the bates site: investigation of a quaker...

126
The Bates Site: Investigation The Bates Site: Investigation The Bates Site: Investigation The Bates Site: Investigation The Bates Site: Investigation of a Quaker Mer of a Quaker Mer of a Quaker Mer of a Quaker Mer of a Quaker Merchant chant chant chant chant Patricia Samford with contributions by Joanne Bowen, Staff Zooarchaeologist Eric Ackermann, Bill Burke, Bill Dannenmaier, Lisa Flick, Barbara Larkin, Drake Patten, and Anne Ustach Marley R. Brown III Principal Investigator April 1990 Re-issued June 2001 Colonial Williamsburg Archaeological Reports

Upload: hakhue

Post on 07-Apr-2018

270 views

Category:

Documents


5 download

TRANSCRIPT

The Bates Site: InvestigationThe Bates Site: InvestigationThe Bates Site: InvestigationThe Bates Site: InvestigationThe Bates Site: Investigationof a Quaker Merof a Quaker Merof a Quaker Merof a Quaker Merof a Quaker Merchantchantchantchantchant

Patricia Samford

with contributions byJoanne Bowen, Staff Zooarchaeologist

Eric Ackermann, Bill Burke, Bill Dannenmaier,Lisa Flick, Barbara Larkin, Drake Patten,and Anne Ustach

Marley R. Brown IIIPrincipal Investigator

April 1990Re-issued June 2001

Colonial Williamsburg Archaeological Reports

The Bates Site: Investigation ofa Quaker Merchant

Patricia Samford

with contributions byJoanne Bowen, Staff Zooarchaeologist

Eric Ackermann, Bill Burke, Bill Dannenmaier,Lisa Flick, Barbara Larkin, Drake Patten,

and Anne Ustach

Report submitted by:Department of Archaeological Research

Colonial Williamsburg FoundationPO Box 1776

Williamsburg, Virginia 23187-1776

Marley R. Brown IIIPrincipal Investigator

April 1990Re-issued May 2001

i

Abstract

During the summer of 1985, the Co-lonial Williamsburg Foundation De-partment of Archaeological Research

sponsored a summer archaeological fieldschool in conjunction with the College of Wil-liam and Mary History Graduate Program.One of the locations chosen for excavationwas the Bates Site (44YO205), a colonialQuaker site containing both 17th- and 18th-century components. The site is documentedas having been owned by John3* Bates, awealthy Quaker planter and merchant, at thebeginning of the 18th century. Some of thearchaeological components located on the siteappear to date to his ownership of the prop-erty. The site is located in Skimino Hills, amodern housing division approximately eightmiles west of Williamsburg.

Previous archaeological salvage workconducted on the site in 1980 by the VirginiaResearch Center for Archaeology located astructure with a brick foundation and severalother colonial-period features. The 1985 ex-cavation further explored the structure,

which contained a brick-paved cellar thatappeared to have been destroyed by fire dur-ing the third quarter of the 18th century. Alsodiscovered was an early 18th-century refusedeposit, containing a large assemblage ofdomestic artifacts.

John3 Bates was known to have oper-ated a store at his Skimino Plantation, forwhich an inventory was taken at his death in1720. Despite documentation of the store’scontents, no detailed information on ceram-ics is included in that list. This is a recurringproblem archaeologists and ceramic histori-ans face when working with store and pro-bate inventories. The artifact assemblage ofthe trash deposit, most likely associated withBates’ store, provides an excellent opportu-nity to study an early 18th-century merchantand the range of ceramics which were avail-able to the area’s residents at the time. Theassemblage and Bates’ store inventory arecompared to that of other early 18th-centuryVirginia merchants.

*Superscript numbers are used throughout thetext to denote successive generations of themembers of the Bates family.

ii

iii

Table of Contents

Page

Abstract ........................................................................................................................ iTable of Contents ......................................................................................................... iiiList of Figures ............................................................................................................... vList of Tables ............................................................................................................... viiAcknowledgments ........................................................................................................ ix

Introduction .................................................................................................................. xi

Chapter I. Environmental Setting ................................................................................... 1

Chapter II. Property History ......................................................................................... 344YO205 in the 17th Century ............................................................................... 3The Quaker Community at Skimino ....................................................................... 544YO205 in the 18th Century ............................................................................... 5

Chapter III. Previous Archaeology ................................................................................ 9

Chapter IV. Field and Laboratory Methods ................................................................. 11Field Methods .................................................................................................... 11Laboratory Methods ........................................................................................... 12

Chapter V. Archaeological Results ............................................................................... 15Trash Deposit ..................................................................................................... 15Structure A ......................................................................................................... 16 Additional Testing .............................................................................................. 26

Chapter VI. Interpretations ......................................................................................... 27Trash Pit Assemblage: A Comparison with the Store Inventory ............................. 27John Bates3, Quaker Merchant ........................................................................... 31John Bates3, Personal Lifestyle ............................................................................ 34Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 37

Chapter VII. Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................ 39

Bibliography ............................................................................................................... 41

Appendices I. John Bates 1720 Estate Inventory ................................................................... 45II. Artifact Inventory ........................................................................................... 59III. Unique Ceramic Vessel Catalog ..................................................................... 77IV. State Site Survey Form ............................................................................... 103V. Faunal Analysis ............................................................................................. 105VI. List of Virginia Store Owners ...................................................................... 109

iv

v

List of Figures

Page

Figure 1. Location map ................................................................................................. 1Figure 2. Guthrie house ................................................................................................. 2Figure 3. 1704 York County landholdings showing Bates tract ....................................... 4Figure 4. Gilmer Map of 1863 ...................................................................................... 6Figure 5. Berthier Map of 1781 .................................................................................... 8Figure 6. Approximate location of 1980 test units ........................................................ 10Figure 7. Location of areas examined in 1985 .............................................................. 12Figure 8. DAR context form ........................................................................................ 13Figure 9. Trash pit, plan and profile ............................................................................. 16Figure 10. Structure A test units ................................................................................... 18Figure 11. Structure A, northwest corner profile ........................................................... 19Figure 12. Unit 1, north wall and disturbances ............................................................. 19Figure 13. Structure A, interior fill ................................................................................ 20Figure 14. Unit 1, utility lines cutting Structure A foundation .......................................... 20Figure 15. Structure A, northwest corner ..................................................................... 21Figure 16. Structure A, northwest corner wall with charred beam in situ ....................... 21Figure 17. Unit 3, east profile ...................................................................................... 22Figure 18. Unit 3, northwest corner showing Structure A and associated features .......... 23Figure 19. Unit 4, plan and profile ............................................................................... 23Figure 20. Unit 4, rubble-filled trench .......................................................................... 24Figure 21. Westerwald stoneware tankard ................................................................... 77Figure 22. Westerwald stoneware tankard ................................................................... 77Figure 23. English brown stoneware storage jar ........................................................... 78Figure 24. Westerwald stoneware jug .......................................................................... 78Figure 25. Staffordshire mottled stoneware vessels ...................................................... 80Figure 26. Staffordshire mottled stoneware and brown stoneware tankards .................. 81Figure 27. Staffordshire brown stoneware tankards ..................................................... 81Figure 28. Staffordshire slipware mug .......................................................................... 85Figure 29. Staffordshire slipware mug .......................................................................... 87Figure 30. Delft floral motif plate ................................................................................. 87Figure 31. Delft drug jar .............................................................................................. 88Figure 32. Delft porringer ............................................................................................ 88Figure 33. Chinoiserie motif delft punch bowl .............................................................. 89Figure 34. Polychrome floral motif delft can ................................................................. 89Figure 35. Delft salt handles ........................................................................................ 89Figure 36. Floral motif delft plate ................................................................................. 91Figure 37. Delft bulbous mug(?) .................................................................................. 91

vi

List of Figures (cont’d)

Page

Figure 38. Chinoiserie motif delft cup .......................................................................... 92Figure 39. Delft plate .................................................................................................. 92Figure 40. “Beware of the Fox” delft mug .................................................................... 96Figure 41. Colonoware porringer handle ..................................................................... 97Figure 42. Red sandy earthenware milkpan ............................................................... 100

vii

List of Tables

Page

Table I. Ceramic vessel forms from trash deposit and store inventory ........................... 29Table II. John Bates’ ceramic assemblage .................................................................... 30Table III. The estate goods of John Bates, 1721 .......................................................... 35Table IV. Relative frequencies, 44YO205-1, -17, -47 ............................................... 106Table V. Relative frequencies, Bos taurus ................................................................... 106Table VI. Relative frequencies, Sus scrofa ................................................................. 107

viii

ix

Acknowledgments

Completion of this project would nothave been possible without the as-sistance of a number of people. Ann

and James Guthrie, owners of the site, weremost generous in allowing their yard to befilled with holes, people and equipment dur-ing our eight-week excavation. The Guthriesalso lent the artifacts earlier removed fromthe trash deposit to the Department of Ar-chaeological Research for documentation andanalysis. Charles Thomas and LuciaVinciguerra, field technicians with the Depart-ment of Archaeological Research, supervisedthe field work, and had the dual responsibil-ity of making sense of the site and teachingfield school students the theory and techniqueof archaeological excavation. The field schoolstudents from the Graduate History programat the College of William and Mary who par-ticipated in this project were Eric Ackermann,Bill Dannenmaier, Lisa Flick, MarkGreenough, Jeff Holland, Barbara Larkin,David Rhoads, Amy Roberson, Chris Styrna,and Anne Ustach. These students were alsoresponsible for various stages of artifact pro-cessing and analysis, with the addition ofDrake Patten and Bill Burke, also of theGraduate History program.

Eric Ackermann and Bill Burke, underthe supervision of Staff ZooarchaeologistJoanne Bowen Gaynor, conducted the faunalanalysis for the trash deposit assemblage. Ericand Bill’s report is included as Appendix V.

Lisa Flick delved into the York CountyRecords for research into the Bates family,and the property history reflects her work.

Staff members of the Department of Ar-chaeological Research were also involved inthis project. William Pittman and LeslieMcFaden packed up the trash deposit arti-facts from the Guthrie’s house and transportedthem to the department laboratory. Bill andLeslie also spent a great deal of time duringthe fall and winter of 1985 training studentsand answering questions related to artifactidentification and analysis. Staff Archaeolo-gist Andrew Edwards and Director MarleyR. Brown III were instrumental in coordinat-ing efforts with Mr. and Mrs. Guthrie. StaffPhotographer Tamera Mams is responsiblefor the graphics and artifact photographs seenin this report, as well as its final technicalpreparation. Elizabeth Bush performed con-servation measures on those artifacts from theexcavation which required attention. GregBrown, Ann Martin and Meredith Moodeykindly offered their editorial assistance.

Conversations with Peter Bergstrom ofthe Research Department of the Colonial Will-iamsburg Foundation were helpful in consoli-dating information about the Bates family andtheir relative position in colonial Virginia so-ciety. David Hazzard of the Virginia ResearchCenter for Archaeology shared notes andphotographs from the 1980 salvage work.

x

xi

Introduction

During the summer of 1985, the De-partment of Archaeological Researchconducted a test excavation at a co-

lonial Quaker site (44YO205), located inYork County, Virginia. This project was initi-ated as an unforeseen result of landscapingthat the property owners undertook in the fallof 1984. In the process of removing shrub-bery, Mr. James Guthrie cut through an early18th-century refuse deposit. His wife, AnnGuthrie, an employee of the ColonialWilliamsburg Foundation, brought this dis-covery to the attention of the Department ofArchaeological Research.

This site was judged to be particularlyimportant, since checking 17th- and 18th-century land plats against current topographicmaps showed that this area and the landaround it was owned by the Bates family dur-ing the late 17th and into the 18th century.John3 Bates, who owned and occupied thesite from the 1690s until his death in 1720,was a merchant as well as a planter. Artifactsrecovered from the refuse deposit appear tobe store goods, indicating that this site holdspotential for providing insight into the com-mercial activities of rural merchants. A 1720inventory of Bates’ estate lists not only hispersonal possessions, but the contents of hisstore as well (see Appendix I). Comparisonof this inventory with the contents of the trashdeposit may be useful in providing greaterdetail about the store goods that is not pro-vided in the 1720 inventory, and particularlyabout the available ceramics. Examination ofother Virginia merchant inventories from thelate 17th through the early 18th centuries wasundertaken to provide a comparison of Batesand other rural merchants with those operat-ing in areas with more concentrated popula-tions. Bates’ role as a Quaker merchant, ca-tering primarily to a community of Friends,was also examined.

The location of the site had been docu-mented by the Virginia Research Center forArchaeology in 1980, when roads for theSkimino Hills subdivision were constructed.This work revealed a discrete scatter of brickrubble, as well as the brick foundation of an18th-century building. This foundation wallhad been cut during the construction of a cul-vert, and at least eight brick courses wereintact below grade. The site was recordedand a few artifacts recovered before the con-struction continued.

The 1985 testing was confined to theproperty of James and Ann Guthrie, whoselot contained the western portion of the 18th-century building discovered in 1980. The1985 excavation allowed further examinationof this building. Although portions of the sitehad been destroyed by construction activi-ties occurring after 1980, chances are goodthat a great deal of archaeological data stillsurvives in this area. For example, during thecourse of the testing at 44YO205, residentsof several nearby houses visited the site, anddescribed 18th-century artifacts found ontheir properties. Although the exact bound-aries of Bates’ property are not known, theremains of the typical types of buildings as-sociated with a plantation, such as a house,kitchen, dairy, and smokehouse, in additionto Bates’ store, should be present. SinceBates was known to have owned 30 slavesat the time of his death, some of which cer-tainly lived at this plantation, slave quarterswould have been located on his property aswell.

The 1985 work on the Bates site wasconducted between June 18 and August 8 bythe Department of Archaeological Researchof the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.Members of the Graduate History programat the College of William and Mary conductedthe fieldwork, under the supervision of Charles

xii

Thomas and Lucia Vinciguerra. The objec-tives of this fieldwork were to salvage the re-mainder of the trash deposit, to determine thearchaeological integrity of the remainder ofthe yard, and to delineate, as much as pos-sible, the boundaries of the site and the rela-tionships of various features.

1

Chapter I.Environmental Setting

Archaeological site 44YO205 is locatedin York County, Virginia, about eightmiles west of Williamsburg (Figure 1).

York County, located on the Middle Peninsula insoutheastern Virginia, is situated largely on coastalplain uplands, between the James and York Riv-ers. The general soil type in the area of the siteconsists of deep moderate-to-well drained loamscollectively known as the Slagle-Emporia-Ucheecomplex (USDA 1985).

The site itself is located between SkiminoCreek and Queen’s Creek, two tributaries whichdrain into the York River. These tributaries flowin narrow, steep-walled valleys through the inte-rior of the Peninsula until they reach the tidal area,

Figure 1. Location map.

where the valleys widen and the creeks began tomeander. Located at the southern end of NinaCircle, in Skimino Hills, a housing division whichhas been in existence since 1980, the site occu-pies a terrace situated 100' above mean sea level.A small branch of Carter Creek is located ap-proximately 200' to the west.

The house, an L-shaped rancher, was builtapproximately 75' off of the road (Figure 2). Sincethe house was constructed into the side of a ra-vine, there is an unfinished basement or crawlspace under the west side of the house. The ar-eas under the concrete driveway on the south sideof the house and various landscaped garden bedswere not archaeologically examined in 1985.

2

Figure 2. Guthrie house.

3

Chapter II.Property History

44YO205 in the 17th Century

Historical documentation indicates that theland where 44YO205 is located wasoccupied by the Bates family during the

latter half of the 17th and most of the 18th cen-tury. Although the archaeological components onthe site seem to be related only to the Bates fam-ily, the land was traced as far back into the earlyland grants/patents as possible in order to deter-mine the use of the land prior to their ownership.

The earliest known reference to this propertycomes in 1670, when John Smith bequeathed thisland to his son James Smith[es]. Sometime be-fore 1675, four hundred and twelve acres of thisland along Skimino Creek was received byGeorge Bates by escheat of James Smithes. Asshown on a computer-generated cadastral mapof 1704 York County landholdings (Figure 3), thisproperty [Tract Reference #221D] was boundedby lands belonging, among others, to John Smithes(Bergstrom and Ferguson 1984). It is not knownwhether this land had been improved by Smithesprior to its transfer to George Bates. However,since Smithes was not relieved of all of his land-holdings in the Skimino Creek area, it is likelythat he retained any land that he had constructeda house and buildings on, thus relinquishing unim-proved land to Bates.

The first record of the Bates family in Americais found in connection with the distribution of 750acres of land in 1639, in which John1 Bates (1598-c. 1667) and another man received a land patent.Fifty acres were given to each man for himself,plus 650 acres for the transport of 13 other peopleto the colonies. This land was in what was thenknown as Charles River County, at the head ofQueen’s Creek (Pat. 1:638). Bates apparentlysoon sold most or all of his portion. He was thengiven a patent of 50 acres at Middle Plantation in1655, with this patent renewed in 1665/6 (Pat.

5c:566). This property was then passed on to hisyounger son, John2, uncle to John3, in John1’s willof 1667/8.

John1 Bates, of York County, Middlesex Par-ish, was listed as owning a plantation with houses,and as growing tobacco. Little else is known abouthim. In 1674, his son, John2 assigned the inher-ited 50 acres of land near Middle Plantation tohis older brother, George Bates (born by 1650,died by January 1676/7), father of John3. Thisland seems to have been assigned to John Pageof Middle Plantation later that same year. Aroundthat time, in 1675, was the first reference to theBates family in connection with the Skimino Creeksite, when George received land along the creekfrom James Smithes. He sold 70 acres of this landto John Edmundson of James City County laterthat same year. This 70 acres later reverted backto the Bates family after passing through the handsof George Tindall.

George Bates was listed in 1672 as a car-penter of York County, Bruton Parish (DOW7:74) and as a former constable. He married Mary[?] by 1672 and had three children: two sons,James and John3, and a daughter, Mary. In hiswill, probated in January 1676/7?, he left his landsto be split between his wife and two sons, laterdivided in 1699. He also left each of his childrenone cow when they came of age. George Bates’widow remarried twice, first to James Cooper(died by December 1680) and later to EdmundBrewer (married by August 1681). Her third hus-band assigned the widow’s portion of land to John3

Bates in 1698 with all right, title and interest. Thisnew land apportionment appears to be what isdepicted on the computer-generated map of 1704.The eastern section in John3 Bates name is wherethe present site is located (Figure 3). This sectionwas described in George Bates’ will as being “Thepart with the manner plantation.” This wholeallottment of land appears to be the 412 acres

4

Figure 3. 1704 York County landholdings showing Bates tract.

originally received by George Bates from JamesSmithes.

John3 Bates, son of George and Mary Bates,is first seen in the York County Records by Janu-

ary 6, 1676/7, at his father’s death. He spent hischildhood in York County, growing up under thecare of his mother and two stepfathers. John3 mar-ried Hannah [?] by May 24, 1698, and together

5

they had four children: two sons, John5 (1692?-1723) and Isaac (1709-1752), and two daugh-ters, Hannah and Ann (1706?-1723?). Bates’wife disappears from the York County recordsby February 1709/10 and, since no wife is men-tioned in his will, it is presumed that she died some-time between then and John3 Bates death in De-cember of 1719.

John3 was a merchant in York County, own-ing two plantations, one in York County nearSkimino (44YO205) and another at PoplarSprings in James City County. Each containedstorehouses, with the plantation at Poplar Springshaving a smith’s shop and a mill as well. John3

was a surveyor of highways in York Countythroughout the first two decades of the 18th cen-tury. In January 1708/9, he was brought to courtfor not clearing the roads, but this suit was dis-missed. He appears frequently in the York Countyrecords throughout the late 17th and early 18thcenturies, appraising estates, buying outcriedgoods, and collecting and paying debts.

Besides involvement in the mercantile busi-ness, John3 also owned the Poplar Springs mill athis death, along with over thirty slaves distributedbetween his two plantations. The large number ofslaves plus a reference to what was known as“Knight’s field slave quarter” suggest that he wasalso actively involved in agriculture.

The Quaker Community atSkimino

It is known that John3 Bates and his family be-came Quakers, probably around the beginning ofthe 18th century. A group of Quakers, living nearSkimino Creek, established a Meeting there inthe late 17th century (McCartney and Weston1973). Thomas Story, an English Quaker mis-sionary wrote in 1698:

though he [John3 Bates] was not a Friendby profession, yet very forward to provideseats, saying his House, he feared, wouldbe too small for the meeting but he hadroom sufficient in his heart (McCartneyand Weston 1973:4).

Apparently Bates soon joined the Quaker reli-gion, for he and his brother James were delegatesat the first recorded session of the Virginia YearlyMeeting in July 1702, representing the Warwick-York monthly meeting. James later became an in-fluential Quaker minister (McCartney and Weston1973).

Around 1767, a meeting house was con-structed where present-day Route 168 meetsRoute 646. The building stood until at least 1808and served the Middle Peninsula northward intoNew Kent County. An archaeological survey con-ducted by the Virginia Research Center for Ar-chaeology in 1974 revealed only a small scatterof brick on the documented site of the meeting-house (Outlaw 1974).

44YO205 in the 18th Century

John3 died around December 25, 1719, leavinga will and a probate inventory (see Appendix I).The inventory showed the total estimated valueof his estate at £1903.12.14. It is also revealedthat, at that time, the plantation at Poplar Springcontained a dwelling, a store, a mill, a smith’s shop,and a slave quarter. According to the inventory,Bates did not live at this plantation, perhaps itwas rented to someone who ran the store or mill.The store alone contained £212.10.3¾ worth ofmerchandise.

The plantation house in York County, atSkimino Creek, was Bates’ residence, and was amuch larger house than that at Poplar Springs. Aroom-by-room inventory lists the contents ofseven rooms: porch, hall, back room on theground floor, and four chambers on the secondfloor. The house also contained a cellar, as wellas a dairy and a kitchen, which were most likelydetached from the house. Goods at his storehousein York County were inventoried at £458.19.2½.Thus, the total estimated value of John3 Bates’estate at his death was £1903.12.14, which placedhim in the upper range of York County residentsat that time.

John3 Bates bequeathed the York Countyplantation to his younger son, Isaac Bates (1709-

6

1753), as: “the Plantation I now live on with allthe Rest of my Plantations Adjoining thereunto”(Will 1719). This land also included a storehouse,whose present contents were given in the inven-tory.

From here the fate of the Skimino plantationbecomes murky. It was held by Isaac’s uncle,James Bates, until Isaac came of age in 1730. Anannouncement in the Virginia Gazette in Novem-ber of 1737 states that Isaac Bates was selling:

A Tract of Land, lying on the Head ofScimino Creek, in York County, contain-ing Seven Hundred and Eighty One Acres,with Several good Orchards, a convenientLanding, and a good Wharf thereon, withina Mile of the Dwelling-House. Whoever hasa Mind to purchase the said Land, mayapply to the Proprietor, living inGoochland County (Virginia Gazette,Parks, ed., 4 Nov. 1737).

It is doubtful whether Bates actually sold the landat this time. In his brother John4’s 1722 will, he isleft the land given by his father, but Isaac mustpay John5 Bates’ daughter, Hannah £100 for it. Ifhe does not, the land is to go to Hannah. Althoughapparently, by court record of 1753, Isaac nevercompensated Hannah, there is no record that sheactually was granted the land in reversion.

In 1755, two years after Isaac Bates’ deathin 1753, his land, 487 acres in York County, wasput up for sale by public auction, as requested inhis will. The land was described as “about sevenmiles from Williamsburg, near Fleming Bates’s,on both sides of the Road that leads from Glass’sOrdinary to York River, well wooded and wa-tered” (Virginia Gazette, Hunter, ed., 24 Oct.1755). This appears to be the rest of the Smithland. The land was again put up for sale, in 1773and 1774, by John6 Bates, who granted it to JohnMeade, merchant of Williamsburg, in 1776. In

Figure 4. Gilmer Map of 1863.

7

the 1774 sale advertisement for the land, it is de-scribed as being “very convenient to ...three par-ish churches, quaker’s meetinghouse, several grist-mills, two warehouses, and a navigable landing”(Virginia Gazette, Rind, ed. 19 May 1774). Noinformation could be found concerning JohnMeade, and the title chain of the parcel contain-ing the site is unknown from this point.

Map research shows that 44YO205 is lo-cated adjacent to two roads depicted on 18th-and 19th-century maps. A major road, followingthe present course of Route 646 north of the site,is shown on the Rochambeau Map (1781), aswell as on the Boye Map (1825), the Abbott Map(1861) and the Gilmer Map (1863; Figure 4).What may be another road, extending north-southto the east of the site, along the present-day routeof Route 604, is seen on the 1825 Boye Mapand on the 1861 Abbott Map. These two roadsmeet at what is now known as Barlow’s Corner.

Besides providing historians and archaeolo-gists with information on roads and transporta-tion routes, these maps are useful because thelocations of structures/ buildings are sometimesnoted. A number of structures are shown on theBerthier Map (1781) (Figure 5), and these loca-tions have been placed on the state archaeologi-cal site inventories by historian Martha McCartney(44YO-257, -258, -259, -265, -266). In fact,44Y0266, a map-predicted site, is so close tothe actual location of 44YO205, that they mayactually be one and the same site. By the timethat the Gilmer Map was drawn in 1863, the Batessite appears to have been unoccupied. Althougha number of farms and their respective propertyowners are noted on the map, there are no build-ings designated at the site of 44YO205. Whatappear to be logging roads around the site areshown on 1920s topographical maps, so it is pos-sible that this area was logged during the early20th century.

8

Figure 5. Berthier Map of 1781.

9

Chapter III.Previous Archaeology

Although no intensive archaeological ex-amination of the Bates site has ever beenmade, some limited testing was under-

taken in 1980. In late March of that year, gradingfor road construction in connection with the up-coming Skimino Hills subdivision revealed evi-dence of colonial occupation in this area. Archae-ologists at the Virginia Research Center for Ar-chaeology (VRCA), a division of the Virginia His-toric Landmarks Commission, were notified ofthis discovery by Glen Jones, owner of one of thelots in the area where the site had been discov-ered. Archaeologist David Hazzard surveyed andrecorded the site, which was located at the south-ern end of Nina Circle. Four lots (numbers 129-132) were included in the area examined at thistime.

In addition to scatters of artifacts located inthe newly cleared areas, grading in connectionwith the road had revealed areas of interest onLots 129 and 131. However, the site survey formprepared by the VRCA for the area of Lot 131indicates that this portion of the site, designated44YO205/2, has now essentially been destroyed.

A brick foundation, located on Lot 129 dur-ing the cutting of a drainage culvert, was evidenceof a substantial structure. The foundation, con-structed in English bond, was two bricks wideand extended in depth to at least eight coursesbelow grade. The culvert cut through the north-ernmost east-west running foundation wall.

Four test units were excavated around thebuilding in 1980, in order to determine its dimen-

sions and date. These units, whose locations areseen in Figure 6, showed that the building mea-sured 28' north-south, although no east-west di-mension for the structure was determined at thistime. Artifacts, including creamware and delft,were found within the test holes placed aroundthe building foundations, suggesting that the build-ing was in use during the 18th century. This por-tion of the site was given the designation44YO205/1. Although truncated by the road andculvert constructions, the internal fill of the struc-ture appeared to contain intact stratigraphy. It wasnoted by the VRCA that the site was possiblythreatened by future construction in the housingdevelopment, and close monitoring, followed bythe necessary salvage work, was recommended.

Between 1980 and 1984, at least thirteenhouses were constructed on Nina Circle. A 50'minimum setback line for the location of houseson each lot aided in protecting Structure A fromfurther disturbances. It is not known at this pointwhat effects this may have had on other culturalresources on this and adjacent lots. Some moni-toring of the construction of these homes may havetaken place, since the map included in the sitesurvey form records a small area of brick rubbleon Lot 132, which was disturbed in August of1980. It is almost certain, however, that destruc-tion of additional archaeological resources oc-curred during the development of these lots, par-ticularly since some of the houses were con-structed with cellars and entailed deep excava-tion.

10

Figure 6. Approximate location of 1980 test units.

11

Chapter IV.Field and Laboratory Methods

Field Methods

Given the relatively short period of timeset aside for examination of 44YO205,and the range of goals to be accom-

plished, excavation strategy was formulated towork with these constraints in mind. One objec-tive was to denote the boundaries of the site, tothe extent possible given that testing was limitedonly to the Guthrie’s property. Another goal wasto determine the extent of damage that had oc-curred to the site since its 18th-century occupa-tion, including those caused by erosion, logging,and housing construction. Since this excavationwas held in the context of an archaeological fieldschool, another objective was to teach studentsthe methods and techniques of archaeologicalexcavation, as well as to introduce them to vari-ous phases of archaeological survey work. A num-ber of different excavation strategies were usedat the Bates site to give the students just this kindof exposure.

One of the first tasks at 44YO205 was toestablish a grid which would enable the currentsite plan, as well as any recovered archaeologicalfeatures, to be mapped. A baseline was estab-lished, running north-south, with an arbitrary ter-minal point located along Nina Circle, northeastof the house. The baseline was extended 90' tothe south. Next a grid was laid out, using thebaseline to establish a series of 10' x 10' squareexcavation units over the entire yard. These unitswere designated by the relationship of their north-west corner to the 0/0 datum; for example, a unitwhose northwestern corner was 40' south and30' west of 0/0 would be 40S/30W.

Small 2.5' subunits, located within the larger10' units, were intially placed throughout the site,in order to locate areas where stratigraphic evi-dence suggested the presence of cultural remainsassociated with the Bates’ occupation period.

These smaller units were expanded as necessary,for further examination of cultural layers or fea-tures. Figure 7 shows the location of these units.

Soil was removed using shovels and trowels,with recent disturbances and topsoil layers usu-ally being shoveled out. The soil was removed inlayers by unit, using color and textural changes todenote the various levels. These layers and fea-tures were recorded using the standard proce-dure of the Colonial Williamsburg FoundationDepartment of Archaeological Research. Thisprocedure involves assigning a unique number,known as a context number, to each individualstratum or feature within a 10' square. This sys-tem facilitates stratigraphic interpretation using the“Harris Matrix” (Harris 1979), a flow chart sys-tem for tracking layers and features on the site.Information was recorded on soil color, texture,inclusions, and stratigraphic position. Figure 8shows a sample context form. All layers and fea-tures within excavation units were mapped in plan.Features were bisected, and mapped in profileafter half their fill had been removed. Photographsof archaeological features and strata were takenas deemed necessary.

All soil was screened through ¼" wire mesh,to facilitate the recovery of small finds. Culturalmaterial from each layer was retained, with theexception of bricks, broken shells, and charcoal,whose presence was noted. Soil color was de-termined using Munsell Soil Color Charts (Munsell1975), while texture was analyzed by determin-ing the relative proportion of soil particles sizeswithin the individual samples (Hunter 1983).

In the wooded ravine located to the west ofthe site, a series of small (one-foot diameter)shovel tests were randomly excavated. Theseshovel tests were used to determine the extent oferosion on the site, and to suggest the likelihoodthat cultural features were present in this area.

12

Laboratory Methods

Processing of the artifacts recovered from theexcavation of the Bates site was begun in earlySeptember 1985, at the Department of Archaeo-logical Research laboratory. Historical archaeol-ogy interns enrolled in the graduate history pro-gram at the College of William and Mary per-formed this processing, under the supervision ofLaboratory Supervisor William Pittman.

When artifacts were brought into the lab, theywere accessioned according to the context num-ber which they had been assigned in the field. Atthis time, the artifact assemblages were examinedclosely for fragile items or metal objects whichcould possibly be damaged during subsequentwashing. Objects meeting this criterion were re-moved from their group and tagged with their

context number. Items needing conservation orx-ray treatment for identification were also re-moved at this time.

After washing, the artifacts were sorted intogeneral types within groups, and each artifact waslabeled with its context number in India ink. Shelland faunal bone, which were not labeled, wereremoved and bagged separately.

The next procedure in the processing was thepreparation of an inventory of the artifacts andthe assignment of a terminus post quem date foreach group (Appendix II). This date is establishedby identifying the artifact in each group for whichthe most recent documented date of manufactureis known. A terminus post quem date establishesthe earliest date after which the layer or archaeo-logical feature could have been deposited.

Figure 7. Location of areas examined in 1985.

13

Figure 8. DAR context form.

14

Ceramics, glass, and pipestems were mendedwithin each context group, and then crossmendedwith other context groups. Crossmending pro-vides information on the relationship of differentstrata and areas of the site to one another andaids in site interpretation. Through the processesof mending and crossmending, a number of uniquevessels were identified and given unique vesselnumbers. These unique vessels were describedin detail, and photographs taken of each (Ap-

pendix III). After this documentation, some of themore complete ceramic vessles were restored.

All artifacts from 44YO205 are the propertyof Mr. and Mrs. James Guthrie, and are currentlybeing stored at the Department of Archaeologi-cal Research of the Colonial Williamsburg Foun-dation. Notes, maps, and records generated dur-ing the excavation are also on file at the Depart-ment of Archaeological Research.

15

Chapter V.Archaeological Results

Trash Deposit(44YO205-17/-47/-48/-1)

One of the primary reasons the Depart-ment of Archaeological Research beganthe investigation of 44YO205 was the

unexpected discovery of an early 18th-centurytrash deposit. This feature had been located byMr. James Guthrie as he was removing shrub-bery from the northwest side of his house in thefall of 1984. Large fragments of ceramics, glass,and white English clay pipes were revealed dur-ing the process, and Mr. and Mrs. Guthrie re-covered large quantities of these materials fromthe area around the hole. Mrs. Guthrie, an inter-preter for the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation,brought these artifacts into the Department ofArchaeological Research for identification, thusbringing the department’s attention to this deposit.Mr. and Mrs. Guthrie agreed to allow recordingand continued examination of the feature by ar-chaeologists on the staff of the Department of Ar-chaeological Research.

The trash pit, located 4.0' northwest of thehouse, had been almost completely destroyed bythe time archaeological examination was begun inJune of 1985. The first step was to determine thelimits of the feature and its remaining integrity. Thearea around the feature was cleaned, revealingan irregular triangular depression created by theGuthries’ shrub-removal, containing some early18th-century artifacts. Subsequent stripping of thetopsoil in the area around the depression revealedthe edges of the trash deposit. In addition to thedisturbance created by shrub removal, the fea-ture had also been truncated to the south by ac-tivities associated with house construction, andto the west by a utility trench (Figure 9).

The trash feature measured 5.8' east-west atits widest point, and at least 7.0' from north tosouth (a true north-south measurement will prob-

ably never be known, since the southern edge ofthe feature was cut by house construction activi-ties). The trash deposit cut into orange clay sub-soil, and was filled with a sandy clay loam thatranged in color from dark brown (Munsell color10YR3/3) to strong brown (7.5YR4/6). The shrubremoval had taken from 0.25' to 0.5' of fill fromthe feature, leaving only 0.05' to 0.15' fill remain-ing along the bottom of the feature. Except alongthe extreme eastern edge, all fill had been removed.The feature was exposed at a depth of only 0.1'below the present-day ground surface, suggest-ing that the top of the feature had been cut anddestroyed through grading. Indeed, Mr. Guthriestated that at least two feet of soil had been bladedaway by bulldozers during the construction of thehouse. It is not known, therefore, exactly howmuch of the feature had been destroyed duringconstruction, and with subsequent erosion. Arti-facts contemporaneous with those of the trash pitwere found scattered on the ground surface downthe slope of the ravine west of the feature, thusindicating that some erosion had occurred in therecent past.

Although the shrub removal had destroyedall but the extreme eastern edge of the feature,the Guthries had luckily saved the soil which theyhad removed. This soil was later screened through¼” wire mesh for the recovery of small finds, withsome soil saved to be screened through fine win-dow mesh in the event that the feature containedsmall floral and faunal remains. Artifacts removedby the Guthrie excavation, and those recoveredfrom screening the removed soil, were given thecontext number 44YO205-1. The trash depositfill removed during the 1985 excavation was as-signed context numbers on the basis of their po-sition within the ten-foot-square grid system(44YO205-17,-47,-48). Separating the Guthrie-excavated material from the rest was necessaryso that later artifacts, unrelated to the trash de-

16

posit, would not affect the feature’s terminus postquem. Indeed, three small fragments of pearlwarewere included with the materials recovered byJim and Ann Guthrie. These later (post-1779)ceramics were not considered when assigning aterminus post quem, since the overwhelmingmajority of ceramics from 44YO205-1 and thecontrolled feature excavation dated the featuredeposition as around the turn of the 18th century.These pieces of pearlware were probably con-tained in the thin layer of topsoil that covered thefeature.

The trash deposit, on the basis of the rangeand date of the ceramics and other material con-tained within its fill, appears to be related to John3

Bates’ mercantile, as well as domestic activitieson the site. The ceramics, usually one of the bestdating indicators for archaeological assemblages,include types common in the late 17th and early18th centuries, with a terminus post quem of1700 provided by fragments of Westerwald greystoneware. The artifacts encompass a wide rangeof domestic debris, including ceramic table- andteawares, bottle glass, English white clay pipes,faunal bone, architectural debris, and personalitems, such as buckles, beads, and straight pins.Over 5,000 artifacts were recovered from thetrash deposit; it is impossible to know what pro-portion of the total assemblage was recovered,since, as stated before, much of the feature wasdestroyed previously.

The ceramics and other artifacts found withinthe trash deposit will be discussed in depth inChapter 6.

Structure A

Introduction

During the 1980 exploration of 44YO205, thebrick foundation of a structure was discovered.This building was examined in a little greater de-tail during the 1985 field school, in an attempt todetermine more about its construction and de-struction, its size, and its function.

1980 Excavation

In 1980 the VRCA had discovered Structure Aas the direct result of a culvert construction, whichcut through at least eight below-grade courses ofa brick foundation. The brick, located within sev-eral inches of the ground surface, were traced atthis time by probing, indicating that the structuremeasured 29' north-south by at least 18' east-west. In an attempt to determine additional infor-mation about the building, four test units wereplaced along its northern and southern walls (Fig-ure 6).

One 2' x 2' unit, designated as 44YO205/5,was placed in the interior of the building along thenorthern wall. The strata associated with the inte-rior of Structure A, seen in Figure 6, indicate that

Figure 9. Trash pit, plan and profile.

17

the building had been destroyed by fire. The brickfoundation was sealed by a 0.25' layer of clay-like topsoil. Below the topsoil, and within the con-fines of the brick foundation, was a layer of brickrubble and ashes. This stratum, 0.23' thick, con-tained white clay pipestems, window glass, winebottle glass, nails, bone, plaster, and mortar. Itsealed a 0.18' layer of charred wood. Below thewood was a thick (1.7') deposit of orange clayand mortar. The clay sealed a layer of ash, 0.45'thick; below the ash was a 0.3' thick layer of grey-ish brown sandy loam, containing window glass.This later layer probably represented a floor orcultural layer in the cellar.

The stratigraphic sequences in the other testunits were not included in the information receivedfrom the VRCA. Records of test unit 44YO205/1, however, revealed a closer brick at the north-east edge of the exposed brick foundation. Al-though no return brick wall was found running tothe south, it was felt that the presence of this closerbrick suggested a building corner, or perhaps adoor, in this location.

1985 Investigations

In an attempt to determine more information aboutthe size and construction of the building, four testunits were placed around Structure A in 1985.The location of these test units is shown in Figure10. Test unit 1, placed along the northern wall ofthe structure, abutted the 1980 test unit44YO205/3. The second test unit was placed onthe interior of the building, while test units 3 and 4were placed against the western and southernwalls, respectively. The results from each test unitwill be discussed separately below.

Test Unit 1

Test Unit 1 (30S,40W) began as a five footsquare placed adjacent to the northwest cornerof the structure. This unit abutted test unit44YO205/3, excavated in 1980 by the VRCA.It was later expanded to the west, to span the

corner of the building, for a final size of 5' north-south x 10' east-west.

Modern and Construction-Related Layersand Features

Removal of a thin (0.1 -0.2') layer of dark brownloam topsoil (44YO205-5) in this unit revealed adisturbed stratum composed of construction-re-lated debris (44YO205-33). It appeared that thenatural ground level of the terrace in this area hadbeen cut by large machinery in order to create aneastward slope towards the culvert. Numerous18th-century artifacts, such as white claypipestems, wine bottle glass, delft, and structuraldebris such as window glass, mortar, and nails,were mixed in with this construction-related stra-tum, indicating that the machine grading had cutthrough intact cultural deposits. Cutting the con-struction debris strata were three utility trenches(44YO205-42,/-43/-98), associated with tele-phone and cable television installation. Two ofthese trenches also cut through the brick founda-tion wall of Structure A (see Figure 11 and 12).

During the course of testing in 30S/40W, twoof the backfilled VRCA test units were discov-ered and re-excavated. These two units, whosebackfills were given the context numbers44YO205-59 and 44YO205-73, were locatedalong the inside of the northern wall (VRCA TestUnit 44YO205/-5) and at the northwestern cor-ner of Structure A (VRCA Test Unit 44YO205/3; see Figure 6).

19th Century Fill Episodes

Sealed beneath the construction debris was a layerof brown sandy loam containing brick and mor-tar (44YO205-41, -75). This layer sealed thenorthern brick foundation of Structure A, and con-tained large quantities of structural debris, suchas handwrought nails, window glass, mortar, andburned brick fragments. Unfortunately, no arti-facts with closely assignable dates were discov-ered in this stratum.

18

Sealed beneath the brown sandy loam weretwo tips of fill (44YO205-83, -74). These tips(Figure 13) were deposited from the west, as evi-denced by their alignment within the cellar.44YO205-74, a dark yellowish brown sandyloam, contained a fragment of colorless non-leaded glass, giving it a deposit date of sometimeafter 1864 (Pittman 1984). This, and all tips of fillabove it (-41, -75, -83), were thus depositedsometime after that date. Figure 13 shows therelationship of stratum YO205-74 to the founda-tion of Structure A, directly overlying it, and tothe builder’s trench of the structure (44YO205-92). The builder’s trench remains mostly intact,with its western edge having been cut by a cabletrench (44YO205-98). It appears that portionsof the above-ground west brick foundation wallof Structure A were robbed or removed some-time during either the latter portion of the 19th

century or the early 20th century. Although thepost-1980 installation of the cable, through a pro-cess best described as “stitched into the ground,”destroyed the exact relationship between the tipof fill (44YO205-74) and the builder’s trench, itis believed that the remainder of the cellar holehad been filled directly after the robbing episode.These tips of fill (44YO205-41, -75, -83, -74)were later cut by the post-1980 construction andgrading on the site, with its associated stratum(44YO205-33).

Structure A - Brick Foundation andBuilder’s Trench

Test Unit 1 was placed where the 1980 excava-tions had shown the north- western corner ofStructure A to be located. Excavation revealedthat both the western and northern walls of the

Figure 10. Structure A test units.

19

Figure 11. Structure A, northwest corner profile.

Figure 12. Unit 1, north wall and disturbances.

Interior Fill of Structure A

The interior of the building seemed to be filledwith debris relating directly to the destruction ofthe building by fire around the third quarter of the18th century. Figure 13 shows the various levelsof fill, consisting of tips of brick rubble interspersed

building were intact (Figure 14), although cut bytwo 20th-century utility trenches (44YO205-42,-43). The northern foundation (44YO205-44),located 0.6' - 0.9' below the current grade, wastwo bricks wide and set in English bond with shellmortar. It was composed of reddish brick whichmeasured 8" x 4". The westernmost foundationwall (44YO205-87) was only 1½ bricks wide.The exact relationship of these two walls to oneanother is not known, nor is the reason for theirsize discrepancy (i.e. whether they were con-structed contemporaneously, or whether one rep-resents a later addition), since a utility trench cutdirectly through the area where the two walls met(Figure 15). The west wall, the more narrow ofthe two, appeared to represent an exterior ratherthan an interior partition wall, since a builder’strench was located along its western edge. Thisbuilder’s trench (44YO205-92), filled with yel-lowish brown silty clay, was 0.3' wide. Althoughthe builder’s trench was partially excavated, itcontained no artifacts which would give a clue asto the building’s construction date.

20

with layers of ash, charcoal, and plaster. Directlybelow the stratum associated with the post-1864robbing/filling episode was a layer of brick rubble(44YO205-94 and -52). This sealed a layer ofash and plaster which extended across the entire10-foot length of the test unit (44YO205-54).The presence of a burned creamware plate(Unique Vessel #309-see Appendix III) indicatesthat the fire occurred after 1769, the earliest docu-mented date at which creamware has been foundin Virginia (Noel Hume 1969). Architectural de-bris, such as nails, mortar, and brick chips, werealso common in the ash and plaster stratum. Manyof the plaster fragments contained impressions ofwood on their reverse, and some of the plasterfragments were found in association with 1" lath-ing nails. A thin (0.1' - 0.15') layer of brick rubble(44YO205-58) was sealed under the plaster andash. This layer also contained fragments of burnedcreamware, as well as many burned nails and plas-ter fragments. The stratum contained various ar-eas where certain types of debris were concen-trated, perhaps as lenses. The debris, plaster, ash,and burned soil are shown in Figure 13. One of

these lenses (44YO205-68) was a solid lens ofplaster dust, containing iron harness furniture.

Yet another charcoal and plaster layer wassealed by the brick rubble lens (44YO205-67).

Figure 13. Structure A, interior fill.

Figure 14. Unit 1, utility lines cutting Structure Afoundation.

21

Figure 15. Structure A, northwest corner.

Figure 16. Structure A, northwest corner wall withcharred beam in situ.

This layer yielded no datable artifacts, containingonly nails and plaster. This layer sealed more char-coal and mortar, and the charred remains of alarge wooden beam (see Figure 16). Exca-vationwas halted at this point. In the sides of a utilitytrench cut (44YO205-42), how- ever, was evi-dence of a laid brick paving, most likely the floorof the cellar. The charred beam and charcoal laydirectly over this paving. None of the soil stratabelow the brick paving showed any sign of burn-ing or fire debris, suggesting floor levels pre-dat-ing the installation of the brick paving.

The test unit excavated inside the building foun-dation by the VRCA in 1980 showed similar fillstrata, containing rubble, charred wood, and or-ange clay. It was not possible, however, to cor-relate the soil strata from the 1980 excavation ofTest Unit 5 with the results of the 1985 excava-tion. There was no sign of the thick (1.7') layer oforange clay and mortar in the 1985 excavation,and although the 1980 excavation apparently cutthrough the fill to the bottom of the brick founda-tion, no brick paving was found.

22

Features and Strata on Structure AExterior

Only two strata were present around the exteriorof the building foundation. The previously dis-cussed topsoil (44YO205-5) and construction/grading debris (44YO205-33) were present,sealing a yellowish brown silty clay subsoil(44YO205-55, -72). Any culturally deposited soillayers which would commonly be associated withsuch a site, such as sheet refuse or yard accumu-lations, were apparently graded away during theroad and house construction.

One feature cut through the subsoil outsideof the northern wall of Structure A (44YO205-57). Only partially exposed in the northeasterncorner of the unit, this feature appears to havebeen a posthole, perhaps a scaffolding hole re-lated to the construction of the building. The fea-ture, located 0.6' away from the wall of the build-ing, was left unexcavated, and it is impossible toprovide relative dating due to the lack of strati-graphic information of layers sealing and cut bythe posthole.

Test Unit 2

Test Unit 2 began as an attempt to locate Struc-ture A, prior to obtaining the 1980 excavationnotes from the Virginia Research Center for Ar-chaeology. The property owner pointed out sev-eral seemingly laid-in-place brick which were pro-truding slightly above the ground surface in thearea of the structure. Believing that this was pos-sibly the location of one of the structure’s foun-dation walls, a 5' east-west x 10' north-south unitwas placed with its northwestern corner locatedat 40S/35W. After removing a thin (0.15') layerof topsoil, it became apparent that the observedbrick were actually part of a layer of displacedbrick and plaster rubble. As it became apparentthat this unit was placed directly within the inte-rior of the structure and not along any wall, exca-vation was halted.

Test Unit 3

Test Unit 3, measuring 2.5' east-west x 5.0' north-south, was placed with its northwest corner lo-cated at 52.5W/50S. This unit, placed over thesouthwestern corner of Structure A, showed evi-dence of the foundation wall at a depth of 1.0'below current grade. The brick was sealed by anumber of modern strata, including topsoil, con-struction-related debris, and a 20th-century in-trusion (see Figure 17).

What appeared to be a posthole, perhapsused for scaffolding during the construction ofStructure A, was present cutting sterile subsoilalong the western side of the foundation wall (Fig-ure 18). This posthole, which was left unexcavated,was similar to that found along the northern wallin Test Unit 1.

Figure 17. Unit 3, east profile.

23

A builder’s trench for Structure A was locatedalong the southern edge of the foundation. Thisfeature, cutting sterile subsoil, was not excavatedor assigned a context number in this unit.

Test Unit 4

Test Unit 4, a 2.5' east-west x 5.0' north-southunit, was placed where the southern foundationwall of Structure A was projected to extend. A2.5' unit was first placed in the southwestern cor-ner of 50S/40W. Upon the discovery of a densestratum of brick rubble in the southern portion ofthe square, the unit was expanded 2.5' to the southto encompass the northwestern corner of the 10'unit 60S/40W.

In Test Unit 4, consistent with the rest of theyard, a thin layer (0.15'-0.3') of topsoil(44YO205-69, -84) sealed a layer associated

with the post-1980 construction of the house(44YO205-70, -85). The removal of these mod-ern layers revealed a diagonally-running trenchfilled with brick rubble in a matrix of yellowishbrown sandy loam (44YO205-82, -86, -93). Thistrench appeared to be fill from the 1980 archaeo-logical test unit labeled as “4” on the 1980 fieldmaps. This trench (seen in Figures 19 and 20)

Figure 18. Unit 3, northwest corner showing Struc-ture A and associated features.

Figure 19. Unit 4, plan and profile.

24

Figure 20. Unit 4, rubble-filled trench.

extended 1.3' below the bottom of the post-1980construction layer and cut into a solid layer ofbrick rubble (44YO205-81, -95). Here, due totime constraints, archaeological excavation washalted, but the brick rubble is almost certainlyassociated with the destruction of Structure A.

Conclusions Concerning Structure A

Archaeological evidence leads to several conclu-sions about the construction and destruction ofStructure A. The lack of artifacts contained withinthe builder’s trench of the building suggests thatthere was probably no occupation of this imme-diate area prior to the construction of StructureA. The differing width of the north-south and east-west foundation walls suggests above-groundtechnique of building construction. The two brickwide east-west running walls, measuring 18' inlength, probably represent the gable ends of thestructure. Eighteen feet is a standard colonialbuilding width and the more substantial width ofthese walls suggests that they may have been con-structed entirely of brick, with the fronts and backscomposed of clapboard.

The building burned sometime after the intro-duction of creamware into the colonies around1769, but probably before the use of pearlware

became common, around 1779 (Noel Hume1969). The site appears to have been abandonedafter the fire, since the types of artifacts commonlyassociated with the 19th century were not foundon the property. The brick walls of the buildingprobably remained standing above ground, par-tially intact, into the late 19th century, when eitherthey were removed during a salvage or cleaningof the property or they finally collapsed into thecellar hole. The cellar hole remained partially open,containing the debris of the burned building, tim-ber, and collapsed roof. Over the years after thefire, this hole gradually and partially filled, throughnatural erosion, and the accumulation of wind-blown debris. The cellar hole was not filled com-pletely, however, until the bricks were salvagedor removed sometime within the last century.

This building raises some interesting questions.What was the appearance of Structure A? Wasthis building the house whose contents were in-ventoried in 1720? To suggest answers to thesequestions, evidence from documents and the test-ing results were examined in light of recent re-search on Chesapeake 17th- and 18th-centuryvernacular architecture. In the 17th-centuryChesapeake region the vast majority of houseswere post, or earthfast, buildings, a vernacularconstruction technique which has become known

25

as impermanent architecture (Carson et al. 1981;Neiman 1986). These buildings developed out ofEnglish architectural traditions, evolving to suit theneeds of the Chesapeake colonists. Neimanchronicles one such post structure at Clift’s Plan-tation, following it through structural changes andlinking these to cultural and social changes whichwere occurring in the Chesapeake at the end ofthe 17th century (Neiman 1986). These changeswere tied to the increasing social separation ofmasters from their servants and persons outsidethe family circle. Space within houses becamemore specialized, with certain areas set aside forfamily activities, and others for socializing andbusiness matters. These post constructed “man-ner houses,” as they were often called in contem-porary reports, gradually began to be replacedby houses containing brick foundations and brickchimneys at the beginning of the 18th century.Floor plans of domestic buildings also began tochange, with central passage houses beginning toappear in Virginia in the first quarter of the 18thcentury (Wenger 1986:137).

How do these findings of architectural histo-rians conform with the architectural remains at theBates site? The historical record suggests answersto these questions.

Upon his death, Bates’ father left, as part ofhis estate, a “manner house” on his York Countyplantation. John3, a child at the time, remainedunder the guardianship of his stepfathers until1698, when he married and acquired the houseleft to him by his father. This was probably thesame house that Bates mentioned in 1698, whenhe feared that his house would be too small tohold the Quaker meetings (McCartney andWeston 1973). Did John3 Bates build a new homebefore his death in 1720? He was certainlywealthy enough to be able to construct a newhome, and to relegate the old “manner house” toanother use, perhaps as a store or slave housing.The 1720 inventory shows three rooms on theground floor (porch, hall, and back room), andfour above (chambers over the back room andporch and two chambers over the hall). This floorplan is very similar to the English three-cell struc-

tures, and may be very similar to the manor houseat Clift’s Plantation as it existed circa 1675(Neiman 1986:297). Here, in the floor plan, isseen the increasing separation of public and pri-vate spaces, with the porch or lobby area being aconvenient place to entertain guests or conductbusiness. In the Bates inventory, it is apparent thatthe porch of his house was being used for themore public functions of the household, since itcontained objects designed to notify visitors ofBates’ rank and social standing. The porch con-tained twelve Rushea leather chairs, two old chairs,a table, a corner cupboard holding tea cups andcanisters, a looking glass, a spy glass, and twopictures. While the table and chairs were used toaccomodate guests, the cupboard with its dis-play of teawares, and the mirror, pictures and spyglass were obviously meant as a visible symbol ofBates’ place within the social and economic rank-ing of the community. In no other room of his housedid Bates concentrate such display of what couldbe considered luxury items. The hall appeared tohave been used in the conducting of business,since a writing desk, and a set of standard weightsand measures were contained in that room, alongwith some tables and chairs. None of the evi-dence of the earlier 17th-century use of the hallas the center for the daily activities of cooking,working and sleeping were evident (Wenger1986:137). Beds, clothing and storage were onlylisted in the back room downstairs and in the cham-bers above. Also apparent was the separation ofsome functions such as dairying and cooking fromthe main house, as evidenced by the presence ofa kitchen and dairy. This practice was commonby the beginning of the 18th century (Neiman1986:310).

As can be seen, Bates’ documented house issuggestive of floor plans common in late 17th-century houses, while the more permanent brickfoundation of Structure A is more indicative ofhouses which began to be constructed at the be-ginning of the 18th century. It is the preliminaryconclusion of this report that John3 Bates builtStructure A sometime in the opening years of the18th century, using a form of construction which

26

would display his wealth to the community, whilestill retaining a floor plan common to earlier-stylepost-in-the-ground structures.

Additional Testing

Several strategies were used for testing the integ-rity of the site throughout the property. In the frontyard, in the area around the trash deposit andStructure A, a series of small 2.5' test units werelocated systematically. Using the baseline as aguide, four points were chosen at forty-foot in-tervals along the east-west line perpendicular tothe baseline. Each of these points correspondedto a corner of an established 10' square unit onthe site grid. In three cases, these 2.5' units werelocated in the northwest corner of the ten footunit, while the proximity of the gravel driveway inthe fourth case necessitated relocating the unit tothe northeast corner. The locations of these unitsare seen in Figure 7.

Results of the testing indicate that a great dealof grading had taken place in association with theconstruction of the house during the 1980s. Eachunit displayed the same basic soil strata, whichincluded topsoil and construction debris layers asdescribed below.

Topsoil(44YO205-18/-19/-22/-31)

This layer consisted of a thin (0.1-0.3') layer ofvery dark grayish brown (10YR3/2) loam. Arti-facts contained in this layer were a mixture of 18th-and 20th-century items, indicating the disturbednature of this layer.

Construction Debris(44YO205-21/-23/-27/-32)

A layer of mixed yellowish brown sandy clay ap-peared consistently in all of the test units, sealedbeneath the topsoil. This layer, ranging from 0.3'to 0.7' thick, contained fragments of tar paper,

plastic food wrappers, and wire nails, in additionto various 18th-century ceramic and glass items.This, plus the mixed nature of the clay soils con-tained in this stratum, indicate that this layer wasformed as a result of massive earth-moving ac-tivities on the lot, conducted in association withthe clearing of the lot and the construction of thehouse. In one particular area just west of the house(100S/50W), large quantities of gravel and sandinterspersed in the layer seem to indicate that con-struction materials were stored there.

Various utility trenches and modern holes ofunspecified function cut through the constructionlayer. This strata sealed orange clay subsoil, thusindicating that no cultural layers survived intactbelow the construction debris. Only featureswhich cut through subsoil will be apparent in fu-ture archaeological investigations, thus indicatingthat grading activities on the site have destroyedmuch of the site’s archaeological integrity in theyard.

Ravine Testing

A series of small (1.0' diameter) shovel tests wereplaced at random in the ravine west of the house.Although it was not expected that architecturalfeatures relating to the 18th-century occupationof the site would be located on the slope of theravine, it was hoped that answers to questionsabout trash disposal and soil erosion on the sitewould be found. These tests revealed a naturalaccumulation of humus layers overlying orangesandy clay subsoil. No artifacts were found in theshovel tests in the ravine, thus indicating that long-term erosion of the cultural strata from the ter-race above had not occurred, and that this areawas probably not being used for the disposal oftrash during the former occupation of the lot.

A small depression in the ravine, just past thewest edge of the yard, was examined to deter-mine if it was a cultural feature, such as an ice-house. Cleaning of the profile indicated, however,that this depression was created by a tree fall andthus had no cultural significance.

27

Chapter VI.Interpretations

Trash Pit Assemblage: AComparison with the StoreInventory

In addition to the detailed account of storegoods and household items provided by theinventory, the excavation of an early 18th-cen-

tury trash pit (c. 1700-1725) on the property pro-vided an additional source of information on Bates’store and home. The trash deposit produced over5,000 artifacts, the largest assemblage of any fea-ture at the Bates site. The ceramic type with thelatest manufacture date in the assemblage wasWesterwald stoneware which began productionin 1700 (Noel Hume 1969). No ceramics whoseinitial production dated to the second quarter ofthe 18th century were recovered, strongly sug-gesting that the assemblage was deposited afterthe beginning of the 18th century and prior toBates’ death.

The most important step in the analysis wasto determine the precise origin of the artifacts con-tained within the trash deposit assemblage. SinceBates was operating a store and a household onthe same property, the artifacts could representdebris from either or both of these sources. Therelative completeness of the ceramic vessels isindicative of a primary trash deposit, with the largenumber of unique vessels present (90) suggestingthat this area was used primarily for discardingceramics, glass, and other store items which werebroken in shipment or prior to sale at Bates’ store.The journal of Colonel James Gordon containsan entry for March 12, 1760, where he describedopening a shipment of goods from Bristol in which“The glass broke very much” (Anonymous1903:197). In addition, the majority of the En-glish and European ceramics show little or no signsof wear brought about by daily use, suggestingtheir likely origin as store merchandise.

Quantities of animal bone and oyster shellpresent in the fill, however, would seem to sug-gest a household origin for at least some of thisassemblage. The small quantity of faunal bonerecovered from the trash pit (less than 1,000 ele-ments), suggests several conclusions. First, thesmall quantities of bone again strengthen the hy-pothesis that the assemblage consisted largely ofstore, rather than household, garbage. Second,the predominant species recovered was cow, rep-resented by seven identifiable individuals. Thecattle bone recovered were mainly head and footcomponents, those portions generally consideredbutchering waste (see Appendix V). This couldsuggest the commercial sale of beef at Bates’store, or the acceptance of foodstuffs, like beef,as exchange payment for goods.

The ceramic assemblage is amazingly uniformin the quality of the ceramics contained within it.With the exception of stoneware drinking ves-sels, such as tankards and jugs, all of thetablewares from the trash deposit were ofStafforshire slipware or delft, a low-fired tin glazedearthenware. John3 Bates’ two store inventoriesalso included earthenwares in a variety of table,kitchen and dairy vessel forms. As usual with in-ventories from the colonial period, the quality ofdetail about the vessel forms is much better thanthe information about body types. Although theceramics are listed by their functions and some-times size, they are described only very generallyas “Earthen ware.” The inventory of his house-hold possessions also lists earthenwares as beingpresent.

In comparing both the store and householdgoods listed in the inventory, it appears that Bates,although a member of the highest economic cat-egory for York County, was using the same typesof ceramics and glass in his household that he wasselling to the middle-class patrons of his store.Therefore, no attempt will be made to separatethe artifacts in the trash pit assemblage into those

28

from the household and the store. Bates’ house-hold will be discussed in detail later in this sec-tion.

An attempt to integrate the terminology of the1720 inventory with that of the ceramic assem-blage of the trash deposit was made by using thePotomac Typological System (POTS), developedby Mary Beaudry and colleagues (1983). Thissystem, using the emic terminology seen in 17th-century probate inventories, links vessel formsseen in 17th-century Tidewater ceramic assem-blages to terms used in contemporary records.Although the Bates’ inventory and trash depositdate to the first quarter of the 18th century, a pe-riod when ceramic tablewares were becomingmore prevalent, terminology had changed little inthe intervening years. The ceramic assemblage ofboth the trash deposit and store inventory havebeen characterized according to vessel forms toillustrate the range of vessels available at Bates’store. Table I compares the numbers and per-centages of vessel forms found in the trash pitand listed in the 1720 store inventory.

The wide range of forms represented in thetrash pit and inventory is apparent. Vessel formscontained within the trash pit, but not representedin the store inventory, are common ones (bowls,milk pans, chamber pots, mugs, etc), and mostlikely represent items that were depleted in Bates’stock, rather than items which would have beenused in his household but not sold in the store. Infact, these forms may have been among the mostcommon ceramic items stocked within every Vir-ginia store. For example, Bates’ James CityCounty store inventory had 134 brown mugs(probably Staffordshire stoneware) of varyingsizes listed in stock. There were no such mugs orjugs listed in the York County store inventory, al-though they were well represented (29 vessels)in the trash assemblage.

The largest discrepancy between the trashassemblage and the store inventory lies in the per-centages of ceramic plates. Plates were the mostcommonly stocked ceramic item in 18th-centuryVirginia stores (Martin 1989a), and Bates’ storewas no exception. Thirty percent of the store’s

ceramic inventory were plates, while only a littleover 3% of that vessel form was present in thetrash pit fill. It may be that plates, due to theirshape and durability, were less likely than hollowvessel forms to break during shipping. This wouldaccount for their being under-represented in thetrash pit deposit. It may also indicate the contin-ued reliance of most households on pewter flat-ware, resulting in ceramic flatwares not selling asquickly as their hollow ceramic counterparts.

If the store and archaeological ceramics aregrouped together into types of wares (table, tea,kitchen), the very different composition of the trashdeposit and the inventory in terms of vessel func-tion is apparent (Table II). The trash deposit as-semblage relies heavily on ceramics whose func-tion is beverage consumption (55.5%), while foodconsumption-related vessels play a much smallerrole (15.5%). This situation is reversed with thestore ceramics, with 69.9% food consumptionvessels, compared with 26.4% vessels for bev-erage consumption. This discrepancy can be ac-counted for in several ways. The preponderanceof ceramic drinking vessels in any archaeologicalassemblage is no surprise; not only were ceram-ics preferred for tea drinking over pewter or tinvessels, but objects associated with drinking sawheavier use than tablewares such as plates andbowls (Miller, personal communciation). The fill-ing and refilling of cups and mugs with hot andcold beverages, and the frequent handling of thesevessels, presented a much greater opportunity forbreaking and chipping than for plates and bowls,which only appeared during mealtimes, and thensat stationary throughout the meal. Another fac-tor contributing to the much greater percentageof beverage consumption wares was the continu-ing reliance on pewter flatwares, as evidenced inthe 186 pounds of pewter listed in Bates’ homeand that stocked in his two stores.

The opposite effect seen in the store inven-tory (more ceramic tablewares than beverage con-sumption items) can be explained in much thesame manner. Pewter flatwares were probablymore popular at this period, since, as they did notbreak and could be reused, they represented a

29

better investment for the money. Although Bateswas stocking ceramic tablewares in delft, the cus-tomer preference at his stores was more likelytoward pewter. The low stock of ceramic bever-age consumption vessels and high ratio of ceramicflatwares reflects this buying pattern.

As addressed by Martin (1989b), archae-ologists have tended to have myopic vision whenanalyzing domestic assemblages. Since pewterdoes not occur regularly in archaeological assem-blages, due either to its never being discarded inthis fashion because of resale value and durabil-ity, or because of its poor survival rate in theground, archaeologists have a tendency to over-look its important role in colonial foodways.Household and store inventories, however, haveshown pewter’s importance throughout the 18th

century (Martin 1989b). Pewter tablewares weremore prevalent in the inventories; earthenwareceramics were generally more available after theturn of the 18th century. Tableware forms oc-curred in what was most likely delftware orStaffordshire slipwares.

Bates’ York store inventory lists only a smallquantity of pewter; this may be a reflection of theincreasingly important role ceramics had begunto play in colonial culture around the beginning ofthe 18th century. Archaeological investigations atClift’s Plantation show that the use of ceramicvessels increased dramatically between 1670 and1730 (Neiman 1980:45), rising from 34 uniquevessels in the 1670-1685 period to 199 vesselsrecovered from 1720-1730 contexts. This has

TABLE I.CERAMIC VESSEL FORMS

FROM TRASH DEPOSIT & STORE INVENTORY

Trash Deposit York County Store InventoryVessel Form * # of Vessels % # of Vessels %

Punch bowls 16 17.78 53 24.45Mugs + 19 21.11 — —Jugs + 10 11.11 — —Saucers 2 2.22 12 5.55Plates 3 3.33 65 30.09Porringers 7 7.78 25 11.57Salts 1 1.11 — —Bowls 1 1.11 — —Galley Pots 2 2.22 — —Milk Pans 8 8.89 — —Chamberpots 3 3.33 — —Basons 1 1.11 42 19.44Cans/Tea Bowls 5 5.56 4 1.85Dishes — — 7 3.24Sugar Pots — — 2 0.92Butter Pots — — 6 2.77Unidentified 12 13.33 — —

TOTAL 90 100.00 216 100.00

* Vessel form terminology taken from Beaudry et. al. (1983), with the exception of tea bowls, which were notpresent in York county inventories in the 17th century.

+ This includes 20 stoneware vessels from the trash pit. There were no stoneware vessels included in theYork County Store Inventory.

30

also been demonstrated archaeologically in theNew England area, where an increased relianceon ceramic vessels in various forms is seen throughthe 18th and 19th centuries (Deetz 1973). Thisrising number of ceramic vessels is indicative of adiminished reliance on pewter and woodentablewares.

Like ceramic tablewares, teaware vesselsonly make up a small percentage of the trash pitassemblage. Teawares are present in the trash pitin the forms of teacups and cans. In the early 18thcentury, the expense of tea and the specializedequipment which accompanied it limited its use inAmerica to that of the prosperous and governingclasses (Roth 1961:65). Although teawares wereavailable in delftware and stoneware in the firstquarter of the 18th century, Chinese porcelain wasthe most prestigious and expensive ceramic avail-able in teaware forms. Most of the porcelain seenin early 18th-century inventories is present in theform of teawares. Porcelain has been found insmall quantities on 17th-century Chesapeake sitesoccupied by wealthy families. William Kelso re-

covered small amounts of porcelain (less than 5%of vessels in both cases) on several 17th-centuryKingsmill sites and at Jamestown (Curtis1988:22).

Since general stores such as Bates’ cateredprimarily to the middle classes (Bruce 1935), thelack of Chinese porcelain in both the trash de-posit assemblage and store inventory is not sur-prising. Seven Virginia store inventories from thelast quarter of the 17th through the first quarter ofthe 18th centuries do not include any porcelain intheir stocks (For a list of these store owners, seeAppendix VI). Any teaware forms that were avail-able in local stores were labeled “stone,” mean-ing possibly white salt glazed stoneware or someother generic English stoneware. The absence ofporcelain in general stores is not surprising, since,most likely, anyone who desired and could affordporcelain ordered it directly from England throughagents. There was no need for merchants to stockwhat would have been, for them, an expensiveand slow-moving item. Records from WilliamAllason’s Falmouth, Virginia store indicate that

31

he was not able to sell any of his porcelain platesduring a three-year period, and was finally onlyable to sell six out of the original twelve plates(Smart 1987:6). This reference is for the period1761 to 1774, a period when porcelain was muchmore common in the colonies due to lower pricesbrought about by extended and regular trade withthe Orient. Some of the delft tea vessels found atthe Bates site, however, are decorated withChinoiserie motifs (UV 106, 121, 138, 139; Fig-ures 33 and 38), perhaps attesting to the popu-larity of porcelain design motifs and the wish toemulate them on less expensive wares.

Combining the ceramics from the trash pit andstore inventory provides a more detailed look atwhat was available to rural York County shop-pers at Bates’ store. The trash pit assemblagegives more detail on ceramic type and decora-tion, while the store inventory provides informa-tion on pewter which was missing from the ar-chaeological record. Results show that Bates wasstocking the wider range of consumer vesselswhich were becoming available to consumers inthe first quarter of the 18th century. Despite this,it would appear that pewter tablewares were stillplaying an important role in food consumption.The middle-class clientele common to most suchstores is suggested by the lack of expensive ce-ramic items such as porcelain and specialized ce-ramics within the store inventory or trash pit.

John3 Bates, Quaker Merchant

Excavating the site of John3 Bates’ plantation pre-sented a unique opportunity to examine an early18th-century Quaker merchant. Living and work-ing in what was essentially a rural setting, he servedthe inhabitants of the surrounding area, who werelargely of the Quaker faith. This presented someinteresting opportunities for contrasting Bates withcontemporary merchants from the standpoint ofhis Quaker religious beliefs. Did Bates sell thesame items as non-Quaker merchants? Could acolonial planter buy luxuries or seldom neededgoods from a Quaker store, or were only thoseitems prescribed by the Quaker “plainness” doc-

trine available at his store? Also of interest is Bates’lifestyle compared with that of his fellow Friends,as well as his non-Quaker contemporaries. Thetrash deposit assemblage, examined in conjunc-tion with information from Bates’ 1720 estate in-ventory, is used in the following discussion to de-rive answers about merchandising and Quakerlife in early 18th-century rural Virginia.

A brief overview of merchants andstorekeeping in late 17th-and 18th-century Vir-ginia is given here to provide a background forthe Bates site and to place it in perspective withthe economy and the role of Virginia merchants.Located in great numbers along Virginia’s navi-gable streams, stores formed an important aspectof colonial economics (Bruce 1935:380). In fact,the Present State of Virginia, published in 1697,pointed to stores as repressing the growth oftowns (Hartwell, Chilton & Blair 1727). HughJones, in his 1724 discourse on Virginia, notedthat stores were kept “in all convenient places”and commented on the usual system of trade inVirginia:

At the stores in Virginia, the planters, etc.may be supplied with what English com-modities they want...The merchants, fac-tors, or storekeepers in Virginia buy upthe tobacco of the planters, either for goodsor current Spanish money, or with sterlingbills payable in Great Britain...The to-bacco is rolled, drawn by horses, or cartedto convenient rolling houses, whence it isconveyed on board the ships in flats orsloops, etc. The tobacco purchased by thefactors or store-keepers, is sent home totheir employers, or consigned to their cor-respondent merchants in Great Britian(Jones 1724:88-89).

Since currency was scarce, tobacco was thecommon medium of exchange in colonial Virginia,and it was accepted by merchants in return forsupplies and goods. Later in the 18th century,stock usually arrived from England in the springand fall, but in the period examined in this report,stock arrived yearly, usually in the fall. Most mer-chants supplied middle-class patrons, with theupper classes usually placing their orders directlywith factors in England (Bruce 1935:382). At-

32

tention has been focused on Virginia merchants(Bergstrom 1980; Gill n.d.; Smart 1987), althoughthis work has largely been limited to the later 18thcentury.

Historians have extensively studied Quakermerchants, though this work has been confinedto merchants in northern urban areas (Davison1964; Tolles 1948). Quakers were known to beshrewd but honest businessmen, and more than afew made their fortunes through commerce. Thisfinancial success has been partly attributed to theQuaker rule against taking oaths, which restrictedmembers from holding responsible governmentpositions (Lewis 1976:17). Business was an ac-ceptable occupation, an area in which aspiringQuakers could channel their energies and developa degree of power and respect within the com-munity. John3 Bates was one such Quaker mer-chant. Although not destitute as a young man (hewas willed 412 acres of land in York County as achild), Bates was able to accumulate, in additionto his two stores and mills, approximately 1700acres of land in York, James City and New KentCounties before his death.

It is not known when John3 Bates openedstores at his York and James City County planta-tions, but it was most certainly in the years be-tween 1698 when he inherited his father’s prop-erty, and January of 1705/6, the first reference tohis occupation as a merchant. He is seen in theYork County Records on numerous occasionsbetween 1705 and 1718 sueing for debts owedhim.

Approximately six months after Bates’ deathin 1720, an inventory was taken of his estate. De-tailed descriptions of the household contents ofhis James City County and York County planta-tions, as well as the contents of both stores, wereprovided. Bates’ York County store inventory,containing goods valued at over £539, comparesfavorably with those of other Virginia merchantsfrom the same general time period. The JamesCity County store stock was valued at just over£212.

Although Bates’ store stock did not seemparticularly depleted at the time the inventory was

taken, he had obviously not received a recent ship-ment. The lack of hogsheads or parcels of extranon-perishable merchandise in the store or else-where on the plantation supports this interpreta-tion. Neither of Bates’ store inventories containany mention of tobacco, most likely because theinventories were taken in June, after the last fall’scrop would have already been sent to England inexchange for additional merchandise. Unfortu-nately, there are no known account books or led-gers from Bates’ stores, and it is also unknownwhether any store goods were sold in the interimbetween his death and the taking of the inventoryapproximately six months later.

Since detailed information in the forms of aninventory and an archaeological assemblages areavailable for analysis, does the documentary andmaterial record from Bates’ estate show any evi-dence of his Quaker faith? To answer this ques-tion, it is important to examine the Quaker reli-gion and the potential impact of its beliefs on thearchaeological record. Brown (1987) has dis-cussed the difficulties of delineating signals ofQuaker occupation in archaeological assem-blages. Despite strict rules designating plainnessin all aspects of their daily lives, it is evident fromthe documentary and archaeological record inNew England that some Quakers owned finerysimilar to that of non-Friends. It appears to havebeen particularly difficult for wealthy merchants,with greater access to consumable goods, to abideby the rules of plainness (Tolles 1963).

The following examination of the York Countystore and household inventory, as well as the ob-jects from the trash deposit, attempt to answerquestions about Bates’ adherence to plainnessregulations in those areas of material culturedeemed to be the most sensitive indicators ofpracticing Quaker beliefs. These indicators wouldbe most evident in objects which could expresssocial standing, such as clothing, furniture, andceramic and glass tablewares. These items fig-ured prominently in Quaker plainness regulations,which detailed strict codes of behavior to Quak-ers.

33

An early 18th-century (1708) discipline writ-ten by the New England Yearly Meeting outlinedstandards for the evaluation of Quaker posses-sions:

“Regulation of Friends Deportment andApparell”

That all should keep to the Plainest in theirhousehold stuffe and furniture both Ridingand otherwise, avoiding in particularstriped or Flowered Bed or window hang-ings of Divers Colours and QuiltCounterpaines and Table clothes of likegaudy colars likewise Vallants and fringesand that side saddles and others be plainewithout fringes and bridles without need-less Buckles and Bosses (Minutes:44).

The Half-Year’s Meeting of May 1694 was morespecific about Quaker household furnishings:

As to chests of drawers, they ought to beplain and of one colour, without swellingworks, As to tables and chairs, they oughtto be all made plain, without carving,keeping out of all new fashions as theycome up, and to keep to the fashions thatis serviceable, And, as to making greatmouldings one above another about press-beds and clock-cases, &c., [they]ought to be avoided, only what is decentaccording to Truth, So that all furnitureand wainscoting should be all plain, andof one colour.

Some New England Quakers were admon-ished that if they did own silver vessels or flow-ered dishes, they should not display them (Min-utes:44). Additionally, discussions of late 17th-and 18th-century Quaker dress consistently men-tion the elimination of useless decoration, such aslace, ribbons, ornate buttons, and braid (Warwick,Pitz, & Wyckoff 1965:201). Overall, the Quakerstyle of clothing was similar to that worn by non-Quakers in England and America at the time, butsimpler and made with less ornate fabrics.

There is evidence that some Quakers re-formed their own households and standards ofdress:

As to our own clothing, we had but little toalter, having both of us been pretty plain

in our garb, yet some things we did changeto greater simplicity....Our fine veneeredand garnished cases of drawers, tables,stands, cabinets, escritoires, &c., we putaway, or exchanged for decent plain onesof solid wood, without superfluous gar-nishing or ornamental work; ... our cur-tains, with valences, drapery and fringesthat we thought too fine, we put away orcutoff; our larger looking-glasses withdecorated frames we sold, or made theminto smaller ones; and our closets that werelaid out with many little curious or nicethings were done away. (Barclay 1876)

Despite regulations, it was difficult for somewealthy Quakers to reconcile their fortune andthe Quaker regulations of plainness (Brown1987:265). Wealthy Quakers often made up forthe lack of ornamentation by having clothing madeonly of the finest and most expensive fabrics(Tolles 1963:126).

Bates’ position as a Quaker, serving a Quakercommunity, suggests that his store stock shouldperhaps be devoid of certain items restricted un-der the plainness regulations. Seven Virginia mer-chant inventories, taken between the period of1675 to 1728, were examined for comparisonwith Bates. Although this may seem a smallsample, the erratic preservation of such early in-ventories limits the number available for study.Several categories of goods which are believedmost likely to reflect Quaker beliefs through theirpresence or absence were examined in particu-lar. These include alcoholic beverages, fabric andother clothing related items such as lace, ribbons,buckles and buttons. This comparison shows thatBates’ beliefs as a Quaker did appear to be re-flected in the contents of his store.

At first glance, the goods at Bates’ YorkCounty store appear to have been fairly typicalof such establishments. Customers could obtainfabric, cutlery, cooking implements, ammunition,fishing supplies, or any other of a wide variety ofitems needed for daily use. Yet for all their vari-ety, the largest portion of most 18th-centurystores’ stock consisted of fabric and other cloth-ing items. As discussed previously, dress was highlyregulated by Quakers wishing a plain demeanor.

34

When compared with stocks of other Virginia mer-chants taken between 1675 and 1728, Bates isthe only merchant whose inventory contains nolace, gold thread, ivory combs, or other ornatehaberdashery.

The extensive stock of fabric in both of Bates’stores included a range of core fabrics, such asfine and coarse woolens, linens, and cottons, aswell as a small quantity of some luxury fabrics,such as silk. The most plentiful fabric in his stockwas osnaburg, an inexpensive linen used for slaveclothing. Although perhaps a reflection of the re-cording practices of the inventory takers, whenBates stock is compared with that of other Vir-ginia merchants, his fabric stock seems to belargely solid colored fabrics. There is no mention,as was common in the other inventories of thesame period, of “flowd.” or “printed” linen ormuslin, etc. Also listed in Bates’ stock is a blackhood, a common head covering for Quakerwomen during the colonial period (Earle1970:244).

Clothing remains are represented in archaeo-logical assemblages by non-perishable items, suchas buttons, buckles, and straight pins. A copperalloy buckle, button, and straight pin were the onlyclothing-related items recovered from the trashdeposit. Neither the button nor the buckle showany signs of the gold gilt which was against Quakerdress regulations.

Another area where Bates differs from thatof other merchants was in his lack of alcoholicbeverages such as brandy, cider, and rum, per-haps due to Quaker criticism of drinking. The YorkCounty store inventory listed 12 whiskey bottles,however, perhaps attesting to the sale of alcohol.

John3 Bates Personal Lifestyle

John3 Bates’ estate inventory, taken at his deathin 1720, provides a glimpse of not only the itemswhich Bates sold in his two stores to area resi-dents, but also of his household goods. It is alsointeresting to examine John3 Bates in terms of hispersonal lifestyle, compared with that of his non-Quaker contemporaries. Differences in his store

goods were visible, giving his business an out-ward appearance of following Quaker regulations,but did this extend into his personal possessions?Did Bates fall prey, as did some of his northerncolleagues, to the temptations of owning restrictedfinery? This can be determined by examining thecontents of Bates’ home as revealed in his inven-tory.

Although Quakers’ religious beliefs were strictin many respects, Quakers did not question therights of owning private property or the achieve-ment of high social status (Frost 1973:196). Ac-cording to Frederick Tolles, the ideal Quaker wasplain in his personal appearance as well as in hishome. Research, however, has shown that wealthyQuakers in urban areas kept up with current fash-ions in architecture, clothing and furniture, mak-ing it virtually impossible to distinquish their ma-terial possessions from those of their contempo-raries (Brown 1987:265). Rural Quakers, on theother hand, were “distinguished by their attentionto details of organized and material life, their de-emphasis of luxury and frills, and their industri-ousness” (Jensen 1986:16). Thus, a man of Bates’wealth was not expected to live as abstemiouslyas his less wealthy neighbors, and his home anddress, as long as they were plain, could be “of thebest sort” without drawing undue criticism.

Did Bates uphold this plainness in his dailylife in rural York County or was he, as a memberof the wealthiest segment of York County, moreapt to follow the ways of the urban Quaker mer-chants? An examination of his inventory and thetrash pit assemblage should provide clues toBates’ behavior as expressed in his material pos-sessions and how they fit into Quaker doctrines.It should be noted here that although the Quakerreligion was officially opposed to slavery, Batesdid own some thirty slaves at the time of his death.It was stated, however, by Quaker SamuelFothergill in the mid-18th century that Quakers inMaryland often owned slaves, and that Virginiawas almost as bad (James 1963:160). This di-rect transgression of Quaker beliefs was appar-ently overlooked, since other sources documentthe frequent ownership of slaves among southern

35

Quakers (Jensen 1986:39). For a large planterlike Bates, slaves were virtually indispensable fordomestic and agricultural chores.

Before we can examine the differences whichmay be accounted for by Quaker religious be-liefs, a portrayal of York County inhabitants ingeneral needs to be established as a basis forcomparison. Research examining the material cul-ture and daily lives of 17th-and 18th-century resi-dents of the Virginia and Maryland Tidewater(Carson and Walsh 1981; Carr and Walsh 1985;Walsh 1983; Main 1982) has focused primarilyon the use of probate inventories, wills, and otherdocuments which record easily quantifiable infor-mation on all social classes. In an analysis of YorkCounty probate inventories taken between 1710and 1722, Carson and Walsh (1981) have cal-culated mean numbers of various household itemsfor estates of differing values. This informationallows a comparison of Bates and his personalpossessions with those of similarly wealthy Yorkcounty residents. It was found that Bates, whosehousehold goods alone from his two plantations

were valued at £1131.8.6, ranked with thosepersons in the highest wealth category, that ofestates valued above £491.

Table III illustrates that Bates compares fa-vorably with the wealthiest York County residentsin his major household possessions. For example,beds were very important items in Virginia house-holds, with the acquisition of beds and beddingforming a top priority for colonial planters of thisperiod. Bates owned eight beds at his YorkCounty plantation home, ranging in value from amodest £1.15 to £12.00, with the average valueof each bed at over £5.00. Only 17% of all in-ventoried York County estates valued at over£226 between the years 1710 and 1722 con-tained combinations of chairs, tables, desks, andcase furniture; Bates was one of those households.The large number of chairs listed shows the useof individual seating arrangements. His home con-tained none of the communal seating pieces, suchas benches, common to that time period.

Bates became a Quaker sometime between1698 and 1702, when he was in his twenties. He

36

was probably still residing in the small manor housebuilt by his father, as evidenced by his fear in 1698that his house would not be a large enough meet-ing place for the Quakers (McCartney andWeston 1973:4). Bates appears to have beenlargely a self-made man, inheriting a parcel (412acres) of land from his father, but building up hiswealth through his store profits and land transac-tions. At his death, around the age of 43, Bateshad been able to construct a new home and fur-nish its seven rooms with luxury goods, includinglooking glasses, two pictures, and a clock with acase, valued at £6.

Carson and Walsh (1981:47) have found thathomes were becoming increasingly specializedplaces for working, relaxing, and entertaining bythe mid-18th century. The rooms in Bates’ homeappeared to have served specialized functions,apparent not only by their designation in the in-ventory, but also through the listing of their con-tents (Appendix I). The number of rooms in Bates’home and their specialized functions show a sepa-ration of private and public spaces which was notyet common throughout the colony. For example,Bates appears to have been conducting at leastsome of his store business in the Hall of the house.This room contained a writing desk, a clock, anda pair of large “stilliards,” (a portable balance witha hook attached for weighing objects), as well asa couch, numerous chairs and several tables, per-haps used for the accomodation of customers.This room may have served as the counting roomfor his York County store. Additional stilliards,and scales and weights for sugar, tobacco andmoney, were located in the storehouse.

The term “porch” was usually used, as today,to designate an appendage to the front of thehouse for the protection of the front door (Main1982:294). The room designated as the “porch”in the Bates house, however, contained elaboratefurnishings and was apparently enclosed and usedfor entertaining. Here was housed a dozen leatherchairs, two “old” chairs, a table, a spy glass, twopictures, and a corner cupboard containing sixteacups and two canisters. A parcel of books waslocated in the back room; unfortunately, no titles

are listed. The beds were all contained in the backroom of the house or upstairs, another sign of theseparation of public and private space.

In what other ways was high social standingand high quality of life represented in the inven-tory? For one, artificial lighting remained some-what of a luxury in rural areas in the early 18thcentury (Carr & Walsh 1985:15). Bates’ use ofartificial lighting within his home was apparentthrough several sconces, seven brass candlesticks,a candlebox and snuffer. The ownership of botha clock and a watch by Bates is also indicative ofstatus. It was found that, while timepieces weremore common in urban areas, rural residents re-lied more on the natural cycles of daylight anddarkness to regulate their activities. The two pic-tures listed in the porch, along with a mirror andspy glass, are also items which point to social dis-play.

Analysis of York County probate inventoriesfrom the 17th and early 18th centuries have alsoshown that kitchen and dining equipment was gen-erally minimal (Walsh 1987:7). Walsh has foundthat around the first quarter of the 18th century,wealthy families began to increase the variety oftheir cooking and dining implements, thus increas-ing the variety of food preparation. Bates’ house-hold goods certainly give evidence that he wasparticipating in this change. The pudding and pattypans, chafing dish, frying pans, skillets, sauce pansand spits listed in Bates’ probate record indicatethat he and his family were enjoying fried androasted meats, puddings, sauces, and other dishesat a time when most York County families wereprobably eating mainly boiled one-pot meals(Walsh 1987:7). Although the trash pit assem-blage revealed only one ceramic vessel, a delft-ware salt, associated with specialized food prepa-ration and consumption, the inventory of thehousehold reveals otherwise. Bates’ kitchen anddairy contained several copper pans and pots, atea kettle and a chocolate pot, two egg slices,and five dish covers. In the house, two dish bear-ers and the teacups and canisters also attest tothe specialization of dining items. This specializedequipment shows that dining had reached the level

37

of a social display at the Bates’ household, some-thing which did not become common in the Chesa-peake until much later in the 18th century (Carrand Walsh, forthcoming). A large quantity of lin-ens, another luxury item, were also listed in theinventory, including eight diaper cloth and fivecoarse tablecloths, 38 napkins, and numeroussheets and towels.

What about ceramic items in Bates’ house-hold? Turning to Bates’ inventory, it is seen thatall of his household ceramics, with the exceptionof “6 Tea Cupps” and “2 Canesters,” were de-scribed as “a prell of earthen Ware,” with severalsuch parcels located in various rooms of thehouse. Most likely, this earthenware was com-prised of delft tablewares and coarse lead-glazedfood processing and storage vessels. The teacupsand canisters of the inventory, not described as“burnt” or “India chine ware” as was commonwith porcelain, were most likely delft, since theirvalue, when included with that of a corner cup-board, came to a mere 10 shillings.

Were Bates’ household ceramics typical ofthe time for a man of his wealth? Beginning aroundthe second decade of the 18th century, a sampleof Virginia merchant’s inventories show porcelainteawares included among their personal posses-sions (Richard Walker 1728; Joseph Walker esq,1724; Henry Hayward 1720/1). Although Batescertainly could have afforded Chinese porcelain,his household goods, as inventoried, included onlyearthenwares. It is known that he did partake oftea, as evidenced by the presence of tea canis-ters, a tea kettle, and six teacups, perhaps similarto the delft teacup found in the trash deposit (Fig-ure 38). Although this lack of porcelain, a luxuryitem, could be attributed to Bates’ Quaker be-liefs of plainness, those teacups found in the trashpit are decorated with floral and chinoiserie de-signs.

Conclusion

As evident from the inventory and trash pit, John3

Bates’ Quaker beliefs seemed to be apparent in

his store. It appears that his store stock is reflec-tive of the Quaker beliefs of plainness, with un-decorated fabrics and black hoods available,while very little personal adornment finery wason his shelves. Yet, the ceramics which were re-covered from the trash pit are largely decoratedtablewares, seemingly going against the Quakerprohibition of flowered vessels. But Quakers, likeall colonists, could only use what was available tothem, and the ceramic tablewares produced dur-ing this early period were generally decorated. Inorder to use ceramics in their homes, the Quakercommunity may have had to settle for decorateditems.

Bates’ household possessions, however, sug-gest a different demeanor in his personal life. Hishouse, with its room furnishings suggesting spe-cialized functions, is indicative of social changeswhich were occurring at the beginning of the 18thcentury. The luxury items listed in some of thedownstairs, or public rooms, such as mirrors,clocks, spyglasses and ceramic teawares, sug-gest a certain degree of social display. Some ofthese items, such as mirrors, were against Quakerregulations, so it is obvious that Bates saw noproblem with owning and displaying them. Thesame specialization seen in room function seemsto hold true for Bates’ food preparation items andpresentation ceramics. The specialized functionsof tools such as egg slices and the expense ofcopper pans suggests that care and attention wasplaced on the preparation and presentation of foodserved in the Bates’ household. Guests in Bates’home would have been able to sit in chairs at fab-ric covered-tables, with indivually set places. Thefood would have been formally presented on cov-ered dishes.

Bates is an example of a man typical of hiswealth category for early Chesapeake society.Despite his Quaker beliefs, Bates was activelyparticipating in the acquisition of consumer goodswhich was beginning to distinguish the residentsof Tidewater Virginia.

38

39

Chapter VII.Conclusions and Recommendations

Although two separate test excavationshave been conducted at 44YO205,there is still a great deal of work which

could be done there in order to provide clues aboutthe physical appearance, dimensions, and datingof the site. Conclusions will be drawn here andrecommendations made for any further researchor archaeological investigation that may take placein the area in the future.

From information gathered thus far, it appearsthat the date span of the site occupation rangesfrom circa 1675 to around the end of the 18thcentury. John3 Bates’ father first owned this prop-erty by 1675 and probably built the “manner plan-tation” that stood there at the time of his death in1676/7. This was the house that John3 inheritedand probably resided in at the turn of the 18thcentury. Surely, too, this was the house that John3

feared in 1698 would be too small to contain themeeting of Quakers (McCartney and Weston1973:4). There was no evidence of this earlymanner plantation, either through structural fea-tures or through 17th-century artifact scatters,located through testing in 1980 or 1985. Mostlikely, this manner plantation would have been aless permanent type of housing, similar in formand construction to that of Clift’s Plantation atStratford Hall (Neiman 1980). Here, archaeo-logical investigations revealed a late 17th-centuryframe house, supported on wooden posts. Suchpost houses were common in the 17th-centuryChesapeake for planters of all social levels(Neiman 1980:17).

Soon after the turn of the 18th century, John3

Bates built Structure A. It probably served as hishouse, since that is the only known large struc-ture listed in his inventory. It contained a brickpaved cellar, as well as seven rooms. After hisdeath at the end of 1719, the property in YorkCounty passed to his younger son Isaac, and re-mained in the Bates family until the beginning ofthe fourth quarter of the 18th century. Structure Aburned sometime during the third or fourth quar-ter of the 18th century. The property, or at leastthat part of it, was abandoned after the fire, sinceno 19th-century artifacts were found on the site.

At the present time the site is not threatened,and it is not likely that it will be in danger of majordisturbance. Testing in the yard revealed that re-cent grading had destroyed all soil layers abovesubsoil, with the likely result being that only fea-tures which cut into subsoil will be present. Thiswould eliminate any information that could be ob-tained through spatial patterning of artifacts. Thelocation of certain types of outbuildings will belost through the removal or grading of their shal-low brick foundations.

Recommendations for further work includeadditional testing of Structure A in order to deter-mine it construction date, its spatial orientation onthe property, and the presence and location ofother buildings. The artifacts located by other resi-dents along Nina Circle should be examined andinventoried in order to provide information on theactual dimensions and spatial aspects of the site.

40

41

Bibliography

Abbot1861 Campaign Maps. Army of the

Potomac, Map No. 1. Yorktown toWilliamsburg. In Atlas to Accompanythe Official Records of the Unionand Confederate Armies, 1861-1865.

Anonymous1903 Journal of Col. James Gordon. William

and Mary Quarterly XI(1st s.):195-205.

Barclay, Robert1876 The Inner Life of the Religious

Societies of the Commonwealth.London.

Beaudry, Mary C., Janet Long, Henry Miller,Fraser D. Neiman and Garry Wheeler Stone

1983 A Vessel Typology for EarlyChesapeake Ceramics: The PotomacTypological System. HistoricalArchaeology 17(1), 18-43.

Bergstrom, Peter 1980 Markets and Merchants: Economic

Diversification in Colonial Virginia1700-1775. Ph.D. dissertation,University of New Hampshire.

Bergstrom, Peter and J. Mark Ferguson1984 Making the Map that Never Was.

Colonial Williamsburg JournalVII(2).

Berthier1781 #39e Campe a Williamsburg le 26

Septembre, 7 Milles de Arche’s -hupe le 27 Sejour. Original in PrivateCollection of Count de Longvillers,Chateau de Rochambeau.

Brown, Marley R., III1987 “Among Weighty Friends”: The

Archaeology and Social History ofthe Jacob Mott Family, Portsmouth,Rhode Island, 1640-1800. Ph.D.dissertation, Brown University.

Bruce, Philip1935 Economic History of Virginia in the

Seventeenth Century. Volume II.Originally published 1895. Peter Smith,New York.

Carr, Lois Green, and Lorena S. Walsh1985 Changing Life Styles and Consumer

Behavior in the Colonial Chesapeake.Paper presented at the Conference ofAnglo-American Social History,Williamsburg.

Carr, Lois Green, and Lorena S. Walshn.d. Changing Lifestyles and Consumer

Behavior in the Colonial Chesapeake.In Of Consuming Interests: A Style ofLife on the 18th Century, edited byRonald Hoffman and Cary Carson.Forthcoming

Carson, Cary, Norman F. Barka, William Kelso,Garry Wheeler Stone, and Dell Upton

1981 Impermanent Architecture in theSouthern American Colonies.Winterthur Portfolio:135-196.

Carson, Cary, and Lorena S. Walsh1981 The Material Life of the Early

American Housewife. Paper presentedat the Conference on Women in EarlyAmerica. November 5-7, 1981,Williamsburg.

42

Curtis, Julia1988 Perceptions of an Artifact: Chinese

Porcelain in Colonial TidewaterVirginia. In DocumentaryArchaeology in the New World, editedby Mary Beaudry, pp. 20-31.Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

Davison, Robert A.1964 Isaac Hicks; New York Merchants

and Quaker 1767-1820. HarvardUniversity Press, Cambridge.

Deetz, James1973 Ceramics from Plymouth, 1635-1835:

The Archaeological Evidence. InCeramics in America, edited by IanM. G. Quimby, pp. 15-40. University ofVirginia Press, Charlottesville.

Earle, Alice Morse1970 Two Centuries of Costume in

America 1620-1820. Volumes I andII. Dover Publications, New York.Reprint of 1903 edition.

Frost, J. William1973 The Quaker Family in Colonial

America; A Portrait of the Society ofFriends. St. Martin’s Press, NewYork.

Gill, Haroldn.d. The Retail Business in Colonial

Virginia. Draft manuscript, ColonialWilliamsburg Foundation.

Gilmer, J. F.1863 Map of New Kent, Charles City,

James City, and York Counties. ChiefEngineer’s Office

Harris, Edward C.1979 Principles of Archaeological

Stratigraphy. Academic Press,London.

Hartwell, Henry, James Blair and EdwardChilton

1727 Present State of Virginia, and theCollege. Printed for John Wyat,London.

Hunter, Robert1983 Archaeological Soils. Manuscript on

file, Office of ArchaeologicalExcavation, Colonial WilliamsburgFoundation, Williamsburg.

James, Sydney1963 A People Among Peoples; Quakers

Benevolence in Eighteenth-CenturyAmerica. Harvard University Press,Cambridge.

Jensen, Joan1986 Loosening the Bonds: Mid-Atlantic

Farm Women 1750-1850. YaleUniversity, New Haven.

Jones, Hugh1724 The Present State of Virginia.

Published in London, 1724. Edited byDr. Richard L. Morton, Chapel Hill,1956.

Lewis, Marlene1976 The South River Monthly Meetings

of Friends, 1757-1800: A Socio-Religious Study. M.S. thesis, UtahState University.

Lipski, Louis L.1984 Dated English Delftware; Tin-Glazed

Earthenware 1600-1800. SothebyPublications.

43

McCartney, Martha, and Margaret N. Weston1973 The Friends of Skimino Meeting.

Unpublished report on file, Division ofHistoric Landmarks, Richmond,Virginia.

Main, Gloria1982 Tobacco Colony: Life in Early

Maryland, 1650-1720. PrincetonUniversity Press, Princeton.

Martin, Ann Smart1989a “Fashionable Sugar Dishes, Most

Fashionable Ware”: ConsumerDemand for Eighteenth-Century Teaand Tablewares. Paper presented atthe first Archaeological Congress/Society for Historical Archaeologyannual meeting, Baltimore.

1989b The Role of Pewter as MissingArtifact. Historical Archaeology (2):1-27.

Miller, GeorgePersonal Communication.

MinutesMinutes of the Yearly Meeting of theNew England Society of Friends.Original books and microfilm at theRhode Island Historical SocietyLibrary, Providence, Rhode Island.

Munsell1975 Munsell Soil Color Charts. Macbeth/

Kollmorgen Corporation, Baltimore.

Neiman, Fraser1980 The “Manner House” Before

Stratford (Discovering CliftsPlantation), edited by Alonzo Dill. AStratford Handbook. Stratford.

1986 Domestic Architecture at the CliftsPlantation: The Social Context of EarlyVirginia Building. In Common Places;

Readings in American VeranacularArchitecture, edited by Dell Upton andJohn Michael Vlach, pp. 292-314.University of Georgia Press, Athens.

Outlaw, Alain1974 Excavations at Burke’s Corner and

Survey of the Skimino MeetinghouseLot, York County, Virginia. 1974.Virginia Historic LandmarksCommission.

Noël Hume, Ivor1969 Guide to Artifacts of Colonial

America. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

Roth, Rodris1961 Tea Drinking in 18th-Century

America: Its Etiquette and Equipage.Paper 14. Contributions from theMuseum of History and Technology,United States National MuseumBulletin 225. Washington, D. C.

Pittman, William (compiler)1984 Laboratory Manual. Office of

Archaeological Excavation,Department of Archaeology, ColonialWilliamsburg Foundation.

Smart, Ann M.1987 “The Limits of the Possible”:

Availability and Costs of Tablewares inan Eighteenth-Century Virginia Store.Unpublished paper presented at the1987 Society for HistoricalArchaeology conference, Savannah,Georgia.

Tolles, Frederick B.1963 Meeting House and Counting

House; The Quaker Merchants ofColonial Philadelphia 1682-1763.Reprint of 1948 edition. The W. W.Norton & Co., Inc., New York.

44

USDA (United States Department of Agricul-ture)

1985 Soil Survey of James City and YorkCounties and the City ofWilliamsburg, Virginia. Printed incooperation with Virginia PolytechnicInstitute and State University.

Walsh, Lorena1987 Summary of Economic and Societal

Changes in the Chesapeake withRelation to Foodways, circa 1620-1820.Paper presented at the FoodwaysConference, Colonial WilliamsburgFoundation, Williamsburg.

Warwick, Edward, Henry Pitz, and AlexanderWyckoff

1965 Early American Dress; The Colonialand Revolutionary Periods. BonanzaBooks, New York.

Wenger, Mark R.1986 The Central Passage in Virginia:

Evolution of an Eighteenth-CenturyLiving Space. Perspectives inVernacular Architecture, II, edited byCamille Wells, pp. 137-149. Universityof Missouri Press, Columbia.

York County RecordsCopies on file at the Department ofResearch, Colonial WilliamsburgFoundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.

45

Appendix I.John Bates’ 1720 Estate Inventory

Inventory of the Estate of John Bates of York County Mercht. decd.

Taken this Tenth day of June 1720. by us the Subscribers being first Sworn Vizt.

In Poplar Spring Storehouse in James City County

Linens Vizt: 2 ps. of Garlix Holland N. 54 qty. @ 26/6 2. 13. ——2 ps. Do. N. 52 @ 25/6 2. 11. ——2 ps. Do. N. 58 @ 28/6 2. 17. ——1 P of Dowlas 28Ells @ 1. 13. ——1 ps. Shirting Holld..............3 22 3. 9. 8A remnant of Dowlas 9 41 @ 1/3 2. 11. 3Do. Course Dowlas 19 1. 3. 9Remnant Narrow Garlix 24½ 1. 4. 6A ps. of Irish Holld 20 yds. 1. 10. ——Remnant Irish Do. 16½ 1. 4. 91 ps. Cambrick 1. 4. ——1 ps. Kenting —. 4. ——Remnant of Musling 35 yds. 3. 15. 3Remnant of Course Linnen 8 do. —. 4. ——1 ps. Course Diaper 27 5. 12. 62 Remnants of Do. Diaper 21Course Garlix 2 Ells —. 2. ——2 ps. Course Colld. Linnen 26½ 54½ yds. 1. 7. 3Do. Linnen in a Remnant 28 20½1 P. Double Garlix N. 930 2. 2. ——Bedticks3 bed Ticks 2. 15. 61 Bunt —. 12. ——Narrow boulster Tick 73/4 yds. @ 7¼ —. 5. 2Silks 2 ps. of Sattin 55A Remnant Do. 21½ @ 2/4 8. 18. 64 Remnants of Persian Silk 68¼ Do. @ 20d 5. 13. 9Stockings Boys Course Yarn 15P —. 8. 9Mens Course Yarn 3 doz. & 9P @ 13d 2. 8. 9Small boys Course Do. 17P —. 9. 11Woms. Course Yarn 5 doz. & 9P @ 11d 2. 19. 7Girles Course Do. 5 & 2 1. 16. 2Mens ordry. worsted 26PDo.Do. 1Do 2. 16. 4Womsn. worsted 21 P. 2. 16. 4Girles Worsted Course 2 doz. P. 1. 12. —5 P black Course Yarn —. 5. 10Worsted Stocks. 3P. —. 2. 4Calicoe Ordry Stript Calico 14 yds 1. 1. —Romold Hankfrs 24 1. 6. 8

Taken from York County Orders, Wills, Etc. #15, 1716-1720, pp. 628-638.

46

Romald Do. Spoylt & Rotten 23 —. 10. —Woolens. Course Druget moth & Rat eaten 23. @ 1/ 1. 12. —Course Camblet N (19) 35 1. 15. —DO. Do. 18 35 Do 1. 15. —One ps. Do. 2. —. —Worsted Skrank Camblet 29 1. 15. —1 P. blew plain 30 @ 1/3 1. 17. 6Remnant blew Do 29 @ Do 1. 16. 3Course Kersey moth eaten 47 2. 7. —Ordry broad Cloth 11½ @ 4/3 2. 13. 8One P Broad Cloth qty. 27½ @ 4/8 6. 7. 2Remnant of Colld. plains 16½ @ 14½ —. 19. 11Remnant of druget print 1. 10. 9Do. 6 yds. Drugget —. 6. —Stuffs. 1 Ps Stuff N14 26 yds 1. 6. —1 P Do 27 26 1. 7. 1Ordry. Stuffs narrow 35½ 2. 10. 3Do. Stuffs narrow 31½ at 9d1 Remnant of Darrys 8 —. 10. 8One ps. Poplin 1. 7. —White Cotton 7 yds. —. 5. 10Course double Stuff 2½ —. 2. 6Cantaloons Do 3½ —. 1. 3¾Mixed Crape 4 —. 4. —Mourning Crape 27 @ 9d 1. —. 3Shaloon 3½ —. 4. 2Duroys & pieces no. Number 2. 14. —Sagathy — 3 pieces—No Number 3. 12. —Duroys in a Remnant 20½ 1. 7. —Sagathy in a Remnant Rat eaten 32 39 1. 19. —Do. in Do 7 yds.Drugget 4 —. 4. —Sagathy 123/4 —. 12. 9Cold. frize 5 @ 2/6 —. 12. 6Black Calimanco Course 11 @ 1/6 —. 16. 6Course Buckram 13 —. 6. 6Whisk Setts 343/4 1. —. —Two half pieces of white Cotton 1. 10. —Fustian in a Remnant 9 yds. —. 7. 6White Cotton in Do. 12½ —. 9. 4½Red Do. in Do 17 —. 8. 6A Suit of Curtains & Vallins —. 18. —2 ps. of Swans Skin @14d 3. 19. 4Capp of Severall Sorts 9 doz. &5 1. 17. 8Blanketts Ratt eaten 7 P. 1. 10. —Ordry. Stuff 16½ yds. @ 9d —. 12. 4½Cantaloon Do. 4½ yds. @ 4½d —. 1. 8½Fine Kersey 11 @ 2/6 1. 7. 6Pewter. In plates dishes & basons qty. 26 lb. @ d —. 19. 6

Pottle Tankards 3 @ 3/2 —. 9. 6Pint Do. 4 —. 6. —Qt. Do. 1 —. 2. 2Qt. Do. very much bruised 2A Splitt porringer —. 2. —

47

Earthen Ware. 1 three Galln. Butter pott —. 4. 6

Three 1 Gall. Do. —. 1. —One 2 Gall. Do. —. 1. —4 2 qt. Do. —. 2. —7 pottle brown Muggs —. 5. 1022 qt. Do. —. 9. 269 pt. Do. —. 17. 336½ pt. Do. —. 6. —

Hatts Mens felts 16Mens do. 6 6. 15. 8Mens fine hattes of Sevl. Sorts 15

Iron Work 19 m. 10d. Nails 4. 15. —2 m. 8d. Do —. 8. —

nails 7 m. 20d. Do. 2. 13. 82 m. 4d. Do. —. 4. —

Sheep Shears 14 —. 7. —Taylors Sheers 6 —. 9. —Narrow Axes 15 1. 7. —Broad Axes 4 —. 8. —Narrow Hoes 6 —. 6. —Drawing Knives 3 —. 3. —Heading Knife 1 —. 1. —Broad Chiswells 2 Heading Do. 3Scribing Do. 2 Furmers 3 —. 5. —Scribing Gough 1 50 —. —. —½ back augers 1 —. —. 10Lathing hammers 8 —. 8. —Trowels 3 —. 4. 6Round Shreve 1 —. 1. 6Taper Shreve 1 —. 1. 6Carpendrs Adses 2 —. 2. —Grubbing Hoes 1 —. 1. —Pothooks 8P —. 4. 10Frying panns 10 qty. 62 lb. @ 5d 1. 5. 10Smoothing Irons 2 —. 1. 8Piercers 2 doz. —. 1. 4Claw Hammers 2 —. 1. —Iron potts 3 qty 87 lb. @ 3d. 1. 1. 9Chest Looks very Rusty 6 —. 2. 8Padlock one —. —. 7½Gridd Irons 3 —. 2. —Crosscutt Saws 3 1. 1. —1 Iron whip Saw —. 7. —Iron Staples 19 —. 1. 7One small wedge —. —. 8X Garnets 2P —. 2. 63 old hinges —. 3. 91 Small Iron Candlestick —. —. 32 Mariners Compasses —. 15. —Brass 1 brass Kettle weight 10 lb. —. 15. —

4 brass Candlesticks —. 5. 62 Small dram Glasses —. —. 8

Glasses 2 dox. & 7 flint drinking Glasses —. 12. —

48

Cheese 4 Cheeses qty. 93 lb. @ 4½d. 1. 4. 10½Shoes Mens plain Shoes 18 P 2. 15. 6

Boys plain Do. 12P —. 18. —Mens Shoes another Sort 7 @ 3/9 1. 6. 3Woms. Do 2 —. 5. 4Girles Do. 4 —. 9. 4Boys Do. 1 —. 2. 65 horse whips 5 —. 6. —Woms. fine Shoes 1P —. 5. —

Saddles one Small hunting Saddle 1. —. —2 leather halters —. 2. 410 Single Girths —. 4. 27 Double Do. —. 5. 103 Cirb bridles —. 10. —2 Snaffle Do. —. 2. 82 Setts of worn horse harness 1. 10. —

Haberdash: 4 Knotts of pearch line —. —. 4 ery 2 doz. dramhooks —. 2. —

5 Small Graters —. —. 513/4 lb. pack thread —. 1. 9A parcell buttons of all Sorts in a Trunk 2. —. —6½ lb. white brown thread @ 20d —. 10. 1053/4 lb. colld. & Brown @ 20d —. 9. 726 pieces of Tape & binding 2. 5. —19½ half peices45 bunch of Narrow holld. Tape 1. 2. 69 lb. of Mohair 3. 3. —6 Pr. Shammy Mens Gloves —. 7. 67 P mens wht wash Do. 1. 1. 39 hhds. Silk —. 4. 61 P Cotton Cards —. 1. —4 doz. thimbles —. 2. —4½ m. pinns —. 2. 3

A parcell of Needles —. 1. —1 Small Girdle —. —. 610 Sticks Sealing Wax —. 1. 82 P. knitting Needles —. —. 262 Sail Needles —. 3. —4 Small horn Combs —. —. 6½ Oz. twist thread —. —. 650 yds. of Yellow black & blew Cadiz & 4 yds worstedCadiz in parcells —. 5. —

Hoods 2 whole Sarsnet hoods —. 6. —1 P. Silk Stockings —. 9. —

Bodice one P leather bodice —. 4. —one P woms. Do. Stitched with Silk —. 11. —one P woms. Paragon —. 6. —

Cutlery 1 doz. mens Knives & forks —. 5. —10 mens wood painted knives & forks —. 3. 93 Ivory knives Single —. 2. —19 box knives —. 3. 11½7 Jack or Spring knives —. 1. 5½7 Small pr. Scizers —. —. 92 Inks with Cases —. —. 5

49

1 P Snuffers —. —. 23 Tobo. boxes —. 1. 642 P brass buckles —. 10. 640 P Iron or Steel —. 6. 87 P Childrens Do —. —. 76 P. bath mettle Spurrs —. 8. —4 P Iron Do. —. —. 101 P Small Stilliards & pea —. —. —

Shott 213 lb. of Shott & bullets 1. 5. —Books 15 horn books. 13 primmers 7 Psalters —. 8. —

A parcell of pipes 1. 10. —To a Remnants of old GoodsSilks. 2 ps. Sattin 55 yds.

Remnant Do. 2½ yds. 8. 18. 64 Remnants of Persian Do. 62 yds. @ 20d 5. 13. 911 doz. & 7 linnen handkfs. @ 8s P dz. 4. 12. 85 Ells Course Sheeting —. 5. —1 P Dowlas N 8 52 Ells 3. —. —7 Ells Do. —. 8. 24 P Irish hose —. 1. —2 Lanthorns 1 Dark Do. —. 3. —1 hatt —. 3. —2 P Scales & weights & 1 P Small money Scales —. 10. —1 P large Scales & weights 5. —. —1 black hood —. 4. —

£ 212. 10. 3¾

At the Plantation house at Poplar Spring

10 head of Young Cattle 7. 10. —26 Sheep 5. 4. —1 Tumbrell Cart & wheels old 3. —. —1 Grindstone —. 5. —1 writing Desk 2. 10. —1 press bedstead. 1 bed bolster 2 pillows 1 P Sheets

2 Pillow Cases 1 Rugg 1 Small quilt 5. —. —12 old leather Chairs 2. 8. —6 Cane Chairs 1. 4. —1 P Small bellows —. 1. 31 P Small Stilliards —. 6. —5 Small muggs —. 2. —

In the hall

1 feather bed bolster 2 pillows 1 P blanket 1 Rugg1 p Sheets 2 pillow Cases 1 Suit old Curtains&c. bedstead Cord & hyde 8. 10. —

1 P Sheets 3 Course Co. Napkins Towells 1 pillowCase 3 Course Rable Cloths 1. 10. —

2 flock beds 2 p blankets 2 Ruggs 5. —. —1 old feather bed & bolster 2. 10. —A pacell of horse harness 1. —. —A parcell of old Limber above Stairs &c. 1. 10. —

50

The pewter in the Kitchen 2. —. —Tinn ware —. 10. —2 frying panns 1 Gridd Iron 1 Small Kettle 3 P pott

hooks 1 P tongs 1 Chafing dish 2. 10. —1 Comb & brush —. 2. 62 Sifters —. 1. —A Tubb & other Lumber in the Kitchen —. 15. —2 butter potts —. 4. —1 mare & Colt —. —. —a prell. of wearing apparell 4. —. —3 Tobos. hhds. —. 6. —35 lb. wool unsortd —. 17. 6Sundrys at the mill abt. 47 barrells Indian Corn @

8/ P barrel 18. 16. —5 bushells wheat 1. —. —1 Chest 1 P Shoes 1 Gunn 1 X Cutt Saw 1 halter

3 bottles 1. 10. —7 old Cask —. 10. —2 old baggs —. 2. —2 old flock beds & bedding 1. 10. —Iron pott & frying pan & a prell. Lumber —. 15. —1 old Jack plain —. 1. —1 Grindstone —. 4. —Sundrys in Smiths Shop 4. —. —1 Mare & Colt 1. —. —

In Knights field Quarter

31 Cattle 31. —. —Cesar a Negroe man 30. —. —Maria Do. woman 25. —. —Emanuel 10. —. —John Cesars Negroe boy 25. —. —3 old potts 2 doz. bottles & a prell. Lumber 1. 10. —A prell. of hydes —. 10. —Billy a boy 20. —. —Moll a woman 30. —. —Sambo a man 35. —. —Hannah an old woman 25. —. —Mungo a man 25. —. —Jemmy 20. —. —Sam 30. —. —Molley a Child 10. —. —Quimmer a man 35. —. —A mare & Colt 1. 5. —

Total at Poplar Spring £ 653. 19. 6¼

In the Store House at his Own plantation in York County

Saddles &c To 4 Small Hackney Saddles @ 10/ 2. —.—To 8 Do. with flapps 7. 4.—4 Hackney Do. Spoilt with Ratts 1. —.—6 Kerb bridles 1. —.—

51

8 Snaffles @ 20d —. 13. 410 halters @ 12d —. 10. —10 P Stirrup Leathers @ 14d —. 11. 89 belts 8d —. 6. —14 Singles Girths @ 4d —. 4. 812 double Do. —. 12. —18 horse whips 1. 10. —6 woms. Saddles with furniture 14. 14. —

Cart To 2 Cart Salles 1 hill Collar 1 bridle 1. 1. —Woollens& Stuffs To 4 P drugget 40 yds. 4. 6. 8

1 P Spanish bro. Cloth 14 yds. 5. 12. —2 ps. Duroys qty. 36 yds. 2. 16. —9 ps. Saggathy Serges 15. 15. —Duroys in Remnants 30 @ 16d 2. —. —Saggathy in Remnants 32 @ 20d 2. 16. 8

Coarse Drugget in Remnants 90 4. 10. —1 P Shaloon @ 13½d 1. 18. —Shaloon in Remnants 48 2. 8. —half broad Cloth 26 @ 2/8 3. 9. 46 Ps. Kersey 12. 16. 12 P half Whisks 3. 19. 9Coarse bro. Cloth 19 @ 2/6 2. 7. 6Do. bro. Clo. 6 @ 2/6 —. 15. —Kersey in Remnants 51 @ 18d 3. 17. 6Ordry. Cotton for wrapping 32 1. 12. —Pennistone 37 @ 13d 2. 6. 32 P Cotton 76½ each1 P Do 51 @ 14d 7. 8. 21 P Swansey 31 @ 13½d 1. 14. 10½5 ps. of Do. in Remnants —. 5. 7½3 P Colld. fustian 24 each 3. 8. 61 P Do Courser 18 —. 14. —1 P half thicks 32 @ 14½d 1. 18. 818 yds. of Milled Serge @ 20d 1. 10. —Bedding& bedticks 1 feather bed & bolster 3. 7. 6

3 Ruggs 1. 8. —9 blankets damnifyed —. 8. —1 Coverlid —. 3. 106 flanders bedticks @ 24/ 7. 4. —3 Course bedticks @ 19d 1. 18. —1 Bunt —. 14. —11 yds. ordry bedtick 18d —. 16. —1 bedtick —. 19. —

Brown Linens& buckram 17 Ps. of Oznabrs. qty. 1489 ells @ 7½d 47. 10. 7½Remnants in Do. 311 @ 7½d 9. 14. 4½

Course Kemmells in Remnantsdamnifyed 47 @ 4½d —. 15. 8

2 P brown Sheeting 57 @ 14d 3. 6. 6A Remnant Do. 21 1. 4. 6Towelling in Remnants very brown 20 @ 4d —. 6. 85 P buckram 12 yds. each @ 4/6 1. 2. 6

52

dyed Linnen 76 @ 5½ 1. 13. 3White Linnens

N 13 1 P Dowlas 52 Ells 3. 17. 8L 1 P Do 26 1. 13. —H 1 P Dowlas 26 1. 10. —11 Dowlas in Remnants 55 3. 5. 3G Do. in Remnants 15 @ 14d 1. 18. 656 Do. in Remnants 1856 Ordry Garlix hold 17 @ 22d 1. 11. 212 Do. Holld 53 3. 12. —18 Narrow Do. 43 @ 15d 2. 13. 9

2. 2. 33 ps. Irish Linnen 20 yds each @ 18d 4. 10. —Table Linnen 15 yds. 6/4 Diaper 2 1. 10. —

N. 225 Narrow Dowlas 26 Ells 1. 8. —Stuffs 6 P Stuffs qty. 26, 26, 36, 26, 26, 26. 166 yds 10. 16. 3¼

1 P Sattin 27 @ 2/6½ 3. 19. 10¾Narrow Stuff 96 @ 117d 4. 8. —Double Do 11 @ 20d —. 18. 4Cantaloons 33 @ 4½d —. 12. 4Crape 36 1. 16. —Black Russells 15 @ 16d 1. —. —Camblet moth eaten 22 @ 1/6 1. 13. —A Remnant of Stuff 7 @ 15d —. 5. 10Course Camblet 2 @ 15d —. 13. 9Do. Camblet 11Shaloon 10 —. 10. —

Calico Muslins & Silks4 ps. Calico N 2 16 yds each @ 27/ 6. 15. —1 p. Do. 3 18 1. 6. —1 p Chints 12 1. 8. 6Calicos in Remnants 23 @ 20d 1. 18. 41 ps. Do.16 1. 6. —Printed Linnen 11 @ 19¼d 2. 2. 31 ps. Do.15Fine Muslin 38 @ 3 5. 14. —Course Do 28 @ 21d 2. 5. 8Persian Silk for Lining 133 @ 21d 11. 12. 9Cuttenees 3 —. 6. —

Handkfs. To 34 Romald handkrfs 2. 11. —32 Linnen Co. @ 8d 1. 1. 420 Cotton Do. 1. —. —122 Silk Do. @ 20d 10. —. —

Fine Linnens 3 Casks of Kenting @ 20d 9 yds. Do. @ 9/6 1. 18. —

2 ps. of Cambrick 1. 17. 2Haberdashery 16 ps. colld. Ingle @ 8d —. 10. 8

10 P narrow Do. White —. 4. 29 bunches of Holld. Tape —. 7. 65 hd. pinns —. —. 422 P mens Gloves 1. 9. 42 P woms —. 2. —

Knives 5 doz. & 5 box knives large —. 12. 25 doz. & 10 Smaller —. 2. 6

53

11 Doz. & 3 Do. 1. 2. 63 ordry. Razors —. —. —18 ps. worsted Cadiz —. 1. —2 P Gartering —. 4. 6

Ribbons & Ferreting 10 yds. 12 d. Ribbon —. 6. 87 Do. 6d Do. —. 2. 452 yds, Silk ferreting —. 8. 84 bunches of bobbing —. —. 61 ordry. Sarsnet hood —. 3. —

Books. 2 horn books & 1 primmer —. —. 37½ pds. of Colld. thread @ 20d —. 13. 31½ pds. of Course Nunns —. 3. 3

Mohair 23 pds. of Mohair 5. —. —1 Trunk of buttons of all Sorts 1. —. —9 Japan Watch Cases —. 18. —184 pack Needles —. 5. —11 dox. Shoe buckles —. 10. —2 P brass Spurrs —. 1. —2 mouse Trapps —. 1. —

Hatts. 4 doz. & 11 fine hats of Severall Sorts 16. 11. —2 doz. & 10 felt Do. 3. 4. —

Shoes 7 doz. mens Shoes 12. —. —1 P Small Girles —. 1. —1 P. woms. Do —. 2. —1½ doz. woms fine Case & bread Shoes 4. 19. 36 P boys plain13 P mens Do old Shop Keepers 1. 3. —4 p woms. Do.

Tin Ware Lanthorns 4 —. 6. 8Funnells 41 —. 12. 6Milk panns 25 1. 13. 4Coverlids 15 —. 17. 6Dripp panns 2 —. 2. —Some panns 15 —. 8. —Pepper boxes 5 —. —. 9Grators 10 —. 1. 3Candle boxes 4 —. 3. 6Lamps 5 —. 3. 4Candlesticks 2 —. —. —Graters 9 —. —. 6½Cullenders 4 —. 5. —Coffee potts 3 —. 2. —Dark Lanthorns 3 —. 3. —1 Garden Water pott —. 2. —

Pewter One dish 5 lb —. 4. —1 two qt. bason —. 2. —11 plates —. 9. 11 pottle Tankard —. 2. 108 Do. Spoons —. 1. —

Pickles 1 Cases pickles 1. 6. 8Earthen Ware Pint bowles 41 @ 4d —. 13. 8

Large Do. 5 5d —. 2. 6Smaller Do. 7 5d —. 2. 11Sugar potts 2 3d —. —. 6

54

Porringers 25 2d —. 4. 2Pint basons 23 2½d —. 4. 9½Qt. Do. 12 4d —. 4. —Pottle Do. 7 6d —. 3. 6large plates 65 2 1/1 —. 13. —½Small Do. 12 2d —. 2. —Dishes 7 10d —. 5. 10Pint Canns 4 2½ —. —. 10

Glasses One box Glasses 2. 10. —Pepper Pepper 37 lb. @ 17d 2. 2. 5Cheese 6 Cheeses qty. 90 3d 1. 2. 6Scales & Weights 3 P of money Scales & weights 1. —. —

4 P Sugar Scales & wts. —. 10. —1 P large Tobo. Scales & wts. 5. —. —1 P Small Stilliards —. 3. —1 P large Do —. 15. —

Iron Ware To 24 broad hoes 1. 15. —61 frying panns qty 314 lb @ 5d 6. 10. 1015 Iron potts 398 25 4. 19. 6106 Narrow hoes 1/3 5. 14. 410 broad axes @ 3/3 1. 12. 654 Narrow Axes 4. 5. 64 flesh forks —. 2. 81 Carpenters Adz —. 1. —1 Coopers Adz —. 1. —8 firming Chisells5 Broad Do. —. 7. 66 firming Gouges

1 fire Shovell —. 1. 45 p pott hooks —. 4. 23 P Shoe makers pincers —. 3. —1 Lath —. 3. —15 P Sheep Shears —. 10. —2 drawing

knives —. 2. —1 whipp Saw —. 15. —1 X Cutt Saw —. 6. —1 old Tennant Saw —. 5. —

Nails To 60 m. 8d. Nails @ .4/ 12. —. —36 m. 10d. Do. @ .5/ 9. —. —x 10m. 20d. Do @ 7/4 3. 13. 432 m. 6d. Do 3/ 4. 16. —12m. 4d. Do. @ 23d/ 1. 3. —

Shott Three Ct. wt. of Shott of all Sorts 1. 16. —Brass To 2 Small brass Kettles wt. 18 lb. —. 18. —

To 1 brass Tea Kettle —. 9. —To a prell. of Lumber in the Store loft 2. 10. —To a prell. of Lumber in the Store Cellar 1. 10. —A prell. of pipes —. 5. —300 lb. of Sugar 3. 15. —12 Whiske bottles 2. 8. —

55

Stores Goods amount to £ 458. 19. 2½15 p Ct. is 68. 10. —

539. 9. 2½

6 Butter potts —. 15. —Kath: Shamlin 5. —. —4 Cows & Calves 6. —. —2 Do. 2. 10. —1 Horse 1. 10. —1 watch & chain 4. —. —88 oz. 13d. wt. Silver @ 5/ 22. 4. 6

In the dwelling house

one old horse 10. —. —one dark bay Do. 10. —. —8 old horses 20. —. —3 mares 2 Colts 1 young horse 7. —. —

In the Porch

12 Rushea leather Chairs 6. —. —2 old Chairs and Table —. 10. —1 Corner Cup board 6 Tea Cupps 2 Canesters —. 10. —1 looking Glass & Spy Glass 1. 5. —2 pictures —. 5. —

In the Hall

6 new Cane Chairs 2. 2. —6 old Do 1. —. —2 Tables —. 12. 61 Couch &c 1. 5. —1 Scritore old 2. —. —1 Clock & Case 6. —. —1 large Glass 1. 10. —A prell. of earthen Ware —. 10. —2 Mapps 2 dish bearers —. 2. 61 old Chair & a prell. of Lumber —. 5. —1 P large Stilliards —. 15. —A prell. of Lumber in the press 1. 5. —Sundry wearing Cloths 7. —. —In a Closet under the Stairs 1. 10. —

In the Back Room

1 Small Table & 2 trunks & box 1. —. —1 Chest of Drawers 2. 10. —1 Elbow Chair 1 old leather Do. 1 Glass —. 15. —a prell of earthen Ware & 2 Tinn Sconces —. 15. —A prell. of books 1. 5. —A prell. of aprn. Candle box & Search —. 2. 68 Diaper Table Cloths 5 Course Do. 7 Course Napkins

56

12 Towells 31 finer Napkins, 22 pillowbers1 P fine Sheets 13 P Course 10. —. —

10 Shirts 2. 10. —1 bed Curtains Vallins head CLo. & Tester 1 P Sheets

bedstead 1 Cord 1 Quilt old & hyde 9. —. —1 bed &c 5. —. —

Chamber Over the Back Room

1 bed 1 P old Sheets bedstead 3 Pillow Cord hyde &1 P old blankets 3. —. —

4 Ruggs 2. 8. —3 old blankets —. 5. —25 lb. Rice —. 6. 3A prell. of Linnen abt the Wool —. 2. 62 old Trunks 1 old Chest 1 watering pott 1 hammock

a Remnant of Canvas 1 funnel 1 Saucepann 3 Course Sheets 1. 10. —

In the Inner Chamber over the Hall

7 Cane Chairs 2. 2. —3 Ruggs 1. 10. —A Sett of Curtains & Vallins 1 Coverlid bedstead Cord

& hyde 1. 15. —1 Table 1 old Trunk 1 P old And Irons. 1 dish

4 plates 2 Glasses 1 Chamber pott 1 fire tongs —. 12. 6

In the Out Chamber over the Hall

1 flock bed 1 Rugg 1 P blankets 2 pillow bedstead& Cord 2. —. —

1 feather bed 2 bolsters, 1 p Sheets 1 pillow 1 blanketbedstead & cord 4. —. —

2 Cane chairs 1 warming pan 1 old Trunk —. 1. 5

In the Porch Chamber

1 Good feather bed 1 blanket 1 P Sheets 1 Pillow1 Suit Curtains & Vallins bedstead Cord& hyde 12. —. —

1 feather bed 3. 10. —1 feather bed bolster 3 pillows 1 P sheets 1 blanket

Curtains & Vallins 1 Quilt bedstead & Cord 8. —. —2 new Ruggs 2. —. —12 Cane Chairs 4. —. —1 Table & looking Glass 1. 15. —2 Chamber potts 1 Speaking Trumpet —. 4. —

In the Dairy

4 Patty Panns —. 6. —7 pudding panns —. 7. —14 Tinn milk panns —. 10. —

57

2 egg Slices, 1 Cullender 2 Tinn Kettles 3 Sauce panns5 dish Covers 1 funnel —. 10. —

1 Chocolate pott, 1 Copper has pann —. 14. —1 Tea Kettle 1. —. —186 lb. pewter at 9d 6. 19. 6A parcell of earthen Ware —. 4. 6

In the Kitchen

7 brass Candlesticks 1 P Snuffers & Snuff dish 3 oldbrass panns 2 old Kettles wt. 76 lb. @ 12d 3. 16. —

2 bell mettle Skillets wt. 17 lb. 1. —. —1 Copper pott —. 10. —4 Iron potts 1. 10. —2 frying panns —. 5. —4 P pott hooks, 1 Gridd Iron 1 Chaffing dish, 4 box

irons, 2 Spitts, 1 P Iron doggs, 1 flesh fork,1 Ladle, 3 potracks, 11 IronScures 1 brass mortar 2. 10. —

1 bird Cage Table & other Lumber —. 10. —

In the Cellar

a prell. of old Cask abt. 8 doz. empty bottles 2. —. —In the Tobo. house old Lumber —. 10. —2 Cows @ 25 2. 10. —1 Tumbrell 1. —. —1 Saddle 2 padds Some old harness 2. 10. —

Negroes Vizt.

Jacob a boy 22. —. —Tony do 25. —. —Lucy a Girle 20. —. —Sarah a Girle 18. —. —Nanny Do. 13. —. —Barbary a woman 25. —. —Grace Do 35. —. —Patty a Girle 30. —. —Hannah a Girle 30. —. —Tomason a Child 10. —. —Venus Do. 12. —. —Billy Mulatto boy 25. —. —George a Young Man 40. —. —Sara a Girle 30. —. —Oxford a Man 35. —. —Paul a Mulatto man 50. —. —Frank 30. —. —

58

We the Subscribers here under mentioned having according to Order of York County Court appraised the Estateof Mr. Jno. Bates mercht. decd. being first Sworn before one of His Majestys Justices of the peace According toArticles within this Inventory amounted to Vizt.

In the Store Goods at Poplar Spring £ 212. 10. 3¼which at 15 p Ct. is 31. 17. 1½In Store Goods in York County 458. 19. 2½

which at 15 p Ct 68. 16. 10½

£ 772. 3. 6¼

Negroes Household Stuff Horses Cattleand other Goods both in James City County& York County as within mentionedamounteth to 1131. 8. 6

£ 1903. 12. — ¼

The Total Sum of the Esate within mentioned laid out & appraised amounts to One thousand Nine hundred &three pounds Twelve Shillings one farthing, as Witness our hands this Seventeenth day of June Anno. Domi.1720.

At a Court held for York County Wm. KennyJune 20th. 1720 Hen. Powers

Saml. Cobbs

This Inventory &c. of the Estate of Jno. Bates decd. was presented in Court & admitted to Record.

Test. Phi: Lightfoot Cl. Cur.

59

Appendix II.Artifact Inventory

YO205-1 Spoil from Trash Deposit

Terminus Post Quem: post 1700

1 tankard handle 1 button, one piece, copper alloy 1 washer?, iron 1 spoon bowl and handle fragment, copper alloy 1 snaphance gun lock, iron 1 hook, iron 1 shovel blade, probably small coal or ash shovel, iron 1 shovel nosing, iron 1 barrel hoop? fragment, iron 1 lock bolt fragment, iron 1 unidentified object, possibly knife blade, iron 1 gun barrel fragment, iron 1 pierced spatula, copper alloy 1 small square buckle frame?, iron? 1 unidentified object, sheet metal with hole through center, iron 1 domed “cap”, iron 1 strap, iron 1 linch pin, iron 1 unidentified object, iron 1 divider fragment?, iron 1 unidentified object, possible skinner’s knife blade fragment, iron 1 unidentified object, iron 1 lock bolt fragment?, iron 1 curled finial?, iron 1 ax blade fragment?, iron 1 unidentified object, heavily corroded with iron nail attached, iron 1 reinforcing ring or collar, iron 1 spur, iron 1 knife blade, iron 1 knife or razor blade?, iron 1 unidentified object with tin enameled earthenware encrusted in corrosion, iron 2 nails, wrought, rosehead?, iron 1 porcine tusk 1 delftware fragment, blue and white decoration 1 Fulham type stoneware fragment

11 window glass fragment 8 wrought nails, <2" 1 wrought nail fragment, <2" 1 wrought nail 2-4" 4 quartz pebble 1 plaster fragment 1 delft fragment, polychrome decorated 5 wrought nails, <2" 1 wrought nail fragment, <2" 1 delftware fragment, polychrome bowl

119 colonoware fragments 6 delftware fragments, undecorated 1 English stoneware fragment, brown glaze 1 yellow lead glazed Staffordshire slipware, combed 1 blue glass fragment

22 delftware fragments, blue on white, drug pot 5 colonoware, bowl fragments

11 red-bodied coarse earthenware, lead glazed 19 colonoware fragments, burned

2 **pearlware, undecorated fragments 1 **pearlware, handpainted blue on white decoration

60

9 Westerwald stoneware, cobalt blue decoration, incised floral motifs 2 Westerwald stoneware, undecorated mug (?) base fragments 1 salt glazed stoneware, undecorated 3 Staffordshire stoneware 1 Staffordshire stoneware handle fragment

24 Westerwald blue and grey stoneware mug with incised AR and crown decoration 4 charcoal fragments

20 slag fragments (sample retained) 4 nail fragments

35 misc. unidentified iron 8 brick chips 2 stones

17 oyster shell 8 oyster shell, incomplete

124 tooth fragments 3 brick fragments 1 cinder fragment 4 delftware fragments, undecorated 1 delftware fragment, green decoration 1 Staffordshire stoneware fragment 6 Staffordshire earthenware fragments

12 green window glass 3 colorless curved glass, leaded

76 wrought nail, <1"492 wrought nails, 1-2" 34 wrought nails, 2-4"253 wrought nails, incomplete shanks159 wrought nails, incomplete with heads

1 scrap lead 1 lead weight 1 small piece scrap lead 1 mortar with shell inclusions 6 flint 1 chert, red 1 unknown stone 2 coal fragments (sample retained)

717 unidentifiable bone fragments 5 teeth embedded in bone

65 identifiable bone fragments188 pipe stem fragments112 pipe bowl fragments 28 pipe stem fragments with partial bowls attached 1complete pipe bowl, unmarked

2 complete pipe bowls, marked RT, and AS astride heel 13 pewter fragments

9 glass fragments, darker green, curved 1 marble, half 3 unidentified fragments, copper alloy 7 flint fragments 2 colorless glass fragments, curved, leaded base fragments 2 pale green glass fragments, curved

25 assorted curved glass fragments, colorless, leaded 2 curved glass fragments, colorless handle fragments 1 charred wood fragments 4 delftware fragments, blue and white decoration

15 colorless table glass, folded foot rims 2 colorless table glass, curved 1 iron hook 1 white salt glazed stoneware fragment 1 delftware, polychrome decoration 1 Buckley fragment 2 salt glazed stoneware, blue

38 delftware fragments, bowl or chamberpot, undecorated 28 delftware fragments, undecorated

3 delftware fragments, mug or can base 13 delftware glaze fragments

1 delftware, curved pulled handle 2 delftware fragments, rim, mended

61

9 delftware fragments, same vessel 4 delftware fragments, robin egg blue glaze 2 delftware fragment, undecorated

26 delftware fragments, undecorated 6 colonoware fragments, handle 1 case bottle base 4 glass beads 1 glass bead, half

24 delftware plate fragments, blue and white decoration 2 delftware plate fragments, blue and white decoration

34 delftware mug fragments, polychrome decoration, “Beware of the Fox” 16 delftware plate fragments, blue and white decoration

3 green leaded glass, medicine bottle 2 colorless leaded wine glass stem fragments 1 colorless leaded glass, handle fragment 5 grey/green glass perfume ? bottle fragments

39 Westerwald grey stoneware, cobalt blue decoration 9 coarse earthenware fragments 3 Buckley ware bowl rim fragments 2 Buckley ware fragments

11 wine bottle neck fragments 27 wine bottle base fragments167 wine bottle body fragments 33 delftware bowl fragments, polychrome decoration

3 delftware mug fragments, polychrome 10 delftware fragments, undecorated

8 delftware fragments, blue and white decoration 21 delftware cup fragments, blue and white decoration

9 delftware plate fragments, polychrome decoration 7 delftware fragment, polychrome decoration 1 delftware fragment, manganese spattered 4 delftware fragments, polychrome decoration

73 delftware fragments, blue and white decoration 2 delftware fragments, polychrome decoration 3 delftware fragments, undecorated

33 delftware cup fragments, undecorated 50 delftware porringer fragments, undecorated

4 Buckley earthenware milk pan fragments 23 Staffordshire mottled ware fragments174 Staffordshire lead glazed earthenware, slip combed decoration 27 Westerwald stoneware, blue and grey mug fragments 18 white salt glaze stoneware fragments

4 Fulham type stoneware109 delftware fragments, undecorated 18 delftware fragments, blue and white decoration

7 delftware fragment, pink bodied, undecorated

YO205-2 40S/35W Topsoil

Terminus Post Quem: p. 1850 (wire nail)

7 plaster fragments1 *wire nail1 cut nail, 2-4"2 pipe stem fragments1 wine bottle glass fragment

YO205-3 70S/90W Topsoil

Terminus post quem: p. 1850 (wire nail)

1 *wire nail7 wrought nails

10 wrought nail fragments1 iron bar (3" in length)

13 misc. iron fragments10 unidentified stone fragments 2 slag fragments

62

5 wine bottle glass fragments 3 misc. glass fragments

48 bone fragments 3 unidentified animal teeth 5 pipe stem fragments11 pipe bowl fragments 1 pipe bowl fragment, marked IC 1 pearlware fragment, undecorated 1 yellow lead glazed Staffordshire earthenware, combed decoration 1 colonoware fragment 2 salt glaze stoneware 8 delft fragments, undecorated 1 Staffordshire earthenware, mottled 2 delft, blue and white decoration 2 delft fragments, glaze missing 2 delft fragments, manganese spattered 1 delft fragment, robin egg blue glaze

20 oyster shell

YO205-4 60S/90W Topsoil

Terminus post quem: 1864 (colorless glass fragments)

2 brick fragments 2 slag fragments 1 iron plate, slightly curved 6 wrought nail fragments, <2" 3 *colorless glass fragments 3 wine bottle glass fragments 1 colonoware fragment 1 yellow lead glazed Staffordshire earthenware fragment 1 delft fragment, bluish tint glaze 1 Fulham type stoneware 1 English salt glaze stoneware, handle fragment 1 coarse earthenware, North Devon gravel tempered fragments 2 coarse earthenware, North Devon fragments 1 oyster shell 5 cinders

11 misc. iron fragments 3 mortar fragments 1 brick chip 2 wrought nail fragments, <2" 3 wine bottle glass fragments 5 pipe stem fragments 5 bone fragments 1 flint chip 1 pipe bowl fragment 2 delftware fragment, blue and white decoration 1 delftware fragment, robin egg blue glaze 1 delftware fragment, undecorated 1 pearlware, transfer printed, blue 2 pearlware fragments

YO205-5 30S/40W Topsoil

Terminus post quem: modern (styrofoam McDonald’s container fragment)

1 iron rod fragment 1 iron fragment, curved 1 wrought nail, <2" 1 *styrofoam McDonald’s container fragment 7 plaster fragments 1 pipe bowl fragment 2 whiteware fragments 4 bone fragments 2 wrought nails, <2" 1 wrought nail, 2-4" 2 wrought nail fragments, <2"

63

3 misc. iron fragments 1 electric light fixture? 2 mortar fragments 3 pipe bowl fragments 2 bottle glass fragments 1 Buckley lead glazed earthenware fragment 1 creamware fragment 1 vessel glass, pale green 1 English brown stoneware, Fulham type 2 oyster shell fragments1 pale green curved glass fragment

YO205-6 60S/90W Construction Related Debris

Terminus post quem: p. 1690 (English brown stoneware, Fulham type)

2 slag fragments 1 nail(?), <2", heavily corroded 2 pipestems 2 wine bottle glass fragments 2 delft fragments, undecorated 1 delft fragment, blue and white decoration 1 wrought nail, <2" 1 wrought nail, incomplete, <2" 7 misc. iron fragments 1 bone fragment 1 Buckley lead glazed earthenware fragment 1 *English brown stoneware, Fulham type 1 glazed brick fragment

YO205-7 70S/90W Construction Related Debris

Terminus post quem: modern (section of plastic pipe)

1 quartz crystal 1 unidentified animal tooth 1 Staffordshire mottled earthenware fragment 1 lead ball, diameter 1/2" 3 oyster shell 7 wine bottle glass fragments 1 *section of plastic pipe 1 mortar fragment 2 flint fragments 1 miscellaneous stone 2 cinders 6 wrought nails fragments, <2" 3 window glass, green 3 vessel glass fragments, colorless 1 delftware fragment, polychrome decoration

10 delftware fragments, undecorated 3 delftware fragments, blue and white decoration 1 delftware fragment, blue glaze 1 yellow lead glazed Staffordshire earthenware, combed decoration 1 German stoneware, sprig molding 1 Burslem (?) stoneware fragment 1 English stoneware fragment, Fulham type 2 creamware fragments 1 white salt glazed stoneware fragment 3 oyster shell 9 delftware fragments, white 1 delftware fragment, polychrome decoration 1 delftware fragment, brown (?) decoration

11 misc. iron fragments 1 wire nail

12 wrought nails, <2" 1 wrought nail fragment, 2-4" 5 wrought nail fragments, <2" 5 tar paper fragments

64

2 slag 2 wrought iron nail, 2-4"

31 bone fragments 12 pipe stem fragments 13 pipe bowl fragments

1 glass vessel fragment, pale blue/green 1 bakelite fragment, marked LX 1 pearlware fragment 1 white salt glazed stoneware fragment 1 coarse earthenware, red bodied 1 delftware fragment, polychrome decoration 1 delftware fragment, robin egg blue glaze

YO205-9 70S, 100W Topsoil

Terminus post quem: p. 1850 (wire nail)

1 *wire nail, 2-4" 3 slag fragments 1 unidentified iron fragment 1 glazed brick fragment 1 wrought nail fragment 7 bone fragments 1 oyster shell 3 pipe bowl fragments 5 pipe stems 1 coarse red earthenware fragment

YO205-10 70S/80W Construction Related Debris

Terminus post quem: p. 1787 (pearlware fragment, blue transfer print)

3 oyster shell 4 misc. iron fragments, tubular 2 brick chips 1 misc. stone chip 5 wrought nail fragments, <2" 3 pipe stem fragments 4 pipe bowl fragments 1 wine bottle glass fragment 1 delftware, undecorated 1 delftware fragment, blue and white decoration 1 *pearlware fragment, blue transfer print 1 coarse earthenware, North Devon gravel tempered?

YO205-11 70S/100W Subunits C and D Construction Debris

Terminus post quem: p. 1670 (yellow lead-glazed Staffordshire earthenware, dot decoration)

1 nail shank fragment 1 unidentified iron fragment 1 brown lead glazed redware handle 1 delftware fragment, blue and white 3 delftware fragments, undecorated 1 delftware fragment, glaze missing 1 bone fragment 1 oyster shell 3 wine bottle glass fragments 5 pipe bowl fragments 2 pipe stem fragments 1 delftware fragment 1 *yellow lead-glazed Staffordshire earthenware, dot decoration

YO205-12 70S/90W Shrub Removal Hole

Terminus post quem: p. 1670 (slipware fragment)

1 wine bottle glass fragment 1 bone fragment, unidentified jaw with teeth

65

2 wrought nails <2" 1 misc. iron fragment 1 pipe stem fragment 1 pipe bowl fragment 1 *slipware fragment 2 oyster shells

YO205-13 70S/90W Shrub Removal Hole

Terminus post quem: no date available

13 bone fragments 2 oyster shells 1 nail fragment 1 wrought nail, <2" 1 window glass fragment 1 delft fragment, undecorated rim sherd

YO205-15 60S/100W Construction Related Layers

Terminus post quem: p. 1850 (wire nail)

1 *wire nail, 2-4" 5 misc. iron fragments 1 slag fragment 1 cinder 1 wrought nail fragment, <2" 1 pebble 1 misc. stone fragment

11 bone fragments 1 tooth fragment 2 delftware fragments, undecorated 2 yellow lead glazed Staffordshire earthenware 1 flint chip 2 pipe stem fragments 2 wine bottle glass fragments

YO205-16 70S/90W Construction Related Feature

Terminus post quem: p. 1917 (tar paper fragment)

1 oyster shell 1 *tar paper fragment 6 wrought nail fragments, <2" 1 leaded wine glass stem, colorless 2 pipe stem fragments 3 pipe bowl fragments 1 vessel glass fragment, green, pharmaceutical bottle? 1 yellow lead glazed Staffordshire earthenware, dot decoration

YO250-17 70S/90W Trash Deposit Fill

Terminus post quem: p. 1700 (Westerwald grey stoneware, cobalt decoration)

3 window glass fragments 54 wine bottle glass

3 wine bottle base fragments 1 wine bottle neck fragments 1 thin walled, green curved glass fragment, pharmaceutical bottle 5 delftware fragments, blue and white drug jar

88 delftware fragments, undecorated 33 pipe bowl fragments 30 pipe stem fragments

1 delftware plate fragment, blue and white decoration 1 delftware fragment, manganese and blue decoration 1 delftware fragment, pink body

63 wrought nails, <2" 3 wrought nail fragments

20 delftware fragments, blue and white decoration

66

3 leaded glass fragments 2 fragments, curved tinted green glass 6 oyster shell 4 oyster shell fragments 1 red bodied coarse earthenware 1 nail fragment

68 slag fragments 22 animal teeth, unidentified433 bone fragments

4 stones 1 burned flint fragment

19 wrought nail fragments with heads 3 iron spikes, 3"

24 wrought nail shank fragments 1 colonoware fragment, burned

14 brick fragments 94 misc. unidentified iron fragments

1 chert 2 coarse red earthenware fragments 1 coal 1 iron ladle bowl

11 wrought nail fragments, <2" 31 wrought nail fragments, <2"

8 wrought nail fragments, 2-4" 1 pipe bowl with stem, unmarked 6 colonoware fragments 1 colonoware fragment, burned 1 Staffordshire earthenware, combed decoration 8 delftware fragments, undecorated 1 pipe heel 2 Staffordshire stoneware fragments 2 *Westerwald grey stoneware, cobalt decoration 1 leaded bottle ? glass 2 copper alloy clothing pin fragment 1 copper alloy clothing buckle, complete 2 wrought nails, 2-4"

10 wrought nail fragments 5 wrought nail fragments with heads 1 glass bead 1 flint chip 7 yellow lead glazed Staffordshire earthenware, dot decorated 3 red sandy ware fragments 1 colorless glass knop from wine glass, leaded

28 colonoware fragments 4 colonoware fragments, burned

12 Westerwald blue and grey stoneware 1 Westerwald grey stoneware fragment 4 Westerwald grey stoneware, cobalt and manganese decoration 3 Fulham type stoneware fragments 1 English stoneware fragment

YO205-18 60S/50W Topsoil

Terminus post quem: p. 1864 (window glass, colorless)

2 wrought iron nails, <2" 2 pearlware fragments 1 delftware, blue and white decoration 1 *window glass, colorless 1 wine bottle glass fragment

YO205-21 60S/50W Construction Related Layer

Terminus post quem: p. 1864 (window glass fragment, colorless)

1 wrought nail fragment, <2" 2 wrought nails, <2" 1 wrought nail, 2-4"

67

1 wine bottle glass fragment 1 pipe stem fragment 2 bone fragments 1 pipe bowl fragment 1 *window glass fragment, colorless 2 pearlware fragments, handpainted polychrome 1 pearlware fragment

YO205-22 100S/50W Topsoil

Terminus post quem: modern (plastic fragment)

1 wire nail 1 *plastic fragment 1 oyster shell 5 bottle glass, colorless

YO205-23 80S/70W Construction Related Layer

Terminus post quem: p. 1700 (German stoneware fragment, sprig molded)

1 delft fragment, handle (porringer?), undecorated 2 delft fragments, blue and white decoration 1 delft fragment, undecorated 1 wrought nail, incomplete, <2" 1 misc. iron fragment 2 bottle glass fragments, green 1 pipe stem 1 *German stoneware fragment, sprig molded

YO205-24 80S/70W Feature

Terminus post quem: no date available

1 wrought nail, incomplete, <2" 1 wrought nail, <2" 1 misc. iron fragment, nailhead?

YO205-27 100S/50W Construction Related Layer

Terminus post quem: p. 1914 (crown bottle cap, iron)

2 wire nails, >2" 1 nail shank fragment 1 *crown bottle cap, iron 1 walnut shell 1 mortar fragment, sand temper 1 oyster shell 1 copper alloy disc, 3/4" diameter, possible button part 3 pipestems 4 colorless molded bottle glass fragments 1 delftware fragment, undecorated

YO205-32 100S/20W Construction Debris

Terminus post quem: p. 1864 (window glass fragment, colorless)

1 Buckley ware fragment 1 unidentified stone 1 bone fragment 1 pipe bowl fragment 2 green vessel glass 1 *window glass fragment, colorless 2 pipe stem fragments 1 delft fragment, undecorated 1 cauliflower type creamware fragment 1 coarse earthenware fragment, North Devon gravel tempered(?) 1 wrought nail <2", burned 5 wrought nails, <2" 2 wrought nails, 2-4"

68

YO205-33 30S/40W Construction Related Layer

Terminus post quem: p. 1762 (creamware fragment)

4 mortar fragments 1 burned wood fragment 1 plaster fragment 1 oyster shell, burned 2 nail fragments 3 wrought nails, complete <2" 7 wrought nails, incomplete <2" 2 iron fragments, unidentified 1 wrought nail, complete, 2" 6 pipestems 2 pipe bowl fragments 7 window glass fragments, light green 3 wine bottle glass fragments 4 delft fragments, blue on white decoration 1 *creamware fragment 1 unidentified fragment, bone?

YO205-38 60S/90W Shrub Removal Hole

Terminus post quem: p. 1864 (window glass fragment, colorless)

8 misc. iron fragments, large 1 flint fragment 4 window glass fragments, green 1 *window glass fragment, colorless 3 bone fragments 1 wrought nail, <2" 1 wrought nail, incomplete, <2" 1 pipe bowl fragment 1 pipe stem fragment 1 delft fragment, plate, blue and white decoration 1 colonoware fragment 3 slag fragments

YO205-39 70S/90W

Terminus post quem: p. 1690 (English brown stoneware, Fulham type)

1 wrought nail, <2" 5 bone fragments 1 animal tooth, unidentified 1 delftware fragment, blue and white decoration 3 delftware fragments, undecorated 1 *English brown stoneware, Fulham type 1 bone fragment 1 wine bottle glass fragment 1 wrought nail fragment, <2"

YO205-41 30S/40W Brown/Grey Loam

Terminus post quem: no date available

1 burned brick fragment 1 wrought nail, complete, >2" 3 charcoal fragments

11 wine bottle glass fragments 13 oyster shell

7 mortar fragments 2 mortar fragments with plaster 2 brick fragments 5 misc. iron fragments 9 wrought nails, <2" 1 wrought nail, 2-4"

10 wrought nails, burned, <2" 4 wrought nail fragments

69

5 wrought nail fragments with heads 1 front plate of stock lock 2 bone fragments 1 pipe bowl fragment 1 pipe stem 1 leaded glass fragment 2 window glass fragments 3 green glass, curved bottle fragments

YO205-42 30S/40W Utility Trench

Terminus post quem: 1690 (English stoneware fragment, Fulham type)

5 pipestem fragments 1 pipe bowl fragment 6 wine bottle glass fragments 4 window glass fragments 2 pharmaceutical glass fragments 1 delft fragment, blue on white decoration 1 iron fragment, possible cooking pot 3 wrought nails, T-head, <2" 3 wrought nails, rose head, >2" 6 wrought nails, rose head, <2", burned 3 wrought nails, T-head, >2", burned 1 headless nail fragment 1 iron fragment, unidentified 1 wrought nail fragment 1 nail fragment, burned 1 delft, polychrome decoration 2 bone fragments

11 wrought nails, <2", burned 10 wrought nails, <2"

1 wrought nail fragment, <2" 1 oyster shell 1 delft fragment

10 wall plaster fragments, lathe marks on unfinished surface 1 *English stoneware fragment, Fulham type 4 oyster shell, two burned 1 wall plaster fragment 3 glass fragments, green 3 wrought nails, 2-4"

YO205-43 30S/40W Utility Trench

Terminus post quem: p. 1805 (cut nail)

5 plaster fragments 1 wrought nail, >2", partially burned 4 wine bottle glass fragments 1 blue vessel glass fragment 2 wrought nails, 2-4" 1 wrought nail fragments, 2-4", burned 1 pipe bowl fragment 1 white salt glazed stoneware fragment 7 plaster fragments, with lathe impressions 2 window glass fragments 1 bone fragment 1 oyster shell

12 wrought nails, <2", burned 1 *cut nail, 2-4"

26 wrought nails, <2" 2 wrought nail fragments, <2" 1 iron harness buckle 1 iron saddle tree fragment

70

YO205-46 60S/90W Grey Sandy Loam

Terminus post quem: p. 1864 (window glass, colorless)

2 bone fragments 2 wrought nails, <2" 5 wrought nail fragments, <2" 3 misc. iron fragments 1 cinder 2 lead glazed Staffordshire earthenware, combed decoration 1 lead glazed Staffordshire earthenware, dot decoration 2 delftware, robin’s egg blue glaze 1 German Westerwald stoneware, decorated with cobalt and manganese 1 pipe bowl, unmarked 2 *window glass, colorless 2 wine bottle glass fragments

YO205-47 60S, 90W Trash Deposit Fill

Terminus post quem: no date available

7 slag fragments 1 iron chain, three links

12 misc. iron fragments 4 oyster shell 6 wrought nails <2" 1 wrought nail, 2-4" 7 nail fragments 2 wrought nail fragments, with heads

18 bone 1 pipe stem 1 delftware fragment, undecorated 5 colonoware fragments 3 wine bottle glass fragments

22 window glass fragments

YO205-48 70S/100W Trash Deposit Fill

Terminus post quem: no date available

3 oyster shell 3 unidentified iron fragments 1 wrought nail, <2" 1 pipe bowl fragment, burned 1 small unidentified stone chip

YO205-50 60S/90W Postmold

Terminus post quem: no date available

3 oyster shell 1 mortar fragment 1 wrought nail, <2" 1 delftware fragment, undecorated

YO205-51 60S/90W Posthole

Terminus post quem: p. 1820 (whiteware, annular decoration)

9 wine bottle glass 1 leaded glass fragment 8 slag fragments 7 bone fragments

23 misc. iron fragments 2 oyster shell 1 oyster shell, incomplete 4 wrought nail fragments with heads, <2" 5 wrought nails, <2" 1 iron unidentified, with nail and glass embedded

71

1 iron tumbler for stock lock 4 pipe stems 1 pipe stem with heel and bowl 2 pipe bowl fragments 2 colonoware fragments 3 delftware fragments, blue decoration 2 delftware fragments, blue and white decoration 1 *whiteware, annular decoration

YO205-52 30S/40W Brick Rubble

Terminus post quem: no date available

3 oyster shell 1 oyster shell, incomplete 1 mortar fragment 3 bones 2 snail shells 1 brick fragment 3 wrought nails, <2" 4 wrought nail fragments with heads 9 misc. unidentified iron 4 wrought nails, burned, <2" 7 wall plaster with lathe impressions 5 wine bottle glass 1 colonoware fragment

YO205-53 30S/40W Plaster and Mortar Rubble

Terminus post quem: no date available

1 brick fragment with attached nail 3 snail shells 3 plaster fragments with wood impressions on reverse 5 wrought nails <2" 3 wrought nail fragments, <2" 5 glass fragments, devitrified

YO205-54 30S/40W Ash and Plaster

Terminus post quem: p. 1769 (creamware fragment)

3 nail fragments 23 wrought nails <2" 5 wrought nails 2-4" 2 wrought nails 2-4", burned

24 wrought nails <2", burned 3 Fulham type stoneware, probable storage jar, burned 2 possible copper alloy frags. 1 plaster frag. 3 *creamware frags., plate 1 creamware fragment with case bottle glass melted on

11 case bottle frags. 1 eggshell fragment 4 oyster shell 2 wrought nail fragments, <2" 1 iron plate?, mount? 3 misc. iron fragments 1 unidentified stone with quartz inclusions 1 plaster fragment 1 misc. stone fragment

22 plaster fragments, lathe impressions

YO205-58 30S/40W Rubble Fill

Terminus post quem: p. 1769 (creamware fragment)

5 melted case bottle glass fragments 1 mortar or plaster fragment

72

2 burned oyster shell 2 English brown stoneware, Fulham type, burned 1 *creamware fragment, burned 3 wrought nails, T-head, burned >2"

12 wrought nails, burned, >2" 35 wrought nails, burned <2" 67 wrought nails, <2"

1 nail shank, burned 4 plaster fragments with wood grain 9 plaster fragments with lathe impressions 3 oyster shells 1 iron harness furniture fragment

22 wrought nails, >2" 5 wrought nail fragments, <2" 2 wrought nail shank fragments <2" 3 wrought nail tacks, <1" 3 wrought nails, <1" 1 wrought nail head fragment, burnt, <1"

YO205-59 30S/40W 1980 Test Unit #5

Terminus post quem: no date available

5 wrought nails, <2", burned 3 wrought nails, >2", burned 8 wrought nails, >2" 3 wrought nails, ,<2" 2 nail shanks 1 wrought nail fragment, <2" 1 polished (?) bone fragment

13 plaster fragments 1 pipestem 1 pipe bowl fragment

15 wine bottle glass body fragments 6 wine bottle glass, base fragments

YO205-67 30S/40W Charcoal and Plaster Layer

Terminus post quem: no date available

4 plaster fragments 2 wrought nails, <2", burned

YO205-68 30S/40W Plaster Dust

Terminus post quem: no date available

9 charcoal fragments 1 harness furniture, iron 3 wrought nail fragments, <2" 1 wrought nail >2" 5 wrought nail fragments, <2" burned 1 wrought nail fragment, <2", burned 1 iron tack, <1"

YO205-69N 50S/40W Topsoil

Terminus post quem: 20th century (plastic fragment)

1 nails <2" 1 nail fragment 1 Buckley ware fragment 1 creamware fragment 1 delft fragment, white 1 colorless glass fragment, thick 1 *plastic fragment

73

YO205-70 50S/40W Construction Related Layer

Terminus post quem: no date available

1 brick frag., glazed 1 pipe stem frag. 1 nail, shank frag.

YO205-71 50S/60W Topsoil

Terminus post quem: p. 1670 (yellow lead glazed Stoffordshire earthenware fragment, combeddecoration)

1 aboriginal ware fragment, pebble tempered 1 yellow lead glazed Staffordshire earthenware fragment, buff body 1 *yellow lead glazed Staffordshire earthenware fragment, combed decoration 1 wine bottle glass fragment 1 light green curved glass fragment 1 light green window glass fragment

YO205-73 30S/40W 1980 Excavation Backfill-Test Unit #3

Terminus post quem: no date available

1 nail fragment, <2" 1 pipebowl fragment

YO205-74 30S/40W Fill over Robbed Wall

Terminus post quem: p. 1864 (colorless glass fragment)

1 bone fragment 1 delft fragment, polychrome floral decoration, tea bowl 2 oyster shells 1 burned brick fragment 1 delft fragment, rim sherd 1 burned clay fragment(?) 1 unidentified metal corrosion fragment 1 wrought nail, >2", badly corroded 1 wrought nail fragment, badly corroded 1 *colorless glass fragment 1 wine bottle glass fragment 1 table glass fragment, curved

YO205-75 30S/40W Light Brown Loam

Terminus post quem: no date available

1 wrought nail, under 2" 1 bottle glass fragment, green 1 pipe stem fragment

YO205-76 50S/60W Construction Related Layer

Terminus post quem: no date available

5 unidentified iron, flat fragments 2 wrought nails, incomplete <2" 2 wrought nails, complete <2" 4 wrought nails, complete, >2" 4 bone fragments 1 delft fragment, polychrome decoration 2 wine bottle body fragments 2 window glass fragments 2 blue/green pharmaceutical glass fragments

YO205-77 50S/60W Intrusion

Terminus post quem: post c. 1899 (cement fragments)

2 *cement fragments

74

1 oyster shell 1 unidentified iron, flat, 1" square 1 wrought nail, complete, <2" 5 wrought nail fragments, <2" 1 wine bottle glass base fragment 3 pipestems 1 wine bottle glass body fragment 1 case bottle glass fragment 2 yellow lead glazed Staffordshire earthenware, combed decoration 1 lead glazed redware 1 black glazed redware 4 pearlware, burned slightly 1 creamware 1 white salt glazed stoneware fragment

YO205-79 30S/40W Feature

Terminus post quem: no date available

1 delft fragment, blue on white decoration

YO205-82 50S/40W 1980 Excavation Backfill

Terminus post quem: no date available

3 mortar fragments 1 mortar fragment, burned 1 small round fragment of iron corrosion 1 nail head fragment with 1/4" shank, corroded 1 iron fragment, unidentified, 2" x 1/2" 1 wine bottle neck fragment 1 window glass fragment 1 pipe bowl fragment

YO205-83 30S/40W Brown Silty Clay

Terminus post quem: no date available

2 egg shell fragments 1 tooth, unidentified animal 1 bone fragment 1 bone fragment, animal gnawed 1 mortar fragment 5 nail shank (?) fragments 3 wrought nails, complete <2" 1 wrought nail, complete, >2" 1 wrought nail fragment, <2" 4 bone fragments 4 window glass 9 oyster shell 7 wine bottle glass fragments, body 3 pipe stem fragments 1 lead glazed coarseware fragment, rim sherd

YO205-85 60S/40W Construction Layer

Terminus post quem: p. 1720 (white salt glazed stoneware fragment)

1 nail fragment 2 wood fragments 1 pipe stem fragment 1 delft fragment, blue on white decoration 1 nail, <2" 1 nail, 2-4" 1 grey bodied salt glazed stoneware 1 Westerwald stoneware, manganese decorated 1 *white salt glazed stoneware fragment

75

YO205-86 60S/40W 1980 Excavation Backfill

Terminus post quem: no date available

2 wrought nail fragments, <2" 1 wrought nail, complete <2"

YO205-88 50S/60W Robber’s Trench

Terminus post quem: no date available

1 pipe bowl fragment, marked with initials “R. C.” 1 plaster fragment 2 nail fragments

YO205-91 30S/40W

Terminus post quem: no date available

2 rose head wrought nails <2"

YO205-93 50S/40W 1980 Excavation Backfill

Terminus post quem: no date available

1 wine bottle base fragment, pontil scar

YO205-94 30S/40W Brick Rubble

Terminus post quem: no date available

2 wrought nails, <2: 2 wrought nails, <2", incomplete 2 wrought nails, <2", burned 1 plaster fragment 2 oyster shells

76

77

Appendix IIIUnique Ceramic Vessel Catalogby Eric Ackermann, Bill Dannenmaier, Lisa Flick, Barbara Larkin, Drake Patten andAnne Ustach

U.V. 001 (Figure 21)

Tankard. Rim and body fragments of Westerwald stoneware. Vessel is decorated with a floral incised motif andan AR armorial sprigged decoration in cobalt blue. The AR excise mark is located along the top rim, which iscordoned. The vessel is composed of a grey body paste with a salt glaze. Vessels of this sort were commonbetween 1702 and 1714.

Catalog # 0.001.YO205-1Principal Measurements: 4" rim diameter, 4½" base diameter, 6¼" heightArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 002 (Figure 22)

Tankard. Virtually complete vessel of Westerwald stoneware. The vessel is decorated with a floral (buds andleaves) incised motif. An AR armorial sprigging in debased cobalt blue completes the decoration. The vesselis composed of a grey body paste with a salt glaze. Tankards of this sort were common between 1702 and 1714.

Catalog # 0.002.YO205-1Principal Measurements: 37/8" base diameter, 3¾" rim diameter, 4½" heightArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 003

Tankard-Base and body fragments of Fulham type stoneware. The vessel is decorated with molded cordonsat its base and appears to show evidence of sprigged body decoration. Brown iron oxide slip is present on the

Figure 21. Westerwald stoneware tankard. Figure 22. Westerwald stoneware tankard.

78

exterior of the vessel and a tan metallic oxide slip coats its interior. The vessel is composed of a tan body pastewhich is covered with a salt glaze.

Catalog # 0.003.YO205-1Principal Measurements: 4" base diameterArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 004 (Figure 23)

Storage Jar or Jug-Base and body fragments of English brown stoneware. An incised line encircles the vesseljust below the handle. This vessel has a brown iron oxide slip on its exterior and a grey wash on its interior. Agrey body paste with an exterior salt glaze composes the vessel.

Catalog # 0.004.YO205-42Principal Measurements: 5" base diameterArchaeological Context: Utility trench through Structure A

U.V. 005 (Figure 24)

Small bulbous-bodied jug. Body and base fragments of Westerwald stoneware. Sprigged medallion decorationand incised floral ornaments in cobalt blue on a manganese oxide colored background is present only on thefront of the vessel. The back of the vessel is undecorated. Cordoning is present around the base of the vessel.A grey body paste with an interior as well as exterior salt glaze composes the vessel.

Catalog # 0.005.YO205-1Principal Measurements: 3" base diameterArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

Figure 23. English brown stoneware storage jar. Figure 24. Westerwald stoneware jug.

79

U.V. 006

Tankard. Pulled handle and body fragments of Fulham stoneware. A brown iron oxide slip is applied to thevessel exterior and a tan slip coats its interior. A tan body paste covered with a salt glaze composes the vessel.

Catalog # 0.006.YO205-1Principal Measurements: IndeterminableArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 007

See U.V. 005. Incorporated into Unique Vessel 005.

U.V. 008 (Figure 25)

Tankard. Body and rim fragments of Staffordshire mottled stoneware. Decorated with a single raised linebeginning 1" down from rim, this vessel has an iron oxide lead glaze on its exterior and interior. The vessel iscomposed of a light grey/tan body paste.

Catalog # 0.008.YO205-2Principal Measurements: 3" rim diameterArchaeological Context: Topsoil

U.V. 009 (Figure 26)

Tankard. Rim and body fragments of Staffordshire mottled stone- ware. Cordoned decoration begins 1" belowthe vessel’s rim. An iron oxide glaze coats the interior and exterior of the vessel, which has a tan body paste.

Catalog # 0.009.YO205-1Principal Measurements: 6" rim diameterArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 010 (Figure 25)

Unidentified vessel form, possibly bulbous mug. Base, body and handle fragments of Staffordshire mottledstoneware. Cordoning begins 1 1/2" from the base of the vessel. A brown mottled iron oxide lead glaze ispresent on the vessel’s interior and exterior surfaces. A thick pooling of glaze is located in the bottom interiorof the vessel. The vessel is composed of a tan body paste.

Catalog # 0.010.YO205-1Principal Measurements: 3" base diameterArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 011 (Figure 26)

Tankard. Rim, body and pulled handle fragments of Staffordshire stoneware. Cordoning begins ¾" below therim of the vessel. A dark brown iron oxide slip is present on the vessel’s exterior with a tan slip coating theinterior. A tan body paste with a salt glaze composes the vessel.

Catalog # 0.011.YO205-1Principal Measurements: 3" rim diameterArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 012 (Figure 27)

Tankard. Rim fragment of Staf- fordshire brown stoneware. Cordoning begins 1/4" below the vessel’s rim. Abrown iron oxide slip coats the exterior and interior surfaces of the vessel. A tan body paste with a salt glazecomposes the vessel.

80

Figure 25. Staffordshire mottled stoneware vessels.

81

Figure 26. Staffordshire mottled stoneware and brown stoneware tankards.

Figure 27. Staffordshire brown stoneware tankards.

82

Catalog # 0.012.YO205-1Principal Measurements: IndeterminableArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 013 (Figure 27)

Tankard. Rim and pulled handle fragments of Staffordshire brown stone-ware. Cordoning begins 1" below therim of the vessel. A brown iron oxide slip is applied to the vessel’s exterior with a tan slip coating its interior.A tan body paste with a salt glaze composes the vessel.

Catalog # 0.013.YO205-1Principal Measurements: 3" rim diameterArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 014 (Figure 27)

Tankard. Rim and body fragments of Staffordshire brown stoneware. Cordoning is present on the vessel’sexterior. A brown iron oxide slip coats the exterior of the vessel with a tan slip applied to its interior. A tan bodypaste with a salt glaze composes the vessel.

Catalog # 0.014.YO205-1Principal Measurements: IndeterminableArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 015

Tankard. Body fragments of Burslem stoneware. The vessel has rouletted decoration. The top portion of thevessel is coated with an iron oxide slip while the bottom is dipped in white slip. A tan body paste with a saltglaze composes the vessel.

Catalog # 0.015.YO205-1Principal Measurements: IndeterminableArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 016

Unidentified vessel form. Body fragment of Nottingham stoneware. Cordoning is present on the vessel’sexterior. A ginger-colored iron oxide slip is applied to the vessel’s exterior with a grey/brown slip on its interior.A tan body paste with a salt glaze composes the vessel.

Catalog # 0.016.YO205-1Principal Measurements: IndeterminableArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 017

Tankard. Pulled handle fragment of Fulham stoneware. A brown iron oxide slip is present on both the vessel’sexterior and interior. A grey body paste with a salt glazed surface composes the vessel.

Catalog # 0.017.YO205-4Principal Measurements: IndeterminableArchaeological Context: Topsoil

U.V. 018

Tankard. Rim fragment of Nottingham stoneware. A brown iron oxide slip is present on both the exterior andinterior of the vessel which is composed of a reddish brown body paste covered with a salt glaze.

83

Catalog # 0.018.YO205-1Principal Measurements: IndeterminableArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 019 (Figure 26)

Tankard. Base, body, and rim fragments of Staffordshire brown stoneware. The vessel is decorated withcordoning at its base and an incised line ½" below its rim. The lower half of the vessel has been dipped intowhite slip, while the top half has a tan iron oxide slip. Tan slip also covers the vessel’s interior. A salt glazecoats the entire surface of the vessel.

Catalog # 0.019.YO205-1Principal Measurements: 4" base diameterArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 020

Unidentified vessel form. Body fragment of Westerwald stoneware. Incised motifs in cobalt blue decorate thevessel which is composed of a grey paste with a salt glaze coating its entire surface.

Catalog # 0.020.YO205-3Principal Measurements: IndeterminableArchaeological Context: Topsoil

U.V. 021

Tankard. Rim and body fragments of Westerwald stoneware. Incised floral motifs in cobalt blue decorate thevessel’s surface. Cordoning in cobalt blue is also present. The vessel is composed of a grey body paste witha salt glaze.

Catalog # 0.021.YO205-1Principal Measurements: 5"+ rim diameterArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 022

Unidentified vessel form. Body fragments of Westerwald stoneware. Incised decoration in cobalt blue decoratesthe vessel which has a salt-glazed surface.

Catalog # 0.022.YO205-1Principal Measurements: IndeterminableArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 023

Tankard. Body fragments of Westerwald stoneware. Sprig-molded and incised floral decoration in cobalt blueand manganese oxide decorates the vessel, which has a grey body paste coated with a salt glaze.

Catalog # 0.023.YO205-46Principal Measurements: IndeterminableArchaeological Context: Disturbed

U.V. 024 (Figure 27)

Tankard. Body fragments of Staffordshire brown stoneware. Cordoning is present on the exterior of the vesselwhich is coated with a brown iron oxide slip. A tan iron oxide slip is applied to the vessel’s interior. A grey bodypaste with a salt glaze composes the vessel.

84

Catalog # 0.024.YO205-1Principal Measurements: IndeterminableArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 025 (Figure 25)

Unidentified vessel form. Body fragment of Staffordshire mottled stoneware. A single incised line decoratesthe fragment, which flares outward above the incised line. A mottled brown lead glaze coats the interior andexterior of the vessel, which is composed of a tan body paste.

Catalog # 0.025.YO205-1Principal Measurements: IndeterminableArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 026

Unidentified vessel form. Body fragment of Westerwald stoneware. Sprig- molded armorial decoration incobalt blue decorates the vessel, which has a tan slip coating its interior. The grey body paste of the vesselis covered with a salt glaze.

Catalog # 0.026.YO205-23Principal Measurements: IndeterminableArchaeological Context: Modern construction layer

U.V. 027 (Figure 25)

Unidentified vessel form. Base fragment of stoneware. A grey/tan stoneware paste composes the vesselwhich has a thick white slip applied to its interior, followed by an iron oxide slip marbled decoration and a clearlead glaze. The glaze closely resembles that of a Staffordshire slipware.

Catalog # 0.027.YO205-1Principal Measurements: IndeterminableArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 051

Bulbous Mug. Rim, body, base, and handle fragments of Staffordshire slipware. A buff body paste composesthe vessel, which has a clear lead glaze on its interior and exterior surfaces. The base of the vessel is unglazed.Brown slip dots decorate the exterior rim while the remaining surface is covered with a combed decoration.The vessel has a pulled handle and a rim which flares slightly outward. A raised band is present where the rimmeets the vessel body.

Catalog # 0.051.YO205-1Principal Measurements: 4½" rim diameter, 31/16" base diameter, 3" heightArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 052

Bulbous-bodied mug. Body and base fragments of Staffordshire slipware. A buff body paste with clear leadglaze on both the interior and exterior composes the vessel. The base of the vessel is unglazed. The exteriorsurface is covered with a combed decoration in brown iron slip.

Catalog # 0.052.YO205-1Principal Measurements: 3" base diameterArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

85

U.V. 053

Bulbous mug. Body and rim fragments of Staffordshire slipware. A buff body paste composes the vesselwhich has a clear lead glaze present on both its interior and exterior surfaces. The vessel is decorated withbrown slip dots along its exterior rim which flares slightly outward. Combed brown iron slip decorates theremaining surface of the vessel’s exterior.

Catalog # 0.053.YO205-1Principal Measurements: 4¼" rim diameterArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 054

Bulbous mug. Body, rim, base, and handle fragments of Staffordshire slipware. A buff body paste composesthe vessel, which has a clear lead glaze on its interior and exterior surfaces. The base is unglazed. The vesselis decorated with brown slip dots along its exterior rim which flares outward slightly. Combed brown iron oxideslip decoration is present on the rest of the vessel exterior. A raised band is noted where the rim meets thevessel body. The vessel has a pulled handle.

Catalog # 0.054.YO205-1Principal Measurements: 4½" rim diameter, 3" base diameter, 2 15/16" heightArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 055

Mug? Rim, handle, and body fragments of Staffordshire slipware. A buff body paste composes the vesselwhich has a clear lead glaze on its exterior and interior surfaces. Interior decoration in the form of vertical linesin brown iron oxide slip is present. The vessel’s exterior is undecorated. The vessel has a pulled handle.

Catalog # 0.055.YO205-1Principal Measurements: 5¾" rim diameterArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 056 (Figure 28)

Bulbous mug. Rim, body and base fragmentsof Staffordshire slipware. A buff body pastecomposes the vessel. A clear lead glaze coatsboth the interior and exterior surfaces of thevessel which has combed iron oxide slipdecoration on its exterior. The rim of the vesselis flared outward. It is noted that the lead glazeis flaking very badly from the body of thisvessel.

Catalog # 0.056.YO205-1Principal Measurements: 3 5/8" base diameter,4 5/8" rim diameter, 2 7/8" heightArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 057

Mug. Rim and body fragments of Staffordshireslipware. The vessel is composed of a buff bodywith a clear lead glaze coatings its interior andexterior surfaces. It is a fairly straight-walledvessel with a slightly flared rim. Figure 28. Staffordshire slipware mug.

86

Catalog # 0.057.YO205-1Principal Measurements: IndeterminableArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 058

Unidentified vessel form. Body fragments of Staffordshire slipware. The vessel is composed of a buff bodywith a clear lead glaze covering its exterior and interior surfaces (glaze missing from interior). Combed brownslip decoration is present on the vessel’s exterior.

Catalog # 0.058.YO205-1Principal Measurements: IndeterminableArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 059

Mug? Rim fragments of Staffordshire slipware. A buff body paste with clear lead interior and exterior glazemakes up this vessel. Combed iron oxide slip decoration is present on the vessel’s exterior. The vessel isstraight-sided with a slightly flared rim.

Catalog # 0.059.YO205-1Principal Measurements: 4" rim diameterArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 060

Mug? Rim and body fragments of Staffordshire slipware. A buff paste composes the body of the vessel whichis coated with a clear lead glaze on its interior and exterior surfaces. Brown iron oxide dotted slip decorates theexterior of the vessel’s rim which flares slightly.

Catalog # 0.060.YO205-11Principal Measurements: 4" rim diameterArchaeological Context: Modern construction layer

U.V. 061

Unidentified hollow ware vessel form. Body fragment of slipware. A red body paste covered with a clearinterior and exterior lead glaze composes the vessel. White slip decorates the vessel exterior.

Catalog # 0.061.YO205-12Principal Measurements: IndeterminableArchaeological Context: Shrub-removal hole

U.V. 062

Unidentified hollow ware vessel form. Body fragment of Staffordshire slipware. A buff body paste with clearlead glaze on the interior and exterior surfaces composes the vessel, which has an exterior combed decorationin brown iron oxide slip.

Catalog # 0.062.YO205-1Principal Measurements: IndeterminableArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 063

Unidentified hollow ware vessel form. Body fragment of Staffordshire slipware. The body of the vessel iscomposed of a buff paste which is covered with a clear interior and exterior lead glaze. Combed decoration inbrown iron oxide slip is present on the vessel’s exterior.

87

Catalog # 0.063.YO205-1Principal Measurements: IndeterminableArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 064

Unidentified vessel form. Rim and body fragments of Staffordshire slipware. A buff paste composes thevessel body which is coated with a clear lead glaze on both the interior and exterior surfaces. Combeddecoration of brown iron oxide slip extending to the rim is present on the vessel’s exterior.

Catalog # 0.064.YO205-1Principal Measurements: IndeterminableArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 065 (Figure 29)

Bulbous mug. Body, handle, and base fragments of Staffordshire slipware. A buff body paste with a clear leadglaze applied to both its interior and exterior surfaces composes the vessel. The vessel’s base is unglazed.Combing in brown iron oxide slip decorates thevessel’s exterior. The vessel has a pulled handle.

Catalog # 0.065.YO205-1Principal Measurements: 3" base diameterArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 066

Mug? Body fragment of Staffordshire slipware.The vessel has a buff body with a clear leadglaze on its interior and exterior. Brown iron oxideslip dotted decoration in two bands runs alongthe body of the vessel.

Catalog # 0.066.YO205-1Principal Measurements: IndeterminableArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 101

Bowl. Rim and body fragments of delftware. Thevessel has a buff body paste with a white tinenamel glaze. The vessel is undecorated and itswalls are of medium thickness.

Catalog # 0.101.YO205-1Principal Measurements: 9" rim diameterArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 102 (Figure 30)

Small plate. Rim and body frag- ments of delft.The vessel has a pinkish red body paste with awhite tin enamel glaze covering its entire surface.Painted decoration in red and blue with a centralfloral motif is present on the vessel. The rimdesign is made up of blue and red painted dashesand dots. The plate has no foot ring.

Figure 30. Delft floral motif plate.

Figure 29. Staffordshire slipware mug.

88

Catalog # 0.102.YO205-1Principal Measurements: 6" rim diameterArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 103 (Figure 31)

Drug jar. Rim, body and base fragments ofdelftware. The vessel has a buff to pinkish bodypaste with a white tin enamel glaze on its interiorand exterior surfaces. The vessel is decorated ina traditional blue-on-white geometric design witha row of x’s painted around the center of the jar.A row of dashes in pairs encircle the jar at its topand bottom. The walls of this vessel are verythick.

Catalog # 0.103.YO205-1Principal Measurements: 4½" rim and base

diameter, 41/8" heightArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 104 (Figure 32)

Porringer. Rim, body, base and handle fragmentsof delftware. The vessel has a pinkish body pastewith a white tin enamel glaze covering its entiresurface. The vessel walls are of mediumthickness and the porringer has an everted rim.

Catalog # 0.104.YO205-1Principal Measurements: 5½" rim diameter,

27/8" foot ring diamenter, 27/8" heightArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 105

Bowl or porringer. Body, rim and base fragmentsof delftware. The everted-rim vessel has a buffbody paste and a white tin enameled glazecovering its surface. The vessel is undecorated.with an

Catalog # 0.105.YO205-1Principal Measurements: 6" rim diameter,

3" base diameterArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 106 (Figure 33)

Punch bowl. Rim, body, and base fragments of delftware. The vessel has a pinkish body paste with a white tinenameled glaze covering its entire surface. It is painted in a polychrome chinoiserie design with colorsincluding blue, red, yellow and green. The decoration present on the exterior of the vessel includes floralaspects as well as cross- hatching. Two blue painted lines surround the base of the vessel and the rimdecoration consists of a blue zigzag line with red A-like figures. This design is contained within bluecircumferential lines, two below and one above the zigzags. The vessel walls are very thin. The vessel has astanding foot ring.

Figure 31. Delft drug jar.

Figure 32. Delft porringer.

89

Catalog # 0.106.YO205-1Principal Measurements: 4¼" rim diameter,

2" base diameter, 3" heightArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 107

Bowl? Body fragments of delftware. The vesselhas a pink body paste and a white tin enamelglaze. The exterior is decorated in polychromefloral motifs in blue, green, and red. The walls ofthe vessel are of medium thickness and theinterior of the vessel is undecorated.

Catalog # 0.107.YO205-1Principal Measurements: IndeterminableArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 108

Bowl? Body fragments of delftware. This vesselhas a light buff body paste and a white tinenamel glaze. The exterior of the vessel isdecorated with a painted polychrome floraldesign in green and red. The interior of the vesselis undecorated.

Catalog # 0.108.YO205-1Principal Measurements: IndeterminableArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 109 (Figure 34)

Can. Rim, body, base, and handle fragments ofdelftware. The vessel has a pinkish body pasteand a white tin enamel glaze. The vessel isdecorated with a painted polychrome floraldesign in brown, blue, and yellow. Three bluelines encircle the base of the can while one blueline surrounds the rim. The decoration on thepulled handle appears to be horizontal slashesin blue. The interior of the vessel is undecorated.The thickness of the vessel walls ranges frommedium near the base to thin at the rim.

Catalog # 0.109.YO205-1Principal Measurements: 2¼" rim and base

diameter, 2½" heightArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 110 (Figure 35)

Salt. Body, rim, base, and handle fragments ofdelftware. This vessel has a pinkish body pasteand a white tin enamel glaze. The vessel isundecorated and has walls of medium thick-ness.

Figure 33. Chinoiserie motif delft punch bowl.

Figure 34. Polychrome floral motif delft can.

Figure 35. Delft salt handles.

90

Catalog # 0.110.YO205-1Principal Measurements: 7" rim diameter, 3" base diameterArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 111

Bowl. Rim, body and base fragments of delftware. The vessel has a light pink body paste and a white tinenamel glaze. The vessel is undecorated, has a rolled everted rim, and a footring. The vessel walls are ofmedium thickness.

Catalog # 0.111.YO205-1Principal Measurements: 6¾" rim diameter, 3" base diameter, 3¼" heightArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 112

Plate. Rim and body fragments of delftware. The vessel has a buff-colored body paste and a white tin enamelglaze. The plate is decorated in a geometric design painted in blue, consisting of an interlocking diamondpattern. Surrounding this diamond pattern are circumferential rings painted in blue.

Catalog # 0.112.YO205-1Principal Measurements: 7" diameterArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 113

Tea bowl. Rim and body fragments of delftware. The vessel has a light buff body paste and a white tin enamelglaze. The vessel is decorated in an unidentifiable motif in a polychrome palette with blue sponged andpainted designs combined with yellow and peach painting.

Catalog # 0.113.YO205-42Principal Measurements: 4" rim diameterArchaeological Context: Utility trench through Structure A

U.V. 114

Small bowl. Rim and body fragments of delftware. The vessel has a buff-colored body paste and a white tinenamel glaze. It is decorated in a polychrome palette of blue, green, brown, and purple. The rim is decoratedwith three blue circumferential lines around the vessel exterior. The exterior body motif is a floral, possiblychinoiserie, design.

Catalog # 0.114.YO205-1Principal Measurements: 3" rim diameterArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 115

Chamber pot. Rim, body, and base fragments of delftware. The vessel has a pinkish body paste and a greyish-blue tinted white enamel glaze. The undecorated vessel has medium thick walls and a standing footring.

Catalog # 0.115-YO205-1Principal Measurements: 8" rim diameter, 6" base diameterArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 116 (Figure 36)

Plate. Rim, body, and base fragments of delftware. The vessel has a pinkish body paste and a white tin enamelglaze. The plate is decorated in a blue floral design with a geometric checker pattern. The plate rim is edged inblue.

91

Catalog # 0.116.YO205-1Principal Measurements: 9" rim diameterArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 117

See U.V. 104. Incorporated into Unique Vessel 104.

U.V. 118 (Figure 37)

Bulbous mug? Rim and body frag- ments of delftware. The vessel has a pinkish body paste and has beenpartially dipped into a tin enamel glaze. The interior is covered with a greyish white tin enamel glaze.

Catalog # 0.118.YO205-1Principal Measurements: 2½" rim diameterArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 119

Drug jar. Body fragments of delftware. The vessel has a light buff body paste and a white tin enamel glaze. Itis decorated in a geometric design painted in blue and manganese.

Catalog # 0.119.YO205-1Principal Measurements: IndeterminableArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 120 (Figure 38)

Cup. Rim, body, and base fragments of delftware. The vessel has a light buff-colored paste and a white tinenamel glaze. It is decorated in blue with a floral chinoiserie motif. The floral design is repeated in triplicatearound the exterior of the cup. The pulled handle is decorated with blue slashes running horizontally across

Figure 36. Floral motif delft plate. Figure 37. Delft bulbous mug(?).

92

the handle. There are two circumferential linesin blue around the base of the cup and along thetop of the standing foot ring.

Catalog # 0.120.YO205-1Principal Measurements: 2¾"rim diameter,

1½" base diameter, 2¾" heightArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 121 (Figure 39)

Small plate. Virtually complete vessel ofdelftware. The vessel has a light buff body pasteand a bluish-grey tin enamel glaze. The interioris decorated with blue in a bird and fruit motifwhich is located at the center of the plate. Inter-locking diamonds surrounded by single anddouble blue lines decorate the rim.

Catalog # 0.121.YO205-1Principal Measurements: 6½" outside diameter,

3" base diameterArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 122

Bowl? Body fragments of delftware. The vesselhas a light buff body paste and a white tinenamel glaze. The exterior is decorated with ablue floral motif and the interior is undecorated.

Catalog # 0.122.YO205-1Principal Measurements: IndeterminableArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 123

Chamberpot. Rim and body fragments ofdelftware. The vessel has a buff-colored pasteand a whitish blue tin enamel glaze. The vesselis undecorated and has relatively thick walls.

Catalog # 0.123.YO205-1Principal Measurements: 6½" rim diameterArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 124

Bowl. Base fragments of delftware. The vesselhas a light buff body paste and a whitish pinktin enamel glaze. The vessel appears to be undecorated and possesses a standing foot ring.

Catalog # 0.124.YO205-1Principal Measurements: 2¾" foot ring diameterArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

Figure 38. Chinoiserie motif delft cup.

Figure 39. Delft plate.

93

U.V. 125

Unidentified vessel form. Rim, body and base fragments of delftware. The vessel has a buff-colored bodypaste and a pinkish white tin enamel glaze. The vessel appears to be undecorated and has thin body walls.

Catalog # 0.125.YO205-1Principal Measurements: 3¼" rim diameter, 3" base diameterArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 126

Bowl. Body and rim fragments of delftware. The vessel has a buff body paste and a white tin enamel glaze.Crazing is evident over the entire glazed surface of the vessel. The vessel has an everted rim.

Catalog # 0.126.YO205-1Principal Measurements: 8" rim diameterArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 127

Bowl. Body and rim fragments of delftware. The vessel has a cream-colored body paste and a white tin enamelglaze. The vessel is decorated in two shades of blue with a geometric sponged design.

Catalog # 0.127.YO205-1Principal Measurements: IndeterminableArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 128

Can. Rim fragment of delftware. The vessel has a pinkish body paste and a white tin enamel glaze. It isdecorated with a painted blue and brown line and dot motif. The exterior rim of the can is decorated with asingle blue line.

Catalog # 0.128.YO205-1Principal Measurements: IndeterminableArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 129

Bowl. Rim fragment of delftware. The vessel has a light buff-colored body paste and a white tin enamel glaze.This bowl is decorated in a painted red and blue motif.

Catalog # 0.129.YO205-1Principal Measurements: IndeterminableArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 130

Tile. Edge and body fragments of delftware. This object has a buff-colored body paste and a robin egg bluetin enamel glaze on one side only. The tile is relatively thick.

Catalog # 0.130.YO205-3Principal Measurements: IndeterminableArchaeological Context: Topsoil

U.V. 131

Bowl. Body fragment of a delftware. This bowl is decorated with a polychrome chevron of green and brown.There is also a blue line present on the sherd. The vessel has a buff-colored paste and a white tin enamelglaze. The sherd is of medium thickness.

94

Catalog # 0.131.YO205-76Principal Measurements: IndeterminableArchaeological Context: Modern construction layer

U.V. 132

Unidentified vessel form. Fragment of delftware. The vessel has a pinkish paste and a white tin enamel glaze.Speckled manganese is present on the exterior of the fragment. The walls of this vessel are thin.

Catalog # 0.132.YO205-1Principal Measurements: IndeterminableArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 133

Cup or small bowl. Rim and body fragments of delftware. The vessel has a buff- colored paste and a white tinenamel glaze. It is decorated with a painted blue, red and purple polychrome motif. There is a red swag designaround rim and the vessel walls are thin.

Catalog # 0.133.YO205-1Principal Measurements: IndeterminableArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 134

Bowl. Body fragment of delftware. The vessel has a buff-colored paste and a white tin enamel glaze. It isdecorated in a painted green, red, and yellow floral motif. The walls of this vessel are relatively thin.

Catalog # 0.134.YO205-1Principal Measurements: IndeterminableArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 135

Bowl. Base fragment of delftware. The vessel has a very light cream-colored body paste and a white tin enamelglaze. It is decorated in blue with a painted line around the base and blue sponging on the bottom of thevessel. The walls and base of this vessel are of medium thickness.

Catalog # 0.135.YO205-33Principal Measurements: 1/6" standing ring, 3" base diameterArchaeological Context: Modern construction layer

U.V. 136

Mug. Base and body fragments of delftware. The vessel has a buff-colored body paste and a white tin enamelglaze. It is cordoned at the base and the body decoration is unknown. The mug walls are of medium thickness.

Catalog # 0.136.YO205-1Principal Measurements: 3" base diameterArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 137

Plate. Rim, body, and base fragments of delftware. The vessel has a pinkish body paste and a white tin enamelglaze. It is decorated with a blue and white hatching design around the rim and a delicately painted floralpattern in the middle. This plate has fairly thin walls.

95

Catalog # 0.137.YO205-1Principal Measurements: 8" rim diameterArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 138

Bowl. Body fragment of delftware. The vessel has a buff-colored paste and a white tin enamel glaze. It isdecorated with painted blue, possibly a chinoiserie design. This vessel has walls of medium thickness.

Catalog # 0.138.YO205-1Principal Measurements: IndeterminableArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 139

Bowl. Body and rim fragments of delftware. The vessel has a white buff-colored body paste and a white tinenamel glaze. It is decorated in painted blue. Much of the decorative glaze is gone, but there is evidence of ablue line around the rim and a floral, possibly chinese design. The walls of the vessel are fairly thick.

Catalog # 0.139.YO205-1Principal Measurements: IndeterminableArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 140

Plate. Rim and body fragments of delftware. The vessel has a pinkish body paste and a white tin enamel glaze.It is decorated in painted blue with a floral design and the rim is encircled by a blue line. The walls of the vesselare of thin to medium thickness.

Catalog # 0.140.YO205-7Principal Measurements: IndeterminableArchaeological Context: Modern construction layer

U.V. 141 (Figure 35)

Porringer. Handle fragments of delftware. The vessel has a light buff paste and a blue-tinted tin enamel glaze.The handle is not decorated. The porringer probably was not decorated as well.

Catalog # 0.141.YO205-1Principal Measurements: IndeterminableArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 142

Shallow bowl. Rim and body fragments of delftware. The vessel has a light buff- colored paste and a bluish tinenamel glaze. It is decorated in painted blue. The walls are of medium thickness.

Catalog # 0.142.YO205-33Principal Measurements: IndeterminableArchaeological Context: Modern construction layer

U.V. 143

Chamberpot. Rim, body, and base fragments of delftware. The vessel has a buff- colored paste and a white tinenamel glaze. The decoration is unknown.

Catalog # 0.143.YO205-1Principal Measurements: 6" base diameter, 9" rim diameterArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

96

U.V. 144

Bowl. Body fragments of Nevers delftware. The vessel has a buff paste and a dark blue tin enamel glaze. It isdecorated with white painted lines.

Catalog # 0.144.YO205-1Principal Measurements: IndeterminableArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 145

Plate. Rim fragment of delftware. The vessel has a buff-colored paste and a white tin enamel glaze. The vesselis decorated in painted blue.

Catalog # 0.145.YO205-79Principal Measurements: IndeterminableArchaeological Context: Feature near Structure A

U.V. 146

Punchbowl? Body fragment of delft-ware. The vessel has a light buff-colored paste and a white tin enamelglaze. It is decorated in painted blue strokes.

Catalog # 0.146.YO205-1Principal Measurements: IndeterminableArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 147 (Figure 40)

Tankard. Virtually complete vessel of delftware.The vessel has a pink-colored paste and a lightblue tin enamel glaze. It is decorated in blue,green, brown, and red with a scene of composedof a fox, grass, and trees. The slogan “Beware ofthe Fox” is painted around the vessel. Anexample almost identical to this tankard is shownin Dated English Delftware (Lipski 1984:240) withthe explanation:

The usual inscription on this type of tankard(an on some punch bowls) is “Be ware of theFox”: a reference to a seventeenth-century usageof the word ‘foxing’ as ‘spoiling’ a drink.

The earliest dated example of delftware with thisinscription bears the date 1711.

Catalog # 0.147.YO205-1Principal Measurements: 5¼" height,

3" base diameter, 3" rim diameter.Archaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 148

Porringer or Bowl. Base, footring, and handlefragments of delftware. The vessel has a buff-colored paste and a white tin enamel glaze. Itappears to be undecorated.

Figure 40. “Beware of the Fox” delft mug.

97

Catalog # 0.148.YO205-1Principal Measurements: 2¾" base diameterArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 149

Porringer. Body and rim fragments of delftware. The vessel has a buff-colored paste and a white tin enamelglaze. The porringer appears to be undecorated. The walls are of medium thickness.

Catalog # 0.149.YO205-1Principal Measurements: IndeterminableArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 150

Porringer. Body and rim fragments of delftware. The vessel has a buff-colored paste and a white tin enamelglaze. It appears to be undecorated. The walls of the vessel are of medium thickness.

Catalog # 0.150.YO205-1Principal Measurements: IndeterminableArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 151

Unidentified vessel form. Base and body fragments of delftware. The vessel has a pink-colored paste and awhite tin enamel glaze. It appears to be undecorated. The walls are thick.

Catalog # 0.151.YO205-1Principal Measurements: IndeterminableArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 201

Pan. Rim and body fragments of Colono-Indianearthenware. The vessel has a buff-colored paste. Itis undecorated and unglazed. There is evidence ofeither uneven firing or burning in color and texturevariations. The vessel walls are thick andinconsistent in depth.

Catalog # 0.201.YO205-1Principal Measurements: 11½" rim diameterArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 202 (Figure 41)

Porringer. Handle pieces, rim, and body fragmentsof colonoware. The vessel has a buff-colored paste.It is undecorated and unglazed. The walls of thevessel are relatively thin (considering ware) anduneven in thickness.

Catalog # 0.202.YO205-1Principal Measurements: 5" rim diameterArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

Figure 41. Colonoware porringer handle.

98

U.V. 203

Pan or Bowl. Body fragments of aboriginal ware. The vessel has a red-colored paste. It is undecorated andunglazed. The vessel has thick walls.

Catalog # 0.203.YO205-1Principal Measurements: IndeterminableArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 204

Pan or Bowl. Rim and body fragments of aboriginal ware. The vessel has a black- colored paste. It is undecoratedand unglazed and has thick walls.

Catalog # 0.204.YO205-1Principal Measurements: IndeterminableArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 251

Milkpan. Rim, body, and base fragments of red sandyware. The vessel is composed of a red/orange sandybody paste with a clear lead glaze coating the interior. A red wash is present on the exterior of the vessel. Ironoxide inclusions are noted to be present in the lead glaze. Fragments include a rounded rim with a spoutsection.

Catalog # 0.251.YO205-1Principal Measurements: 15" rim diameter; 9" base diameter, 3¼" heightArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 252

Bowl? Body and base fragments of red bodied coarseware. A red body paste with a brown lead glaze coatingthe interior and exterior composes the vessel. The vessel is straight-sided.

Catalog # 0.252.YO205-1Principal Measurements: 9" base diameterArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 253

Milkpan. Base, body, and rim fragments of Buckley coarseware. A light pinkish body paste composes thevessel which has a clear lead glaze on its interior. The glaze appears ginger-colored. A red wash coats thevessel exterior. White clay inclusions are present in the body paste. The vessel has a squarish lip and wheelmarks are visible on the milkpan’s interior.

Catalog # 0.253.YO205-1Principal Measurements: 13" rim diameter, 111/8" base diameter, 3½" heightArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 254

Mug? Base and handle fragments of red earthenware. The vessel has a brownish red body paste with darkbrown lead glaze on its interior and exterior. It has been dipped in the glaze leaving the surface near the baseof the vessel uncoated. The vessel has a pulled handle.

Catalog # 0.254.YO205-1Principal Measurements: 2¾" base diameterArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

99

U.V. 255

Milkpan. Body and base fragments of red sandyware. A red body paste with a grey core resulting from thefiring composes the vessel. A clear lead glaze coats the vessel’s interior. An incised circumferential mark ispresent on the interior wall of the vessel.

Catalog # 0.255.YO205-1Principal Measurements: 10" base diameterArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 256

Milkpan. Rim, body, and base fragments of Buckley coarseware. A medium orange body paste with white clayinclusions composes the vessel which has a dark brown lead glaze on its interior. The exterior and squared-offrim of the vessel are unglazed.

Catalog # 0.256.YO205-1Principal Measurements: 12" rim diameterArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 257

Milkpan. Rim fragment of red sandyware. The vessel has a red body paste with a clear lead glaze on its interior.A red wash coats the unglazed exterior of the vessel.

Catalog # 0.257.YO205-83Principal Measurements: 13" rim diameterArchaeological Context: 19th-century interior fill of Structure A

U.V. 258

Milkpan? Rim fragments of Yorktown coarse earthenware. The pinkish cream body paste of the vessel has red(hematite?) inclusions. A clear lead glaze coats the vessel interior. A pink wash covers the unglazed exterior ofthe vessel.

Catalog # 0.258.YO205-1Principal Measurements: IndeterminableArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 259

Milkpan. Rim fragment of North Devon coarse earthenware. The vessel is composed of a orange body pastewith gravel inclusions. A clear lead glaze coats the vessel interior only. This vessel is highly fired and appearsto have been damaged in the kiln. An iron oxide stain is apparent on the rim.

Catalog # 0.259.YO205-1Principal Measurements: 12" rim diameterArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 260 (Figure 42)

Milkpan. Base, body, and rim fragments of red sandyware. A deep orange body paste with a clear lead interiorglaze which appears greenish-yellow in color composes the vessel. A blackish wash coats the unglazedexterior of the milkpan. Part of the rim spout is evident.

Catalog # 0.260.YO205-1Principal Measurements: 14" rim diameter, 8" base diameter, 2½" heightArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

100

U.V. 261

Unidentified vessel form. Body fragment of black-glazed redware. The vessel is composed of a red body pastewith a black lead glaze on its interior and exterior surfaces. The vessel appears to be finely potted.

Catalog # 0.261.YO205-1Principal Measurements: IndeterminableArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 262

Unidentified vessel form. Body fragment of black-glazed redware. The vessel has a red body paste with ablack lead glaze on its interior and exterior.

Catalog # 0.262.YO205-6Principal Measurements: IndeterminableArchaeological Context: Modern Construction Layer

U.V. 263

Milkpan. Rim and base fragments of red sandyware. The vessel has a reddish orange body paste with gravelinclusions. A clear lead glaze covers the interior of the vessel. A reddish wash coats the exterior of the vessel.Part of the milkpan spout is evident.

Catalog # 0.263.YO205-1Principal Measurements: 13" rim diameterArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 301

Unidentified hollow ware vessel form. Body fragment of white salt-glazed stoneware. The vessel has an off-white paste and a clear salt glaze. The decoration is unknown. The vessel is fairly thin.

Catalog # 0.301.YO205-43Principal Measurements: IndeterminableArchaeological Context: Utility trench through Structure A

U.V. 302

Plate or Platter. Body and footring fragments of pearlware. The vessel has a buff- colored paste and a clearbluish glaze. It is decorated in a transfer-printed blue floral pattern. This vessel has medium thick walls.

Catalog # 0.302.YO205-1Principal Measurements: IndeterminableArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

Figure 42. Red sandy earthenware milkpan.

101

U.V. 303

Unidentified vessel form. Body fragment of pearlware. The vessel has a light buff paste and a clear bluishglaze. It has polychrome decoration in painted orange, light blue, and brown. The brown looks featheredthough the motif is unknown. The walls are very thin.

Catalog # 0.303.YO205-21Principal Measurements: IndeterminableArchaeological Context: Modern construction layer

U.V. 304

Unidentified hollow ware vessel form. Body fragment of creamware. The vessel has a cream-colored paste anda clear yellowish glaze. The decoration is unknown and crazing is evident. The walls are of medium thickness.

Catalog # 0.304.YO205-33Principal Measurements: IndeterminableArchaeological Context: Modern construction layer

U.V. 305

Unidentified hollow ware vessel form. Body fragment of Whieldon-ware. The vessel has a cream paste and agreenish glaze. There is no decoration apparent but there are small raised bumps on the interior. The walls areof medium thickness.

Catalog # 0.305.YO205-32Principal Measurements: IndeterminableArchaeological Context: Modern construction layer

U.V. 306

Unidentified vessel form. Body fragments of pearlware. The vessel has a buff-colored paste and a clear bluishglaze. It is decorated in polychrome orange, green, blue, brown, and yellow in what seems to be a floral motif.The vessel has thin walls.

Catalog # 0.306.YO205-1Principal Measurements: IndeterminableArchaeological Context: Trash deposit

U.V. 307

Unidentified hollow ware vessel form. Body and footring fragments of creamware. The vessel has a cream-colored paste and a clear creamy glaze. The decoration is unknown. The vessel walls are fairly thin.

Catalog # 0.307.YO205-51Principal Measurements: IndeterminableArchaeological Context: Posthole

U.V. 308

Unidentified hollow ware vessel form. Body fragment of white salt-glazed stoneware. The vessel has an off-white paste and a clear salt glaze. The decoration is unknown. The walls of this vessel are fairly thin.

Catalog # 0.308.YO205-7Principal Measurements: IndeterminableArchaeological Context: Modern construction layer

102

U.V. 309

Plate. Body, rim, and footring fragments of creamware. The vessel has a cream- colored paste and a clear glaze.It is undecorated. The vessel is partly burned and there is what appears to be melted glass attached to thecenter interior. The wall are of medium thickness.

Catalog # 0.309.YO205-54Principal Measurements: 5" footringArchaeological Context: Cellar fill of Structure A

U.V. 310

Plate? Body and rim fragment of pearlware. The vessel has a cream paste and a clear bluish glaze. Nodecoration is apparent. The vessel has medium thick walls.

Catalog # 0.310.YO205-1Principal Measurements: IndeterminableArchaeological Context: Trash pit deposit

103

Appendix IV.State Survey Form

Because this form shows site locations it is not included in this public document.

104

105

Appendix V.Faunal Analysisby Joanne Bowen, Eric Ackermann, and Bill Burke

The methods of faunal analysis are quanti-tative in nature, and the data’s reliability istherefore dependent upon the size of the

sample. Unfortunately only a relatively small num-ber of bones were recovered from the Bates site,and the following assessment of the relative di-etary importance of different species must betaken only in the most general terms.

To determine if any broad patterns could beestablished while learning basic zooarchaeologicalidentification and analytical techniques, two fieldschool students undertook the identification andanalysis of this assemblage. In order to obtain thelargest possible assemblage bones from two units(YO 205-1 and YO 205-17) dating to the sametime period were combined to determine the Num-ber of Identified Specimens Present (NISP) andMinimum Number of Individuals (MNI). The as-semblage contains a total number of 1401 frag-ments, of which 17% were identifiable.

Indications that the assemblage was too smallfor assessing relative dietary estimates include thevery small numbers of birds and small mammalremains, as well as the total absence of fish, am-phibians, and reptile remains. While fish, turtles,birds, and small mammals are seldom found inlarge numbers in this region, the total lack of fishand turtle does indicate a sample bias. In addi-tion, most often assemblages in this region con-tain a relatively even distribution of elements. Thisassemblage, however, shows a predominance offoot elements for the cattle and pig remains.

Nonetheless, analysis of the faunal remainsshows this assemblage to have some similarity withother assemblages from the Chesapeake. As inother other assemblages, domestic fauna were thepredominant food source. Of the domestic ani-mals, cattle were the most important, followed

by pig, and then sheep/goats. Wild animals weremost likely only a minimal source of food.

Perhaps the most interesting information tobe gained from this assemblage, however, is theunusual distribution of elements for cattle and pigremains. In most assemblages there is a relativelyeven distribution of elements for cattle, pig, andsheep/goat remains. In this assemblage there aretoo few sheep/goat remains to show any definitepattern, but for the cattle and pig, there is a pre-dominance of foot elements. Whether this pat-tern is the result of taphonomic problems, or hu-man activity, however, remains to be determined.Ultimately, future comparisons of this assemblageto others may determine the cattle element distri-butions to be the result of human activity ratherthan taphonomic problems.

Bibliography

Bowen, Joanne V.1984 Analysis of the Faunal Remains from

the Public Hospital Site, ER 2625-4C.Report submitted by the Department ofArchaeological Research, ColonialWilliamsburg Foundation.

Chaplin, Raymond E.1971 The Study of Animal Bones from

Archaeological Sites. Seminar Press,New York.

Reitz, Elizabeth, and Nicholas Honerkamp1983 British Colonial Subsistence Strategy

on the Southeastern Coastal Plain.Historical Archaeology 17(2).

106

107

108

109

Appendix VI.List of Virginia Store Owners

17th- and 18th-Century Merchants(a selected listing)

Merchant Documentary Source Date

Isaac Collier invoice 1675Edward Phelps estate appraisement 1677/8Richard Willis inventory 1700/01Henry Hayward inventory 1720Joseph Walker inventory 1724Richard Walker inventory 1728

110