Archaeological ExcavationOf A Small Cellar OnRich Neck Plantation

Anna Agbe-Davies

The Colonial Williamsburg FoundationDepartment of Archaeological ResearchP.O. Box 1776Williamsburg, VA 23187-1776(757) 220-7330

Anna Agbe-DaviesProject Archaeologist

Marley R. Brown IIIPrincipal Investigator

August 1999

Colonial Williamsburg Archaeological Reports

Archaeological Excavationof a Small Cellar on

Rich Neck Plantation

by

Anna Agbe-Davies

The Colonial Williamsburg FoundationDepartment of Archaeological Research

P.O. Box 1776Williamsburg, VA 23187-1776

(757) 220-7330

Anna Agbe-DaviesProject Archaeologist

Marley R. Brown IIIPrincipal Investigator

August 1999

ii

iii

Table of Contents

Page

List of Figures ........................................................................................................... v

List of Tables ........................................................................................................... vii

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background ................................................................... 1

Chapter 2. Historical and Physical Setting .................................................................. 3Rich Neck in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries ..................................... 3Rich Neck Today ............................................................................................. 4

Chapter 3. Excavation and Description of Findings .................................................... 7Excavation Strategy .......................................................................................... 7Description of Strata and Features .................................................................. 10

Chapter 4. Interpretation of Findings ....................................................................... 17Architecture .................................................................................................... 17Artifacts ......................................................................................................... 22

Dating the Site ........................................................................................ 22Comparisons with 68AL ......................................................................... 23Crossmends ........................................................................................... 24Vessel Comparisons ................................................................................ 26Faunal Analysis ....................................................................................... 28

Site Formation Processes ................................................................................ 30

Chapter 5. Summary ............................................................................................... 33

References Cited .................................................................................................... 35

Appendix A. Artifact Inventory ............................................................................... 39

iv

v

List of Figures

Page

Figure 1. Location of lot within Holly Hills subdivision ................................................ 1Figure 2. General project location ............................................................................. 5Figure 3. Project location within the City of Williamsburg ........................................... 5Figure 4. Rich Neck Slave Quarter and associated shovel tests .................................. 7Figure 5. Overall site photograph .............................................................................. 8Figure 6. Plan of all features ...................................................................................... 9Figure 7. Section of M3 .......................................................................................... 11Figure 8. Plan of M3 ............................................................................................... 11Figure 9. Section of Feature 1 running east-west ...................................................... 12Figure 10. Section of Feature 1 running north-south ................................................. 12Figure 11. Harris matrix diagram of Feature 1 .......................................................... 15Figure 12. Roofed cellar (from Doepkens 1991) ..................................................... 20Figure 13. Other features on Rich Neck Plantation .................................................. 21Figure 14. Pipestem bore diameters ........................................................................ 23Figure 15. Artifact ratios of M3 (a) and Feature 1 (b) .............................................. 24Figure 16. Artifact ratios of M3 (a), Feature 1 (b), and 68AL (c) with bone excluded ....................................................................................... 24Figure 17. Flatware to holloware ratios ................................................................... 27Figure 18. Vessel forms ........................................................................................... 27Figure 19. Proportions of animals in Ludwell inventory (a) and faunal assemblage based on MNIs (b). .................................................................... 29

vi

vii

List of Tables

Page

Table 1. List of Master Contexts ............................................................................. 15Table 2. Cellars in Tidewater Sites ........................................................................... 19

viii

1

Chapter 1.Introduction and Background

The cellar at Rich Neck Plantation (site 68AP in Colonial Williamsburg's site data-base) was first identified in the fall of 1994 while Colonial Williamsburg archaeolo-gists Ywone Edwards, Maria Franklin and Anna Agbe-Davies were shovel testing

on the periphery of a mid-eighteenth century site, known as the Rich Neck Slave Quarter(site 68AL).

A field crew that included Randy Lichtenberger, Patrick Roblee and Jenna Thompsonsampled the identified feature in March 1995 under the supervision of Dwayne Pickett.The testing indicated a deep feature which contained artifacts dating to the first half of theeighteenth century—slightly earlier than the Rich Neck Slave Quarter. When fully ex-posed, the site was shown to consist primarily of a large pit, a single smaller pit, andmiscellaneous smaller features, possibly post holes or tree holes.

Full Phase III excavations at the site began in May of 1995 under the supervision ofAnna Agbe-Davies with the assistance of David Brown and Hilary White, and a crew ofstudents from the Colonial Williamsburg/College of William & Mary Archaeological FieldSchool. The project was under the general supervision of Marley R. Brown, III, Directorof Colonial Williamsburg’s Department of Archaeological Research (DAR), and DavidMuraca, Staff Archaeologist and Project Director.

Susan Wiard catalogued the artifacts. Joanne Bowen and Steve Atkins supervised theanalysis of a sample of the faunal material. Heather Harvey prepared the report graphics.Anna Agbe-Davies prepared this report.

Figure 1. Location of lot within Holly Hills subdivision.

0

0

240 Ft.

80 m

CellarSite(68AP)

Yorkshire Drive

Yorkshire Drive

SlaveQuarter(68AL)

2

The site is located in the Holly Hills subdivision on a lot that was ready to be sold andbuilt upon (Figure 1). The urgency of these circumstances drove some of the excavationdecisions, but archaeologists also had a number of research questions. This site seemed tofit neatly into the gap between the occupation of the large seventeenth-century Rich Neckplantation complex (McFaden et al. 1994) and the more modest later eighteenth- centurycomponent, represented by the slave quarter. Archaeologists wanted to know how thissite fits into the overall Rich Neck story. Which occupants of Rich Neck used this site, andhow? The large pit in particular was a matter of some discussion. If it were a cellar, it wasthe only evidence of the structure that was once there, a characteristic that classed it witha number of other structures known only from the existence of their backfilled cellars.Additionally, the site offered an opportunity to examine refuse disposal practices and siteformation processes in a fairly discrete context.

3

Chapter 2.Historical and Physical Setting

Rich Neck in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries

The site is located on a piece of property that was known as “Rich Neck” in theearly seventeenth century. Rich Neck, and plantations like it, made up the commu-nity of Middle Plantation. This loose cluster of settlements would ultimately be-

come the city of Williamsburg, and for a time, Virginia’s capital (McFaden and Muraca1994:9). But at the time of Rich Neck’s initial European settlement, it was still the frontier,approximately eight kilometers from the first capital, Jamestown.

George Menefie, Council member and merchant, held the first patent on Rich Neck,which he conveyed to Richard Kemp, Secretary of the Virginia colony, in 1636. Kemp’sresidence at Rich Neck was excavated in the mid-1990s (site state number 44WB52).On Kemp’s death in 1650, his widow, Elizabeth Wormely Kemp, married Thomas Lunsford.Records seem to indicate that by 1653 Elizabeth Wormely Kemp Lunsford was againwidowed (McFaden et al. 1994:12). In 1665, the property was sold to Thomas Ludwell.

Like Richard Kemp, Thomas Ludwell was Secretary of State for the colony. Andalthough he owned extensive tracts of land in several counties, he maintained RichNeck as his residence. Archaeological excavations show that he enlarged and addedonto the country seat built by Kemp (McFaden et al. 1994:14). Among the peopletransported to the colony by Thomas Ludwell was his younger brother Philip, whoalso rose to prominence, becoming Deputy Secretary of State by 1676/7. No doubttheir cousin, Governor Sir William Berkeley, had considerable affect on their fortunes inVirginia—not the least of which was Philip Ludwell’s subsequent marriage to his cousin’swidow, the Lady Frances Culpeper Berkeley, and the acquisition of the Berkeley planta-tion at Green Spring.

The Ludwells divided themselves between the plantations, with Philip Ludwell’s sonby a previous marriage, Philip Ludwell II, making his home at Rich Neck for a number ofyears. Archaeological investigations show that his new plantation house was built withmaterials salvaged from the previous structures (McFaden and Muraca 1994:15). PhilipII was certainly living there by 1698, as his first child was born at Rich Neck in that year.His remaining children were born at Rich Neck in 1701 and 1704 and at Green Spring in1706 and 1716. Therefore, it is thought that Philip Ludwell II moved away from RichNeck between 1704 and 1706 (Smith 1993:2). When Philip I died in England ca. 1717,Philip II inherited the property, but Rich Neck was never again the family’s primary resi-dence.

Philip Ludwell II continued the family tradition of political prominence, holding posi-tions of leadership in the government as well as in the parish, at the College of William &Mary, and in the local militia. His son, Philip Ludwell III, inherited Rich Neck in 1726/7,while still a minor. Philip III’s children were all born at Green Spring between 1737 and1751, reinforcing the idea that Rich Neck was not the family’s home. It seems that planta-

4

tion managers were in charge of operations on the property from 1706 forward, althoughthere is no direct mention of such persons until much later in the eighteenth century.

Following in his forefathers’ footsteps, Philip Ludwell III participated in Virginia’spolitical life. He was a member of the House of Burgesses and sat on the Governor’sCouncil. By 1760, however, Philip III had left the colony a widower, taking hischildren with him. He died in England in 1767 (Smith 1993:5). Rich Neck wasultimately divided between his two surviving children, Hannah Philipa Ludwell Lee,and Lucy Ludwell Paradise (Virginia Magazine of History and Biography [VMHB]1913,1924).

Before Philip III left for England, he hired plantation manager Cary Wilkinson tooversee his Virginia holdings. Lucy Ludwell Paradise and her husband John Para-dise, owners of the core of the Rich Neck holdings, retained his services after PhilipIII’s death. Twenty-one enslaved individuals-10 men, 5 women, 3 boys, and 3 girls-were living at Rich Neck when Philip III's estate was inventoried. They were appar-ently tending livestock, and perhaps growing tobacco and running a mill, based onthe tools and supplies listed in the same inventory (VMHB 1913:401). These peoplewere presumably under the indirect supervision of Wilkinson, who was based atGreen Spring (Franklin 1997:67).

William Wilkinson took over for his uncle in 1783 and stayed on until 1800. LucyLudwell Paradise, the last Ludwell to reside at Rich Neck, finally returned to Vir-ginia in 1805, dividing her time between that estate and a house in Williamsburg.

Rich Neck Today

Site 68AP is located in the City of Williamsburg, in the eastern part of the state ofVirginia (Figure 2). The site is near the intersection of Jamestown Road and State Route199 (Figure 3), not far from College Creek, a tributary of the James River, which in turndrains into the Chesapeake Bay. The area is characterized by steep ridges interspersedwith broader upland terraces (McFaden et al. 1993:3). The site is located on one suchterrace.

The species of plants and animals found near the site today reflect many years ofhuman occupation and use. As part of a plantation, the area was heavily farmed fromthe seventeenth through the nineteenth centuries. This is corroborated by the presenceof a plowzone encountered archaeologically. The early to mid-twentieth century saw somelogging on the property, as may be observed from the growth pattern of the trees foundtoday (McFaden et al.1994:3).

Currently, the site is surrounded by a suburban housing development. Wild flora in-clude hardwoods such as oaks and holly, as well as evergreens like loblolly pine. A varietyof wild and commensal animal species inhabit the periphery of the development includingdeer, raccoon, squirrel, and various waterfowl. College Creek is still home to a variety offish and several species of turtle. The seventeenth-and eighteenth- century residents ofRich Neck may have exploited any or all of these species.

5

Figure 2. General project location.

Figure 3. Project location within the City of Williamsburg.

Richmond

Williamsburg

Hampton

0 50 Miles

Che

sape

ake

Bay

ATL

AN

TIC

OC

EAN

James River

YorkRiver

Yorktown

6 0x 6

50x

6

JS

JJ

J

S

S

40x

5

J

J

JC

S

S

4 0x 5

JS

18x

5

S

J

5

Rich NeckPlantation

Jam

esto

wnRoa

d

LakeMatoaka

CollegeCreek

ColonialWilliamsburg

Hen

ryS

tree

t

Route 199

6

7

Chapter 3.Excavation and Description of Findings

Excavation Strategy

As stated in the introduction, site 68AP was first identified while testing the perimeter ofthe Rich Neck Slave Quarter. The 1994 shovel testing campaign consisted of 75 centime-ter units placed every five meters, yielding a plowzone sample of slightly more than 2%. Ashovel test at the Rich Neck grid point 565 N/465 E came down on dark brown feature fillwhich covered the entire unit (Figure 4). Interestingly, this feature was not predicted byanalyses that examined concentrations of artifacts in the plowzone. Likewise, areas withhigh concentrations of plowzone artifacts did not always overlie significant features (Agbe-Davies 1994:5). When archaeologists expanded the shovel test to a 2 x 2 meter unit, oneedge of the feature was exposed. An auger test showed fill extending at least one meterbelow the interface between the plowzone and natural subsoil.

Figure 4. Rich Neck Slave Quarter and associated shovel tests.

435440

445450

455460

465470

590

580

570

560

550

600

595

585

575

565

555

Slave Quarter

565N/465E

Test Units

8

In March 1995, a small area around the feature was machine stripped, indicating thatit was approximately 4 x 4 meters in size. Close by, excavators noticed a second, smallerfeature, which looked like a small root cellar or trash pit, hereafter designated mastercontext 3 (M3). At this time excavators mapped the two features and sank a 1 x 1 metertest unit in to the southeast corner of the larger feature (Feature 1). The soil was saturated,so excavators had difficulty distinguishing stratigraphic levels. To compensate, they as-signed arbitrary levels every 10 centimeters, stopping after encountering clay approxi-mately 70 centimeters from the top of the surrounding subsoil.

Later that year, excavation began with the intention of recovering all significant ar-chaeological material in anticipation of the lot’s eventual development. A machine wasused to clear an even larger area of plowzone, ultimately exposing an area approximately15 by 13 meters. The intent was to find other features associated with the two primaryfeatures (Feature 1 and M3), presumed to be either cellars or trash pits. After machinestripping, the last few centimeters of plowzone were shovel-shaved and trowelled down(Figure 5).

Except for six shovel tests and the 2 x 2 meter area over the cellar, the plowzone wasnot screened. However, all artifacts found in the course of removing the plowzone weresaved as context 68AP00000, or in the case of the plowzone immediately above Feature1, context 68AP00030.

The features were all excavated with trowels and screened through ¼-inch mesh.Chemical and flotation samples were also collected from every feature or layer of fill. Theexceptions to this sampling rule were tree holes and several episodes of subsoil erosion,which were detected in Feature 1. From these, only chemical samples were taken. Fur-thermore, in the case of the erosion layers in Feature 1, the fill was trowelled, but notscreened.

Figure 5. Overall site photograph.

9

A number of other samples were taken as well. Oyster shell was particularly abun-dant—over 300 specimens came from master context M4 alone (M4 being the first layerin Feature 1). Samples of brick were collected in anticipation of acid extraction and xero-radiography studies (for example, Hoff 1994; Galucci et al. 1994). Finally, a 25 x 25centimeter column sample collected with very tight stratigraphic and elevation controls,was taken out of Feature 1 for flotation and the subsequent analysis of botanical remains.These samples remain at the DAR. They were not analyzed at the time of writing.

Excavation began with the various small features found scattered across the site (Fig-ure 6). It was anticipated that some of them might be postholes indicating the presence ofa building in the project area. The next focus was M3, the possible root cellar or trash pit.It was sectioned and taken out in two halves, 68AP00003 and 68AP00032. Feature 1was the final feature to be excavated. This strategy was followed to allow inexperiencedfield school students the maximum exposure to archaeological fieldwork before having tocope with what was believed, quite correctly, to be a stratigraphically complicated feature.

Feature 1 was divided into quadrants for excavation. The southeast and northwestquadrants were removed first to allow archaeologists to observe complete sections acrossthe length and breadth of the feature. Next, the northeast quadrant was removed. Thesouthwest quadrant was not excavated. Each quadrant was excavated following the lay-ers (contexts) observed within each quadrant. These layers were then correlated intomaster contexts which represented all contexts from the same deposit, regardless of which

Figure 6. Plan of all features.

0

0

3 m

10 Ft.

D

C

B

A

Feature 1

M3

E

F

Tree

10

quadrant contained them. Like all the compass orientations in this report, the directionsrefer to the site grid, grid-north being 44 degrees east of true north.

Features and layers were distinguished from one another by differences in soil color,texture and inclusions. Each distinct deposit was treated as a separate entity and given aunique context number. Information about its location, description and contents were re-corded on context forms which are currently on file with the DAR. Stratigraphic relation-ships between these contexts were recorded using the Harris Matrix system (Harris 1989).

All features were drawn in plan view and larger features like Feature 1 and M3 werealso drawn in section. These drawings were then incorporated into AutoCAD computergenerated drawings of the entire Rich Neck complex. Photographs of the entire site, aswell as detailed photographs of individual features, were taken and remain on file at CW’sDAR.

Artifacts recovered were bagged according to the context from which they came.Laboratory technicians washed, labeled and identified the artifacts, and determined whichartifacts were fragile and in need of conservation. The artifact inventory was entered into acomputer using the program Re:discovery, which facilitates the integration of excavationdata with laboratory data. Artifacts from the flotation samples were not catalogued at thetime of writing. Ceramics were pulled to be cross-mended and create minimum vesselcounts (see “Artifacts” below). A sample of the identifiable bones was also pulled foranalysis.

Description of Strata and Features

Testing prior to excavation demonstrated that plowing had obliterated any occupationlayers. As expected, there was no intact stratification outside of feature fill. Under the leaflitter and topsoil, a plowzone overlay the entire site with an average thickness of about 18centimeters. The brown (Munsell color 10 YR 4/3) sandy loam contained artifacts prima-rily from the eighteenth century. The features cut into a pale brown (10 YR 5/8) sandyclay, which comprises the subsoil in this area.

None of the numerous small features exposed by the plowzone removal proved to beregularly shaped or arranged (Figure 6). Most of them were quite shallow, but rangedfrom 3 to 35 centimeters. Almost all of them terminated in irregular shapes, suggesting thatthey were tree holes rather than postholes. Artifacts were very sparse in these features,mostly fragments of wine bottle glass and nails, and a few ceramics including Yorktown-type coarse earthenware and white salt-glazed stoneware.

M3 was a sub-rectangular feature filled with an olive brown (2.5 Y 4/3) sandy clayloam to a depth of 21 centimeters (Figure 7). At its greatest extent, it measured 1.64 by1.23 meters (Figure 8). Observed from ground level, it does not appear to be perfectlyaligned with Feature 1; however, this does not preclude them being contemporaries. M3contained artifacts not unlike those found in Feature 1. The two contexts that make upM3—68AP00003 and 68AP00032—are the north and south halves of the same featurefill. One chemical and one flotation sample were taken from this feature, which has aterminus post quem (tpq) of 1755.

11

Figure 7. Section of M3.

Figure 8. Plan of M3.

0

0

3 Ft.

1 m

F E

0

0

5 Ft.

1.5 m

F

E

This feature is clearly not a borrow pit dug to extract dirt or clay, nor a pit dug merelyto serve as a repository for garbage. The sides of the pit are very regular and representcareful digging of the hole by its eighteenth-century excavator. Furthermore, it must havebeen covered during its use-life, or filled immediately after being dug, as there was no siltor other evidence of erosion at the bottom of the pit. At the base of M3, there was aburned area in the subsoil. However, it was quite small and did not extend very deep intothe clay, nor did the fill contain any great quantity of charcoal or ash. It does not seem,then, to have been the site of a major burning episode.

Approximately 3 meters to the northwest of M3 is another, much larger, feature. Fea-ture 1 has been designated as a cellar. It measures 5.22 by 4.1 meters at its maximumextent. Its sides are nearly vertical, with the exception of what might be interpreted as abulkhead entrance, which comprises approximately 2 meters of the cellar’s maximumhorizontal length (Figure 9). Four major fill episodes were observed in Feature 1, as wellas numerous thin deposits related to erosion or exposure to the elements. Its total depthwas 1.3 meters and consisted of 12 discrete layers, some of which were small lenseswhich do not appear in the profile drawings (Figures 9 and 10).

12

Figure 9. Section of Feature 1 running east-west.

Figure 10. Section of Feature 1 running north-south.

Master Context 8

Master Context 6

Master Context 4

Master Context 18

Master Context 10

Master Context 19

Master Context 7

bone brick bonetile light stain

10 YR 5/2

0

0

20 m

60 Ft.

A B

wood boardstain

wood boardstain

Master Context 22

Master Context 15

Master Context 18

Master Context 10Master Context 7

Master Context 8

Master Context 9

Master Context 4

Master Context 6

0

0

20 m

60 Ft.

DC

stainwood board

bone

The largest and most artifact rich of the master contexts was M4, the uppermost layerin Feature 1. This fill was a dark yellowish brown (10 YR 4/4) clay loam with scatteredbrick, mortar and charcoal inclusions. Large amounts of shell and bone were found through-out. Thickness ranged from 36 to 82 centimeters. This layer of fill extended across almostthe entire cellar, including part of the possible bulkhead entrance (see “Architecture,”below). The base of the layer sloped down away from the bulkhead at the western edge ofFeature 1. The tpq of this master context is 1740, based on the presence of molded whitesalt-glazed stoneware. Two creamware fragments were recovered from this master con-

13

text, but since they were close to the top of the feature, near a large tree root and anotherintrusion observed only in profile (Figure 9), it is thought to be intrusive.

The next master context, M12, represents a very brief erosion episode. M12 was asloping layer of subsoil-like clay. The layer was a brownish yellow (10YR 6/6) clay, witha thickness ranging from 2 to 11 centimeters. No artifacts were recovered from this layer.

Master Context 6 was a dark brown (10YR 3/3) loam which ranged from 15 to 21centimeters in thickness. Prominent inclusions were charcoal, bone, brick, and shell, al-though not in the quantities noted in M4. Both M4 and M6 slope sharply approximately 1meter from the west edge of Feature 1, as may be noted from Figure 9. This “shelf” mayreflect the presence of an obstacle, now gone, which blocked the gradual slope of thecellar fill contents. The tpq for this layer is 1755.

The next stratigraphic level is an erosion layer, M7, a dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/5) clay, 13-35 centimeters thick. A few artifacts were found in this layer, mostly bone,glass and nails. One fragment of Buckley suggests a tpq of 1720, but as the excavatornoted, most of the artifacts in that context came from an area just next to the layer’sinterface with M6. Other than the Buckley, wine bottle glass provides a tpq of 1650. Thismaster context was trowelled, but not screened.

Master Context 8 was a yellowish brown (10 YR5/4) sandy clay. This thick fill is verysandy and in the sidewall shows traces of different washing-in events. Most of the artifactsin this layer were very large, many of them were tools of some kind: a pot hook, an ironring, a hoe and a sword part were all found. Again, a lone fragment of Buckley points to atpq of 1720, otherwise a single sherd of Nottingham suggests 1700. This is not sheetrefuse, as indicated by the size of the two slipware platters recovered.

The next layer, M10, was somewhat obscured by the fact that the cellar was repeat-edly filled with rainwater and groundwater in the course of archaeological excavation.Furthermore, the fill was very similar in color to surrounding layers, being an olive gray (5Y4/2). Thus, it could only be distinguished in terms of its clayey texture. The one placewhere this layer was effectively isolated was in the northeast quadrant. Here, M10 was 13centimeters thick and included bone, charcoal, brick, mortar and shell—though not inappreciable quantities. This layer seems to have been fairly barren except for those inclu-sions. One significant artifact is a fragment of a dip-molded empontilled wine bottle, whichgives this master context a tpq of 1730.

The next several master contexts represent erosion events or other weathering pro-cesses. M9 was a brownish yellow (10YR6/8) clay, which at its maximum depth was 23centimeters. It occurred primarily adjacent to the walls of the feature and lensed out to-ward the center of the cellar. This layer contained very few artifacts or inclusions, but didprovide a tpq of 1720.

The next layer was another erosion layer, M14, a yellowish brown (10YR6/4) sandyclay with brick, mortar and bone inclusions. Its maximum depth was 8 centimeters, with aminimum of 1 centimeter. Wine bottle glass was found in this context, giving a tpq of c.1650.

14

M15 consisted of a yellowish brown (10YR5/6) clay with no inclusions. The tpq of c.1650 came from one of the few artifacts recovered, a fragment of wine bottle glass.

M16 was a very thin lens (barely 1 centimeter) of grayish brown (10YR5/2) sandyclay. No tpq could be determined for this master context.

M17 and M18, described below, had no direct stratigraphic relationship to layersM14-16, and we only know that M17 and M18 are later than M10, as are M14-16.Master context M17 was a yellowish brown (10YR5/6) sticky clay only 7 centimeters indepth, for which there was no available tpq. M18 was a brown (10YR5/3) sandy clay 2centimeters deep, which was nearly mistaken for subsoil because of its similarity with thesurrounding natural soil. However, inclusions of bone, charcoal, brick and shell indicatedthat this layer did contain cultural material. The tpq which was established is 1730.

The next layer was a dark yellowish brown sandy loam with animal bone, charcoal,and notable mortar inclusions. M19 was estimated by the excavators to have an averagedepth of 20 centimeters.

The final layer in Feature 1 was M13, a yellowish brown (10YR5/6) sandy clay. Itwas found in only a very limited area and contained very few artifacts or inclusions. It wasquite thin (1-9 centimeters) and was underlain by natural subsoil.

Figure 11 is a Harris Matrix which shows the relationships between the various layersin Feature 1. The numbers in the matrix are the individual context numbers. Table 1 corre-lates these context numbers (also used in Appendix A, the artifact inventory) with themaster contexts described above.

15

Tab

le 1

.L

ist o

f Mas

ter

Co

nte

xts

Des

crip

tion

Mas

ter

Co

nte

xt

Co

nte

xt N

um

ber

Plo

wzo

neM

1168

AP

-0, -

30T

ree

hole

sM

2068

AP

-12,

-13,

-14,

-15,

-16,

-17,

-23,

-27

Roo

t cel

lar

M3

68A

P-3

, -32

Fea

ture

1M

2168

AP

-37

M4

68A

P-1

, -2,

-5, -

6, -7

, -8,

-35,

-36,

-41,

-4

2, -4

5, -5

0, -7

7, -7

8, -7

9, -8

0, -8

4M

2268

AP

-44

M12

68A

P-5

5, -5

7M

668

AP

-9, -

31, -

43, -

49, -

52, -

81, -

83M

768

AP

-54,

-59,

-60,

-86,

-89

M8

68A

P-4

8, -5

1, -6

1, -6

2, -6

5M

1068

AP

-63,

-66,

-75,

-82,

-85

M9

68A

P-6

7, -8

8M

1368

AP

-73,

-74

M14

68A

P-6

8, -8

7M

1568

AP

-69,

-86

M16

68A

P-7

0M

1768

AP

-64

M18

68A

P-4

7M

1968

AP

-58,

-72,

-76,

-90

Figure 11. Harris matrixdiagram of Feature 1.

30

37

41 36 35 77

42

46 84

45

57

55

52 43 31 49 83

61=65 54 44

48 51 62

63 75 66 85

67 64 88

68 47 87

69 86

70 89

76=58 72 90

74 73

92

16

17

Chapter 4.Interpretation of Findings

Architecture

The irregularity of shape and placement of the various scattered features shown in Figure6 indicate that they are tree holes rather than post holes. This means that no architecturalfeatures, other than the cellar itself, were found at 68AP. Without any architectural fea-tures, such as postholes or foundations, or even a hearth, very little can be said about thephysical characteristics of the building served by this cellar. One solution to this problem isto compare Feature 1 with similar features or sites.

A search through archaeological reports for the seventeenth- and eighteenth-centuryVirginia Tidewater has yielded a number of sites with similar characteristics from a range oftime periods, and bearing a variety of interpretations. The earliest such feature (1620-1640) is found at Site “D” at Carter’s Grove. Here, a 11.5 by 7.25 foot (3.5 by 2.2 meter)pit with a flat bottom 3.5 feet (1.07 meters) below subsoil was interpreted as a borrow pitmined for the manufacture of daub, which later served as a watering hole for cattle (Lucckettin.d.).

Several features excavated at Kingsmill also seem similar to Feature 1. A brick-linedhalf-basement at the Utopia Quarter (ca. 1641-1700) was approximately 15 by 12.5 feet(4.6 by 3.8 meters) (Kelso 1976:2). The North Quarter (ca. 1750-1775) also had anunlined cellar 3 feet (0.9 meter) deep which measured approximately 14 by 12.5 feet(4.27 by 3.8 meters) (Kelso 1984:103, 124-127).

Feature 2 at 44CC297 is described as a possible interior root cellar or roofed exteriorcellar from the late seventeenth or early eighteenth century. It was ovoid in plan, roughly 8by 7 feet (2.4 by 2.1 meters) in extent and 2.35 feet (0.7 meter) deep. It was irregularlyshaped, with gradually sloping sides which terminated in a rectangular, square-sided bot-tom measuring 2.5 by 1.2 feet (0.76 by 0.36 meters) (Jones et al. 1991:36-37).

Corbin’s Rest in Northumberland County (44NB180) included a large pit (Structure6) interpreted as a wood-lined cellar constructed ca.1680-1710. This feature was muchlarger than Feature 1 at 46.5 by 37 feet (14.17 by 11.27 meters) maximum dimensions,but was very like it in shape and proportion. No other architectural features were found inthe vicinity. The archaeologist concluded that “[This] example probably functioned simi-larly to a large dairy and cool storage house and it is possible that an upper floor a kitchenwas installed with the servant cooks employing a half story loft above this as sleepingquarters” (Hodges 1990:94). A ledge and remnants of a mold around the interior of thecellar were interpreted as the base of a sill that supported the building’s superstructure(Hodges 1990:90).

Structure 1 at 44HT38 dates to the years 1680-1730. The cellar for this post buildingmeasured 14 by 12 feet (4.27 by 3.66 meters), not including the builders trench, whichmade the archaeologists decide that the cellar may have been lined (Higgins et al. 1993:64).

18

Structure 13 contained a cellar approximately 20 feet square (6.1 by 6.1 meters) and 2feet (0.61 meter) deep that was filled sometime around 1720-1725. This cellar was linedwith brick and wood (Higgins et al. 1993:171). This cellar has a bulkhead entrance to oneside.

The several cellars at the Pope Site (44SN180) were interpreted as belonging todomestic structures. The largest measured 20 by 18.4 feet (6.1 by 5.6 meters) and hadno associated architectural features other than a robbed out brick foundation. Twosmaller contemporary cellars (6.4 by 4.5 feet and 7.69 by 6.36 feet) were clearlypost buildings (Reinhart 1987:13-34).

Excavations at College Landing in Williamsburg identified two structures thatmay be compared to 68AP. First, archaeologists uncovered a small cellar dating tobetween 1750 and 1815, designated the “lot 37” cellar. There were no extant archi-tectural remains other than a hearth located within the cellar hole itself and a shelf inthe subsoil near the bottom of the feature: a sill for laying a robbed-out brick founda-tion (Hudgins 1977:32). In this case, the bulkhead was near a corner of the cellar,leaving room for the hearth and chimney to be centered on the same end. The secondstructure, labeled the “colonial” cellar, consisted of a basement measuring 16.25 by9.5 by 3 feet (3.4 by 2.9 by 0.9 meters), including the bulkhead entrance. Remainsalso included a chimney base and a root cellar (Hudgins 1977:52).

The mid to late eighteenth century site at 44JC298 was slightly different in that thecellar hole was a basin-shaped feature approximately 8-10 feet (2.44-3.05 meters) indiameter. The structure over the cellar was supported by two main posts, the holes forwhich were discovered in the bottom of the cellar, and piers on the exterior of the cellar(White 1991:10). This feature dates to from the late eighteenth to the early nineteenthcentury.

Feature 53 at 44GL357 was a square, partially brick lined cellar measuring 16 byapproximately 20 feet, and 3 feet deep (4.88 by 6.1 by 0.91 meters). It is interpreted asthe remnants of a full basement for a one-story brick structure (Stuck et al. 1996:207).The fill from this feature dates from the second and third quarters of the eighteenth century.This cellar was also associated with a small root cellar.

Table 2 summarizes the foregoing information.

One common thread running through all these interpretations is that, regardless ofwhether or not other architectural remains are found, all of the rectilinear pits (aswell as several of the others) were interpreted as cellars within or underneath struc-tures, rather than outdoor manufacturing, farming or processing facilities. The solenon-structural example cited above (Site D) was basin-shaped rather than square-sided. Therefore, seems reasonable to conclude that 68AP, with its generous dimen-sions, square sides and straight walls was once a deliberately excavated cellar, withsome form of superstructure.

A second question is whether or not the “structure” served by this cellar was anythingas elaborate as a dwelling house or rather consisted of a few planks thrown over anexterior storage pit. As the excavator of Corbin’s Rest wrote, “Cellar Houses, ‘covered

19

TAB

LE

2.

CE

LL

AR

S IN

TID

EW

AT

ER

SIT

ES

TY

PE

OF

RO

OT

NA

ME

DIM

EN

SIO

NS

(m)

SU

PP

OR

TLI

NIN

GB

ULK

HE

AD

ST

RU

CT

UR

EC

ELL

AR

?

Uto

pia

Qua

rter

4.6

x 3.

8 x

1.83

post

hol

esbr

ick

yes

(ste

p)dw

ellin

g—

——

Nor

th Q

uart

er4.

27 x

3.8

x 0

.9 (

est)

bric

k fo

unda

tion

——

—ye

s (s

tep)

dwel

ling

adja

cent

44C

C29

7 fe

a 2

2.4

x 2.

1 x

0.7

——

——

——

yes

(ste

p)ro

ofed

cel

lar

or—

——

root

cel

lar

Cor

bin’

s R

est s

tr 6

14.1

7 x

11.2

7 x

0.52

woo

d si

llsw

ood

yes

(ste

p)da

iry o

r ki

tche

n—

——

44H

T38

str

13

6.1

x 6.

1 x

0.61

bric

k fo

unda

tion

bric

k/w

ood

yes

(unk

now

n)dw

ellin

g or

tave

rnw

ithin

Pop

e S

ite fe

a 7

6.1

x 5.

6 x

0.6

bric

k fo

unda

tion

bric

k—

——

dwel

ling

——

—C

olle

ge L

andi

ng lo

t 37

6.1

X 4

.9 x

0.6

1br

ick

foun

datio

nbr

ick

yes

(ste

p)dw

ellin

gw

ithin

Col

lege

Lan

ding

3.43

x 2

.9 x

0.9

1—

——

——

—ye

s (n

o st

ep)

dwel

ling

adja

cent

“co

loni

al”

44G

L357

fea

534.

88 x

6.1

x 0

.91

bric

k fo

unda

tion

bric

kye

s (s

tep)

dwel

ling

——

—68

AP

5.22

x 4

.1 x

1.4

——

——

——

yes

(no

step

)—

——

adja

cent

20

cellars‘, ‘roofed cellars‘ and ‘pit houses‘ are familiar finds throughout the 17th century”(Hodges 1990: 94). It seems that one way to discover the nature of the 68AP structurewould be to examine the specific characteristics and interpretations of several of the rec-tilinear features described above. These include Utopia Quarter, North Quarter, 44CC297Feature 2, Corbin’s Rest Structure 6, 44HT38 Structure 13, the Pope Site, the two Col-lege Landing structures, and 44GL357 Feature 53.

As Table 1 shows, cellars come in a range of sizes. The average area of the cellars insquare meters, excluding the much larger Corbin’s Rest is 22.35, very close to the size of68AP Feature 1 at 21.4 square meters. Of the other features, all but one (44CC279) aredefinitely proper buildings rather than roofed or covered outdoor storage pits (Figure 12).This includes even the one other cellar without a foundation or post holes (College Land-ing “colonial”). The excavator of College Landing writes, “the absence of postholes, piers,or wall impressions, indicates that the structure was probably erected on either ground laidsills or shallow brick or wooden piers” (Hudgins 1977:54). The same was probably trueat 68AP.

The lack of architectural features such as posts or foundations was characteristic ofthe other eighteenth and nineteenth century structures at Rich Neck (Franklin 1997,McFaden et al. 1993:17). It is interesting to note that the structure at the Rich NeckSlave Quarter is also without visible means of support. This building is known only fromthe pattern of its root cellars; no foundation, piers or footings were recovered (Franklin1997). It is possible that the later dwelling continued an architectural precedent set byFeature 1. The table also shows that it is not unusual for such cellars to be unlined asFeature 1 appears to have been.

Figure 12. Roofed cellar (from Doepkens 1991).

21

The extension of Feature 1 (along the western edge) appears to be a bulkhead. Al-though a few of the bulkhead entrances described above were build of wood or brick,there are several examples noted above in which the bulkhead entrance to a cellar wassimply carved out of clay. One of these had no steps at all (College Landing “colonial”), asis the case with Feature 1.

At this time, there is no reason to definitively link Feature 1 with the root cellar (M3) interms of use-life. One might conclude from their similar orientation that they were contem-porary, even part of the same structure. This interpretation has been employed at theNorth Quarter and College Landing “colonial” sites, which have root cellars nearby. How-ever, there are reasons to question a similar interpretation at 68AP. As stated above in the“Description of Strata and Features,” M3 showed little evidence of erosion, suggestingthat it was sheltered from the elements during its use-life, and then quickly filled when itwas no longer needed. However, this scenario contrasts with the depositional history ofFeature 1 which was exposed to considerable weathering as it was being filled.

Furthermore, demonstrating conclusively that these two features were a part of thesame occupation is difficult. There are no crossmends between M3 and Feature 1 toindicate that they were filled using the same secondary refuse, and artifact ratios are notvery comparable (see “Crossmends” and “Comparisons with 68AL” below). Finally, thetpq for M3 is 1755, ten years after the tpq of 1745 for M6 (and by extension, the strataabove it.

A hypothetical structure over the cellar and the root cellar could be readily alignedwith the seventeenth-century structures from the earlier Rich Neck component. Cer-tainly, its orientation is not far off that of the eighteenth-century Slave Quarter, but itis more similar to that of the earlier component, down to the orientation of the hypotheticalgable ends (Figure 13). So Feature 1’s overall placement in the landscape seems to pointto some relationship with these structures. Nevertheless, the artifacts and (lack of) archi-

Figure 13. Other features on Rich Neck Plantation.

0

0

60 Ft.

20 m

126

141

126

126

124

124

124

124

CellarSite (68AP)

Slave Quarter(68AL)

Feature 1 M3

N

22

tectural features resemble the later period structures, indicating how well 68AP forms aninterpretive bridge between the earlier and later occupations of the plantation.

It is difficult to say from the architectural remains who occupied or used the structureat 68AP. Yet a number of parallels exist with structures identified as slaves’ or servants’quarters, ranging from the third quarter of the seventeenth-century (Utopia Quarter) to thelate eighteenth-century (North Quarter) (Kelso 1984:72, 75, 125).

The documentary record for Rich Neck plantation enhances our understanding ofwho may have occupied or otherwise used 68AP Feature 1. Given the tpqs for thevarious fill layers (1650-1745, or 1755 if one includes M3), the structure was in useduring the lifetime of Philip Ludwell III and possibly that of Philip Ludwell II. Thetpqs of the majority of the master deposits (see “Description of Strata and Features”)are from the decades following the removal of the Ludwell family to Green Spring,though the use of the structure may predate this shift. Therefore, it is most likely that thepeople who used the structure at 68AP were Ludwell slaves or perhaps an undocumentedoverseer.

Artifacts

Dating the Site

The artifacts recovered during the excavation of 68AP were the primary means of deter-mining the date of the site. The latest tpq for a reliable sealed context in Feature 1 is 1745for M6, based on a single fragment of Chelsea porcelain. M3 has a tpq of 1755 from abase fragment of a dip-molded and empontilled wine bottle. The fill excavated from M3,Feature 1 and the surrounding tree holes is dominated by first and second quarter eigh-teenth-century artifacts (see Appendix A). The structure or structures at this site would, intheir use and subsequent back-filling, bridge the years between the Ludwell occupation—which ended in the first decade of the eighteenth century—and the occupation repre-sented by the Slave Quarter—which dates from the 1740s to the 1770s (Franklin1997:100).

The distribution of bore sizes for tobacco pipe stems conforms most closely to J. C.Harrington’s histogram for the period 1750-1800 (Figure 14, cf. Harrington 1954). If oneuses Lewis Binford’s straight-line regression formula, one arrives at a mean date of 1759for all 68AP contexts, based on a sample of 114 pipe stems. Despite criticisms regardingthe precision of these techniques (see, for example, Deetz 1987 and Noël Hume 1969:298-302), it is encouraging that the results are in accord with dates suggested by other means.

The mean ceramic date was derived using the techniques and date ranges published inSouth (1977). Median dates for ceramics not listed in that text were derived from theDAR laboratory manual (Pittman 1990:16-28). The mean ceramic date is based on only754 of the 936 ceramic fragments recovered (80%), as several of the well-representedlocal types do not have established date ranges. The mean ceramic date computed for all68AP contexts is 1754. More details on mean ceramic dating are provided in the sectionson “Description of Strata” and “Site Formation Processes.”

23

Figure 14. Pipestem bore diameters.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

7/64ths 6/64ths 5/64ths 4/64ths

When comparing Feature 1 and M3, we see that in both cases, six artifact classes(bone, ceramics, glass, nails, pipes and shell) constitute over 90% of the artifacts(Figure 15 a and b). Most of the artifacts in both assemblages are bone and nails—63% ofFeature 1 and 77% of M3. However, nails dominate M3, whereas Feature 1 has a muchmore even distribution of artifact classes. Using the chi-square statistic, we determinedthat the differences in artifact proportions were significant (χ2=190.38, p<.001), and there-fore not due to random variations.

The hypothesis that M3 consists of destruction debris whereas Feature 1 does not isrejected as they contain equivalent quantities of other architectural debris, such as windowglass. Furthermore, the vast majority of the nails are fragments, discouraging one fromdrawing any conclusions about their use. The discrepancies between the two assem-blages may be explained by the large amount of bone in Feature 1 due either to differencesin fill activities or conditions for preservation.

Comparisons with 68AL

One of the project goals was to determine if the same people or processes were respon-sible for the filling of the early contexts at 68AL along with the features at 68AP. Whencomparing the artifact assemblages of 68AP and 68AL, we only selected contexts fromthe earliest occupation at 68AL. This included contexts from Features 5, 10, 15, 17 and21. Features 17 and 21 have been interpreted as pits for food storage in “unit A” of theslave quarter structure during the initial occupation. Feature 15 dates to the second phaseof renovation and alteration of unit A (Franklin 1997:105,106). Feature 5 is also de-scribed as a food storage facility, but in unit B of the duplex; Feature 10 was simply a“storage space” (Franklin 1997:110, 114). Some of the later contexts from these 68ALfeatures, with tpqs after 1762 (i.e., those containing creamware) were excluded on the

24

basis that they would not be contemporary with the fill at 68AP and therefore wouldlogically not be from the same source.

The chi-square statistic was not applied to these data because of the different recov-ery techniques employed at the two sites, flotation at 68AL versus ¼-inch screening at68AP. This factor also prompted the removal of “bone” as a category from the compari-sons depicted in Figures 16 a, b and c, as 68AL’s heavy concentration of bone (59%)may be due to a higher recovery rate of small fish bones. Nevertheless, it is clear from thegraphs that the early 68AL contexts represent something of a middle ground between theM3 and Feature 1 contexts.

Crossmends

Archaeologists have demonstrated that crossmendable pieces can come from what ap-pear to be discrete undisturbed contexts, and that visible breaks in stratification do not

Ceramics10.5%

Bones37.5%

Pipes2.7%

Shells7.3%

Glass10.4%

Other6.2%

Nails25.5%

Ceramics5.1%

Bones12.0%

Pipes4.2%

Shells0.5%

Glass6.9%

Other5.6%

Nails65.7%

Figure 15. Artifact ratios of M3 (a) and Feature 1 (b).

a b

Figure 16. Artifact ratios of M3 (a), Feature 1 (b), and 68AL (c) with bone excluded.

Ceramics5.8%

Pipes4.7%

Shells0.5%

Glass7.9%

Other6.3%

Nails74.7%

Ceramics16.9%

Pipes4.3%

Shells11.7%

Glass16.8%

Other9.4%

Nails41.0%

Ceramics8.7%

Pipes10.4%

Shells6.4%

Glass9.8%

Other25.1%

Nails39.6%

a b c

25

always reflect meaningful events (Villa 1982:278). Here, though, the cross-mending andunique vessel determinations confirm the common-sense interpretation of the stratificationthat the filling events associated with M4, M6, M8, and M10 were discrete, separateevents.

Within the cellar, any two contexts with more than one crossmend were always fromthe same overall master context. In only five cases, out of 35 total crossmends (14.3%),were contexts from different master contexts linked. Two crossmends appear to link con-text 37, a clay lens which partially overlay the first fill layer of the cellar (M4) with thesecond fill layer (M6). Three others seemed to indicate a vessel shared between M4 withM6 directly. But the vast majority of mends occurred between different context numbersfrom the same fill. There were no crossmends between Feature 1 and the nearby M3.

In attempting to mend ceramic fragments from 68AP with those from the Slave Quar-ter, there were only two actual mends. One linked a plowzone context with M 4. Theother was slightly more significant, being between 68AL105, 68AL92 (both a part of rootcellar 5) and M 6. Root cellar 5 is described as one of the earliest root cellars in thequarter’s “unit B” with tpqs in the first half of the eighteenth century (Franklin 1997:110).

But despite the dearth of actual crossmends, there are a number of instances in whichrecovered fragments most assuredly came from the same vessel, but due to the repeateddisturbance and shuffling of the refuse, the co-joinable pieces are not available. Commonvessel correlations were predominantly from the plowzone in the area surrounding bothstructures, but those from features include:

Rich Neck Slave Quarter Cellar Site

Root cellar 15 (context 68AL66) ↔ M4 (context 77)Root cellar 10 (AL36) ↔ M4 (35, 42 & 77)Root cellar 10 (AL133) ↔ M4 (36)Root cellar 21 (AL86) ↔ M4 (35, 36 & 77)Root cellars 21 (AL68,AL86), ↔ M4 (45) 16 (AL83), & 17 (AL144)Root cellar 5 (AL122) ↔ M6 (31 & 43)

The most likely explanation for the number and type of crossmends is that the samesource of secondary refuse was used in filling the early contexts at 68AL and the upperlayers (primarily M4) of Feature 1. Franklin notes that the later 68AL contexts showevidence of backfilling of multiple features from a common midden area (1997:125). Thesame seems to be true of the earlier contexts as well, with secondary refuse from anotherlocation contributing to the deposits in 68AP and the early contexts at 68AL. Clearly thereis a connection between the fill in the earlier root cellars at 68AL and that in the cellar at68AP. However, the occupation and filling continued much later at the Quarter than forFeature 1.

26

Vessel Comparisons

The fragmentation of most of the artifacts is such that even “vessels,” as determined byidentifying a minimum numbers of vessels, were often composed of very few and verysmall sherds. None of these vessels is even 50% complete.

It has become common practice to use the ratio between flat and hollow form tableceramics to indicate differences between ceramic users, whether these be differences inwealth (Kelso 1984:177-178) or other kinds of status (Otto 1984). When we comparethe percentages of “flatwares” to “hollowwares” from several comparable sites, we findthat there is indeed a noticeable difference between the assemblages, one which is statis-tically significant (χ2=14.19, .025>p>.01).

As noted above in the “Architecture” section, neither 44HT38 nor 44GL357 is thoughtto be a slave quarter. To the contrary, the occupants of these sites were likely the ownersof slaves, and therefore shared little with the probable occupants of 68AP in terms ofeconomic, social or legal status. Arranged in order of lowest to highest percentages offlatwares (Figure 17), there do not appear to be any clusterings in terms of interpretedstatus of a site’s occupants. The best explanation for this seeming paradox is that the ratiosare more closely correlated with the dates of occupation than status of the occupants.

When comparing ceramic vessels recovered from 68AP with other slaves’ or ser-vants’ quarters, some interesting differences emerge (Figure 18).

The house at Utopia yielded by far the highest percentage of food storage vessels(36.7%), over three times the ratio of the next highest (North Quarter with 11.7%), andconstituted the most common vessel function at the site. Utopia also had the highest per-centage of food preparation vessels, though this was not one of the more common formsat the site.

68AP was distinguished primarily by the large percentage of health and sanitation-type vessels (14.7%). Also notable is the very high number of “miscellaneous” forms—21%—compared with 1.7% from Utopia, 7.8% for 68AL and 1.5% for the North Quar-ter. This difference cannot be explained by differences in lab procedures, as the authorperformed the vessel determinations for both 68AP and 68AL. Nor do the 68AP “mis-cellaneous” vessels seem to belong to any particular ware types. The difference may re-flect a high rate of fragmentation at the Rich Neck site(s) versus the Kingsmill sites.

68AL had a higher percentage of food service vessels than any of the other sites. TheNorth Quarter was distinguished by the highest percentage of beverage service vessels,dominated by tea wares, rather than mugs, as the other sites were.

Trends were not clear in this data set. A general increase in the relative numbers ofbeverage service vessels over time is the only clearly temporal trend. The difficulty indiscerning such trends may lie in the large gap separating the dwelling at Utopia from theother sites, which overlap somewhat. Some ratios seem to group the Rich Neck sitesversus the Kingsmill sites. These include low percentages of food storage and food prepa-ration vessels at Rich Neck and the aforementioned higher rate of “miscellaneous” vesselsfrom Rich Neck.

27

Figure 17. Flatware to holloware ratios.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

HT39 Utopia 68AP 68AL GL357 North Qtr

Figure 18. Vessel forms.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Utopia 68AP 68AL NorthQtr

FoodService/ConsumptionBeverageService/ConsumptionFood Storage

Food Preparation

Health/Sanitation

Misc Hollow

Misc Flat

28

Faunal Analysis

The faunal assemblage consisted of 3442 specimens. The bones were recovered by screen-ing though ¼-inch mesh. Flotation samples were collected, but the materials in them werenot included in this analysis. Because the site’s features were not 100% floated, it is diffi-cult to compare this faunal assemblage with that from 68AL, from which all fill was floated.This is unfortunate, as the early occupants at 68AL were probably the people responsiblefor filling Feature 1 at 68AP.

Master Contexts 4 and 5 (subsequently merged into M4) were selected for analysis.Of the specimens available from that context, 2127 were identifiable. These bones wereidentified by students in the College of William & Mary’s zooarchaeology class, under thesupervision of Professor Joanne Bowen and Steve Atkins. All of the following section isbased on data provided by them.

Sixty-five taxa were identified from the site, 55 to the level of Order or more specific.Both wild and domesticated species were present. The majority of the identified speci-mens were medium-sized mammals (for example, pigs, sheep, goats, or deer) at 24.9%,gar at 22.3%, large-sized mammal (e.g. cow) at 9.5%, pig at 8.3%, and unidentifiable fishat 5.4%.

However, in terms of minimum numbers of individuals (MNI), the most numerous taxawere pig (8) and white perch, chicken, cow and sheep or goat (4 each), out of a total 47MNI. One of the reasons for the difference between these results and the number ofidentified specimens (NISP) is that some elements occur many, many times in one animal.Nearly 91% of the identified gar specimens identified were scales. Only 3 gar individualswere identified (22.3% NISP versus 6.4% MNI).

Two species account for fully 89.5% of the meat weight represented in M4. Cattleconstitutes 58.9% and pig 30.6% of the total meat weight. Meat weight is a measurementof the amount of meat that would be obtained from a given animal (identified by the MNIprocedure) based on the average meat weight of its species. Sheep or goat (6.6%) andsheep (4.9%) were the only other species that constituted more than 1% of the total meatweight. Meat weight can indicate the relative dietary importance of different species. How-ever, because meat weight is based on the assumption that the whole animal was used,rather than just a few parts, it can bias the interpretation towards the importance of animalsrepresented by only a few bones, or very large animals. This is particularly true with smallassemblages such as this one.

Biomass is another way of measuring the amount of meat represented in a skeletalassemblage. This technique simply multiplies the weight of the individual bones byan index calibrated to the class (as opposed to species) to which the bone belongs. By thismeasure, the largest potential sources of meat were cattle (24.8%), large mammals (17.3%),pigs (15.4%), medium mammals (14%), and sheep or goat (4.4%).

All fish combined constituted a mere 1.1% of meat weight and only 2.8% of thebiomass at this site. Identifiably wild birds were 0.1% of the biomass, domesticated birdswere 0.7% of the meat weight and 0.8% of the biomass.

29

Domesticated artiodactyls (sheep, goats, pigs and cattle) formed 96.4% of the meatweight and 54.4% of the biomass. Note that meat weight is calculated using only thoseelements identified to the species level, so that a large percentage of the biomass includessuch categories as “large mammal” as cited above.

Other edible animals such as turtles (0.7% meat weight, 4.1% biomass), opossum(0.4%, 0.8%), squirrel (<0.1%, 0.05%), and raccoon (0.7%, 0.25%) constituted a minorpart of the assemblage.

Evidence of human processing is the best indicator of whether or not an animal wasused for food. Animals are more than a source of meat; they bear loads, produce wooland milk and kill pests, among other functions. Butchering marks are visible on 17 of theelements analyzed. These are all on large, medium or small mammals or domesticatedartiodactyls. Elements which had been chewed by rodents, carnivores or other animalswere few (n=6). Elements from a dog leg and foot as well as a cat mandible cannot beruled out as food remains, but they bear no butchery marks, and show no signs of chewingor cooking. More than likely they were tame or feral co-residents of Rich Neck.

MNIs make a nice comparison with documentary information about the number andspecies of animals that were present at a particular site (Bowen 1975). The only inventoryavailable for Rich Neck dates to 1767. Master Context 4 was deposited no earlier than1745 (the tpq of the underlying M6). Filling was probably completed sometime before1769, the year that creamware became generally available in the colony, even to people asdisenfranchised as the residents of the later Slave Quarter (Franklin 1997).

The Ludwell inventory lists 7 steer, 22 cattle, 4 calves, 25 sheep, 10 hogs and 5horses at Rich Neck. We can compare these numbers with the death assemblage from thesite (Figures 19a and b).

Figure 19. Proportions of animals in Ludwell inventory (a) andfaunal assemblage based on MNIs (b).

Cattle

15.8%

Sheep/Goat

36.8%

Pig

42.1%Horse

0.0%

Cattle

(juvenile)

5.3%

a b

Sheep/Goat

34.2%

Pig

13.7%

Horse

6.8%

Cattle

39.7%

Cattle

(juvenile)

5.5%

30

The percentages indicate the proportion of each species to the total number of animalsconsidering only those species listed in the inventory. Here we see that pigs dominatethe archaeological assemblage in terms of MNI, while the documentary assemblage isprimarily cow. First it is important to note that the analysis did not indicate any elementswith the standard characteristics of “draught steer,” such as more gracile bones or evi-dence of stress on the forelimbs. But even if we assume that the death assemblage shouldonly be compared to animals designated as “cattle,” there is still a discrepancy in the ratios(30.1% vs. 16%).

The difference may be due to several factors. The animals in the inventory belonged toPhilip Ludwell III. The animals in the faunal assemblage may have been the property ofthose living at Rich Neck, or a combination of rationed (pre-butchered or live) and self-provisioned meat. Note, too, that chickens are not counted in the inventory, though theyconstitute 8.5% of the MNI. The cattle at Rich Neck may have been raised for sale byLudwell’s agents, rather than as food for his slaves. The small MNI makes it difficult todemonstrate conclusively that this assemblage conforms to a “market,” “subsistence” orother exploitation profile (e.g. Bowen 1994)

The number of smaller bones speaks well for the preservation of this assemblage, asdoes the presence of a nearly complete cow cranium in one of the lowest layers. The entirecollection (including M4) would provide an excellent opportunity to examine faunal re-mains from a reasonable protected deposit. A number of topics remain to be addressedwith the data, which are beyond the scope of this report. Seasonality—as indicated by thepresence or absence of certain migratory species, incremental growth structures, and analysisof animal maturation—should be analyzed. This assemblage could also be included incomparative studies with other potential slave quarters from this period. Food procure-ment and preparation techniques at the site are another fruitful avenue for analysis. Thesecould be studied through the distribution of species and elements as well as the conditionof the bones and correspondence with tools for the tasks.

Site Formation Processes

Because the fill from the features at 68AP is secondary rather than primary refuse, theanalysis of this site downplays the activities which preceded disposal, and focusesinstead on the ultimate acts which shaped the archaeological record as it is encountered.Rather than debating the primary use of this cellar, and focusing on understanding the intentand actions of its builders and users, attention is devoted to understanding the way inwhich the cellar was filled and the cultural activities which this filling reflects.

When a structure is leveled, rubbish is commonly used to fill in any remaining holes inthe ground. When filling is deliberate and rapid, the fill at the bottom of the hole containsmore recent artifacts than at the top, as landscapers initially use garbage at hand, but areforced to find fill further afield to complete the task. Such is the case in the ethnographi-cally-observed demolition of early twentieth-century structures which are razed to theground (White and Kardulias 1985:72). If a structure is filled incidentally, or slowly, onewould expect older types of artifacts in the lower levels of fill and more recent types in theupper layers.

31

The tpqs from Feature 1 do not provide a clear picture. Here, the available tpqs fromthe uppermost stratum to the deepest are: M4 1740; M6 1745; M7 1720; M8 1725;M10 1730; M9 1720; M14 ca., 1650; M15 ca., 1650; M19 1725. This does not form aregular sequence from latest to earliest, but there is a general trend toward earlier datesfrom stratigraphically lower levels.

The mean ceramic dates are less ambiguous, although the presence of large amountsof English tin-glazed ceramics tended to slant the mean dates toward mid-century.Using the method as described by South (1977), the mean date for M4 was 1746, forM6 1745, for M8 1730.

But beyond the generic description of filling events at the site, what do these fill se-quences mean? There are a number of processes which contribute to archaeological de-posits: loss, discard at the point of use, ritual deposits, deposition during abandonment,activities of later occupants (e.g.: squatters), disturbance by human landscaping activities,the collapse of structures and erosion, secondary refuse discarded by later occupants of adifferent portion of the site (Schiffer 1985:24), and destruction or razing of structures.

Several of these processes can be eliminated immediately. Despite jokes about thepossible “ritual” significance of the cow skull found at the very bottom of the cellar, Fea-ture 1 was not a ritual deposit. And clearly the fill layers from the cellar are too extensiverepresent items lost into it during its tenure as part of a structure. Nor do these layersrepresent the detritus of activities taking place in the cellar itself. The fractured quality ofthe ceramics attest to the fact that these deposits are “secondary refuse” (Schiffer 1985),consisting of small fragments. Furthermore, Feature 1 appears to have been deliberatelyabandoned, because of the lack of “de facto refuse”—in other words, usable artifactsrecovered from use contexts or activity areas (Schiffer 1977:23). So there remain only afew processes to discuss: secondary uses of the structure; collapse and demolition; andrefuse disposal by later residents of adjacent structures.

The activities visible in the archaeological record more closely parallel those of refusedisposal than demolition (White and Kardulias 1985). We did not find later artifacts in thelower layers and earlier ones in the upper layers, as has been suggested as typical of razingactivities. None of the layers appeared to be the remains left following the burning andreduction of architectural debris. Any evidence of razing should have been in the lowerlayers of fill, prior to the addition of “foreign” rubbish, and prior to any evidence forexposure to erosional processes. But in this case, the debris was scattered among thehousehold rubbish, separated into discrete layers, which seems to argue against a singlemajor razing project.

After its life as a late seventeenth-early eighteenth-century outbuilding, the structureover the Feature 1 may have served any number of purposes. It may have been used tohouse and maintain the dozens of slaves who continued to live at Rich Neck after theLudwells had left for Green Spring between 1704 and 1706. Alternatively, it could havebeen a plantation work or storage space. The possibilities are practically endless, though.

Ethnoarchaeological research has indicated that structures often have a protracted uselife which includes a variety of functions, as appropriate to the condition of the structure.

32

This is especially true in the case of vernacular buildings. “Where more than a minimum ofcapital and labour is invested in construction, but where buildings are subject to irrevers-ible decay over a limited time span, they will be liable to fulfill a series of functions overtheir useful life. This has been called a ‘devolutionary cycle’ ” (David 1971:119). Forexample, a building might start out as a dwelling, then be converted to an outbuilding suchas a kitchen, later it could become a storehouse, or an animal enclosure (David 1971:123).

Clearly, the initial function of a structure is not its only important one within a culturalsystem. The cellar and the building above it were probably many things to many people.And in the end, it served one last function—as a refuse pit. The decision to finally fill in thecellar hole may have been triggered by the departure of the Ludwell family for England inthe 1750s (Smith 1993:5), an event which may have resulted in the shuffling of personneland redistribution of activities at their plantations. However, the evidence from the artifactanalysis is far from conclusive.

The collapse and demolition of the structure that sat over the Rich Neck cellar isdifficult to identify archaeologically. Items that might be construed as architecturaldebris were recovered from all layers. The remains of several wooden boards wererecovered from master contexts M4 and M7. But there was little notable architecturalhardware other than nails in any layer.

It is highly probable that the materials of which the structure was built had been re-moved for use elsewhere, as building materials, or even as firewood (Lange and Rydberg1972:422). The lack of architectural features such as postholes, foundations, or chimneys,and the lack of significant quantities of architectural materials such as boards, bricks, andmortar seem to indicate that this structure was picked clean at the end of its primary use-life, and that the materials the archaeologists encountered probably bore little relation tothe building which stood over the cellar.

The fill layers seem to consist of several separate mass disposals of household trashfrom the slave quarter at 68AL. The fill was not dumped in all at once, nor does it seem tohave been collected from earlier deposits, as is often the case in demolition projects. Sowe may conclude that the activities which took place here were more focused on discardfrom the quarter than filling the cellar. We see that the fill is not composed of debris fromthe destruction of the building which stood over it, but rather from occupants of a laterstructure in the same area, who periodically disposed of large quantities of fairly frag-mented household trash, using the most convenient receptacle available.

Although numerous erosion layers (M7, M8, M9, M13, M14, M15, M16, M18)indicate that the cellar was exposed long enough to allow the accumulation of many centi-meters of silt and eroded subsoil, this is not necessarily evidence of prolonged exposure.Our experiences while excavating the cellar showed that several centimeters of silt couldbuild up after an evening’s rainstorm. The layer recorded as M10 could have taken as littleas a single rainy summer week to accumulate. In addition to the layers attributable toerosional forces, several master contexts seem to be the byproduct of exposure to weath-ering. M12, M10 and M17 are all very sticky clay layers which could be the result ofweathering breaking down the structure of the sediments in the layers below them.

33

Chapter 5.Summary

The site at 68AP consists primarily of the remains of a cellar that was part of astructure that stood in the late seventeenth or early eighteenth century. Aftergoingout of use, the empty cellar was exposed to the elements for an unknown, but

probably brief, period of time, marked by the erosion of the clay walls and by partialfilling with silty clay and sand. Intermittent and random deposition of artifacts weremade during this period. Then, sometime in the second quarter of the eighteenth cen-tury, there were two episodes of rapid, intentional filling (M6, M4), perhaps closetogether in time, but from different sources. It could be that this filling relates to theinitial occupation and use of the Rich Neck Slave Quarter Site (68AL).

Although we still know little about the activities that took place in the structure overthis cellar prior to its abandonment, this excavation has been able to contribute to thelarger Rich Neck story. By examining the manner in which the site was formed, we nowknow more about the probable refuse disposal practices of the occupants of the SlaveQuarter, and about the activities which took place here during the evolution of Rich Neckfrom the Ludwell family seat to an outlying plantation.

34

35

References Cited

Agbe-Davies, A. S.1994 Artifact Distributions and Spatial Patterning at the Rich Neck Slave Quarter.

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Council for Northeastern HistoricalArchaeology, Williamsburg, Virginia.

Bowen, J.1975 Probate Inventories: An Evaluation from the Perspective of Zooarchaeology and

Agricultural History at the Mott Farm. Historical Archaeology 9:11-26.

1994 A Comparative Analysis of the New England and Chesapeake Herding Systems,In Historical Archaeology of the Chesapeake, edited by P. A. Shackel and B. J.Little. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C.

David, N.1971 The Fulani compound and the archaeologist. World Archaeology 3(2):111-131.

Deetz, J. F.1987 Harrington Histograms Versus Binford Mean Dates as a Technique for Estab-

lishing the Occupational Sequence of Sites at Flowerdew Hundred, Virginia.American Archeology 6(1):62-67.

Doepkens, W.P.1991 Excavations at Mareen Duvall's Middle Plantation of South River

Hundred.Gateway Press, Inc., Baltimore.

Franklin, M.1997 Out of Site, Out of Mind: The Archaeology of an Enslaved Virginian

Household, ca. 1740-1778. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California,Berkeley

Galucci, E. A., D. Muraca, and P. McLaughlin1994 Identifying Producer-Client Relationships at the Bruton Heights Tile Kiln. Paper

presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Historical Archaeology,Vancouver.

Harrington, J. C.1954 Dating Stem Fragments of Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century clay Tobacco

Pipes. Quarterly Bulletin of the Archeological Society of Virginia 9(1).

Harris, E. C.1989 Principles of Archaeological Stratigraphy. Academic Press, London.

Higgins, T. F., III, and C. M. Downing1993 Associated with the Proposed VNG Mechanicsville to Kingsmill Lateral

Pipeline, James City County, Virginia. William and Mary Center for Archaeo-logical Research, Williamsburg, Virginia.

Higgins, T. F., III, C. M. Downing, J. M. Bradshaw, K. J. Reinhard, G. J. Brown, D.Davenport, and I. Rovner

1993 The Evolution of a Tidewater Town: Phase III Data Recovery at Sites 44HT38and 44HT39, City of Hampton, Virginia. William and Mary Center for Ar-chaeological Research, Williamsburg, Virginia.

36

Hodges, C. T.1990 Excavations at 44NB180 and 44NB174: An Early, English Colonial

Plantation and Prehistoric Shell Midden in Northumberland County,Virginia. Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond, Virginia.

Hoff, K.1994 Economic Relationships in Seventeenth Century Tile Production. Manuscript

on file, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Department of ArchaeologicalResearch.

Hudgins, C. L.1977 Historical Archaeology and Salvage Archaeological Excavations at College

Landing: An Interim Report. Virginia Research Center for Archaeology.

Jones, J. B., M. W. McCartney, D. B. Blanton, R. R. Hunter, Jr. and J. L. Smith1991 Phase III Data Recovery of Site 44CC297, Proposed Landfill, Charles

City County, Virginia. William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research,Williamsburg, Virginia.

Kelso, W. M.1976 Historical Archaeology at Kingsmill: The 1974 Season. Virginia Research

Center for Archaeology. Richmond, Virginia.

1984 Kingsmill Plantations, 1619-1800: Archaeology of Country Life in ColonialVirginia. Academic Press, San Diego.

Lange, F. W., and C. R. Rydberg1972 Abandonment and Post-Abandonment Behavior at a Rural Central American

Site. American Antiquity 37(3):419-432.

Luccketti, N. M.n.d. Excavations at Carter’s Grove Site D. Virginia Research Center for Archaeol-

ogy, Williamsburg,Virginia.

McFaden, L., and D. Muraca1994 Archaeological Testing at Holly Hills. Department of Archaeological Research,

Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.

McFaden, L., D. Muraca, and J. Jones1993 Archaeological Survey at Holly Hills. Department of Archaeological Research,

Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.

1994 The Archaeology of Rich Neck Plantation. McCale Development Corporation.

Noël Hume, I.1969 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. Vintage Books, New York.

Pittman, W. E.1990 Laboratory Manual Department of Archaeological Research. Colonial

Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.

Reinhart, T. R.1987 Material Culture, Social Relations, and Spatial Organization on a Colo-

nial Frontier: The Pope Site (44SN180), Southampton County, Virginia.Department of Anthropology, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg,Virginia.

37

Schiffer, M. B.1977 Toward a Unified Science of the Cultural Past. In Research Strategies in

Historical Archaeology, edited by S. South, pp. 13-38. Academic Press, NewYork.

1985 Is There a “Pompeii Premise” in Archaeology? Journal of AnthropologicalResearch 41:18-41.

Smith, F. H.1993 Eighteenth Century History of the Ludwell Family at Rich Neck Plantation in

Williamsburg, Virginia. The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Department ofArchaeological Research, Williamsburg, Virginia.

South, S.1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archeology. Academic Press, New York.

Stuck, K. E., T. F. Higgins, III, C. M. Downing, D. W. Linebaugh, M. W. McCartney,G. J. Brown, and S. Dean

1996 Reclaiming a Tidewater Town: Archaeological Survey, Evaluation, andData Recovery at Sites on the Campus of the Virginia Institute of MarineScience, Gloucester Point, Virginia. William and Mary Center for Archaeo-logical Research, Williamsburg, Virginia.

Villa, P.1982 Conjoinable Pieces and Site Formation Processes. American Antiquity

47(2):276-290.

38

39

Appendix A.Artifact Inventory

Note: Inventory is printed from the Re:discovery cataloguing program used by Colonial Williams-burg, manufactured and sold by Re:discovery Software, Charlottesville, Virginia.

Brief explanation of terms:

Context No. Arbitrary designation for a particular deposit (layer or feature), consistingof a four-digit “site/area” designation and a five-digit context designation.The site/area for the Site project is “68AP.”

TPQ “Date after which” the layer or feature was deposited, based on the artifactwith the latest initial manufacture date. This artifact is marked with an “*”in the listing. Deposits without a diagnostic artifact have the designation“NDA,” or no date available.

Listing The individual artifact listing includes the “line number.” The next columnis the number of fragments or pieces, followed by the description.

40

41

Context No.: 68AP00001 Description: NOT GIVEN TPQ: 1720

AA 2 EARTHENWARE, DELFTWARE ENG, FRAGMENT, UNDECORATEDAB 1 EARTHENWARE, DELFTWARE ENG, FRAGMENT, MISSING GLAZEAC 2 COARSE EARTHENW, COARSEWARE, FRAGMENT, LEAD GLAZEAD 1 COARSE EARTHENW, COARSEWARE, FRAGMENT, LEAD GLAZEAE 1 STONEWARE, STAFFS BROWN, FRAGMENTAF 2 STONEWARE, WH SALT-GLAZED, FRAGMENT, *AG 2 CERAMIC, TOBACCO PIPE, IMPORTED, BOWLAI 6 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINE BOTTLEAK 1 GLASS, COLORED GLASS, FRAGMENT, PHARM BOTTLE, GREENAL 1 GLASS, CLRLESS LEAD, FRAGMENT, MIRRORAM 5 BONE, FAUNAL SPECIMENAN 2 CERAMIC, FRAGMENT, ROOFING TILEAO 1 COPPER ALLOY, BUTTON, TWO PIECE, GILDED, HEAD/TOPAP 1 IRON ALLOY, HOE, NECK, SURFACE COLLECTEDAQ 9 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, 2 TO 4 IN, WROUGHT/FORGEDAR 7 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, LESS THAN 2 IN, WROUGHT/FORGEDAS 13 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, FRAGMENT

Context No.: 68AP00003 Description: : NOT GIVEN TPQ: 1725

AA 1 EARTHENWARE, DELFTWARE ENG, FRAGMENT, UNDECORATEDAB 1 COARSE EARTHENW, N MIDLAND SLIP, FRAGMENT, TRAILED, PIE

CRUST EDGEAC 1 COARSE EARTHENW, YORKTOWN-TYPE, FRAGMENT, *AD 2 STONEWARE, FULHAM SW, FRAGMENTAE 3 CERAMIC, TOBACCO PIPE, IMPORTED, STEM, 4/64 INCHESAF 3 CERAMIC, TOBACCO PIPE, IMPORTED, BOWLAG 1 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINE BOTTLEAH 14 BONE, FAUNAL SPECIMENAI 1 SHELL, SHELL, OYSTERAJ 1 COPPER ALLOY, BUTTON, TWO PIECEAK 1 COPPER ALLOY, BUTTON, TWO PIECE, BACKAL 1 IRON ALLOY, CHISELAM 1 IRON ALLOY, FERRULEAN 2 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, LESS THAN 2 IN, WROUGHT/FORGEDAO 2 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, 2 TO 4 IN, WROUGHT/FORGEDAQ 58 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, FRAGMENT

Context No.: 68AP00005 Description: NOT GIVEN TPQ: 1720

AA 1 EARTHENWARE, DELFTWARE ENG, FRAGMENT, PAINTED UNDER,PURPLE

AB 2 EARTHENWARE, DELFTWARE ENG, FRAGMENT, UNDECORATEDAC 1 COARSE EARTHENW, COARSEWARE, FRAGMENT, LEAD GLAZEAD 1 COARSE EARTHENW, IBERIAN WARE, FRAGMENTAE 2 STONEWARE, WH SALT-GLAZED, FRAGMENT, *AF 4 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINE BOTTLEAG 10 BONE, FAUNAL SPECIMENAH 1 CERAMIC, FRAGMENT, ROOFING TILEAI 6 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, 2 TO 4 IN, WROUGHT/FORGEDAJ 3 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, LESS THAN 2 IN, WROUGHT/FORGEDAK 2 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, FRAGMENTAL 1 COARSE EARTHEN, STAFFS RD SAND, FRAGMENT

Context No.: 68AP00006 Description: NOT GIVEN TPQ: 1725

AA 2 EARTHENWARE, DELFTWARE ENG, FRAGMENT, PAINTED UNDER,BLUE

AB 2 EARTHENWARE, DELFTWARE ENG, FRAGMENT, UNDECORATED

42

AC 1 COARSE EARTHENW, YORKTOWN-TYPE, FRAGMENT, LEAD GLAZE, *AD 1 STONEWARE, STAFFS BROWN, FRAGMENTAE 1 CERAMIC, TOBACCO PIPE, IMPORTED, BOWLAF 7 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINE BOTTLEAG 1 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINDOW GLASSAH 1 GLASS, COLORED GLASS, FRAGMENT, PHARM BOTTLE,

EMPONTILLED, BASEAI 45 BONE, FAUNAL SPECIMEN, SIX ARE FISH SCALEAJ 1 BONE, HANDLE, WITH IRON RIVET, HOLES POSSIBLY FOR BRISTLESAK 1 IRON ALLOY, UNID HARDWAREAL 6 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, 2 TO 4 IN, WROUGHT/FORGEDAM 12 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, LESS THAN 2 IN, WROUGHT/FORGEDAN 4 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, FRAGMENT

Context No.: 68AP00007 Description: NOT GIVEN TPQ: 1725

AA 2 COARSE EARTHENW, YORKTOWN-TYPE, FRAGMENT, LEAD GLAZE, *AB 1 STONEWARE, WH SALT-GLAZED, FRAGMENTAC 3 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINE BOTTLEAD 1 GLASS, COLORED GLASS, FRAGMENT, PHARM BOTTLE, AQUAAE 6 BONE, FAUNAL SPECIMENAF 1 IRON ALLOY, BOLT, HEAD/TOPAG 4 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, 2 TO 4 IN, WROUGHT/FORGEDAH 4 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, LESS THAN 2 IN, WROUGHT/FORGEDAI 3 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, FRAGMENT

Context No.: 68AP00008 Description: NOT GIVEN TPQ: 1725

AA 1 EARTHENWARE, DELFTWARE ENG, FRAGMENT, UNDECORATEDAB 2 COARSE EARTHENW, YORKTOWN-TYPE, FRAGMENT, *AC 1 STONEWARE, WESTERWALD, FRAGMENTAD 1 STONEWARE, NOTTINGHAM SW, FRAGMENTAE 1 CERAMIC, TOBACCO PIPE, IMPORTED, BOWL, MAKER'S MARK, W M

opposite sides of heel with cross over eachAF 1 CERAMIC, TOBACCO PIPE, IMPORTED, STEM, 4/64 INCHESAG 2 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINE BOTTLEAH 2 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINDOW GLASSAI 2 GLASS, COLORED GLASS, FRAGMENT, PHARM BOTTLE, GREENAJ 16 BONE, FAUNAL SPECIMENAL 1 BLONDE/CARAMEL-, GUNFLINT, FRENCH SHAPEAM 1 IRON ALLOY, UNID HARDWAREAN 9 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, 2 TO 4 IN, WROUGHT/FORGEDAO 4 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, LESS THAN 2 IN, WROUGHT/FORGEDAP 3 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, FRAGMENT

Context No.: 68AP00009 Description: NOT GIVEN TPQ: 1725

AA 1 EARTHENWARE, DELFTWARE ENG, FRAGMENTAB 1 COARSE EARTHENW, YORKTOWN-TYPE, FRAGMENT, *AC 1 STONEWARE, STAFFS BROWN, FRAGMENTAD 1 STONEWARE, WESTERWALD, FRAGMENTAE 1 GLASS, CLRLESS LEAD, FRAGMENT, TABLE GLASSAF 19 BONE, FAUNAL SPECIMEN, INCLUDES THREE FISH SCALESAG 2 CERAMIC, FRAGMENT, PAVING TILEAH 1 IRON ALLOY, UNID HARDWAREAI 1 IRON ALLOY, UNID HARDWAREAJ 1 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, OVER 4 IN, WROUGHT/FORGEDAK 5 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, 2 TO 4 IN, WROUGHT/FORGEDAL 5 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, LESS THAN 2 IN, WROUGHT/FORGEDAM 4 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, FRAGMENT

43

Context No.: 68AP00012 Description: NOT GIVEN TPQ: 1720

AA 1 EARTHENWARE, DELFTWARE ENG, FRAGMENT, UNDECORATEDAB 1 STONEWARE, WH SALT-GLAZED, FRAGMENT, *AC 1 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINE BOTTLEAD 3 BRICK, BRICKETAGE

Context No.: 68AP00013 Description: NOT GIVEN TPQ: 1725

AA 1 COARSE EARTHENW, YORKTOWN-TYPE, FRAGMENT, LEAD GLAZE, *AB 1 STONEWARE, YORKTOWN-TYPE, FRAGMENTAC 1 PLASTER, PLASTER, SHELLAD 1 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, FRAGMENT

Context No.: 68AP00014 Description: NOT GIVEN TPQ: NDA

AA 1 COARSE EARTHENW, BUCKLEY WARE, FRAGMENT

Context No.: 68AP00016 Description: NOT GIVEN TPQ: 1725

AA 1 COARSE EARTHENW, YORKTOWN-TYPE, FRAGMENT, *

Context No.: 68AP00017 Description: NOT GIVEN TPQ: NDA

AA 1 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINE BOTTLE, *

Context No.: 68AP00023 Description: Plowzone TPQ: NDA

AA 1 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINE BOTTLE, *

Context No.: 68AP00027 Description: NOT GIVEN TPQ: NDA

AA 1 GLASS, FRAGMENT, UNIDENTIFIED, DEVITRIFIEDAB 1 BRICK, BRICKETAGEAC 1 COPPER ALLOY, UPHOLSTERY TACK, HEAD ONLYAD 2 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, FRAGMENT, *

Context No.: 68AP00030 Description: The cellar TPQ: NDA

AA 1 COARSE EARTHENW, COLONO WARE, FRAGMENTAB 1 GLASS, COLORED GLASS, FRAGMENT, PHARM BOTTLE, DIP MOLD/

EMP, GREEN, BASEAC 4 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINE BOTTLEAD 1 BONE, FAUNAL SPECIMENAE 1 COPPER ALLOY, SPOON, BOWL, POSSIBLY MAKER'S MARKAF 5 STONE, SLATE, ARCHITECTURALAG 1 BRICK, BRICKETAGEAH 1 IRON ALLOY, FRAGMENTAI 1 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, LESS THAN 2 IN, WROUGHT/FORGEDAJ 4 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, FRAGMENT, *

Context No.: 68AP00031 Description: Feature west of cellar TPQ: 1725

AA 16 EARTHENWARE, DELFTWARE ENG, FRAGMENT, UNDECORATEDAB 1 EARTHENWARE, DELFTWARE ENG, FRAGMENT, PAINTED UNDER,

BLUEAC 11 EARTHENWARE, DELFTWARE ENG, FRAGMENT, MISSING GLAZEAD 2 DETACHED GLAZE, DELFTWARE ENG, FRAGMENT, UNDECORATEDAE 2 COARSE EARTHENW, COLONO WARE, FRAGMENTAF 3 COARSE EARTHENW, BUCKLEY WARE, FRAGMENTAG 5 COARSE EARTHENW, N MIDLAND SLIP, FRAGMENTAH 4 COARSE EARTHENW, N MIDLAND SLIP, FRAGMENT, COMBED/DOTTED,AI 2 COARSE EARTHENW, YORKTOWN-TYPE, FRAGMENT, LEAD GLAZE, *

44

AJ 6 STONEWARE, WH SALT-GLAZED, FRAGMENTAK 4 STONEWARE, WESTERWALD, FRAGMENTAL 4 STONEWARE, NOTTINGHAM SW, FRAGMENTAM 8 STONEWARE, FULHAM SW, FRAGMENTAN 2 STONEWARE, YORKTOWN-TYPE, FRAGMENTAO 6 CERAMIC, TOBACCO PIPE, IMPORTED, STEM, 4/64 INCHESAP 7 CERAMIC, TOBACCO PIPE, IMPORTED, STEM, 5/64 INCHESAQ 1 CERAMIC, TOBACCO PIPE, IMPORTED, STEM, 7/64 INCHESAR 1 CERAMIC, TOBACCO PIPE, IMPORTED, STEM, FRAGMENTAS 14 CERAMIC, TOBACCO PIPE, IMPORTED, BOWLAT 3 GLASS, CLRLESS LEAD, FRAGMENT, TABLE GLASSAU 13 GLASS, COLORED GLASS, FRAGMENT, PHARM BOTTLE, GREENAV 1 GLASS, CLRLESS LEAD, FRAGMENT, MIRRORAW 8 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINDOW GLASSAX 48 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINE BOTTLEAY 127 BONE, FAUNAL SPECIMENAZ 6 SHELL, SHELL, ONE SCOLLOPBA 5 SHELL, FRAGMENTBB 3 CERAMIC, FRAGMENT, ROOFING TILEBC 2 CERAMIC, FRAGMENT, PAVING TILEBD 2 BRICK, BRICKETAGEBE 1 MORTAR, MORTAR, SHELLBF 1 GLASS, BEAD, DRAWN, WHITEBG 1 PORCELAIN, BEAD, WHITE, MOLDEDBH 1 COPPER ALLOY, BUTTON, ONE PIECEBI 1 QUARTZITE, FIRE-CRACK ROCKBJ 1 GREY CHERT, GUNFLINT, FRENCH SHAPE, HEAVILY USEDBK 1 IRON ALLOY, BUCKLE, HARNESS, COMPLETEBL 9 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, LESS THAN 2 IN, WROUGHT/FORGEDBM 7 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, 2 TO 4 IN, WROUGHT/FORGEDBN 109 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, FRAGMENTBO 3 STONEWARE, STAFFS BROWN, FRAGMENTBP 1 REFINED EARTHEN, ASTBURY-TYPE, FRAGMENTBQ 6 COARSE EARTHEN, STAFFS MOTTLED, FRAGMENTBR 1 STONEWARE, AMER STONEWARE, FRAGMENT

Context No.: 68AP00032 Description: Trash pit, (S. 1/2) TPQ: 1755

AA 1 EARTHENWARE, DELFTWARE ENG, FRAGMENT, PAINTED UNDER,BLUE

AB 1 EARTHENWARE, DELFTWARE ENG, FRAGMENT, MISSING GLAZEAC 3 STONEWARE, WH SALT-GLAZED, FRAGMENTAD 1 STONEWARE, FULHAM SW, FRAGMENTAE 1 CERAMIC, TOBACCO PIPE, IMPORTED, STEM, 4/64 INCHESAF 1 CERAMIC, TOBACCO PIPE, IMPORTED, STEM, 7/64 INCHESAG 1 CERAMIC, TOBACCO PIPE, IMPORTED, OTHER MOLD DEC, BOWL,

MAKER'S MARK, part of royal coat of armsAH 1 GLASS, COLORED GLASS, FRAGMENT, PHARM BOTTLE, HAND

TOOLED FIN, GREEN, FINISHAI 2 GLASS, COLORED GLASS, FRAGMENT, PHARM BOTTLE, GREENAJ 3 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINDOW GLASSAK 1 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINE BOTTLE, DIP MOLD/EMP, BASE, *AL 7 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINE BOTTLEAM 12 BONE, FAUNAL SPECIMENAN 1 CLAY, MARBLE, ERODEDAO 2 BRICK, BRICKETAGE, ONE BURNEDAP 1 COPPER ALLOY, UPHOLSTERY TACKAR 1 IRON ALLOY, UNID HARDWAREAS 2 IRON ALLOY, KNIFE, HANDLE, JACK KNIFE HANDLEAT 80 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, FRAGMENTAU 1 BRICK, BRICK BAT

45

Context No.: 68AP00035 Description: SE quad, Layer 1 TPQ: 1725

AA 23 EARTHENWARE, DELFTWARE ENG, FRAGMENT, UNDECORATEDAB 4 EARTHENWARE, DELFTWARE ENG, FRAGMENT, PAINTED UNDER,

PURPLEAC 21 COARSE EARTHENW, YORKTOWN-TYPE, FRAGMENT, *AD 1 STONEWARE, WH SALT-GLAZED, FRAGMENT, OTHER MOLD DEC, *AE 6 STONEWARE, WESTERWALD, FRAGMENTAF 1 PORCELAIN, CH PORCELAIN, FRAGMENT, UNDECORATEDAG 10 GLASS, CLRLESS LEAD, FRAGMENT, TABLE GLASS, FRAGMENTAH 26 GLASS, COLORED GLASS, CONTAINER, GREEN, FRAGMENTAI 30 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINDOW GLASSAJ 78 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINE BOTTLEAK 436 BONE, FAUNAL SPECIMENAL 155 SHELL, SHELL, TWO SCOLLOPAM 52 SHELL, FRAGMENTAN 11 CERAMIC, FRAGMENT, ROOFING TILEAO 13 BRICK, BRICKETAGEAP 2 SLAG, SLAG/CLINKERAQ 85 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, LESS THAN 2 IN, WROUGHT/FORGEDAR 55 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, 2 TO 4 IN, WROUGHT/FORGEDAS 379 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, FRAGMENTAT 16 EARTHENWARE, DELFTWARE ENG, FRAGMENT, PAINTED UNDER,

BLUEAU 8 EARTHENWARE, DELFTWARE ENG, FRAGMENT, MISSING GLAZEAV 4 COARSE EARTHENW, COLONO WARE, FRAGMENTAW 1 STONEWARE, DIPPED WSG, FRAGMENTAX 13 STONEWARE, WH SALT-GLAZED, FRAGMENTAY 1 STONEWARE, WESTERWALD, FRAGMENT, PURPLEAZ 19 STONEWARE, STAFFS BROWN, FRAGMENTBA 1 STONEWARE, OTHER STONEW, FRAGMENTBB 1 PORCELAIN, CH PORCELAIN, FRAGMENT, PAINTED UNDER, BLUEBC 1 CERAMIC, TOBACCO PIPE, IMPORTED, STEM, 4/64 INCHESBD 6 CERAMIC, TOBACCO PIPE, IMPORTED, FRAGMENT, 5/64 INCHESBE 1 CERAMIC, TOBACCO PIPE, IMPORTED, STEM, MAKER'S MARK,

'CHESTER' below shield on side of stem, 5/64 INCHESBF 11 CERAMIC, TOBACCO PIPE, IMPORTED, BOWLBG 6 GLASS, FRAGMENT, CASE BOTTLEBH 1 BLONDE/CARAMEL-, GUNFLINT, FRAGMENTBI 4 BOG IRON, FRAGMENTBJ 18 IRON ALLOY, FRAGMENT, ROLLED/SHEETBK 1 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, CLINCHEDBL 3 GLASS, FRAGMENT, MIRRORBM 1 EARTHENWARE, DELFTWARE ENG, FRAGMENT, PAINTED UNDER,

GREENBN 1 EARTHENWARE, DELFTWARE ENG, FRAGMENT, PAINTED UNDER,

POLYCHROMEBO 1 EARTHENWARE, NEVERS WARE, FRAGMENTBP 3 COARSE EARTHENW, STAFFS RD SAND, FRAGMENTBQ 2 STONEWARE, BURSLEM SW, FRAGMENTBR 1 STONEWARE, YORKTOWN-TYPE, FRAGMENTBS 1 STONEWARE, ENGLISH SW, FRAGMENT, LEAD GLAZE, POSSIBLY

DERBYSHIRE STONEWAREBT 1 STONEWARE, MIDLANDS PURPLE, FRAGMENT, UNDECORATED,

STAFFORDSHIRE BUTTER POTBU 1 PORCELAIN, CH PORCELAIN, FRAGMENT, PAINTED OVER, REDBV 1 CERAMIC, TOBACCO PIPE, IMPORTED, STEM, 6/64 INCHESBW 1 COPPER ALLOY WI, BUTTON, TWO PIECE, GILDED, STAMPED METAL,

ARTIFACT DID NOT SURVIVE, COMPLETELY FRAGMENTEDBX 1 IRON ALLOY, UNID HARDWARE, FOR X-RAY, POSSIBLE TREATMENT

46

BY 6 STONE, SLATE, ARCHITECTURALBZ 2 MORTAR, MORTAR, SHELLCA 2 STONE, MISC/UNMODIF STCB 1 LEAD ALLOY, SHOT, DAMAGEDCC 1 IRON ALLOY, KEYCD 1 IRON, BUCKLE, HARNESS, COMPLETECE 1 COPPER ALLOY WI, BUCKLE, CLOTHING, COMPLETECF 1 IRON ALLOY, HOOKCG 2 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, TIRECH 1 IRON ALLOY, KNIFE, BLADECI 1 IRON ALLOY, HINGE, STRAPCJ 2 IRON ALLOY, BARREL HOOP, FRAGMENTCK 1 IRON ALLOY, FRAGMENT, SCISSORS POINT OR KNIFE TIPCL 1 COARSE EARTHEN, BUCKLEY WARE, FRAGMENTCM 2 STONEWARE, NOTTINGHAM SW, FRAGMENTCN 2 COARSE EARTHEN, COARSEWARE, FRAGMENT, LEAD GLAZECO 1 COARSE EARTHEN, COARSEWARE, FRAGMENT, MISSING GLAZE

Context No.: 68AP00036 Description: NOT GIVEN TPQ: 1762

AA 1 SANDSTONE, STONE, ARCHITECTURALAB 1 IRON ALLOY, STIRRUPAC 23 EARTHENWARE, DELFTWARE ENG, FRAGMENT, UNDECORATEDAD 23 EARTHENWARE, DELFTWARE ENG, FRAGMENT, PAINTED UNDER,

BLUEAE 1 EARTHENWARE, DELFTWARE ENG, FRAGMENT, PAINTED UNDER,

GREENAF 3 EARTHENWARE, DELFTWARE ENG, FRAGMENT, PAINTED UNDER,

POLYCHROMEAG 9 EARTHENWARE, DELFTWARE ENG, FRAGMENT, MISSING GLAZEAH 3 DETACHED GLAZE, DELFTWARE ENG, FRAGMENT, UNDECORATEDAI 2 REFINED EARTHEN, CREAMWARE, FRAGMENT, UNDECORATED,

POSSIBLY INTRUSION, *AJ 2 COARSE EARTHENW, BUCKLEY WARE, FRAGMENTAK 1 COARSE EARTHENW, N MIDLAND SLIP, FRAGMENT, COMBED/DOTTEDAL 2 COARSE EARTHENW, N MIDLAND SLIP, FRAGMENT, TRAILED,

PIECRUST RIMAM 4 COARSE EARTHENW, COLONO WARE, FRAGMENTAN 1 COARSE EARTHENW, STAFFS RD SAND, FRAGMENTAO 16 COARSE EARTHENW, YORKTOWN-TYPE, FRAGMENTAP 4 COARSE EARTHENW, COARSEWARE, FRAGMENT, LEAD GLAZEAQ 11 STONEWARE, WH SALT-GLAZED, FRAGMENTAR 1 STONEWARE, FRECHEN BROWN, FRAGMENTAS 2 STONEWARE, FULHAM SW, FRAGMENTAT 1 STONEWARE, NOTTINGHAM SW, FRAGMENTAU 6 STONEWARE, STAFFS BROWN, FRAGMENTAV 6 STONEWARE, WESTERWALD, FRAGMENTAW 1 STONEWARE, WESTERWALD, FRAGMENT, PURPLEAX 2 STONEWARE, ENGLISH SW, FRAGMENT, LEAD GLAZE, POSSIBLY

DERBYSHIRE STONEWARE, 18TH CENTURYAY 1 PORCELAIN, CH PORCELAIN, FRAGMENT, PAINT OVER/UNDR,

POLYCHROMEAZ 1 PORCELAIN, CH PORCELAIN, FRAGMENT, PAINTED OVER, REDBA 2 CERAMIC, TOBACCO PIPE, IMPORTED, STEM, 3/64 INCHESBB 12 CERAMIC, TOBACCO PIPE, IMPORTED, STEM, 4/64 INCHESBC 7 CERAMIC, TOBACCO PIPE, IMPORTED, STEM, 5/64 INCHESBD 1 CERAMIC, TOBACCO PIPE, IMPORTED, STEM, 6/64 INCHESBE 2 CERAMIC, TOBACCO PIPE, IMPORTED, STEM, FRAGMENTBF 21 CERAMIC, TOBACCO PIPE, IMPORTED, BOWLBG 1 CERAMIC, TOBACCO PIPE, IMPORTED, ROULETTED, BOWL

47

BH 17 GLASS, CLRLESS LEAD, FRAGMENT, TABLE GLASSBI 5 GLASS, COLORED GLASS, FRAGMENT, PHARM BOTTLE, GREENBJ 8 GLASS, COLORED GLASS, FRAGMENT, CONTAINER, AQUA,

FRAGMENTBK 29 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINDOW GLASS, THREE BURNEDBL 51 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINE BOTTLEBM 525 BONE, FAUNAL SPECIMENBN 40 SHELL, SHELL, TWO SCOLLOPBO 35 SHELL, FRAGMENTBP 7 CERAMIC, FRAGMENT, ROOFING TILEBQ 1 CERAMIC, FRAGMENT, PAVING TILEBR 10 BRICK, BRICKETAGEBS 3 MORTAR, MORTAR, SHELLBT 2 PLASTER, PLASTER, SHELLBU 1 STONE, SLATE, ARCHITECTURALBV 2 GREY CHERT, DEBITAGE, FLAKE FRAG/SHATBW 1 GLASS, BEAD, BLACK, COMPLETEBX 2 QUARTZ, FIRE-CRACK ROCKBY 1 STONE, STONE, UNWORKED, RIVERINE ROCKBZ 1 LEAD ALLOY, SHOT, .50 CALIBRE, DAMAGEDCA 1 COPPER ALLOY, UPHOLSTERY TACK, HEAD ONLYCB 3 LEAD ALLOY, FRAGMENTCC 26 IRON ALLOY, FRAGMENT, ROLLED/SHEETCD 1 IRON ALLOY, BUCKLE, HARNESS, COMPLETECE 1 IRON ALLOY, HINGE, STRAP, WITH NAILSCG 1 IRON ALLOY, SCISSORS, BLADE, SCISSOR BLADE WITH NAIL

CORRODED TO ITCH 1 IRON ALLOY, DRAWKNIFE, FRAGMENT, DRAWKNIFE TEETHCI 1 IRON ALLOY, PADLOCK, LOOPCJ 1 NICKEL ALLOY, FRAGMENT, POSSIBLY FRAGMENT OF SPOON OR

FORK HANDLECK 2 IRON ALLOY, BARREL HOOPCL 58 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, LESS THAN 2 IN, WROUGHT/FORGEDCM 34 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, 2 TO 4 IN, WROUGHT/FORGEDCN 269 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, FRAGMENTCO 1 IRON, CHAIN, MANGLED LINKCP 4 STONEWARE, YORKTOWN-TYPE, FRAGMENTCQ 2 STONEWARE, BURSLEM SW, FRAGMENTCR 1 STONEWARE, DIPPED WSG, FRAGMENTCS 1 COARSE EARTHEN, COARSEWARE, FRAGMENT, LEAD GLAZECT 1 IRON ALLOY, UNID HARDWARE, POSSIBLY SADDLE TERRET

Context No.: 68AP00037 Description: West of cellar TPQ: 1725

AA 2 EARTHENWARE, DELFTWARE ENG, FRAGMENT, UNDECORATEDAB 1 EARTHENWARE, DELFTWARE ENG, FRAGMENT, PAINTED UNDER,

POLYCHROMEAC 1 EARTHENWARE, DELFTWARE ENG, FRAGMENT, MISSING GLAZEAD 1 DETACHED GLAZE, DELFTWARE ENG, FRAGMENT, UNDECORATEDAE 1 DETACHED GLAZE, DELFTWARE ENG, FRAGMENT, PAINTED UNDER,

BLUEAF 1 COARSE EARTHENW, YORKTOWN-TYPE, FRAGMENT, LEAD GLAZE, *AG 2 COARSE EARTHENW, COLONO WARE, FRAGMENTAH 3 STONEWARE, FULHAM SW, FRAGMENTAI 1 GLASS, COLORED GLASS, FRAGMENT, PHARM BOTTLE, GREENAJ 2 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINDOW GLASSAK 10 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINE BOTTLEAL 9 BONE, FAUNAL SPECIMENAM 2 SHELL, SHELL, OYSTERAN 2 CERAMIC, FRAGMENT, ROOFING TILE

48

AO 1 COPPER ALLOY, BUTTON, TWO PIECE, GILDED, STAMPED METALAP 1 IRON ALLOY, FRAGMENTAQ 22 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, FRAGMENTAR 1 COARSE EARTHEN, STAFFS MOTTLED, FRAGMENT

Context No.: 68AP00041 Description: Cellar spillover, NW corner TPQ: 1720

AA 3 EARTHENWARE, DELFTWARE ENG, FRAGMENT, UNDECORATEDAB 2 EARTHENWARE, DELFTWARE ENG, FRAGMENT, PAINTED UNDER,

BLUEAC 1 EARTHENWARE, DELFTWARE ENG, FRAGMENT, MISSING GLAZEAD 2 COARSE EARTHENW, COARSEWARE, FRAGMENT, MISSING GLAZEAE 1 STONEWARE, WH SALT-GLAZED, FRAGMENT, *AF 2 STONEWARE, WESTERWALD, FRAGMENTAG 1 STONEWARE, WESTERWALD, FRAGMENT, PURPLEAH 1 STONEWARE, STAFFS BROWN, FRAGMENTAI 1 CERAMIC, TOBACCO PIPE, IMPORTED, STEM, 5/64 INCHESAJ 1 GLASS, CLRLESS LEAD, FRAGMENT, TABLE GLASSAK 5 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINE BOTTLEAL 17 BONE, FAUNAL SPECIMENAM 1 SHELL, SHELL, OYSTERAN 3 SHELL, FRAGMENTAO 2 BRICK, BRICKETAGEAP 1 CERAMIC, FRAGMENT, ROOFING TILEAQ 1 CHARCOAL, CHARCOALAR 1 BLONDE/CARAMEL-, GUNFLINT, FRAGMENTAS 5 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, LESS THAN 2 IN, WROUGHT/FORGEDAT 3 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, 2 TO 4 IN, WROUGHT/FORGEDAU 19 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, FRAGMENT

Context No.: 68AP00042 Description: Layer 2, sand, SE quadrant TPQ: 1725

AA 3 EARTHENWARE, DELFTWARE ENG, FRAGMENT, UNDECORATEDAB 4 EARTHENWARE, DELFTWARE ENG, FRAGMENT, PAINTED UNDER,

BLUEAC 1 EARTHENWARE, DELFTWARE ENG, FRAGMENT, PAINTED UNDER,

POLYCHROMEAD 1 COARSE EARTHENW, YORKTOWN-TYPE, FRAGMENT, *AE 3 STONEWARE, WH SALT-GLAZED, FRAGMENTAF 1 STONEWARE, WESTERWALD, FRAGMENTAG 1 STONEWARE, STAFFS BROWN, FRAGMENTAH 1 STONEWARE, FULHAM SW, FRAGMENTAI 1 PORCELAIN, CH PORCELAIN, FRAGMENT, PAINTED UNDER, BLUEAJ 1 CERAMIC, TOBACCO PIPE, IMPORTED, STEM, FRAGMENTAK 1 CERAMIC, TOBACCO PIPE, IMPORTED, BOWLAL 1 GLASS, CLRLESS LEAD, FRAGMENT, STEMMED GLASS, BALUSTER

INVERT, TEARDROPAM 1 GLASS, CLRLESS LEAD, FRAGMENT, STEMMED GLASS, KNOPPED

STEMAN 3 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINE BOTTLEAO 25 BONE, FAUNAL SPECIMENAP 1 SHELL, SHELL, OYSTERAQ 3 SHELL, FRAGMENTAR 2 STONE, SLATE, ARCHITECTURALAS 2 BRICK, BRICKETAGEAT 1 GREY CHERT, GUNFLINT, ENGLISH SHAPE, HEAVILY WORNAU 1 LEAD ALLOY, HANDLE, SPOONAV 1 IRON SHANK AND, KNIFE, HANDLEAW 2 IRON ALLOY, FRAGMENT, STRAPAX 1 IRON ALLOY, SHACKLE, FOR SCYTHE

49

AY 1 IRON ALLOY, UNID HARDWARE, VERY HEAVY BARAZ 8 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, LESS THAN 2 IN, WROUGHT/FORGEDBA 4 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, 2 TO 4 IN, WROUGHT/FORGEDBB 18 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, FRAGMENT

Context No.: 68AP00043 Description: Layer 2, charcoal layer, NW quad TPQ: 1725

AA 53 EARTHENWARE, DELFTWARE ENG, FRAGMENT, UNDECORATEDAB 5 EARTHENWARE, DELFTWARE ENG, FRAGMENT, MISSING GLAZEAC 1 DETACHED GLAZE, DELFTWARE ENG, FRAGMENT, UNDECORATEDAD 1 COARSE EARTHENW, COLONO WARE, FRAGMENTAE 2 COARSE EARTHENW, BUCKLEY WARE, FRAGMENTAF 5 COARSE EARTHENW, YORKTOWN-TYPE, FRAGMENT, LEAD GLAZE, *AG 6 COARSE EARTHENW, STAFFS MOTTLED, FRAGMENTAH 4 COARSE EARTHENW, N MIDLAND SLIP, FRAGMENTAI 3 COARSE EARTHENW, N MIDLAND SLIP, FRAGMENT, COMBED/DOTTEDAJ 3 STONEWARE, NOTTINGHAM SW, FRAGMENTAK 4 STONEWARE, WESTERWALD, FRAGMENTAL 8 STONEWARE, FULHAM SW, FRAGMENTAM 6 STONEWARE, WH SALT-GLAZED, FRAGMENTAN 7 CERAMIC, TOBACCO PIPE, IMPORTED, STEM, 4/64 INCHESAO 4 CERAMIC, TOBACCO PIPE, IMPORTED, STEM, 5/64 INCHESAP 1 CERAMIC, TOBACCO PIPE, IMPORTED, STEM, FRAGMENTAQ 17 CERAMIC, TOBACCO PIPE, IMPORTED, BOWLAR 6 GLASS, CLRLESS LEAD, FRAGMENT, TABLE GLASSAS 12 GLASS, COLORED GLASS, FRAGMENT, PHARM BOTTLE, GREENAT 11 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINDOW GLASSAU 4 GLASS, FRAGMENT, CASE BOTTLEAV 63 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINE BOTTLEAW 443 BONE, FAUNAL SPECIMENAX 18 SHELL, SHELL, ONE SCOLLOPAY 22 SHELL, FRAGMENTAZ 2 BRICK, BRICKETAGEBA 2 CERAMIC, FRAGMENT, ROOFING TILEBB 3 MORTAR, MORTAR, SHELLBC 2 STONE, SLATE, ARCHITECTURALBD 1 LEAD ALLOY, WINDOW LEADBE 18 IRON ALLOY, FRAGMENT, ROLLED/SHEETBF 1 IRON ALLOY, BARREL HOOPBG 1 IRON ALLOY, POT, FRAGMENTBH 1 COPPER ALLOY, UPHOLSTERY TACKBI 44 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, LESS THAN 2 IN, WROUGHT/FORGEDBJ 31 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, 2 TO 4 IN, WROUGHT/FORGEDBK 56 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, FRAGMENTBL 2 IRON ALLOY, FRAGMENT, ROLLED/SHEETBM 1 LEAD ALLOY, WINDOW LEADBN 1 GLASS, BEAD, DRAWN, BLUEBO 2 STONEWARE, YORKTOWN-TYPE, FRAGMENT

Context No.: 68AP00044 Description: Small feature cut by 031 TPQ: NDA

AA 1 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, FRAGMENTAB 1 BONE, FAUNAL SPECIMEN, *

Context No.: 68AP00045 Description: Layer 3, SE quad TPQ: 1725

AA 8 EARTHENWARE, TIN ENAMELLED, FRAGMENT, UNDECORATEDAB 3 EARTHENWARE, TIN ENAMELLED, FRAGMENT, PAINTED UNDER, BLUEAC 2 COARSE EARTHENW, COLONO WARE, FRAGMENTAD 1 COARSE EARTHENW, N MIDLAND SLIP, FRAGMENTAE 1 COARSE EARTHENW, STAFFS RD SAND, FRAGMENT

50

AF 2 COARSE EARTHENW, YORKTOWN-TYPE, FRAGMENT, *AG 4 STONEWARE, WH SALT-GLAZED, FRAGMENTAH 2 STONEWARE, NOTTINGHAM SW, FRAGMENTAI 2 STONEWARE, STAFFS BROWN, FRAGMENT, ONE UNDERFIREDAJ 1 STONEWARE, FULHAM SW, FRAGMENTAK 3 CERAMIC, TOBACCO PIPE, IMPORTED, STEM, 4/64 INCHESAL 2 CERAMIC, TOBACCO PIPE, IMPORTED, STEM, 5/64 INCHESAM 6 CERAMIC, TOBACCO PIPE, IMPORTED, BOWLAN 1 CERAMIC, TOBACCO PIPE, IMPORTED, OTHER MOLD DEC, BOWL,

APPEARS TO BE PART OF ROYAL COAT OF ARMSAO 1 GLASS, CLRLESS LEAD, FRAGMENT, TABLE GLASSAP 1 GLASS, COLORED GLASS, FRAGMENT, PHARM BOTTLE, HAND

TOOLED FIN, GREEN, FINISHAQ 5 GLASS, COLORED GLASS, FRAGMENT, PHARM BOTTLE, GREENAR 5 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINDOW GLASS, ONE BURNEDAS 1 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINE BOTTLE, HAND TOOLED FIN, FINISHAT 16 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINE BOTTLEAU 138 BONE, FAUNAL SPECIMENAV 11 SHELL, SHELL, ONE SCOLLOPAW 8 SHELL, FRAGMENTAX 3 BRICK, BRICKETAGEAY 1 STONE, SLATE, ARCHITECTURALAZ 3 BURNED CLAY, FRAGMENTBA 1 CHARCOAL, CHARCOALBB 1 CERAMIC, MARBLE, HAND MADEBC 1 QUARTZITE, FRAGMENTBD 1 LEAD ALLOY, SHOT, .25 CALIBREBE 1 COPPER ALLOY, UPHOLSTERY TACKBF 1 COARSE EARTHEN, STAFFS MOTTLED, FRAGMENTBG 5 IRON ALLOY, FRAGMENT, ROLLED/SHEETBH 15 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, LESS THAN 2 IN, WROUGHT/FORGEDBI 19 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, 2 TO 4 IN, WROUGHT/FORGEDBJ 41 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, FRAGMENTBK 6 IRON ALLOY, BITBL 1 COARSE EARTHEN, COARSEWARE, FRAGMENT, LEAD GLAZEBM 10 BONE, HANDLE, CUTLERY, RECENT FRACTURE, TEN FRAGMENTS OF

A SMALL CUTLERY HANDLE WITH FLATS FILED ON OUTER SURFACE.FOUND IN FAUNAL MATERIAL FROM THIS CONTEXT DURING SORTINGAND ANALYSIS.

Context No.: 68AP00047 Description: Silty wash layer, SE quad TPQ: 1730

AA 1 EARTHENWARE, TIN ENAMELLED, FRAGMENT, UNDECORATEDAB 1 CERAMIC, TOBACCO PIPE, IMPORTED, STEM, 4/64 INCHESAC 1 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINDOW GLASSAD 1 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINE BOTTLE, DIP MOLD/EMP, BASE, *AE 1 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINE BOTTLEAF 5 BONE, FAUNAL SPECIMENAG 1 CERAMIC, FRAGMENT, ROOFINGAH 1 GREY CHERT, GUNFLINT, FRAGMENTAI 1 COPPER ALLOY, BUTTON, TWO PIECE, BOTTOM AND SHANK ONLYAJ 3 IRON ALLOY, BARREL HOOP, FRAGMENTAK 10 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, FRAGMENTAL 8 STONE, SLATE, ARCHITECTURAL

Context No.: 68AP00048 Description: Sandy wash, NW quad TPQ: 1725

AA 1 EARTHENWARE, TIN ENAMELLED, FRAGMENT, UNDECORATEDAB 1 COARSE EARTHENW, BK-GZ REDWARE, FRAGMENTAC 1 COARSE EARTHENW, YORKTOWN-TYPE, FRAGMENT, LEAD GLAZE, *

51

AD 1 STONEWARE, FULHAM SW, FRAGMENTAE 1 STONEWARE, WESTERWALD, FRAGMENTAF 2 GLASS, COLORED GLASS, FRAGMENT, PHARM BOTTLE, DIP MOLD/

EMP, GREEN, BASEAG 1 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINDOW GLASSAH 1 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINE BOTTLE, HAND TOOLED FIN, FINISHAI 26 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINE BOTTLEAJ 155 BONE, FAUNAL SPECIMENAK 12 SHELL, SHELL, OYSTERAL 5 SHELL, FRAGMENTAM 5 CERAMIC, FRAGMENT, ROOFING TILEAN 1 QUARTZ, FRAGMENTAO 1 COPPER ALLOY, FRAGMENT, ROLLED/SHEETAP 1 COPPER ALLOY, FRAGMENT, ROLLED/SHEET, TOOTHED AT ONE ENDAQ 50 TINNED IRON, FRAGMENT, CONTAINER, ROLLED/SHEET, UNID SHEET

FRAGMENTS W/SEAMS, POSS. PAIL. ALSO HOLLOW TAPER ROD W/WOOD REMAINS, POSS. CANDLE MOLD.

AS 1 IRON ALLOY, RINGAT 1 IRON ALLOY, POTHOOKAU 1 IRON ALLOY, FRAGMENT, ROLLED/SHEETAV 3 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, LESS THAN 2 IN, WROUGHT/FORGEDAW 1 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, 2 TO 4 IN, WROUGHT/FORGEDAX 1 IRON ALLOY, BELL, WROUGHT/FORGED, CLAPPERAY 10 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, FRAGMENTAZ 1 IRON ALLOY, SWORD/PART, GUARD

Context No.: 68AP00049 Description: Layer 4, SE quad TPQ: 1725

AA 15 EARTHENWARE, TIN ENAMELLED, FRAGMENT, UNDECORATEDAB 1 EARTHENWARE, TIN ENAMELLED, FRAGMENT, PAINTED UNDER, BLUEAC 1 EARTHENWARE, TIN ENAMELLED, FRAGMENT, PAINTED UNDER,

GREENAD 4 COARSE EARTHENW, COLONO WARE, FRAGMENTAE 7 COARSE EARTHENW, N MIDLAND SLIP, FRAGMENTAF 1 COARSE EARTHENW, BUCKLEY WARE, FRAGMENTAG 1 COARSE EARTHENW, SLIPWARE, FRAGMENT, TRAILED, BURNEDAH 1 REFINED EARTHEN, ASTBURY-TYPE, FRAGMENT, *AI 2 STONEWARE, WH SALT-GLAZED, FRAGMENTAJ 3 STONEWARE, NOTTINGHAM SW, FRAGMENTAK 2 STONEWARE, STAFFS BROWN, FRAGMENTAL 2 STONEWARE, FULHAM SW, FRAGMENTAM 4 CERAMIC, TOBACCO PIPE, IMPORTED, STEM, 4/64 INCHESAN 7 CERAMIC, TOBACCO PIPE, IMPORTED, BOWLAO 2 GLASS, CLRLESS LEAD, FRAGMENT, TABLE GLASSAP 1 GLASS, COLORED GLASS, FRAGMENT, PHARM BOTTLE, HAND

TOOLED FIN, GREEN, FINISHAQ 2 GLASS, COLORED GLASS, FRAGMENT, PHARM BOTTLE, GREENAR 3 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINDOW GLASSAS 15 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINE BOTTLEAT 114 BONE, FAUNAL SPECIMENAU 4 SHELL, SHELL, OYSTERAV 8 SHELL, FRAGMENTAW 1 BRICK, BRICKETAGEAX 2 COAL, COALAY 1 CERAMIC, FRAGMENT, ROOFING TILEAZ 1 LEAD ALLOY, SHOT, .22 CALIBREBA 2 LEAD ALLOY, SHOT, .25 CALIBREBB 1 IRON ALLOY, BUCKLE, SHOE, CHAPEBC 3 IRON ALLOY, FRAGMENT, ROLLED/SHEETBD 1 IRON ALLOY, LOCK/LOCK PART

52

BE 1 IRON ALLOY, POT, CAST, FRAGMENTBF 12 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, LESS THAN 2 IN, WROUGHT/FORGEDBG 4 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, 2 TO 4 IN, WROUGHT/FORGEDBH 15 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, FRAGMENTBI 1 STONEWARE, WESTERWALD, FRAGMENT

Context No.: 68AP00050 Description: NOT GIVEN TPQ: NDA

AA 1 COPPER ALLOY, BUTTON, TWO PIECE, *

Context No.: 68AP00051 Description: NOT GIVEN TPQ: 1725

AA 1 EARTHENWARE, DELFTWARE ENG, FRAGMENT, UNDECORATEDAB 2 COARSE EARTHENW, YORKTOWN-TYPE, FRAGMENT, LEAD GLAZE, *AC 1 COARSE EARTHENW, COARSEWARE, FRAGMENT, MISSING GLAZEAD 5 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINDOW GLASSAE 51 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINE BOTTLEAF 21 BONE, FAUNAL SPECIMENAG 2 SHELL, SHELL, ONE SCOLLOPAH 1 IRON ALLOY, FRAGMENT, ROLLED/SHEETAI 1 IRON ALLOY, HOEAJ 3 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, LESS THAN 2 IN, WROUGHT/FORGEDAK 30 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, FRAGMENTAL 1 STONEWARE, NOTTINGHAM SW, FRAGMENT, ROULETTEDAM 1 GLASS, CLRLESS LEAD, FRAGMENT, TABLE GLASSAN 1 IRON ALLOY, UNID HARDWAREAO 1 COARSE EARTHENW, N MIDLAND SLIP, FRAGMENT, COMBED/DOTTEDAP 3 COARSE EARTHENW, N MIDLAND SLIP, FRAGMENT, MARBLIZED

Context No.: 68AP00052 Description: Charcoal layer, westernmost extent TPQ: NDA

AA 1 BONE, FAUNAL SPECIMENAB 1 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, FRAGMENT, *

Context No.: 68AP00054 Description: Clay lens, NW quad TPQ: 1720

AA 2 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINE BOTTLEAB 2 SHELL, SHELL, OYSTERAC 1 IRON ALLOY, UNID HARDWAREAD 3 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, FRAGMENTAE 1 COARSE EARTHENW, BUCKLEY WARE, FRAGMENT, *AF 1 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINE BOTTLE, HAND TOOLED FIN, FINISHAG 1 GLASS, COLORED GLASS, FRAGMENT, CONTAINER, BLUEAH 63 BONE, FAUNAL SPECIMENAI 1 IRON ALLOY, FRAGMENT

Context No.: 68AP00055 Description: NOT GIVEN TPQ: NDA

AA 1 CERAMIC, FRAGMENT, ROOFING TILE, *

Context No.: 68AP00058 Description: NOT GIVEN TPQ: NDA

AA 2 COARSE EARTHENW, YORKTOWN-TYPE, FRAGMENT, LEAD GLAZE, *AB 1 CERAMIC, TOBACCO PIPE, IMPORTED, BOWLAC 4 BONE, FAUNAL SPECIMENAD 1 SHELL, SHELL, OYSTERAE 1 CERAMIC, FRAGMENT, ROOFING TILEAF 1 BURNED CLAY, FRAGMENTAG 1 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, LESS THAN 2 IN, WROUGHT/FORGEDAH 8 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, FRAGMENT

53

Context No.: 68AP00059 Description: NOT GIVEN TPQ: NDA

AA 1 COPPER ALLOY WI, BUTTON, TWO PIECE, *

Context No.: 68AP00062 Description: Clay wash, SE quad TPQ: NDA

AA 1 COARSE EARTHENW, COARSEWARE, FRAGMENT, LEAD GLAZE,GREEN, POSSIBLY YORKTOWN-TYPE

AB 1 GLASS, CLRLESS LEAD, FRAGMENT, TABLE GLASSAC 3 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, FRAGMENT, *

Context No.: 68AP00065 Description: SE quad along S. wall TPQ: NDA

AA 1 EARTHENWARE, TIN ENAMELLED, FRAGMENT, UNDECORATEDAB 1 GLASS, CLRLESS NON-LD, FRAGMENT, CONTAINERAC 1 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINE BOTTLEAD 1 LEAD ALLOY, SHOT, .25 CALIBREAE 2 CERAMIC, FRAGMENT, ROOFING TILE, *

Context No.: 68AP00066 Description: SE quad TPQ: NDA

AA 4 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINE BOTTLEAB 1 CERAMIC, FRAGMENT, ROOFING TILE, *

Context No.: 68AP00067 Description: NW clay slump, #2 TPQ: NDA

AA 2 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINE BOTTLEAB 15 BONE, FAUNAL SPECIMENAC 1 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, FRAGMENT, *

Context No.: 68AP00070 Description: NOT GIVEN TPQ: NDA

AA 3 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, WROUGHT/FORGED, *

Context No.: 68AP00072 Description: NOT GIVEN TPQ: NDA

AA 3 BONE, FAUNAL SPECIMENAB 1 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, LESS THAN 2 IN, WROUGHT/FORGEDAC 1 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, FRAGMENT, *

Context No.: 68AP00077 Description: Layer 1, NE Quad TPQ: 1730

AA 1 GLASS, BOTTLE SEAL, WINE BOTTLE, DEVITRIFIED, OWNER'S MARK, 'LZ', BOTTLE SEAL HAS BEEN REUSED, A DOUBLE-DIE SITUATION

AB 1 COPPER ALLOY, BUTTON, ONE PIECE, LETTERING/NUMB, anchor andcannon, 'VERNON', ADMIRAL VERNON WON BATTLE OF PORTOBELLOIN 1739, *

AC 1 NICKEL ALLOY, SPOON, BOWLAD 51 EARTHENWARE, DELFTWARE ENG, FRAGMENT, UNDECORATEDAE 35 EARTHENWARE, DELFTWARE ENG, FRAGMENT, PAINTED UNDER,

BLUEAF 1 EARTHENWARE, DELFTWARE ENG, FRAGMENT, PAINTED UNDER,

YELLOWAG 1 EARTHENWARE, DELFTWARE ENG, FRAGMENT, PAINTED UNDER,

POLYCHROMEAH 1 EARTHENWARE, DELFTWARE ENG, FRAGMENT, PAINTED UNDER,

PURPLEAI 17 EARTHENWARE, DELFTWARE ENG, FRAGMENT, MISSING GLAZEAJ 3 DETACHED GLAZE, DELFTWARE ENG, FRAGMENT, UNDECORATEDAK 1 DETACHED GLAZE, DELFTWARE ENG, FRAGMENT, PAINTED UNDER,

BLUEAL 18 COARSE EARTHENW, COLONO WARE, FRAGMENT

54

AM 6 COARSE EARTHENW, N MIDLAND SLIP, FRAGMENT, MARBLIZEDAN 2 COARSE EARTHENW, N MIDLAND SLIP, FRAGMENT, COMBED/DOTTEDAO 2 COARSE EARTHENW, BUCKLEY WARE, FRAGMENTAP 40 COARSE EARTHENW, COARSEWARE, FRAGMENT, LEAD GLAZEAQ 4 COARSE EARTHENW, COARSEWARE, FRAGMENT, MISSING GLAZEAR 1 STONEWARE, DIPPED WSG, FRAGMENTAS 12 STONEWARE, WH SALT-GLAZED, FRAGMENTAT 5 STONEWARE, NOTTINGHAM SW, FRAGMENTAU 22 STONEWARE, STAFFS BROWN, FRAGMENTAV 1 STONEWARE, FRECHEN BROWN, FRAGMENTAW 8 STONEWARE, FULHAM SW, FRAGMENTAX 13 STONEWARE, WESTERWALD, FRAGMENTAY 3 PORCELAIN, CH PORCELAIN, FRAGMENT, PAINTED UNDER, BLUEAZ 2 PORCELAIN, CH PORCELAIN, FRAGMENT, PAINTED OVER, REDBA 14 CERAMIC, TOBACCO PIPE, IMPORTED, STEM, 4/64 INCHESBB 14 CERAMIC, TOBACCO PIPE, IMPORTED, STEM, 5/64 INCHESBC 1 CERAMIC, TOBACCO PIPE, IMPORTED, STEM, 6/64 INCHESBD 2 CERAMIC, TOBACCO PIPE, IMPORTED, STEM, FRAGMENTBE 28 CERAMIC, TOBACCO PIPE, IMPORTED, BOWLBF 1 CERAMIC, TOBACCO PIPE, IMPORTED, BOWL, MAKER'S MARK, '...M',

with crown atop initial on either side of heel. First initial indecipherableBG 17 GLASS, CLRLESS LEAD, FRAGMENT, TABLE GLASSBH 2 GLASS, CLRLESS LEAD, FRAGMENT, TABLE GLASS, FOLDED FOOT RIMBI 3 GLASS, CLRLESS LEAD, FRAGMENT, TABLE GLASS, OTHER MOLD DECBJ 11 GLASS, COLORED GLASS, FRAGMENT, CONTAINER, GREENBK 55 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINDOW GLASSBL 1 GLASS, COLORED GLASS, FRAGMENT, CONTAINER, AQUABM 1 GLASS, FRAGMENT, MIRRORBN 4 GLASS, FRAGMENT, UNIDENTIFIED, BURNEDBO 120 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINE BOTTLEBP 2 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINE BOTTLE, HAND TOOLED FIN, FINISHBQ 1 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINE BOTTLE, DIP MOLD/EMP, BASE, *BR 870 BONE, FAUNAL SPECIMENBS 1 BONE, HANDLE, FRAGMENTBT 104 SHELL, SHELL, ONE CLAM, TWO SCOLLOP, ONE OTHERBU 100 SHELL, FRAGMENTBV 23 CERAMIC, FRAGMENT, ROOFING TILEBW 16 MORTAR, MORTAR, SHELLBX 22 BRICK, BRICKETAGEBY 1 STONE, SLATE, ARCHITECTURALBZ 10 COAL, COALCA 1 QUARTZ, FIRE-CRACK ROCKCB 2 BOG IRON, FRAGMENTCC 3 COPPER ALLOY, BUTTON, ONE PIECECD 2 COPPER ALLOY, BUTTON, TWO PIECE, STAMPED METAL, BUTTON IS IN

TWO SEPARATE PIECES. TOP PART IS FRAGMENTED, VERY FRAGILE.STAMPED DESIGN IS SWIRL PATTERN.

CE 1 COPPER ALLOY, UPHOLSTERY TACKCF 1 COPPER ALLOY, BUCKLE, SPURCG 1 COPPER ALLOY WI, BUCKLECH 1 COPPER ALLOY, BOSS, HARNESSCI 4 COPPER ALLOY, FRAGMENTCJ 1 LEAD ALLOY, WINDOW LEADCK 6 LEAD ALLOY, FRAGMENTCL 2 LEAD ALLOY, SPOON, HANDLECM 1 NICKEL ALLOY, FRAGMENTCN 2 COPPER ALLOY, PIN, STRAIGHT, HAND-HEADEDCO 1 NICKEL ALLOY, SPOON, BOWLCP 1 IRON ALLOY, KEY, BOWCQ 1 IRON ALLOY, DOG, SHUTTER

55

CR 1 IRON ALLOY, STIRRUPCS 1 IRON ALLOY, HINGE, FRAGMENT, BOX HINGE STRAPCT 4 IRON ALLOY, FRAGMENT, ROLLED/SHEETCU 1 IRON ALLOY, BARREL HOOPCV 1 IRON ALLOY, SPIKECW 4 IRON ALLOY, FRAGMENT, ROLLED/SHEETCX 1 IRON ALLOY, KEY, FURNITURECY 1 IRON ALLOY, STAPLECZ 1 IRON ALLOY, SCREW, THUMBDA 168 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, LESS THAN 2 IN, WROUGHT/FORGEDDB 104 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, 2 TO 4 IN, WROUGHT/FORGEDDC 452 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, FRAGMENTDD 1 IRON ALLOY, HOE, EYEDE 2 IRON ALLOY, HINGE, FRAGMENTDF 1 IRON ALLOY, HOOKDG 1 CERAMIC, TOBACCO PIPE, IMPORTED, STEM, MAKER'S MARK, R M

astride heel, 5/64 INCHESDH 4 BONE, FAN PART, WORKEDDI 7 COARSE EARTHEN, COARSEWARE, FRAGMENT, LEAD GLAZE,

MOTTLEDDJ 2 COARSE EARTHEN, BK-GZ REDWARE, FRAGMENTDK 6 COARSE EARTHEN, COARSEWARE, FRAGMENT, LEAD GLAZEDL 1 COARSE EARTHEN, RED-BOD SLIP, FRAGMENT, MISSING GLAZEDM 2 STONEWARE, BURSLEM SW, FRAGMENT

Context No.: 68AP00081 Description: From Steve M's column TPQ: 1720

AA 3 EARTHENWARE, TIN ENAMELLED, FRAGMENT, UNDECORATEDAB 1 COARSE EARTHENW, N MIDLAND SLIP, FRAGMENT, COMBED/DOTTEDAC 1 COARSE EARTHENW, BUCKLEY WARE, FRAGMENT, *AD 1 CERAMIC, TOBACCO PIPE, IMPORTED, STEM, 4/64 INCHESAE 4 BONE, FAUNAL SPECIMENAF 1 BRICK, BRICKETAGE

Context No.: 68AP00082 Description: NOT GIVEN TPQ: NDA

AA 1 IRON ALLOY, CURRYCOMB, *

Context No.: 68AP00083 Description: NE quad TPQ: 1745

AA 28 EARTHENWARE, DELFTWARE ENG, FRAGMENT, UNDECORATEDAB 1 PORCELAIN, OTHER PORC, FRAGMENT, PAINTED UNDER, BLUE,

CHELSEA, FRAGMENT OF CUTLERY HANDLE, *AC 7 COARSE EARTHENW, COLONO WARE, FRAGMENTAD 5 COARSE EARTHENW, COARSEWARE, FRAGMENT, LEAD GLAZEAE 3 COARSE EARTHENW, N MIDLAND SLIP, FRAGMENTAF 1 COARSE EARTHENW, FRAGMENT, FLOWER POTAG 4 STONEWARE, WH SALT-GLAZED, FRAGMENTAH 9 STONEWARE, FULHAM SW, FRAGMENTAI 3 STONEWARE, WESTERWALD, FRAGMENTAJ 1 STONEWARE, NOTTINGHAM SW, FRAGMENTAK 5 STONEWARE, STAFFS BROWN, FRAGMENTAL 3 CERAMIC, TOBACCO PIPE, IMPORTED, STEM, 4/64 INCHESAM 4 CERAMIC, TOBACCO PIPE, IMPORTED, STEM, 5/64 INCHESAN 12 CERAMIC, TOBACCO PIPE, IMPORTED, BOWLAO 1 CERAMIC, TOBACCO PIPE, IMPORTED, ROULETTED, BOWLAP 11 GLASS, COLORED GLASS, FRAGMENT, PHARM BOTTLE, GREENAQ 5 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINDOW GLASSAR 41 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINE BOTTLEAS 1 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINE BOTTLE, DIP MOLD/EMP, BASE

56

AT 1 GLASS, CLRLESS NON-LD, FRAGMENT, TABLE GLASS, FOLDED FOOTRIM

AU 166 BONE, FAUNAL SPECIMENAV 53 SHELL, SHELL, TWO SCOLLOPAW 1 BRICK, BRICKETAGEAX 4 PLASTER, PLASTER, SHELLAY 1 STONE, SLATE, ARCHITECTURALAZ 3 BURNED CLAY, FRAGMENTBA 2 CHARCOALBB 1 MARL, FRAGMENTBC 1 IRON ALLOY, UNID HARDWARE, STRAPBD 1 IRON ALLOY, LOCK/LOCK PARTBE 1 IRON ALLOY, HOOK, HARNESSBF 1 IRON ALLOY, KEY, WEBB/WARDBG 1 IRON ALLOY, KEY, GUARDBH 8 IRON ALLOY, FRAGMENT, ROLLED/SHEETBI 2 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, TIRE, WROUGHT/FORGEDBJ 40 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, LESS THAN 2 IN, WROUGHT/FORGEDBK 15 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, 2 TO 4 IN, WROUGHT/FORGEDBL 1 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, FRAGMENTBM 3 COPPER ALLOY, CLOCK/WATCH PRT, MAKER'S MARK, VIII, BEZEL

FRAGMENTS OF MANTLE CLOCKBN 1 COPPER ALLOY/FE, BUTTON, TWO PIECEBO 1 COPPER ALLOY/FE, BUTTON, TWO PIECEBP 1 COPPER ALLOY, BUTTON, TWO PIECE, STAMPED METAL, TOP ONLY,

BIRMINGHAM BUTTONBQ 2 EARTHENWARE, DELFTWARE ENG, FRAGMENT, MISSING GLAZEBR 1 STONEWARE, ENGLISH SW, FRAGMENT, POSSIBLY DERBYSHIREBS 1 STONEWARE, YORKTOWN-TYPE, FRAGMENT

Context No.: 68AP00085 Description: Grey clay layer, Layer III, NE quad TPQ: 1730

AA 1 CERAMIC, TOBACCO PIPE, IMPORTED, BOWLAB 75 BONE, FAUNAL SPECIMENAC 3 SHELL, SHELL, OYSTERAD 1 IRON ALLOY, GRATEAE 1 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, LESS THAN 2 IN, WROUGHT/FORGEDAF 17 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINE BOTTLEAG 1 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINE BOTTLE, DIP MOLD/EMP, BASE, *AH 1 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINDOW GLASSAI 1 IRON ALLOY, TRAMMELAJ 3 IRON ALLOY, BARREL HOOP, PIECES MENDAK 1 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, 2 TO 4 IN, WROUGHT/FORGEDAL 3 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, FRAGMENTAM 6 CERAMIC, FRAGMENT, ROOFING TILEAN 1 STONEWARE, FULHAM SW, FRAGMENT

Context No.: 68AP00086 Description: Yellow clay fill TPQ: NDA

AA 54 BONE, FAUNAL SPECIMENAB 6 CERAMIC, FRAGMENT, ROOFING TILEAC 3 SHELL, SHELL, OYSTERAD 5 BONE, FAUNAL SPECIMENAE 1 IRON ALLOY, UNID HARDWARE, BARAF 1 IRON ALLOY, BARREL HOOP, FRAGMENT, *

Context No.: 68AP00087 Description: NE quad TPQ: NDA

AA 1 CERAMIC, TOBACCO PIPE, IMPORTED, STEM, 5/64 INCHESAB 2 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINDOW GLASSAC 1 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINE BOTTLE

57

AD 23 BONE, FAUNAL SPECIMENAE 1 STONE, MARBLE, TOY MARBLEAF 1 IRON ALLOY, FRAGMENT, ROLLED/SHEETAG 4 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, WROUGHT/FORGED, FRAGMENT, *

Context No.: 68AP00088 Description: Orange clay slump, NE quad TPQ: 1720

AA 1 STONEWARE, WH SALT-GLAZED, FRAGMENT, *AB 3 BONE, FAUNAL SPECIMENAC 1 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, LESS THAN 2 IN, WROUGHT/FORGEDAD 1 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, 2 TO 4 IN, WROUGHT/FORGEDAE 1 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, FRAGMENT

Context No.: 68AP00089 Description: NOT GIVEN TPQ: NDA

AA 2 BONE, FAUNAL SPECIMENAB 2 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINDOW GLASSAC 1 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINE BOTTLEAD 1 SHELL, SHELLAE 1 LEAD ALLOY, SHOT, .25 CALIBREAF 2 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, FRAGMENT, *

Context No.: 68AP00090 Description: NOT GIVEN TPQ: 1700

AA 2 EARTHENWARE, DELFTWARE ENG, FRAGMENT, PAINTED UNDER,BLUE

AB 1 STONEWARE, WESTERWALD, FRAGMENT, *AC 2 CERAMIC, TOBACCO PIPE, IMPORTED, STEM, 4/64 INCHESAD 1 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINDOW GLASSAE 2 GLASS, FRAGMENT, WINE BOTTLEAF 10 BONE, FAUNAL SPECIMENAG 2 SHELL, SHELL, ONE CLAMAH 1 BLACK TRANSLUCE, GUNFLINT, FRENCH SHAPE, MUSKET FLINT,

HEAVILY USEDAI 1 CERAMIC, WIG/HAIR CURLERAJ 1 LEAD ALLOY, SHOT, BIRD SHOTAK 1 IRON ALLOY, BOLT, EYE BOLT WITH CHAINAL 1 IRON ALLOY, CHAIN, HARNESS, TWO INTERLOCKING LINKSAM 1 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, 2 TO 4 IN, WROUGHT/FORGEDAN 2 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, LESS THAN 2 IN, WROUGHT/FORGEDAO 17 IRON ALLOY, NAIL, FRAGMENT

58