequency of co-occurrence of the sametaxa at different sites, (b) the relative abundanceof different plant taxa at a site (i.e., their ubiq-uity), (c) spatial and temporal patterning of thepaleoethnobotanical data, (d) ethnohistorical, his-torical, and ethnographic data, and (e) taxon-spe-cific indicators of cultivation or domestication

(Voigt 1989). However, such things as “the num-ber of seeds recovered” can serve neither as anadequate nor as an accurate measure of the rela-tive importance of a taxon in the diet of a particu-lar human group.

Taxa Identified—Carbonized Seeds

Due to the nature of the pedological environmentat the sites, as well s recovery and processingtechniques, many of the seeds were badly eroded.Thus, many identifications are made only to thefamily or genus level.

Family Chenopodiaceae (Goosefoot)

The Goosefoot family includes wild taxa as wellas many field crops and cultivated varieties (Wil-son 1981). The seed identified from Trash Pit Gappears to be that of a Chenopodium spp. Anative wild taxon (C. berlandieri) and its nativedomesticate (C. berlandieri spp. jonesianum)have been recovered in prehistoric archaeologi-cal contexts throughout the Eastern Woodlands(Smith 1984). It also has been suggested that earlyEuro-American settlers encountered NativeAmerican groups that were cultivating this crop.

Family Convolvulaceae (Morning Glories)

The Morning Glory family includes several taxathat were used as food, medicines, and halluci-nogens by native North American groups (Dobkinde Rios 1984; Gilmore 1977). Numerous generaand species are invasive in modern agriculturalfields (Anonymous 1973). The specimen from thewell at 44HT55 could be identified to neither ge-nus nor species. It is possible that it was collectedaccidently when field crops were harvested.

Family Cyperaceae (Sedges)

The Sedge family includes many taxa that inhabitinland and coastal wet or moist soils (Gleasonand Cronquit 1963). Many taxa were collected

104

historically for food and material (Gilmore 1977;Steyermark 1963). It is impossible to say whetherthe seeds recovered at HT37 and HT55 repre-sent food remains or some other economic use ofplant material.

Galium spp. (Bedstraw)

Bedstraw is a common herbaceous plant thatflowers in the spring and grows in moist lowwoodlands and agricultural fields. It was valuedhistorically for its fragrance (Gilmore 1977); it wasalso used in making beverages (Steyermark1963:1394) and for stuffing mattresses(Steyermark 1963:1394).

Nyssa sylvatica (Black Gum)

Black gum thrives in mesic habitats, usually grow-ing in moist woods or near swamps. Seeds of thisspecies were also identified in samples from aprehistoric site in southeastern Missouri. How-ever, there is no recorded use of the fruits of thisplant for either food or medicine. The wood hasbeen used in the making of furniture (Settergrenand McDermott 1977).

Prunus persica (Peach)

Peaches were introduced into Florida by the six-teenth century A.D., grown at Spanish missionsthroughout the Southeast by the seventeenth cen-tury A.D., and were in Virginia in the mid-seven-teenth century A.D. (Blake 1986; Mouer 1987a).

Strophostyles spp. (Wild Bean)

Wild bean may have been collected by prehis-toric groups, but certain species also inhabit cul-tivated fields and the disturbed areas around fieldswhere they may have been accidently harvested.The cotyledons identified as wild bean are signifi-cantly smaller than those of domesticated bean(e.g., Phaseolous spp.).

Zea mays (Maize)

Maize remains from sites consist of cupules, ra-chis segments, kernel fragments, and a single cobfragment (Figure 40). There is little doubt thatmaize extends far back into prehistory as a do-mesticate (Ford 1983; Galinate 1985). Galinet(1985:277) believes the introduction of maize inthe Eastern Woodlands from the Southwest wasdelayed until “. . . preadapted, day-neutral vari-eties of the eight-row race . . . became available.”However, Berry’s (1985:304) reassessment of thedates for maize in the Southwest leads him toconclude that “. . . maize was introduced into theSouthwest and Midwest at about the same timefrom a common Mexican source area.” This prob-ably occurred around 2400 ± 200 B.P. (beforepresent) (Berry 1985:303, 304)—a date that cor-responds closely to the date (2200 B.P.) pro-posed by Yarnell (1976) for the introduction ofmaize.

A newly published date (1775 ± 100 B.P.)for maize from secure Middle Woodland con-texts at Icehouse Bottom, Tennessee (Chapmanand Crites 1987) appears to support proposals

Figure 40. Corn cob morphology.

105

for a relatively early date for the introduction ofmaize into the Eastern Woodlands (Asch andAsch 1977; Berry 1985; Ford 1981; Yarnell1976). The maize recovered from Feature 1024at HT37, which was radiocarbon dated at 1650± 70 B.P., is therefore some of the earliest everreported in the eastern United States. As it standsnow, it appears that while maize may have beenincluded in Middle Woodland subsistence regimes,it probably did not play a major role in prehis-toric diets until the Late Woodland Period (ca.750 A.D.) (Asch and Asch 1985, 1985a;Johannessen 1984).

The maize from the well and other features atHT55 probably is from Eastern Eight Row (seeCutler and Blake 1976), although the cob frag-ment from the site has twelve rows (see Cutler1986).

Taxa Identified—Wood Charcoal andCarbonized Nuts

Much of the information from each taxon is fromHarow and Harrar (1969). When possible, woodcharcoal and nuts were identified to the specieslevel. However, the carbonization process oftenleads to the loss of important anatomical charac-ters and this results in specimens being classifiedonly to the family or genus level.

Carpinus carolinana (Hornbeam)

Hornbeam is a member of the Betulaceae (Birch)family, and is the only species native to the east-ern United States. It often occurs in stream bot-toms and adjacent slopes, where it usually oc-curs in the understory of mixed hardwoods. InMissouri, its hard wood was made into yoke tim-bers and small woodenware in the historic period(Settergen and McDermott 1977).

Carya spp. (True Hickory/ThickshellHickory)

Hickories are members of the Juglandaceae (Wal-nut) family. True hickories, so-called to differen-

tiate it from pecan hickories, include, among itseight species, C. ovata (Shagbark), C. laciniosa(Shellbark), and C. tomentosa (Mockernut).Hickories have established niches along moisturegradients and grow in a variety of different habi-tats, e.g., everything from very mesic, swampyhabitats (C. aquatica) to very xeric habitats (C.tomentosa).

The hickories have been used historically forsuch things as tool handles (wood), chairseats(bark and cambium), food (nuts), and syrup (sap).Most species have good nut mast every 1-3years, and each tree produces between 1½ and3 bushels of nuts (Schopmeyer 1974). However,yields can be reduced drastically by such thingsas natural cyclicity and pests. Hickories have oneof the highest Comparative Heat Values (CHV)of wood genera or species (Zawacki andHausfater 1969).

Celtis occidentalis (Hackberry)

Hackberry, a member of the Ulmaceae (Elm) fam-ily, is one of five species of the genus Celtis foundin the United States. Found on rich bottom lands,hackberry is resistant to periodic flooding. Itswood was used historically in making barrel hoops(Settergren and McDermott 1977). It also has arelatively low CHV (Zawacki and Hausfater1969).

Gleditsia spp. (Locust)

There are two native species of locust, G.triacanthos (Honeylocust) and G. aquatica(Water Locust). Both prefer moist bottom landhabitats, although the honeylocust can be foundin xeric as well as mesic habitats. The wood ofthe honeylocust is used for fence-posts, railroadties and furniture (Settergren and McDermott1977). The wood also has a very high CHV, ap-proaching that of hickory (Zawacki and Hausfater1969).

106

Pinus spp. (Pine)

Identification is based both on wood anatomy(e.g., the presence of resin canals) and compari-son to modern, carbonized specimens. Six gen-era and about 35 species of pine are found in theUnited States, many species of which are foundin the Eastern and Southeastern United States.Pine can be a very good fuel source, as it has avery high CHV (Zawacki and Hausfater 1969).A possible pine cone fragment was recovered fromFeature 1024 at 44HT37.

Plantanus occidentalis (American Sy-camore)

American sycamore is one of three species ofPlantanaceae (Sycamore) family found in theUnited States. It is the largest of the eastern hard-woods, often reaching heights of 100 feet anddiameters of three to eight feet. Sycamore is foundin mesic habitats and often is found in wide groveson rich bottom lands. Although its wood is hard,tough, and difficult to split, it has been used inbutcher blocks, furniture, crates and barrels(Settergren and McDermott 1977).

Quercus spp. (Oak)

The oaks are members of the Fagaceae (Beech)family, and 58 species are native to the UnitedStates. Two subgenera are recognizablepaleoethnobotanically: the White Oak group(Leucobalanus) and the Red Oak group(Erythrobalanus). The former includes white oak(Q. alba) and bur oak (Q. macrocarpa). Mem-bers of the latter group include live oak (Q.virginiana), willow oak (Q. phellos), water oak(Q. nigra), and southern red oak (Q. falcata).

An acorn cap fragment was recovered fromFeature 1003 at HT37. Although acorn remainsoften are found in archaeological contexts in theEastern Woodlands, it is probable that acorns didnot play a significant role in prehistoric subsis-tence regimes (Ford 1979). Although acorn meats

of some species are edible, collecting and pro-cessing of acorns is very labor-intensive. Cyclicity,pests, and competition from fauna probably madescheduling difficult and reliance on acorns as afood source a risky strategy for prehistoric groupsin the Eastern United States.

Family Salicaceae (Willows)

In North America, the Willow family is representedby 120 species, 70 of which are of the genus Salix(Willow) and 10 of the genus Populus (Poplar).The former usually are found in mesic habitats,such as those along streams and rivers, while thelatter occur in a variety of bottom land and up-land habitats.

Summary of Results

Site 44HT36

Fourteen samples from ten features were recov-ered at the site and analyzed (Table 18). Of thetaxa identified, none is a cultivated or domesti-cated taxon. All seeds and seed fragments werebadly eroded, making identification extremely dif-ficult. Because of the paucity of remains, it is im-possible to speculate about season of occupationand plant-use strategies of the site’s inhabitants.

Site 44HT37

Thirty samples from twelve features were ana-lyzed (Table 19). The data generated indicatedthe site was occupied at least in the fall/winter.This conclusion is based on the presence of anacorn fragment, nut shell remains, a possible maizekernel fragment (a late summer/early fall crop),and the presence of late summer/fall seeds. How-ever, remains of possible plant foods are rare,and this makes it impossible to ascertain eitherthe exact nature of plant-use strategies or the roleof cultivated/domesticated taxa in Middle Wood-land subsistence strategies.

107

TABLE 18.BOTANICAL REMAINS IN 44HT36 SAMPLES

Feature # Provenience Contents

4 bulk sample 1 Graminceae seed5 90S 40E flotation

bulk sample none19 130S 30E bulk sample unidentified carbonized wood22 bulk sample none42 1 unidentified seed fragment42 2 Nyssa spp. seed fragment

2 unidentified seed fragments47 2 unidentified seed fragments48 3.12% 1 unidentified carbonized frag.71 0'-1' 1 Galium spp. (Bedstraw)

2 unidentified seed fragments71 0'-1' bulk sample none71 2'-3' bulk sample none79 120S 70E bulk sample 1 unidentified seed coat frag.

120 0'-.9' 1 unidentified seed fragment120 Top 0'-.9' flotation none

Site 44HT55

The 70 samples from this site produced a wealthof data relative to historical plant use and agricul-ture as well as the kinds of native plant taxa ex-ploited for food and material (Table 20).

Three field crops (Wheat, Type I and TypeII) are present in samples from Trash Pit D andthe well. Remains of what was probably EasternEight Row maize were recovered from severalfeatures at the site. Several wood taxa were iden-tified, and these taxa probably represent exploi-tation of several different microenvironments andtheir associated floral complexes, e.g., bottom

land oak-hickory forest, coastal wetlands, andupland pine forests (see Mouer 1987a).

Conclusions

Paleoethnobotanical analysis of 114 samples fromthree sites in Hampton produced some informa-tion relative to prehistoric and historic use of theenvironment and the subsistence strategies ofsome human groups. Most importantly, this initialstudy demonstrates that explicit sampling strate-gies with machine flotation of soil samples cangenerate data critical to formulating a more com-plete understanding of past foodways.

108

TABLE 19.BOTANICAL REMAINS IN 44HT37 SAMPLES

Feature # Provenience Contents

1001 fresh seed1001 bulk sample none1002 220N 140W fresh seed1002 bulk sample carbonized wood

unidentified carbonized material1003 wet screen carbonized wood1003 none1003 bulk sample fresh seeds

carbonized woodunidentified carbonized material

1003 bulk sample fresh seedscarbonized woodunidentified carbonized material

1003 220N 140W bulk sample none1003 220N 150E carbonized wood

1 acorn cap frag. (Quercus spp.)1 unidentified seed1 Galium spp. (Bedstraw)1 Carya spp. (Thickshell Hickory) shell

1004 220N 150W bulk sample fresh seeds1005 220N 150W unidentified carbonized material1007 220N 150W bulk sample fresh seeds

carbonized wood1007 220N 150W bulk sample 1 cf. Cyperaceae (Sedge family)

1 Galium spp. (Bedstraw)6 unidentified seeds

1007 water screened 1 unidentified seed fragmentcarbonized wood

1015 1/8 bulk sample fresh seeds1 unidentified seedcarbonized wood

1015 1/8 bulk sample carbonized wood1018 1/5 wet screen carbonized wood1018 6.25% bulk sample fresh seeds

carbonized wood1018 6.25% bulk sample none1024 middle 3.12% fresh seeds

1 Juglandaceae (Walnut family) shell1 unidentified seed fragment

1024 top 3.12% 1 Galium spp. (Bedstraw) fragment3 unidentified seed fragmentscarbonized wood

1024 wet screened 1 pine cone (Pinus spp.) fragment2 unidentified seed fragmentscarbonized wood

1024 1 Carya spp. (Thickshell Hickory)1 Polygonaceae (Smartweed family)carbonized seed

109

TABLE 19 (cont’d).BOTANICAL REMAINS IN 44HT37 SAMPLES

Feature # Provenience Contents

1 possible Zea mays kernel fragmentunidentified carbonized material

1024 bulk sample carbonized wood1026 200N 160W none1054 12.5% 1 unidentified seed fragment1054 12.5% bulk sample carbonized wood

unidentified carbonized material1087 12.5% bulk sample carbonized wood1087 12.5% bulk sample unidentified carbonized material

TABLE 20.BOTANICAL REMAINS IN 44HT55 SAMPLES

Provenience Contents

Feature 4 - Trash Pit B 1 Zea mays kernel2 unidentified seedscarbonized woodfresh seeds1 Zea mays cupule fragment3 Zea mays kernel fragments1 Carya spp. (Thickshell Hickory)nut shell fragmentcarbonized woodPinus spp. (Pine)Carya spp. (True Hickory)Quercus spp. (Oak)Platanus occidentalis (Sycamore)

Feature 12 - Trash Pit A fresh seeds2 Galluim spp. (bedstraw)1 unidentified seedcarbonized wood

Feature 19 - Trash Pit B carbonized woodQuercus spp. (Oak)Carya spp. (True Hickory)1 Gramineae (Grass family) stem3 Zea mays kernel fragmentsfresh seeds

Feature 21 - Trash Pit A fresh seeds1 Galium spp. (bedstraw)7 Zea mays rachis segments1 Zea mays cupule fragments

Feature 25 - Trash Pit A fresh seedscarbonized woodCarya spp. (True Hickory)

110

TABLE 20 (cont’d).BOTANICAL REMAINS IN 44HT55 SAMPLES

Provenience Contents

Feature 26 - Trash Pit C carbonized woodQuercus spp. (Red Oak)

Feature 36 - Trash Pit F fresh seedscarbonized woodQuercus spp. (White Oak)Carya spp. (True Hickory)

Feature 37 - Trash Pit G 1 Galium spp. (Bedstraw)Feature 38 - Trash Pit G carbonized wood

35 Zea mays cupules3 Zea mays kernel fragments100+ Zea mays cupule fragments

Feature 45 - Trash Pit G fresh seed1 Chenopodiaceae (Goosefoot family)2 Zea mays kernels3 unidentified seedscarbonized wood3 Zea mays cupule fragments1 unidentified legume (Leguminosae) seed

Feature 48 - Trash Pit G fresh seedsFeature 49 - Trash Pit D 3 Triticum spp. (Wheat)

2 unidentified seedsfresh seeds1 carbonized stemGramineae (Grass family)carbonized wood1 unidentified seed fragment

Feature 62 - Trash Pit H 1 Zea mays kernel fragmentfresh seedcarbonized woodcf. Carpinus caroliniana (Hornbeam)

Feature 83 fresh seedscarbonized wood1 Zea mays kernel fragment

Feature 84 - Trash Pit A noneFeature 96 fresh seeds

cf. 1 Zea mays kernel fragmentFeature 98 - Post Hole fresh seed

carbonized woodFeature 100 carbonized wood

fresh seedFeature 104 - Fill carbonized woodFeature 118 - Trash Pit J carbonized wood

Quercus spp. (White Oak)Carya spp. (True Hickory)Salicaceae (Willow family)

Feature 119 - Trash Pit K carbonized woodCarya spp. (True Hickory)Salicaceae (Willow family)

111

TABLE 20 (cont’d).BOTANICAL REMAINS IN 44HT55 SAMPLES

Provenience Contents

Feature 157 - Post Hole Prunus persica (Peach) pitFeature 203 - Prehistoric Pit fresh seedsCellar Fill fresh seed

carbonized woodFeature 257 fresh seeds

carbonized woodCeltis occidentalis (Hackberry)Carya spp. (True Hickory)

Well - Layer 107 unidentified seedscarbonized wood

Well - Layer 182 carbonized woodWell - Layer 191 1 Zea mays kernel fragmentWell - Layer 241 carbonized woodWell - Layer 242 carbonized wood

1 Zea mays cob fragment (12 rows)cf. Eastern Eight Row76 Type I (Wheat) seeds3 Cyperaceae (Sedge family)1 unidentified seed fragmentcarbonized woodSalicaceae (Willow family)Quercus spp. (White Oak)Quercus spp. (Red Oak)Quercus spp. (Oak)Gleditsia spp. (Locust)Carya spp. (True Hickory)Pinus spp. (Pine)6 Zea mays kernel fragments7 Zea mays cupule60 Type II seeds (Wheat)

Well - Layer 242 1 legume cotyledon (cf. Strophostyles spp.)2 Zea mays cupule fragments1 Convolvulaceae (Morning Glory)25 unidentified seed/seed coat frags.

Well - Layer 297 carbonized woodfresh seed

112

113

Introduction

The artifact assemblage retrieved from site44HT55 during the 1987-1988 season isinternational in scope and suggestive of a

relatively high-status colonial residence of the firsthalf of the seventeenth century. In the early colo-nial period, this portion of Hampton is believedto have been part of the glebe lands set aside forthe support and use of the clergy assigned to theKicoughtan Parish. The close proximity of thissite to the well-known and documented site ofthe Second Church of Kicoughtan supports thispremise.

As researchers such as Barbara Carson haveindicated in their studies of the seventeenth-cen-tury material culture of Saint Mary’s City, Mary-land, that relative wealth can be measured in termsof the diversity and quantity of artifact typesthrough time (Carson 1984). Others, such as L.Daniel Mouer, have suggested that an interpreta-tion of relative status is better understood whenseen in terms of social, geographic, and economicsystems which are affected by locality and prox-imity. The status of the inhabitants of HT55, ac-cording to Mouer’s interpretation, would havebeen relatively high due to their affiliation with thereligious hierarchy and political power structurein force in Tidewater Virginia (Mouer 1987b:22).This social position afforded them the ability totake advantage of the wealth/power base at workin the early Virginia social structure and allowedthem to acquire better-than-average consumergoods.

In order to place the HT55 assemblage intosocial and economic context within this frame-work, as well as to assist the characterization ofthe artifact assemblage in terms of function andcontemporaneous relationships among the vari-ous features on the site, it was necessary to com-pare this assemblage with the finds from other

sites of similar date. The early date of occupationat HT55 as indicated by the artifacts and the ar-chitecture, as well as the strategic location of thesite on Hampton Roads, prompted inquiry intowhether this settlement could be considered a“frontier settlement” or a more cosmopolitan baseof habitation and commerce equivalent toJamestown Island.

The initial assumption was that the HT55 ar-tifact assemblage should differ from assemblagesretrieved from settlements further along the JamesRiver in terms of quality, quantity, and point oforigin. This initial supposition seemed plausibleuntil comparisons were made with other assem-blages, specifically, the material recovered at theCollege Landing site (44WB49), Jamestown Is-land, and the Causey’s Care (Walter Aston) sitenear the modern-day city of Hopewell.1 Directcomparisons with these assemblages revealed astriking similarity in the quality of the objects re-covered. Perhaps the most striking comparisonsoccurred between HT55 artifacts and exact orsimilar parallels found at the Causey’s Care sitesome eighty miles west, above the mouth of theJames River. The finds at this location are so simi-lar to those of HT55 as to call into question theoriginal premise that proximity to the mouth ofthe river and immediate access to foreign ship-ping would be reflected in the quantity and qual-ity of goods. The fact that the same kinds of ce-ramic wares and, to a lesser extent, artifacts fromthe same diverse foreign origins suggests not onlytrans-Atlantic trade networks, but some meansof local distribution along the James River.

Chapter 7.Artifact Analysis—44HT55

1 Direct comparison with the Martin’s Hundred(Wolstenholme Town) material was not possible asthe site report for this excavation has not been com-pleted. References to Martin’s Hundred materialwere possible only through the published accountof the excavations written by I. Noël Hume in 1982.

114

The ever-increasing sphere of Dutch and En-glish influence in the Caribbean and the coinci-dental inability of Spain to adequately supply hercolonies in the New World may well have con-tributed to the development of trade networkswhich supplied North America (Deagan 1987:21;Ver Steeg 1964:109). The oblique references toDutch trading in Virginia as early as 1611(Wilcoxen 1987:19) and references to Spanishships in the Tidewater/Chesapeake Bay area asearly as 1615-16 (Smith 1624:119) certainly in-dicate the presence of foreign vessels and possi-bly traders who may have distributed goods alongthe river.

The settlement and land-use patterns of theEnglish colonists, as revealed through demo-graphic studies such as those conducted by KevinKelly for the County of Surry, may be taken astypical for the lower James River Basin in theperiod 1620 through 1650. Kelly’s research dem-onstrates that the development of settlements andplantations is inextricably tied to economics andtrade. As long as tobacco was the principal cashcrop of the early English colonists, settlement wasrestricted to areas along navigable tributaries ormajor confluences of the James River whichwould allow for easy transportation of the crops.It was only after the collapse of the tobacco-based economy during the 1680s that the settle-ment patterns changed significantly (Kelly1979:196-197). Not until the second half of theseventeenth century did the tobacco-exhaustedsoil forced expansion into the hinterlands whichwere not within the James River watershed. Thismovement of the settled areas away from theJames River and the opening of new lands to cul-tivation had a profound change in the trade net-works that provided consumer goods to colonialVirginians.

Laboratory Methods

All of the artifacts retrieved from HT55 were pro-cessed and analyzed in accordance with the stan-dard operating procedures used by the Depart-ment of Archaeological Research. The artifacts

were received from the field daily and were loggedin by context number, with the number of bagsnoted. Each context was washed separately toavoid contamination from other artifact groups,and then sorted by artifact type. Deposition dates(termini post quem) were assigned whereverpossible, based on the most recent artifact presentin each context group. The ceramic sherds anddiagnostic glass container fragments were num-bered with the site and context number. Organicand metal objects were numbered with string tagsor were sealed into appropriately-sized polyeth-ylene bags.

The finds were quantified and inventoried us-ing the dBase III-based artifact inventory systemcurrently used by the D.A.R. This system con-sists of coded fields which identify the archaeo-logical context, a depositional date for the artifactgroup, quantity of artifacts in each type in thegroup, and an eight-digit code that identifies anddescribes the object or objects. Inventory datawas initially accumulated in a handwritten formaton specially designed coding sheets which werelater used for direct data-entry, using an IBMModel 30 personal computer in the field labora-tory. A complete copy of the artifact inventory isincluded in Volume II.

Treatment levels, which are customarily as-signed to artifact groups in the field to aid in theprioritization of work, were not employed at thissite as the unique character and period of the siteand the relative antiquity of the features made thisdesignation unneccessary. As the vast majority ofcontexts were undisturbed sub-plowzone seven-teenth-century features, they were all given thehighest level of treatment and analysis.

Fragile objects or materials, such as workedbone and glass, which were deemed in need ofimmediate conservation intervention were re-moved from their context groups and sent to theArchaeology Laboratory of the D.A.R. for stabi-lization. Some twenty-five objects, mostly organicor glass, were treated in this manner. Faunal ma-terial was washed in the same manner as the restof the artifact assemblage and was then sortedinto identifiable and non-identifiable fragments.

115

This faunal material was set aside for later analy-sis and quantification (see Chapter 6C).

The analysis of the artifacts continued withcrossmending. It was decided to crossmend theceramics first in the hope that this analysis wouldbe sufficient to provide an interpretation of thesite without the need to crossmend the glass. Thisproved to be the case early in the analysis phase;due to limited time and laboratory staff, it wasthus decided not to proceed beyond the mini-mum vessel count for glass. The ceramics werecrossmended by type, and a minimum vessel countfor each ware type and vessel form was com-piled. A complete crossmend list by object is in-cluded in Volume II. This information was used inthe statistical analysis of the vessel forms retrievedfrom the site and demonstrated thecontemporaneity of several of the major features.

The criteria used in establishing unique ves-sels was dependant on significant rim, base, orbody characteristics, ceramic body and glazetypes, and considerations of the size and color ofthe body or glaze. The minimum count for glassbottles was obtained by counting only the basesand necks which were at least 50% or more com-plete. Necks or bases which were less than halfpresent were counted along with the non-diag-nostic body fragments. The larger number of necksor bases determined the final count. All glass ves-sel body sherds were also examined during in-ventory encoding to ascertain if any fragmentswere from round bottles instead of square or casebottles. It turned out, however, that all fragmentsfrom discrete features were from case or square-molded bottles, which predominated prior to circa1650.

Crossmending provided the correlations be-tween the major features of the site. As vesselswere recognized and re-assembled, they wereassigned a sequential catalog number. In addi-tion, the mending fragments which were glue-fitswere recorded, along with non-contiguous butrelated fragments for each vessel. The recordingwas initially done on the standard 3" x 5" formsused for this purpose by the D.A.R.; the data waslater entered into the crossmend record portion

of the object catalog for further computer-assistedanalysis. This analysis, which consisted of group-ings by function, form, and type, was used to de-termine the nature of the fill of the major features,as well as the possible functions or activities thatwere taking place on the site.

Most of the distributional analysis was ac-complished directly from the hard copy of theartifact inventory, sorted by feature and macro-feature, and plotted directly on the overall sitemap. Through this analysis it was possible to drawconclusions of the character of the household(s),refuse disposal processes, and areas of specificactivity across the site.

Following all analysis, the crossmending ag-gregations and non-contiguous sherds were num-bered with the catalog number, and written docu-mentation in the form of crossmend slips wereput into each context group from which fragmentswere taken in the crossmending process. Thesecrossmend slips represent the missing sherds andindicate the new storage location of the fragments.All of the sherds which represent a unique vesselwere stored together in whichever context yieldedthe greatest number of fragments. The bagged andcatalog-numbered vessels were returned to theappropriate context unit in preparation for finalstorage.

Final storage was accomplished by baggingall the artifacts from each context in appropri-ately-sized polyethylene bags and boxing them insequential order by context number. Several ofthe larger mended vessels were not stored, butinstead were set aside for ceramic restoration andeventual exhibition.

The metal and organic objects which wereretrieved from the site were separated from theceramics, glass, architectural components, and themajority of nails. Those objects in need of con-servation were documented with pre-treatmentphotographs and conservation treatment records.These records included, in most cases, a sketchof the object(s) prior to conservation and writtendocumentation as to the initial treatment of theobject. A list of these objects was then compiledand the objects were prioritized according to their

116

relative need for immediate treatment. Those ob-jects which were most complete, identifiable,unique to the assemblage, or crucial to the inter-pretation of the site received the highest rating asthey required immediate conservation. Those itemswhich were somewhat redundant, composed ofless friable material, or which were deemed morestable, were given a lower rating for a later con-servation effort.

All iron objects were X-rayed to assist withpositive identification of anonymous objects andto serve as an additional form of graphic docu-mentation. A preliminary sample of 176 iron nailswas pulled from the various layers of the majorfeatures on the site. This sample was documentedwith X-ray radiography and photography. Fromthis preliminary sample, a secondary sample ofnails based on feature was pulled for actual con-servation. Copper alloy objects, which were ba-sically stable, were not X-rayed, nor were theorganic objects which were stabilized in the Con-servation Laboratory of the D.A.R. All the arti-facts in the conservation group were turned overto Mr. Curtis Moyer of the College of Williamand Mary for treatment.

The bagged and boxed ceramics and glasswere turned over to Hampton University forcuration and exhibition, along with computer print-outs of the artifact inventory, object catalog,crossmend lists, and all other pertinent documen-tation.

Ceramics

The ceramic assemblage retrieved from site HT55during the 1987-1988 excavation season is sur-prisingly international in scope, containing ceramicwares not only of local manufacture and fromEngland, but from various countries on the Euro-pean continent. The presence of this diversity ofwares in such an early and relatively small do-mestic setting is suggestive of a high-status resi-dence or one which had sufficient financial powerto take advantage of both foreign-based and do-mestic trade networks. The occurrence of identi-cal, or at least similar, objects at settlement sites

along the James River Basin suggests the extentto which trade and the distribution of importedcomodities had developed in Tidewater Virginiaby the first half of the seventeenth century. Im-ported ceramic and glass wares from such di-verse regions as Italy, Spain, England, Portugal,and the Low Countries are a strong indication ofthe relative status of the household(s) which oc-cupied HT55 during the earliest years of colon-ization.

Feature Correlations

The crossmending analysis of the ceramic remainsrevealed several contemporaneous relationshipsamong major features on the site. The well andthe large trash pits (Trash Pits A and B), locatedjust north of Structure A, were proven con-temporaneous by crossmends in a locally-madecoarse earthenware vessel believed to be astrainer (Catalog Number 1143; see Photo 15)and by crossmends in four Portuguese tin-enam-elled ware plates (Catalog Numbers 1037, 1038,1039, and 1040). Trash Pits D and H wereproven contemporaneous by a crossmend in aWesterwald stoneware jug (Catalog Number1071). Trash Pit A and the cellar fill of StructureA were proven contemporaneous by a crossmendin a vessel believed to be an English stonewarebutterpot (Catalog Number 1085) and anotherin a coarse earthenware storage jar (CatalogNumber 1140). Three small trash pits and thewestern fence slot complex (Trash Pits F, G, Hand Slot Fence A) were proven related by acrossmend in a large coarse earthenware milk orcream pan (Catalog Number 1094). Trash Pit Fand Trash Pit A are related through a crossmendin a coarse earthenware porringer (Catalog Num-ber 1153). Trash Pits B and F were proven con-temporaneous by a crossmend in a coarse earth-enware unglazed flask or bottle (Catalog Num-ber 1155).

Through this analysis, it was established thatthe well to the southwest of the site, the cellar fillof Structure A, the large trash pits just north ofStructure A, and the smaller trash pits and fence

117

complex to the west of the site were contempo-raneous features.

The white clay tobacco pipes from HT55 werealso crossmended and yielded further evidenceof contemporaniety among features on the site.The presence of a marked tobacco pipe bowl(Catalog Number 6123), which may be attribut-able to the London pipemaker William Collins,

who died in 1686 (Oswald 1970:138), providesa terminus ante quem for the construction ofStructure A (for details, see the discussion of pipestem crossmending below). The ceramic artifactsretrieved from Structure A and the major featuresof the site suggest a date of construction sometime during the first half of the seventeenth cen-tury.

Photo 15. Red earthenware strainer, interior and side views with profile.

118

Ware Type Profile

Site HT55 produced 128 identifiable ceramicvessels (Table 21). The majority of those vessels(67, or 52.3%) were coarsewares. These wheel-thrown vessels were composed of an earthen-ware body which was often coated with a clearlead-fluxed glaze. Because they were easy to pro-duce and relatively inexpensive to purchase (I.Noël Hume 1969:102), coarsewares oftenformed the core of a colonial-period vessel as-semblage, especially of utilitarian wares. It is notcoincidental, then, that the overwhelming major-ity of vessels associated with food preparation,processing, and storage in the HT55 assemblagewere coarsewares. Locally-made red

coarsewares comprised 38 of the 67 coarsewarevessels. The remaining 29 vessels were importedfrom England, Italy, Spain, and possibly fromCentral America (Figure 41).

One small, thinly-potted, unglazed earthen-ware vessel (Catalog Number 1155; see Photo16) was retrieved from Trash Pits B and F. Thisvessel is unique among the ceramic forms not onlyin its form, a short, bulbous flask shape, but alsoin the clay body from which it was made. Thisred earthenware contains a large proportion ofmicaeous material in the clay body, which is eas-ily visible to the unaided eye. It is possible thatthis vessel may be of Central American origin,possibly from Mexico (I. Noël Hume, personalcommunication).

TABLE 21.CERAMIC WARE TYPE QUANTIFICATION

No. %

COARSE EARTHENWARESFire clay crucible 1 0.8Iberian 2 1.6Local red earthenware 38 29.7North Devon plain 3 2.3North Italian slipware 1 0.8North Netherlands slip trailed 2 1.6Staffordshire white sandyware 18 14.1Surreyware 1 0.8West of England slip sgrafitto 1 0.8

67 52.3TIN-ENAMELLED WARES

English delftware 13 10.2Faience 17 13.3Portuguese faience 9 7.0Spanish Majolica 3 2.3Tin-enamelled 8 6.3

50 39.1STONEWARES

German brown 4 3.1Staffordshire 1 0.8Westerwald 6 4.7

11 8.6TOTAL 128 100.0

Note: Chinese porcelain was also recovered from HT55, but the fragments were too small to make a positivevessel form identification. Accordingly, they have been excluded from this listing.

119

While coarseware vessels were the most nu-merous, tin-enamelled wares were also well rep-resented within the ceramic vessel assemblage.Delftware, faience, and majolica were among theseveral varieties of tin-enamelled ware that wereencountered. Made from an earthenware claybody, tin-enamelled wares are distinguished bytheir glaze, which is obtained by opacifying a clearlead glaze with tin oxide. Compounds of cobalt,manganese, iron, copper, or antimony were com-monly painted on such wares to produce colorfuldecorations. In the HT55 assemblage, thesewares numbered 50 vessels, comprising 39.1%of the total.

Stonewares, including vessels produced in theRhineland and decorated with either cobalt blueon a gray body or iron oxide brown, were notwell represented in the vessel assemblage. Simi-larly, only one stoneware vessel identified as aStaffordshire butterpot was identified. Thesewares have a high-fired ceramic body that isheated to the point of vitrification. Stonewares

are generally glazed with common salt to give theirexteriors a characteristic orange-peel texture.Stonewares, primarily German in origin, have beenfound on many seventeenth-century sites in theChesapeake. These durable European wareswere imported to the colonies through England inconsiderable quantities throughout this period (I.Noël Hume 1978:276). Therefore, it is surprisingthat there were only 11 stoneware vessels in theassemblage, 8.6% of the total.

Form and Function Analysis

To facilitate the analysis of the ceramic assem-blage, vessels were further categorized accord-ing to their form and possible function (Tables 22and 23). Of the 128 vessels identified initially, thefive unidentified forms and the crucible were omit-ted from this section of the analysis. Each of theremaining 122 vessels was examined individuallyto judge its exact shape and size based on diag-nostic characteristics of rim, base, and body.

Figure 41. Percentages of ware types represented.

120

These evaluations were used, along with the ce-ramic type, to determine a specific form designa-tion for each identifiable vessel. Vessels of likephysical appearance were then grouped togetheraccording to their functional role within the do-mestic setting, and six functional categories werecreated. The largest group consisted of those ves-sels used for food serving and/or consumption. Itincluded such seventeenth-century tablewares asbowls, dishes, plates, porringers, tygs, mugs, andassorted hollowwares that were used for the pre-sentation or consumption of food or beverages.Storage vessels were those forms such as jugs,olive jars, butter pots, storage jars and flasks,which were used for the containment or trans-portation of food or liquid awaiting consumption.Several costrels and unidentified hollowwareswere placed in a separate category of serving/storage containers to reflect their dual functions.Vessel forms used for domestic food processing,preparation, and cooking included pipkins, pans,and colanders/strainers.

While the functional nature of most of the ce-ramic vessels involved the preparation, storage,or consumption of food or drink, a number ofnon-food related vessels attest to several of themany other domestic needs on the site. Numer-

ous drug pots used for the storage of dry medici-nal preparations were placed in a separate cat-egory of pharmaceutical vessels. The two cham-ber pots were likewise categorized separately astoiletry vessels.

According to these functional categories, thefood serving vessels constituted the largest per-centage (39.3%) of the total ceramic vessel as-semblage (Figure 42). Of the 122 vessels studiedand regrouped by their function, forty-eight wereprobably used for serving food. Vessel forms inthis category included: 2 dishes (1.6%), 3 pans/dishes (2.5%), 10 bowls (8.2%), 28 plates (23%),1 plate/shallow bowl (0.8%), 2 porringers (1.6%),1 mug (0.8%), and 1 tyg (0.8%). Within this cat-egory, it is interesting to note that all of the 28identified plates are tin-enamelled wares. Whenthe 28 plates are added to the remaining 18 foodserving vessels, these 46 food serving and con-sumption vessels contrast dramatically with thetwo ceramic drinking vessels which were identi-fied on the site.

Such an uneven ratio of food to beverageconsumption vessels might be explained by theoccupants’ use of leather, wood, or pewter drink-ing vessels. Such materials were commonly usedfor drinking vessels in the seventeenth century;

Photo 16. Unglazed earthenware flask, Mexican (?), with profile.

121

TABLE 22.CERAMIC VESSEL FORM QUANTIFICATION

No. %

Bellarmine JugsGerman brown 3 2.3

3 2.3Bowls

Faience 1 0.8Local red coarseware 4 3.1Portuguese faience 1 0.8White sandy 4 3.1

10 7.8Butter Pots

Staffordshire 1 0.81 0.8

Chamber PotsLocal red coarseware 1 0.8White sandy 1 0.8

2 1.6Colanders

Local red coarseware 1 0.81 0.8

CostrelsSpanish majolica 3 2.3

3 2.3Crucibles

Fire clay 1 0.81 0.8

DishesNorth Netherlands slip trailed 1 0.8West of England slip sgrafitto 1 0.8

2 1.6Drug Pots

English delftware 10 7.810 7.8

FlasksUnglazed red earthenware 1 0.8

1 0.8Hollowwares

German brown 1 0.8Westerwald 1 0.8White sandy 1 0.8

3 2.3Jugs

English delftware 3 2.3Local red earthenware 1 0.8Slip-trailed 1 0.8Westerwald 4 3.1White sandy 1 0.8

10 7.8

122

TABLE 22 (cont’d).CERAMIC VESSEL FORM QUANTIFICATION

No. %

JugsWesterwald 1 0.8

1 0.8Olive Jars

Iberian 2 1.62 1.6

PansLocal red earthenware 12 9.4White sandy 6 4.7

18 14.1Pan/Dishes

Faience 3 2.33 2.3

PlatesFaience 12 9.4Portuguese faience 8 6.3Tin-enamelled 8 6.3

28 21.9Plates/Shallow Bowls

Faience 1 0.81 0.8

PipkinsLocal red earthenware 4 3.1White sandy 2 1.6

6 4.7Pipkin Lids

White sandy 1 0.81 0.8

PorringersLocal red earthenware 1 0.8North Italian slipware 1 0.8

2 1.6Storage Jars

Local red earthenware 7 5.5North Devon plain 2 1.6Surreyware 1 0.8White sandy 2 1.6

12 9.4Strainers

Local red earthenware 1 0.81 0.8

TygsNorth Devon plain 1 0.8

1 0.8Unidentified

Local red earthenware 5 3.95 3.9

123

TABLE 23.CERAMIC VESSEL FUNCTION QUANTIFICATION

No. %

Food Serving and Consumption VesselsBowl 10 8.2Dish 2 1.6Jug 1 0.8Pan/Dish 3 2.5Plate 28 23.0Plate/Shallow Bowl 1 0.8Porringer 2 1.6Tyg 1 0.8

48 39.3Storage Vessels

Bellarmine 3 2.5Butter pot 1 0.8Flask 1 0.8Jug 10 8.2Olive Jar 2 1.6Storage Jar 12 9.8

29 23.7Serving/Storage Vessels

Costrel 3 2.5Hollowware 3 2.5

6 5.0Food Processing and Preparation Vessels

Colander 1 0.8Pan 18 14.8Pipkin 6 4.9Pipkin Lid 1 0.8Strainer 1 0.8

27 23.7Toiletry Vessels

Chamber Pot 2 1.62 1.6

Pharmaceutical VesselsDrug Pot 10 8.2

10 8.2TOTAL 122 99.9

Note: Unidentified vessel forms and non-household vessels, such as the crucible, were excluded from thesecomputations.

unfortunately they do not often appear in the ar-chaeological record because they are highly sus-ceptible to deterioration due to the impermanenceof base metals and organic materials (Martin1989). The excavation of several wood and pew-ter fragments at HT55 further suggests the strong

possibility of its existence and use there. The pew-ter spoon fragments and an unidentified pewtervessel, possibly a porringer or drinking vessel,are some of the best supportive evidence (Cata-log Numbers 216, 284, and 285).

124

Vessels used for food storage made up thenext largest group with 23.7% of the total. Of the29 vessels in this category, there were 12 storagejars (9.8%), 10 jugs (8.2%), 3 bellarmine jugs(2.5%), 2 olive jars (1.6%), one flask (0.8%),and one butter pot (0.8%). Coarsewares, tin-enamelled wares, and stonewares were all presentin this functional category; they included both lo-cally-made and imported varieties. A separatecategory, which contained 3 costrels (2.5%) and3 miscellaneous hollowwares (2.5%), was cre-ated to reflect both the food serving and storagecapacities of these vessels. This category con-tained solely imported wares and accounted foronly 5% of the total vessel assemblage.

The 27 vessels associated with the process-ing and preparation of food represented 22.1%of the total. Eighteen pans (14.8%), 6 pipkins(4.9%), 1 pipkin lid (0.8%), 1 colander (0.8%),and 1 possible strainer (0.8%) made up the ves-sel forms in this category. It is noteworthy that ofthese 27 vessels, two-thirds were identified aspans. Such a large quantity of pans of the size

and configuration traditionally used for process-ing dairy products suggests that dairy-related ac-tivities may have been an important part of theseventeenth-century domestic routine on this par-ticular site. In addition, a large hollowware vesselwith a single centrally-located drain hole in its baseis believed to be a strainer used to separate wheyfrom curds. This would have been an indispens-able vessel in the production of cheese.

Local Coarsewares

The extensive use of locally-made earthenwarevessels indicates the possible presence of itiner-ant, skilled potters who filled a need for utilitarianvessels not satisfied by the imported vessels. Theproduction of locally-made pottery has been docu-mented by Noël Hume at several of the majorsites at Martin’s Hundred, where spectrographicanalysis of the clay bodies proved them to be ofVirginia manufacture (I. Noël Hume 1982:105-108). A wide range of ceramic forms and potterywasters, believed to have been produced and dis-

Figure 42. Vessel form/function.

125

Photo 17. Thumb-impressed earthenware storage jar, with profile.

126

Photo 18. Red earthenware pipkin handle, with profile.

Photo 19 (below). Unglazed pipkin lid, with profile.

127

carded on or near Site “C” (1618-1622) and Site“B” (post-1631), have been retrieved from theMartin’s Hundred site, but unfortunately, the kilnsites have not yet been discovered (I. Noël Hume1982). Coarse earthenwares with the same vi-sual characteristics as those from Martin’s Hun-dred were represented among the HT55 ceramicassemblage. There are striking similarities in theappearance of the various locally-made ceram-ics, in terms of form and decorative characteris-tics on all of the major sites along the James River(see Photos 17 and 18). Additionally, coarseearthenwares with the same distinctive “Martin’sHundred” clay body (the terminology used by BlyBogley Straub in finds inventories for the Causey’sCare site), though with somewhat different pot-ting styles, were excavated from the CollegeLanding site further up the James River.

Bly Bogley Straub and other researchers haveused the term “Jamestown” to refer to a particu-lar form of domestically-produced coarse earth-enware body characterized by a fine, sandy body,which appears as a pale, dusty brownish-grey toa rosy-peach color. The glaze most frequentlyassociated with this body is a soft, dull caramelor greenish caramel-colored lead glaze which isusually applied sparingly to the interior surfacesof the utilitarian forms. This ware type has beendocumented on the Causey’s Care andJamestown sites, and appears at HT55 in a num-ber of vessel forms. One of the most notable is anunglazed pipkin lid (Catalog Number 1181; Photo19).

In the author’s opinion, the so-called “Martin’sHundred” and Jamestown” wares are, in fact, thesame. The differences in glaze color and clay bodyhardness and color can be attributed to minorvariances in firing and chemical composition ofthe clay used in the manufacture. The control thatcould be exercised by an itinerant potter who firedhis wares in temporary, surface-built kilns mayhave varied sufficiently to result in immature waresfound at Jamestown, HT55, and Causey’s Care,but not at Martin’s Hundred. Spectrographicanalysis of the clay bodies of these locally-madewares, in comparison with documented wares

from abroad, is the only reliable method to deter-mine their true origin.

The vessel forms which appear in the so-called “Jamestown ware” and the more commonlocal red earthenwares are very similar in charac-ter. The rim configurations of these bowls, stor-age jars, and milk pan forms are also strikinglysimilar.

A nearly complete red earthenware storagejar (Catalog Number 1141), which is believed tobe of local manufacture, was found in the well atHT55. This vessel (Photo 20) is unique in theconfiguration of the rim which is quite angular withan internal “step” for a lid.

Imported Earthenwares

Iberian

Site HT55 yielded numerous fragments of coarseearthenwares from the Iberian Peninsula. Mostnotable among these storage vessels is a narrow-mouthed olive jar (Catalog Number 1206; Photo21). The form of this vessel coincides with JohnGoggin’s typology as a “middle style type B.”Goggin suggests that this shape pre-dates 1671(Goggin 1964:266). Examples of this vessel typeand shape have been found in numerous sitesthroughout Spanish North and South America.The dating scheme for this ware, developed byGoggin through archaeological stratigraphic se-quences, seriation of collections, and associatedartifact and historical data, places the middle styletype B forms in the period circa 1580 to 1800(Goggin 1964:276-277). An exact parallel to thisvessel in terms of clay body color, texture, sur-face treatment, and dimension was retrieved fromthe Causey’s Care site.

In addition to the possible Mexican flask(Catalog Number 1155; Photo 16), discussedpreviously, a large French earthenware storagejar was recovered from Trash Pit A located northof Structure A (see Photo 22). This vessel (Cata-log Number 1209) is composed of a fine-grainedpale tan clay body with an apple-green glaze on

128

Photo 20. Locally-made earthenware storage jar, with profile.

129

Photo 21 (above). Iberian oil jar mouth, with profile.

Photo 22. French earthenware storage jar, exterior andinterior views with profile.

130

its interior surfaces. The flattened rim is distinc-tive, as is the friable clay body.

Slip-Decorated

The highly-decorated slipwares of Northern Italywere also represented in the HT55 assemblage.Fragments believed to be part of a slip-marblizedporringer (Catalog Number 1223; Photo 23)were retrieved from the well and Structure C.Unfortunately, none of the fragmentscrossmended. This distinctive ware, which is alsoknown as Pisan-type slipware, is documented byDeagan and others at various sites throughoutsouthern North America and the Caribbean incontexts dating from the first half of the seven-teenth century (Deagan 1987:47).

Several fragments of a North Netherlandsslipware colander (Catalog Number 1151; Photo24B) were retrieved from Trash Pit A. This dis-tinctive red earthenware with a green slip, orna-mented with sgraffito decoration, was one of sev-eral slip-decorated coarse earthenwares of for-eign origin. A rim fragment from a North Devonslip-sgraffito platter (Catalog Number 1220;Photo 25) was recovered along with other rimfragments from an over-fired slipware vessel ofundetermined origin (Catalog Number 1215; see

Photo 24C). Fragments of a German or Dutchslipware dish (Catalog Number 1217; see Photo24A) were found in features associated with Struc-ture C. A striking parallel to this flat rimmed, andslip-trailed dish was recovered at the CollegeLanding site (Edwards and Pittman 1987).

Tin-Enamelled Wares

Spanish/Portuguese Majolica

The HT55 assemblage contained a number of veryunique food consumption vessels of Portugueseor Spanish origin. This ware, characterized by apale yellow homogeneous body covered with anearly opaque tin-enamelled glaze, is usuallydecorated with hand-painting in cobalt blue invarious geometric and circular motifs. These ves-sels are distinctive because of simple painted lineswhich appear on the undersides of the plate andbowl rims and a curious dimpling which occurs inthe glaze on the undersides of the bases. The iden-tical plate forms and painted decorations appearat Jamestown as well as at the Causey’s Caresite, although the fragments in the Causey’s Careassemblage have been incorrectly identified asDutch delftware. These distinctive majolica platesalso appear at sites in various locations in the

Photo 23. North Italian slip marblized porringer handle, with profile.

131

Photo 24 (above and left). European slipware frag-ments, with profiles.

Photo 25 (below and right). North Devon slip-sgraffito dish, with profile.

A.

B.

C.

132

Western Hemisphere. The late John Goggin coinedthe term “Itchtucknee blue on white” for this wareand he records quantities of this pottery as earlyas circa 1606 at Richardson, Florida and otherlocations in Spanish North and South Americaduring the first half of the seventeenth century(Goggin 1968:25). Goggin also notes some frag-ments of this ware in the N.P.S. Jamestown Is-land collections which have striking parallels tothe fragments found at HT55 (Goggin 1968:79-80; see Photos 26-30).

Site HT55 yielded fragments of Spanishcostrels. The two-handled, flattened vessels (notillustrated in this report) were commonly used forbeverage storage and consumption and demon-strate yet another example of the diversified na-ture of the ceramic assemblage found on this earlysite. Ivor Noël Hume excavated a number of thesevessels at Martin’s Hundred from contexts whichdate between circa 1620 and 1645, and illus-trates a complete example in his published workon that excavation (I. Noël Hume 1982:52).

English Tin-Enamelled Ware

Other tin-enamelled wares include some earlyEnglish tin-enamelled vessels (not illustrated)painted in a dark blue palette and stylistically simi-lar to painted decorations found on Chinese por-celain vessels of the Wan-Li period (1573-1620)of the Ming Dynasty. Other blue-on-white paintedEnglish wares include a large and unusual jug orpitcher base (Catalog Number 1017; Photo 31)and various cylindrical drug jars (Catalog Num-ber 1007; Photo 32).

One large English “majolica” plate (CatalogNumber 1052; Photo 33) was retrieved fromTrash Pit B. This vessel is enthusiastically paintedin blue, green, and mustard-brown colors on amilky white background. The underside of theplate or platter is covered with a highly dimpledand nearly clear glaze which has a greenish tinge.

Photo 26. Portuguese/Spanish majolica plate, interior and exterior views with profile.

133

Photo 27 (above). Portuguese/Spanish plate, interiorand exterior views with profile.

Photo 28 (left). Portuguese/Spanish majolica platefragment from the Jamestown collection.

134

Photo 29 (above). Portuguese majolica bowl, interior and exterior views with profile.

Photo 30 (right). Portuguese majolica bowl rimfragment from the Jamestown collection.

135

Continental Tin-Enamelled Wares

Dutch delftware, painted in polychrome colors inthe Italianesque style, is also represented in theHT55 assemblage (Photo 34). This large flatwarevessel (Catalog Number 1053), like the Englishpolychrome dish mention above, is covered witha milk-white glaze upon which has been painteda centrally-positioned cherubic figure with a poly-chrome palette. The underside of this vessel iscovered with a thinly-applied greenish glaze.Close inspection of this vessel shows a smallamount of red earthenware imbedded in the nearly

clear glaze within the footring. We assume thatthis was caused by inadvertent contact with kilnfurniture during firing.

Stonewares

Site HT55 yielded relatively few stoneware ves-sels, all but one of which is believed to be of Ger-man origin. The “Bellarmine” or Bartmann jugfound on other early seventeenth-century sitesalong the James River was primarily a food stor-age and serving vessel. The fragments of this form

Photo 31. English delftware jug, with profile.

Photo 32. English delftware drug jar, with profile.

136

Photo 33. English delftware polychrome plate, interior and exterior views with profile.

Photo 34. Dutch delftware dish base, interior and exterior views with profile.

137

(Catalog Number 1075; Photo 35) found in thewell at Hampton University bear the typicalbearded face on the neck. According to NoëlHume, the characteristics of the face become styl-ized and grotesque by the second quarter of sev-enteenth century (I. Noël Hume 1969:57). Thefragment retrieved from HT55 shows some of thegrotesque, stylized facial features, but retains afluidity of line and form in the beard. A similarFrechen brown stoneware jug fragment was re-trieved from the College Landing site; it has thesame stylized facial features, but with a flowingbeard (Pittman, in Edwards 1987:56-57).

In addition to brown stonewares, HT55 con-tained some fragments of blue and greyWesterwald stoneware jugs of the type found byNoël Hume at Martin’s Hundred. These impres-sively-decorated jugs (Catalog Number 1071;Photo 36) are illustrated and described in detailby Noël Hume (I. Noël Hume 1969, 1982:139).The fragments recovered from HT55 are deco-rated with incised lines, sprig-molded appliques,and carefully hand-painted areas. Fragments ofthese food storage and serving vessels have alsobeen found at the Causey’s Care site and atJamestown.

Porcelain

Site HT55, like most other early seventeenth-cen-tury sites in the Chesapeake, yielded very fewfragments of Chinese porcelain. This importedware was initially marketed to the public by theDutch as early as 1602 (van der Pijl-Ketel1982:9) and was extremely popular among thewealthier purchasers of ceramic wares. As thisware did not reach Europe and consequentlyEnglish North America, in large quantities until themid-seventeenth century (van der Pijl-Ketel1982:28), it is not surprising to find only threesmall fragments in discrete archaeological con-texts on a site as early as HT55. The fragmentswere too small to make a vessel form determina-tion, but all of the fragments are painted with thedistinctive cobalt blue hand-painted decorationcommonly found in the first twenty years of theseventeenth century (J. Curtis, personal commu-nication). The presence of this expensive ware isyet another indication of the relative wealth of theearly HT55 colonists.

Photo 35. Bellarmine jug neck, with profile.

138

Glass Artifacts

According to Eleanor Godfrey, “by 1640 the pat-tern had been laid, and the transformation ofglassmaking from a medieval to a modern indus-try was well under way” (Godfrey 1975:256).Prior to the 1640s, glass, as well as other formsof material culture, was still tied to many medi-eval traditions of style and form. At the same time,because of many technical advances made in theglass industry prior to and throughout the seven-teenth century, glass products in particular beganto exhibit an ever-widening diversity of form andfunction.

As stated by Frank (1982:133), “until thebeginning of the seventeenth century nearly allbottles [and containers] were made of earthen-ware, metal or wood.” The glass assemblage atHT55, then, can be informative because it fallsduring the important transitional period between

the wholesale use of non-glass and glass materi-als for storage containers. In this period, some ofthe glass artifacts should suggest a tie to medievalstyles, such as applied string decorations, yet more“modern” forms, such as case bottles, flasks, andtablewares in colorless metal, may also be present.The presence of glass storage vessels in the HT55assemblage indicates a transitional aspect in re-gard to the use of glass over ceramic or othermaterials. Beyond this, because the use of glassfor bottles or containers was relatively new in thefirst half of the seventeenth century, this same tran-sitional aspect may, in part, account for the rela-tively low glass fragment count for the site as awhole.

Glass Containers

Case bottles account for a significant number ofstorage vessels within the assemblage. For the

Photo 36. Westerwald blue and grey stoneware jug neck fragments, with profile.

139

most part, case bottles were used to store andtransport beverages. The seventeenth-centurycase bottle, was a “. . . common large bottle wasblown into a square-sided mold and had a nearlyflat base and a short neck with an everted lip, thelatter feature frequently concealed beneath athreaded pewter collar and cap” (I. Noël Hume1969:62). Based on stylistic attributes, thesebottles were probably imported from England (I.Noël Hume 1969:70), but because of the relativethinness of their metal, they do not survive intactas well as the round or globular bottles of thesecond half of the century. Case bottles are help-ful in establishing depositional dates because theywere used prior to the round-bodied, green-glassbottles which appeared only after the beginningof the second half of the seventeenth century (I.Noël Hume 1969:62).

The artifact inventory from HT55 shows atotal of 2703 fragments of case bottle composedmostly of a pale straw green metal. Of these frag-ments, 22 empontilled bases and 37 necks wereidentified. Three of these necks came from theuppermost layers of two trash pits (Trash Pits Aand F), which contained intrusive material in theirupper layers, probably generated by plow dis-turbance. These three necks were not excludedfrom the minimum vessel count because the na-ture of the features suggest that they were originalcomponents of those features. The work doneby Riordan and Pogue in associating plowzoneartifacts with discrete features provides the ratio-nale for including the questionable necks (Riordan1988; Pogue 1988). Case bottle fragments wererecovered from most of the major features on thesite which were proven contemporaneous by ce-ramic crossmends. As there were more necksthan bases, the larger quantity was used to estab-lish the minimum vessel count for the site.

Window Glass

Sixteen fragments of window glass were found atthe Hampton University site. While window glassfragments were a significant portion of the glass

assemblage, they were not used for interpretingoccupational dates for the site. Since “the pro-cess [for making window glass] changed little overthe centuries so it is not generally possible to cometo conclusions about age…” (Frank 1982:142).First imported to the colonies in the 1620s (Wil-son 1976:152), the presence of window glass asan architectural element in early seventeenth-cen-tury colonial Virginia is a good indicator of wealthor status.

The use of casement windows in the seven-teenth century had its origins in medieval archi-tecture (Wilson 1976:156). Indeed, the conceptof earthfast construction techniques which wereused at the Hampton University site has its originin Anglo-Saxon and Medieval England (Carsonet al. 1981:136). As has been ably described byCarson et al. (1981), the earthfast structures thatgrew out of this European building tradition werenot temporary structures, but were obviously in-tended for long-term habitation. According toCarson et al. (1981:139-140), “whether theycame to farm, to trade, or to follow some otheroccupation, immigrants expected to make an in-vestment in buildings.”

The addition of imported window glass, lathe-marked plaster (Catalog Number 5001; see Photo44), and roofing tiles (Catalog Number 1240 and1241; see Photo 45) to these earthfast structuresspeaks of an uncommon affluence of the HT55residents in the early years of colonization.

The window pane fragments excavated fromthe site may be described using terminology de-rived from Richard Neve’s Builder’s Dictionaryof 1736. In this work, diamond-shaped paneswith an overall length of 6 inches, maximum widthof 4.8 inches, and having an acute angle of 77degrees and an obtuse angle of 102 degrees areidentified as a “square quarrel.” The analysis ofthe HT55 window pane fragments yielded twofragments with sufficiently well-defined cut edgeswhose angles closely match the square quarrelangle measurements (see Figure 43). Addition-ally, one fragment, in the form of an isosceles tri-angle, perfectly fits within Neve’s dimensions for

140

a square quarrel with an obtuse angle of 104 de-grees. This “half square quarrel”1 may have beenused along the edge of the casement window tosquare off the sides. Two other smaller fragmentswith relatively well-defined edges and measur-able angles of 74 degrees each do not comfort-ably fit within Neve’s prescribed measurments,but the deterioration of the metal along the edgesmay account for this discrepancy.

Although 16 fragments of window glass wouldnot be sufficient to make even one small window,these fragments in association with 24 fragmentsof window leading confirm the presence of thesearchitectural features. One of the fragments ofwindow glass (Catalog Number 260), a smallequilateral triangle of glass measuring approxi-mately one and three-quarters inch on each side,

was completely encircled by its original turned-lead trim. The recent discovery of dates and otherinscriptions inside turned window leads by NoëlHume and subsequent work by such researchersas Susan Hanna et al. have proven a means ofapplying dates after which these architectural el-ements were assembled (I. Noël Hume 1982;Hanna 1986:303-309). Because the dates of theinscriptions found in drawn window leads wereimparted by a removable element of the glazier’svice, which may have been used over a long pe-riod of time, archaeologists must use caution whenapplying these dates to the buildings that they ex-cavate. All of the drawn lead fragments from HT55which have undergone conservation have beenclean and, unfortunatley, show no inscriptions ofany kind.

Mirror Glass

Seven colorless, thin, flat fragments of glass wereretrieved from various layers within the well. Al-

1 The term “half square quarrel” does not appear inNeve’s Dictionary of 1736, but rather was coinedby the author as the most accurate description ofthe fragment.

Figure 43. Window pane angles.

141

though they have not retained any evidence ofsilvering, these fragments have been identified asmirror glass. Mirror glass was “a highly prizedluxury” in the late sixteenth century (Godfrey1975:236), and a relatively expensive and valuedobject for an early seventeenth-century colonialsite. Thus a mirror or mirror glass found at HT55would be the type of artifact indicative of wealthor high status.

Luxury Table Glass

Ten pieces of container glass, six colored and fourcolorless non-leaded fragments, were found dur-ing the course of excavation. Of the colorless,non-leaded fragments, one piece of polychromeenamelled glass and one piece with trailed deco-ration were identified (Catalog Number 193; seePhoto 37). Additionally, one notable piece of darkgreen container glass (Catalog Number 5000)from Trash Pit F is remarkably similar to a basefragment of a drinking glass similar to one illus-trated by Robert Charleston in his book, EnglishGlass (Charleston 1984:44; Figure 44). The frag-ment exhibits marks of abrasion on the standingsurface of the folded foot, as well as surface dim-pling in the metal, which is indictive of tool ma-nipulation during manufacture. The presence ofthis somewhat specialized vessel form in the as-semblage is in marked contrast to the more com-monplace case bottles.

Thirty-five pieces of table glass, nine coloredpieces and twenty-six pieces of colorless non-lead glass were identified. Three of the fragmentsof colored glass were decorated with appliedhorizontal strings of the same color metal and ap-pear to be similar to a sixteenth-century greenglass goblet illustrated in “A Restoration GlassHoard From Gracechurch St., London” (Oswaldand Phillips 1949:30). Three other fragments ofcolorless, non-lead glass also had applied deco-ration. In this case, strings of opaque white glasshad been vertically applied to the metal. Threesmall handle fragments of a dark black-greenmetal from unidentified vessel forms were alsoassociated with this group.

Stemmed glassware was also represented inthe assemblage. Most notable among these wasone complete free blown base and stem made ofa pale greenish-blue metal. This base (CatalogNumber 036) exhibits a rather clumsily foldedfoot, a welded stem with a single ball-shaped knop(see Photo 38). A striking parallel to this foldedfoot and stem, like the drinking glass base frag-

Photo 37. String-trailed glass container fragment, withprofile on projected vessel form.

142

ment mentioned above, is illustrated by RobertCharleston and is attributed to GracechurchStreet, London and is dated about 1600 (Charles-ton 1984:Plate 19d).

One other fragment of stemmed glassware ina colorless, non-leaded metal was retrieved. Thisfragment bears all of the characteristic crizzlingand decomposition typical of excavated Europeanor early English “cristallo” and is a fragment of afunnel-shaped solid knop. This piece of “luxuryglass” (Charleston 1984:43) is important becauseit speaks of a level of affluence unexpected in earlycolonial Virginia. Furthermore, the cristallo isdeeply rooted in the medieval tradition ofglassmaking (Charleston 1984:45).

A diminutive fragment of a folded foot madeof colorless non-leaded metal was also identified.It is uncertain from which vessel form this frag-ment comes; however, the delicate turning of the

foot, the thinness of the metal, and the relativelysmall size of the form were unique among the glassassemblage at HT55. Finally, three fragments ofcolorless, nonleaded metal were retrieved fromthe well. Two of these fragments mend, and thethird is non-contiguous. They are thought to befragments of a wine glass stem of the type knownas a “cigar-stem.” A remarkably similar wine glass,documented by Robert Charleston, was attrib-uted to the first half of the seventeenth century(Charleston 1984:Plate 15a).

A total of five fragments of thin blue glass wereretrieved from Trash Pit A. These fragments, whichdo not crossmend, are remarkable for their thin-ness and distinctive color. Ivor Noël Hume sug-gests that they appear to be fragments from aFrench drinking goblet of cylindrical form withball feet (I. Noël Hume, personnal communica-tion).

Utilitarian Glass

The handle of a linen smoother (Catalog Number035) was retrieved from a post mold associatedwith Structure B (Photo 39). This specialized tex-tile-related tool is discussed by Charleston and isfound on English and Scandanavian sites as earlyas the thirteenth century (Charleston 1984:37-38).

Tobacco Pipes

A total of 1883 fragmentary tobacco pipe bowlsand stems of domestic and foreign origin was re-trieved from HT55. Of these, 1311 bowl and stemfragments were considered to be of Dutch orEnglish manufacture, and 572 bowl and stem frag-ments were designated domestic in origin. Thecriteria used for determining the origin of thesepipe fragments were based solely on the visualcharacteristics of the clay body (that is, color,hardness, and texture), bowl shape, impressedor applied decoration, apparent manufacturingmethod, and presence of maker’s marks. Thoseexamples were clearly made of white-firing clayand showed evidence of having been mold-

Figure 44. Drinking beaker foot fragment on pro-jected vessel form.

143

Photo 38. Stemmed wine glass base, with profile.

Photo 39. Glass linen smoother handle, with profile on projected form.

144

formed and bearing maker’s marks, and thus wereclassified as imported. Similarly, those fragmentswhich were composed of a fine-grained palebrownish-red clay were classified as domestic.The term “terra cotta” (Henry 1976; Crass etal.1988) has been extensively used by other re-searchers of domestically-produced tobaccopipes; but, it is felt that this term is not the bestdescription of the clay bodies used in the manu-facture of these pipes. The term “domestic” is usedin the present study to differentiate these pipesfrom their imported counterparts.

The following table (Table 24) illustrates thebreakdown of the major pipe categories, sepa-rating the bowls and stems by origin, pipe ele-ment, rudimentary decoration—including both

incised or molded motifs—and the presence orabsence of maker’s marks.

A rudimentary comparison of the quantitiesof imported pipes and bowls to those of domes-tic manufacture shows a preponderance of im-ported tobacco fragments. Of the total numberof fragments, 69.6% were imported and 30.4%were of domestic origin. A further breakdown ofbasic percentages reveals that of the total 1311imported fragments, less than one third (23.2%)of the fragments were bowl sherds, and 76.8%fragments were stems. For the domestic pipe frag-ments, a similar percentage of bowl to stem frag-ments existed; 61.2% of the fragments werestems, and 38.2% bowls.

TABLE 24.TOBACCO PIPE DECORATIONS FROM HT55

IMPORTED BOWLS:Plain and/or simple rouletted decoration 237As above with maker’s mark 4Decorated 6Decorated, with maker’s mark 57Subtotal of Imported Bowls 304

IMPORTED STEMS:Plain and/or simple rouletted decoration 976Decorated 31Subtotal of Imported Stems 1007Subtotal of Imported Bowls and Stems 1311

DOMESTIC BOWLS:Plain and/or simple rouletted decoration 194As above with maker’s mark 1Decorated 23Decorated, with maker’s mark 4Subtotal of Domestic Bowls 222

DOMESTIC STEMS:Plain and/or simple rouletted decoration 337Decorated 13Subtotal of Domestic Stems 350Subtotal of Domestic Bowls and Stems 572

GRAND TOTAL OF ALL TOBACCO BOWLS AND STEMS 1883

145

Harrington/Binford Stem-HoleDiameter Analysis

A sample of 649 tobacco pipe stems from HT55were subjected to the standard analytical proce-dures devised by J.C. Harrington and LewisBinford, in order to determine a suggested daterange of occupation (Harrington 1954, 1978) anda calculated mean date of occupation (Binford1978). The pioneering work done by these twoscholars has proven useful to many historical ar-chaeologists who have excavated seventeenth-and eighteenth-century sites throughout the east-ern United States, particularly along the JamesRiver. James Deetz used the Harrington methodto convincingly define the shifting settlement pat-terns which existed at Flowerdew Hundred dur-ing its long period of occupation (Deetz 1987).In the same manner, the combined Harrington andBinford dating techniques were utilized in theanalysis of HT55 tobacco stems to suggest tem-poral co-existence between the major featureson the site and to indicate the range of occupa-tion of the site as a whole.

As can be seen in the calculations and graphsbelow, the results of these computations suggesta Harrington range of occupation of the entire sitepredominantly in the period 1620 to 1650 (Table25; Figure 45), gradually tapering off in the pe-riod 1650-1680. As the significant concentrationoccurs in the earlier period, it may be deducedthat the heaviest occupation of the site was be-tween 1620 and 1650. The calculations basedon the Binford straight line regression formula pro-vide a mean date of 1639. In this case, the twotechniques would seem to agree and support thedating of the site which is indicated by the ce-ramic assemblage.

The Harrington computations for the fivemajor features of the site including the well, andfour trash pits, follow a similar pattern indicatinga predominant occupation range between 1620and 1650, with the exception of Trash Pit F whichfalls later in the 1650 to 1680 period (Figure 46).The Binford mean date for Trash Pit F is 1651,which does not fall near the midpoint of the date

range, 1665, provided by the Harrington method.In this case, the two techniques would seem todisagree. This late deposition suggests that HT55may have been occupied or at least used for trashdisposal as late as the third quarter of the seven-teenth century.

The statistical date for Trash Pit A is 1637,which exactly coincides with the calculated datefor the well. This is not surprising in light of thefact that these two features were proven to betemporally related by a ceramic crossmend (Cata-log Number 1143).

The quantities of tobacco pipe stems fromthe trash pits designated as Trash Pits A and F(40 and 36 pipe stems, respectively), were ini-tially considered too small to yield reliable resultsfrom Harrington calculations (see Figure 48).However, the results from this analysis yieldedtwo entirely different mean dates of 1651 for TrashPit F and 1630 for Trash Pit H. Because thesefeatures were in very close proximity, and duringexcavation had been perceived as being related,they provided an opportunity to indicate the ter-minal point of occupation or trash disposal on thissite. The variance of 21.5 years between the twofeatures suggests two separate periods of depo-sition and further suggests that the occupation ofthe site extended into the third quarter of the sev-enteenth century.

The Harrington histograms for Trash Pits Fand H indicate opposing trends between the twofeatures. The date range for Trash Pit H falls intothe 1620 to 1650 period, while Trash Pit F fallseven later into the 1650 to 1680 period. Whenthe two are combined, a bi-modal frequency ap-pears to span the period from 1620 to 1680. Thefact that there were no ceramic crossmends be-tween these two closely positioned featuresstrongly suggests that they were filled at separatetimes.

Imported and Marked Pipe Bowls

Table 26 shows the marked imported bowls andtheir provenience and suggested origin. The readerwill note that this space is inadequate to fully de-

146

TABLE 25.BINFORD PIPESTEM DATING CALCULATIONS

ENTIRE SITE:Diameter Quantity Product5/64" 1 56/64" 37 2227/64" 228 1,5968/64" 320 2,5609/64" 60 54010/64" 2 2011/64"* + 1 + 11

649 4,9544,954 649 = 7.633 x 38.26 = 292.0381931.85 - 292.038 = 1639.812

WELL (Figure 47):Diameter Quantity Product5/64" 0 06/64" 9 547/64" 46 3228/64" 54 4329/64" 21 18910/64" 2 2011/64" + 0 + 0

132 1,0171,017 132 = 7.704 x 38.26 = 294.7551931.85 - 294.755 = 1637.095

TRASH PIT B:Diameter Quantity Product5/64" 0 06/64" 13 787/64" 79 5538/64" 116 9289/64" 11 9910/64" 0 011/64" + 0 + 0

219 1,6581,658 219 = 7.570 x 38.26 = 289.6571931.85 - 289.657 = 1642.193

Note:This large pipe stem fragment is included in the Harrington calculations of the major features of the site; itwill not be included elsewhere.

147

TABLE 25 (cont’d).BINFORD PIPESTEM DATING CALCULATIONS

TRASH PIT A:Diameter Quantity Product5/64" 0 06/64" 1 67/64" 8 568/64" 16 1289/64" 2 1810/64" 0 011/64" + 0 + 0

27 208208 27 = 7.703 x 38.26 = 294.7431931.85 - 294.743 = 1637.107

COMBINED TRASH PITS F and H:Diameter Quantity Product5/64" 0 06/64" 5 307/64" 31 2178/64" 31 2489/64" 8 7210/64" 1 1011/64" + 0 + 0

76 577577 76 = 7.592 x 38.26 = 290.4731931.85 - 290.473 = 1641.377

TRASH PIT F:Diameter Quantity Product5/64" 0 06/64" 5 307/64" 22 1548/64" 9 729/64" 3 2710/64" 1 1011/64" + 0 + 0

40 293293 40 =7.325 x 38.26 = 280.2541931.85 - 280.254 = 1651.596

148

TABLE 25 (cont’d).BINFORD PIPESTEM DATING CALCULATIONS

TRASH PIT H:Diameter Quantity Product5/64" 0 06/64" 0 07/64" 9 638/64" 22 1769/64" 5 4510/64" 0 011/64" + 0 + 0

36 284284 36 = 7.888 x 38.26 = 301.8281931.85 - 301.002 = 1630.022

Figure 45. Harrington histogram—entire site. Figure 46. Harrington histogram—site by feature.

scribe the marks, and reference should be madeto the more detailed descriptions of the catalogedpipe bowls in the following pages. Additionally,the suggested dates indicated for each of themarked pipe bowls are taken from some of thepublished research done on seventeenth centurytobacco pipes by such authorities as Iain Walker,Adrian Oswald, and Ivor and Audrey Noël Hume.They are included in this listing only to providethe reader with a broad frame of reference fordepositional dating and documentation wherethese marked pipes appear on other archaeo-

logical sites. Therefore these dates should notbe confused with the dating of features at HT55.

Of the 53 marked pipe bowls, 10 (18.8%)are thought to be of English manufacture; 30(56.6%) are thought to be Dutch, and the remain-ing 13 (24.5%) are of unknown origin (Figure49).

The highest concentration of marked pipebowls occurred in Trash Pit B, which is a largetrash pit located just north of Structure A (Figure50). This feature held 16 marked bowls—the ma-jority being of Dutch origin. The deposition of

149

tobacco pipe fragments and other domestic refusein this large feature located so near Structure Asuggests the nature of trash disposal practiced bythe inhabitants of the property either during thecourse of occupation or at the termination of resi-dence. It is not surprising to note that four pipeswith the same mark of “W C” were found in thistrash pit and in a posthole of Structure A (Cata-log Numbers 6117, 6119, 6121, and 6123). Thismark has been attributed to the English pipemakerWilliam Collins (Oswald 1970:138). Even thoughthe maker’s marks found on tobacco pipes are

not always the best indicators of date of manu-facture, this mark can at least provide a date be-fore which deposition of refuse in the pit and theconstruction of Structure A could have takenplace. Numerous examples of this mark have ap-peared on sites throughout the James River Basinwith depositional dates ranging from circa 1620to 1660 and are discussed below in the descrip-tive catalog of tobacco pipes.

The well held 10 marked bowls, but unfortu-nately only two could be associated with Dutchmanufacture, one with English, and the majority

Figure 47. Harrington histograms—Well, Trash Pit A, and Trash Pit B.

150

Figure 48. Harrington histograms—Trash Pit F, Trash Pit H, and Trash Pits F and H combined.

(7) of unknown origin. The well also containedlarge quantities of domestic refuse and may havebeen filled at or about the same time as the largeTrash Pits A and B north of the major structureson the site. Unfortunately, no ceramic crossmendswere found to prove a contemporaneous rela-tionship between Trash Pit B and the well; how-ever, a crossmend in a locally-made coarse earth-enware vessel (Catalog Number 1143) was foundto prove the temporal association of Trash Pit Awith the well.

Trash Pits G and H each contained six markedbowls. Four in each pit were of Dutch origin, whilethe remainder were of unknown manufacture.Trash Pit F contained only four marked pipebowls, all suspected of being Dutch in origin. Theassociation of Trash Pits F and G is suggestedbut not proven by the presence of pipe bowlswith the same maker’s mark, “S H,” in each andalso by a non-contiguous ceramic fragment asso-ciation in an English delftware jug (Catalog Num-ber 1017). Dutch tobacco pipes with this markhave been found on other sites with depositional

151

Figure 49. Imported marked pipes—probable origin. Figure 50. Marked pipe concentrations.

dates prior to 1650 (A. Noël Hume 1979:25-26; Oswald 1969:140).

Capacity Study of Tobacco PipeBowls

The capacity of some of the imported and do-mestic tobacco pipe bowls from the HT55 wasrecorded using aluminum oxide crystals of the typeused in airbrasive conservation equipment. Thissubstance was chosen because the microscopiccrystals are fairly regular in size, measuring nomore than 50 microns in diameter, and becausethis powder has a low compression factor, thusinsuring greater consistency in the measurementsof weight. The stem holes at the bases of the bowlswere plugged to prevent any of the powder fromentering the stem and compromising the measure-ments. The capacities of the sample pipe bowlsare calculated based on the assumption that a rigidcontainer with the internal measurements of 2.32cm by 2.32 cm by 0.48 cm deep contains 2.58cubic centimeters. This container was completelyfilled with the same aluminum oxide powder thatwas used to measure the pipe bowls. The pow-der contents of this container weighted 3.7 grams.The calculations for cubic displacement of thebowls were then made using the following basicratio formula:

3.7 grams grams of powder in bowl———— × ——————————2.58 cm3 X

In this manner it is possible to establish a weight-to-volume ratio which can convey to the readerthe relative size and cubic displacement of the pipebowls under investigation.

A random sample of 20 white-clay pipe bowlswas selected to be compared with a similar groupof domestic pipe bowls in the hopes of findingsome correlation between the sizes. It was im-possible to perform this same comparison be-tween pipes of English and Dutch origin becauseof the measurable and marked HT55 pipe bowls,only three were identified as possibly English inorigin, as opposed to 18 Dutch bowls. The obvi-ous imbalance in the quantities of examples wouldhave biased the averages and made any othercalculations meaningless.

The average bowl capacity of the white-claysample was 2.64 cm3, while the average capacityof the domestic clay bowls was 4.30 cm3. Thisamounts to approximately 61.4% greater capac-ity for the domestic pipes over that of importedexamples (Figure 51). This variance can possiblybe explained in part by the methods of construc-tion of the two types of pipes. The imported pipeswere invariably molded, while a significant pro-portion of the domestic pipes were hand-formed

152

TABLE 26.MAKER’S MARKS ON IMPORTED TOBACCO PIPES

Catalog Maker’s Type of Possible SuggestedNumber Mark Context Origin Date Range

6110 “I B” Trash Pit G Unknown 1620-16506111 “M B” Well English 1650-16806112 “B C” Slot Fence Dutch 1620-16606113 “B C” Trash Pit F Dutch 1620-16606114 B C” Trash Pit F Dutch 1620-16606115 “B C” Trash Pit H Dutch 1620-16606176 “B C” Trash Pit H Dutch 1620-16606116 “B C” Trash Pit B Dutch 1620-16606117 “W C” Trash Pit B English 1640-16606118 “W C” Feature 105 English 1640-16606119 “W C” Trash Pit B English 1640-16606120 “W C” Trash Pit A English 1640-16606121 “W C” Trash Pit B English 1640-16606122 “W C” Feature 25 English 1640-16606123 “W C” Structure A English 1640-16606124 “W C” Slot Fence English 1640-16606125 “C D” Well Unknown Unknown6126 “I (?) D” Well Unknown Unknown6127 “W D” Trash Pit G Unknown Unknown6128 “H F” Slot Fence Dutch Circa 16406129 “H F” Trash Pit G Dutch Circa 16406188 “H F” Trash Pit H Dutch Circa 16406130 “H F” Trash Pit A Dutch Circa 16406131 “I (?) H” Trash Pit A Unknown Unknown6132 “S H” Trash Pit B Dutch Pre-16506133 “S H” Trash Pit F Dutch Pre-16506160 “S H” Trash Pit F Dutch Pre-16506134 “S H” Trash Pit B Dutch Pre-16506135 “S H” Trash Pit G Dutch Pre-16506136 “I P” Feature 192 English 1620-16606137 “AOR” Well Dutch 1624-16766138 “W R” Trash Pit B Dutch 1624-16766139 “W R” Trash Pit B Dutch 1624-16766140 “W R” Trash Pit B Dutch 1624-16766141 “A S Well Unknown 1624-16766142 “H S” Trash Pit H Unknown 1624-16766143 Tudor rose Trash Pit H Dutch Pre-16506144 Tudor rose Trash Pit B Dutch Pre-16506145 “W P” Feature 49 Dutch Unknown6146 Crowned heart Trash Pit B Dutch Pre-16406147 Crowned heart Trash Pit B Dutch Pre-16406148 Fleur-de-lis Trash Pit B Dutch Unknown6149 Fleur-de-lis Trash Pit B Dutch Unknown6150 Fleur-de-lis/ Trash Pit H Dutch Unknown

heart6151 Fleur-de-lis/ Trash Pit B Unknown Unknown

blossom

153

TABLE 26 (cont’d).MAKER’S MARKS ON IMPORTED TOBACCO PIPES

Catalog Maker’s Type of Possible SuggestedNumber Mark Context Origin Date Range

6152 Fleur-de-lis/ Trash Pit B Unknown Unknown blossom

6153 Eglantine? Trash Pit H Unknown Unknown6154 Indiscernible Well Unknown Unknown6155 “E?I” Well Unknown Unknown6156 “FRM” Trash Pit G Dutch Unknown6157 “? B” Well English Unknown6158 Indiscernible Well Unknown Unknown6159 Fleur-de-lis Well Dutch Unknown

Figure 51. Pipe bowl capacity.

over a mandrel. This more crude means of form-ing the domestic pipes may account for the largersizes of domestic pipe bowls. Additionally, thelocal pipemaker and/or tobacco consumer of theseventeenth century may have been able to uselarger quantities of tobacco because of purelyeconomic reasons. The local tobacco consumermay have enjoyed larger quantities of lesser qualitytobacco that was not suitable for export. Thestudy of tobacco pipe bowl capacity in relationto the economics of the early tobacco industry inthe Chesapeake merits further research.

Contemporaneous RelationshipsEstablished Through Crossmending

The white clay tobacco pipes from HT55 werecrossmended, yielding two contemporaneous re-lationships between macro-features. A small trashpit (Trash Pit E) and the well were proven con-temporaneous by a single crossmend in a pipebowl (Catalog Number 6102). A crossmend be-tween two fragments of a plain tobacco pipe stem(Catalog Number 6106) proves a relationshipbetween Trash Pits G and H.

Domestic Tobacco Pipes

The study of domestically-produced clay tobaccopipes has occupied the attention of a number ofmaterial culture scholars in the recent past. These

artifacts have been used to help fill a void ofknowledge relating to economics, tobacco con-sumption patterns, manufacturing techniques oflocally-made and imported pipes, and the cul-tural backgrounds which are evident in the formsand decorations used by early settlers in theChesapeake. One of the earliest works was thatof Susan Henry, who studied the pipes retrievedfrom various features at Saint Mary’s City, Mary-land, intending to show a correlation between thefluctuations in the tobacco-based economy andthe frequency of these domestic pipes. Henry alsoattempted to describe the stylistic variation in theincised decoration appearing on the pipes and toestablish a dating framework, based on associa-tion with dated contexts (Henry 1976). The dat-

154

ing scheme set forth by Henry was called intoquestion by the recent excavations at the CollegeLanding site, conducted by the Department ofArchaeologcial Research in 1987. In the courseof these excavations, a large borrow pit featurewas excavated, revealing an assemblage of lo-cally-made tobacco pipes with a full range ofdecorative aspects that Henry had previously as-signed to various periods in the seventeenth cen-tury. The borrow pit feature was shown to havebeen open only for a short period of time, as ce-ramic crossmemds were established from theuppermost layers to the bottom layers, suggest-ing a single eposode of filling, or at least fillingover a short period of time (Edwards 1987). Theretrieval of so many domestic pipes from oneshort-lived feature dating no later than 1650 callsinto question the assumptions made by Henry indealing with the dating of these pipes based onstylistic considerations.

The College Landing pipes that were studiedby Lester and Hendricks (1987) were groupedinto stylistic categories based on bowl shape andincised decoration. Their conclusions show thatthere was a multitude of domestic tobacco pipeshapes and decorative motifs in use simultaneouslyduring the first half of the seventeenth century(Lester and Hendricks 1987). These authors sug-gest that the domestic tobacco pipes were theproduct of a mixture of European and aboriginalculture. Later work in the subject has shown astrong indication of West African influences in theincised decoration. Mathew Emerson’s recentwork on domestic tobacco pipes (Emerson 1988)contradicts Susan Henry’s earlier explanations ofthe factors which motivated local pipe produc-tion. Henry’s assumption was that domestic pipeswere locally produced as a plantation industry inresponse to a depressed tobacco economy whenimported goods were not as readily available(Henry 1979). Emerson’s contention is that thesedomestically produced pipes are a phenomenonof the second half of the seventeenth cenury andwere produced not by the larger planters but bythe “. . . people who were landless, bonded, andwithout any access to even the most inexpensive

imported commodities” (Emerson 1988:168).Emerson proceeds to argue that “. . . the manu-facture of local pipes by servants on English plan-tations to fill their own needs is the most plausiblepipemaking context in the Chesapeake” (Emerson1988:169). Emerson then contends that the in-crease in the number of African slaves in theChesapeake after the middle of the seventeenthcentury accounts for the stylistic parallels betweenWest African artistic motifs and the incised deco-ration on domestically-produced pipes, consti-tuting “. . . the first physical evidence of slaves inthe Chesapeake” (Emerson 1988:171).

Emerson’s theory ignores, however, the pres-ence of domestic tobacco pipes retrieved fromsuch sites as College Landing and HT55, whichare firmly dated in the first half of the seventeenthcentury. As the first indentured blacks were trans-ported to Virginia by the Dutch in 1619, and theirnumbers did not exceed 2% of the total popula-tion until after 1650 (Jordan 1978:148; Ver Steeg1964:60-61), it seems extremely unlikely that sosmall a portion of the population could have pro-duced an artifact which occurs in such large num-bers in widely-dispersed settlements along thenavigable James River during the first half of theseventeenth century. Clearly, some other culturalforce must have come into play in the decadesbefore there was a significant black presence inthe Virginia Colony in order to bring about thedistinctive decorations and shapes found on do-mestically-produced tobacco pipes. The mostlikely possibility lies in the interaction between thelandless Caucasian population and the indigenousNative Americans. English servants, who consti-tuted the majority of the work force in the firstthree quarters of the seventeenth century (Horn1979:51; Davis 1986:4-8), may have learned thetraditional methods of hand-making clay tobaccopipes from the remaining indigenous NativeAmericans, copying their shapes and decorativemotifs. After the second half of the seventeenthcentury, as the Native American peoples werebeing displaced by steadily-increasing Englishpopulation and more extensive cultivation of landfor tobacco production occurred, the influence

155

of the aboriginal culture was gradually replacedwith that of the African servant or slave.

The domestic tobacco pipes that were re-trieved from HT55 were compared with thoseexcavated at the College Landing site, and ap-pear very similar in character (Lester andHendricks 1987). The range of decorative motifsand bowl shapes evident in the assemblage is alsosimilar to the motifs and shapes discussed byEmerson from varous locations throughout theChesapeake (Emerson 1988). In the detailedcatalog of domestic pipes which follows, occa-sional reference is made to typologies set forthby Emerson, Crass, and others (Emerson 1988;Crass 1988; Lester and Hendricks 1987; Henry1979). However, it was discovered early in thestudy that these typologies are too general to beof definitive value in the classification of bowlshapes. The decorative classifications assigned byEmerson were equally general and do not ad-equately cover the range of decorations found inthe HT55 assemblage.

Other Artifacts

The author regrets the lack of complete photo-graphic illustration of the objects under discus-sion in this section of the report. The conserva-tion treatment of the vast majority of the metaland organic artifacts had not been completed atthe time of this writing. It was therefore impos-sible to provide the same level and quality of pho-tographic documentation for these objects and atthe same time meet the designated report comple-tion date. Pre-treatment conservation photo-graphs and drawings of the objects submitted forconservation treatment were made and are avail-able for inspection and comparative study.

The non-ceramic and non-glass artifacts re-covered from HT55 provided some unique in-sights into the quality of life enjoyed by early Vir-ginia settlers (Table 27). The diversity and rangeof non-ceramic artifacts found on the site may beuseful in suggesting activities areas and functionsof the various major structures and related fea-tures. In light of the suspected, but not proven,

ecclesiastic association with the Parish ofKicoughtan, this functional/locational analysis mayprove useful in understanding the land-use prac-tices of the inhabitants of the site. For ease in sys-tematically addressing this body of material thefinds were divided into ten functional categories,including: Non-Ceramic Food Preparation andConsumption, Cutlery, Tools and Equipment,Weaponry and Armor, Personal Items, TextileRelated, Trade Related, Furniture Related, Ar-chitectural, and Nails. Even though cutlery itemsare technically associated with both food con-sumption and preparation, it was decided to sepa-rate these tableware items from the other food-related objects because of the large quantity ofknives. It is felt that a distribution of these cutleryitems in comparison to the other foodways ob-jects may be revealing.

Operating on the long-established premisethat concentrations of artifacts on a site may indi-cate areas of specialized activity, the finds wereanalyzed to suggest possible craft activities, trashdisposal practices, and possible functions of themajor structures (Beck et al. 1983; Stewart-Abernathy 1986; King 1988).

It is evident from the distribution, that themajority of food preparation and consumptionobjects were retrieved from the well, which is lo-cated on the west side of the site. These objectsappear to be metal drinking cups and cookingpot fragments.

A similar pattern is evident in the distributionof cutlery objects as in the food preparation andconsumption artifacts (Photo 40). The well to thewest of the site held the majority of knife bladefragments, followed by Trash Pit D, also locatedon the west side of the site. The highest concen-tration of bone cutlery handles occurred in TrashPit B just north of Structure A, on the east side ofthe site. There was also an even distribution ofbone handles in all of the major features with theexception of Trash Pits A, C, and H. Pewter spoonhandle fragments were found in the well to thewest and in Trash Pit B to the east, but in none ofthe other major features. The concentrations offood-related artifacts on the eastern and western

156

TABLE 27.ARTIFACT FUNCTION CATEGORIES

NON-CERAMIC FOOD PREPARATION AND CONSUMPTION:

059-44HT55-050 Fe cup handle Trash Pit D130-44HT55-182 Fe cup handle Well174-44HT55-216 Fe pot/cup handle Well284-44HT55-003 Pb alloy fragments Trash Pit B039-44HT55-023 Fe skewer Trash Pit B094-44HT55-127 cast Fe pot foot Well131-44HT55-182 cast Fe pot foot Well136-44HT55-177 cast Fe pot foot Well166-44HT55-216 Fe brazier (?) handle Well354-44HT55-026 Fe trivet foot (?) Trash Pit B356-44HT55-127 Fe pot fragments (?) Well

CUTLERY:

110-44HT55-182 bone cutlery handle Well005-44HT55-076 Fe knife blade Trash Pit B020-44HT55-026 bone cutlery handle Trash Pit B066-44HT55-127 Fe knife blade Well012-44HT55-042 Fe knife blade Trash Pit C123-44HT55-177 Cu alloy spoon bowl Well011-44HT55-046 Fe knife blade Trash Pit G010-44HT55-050 Fe knife blade Trash Pit D099-44HT55-050 Fe knife blade Trash Pit D008-44HT55-050 Fe knife blade Trash Pit D007-44HT55-066 Fe knife blade Trash Pit H018-44HT55-054 bone cutlery handle Trash Pit G016-44HT55-009 Fe knife blade Trash Pit A015-44HT55-050 Fe knife blade Trash Pit D014-44HT55-058 bone/Fe knife handle Trash Pit G020-44HT55-026 bone cutlery handle Trash Pit B019-44HT55-026 bone cutlery handle Trash Pit B037-44HT55-050 bone cutlery handle Trash Pit D091-44HT55-127 Fe knife blade Well099-44HT55-127 Fe knife blade Well117-44HT55-182 Fe knife blade Well116-44HT55-182 Fe knife blade (?) Well115-44HT55-182 Fe knife blade Well114-44HT55-182 Fe knife blade Well113-44HT55-182 bone/Pb alloy handle Well140-44HT55-182 Fe knife blade Well

Note: In order to save space in this listing, standard scientific abbreviations for metals have been used through-out. Hence: Ag = silver; Au = gold; Pb = lead; Fe = iron; Cu = copper; Cu alloy = brass, bronze, and latten;and Pb alloy = pewter. All ferrous metal objects are simply listed as Fe, even though alloys of this metal,such as steel, are undoubtedly present in such objects as knife, sword, and scissor blades and not likely tobe present in nails, cast cooking pots, etc. Numbers appearing in parentheses in the listing indicate thequantity of fragments or objects present.

157

TABLE 27 (cont’d).ARTIFACT FUNCTION CATEGORIES

CUTLERY (cont’d):

146-44HT55-216 bone cutlery handle Well148-44HT55-216 Fe knife blade Well150-44HT55-216 Fe knife blade Well154-44HT55-216 Fe knife blade Well163-44HT55-216 Fe knife blade Well165-44HT55-216 Fe knife blade (?) Well177-44HT55-216 Fe knife blade (?) Well176-44HT55-216 Fe knife blade (?) Well190-44HT55-050 bone cutlery handle Trash Pit D200-44HT55-333 Fe knife blade (?) ———————207-44HT55-344 Fe knife blade (?) Structure C216-44HT55-182 Pb alloy spoon handle (?) Well215-44HT55-182 Fe knife blade Well276-44HT55-039 Fe knife blade (?) Trash Pit G285-44HT55-003 Pb alloy spoon handle (?) Trash Pit B318-44HT55-177 Fe knife blade Well

TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT:

041-44HT55-024 Fe tool handle socket Trash Pit A050-44HT55-003 Fe plane blade Trash Pit B054-44HT55-050 Fe fish hook Trash Pit D112-44HT55-182 bone “needle” Well107-44HT55-180 Fe staple/holdfast Structure A108-44HT55-180 Fe staple Structure A017-44HT55-177 Fe saw blade fragment Well124-44HT55-182 Fe plane blade Well126-44HT55-182 Fe hoe collar Well127-44HT55-182 Fe hoe collar Well134-44HT55-182 Fe barrel hoop (?) Well138-44HT55-181 Fe spade nose/Dutch hoe Well168-44HT55-216 Fe triangular file Well201-44HT55-075 Fe ax poll (?) Trash Pit B202-44HT55-075 Fe cotter pin (?) Trash Pit B232-44HT55-050 Fe spoon gouge Trash Pit D311-44HT55-008 Fe cotter pin Trash Pit B315-44HT55-254 Fe draw knife (?) Structure C334-44HT55-026 Fe barrel hoop Trash Pit B333-44HT55-026 Fe barrel hoop Trash Pit B332-44HT55-179 Fe barrel hoop Structure A331-44HT55-127 Fe barrel hoop Well330-44HT55-215 Fe barrel hoop Well355-44HT55-177 Fe hardware (?) Well

WEAPONRY AND ARMOR:

031-44HT55-050 Fe incendiary arrow point Trash Pit D044-44HT55-003 Fe sword hanger Trash Pit B058-44HT55-075 Fe trigger guard Trash Pit B

158

TABLE 27 (cont’d).ARTIFACT FUNCTION CATEGORIES

057-44HT55-035 Fe sword quillon Trash Pit F060-44HT55-127 Fe jackplate (?) Well063-44HT55-050 Fe armor plate washer Trash Pit D066-44HT55-066 Fe musket scouring tool Trash Pit H073-44HT55-026 Pb musket ball Trash Pit B078-44HT55-046 Cu alloy scabbard tip Trash Pit G045-44HT55-127 Fe sword belt buckle Well135-44HT55-182 Fe pipe (gun barrel ?) Well061-44HT55-046 Cu alloy sword buckle Trash Pit G062-44HT55-046 Cu alloy sword buckle Trash Pit G185-44HT55-180 Fe sword blade Structure A198-44HT55-024 Fe armor plate (?) Trash Pit A199-44HT55-024 Fe armor plate (?) Trash Pit A210-44HT55-003 Fe trigger guard Trash Pit B223-44HT55-025 Fe armor plate (?) Trash Pit A238-44HT55-076 Pb casting sprue Trash Pit B241-44HT55-069 Pb casting sprues (2) Trash Pit F240-44HT55-075 Pb casting sprues (7) Trash Pit B248-44HT55-182 Fe armor plate (?) Well278-44HT55-003 Pb casting sprues (27) Trash Pit B280-44HT55-182 Pb shot (7) Well299-44HT55-025 Pb casting sprues (2) Trash Pit A298-44HT55-075 Pb casting sprues (3) Trash Pit B297-44HT55-008 Pb casting sprues (3) Trash Pit B296-44HT55-127 Pb shot Well295-44HT55-018 Pb casting sprues (9) Trash Pit B294-44HT55-249 Pb shot (3) Structure B293-44HT55-079 Pb casting sprue Trash Pit D292-44HT55-247 Pb shot Structure B291-44HT55-010 Pb shot Trash Pit A290-44HT55-216 Pb shot(3) Well289-44HT55-066 Pb shot (3) Trash Pit H288-44HT55-026 Pb shot (2) Trash Pit B287-44HT55-035 Pb casting sprues (11) Trash Pit F305-44HT55-076 Pb shot (29), sprues (9) Trash Pit B304-44HT55-182 Pb shot (1), sprue (1) Well303-44HT55-003 Pb shot (2), sprues (3) Trash Pit B302-44HT55-025 Pb shot (2), sprues (3) Trash Pit A301-44HT55-023 Pb shot (6), sprues (2) Trash Pit B300-44HT55-023 Pb shot (1), sprues (12) Trash Pit B357-44HT55-010 Pb shot (2) Trash Pit D

PERSONAL ITEMS:

001-44HT55-026 Fe spur Trash Pit B128-44HT55-182 Cu alloy spur rowel Well120-44HT55-182 Fe spur Well002-44HT55-066 Fe spur Trash Pit H003-44HT55-024 Fe spur Trash Pit A004-44HT55-172 Fe “jew’s” (jaw) harp Well

159

TABLE 27 (cont’d).ARTIFACT FUNCTION CATEGORIES

PERSONAL ITEMS (cont’d):

080-44HT55-003 Ag and glass jewelry Trash Pit B081-44HT55-018 Ag and glass jewelry Trash Pit B082-44HT55-042 glass bead Trash Pit C083-44HT55-026 bone comb Trash Pit B111-44HT55-182 ivory comb Well109-44HT55-182 bone comb Well152-44HT55-216 bone disk* Well092-44HT55-182 bone comb Well227-44HT55-216 Cu alloy/glass/fiber jewelry Well258-44HT55-075 ivory gaming die Trash Pit B234-44HT55-025 Cu alloy hinged book clasp Trash Pit A

TEXTILE-RELATED:

026-44HT55-085 Fe scissor blade Trash Pit D025-44HT55-050 Fe scissor blade Trash Pit D024-44HT55-127 Fe scissor Well023-44HT55-127 Fe scissor Well022-44HT55-127 Fe scissor Well021-44HT55-079 Fe scissors Trash Pit D035-44HT55-149 glass linen smoother Structure B040-44HT55-001 Fe tenter hook Trash Pit A046-44HT55-075 Fe clothing “eye” Trash Pit B049-44HT55-127 Fe clothing “eye” Well048-44HT55-026 Fe clothing “eye” Trash Pit B047-44HT55-172 Fe clothing “eye” Well055-44HT55-026 cord and Cu alloy wire Trash Pit B065-44HT55-066 Cu alloy button Trash Pit H064-44HT55-066 Fe clothing hook Trash Pit H071-44HT55-010 Cu alloy thimble Trash Pit A070-44HT55-155 Cu alloy thimble Structure C155-44HT55-216 Fe buckle frame Well072-44HT55-008 Cu alloy buckle frame Trash Pit B075-44HT55-024 Cu alloy/Au washed clasp Trash Pit A074-44HT55-026 Fe clothing hook Trash Pit B086-44HT55-010 Cu alloy hook (?) Trash Pit A093-44HT55-127 cord and Cu alloy wire Well095-44HT55-127 Cu alloy thimble Well122-44HT55-177 Ag twisted wire Well133-44HT55-182 Fe clothing “eye” Well137-44HT55-215 crocheted (?) cord (lace?) Well139-44HT55-182 Cu alloy and Au thread Well147-44HT55-216 crocheted (?) cord (lace?) Well151-44HT55-182 Cu alloy pins (4) Well

* The turned bone disk (152-44HT55-216) is omitted from the summary because the exact function and identityof this object has not been determined.

160

TABLE 27 (cont’d).ARTIFACT FUNCTION CATEGORIES

TEXTILE-RELATED (cont’d):

160-44HT55-216 Ag aiglet Well183-44HT55-173 Fe clothing “eye” Structure C184-44HT55-174 Fe clothing hook Structure C188-44HT55-024 Cu alloy aiglet w/ fiber Trash Pit A192-44HT55-182 Cu alloy thimble Well191-44HT55-127 Fe clothing hook Well194-44HT55-182 Cu alloy buckle Well208-44HT55-344 Fe clothing hook Structure C212-44HT55-127 Fe clothing “eye” Well217-44HT55-075 Fe clothing “eye” Trash Pit B219-44HT55-010 Fe clothing “eye” Trash Pit A230-44HT55-024 Cu alloy doublet button Trash Pit A231-44HT55-215 Cu alloy clothing hook Well235-44HT55-085 Cu alloy aiglet Trash Pit D237-44HT55-076 Cu alloy aiglets (2) Trash Pit B242-44HT55-069 Cu alloy aiglets (2) Trash Pit F244-44HT55-066 Cu alloy aiglet Trash Pit H255-44HT55-076 Cu alloy and cord Trash Pit B264-44HT55-076 Fe clothing “eye” Trash Pit B263-44HT55-076 Fe clothing hook Trash Pit B262-44HT55-076 Fe clothing hook Trash Pit B270-44HT55-076 Fe clothing hook Trash Pit B269-44HT55-076 Fe clothing hook Trash Pit B268-44HT55-076 Fe clothing hook Trash Pit B267-44HT55-216 Fe clothing “eye” Well266-44HT55-009 Cu alloy clothing “eye” Trash Pit A275-44HT55-046 Cu alloy aiglet Trash Pit G274-44HT55-065 Cu alloy aiglet Trash Pit A277-44HT55-027 Cu alloy aiglet Trash Pit B282-44HT55-003 Cu alloy aiglets (3) Trash Pit B329-44HT55-026 Cu alloy aiglets (4) Trash Pit B328-44HT55-127 Cu alloy aiglets (3) Well327-44HT55-024 Cu alloy aiglet Trash Pit A326-44HT55-018 Cu alloy aiglet Trash Pit B325-44HT55-009 Cu alloy aiglet Trash Pit A324-44HT55-025 Cu alloy aiglet Trash Pit A323-44HT55-087 Cu alloy aiglets (2) Slot Fence A335-44HT55-023 Cu alloy aiglet Trash Pit A339-44HT55-182 Cu alloy aiglets (4) Well338-44HT55-140 Cu alloy aiglet Structure A337-44HT55-010 Cu alloy aiglets (7) Trash Pit A344-44HT55-078 Cu alloy aiglets (3) Trash Pit A343-44HT55-042 Cu alloy aiglet Trash Pit C351-44HT55-272 Cu alloy aiglet Structure B350-44HT55-216 Cu alloy aiglets (2) Well353-44HT55-066 Cu alloy aiglet Trash Pit H358-44HT55-076 Cu alloy aiglets (2) Trash Pit B

161

TABLE 27 (cont’d).ARTIFACT FUNCTION CATEGORIES

TEXTILE-RELATED (cont’d):

362-44HT55-050 Cu alloy aiglet Trash Pit D361-44HT55-026 Cu alloy aiglets (5) Trash Pit B360-44HT55-371 Cu alloy aiglets (2) Slot Fence B359-44HT55-122 Cu alloy aiglet Structure B192-44HT55-182 Cu alloy thimble Well406-44HT55-216 Pb alloy button Well

TRADE-RELATED:

409-44HT55-044 Ag coin Trash Pit A407-44HT55-342 Cu alloy farthing Structure A408-44HT55-050 Cu alloy jetton Trash Pit D143-44HT55-182 Pb bale seal Well195-44HT55-049 Pb bale seal Trash Pit G068-44HT55-023 Pb bale seal Trash Pit B121-44HT55-177 Cu alloy pan balance wire Well077-44HT55-177 Cu alloy pan balance wire Well

FURNITURE-RELATED:

034-44HT55-078 Cu alloy curtain ring Trash Pit A085-44HT55-177 Cu alloy tack Well105-44HT55-180 Cu alloy curtain ring Structure C119-44HT55-182 Fe furniture/trunk key Well125-44HT55-182 Fe furniture/trunk lock Well144-44HT55-182 Fe (?) wire ring Well149-44HT55-216 Fe furniture/box handle Well159-44HT55-216 Cu alloy curtain ring Well161-44HT55-216 Cu alloy tack Well175-44HT55-216 Fe furniture/box handle Well189-44HT55-252 Fe trunk lock Well197-44HT55-024 Fe box hinge fragment Trash Pit A233-44HT55-025 Cu alloy tack Trash Pit A236-44HT55-076 Cu alloy tack Trash Pit B239-44HT55-075 Cu alloy tacks (2) Trash Pit B243-44HT55-049 Cu alloy tack Trash Pit G279-44HT55-033 Cu alloy tacks (3) Trash Pit B336-44HT55-003 Cu alloy tack Trash Pit B342-44HT55-046 Cu alloy tack Trash Pit G341-44HT55-191 Cu alloy tack ———————340-44HT55-018 Cu alloy tacks (4) Trash Pit B348-44HT55-023 Cu alloy tacks (8) Trash Pit B347-44HT55-024 Cu alloy tack Trash Pit A346-44HT55-058 Cu alloy tacks (3) Trash Pit G345-44HT55-266 Cu alloy tack Structure C249-44HT55-013 Cu alloy tack Post hole352-44HT55-076 Cu alloy tacks (7) Trash Pit B038-44HT55-127 Fe diamond-head box nail Well

162

TABLE 27 (cont’d).ARTIFACT FUNCTION CATEGORIES

FURNITURE-RELATED (cont’d):

226-44HT55-023 Fe diamond-head box nail Trash Pit B043-44HT55-127 Fe furniture/box handle (?) Well030-44HT55-050 Fe hinged hasp Trash Pit D029-44HT55-010 Fe hasp fragment Trash Pit A028-44HT55-075 Fe small hinge fragment Trash Pit A162-44HT55-216 Fe hinged hasp Well056-44HT55-035 Fe small padlock Trash Pit F

ARCHITECTURAL:

033-44HT55-078 Fe barrel bolt (?) Trash Pit A051-44HT55-026 Fe stock lock Trash Pit 5053-44HT55-045 Fe door/furniture lock Trash Pit A076-44HT55-025 Cu alloy “cap square” Trash Pit A088-44HT55-172 window Pb and scrap Well089-44HT55-177 window Pb Well097-44HT55-127 window Pb (3) Well104-44HT55-172 window Pb (2) Well106-44HT55-180 window Pb Structure A118-44HT55-182 Fe door key Well132-44HT55-182 Fe lock part Well164-44HT55-216 Fe lock part (?) Well167-44HT55-216 Fe hook or latch (?) Well186-44HT55-010 Fe strap hinge Trash Pit A204-44HT55-010 window Pb Trash Pit A206-44HT55-265 window Pb (9) Structure C205-44HT55-045 window Pb (2) Trash Pit A211-44HT55-254 window Pb Structure C 213-44HT55-182 window Pb Well260-44HT55-127 window pane w/ Pb Well273-44HT55-050 Fe hinge pin (?) Trash Pit D309-44HT55-024 glass window panes Trash Pit A1240-44HT55-231 roofing tile fragment Structure C1241-44HT55-177 roofing tile fragment Well5001-44HT55-182 plaster sample Well

PRELIMINARY NAIL SAMPLE:

172-44HT55-216 Fe large nail (spike) Well169-44HT55-216 Fe large nail (spike) Well173-44HT55-216 Fe L-head nail Well179-44HT55-216 Fe large nail Well187-44HT55-010 Fe large nail (spike) Trash Pit A399-44HT55-039 Fe nail Trash Pit G398-44HT55-038 Fe nail Trash Pit G397-44HT55-049 Fe nails (3) Trash Pit G396-44HT55-054 Fe nails (3) Trash Pit G395-44HT55-046 Fe nails (3) Trash Pit G394-44HT55-035 Fe nails (6) Trash Pit F

163

TABLE 27 (cont’d).ARTIFACT FUNCTION CATEGORIES

PRELIMINARY NAIL SAMPLE (cont’d):

393-44HT55-069 Fe nails (7) Trash Pit F392-44HT55-127 Fe nails (13) Well391-44HT55-172 Fe nails (6) Well390-44HT55-252 Fe nails (2) Well389-44HT55-182 Fe nails (7) Well388-44HT55-216 Fe nails (6) Well387-44HT55-215 Fe nails (2) Well386-44HT55-177 Fe nails (7) Well385-44HT55-189 Fe nails (2) Structure C384-44HT55-224 Fe nail Structure A383-44HT55-178 Fe nail Structure A382-44HT55-180 Fe nails (4) Structure A381-44HT55-179 Fe nails (3) Structure A380-44HT55-042 Fe nails (5) Trash Pit C379-44HT55-026 Fe nails (7) Trash Pit B378-44HT55-050 Fe nails (6) Trash Pit D377-44HT55-085 Fe nails (4) Trash Pit D376-44HT55-023 Fe nails (6) Trash Pit B375-44HT55-075 Fe nails (7) Trash Pit B374-44HT55-027 Fe nail Trash Pit B373-44HT55-003 Fe nails (6) Trash Pit B372-44HT55-024 Fe nails (8) Trash Pit A371-44HT55-001 Fe nails (4) Trash Pit A370-44HT55-078 Fe nails (3) Trash Pit A369-44HT55-025 Fe nails (6) Trash Pit A368-44HT55-002 Fe nails (3) Trash Pit A367-44HT55-070 Fe nail Trash Pit A366-44HT55-077 Fe nails (3) Trash Pit A365-44HT55-010 Fe nails (4) Trash Pit A405-44HT55-022 Fe nail Trash Pit 19404-44HT55-225 Fe nails (5) ———————-403-44HT55-137 Fe nails (2) Trash Pit 17402-44HT55-132 Fe nail Trash Pit 16401-44HT55-066 Fe nails (7) Trash Pit H400-44HT55-067 Fe nails (6) Trash Pit H

164

sides of the site suggest a general clean-up of thesite and deposition of artifacts over a brief periodof time. The trash disposal practices of the HT55settlers would seem to be largely episodic in na-ture and not the accumulation of household refuseover an extended period of time.

As in previously discussed categories, the wellcontained the majority of the wood-working, ag-ricultural, and miscellaneous equipment. Amongthese artifacts were saw and plane blades and atriangular file fragment. The file is of the type mostfrequently associated with metal working basedon its size and proportion, however, it is groupedhere with the wood-working tools because of thesimilarity in use and form. The well also yieldedthree agricultural implements including two hoecollars and a spade nosing or Dutch hoe blade.

A fragment, believed to be a drawknife blade,was unearthed in a posthole of Structure C. Thisdistinctive wood-working tool was most likelydeposited in the posthole during the constructionof the building though the possibility exists that itmay have found its way into the ground duringsome subsequent repair to the structure.

Numerous bands of ferrous metal identifiedas barrel hoops were encountered in the well andin the cellar fill of Structure A. This was not unex-pected, as barrel hoop fragments have beenfound on numerous sites of this period such as atCollege Landing (Edwards 1987). Of particular

interest were the large fish hook (Catalog Num-ber 054) and the bone “needle” (Catalog Num-ber 112; Photo 41). The fish hook suggests theimportance of local fishing as a means of supple-menting the diet of early settlers, as well as possi-bly providing a means to obtain a saleable com-modity. This large hook, measuring over 14 cen-timeters in overall length, would have been usedto catch large species of fish, such as sturgeon,which were documented as being plentiful in therivers and inlets of the New World (Hariot1590:20; Smith 1624:10, 86). The presence of abone “needle” or bodkin, of the size and typethat could conveniently be used for weaving light-weight fishing nets, also suggests the importanceof fishing as a means of sustenance. The “needle”or bodkin may have also been used in some tex-tile-related activity.

The lack of concentrations of specific tool andequipment forms across the site, except in thelarge trash-filled well and trash pit associated withStructure A, is insufficient evidence to suggestspecific craft activities on the site.

The distribution of various sizes of lead shot,from large musket balls to smaller shot used forhunting game, were found in the large trash pitjust north of Structure A and in the well. Smallerquantities of shot were encountered in two of thepostholes which comprised Structure B. A sur-prising amount of casting sprues from the manu-

Photo 40. Spoon bowl with maker’s mark. Photo 41. Bone “needle.”

165

1 The identification of this artifact was suggested byMr. I. Noël Hume during a brief visit to the Hamp-ton Laboratory during the course of excavation andprocessing of the artifact assemblage.

facture of lead projectiles was recovered. Untilthe mining of lead-rich ore began late in the colo-nial period, lead was in short supply in the Vir-ginia colony and these pieces trimmed from rowsof shot cast in a “gang-mold” (Peterson 1964:71)would usually have been saved and re-melted.The presence of this casting waste on HT55, alongwith two trigger guards (Catalog Numbers 058and 210) and a musket barrel scouring tool (Cata-log Number 066) suggest the presence of at leasttwo firearms. One fragment of forged iron pipe(Catalog Number 135), which may be a sectionof gun barrel, was also encountered.

In addition to firearms, crossbows or longbows may have been present on the site. The pointof an iron incendiary arrow1 (Catalog Number031) was retrieved from Trash Pit D. One mayspeculate as to why and how this very special-ized projectile could be used on HT55 when itwas a long-outmoded weapon by the early sev-enteenth century in Europe. There is documenta-tion to support the assertion that obsolete weap-onry and armor was shipped to the New World,however (I. Noël Hume 1982:123); it is reason-able to assume that a projectile such as an incen-diary bolt could have found its way onto HT55.

Armor plate was recovered from Trash PitsA and D and the well. Most notable was a smalldiamond-shaped washer (Catalog Number 063)of the type used to secure the shoulder straps ofback and breast plates. Identical washers wererecovered at Martin’s Hundred Site “C” on nearlyintact breast and back plates (see I. Noël Hume1982:163, Figure 8-11). Various fragments of ironalloy plate were encountered, and they have ten-tatively been identified as armor plate. Positiveidentification of this type of artifact is not alwayspossible, however, even after all conservationtreatment has been completed.

Five edged-weapon accessories were recov-ered from the well and Trash Pits B and G. These

included a sword belt hanger (Catalog Number044), three sword belt buckles (Catalog Num-bers 045, 061, and 062), and a copper alloy scab-bard tip or “chape” (Catalog Number 078). Thesword carriage elements are similar to those en-countered at the Causey’s Care site and atMartin’s Hundred (Pittman 1988). The scabbardtip or “chape” is most likely part of a dagger sheathowing to its relatively small size and method ofattachment.

Edged weapons were well represented amongthe HT55 armaments. A sword quillon or cross-guard (Catalog Number 057) was found in TrashPit F, and a nearly complete, though badly dam-aged sword blade (Catalog Number 185) wasfound associated with Structure A. The bladeappears to have been a rapier, having a singlefuller, a slightly flattened point, and rectangularricasso. The inhabitants of HT55 would appearto have been well armed with both offensive anddefensive weaponry.

The personal items retrieved from HT55 dem-onstrate a fairly high level of affluence and, alongwith clothing or textile-related artifacts, provide astrong indicator of the quality of life. The pres-ence of spurs in Trash Pits A, B, and H, and thewell suggest that horses were kept on the site. Asno two of the spurs match in terms of appear-ance, material, or size, we may surmise that therewere at least four pairs of these artifacts in use atvarious times on the site. The ownership of horses,as indicated by the presence of spurs, has beensuggested at other sites along the James Riversuch as at Martin’s Hundred, College Landing,and at Causey’s Care. At all of these sites, whichdate to the first decades of colonization in Vir-ginia, harness, spurs, and equestrian-related arti-facts have been unearthed (Pittman 1988;Edwards 1987).

Other personal artifacts include a total of fourbone or ivory hair combs, which were retrievedfrom Trash Pit B and the well. These doubleedged, rectangular combs (Catalog Number 109;Photo 42) are typical in size and form to examplesfound on other early colonial period sites (Pittman1988). As Noël Hume indicates, the teeth of these

166

combs are generally of different size and spacingand may have been used not only for groominghair, but beards as well (I. Noël Hume 1978:174).

The jewelry items were significant becausetwo fragments of what is believed to be the samesilver and beaded necklace (Catalog Numbers080 and 081) were found in two different layerswithin Trash Pit B. These bits of twisted silverwire with small glass beads (average diameter is0.38 cm) were attached with hooks and prob-ably formed a simple adornment for the neck ofan anonymous female settler. Another glass bead(Catalog Number 082) was retrieved from TrashPit C, but this sole example is irregularly shapedand much larger than any of the beads which com-prise the necklace.

The inhabitants of HT55 had recreationalobjects as well, as indicated by the presence of acopper alloy hinged book clasp (Catalog Num-ber 234), an ivory gaming die (Catalog Number258), and an iron jaw or “jew’s” harp (CatalogNumber 004). From this class of artifacts onemay assume that at least one of the settlers at

Photo 42. Bone comb.

HT55 enjoyed music, played games of chance,and was literate.

The textile-related artifacts from HT55 arethe most revealing class of finds when consider-ing relative social status, since “it is clear . . . thatclothing continued to define social stratification[in the seventeenth century] just as it had donethrough the Middle Ages” (I. Noël Hume1982:60). As early as 1621, the Council and Gov-ernor of the fledgling colony attempted to “sup-press drunkenness gaming & excess in cloaths[and] not to permit any but ye Council & headsof hundreds to wear gold in their cloaths” (Anony-mous 1908, as cited by I. Noël Hume 1982).This sumptuary law provides us with a uniqueglimpse of colonial Virginia social structure. Thepresence of gold and silver threads (Catalog Num-ber 122), as well as a silver aiglet (Catalog Num-ber 160) and gold-washed clasp or buckle (Cata-log Number 075) suggest that the residents ofHT55 were either from the upper classes or atleast had access to the hand-me-downs of thewealthy. Those who could afford a large quantityof richly decorated clothing were obviously in aposition of social, financial, and presumably po-litical power.

It is rare to recover textiles or processed fi-bers from seventeenth-century contexts. How-ever, site HT55 yielded what appears to be cro-cheted or tatted “lace” (Catalog Numbers 137and 147; Photo 43), which is composed of me-tallic wire. This type of ornamental “lace” is thetype which was sewn to the cuffs and edges ofdoublets and bodices. In addition, site HT55 con-tained 59 aiglets, 12 clothing “hooks and eyes,”and small clothing buckles and buttons of the type

Photo 43. “Lace.”

167

found at Martin’s Hundred and at College Land-ing (Pittman 1988).

The handle of a glass linen smoother (Cata-log Number 035), the elements of at least fourpairs of scissors (Catalog Numbers 026, 025,024, 023, 022, and 021), two thimbles (CatalogNumbers 071 and 070), and several pieces ofthread and bullion may suggest clothing produc-tion on the site. A tenter hook (Catalog Number040), a small L-shaped nail or hook which wasused on wooden frames to stretch newly-madefabric (I. Noël Hume 1982:294), was retrievedfrom a posthole associated with Structure B, pro-viding further evidence of the manufacture andmaintenance of clothing. The Causey’s Care ex-cavation yielded the mushroom-like head of aglass linen smoother, while HT55 yielded a bro-ken handle (Pittman 1988). Though the two frag-ments are not believed to be related, their pres-ence on two early seventeenth-century sites sowidely separated geographically, as well as onother sites in Tidewater Virginia dating to laterperiods, provide undeniable evidence of the im-portance of clothing as a social indicator.

The distribution of clothing pins across thesite revealed a similar disposal pattern, with thehighest concentrations occurring in the well, fol-lowed by the two trash pits north of Structure A.Other significant concentrations occurred in TrashPits C, D, and F. The presence of such a largenumber of complete and fragmentary pins on asite as early as HT55 was surprising. Even if tai-loring or other textile-related craft activities werenot being carried on at this site, a total of 718clothing pins found in sub-plowzone featuresseems an inordinately large number.

The trade-related artifacts provide a glimpseof the type of mercantile activities which were con-ducted on the site. The presence of a counter orjetton (Catalog Number 408; Figure 52) madeby Hans Krauwinckel of Nurenburg between1580 and 1610 exactly parallels counting piecesfound at Martin’s Hundred (I. Noël Hume1982:17-18). In addition to the jetton, aHarrington farthing Type 2 (Catalog Number 407;Figure 53) was recovered from the site. This di-minutive tinned copper coin was only minted some

fourteen months beginning in May 1613 (Peck1970, as cited by I. Noël Hume 1982:226; Seaby1961). The presence of this coin again parallelsexamples found at Martin’s Hundred (I. NoëlHume 1982:17). This rare find was excavatedfrom a postmold associated with Structure A. Asilver coin (Catalog Number 409) was also re-trieved from Trash Pit A north of Structure A. Thissilver coin is badly worn and a positive identifica-tion has not yet been made.

Other evidence of mercantile activities restswith the presence of two twisted copper alloywires (Catalog Numbers 077 and 121), believedto be the suspending wires of a small pan bal-ance. Coinage of many nationalities was valuednot by its face value, but rather by its weight. Asmall set of weights and a pan balance would havebeen part of any merchant’s or businessman’sbasic equipment.

Three lead bale seals, used to identify the ori-gin of bales of goods (usually cloth), were foundin the well (Catalog Number 143), Trash Pit G(Catalog Number 195), and Trash Pit B (Cata-log Number 068). Only one of these seals (Cata-log Number 068; Figure 54) retained any identi-fiable markings. This is a double seal which stillbears a portion of the impressed inscription in theform of the raised letters “...FFOL...” around theraised letters “R” and “S” within a circle. It is be-lieved that these letters are a portion of the wordSUFFOLK. On the opposite side, the raised ini-tials “I” and “W” appear beneath a crown-likemotif and above an interlocking celtic knot de-sign. The significance of these initials is as yet un-known.

The highest concentrations of furniture-relatedartifacts occurred in Trash Pit B, where 27 (69%)of the total 39 of upholstery tacks were recov-ered. These tacks are small, dome-headed tacksof the type used on chairs and in decorative de-signs on trunks (I. Noël Hume 1978:227-228).Trunk or furniture locks (Catalog Numbers 125and 189), hinge fragments and hinged hasps(Catalog Numbers 162, 028, 029, 030, and 197),and furniture/box handles were also encounteredin the well fill layers. The iron handles (Catalog

168

Figure 52. Krauwinckel jetton.

Figure 53. Harrington farthing, type 2.

Numbers 043, 175) are similar to those exca-vated at Martin’s Hundred (Pittman 1988).

The furniture-related articles which were re-covered during the excavation suggest the qualityof domestic life enjoyed by the inhabitants of thissite. As Barbara Carson has indicated in her de-tailed research into the meaning of the materialpossessions owned by the early settlers in Mary-land in the seventeenth century, relative wealthcan be gauged in terms of the quantity of objects

as well as by their diversity (Carson 1984). Theprobate inventories which form the basis of herwork are largely evaluated listings of householdfurniture and equipment. These lists are used tointerpret not only wealth, but also the functions ofrooms as living spaces, specific activities per-formed on the site, the rearing of families, and theuse of leisure time (Carson 1984). The same typesof household equipment, including curtain rings,pieces of furniture, lockable boxes and/or trunks

Figure 54. Bale seal.

169

Photo 44. Lathe-marked plaster.

are found in the archaeological record at HT55.Unfortunately, no documentary records, in theform of probate inventories, have come to lightfor the HT55 residents and it is, therefore, im-possible to compare the written records with whatis recovered from the ground. We may assume,however, that the same types of furniture andhousehold items listed in Carson’s Maryland in-ventories could be found on many of the earlysettled areas along the James River in Virginia.We may assume that the residents of HT55 ownedeither tack-ornamented furniture or storage trunkswhich were lockable. One small iron padlock(Catalog Number 056) was identified and placedwith the furniture-related finds because of its di-minutive size. It is believed that this size padlockcould only have been practical on a small box orother lockable furniture item.

Of particular interest are two similar iron nailswhich have diamond-shaped heads (CatalogNumbers 038 and 226) which were found in the

Photo 45. Roofing tile fragments.

170

well and in Trash Pit B. Decorative box nails ofthis size and type have not been documented onother Virginia sites in this period. The presence oftwo nearly identical decorative nails in featureson opposite sides of the site suggest a trash dis-posal pattern which is consistent with those indi-cated by the ceramics.

The architectural elements which were re-trieved from HT55 indicate that at least one ofthe structures on the premises was well con-structed with casement windows, and possibly atiled roof. The relatively small quantity of lathe-marked plaster (Photo 44), roofing tile (Photo45), and window glass fragments may represent

only the unusable fragments created by the sal-vage of these more permanent elements of con-struction. Most of these architectural items werefound in the well, and in contexts associated withStructure C. A smaller scattering of similar ob-jects were found in the large trash pits north ofStructure A. The deposition of this class of arti-facts closely follows the same trash disposal pat-tern that is reflected in the distribution of the ce-ramics and glass artifacts.

The sample of nails which were taken fromthe major features of HT55 were chosen in orderto reflect the range of lengths and the head con-figurations.

TABLE 28.SUMMARY OF FOOD PREPARATION AND CONSUMPTION ITEMS

Cup Cup/pot Pb Cast Fe BrazierHandles Handles Frags. Pots Handles Skewers Trivets

Trash Pit B 0 0 1 0 0 1 1Trash Pit D 1 0 0 0 0 0 0Well 1 1 0 4 1 0 0

TOTALS 2 1 1 4 1 1 1

TABLE 29.SUMMARY OF CUTLERY ITEMS

Knife Bone Cutlery SpoonBlades Handles Fragments

Structure C 1 0 0Trash Pit A 1 0 0Trash Pit B 1 3 1Trash Pit C 1 0 0Trash Pit D 4 2 0Trash Pit G 2 2 0Trash Pit H 1 0 0Well 17 3 2

TOTALS 28 10 3

Note: These totals should not be considered anything other than a total number of fragments of cutlery items. Itis entirely possible, and in fact likely, that many of the bone handles were originally attached to many of the knifeblade fragments.

171

TABLE 30.SUMMARY OF TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT

Wood Agricultural MiscellaneousWorking Implements Equipment

Structure A 0 0 1Structure C 1 0 0Trash Pit A 1 0 0Trash Pit B 1 1 4Trash Pit D 1 0 0Well 3 3 5

TOTALS 7 4 10

TABLE 31.SUMMARY OF WEAPONRY AND ARMOR

Pb Casting Gun Edged Sword ArmorShot Sprues Parts WeaponsAccessories Plate

Structure A 0 0 0 1 0 0Structure B 4 0 0 0 0 0Trash Pit A 3 5 0 0 0 3Trash Pit B 41 74 2 0 1 0Trash Pit D 2 1 0 1 0 1Trash Pit F 0 13 0 1 0 0Trash Pit G 0 0 0 0 3 0Trash Pit H 3 0 1 0 0 0Well 12 1 1 0 1 2

TOTALS 65 94 4 3 5 6

TABLE 32.SUMMARY OF PERSONAL ITEMS

Equestrian Jewelry Personal RecreationalEquipment Items Grooming Objects

Trash Pit A 1 0 0 1Trash Pit B 1 2 1 1Trash Pit C 0 1 0 0Trash Pit H 1 0 0 0Well 2 1 3 1

TOTALS 5 4 4 3

172

TABLE 33.SUMMARY OF TEXTILE-RELATED ITEMS

Scissor Buckles/Thimbles Parts “Eyes” “Hooks” Clasps Aiglets Buttons

Structure A 0 0 0 0 0 1 0Structure B 0 0 0 0 0 2 0Structure C 1 0 1 2 0 0 0Trash Pit A 1 0 2 0 0 16 1Trash Pit B 0 0 4 6 1 18 0Trash Pit C 0 0 0 0 0 1 0Trash Pit D 0 3 0 0 0 2 0Trash Pit F 0 0 0 0 0 2 0Trash Pit G 0 0 0 0 0 1 0Trash Pit H 0 0 0 1 0 2 1Slot Fence A 0 0 0 0 0 2 0Fence 0 0 0 0 0 2 0Well 2 3 5 2 1 10 1

TOTALS 4 6 12 12 3 59 3

Linen Bullion/ Cu alloy/ Tenter Au/AgSmoothers “Lace” “Lace” Hooks Thread

Structure B 1 0 0 0 0Trash Pit A 0 0 0 1 0Trash Pit B 0 0 2 0 0Well 0 1 2 0 1

TOTALS 1 1 4 1 1

173

TABLE 34.CLOTHING PIN DISTRIBUTION

Complete or Headed HeadlessShanks Shanks

Structure A 2 2Structure B 1 0Structure C 7 1Trash Pit A 93 5Trash Pit B 84 14Trash Pit C 58 24Trash Pit D 46 0Trash Pit F 44 24Trash Pit G 7 3Trash Pit H 16 2Slot Fence A 6 0Well 240 28Feature 82 3 0Feature 104 3 0Feature 239 1 0Feature 254 3 0Feature 309 1 0

TOTALS 615 103

TABLE 35.SUMMARY OF TRADE-RELATED ARTIFACTS

Casting Bale WeighingCounters Coinage Seals Equipment

Structure A 0 1 0 0Trash Pit A 0 1 0 0Trash Pit B 0 0 1 0Trash Pit D 1 0 0 0Trash Pit G 0 0 1 0Well 0 0 1 2

TOTALS 1 2 3 2

174

TABLE 36.SUMMARY OF FURNITURE-RELATED ARTIFACTS

Curtain Hinges/ TrunkFurnitureDiamond-Rings Tacks Keys Hasps Locks HandlesHead Nails

Structure C 1 1 0 0 0 0 0Trash Pit A 1 2 1 3 0 0 0Trash Pit B 0 27 0 0 0 0 1Trash Pit D 0 0 0 1 0 0 0Trash Pit F 0 0 0 0 1 0 0Trash Pit G 0 5 0 0 0 0 0Well 1 2 1 1 2 3 1Context 013 0 1 0 0 0 0 0Context 191 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

TOTALS 3 39 2 5 3 3 2

TABLE 37.SUMMARY OF ARCHITECTURAL ARIFACTS

Door Window Door Window Roof DoorLocks Lead Keys Glass Tiles Hinges Plaster

Structure A 0 1 0 0 0 0 0Structure C 0 10 0 0 1 0 0Trash Pit A 2 3 0 1 0 1 0Trash Pit B 1 0 0 0 0 0 0Trash Pit D 0 0 0 0 0 1 0Well 3 8 1 1 1 0 1

TOTALS 6 22 1 2 2 2 1

175

A. The Prehistoric Sites

Excavations at Hampton University havecontributed to our understanding of thelifeways of Native American peoples in the

Outer Coastal Plain of Virginia during the latterportion of the Woodland I Period. The excava-tion areas opened at sites HT36 and HT37 heldthe remains of what appeared to be small, resi-dential bases dating from ca. A.D. 1-400. SiteHT55 was occupied for only rather limited useduring both the Woodland I and Woodland IIPeriods.

Sites HT36 and HT37 are typical of theWoodland I Period, as they display evidence of aestuarine adaptation. Similar to several otherknown base camps, the sites at Hampton Uni-versity were situated within a topographic settingwhich would have provided easy access to richestuarine resources, in this case found within andalong the waterways of the Hampton River andHampton Roads. A springhead located nearbywould have made the Hampton setting addition-ally attractive.

The archaeological remains documented atHT36 and HT37 suggest that a variety of activi-ties were carried out there. Direct evidence of anestuarine focus was provided by the shellfish re-mains recovered at the sites. Althoughpaleoethnobotanical remains were sparse, analy-sis of these indicated that subsistence activitiesalso may have included the gathering of both wildmast and seed crops, and possibly plant cultiva-tion. Plant remains recovered from the featuresincluded acorn, thickshell hickory nut, smartweed,and one possible kernel of corn. Grinding andanvil stones found at the sites may have been usedto process these foods.

The variety of pit features present at the siteswere also suggestive of a range of activities. Small,shell-filled pits such as Features 1002/1005 and

1003/1018 at HT37 may have been used for foodprocessing. Larger pits such as Features 4/5/6,13/14, 42/47/48/122, and 71 at HT36 and Fea-tures 1024 and 1030 at HT37 may have serveda food storage function. Analysis of the ceramicremains suggested that the two broader areasdefined by the excavation unit opened at eachsite may have functioned differently. The very smallsample of rim sherds available for study indicatedthat vessels in both jar and bowl forms werepresent in the collection from HT36, while onlyjars were recovered from HT37. Possible evi-dence of ceramic manufacturing activity was foundat HT37.

It is difficult to assess the meaning of the in-ternal structure of sites HT36 and HT37 in termsof the size of the population groups represented.Two possible clusters of features were evident atHT37, but the pit features at HT36 were morescattered. The range of radiocarbon dates ob-tained from the sites suggest that overlappingsettlements are represented among the numberof pit features uncovered. The relatively small sizeof the artifact collection recovered from the areamight also be interpretted as indicating that onlysmall population units used the sites. It is pos-sible, however, that the inhabitants disposed oftheir debris at an as yet undetermined location,perhaps along the shoreline as has been found atthe Addington site in Virginia Beach (Geier 1986).

That the prehistoric settlements at HamptonUniversity were of some permanency seems cer-tain. The variety of activities represented by thearchaeological remains suggested that the sites didfunction as base camps. Paleoethnobotanical evi-dence indicated that occupation occured at leastduring the fall or winter seasons. Labor was ap-parently invested in constructing storage facilities,and the storage pits themselves suggest that thesites served as base camps occupied for extendedstays. The presence of storage features as well as

Chapter 8.Conclusions

176

the secondary burial found at HT37 might alsoindicate that the sites served as permanent baseswhich could be returned to at periodic intervals.

B. The Historic Site (Photo 46)

Doing archaeology has been equated with read-ing a unique copy of an ancient book, removingeach page as you finish reading it, then burningthe page, until the entire volume is consumed. Anarchaeological site is necessarily (and hopefullysystematically) destroyed by digging, the veryprocess by which it is “saved.” Time, war, andneglect have left very little of the early seven-teenth-century historical record in this area.Speculations based on grants and leases suggestthat the little complex was owned by ChristopherWindmill or the mysterious Walter Heley, thensubsequently by Francis Hough, Joseph Hatfield,Henry Coleman, and Henry Poole. Another in-terpretation of the records may suggest that theproperty was part of the Glebe Lands associatedwith the nearby second church of Elizabeth CityParish, erected sometime between 1624 and1637. So archaeology should be able to helpclarify the documentary record. Unfortunately,however, none of the artifacts recovered from thesite was helpful in determining who lived there,nor was there any item found that may have be-trayed even the occupation of the householder(s).Virtually all that remained of HT55 was the ar-chaeological record, a fragile imprint of seven-teenth-century Virginia culture amidst a flurry ofdevelopment riding high on Tidewater’s newly-found prosperity. That the site was preserved,mostly intact, for over 300 years is quite remark-able in itself.

The archaeological record, in this instance,consisted of a brick-lined cellar, numerous postholes delineating several earthfast structures andfence lines, and evidence of trash pits, slot fencetrenches, and a well. As is the case with all othersites in Tidewater dating from the first half of theseventeenth century, nothing at all survived aboveground. The principal reason for this, of course,was the propensity early Virginians had for using

flammable termite food for their primary buildingmaterial. Why wood was chosen for use both instructures and their foundations, has been sub-ject to extensive discussion among archaeologists,architectural historians, and social historians formore than two decades. The reason that is mostobvious, of course, is that wood was both plenti-ful and cheap. Although “all wood” constructionwas employed in all areas of the South, in theMiddle Atlantic Tidewater, in New England, andeven in Bermuda in the beginning, it survived inTidewater longer than any other region. Tidewa-ter Virginia and Maryland were established for,and the economy based upon, the growing of to-bacco. Upon arrival, new immigrants to Tidewa-ter were principally concerned with throwing uptemporary shelters and then establishing and em-bellishing more suitable housing as they could af-ford it and the materials became available. Un-fortunately, several events and conditions in thefirst half of the seventeenth century delayed theirplans for substantially improving their lot. The priceof tobacco took a resounding dive in the 1620s,meaning less profit for more work. Additionally,the very nature of tobacco farming was quite la-bor-intensive; therefore, what profits were de-rived from selling on a deflated market, had to beplowed back into the farm in the form of enlarg-ing one’s labor force (Carson 1981, Neiman1980). The initial expense of buying more slavesor sponsoring more indentures was compoundedby having more people to feed, house, and clothe.

Another condition factoring into the “imper-manence/permanence” argument was the veryhigh mortality rate exhibited in the first half of thecentury. Children were orphaned, families split,and farms changed hands quite frequently. Therewas probably little thought on the part of youngparents of passing along an inheritance or familyhome to their children, and more emphasis wasplaced on surviving and eking out a living. Thepopulation did not stabilize until the end of theseventeenth century, which is when substantialhousing becomes the norm rather than the ex-ception (Neiman 1980).

177

These factors may partially explain why so-called “impermanent” housing was so extensivelyused throughout Tidewater. Neiman (1980) pointsout, however, that even folks who could surelyafford better, more “permanent” accommoda-tions, often chose to live in totally wooden build-ings. All impermanent buildings were not neces-sarily crude; some of the wooden houses of themore affluent were probably fairly comfortable,even by today’s standards, having glass windows,tile roofs, cellars, separate kitchens and otheramenities.

The settlers of the early seventeenth centuryhad a very different set of values than their great-grandchildren of the next century. This is reflectedin several aspects of their material culture asidefrom housing. Most meals, for example, were

cooked in one pot, from which a portion was ladledout to everyone in the household. The now-com-mon placesettings of like-patterned plates, cups,and saucers with matched silver ware simply didnot exist. Houses had few, if any, private spaces.A family often slept in the same room in whichthey received guests and conducted business. Lifein the seventeenth century had not yet the almost-excessive quest for order that would ensue in theGeorgian period of the eighteenth century. Thesymmetrical brick or clapboard Georgian house,with separate private and public rooms, was notyet transplanted to Tidewater Virginia, and nei-ther was it strived for.

Site HT55 was in many ways a time capsule,showing a very typical part of seventeenth-cen-

Photo 46. Overall, structural post holes and cellar of Structure A, ground view.

178

tury life. The first occupation of the site consistedof a two-bay house of wood and mud, probablypaled in but with no other buildings. The inhabit-ants must have prospered somewhat, becausewithin ten or fifteen years, if not sooner, otherhouses were built and one at least was later em-bellished with glass windows, possibly a tile roof,a passage and a brick-lined storage cellar. Theartifacts reflected some degree of wealth; evenso, over a possible occupation of forty years, alifetime in those days, no “substantial” housing wasbuilt.

It is not known why the site was abandonedin the 1650’s or 1660’s. The general time of de-parture does, however, coincide with two signifi-cant events. The more catastrophic was a verylarge and intense Category 3 hurricane whichstruck Hampton Roads in late summer 1667.Reportedly, over 10,000 houses were destroyedin Virginia alone (Holt 1985). Given the site’sproximity to both the Hampton River and theChesapeake Bay, it is quite possible, even likelythat substantial damage could have been sustainedfrom the winds of such a storm. Less dramati-cally, the second church of Elizabeth City Parishwas also abandoned around this time, possibly

as a result of the hurricane, although folks contin-ued to be buried there until about the last decadeof the seventeenth century (Holt 1985). If theoccupants were in some way associated with thechurch, it is likely that they moved at the sametime, whether or not their home had been de-stroyed.

Thus, it is possible that the abandonment ofHT55 was directly related to the relocation of thechurch to the west side of the river. If the site waspart of the glebe lands which housed the ministerand his family, it follows that the relocation of thechurch would cause the minister to seek accom-modations on the west side of the river where anew church had been built at Pembroke Farmsby 1667 (U.A.J.V. 1983).

Hampton University’s historic site has addedsignificantly to the inventory of earthfast dwell-ings in Virginia and Maryland and to our knowl-edge of them and, more importantly, the folks wholived there. Hopefully, this report will provide astarting point for more intensive research by ar-chaeologists, architectural historians, and otherscholars who have an avid interest in the shad-owy beginnings of our country.

179

References

Andrews, A.C.1981 Virginia: A Geographic and

Demographic Profile. In A VirginiaProfile, edited by John V. Moesser.Commonwealth Books, PalisadePark, New Jersey.

Anonymous1973 Vine Weeds of the North Central

States. University of IllinoisUrbana-Champaign, College ofAgriculture, Cooperative ExtensionService Circular No. 1075.

Asch, D.L., and N.B. Asch1977 Chenopod as Cultigen: A Re-

evaluation of Some PrehistoricCollections from Eastern NorthAmerica. Midcontinental Journal ofArchaeology 2:3-46.

1985 Prehistoric Cultivation in West-CentralIllinois. In Prehistoric FoodProduction in North America, editedby Richard I. Ford, pp. 149-203.Anthropological Papers No. 75.University of Michigan, Museum ofAnthropology, Ann Arbor.

1985a Archeobotany. In Smiling Dan:Structure and Function at a MiddleWoodland Settlement in the IllinoisValley, edited by B.D. Stafford andM.B. Sant, pp. 327-401. ResearchSeries No. 2. KampsvilleArchaeological Center, Kampsville.

Asch, N.B., and D.L. Asch1981 Archeobotany of Newbridge, Carlin,

and Weitzer Sites—The White HallComponents. In Faunal Exploitationand Resource Selection: Early LateWoodland Subsistence in the LowerIllinois Valley (Appendix B), by B.W.

Styles, pp. 275-291. ScientificPapers No. 3. NorthwesternUniversity Archaeological Program,Evanston.

Asch, N.B., and D.L. Asch1985 Archeobotany. In Deer Track: A Late

Woodland Village in the MississippiValley, edited by C.R. McGrimseyand M.D. Conner, pp. 44-117.Technical Report No. 1. KampsvilleArchaeological Center, Kampsville.

Atkinson, D.R.1972 A Brief Guide for the Identification of

Dutch Clay Tobacco Pipes Found inEngland. Post-MedievalArchaeology 6:175-182. London.

Barber, Michael1978 Faunal Remains from the Maine Site.

Unpublished manuscript on file,Virginia Division of HistoricLandmarks, Richmond.

1981 The Vertebrate Faunal UtilizationPattern of the Middle WoodlandMockley Ceramic Users: TheMaycock’s Point Shell Midden Site,Prince George County, Virginia.Unpublished manuscript on file,Virginia Division of HistoricLandmarks, Richmond.

Barka, Norman F.1976 The Archaeology of Flowerdew

Hundred Plantation: The StoneHouse Foundation Site. SouthsideHistorical Sites Foundation and theCollege of William and Mary,Williamsburg.

180

Barka, Norman F., and Ben C. McCary1969 The Chickahominy River Survey of

Eastern Virginia. Eastern StatesArchaeological Federation 26-27.

1977 Early Shell Tempered Pottery in theJames River Valley, Virginia. EasternStates Archaeological FederationBulletin 36.

Beaudry, Mary C.1976 An Archaeological Survey of

Mulberry Island, Fort Eustis, NewportNews, Virginia. Unpuplishedmanuscript on file at the VirginiaDivision of Historic Landmarks,Richmond.

Beck, Colleen M., Eric E. Deeds, SheliaPozorski, and Thomas Pozorski1983 Pajatambo: An 18th-Century

Roadside Structure in Peru.Historical Archaeology 17(1):54-68.

Berry, M.S.1985 The Age of Maize in the Greater

Southwest: A Critical Review. InPrehistoric Food Production in NorthAmerica, edited by Richard I. Ford,pp. 279-308. AnthropologicalPapers No. 75. University ofMichigan, Museum of Anthropology,Ann Arbor.

Beverley, Robert1947 The History and Present State of

Virginia . Originally published 1705.Edited by Louis B. Wright. Universityof North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

Blake, L.W.1986 Corn and Other Plants from

Prehistory into History in the EasternUnited States. In The ProtohistoricPeriod in the Mid-South: 1500-1700,edited by D.H. Dye and R.C. Brister,

pp. 3-13. Archaeological Report No.18. Mississippi Department ofArchives and History.

Blaker, Margaret C.1952 Further Comments on Simple-

Stamped Shell-Tempered Pottery.American Antiquity 17:257-258.

1963 Aboriginal Ceramics. In TheTownsend Site Near Lewes,Delaware, edited by H.G. Omwakeand T.D. Stewart. The Archaeolog15(1):14-39.

Binford, Lewis R.1978 A New Method for Calculating Dates

from Kaolin Pipe Stem Samples.Historical Archaeology: A Guide toSubstantive and TheoreticalContributions, edited by Robert L.Schuyler, pp.66-67, Baywood, NewYork.

Bottoms, Edward1968 Bertie Count Oolitic Quartzite and Its

Aboriginal Utilization in EasternVirginia and North Carolina.Chesopien 6(2):32-43.

Bowen, Joanne1979 Analysis of the Faunal Remains from

Clifts Plantation. In FieldArchaeology of the Clifts PlantationSite, by Fraser D. Neiman.Unpublished manuscript on file,Department of ArchaeologicalResearch, Colonial WilliamsburgFoundation, Williamsburg.

Bradley, James W., and Gordon DeAngelo1981 European Clay Pipe Marks from

17th-Century Onondaga IroquoisSites. Archaeology of Eastern NorthAmerica 9. The Eastern StatesArchaeological Federation,Washington, Connecticut.

181

Brown, Gregory J., and Linda K. Derry1986 Study Unit X: Establishment of

Colonial Society. In Toward aResource Protection Process:Management Plans for James CityCounty, York County, City ofPoquoson, and City ofWilliamsburg. Unpublishedmanuscript on file, Department ofArchaeological Research, TheColonial Williamsburg Foundation,Williamsburg.

Brown, Marley R., and Kathleen Bragdon(editors)1986 Introduction. In Toward a Resource

Protection Process: ManagementPlans for James City County, YorkCounty, City of Poquoson, and Cityof Williamsburg. Unpublishedmanuscript on file, Department ofArchaeological Research, TheColonial Williamsburg Foundation,Williamsburg.

Bull, Gail, and Sebastian Payne1982 Tooth Eruption and Epiphyseal Fusion

in Pigs and Wild Boar. In Ageing andSexing Animal Bones fromArchaeological Sites, edited by BobWilson, Caroline Grigson, andSebastian Payne, pp. 55-71. B.A.R.British Series 109. B.A.R., Oxford,England.

Carson, Barbara G.1984 Living Habits in 17th-Century

Maryland. Paper presented at“Maryland, A Product of TwoWorlds” Conference, St. Mary’s City.

Carson, Cary, Norman F. Barka, William M.Kelso, Garry Wheeler Stone, and Dell Upton1981 Impermanent Architecture in the

Southern American Colonies.

Winterthur Portfolio 16(2/3):135-196.

Chaplin, R.E.1971 The Study of Animal Bones from

Archaeological Sites. Seminar Press,New York.

Chapman, J., and G.D. Crites1987 Evidence for Early Maize (Zea mays)

from the Icehouse Bottom Site,Tennessee. American Antiquity52:352-354.

Charleston, R.J.1984 English Glass. Edited by Hugh

Wakefield. English Decorative ArtsSeries. George Allen and Unwin,London.

Claassen, Cheryl1986 Shellfishing Season in the Prehistoric

Southwestern United States.American Antiquity 51(1):21-37.

Coe, Joffre L.1964 The Formative Cultures of the

Carolina Piedmont. Transactions ofthe American Philosophical Society54, Part 5 (New Series).

Crader, Diana C.1984 The Zooarchaeology of the

Storehouse and the Dry Well atMonticello. American Antiquity49(3):542-558.

Crass, David C.1988 The Clay Pipes from Green Springs

Plantation (44JC9), Virginia.Historical Archaeology 22:83-97.

Crossley, D.W., and F.A. Aberg1972 Sixteenth-Century Glass-making in

Yorkshire: Excavations at Furnaces atHutton and Rosedale, North Riding,

182

1968-1971. Post-MedievalArchaeology 6:107-159. London.

Curtis, Julia B.1987 Chinese Export Porcelain in

Eighteenth-Century TidewaterVirginia. In Studies in Eighteenth-Century Culture, Volume 17, editedby John Yolton and Leslie EllenBrown. American Society forEighteenth-Century Studies.Colleagues Press, Lansing, Michigan.

Custer, Jay F.1984 Delaware Prehistoric Archaeology:

An Ecological Approach. AssociatedUniversity Presses, Cranbury, NewJersey.

1989 Prehistoric Cultures of theDelmarva Peninsula: AnArchaeological Study. University ofDelaware Press, Newark.

Cutler, H.C., and L.W. Blake1976 Plants from Archaeological Sites East

of the Rockies. University ofMissouri-Columbia, AmericanArchaeology Division, Report No. 1.

Davis, David Brion1986 Slavery in the Colonial

Chesapeake. The Foudations ofAmerica Series, Essays from ColonialWilliamsburg. The ColonialWilliamsburg Foundation,Williamsburg.

Deagan, Kathleen1987 Artifacts of the Spanish Colonies of

Florida and the Caribbean, 1500-1800. Volume I: Ceramics,Glassware, and Beads. SmithsonianInstitution Press, Washington.

Deetz, James1987 Harrington Histograms versus Binford

Mean Dates as a Technique forEstablishing the OccupationalSequence of Sites at FlowerdewHundred, Virginia. AmericanArchaeology, 6(1):62-67.

Derry, Linda K., et al.n.d. The York County Archaeological

Survey, Draft Report. Unpublishedmanuscript on file, Virginia Division ofHistoric Landmarks, Richmond.

Dobkin de Rios, M.1984 Hallucinogens: Cross-Cultural

Perspectives. University of NewMexico Press, Albuquerque.

Doms, Keith R., and Jay F. Custer1983 Analysis of Oyster Shell Remains

and Other Ecofacts from a LateWoodland Pit at the Island FieldSite (7K-f-17), Kent County,Delaware. University of DelawareCenter for Archaeological Research,Newark, Delaware.

Durand, Dauphine of1934 A Huguenot Exile in Virginia. Edited

by Gilbert Chinard. New York.

Edwards, Andrew C.1987 Archaeology at Port Anne: A Report

on Site CL7, An Early 17th CenturyColonial Site. Unpublished mansucripton file, Department of ArchaeologicalResearch, The Colonial WilliamsburgFoundation, Williamsburg.

Egloff, Keith T., Mary Ellen N. Hodges, Jay F.Custer, Keith R. Doms, and Leslie E. McFaden1988 Archaeological Investigations at

Croaker Landing, 44JC70 and44JC71. Research Report Series 4.

183

Virginia Division of HistoricLandmarks, Richmond.

Egloff, Keith T., and Stephen R. Potter1982 Indian Ceramics from Coastal Plain

Virginia. Archaeology of EasternNorth America 10:95-117.

Emerson, Matthew Charles1988 Decorated Clay Tobacco Pipes from

the Chesapeake. Unpublished Ph.D.dissertation, Department ofAnthropology, University of California,Berkeley.

Flannery, Kent V.1968 Archaeological Systems Theory and

Early Mesoamerica. InAnthropological Archaeology in theAmericas, edited by Betty J.Meggers, pp. 67-87. AnthropologicalSociety of Washington, Washington,DC.

Fleming, Richard D.1981 Preliminary Report of Archaeological

Investigation of 44VB7. Unpublishedmanuscript on file, Virginia Division ofHistoric Landmarks, Richmond.

Ford, Richard I.1979 Gathering and Gardening: Trends and

Consequences of HopewellSubsistence Strategies. In HopewellArchaeology: The ChillicotheConference, edited by D.S. Broseand N. Greber. Kent State UniversityPress, Kent, Ohio.

1981 Gardening and Farming Before A.D.1000: Patterns of PrehistoricCultivation North of Mexico. Journalof Ethnobiology 1:6-27.

1983 The Evolution of Corn Revisited. TheQuarterly Review of Archaeology1983:12-16.

Frank, Susan1982 Glass and Archaeology. Academic

Press, London.

Galinat, W.C.1985 Domestication and Diffusion of Maize.

In Prehistoric Food Production inNorth America, edited by Richard I.Ford, pp. 245-278. AnthropologicalPapers No. 75. University ofMichigan, Museum of Anthrolopology,Ann Arbor.

Galtsoff, Paul S.1964 The American Oyster Crassostrea

virginica Gmelin. United StatesGovernment Printing Office,Washington.

Gardner, William G.1980 Subsistence-Settlement Patterns

and Site Distributions in the MiddleAtlantic. Archaeological Society ofWashington Paper, Washington.

Gaynor, Joanne Bowen, Rosemary Brandau,and Patricia A. Gibbs1985 Proposal for a Planning Conference

on Foodways. Unpublishedmanuscript on file, Department ofArchaeological Research, ColonialWilliamsburg Foundation,Williamsburg.

Geier, Clarence T.1986 Archaeological Mitigation of Two

Components (44VB9 and 44VB92)of the Great Neck Site Complex,Virginia Beach, Virginia. Volumes I-V. James Madison UniversityArchaeological Research Center,Harrisonburg.

Geier, Clarence T., and Michael Barber1983 The Skiffes Creek Site (44NN77): A

Multicomponent Middle Woodland

184

Base Camp in Newport News,Virginia. Occasional Papers inAnthropology 17. James MadisonUniversity, Harrisonburg, Virginia.

Geier, Clarence T., Ted Cromwell, and StevenL. Hensley1986 The Addington Site (44VB9): Report

of Findings. In ArchaeologicalMitigation of Two Components(44VB9 and 44VB92) of the GreatNeck Site Complex, Virginia Beach,Virginia, edited by Clarence T. Geier.Volume II. James Madison UniversityArchaeological Research Center,Harrisonburg.

Gilmore, M.R.1977 Uses of Plants by the Indians of the

Missouri River Region. University ofNebraska Press, Lincoln.

Gleason, H.A., and A. Cronquist1963 Manual of Vascular Plants of the

Northeastern United States andAdjacent Canada. Van Nostrand,New York.

Gleach, Frederic W.1985 A Compilation of Radiocarbon Dates

with Applicability to Central Virginia.Quarterly Bulletin of theArchaeological Society of Virginia40(4):180-200.

Godfrey, Eleanor S.1975 The Development of English

Glassmaking 1560-1640. TheUniversity of North Carolina Press,Chapel Hill.

Goggin, John M.1964 Indian and Spanish Selected

Writings. University of Miami Press,Coral Gables.

1968 Spanish Majolica in the New World.Yale University Publications inAnthropology No. 72. Department ofAnthropology, Yale University, NewHaven.

Goode, George Brown1887 The Fisheries and Fishery

Industries of the United States.Government Printing Office,Washington.

Grant, Annie1982 The Use of Tooth Wear as a Guide to

the Age of Domestic Ungulates. InAgeing and Sexing Animal Bonesfrom Archaeological Sites, edited byBob Wilson, Caroline Grigson, andSebastian Payne, pp. 91-108. B.A.R.British Series 109. B.A.R., Oxford,England.

Grayson, Donald K.1984 Quantitative Zooarchaeology:

Topics in the Analysis ofArchaeological Faunas. AcademicPress, Orlando.

Hannah, Susan D., Geoff Egan, and BarryKnoght1986 Marks on Milled Window Leads.

Post-Medieval Archaeology 20:303-309. London.

Hariot, Thomas1590 A Briefe and True Report of the

New Found Land of Virginia.London.

Harlow, W.H., and E.S. Harrar1969 Textbook of Dendrology: Covering

the Important Forest Trees of theUnited States and Canada. Fifthedition. McGraw Hill, New York.

185

Harrington, J.C.1948 Plain Stamped, Shell Tempered

Pottery from North Carolina.American Antiquity 13:251-252.

1978 Dating Stem Fragments ofSeventeenth and Eighteenth-CenturyClay Tobacco Pipes. HistoricalArchaeology: A Guide toSubstantive and TheoreticalContributions, edited by Robert L.Schuyler, pp. 63-65, Baywood, NewYork.

Heath, Barbara1981 Seventeenth-Century English and

Dutch Clay Pipes from the VRCAStudy Collection. Unpublishedmanuscript on file, Virgina Division ofHistoric Landmarks, Richmond.

Hemor, Ralph1957 A True Discourse of the Present

State of Virginia. Originally published1615. Virginia State Library,Richmond.

Henry, Susan L.1976 Preliminary Investigation into the

Phenomenon of the Terra-cotta ClayTobacco Pipe. Unpublishedmanuscript on file, Virginia Division ofHistoric Landmarks, Richmond.

1979 Terra-cotta Tobacco Pipes in 17thCentury Maryland and Virgina: APreliminary Study. HistoricalArchaeology 13:14-37.Higgs, Eric S.,and Claudio Vita-Finzi

1972 Prehistoric Economies: A TerritorialApproach. In Papers in EconomicPrehistory, edited by Eric S. Higgs,pp. 27-36. Cambridge UniversityPress, London.

Hildebrand, Samuel F., and William C.Schroeder1928 Fishes of Chesapeake Bay. T.F.H.

Publications, Inc., Neptune, NewJersey.

Holt, Eleanor S.1985 The Second Church of Elizabeth City

Parish. Archaeological Society ofVirginia Special Publication No. 13.Archaeological Society of Virginia,Richmond.

Horn, James1979 Servant Emigration to the Chesapeake

in the Seventeenth Century. In TheChesapeake in the SeventeenthCentury, edited by Thad W. Tate andDavid Ammerman, pp. 51-95, W.W.Norton and Co., New York.

Hunter, Robert R., and Thomas F. Higgins1985 Phase I Archaeological

Reconnaissance Survey of theProposed Route 199 Project, JamesCity and York Counties, Virginia.Unpublished manuscript on file,Virginia Department of Transportation,Richmond.

1986 Study Unit III: Permanent Settlementand Population Growth. In Toward aResource Protection Process:Management Plans for James CityCounty, York County, City ofPoquoson, and City ofWilliamsburg. Unpublishedmanuscript on file, Department ofArchaeological Research, TheColonial Williamsburg Foundation,Williamsburg.

Hunter, Robert R., Patricia M. Samford, andMarley R. Brown III1984 Phase II Archaeological Testing of the

Proposed Second Street Extension,

186

York County and Williamsburg,Virginia. Report on file, VirginiaDepartment of Transportation,Richmond.

Jackson, Donald Dale1988 The Oyster’s Smile is Fading, to the

Horror of Gourmets. Smithsonian1:60-71.

Johannessen, S.1984 Paleoethnobotany. In American

Bottom Archaeology: A Summary ofthe FAI-270 Project Contribution tothe Culture History of theMississippi River Valley, edited by C.J. Bareis and J. W. Porter. Universityof Illinois Press, Urbana.

Jordan, Winthrop D.1978 Unthinking Decision: Enslasvement of

Negroes in America to 1700. InInterpreting Colonial America,edited by James Kirby Martin,pp.140-161,. Second edition. Harperand Row, New York.

Kelly, Kevin P.1979 “In Dispers’d Country Plantations”:

Settlement Patterns in Seventeenth-Century Surry County, Virginia. InThe Chesapeake in the SeventeenthCentury, edited by Thad W. Tate andDavid Ammerman, pp. 183-205,.W.W. Norton and Co., New York.

Kelso, William M.1984 Kingsmill Plantations 1619-1800:

Archaeology of Country Life inColonial Virginia. Academic Press,Orlando.

Kent, Brettn.d. Making Dead Oysters Talk.

Maryland Historical Trust

Monograph Series. MarylandHistorical Trust, Annapolis.

King, Julia A.1988 A Comparative Midden Analysis of a

Household and Inn in St. May’s City,Maryland. Historical Archaeology22(2):17-39.

Lester, David, and Christopher Hendricks1987 Tobacco Pipes from Site CL7—Port

Anne. Unpublished manuscript on file,Department of ArchaeologicalResearch, The Colonial WilliamsburgFoundation, Williamsburg.

Lippson, Alice Jane, and Robert L. Lippson1984 Life in the Chesapeake Bay. The

John Hopkins University Press,Baltimore.

Lopinot, N.H.1988 Spatial and Temporal Variability in

Mississippian Subsistence: TheArchaeobotanical Record. Paperpresented at the 46th InternationalCongress of Americanists,Amsterdam.

Luccketti, Nicholas1988 Untitled Paper. Paper presented at the

annual meeting of the ArchaeologicalSociety of Virginia, Hampton,October 1, 1988.

McCartney, Martha1983 Phase II Archaeological Survey of a

Proposed Dredging Site in theHampton River, Hampton, Virginia.Unpublished report prepared byUnderwater Archaeological JointVentures for Langley and MacDonald,Inc.

187

McCary, Ben C.1953 The Potts Site, Chickahominy River,

New Kent County. QuarterlyBulletin of the ArchaeologicalSociety of Virginia 8(1).

1958 The Kiskiack (Chiskiack) Indian SiteNear Yorktown, Virginia. QuarterlyBulletin of the ArchaeologicalSociety of Virginia 13(2).

MacCord, Howard A.1965 The DeShazo Site, King George

County, Virginia. Quarterly Bulletinof the Archaeological Society ofVirginia 19(4):98-104.

Martin, A.C., and W.D. Barkley1961 Seed Identification Manual.

University of California Press,Berkeley.

Martin, Ann Smart1984 The Role of Pewter as a Missing

Artifact: Consumer Attitudes TowardTablewares in Late 18th-CenturyVirginia. Historical Archaeology23(2), forthcoming.

Miller, Henry1984 Colonization and Subsistence

Change on the 17th CenturyChesapeake Frontier. UnpublishedPh.D. dissertation, Department ofAnthropology, Michigan StateUniversity, Lansing. UniversityMicrofilms, Ann Arbor.

Mouer, L. Daniel1985 An Excavation at the Point of Fork

Site (44FV19), Fluvanna County,Virginia. Bulletin of the FluvannaCounty Virginia Historical Society.

1987a Farming, Foraging, and Feasting:Powhatan Foodways and theirInfluences on English Virginia. Paper

presented at the Foodways ResearchPlanning Conference, Williamsburg,Virginia.

1987b Everything in its Place...: LocationalModels and Notions of Elite inVirginia, 1660-1865. Paper presentedat the Annual Conference of TheSociety for Historical Archaeology,January, 1987, Savannah.

Mullen, Henry B., Clarence Geier, and MarthaMcCartney1980 Phase I Cultural Resource Evaluation

of the Oakland Dairy Property,Newport News, Virginia. Unpublishedmanuscript on file, Virginia Division ofHistoric Landmarks, Richmond.

Muraca, David F.1989 Archaeological Investigations Prior to

the Construction of the ProposedCarter’s Grove ArchaeologicalMuseum, 1988. Unpublishedmanuscript on file, Department ofArchaeological Research, TheColonial Williamsburg Foundation,Williamsburg.

Neiman, Fraser1978 Domestic Architecture at the Clift’s

Plantation: The Social Context ofEarly Virginia Building. NorthernNeck of Virginia HistoricalMagazine XXVIII: 3096-3128.

1980 The “Manner House” Before Stratford(Discovering Clifts Plantation). AStratford Handbook. Stratford,Virginia.

Neve, Richard1736 The City and Country Purchaser’s

and Builder’s Dictionary. Thirdedition. London.

188

Noël Hume, Audrey1979 Clay Tobacco Pipes Excavated at

Martin’s Hundred, Virginia, 1976-1978. In The Archaeology of theClay Tobacco Pipe, edited by PeterDavey. BAR International Series 60,Oxford, England.

Noël Hume, Ivor1966 Excavations at Clay Bank in

Gloucester County, Virginia, 1962-1963. Contributions from theMuseum of History and Technology,Smithsonian Institution, Paper 45.Smithsonian Institution, Washington.

1969 A Guide to Artifacts of ColonialAmerica. Alfred A. Knopf, NewYork.

1978 A Guide to Artifacts of ColonialAmerica. Second edition. Alfred A.Knopf, New York.

1979 First Look at a Lost VirginiaSettlement. National Geographic155(6):735-767.

1982 Martin’s Hundred. Alfred A. Knopf,New York.

Nugent, Nell1979 Cavaliers and Pioneers: Abstracts

of Virginia Land Patents andGrants, 1623-1666. Volume 1.Genealogical Publishing Co.,Baltimore.

Opperman, Antony F.1980 A Study of Prehistoric Ceramics

from Maycocks Point, PrinceGeorge County, Virginia. Seniorhonors thesis, Department ofAnthropology, College of William andMary, Williamsburg.

1984 An Archaeological Overview andManagement Plan of Fort Eustis andFort Story, Cities of Newport Newsand Virginia Beach, Virginia.

Unpublished manuscript on file, Mid-Atlantic Archaeological Research,Inc., Newark, Delaware, andWilliamsburg, Virginia.

Oswald, Adrian1970 Marked Clay Pipes from Plymouth,

Devon. Post-Medieval Archaeology3:122-142. London.

Oswald, Adrian, and Howard Phillips1949 A Restoration Glass Horde from

Gracechurch Street, London.Connoiseur. 30-36, November,1949. London.

Outlaw, Alain1978 Governor’s Land Archaeological

District Excavation: The 1976 Season.Interim Report. Unpublishedmanuscript on file, Virginia Division ofHistoric Landmarks, Richmond.

Painter, Floyd1967 Geometrically Incised Decoration on

Great Neck Ceramics: The LongCreek Midden, Part 3. Chesopien5(4):94-110.

1977 The Beaker Makers of CurrituckSound. Archaeology of the EasternUnited States 5:43-61.

1978 The Beaker Makers of Currituck:Carbon 14 Dates. Chesopien 16.

1979 The Ancient Indian Town ofChesapeak on the Peninsula of GreatNeck: A Brief History. Chesopien17(4-5):65-75.

1980a “Fluted” Projectile Points of Bone andAntler from the Great Neck Site.Chesopien 18(1-2):35-37.

1980b The Great King of Great Neck.Chesopien 18(3-6):75.

189

Panshin, A.J., and C. de Zeeuw1970 Textbook of Wood Technology.

Third edition. McGraw Hill, NewYork.

Payne, Sebastian1972 Partial Recovery and Sample Bias:

The Results of Some SievingExperiments. In Papers in EconomicPrehistory, edited by Eric S. Higgs,pp. 49-64. Cambridge UniversityPress, London.

1973 Kill-off Patterns in Sheep and Goats:The Mandibles from Asvan Kale.Anatolian Studies 23:281-303.

Pearson, John C.1942a The Fish and Fisheries of Colonial

Virginia. William and Mary CollegeHistorical Magazine 22(3):213-220.

1942b The Fish and Fisheries of ColonialVirginia. William and Mary CollegeHistorical Magazine 22(4):353-359.

1943a The Fish and Fisheries of ColonialVirginia. William and Mary CollegeHistorical Magazine 23(1):1-7.

1943b The Fish and Fisheries of ColonialVirginia. William and Mary CollegeHistorical Magazine 23(2):130-135.

1943c The Fish and Fisheries of ColonialVirginia. William and Mary CollegeHistorical Magazine 23(3):278-284.

1943d The Fish and Fisheries of ColonialVirginia. William and Mary CollegeHistorical Magazine 23(4):435-439.

Peterson, John C.1944 The Fish and Fisheries of Colonial

Virginia. William and Mary CollegeHistorical Magazine 24(1):179-183.

Peck, C. Wilson1970 English Copper, Tin, and Bronze

Coins in the British Museum 1558-1958. The Trustes of the British

Museum, London.Peterson, Harold L.(editor)

1964 Encyclopedia of Firearms. E.P.Dutton and Co., New York.

Phelps, David S.1983 Archaeology of the North Carolina

Coast and Coastal Plain: Problemsand Hypotheses. In The Prehistory ofNorth Carolina: An ArchaeologicalSymposium, edited by M. A. Mathisand J. J.Crow, pp. 1-51. NorthCarolina Division of Archives andHistory, Department of CulturalResources, Raleigh.

Pittman, William E.1988 Research Notes Taken While

Examining VRCA collection ofCausey’s Care Artifacts. Unpublishedmanuscript on file, Department ofArchaeological Research, TheColonial Williamsburg Foundation,Williamsburg.

Pogue, Dennis1988 Spatial Analysis of the King’s Reach

Plantation Homelot, ca. 1690-1715.Historical Archaeology 22(2):40-56.

1989 Personal communication via DavidMuraca.

Potter, Stephen R.1982 An Analysis of Chicacoan

Settlement Patterns. UnpublishedPh.D. dissertation, Department ofAnthropology, University of NorthCarolina, Chapel Hill.

Power, G.1970 Chesapeake Bay Legal Perspective.

U.S. Department of the Interior,Washington.

190

Reinhart, Theodore R.1973 Interim Report on the Prehistoric

Archaeological Survey and Excavationof the Department of Anthropology,College of William and Mary, on theKingsmill Plantation Property.Unpublished manuscript on file,Virginia Division of HistoricLandmarks, Richmond.

Reinhart, Theodore R.1976 Excavations at the Powhatan Creek

Site, James City County, Virginia.Quarterly Bulletin of theArchaeological Society of Virginia31(2).

1978 Plowzone Archaeology on CollegeCreek, James City County, Virginia.Quarterly Bulletin of theArchaeological Society of Virginia32(4).

Reitz, Elizabeth J., and Dan Cordier1983 Use of Allometry in Zooarchaeological

Analysis. In Animals andArchaeology: 2. Shell Middens,Fishes and Birds, edited by CarolineGrigson and Julia Clutton-Brock, pp.237-252. B.A.R. International Series183, London.

Reitz, Elizabeth J., and Nicholas Honerkamp1983 British Colonial Subsistence Strategy

on the Southeastern Coastal Plain.Historical Archaeology 17(2):4-26.

Reitz, Elizabeth J., and C. Margaret Scarry1986 Reconstructing Historic Subsistence

with an Example from Sixteenth-Century Spanish Florida. SpecialPublication Series, Society forHistorical Archaeology, Number 3.

Riordan, Timothy B.1988 The Interpretation of 17th-Century

Sites Through Plow Zone Surface

Collections: Examples from St. Mary’sCity Maryland. HistoricalArchaeology 22:2-16.

Ritchie, William A.1971 A Typology and Nomenclature for

New York Projectile Points. NewYork State Museum and ScienceService, Albany.

Robins, C. Richard, G. Carleton Ray, and JohnDouglass1986 A Field Guide to Atlantic Coast

Fishes of North America. ThePeterson Field Guide Series.Houghton Miflin, Boston.

Roper, Donna C.1979 The Method and Theory of Site

Catchment Analysis: A Review. InAdvances in Archaeological Methodand Theory, Volume 2, edited byMichael B. Schiffer, pp. 119-140.Academic Press, New York.

Rountree, H.C.1967 The Davis Point Site, Queen Creek,

York County, Virginia. QuarterlyBulletin of the ArchaeologicalSociety of Virginia 22:50-54.

Russell, E.S.1923 Report on the Seasonal Variation in

the Chemical Composition of Oysters.Fishery Investigations 4(1):2-24(Series II).

Seaby, H.A.1961 British Copper Coins and Their

Values, Part I—Regal Coins. Editedby H.A. Seaby. Seaby’s NumismaticPublications. London.

Schopmeyer, C.S.1974 Seeds of Woody Plants in the United

States. U.S. Department of

191

Agriculture, Agriculture HandbookNo. 450.

Schorger, A.W.1973 The Passenger Pigeon: Its Natural

History and Extinction. University ofOklahoma Press, Norman.

Settergren, C., and R.E. McDermott1977 Trees of Missouri. University of

Missouri-Columbia, AgriculturalExperiment Station, PublicationB767.

Silver, I.A.1969 The Aging of Domestic Animals. In

Science in Archaeology, edited byDonald Brothwell and Eric Higgs, pp.250-267. Basic Books, New York.

Smith, Bruce D.1984 Chenopodium as a Prehistoric

Domesticate in Eastern NorthAmerica: Evidence from Russell Cave,Alabama. Science 226:165-167.

Smith, Jane L., and Susan C. Andrews1986 The Addington (44VB9) and

Sherwood’s Forest (44VB92) Sites:An Analysis of Ceramics. InArchaeological Mitigation of TwoComponents (44VB9 and 44VB92)of the Great Neck Site Complex,Virginia Beach, Virginia, by C. R.Geier, J. L. Smith, S. C. Andrews,and R. Buchanan, Volume V: ArtifactAnalysis and Data Syntheses, pp. 3-143. James Madison UniversityArchaeological Research Center,Harrisonburg, Virginia.

Smith, John1624 The Generall Historie of Virginia,

New England, and the SummerIsles.... Michael Sparks, London.

Reprinted, Readex Microprint Corp.,1966.

Spencer, Maryellen1982 Food in Seventeenth-Century

Tidewater Virginia: A Method forStudying Historical Cuisines.Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,Virginia Polytechnic Institute and StateUniversity, Blacksburg.

Stephenson, Robert L., and Alice L.L.Ferguson1963 The Accokeek Creek Site: A Middle

Atlantic Seaboard Culture Sequence.Anthropological Papers 20. Museumof Anthropology, University ofMichigan, Ann Arbor.

Stewart-Abernathy, Leslie C.1986 Urban Farmsteads: Household

Responsibilities in the City. HistoricalArchaeology 20(2):5-15.

Steyermark, J.A.1963 Flora of Missouri. Iowa State

University Press, Ames.

Strachey, William1849 The Historie of Travaile into

Virginia Brittania. Hakluyt Society,Volume VI. First series. London.

Styrna, Christine A.1984 “The House of Walter Ashton”: The

Historical and ArchitecturalReconstruction of a Seventeenth-Century House in Tidewater, Virginia.Unpublished manuscript on file at theVirginia Division of HistoricLandmarks, Richmond.

Trow-Smith, Robert1957 A History of British Livestock

Husbandry to 1700. Routledge andKegan Paul, London.

192

Turner, E. Randolf, and Keith T. Egloff1984 The Chesapeake Indians and Their

Predecessors: Recent Excavations atGreat Neck. Notes on Virginia24:36-39.

van der Pijl-Ketel, C.L. (editor)1982 The Ceramic Load of the ‘Witte

Leeuw’ (1613). Rijksmuseum,Amsterdam.

Ver Steeg, Clarence L.1964 The Formative Years 1607-1763.

Edited by David H. Donald. Hill andWang, New York.

Virginia Governor’s Office1968 Virginia Facts and Figures.

Industrial Development Office.Richmond.

Virginia Peninsula Industrial Council1976 The Virginia Peninsula Economic

Summary. 1976:12, Richmond.

Virginia Research Center for Archaeology1978 New Quarter Park Survey.

Unpublished manuscript on file,Virginia Division of HistoricLandmarks, Richmond.

Voigt, Eric E.1989 Late Woodland and Emergent

Mississippian Plant Use in Missouri. InNew World Paleoethnobotany:Collected Papers in Honor of LeonardW. Blake, edited by E.E. Voigt andD.M. Pearsall. The MissouriArchaeologist 47, in press.

von den Dreisch, Angela1976 A Guide to the Measurement of

Animal Bones from ArchaeologicalSites. Peabody Museum ofArchaeology and Ethnology Bulletin

No. 1. Harvard University Press,Cambridge.

Walker, Ian C.1977 Clay Tobacco Pipes, with

Particular Reference to the BristolIndustry. National Historic Parks andSites Branch, Parks Canada, Ottawa.

Wagner, G.1989 The Corn and Cultivated Beans of the

Fort Ancient Indians. In New WorldPaleoethnobotany: Collected Papersin Honor of Leonard W. Blake, editedby E.E. Voigt and D.M. Pearsall. TheMissouri Archaeologist 47, in press.

Waselkov, Gregory A.1982 Shellfish Gathering and Shell Midden

Archaeology. Unpublished Ph.D.dissertation, Department ofAnthropology, University of NorthCarolina, Chapel Hill.

Wharton, James1957 The Bounty of the Chesapeake:

Fishing in Colonial Virginia.Jamestown 350th AnniversaryHistorical Booklet, Number 13.Williamsburg.

White, Theodore E.1953 A Method of Calculating the Dietary

Percentage of Various Food AnimalsUtilized by Aboriginal Peoples.American Antiquity 18(4):396-398.

Whyte, Thomas T.1986 The Zooarchaeology of the Addington

Site, A Middle and Late WoodlandFishery. Archaeological Mitigationof Two Components (44VB9 and44VB92) of the Great Neck SiteComplex, Virginia Beach, Virginia,by C. R. Geier, J. L. Smith, S. C.Andrews, and R. Buchanan, Volume

193

V. James Madison UniversityArchaeological Research Center,Harrisonburg, Virginia.

Wilcoxen, Charlotte1987 Dutch Trade and Ceramics in

America in the SeventeenthCentury. Albany Institute of History &Art, Albany, New York.

Wilson, Kenneth M.1976 Window Glass in America. In

Building Early America,Contributions Toward the Historyof a Great Industry, the Carpenter’sCompany of the City and County ofPhilidelphia, edited by Charles E.Petterson. pp. 150-164, Chilton BookCo., Radnor, Pennsylvania.

Yarnell, Richard A.1964 Aboriginal Relationships Between

Culture and Plant Life in the UpperGreat Lakes Region. AnthropologicalPapers. University of Michigan,Museum of Anthropology.

1976 Early Plant Husbandry in EasternNorth America. In Culture Changeand Continuity, edited by C. E.Cleland, pp. 265-273. AcademicPress, New York.

Yarnell, Richard A., and M. Jean Black1985 Temporal Trends Indicated by a

Survey of Archaic and WoodlandPlant Food Remains fromSoutheastern North America.Southeastern Archaeology 4(2):93-106.

Zawacki, A.A., and G. Hausfater1969 Early Vegetation of the Lower Illinois

Valley: A Study of the Distribution ofFloral Resources with Reference toPrehistoric Cultural-EcologicalAdaptations. Reports ofInvestigation, No. 17. Illinois StateMuseum.

194

195

Appendix 1.Muster of 1625

A Muster of the Inhabitente of Elizabeth CittieBeyond the Hampton River

Beinge the Companyes Land

Capt Francis West His Muster

Capt Francis West Counseler aged 36 in the Mary Ann Margett 1610Mrs Francis West Widdowe in the Supply 1620Nathaniell West borne in Virginia

Servants

Joane Fairchild aged 20 in the George 1618Benjamin Owin aged 18 in the Swan 1623William Parnell aged 18 in the Southhampton 1622Walter Couper aged 22 in the Neptune 1618Reinould Gidwin aged 30 in the Abigall 1620John Pedro a Neger aged 30 in the Swan 1623

PROVISION: Corne, 2 barreles; Fish, 300 ct; goates, 14; Kiddes, 18; Houses, 2; Pallizado, 1; boate, 1; ARMES: Armors,4; peeces, 10; pistoles, 3; Swords, 6; powder 4lb; lead, 10lb.

Capt John Martin His Muster

Capt John MartinSackford Wetherell aged 21John Smith aged 31 In the Swan 1624John Howard aged 24John Anthonie aged 23

PROVISION: Meale, 2 hogsheads 1/2. ARMES: Armor, 1; Targett, 1; peeces, 5; Machcockes, 11; powder, 20 lb; Lead,500 lb; Roules of Mach, 4.

George Medcalfe His Muster

George Medcalfe aged 46Sara Medcalfe aged 30 in the Hopewell 1624Joanne A Child

PROVISION: Corne, 3 barrels; Fish, 200ct; house. ARMES: peeces, 2; powder, 1 lb; lead, 10 lb.

Edward Johnson His Muster

Edward Johnson aged 26 in the Abigall 1621 in the Bona Nova 1621

A Child borne in VirginiaPROVISION: Corne, 4 barreles. ARMES: peece, 1; powder, 4lb; lead, 30 lb; house, 1; Ordnance Mounted, 2.

196

John Lauckfild His Muster

John Lauckfild aged 24 in the Bona Nova 1621Alice Lauckfild aged 24 in the Abbigall 1621Sammuell Kennell aged 30 in the Abigall 1621

PROVISION: Corne, 7 barrles; Fish, 200 ct. ARMES: peeces, 4; Swords, 2; powder, 2 lb; lead, 20 lb; house, 1.

William Fowler His Muster

William Fowler aged 30 in the Abigall 1621Margrett Fowler aged 30 in the Abigall 1621

PROVISION: Corne, 3 barreles; Fish, 50; house, 1. ARMES: peeces, 2; powder, 1 lb; lead, 6 lb.

Walter Ely His Muster

Walter ElyElizabeth Ely aged 30 in the Warwicke 1622Ann Ely borne in Virginia

PROVISION: Corne, 4 barrels; Fish, 900 ct. ARMES: peeces, 1; lead, 30 lb; house, 1.

William Tiler His Muster

William Tiler in the Francis Bonaventure 1620Elizabeth Tiler in the Francis Bonaventure 1620

ServantsRobart More aged 50 in the Providence 1622William Browne aged 26 in the Providence 1622Robart Todd aged 20 in the Hopewell 1622Anthonie Burt aged 18 in the Hopewell 1622Samiell Bennett aged 40 in the Providence 1622Joane Bennett in the providence 1622

PROVISION: Corne, 17 barreles; Meale, 1 hogshead; Fish, 300. ARMES: peeces, 9; Coates, 3; swords, 4; powder, 3lb;lead, 50 lb. CATTELL: Milch Cowes, 4; Bull, 1; Piges, 3; house, 1; Sowes, 2.

Thomas Flynt His Muster

Thomas Fliynt in the Diana 1618Thomas Merres aged 21 in the Francis Bonaventure 1620Henrie Wheeler aged 20 in the Tryall 1620John Brocke aged 19 in the Bona Nova 1619James Brookes aged 19 in the Jonathan 1619Robart Savage aged 18 in the Elzabeth 1621

PROVISIONS: Corne, 8 barreles. ARMES: peeces, 8; Armors, 2; powder, 10 lb; lead, 20 lb; house, 1; Store, 1.

197

John Ward His Muster

John Ward in the Elzabeth 1621Adam Rimwell aged 24 in the Bona Nova 1619Christopher Wynwill aged 26 in the Bona Nova 1619Oliver Jenkin aged 40Joane Jenkin & a littell ChildHenrie Potter aged 50Ann Potter in the London MarchantRobart Goodman aged 24 in the Bona Nova 1619

PROVISION: Corne, 20 barreles; Fish, 500 ct. ARMES: peeces, 8; Armors, 2; powder, 8 lb; lead, 20 lb; houses, 2;stores, 2.

Gregorie Dorie His Muster

Gregorie Dorie aged 36 in the Bona Nova 1620his wiffw & littell Child borne in Virginia

PROVISION: Corne, 5 barreles. ARMES: peeces, 2; powder, 1 lb; lead, 10 lb; Armor, 1; house, 1; pallizado, 1.

John More His Muster

John More aged 36 in the Bona Nova 1620Elizabeth More in the Abigall 1622

PROVISION: Corne, 3 barreles; Fish, 400 ct. ARMES: peeces, 3; powder, 2 lb; lead, 16 lb; house, 1; pallizado, 1; store, 1.

Sargent William Barry His Muster

William Barry in the Bona Nova 1619

ServantsRichard Frisbie aged 34 in the Jonathan 1619William Rookins aged 26 in the Bona Nova 1619Joseph Hatfield aged 24 in the Bona Nova 1619Cutbert Seirson aged 22 in the Bona Nova 1619John Gibbes aged 24 in the Abigall 1619Francis Hill aged 22 in the Bona Nova 1619John Vaghan aged 23 in the Bona Nova 1619Edward Marshall aged 26 in the Abigall 1621William Joyce aged 26 on the Abigall 1621William Evands aged 23 in the Bona Nova 1619Ralph Osborne aged 22 in the Bona Nova 1619Morris Stanley aged 26 in the Hopewell 1624Niccolas Weasell aged 28 in the Abigall 1621Stephen Dickson aged 25 in the Bona Nova 1619Thomas Calder aged 24 in the Bona Nova 1619

PROVISION: Corne, 80 barreles. ARMES: peeces, 10; Armors, 3; powder, 10 lb; lead, 20 lb; houses, 2; Stores, 6.

198

William Hampton His Muster

William Hampton aged 34 in the Bona Nova 1621Joane HamptonJohn Arndell aged 22 in the Abigall 1621

PROVISION: Corne, 5 barreles; Fish, 200 ct. ARMES: peeces, 8; powder, 1 lb; lead, 20 lb; house, 1.

Anthonie Bonall His Muster

Anthonie Bonall age 42 in the Abigall 1621Elias Legardo age 38 in the Abigall 1621Robart Wright age 45 in the Swan 1608Joane Wright and two Children borne in VirginaWilliam Binsley age 18 in the Jacob 1624Robart Godwin age 19 in the Swan 1624

PROVISION: Corne, 5 barreles. ARMES: peeces, 6; swords, 4; powder, 2 lb; lead, 6 lb; house, 1; pallizade, 1; Stores, 3.

Robart Thrasher His Muster

Robart Thrasher age 22 in the Bona Nova 1620Roland Williames age 20 in the Jonathan 1623

ServantJohn Sacker age 20 in the Marget and John 1623

PROVISION: Corne, 8 barreles. ARMES: peeces, 4; Armor, 1; sword, 1; powder, 2 lb; lead, 10 lb; house, 1.

John Haney age 27 in the Marget and John 1621Elzabeth Hanie in the Abigall 1622Nicholas Rowe in the Elzabeth 1621Mary Rowe in the London Marchant 1620

ServantsThomas Moreland aged 19 in the Abigall 1621Ralph Hoode aged 19 in the Abigall 1621

PROVISION: Corne, 9 barreles; fish, 100 ct. ARMES: Peeces, 3; Armor, 1; Swords, 2; powder, 1 lb; lead, 3 lb; house, 1;pallizado, 1; Stores, 3.

A List of Dead Beyond Hampton River

of Mr Bonales Servant, 1Mr Dowse his men, 2Mr Peter Arndell

199

Appendix 2.Catalogs of Tobacco Pipes

200

PART 1: CATALOG OF IMPORTED TOBACCO PIPES

Figure 55. Catalog Number 6108-44HT55-046.

Length1 = 24.8 cmWidth of bowl = 2.7 cmHeight of bowl not including spur = 2.33 cmSHD = 8/64"Retrieved from Trash Pit G

This nearly complete white-clay tobacco pipe is most likely Dutch in origin and is the type that was producedthroughout the seventeenth century (Oswald 1969:138). The decoration consists of floral motifs molded in low reliefover roughly two-thirds of the stem and covering most of the pipe bowl. The bowl is enhanced with large petals—one of which forms a spur-like projection under the bowl. The floral devices, including blossoms with calyx, leaves,buds, and vine-like stems, are separated with raised bands at three points along the length of the stem.

Figure 56/1. Catalog Number 6110-44HT55-039.

Diameter of bowl mouth = 1.03 cmWidth of bowl2 = 1.69 cmHeight of bowl = 2.58 cmEstimated bowl capacity3 = 1.46 cu cmStem hole diameter4 = 8/64"Retrieved from Trash Pit G

This imported pipe bowl is decorated with a single rouletted band of rectangular punctate marks below the lip, whichis bevelled downward. Distinct mold seam marks appear on the front and rear surfaces of the bowl and an impressedmaker’s mark appears on the round, flat heel consisting of the raised letters “I B” surrounded by a circle of small,raised dots and an indistinct trifid frond or similar device above the letters. The maker is unknown; however, AudreyNoël Hume illustrates a very similar mark with associated dates of 1620-1650 (A. Noël Hume 1979:21). This bowl

1 It is possible that this pipe stem may have been longer than this measurement, but the end of the stem, whichhas suffered some damage, appears to have been squared and finished. If, on the other hand, it has beenbroken, the fracture occurred perpendicular to the stemhole.

2 In order to give the reader some indication of the width of the pipe bowls in the report, a single measurement ofthe side-to-side width at the widest point of each bowl was taken wherever possible. As tobacco pipe bowlsrarely measure the same from side-to-side as they do from front to back, a true diameter measurement is notreadily taken. It is thought that this method will at least suggest to the reader some frame of reference for theexternal bowl sizes represented in this assemblage.

3 For the purpose of this study, tobacco pipe bowl capacities were estimated by filling each complete bowl withaluminum oxide crystals and performing a mathematical calculation to establish a weight-to-volume ratio.These figures will serve to indicate to the reader the approximate cubic displacement of each measurable bowl.The capacities mentioned hereafter in the text of this report will be understood to be approximate and willappear in the text as “EBC,” which stands for Estimated Bowl Capacity.

4 The artifact collections which contain these tobacco pipes are currently housed by the Virginia Division ofHistoric Landmarks in Richmond, Virginia. Heath cites examples of marked bowls and stems from the followinglocations: River Creek, with a date range of 1610-1710; Governor’s Land (44GL32), with a depositional daterange of 1690-1710; Kingsmill Tenement, with a date range of 1690-1710; and the Pettus Site, with a depositionaldate range of 1620-1675 (Heath 1981:18).

201

Figure 55. Dutch pipe.

Figure 56. Imported clay tobacco pipes.

202

conforms most closely to type 3 of the Atkinson typology5 of 1964 with a suggested date of circa 1640 and wasexcavated from Macro-Feature 13 (Atkinson 1964, as cited by Walker 1977:1525).

Figure 56/2. Catalog Number 6111-44HT55-127.

Diameter of bowl mouth = 1.45 cmWidth of bowl = 2.32 cmHeight of bowl = 3.57 cmEBC = 4.32 cu cmSHD = 8/64"Retrieved from the well

This imported white-clay pipe bowl of probable English origin is decorated with a single rouletted band of narrowpunctate marks impressed below a rounded lip. No mold-marks are evident on the surface. The maker’s markconsists of the raised initials “M B,” surrounded by a raised circle. Two raised trifid fronds are appended above andbelow the letters. This mark is not attributed to a specific maker, but Oswald and Atkinson suggest that this mark isof Northern English origin (Atkinson and Oswald 1972). Ivor Noël Hume illustrates a pipe bowl with the same markand suggests a date range of 1650-1680 (I. Noël Hume 1966:26, 28). Heath, on the other hand, lists this mark from fourseparate excavations in the Virginia Tidewater area.6 The presence of this marked pipe bowl in the well fill of HT55places the manufacture of this pipe and the use of this mark firmly in the first half of the seventeenth century, inconcurrence with the dating of the Pettus site.

Figure 56/3. Catalog Number 6112-44HT55-087.

Stem and flat heel only—no measurements of bowl possibleSHD = 8/64"Retrieved from Slot Fence A

Not illustrated. Catalog Number 6113-44HT55-035.

Stem and flat heel only—no measurements of bowl possibleSHD = 8/64"Retrieved from Trash Pit F

These two tobacco pipe stems carry the identical impressed maker’s mark consisting of the raised initials “B C” withthree raised dots arranged in an arc above and below the letters. The maker is unknown. Audrey Noël Hume cites amarked heel which is strikingly similar to these from Site A of Martin’s Hundred with a date range of circa 1620-1750(A. Noël Hume 1979:13), while Heath cites similar marks at the Kingsmill Tenement site, with a date range of post-1645 (Heath 1981:15). A mark similar to this, but without the raised dots, has been documented by Bradley andDeAngelo at various locations, all with depositional dates prior to 1650 (Bradley and DeAngelo 1981:113).

Not illustrated. Catalog Number 6114-44HT55-035.

Stem and flat heel only—no measurements of bowl possibleSHD = 7/64"Retrieved from Trash Pit F

5 It was decided to cite Iain C. Walker’s massive work on tobacco pipes published in 1977, which contains all ofthe major tobacco pipe typologies, rather than individual authors. This is done as a convenience to the reader.

6 The tobacco pipes which Barbara Heath summarized in her 1981 report are currently housed in the facilities ofthe Virginia Division of Historic Landmarks in Richmond, Virginia. The pipes in Heath’s study were retrievedfrom the following sites: River Creek, with a date range of 1610-1710; Governor’s Land (44GL32), with a deposi-tional date range of 1690-1710; Kingsmill Tenement, with a date range of 1690-1710; and the Pettus Site, with adepositional date range of 1620-1675 (Heath 1981:18, Figure 4).

203

Figure 56/4. Catalog Number 6115-44HT55-066.

Diameter of bowl mouth = 1.03 cmWidth of bowl = 1.73 cmHeight of bowl = 2.25 cmEBC = 1.39 cu cmSHD = 7/64"Retrieved from Trash Pit H

Not illustrated. Catalog Number 6176-44HT55-066.

Diameter of bowl mouth = 1.08 cmWidth of bowl = 1.75 cmHeight of bowl = 2.58 cmEBC = 1.39 cu cmSHD = 7/64"Retrieved from Trash Pit H

These three imported clay tobacco pipe bowl fragments carry a very similar maker’s mark to the ones describedabove (Catalog Numbers 6112 and 6113). Two of the pipe bowls are intact (6115 and 6176) and have a narrow, singlerouletted band of punctate marks below a down-bevelled lip. The maker’s mark which appears on both fragmentsconsists of a circular impressed mark with the raised initials “B C” and two fronds above and below. This mark hasbeen illustrated by Audrey Noël Hume with a suggested date of circa 1620 (A. Noël Hume 1979:11-13), and by Heathwho cites this mark at two locations in the Virginia Tidewater—at the Kingsmill Tenement, with a date range of 1620-1660, and at the Littletown Quarter, with a depositional date of post-1645 (Heath 1981:15, Figure 3; see also Bradleyand DeAngelo 1981:113).

Figure 56/5. Catalog Number 6116-44HT55-076.

Estimated diameter of bowl mouth = 0.96 cmHeight of bowl = 2.51 cmSHD = 7/64"Retrieved from Trash Pit B

This small white-clay bowl is ornamented with a single rouletted band of narrow punctate marks below arounded lip. The bowl has been damaged at the mouth and shows no mold seam-marks. The maker’s mark on thisexample is somewhat indistinct but appears to be two initials, the first a “B” and the second possibly the letter “C”beneath a five-petalled flower motif. The maker is unknown, although it is possibly Dutch in origin (Bradley andDeAngelo 1981:113).

Not Illustrated. Catalog Number 6117-44HT55-003.

Stem and partial heel fragment—no measurements of bowl possibleSHD = 9/64"Retrieved from Trash Pit B

Not Illustrated. Catalog Number 6118-44HT55-123.

Stem and heel fragment—no measurement of bowl possibleSHD = 8/64"Retrieved from Feature 105, a shallow pit

204

Figure 56/6. Catalog Number 6119-44HT55-076.

Fragmentary bowl and heel—no measurements of bowl possibleSHD = 8/64"Retrieved from Trash Pit B

Not Illustrated. Catalog Number 6120-44HT55-003.

Fragmentary bowl and heel—no measurements of bowl possibleSHD = 8/64"Retrieved from Trash Pit A

Not Illustrated. Catalog Number 6121-44HT55-075.

Diameter of bowl mouth = 1.20 cmWidth of bowl = 2.13 cmHeight of bowl = 3.15 cmEBC = 2.58 cu cmSHD = 9/64"Retrieved from Trash Pit B

These fragmentary white-clay pipe stems and bowls are clearly mold-formed and all bear the same maker’s mark inthe form of the two initials “W C.” The “W,” formed by two interlocking “V”s, and the “C” are raised characterswithin a circular pattern of raised dots encircling the initials on the flat, round heels. Each letter bears a distinctivedot at its extremity and a small bifurcated frond below. It has been suggested by Adrian Oswald that this mark waspossibly of English origin and specifically used in Bristol. Audrey Noël Hume, who cites this attribution, suggestsa date range of 1640-1660. Noël Hume also cites the presence of a pipe with this mark from a trash pit at Martin’sHundred Site “A” with a terminus post quem of 1631 (A. Noël Hume 1979:10). Heath notes numerous pipes with thismark from archaeological contexts dating as early as 1620 and as late as 1660 from the Kingsmill and PasbeheghTenements, Willis Cove, Littletown Quarter, and the Pettus site (Heath 1981:14). Adrian Oswald illustrates a markwhich is very similar to this and attributes it to the London pipemaker William Collins (Oswald 1970:138).

Not Illustrated. Catalog Number 6122-44HT55-026.

Diameter of bowl mouth = 1.32 cmWidth of bowl = 2.25 cmHeight of bowl = 3.09 cmEBC = 3.27 cu cmSHD = 8/64"

Retrieved from Trash Pit C

Figure 56/7. Catalog Number 6123-44HT55-094.

Stem and heel fragment—no bowl measurements possibleSHD = 8/64"Retrieved from posthole in Structure A

Not Illustrated. Catalog Number 6124-44HT55-087.

Diameter of bowl mouth = 1.32 cmWidth of bowl = 2.14 cmHeight of bowl = 3.12 cmBowl base fragmented—no EBC or SHD measurements possibleRetrieved from Slot Fence A

205

Three white-clay pipe fragments bear the same maker’s mark of the initials “W C” in retrograde. This mark is similarin character to those described above (Catalog Numbers 6117-6121), except that the raised dots encircling the mark,the dots which form the serifs at the ends of the initials, and the bifurcated frond motif beneath letters, is omitted.Audrey Noël Hume documents this mark at Martin’ Hundred (A. Noël Hume 1979:21). Heath records this mark onpipes from an undated context at the Kingsmill site, and also at the Pettus Site from a context dating to 1645-1665(Heath 1981:14). Oswald illustrates this mark and attributes it to the London pipemaker William Collins (Oswald1970:138).

Figure 56/8. Catalog Number 6125-44HT55-216.

Diameter of bowl mouth = 1.18 cmWidth of bowl = 1.78 cmHeight of bowl = 2.94 cmEBC = 2.02 cu cmSHD = 8/64"Retrieved from the well

This white-clay pipe bowl and stem fragment is ornamented with a single band of impressed marks beneath a down-tooled lip. The maker’s mark is a deeply impressed circular mark on a round, flat heel, consisting of the raised initials“C D”. The maker is unknown.

Figure 56/9. Catalog Number 6126-44HT55-182.

Diameter of bowl mouth = 1.23 cmWidth of bowl = 2.02 cmHeight of bowl = 3.22 cmEBC = 2.58 cu cmSHD = 7/64"Retrieved from the well

This imported pipe bowl is decorated with a single band of rouletted impressions beneath a rounded lip. The maker’smark consists of the raised letters “I(?) D” beneath a crown. The first letter is somewhat indistinct and couldpossibly be the letter “R”. Heath describes the “I D” mark on two pipe bowls from the Pettus Site, but the maker isunknown (Heath 1981:13).

Figure 56/10. Catalog Number 6127-44HT55-059.

Diameter of bowl mouth = 1.24 cmWidth of bowl = 2.09Height of bowl = 3.38 cmEBC = 2.51 cu cmSHD = 8/64"Retrieved from Trash Pit G

This imported pipe bowl has had its mold seam marks smoothed away and is decorated with a single rouletted rowof small square punctate marks beneath a rounded lip. The maker’s mark on the flat, round heel is somewhatindistinct, but is most likely a raised Tudor rose above the initials “W D”. The maker is unknown.

Not Illustrated. Catalog Number 6128-44HT55-115.

Diameter of bowl mouth = 1.30 cmWidth of bowl = 2.21 cmHeight of bowl = 3.59 cmEBC = 2.99 cu cmSHD = 8/64"Retrieved from Slot Fence A

206

Not Illustrated. Catalog Number 6129-44HT55-054.

Diameter of bowl mouth = 1.10 cmWidth of bowl = 1.99 cmHeight of bowl = 3.11 cmEBC = 1.95 cu cmSHD = 8/64"Retrieved from Trash Pit G

Figure 57/1. Catalog Number 6188-44HT55-66.

Diameter of bowl mouth = 1.32 cmWidth of bowl = 2.23 cmHeight of bowl = 3.55 cmEBC = 3.20 cu cmSHD = 8/64"Retrieved from Trash Pit H

The maker’s marks on these three white-clay pipes consist of the initials “H F,” separated by a small round, raiseddot. The letters appear beneath a tripartite crown and above a small star. The heels bearing the impressed marks areround with slightly flaring sides and a flat face. Both examples are decorated with a single rouletted line of smallclosely-spaced punctate marks beneath a rounded lip. The maker’s mark is unidentified, but pipes with a similar markhave been excavated at Martin’s Hundred and Matthew’s Manor, and are presumed Dutch in origin. They are datedcirca 1640 (A. Noël Hume 1979:10).

Figure 57/2. Catalog Number 6130-44HT55-042.

Stem and heel fragment—not all measurements of bowl possibleHeight of bowl = 3.04SHD = 8/64"Retrieved from Trash Pit A

The maker’s mark on this heel is very similar to that described above (Catalog Numbers 6128 and 6129). The initials“H F,” are separated with a somewhat larger round, raised dot than in the previously described pipes and a four-lobed flower appears in place of the small star. This exact mark is probably Dutch; it is documented by Noël Humefrom excavations at Martin’s Hundred and Matthew’s Manor, with an approximate date of circa 1640 (A. Noël Hume1979:10).

Figure 57/3. Catalog Number 6131-44HT55-042.Diameter of bowl mouth = 1.29 cmWidth of bowl = 2.24 cmHeight of bowl = 3.14 cmEBC = 3.20 cu cmSHD = 8/64"Retrieved from Trash Pit A

This white-clay pipe is ornamented with a single rouletted band of rectangular marks deeply impressed beneath asquared lip. The heel is broad and flat and carries a plain maker’s mark consisting of a stylized flower or star-burstwith a central raised dot above two initials. The first letter, “I” (?) is barely legible owing to the misaligned impressionof the marking die. The second letter is a deeply impressed “H” in uppercase block style. The maker is unknown.

207

Figure 57. Imported clay tobacco pipes.

208

Figure 57/4. Catalog Number 6132-44HT55-046.

Diameter of bowl mouth = 1.0 cmWidth of bowl = 1.79 cmHeight of bowl = 2.41 cmEBC = 1.32 cu cmSHD = 7/64"Retrieved from Trash Pit B

Not Illustrated. Catalog Number 6133-44HT55-069.

Bowl fractured—not all bowl measurements possibleHeight of bowl = 2.97 cmSHD = 7/64"Retrieved from Trash Pit F

Not Illustrated. Catalog Number 6160-44HT55-069.

Stem fragment and heel—no bowl measurements possibleSHD = 7/64"Retrieved from Trash Pit F

These three white-clay pipes bear the same maker’s mark consisting of the initials “S H”. Adrian Oswald identifiesthis mark as possibly Dutch, and ascribes a date range of 1620-1650 (Oswald 1969:140). Two of the three stems haveeither a complete or fragmentary bowl. The bowls are small and are ornamented with a single band of squarepunctate marks beneath a distinctly down-tooled lip. The stems are elaborately decorated with raised moldeddesigns, very reminiscent of the “Raleigh pipes” which are documented by Iain C. Walker (Walker 1971:88). Anotherpipe stem of this type is illustrated hereafter (see 6106-44HT55-046). Adrian Oswald also illustrates a similar moldedstem in his work on Dutch pipes from Plymouth, England (Oswald 1969:138).

Figure 57/5. Catalog Number 6134-44HT55-027

Diameter of bowl mouth = 1.11 cmWidth of bowl = 1.84 cmHeight of bowl = 2.85 cmEBC = 1.60 cu cmSHD = 7/64"Retrieved from Trash Pit B

Not Illustrated. Catalog Number 6135-44HT55-038

Bowl and heel fragment—no measurements of bowl possibleSHD = 7/64"Retrieved from Trash Pit G

These two bowls carry similar maker’s marks as described above, although on entirely different heel configurations.Pipe 6134 is impressed into a broad flat heel with exaggerated sloping sides, while pipe 6135 is stamped into a small,flat heel of much more modest proportions. Both marks are further ornamented with the addition of two small, raisedstars above and below the initials “S H.” As indicated above, these pipes are most likely Dutch in origin with anunidentified maker, and a depositional date prior to 1650 (Oswald 1969:140; Heath 1981:13; A. Noël Hume 1979:25-26).

209

Figure 57/6. Catalog Number 6136-44HT55-183.

Heel fragment only—no measurements of stem or bowl possibleRetrieved from Feature 192, a posthole

This heel fragment bears the impressed maker’s mark “I P” beneath a crown. A single dot is interposed between theletters which are encircled by a series of raised, contiguous dots. There are numerous seventeenth-and earlyeighteenth-century English pipemakers, documented by Adrian Oswald, with the initials “I P,” but no specific makeris identified (Oswald 1960:86). Heath documents this mark at the Pettus Site, with depositional dates of either 1620-1660 or 1645-1665 (Heath 1981:16).

Figure 57/7. Catalog Number 6137-44HT55-216

Stem and heel fragment—no measurements of bowl possibleSHD = 8/64"Retrieved from the well

This stem and heel fragment carries the impressed maker’s mark consisting of the raised letters “A O R”—the “A”above the “O R”. All three initials are contained within a single raised circle. This unusual three-initial stamp has notbeen previously documented on any seventeenth-century sites in the James River basin. Huey documents thismark at Fort Orange, with a suggested date range of 1624 to 1676 (Huey 1984). Oswald suggests that three-initialmaker’s marks are rare on English pipes (Oswald 1960:50; 1975:115 ).

Not Illustrated. Catalog Number 6138-44HT55-075.

Diameter of bowl mouth = 1.04 cmWidth of bowl = 1.84 cmHeight of bowl = 2.79 cmEBC = 1.67 cu cmSHD = 7/64"Retrieved from Trash Pit B

Not Illustrated. Catalog Number 6139-44HT55-076.

Diameter of bowl mouth = 1.03 cmWidth of bowl = 1.80Height of bowl = 2.70 cmEBC = 1.67 cu cmSHD = 8/64"Retrieved from Trash Pit B

Figure 57/8. Catalog Number 6140-44HT55-076.

Diameter of bowl mouth = 1.06 cmWidth of bowl = 1.86 cmHeight of bowl = 2.64 cmEBC = 1.74 cu cmSHD = 8/64"Retrieved from Trash Pit B

These three diminutive pipe bowls are ornamented with a single band of rouletted, rectangular punctate marksbeneath a sharply down-tooled lip. The heels of these pipes are distinctively flared to a broad flat face. The maker’smark consists of the initials “W R” separated by a fleur-de-lis above a tripartite motif composed of three iris-likefigures emanating from a central raised dot. Unlike other maker’s marks on pipes from HT55, this impressed mark isnot circular; rather, the stamp roughly conforms to the outside contours of the stamp design. The maker is un-known—possibly of Dutch origin.

210

Figure 57/9. Catalog Number 6141-44HT55-182.

Diameter of bowl mouth = 1.09 cmWidth of bowl = 1.92 cmHeight of bowl = 3.03 cmEBC = 1.81 cu cmSHD = 8/64"Retrieved from the well

This white-clay pipe bowl is decorated with a relatively broad band of rectangular marks rouletted below a wide,down-tooled lip. The heel is small and flat with an impressed maker’s mark consisting of the letters “A S” beneathwhat appears to be an indistinct crown. The maker is unknown.

Figure 57/10. Catalog Number 6142-44HT55-066.

Diameter of bowl mouth = 1.21 cmWidth of bowl = 2.07 cmHeight of bowl = 3.03 cmEBC = 2.44 cu cmSHD = 8/64"Retrieved from Trash Pit H

This imported clay pipe bowl is simply decorated with a incised line beneath a rounded lip. The heel is broad and flatwith what appears to be two intersecting, impressed lines running across it. The maker’s mark was impressed intothe heel after the incised lines were applied. Additionally, this mark is inverted on the pipe heel in relation to all thepipes thus far discussed and bears the initials “H S” beneath a fleur-de-lis. The maker is unknown.

Figure 57/11. Catalog Number 6143-44HT55-039.

Diameter of bowl mouth = 1.14 cmWidth of bowl = 2.05 cmHeight of bowl = 2.94 cmEBC = 2.02 cu cmSHD = 8/64"Retrieved from Trash Pit G

This white-clay pipe is rouletted with a single band of rectangular punctate marks beneath a gently down-tooled lip.The heel is small and flat and carries an impressed circular maker’s mark consisting of a five-petalled Tudor rose withsepals in relief. This mark has been identified as Dutch by Atkinson, and Oswald, with dates of use ranging over thefirst half of the seventeenth century (Atkinson 1972:181; Oswald 1969:138).

Figure 57/12. Catalog Number 6144-44HT55-023.

Diameter of bowl mouth = 1.04 cmWidth of bowl = 1.89 cmHeight of bowl = 2.72 cmEBC = 1.53 cu cmSHD = 8/64"Retrieved from Trash Pit B

This molded white-clay pipe bowl is ornamented with a single band of rouletted rectangular marks below a slightlydown-beveled lip. The small round heel is marked with a shallow impression of a five-petalled Tudor rose withsepals in relief. The circular mark carries above it a segmented arc-shaped motif which may represent a stylizedcrown. A Dutch mark very similar in form to this is illustrated by Atkinson with a date of 1625 (Atkinson 1972:182).

211

Figure 58/1. Catalog Number 6145-44HT55-050.

Diameter of bowl mouth = 1.64 cmWidth of bowl = 2.66 cmHeight of bowl = 4.12 cmEBC = 4.67 cu cmSHD = 7/64"Retrieved from Trash Pit D

This surprisingly large pipe bowl is in sharp contrast to the relatively diminutive pipes previously discussed. Theatypical size of this specimen in relation to the other imported pipes from HT55 may be explained in part by researchinto the tobacco-based economy of colonial Virginia, England, and Holland. New World tobacco, produced andshipped to England in English bottoms, may have commanded a higher price on the market than the same commod-ity on the Dutch market, which was shipped in Dutch bottoms, thus forcing the English consumer to use less.English pipemakers, possibly in response to the demand of the consumer, made relatively smaller-bowled pipes. Ifit can be shown that the Dutch tobacco shippers were able to charge less per unit of tobacco for shipping, or if theDutch retailer was able to charge less per unit of tobacco to the consumer, it follows that Dutch pipemakers wouldhave been able to supply larger-bowled pipes. It has been shown by Wilcoxen that Dutch ships were indeed moreeconomical than English ships, and that the English were unable to supply the commodities that the Virginia settlersrequired (Wilcoxen 1987:13-22).

This white-clay pipe bowl is decorated with a deeply impressed band of rectangular punctate marks beneath aslightly bevelled lip. One side of the bowl has become flattened, either because of wear and abrasion to the degreethat a portion of the rouletting has been obliterated, or possibly because the pipe became deformed by being laid onits side during manufacture while still in a highly plastic state. The heel is broad and flat and carries the impressedmark of a detailed, five-petalled Tudor rose with sepals beneath a stylized crown. The initials “W P” appear insidethe crown, the first letter being composed of two interlocking “V”s. This mark has not been recorded on other JamesRiver Basin historic sites. The mark is very similar in character to many Dutch marks illustrated by Oswald, althoughthe maker is unidentified (Oswald 1969:138).

Figure 58/2. Catalog Number 6146-44HT55-076.

Diameter of bowl mouth = 1.02 cmWidth of bowl = 1.86 cmHeight of bowl = 2.84 cmEBC = 1.53 cu cmSHD = 8/64"Retrieved from Trash Pit B

Not Illustrated. Catalog Number 6147-44HT55-003

Bowl base and heel—no measurements of bowl possibleSHD = 8/64"Retrieved from Trash Pit B

These imported pipe bowls both bear the same maker’s mark of a crowned heart encircled with a solid line in relief.The mark has been documented by Oswald as Dutch (Oswald 1969:138). The pipe bowl which is intact is orna-mented with a narrow band of rouletted dentulous marks below a rounded lip.

Figure 58/3. Catalog Number 6148-44HT55-076.

Diameter of bowl mouth = 1.0 cmWidth of bowl = 1.77 cmHeight of bowl = 2.89 cmEBC = 1.81 cu cmSHD = 8/64"Retrieved from Trash Pit B

212

Figure 58. Imported clay tobacco pipes.

213

Not Illustrated. Catalog Number 6149-44HT55-003.

Bowl base and heel fragment—no bowl measurements possibleRetrieved from Trash Pit B

These two white-clay pipes carry nearly the identical maker’s mark of an impressed fleur-de-lis in relief. The onlyapparent difference is that the impressed mark on 6149 is encircled with a continuous feather-edged line in relief.Marks very similar to these have been documented by Oswald as Dutch (Oswald 1969:138). Noël Hume illustratesheel marks which are very similar (A. Noël Hume 1979:19).

Figure 58/4. Catalog Number 6150-44HT55-038.

Diameter of bowl mouth = 0.98 cmWidth of bowl = 1.78 cmHeight of bowl = 2.86EBC = 1.67 cu cmSHD = 7/64"Retrieved from Trash Pit G

This small white-clay pipe bowl is decorated with a single band of rouletted marks impressed very near the lip on thebowl which does not appear to have been tooled. The heel is irregularly shaped, broad, and flat. The impressedmaker’s mark consists of an impressed fleur-de-lis within a heart-shaped impression. The maker is unknown,possibly Dutch.

Not Illustrated. Catalog Number 6151-44HT55-076.

Diameter of bowl mouth = 1.08 cmWidth of bowl = 1.77 cmHeight of bowl = 2.74 cmEBC = 1.53 cu cmSHD = 8/64"Retrieved from Trash Pit B

Figure 58/5. Catalog Number 6152-44HT55-076.

Diameter of bowl mouth = 1.09 cmWidth of bowl = 1.77 cmHeight of bowl = 2.77 cmEBC = 1.81 cu cmSHD = 8/64"Retrieved from Trash Pit B

These two white-clay pipes are nearly identical in form, finish, decoration, and size. The bowls are small with anarrow band of rectangular dentulous marks impressed below a down-tooled lip. They both carry the same circularmaker’s mark which consists of a half eglantine blossom to the left and a fleur-de-lis on the right. A vertical linebisects the ligatured motifs. Above the circular impression is an arc-like shape which may be interpreted as a stylizedcrown similar to that described above (see 6144-44HT55-023).

Not Illustrated. Catalog Number 6153-44HT55-067.

Fragmentary heel and stem—no measurements of bowl possibleSHD = 8/64"Retrieved from Trash Pit H

214

This minute fragment has been broken through the heel, leaving only a small portion of the maker’s mark intact. Itappears to be a eglantine blossom which would have been incorporated into a much more extensive mark. The makeris unknown.

Not Illustrated. Catalog Number 6154-44HT55-127.

Fragmentary stem and heel—no measurements of bowl possibleSHD = 7/64"Retrieved from the well

This massive stem and heel fragment has been broken through the heel, leaving only a suggestion of the deeply-impressed, circular maker’s mark. This specimen is remarkable for its size. Its proportions would be similar to thatfound on a pipe bowl of the proportions of Catalog Number 6145, described above, or 6158 and 6159, describedbelow. Pipes of this size are not typical of the assemblage from HT55.

Not Illustrated. Catalog Number 6155-44HT55-182.

Diameter of bowl mouth 1.34 cmWidth of bowl = 2.13 cmHeight of bowl = 3.66 cmEBC = 3.48 cu cmSHD = 9/64"Retrieved from the well

The white-clay pipe bowl is decorated with a single band of rouletted rectangular dentulous marks impressedsomewhat erratically below a rounded lip. The stem of the pipe has been broken off, leaving only a small portion ofthe heel. The impression on the heel is small relative to the size of the heel face and is very deeply impressed. Themark consists of what may be the letters “E” or “F” followed by what may be the letter “I.” The maker is unknown.

Figure 58/6. Catalog Number 6156-44HT55-046.

Diameter of bowl mouth = 1.08 cmWidth of bowl = 1.70 cmHeight of bowl = 2.61 cmEBC = 1.60 cu cmSHD = 8/64"Retrieved from Trash Pit G

This small pipe bowl and heel has a single band of square punctate marks rouletted just below the rounded lip. Theheel is ovoid in shape with a flat face. The maker’s mark was either shallowly impressed or the pipe has sufferedconsiderable wear in this area. The mark is very indistinct but appears to consist of a crowned Tudor rose with twoinitials on either side of the crown. The left letter appears to be “F,” while the right letter may be “M”. A similar Dutchmaker’s mark is illustrated by Oswald, although with different initials (Oswald 1969:138).

Figure 58/7. Catalog Number 6157-44HT55-182.

Stem and heel fragment—no measurements of bowl possibleSHD = 8/64"Retrieved from the well

This is another distinctively large pipe stem and heel much like 6145, 6154, 6158, and 6159. The proportions of thisspecimen suggest a large bowl with a considerably larger capacity than the majority of the imported pipes on thesite. The maker’s mark is shallowly impressed and is very indistinct. It appears to consist of a crowned Tudor rosewith two six-pointed stars on either side of the crown. Beneath the stars appear two initials—the one on the left

215

being illegible and the one on the right the letter “B”. While the Tudor rose, with and without a crown along withinitials, is seen on Dutch pipes of the first half of the seventeenth century (Atkinson 1972:181), the inclusion of six-pointed stars is a somewhat unusual occurrence, at least in the HT55 assemblage.

Not Illustrated. Catalog Number 6158-44HT55-182.

Diameter of bowl mouth = 1.62 cmWidth of bowl = 2.44 cmHeight of bowl = 3.9 cmEBC = 4.67 cu cmSHD = 8/64"Retrieved from the well

This large white-clay pipe is decorated with a single band of rectangular dentulous marks below a down-bevelledlip. The heel is broad and flat with an illegible maker’s mark.

Not Illustrated. Catalog Number 6159-44HT55-182.

Diameter of bowl mouth = 1.56 cmWidth of bowl = 2.6 cmHeight of bowl = 3.89 cmEBC = 5.16 cu cmSHD = 8/64"Retrieved from the well

This large white-pipe bowl has been broken through the bowl and heel, leaving only a small portion of the heel face.Deeply impressed into this flat surface is the corner of a single fleur-de-lis within a rectangular impression. NoëlHume documents this mark on a pipe stem fragment at Martin’s Hundred and suggests a Dutch origin, followingOswald’s illustration and discussion of this mark on the stem and heels of twelve examples from Plymouth, England(A. Noël Hume 1979:22; Oswald 1969:138). The Dutch maker is unknown.

Photo 47/1. Catalog Number 6170-44HT55-123.

Diameter of bowl mouth = 1.34 cmWidth of bowl = 2.1 cmHeight of bowl = 3.06 cmEBC = 2.92 cu cmSHD = 9/64"Retrieved from Feature 105, a shallow pit

This unmarked white-clay pipe bowl and stem is ornamented with a double band of square dentulous roulettedbelow a round lip. The heel is ovoid and flat.

Photo 47/2. Catalog Number 6171-44HT55-046.

Diameter of bowl mouth = 1.07 cmWidth of bowl = approximately 1.8 cmHeight of bowl = 2.67 cmEBC = measurement not possibleSHD = 9/64"Retrieved from Trash Pit G

This white-clay pipe has suffered a broken bowl which makes the capacity measurement impossible for this example.The bowl is decorated with a single band of rectangular punctate marks applied low beneath a gently bevelled lip.

216

The rouletting has been done rather erratically, although the mold seam marks have been smoothed. The heel isovoid and flat and carries no maker’s mark.

Photo 47/3. Catalog Number 6172-44HT55-127.

Diameter of bowl mouth = 1.28 cmWidth of bowl = 1.96 cmHeight of bowl = 3.59 cmEBC = measurement not possibleSHD = 9/64"Retrieved from the well

This white-clay pipe bowl and stem fragment exhibit a single line of rouletted rectangular dentulous marks beneathan untooled and rounded lip. The long graceful bowl has been fettled, though vestiges of the mold seam marksremain. The heel is slightly irregular, but basically round with a flat face.

Photo 47/4. Catalog Number 6173-44HT55-069.

Diameter of bowl mouth = 0.95 cmWidth of bowl = 1.64 cmHeight of bowl = 2.52 cmEBC = measurement not possibleSHD = 8/64"Retrieved from Trash Pit F

Photo 47.

217

This small, nearly complete pipe is ornamented with a rouletted band of rectangular dentulous beneath a slightlydown-tooled lip. This pipe bowl terminates in a small spur rather than a flat-faced heel, as in the majority of tobaccopipes from this site. As indicated by Oswald, pipes with spurs instead of flat heels are seen early in the seventeenthcentury (Oswald 1960:50).

Photo 47/5. Catalog Number 6174-44HT55-127.

Diameter of bowl mouth = 1.37 cmWidth of bowl = 2.02 cmHeight of bowl = 4.1 cmEBC = measurement not possibleSHD = 8/64"Retrieved from the well

This white-clay pipe bowl has been rouletted with a single band of deeply impressed rectangular marks beneath arounded lip. The heel is circular and flat and devoid of maker’s mark. The bowl most closely fits the forms repre-sented in Ivor Noël Hume’s typology (type 12) with a suggested date range of 1650-1680 (I. Noël Hume 1970, as citedby Walker 1977:1549). This date seems a bit late in relation to the other artifacts retrieved from HT55.

Photo 47/6. Catalog Number 6175-44HT55-122.

Diameter of bowl mouth = 1.29 cmWidth of bowl = 1.1 cmHeight of bowl = 3.1 cmEBC = measurement not possibleSHD = 8/64"Retrieved from Feature 104, a shallow pit (?)

This unmarked pipe bowl closely matches the typology suggested by Atkinson and Oswald (type 9), with a daterange of circa 1640-1660 (Atkinson and Oswald 1969, as cited by Walker 1977:1529). The rouletted decoration at therounded lip consists of a single band of square dentulous.

Photo 47/7. Catalog Number 6177-44HT55-216.

Bowl fractured—no measurements possibleSHD = 7/64"Retrieved from the well

This fragmentary bowl and stem still carries a suggestion of the mold seam marks which have not been completelyfettled away. The heel is small and flat but without a maker’s mark.

Photo 47/8. Catalog Number 6178-44HT55-001.

Diameter of bowl mouth = 1.03 cmWidth of bowl = 1.79 cmEBC = 1.46 cu cmSHD = 7/64"Retrieved from Trash Pit A

This small pipe bowl and stem has suffered a break through a portion of the bowl and heel. Enough of the heelsurvives, however, to indicate that it was tear-shaped rather than round as in all previously discussed examples. Asingle band of rectangular punctate marks has been impressed beneath the worn and rounded lip. The form matchestype 3 of Ivor Noël Hume’s pipe bowl typology, with a suggested date range of 1610-1640 (I. Noël Hume 1970, ascited by Walker 1977:1547).

218

Figure 58/9. Catalog Number 6179-44HT55-201.

Diameter of bowl mouth = approximately 1.24 cmWidth of bowl = 1.81 cmHeight of bowl = 3.07 cmEBC = 2.23 cu cmSHD = 7/64"Retrieved from posthole in Structure C

This white-clay pipe bowl has no apparent rouletting at the lip of the bowl; however, on either side of the bowlabove the heel appear a series of five raised dots separated by stylized sepals radiating around a sixth dot in thecenter. The design is referred to as the “mulberry mark” and is identified by Atkinson as Dutch in origin, with asuggested date range in the early seventeenth century (Atkinson 1972:177). Noël Hume records a similar mark atClay Bank, with a suggested date of 1640-1670, and Heath illustrates a similar mark from the Brown’s Neck site witha date range of 1645-1665 (I. Noël Hume 1966:28; Heath 1981:22). This mark also appears on pipes found at FortOrange and on the Onondaga Iroquois sites which suggest a mid- to late-seventeenth-century date (Bradley andDeAngelo 1981:121). The bowl form closely matches type 3 in Noël Hume’s typology, with a date range of 1620-1660(I. Noël Hume 1970, as cited by Walker 1977:1547).

Photo 47/9. Catalog Number 6180-44HT55-076.

Diameter of bowl mouth = 1.05 cmWidth of bowl = 1.73 cmHeight of bowl = 2.7 cmEBC = 1.46 cu cmSHD = 7/64"Retrieved from Trash Pit B

This diminutive bowl is ornamented with a single band of rectangular dentulous impressions rouletted beneath agently down-tooled lip. The heel is small and flat, but with no maker’s mark. The bowl form closely matches type 3of the Atkinson typology, with a suggested date of circa 1640 (Atkinson 1964, as cited by Walker 1977:1525).

Photo 47/10. Catalog Number 6181-44HT55-076.

Diameter of bowl mouth = 1.16 cmWidth of bowl = 2.02 cmHeight of bowl = 2.83 cmEBC = 2.23 cu cmSHD = 7/64"Retrieved from Trash Pit B

Photo 47/11. Catalog Number 6182-44HT55-023.

Diameter of bowl mouth = 1.21 cmWidth of bowl = 2.02 cmHeight of bowl = 2.96 cmEBC = 2.37 cu cmSHD = 8/64"Retrieved from Trash Pit B

Photo 47/12. Catalog Number 6183-44HT55-023.

Diameter of bowl mouth = 1.18 cmWidth of bowl = 2.0 cmHeight of bowl = 2.9 cmEBC = 2.64 cu cm

219

SHD = 8/64"Retrieved from Trash Pit B

These three very similar unmarked pipe bowls are decorated with a single row of punctate marks impressed into arounded lip. The heels are flat and nearly round and have had all traces of the mold seam marks smoothed away.They conform most closely to type 3 of the Atkinson typology (Atkinson 1964, as cited by Walker 1977:1525).

Photo 48/1. Catalog Number 6184-44HT55-050.

Diameter of bowl mouth = 0.94 cmWidth of bowl = 1.81 cmHeight of bowl = 2.71 cmEBC = 1.53 cu cmSHD = 7/64"Retrieved from Trash Pit D

This unmarked imported white-clay pipe bowl conforms most closely to type 5 of the Noël Hume typology, with asuggested date range of 1620-1660 (I. Noël Hume 1970, as cited by Walker 1977:1547). This distinctively bulbouspipe bowl with a relatively small heel is decorated with a single incised line having very indistinct raised dentils.

Photo 48/2. Catalog Number 6185-44HT55-182.Diameter of bowl mouth = 1.5 cmWidth of bowl = 1.89 cmHeight of howl = 4.47 cm

EBC = 4.53 cu cmSHD = 9/64"Retrieved from the well

This white-clay pipe bowl is the type referred to as an “elbow pipe” due to the straightness of the bowl sides andthe angularity of the bowl to the stem. A single rouletted band of rectangular punctate marks below a bevelled lip isthe only decoration. This bowl does not conform exactly to any of the major typologies, but is similar to type 16 ofthe Atkinson and Oswald typology (Atkinson and Oswald 1969, as cited by Walker 1977:1531).

Photo 48/3. Catalog Number 6186-44HT55-177.

Diameter of bowl mouth = 1.72 cmWidth of bow = 2.40 cmHeight of bowl = 3.84 cmEBC = 4.74 cu cmSHD = 8/64"Retrieved from the well

This rather large white-clay bowl is ornamented with a single band of broad, deeply impressed rectangular dentu-lous impressions below a down-tooled lip. The heel is broad and flat with no maker’s mark. This bowl is similar to abowl shape illustrated by Noël Hume in his 1963 typology, although slightly larger and with a suggested date rangeof 1640-1670 (I. Noël Hume 1963, as cited by Walker 1977:1541)

Photo 48/4. Catalog Number 6187-44HT55-076.

Diameter of bowl mouth = 0.92 cmWidth of bowl = 1.73 cmHeight of bowl = 2.52 cmEBC = 1.25 cu cmSHD = 9/64"Retrieved from Trash Pit B

220

Photo 48.

221

This diminutive, unmarked bowl closely resembles type 3 of the 1964 Oswald typology. The narrow, rouletted bandof square dentulous impressions is incised just under the untooled, rounded lip (Oswald 1964, as cited by Walker1977:1525).

Photo 48/5. Catalog Number 6189-44HT55-127.

Diameter of bowl mouth = 1.19 cmWidth of bowl = 2.06 cmHeight of bowl = 3.0 cmEBC = 2.58 cu cmSHD = 7/64"Retrieved from the well

This white-clay bowl and stem fragment displays an irregularly applied rouletted band below a rounded anduntooled lip. The unmarked heel is flat with fettling marks clearly visible, indicating hasty manufacture. It mostclosely resembles type 6 of the Noël Hume 1970 typology (I. Noël Hume 1970, as cited by Walker 1977:1547).

Photo 48/6. Catalog Number 6190-44HT55-182.

Bowl fragment—no measurements of bowl possibleSHD = 9/64"Retrieved from the well

This “elbow pipe” clearly shows the mold seam marks at the junction of the stem to the bowl base. The sides of thebowl which survive are quite straight and angular in relation to the stem.

Photo 48/7. Catalog Number 6191-44HT55-026.

Diameter of bowl mouth = 1.35 cmWidth of bowl = 2.12 cmHeight of bowl = 3.11 cmEBC = 2.78 cu cmSHD = 9/64"Retrieved from Trash Pit C

This unmarked bowl is most similar to type 6 of the Noël Hume typology of 1970 (I. Noël Hume 1970, as cited byWalker 1977:1547). The bowl mouth is decorated with a single rouletted band of narrow, closely-spaced, squarepunctate marks beneath a down-tooled lip.

Photo 48/8. Catalog Number 6192-44HT55-127.

Diameter od bowl mouth = 1.29 cmWidth of bowl = 1.93 cmHeight of bowl = 4.60 cmEBC = 3.34 cu cmSHD = 8/64"Retrieved from the well

This deep but narrow pipe bowl is similar to type 12 of the 1970 Noël Hume typology, and is decorated with a bandof rouletted dentulous impressions positioned well below the untooled lip (I. Noël Hume 1970, as cited by Walker1977:1549). The heel is flat with very indistinct distortions astride the heel which may be maker’s marks. The marksare so indistinct, however, that it is impossible to read them clearly.

222

Photo 48/9. Catalog Number 6193-44HT55-050.

Diameter of bowl mouth = 1.12 cmWidth of bowl = 2.0 cmHeight of bowl = 2.69 cmEBC = 1.95 cu cmSHD = 7/64"Retrieved from Trash Pit D

Photo 48/10. Catalog Number 6194-44HT55-046.

Diameter of bowl mouth = 1.3 cmWidth of bowl = 1.74 cmHeight of bowl = 2.71 cmEBC = 1.88 cu cmSHD = 7/64"Retrieved from Trash Pit G

These small, unmarked bowls carry a single rouletted band of square dentulous marks below a rounded lip. The heelis flat and unmarked. The heel of 6193 has been trimmed at approximately a 10 degree angle to a line perpendicularto the mold seam lines which run vertically along the bowl face and back. This irregular trimming of the heel givesthe bowl a somewhat skewed appearance. The heel of 6194 is smaller than 6193 and has more rounded edges. Thebowls are most similar to type 4 of the Atkinson and Oswald typology of 1969 (Atkinson and Oswald 1969, as citedby Walker 1977:1529).

Photo 48/11. Catalog Number 6195-44HT55-127.

Diameter of bowl mouth = 1.36 cmWidth of bowl = 2.24 cmHeight of bowl = 3.51 cmEBC = measurement not possibleSHD = approximately 8/64"Retrieved from the well

The stem bore measurement of this example is an approximation due to an irregularly-shaped hole. The wire whichformed the hole seems to have shifted or been inserted twice leaving a stem channel which is basically oval. Theheel is broad and flat with no marks. The bowl form is similar to one illustrated by Noël Hume in his 1963 typology,with a suggested date range of 1640-1670. The bowl is ornamented with a narrow band of rouletting which has beeninconsistently applied below an indifferently tooled lip.

Not Illustrated. Catalog Number 6196-44HT55-003.

Retrieved from Trash Pit B

Not Illustrated. Catalog Number 6197-44HT55-018.

Retrieved from Trash Pit B

Figure 58/8. Catalog Number 6198-44HT55-023.

Retrieved from Trash Pit B

These white-clay pipe stem fragments bear no maker’s mark, but they are ornamented by having been alternatelyfinger pressed. This procedure has resulted in distorted stem bores, making diameter measurements impossible.These finger-pressed stems also bear the fingerprints of the pipemaker.

223

Figure 59/1. Catalog Number 6200-44HT55-172.

Retrieved from the well

This imported pipe stem is thought to be Dutch in origin, owing to the distinctive impressed decoration on the upperstem surface. The impressed design consists of a large diamond defined by a square punctate marks. The diamondis subdivided into four sections by two diagonal raised lines; each section is filled with a raised fleur-de-lis motif.Oswald illustrates this mark and suggests its Dutch origin (Oswald 1969:139). Heath records this mark at a numberof Tidewater Virginia sites, including Kingsmill Tenement, River Creek, the Pettus site, and at Martin’s Hundred, allwith depositional dates ranging through the mid-seventeenth century (Heath 1981:25).

Figure 59/2. Catalog Number 6201-44HT55-046.

Retrieved from Trash Pit G

Figure 59/3. Catalog Number 6202-44HT55-058.

Retrieved from Trash Pit G

Figure 59/4. Catalog Number 6203-44HT55-069.

Retrieved from Trash Pit F

Figure 59/5. Catalog Number 6204-44HT55-038.

Retrieved from Trash Pit G

These highly-ornamented pipe stem fragments are thought to be Dutch in origin and made throughout the seven-teenth century, but not in large quantities (Oswald 1969:138). The floral motifs found on fragments 6201, 6202, and6204 are very similar in character to those on the nearly complete tobacco pipe 6108-44HT55-046. It is not surprisingthat these four examples were retrieved from the same feature on the site—a trash pit south of Structures C, D, andE. Stem fragment 6203 was recovered from a smaller trash pit located to the west of the same structures. The borediameter of all four fragments is 7/64".

Figure 59/6. Catalog Number 6104-44HT55-059.

Retrieved from Trash Pit G

This stem fragment is decorated with raised floral devices and is identical to fragments 6201, 6107, and the nearlycomplete pipe 6108-44HT55-046. The stem bore diameter of this Dutch fragment is 8/64".

Figure 59/7. Catalog Number 6105-44HT55-182.

Retrieved from the well

This stem fragment is massive in proportion with a bore diameter of 8/64" The impressed marks consist of a singleimpression of a square subdivided into four rhomboidal fields each containing a raised fleur-de-lis. The four fieldsare defined by two diagonal raised lines. This type of stem marking is indicative of Dutch pipes. Oswald documentsthis stamp mark on pipe stems found at Plymouth, England (Oswald 1969:138).

Figure 59/8. Catalog Number 6107-44HT55-040.

Retrieved from Trash Pit B

This stem fragment, which is identical to 6204, 6201, and the nearly-complete pipe 6108, has a bore diameter of 8/64".

224

Figure 59. Decorated imported clay tobacco pipe stems.

225

Figure 59/9. Catalog Number 6106-44HT55-046.

Retrieved from Trash Pit G

This large fragment is decorated with raised floral motifs in the form of pointed leaves emanating from flattenedknops. Interposed between the leaves, raised “peanut-shaped” designs appear with raised cross-hatching. Thebore diameter of this Dutch fragment is 8/64"

Photo 48/12. Catalog Number 6208-44HT55-023.

Diameter of bowl mouth = 1.24 cmWidth of bowl = 2.7 cmHeight of bowl = 2.92 cmEBC = 2.71 cu cmSHD = 8/64"Retrieved from Trash Pit B

This imported pipe bowl and stem fragment is stained a pale pinkish grey and carries no maker’s mark. The lip of thebowl is decorated with a single rouletted line of square punctate marks below a down-tooled lip.

226

PART 2: CATALOG OF DOMESTIC TOBACCO PIPES

Figure 60/1. Catalog Number 6250-44HT55-008.

Diameter of Mouth = 1.68 cmWidth of bowl = 2.32 cmHeight of bowl = 3.66 cmEBC = 3.69 cu cmSHD = 6/64"Munsell = 7.5YR7/8Retrieved from Trash Pit B

This undecorated tobacco pipe bowl and stem shows evidence of tooth wear at the stem end. The clay has beenworn away from the top and bottom surfaces, and one tooth indentation can be seen on the underside of the stem.The sides of the bowl flare outward from the bowl base to terminate with a flat lip.

Figure 60/2. Catalog Number 6251-44HT55-127.

Diameter of mouth = 1.86 cmWidth of bowl = 2.32 cmHeight of bowl—measurement not possibleEBC = 5.09 cu cmSHD = 6/64"Munsell = 7.5YR7/6Retrieved from the well

This domestic pipe bowl was formed over a mandrel and had at least seven facets formed in the exterior surface. Thefacets flare evenly from the base to the lip, but are not themselves evenly spaced around the bowl body. The bowlcurves gradually into the stem section which has not survived. This example is similar to Emerson’s type 8 pipebowl, except that this example exhibits facets running the full length of the bowl (Emerson 1988:88).

Figure 60/3. Catalog Number 6254-44HT55-050.

Diameter of bowl mouth = 2.61 cmWidth of bowl = 2.77 cmHeight of bowl = measurement not possibleEBC = measurement not possibleSHD = measurement not possibleMunsell = 7.5YR6/6Retrieved from Trash Pit D

This large bowl fragment is unique among the HT55 tobacco pipe assemblage because of its shape. The broadestportion of the bowl is near the base which tapers gradually toward the flattened, squared-off mouth. The surfacesof the bowl have been smoothed and are well formed. Unfortunately, the base has been damaged, preventing anycapacity measurements or any description of the stem area.

Figure 60/4. Catalog Number 6255-44HT55-050.

Diameter of bowl mouth = 1.34 cmWidth of bowl = 1.93 cmHeight of bowl = measurement not possibleEBC = measurement not possibleSHD = measurement not possibleRetrieved from Trash Pit DMunsell = 10YR7/4

227

Figure 60. Domestic clay tobacco pipes.

228

This undecorated pipe bowl is basically cylindrical from lip to near the base where it tapers toward the stem. Someirregularity in wall thickness is apparent in the bore and at the squared lip, which suggests that this example was notformed in a mold. The form of this example does not correspond to any recent typology.

Figure 60/5. Catalog Number 6256-44HT55-182.

Diameter of bowl mouth = 1.68 cmWidth of bowl = 2.07 cmHeight of bowl = 3.19 cmEBC = measurement not possibleSHD = measurement not possibleMunsell = 7.5YR6/6Retrieved from the well

This undecorated bowl is made of a tannish-salmon colored fine-grained clay, with areas of grey mottled claythroughout. The bowl exhibits curved surfaces and a round flat heel, similar in configuration to European bowls.The bowl lip has been damaged, preventing capacity or stem hole measurements; however, the presence of the heelsuggests an obvious attempt to replicate European styles and form. Judging by the angle of the heel to the bowl andthe manner of the fracture at the stem, it is believed that this bowl sat at an obtuse angle of approximately 150° to thestem.

Not Illustrated. Catalog Number 6257-44HT55-216.

Diameter of bowl mouth = 1.44 cmWidth of bowl = 2.34 cmHeight of bowl = 3.94 cmEBC = 3.27 cu cmSHD = 9/64"Munsell = 10YR6/2Retrieved from the well

Figure 60/6. Catalog Number 6258-44HT55-216.

Diameter of bowl mouth = 1.54 cmWidth of bowl = 2.28 cmHeight of bowl = 4.13 cmEBC = 5.29 cu cmSHD = 10/64"Munsell = 7.5YR5/4Retrieved from the well

These undecorated bowl and stem fragments are composed of a dull tannish colored clay with some grey mottling.The bowl shape is similar to type C of the Crass typology, but without the incised decoration (Crass 1988:90). Thebowl, which rests at approximately a 130° angle to the stem, is cylindrical in the upper half, tapering to a heellessstem. These examples do not appear to have been mold-formed due to several irregularities in the surface and wallthickness of the bowls.

Figure 60/7. Catalog Number 6259-44HT55-050.

Diameter of bowl mouth = 1.41 cmWidth of bowl = 2.17 cmHeight of bowl = measurement not possibleEBC = 3.55 cu cmSHD = 9/64"Munsell = 7.5YR6/8Retrieved from Trash Pit D

229

This undecorated bowl is irregular in wall thickness and surface treatment. The clay is a dull grayish-tan with somestreaks of red running through a portion of the bowl wall. The bowl is cone-shaped, flaring from the base upward toangle inward to the lip. In form, this example is similar to Emerson’s type 7, although this example is not as deep inthe bowl and consequently is more angular (Emerson 1988:89).

Figure 60/8. Catalog Number 6262-44HT55-216.

Diameter of bowl mouth = 1.62 cmWidth of bowl = 1.94 cmHeight of bowl = 4.6 cmEBC = measurement not possibleSHD = 9/64"Munsell = 7.5YR7/4Retrieved from the well

This heelless bowl and stem fragment is composed of a pale tan, fine-grained clay and is decorated with flared flatfacets beginning at the stem and running upward to the squared lip. The octagonal section of the bowl shows aconical interior with well-formed walls.

Figure 60/9. Catalog Number 6291-44HT55-127.

Diameter of bowl mouth = measurement not possibleWidth of bowl = measurement not possibleHeight of bowl = measurement not possibleEBC = measurement not possibleSHD = 8/64"Munsell = 7.5YR6/6Retrieved from the well

This fragmentary bowl is composed of a reddish-brown clay with a small grit inclusion. The heelless bowl formcorresponds to Emerson’s type 1 (Emerson 1988:88).

Figure 60/10. Catalog Number 6265-44HT55-216.

Diameter of bowl mouth = approximately 1.6 cmWidth of bowl = 2.11 cmHeight of bowl = 3.89 cmEBC = measurement not possibleSHD = 9/64"Munsell = 10YR5/2Retrieved from the well

This mold-formed pipe bowl is decorated with two lines of individually-incised lines at the lip and at the angle of thebowl. Above and below the angle band there appear two scratched lines which may have been incised into the pipeafter its manufacture. The bowl tapers downward into the bowl base which has a flat, round heel which carries themaker’s mark “I B.” The letters are crudely-drawn incised lines with incised dots forming the serifs for the “I” and the“B.” A single dot at the midpoint of the “I” may suggest a cross serif at this point suggesting the letter “J.” Twoadditional dots, whose purpose is unknown, appear to the left of the “I.” The maker is unknown.

Figure 60/11. Catalog Number 6268-44HT55-333.

Diameter of bowl mouth = measurement not possibleWidth of bowl = 1.98 cmHeight of bowl = 3.16 cmEBC = measurement not possible

230

SHD = 11/64"Munsell = 7.5YR6/6Retrieved from Feature 406, a posthole

This small bowl fragment is composed of mottled grayish to salmon-colored clay with one band of incised punctatemarks. The marks appear to have been applied to the curved surface of the bowl with a five- or six-pointed linearstamp and run around the broadest part of the bowl. A portion of a broad flat heel survives at the base of the bowlwhich has individually-applied punctate marks at its circumference and an impressed maker’s mark which appears tobe a sun-burst motif. The maker is unknown.

Figure 60/12. Catalog Number 6271-44HT55-127.

Diameter of bowl mouth = approximately 1.57 cmWidth of bowl = measurement not possibleHeight of bowl = 3.6 cmEBC = measurement not possibleSHD = 10/64"Munsell = 10YR7/4 (body), 10YR5/4 (slip)Retrieved from the well

This mold-formed bowl and stem fragment is composed of a dull tannish, fine-grained clay which is soft and gritty.The bowl shape is similar to the type illustrated by Noël Hume in his 1970 study of tobacco pipe bowl shapes, witha suggested date range of 1645-1665 (I. Noël Hume 1970, as cited by Walker 1977:1547). This example differs fromany other pipe in this study because of the double rouletted band of square punctate marks at the lip. The bowlexterior is decorated with a thin application of reddish brown slip which has been trailed over portions of the bowland stem. The base of the bowl terminates in a broad flat heel with a maker’s mark consisting of a six-lobed eglantineblossom incised into the heel surface. The maker is unknown.

Figure 61/1. Catalog 6004-44HT55-127.

Length of fragment = 6.26 cmSHD = 10/64"Munsell = 7.5YR6/6Retrieved from the well

This fragmentary stem appears to have been decorated with individually-applied punctate marks which have beenarranged in bands running around the stem, alternating with lines which intersect and form crosshatching.

Figure 61/2. Catalog Number 6280-44HT55-127.

Length of fragment = 3.24 cmSHD = 9/64"Munsell = 10YR7/6Retrieved from the well

This stem fragment is similar to stem fragment 6004 in form of decoration. The punctate marks, which appear to havebeen applied with a roulette, form bands running around the stem and alternate with crosshatched lines. The inciseddecoration was originally heightened by the addition of a white chalk-like substance in each mark.

Figure 61/3. Catalog Number 6287-44HT55-050.

Length of fragment = 8.57 cmSHD = 12/64"Munsell = 7.5YR7/6Retrieved from Trash Pit D

231

Figure 61. Domestic clay tobacco pipes.

232

This massive stem fragment, with by far the largest bore diameter of any pipe in this catalog, is composed of a fine-grained grayish-tan clay with no visible inclusion. The stem tapers sharply from one end to the other and displaysa unique heel configuration. The fragmented heel appears to be a collar or carinated roll of clay that may haveencircled the stem at the base of the bowl.

Figure 61/4. Catalog Number 6288-44HT55-085.

Length of fragment = 6.76 cmSHD = 11/64"Munsell = 2.5YR5/8Retrieved from Trash Pit D

This unique stem and heel fragment is composed of a reddish-brown heterogeneous clay with small whitish-yellowclay inclusions. The surface of the stem has been burnished and is decorated with a stepped heel. The carved heelis square in section and consists of three superimposed pyramidal forms decreasing in size from the bowl base.

Figure 61/5. Catalog Number 6289-44HT55-182.

Length of fragment = 3.63 cmSHD = 8/64"Munsell = 10YR7/2 (body), 5YR3/4 (slip)Retrieved from the well

This slip-decorated and rouletted stem fragment is composed of a hard, smooth grayish-brown clay with reddish-brown slip trailed in streaks around the stem. Two rouletted bands running around the stem consist of a series ofclosely-spaced parallel lines while the interposed band consists of alternating floral motifs and square grids. Inaddition, stylized floral blossoms are individually stamped into the stem surface.

Figure 61/6. Catalog Number 6290-44HT55-106.

Length of fragment = 3.06 cmSHD = 10/64"Munsell = 7.5YR8/2 (body), 5YR5/8 (slip)Retrieved from Trash Pit E

This stem fragment is made of a soft, buff-colored clay which is decorated with a pale reddish-orange slip which hasbeen trailed onto the surface. The rouletted decorations are worn and somewhat indistinct, but appear to be similarto those described above for example 6289. There are two bands of closely-spaced parallel lines running around thestem with a third band composed of alternating floral motifs and grids. The floral motifs appear to be more simplisticand stylized than in the previously described example.

Figure 61/7. Catalog Number 6277-44HT55-009.

Length of fragment = 5.1 cmSHD = 8/64"Munsell = 7.5YR6/6Retrieved from Trash Pit A

This bowl and stem fragment is composed of a tannish-orange homogenous clay with rouletted decorations in theform of three encircling lines at the junction of the stem and bowl and triangular motifs around the bowl body. Thepunctate marks were originally heightened with the addition of a white chalk-like substance in each mark. Theorganization of the decorative elements around the bowl would suggest a symmetrical arrangement, but unfortu-nately not enough of the bowl survives to indicate the exact style (see Emerson 1988:79-107).

233

Figure 61/8. Catalog Number 6278-44HT55-069.

Diameter of bowl mouth = estimated 1.45 cmWidth of bowl = estimated 2.5 cmHeight of bowl = estimated 3.6 cmEBC = measurement not possibleSHD = 10/64"Munsell = 7.5YR6/6Retrieved from Trash Pit F

This stem and bowl fragment is decorated with double rouletted lines of rhomboidal marks around the stem/bowljunction and below the squared lip. The incised decoration is heightened with a white chalk-like substance in eachimpression. The bowl, which has slightly curved sides, sets at approximately a 120° angle to the stem.

Figure 61/9. Catalog Number 6281-44HT55-182.

Diameter of bowl mouth = estimated 1.49 cmWidth of bowl = measurement not possibleHeight of bowl = measurement not possibleMunsell = 2.5Y4/2Retrieved from the well

This bowl fragment is made of a fine-grained clay which has been polished prior to decoration. The inciseddecoration consists of at least two zoomorphic images, referred to as the “running deer” by Emerson, who classifiesthis as type 5 (Emerson 1988:89). The bowl is encircled with two rouletted lines of square punctate marks runningaround the broadest part of the bowl.

Figure 61/10. Catalog Number 6279-44HT55-050.

Diameter of bowl mouth = 1.41 cmWidth of bowl = 2.28 cmHeight of bowl = estimated 3.81 cmEBC = 4.04 cu cmSHD = measurement not possibleMunsell = 10YR7/4Retrieved from Trash Pit D

This bowl is made of a pale grayish-tan homogenous clay and has been decorated with interlocking and overlap-ping triangular designs formed with a toothed stamp. The lip of the bowl is beveled inward near the top and formsthe broadest part of the bowl. The sides of the bowl are slightly curved, particularly at the base of the bowl near thestem elbow.

Figure 61/11. Catalog Number 6282-44HT55-177.

Munsell = 10YR6/2Retrieved from the well

This bowl base fragment is decorated with two zoomorphic images similar to those described above in example 6281.These “running deer” images, however, are larger and more spontaneously incised than in the previous example(see Emerson 1988:89). The incised marks are filled with a white chalk-like substance to enhance the design. Thesurface of the pipe has been burnished and is a grayish-brown color.

Figure 61/12. Catalog Number 6283-44HT55-182.

Munsell = 10YR6/4Retrieved from the well

234

This small bowl fragment is decorated with an unadorned vertical band flanked with three pairs of triangular motifsunder a single rouletted line of rectangular dentulous impressions. All of the incised marks are heightened with awhite chalk-like substance. The symmetry of this design, as contrasted with that shown in example 6279, suggestsa higher degree of sophistication in artistic expression.

235

Appendix 3.Faunal Data

236

237

TABLE 38.NISP, MNI, AND POUNDS OF USABLE MEAT1

UsableNISP MNI Average Meat

No. % No. % Weight Lbs %

CRUSTACEANSCallinectes sapidus 22 0.3 4 3.0 0.2 0.8 <0.1

22 0.3 4 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

FISHESUnidentified Fish 1177 18.1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Acipenser spp. 1 <0.1 1 0.8 100.0 100.0 1.4Felichthyes felis 60 0.9 2 1.5 2.0 4.0 0.1Morone saxatilis 7 0.1 2 1.5 7.5 15.0 0.2Family Sparidae 1 <0.1 0 0.0 1.0 1.0 <0.1cf. Family Sparidae 1 <0.1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Archosargus probatocephalus 24 0.4 3 2.3 7.5 22.5 0.3Pogonias cromis 92 1.4 4 3.1 25.0 100.0 1.4Sciaenops ocellatus 22 0.3 3 2.3 18.0 54.0 0.7cf. Sciaenops ocellatus 1 <0.1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Micropogon undulatus 48 0.7 3 2.3 1.0 3.0 <0.1Cynoscion spp. 9 0.8 1 0.8 5.0 5.0 0.1Carcharhinus spp. 1 <0.1 1 0.8 10.0 10.0 0.1

1444 22.2 20 15.2 0.0 314.5 4.4

AMPHIBIANScf. Bufo spp. 1 <0.1 1 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0Rana spp. 647 9.9 12 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

648 10.0 13 9.8 0.0 0.0 0.0

REPTILESSternotherus odoratus 4 0.1 1 0.8 0.4 0.4 <0.1Kinosternon subrubrum 1 <0.1 1 0.8 0.4 0.4 <0.1Pseudemys spp. 2 <0.1 1 0.8 3.0 3.0 <0.1Malaclemys terrapin 25 0.4 2 1.6 0.6 1.2 <0.1Order Squamata 2 <0.1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Family Colubridae 1 <0.1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Elaphe guttata 1 <0.1 1 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0Thamnophis sirtalis 2 <0.1 1 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0cf. Thamnophis sirtalis 1 <0.1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Crotalus horridus 1 <0.1 1 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0

40 0.6 8 6.1 4.4 5.0 <0.1BIRDS

Unidentified Bird 228 3.5 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Undientifed Bird/Sm Mammal 8 0.1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Ardea herodias 2 <0.1 1 0.8 10.0 10.0 0.1Gavia immer 1 <0.1 1 0.8 4.0 4.0 0.1Phalacrocorax auritus 2 <0.1 1 0.8 5.0 5.0 0.1

238

TABLE 38 (cont’d).NISP, MNI, AND POUNDS OF USABLE MEAT1

UsableNISP MNI Average Meat

No. % No. % Weight Lbs %

Phalacrocorax spp. 2 <0.1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Cygnus columbianus 1 <0.1 1 0.8 10.0 10.0 0.1Anser spp. 4 0.1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0cf. Anser spp. 1 <0.1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Anser anser 12 0.2 1/22 2.3 6.0 18.0 0.2cf. Anser anser 3 <0.1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Branta canadensis 2 <0.1 1 0.8 6.0 6.0 0.1Anas platyrhynchos 14 0.2 2 1.6 2.0 4.0 0.1cf. Anas platyrhynchos 5 0.1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Aythya spp. 5 0.1 1 0.8 1.0 1.0 <0.1Gallinago gallinago 1 <0.1 1 0.8 1.0 1.0 <0.1Family Phasianidae 25 0.4 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0cf. Family Phasianidae 7 0.1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Meleagris gallopavo 2 <0.1 1 0.8 7.5 7.5 0.1cf. Meleagris gallopavo 1 <0.1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Gallus gallus 235 3.6 10/3 9.8 0.53 20.0 0.3cf. Gallus gallus 10 0.2 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0cf. Colinus virginianus 1 <0.1 1 0.8 0.5 0.5 <0.1Bonasa umbellus 1 <0.1 1 0.8 0.5 0.5 <0.1Ectopistes migratorius 1 <0.1 1 0.8 0.5 0.5 <0.1cf. Ectopistes migratorius 1 <0.1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0cf. Turdus migratorius 1 <0.1 1 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0

576 8.9 30 22.7 0.0 88.0 1.2

MAMMALSUnidentified Mammal 377 5.8 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Unidentifed Large Mammal 338 5.2 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0cf. Unidentified Large Mammal 7 0.1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Unidentified Medium Mammal 772 11.9 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Unidentified Small Mammal 17 0.3 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Didelphis virginiana 3 <0.1 1 0.8 8.0 8.0 0.1cf. Didelphis virginiana 2 <0.1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Sylvilagus floridanus 5 0.1 1 0.8 2.0 2.0 <0.1Order Rodentia 6 0.1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Sciurus carolinensis 16 0.2 2 1.6 1.0 2.0 <0.1cf. Sciurus carolinensis 2 <0.1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Sciurus niger 6 0.1 1 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.1Castor canadensis 2 <0.1 1 0.8 25.0 25.0 0.3cf. Sigmodon hispidus 1 <0.1 1 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0Order Carnivora 4 0.1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Canis spp. 3 0.1 1 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0Procyon lotor 4 0.1 1 0.8 15.0 15.0 0.2Felis domesticus 6 0.1 2 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0cf. Felis domesticus 7 0.1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Equus spp. 1 <0.1 1 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0

239

TABLE 38 (cont’d).NISP, MNI, AND POUNDS OF USABLE MEAT1

UsableNISP MNI Average Meat

No. % No. % Weight Lbs %

Order Artiodactyla I 68 1.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0cf. Order Artiodactyla I 1 <0.1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Order Artiodactyla II 31 0.5 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0cf. Order Artiodactyla II 2 <0.1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Sus scrofa 629 9.7 17/42 15.9 100.04 1900.0 26.4cf. Sus scrofa 21 0.3 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Odocoileus virginianus 73 1.1 5 3.8 100.0 500.0 6.9cf. Odocoileus virginianus 10 0.2 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Bos taurus/Equus spp. 16 0.2 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0cf. Bos taurus/Equus spp. 3 <0.1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Bos taurus 1190 18.3 10/32 9.8 400.05 4150.0 57.6cf. Bos taurus 60 0.9 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Ovis aries/Capra hircus 85 1.3 5/12 4.5 35.06 190.0 2.6cf. Ovis aries/Capra hircus 9 0.1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0cf. Capra hircus 1 <0.1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

3778 58.1 57 43.2 0.0 6792.8 94.3

TOTAL 6508 100.0 132 100.0 0.0 7201.1 100.0

1 Average meat weights taken from Miller (1984:422-423), Johnsgard (1975), and Hildebrand and Schroeder(1928:234, 320).

2 Adults/immatures.3 Weight for immature= 1.0 lb.4 Weight for immature= 50.0 lb.5 Weight for immature= 50.0 lb.6 Weight for immature= 15.0 lb.

240

TABLE 39.BIOMASS

BiomassNo. (Kg) %

CRUSTACEANS Callinectes sapidus 22 <0.01 <0.1

FISHES Unidentified Fish 1177 3.63 1.0 Acipenser spp. 1 0.01 <0.1 Felichthyes felis 60 0.53 0.1 Morone saxatilis 7 0.02 <0.1 Family Sparidae 1 0.01 <0.1 cf. Family Sparidae 1 <0.01 <0.1 Archosargus probatocephalus 24 0.29 0.1 Pogonias cromis 92 2.24 0.6 Sciaenops ocellatus 22 0.41 0.1 cf. Sciaenops ocellatus 1 0.06 <0.1 Micropogon undulatus 48 0.18 <0.1 Cynoscion spp. 9 0.05 <0.1 Carcharhinus spp. 1 0.23 0.1

AMPHIBIANS cf. Bufo spp. 1 0.01 <0.1 Rana spp. 647 0.12 <0.1

REPTILES Sternotherus odoratus 4 0.05 <0.1 Kinosternon subrubrum 1 0.01 <0.1 Pseudemys spp. 2 0.04 <0.1 Malaclemys terrapin 25 0.60 0.2 Order Squamata 2 <0.01 <0.1 Family Colubridae 1 <0.01 <0.1 Elaphe guttata 1 <0.01 <0.1 Thamnophis sirtalis 2 <0.01 <0.1 cf. Thamnophis sirtalis 1 <0.01 <0.1 Crotalus horridus 1 <0.01 <0.1

BIRDS Unidentified Bird 228 1.06 0.3 Undientifed Bird/Sm Mammal 8 0.07 <0.1 Ardea herodias 2 0.12 <0.1 Gavia immer 1 0.02 <0.1 Phalacrocorax spp. 2 0.03 <0.1 Phalacrocorax auritus 2 0.07 <0.1 Cygnus columbianus 1 0.03 <0.1 Anser spp. 4 0.09 <0.1 cf. Anser spp. 1 0.02 <0.1 Anser anser 12 0.45 0.1 cf. Anser anser 3 0.08 <0.1 Branta canadensis 2 0.03 <0.1

241

TABLE 39 (cont’d).BIOMASS

BiomassNo. (Kg) %

Anas platyrhynchos 14 0.12 <0.1 cf. Anas platyrhynchos 5 0.03 <0.1 Aythya spp. 5 0.09 <0.1 Gallinago gallinago 1 <0.01 <0.1 Family Phasianidae 25 0.23 0.1 cf. Family Phasianidae 7 0.05 <0.1 Meleagris gallopavo 2 0.02 <0.1 cf. Meleagris gallopavo 1 0.06 <0.1 Gallus gallus 235 2.76 0.8 cf. Gallus gallus 10 0.07 <0.1 cf. Colinus virginianus 1 <0.01 <0.1 Bonasa umbellus 1 <0.01 <0.1 Ectopistes migratorius 1 <0.01 <0.1 cf. Ectopistes migratorius 1 <0.01 <0.1 cf. Turdus migratorius 1 <0.01 <0.1

MAMMALS Unidentified Mammal 377 8.78 2.4 Unidentifed Large Mammal 338 37.26 10.2 cf. Unidentified Large Mammal 7 1.70 0.5 Unidentified Medium Mammal 772 19.50 5.3 Unidentified Small Mammal 17 0.14 <0.1 Didelphis virginiana 3 0.04 <0.1 cf. Didelphis virginiana 2 0.04 <0.1 Sylvilagus floridanus 5 0.06 <0.1 Order Rodentia 6 0.04 <0.1 Sciurus carolinensis 16 0.17 <0.1 cf. Sciurus carolinensis 2 0.02 <0.1 Sciurus niger 6 0.08 <0.1 Castor canadensis 2 0.06 <0.1 cf. Sigmodon hispidus 1 <0.01 <0.1 Order Carnivora 4 0.03 <0.1 Canis spp. 3 0.22 0.1 Procyon lotor 4 0.18 <0.1 Felis domesticus 6 0.19 0.1 cf. Felis domesticus 7 0.12 <0.1 Equus spp. 1 0.17 <0.1 Order Artiodactyla I 68 2.09 0.6 cf. Order Artiodactyla I 1 0.14 <0.1 Order Artiodactyla II 31 1.70 0.5 cf. Order Artiodactyla II 2 0.13 <0.1 Sus scrofa 629 49.55 13.5 cf. Sus scrofa 21 0.96 0.3 Odocoileus virginianus 73 12.42 3.4 cf. Odocoileus virginianus 10 0.82 0.2 Bos taurus/Equus spp. 16 3.97 1.1 cf. Bos taurus/Equus spp. 3 1.16 0.3

242

TABLE 39 (cont’d).BIOMASS

BiomassNo. (Kg) %

Bos taurus 1190 220.73 60.3 cf. Bos taurus 60 6.96 1.9 Ovis aries/Capra hircus 85 13.74 3.8 cf. Ovis aries/Capra hircus 9 0.70 0.2 cf. Capra hircus 1 0.42 0.1

TOTAL 6508 365.90 100.0

243

TABLE 40.AGE DISTRIBUTION FOR DOMESTIC PIG

Age of Fusion - 0 to 12 Months

Bone and Epiphysis Fused Not Fused

Radius - proximal 3 2Humerus - distal 2 3Second phalange - proximal 1 8Scapula 1 1

7 14Percent of Age Range 33.3% 66.7%

Age of Fusion - 12 to 30 Months

Bone and Epiphysis Fused Not Fused

Metacarpal - distal 1 1First phalange - proximal 0 0Tibia - distal 3 3Metatarsal - distal 1 5Calcaneus 0 4Fibula - distal 0 1Metapodial - distal 0 13

5 27Percent of Age Range 15.6% 84.4%

Age of Fusion - 30 to 42 Months

Bone and Epiphysis Fused Not Fused

Ulna - proximal and distal 0 2Humerus - proximal 0 2Radius - distal 0 2Femur - proximal and distal 1 8

1 14Percent of Age Range 6.7% 93.3%

Source of Fusion Ages: Silver 1969:285-286; Chaplin 1971:128-133.

244

TABLE 41.AGE DISTRIBUTION FOR DOMESTIC COW

Age of Fusion - 7 to 18 Months

Bone and Epiphysis Fused Not Fused

Scapula 6 0Humerus - distal 5 0Radius - proximal 6 1First Phalange - proximal 0 0Second Phalange - proximal 30 0

47 1Percent of Age Range 97.9% 2.1%

Age of Fusion - 24 to 36 Months

Bone and Epiphysis Fused Not Fused

Metacarpal - distal 11 5Tibia - distal 7 2Metatarsal - distal 7 1Calcaneus 2 2Metapodial - distal 0 3

27 13Percent of Age Range 67.5% 32.5%

Age of Fusion - 36 to 48 Months

Bone and Epiphysis Fused Not Fused

Radius - distal 2 0Ulna - proximal and distal 2 2Femur - proximal 0 2Femur - distal 1 2Tibia - proximal 1 2Humerus - proximal 0 2

6 10Percent of Age Range 37.5% 62.5%

Source of Fusion Ages: Silver 1969:285-286; Chaplin 1971:128-133.

245

TABLE 42.AGE DISTRIBUTION FOR DOMESTIC SHEEP/GOAT

Age of Fusion - 6 to 18 Months

Bone and Epiphysis Fused Not Fused

Scapula 2 0Humerus - distal 1 0Radius - proximal 0 0First Phalange - proximal and distal 0 0Second Phalange - distal 0 0

3 0Percent of Age Range 100.0% 0.0%

Age of Fusion - 18 to 30 Months

Bone and Epiphysis Fused Not Fused

Ulna - proximal and distal 0 0Metacarpal - distal 1 0Metatarsal - distal 1 0Metapodial - distal 0 0Tibia - distal 2 0

4 0Percent of Age Range 100.0% 0.0%

Age of Fusion - 30 to 42 Months

Bone and Epiphysis Fused Not Fused

Humerus - proximal 0 0Radius - distal 0 0Calcaneus 1 0Femur - proximal and distal 0 0Tibia - proximal 0 0

1 0Percent of Age Range 100.0% 0.0%

Source of Fusion Ages: Silver 1969:285-286; Chaplin 1971:128-133.

246

247

I. Introduction

Between July 9 and September 8, 1987, the Tide-water Cultural Resource Center of the College ofWilliam and Mary conducted a combined PhaseI and Phase II archaeological investigation of anapproximately sixteen acre parcel adjacent to thecampus of Hampton University. The Universityowns the property and is acting as the developerof a commercial and residential project known asPirate’s Cove. The purpose of the investigationwas to assess the National Register status of oneknown archaeological site on the property, a sev-enteenth century domestic complex recorded in1979 as 44 HT 55, and to identify and evaluateother possible sites on the parcel. This documentsummarizes the results of the Phase I and PhaseII study, describes the research potential of thesites identified on the parcel, and provides a planfor fieldwork and analysis that addresses theseresearch values.

II. Summary of Past Work

The majority of the parcel has been in cultivationfor many years. In 1979, the plowed field wassurveyed by Howard MacCord for the VirginiaDepartment of Highways and Transportation (seeattached survey form). This survey was conductedas part of examining the right-of-way of a newextension of state highway 143. MacCord did noactual excavation, but identified the seventeenthcentury domestic site on the basis of a sample ofimported and locally-made clay smoking pipesand a few fragments of tin-enameled earthenwareand Rhenish stoneware. Based on this material,MacCord attributed the site to the third quarterof the seventeenth century.

MacCord’s walkover survey also producedconcentrations of nineteenth and early twentiethcentury artifacts, and a more dispersed scatter of

prehistoric materials dating to the late Archaic andEarly Woodland periods. None of these finds re-sulted in the recording of additional discrete sites.

The parcel was again examined in 1980 byMark Wittkofski, staff archaeologist with the Vir-ginia Division of Historic Landmarks. He did somelimited subsurface testing within the area of site44 HT 55, and found two features, a narrowtrench identified as support for a paling fence, andanother wider trench. Wittkofski concluded that

A phase three excavation will be required for44 HT 55 if it becomes threatened by any con-struction. Limited testing indicated the site hadgood preservation of subsurface cultural features.Since much of Hampton has been heavily urban-ized, this site could provide important informa-tion concerning the changes which took place inthe lower Tidewater region (1980:6).

Construction of the Rt. 143 extension andinterchange did not impact 44 HT 55, and thesite was left undisturbed until early in the summerof this year. Knowing of the site’s existence,Hampton University officials arranged with the lo-cal chapter of the Archaeological Society of Vir-ginia to further examine site 44 HT 55 and sal-vage any significant remains prior to developmentof Pirate’s Cove.

The Kicotan Chapter of the ArcheologicalSociety of Virginia began their investigation of site44 HT 55 by excavating a number of test trenchesin the plowed field. Almost immediately they en-countered a brick-lined cellar. Other trenching inthe vicinity of the cellar revealed several featureswhich, along with the cellar, were partially exca-vated by the local chapter. After these discover-ies were made known, Hampton University offi-cials sought professional advice.

The Tidewater Cultural Resource Center atthe College of William and Mary was consultedand the discoveries made by the Kicotan chapterof the A.S.V. were reviewed in the field. Discus-

Appendix 4.Data Recovery Plan

248

sion with Hampton University officials indicatedthe possibility that the University might use grantfunds from the United States Department of Hous-ing and Urban Development to help finance theproject. In view of the recommendations of the1980 report, therefore, the Center recommendedthat proper Phase II investigation of HT55 beundertaken concurrently with a combined PhaseI and Phase II of the entire development parcel.The T.C.R.C. completed this work in mid-Sep-tember as part of a cooperative agreement withthe University.

III. Results of Survey and SiteExamination

44 HT 55

Investigation of HT55 was facilitated by the me-chanical removal of plowzone from around thecellar area and in several large test trenches placedbetween the cellar and the Hampton River (seeFig. 1). Identified features were carefully exposedin plan and recorded on a base map and photo-graphed. No excavation of features was under-taken, as an existing sample of artifacts from theA.S.V. chapter excavation confirmed the originalestimate of site age provided by MacCord in1979. Machine-excavated trenches establishedthe perimeter boundaries of the seventeenth cen-tury domestic complex.

Site examination revealed that the brick-linedand tile-floored cellar is part of an earth-fast build-ing measuring approximately 16 by 32 feet, ori-ented in an east-west direction. Test excavationalso located at least three large refuse pits, a pos-sible root cellar, two small post structures, andnumerous post holes representing other earth-fastbuildings or fence lines (Fig. 2). The areal of ex-tent of site 44 HT 55 covers approximately fortythousand square feet.

Artifacts recovered by the Kicotan Chapterduring the cellar excavation and from trenching inthe area were similar to those collected from thesurface of the plowzone by Howard MacCord in1979. They include fragments of tin-enameled

earthenware, Rhenish stoneware, red-bodiedearthenwares, case bottle glass, and both locally-made and imported clay smoking pipes. Thesematerials indicate that the cellar was probably filledin during the third quarter of the seventeenth cen-tury. No structural features have been excavatedat this time, so a construction date for the househas not yet been determined.

Phase II examination of 44 HT 55 revealed awell-preserved structural complex consisting ofbrick cellar (Fig. 3) that is part of a large earthfastdwelling house, associated earthfast outbuildings,and other features and trash disposal areas pos-sibly related to craft and other productive activi-ties. The precise spatial layout, function, and chro-nological position of these various remains canonly be determined through full-scale excavation,but the evidence at hand confirms the original 1979identification of the site and reaffirms the 1980evaluation of the site’s importance.

In terms of the historical identification of thisdomestic complex, there is some evidence to sug-gest that the site was part of the holdings of thesecond church of the Elizabeth City Parish, onproperty referred to in surviving deeds as the“gleab lands.” It is therefore possible that the do-mestic and agricultural complex belonged to theparish, being used as housing for the parish min-ister, as income-producing agricultural land, orboth.

There is some confusion about when a parishchurch was established on the eastern side ofSouthampton River. A recent study of the physi-cal remains of this structure, now referred to asthe “Second Church of Elizabeth City Parish,”argues that it was built as early as 1624 (Holt1985). Another local historian, however, has dem-onstrated that the first firm documentation of achurch on the east side does not occur until 1637(UAJV 1983; Nugent 1979: 76).

These conflicting accounts of when the par-ish church was established on the east side of theSouthampton River must be further reconciledwith the evidence that Jonas Stockton, one of theearly ministers of the Elizabeth City Parish, leasedland on the east side of the river as early as 1627

249

(Nugent 1979:9). Stockton’s leasehold was lo-cated on property that once belonged to a largetract of some fifteen hundred acres of commonland reserved for the Virginia Company.

Stockton’s property is described as boundedon the south by the creek (Jones) separating itfrom “Indian Thickett”, on the north by “anothercreek”, on the east by the main woods, and onthe west by the river. Although Stockton died inthe summer of the next year, the parcel of land heleased is apparently referred to as “the gleab land”for many years afterward. The description of thisholding places it adjacent to the Second Churchsite, although the legal relation between the two isstill unclear.

Apparently, the Second Church was in useuntil about 1667. By that time there was a newchurch on the west side of the river, perhaps indi-cating a shift in the population center (U.A.J.V.1983). The church, and perhaps major structureslocated on 44 HT 55 for that matter, may havebeen irreparably damaged or totally destroyedby a Category Three hurricane that struck the areaon September 6, 1667. According to some ac-counts, 10,000 houses were destroyed in Vir-ginia by this devastating hurricane (Holt1985:190).

Only additional research in the primarysources relating to the seventeenth century settle-ment of Elizabeth City County will clarify the his-torical context of site 44 HT 55. There is evi-dence, however, that it was somehow related tothe site of the Second Church, perhaps servingas housing for the parish minister, or as a tenantplantation on the parish glebe lands. Historicalinformation also suggests that indications of se-vere damage to the site may be encountered, cor-responding to the ravages of the 1667 hurricane.

44 HT 36 and 44 HT 37

The remainder of the Pirate’s Cove project areaof approximately twenty-one acres was exam-ined using large test trenches. These trenches wereexcavated stratigraphically by a grading machinewith a five-foot wide flat bucket. On the west

side of the R.O.T.C. road, twenty-nine test units,ranging in size from five feet wide and twenty feetlong to ten feet wide and sixty feet in length wereplaced throughout the field (Fig. 1). Test trencheswere placed according to the surface character-istics of the plowed field, soil color, and the re-sults of systematic surface collection. Several testtrenches were also randomly placed. These testexcavations revealed no significant subsurface fea-tures in any part of the field other than within thearea identified with 44 HT 55.

These negative results are interesting in viewof the results of MacCord’s 1979 surface collec-tion of the same property. He found six concen-trations of recent material, as well as scatteredprehistoric evidence. Test excavation in his areasof nineteenth and early twentieth century artifactconcentrations failed to produce structural re-mains. Test excavation also failed to produce fea-tures or other evidence of prehistoric occupation.

On the eastern side of the R.O.T.C. road, atotal of sixty-one five by ten foot test trencheswere excavated in a field of approximately sevenacres (Fig. 4). This field had never before beenexamined for archaeological remains. Within mostof the field, testing revealed only a few widelydispersed features and artifact scatters, includingtwo trenches of apparent modern origin, a mod-ern east-west fenceline, and some scattered frag-ments of unidentifiable prehistoric pottery. Unitsplaced in one area of the R.O.T.C. field, how-ever, produced evidence of substantial subsur-face features associated with prehistoric occupa-tion in the area. Additional test trenching on thewest side of R.O.T.C. drive, adjacent to the Uni-versity Infirmary, encountered similar features (Fig.5).

Beginning approximately one hundred andseventy-five feet south of the R.O.T.C. building,test trenching uncovered several large pits, overthree feet in diameter, and three to five feet indepth (44 HT 36). These pits contained largeamounts of Middle Woodland pottery of theMockley type (Figs. 6 & 7). Unlike the scatteredprehistoric materials found in several other testunits, these features are well-preserved and are

250

concentrated in an area of about twenty thou-sand square feet bounded on the north by theR.O.T.C. building and on the west by R.O.T.C.Drive. They appear to be part of a Middle Wood-land base camp.

A group of similar pit features were encoun-tered in test trenches excavated across R.O.T.C.drive in the area adjacent to the infirmary ( 44 HT37; see Fig. 8). Only one of these features wassampled and it, too, contained fragments ofMockley type pottery. Although it is possible thatthese pits relate to the features found across thestreet, they have been initially identified as be-longing to a separate base camp, perhaps occu-pied during a different phase of the Middle Wood-land Period. These prehistoric remains have beenassigned two separate site numbers, although sub-sequent work may show they are part of the samesite complex (see accompanying site forms).

IV. Site Significance

These historic and prehistoric sites are locatedwithin the Pirate’s Cove project area, a develop-ment on the property of Hampton University thathas received grant assistance from the UnitedStates Department of Housing and Urban Devel-opment. As a result, their significance needs to beassessed in terms of the criteria for eligibility tothe National Register of Historic Places. As ar-chaeological properties, these sites take on theirimportance primarily in light of the character andquality of the information they contain. The valueof this information is, in turn, related to the contri-bution it can make to studying broad patterns andprocesses of historical and cultural development.These attributes of significance reflect the first andfourth of the National Register criteria.

Evaluating the research potential of these sitesis thus a matter of identifying the relevant histori-cal and cultural patterns and processes to whichthey relate, and specifying the categories of ar-chaeological data recoverable from them whichwill help to understand these events and devel-opments. The comprehensive historic preserva-tion plan for the area that includes most of the

James-York peninsula provides the intellectual andprocedural framework for this evaluation (Brownand Bragdon 1986). This plan identifies severalstudy units or historic contexts that provide anappropriate framework for assessing the signifi-cance of these sites.

Woodland Base Camps—44 HT 36and 44 HT 37

The historic context that is most relevant to theMiddle Woodland sites is Study Unit III, whichdescribes general cultural development on thePeninsula during the period 2000 B.C. to 1000A.D. Following the work of Jay Custer in Dela-ware, this study unit spans the periods tradition-ally separated as the Late Archaic and the Earlyand Middle Woodland. It considers these peri-ods as one general stage in the prehistoric devel-opment of the region, emphasizing the appear-ance and persistence of estuarine and riverineadaptations that support large “macroband” basecamps whose populations appear significantlylarger than those occupying base camps duringthe Archaic period. This trend serves as the cen-tral theme of Study Unit III; which is, “sedentarylifestyles and the development of regional adap-tations in response to distinctive marine environ-ments of the James-York Peninsula” (Hunter1986).

The second Study Unit applicable to the studyof the prehistoric components encompasses thetraditionally-defined Late Woodland period (1000A.D. - 1560 A.D.). The subsistence and socialpractices that evolved during the period are thosedescribed by the early European explorers. Boththe ethnohistorical and archaeological data hasshown that during this period, an increasing de-pendence upon agriculture, especially the culti-vation of maize took place, and that social orga-nization revolved around the appearance of well-established villages.

Within these study units, specific researchthemes are also identified. These emphasize theanalysis of ceramic technology and its culturalimplications, the study of seasonality as it affected

251

food resources, settlement pattern, and socialorganization, and the investigation of social andcultural interaction on a regional level. The pres-ervation plan for the James-York peninsula iden-tifies two basic site types associated with the pe-riod, base camps and procurement sites. The basecamps are primarily found in estuarine and river-ine settings, and are usually multi-component innature, representing long-term seasonal or year-around occupation. They have usually been dis-turbed by plowing and many have been lost tocoastal erosion (Hunter 1986:55-57).

Even though there has been a bias in past pre-historic research on the Peninsula, in favor of theexcavation of base camps as opposed to the in-vestigation of more interior, procurement sites, thepreservation plan makes it clear that very little isknown about either of these site types. Limitedexcavation of base camps dating from the LateArchaic through the Middle Woodland has beenaccomplished in only a few instances, and thesehave been sites associated with large coastal shellmiddens. Very little is known about the actualcontent and structure of these sites. Much workremains to be done in refining local chronologies;questions regarding variability in seasonality,settlement pattern, and group size, and trade andexchange have yet to be meaningfully addressedon the Peninsula. As a result, comparison of thePeninsula’s cultural history during this period withother areas of the Coastal Plain is difficult at best.

It would be difficult as well, however, to over-estimate the significance of these sites. Althoughthey have been subject to repeated plowing, po-tentially destroying direct evidence of midden ac-cumulation and prehistoric shelters and otherstructures, the existence of numerous, virtuallyundisturbed storage pits concentrated in these twoareas has potential significance along several av-enues of comparative investigation:

Culture History: Although the general out-lines of the area’s cultural history are known, norefinement of the local chronology has yet beenattempted. Partial excavation of the several of thepit features has yielded excellent samples of woodcharcoal suitable for radiocarbon dating. The ab-

solute dating of these features will anchor the in-vestigation of the general issues discussed below.

Ceramic Analysis: Recent archaeologicalstudy of the Powhatan Creek drainage nearWilliamsburg has refined the range and variationof known ceramic types from that portion of theJames-York Peninsula (Hodges 1987). Conse-quently, a well-established framework is availablein which the view the ceramics recovered fromthe Hampton University sites. Comparisons indesign and manufacture of ceramic types bothwithin the sites temporally, and with contempo-rary sites in Tidewater can be used to trace pos-sible social/technological interactions among pre-historic populations of Eastern Virginia and Mary-land. Preliminary observations of the ceramicsrecovered from test excavations have suggestedthat the majority of ceramics fall within the rangeof Mockley series assigned to the Middle Wood-land period. Furthermore it has been observedthat the ceramics are poor preserved and havevery friable surfaces. Whether this should be at-tributed to poor grades of locally available clay,technological aspects of production, and/or sub-sequent preservation remains to be addressedthrough more intensive study.

Foodways: The careful examination of thecontents of the pits may reveal the types of food-stuffs being stored and the relationship betweencultivated and foraged varieties of foods. Themethod of food preservation, seasonality of culti-gens and indigenous plant species, the utilizationof the estuarine environment, and the quantitiesof food storage based on Middle Woodland“macroband” population estimates can be ex-plored. The identification of such food items willbe possible only if evidence of them survives inthe form of seeds, pollen, and phytoliths. It is criticalthat soil chemistry is well-understood in attempt-ing to explain the presence or absence of bothplant and animal remains. Soil pH, organic con-tent, and phosphate content should be ascertainedin conjunction with micro-screening and flotationrecovery of feature fill.

The analysis of foodways can also take ad-vantage of relatively recent innovations in the iso-

252

topic reconstruction of diets from the study ofhuman skeletal material. Such techniques can pro-vide information regarding general componentsof the diet (meat versus grain). This type of analy-sis is presently being carried out on several his-torical interments from the Williamsburg area andshould be applicable to samples of prehistoricskeletal material recovered from the Hamptonsites as well.

Subsistence-Settlement Patterns: Exten-sive recording and sampling of the storage fea-tures on these sites and analysis of their contentsshould contribute important information about thenature of developing horticultural economies onthe James-York peninsula, especially in terms ofclarifying the relationship between plant cultiva-tion and increased sedentism during the late MiddleWoodland period.

Seventeenth Century Settlement—44 HT 55

Within the preservation plan prepared for theJames-York peninsula, there is an historic con-text concerned with the development of Tidewa-ter society and economy during the period 1630to 1689. This period, spanning the years immedi-ately following the break up of the Virginia Com-pany to the outbreak of Bacon’s Rebellion, wit-nessed “the development of a distinctive Anglo-Virginia lifestyle in response to the conditions ofthe Chesapeake” (Brown and Derry 1986: 127).During this period, the plantation system emerged,based on the cultivation of tobacco and relianceupon bound and slave labor, the population sta-bilized and grew, and an economic and politicalelite was established.

The operating plan for this historic contextidentifies a broad range of property types thatshould be recoverable as archaeological sites.These include plantations of both large and smallplanters, tenant farms, public buildings, tavernsand other commercial sites. In addition, planta-tions contain a number of important componentsthat reflect incipient craft specialization as well asthe beginnings of institutionalized slavery. A re-

view of all cultural resources in the inventory forJames City and York County and the Cities ofWilliamsburg and Poquoson indicates a bias infavor of domestic sites associated with the planterelite. Sites encountered on two tracts of land inJames City County, Kingsmill and Governor’sLand account the majority of recorded proper-ties (Brown and Derry 1986:138).

Because so few archaeological sites relatingto this historic context have been identified, andeven fewer extensively excavated, the preserva-tion plan for the James-York peninsula recom-mends that those discovered during the develop-ment process be preserved in place or receivefull-scale excavation. This recommendation is es-pecially appropriate for site 44 HT 55 becauseof its location, condition, and possible associa-tion with a previously undocumented propertytype within this nationally significant historic con-text.

Aside from the historical importance givenHampton by virtue of its location at the mouth ofthe James River, the actual presence of site HT55 within the present city of Hampton is note-worthy. Hampton is a highly urbanized area ofseveral hundred thousand people, situated in ametropolitan zone stretching from Williamsburgto Virginia Beach. Nearly all of the archaeologi-cal information regarding the early colonial settle-ment of the area has been deeply buried or de-stroyed by high density urban development.

Recent work on the west side of theSouthampton River in the area known as OldHampton indicates that eighteenth century remainsare preserved beneath previously-developed lots.Highway salvage archaeology on the east side ofthe river, very near to HT 55 has also recoveredevidence of Hampton’s later colonial settlement.Other than the Second Church, however, HT 55represents the only seventeenth century to beidentified within Hampton. The undoubted scar-city or accessibility of such early colonial sites inthis highly urbanized environment is sufficient causefor undertaking comprehensive data recovery at44 HT 55.

253

Site examination of 44 HT 55 indicated verylittle disturbance to major archaeological features.Plowing over the years has inevitably redistrib-uted some of the artifacts associated with the vari-ous features, but most seem to have been left rela-tively undamaged within the underlying subsoil.Artifact and faunal preservation appears to be verygood. No utility lines or subsequent constructionhas compromised the integrity of the site.

Based upon a recent review of scholarshiprelating to the colonial archaeology of the James-York peninsula and surrounding regions (Brown1986: 15-20), the site’s research potential maybe seen to reside in several interrelated domains:

Vernacular Architecture and SettlementPattern: Scholarly interest in seventeenth-cen-tury Tidewater has grown considerably in the lastfifteen years. The concept of earth-fast architec-ture in the early period of settlement was a newone only twenty years ago. This interest in such“impermanent” building practices has led to suchlandmark studies such as Carson et al. (1981).The remains of the post structures at Hamptonties directly into this study. The information gath-ered from the excavation of 44 HT 55 will notonly add to the growing inventory of earth-fasthousing in Tidewater, but may illustrate differencesor similarities in house construction, building plans,settlement layout, and yard spatial patterningwithin rural vs. “proto-urban” contexts. WhereasElizabeth City was not a town in the sense thatJamestown was, it was, even as early as 1625,the most populous community in the colony.

Material Culture Patterns: Given the prox-imity of HT 55 to the Second Church site, its useas a the parish rectory must be seriously explored.Although glebe lands were set aside for parishministers even in Company times, Act III of theGeneral Assembly (1644/45) stated specificallythat:

... there be gleabs laid out in every parish& a convenient house be built upon thenfor the reception and abode of the minis-ters according to his majesties instruc-tions... (Brydon 1947:456)

Should the dwelling at 44 HT 55 have beenused as housing for the ministers of the SecondChurch, the question of how their rather specialstatus as highly educated, very cosmopolitan mem-bers of the community might be reflected in ma-terial culture patterns needs to be addressed.

Although perhaps not able to command theeconomic means of some of their planter con-temporaries, early ministers in the Tidewater weremostly University graduates (usually Oxford) fromsolid gentry families. The transitory character oftheir careers meant that they stayed only a fewyears in each assignment. As a result, the artifac-tual remains from 44 HT 55 may be difficult tocorrelate with any one minister’s tenure. Yet, quan-titative and qualitative analysis of the domesticfurnishings left behind in the refuse at 44 HT 55may shed light on the lifestyles of this significantoccupational category within the hierarchy of earlycolonial Chesapeake society.

From the perspective of a broader, geographicapproach to the problem of social complexity andits material correlates within colonial Tidewater,Virginia Commonwealth University archaeologistDaniel Mouer (1987) has examined seventeenthcentury social status within James River settle-ments using an innovative locational model ofmercantile colonization derived from the work ofgeographers and anthropologists (Vance 1976;Smith 1976). Mouer suggests that a productiveway to look at the problem of status distinctionswithin early Virginia is in terms of the differentia-tion of local and regional elites. According to hismodel, these two groups develop in relation tocore-periphery distinctions within the monopo-listic market system of mercantile colonization(1987: 16-26).

Mouer argues that important aspects of ma-terial culture patterning will reflect both the geo-graphic and social place of households. Repre-sentatives of regional elites within the core areaof colonial settlement should exhibit different pat-terns of material life than do local elites residing infrontier or peripheral settlement areas.

By comparing an archaeological assemblagerepresentative of a member of the local elite, in

254

this case Francis Eppes of Bermuda Hundred,with an assemblage associated with ThomasPettus of James City County, Mouer found thateven though the two drew from the same ver-nacular building tradition (earth-fast construction),there were marked differences in the size andcomplexity of their buildings.

Comparison of the ceramic holdings of thesetwo households also showed some interesting con-trasts, but it is unclear whether the marked differ-ences in hollow/flatware and storage/serving ra-tios between Eppes and Pettus is a function ofmarket access or status-related foodways (Mouer1987: 31).

Although based on a very small sample, andtherefore rather inconclusive, Mouer’s study isimportant because it provides a substantive modelfor examining the economic development and so-cial growth of the early Tidewater settlementswithin the framework of colonization processesmore generally. Rather than merely alluding topossible differences in the material life of urbanand rural places within the seventeenth centuryChesapeake, Mouer’s model anticipates the pat-terns of social differentiation accompanying earlyTidewater colonization, explicitly tying them toeconomic and geographic dimensions of the sev-enteenth century world-system. This modelthereby encourages the ordered and increasinglyrefined comparison of the various status groupswithin early Virginia society in terms a formalizedconception of colonial settlement hierarchies link-ing the James River drainage to the rest of theworld.

These refinements will be very useful in ex-plaining possible patterns evident in the materialculture recovered from 44 HT 55. Was ElizabethCity (later Hampton) associated with the core oreconomic entrepot? If considered part of the lat-ter, do the regional elites of Elizabeth City showevidence in their architecture and material furnish-ings of the same patterns as their peers livingaround Jamestown? In defining the regional elite,Mouer is thinking specifically of “administrative,religious, and mercantile representatives,” individu-als who serve as agents of the merchant or ruling

class at home in England (1987: 22). It can beargued that there should be no better representa-tive of the regional elite than the ministry.

If 44 HT 55 did indeed serve as the resi-dence of the Second Church’s ministers, bothquantitative analysis and qualitative assessment ofrecovered domestic artifacts will serve to clarifythe question of material distinctions between re-gional and local elites, as well as shed light on aproblem not yet dealt with archaeologically in theearly colonial Tidewater, namely, the material lifeand social status of the seventeenth century clergy.

Foodways: It can be anticipated that a largeand well-preserved faunal sample will be recov-ered from 44 HT 55. While the archaeologicalvisibility of status-related dietary differences dur-ing the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuryremains unclear, there is some evidence to sug-gest that such distinctions will be difficult to draw.But it may be possible to make some general in-terpretations about resource utilization and cook-ing methods.

In addition to the analysis of mid-seventeenthcentury foodways as they are revealed by thestudy of butchering methods and serving tech-niques, the refuse pits at HT55 should provideother information discussed in Miller’s (1984)study of colonization and subsistence change: theshift from an English to a colonial subsistence diet,the use of the natural environment, the role of wildversus domestic species, the seasonality of spe-cies used for food, the inverse relationship be-tween human population growth and oyster size,and temporal changes in the frequencies of ani-mal types. The faunal material should support hisobservation that subsistence behavior evolvedfrom a generalized and diffuse strategy that uti-lized many resources in a scheduled manner to amore stable and uniform one in which reliancewas placed on a lesser number of dependable,economically-efficient resources. As one measureof this, it appears that more reliance was placedon domestic animals and less on wild animals andfish as time progressed.

The study of the faunal remains may also sug-gest the way the natural environment was utilized

255

at this early period. Analysis of what is termedthe “site catchment”—the zone from which re-sources were obtained—may reveal which envi-ronmental zones were most highly valued, andwhich was only partially exploited. It may alsoreveal information that will help reconstruct theactual physical environment in the vicinity of thesite at the time of occupation.

By looking at so-called “kill-off patterns” atsite 44 HT 55, one may be able to suggest theeconomic organization of food distribution as well.The distribution of young versus old animals, forinstance, can indicate one of two main forms ofanimal husbandry—commercial, where animalswere raised both for personal use and for sale,and subsistence husbandry, where animals wereraised only for personal use. This could indicatewhether the occupants of site 44 HT 55 raisedtheir own domestic stock, or obtained this por-tion of their food by purchase or trade.

The Phase II examination of site 44 HT 55indicates that it contains material remains whoseanalysis will contribute importantly to the devel-oping scholarship on the interrelated problems ofvernacular architecture and settlement pattern,material culture patterns, and foodways. Thisanalysis will proceed in light of recent attempts todevelop comprehensive models for understand-ing the process of early colonial expansion intothe James River drainage and the urbanization ofthe James-York peninsula (Carson and Kelly1984; Mouer 1987). But in order to properlyrecover this information, appropriate techniquesof data recovery must be employed.

IV. Site-Specific ResearchDesigns and Work Plans

Woodland Base Camps—HT36 andHT37

Some of the questions that should be addressedwhile researching the aboriginal sites should in-clude:

1. What are the spatial boundaries of the pitfeatures; do recognizable clusters of fea-tures exist?

2. What is the range of variation of featuretypes with regard to size, shape, contentand frequency of occurrence?

3. Are structure-related features present? Ifnot, can the location of dwellings be in-ferred from the location of pit and hearthfeatures?

4. What is the history of settlement and useof the area based on absolute radiocar-bon dates and relative dates based on sty-listic attributes of artifacts?

5. What biases can be observed and/or pos-tulated for discontinuities in the archaeo-logical record? Are they due to preser-vation factors, ecological setting, settle-ment preferences, or shifts in storagetechnology?

Basic Archaeological Technique forthe Excavation of HT36, 37, and 55

The plowzone overburden should be strippedmechanically from the site area. Spatial testing ofthe plowzone is not advised because much of theoverburden has already been removed, and thesite has been unsystematically collected for a num-ber of years. These factors would significantlyskew any data collected, questioning the validityof any results obtained from plowzone testing.Additionally, there is no cultural stratigraphy in-tact, only plowzone and subsoil intruded by sub-surface features.

After plowzone removal, the existing grid es-tablished during the Phase II work can be usedfor excavation. All features should be recordedgraphically and photographically before they areexcavated. During excavation, the fill from all fea-tures should be screened though quarter-inchmesh. Known portions of major features shouldbe wet-screened through one millimeter mesh orfloated for micro-faunal and micro-floral data re-trieval. In the case of the aboriginal features, eachshould be sectioned, with the fill from half the fea-

256

ture screened through quarter-inch mesh. Thesection should be drawn and photographed afterwhich half of the remaining fill (a quarter of thetotal) should be wet-screened through one milli-meter mesh and half bagged for flotation. Any sig-nificant amounts of carbon should be carefullycollected for radiocarbon dating purposes. Allartifacts recovered should be cleaned, labelled,and appropriately analyzed. Conservation of sig-nificant organic materials and metals should beinitiated as soon as possible.

Seventeenth-Century DomesticComplex—44 HT 55

Some of the questions that should be addressedwhile researching the historical site should include:

1. How, if in any way, is the spatial pattern-ing of a growing urban area reflected inthe spatial patterning of the site?

2. How does the site fit in with what isknown about the history of the area?

3. How does the site relate to Mouer’s re-finements in social status indicators?

4. How does the site fit in with Miller’s ob-servances regarding colonization andfoodways?

5. How many households are reflected inthe refuse discard patterns?

6. Is there any noticeable relationship be-tween 44 HT 55 and the Second ChurchSite?

7. Is there any discernable evidence of oc-cupation by a member of the clergy?

8. Is there any noticeable evidence of blackoccupation?

9. Was the site influenced by the hurricaneof 1667?

Further historical research should be con-ducted with a thorough examination of Companylands and glebe property. Although most histori-cal documents regarding land ownership and trans-ferral were destroyed during the American CivilWar, efforts should be made to reconstruct theownership of the parcel if at all possible.

A professional-quality report should be sub-mitted to Hampton University officials and theVirginia Division of Historic Landmarks within sixmonths of the completion of the field work. Thereport should include:

A. a description of the data recovery meth-ods used

B. a description of resources located andtheir distribution within the site

C. full documentation of the artifacts recov-ered and the site features

D. preservation and synthesis according toV.R.C.A. guidelines

E. a synthesis of the historical documenta-tion and historical resources of the projectarea

F. environmental contextG. a description of previous archaeology in

the area

257

Brown, Marley R. and Kathleen Bragdon(eds.)1986 Introduction, in Towards a Resource

Protection Process, James CityCounty, York County, City ofPoquoson, and City of Williamsburg,on file in the Office of ArchaeologicalExcavation, the Colonial WilliamsburgFoundation, Williamsburg.

Brydon, George MacLaren1947 Virginia’s Mother Church and the

Political Conditions Under Which itGrew. Virginia Historical Society,Richmond.

Carson, Cary, Norman F. Barka, William M.Kelso, Garry Wheeler Stone, and Dell Upton1981 Impermanent Architecture in the

Southern American Colonies.Winterthur Portfolio 0084-04161-81/1602-0001.

Carson, Cary and Kevin Kelly1984 Urbanization of the Tidewater South:

Town and Country in York County,Virginia, 1630-1830. Part II: TheGrowth and Development ofWilliamsburg and Yorktown. Researchproposal submitted to the NationalEndowment for the Humanities. Ms.on file, Department of ArchaeologicalResearch, The Colonial WilliamsburgFoundation, Williamsburg.

Hodges, Charles T.1987 Preliminary Analysis of Prehistoric

Artifacts, in Phase II Evaluation Studyof Archaeological Resources withinthe Proposed Route 199 Corridor.Office of Archaeological Excavation,

The Colonial WilliamsburgFoundation, Williamsburg.

Holt, Eleanor Sayer1985 The Second Church of Elizabeth City

Parish: 1623/4 - 1698, An Historical-Archaeological Report. ArcheologicalSociety of Virginia Special Report No.13, Richmond.

Hunter, Robert R. and Thomas Higgins1986 Study Unit III. Permanent Settlement

and Population Growth 2000 B.C. -A.D. 1500, in Towards a ResourceProtection Process, James CityCounty, York County, City ofPoquoson, City of Williamsburg. Onfile in the Office of ArchaeologicalExcavation, The Colonial WilliamsburgFoundation, Williamsburg.

Miller, Henry Michael1984 Colonization and Subsistence Change

on the 17th century ChesapeakeFrontier. Ph.D. dissertation MichiganState University. Ms. on fileDepartment of ArchaeologicalResearch, Colonial WilliamsburgFoundation.

Mouer, L. Daniel1987 Everything in its Place...: Locational

Models and Notions of the Elite inVirginia 1660-1865. VirginiaCommonwealth UniversityArchaeological Research Center,Richmond [Draft].

Nugent, Nell Marion1979 Cavaliers and Pioneers. Abstracts of

Virginia Land Patents and Grants

References Cited

258

1623 -1666. Vol. 1, GenealogicalPublishing Company, Baltimore.

Smith, Carol A.1976 Regional Analysis. Academic Press,

New York.

Underwater Archaeological Joint Ventures1983 Phase II Archaeological Survey of a

Proposed Dredging Site in theHampton River, Hampton, Virginia.Ms. prepared for Langley andMcDonald Inc. [Historical sectionwritten by Martha McCartney].

Vance, J.E., Jr.1975 The Merchant’s World: the

Geography of Wholesaling. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.

Wittkofski, J. Mark1980 Archaeological Phase II Testing and

Survey for the Proposed Route 143Interchange at Hampton, Virginia.Unpublished ms. on file at the VirginiaResearch Center for Archaeology,Richmond.