23994	----	None 
40255	----	TRANSCRIBER NOTES: Words or letters contained within underscores, i.e. _Proceedings_, indicate italics in the original. Letters or numbers preceded by ^ (carat) indicate superscripts. Multiple letter superscripts are contained within { } brackets. Initials followed by a period (.) and contained within [ ] brackets indicated a superscript letter above a period. For example: J^[S.]C. Footnotes have been moved to the end of each section. The List of Illustrations has been added to this project as an aid to the reader. It does not appear in the original book. Additional notes can be found at the end of this text. SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM [Illustration] BULLETIN 253 WASHINGTON, D.C. 1968 The Cultural History of Marlborough, Virginia An Archeological and Historical Investigation of the Port Town for Stafford County and the Plantation of John Mercer, Including Data Supplied by Frank M. Setzler and Oscar H. Darter C. MALCOLM WATKINS CURATOR OR CULTURAL HISTORY MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION PRESS SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION · WASHINGTON, D.C. · 1968 _Publications of the United States National Museum_ The scholarly and scientific publications of the United States National Museum include two series, _Proceedings of the United States National Museum_ and _United States National Museum Bulletin_. In these series, the Museum publishes original articles and monographs dealing with the collections and work of its constituent museums--The Museum of Natural History and the Museum of History and Technology--setting forth newly acquired facts in the fields of anthropology, biology, history, geology, and technology. Copies of each publication are distributed to libraries, to cultural and scientific organizations, and to specialists and others interested in the different subjects. The _Proceedings_, begun in 1878, are intended for the publication, in separate form, of shorter papers from the Museum of Natural History. These are gathered in volumes, octavo in size, with the publication date of each paper recorded in the table of contents of the volume. In the _Bulletin_ series, the first of which was issued in 1875, appear longer, separate publications consisting of monographs (occasionally in several parts) and volumes in which are collected works on related subjects. _Bulletins_ are either octavo or quarto in size, depending on the needs of the presentation. Since 1902 papers relating to the botanical collections of the Museum of Natural History have been published in the _Bulletin_ series under the heading _Contributions from the United States National Herbarium_, and since 1959, in _Bulletins_ titled "Contributions from the Museum of History and Technology," have been gathered shorter papers relating to the collections and research of that Museum. This work forms volume 253 of the _Bulletin_ series. FRANK A. TAYLOR _Director, United States National Museum_ For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402--Price $3.75 Contents _Page_ Preface vii HISTORY 3 I. Official port towns in Virginia and origins of Marlborough 5 II. John Mercer's occupation of Marlborough, 1726-1730 15 III. Mercer's consolidation of Marlborough, 1730-1740 21 IV. Marlborough at its ascendancy, 1741-1750 27 V. Mercer and Marlborough, from zenith to decline, 1751-1768 49 VI. Dissolution of Marlborough 61 ARCHEOLOGY AND ARCHITECTURE 65 VII. The site, its problem, and preliminary tests 67 VIII. Archeological techniques 70 IX. Wall system 71 X. Mansion foundation (Structure B) 85 XI. Kitchen foundation (Structure E) 101 XII. Supposed smokehouse foundation (Structure F) 107 XIII. Pits and other structures 111 XIV. Stafford courthouse south of Potomac Creek 115 ARTIFACTS 123 XV. Ceramics 125 XVI. Glass 145 XVII. Objects of personal use 155 XVIII. Metalwork 159 XIX. Conclusion 173 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS 175 XX. Summary of findings 177 Appendixes 181 A. Inventory of George Andrews, Ordinary Keeper 183 B. Inventory of Peter Beach 184 C. Charges to account of Mosley Battaley 185 D. "Domestick Expenses," 1725 186 E. John Mercer's reading, 1726-1732 191 F. Credit side of John Mercer's account with Nathaniel Chapman 193 G. Overwharton Parish account 194 H. Colonists identified by John Mercer according to occupation 195 I. Materials listed in accounts with Hunter and Dick, Fredericksburg 196 J. George Mercer's expenses while attending college 197 K. John Mercer's library 198 L. Botanical record and prevailing temperatures, 17 209 M. Inventory of Marlborough, 1771 211 Index 213 List of Illustrations Figure John Mercer's Bookplate 1 Survey plates of Marlborough 2 Portrait of John Mercer 3 The Neighborhood of John Mercer 4 King William Courthouse 5 Mother-of-pearl counters 6 John Mercer's Tobacco-cask symbols 7 Wine-bottle seal 8 French horn 9 Hornbook 10 Fireplace mantels 11 Doorways 12 Table-desk 13 Archeological survey plan 14 Portrait of Ann Roy Mercer 15 Advertisement of the services of Mercer's stallion Ranter 16 Page from Maria Sibylla Merian's _Metamorphosis Insectorum Surinamensium efte Veranderung Surinaamsche Insecten_ 17 Aerial Photograph of Marlborough 18 Highway 621 19 Excavation plan of Marlborough 20 Excavation plan of wall system 21 Looking north 22 Outcropping of stone wall 23 Junction of stone Wall A 24 Looking north in line with Walls A and A-II 25 Wall A-II 26 Junction of Wall A-I 27 Wall E 28 Detail of Gateway in Wall E 29 Wall B-II 30 Wall D 31 Excavation plan of Structure B 32 Site of Structure B 33 Southwest corner of Structure B 34 Southwest corner of Structure B 35 South wall of Structure B 36 Cellar of Structure B 37 Section of red-sandstone arch 38 Helically contoured red-sandstone 39 Cast-concrete block 40 Dressed red-sandstone block 41 Fossil-embedded black sedimentary stone 42 Foundation of porch at north end of Structure B 43 Plan of mansion house 44 The Villa of "the magnificent Lord Leonardo Emo" 45 Excavation plan of Structure E 46 Foundation of Structure E 47 Paved floor of Room X, Structure E 48 North wall of Structure E 49 Wrought-iron slab 50 Excavation plan of structures north of Wall D 51 Structure F 52 Virginia brick from Structure B 53 Structure D 54 Refuse found at exterior corner of Wall A-II and Wall D 55 Excavation plan of Structure H 56 Structure H 57 1743 drawing showing location of Stafford courthouse 58 Enlarged detail from figure 58 59 Excavation plan of Stafford courthouse foundation 60 Hanover courthouse 61 Plan of King William courthouse 62 Tidewater-type pottery 63 Miscellaneous common earthenware types 64 Buckley-type high-fired ware 65 Westerwald stoneware 66 Fine English stoneware 67 English Delftware 68 Delft plate 69 Delft plate 70 Whieldon-type tortoiseshell ware 71 Queensware 72 Fragment of Queensware 73 English white earthenwares 74 Polychrome Chinese porcelain 75 Blue-and-white Chinese porcelain 76 Blue-and-white Chinese porcelain 77 Wine bottle 78 Bottle seals 79 Octagonal spirits bottle 80 Snuff bottle 81 Glassware 82 Small metalwork 83 Personal miscellany 84 Cutlery 85 Metalwork 86 Ironware 87 Iron door and chest hardware 88 Tools 89 Scythe 90 Farm gear 91 Illustration Front and back cast-concrete block 1 and 2 Iron tie bar 3 Cross section of plaster cornice molding from Structure B 4 Reconstructed wine bottle 5 Fragment of molded white salt-glazed platter 6 Iron bolt 7 Stone scraping tool 8 Indian celt 9 Milk pan 10 Milk pan 11 Ale mug 12 Cover of jar 13 Base of bowl 14 Handle of pot lid or oven door 15 Buff-earthenware cup 16 High-fired earthenware pan rim 17 High-fired earthenware jar rim 18 Rim and base profiles of high-fired earthenware jars 19 Base sherd from unglazed red-earthenware water cooler 20 Rim of an earthenware flowerpot 21 Base of gray-brown, salt-glazed-stoneware ale mug 22 Stoneware jug fragment 23 Gray-salt-glazed-stoneware jar profile 24 Drab-stoneware mug fragment 25 Wheel-turned cover of white, salt-glazed teapot 26 Body sherds of molded, white salt-glaze-ware pitcher 27 English delftware washbowl sherd 28 English delftware plate 29 English delftware plate 30 Delftware ointment pot 31 Sherds of black basaltes ware 32 Blue-and-white Chinese porcelain saucer 33 Blue-and-white Chinese porcelain plate 34 Beverage bottle 35 Beverage-bottle seal 36 Complete beverage bottle 37 Cylindrical beverage bottle 38 Cylindrical beverage bottle 39 Octagonal, pint-size beverage bottle 40 Square gin bottle 41 Square snuff bottle 42 Wineglass, reconstructed 43 Cordial glass 44 Sherds of engraved-glass wine and cordial glasses 45 Clear-glass tumbler 46 Octagonal cut-glass trencher salt 47 Brass buckle 48 Brass knee buckle 49 Brass thimble 50 Chalk bullet mold 51 Fragments of tobacco-pipe bowl 52 White-kaolin tobacco pipe 53 Slate pencil 54 Fragment of long-tined fork 55 Fragment of long-tined fork 56 Fork with two-part handle 57 Trifid-handle pewter spoon 58 Wavy-end pewter spoon 59 Pewter teapot lid 60 Steel scissors 61 Iron candle snuffers 62 Iron butt hinge 63 End of strap hinge 64 Catch for door latch 65 Wrought-iron hasp 66 Brass drop handle 67 Wrought-iron catch or striker 68 Iron slide bolt 69 Series of wrought-iron nails 70 Series of wrought-iron flooring nails and brads 71 Fragment of clouting nail 72 Hand-forged spike 73 Blacksmith's hammer 74 Iron wrench 75 Iron scraping tool 76 Bit or gouge chisel 77 Jeweler's hammer 78 Wrought-iron colter from plow 79 Hook used with wagon 80 Bolt with wingnut 81 Lashing hook from cart 82 Hilling hoe 83 Iron reinforcement strip from back of shovel handle 84 Half of sheep shears 85 Animal trap 86 Iron bridle bit 87 Fishhook 88 Brass strap handle 89 Preface A number of people participated in the preparation of this study. The inspiration for the archeological and historical investigations came from Professor Oscar H. Darter, who until 1960 was chairman of the Department of Historical and Social Sciences at Mary Washington College, the women's branch of the University of Virginia. The actual excavations were made under the direction of Frank M. Setzler, formerly the head curator of anthropology at the Smithsonian Institution. None of the investigation would have been possible had not the owners of the property permitted the excavations to be made, sometimes at considerable inconvenience to themselves. I am indebted to W. Biscoe, Ralph Whitticar, Jr., and Thomas Ashby, all of whom owned the excavated areas at Marlborough; and T. Ben Williams, whose cornfield includes the site of the 18th-century Stafford County courthouse, south of Potomac Creek. For many years Dr. Darter has been a resident of Fredericksburg and, in the summers, of Marlborough Point on the Potomac River. During these years, he has devoted himself to the history of the Stafford County area which lies between these two locations in northeastern Virginia. Marlborough Point has interested Dr. Darter especially since it is the site of one of the Virginia colonial port towns designated by Act of Assembly in 1691. During the town's brief existence, it was the location of the Stafford County courthouse and the place where the colonial planter and lawyer John Mercer established his home in 1726. Tangible evidence of colonial activities at Marlborough Point--in the form of brickbats and potsherds still can be seen after each plowing, while John Mercer's "Land Book," examined anew by Dr. Darter, has revealed the original survey plats of the port town. In this same period and as early as 1938, Dr. T. Dale Stewart (then curator of physical anthropology at the Smithsonian Institution) had commenced excavations at the Indian village site of Patawomecke, a few hundred yards west of the Marlborough Town site. The aboriginal backgrounds of the area including Marlborough Point already had been investigated. As the result of his historical research connected with this project, Dr. Stewart has contributed fundamentally to the present undertaking by foreseeing the excavations of Marlborough Town as a logical step beyond his own investigation. Motivated by this combination of interests, circumstances, and historical clues, Dr. Darter invited the Smithsonian Institution to participate in an archeological investigation of Marlborough. Preliminary tests made in August 1954 were sufficiently rewarding to justify such a project. Consequently, an application for funds was prepared jointly and was submitted by Dr. Darter through the University of Virginia to the American Philosophical Society. In January 1956 grant number 159, Johnson Fund (1955), for $1500 was assigned to the program. In addition, the Smithsonian Institution contributed the professional services necessary for field research and directed the purchase of microfilms and photostats, the drawing of maps and illustrations, and the preparation and publication of this report. Dr. Darter hospitably provided the use of his Marlborough Point cottage during the period of excavation, and Mary Washington College administered the grant. Frank Setzler directed the excavations during a six-week period in April and May 1956, while interpretation of cultural material and the searches of historical data related to it were carried out by C. Malcolm Watkins. At the commencement of archeological work it was expected that traces of the 17th- and early 18th-century town would be found, including, perhaps, the foundations of the courthouse. This expectation was not realized, although what was found from the Mercer period proved to be of greater importance. After completion, a report was made in the 1956 _Year Book_ of the American Philosophical Society (pp. 304-308). After the 1956 excavations, the question remained whether the principal foundation (Structure B) might not have been that of the courthouse. Therefore, in August 1957 a week-long effort was made to find comparative evidence by digging the site of the succeeding 18th-century Stafford County courthouse at the head of Potomac Creek. This disclosed a foundation sufficiently different from Structure B to rule out any analogy between the two. It should be made clear that--because of the limited size of the grant--the archeological phase of the investigation was necessarily a limited survey. Only the more obvious features could be examined within the means at the project's disposal. No final conclusions relative to Structure B, for example, are warranted until the section of foundation beneath the highway which crosses it can be excavated. Further excavations need to be made south and southeast of Structure B and elsewhere in search of outbuildings and evidence of 17th-century occupancy. Despite such limitations, this study is a detailed examination of a segment of colonial Virginia's plantation culture. It has been prepared with the hope that it will provide Dr. Darter with essential material for his area studies and, also, with the wider objective of increasing the knowledge of the material culture of colonial America. Appropriate to the function of a museum such as the Smithsonian, this study is concerned principally with what is concrete--objects and artifacts and the meanings that are to be derived from them. It has relied upon the mutually dependent techniques of archeologist and cultural historian and will serve, it is hoped, as a guide to further investigations of this sort by historical museums and organizations. Among the many individuals contributing to this study, I am especially indebted to Dr. Darter; to the members of the American Philosophical Society who made the excavations possible; to Dr. Stewart, who reviewed the archeological sections at each step as they were written; to Mrs. Sigrid Hull who drew the line-and-stipple illustrations which embellish the report; Edward G. Schumacher of the Bureau of American Ethnology, who made the archeological maps and drawings; Jack Scott of the Smithsonian photographic laboratory, who photographed the artifacts; and George Harrison Sanford King of Fredericksburg, from whom the necessary documentation for the 18th-century courthouse site was obtained. I am grateful also to Dr. Anthony N. B. Garvan, professor of American civilization at the University of Pennsylvania and former head curator of the Smithsonian Institution's department of civil history, for invaluable encouragement and advice; and to Worth Bailey formerly with the Historic American Buildings Survey, for many ideas, suggestions, and important identifications of craftsmen listed in Mercer's ledgers. I am equally indebted to Ivor Noël Hume, director of archeology at Colonial Williamsburg and an honorary research associate of the Smithsonian Institution, for his assistance in the identification of artifacts; to Mrs. Mabel Niemeyer, librarian of the Bucks County Historical Society, for her cooperation in making the Mercer ledgers available for this report; to Donald E. Roy, librarian of the Darlington Library, University of Pittsburgh, for providing the invaluable clue that directed me to the ledgers; to the staffs of the Virginia State Library and the Alexandria Library for repeated courtesies and cooperation; and to Miss Rodris Roth, associate curator of cultural history at the Smithsonian, for detecting Thomas Oliver's inventory of Marlborough in a least suspected source. I greatly appreciate receiving generous permissions from the University of Pittsburgh Press to quote extensively from the _George Mercer Papers Relating to the Ohio Company of Virginia_, and from Russell & Russell to copy Thomas Oliver's inventory of Marlborough. To all of these people and to the countless others who contributed in one way or another to the completion of this study, I offer my grateful thanks. C. MALCOLM WATKINS Washington, D.C. 1967 The Cultural History of Marlborough, Virginia [Illustration: Figure 1.--JOHN MERCER'S BOOKPLATE.] HISTORY I _Official Port Towns in Virginia and Origins of Marlborough_ ESTABLISHING THE PORT TOWNS The dependence of 17th-century Virginia upon the single crop--tobacco--was a chronic problem. A bad crop year or a depressed English market could plunge the whole colony into debt, creating a chain reaction of overextended credits and failures to meet obligations. Tobacco exhausted the soil, and soil exhaustion led to an ever-widening search for new land. This in turn brought about population dispersal and extreme decentralization. After the Restoration in 1660 the Virginia colonial government was faced not only with these economic hazards but also with the resulting administrative difficulties. It was awkward to govern a scattered population and almost impossible to collect customs duties on imports landed at the planters' own wharves along hundreds of miles of inland waterways. The royal governors and responsible persons in the Assembly reacted therefore with a succession of plans to establish towns that would be the sole ports of entry for the areas they served, thus making theoretically simple the task of securing customs revenues. The towns also would be centers of business and manufacture, diversifying the colony's economic supports and lessening its dependence on tobacco. To men of English origin this establishment of port communities must have seemed natural and logical. The first such proposal became law in 1662, establishing a port town for each of the major river valleys and for the Eastern Shore. But the law's sponsors were doomed to disappointment, for the towns were not built.[1] After a considerable lapse, a new act was passed in 1680, this one better implemented and further reaching. It provided for a port town in each county, where ships were to deliver their goods and pick up tobacco and other exports from town warehouses for their return voyages.[2] One of its most influential supporters was William Fitzhugh of Stafford County, a wealthy planter and distinguished leader in the colony.[3] "We have now resolved a cessation of making Tob^o next year," he wrote to his London agent, Captain Partis, in 1680. "We are also going to make Towns, if you can meet with any tradesmen that will come and live at the Town, they may have privileges and immunitys."[4] [Illustration: Potomack River] [Illustration: Figure 2.--Survey plats of Marlborough as copied in John Mercer's Land Book showing at bottom, John Savage's, 1731; and top, William Buckner's and Theodorick Bland's, 1691. (The courthouse probably stood in the vicinity of lot 21.)] Some of these towns actually were laid out, each on a 50-acre tract of half-acre lots, but only 9 tracts were built upon. The Act soon lagged and collapsed. It was unpopular with the colonists, who were obliged to transport their tobacco to distant warehouses and to pay storage fees; it was ignored by shipmasters, who were in the habit of dealing directly with planters at their wharves and who were not interested in making it any easier for His Majesty's customs collectors.[5] Nevertheless, efforts to come up with a third act began in 1688.[6] William Fitzhugh, especially, was articulate in his alarm over Virginia's one-crop economy, the effects of which the towns were supposed to mitigate. At this time he referred to tobacco as "our most despicable commodity." A year later, he remarked, "it is more uncertain for a Planter to get money by consigned Tob^o then to get a prize in a lottery, there being twenty chances for one chance."[7] In April 1691 the Act for Ports was passed, the House, significantly, recording only one dissenting vote.[8] Unlike its predecessor, which encouraged trades and crafts, this Act was justified purely on the basis of overcoming the "great opportunity ... given to such as attempt to import or export goods and merchandises, without entering or paying the duties and customs due thereupon, much practised by greedy and covetous persons." It provided that all exports and imports should be taken up or set down at the specified ports and nowhere else, under penalty of forfeiting ship, gear, and cargo, and that the law should become effective October 1, 1692. The towns again were to be surveyed and laid out in 50-acre tracts. Feoffees, to be appointed, would grant half-acre lots on a pro rata first-cost basis. Grantees "shall within the space of four months next ensueing such grant begin and without delay proceed to build and finish on each half acre one good house, to containe twenty foot square at the least, wherein if he fails to performe them such grant to be void in law, and the lands therein granted lyable to the choyce and purchase of any other person." Justices of the county courts were to fill vacancies among the feoffees and to appoint customs collectors.[9] FOOTNOTES: [1] WILLIAM WALLER HENING, _The Statutes at Large Being a Collection of All the Laws of Virginia_ (New York, 1823), vol. 2, pp. 172-176. [2] Ibid., vol. 2, pp. 471-478. [3] William Fitzhugh was founder of the renowned Virginia family that bear his name. As chief justice of the Stafford County court, burgess, merchant, and wealthy planter, he epitomized the landed aristocrat in 17th-century Virginia. See "Letters of William Fitzhugh," _Virginia Magazine of History & Biography_ (Richmond, 1894), vol. 1, p. 17 (hereinafter designated _VHM_), and _William Fitzhugh and His Chesapeake World_ (1676-1701), edit. Richard Beale Davis (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, for the Virginia Historical Society, 1963). [4] _VHM_, op. cit., p. 30. [5] ROBERT BEVERLEY, _The History and Present State of Virginia_, edit. Louis B. Wright (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1947), p. 88; PHILIP ALEXANDER BRUCE, _Economic History of Virginia_, 2nd ed. (New York: P. Smith, 1935), vol. 2, pp. 553-554. [6] _Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virginia_ (hereinafter designated _JHB_) 1659/60-1693, edit. H. R. McIlwaine (Richmond, Virginia: Virginia State Library, 1914), pp. 303, 305, 308, 315. [7] "Letters of William Fitzhugh," _VHM_ (Richmond, 1895), vol. 2, pp. 374-375. [8] _JHB 1659/60-1693_, op. cit. (footnote 6), p. 351. [9] HENING, op. cit. (footnote 1), vol. 3, pp. 53-69. THE PORT TOWN FOR STAFFORD COUNTY The difficulties confronting the central and local governing bodies in putting the Acts into effect are illustrated by the attempts to establish a port town for Stafford County. Under the act of 1680 a town was to be built at "Peace Point," where the Catholic refugee Giles Brent had settled nearly forty years before, but there is no evidence that even so much as a survey was made there. The 1691 Act for Ports located the town at Potomac Neck, where Accokeek Creek and Potomac Creek converge on the Potomac River. Situated about three miles below the previously designated site, it was again on Brent property, lying within a tract leased for life to Captain Malachi Peale, former high sheriff of Stafford. On October 9, 1691, the Stafford Court "ordered that Mr. William Buckner deputy Surveyor of this County shall on Thursday next ... repair to the Malachy Peale neck being the place allotted by act of assembly for this Town and Port of this County and shall then and there Survey and Lay Out the said Towne or Port ... to the Interest that all the gentlemen of and all other of the Inhabitants may take up such Lot and Lots as be and they desire...." On the same day John Withers and Matthew Thompson, both justices of the peace, were appointed "Feoffees in Trust." Young Giles Brent, "son and heir of Giles Brent Gent. late of this county dec^{ed}" and not yet 21, selected Francis Hammersley as his guardian. Hammersley in this capacity became the administrator of Brent's affairs, and accordingly it was agreed that 13,000 pounds of tobacco should be paid to him in exchange for the 50 acres of town land owned by Brent.[10] Actually, 52 acres were surveyed, "two of the said acres being the Land belonging to and laid out for the Court House according to a former Act of Assembly and the other fifty acres pursuant to the late Act for Ports." The "former Act of Assembly" which had been passed in 1667 had stipulated the allotment of two-acre tracts for churches and court houses, which in case the lots "be deserted y^e land shall revert to y^e 1st proprietor...."[11] For the extra two acres Hammersley was given 800 pounds of tobacco in addition. Of the total of 13,800 pounds, 3450 were set aside to compensate Malachi Peale for the loss of his leasehold. The order for the survey to be made was a formality, since the plat had actually been drawn ahead of time by Buckner on August 16, nearly two months before; clearly the Staffordians were eager to begin their town. Buckner's plat was copied by his superior, Theodorick Bland, and entered in the now-missing Stafford Survey Book. John Savage, a later surveyor, in 1731 provided John Mercer with a duplicate of Bland's copy, which has survived in John Mercer's Land Book (fig. 2).[12] On February 11, 1692, the feoffees granted 27 lots to 15 applicants. John Mercer's later review of the town's history in this period states that "many" of the lots were "built on and improved."[13] Two ordinaries were licensed, one in 1691 and one in 1693, but no business activity other than the Potomac Creek ferry seems to have been conducted.[14] Any future the town might have had was erased by the same adverse reactions that had killed the previous port acts. The merchants and shippers used their negative influence and on March 22, 1693, a "bill for suspension of y^e act for Ports &c till their Maj^{ts} pleasure shall be known therein or till y^e next assembly" passed the house. In due course the act was reviewed and returned unsigned for further consideration. William Fitzhugh, on October 17, 1693, dutifully read the recommendation of the Committee of Grievances and Properties "That the appointment of Ports & injoyneing the Landing and Shipping of all goods imported or to be exported at & from the same will (considering the present circumstances of the Country) be very injurious & burthensome to the Inhabitants thereof and traders thereunto."[15] Doubtless dictated by the Board of Trade in London, the recommendation was a defeat for those who, like Fitzhugh, sought by the establishment of towns to break tobacco's strangle-hold on Virginia. FOOTNOTES: [10] Stafford County Order Book, 1689-1694 (MS bound with order book for 1664-1688, but paginated separately), pp. 175, 177, 180, 189. [11] "Mills," _VHM_ (Richmond, 1903), vol. 10, pp. 147-148. [12] John Mercer's Land Book (MS., Virginia State Library). [13] _JHB, 1742-1747; 1748-1749_ (Richmond, 1909), pp. 285-286. [14] Stafford County Order Book, 1689-1694, pp. 184, 357. [15] HENING, op. cit. (footnote 1), vol. 3, pp. 108-109. THE ACT FOR PORTS OF 1705 AND THE NAMING OF MARLBOROUGH Nevertheless, the town idea was hard to kill. In 1705 Stafford's port town, along with those in the other counties, was given a new lease on life when still another Act for Ports, introduced by Robert Beverley, was passed. This Act repeated in substance the provisions of its immediate forerunner, but provided in addition extravagant inducements to settlement. Those who inhabited the towns were exempted from three-quarters of the customs duties paid by others; they were freed of poll taxes for 15 years; they were relieved from military mustering outside the towns and from marching outside, excepting the "exigency" of war (and then only for a distance of no more than 50 miles). Goods and "dead provision" were not to be sold outside within a 5-mile radius, and ordinaries (other than those within the towns) were not permitted closer than 10 miles to the towns' boundaries, except at courthouses and ferry landings. Each town was to be a free "burgh," and, when it had grown to 30 families "besides ordinary keepers," "eight principal inhabitants" were to be chosen by vote of the "freeholders and inhabitants of the town of twenty-one years of age and upwards, not being servants or apprentices," to be called "benchers of the guild-hall." These eight "benchers" would govern the town for life or until removal, selecting a "director" from among themselves. When 60 families had settled, "brethren assistants of the guild hall" were to be elected similarly to serve as a common council. Each town was to have two market days a week and an annual five-day fair. The towns listed under the Act were virtually the same as before, but this time each was given an official name, the hitherto anonymous town for Stafford being called Marlborough in honor of the hero of the recent victory at Blenheim.[16] The elaborate vision of the Act's sponsors never was realized in the newly christened town, but there was in due course a slight resumption of activity in it. George Mason and William Fitzhugh, Jr. (the son of William Fitzhugh of Stafford County) were appointed feoffees in 1707, and a new survey was made by Thomas Gregg. The following year seven more lots were granted, and for an interval of two years Marlborough functioned technically as an official port.[17] Inevitably, perhaps, history repeated itself. In 1710 the Act for Ports, like its predecessors, was rescinded. The reasons given in London were brief and straightforward; the Act, it was explained, was "designed to Encourage by great Priviledges the settling in Townships." These settlements would encourage manufactures, which, in turn, would promote "further Improvement of the said manufactures, And take them off from the Planting of Tobacco, which would be of Very Ill consequence," thus lessening the colony's dependence on the Kingdom, affecting the import of tobacco, and prejudicing shipping.[18] Clearly, the Crown did not want the towns to succeed, nor would it tolerate anything which might stimulate colonial self-dependence. The Virginia colonists' dream of corporate communities was not to be realized. Most of the towns either died entirely or struggled on as crossroads villages. A meager few have survived to the present, notably Norfolk, Hampton, Yorktown, and Tappahannock. Marlborough lasted as a town until about 1720, but in about 1718 the courthouse and several dwellings were destroyed by fire and "A new Court House being built at another Place, all or most of the Houses that had been built in the said Town, were either burnt or suffered to go to ruin."[19] The towns were artificial entities, created by acts of assembly, not by economic or social necessity. In the few places where they filled a need, notably in the populous areas of the lower James and York Rivers, they flourished without regard to official status. In other places, by contrast, no law or edict sufficed to make them live when conditions did not warrant them. In sparsely settled Stafford especially there was little to nurture a town. It was easier, and perhaps more exciting, to grow tobacco and gamble on a successful crop, to go in debt when things were bad or lend to the less fortunate when things were better. In the latter case land became an acceptable medium for the payment of debts. Land was wealth and power, its enlargement the means of greater production of tobacco--tobacco again the great gamble by which one would always hope to rise and not to fall. When one could own an empire, why should one worry about a town? FOOTNOTES: [16] Ibid., pp. 404-419. [17] "Petition of John Mercer" (1748), (Ludwell papers, Virginia Historical Society), _VHM_ (Richmond, 1898), vol. 5, pp. 137-138. [18] _Calendar of Virginia State Papers and Other Manuscdit. William P. Palmer, M.D. (Richmond, 1875), vol. 1, pp. 137-138. [19] _JHB, 1742-1747; 1748-1749_ (Richmond, 1909), pp. 285-286. ESTABLISHING COURTHOUSES The administrative problems that contributed to the establishment of the port towns also called for the erection of courthouses. As early as 1624 lower courts had been authorized for Charles City and Elizabeth City in recognition of the colony's expansion, and ten years later the colony had been divided into eight counties, with a monthly court established in each. By the Restoration the county courts possessed broadly expanded powers and were the administrative as well as the judicial sources of local government. In practice they were largely self-appointive and were responsible for filling most local offices. Since the courts were the vehicles of royal authority, it followed that the physical symbols of this authority should be emphasized by building proper houses of government. At Jamestown orders were given in 1663 to build a statehouse in lieu of the alehouses and ordinaries where laws had been made previously.[20] In the same year, four courthouses annually were ordered for the counties, the burgesses having been empowered to "make and Signe agreements w^{th} any that will undertake them to build, who are to give good Caution for the effecting thereof with good sufficient bricks, Lime, and Timber, and that the same be well wrought and after they are finished to be approved by an able surveyor, before order be given them for their pay."[21] Such buildings were to take the place of private dwellings and ordinaries in the same way as did the statehouse at Jamestown. It was no accident that legislation for houses of government coincided with that for establishing port towns. Each reflected the need for administering the far-flung reaches of the colony and for maintaining order and respect for the crown in remote places. FOOTNOTES: [20] HENING, op. cit. (footnote 1), vol. 2, pp. 204-205. [21] _JHB, (1659/60-1693)_, op. cit. (footnote 6), p. 28. THE COURTHOUSE IN THE PORT TOWN FOR STAFFORD COUNTY Stafford County, which had been set off from Westmoreland in 1664, was provided with a courthouse within a year of its establishment. Ralph Happel in _Stafford and King George Courthouses and the Fate of Marlborough, Port of Entry_, has given us a detailed chronicle of the Stafford courthouses, showing that the first structure was situated south of Potomac Creek until 1690, when it presumably burned.[22] The court, in any event, began to meet in a private house on November 12, 1690, while on November 14 one Sampson Darrell was appointed chief undertaker and Ambrose Bayley builder of a new courthouse. A contract was signed between them and the justices of the court to finish the building by June 10, 1692, at a cost of 40,000 pounds of tobacco and cash, half to be paid in 1691 and the remainder upon completion.[23] With William Fitzhugh the presiding magistrate of the Stafford County court as well as cosponsor of the Act for Ports, it was foreordained that the new courthouse should be tied in with plans for the port town. The Act for Ports, however, was still in the making, and it was not possible to begin the courthouse until after its passage in the spring. On June 10, 1691, it was "Ordered by this Court that Capt. George Mason and Mr. Blande the Surveyor shall immediately goe and run over the ground where the Town is to Stand and that they shall then advise and direct M^r Samson Darrell the Cheife undertaker of the Court house for this County where he shall Erect and build the same."[24] The court's order was followed by a hectic sequence that reflects, in general, the irresponsibilities, the lack of respect for law and order, and the frontier weaknesses which made it necessary to strengthen authority. It begins with Sampson Darrell himself, whose moral shortcomings seem to have been legion (hog-stealing, cheating a widow, and refusing to give indentured servants their freedom after they had earned it, to name a few). Darrell undoubtedly had the fastidious Fitzhugh's confidence, for certainly without that he would not have been appointed undertaker at all. In his position in the court, Fitzhugh would have been instrumental in selecting both architect and architecture for the courthouse, and Darrell seems to have met his requirements. Fitzhugh, in fact, had sufficient confidence in Darrell to entrust him with personal business in London in 1688.[25] Although several months elapsed before a site was chosen, enough of the new building was erected by October to shelter the court for its monthly assembly. In the course of this session, there occurred a "most mischievous and dangerous Riot,"[26] which rather violently inaugurated the new building. During this disturbance, the pastor of Potomac Parish, Parson John Waugh,[27] upbraided the court while it was "seated" and took occasion to call Fitzhugh a Papist. The court, taking cognizance of "disorders, misrules and Riots" and "the Fatal consequences of such unhappy malignant and Tumultuous proceeding," thereupon restricted the sale of liquor on court days (thus revealing what was at least accessory to the disturbance).[28] Fitzhugh's letter to the court concerning this episode mentions the "Court House" and the "Court house yard," adding to Happel's ample documentation that the new building was by now in use. During the November session, James Mussen was ordered into custody for having "dangerously wounded M^r. Sampson Darrell."[29] This suggests that the sequence of disturbances may have been associated with the unfinished state of the courthouse, which, like the town, symbolized the purposes of Fitzhugh and the property-owning aristocracy. Certain it is that Darrell, publicly identified with Fitzhugh, was violently assaulted and that "a complaint was made to this Court that Sampson Darrell the chief undertaker of the building and Erecting of a Court house for this county had not performed the same according to articles of agreement." He and Bayley accordingly were put under bond to finish the building by June 10, 1692. By February Bayley was complaining that he had not been paid for his work, "notwithstanding your pet^r as is well known to the whole County hath done all the carpenters work thereof and is ready to perform what is yet wanting." On May 12, less than a month from the deadline for completion, Darrell was ordered to pay Bayley the money owing, and Bayley was instructed to go on with the work. Nearly six months later, on November 10, Darrell again was directed to pay Bayley the full balance of his wages, but only "after the said Ambrose Bayley shall have finished and Compleatly ended the Court house."[30] No description of the courthouse has been found. The Act of 1663 seems to have required a brick building, although its wording is ambiguous. Even if it did stipulate brick, the law was 28 years old in 1691, and its requirements probably were ignored. Although Bayley, the builder, was a carpenter, this would not preclude the possibility that he supervised bricklayers and other artisans. Brick courthouses were not unknown; one was standing in Warwick when the Act for Ports was passed in 1691. Yet, the York courthouse, built in 1692, was a simple building, probably of wood.[31] In any case, the Stafford courthouse was a structure large enough to have required more than a year and a half to build, but not so elaborate as to have cost more than 40,000 pounds of tobacco. FOOTNOTES: [22] RALPH HAPPEL, "Stafford and King George Courthouses and the Fate of Marlborough, Port of Entry," _VHM_ (Richmond, 1958), vol. 66, pp. 183-194. [23] Stafford County Order Book, 1689-1694, p. 187. [24] Ibid., p. 122. [25] _William Fitzhugh and His Chesapeake World (1676-1701)_, op. cit. (footnote 3), p. 241. [26] Stafford County Order Book, 1689-1694, p. 194. [27] Ibid., p. 182. [28] In Virginia recurrent English fears of Catholic domination were reflected at this time in hysterical rumors that the Roman Catholics of Maryland were plotting to stir up the Indians against Virginia. In Stafford County these suspicions were inflamed by the harangues of Parson John Waugh, minister of Stafford Parish church and Chotank church. Waugh, who seems to have been a rabble rouser, appealed to the same small landholders and malcontents as those who, a generation earlier, had followed Nathaniel Bacon's leadership. So seriously did the authorities at Jamestown regard the disturbance at Stafford courthouse that they sent three councillors to investigate. See "Notes," _William & Mary College Quarterly Historical Magazine_ (Richmond, 1907), 1st ser., vol. 15, pp. 189-190 (hereinafter designated _WMQ_) [1]; and Richard Beale Davis' introduction to _William Fitzhugh and His Chesapeake World_, op. cit. (footnote 3), pp. 35-39, and p. 251. [29] Stafford County Order Book, 1689-1694, p. 167. [30] Ibid., pp. 194, 267, 313. [31] HENING, op. cit. (footnote 1), vol. 3, p. 60; EDWARD M. RILEY, "The Colonial Courthouses of York County, Virginia," _William & Mary College Quarterly Historical Magazine_ (Williamsburg, 1942), 2nd ser., vol. 22, pp. 399-404 (hereinafter designated _WMQ_ [2]). LOCATION OF THE STAFFORD COURTHOUSE The location of the building is indicated by a notation on Buckner's plat of the port town: "The fourth course (runs) down along by the Gutt between Geo: Andrew's & the Court house to Potomack Creek." A glance at the plat (fig. 2) will disclose that the longitudinal boundaries of all the lots south of a line between George Andrews' "Gutt" run parallel to this fourth course. Plainly, the courthouse was situated near the head of the gutt, where the westerly boundary course changed, near the end of "The Broad Street Across the Town." It may be significant that the foundation (Structure B) on which John Mercer's mansion was later built is located in this vicinity. In or about the year 1718 the courthouse "burnt Down,"[32] while it was reported as "being become ruinous" in 1720, with its "Situation very inconvenient for the greater part of the Inhabitants." It was then agreed to build a new courthouse "at the head of Ocqua Creek."[33] Aquia Creek was probably meant, but this must have been an error and the "head of Potomac Creek" intended instead. Happel shows that it was built on the south side of Potomac Creek. Thus, the burning of the Marlborough courthouse in 1718 merely speeded up the forces that led to the end of the town's career. FOOTNOTES: [32] Petition of John Mercer, loc. cit. (footnote 17). [33] _Executive Journals of the Council of Colonial Virginia_ (Richmond, 1930), vol. 2, p. 527. MARLBOROUGH PROPERTY OWNERS Not only was Marlborough foredoomed by external decrees and adverse official decisions, but much of its failure was rooted in the local elements by which it was constituted. The great majority of lot holders were the "gentlemen" who were so carefully distinguished from "all other of the Inhabitants" in the order to survey the town in 1691. Most were leading personages in Stafford, and we may assume that their purchases of lots were made in the interests of investment gains, not in establishing homes or businesses. Only three or four yeomen and ordinary keepers seem to have settled in the town. Sampson Darrell, for example, held two lots, but he lived at Aquia Creek.[34] Francis Hammersley was a planter who married Giles Brent's widow and lived at "The Retirement," one of the Brent estates.[35] George Brent, nephew of the original Giles Brent, was law partner of William Fitzhugh, and had been appointed Receiver General of the Northern Neck in 1690. His brother Robert also was a lot holder. Both lived at Woodstock, and presumably they did not maintain residences at the port town.[36] Other leading citizens were Robert Alexander, Samuel Hayward, and Martin Scarlett, but again there is little likelihood that they were ever residents of the town. John Waugh, the uproarious pastor of Potomac Parish, also was a lot holder, but he lived on the south side of Potomac Creek in a house which belonged to Mrs. Anne Meese of London. His failure to pay for that house after 11 years' occupancy of it, which led to a suit in which Fitzhugh was the prosecutor, does not suggest that he ever arrived at building a house in the port town.[37] Captain George Mason was a distinguished individual who lived at "Accokeek," about a mile and a half from Marlborough. He certainly built in the town, for in 1691 he petitioned for a license to "keep an ordinary at the Town or Port for this county." The petition was granted on condition that he "find a good and Sufficient maintenance and reception both for man and horse." Captain Mason was grandfather of George Mason of Gunston Hall, author of the Virginia Bill of Rights, and was, at one time or another, sheriff, lieutenant colonel and commander in chief of the Stafford Rangers, and a burgess. He participated in putting down the uprising of Nanticoke Indians in 1692, bringing in captives for trial at the unfinished courthouse in March of that year.[38] Despite his interest in the town, however, it is unlikely that he ever lived there. Another lot owner was Captain Malachi Peale, whose lease of the town land from the Brents had been purchased when the site was selected. He also was an important figure, having been sheriff. He may well have lived on one of his three lots, since he was a resident of the Neck to begin with. John Withers, one of the first feoffees and a justice of the peace, was a lot holder also. George Andrews and Peter Beach, somewhat less distinguished, were perhaps the only full-time residents from among the first grantees. After 1708 Thomas Ballard and possibly William Barber were also householders. Thus, few of the ingredients of an active community were to be found at Marlborough, the skilled craftsmen or ship's chandlers or merchants who might have provided the vitality of commerce and trade not having at any time been present. FOOTNOTES: [34] Stafford County Order Book, 1689-1694, p. 251. [35] John Mercer's Land Book, loc. cit. (footnote 12); _William Fitzhugh and His Chesapeake World_, op. cit. (footnote 3), p. 209. [36] Ibid., pp. 76, 93, 162, 367. [37] Stafford County Order Book, 1689-1694, p. 203; _William Fitzhugh and His Chesapeake World_, op. cit. (footnote 3), pp. 209, 211. [38] Ibid., pp. 184, 230; John Mercer's Land Book, op. cit. (footnote 12); _William Fitzhugh and His Chesapeake World_, op. cit. (footnote 3), p. 38. HOUSING It is likely that most of the houses in the town conformed to the minimum requirements of 20 by 20 feet. They were probably all of wood, a story and a half high with a chimney built against one end. Forman describes a 20-foot-square house foundation at Jamestown, known as the "House on Isaac Watson's Land." This had a brick floor and a fireplace large enough to take an 8-foot log as well as a setting for a brew copper. The ground floor consisted of one room, and there was probably a loft overhead providing extra sleeping and storage space.[39] The original portion of the Digges house at Yorktown, built following the Port Act of 1705 and still standing, is a brick house, also 20 feet square and a story and a half high. Yet, brick houses certainly were not the rule. In remote Stafford County, shortly before the port town was built, the houses of even well-placed individuals were sometimes extremely primitive. William Fitzhugh wrote in 1687 to his lawyer and merchant friend Nicholas Hayward in London, "Your brother Joseph's building that Shell, of a house without Chimney or partition, & not one tittle of workmanship about it more than a Tobacco house work, carry'd him into those Arrears with your self & his other Employees, as you found by his Accots. at his death."[40] Ancient English puncheon-type construction, with studs and posts set three feet into the ground, was still in use at Marlborough in 1691, as we know from the contract for building a prison quoted by Happel.[41] No doubt the houses there varied in quality, but we may be sure that most were crude, inexpertly built, of frame or puncheon-type construction, and subject to deterioration by rot and insects. FOOTNOTES: [39] HENRY CHANDLEE FORMAN, _Jamestown and St. Mary's_ (Baltimore, 1938), pp. 135-137. [40] _William Fitzhugh and His Chesapeake World_, op. cit. (footnote 3), p. 203. [41] HAPPEL, op. cit. (footnote 22), p. 186; Stafford County Order Book, 1689-1694, pp. 210-211. FURNISHINGS OF TWO MARLBOROUGH HOUSES Like George Mason, George Andrews ran an ordinary at the port town, having been licensed in 1693, and he also kept the ferry across Potomac Creek.[42] He died in 1698, leaving the property to his grandson John Cave. From the inventory of his estate recorded in the Stafford County records (Appendix A) we obtain a picture not only of the furnishings of a house in the port town, but also of what constituted an ordinary.[43] We are left with no doubt that as a hostelry Andrews' house left much to be desired. There were no bedsteads, although six small feather beds with bolsters and one old and small flock bed are listed. (Flock consisted of tufted and fragmentary pieces of wool and cotton, while "Bed" referred not to a bedframe or bedstead but to the tick or mattress.) There were two pairs of curtains and valances. In the 17th century a valance was "A border of drapery hanging around the canopy of a bed."[44] Curtains customarily were suspended from within the valance from bone or brass curtain rings on a rod or wire, and were drawn around the bed for privacy or warmth. Where high post bedsteads were used, the curtains and valances were supported on the rectangular frame of the canopy or tester. Since George Andrews did not list any bedsteads, it is possible that his curtains and valances were hung from bracketed frames above low wooden frames that held the bedding. Six of his beds were covered with "rugs," one of which was "Turkey work." There is no indication of sheets or other refinements for sleeping. Andrews' furniture was old, but apparently of good quality. Four "old" cane chairs, which may have dated back as far as 1660, were probably English, of carved walnut. The "old" table may have had a turned or a joined frame, or possibly may have been a homemade trestle table. An elegant touch was the "carpet," which undoubtedly covered it. Chests of drawers were rare in the 17th century, so it is surprising to find one described here as "old." A "cupboard" was probably a press or court cupboard for the display of plates and dishes and perhaps the pair of "Tankards" listed in the inventory. The latter may have been pewter or German stoneware with pewter mounts. The "couch" was a combination bed and settee. As in every house there were chests, but of what sort or quality we can only surmise. A "great trunk" provided storage. Andrews' hospitality as host is symbolized by his _lignum vitae_ punchbowl. Punch itself was something of an innovation and had first made its appearance in England aboard ships arriving from India early in the 1600's. It remained a sailor's drink throughout most of the century, but had begun to gain in general popularity before 1700 in the colonies. What is more remarkable here, however, is the container. Edward M. Pinto states that such _lignum vitae_ "wassail" bowls were sometimes large enough to hold five gallons of punch and were kept in one place on the table, where all present took part in the mixing. They were lathe-turned and usually stood on pedestals.[45] George Andrews' nutmeg graters, silver spoons, and silver dram cup for tasting the spirits that were poured into the punch were all elegant accessories. Another resident whose estate was inventoried was Peter Beach.[46] One of his executors was Daniel Beach, who was paid 300 pounds of tobacco annually from 1700 to 1703 for "sweeping" and "cleaning" the courthouse (Appendix B). Beach's furnishings were scarcely more elaborate than Andrews'. Unlike Andrews, he owned four bedsteads, which with their curtains and fittings (here called "furniture") varied in worth from 100 to 1500 pounds of tobacco. Here again was a cupboard, while there were nine chairs with "flag" seats and "boarded" backs (rush-seated chairs, probably of the "slat-back" or "ladder-back" variety). Eight more chairs and five stools were not described. A "parcel of old tables" was listed, but only one table appears to have been in use. There were pewter and earthenware, but a relatively few cooking utensils. An "old" pewter tankard was probably the most elegant drinking vessel, while one candlestick was a grudging concession to the need for artificial light. The only books were two Bibles; the list mentions a single indentured servant. FOOTNOTES: [42] Stafford County Order Book, 1689-1694, p. 195. [43] Stafford County Will Book, Liber Z, pp. 168-169. [44] _A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles_ (Oxford, 1928), vol. 10, pt. 2, p. 18. [45] EDWARD H. PINTO, _Treen, or Small Woodware Throughout the Ages_ (London, 1949), p. 20. [46] Stafford County Will Book, Liber Z, pp. 158-159. THE GREGG SURVEY In 1707, after the revival of the Port Act, the new county surveyor, Thomas Gregg, made another survey of the town. This was done apparently without regard to Buckner's original survey. Since Gregg adopted an entirely new system of numbering, and since his survey was lost at an early date, it is impossible to locate by their description the sites of the lots granted in 1708 and after. Forty years later John Mercer wrote: It is certain that Thomas Gregg (being the Surveyor of Stafford County) did Sep 2^d 1707 make a new Survey of the Town.... it is as certain that Gregg had no regard either to the bounds or numbers of the former Survey since he begins his Numbers the reverse way making his number 1 in the corner at Buckner's 19 & as his Survey is not to be found its impossible to tell how he continued his Numbers. No scheme I have tried will answer, & the Records differ as much, the streets according to Buckner's Survey running thro the House I lived in built by Ballard tho his whole lot was ditched in according to the Bounds made by Gregg.[47] Whatever the intent may have been in laying out formal street and lot plans, Marlborough was essentially a rustic village. If Gregg's plat ran streets through the positions of houses on the Buckner survey, and vice versa, it is clear that not much attention was paid to theoretical property lines or streets. Ballard apparently dug a boundary ditch around his lot, according to Virginia practice in the 17th century, but the fact that this must have encroached on property assigned to somebody else on the basis of the Buckner survey seems not to have been noted at the time. Rude houses placed informally and connected by lanes and footpaths, the courthouse attempting to dominate them like a village schoolmaster in a class of country bumpkins, a few outbuildings, a boat landing or two, some cultivated land, and a road leading away from the courthouse to the north with another running in the opposite direction to the creek--this is the way Marlborough must have looked even in its best days in 1708. FOOTNOTES: [47] John Mercer's Land Book, loc. cit. (footnote 12). THE DEATH OF MARLBOROUGH AS A TOWN Could this poor village have survived had the courthouse not burned? It was an unhappy contrast to the vision of a town governed by "benchers of the guild hall," bustling with mercantile activity, swarming on busy market days with ordinaries filled with people. This fantasy may have pulsated briefly through the minds of a few. But, after the abrogation of the Port Act in 1710, there was little left to justify the town's existence other than the courthouse. So long as court kept, there was need for ordinaries and ferries and for independent jacks-of-all-trades like Andrews. But with neither courthouse nor port activity nor manufacture, the town became a paradox in an economy and society of planters. Remote and inaccessible, uninhabited by individuals whose skills could have given it vigor, Marlborough no longer had any reason for being. It lingered on for a short time, but when John Mercer came to transform the abandoned village into a flourishing plantation, "Most of the other Buildings were suffered to go to Ruin, so that in the year 1726, when your Petitioner [i.e., Mercer] went to live there, but one House twenty-feet square was standing."[48] FOOTNOTES: [48] Petition of John Mercer, loc. cit. (footnote 17). II _John Mercer's Occupation of Marlborough, 1726-1730_ MERCER'S ARRIVAL IN STAFFORD COUNTY By 1723 Marlborough lay abandoned. George Mason (III), son of the late sheriff and ordinary keeper in the port town, held the now-empty title of feoffee, together with Rice Hooe. In that year Mason and Hooe petitioned the General Court "that Leave may be given to bring in a Bill to enable them to sell the said Land [of the town] the same not being built upon or Inhabited." The petition was put aside for consideration," but within a week--on May 21, 1723--it was "ordered That Rice Hooe & George Mason be at liberty to withdraw their petition ... and that the Committee to whom it was referred be discharged from proceeding thereon."[49] This curious sequence remains unexplained. Had the committee informally advised the feoffees that their cause would be rejected, suggesting, therefore, that they withdraw their petition? Or had something unexpected occurred to provide an alternative solution to the problem of Marlborough? Possibly it was the latter, and the unexpected occurrence may have been the arrival in Stafford County of young John Mercer. There is no direct evidence that Mercer was in the vicinity as early as 1723; but we know that he appeared before 1725, that he had by then become well acquainted with George Mason, and that he settled in Marlborough in 1726. Mercer's remarkable career began with his arrival in Virginia at the age of 16. Born in Dublin in 1704, the son of a Church Street merchant of English descent--also named John Mercer--and of Grace Fenton Mercer, John was educated at Trinity College, and then sailed for the New World in 1720.[50] How Mercer arrived in Virginia or what means he brought with him are lost to the record. From his own words written toward the end of his life we know that he was not overburdened with wealth: "Except my education I never got a shilling of my fathers or any other relations estate, every penny I ever got has been by my own industry & with as much fatigue as most people have undergone."[51] From his second ledger (the first, covering the years 1720-1724, having been lost) we learn that he was engaged in miscellaneous trading, sailing up and down the rivers in his sloop and exchanging goods along the way. Where his home was in these early years we do not know, but it would appear that he had been active in the Stafford County region for some time, judging from the fact that by 1725 he had accumulated £322 4s. 5-1/2d. worth of tobacco in a warehouse at the falls of the Rappahannock.[52] He certainly had encountered George Mason before then, and probably Mason's uncles, John, David, and James Waugh, the sons of Parson John Waugh, all of whom owned idle Marlborough properties. Mercer's friendship with the Masons was sufficiently well established by 1725 that on June 10 of that year he married George's sister Catherine. This marriage, most advantageous to an aspiring young man, was celebrated at Mrs. Ann Fitzhugh's in King George County with the Reverend Alexander Scott of Overwharton Parish in Stafford County officiating.[53] Thus, allied to an established family that was "old" by standards of the time and sponsored socially by a representative of the Fitzhughs, Mercer was admitted at the age of 21 to Virginia's growing aristocracy. In this animated and energetic youth, the Masons and Waughs probably saw the means of bringing Marlborough back to life. Mercer, for his part, no doubt recognized the advantages that Marlborough offered, with its sheltered harbor and landing, its fertile, flat fields, and airy situation. That it could be acquired piecemeal at a minimum of investment through the provisions of the Act for Ports was an added inducement. FOOTNOTES: [49] _JHB, 1712-1726_ (Richmond, 1912), pp. 336, 373. [50] "Journals of the Council of Virginia in Executive Session 1737-1763," _VHM_ (Richmond, 1907), vol. 14, pp. 232-235. [51] _George Mercer Papers Relating to the Ohio Company of Virginia_, comp. and edit. by Lois Mulkearn (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1954), p. 204. [52] John Mercer's Ledger B is the principal source of information for this chapter. It was begun in 1725 and ended in 1732. The original copy is in the library of the Bucks County Historical Society, Doylestown, Pennsylvania, a photostatic copy being in the Virginia State Library. Further footnoted references to the ledger are omitted, since the source in each case is recognizable. [53] JAMES MERCER GARNET, "James Mercer," _WMQ_ [1] (Richmond, 1909), vol. 17, pp. 85-98. Mrs. Ann Fitzhugh was the widow of William Fitzhugh III, who died in 1713/14. She was the daughter of Richard Lee and lived at "Eagle's Nest" in King George County (see "The Fitzhugh Family," VHM [Richmond, 1900], vol. 7, pp. 317-318). JOHN MERCER AS A TRADER During 1725 Mercer pressed ahead with his trading enterprises. From his ledger we learn that he sold Richard Ambler of Yorktown 710 pounds of "raw Deerskins" for £35 10s. and bought £200 worth of "sundry goods" from him. Between October 1725 and February 1726 he sold a variety of furnishings and equipment to Richard Johnson, ranging from a "horsewhip" and a "silk Rugg" to "1/2 doz. Shoemaker's knives" and an "Ivory Comb." In return he received two hogsheads of tobacco, "a Gallon of syder Laceground," and raw and dressed deerskins. He maintained a similar long account with Mosley Battaley (Battaille) (Appendix C). From William Rogers of Yorktown[54] he bought £12 3s. 6d. worth of earthenware, presumably for resale. The tobacco which he had accumulated at the falls of the Rappahannock he sold for cash to the Gloucester firm of Whiting & Montague, paying Peter Kemp two pounds "for the extraordinary trouble of y^r coming up so far for it." [Illustration: Figure 3.--PORTRAIT OF JOHN MERCER, artist unknown. About 1750. (_Courtesy of Mrs. Thomas B. Payne._)] His sloop was the principal means by which Mercer conducted his business. Occasionally he rented it for hire, once sharing the proceeds of a load of oystershells with George Mason and one Edgeley, who had sailed the sloop to obtain the shells. Only one item shows that Mercer extended his mercantile activities to slaves: on February 18, 1726, he sold a mulatto woman named Sarah to Philemon Cavanaugh "to be paid in heavy tobacco each hhd to weigh 300 Neat." That Mercer was turning in the direction of a legal career is revealed in his first account of "Domestick Expenses" for the fall of 1725 (Appendix D). We find that he was attending court sessions far and wide: "Cash for Exp^s at Stafford & Spotsylvania," "Cash for Exp^s Urbanna," the same for "Court Ferrage at Keys." He already was reading in the law, and lent "March's Actions of Slander," "Washington's Abridgm^t of y^e Statutes," and "an Exposition of the Law Terms" to Mosley Battaley. FOOTNOTES: [54] William Rogers, who died in 1739, made earthenware and stoneware at Yorktown after 1711. See C. MALCOLM WATKINS and IVOR NOËL HUME, "The 'Poor Potter' of Yorktown" (paper 54 in _Contributions from the Museum of History and Technology_, U.S. National Museum Bulletin 249, by various authors; Washington: Smithsonian Institution), 1967. SETTING UP HOUSEKEEPING Mercer's domestic-expense account is full of evidence that he was preparing to set up housekeeping. He bought "1 China punch bowl," 10s.; "6 glasses," 3s.; "1 box Iron & heaters," 2s. 6d.; "1 p^r fine blankets," 1s. 13d.; "Earthen ware," 10s.; "5 Candlesticks," 17s. 6d.; "1 Bed Cord," 2s.; "3 maple knives & forks," 2s.; "1 yew haft knife & fork & 1 p^r Stilds [steelyards?]," 1s. 10-1/2d.; "1 p^r Salisbury Scissors," 2s. 6d.; and "1 speckled knife & fork," 5d. In addition, he accepted as payment for various cloth and materials sold to Mrs. Elizabeth Russell the following furniture and furnishings: Ster. £ s. d. By a writing desk D^o 5 By a glass & Cover D^o 7 6 By 18^l Pewter at 1/4 D^o 1 4 By 6 tea Cups & Sawcers 2/ D^o 12 By 2 Chocolate Cups 1/ D^o 2 By 2 Custard Cups 9^d D^o 1 6 By 1 Tea Table painted with fruit D^o 14 By 6 leather Chairs @ 7/ 2 2 By a small walnut eating table 8 By 1/2 doz. Candlemoulds 10 By a Tea table 18 By a brass Chafing dish 5 By 6 copper tart pans 6 At the time of this purchase, the only house standing at Marlborough was that built by Thomas Ballard in 1708. It was inherited by his godson David Waugh,[55] who now apparently offered to let his niece Catherine and her new husband occupy it. Mercer later referred to it as "the House I lived in built by Ballard."[56] From his own records we know that he moved to Marlborough in 1726. He did so probably in the summer, since on June 11 he settled with Charles McClelland for "cleaning out y^e house." Unoccupied for years and small in size, it was a humble place in which to set up housekeeping, and indeed must have needed "cleaning out." It also must have needed extensive repairs, since Mercer purchased 1500 tenpenny nails "used about it." Throughout 1726 Mercer acquired household furnishings, made repairs and improvements, and obtained the necessities of a plantation. On February 1 he acquired "3 Ironbacks" (cast-iron firebacks for fireplaces) for £8 4s. 2d., as well as "2 p^r hand Irons" for 15s. 5d., from Edmund Bagge. From George Rust he bought "3 Cows & Calves" for £7 10s., a featherbed for £3 10s., and an "Iron pot" for 5s. His reckoning with John Dogge opens with a poignant note, "By a Child's Coffin": Mercer's first-born child had died. On the same account was "an Oven," bought for 17 shillings. Dogge also was credited with "bringing over 10 sheep from Sumners" (a plantation at Passapatanzy, south of Potomac Creek). Rawleigh Chinn was paid for "plowing up & fencing in my yard" and for "fetching 3 horses over the Creek." Also credited to Chinn was an item revealing Mercer's sporting enthusiasm: "went on y^e main race ... 15/." From Alexander Buncle, Mercer acquired one dozen table knives, three chamber-door locks, two pairs of candle snuffers, and two broad axes. His account with Alexander McFarlane in 1726, the credit side of which is quoted here in part, is a further illustration of the variety of hardware and consumable goods that he required: £ s. d. 2 p^r men's Shooes 9 1 Razor & penknife 2 6 2-1/4 gall Rum 6 9 9 gals. molasses 13 12^1 brown Sugar 6 6-1/4 double refined D^o 20^d 10 5 1 felt hat 2 4 1 q^t Limejuice 1 2 doz. Claret 1 10 2 lanthorns 6 1 funnell 7-1/2 1 quart & 1 pint tin pot 1 10-1/2 * * * By 2 doz & 8 bottles Claret 2 8 By a woman's horsewhip 3 By 1^{oz} Gunpowder By 10^l Shot By 1 wom^s bound felt [hat] Mercer's comments, added three years later to this record, signify the complexities of credit accounting in the plantation economy: "In July 1729 I settled Accounts w^{th} M^r M^cFarlane & paid him off & at the same time having Ed Barry's note on him for 1412^l Tob^o (his goods being extravagantly dear) I paid him 1450^l Tob^o to M^r Thos Smith to ball^{ns} accts." Another of Mercer's accounts was with Edward Simm. From Simm, Mercer acquired the following in 1726: £ s. d. 1 horsewhip 4 1 fine hat 12 9 y^{ds} bedtick 3/4 1 10 1 p^r Spurs 8 1 Curry Comb & brush 2 9 2 p^r mens Shooes 5/ 10 1 p^r Chelloes 1 10 2 p^r wom^s gloves 2/ 4 2 p^r D^o thread hose 9 2 p^r mens worsted d^o 8 2 p^r ch^{kr} yarn 3 4 1 Sifter 2 1 frying pan 4 6 7 quire of paper 1-1/4 9 8 6 silk Laces 4^d 2 FOOTNOTES: [55] John Mercer's Land Book, loc. cit. (footnote 12). [56] Petition of John Mercer, loc. cit. (footnote 17). ACQUIRING LAND AND BUILDING A NEW HOUSE Mercer's first actual ownership of property came as a result of his marriage. In 1725 he purchased from his wife Catherine 885 acres of land near Potomac Church for £221 5s. and another tract of 1610 acres on Potomac Run for £322.[57] His occupancy of the Ballard house, meanwhile, was arranged on a most informal basis, three years having been allowed to pass before he paid his first and only rent--a total of 12 shillings--to his uncle-in-law David Waugh. In January 1730 the following appears under "Domestick Expenses": "To bringing the frame of my house from Jervers to Marlbro ... 40/." Associated with this are items for 2000 tenpenny nails, 2000 eightpenny nails, and 1000 sixpenny nails, together with "To Chandler Fowke for plank," "To J^{no} Chambers &c bring board from Landing," and "To John Chambers & Robt Collins for bringing Bricks & Oyster Shells." In the same month the account of Anthony Linton and Henry Suddath includes the following: By building a house at Marlborough when finished by agreement £10.0.0 By covering my house & building a Chimney 3.0.0 Clearly, the Mercers had outgrown the temporary shelter which the little Ballard house had given them. Now a new house was under construction, with the steps plainly indicated. To obtain timber of sufficient size to frame the house it was necessary to go where the trees grew. The nearest thickly forested area was north of Potomac Creek and Potomac Run. The appropriate timbers apparently grew on property owned by Mercer but occupied by the widow of James Jervis (or "Jervers"). Not only did the trees grow there, but we may be sure that there they were also felled, hewn, and cut, and the finished members fitted together on the ground to form the frame of the new house. It was a time-honored English building practice to prepare the timbers where they were felled, shaping them, drilling holes for "trunnels" (wooden pegs or "tree nails"), inscribing coded numbers with lumber markers, and then knocking the prefabricated members apart and transporting them to the building site.[58] Oystershells and bricks for the chimney were brought from Cedar Point and Boyd's Hole, south of Marlborough, by Chambers and Collins. Shells were probably burned at the house site to make lime for mortar. Chambers was paid 12 pence a day for 32-1/2 days' work spread over a period from October 1730 to February 1731. Hugh French had been paid for 1000 bricks on August 24, 1730, while James Jones, on October 3, 1730, was recompensed three shillings for "9 days of work your Man plaistering my House & making 2 brick backs." [Illustration: Figure 4.--THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF JOHN MERCER. Detail from J. Dalrymple's revision (1755) of the map of Virginia by Joseph Fry and Peter Jefferson. Marlborough is incorrectly designated "New Marleboro." (_Courtesy of the Library of Congress._)] The new house was thus brought to completion early in 1731. That it was a plain and simple house is apparent from the small amount of labor and the relatively few quantities of material. It appears to have had two fireplaces only and one chimney. Although the house was wooden, there is no evidence that it had any paint whatsoever, inside or out. FOOTNOTES: [57] John Mercer's Land Book, loc. cit. (footnote 12). [58] CHARLES F. INNOCENT, _The Development of English Building Construction_ (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1916), pp. 23-61. FURNISHING THE HOUSE Other than a child's chair and a bedstead costing 10 shillings, purchased from Enoch Innes in 1729, little furniture was acquired before 1730. Listed in "Domestick Expenses" for 1729-1730 are minor accessories for the new house, such as HL hinges, closet locks, a "scimmer," a pair of brass candlesticks, milk pans, pestle and mortar, "1/2 doz plates," a "Cullender," a candlebox, earthenware, and a pepperbox, together with several handtools. MERCER'S VARIED ACTIVITIES AND INTERESTS The agricultural aspects of a plantation were increasingly in evidence. In 1729 Rawleigh Chinn was paid for "helping to kill the Hogs," "pasturage of my cattle," and "making a gate." Edward Floyd was credited with £4 6s. 7-1/2d. for "Wintering Cattle, taking care of my horse & Sheep to Aug. 1729." John Chinn seems to have been Mercer's jockey, for as early as 1729 he was entering the races which abounded in Virginia, and "went on y^e race w^{th} Colt 1729." In this early period we find considerable evidence of a typical young Virginian's fondness for gaming and sport. One finds scattered through Mercer's account with Robert Spotswood such items as "To won at the Race ... 8.9" and "To won at Liew at Col^o Mason's ... 7.3." (Loo was an elegant 18th-century game played with Chinese-carved mother-of-pearl counters.) Mercer participated in several sporting events at Stafford courthouse, for court sessions continued, as in the previous century, to be social as well as legal and political occasions. This is illustrated in a credit to Joseph Waugh: "By won at a horse race at Stafford Court and Attorney's fee ... £1."; on the debit side of Enoch Innes's account: "To won at Quoits & running with you ... 1/3"; and in Thomas Hudson's account, where four shillings were marked up "To won pitching at Stafford Court." Mercer's diversions were few enough, nevertheless, and it is apparent that he devoted more time to reading than to gaming. In 1726 he borrowed from John Graham (or Graeme) a library of 56 volumes belonging to the "Hon^{ble} Col^o Spotswood"[59] (Appendix E). Ranging from the Greek classics to English history, and including Milton, Congreve, Dryden, Cole's Dictionary, "Williams' Mathematical Works," and "Present State of Russia," they were the basis for a solid education. That they included no lawbooks at a time when Mercer was preparing for the law is an indication of his broad taste for literature and learning. Marlborough, we can see, was occupied by a young man of talent, energy, and creativity. He alone, of the many men who had envisioned a center of enterprise on Potomac Neck, was possessed of the drive and the simple directness to make it succeed. For George Mason and the Waughs, Mercer was the ideal solution for their Marlborough difficulties. FOOTNOTES: [59] Col. Alexander Spotswood, Governor of Virginia and a resident of Spotsylvania County, was at this time living in London. He authorized John Graham (or Graeme) of St. James, Clerkenwell, Middlesex, to "take possession of his iron works in Virginia, with plantations, negroes, stocks, and manage the same." By 1732 Spotswood regretted that he had "committed his affairs to the care of a mathematician, whose thoughts were always among the stars." In 1737 Graham became professor of natural philosophy and mathematics in the College of William and Mary. See "Historical & Genealogical Notes," WMQ [1] (Richmond, 1909), vol. 17, p. 301 (quoting Basset, _Writings of William Byrd_, p. 378). III _Mercer's Consolidation of Marlborough, 1730-1740_ MERCER THE YOUNG LAWYER The 1730's opened a golden age in the Virginia colony. There was an interval of peace in which trade might flourish; there were new laws which favored the tobacco planter and led to the building of resplendent mansions along Virginia's shores. John Mercer wasted no time in grasping the opportunities that lay about him. With shrewd foresight he made law his major objective, thus raising himself above most of his contemporaries. At the same time he began an extensive purchasing of property, so that within a decade he was to become one of the major landed proprietors in the colony. Planting and legal practice each augmented the other in Mercer's prosperity, which was assured by a classic combination of energy, ability, and outgoing personality. As with many successful men, Mercer had an eye for meticulous detail; the documents he left behind were a treasury of methodically kept records. His Ledger B reveals that as early as 1730 his legal career was becoming firmly established. It records fee accounts, charges for drawing deeds, writing bonds, and representing clients in various courts. In that year he "subscribed to Laws of Virginia" through William Parks, the Williamsburg printer and stationer, and began to build up a substantial law library, which was augmented by the purchase of 40 lawbooks from Robert Beverley. DIFFICULTIES IN ACQUIRING MARLBOROUGH On October 13, 1730, Mercer obtained title from David Waugh to the Ballard house and lots on the basis of the "Statute for transforming uses into possessions." At the same time he acquired the three lots originally granted to John Waugh, while nine months later he was given the release of the three lots inherited by George Mason from his father.[60] Mercer's foothold in Marlborough was now secure. Following these developments, he "employed the County Surveyor to lay off the several Lots he had purchased," which led to the discovery of the previously mentioned disparities and conflicts between the Buckner survey of 1691 and the missing Gregg survey of 1707. For some reason the town now lacked feoffees, so Mercer "applied to the County Court of Stafford on the tenth day of June one thousand seven hundred and thirty-one and the said Court then appointed Henry Fitzhugh Esquire and James Markham Gent. Feofees of the said Town." Mercer stated that he "proposed making great Improvements ... and wanted to take up several other Lots to build on." The court thereupon ordered John Savage, the county surveyor, to make a new survey, "having regard to the Buildings and Improvements then standing"--a significant instruction, intended no doubt to permit the reconciling of conflicting titles with respect to what actually was built.[61] The new survey was laid out July 23, 1731, "in the presence of the said Feoffees," and drawn with the same plan and numbering as Buckner's, except that an additional row of lots was applied along the western border of the town, compressing slightly the former lots as planned by Buckner and pushing them eastward (fig. 2). This extra row, we have reason to believe, was added with "regard to the Buildings and Improvements then standing." At the time of the survey, the feoffees told Mercer "that he might proceed in his Buildings and Improvements on any the said Lots not before granted," promising that they would at any time make him "any Title they could lawfully pass." A proposal by Fitzhugh to give title to any lots already purchased or any which Mercer might take up under terms of the Port Act of 1705 was discouraged by Mercer's lawyer, Mr. Hopkins, who took the view that, since the three surveys conflicted, the deeds would not be good. Accordingly, Fitzhugh and Mercer applied for an "amicable Bill," or suit in chancery, in the General Court, in order "to have Savage's or any particular Survey established." The request was shelved, however, and still was unanswered in 1748. The extra row of lots and the court's instructions to Savage to make his survey with "Regard to the Buildings and Improvements then Standing" seem to be correlated. Savage made a significant notation on his survey plat: "The lots marked 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, & 21 joining to the Creek are in possession of Mr. John Mercer who claims them under Robinson, Berryman, Pope & Parry, & under Ballard & under John Waugh dec^{ed}, all w^{ch} he says have been built on and saved." On the Buckner plat the lots bearing these numbers comprise a block of six in the southwest corner of the town, extending up from the creek in two 3-tiered rows (fig. 2). The plat included the lots near the head of the "gutt" where the courthouse appears to have stood, as well as the land on which Structure B (the foundation of Mercer's mansion) was excavated. The lots appear in the same relationship on Savage's survey, except that the new row bounds them on the west. We know that the Robinson-Berryman-Pope-Parry lot was the same lot originally granted to Robert Alexander in 1691, numbered 19 on Buckner's plat. It was granted to its later owners according to the Gregg survey in 1707, and was then described as "being the first Lott known in the Survey Platt by number 1." From Mercer we have learned already that Gregg made "his number 1 in the corner at Buckner's 19." The other five lots were claimed under Ballard and John Waugh. Waugh was granted one lot in 1691--Buckner's number 20--and acquired two more in 1707. All three appear to have been in the corner block of six lots. In any case, these six lots equal the number of lots known to have been granted the above-listed lot holders. Both of Ballard's lots were granted in 1707. His lot number 19 (Gregg survey), where Mercer first lived, is described as "bounding Easterly with a lott surveyed for Mr. John Waugh Westerly with a Narrow street Northerly with a lott not yet surveyed, Southerly with the first main Street which is parallel with Potomac Creek." We do not know which of Waugh's lots is meant, nor do we know Gregg's street plan, except that it was at odds with Buckner's. But it is probable that Ballard's lot (Gregg's number 19) was the same as Buckner's number 21, that the crosstown street on Gregg's plat lay to the south of the lot rather than to the north of it, as on Buckner's plat, and that one of Waugh's lots lay to the east of it.[62] Assuming that the two acres for the courthouse were located near the head of the "gutt" and that Ballard's lot 19 was approximately the same as Buckner's 21, it is apparent that Ballard's lot must have overlapped the courthouse lots in the confusion between the two surveys. Since Mercer was living on Ballard's lot, he probably infringed on the courthouse property. Even though the courthouse had been burned and abandoned, the two acres assigned to it were required to revert to the original owner, as provided in the Act of 1667, concerning church and courthouse lands. In this case, the courthouse land, having been "deserted," had reverted to the heir of Giles Brent. Mercer's embarrassment at this state of affairs must have been great. However, the addition by Savage of a whole new row of lots along the westerly border of the town created new acreage, sufficient both to reconcile the conflict and to provide compensatory land to satisfy the Brents. Unfortunately, the Savage survey, as we have noted, was not made official, and Mercer was forced to continue his questionable occupancy of properties whose titles were in doubt. [Illustration: Figure 5.--KING WILLIAM COURTHOUSE, about 1725. Mercer often pleaded cases here. (From a Civil War period negative.) (_Courtesy of Historic American Buildings Survey, Library of Congress._)] What is most significant to us in all this is the inference that the courthouse, the Ballard house which Mercer occupied, and the Structure B foundation were all in close proximity. FOOTNOTES: [60] John Mercer's Land Book, loc. cit. (footnote 12). [61] Petition of John Mercer, loc. cit. (footnote 17). [62] Stafford County Will Book, Liber Z, pp. 407, 431, 497. LARGE PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS Mercer's next purchase of Marlborough property was on July 28, 1737, when he bought the three lots granted in 1691 to George Andrews from Andrews' grandson, John Cave. Meanwhile, he began large-scale acquisitions of lands elsewhere. By 1733 he had acquired an aggregate of 8096 acres in Prince William County. In addition, he obtained a "Lease for three Lives" on three large tracts belonging to William Brent, adjoining Marlborough, so that he controlled virtually all of Potomac Neck.[63] Thus, after 1730 we find Mercer's fortune already well established and increasing. No longer a youthful trader plying the Potomac in his sloop, he was now a gentleman planter and influential lawyer. He lived in a new house, owned some parts of Marlborough, and was building "improvements" on others. Almost overnight he had become a landed proprietor. FOOTNOTES: [63] John Mercer's Land Book, loc. cit. (footnote 12). SUCCESS AT LAW AND CONFLICTS WITH LAWYERS The source of Mercer's newly made wealth is easily discovered. His ledger shows an income from legal fees in 1730 amounting to £291 10s. 10-1/2d. In 1731 the figure climbed to £643 18s. 2d., then leveled off to £639 11s. 2-1/2d. the following year. For a young man still in his twenties and self-trained in the law, this was a remarkable achievement. His success perhaps is attributable to a single event that stemmed from youthful brashness and vigorous outspokenness. Early in 1730, in a daring gesture on behalf of property owners and taxpayers, he protested against privileges granted in an act passed by the Assembly the previous year "for encouraging Adventurers in Iron Works." Presented in the form of a proposition, the protest was read before the Stafford court by Peter Hedgman. The reaction to it in Williamsburg, once it had reached the ears of the Assembly, was immediate and angry. The House of Burgesses _Resolv'd_ That the Proposition from _Stafford_ County in relation to the Act past in the last Session of this Assembly for encouraging Adventurers in Iron Works is a scandalous and Seditious Libel Containing false and scandalous Reflections upon the Legislature and the Justices of the General Court and other Courts of this Colony. _Resolv'd_ That _John Mercer_ the Author and Writer of that paper and _Peter Hedgman_ one of the Subscribers who presented the same to the Court of Stafford County to be certified to the General Assembly are guilty of a high Misdemeanour. _Order'd_ That the said _John Mercer_ and _Peter Hedgman_ be sent for in Custody of the Serjeant at Arms attending this House to answer their said Offence at the Bar of this House.[64] Mercer and Hedgman made their apologies to the House, received their reprimands, and paid their fines. But this protest, so offensive to the dignity of the lawmakers, had its effect in forcing amendments to the act, particularly in removing the requirement for building public roads leading from the ironworks to the ore supplies and shipping points. To those living in Stafford, particularly in the neighborhood of the proposed Accokeek Ironworks, near Marlborough, this concession must have elevated Mercer to the level of a hero.[65] Mercer's frank disposition led him into other difficulties during the first years of his practice. His insistence on the prompt payment of debts and his opposition to stays of execution following suits had won him enemies at Prince William court. Charges of improper legal activities were brought against him; these were investigated at Williamsburg, with the result that on June 13, 1734, he was suspended from practicing law in Virginia for a period of six months.[66] FOOTNOTES: [64] _JHB, 1727-1734; 1736-1740_ (Richmond, 1910), p. 66. [65] Ibid., p. xxi. [66] _Executive Journals of the Council of Colonial Virginia_ (Richmond, Virginia: D. Bottom, superintendent of public printing, 1925), vol. 4, p. 328. TEMPORARY RETIREMENT, THE ABRIDGMENT, AND GUARDIANSHIP OF GEORGE MASON Deprived temporarily of his principal livelihood, Mercer set out to write an _Abridgment of the Laws of Virginia_. The task completed, he petitioned the General Court on April 23, 1735, for "leave to Print an Abridgment compil'd by him of all the Laws of this Colony & to have the benefit of the Sale thereof." On the same day he petitioned for a renewal of his license, which was granted with the exception of the right to practice in Prince William, where he was to remain _persona non grata_ generally thereafter.[67] Soon after these events his brother-in-law and old acquaintance, George Mason, drowned. Mercer was designated co-guardian of 10-year-old George Mason IV, who came to live at Marlborough. Young George later grew up to be the master of Gunston Hall and, as the author of the Virginia Bill of Rights, to stand among the intellectuals whose ideas influenced the Revolution and the framing of the Constitution. In these formative years, young George Mason surely must have been affected by the strong legal mind and cultivated tastes of his uncle.[68] On October 14, 1737, the _Virginia Gazette_ carried the following advertisement: _This Day is Published_ An Exact Abridgment of the Laws of VIRGINIA, in Force and Use, to this present time. By John Mercer. At long last, after innumerable delays, the _Abridgment_ was in print. From a financial point of view it was a conspicuous failure. Too few Virginians, apparently, were sufficiently interested to buy it. FOOTNOTES: [67] Ibid., p. 348. [68] KATE MASON ROWLAND, _The Life of George Mason_ (New York and London: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1892), vol. 1, p. 49. DOMESTIC FURNISHINGS AND SERVANTS During this eventful decade of the 1730's Mercer acquired the things needed for the proper maintenance of his house and properties. One requisite was Negro servants. From Pat Reyant he bought "a Girl named Margaret" for 43 pounds of tobacco in 1730. In 1731 he bought Deborah, Phillis, Peter, Nan, and Bob. The following year he obtained Lucy, Will, and George, and, in 1733, Nero. His purchases increased as his landholdings increased. In 1736 he bought five slaves, three of whom he aptly named Dublin, Marlborough, and Stafford. To help feed his slaves during this early period, Mercer apparently depended in part upon Stafford's wealth of natural resources. At least we find a record of wild game entered on the same page and under the same heading as his "Negroes" account in the ledger. There it is noted that he purchased 42 ducks from Natt Hedgman on November 19, 1730, and 20 ducks from Rawleigh Chinn the same day, paying for them in powder and shot. Two swans and a goose, as well as venison, appear on the list. Payment for these was made in powder, shot, and wool. He continued, meanwhile, to equip his house. From John Foward (or Foard), a London merchant, he bought a "frying pan" and "2 doz. bottles," "1 tomahawk," "2 stock-locks," "1 padlock," "2 best padlocks," "1 drawingknife," "9 p^r hinges," "3 clasp knives," and "1 gall. Maderas." In April 1731, he bought from Captain Foward: £ s. d. 1 bellmettle skillet 4-1/2^{oz} at 2/ 9 1 copper Sausepan 7 1 Small D^o 5 4 1 hunting whip 5 1 halfcheck bridle 7 1 fine hat 12 1 wig Comb 6 Also in 1731 he bought "6 rush bottom Chairs" for 17 shillings and a spinning wheel for 10 shillings from William Hamitt. The "writing desk" which he had bought in 1725 apparently needed extensive and expensive repairs, for in March 1731 there appears an item under "Domestick Expenses," "To W^m Walker for mending Scoutore £1." (_Scoutore_ was one of many corrupt spellings of _escritoire_, a slant-top desk.) William Walker was a Stafford County cabinetmaker and builder, about whom we shall hear much more. One of the most active accounts was that of Nathaniel Chapman,[69] who directed the newly established Accokeek Ironworks. In 1731 he sold Mercer several hundred nails of different descriptions, a variety of hoes, ploughs, wedges, door latches, and heaters for smoothing irons. One item is "By putting a leg in an old Iron Pott"; another is "By Col Mason p^d for mending a snuff box. 2.6" (Appendix F). In 1732 he paid Thomas Staines £1 for "a Cradle," "two Bedsteads," and "a weekes work." From John Blane, during the same year, he purchased 2500 tenpenny nails and the same quantity of eightpenny nails. He also bought from Blane 4 "basons," a porringer, 100 needles, 2 penknives, a gross of "thread buttons," and a pair of large "Scissars." Again, in 1732 he obtained from William Nisbett a quantity of miscellaneous goods, including 10 parcels of earthenware and a pewter dish weighing 4 to 5 ounces. He also settled with Samuel Stevens for "your share in making a Canoe." FOOTNOTES: [69] Nathaniel Chapman headed the Accokeek Ironworks, referred to by Mercer in Ledger G as "Chapman's Works at Head of Bay." Although Mercer had opposed the act, which gave privileges to the ironworks, he was a lifelong friend of Chapman, who testified in his behalf in 1734 and served with him on the Ohio Company Committee in the 1750's and 1760's. Chapman was executor for the estates of Lawrence and Augustine Washington. TOBACCO WAREHOUSES The Tobacco Act of 1730 provided for the erection of public tobacco warehouses, and Marlborough was selected as one of the sites.[70] In 1731 Mercer's account with John Waugh included "Timber for 2500 boards @25/.£3.2.6" and "Posts & Ceils for two Warehouses, 12 shillings." In April 1732 he settled accounts with Captain Henry Fitzhugh for "building a Warehouse & Wharf & 6 prizes" at 3000 pounds of tobacco, or £15. The prizes probably were "incentive awards" for the workmen. Included in Fitzhugh's account were "3 days work of Caesar & Will," ten shillings, and "4319 very bad Clapboards at 1/2^d y^e board." On March 25 he paid Anthony Linton for 1820 clapboards, allowing him eight shillings for "sawing of Boards." The warehouses were in operation in 1732, as we learn from Mercer's "Account of Inspectors," but they suffered the fate of all official enterprises at Marlborough, for in 1734 "the same were put down, as being found very inconvenient."[71] The actual date of their termination was November 16, 1735, when a new warehouse was scheduled for completion at the mouth of Aquia Creek.[72] The expression "put down" does not seem to mean that the warehouses were torn down, but that they were officially discontinued. He apparently, however, continued to use them for his own purposes. FOOTNOTES: [70] HENING, op. cit. (footnote 1), vol. 4, p. 268. [71] Petition of John Mercer, loc. cit. (footnote 17). [72] _JHB, 1727-1734; 1736-1740_, op. cit. (footnote 6), p. 202. PERSONAL ACTIVITIES During the 1730's Mercer recorded a minimum of recreational activities. Those that he did list are representative of the society of which he was a part. Making wagers was a favorite amusement. For example, he was owed £7 16s. by "Col^o George Braxton To a Wager you laid me at Cap^t Rob^t Brooke's house before M^r James Reid, Will^m Brooke &c Six Guineas to one that Col^o Spotswood would not during the Reign of K. George that now is, procure a Commission as Chief or Lieu^t Gov^r of Virginia." In 1731 he paid William Brent "By a pistole won of me about Hedgman's wrestling with and throwing Fra^s Dade. £1.1.12." He also paid £2 10s. to James Markham "By [my] part on the Race on Stotham's horse." There are other scattered references to wagers on horseraces. Mercer had become a vestryman in Overwharton Parish as early as 1730, and appears to have been made responsible for all legal matters pertaining to that church. His account, shown in detail in Appendix G, is of interest in showing that violations of moral law were held accountable to the church and that fines for convictions were paid to the church. Mercer, representing the parish, collected a portion of each fine as his fee. Most of his energies now seem to have been divided between the law and the substantial responsibilities for managing his plantations. The increasing extent of tobacco cultivation is revealed in the tobacco account with "M^r Jonathan Foward, Merchant in London" (presumably John Foward, mentioned earlier), extending from 1733 to 1743. This account lists shipments of 129 hogsheads of tobacco, totaling £643 1s. 11d. (if we include a few extraneous items, such as "To an over charge in Lemons" and "To a Still charg'd never sent"). Several similar accounts involve proceeds from tobacco. In 1734 and 1738, for example, he shipped 54 hogsheads to William Stevenson, another London merchant, for £207 7d. on the ships _Triton_, _Snake_, _Brooks_, and _Elizabeth_. [Illustration: Figure 6.--MOTHER-OF-PEARL COUNTERS, or "fish," used in playing 18th-century games, including Loo, at which Mercer once won 7s. 3d. from Col. George Mason (III). These examples, collected in Massachusetts, are probably late 18th century. (USNM 61.399.)] Marlborough's full transition to a seat of tobacco-planting empire is now clearly discernible. In so becoming, it was typical of the consolidation of wealth, property, and power in Virginia as the mid-century approached. Land had become both a substitute for tobacco in lean years and the means for paying off debts. The same land in better years yielded crops to its new owners, so that a relatively few dynamic men were able to amass great wealth and form a ruling aristocracy. The varieties of talents in men like Mercer--who, besides being a planter, was an accomplished lawyer and able administrator--placed them in the ascendancy over their less able fellows. The vigor and ability with which such men were endowed fostered the remarkable class of leaders of the succeeding generation, who had so much to do with founding the nation. IV _Marlborough at its Ascendancy, 1741-1750_ TRAVEL On April 12, 1741, Mercer was admitted to practice at the General Court in Williamsburg.[73] His trip there on that occasion was typical of the journeys which took him at least twice yearly to the capital. On the first day of this Williamsburg trip he rode "To Col^o Taliaferro's," a distance of 19 miles. The following day "To Caroline Court" (18 miles), the next "To M^r Hubbard's" (30 miles), then as far as "M^r J^{no} Powers" (24 miles), and finally "To Furneas & Williamsburg" (30 miles). The route was usually to West Point, or Brick House on the opposite shore in New Kent County, and thence either directly to Williamsburg, or by way of New Kent courthouse. Stopovers were made either at ordinaries or at the houses of friends.[74] Mercer's travels, summarized in the journal that he kept in the back of Ledger B from 1730 until his death in 1768, were prodigious. In 1735, for example, he journeyed a total of 4202 miles and was home only 119 days. This pace had slackened considerably in the period we are now considering, but, nevertheless, he was not at home more than 218 days out of any one year of the decade 1741-1750. This energetic and restless moving about was common among the leading planters, but in Mercer's case it seems to have reached its ultimate. Practicing law, playing politics, acquiring property, and becoming acquainted with people led him all over Virginia. A representative sample from the journal covers the period of September and October 1745. It will be noted that the days of the week are indicated alphabetically, a through g, as in the calendar of the Book of Common Prayer. The mileage traveled each day is entered at the right. 1 F to Potomack Church & home 10 2 g at home 3 a to Tylers & Spotsylvania Court 14 4 b to M^r Daniels[75] & home 14 5 c to M^r Moncure's,[76] my Survey & home 20 6 d to King George Court & W^m Walkers'[77] 24 7 e to M^{rs}. Spoore's[78] my Survey & home 20 8 F at home 9 g M^r Moncure's my Survey & home 20 10 a to Stafford Court & home 20 11 b at home 12 c to M^{rs} Mason's[79] Survey 18 13 d at D^o 10 14 e at D^o 15 15 F to Potomack Church & M^r Moncure's 18 16 g home 6 17 a at home 18 b D^o 19 c to M^{rs} Spoore & M^{rs} Taliaferro's 17 20 d at M^r Taliaferro's 14 21 e To Fredericksburg & M^{rs} Taliaferro's 22 F To Doctor Potter's[80] & M^{rs} Taliaferro's. Lost my horses 2 23 g To M^r Moncure's 9 24 a home 10 25 b at home 26 c D^o 27 d D^o 28 e to M^r Moncure's, Vestry & home 16 29 F at home 30 g D^o October 1 a at home 2 b to M^r Moncure's & Fredericksburg Fair 15 3 c at the Fair 4 d to M^r Moncure's & home 15 5 e at home 6 F to M^{rs} Taliaferro's 17 7 g to Caroline Court h^o & George Hoomes's[81] 20 8 a to Newcastle 50 9 b to M^r Anderson's & M^r Gray's [82] 14 10 c to New Kent Courth^s & M^r Gray's 14 11 d to Furnau's & Williamsburg 17 12 e at Williamsburg [He remained at Williamsburg until November 6.] Such itineraries were punctuated by periods of staying at Marlborough, but even then there were day-long journeys to Stafford courthouse, to church, or to a survey. The courthouse, which succeeded that at Marlborough, was situated on the south side of Potomac Creek, about three miles upstream from the old site. Mercer almost invariably took the 10-mile-long land route through the site of the present village of Brook, along the Fredericksburg road past Potomac Church, then along the headwaters of Potomac Run on a now-disused road leading to Belle Plains. Just before reaching the courthouse, which stood on a rise of land some distance back from the creek, he passed "Salvington," the mansion of Joseph Selden.[83] Near the water, and in sight of the courthouse, stood the house of John Cave, whose grandfather in 1707 had bought his land from Sampson Darrell, undertaker of the Marlborough courthouse.[84] Near it, on a foundation still visible, Cave built the warehouse that bore his name, and through him passed much of the tobacco that Mercer raised locally. Occasionally, when he had business to do at Cave's, Mercer would return home by water, as he did on August 14, 1746: to Stafford Court & M^r Cave's 11 home by water 5 FOOTNOTES: [73] John Mercer's journal, kept in the back of Ledger B. [74] Col. John Taliaferro was a justice of Spotsylvania County court and one of the original trustees of Fredericksburg. He lived at the "Manor Plantation," Snow Creek, Spotsylvania County, and died in 1744 ("Virginia Council Journals, 1726-1753," _VHM_ [Richmond, 1927], vol. 35, p. 415). Benjamin Hubbard lived in Caroline County ("The Lovelace Family and its Connections," _VHM_ [Richmond, 1921], vol. 29, p. 367); John Powers was apparently a resident of King William County (Ida J. Lee, "Abstracts from King William County Records," WMQ [2] [Williamsburg, 1926], vol. 6, p. 72); "Furnea's" seems to have been an ordinary between Williamsburg and New Kent. [75] Peter Daniel was a burgess and leading citizen of Stafford County, who, as vestryman, signed the advertisement for bids to build a new Aquia Church in 1751. _Virginia Gazette_, June 6, 1751. [76] The Reverend Mr. John Moncure was minister of Overwharton Parish. [77] See pp. 25, 35-36, 46-47 and footnote 95 for further references to William Walker. Mercer's visit on this occasion probably relates to Walker's tentative appointment to rebuild Aquia Church. [78] Mrs. Ann Spoore of Stafford County. [79] Probably Mercer's sister-in-law, Mrs. Ann Mason, mother of George Mason of Gunston Hall. [80] Dr. Henry Potter lived in Spotsylvania County. His estate was advertised for sale the following April 17 in the _Virginia Gazette_. [81] George Hoomes was a justice of Caroline County court. He was appointed in 1735, the same year in which John Mercer qualified to practice law at the same court. "Extracts from the Records of Caroline County," _VHM_ (Richmond, 1912), vol. 20, p. 203. [82] Probably Thomas Anderson (see p. 35 and footnote 93); William Gray was justice of New Kent County. [83] Joseph Selden's estate passed to his son Samuel, who married Mercer's eldest daughter, Sarah Ann Mason Mercer. See John Melville Jennings, ed., "Letters of James Mercer to John Francis Mercer," _VHM_ (Richmond, 1951), vol. 59, pp. 89-91. [84] Fredericksburg district-court papers, file 571, bundle F, nos. 36-43 (through George F. S. King, Fredericksburg); Stafford County Will Book, Liber Z, p. 383 (August 5, 1707). VEHICLES During the 1740's Mercer's travels were often by chaise or chariot. We learn from Ledger G that he bought "a fourwheel Chaise" from Charles Carter[85] in September 1744, a significant step in emulating the manners and ways of Virginia's established aristocrats. Three years later he purchased "a Sett of Chaisewheels" from Francis Hogans, a Caroline County wheelwright, and in June 1748 he discounted as an overcharge the cost of "a Chaise worth nothing" in his account with the English mercantile firm of Sydenham & Hodgson.[86] A "chaise" could have been one of several types of vehicles, but it was probably "a carriage for traveling, having a closed body and seated for one to three persons," according to Murray's _A New Oxford Dictionary_. [Illustration: Figure 7.--JOHN MERCER'S TOBACCO-CASK SYMBOLS, drawn in his Ledger G. The "home plantation" (Marlborough) is symbolized by the initial C, probably in honor of his wife Catherine. Sumner's quarters at Passapatanzy is indicated by S, and Bull Run quarters by B. (_Courtesy of Bucks County Historical Society._)] In 1749 Mercer bought a "chariot" from James Mills of Tappahannock for £80. Doubtless an elegant piece of equipage, this was, we learn from Murray, "a light four-wheeled carriage with only back seats, and differing from the post-chaise in having a coach-box." In November 1750 he paid John Simpson, a Fredericksburg wheelwright, 10 shillings for "wedging & hooping the Chariotwheels" and 9 shillings for "mending 3 fillys & 3 Spokes in D^o."[87] At the same time he bought a "p^r Cartwheels" for £2 and a "Tumbling Cart" for £1 6s. from Simpson. Murray tells us that a "tumble cart" or a "tumbril cart" was a dung cart, designed to dump the load. FOOTNOTES: [85] Ledger G (original at Bucks County Historical Society) covers the period 1744-1750, with some entries in 1751 and a few summary accounts covering Mercer's career. Further footnoted references to this ledger will be omitted. Charles Carter lived at "Cleve" in King George County, near Port Royal, fronting on the Rappahannock. See FAIRFAX HARRISON, "The Will of Charles Carter of Cleve," _VHM_ (Richmond, 1923), vol. 31, pp. 42-43. [86] Sydenham & Hodgson was a London mercantile firm, represented in Virginia by Jonathan Sydenham. Mercer identified the firm in Ledger G as "Merchants King George" and noted in his journal on January 20, 1745, that he visited at "Mr. Sydenham's." In 1757 the two men were referred to elsewhere as "Messrs. Sydenham & Hodgson of London." See "Proceedings of the Virginia Committee of Correspondence, 1759-67," _VHM_ (Richmond, 1905), vol. 12, pp. 2-4. [87] Extensive research has been conducted by Colonial Williamsburg, Inc., on the forms of vehicles used by such Virginians as Mercer and his contemporaries. TOBACCO CASK BRANDS Hogsheads and casks of tobacco were branded with the symbols or initials of the original owners. Many of the brands are recorded explicitly in the ledger. Mercer, at the beginning of his career, used a symbol M. As his plantations multiplied, however, three symbols were adopted, based on his own two initials. Tobacco casks from Bull Run were marked I^[B.]M. Those from Sumner's Quarters bore the brand I^[S.]M, while the "Home Plantation" at Marlborough had casks marked I^[C.]M (fig. 8). The interpretation of these symbols warrants some digression. In the 17th century, and indeed in the 18th century also, the triangular cipher to indicate the initials of man and wife was commonly used to mark silver, pewter, china, delftware, linens, and other objects needing owners' identifications. The common surname initial was placed at the top, the husband's first-name initial at the lower left, and the wife's at the lower right. This arrangement was used consistently in the 17th century. In the 18th century, however, variations began to appear in the colonies, although not, apparently, in England. Silver made in New York and Philadelphia during the 1700's presents the initials reading from left to right, with the husband's at the lower left, the wife's at top center, and the surname initial at the lower right. The large keystone of the Carlyle house in Alexandria, built in 1751, bears a triangular arrangement of John and Sarah Carlyle's initials: J^[S.]C.[88] Like Carlyle, Mercer used initials in this fashion, but also, as we have seen, in two other combinations in which "J. M." remains constant, the upper center initial having a subordinate significance. "S" signifies Sumner's Quarters, and "B," Bull Run Quarters. "C" on seals and brands having to do with Marlborough apparently refers to Catherine, honoring her as Mercer's wife and mistress of the home plantation. The possibility that "C" stands for Cave's warehouse may be dismissed as being inconsistent with the other two marks, the tobacco from Sumner's Quarters having also been shipped through Cave's, and that from Bull Run Quarters having been stored at the Occaquan warehouse.[89] John Withers also used the left-to-right arrangement, I^[H.]W, although Henry Tyler, a planter whose account is mentioned in Mercer's Ledger, used the conventional three-letter cipher, H^[T.]M. These marks occurred on casks transmitted to Mercer as payments, and are recorded in Ledger G (fig. 7). FOOTNOTES: [88] GAY MONTAGUE MOORE, _Seaport in Virginia_ (Richmond, 1949), p. 62. [89] C. MALCOLM WATKINS, "The Three-initial Cipher: Exceptions to the Rule," _Antiques_ (June 1958), vol. 73, no. 6, pp. 564-565. TOBACCO EXCHANGE Tobacco, before being transferred to another owner, was examined by official inspectors. Mercer kept a special "Inspector's Notes" account where he kept track of fees due the inspectors. Direct payments of tobacco were made in transactions with William Hunter and Charles Dick, the Fredericksburg merchants from whom Mercer bought most of his goods and supplies. To others, however, payments were made in a complexity of tobacco notes, legal-fee payments, and plain barter. Tobacco shipped overseas was usually handled by Sydenham & Hodgson. Also involved with tobacco transactions in England were two Virginia merchants, Major John Champe, a distinguished resident of King George County who lived at Lamb's Creek plantation, and William Jordan, of Richmond County, both of whom arranged for purchases of books, furniture, and other English imports for Mercer. The following are excerpts from Sydenham & Hodgson's account in Ledger G: 1745 £ s. d. June To 8 hhds. tob^o consigned 63 5 5 you by the Pri[n]ce of Denmark November To 6 hhds by the 29 15 9 Harrington 1746 May To 5 hhds by Cap^n Lee LOST Feb To 10 hhds by Cap^t 51 14 8 Perry 1747 Septemb^r To 10 hhds by Cap^t 35 9 8 Perryman 1748 June To 10 hhds by Cap^n Donaldson LOST 1749 Septemb^r To 24 hhds tob^o sold 162 17 14 Mr. Jordan Revealed in this account are the hazards of shipping goods overseas in the 18th century. A partnership apparently figured in the second loss at sea, however, as the following entry in Ledger G shows: June 1747 By Profit & Loss for the half £75.15.3-3/4 of 20 hhds by Donaldson in the Cumberland & Lost By William Jordan for the other half. Between 1747 and 1750 Mercer lost a total of 107 hogsheads of tobacco. Over and above this, however, he shipped overseas tobacco to the amount of £385 11s. 7d., during the same period. CLIENTS Mercer's success was gained despite the failures of a great many persons to pay the fees they owed him. In 1745 he listed 303 "Insolvents, bad & doubtful debts." That matters were no worse may be attributed to a high average of responsible clients. Among them were such well-known Virginians as Daniel Dulaney, William and Henry Fitzhugh, William Randolph, Augustine, John, and Lawrence Washington, Gerard Fowke, Richard Taliaferro, John and Daniel Parke Custis, Andrew and Thomas Monroe, George Tayloe, George Lee, George Wythe, and William Ramsay. [Illustration: Figure 8.--WINE-BOTTLE SEAL on bottle excavated at Marlborough, with same arrangement of initials used in the Marlborough tobacco seal.] CLOTHING By the early 1740's Mercer was in a position to surround himself with symbols of wealth and prestige. Clothes, a traditional measure of affluence, were now a growing concern for himself and his family. Between 1741 and 1744, the ledger reveals, he purchased from William Hunter a greatcoat, women's stockings, women's calf shoes, morocco pumps, a "fine hat," three felt hats, two dozen "plaid hose," two pairs of men's shoes, one pair of "Women's Spanish Shoes," and "2 p^r Calf D^o." In 1744 and 1745 he bought from Charles Dick two pairs of "women's coll'^d lamb gloves," two pairs of silk stockings, "1 velvet laced hood," a "laced hat," a "Castor" (i.e., beaver) hat, "fine thread stockings," silk handkerchiefs, a "flower'd pettycoat," worsted stockings, and buckskin gloves. From Hugh MacLane, a Stafford tailor, he obtained a suit in 1745. The rise in Mercer's wealth and prestige is reflected in his patronizing Williamsburg tailors, beginning in 1745 when he settled with George Charleston for a tailor's bill of £6 10s. In 1748 he paid Charleston four shillings for "Collar lining a Velvet Waistcoat." In 1749 he purchased a "full trimm'd velvet Suit" from Charles Jones, the work and materials totaling £7 7s. 4-1/4d., while in 1750 he spent £11 2s. 1-1/2d. on unitemized purchases from the same tailor. In that year he bought also from Robert Crichton, a Williamsburg merchant, "a flower'd Velvet Waistcoat, £5." As the decade advanced, Mercer played with increasing consciousness the role of wealthy gentleman, as his choice of tailors shows. MATERIALS Textile materials, as seen under "General Expenses" and in the accounts of Hunter and Dick, ran the gamut of the usual imported fabrics, as well as rare, expensive elegancies. An alphabetical list of the materials mentioned in these accounts, with definitions, is given in Appendix I. From this list we gain an impression of great diversity and refinement in the materials used for clothing and interior decoration, as well as of a tremendous amount of sewing, embroidering, and making of clothes at home, probably typical of most of the great plantations in the middle of the century. WEAVING In addition to fine imported materials, there were needed blankets, work clothes for slaves, and fabrics for other practical purposes. To these ends Mercer employed several weavers in various parts of Virginia. In 1747 William Threlkeld wove 109 yards of woolen cloth at fourpence a yard. During that year and the next, John Booth of King George County wove an indeterminate amount for a total of £2 4d. In 1748 John Fitzpatrick wove 480 yards of cotton at fourpence a yard, and William Mills wove 30 yards of "cloath." Much of the work appears to have been done in payment for legal services. Weaving and spinning evidently were done at Marlborough, as they were at most plantations. In 1744 Mercer recorded under "General Charges" that he had sold a loom to Joseph Foxhall. In 1746 he bought a spinning wheel from Captain Wilson of Whitehaven, England, purchasing three more from him in 1748. Wool cards also appear in the accounts. In January 1748 Mercer charged William Mills with "3 months Hire of Thuanus the Weaver, £3," which suggests that Thuanus was an indentured white servant (his name does not occur on the list of slaves) employed at Marlborough and hired out to Mills, a Stafford County weaver. PERSONAL ACCESSORIES In contrast to the elegancies of dress materials and clothing, Mercer left little evidence of jewelry, toilet articles, or other personal objects. In Ledger G we find "2 horn combs" bought for fivepence, an ivory comb for tenpence, two razors, two strops, snuff-boxes, bottles of snuff, "a smelling bottle," and "buck-handled" and silver-handled penknives. From John Hyndman, a Williamsburg merchant, Mercer acquired a set of silver buckles for £1 10s., and from William Woodford he bought "a gold watch, Chain & Swivel" for the not-trifling sum of £64 6s. 3d. Like most successful men, Mercer had his portrait painted. During the General Court sessions held in the spring and fall of 1748 in Williamsburg, he lodged with William Dering, the dancing master and portrait painter. Dering lived in the house still standing on the capitol green, now known as the Brush-Everard house. In Dering's account we find: "by drawing my picture, £9.2.9."[90] FOOTNOTES: [90] See J. HALL PLEASANTS, "William Dering, a mid-eighteenth-century Williamsburg Portrait Painter," _VHM_ (Richmond, 1952), vol. 60, pp. 53-63. FOOD AND DRINK Good food and drink played an important part in Mercer's life, as it did in the lives of most Virginia planters. In the ledger accounts are found both double-refined and single-refined sugar, bohea tea, coffee, nutmegs, cinnamon, mace, and chocolate. Most meats were provided by the plantation and thus are not mentioned, while fish were caught from the plantation sloop or by fixed nets. However, Thomas Tyler of the Eastern Shore sold Mercer a barrel of drumfish and four and one-half bushels of oysters, while Thomas Jones, also of the Eastern Shore, provided a barrel of pork for 47s. 6d. in 1749. Earlier there appeared a ledger item under "General Charges" for 1775 pounds of pork. Molasses was an important staple, and Mercer bought a 31-gallon barrel of it from one "Captain Fitz of the Eastern Shore of Maryland" in 1746 and 30 gallons the next year, charging both purchases to his wife. In 1750 he received 88 gallons of molasses and 255 pounds of "muscovy sugar" from Robert Todd. Muscovy sugar was the same as "muscavado" sugar, the unrefined brown sugar of the West Indies, known in Spanish as _mascabado_. [Illustration: Figure 9.--FRENCH HORN dated 1729. Mercer purchased a "french horn" like this from Charles Dick in 1743. (USNM 95.269.)] Beverages and the fruits to go with them were bought in astonishing quantities between 1744 and 1750. Major Robert Tucker, a Norfolk merchant, exchanged a "Pipe of Wine" worth £26 and a 107-1/2-gallon hogshead of rum valued at £22 in return for Mercer's legal services. Again as a legal fee, Mercer received 55 gallons of "Syder" from Janet Holbrook of Stafford and bought 11 limes from John Mitchelson of York for 12 shillings. From William Black he purchased "11 dozen and 11 bottles of Ale" at 13 shillings, and from John Harvey "5-1/12 dozen of Claret" for £11 6d. "Mark Talbott of the Kingdom of Ireland E^{sq}" sold Mercer a pipe of wine for £3 3s. LIFE OF THE CHILDREN During the 1740's Mercer's first four surviving children, George, John Fenton, James, and Sarah Ann Mason Mercer,[91] were growing up, and the accounts are scattered through with items pertaining to their care and upbringing. There are delightful little hints of Mercer's role as the affectionate father. On May 17, 1743, "By Sundry Toys" appears in Hunter's account; an item of "1 horses 1^d" in Dick's account for 1745 was undoubtedly a toy. Most charming of all the entries in the latter account is "1 Coach in a box 6^d. 4 Toys. 8^d, 2 Singing birds." The birds may have occupied a birdcage and stand bought from George Rock, the account for which was settled a year later. [Illustration: Figure 10.--MERCER LISTED A HORNBOOK in his General Account in 1743. It probably resembled this typical hornbook in the collection of Mrs. Arthur M. Greenwood.] "1 french horn" and "3 trumpets" are listed in the Dick account. The horn was probably used in hunting; the three trumpets were bought perhaps for the three boys. Mercer's library contained one book of music entitled _The Musical Miscellany_, which may have furnished the scores for a boyish trio of trumpets. Music and dancing were a part of the life at Marlborough, and in 1745 an entry under "General Charges" reads "To DeKeyser for a years dancing four children £16," while in the following year ninepence was paid William Allan "for his Fidler." In 1747 "Fiddle strings" were bought from Fielding Lewis in Fredericksburg for 2s. 4-1/2d. From the ledger we also learn much about the children's clothing: child's mittens and child's shoes, boy's pumps, boy's shoes, girl's shoes, boy's collared lamb gloves, two pairs of "girl's clock'd Stocking," "2 p^r large boys Shoes 6^l 2 p^r smaller 5/ ... 1 p^r girls 22^d, 1 p^r smaller 20^d," boy's gloves, and "Making a vest and breeches for George" in October 1745. In 1748 Captain Wilson brought from England "a Wig for George," worth 12 shillings. George then had reached the age of 15 and young manhood. Hugh MacLane, the Stafford tailor, was employed to make clothes for the three boys--a suit for George, and a suit, vest, coat, and breeches each for James and John. That the children were educated according to time-honored methods is revealed in the "General Expenses" account for May 1743, where "1 hornbook 3^d" is entered. The hornbook was an ancient instructional device consisting of a paddle-shaped piece of wood with the alphabet and the Lord's Prayer printed or otherwise lettered on paper that was glued to the wood and covered for protection with thin sheets of transparent horn. Elaborate examples sometimes were covered with tooled leather, or were made of ivory, silver, or pewter. The mention of hornbooks in colonial records is a great rarity, although they were commonplace in England until about 1800. The Mercer children were taught by private tutors. One, evidently engaged in England, was the Reverend John Phipps, who was paid a salary of £100 annually and, presumably, his board and lodging. Mercer noted in his journal on November 18, 1746, that "Mr Phipps came to Virginia." That Mr. Phipps left something to be desired was revealed years later in the letter written in 1768 by John to George Mercer, who was then in England, asking him to find a tutor for his younger children: "... the person you engage may not pretend, as M^r Phipps did that tho' he undertook to instruct my children he intended boys only, & I or my wife might teach the girls. As I have mentioned M^r Phipps, it must remind you that a tutor's good nature & agreeable temper are absolutely necessary both for his own ease & that of the whole family."[92] In 1750 George entered the College of William and Mary. He had a room at William Dering's house, and the account of "Son's Maintenance at Williamsburg" provides an interesting picture of a well-to-do college-boy's expenses, chargeable to his father. Such items as "To Cash p^d for Lottery Tickets" (£7 10s. 6d.), "To Covington the Dancing Master ... 2.3," "To W^m Thomson for Taylor's work" (£1 9s. 6d.), "To p^d for Washing" (£1 1s.), and "To Books for sundrys" (£22 4s. 7-1/2d.) show a variety of obligations comparable to those sometimes encountered on a modern campus. The entire account appears in Appendix J. FOOTNOTES: [91] Born 1733, 1735, 1736, and 1738, respectively. [92] _George Mercer Papers_, op. cit. (footnote 51), p. 202. BUILDING THE MANOR HOUSE As early as 1742 the ledger shows that Mercer was building steadily, although the nature of what he built is rarely indicated. Hunter's account for 1742 lists 2500 tenpenny nails and 1000 twenty-penny nails, while in the following year the same account shows a total of 4200 eightpenny nails, 5000 tenpenny, 2000 fourpenny, and 1000 threepenny nails. The following tools were bought from Hunter in 1744: paring chisel, 1-1/2-inch auger, 3/4-inch auger, socket gouge, broad axe, adze, drawing knife, mortice chisel, a "square Rabbit plane," and "plough Iron & plains." In Charles Dick's account we find purchases in 1745 of 16,000 flooring brads, 4000 twenty-penny nails, 2000 each of fourpenny, sixpenny, eightpenny, and tenpenny brads, and 60,000 fourpenny nails. Beginning in 1744 Mercer made great purchases of lumber. Thomas Tyler of the Eastern Shore sold him 2463 feet of plank in that year, and in 1745 made several transactions totaling 5598 feet of 1-, 1-1/2-, and 2-inch plank, as well as 23,170 shingles. In 1746 Charles Waller of Stafford sold Mercer 5193 feet of 1-, 1-1/4-, and 1-1/2-inch plank. In the same year James Waughhop of Maryland provided "4000 foot of Plank of different thicknesses for £12," and in May 1749, "2300 foot of 1-1/2 Inch Plank at 7/." Mercer made several similar purchases, including 14,700 shingles, from Robert Taylor of the Eastern Shore. Where all these materials were used is a matter for conjecture. We know that Mercer made "Improvements" to the extent of "saving" 40 lots under the terms of the Act for Ports and Towns, and that a great deal of construction work, therefore, was going on. One building was probably a replacement for a warehouse, for a laconic entry in his journal on New Year's day of 1746 notes that "My warehouses burnt." These were doubtless the buildings erected in 1732 and officially vacated in 1735. That at least one eventually was rebuilt for Mercer's own use is known from an overseer's report of 1771 (Appendix M). The windmill, the foundations of which still remain in part near the Potomac shore, was probably built in 1746. Mercer's cash account for that year includes an item of 2s. 6d. for "Setting up Mill," which apparently meant adjusting the millstones for proper operation. In August he paid Nathaniel Chapman £22 19s. 8-3/4d. "in full for Smith's work." A windmill, with its bearings, levers, lifts, and shafts, would seem to have been the only structure requiring such a costly amount of ironwork. The most elaborate project of all, however, is clearly discernible in the ledger. In 1746 Thomas Anderson,[93] in consideration of cash and legal services, charged for "making & burning 40^m Stock bricks" at 4 pounds 6 pence per 1000. In the same year David Minitree, described by Mercer as a "Bricklayer," came to Marlborough from Williamsburg. Minitree was more than an ordinary bricklayer, however, for he had worked on the Mattaponi church, and later, between 1750 and 1753, was to build Carter's Grove for Carter Burwell.[94] The credit side of Minitree's account in Ledger G is as follows: £ s. d. 1746 Decemb^r 5 By making & burning 9 5 7-1/2 41,255 Bricks at 4/6 1747 Septemb^r By stacking & burning 16 9-1/2 11,200 D^o at 1/6 By making & burning 14 2 10 62,849 D^o at 4/6 By making & burning 4 6 1000 D^o at 4/6 By short paid of my 9-1/2 Order on Maj^r Champe By building part of 10-1/2 my House The last item, in particular, is clear indication that an architectural project of importance was underway and that Mercer had set about to make Marlborough the equal of Virginia's great plantations. Only "part of my house" was built by Minitree, yet his bill was more than five times the total cost of Mercer's previous house, completed in 1730! Since it was customary in Virginia to make bricks on the site of a new house, utilizing the underlying clay excavated from the foundation, Minitree, as well as Anderson, made his bricks at Marlborough before using them. Mortar for laying bricks was made of lime from oystershells. In 1747 and 1748, we learn from the ledger, 61-1/2 hogsheads of oystershells were bought from Abraham Basnett, an "Oysterman," payment having been made in cash, meat, and brandy. "Flagstones &c" were obtained in 1747 through Major John Champe at a cost of £36 4s. 6d. These may have been the same stones brought up as "a load of stone" by "Boatswain Davis" of Boyd's Hole in Passapatanzy in October 1747 for £4 5s. 5d. Early in 1748 a new set of developments concerning the house took place. Major William Walker of Stafford, revealed in the journal and the ledgers as an old acquaintance of Mercer's, then became the "undertaker," or contractor, for the house. Walker was a talented man who had started out as a cabinetmaker, a craft in which his brother Robert still continued. Whiffen (_The Public Buildings of Williamsburg_) shows that he both designed and built a glebe house for St. Paul's Parish, Hanover County, in 1739-1740, and the steeple for St. Peter's Church in New Kent the latter year. Also in 1740 he built a bridge across the Pamunkey for Hanover County. At the same time that he was engaged on Mercer's mansion, he undertook in March 1749 to rebuild the burned capitol at Williamsburg. He died 11 months later before bringing either of these major projects to completion.[95] Walker's carpenter was William Monday. Mercer settled with Monday in March 1748 for a total bill of £126 16s. 2-1/2d., but with a protest addressed to himself in the ledger: "By work done about my House which is not near the value as by Maj^r Walker's Estimate below, yet to avoid Disputes & as he is worth nothing I give him Credit to make a full Ballance." Meanwhile, William Bromley, a joiner, had gone to work on the interior finish. Like Minitree and Walker, Bromley represented the highest caliber of artisanship in the colony. Eighteen years later Mercer referred to Bromley, "who," he said, "I believe was the best architect that ever was in America."[96] Bromley employed several apprentices, among them an Irishman named Patterson.[97] For the interval from July 9, 1748, to December 25, 1750, Bromley was paid £140 1s. 1/2d., almost entirely for wages. The payment included "3 p^r hollows & rounds / 6 plane irons / 1 gallon Brandy." For the same period Andrew Beaty, also a joiner, received £113 5s. 1-1/2d. On June 19, 1749, Mercer noted in his journal, "Beaty's apprentice came to work." These men were specialists in framing woodwork and in making paneling, doors, wainscoting, and exterior architectural elements of wood. The opulence of the building's finish is indicated by a charge on Walker's account for "his Carver's work 69 days at 5/, £17. 15...." Previously, while Minitree was still working on the house, an item had been entered in August 1747, "To Cash paid for cutting the Chimneypiece ... 6.3." A chimneypiece was usually the ornamental trim or facing around a fireplace opening, although in this instance the overpanel may have been meant. Jacob Williams, a plasterer, worked 142-1/2 days for a total of £22 4s. 4d., while his helper Joseph Burges was employed 43 days for £5 7s. 6d. Walker charged £3 8s. 11d. for "his Painters work about my house," and a purchase of "42 gallons of Linseed Oyl" was recorded in the general charges account. Three books of goldleaf, which Mercer had obtained from George Gilmer, the Williamsburg apothecary, were charged, together with paint, to Walker. In May 1750, a charge by George Elliot, "Turner, Stafford," was recorded, "By turning 162 Ballusters at 6^d, £4.1...." Another item, for supplying "341-1/2 feet Walnut Plank at 2^d," settled in October, may have been for the wood of which the balusters were made. Thomas Barry, "Bricklayer," carried on the work that Minitree had not completed. His account for 1749 follows: £ s. d. By Building the Addition to my House 26 22 Arches at 6/ 6 12 900 Coins & Returns at 6/ 2 14 A Frontispiece 3 10 Underpinning & altering the Cellar 2 raising a Chimney 1 5 building an Oven 15 building a Kiln 1 building a Kitchen 9 10 3 Arches at 6/ 18 2 Plain D^o at 2/6 5 500 Coins & returns at 6/ 1 10 -- -- -- 55 19 0 Expensive stone was imported for the house by Captain Roger Lyndon, master of the _Marigold_, whose account occurs in the ledger: £ s. d. 1749 April By 630 Bricks at 20/ p^r m. 10 Dec^r By Gen'l Charges for hewn Stone from M^r Nicholson[98] 65 16 4 1750 June By Gen'l Charges for sundrys by the Marigold By Do for freight of Stones to my House 5 It is interesting to note that bricks, probably carried from England as ballast, were brought by Captain Lyndon. [Illustration: Figure 11.--FIREPLACE MANTELS illustrated in William Salmon's _Palladio Londonensis_. (_Courtesy of the Library of Congress._)] Not all the hewn stone was fashioned in England. William Copein, a Prince William County mason, and Job Wigley were employed together in 1749 to the amount of £2 8s. In 1750 Copein was paid by Mercer for 64 days of work at 3s. 1d. per day, totaling £9 17s. 4d. Copein was another accomplished craftsman, the marks of whose skill still are to be seen in the carved stone doorways of Aquia Church in Stafford County and in the baptismal font at Pohick Church in Fairfax. The design of the house will be considered in more detail later in the light of both archeological and documentary evidence. It is already quite clear, however, that the new mansion was remarkably elaborate, reflecting the workmanship of some of Virginia's best craftsmen. The most significant clues to its inspiration are found in the titles of four books which Mercer purchased in 1747. These are listed in the inventory of his books in Ledger G as follows: "Hoppne's Architecture." This was probably _The Gentlemans and Builders Repository on Architecture Displayed. Designs Regulated and Drawn by E. Hoppus, and engraved by B. Cole. Containing useful and requisite problems in geometry ... etc_, (1738). Edward Hoppus was "Surveyor to the Corporation of the London Assurance." He also edited Salmon's _Palladio Londonensis_. We find no writer on architecture named Hoppne and assume this was a mistake. "Salmon's Palladio Londonensis." _Palladio Londonensis: or the London Art of Building_, by William Salmon, which appeared in at least two editions, in 1734 and in 1738, had a profound influence on the formal architecture of the colonies during the mid-century. "Palladio's Architecture." The Italian Andrea Palladio was the underlying source of English architectural thought from Christopher Wren down to Robert Adam. Under the patronage of Lord Burlington, this book was brought out in London in an English translation by Giacomo Leoni under the title _The Architecture of A. Palladio; in Four Books_. It had appeared in three editions prior to this inventory, in 1715, 1721, and 1742, according to Fiske Kimball (_Domestic Architecture of the American Colonies and of the Early Republic_; New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1924, p. 58). Mercer probably owned one of these. "Langley's City & Country Builder." _City and Country Builder's and Workman's Treasury of Design_ by Battey Langley, 1740, 1745. This was another copybook much used by builders and provincial architects. [Illustration: Figure 12.--DOORWAYS ILLUSTRATED IN WILLIAM SALMON'S _Palladio Londonensis_ (the London Art of Building), one of the books used by William Bromley, the chief joiner who worked on Mercer's mansion. (_Courtesy of the Library of Congress._)] All four of these books were listed in succession in the ledger and bracketed together. Next to the bracket are the initials "WB," to indicate that the books had been lent to someone who bore those initials. In this case it is virtually certain that the initials are those of William Bromley, to whom the books would have been of utmost importance in designing the woodwork of the house. Door hardware was purchased from William Jordan in June 1749, according to an item for "Locks & Hinges" that amounted to the large sum of £13 8s. 8d. FOOTNOTES: [93] Probably the same Thomas Anderson whose appointment as tobacco inspector at Page's warehouse, Hanover County, was unsuccessfully protested on the basis that the job required "a person skilled in writing and expert in accounts" (_Calendar of Virginia State Papers_, op. cit. (footnote 18), vol. 1, pp. 233-234). A letter to Thomas Anderson of Hanover County was listed as uncalled for at the Williamsburg Post Office in August, 1752 (_Virginia Gazette_; all references to the _Gazettes_ result from use of LESTER J. CAPPON and STELLA F. DUFF, _Virginia Gazette Index 1736-1780_ [Williamsburg, 1950], and microfilm published by The Institute of Early American History and Culture [Williamsburg, 1950]). [94] See THOMAS TILESTON WATERMAN, _The Mansions of Virginia, 1706-1776_ (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1946), pp. 183-184, and MARCUS WHIFFEN, _The Public Buildings of Williamsburg_ (Williamsburg, Virginia: Colonial Williamsburg, Inc., 1958), pp. 84, 133, 218. [95] WHIFFEN, ibid., pp. 134-137, 217; _JHB, 1742-1747; 1748-1749_ op. cit. (footnote 6), p. 312; _JHB, 1752-1755; 1756-1758_ (Richmond, 1909), p. 28. [96] Purdie & Dixon's _Virginia Gazette_, September 26, 1766. Mercer spelled the name _Brownley_ in Ledger G, but in the _Gazette_ article it is printed consistently as _Bromley_. As published in the _George Mercer Papers_ it is spelled, and perhaps miscopied, _Bramley_. We have chosen _Bromley_ as the most likely spelling, in the absence of other references to him. [97] _George Mercer Papers_, op. cit. (footnote 51), p. 204. [98] Captain Timothy Nicholson was a London merchant and shipmaster engaged in the Virginia trade with whom Mercer arranged several transactions. DOMESTIC FURNISHINGS As the mansion progressed, so did the acquisition of furnishings suitable to its elegance. As early as 1742, doubtless in anticipation of the new house, Mercer had bought from Hunter a "lanthorn," three porringers, two cotton counterpanes at 27s., a plate warmer for 7s. 6d., a half-dozen plates for 3s. 6d., a half-dozen deep plates for 6s., a dozen "Stone Coffee cups" for 18d., a dozen knives and forks for 3s., two tin saucepans at 4d. each, and "4 Dishes, 19-1/2 lib." (obviously large pewter chargers). In 1743 he bought "5 gallon Basons 4/7" and "2 pottle Basons at 2/4" (for toilet use), "1 Soop Spoon 1/," and "1 Copper Chocolate pot 7/6 & mull Stick 6^d," "2 blew & W^t Jugs 2/" (probably Westerwald stoneware), and "1 Flanders Bed Bunt, 25" (colored cotton or linen used for bedcovers). In 1744 Mercer acquired from Charles Dick 4 candlesticks for a penny each, 2 pairs of large hinges, a "hair sifter," "2 kitchen buck hand knives," 12 cups and saucers for 2s., "1 milkmaid 2^d" (probably a shoulder yoke), and "1 bucket 1/2^d." In 1745 a 5-gallon "Stone bottle" for 3s. 6d., "1 doz. butcher knives," a hearthbroom, six spoons for a shilling, a pair of scissors, "8 Chamberdoor Locks w^{th} brass knobs £2," and "1 Sett finest China 35/, 2 punch bowls ... 2.7" were purchased. The following year Mercer paid a total of £23 for a silver sugar dish, weighing 8 oz., 5 dwt.; one dozen teaspoons and tray, 8 oz., 7 dwt.; a teapot and frame, 26 oz., 8 dwt. This lot of silver probably was bought at second hand, having been referred to as "Pugh's Plate p^d Edw^d Wright as by Rec^t." He paid John Coke, a Williamsburg silversmith, £1 6s. for engraving and cleaning it. In the meanwhile, in 1745, he had sold Coke £6 worth of old silver. He also sold a quantity of "old Plate" for £15 17s. 3d. to Richard Langton in England through Sydenham & Hodgson. In 1747 he made a large purchase of silver from the silversmith William King[99] of Williamsburg: oz. dwt. £ s. d. May 1747 By Bernard Moore for 1 Cup 51 1 30 8 3 By James Power for 1 Waiter 8 7-1/2 4 14 2-1/2 By a pair of Sauceboats 25 8 By a large Waiter 29 3 48 11 3-1/2 By a smaller D^o 23 8 By a small D^o 8 8 -------------------------------- 148 15-1/2 @ 11/3 84 13 9 In March 1748, Mercer settled with Captain Lyndon for the following: £ s. d. 1 superfine large gilt Sconce glass 6 16 1 D^o 5 5 1 Walnut & gold D^o 2 10 1 Marble Sideboard 32/6 Bragolo [sic] 32/6 3 5 The following June he bought a marble table from William Jordan and in October "4 looking Glasses," which Jordan obtained from Sydenham & Hodgson. Meanwhile, William Walker's brother Robert made 14 chairs for Mercer, on which William's carver spent 54 days. The total cost was £30 8s. The quality of Mercer's furniture is illustrated further by a purchase in 1750 from Lyonel Lyde,[100] a London merchant, of £43 13s. worth of "Cabinet Ware from Belchier." Belchier was a leading London furniture maker, whose shop in 1750 was located on the "south side of St. Paul's, right against the clock." Sir Ambrose Heal, in _The London Furniture Makers_, illustrates a superb japanned writing cabinet in green and gold chinoiserie made by Belchier in 1730.[101] Belchier also supplied Shalstone Manor, the Buckinghamshire estate of Henry Purefoy, with a table-desk in 1749 (fig. 13).[102] The ledger notes other occasional purchases of furniture during this period. In 1746 Mercer paid cash "for oysters & a bedsteed," in the amount of 10s. 6d. In September 1748, he bought "an Escritoire" from tutor John Phipps, for which he paid £5. FOOTNOTES: [99] Probably William King, who married Elizabeth Edwards in Stafford in 1738. He was the son of Alfred King, whose parents were William King (d. 1702) and Judith Brent of Stafford. His account with Mercer seems to indicate that he was a silversmith. "Notes and Queries," _The King Family, VHM_ (Richmond, 1916), vol. 24, p. 203. [100] The _Virginia Gazette_ on January 27, 1738, announced that Major Cornelius Lyde, "Son of Mr. _Lionel Lyde_, an eminent merchant in Bristol, died at his House in _King William_ County." Later it referred to "Capt. Lyonel Lyde of Bristol, [master of] the _Gooch_." Mercer's account with Lyde in Ledger G is headed "M^r Lyonel Lyde, Merch^t in London." Lyde died in 1749 before Mercer settled his account. Elsewhere in the ledger is an account with "Mess^{rs} Cooper, Macartney, Powel, & Lyde. E^{xrs} of Lyonel Lyde." Another Lyonel Lyde, who became "Sir Lyonel" by 1773, was evidently heir to the business. [101] SIR AMBROSE HEAL, _The London Furniture Makers from the Restoration to the Victorian Era, 1660-1840_ (London: Batsford, 1953), pp. 6, 13, 236, 237. [102] GEORGE E. ELAND, _The Purefoy Letters_ (London: Sidgwick & Jackson, Ltd., 1931), vol. 1, pp. 98, 107, 111, 177, and pl. 11. LIGHTING DEVICES Artificial lighting for the manor house receives sparse mention. The four candlesticks bought in 1744 for a penny each were probably of iron or tin for kitchen use. Candlesticks purchased earlier probably remained in use, sufficing for most illumination. It is a modern misconception that colonial houses were ablaze at night with lamplight and candlelight. Candles were expensive to buy and time-consuming to make, while lamps rarely were used before the end of the century in the more refined areas of households. The principal use of candles was in guiding one's way to bed or in providing the minimum necessary light to carry on an evening's conversation. During cold weather, fireplaces were a satisfactory supplement. In general, early to bed and early to rise was the rule, as William Byrd has shown us, and artificial light was only a minor necessity. [Illustration: Figure 13.--TABLE-DESK made in 1749 for Henry Purefoy of Shalstone Manor in Buckinghamshire by John Belchier of London. In the following year, John Mercer received £43 13s. worth of "Cabinet Ware" from that noted cabinetmaker. (_Reproduced from_ Purefoy Letters, 1735-1753, _G. Bland, ed., Sidgwick and Jackson, Ltd., London, 1931, by courteous permission of the publisher_.)] Nevertheless, some illumination was needed in the halls and great rooms of colonial plantation houses, especially when guests were present--as they usually were. The three sconce glasses which Captain Lyndon delivered to Mercer in 1748 were doubtless elegant answers to this requirement. These glasses were mirrors with one or more candle branches, arranged so that the light would be reflected and multiplied. On special occasions, these, and perhaps some candelabra and a scattering of candlesticks to supplement them, provided concentrations of light; for such affairs the use of ordinary tallow candles, with their drippings and smoke, was out of the question. A pleasant alternative is indicated by the purchase in April 1749 of "11-1/2 lib. Myrtle Wax att 5d ... 14.4-1/2" and "4 lib Beeswax 6/" from Thomas Jones of the Eastern Shore. Similar purchases also are recorded. Myrtle wax came from what the Virginians called the myrtle bush, better known today as the bayberry bush. Its gray berries yielded a fragrant aromatic wax much favored in the colonies. In making candles it was usually mixed with beeswax, as was evidently the case here. A clean-burning, superior light source, it was nonetheless an expensive one. Burning in the brackets of the sconce glasses at Marlborough, heightening the shadows of the Palladian woodwork and, when snuffed, emitting its faint but delicious fragrance, it must have been a delight to the eyes and the nostrils alike. NEGROES Negroes played an increasingly important part in the life of Marlborough, particularly after the manor house was built. Between 1731 and 1750 Mercer purchased 89 Negroes. Most of these are listed by name in the ledger accounts. Forty-six died in this period, while 25 were born, leaving a total of 66 Negroes on his staff in 1750. In 1746 he bought 6 men and 14 women at £21 10s. from Harmer & King in Williamsburg. The new house and the expanded needs for service were perhaps the reasons for this largest single purchase of slaves. There is no indication that Mercer treated his slaves other than well, or that they caused him any serious difficulties. On the other hand, his frequent reference to them by name, the recording of their children's names and birth dates in his ledger, and the mention in his journal of new births among his slave population all attest to an essentially paternalistic attitude that was characteristic of most Virginia planters during the 18th century. Good physical care of the Negroes was motivated perhaps as much by self-interest in protecting an investment as by humane considerations, but, nonetheless, we find such items in the ledger as "To Cash p^d Doctor Lynn for delivering Deborah." That discipline served for the Negroes as it usually did for all colonials, whether the lawbreaker were slave, bondsman, or free citizen, is indicated by an entry in the Dick account: "2 thongs w^{th} Silk lashes 1/3." One must bear in mind that corporal punishment was accepted universally in the 18th century. Its application to slaves, however, usually was left to the discretion of the slave owner, so that the restraint with which it was administered depended largely upon the humanity and wisdom of the master. The use of the lash was more often than not delegated to the overseer, who was hired to run, or help run, the plantation. It was the overseer who had a direct interest in eliciting production from the field hands; a sadistic overseer, therefore, might create a hell for the slaves under him. It is clear from Mercer's records that some of his overseers caused problems for him and that at least one was a brutal man. For October 1747 a chilling entry appears in the account of William Graham, an overseer at Bull Run Quarters: "To Negroes for one you made hang himself. £35." Entered in the "Negroes" account, it reappears, somewhat differently: "To William Graham for Frank (Hanged) £35 Sterling. £50. 15." This is one of several instances on record of Negroes driven to suicide as the only alternative to enduring cruelties.[103] In this case, Graham was fined 50 shillings and 1293 pounds of tobacco. We do not know, of course, whether other Negroes listed as dead in Mercer's account died of natural causes or whether cruel treatment contributed to their deaths. In the case of a homesick Negro named Joe, who ran away for the third time in 1745, Mercer seems reluctantly to have resorted to an offer of reward and an appeal to the law. Even so, he declined to place all the blame on Joe. Joe had been "Coachman to Mr. Belfield of Richmond County" and in the reward offer Mercer states that Joe ... was for some time after he first ran away lurking about the Widow Belfield's Plantation.... He is a short, well-set Fellow, about 26 Years of Age, and took with him several cloaths, among the rest a Suit of Blue, lined and faced with Red, with White Metal Buttons, Whoever will secure and bring home the said Negroe, shall receive Two Pistoles Reward, besides what the Law allows: And as I have a great Reason to believe, that he is privately encouraged to run away, and then harboured and concealed, so that the Person or Persons so harbouring him may be thereof convicted, I will pay to such Discoverer Ten Pistoles upon Conviction. This being the third Trip he has made since I bought him in _January_ last, I desire he may receive such Correction in his Way home as the Law directs, when apprehended.[104] Whether Joe received the harsh punishment his offense called for is not recorded. However, in 1748 Mercer accounted for cash paid for "Joe's Lodging & burial £3. 10.," suggesting that Joe enjoyed death-bed care and a decent burial, even though he may have succumbed to "such correction ... as the law directs." As has already been suggested, his overseers seem to have given Mercer more trouble than his slaves. One was Booth Jones of Stafford, about whom Mercer confided in his ledger, "By allowed him as Overseer tho he ran away about 5 weeks before his time was out by w^{ch} I suffered more damage than his whole wages. £3. 11." Meanwhile, in 1746 William Wheeland, an overseer at Bull Run Quarters, "imbezilled" 40 barrels of corn. James Savage was one of the principal overseers and seems to have been in charge first at Sumner's Quarters and then at Bull Run Quarters. John Ferguson succeeded him at the former place. William Torbutt was also at Bull Run, while Mark Canton and Nicholas Seward were overseers at Marlborough. The outfitting of slaves with proper clothes, blankets, and coats was an important matter. It called for such purchases as 121 ells of "ozenbrigs" from Hunter in 1742. "Ozenbrigs" was a coarse cloth of a type made originally in Oznabruck, Germany,[105] and was traditionally the Negro field hand's raiment. Many purchases of indigo point to the dying of "Virginia" cloth, woven either on the plantation or by the weavers mentioned earlier. Presumably, shoes for the Negroes were made at Marlborough, judging from a purchase from Dick of 3-1/4 pounds of shoe thread. The domestic servants were liveried, at least after the mansion was occupied. William Thomson, a Fredericksburg tailor, made "a Coat & Breeches [for] Bob, 11/." Bob was apparently Mercer's personal manservant, who had served him since 1732. Thomson also was paid £4 16s. 2d. for "Making Liveries." The listing of such materials as "scarlet duffel" and "scarlet buttons" points to colorful outfitting of slaves. FOOTNOTES: [103] _Virginia Gazette_, July 10, 1752; BRUCE, op. cit. (footnote 5), vol. 2, pp. 107-108; ULRICH BONNELL PHILLIPS, _American Negro Slavery_ (New York & London: D. Appleton, 1918), pp. 271, 272, 381. [104] _Virginia Gazette_, September 12, 1745. [105] GEORGE FRANCIS DOW, _Everyday Life in the Massachusetts Bay Colony_ (Boston: The Society for the Preservation of New England Antiquities, 1935), p. 78. SAILING, FISHING, HUNTING Water transportation was essential to all the planters, most of whom owned sloops. We have seen that Mercer used a sloop for his earliest trading activities before he settled at Marlborough, and it is apparent that in the 1740's either this same sloop or another which may have replaced it still was operated by him. Hauling tobacco to Cave's warehouse, picking up a barrel of rum in Norfolk or a load of lumber on the Eastern Shore were vital to the success of the plantation. To equip the sloop, 14 yards of topsail, ship's twine, and a barrel of tar were purchased in 1747. Mercer had two Negroes named "Captain" and "Boatswain," and we may suppose that they had charge of the vessel. Such an arrangement would not have been unique, for many years after this, in 1768, Mercer wrote that "a sloop of M^r Ritchie's that came around from Rapp^a for a load of tobacco stopped at my landing; his negro skipper brought me a letter from M^r Mills...."[106] That there was considerable hunting at Marlborough is borne out by repeated references to powder, shot, gunpowder, and gunflints. Fishing may have been carried on from the sloop and also in trap-nets of the same sort still used in Potomac Creek off the Marlborough Point shore. In 1742 purchases were made of a 40-fathom seine and 3 perch lines, and in 1744 of 75 fishhooks and 2 drumlines. FOOTNOTES: [106] _George Mercer Papers_, op. cit. (footnote 51), p. 208. BOOKS In Ledger G, Mercer listed all the books of his library before 1746. He then listed additions as they occurred through 1750 (Appendix K). This astonishing catalog, disclosing one of the largest libraries in Virginia at that time, reveals the catholicity of Mercer's tastes and the inquiring mind that lay behind them. Included in the catalog are the titles of perhaps the most important law library in the colony. The names of all sorts of books on husbandry and agriculture are to be found in the list: "Practice of farming," "Houghton's Husbandry," "Monarchy of the Bees," "Flax," "Grass," and Evelyn's "A Discourse of Sallets." Mercer's interest in brewing, which later was to launch a full-scale, if abortive, commercial enterprise is reflected in "London Brewer," "Scott's Distilling and Fermentation," "Hops," and the "Hop Gardin," while "The Craftsman," "Woollen Manufacture," and "New Improvements" indicate his concern with the efficiency of other plantation activities. He displayed an interest in nature and science typical of an 18th-century man: "Bacon's Natural History," "Gordon's Cosmography," "Gordon's Geography," "Atkinson's Epitome of Navigation," "Ozamun's Mathematical Recreations," "Keill's Astronomy," and "Newton's Opticks." Two others were "Baker's Microscope" and "Description of the Microscope &c." It may be significant that in 1747 Mercer bought three microscopes from one "Doctor Spencer" of Fredericksburg, the books on the subject and the instruments themselves possibly having been intended for the education of the three boys. "150 Prints of Ovid's Metamorphosis" appears, in addition to "Ovid's Metamorphosis and 25 Sins," for which Mercer paid £8 6s. to William Parks in 1746. "Catalog of Plants" and "Merian of Insects" are other titles related to natural science. Many books on history and biography are listed--for example, "Life of Oliver Cromwell," "Lives of the Popes," "Life of the Duke of Argyle," "Hughes History of Barbadoes," "Catholick History," "History of Virginia," "Dr. Holde's History of China," "The English Acquisitions in Guinea," "Purchas's Pilgrimage." There are 25 titles under "Physick & Surgery," reflecting the planter's need to know the rudiments of medical care for his slaves and family. Art, architecture, and travel interested him also, and we find such titles as "Noblemen's Seats by Kip," "Willis's Survey of the Cathedrals," "8 Views of Scotland," "Perrier's Statues," "Pozzo's Perspective," "100 Views of Brabant & Flanders," "History of Amphitheatres." There was but one title on music--"The Musical Miscellany," mentioned previously. "Report about Silver Coins" was probably an English report on the exchange rate of silver coinage in the various British colonies. Mercer kept abreast of English literature of his own and preceding generations: "Swift's Sermons," the "Spectator" and the "Tatler," "Pope's Works," "Turkish Spy," "Tom Brown's Letters from the Dead to the Living," "Pamela," "David Simple," "Joseph Andrews," "Shakespeare's Plays," "Ben Jonson's Works," "Wycherley's Plays," "Prior's Works," "Savage's Poems," "Cowley's Works," and "Select Plays" (in 16 volumes), to mention but a few. The classics are well represented--"Lauderdale's Virgil," "Ovid's Art of Love," "Martial" (in Greek), as well as a Greek grammar and a Greek testament. There were the usual sermons and religious books, along with such diverse subjects as "Alian's Tacticks of War," "Weston's Treatise of Shorthand" and "Weston's Shorthand Copybook," and "Greave's Origin of Weights, &c." He subscribed to the _London Magazine_ and the _Gentleman's Magazine_, and received regularly the _Virginia Gazette_. While most of Mercer's books were for intellectual edification or factual reference, a few must have served the purpose of sheer visual pleasure. Such was Merian's magnificent quarto volume of hand-colored engraved plates of Surinam insects, with descriptive texts in Dutch. The 18th-century gentleman's taste for the elegant, the "curious," and the aesthetically delightful were all satisfied in this luxurious book, which would have been placed appropriately on a table for the pleasure of Mercer's guests.[107] FOOTNOTES: [107] MARIA SIBYLLA MERIAN, _Metamorphosis Insectorum Surinamensium efte Veranderung Surinaamsche Insecten_ (Antwerp, 1705). THE PETITION Although overseeing the construction of his mansion, buying the furniture for it, and assembling a splendid library would have been sufficient to keep lesser men busy, Mercer was absorbed in other activities as well. On May 10, 1748, for example, he recorded in his journal that he went "to Raceground by James Taylor's & Wid^o Taliaferro's,"[108] traveling 50 miles to do so. On December 13, 1748, he went "to Stafford Court & home. Swore to the Commission of the Peace," thus becoming a justice of the peace for Stafford County. [Illustration: Figure 14.--ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY PLAN superimposed over detail of 1691 plat, showing southwest corner of town developed by Mercer. It can be seen that the mansion foundation was in the area near the change of course "by the Gutt between Geo. Andrew's & the Court house," hence in the vicinity of the courthouse site.] In the meanwhile, years had gone by, and no action had been taken on the suit in chancery brought in the 1730's to establish Savage's survey of Marlborough as the official one. During this time, Mercer had continued to build on various lots other than those he owned, "relying on the Lease and Consent of [the feoffees], at the Expense of above Fifteen Hundred Pounds, which Improvements would have saved forty lots." Finally, "judging the only effectual way to secure his Title would be to procure an Act of General Assembly for that purpose,"[109] Mercer applied to the Stafford court to purchase the county's interest in the town, to which the court agreed on August 11, 1747, the price to be 10,000 pounds of tobacco. Since this transaction required legislative approval, Mercer filed with the House of Burgesses the petition which has served so often in these pages to tell the history of Marlborough. Mercer argued in the petition that the county had nothing to lose--that it "had received satisfaction" for at least 30 lots, some of which he might be obliged to buy over again; that, considering the history of the town, no one but himself would be likely to take up any other lots, the last having been subscribed to in 1708; and that his purchase of the town would be not to the county's disadvantage but rather to his own great expense. He was willing to accept an appraisal from "any one impartial person of Credit" who would say the town was worth more, and to pay "any Consideration this worshipful House shall think just." He pointed out that the two acres set aside for the courthouse were excluded and that they "must revert to the Heir of the former Proprietor, (who is now an Infant)." He did not indicate in the petition that he himself was the guardian of William Brent, infant heir to the courthouse property. It is most significant, therefore, that in asking for favorable action he added, "except the two acres thereof, which were taken in for a Courthouse, as aforesaid and which he is willing to lay of as this worshipful House may think most for the Benefit of Mr. William Brent, the Infant, to whom the same belongs, _or to pay him double or treble the worth of the said two acres, if the same is also vested in your Petitioner_." (Italics supplied.) Plainly, Mercer had much at stake in obtaining title to the courthouse land. This supports the hypothesis that the Gregg survey of 1707 infringed on the courthouse land, that Ballard's lot 19 on the Gregg survey overlapped it, and that Mercer's first two houses, and now his mansion, were partly on land that rightfully belonged to his ward, William Brent. Mercer apparently had so built over all the lower part of Marlborough without regard to title of ownership, and had so committed himself to occupancy of the courthouse site, that he was now in the embarrassing position of having to look after William Brent's interests when they were in conflict with his own. Likely it is that he had depended too much on acceptance of the still-unauthorized Savage survey to correct the previous discrepancies by means of its extra row of lots. Still further indication that the courthouse land was at issue is found in the proceedings that followed the petition. In these, there are repeated references to Mercer's having been called upon to testify "as the Guardian of William Brent." Clearly, the legislators were concerned with the effect the acceptance of the petition would have on Brent's interests. If Mercer, as seems likely, was building his mansion on the courthouse land, the burgesses had reason to question him. In any case, the House resolved in the affirmative "That the said Petition be rejected".[110] This setback was only temporary, however. The wider problems of Marlborough had at least been brought to light, so that by the time the next fall session was held Mercer's 18-year-old suit to have Savage's designated the official survey finally was acted upon: "At a General Court held at the Court House in Williamsburg the 12th October 1749" the John Savage survey of 1731 was "Decreed & Ordered" to be "the only Survey" of Marlborough. The problem of overlapping boundaries occasioned by the conflicts between the first two surveys was solved neatly. Mercer agreed to accept lots 1 through 9, 22 and 25, and 33, 34, 42, and 43, "instead of the s^d 17 lots so purchased." The new lots extended up the Potomac River shore, while the "s^d 17 lots" were those which he had originally purchased and had built upon. Since he had "saved" these 17 lots by building on them, according to the old laws for the town, "it is further decreed & ordered that the said Town of Marlborough grant & convey unto the s^d John Mercer in fee such & so many other Lotts in the said Town as shall include the Houses & Improvm^{ts} made by the said John Mercer according to the Rate of 400 square feet of Housing for each Lot so as the Lots to be granted for any House of greater Dimensions be contiguous & are not separated from the said House by any of the Streets of the said Town."[111] Thus, Mercer's original titles to 17 lots were made secure by substituting new lots for the disputed ones he had occupied. This device enabled the feoffees to sell back the original lots--at £182 per lot--with new deeds drawn on the basis of the Savage survey. The final provision that lots be contiguous when a house larger than the minimum 400 square feet was built on them, and that the house and lots should not be separated by streets from each other, guaranteed the integrity of the mansion and its surrounding land. No mention was made here, or in subsequent transfers, of the courthouse land. Presumably it was conveniently forgotten, Mercer perhaps having duly recompensed his ward. FOOTNOTES: [108] James Taylor lived in Caroline County; the "Wid^o Taliaferro" was probably Mrs. John Taliaferro of Spotsylvania. [109] Petition of John Mercer, loc. cit. (footnote 17). [110] _JHB, 1742-1747; 1748-1749_, op. cit. (footnote 6), pp. 285-286. [111] John Mercer's Land Book, loc. cit. (footnote 12). HEALTH AND MEDICINE Three weeks before his petition was read in the House, Mercer became ill. On October 26, 1748, he noted in his journal, "Very ill obliged to keep my bed." This was almost his first sickness after years of apparently robust health. Such indispositions as he occasionally suffered had occurred, like this one, at Williamsburg, where conviviality and rich food caused many another colonial worthy to founder. In this case, anxiety over the outcome of his petition may have brought on or aggravated his ailment. In any event, he stayed throughout the court session at the home of Dr. Kenneth McKenzie, who treated him. On November 3 he noted that he was "On Recovery," and two days later "went out to take the air." The following appears in his account with Dr. McKenzie: October 1748: By Medicines & Attendance myself & Ice £7.19.11 By Lodging &c 7 weeks 6. 6. 7 From William Parks, on another occasion, he bought "Rattlesnake root," which was promoted in 18th-century Virginia as a specific against the gout, smallpox, and "Pleuritick and Peripneumonic Fevers."[112] Twice he bought "British oyl," a favorite popular nostrum sold in tall, square bottles, and on another occasion "2 bottles of Daffy's Elixir."[113] In 1749 he settled his account with George Gilmer, apothecary of Williamsburg, for such things as oil of cinnamon, Holloways' Citrate, "Aqua Linnaean," rhubarb, sago, "Sal. Volat.," spirits of lavender, and gum fragac. The final item in the account was for April 22, 1750, for "a Vomit." The induced vomit, usually by a tartar emetic, was an accepted cure for overindulgence and a host of supposed ailments. That inveterate valetudinarian and amateur physician, William Byrd, was in the habit of "giving" vomits to his sick slaves.[114] In November and December 1749 Mercer sustained his first long illness, during which he was attended by "Doctor Amson." "Taken sick" at home on November 13, he evidently did not begin to recover until December 11. Whatever improvement he may have made must have received a setback on the last day of the year, when he recorded in his journal: "Took about 60 grains of Opium & 60 grains of Euphorbium by mistake instead of a dose of rhubarb." FOOTNOTES: [112] Ten years earlier a vogue for rattlesnake root had been established, apparently by those interested in promoting it. On June 16, 1738, Benjamin Waller wrote to the editor of the _Virginia Gazette_ extolling the virtues of rattlesnake root in a testimonial. He claimed it cured him quickly of the gout, and, he wrote, "I am also fully convinced this Medicine has saved the Lives of many of my Negroes, and others in that Disease, which rages here, and is by many called a _Pleurisy_; And that it is a sure Cure in a Quartan Ague." Two weeks later the _Gazette_ carried "Proposals for Printing by Subscription a _Treatise_ on the DISEASES of _Virginia_ and the Neighbouring Colonies ... To which is annexed, An Appendix, showing the strongest Reasons, _a priori_, that the Seneca Rattle-Snake Root must be of more use than any Medicine in the _Materia Medica_." [113] See GEORGE B. GRIFFENHAGEN and JAMES HARVEY YOUNG, "Old English Patent Medicines in America," (paper 10 in _Contributions from the Museum of History and Technology: Papers 1-11_, U.S. National Museum Bulletin 218, by various authors; Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1959). [114] _The Secret Diary of William Byrd of Westover, 1709-1712_, edit. Louis B. Wright and Marian Tingling. (Richmond, Virginia: The Dietz Press, 1941), p. 188 (for example). RELIGION AND CHARITIES Mercer's religious observances were irregular, although usually when he was home he attended Potomac Church. At the same time he continued as a vestryman in Overwharton Parish (which included Potomac and Aquia churches). On September 28, 1745, the vestry met to decide whether to build a new Aquia church or to repair the old one. They "then proceeded to agree with one _William Walker_, an Undertaker to build a new brick Church, Sixty Feet Square in the Clear, for One Hundred and Fifty Three Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty Pounds of Transfer Tobacco."[115] In October Mercer entered in Ledger G, under the Overwharton Parish account, "To drawing articles with Walker." In December he charged the parish with "2 bottles claret" and "To Robert Jackson for mending the Church Plate." Jackson was a Fredericksburg silversmith.[116] The following March, the proprietors of the Accokeek Ironworks petitioned the Committee on Propositions and Grievances with an objection to the vestry's decision to rebuild, claiming that "as the said Iron-Works lie in the Parish aforesaid, and employ many Tithables in carrying on the same, they will labour under great Hardships thereby...."[117] The petition was rejected, but nothing seems to have been done on the new church until three months after Walker's death in February 1750, when Mourning Richards was appointed undertaker.[118] Mercer's charities in this decade form a short list. His only outright gift was his "Subscription to Protestant working-Schools in Ireland. To my annual Subscription for Sterling £5.5." In 1749 he did £12 3s. worth of legal work for the College of William and Mary, which he converted into "Subscriptions to Schools" of equal value; in other words, he donated his services. FOOTNOTES: [115] Op. cit. (footnote 19), p. 203. [116] _Virginia Gazette_, October 20, 1752; RALPH BARTON CUTTEN, _The Silversmiths of Virginia_ (Richmond, 1953), pp. 39-40. [117] Op. cit. (footnote 19), p. 199. [118] WHIFFEN, op. cit. (footnote 94), p. 142. CATHERINE MERCER'S DEATH AND ANN ROY'S ARRIVAL On April 1, 1750, Mercer went to Williamsburg for the spring session and stopped en route to visit his friend Dr. Mungo Roy at Port Royal in Caroline County. He remained at Williamsburg until the seventh, except for going on the previous day to "Greenspring" to be entertained by Philip Ludwell in the Jacobean mansion built a century earlier by Governor Berkeley. Again stopping off at Port Royal, he returned home on May 10. He remained there until June 15, when he made the laconic entry in his journal: "My wife died between 3 & 4 at noon." What time this denotes is unclear. Following this loss--Catherine Mercer was only 43--Mercer remained at home for five days, then visited his sister-in-law Mrs. Ann Mason. The next night he stayed with the pastor of Aquia Church, Mr. Moncure, then returned to Marlborough and remained there for nearly a month. Meanwhile, he purchased from Fielding Lewis, at a cost of £3 18s. 7-1/2d., "sundrys for mourning." William Thomson, the Stafford tailor, made his mourning clothes. The preparations for the funeral must have been elaborate; it was not held until July 13. [Illustration: Figure 15.--PORTRAIT OF ANN ROY MERCER, John Mercer's second wife and the daughter of Dr. Mungo Roy of Port Royal, painted in 1750 or shortly thereafter. (_Courtesy of Mrs. Thomas B. Payne._)] At the end of July Mercer went to Williamsburg, thence to Yorktown, and from there to Hampton and Norfolk by water on an "Antigua Ship," returning to Hampton on August 5 on a "Negro Ship," evidently having caught passage on oceangoing traders. The younger children remained in Williamsburg with George and a nurse. On September 8 he went to Port Royal and stayed "at Dr. Roy's." He returned home on the 10th, then went back to Port Royal on the 14th, staying at Dr. Roy's until the 20th, attending Sunday church services during his visit. He returned home again on the 23rd, only to visit Dr. Roy once more on the 28th. The October court session drew him to Williamsburg, where he remained until November 7. While there, he purchased the following from James Craig,[119] a jeweler: £ s. d. By a pair of Earrings 2 12 By a pair of Buttons 2 12 By a plain Ring 1 1 6 On November 8 he returned to Dr. Roy's. On the 10th he added a characteristically sparse note to his chronicle, "Married to Ann Roy." The period for mourning poor Catherine was short indeed. But the mansion at Marlborough needed a mistress, and Mercer's children, a mother. A new chapter was about to open as the decade closed. From the meticulous records that Mercer kept, it has been possible to see Mercer as a dynamic cosmopolite, accomplishing an incredible amount in a few short years. His constant physical movement from place to place, his reading of the law and of even a fraction of his hundreds of books in science, literature, and the arts, his managing of four plantations, attending two monthly court sessions a year at Williamsburg, looking after the legal affairs of hundreds of clients, concerning himself with the design and construction of a remarkable house and selecting the furnishings for it--all this illustrates a personality of enormous capacity. Marlborough was now a full-fledged plantation. Although the legacy of an earlier age still nagged at Mercer and prevented him from holding title to much of the old town, he had, nevertheless, transformed it, gracing it with the outspread grandeur of a Palladian great house. FOOTNOTES: [119] "James CRAIG, _Jeweller_, from LONDON Makes all sorts Jeweller's Work, in the best Manner at his Shop in _Francis_ Street (facing the Main Street) opposite to Mr. Hall's new Store." _Virginia Gazette_, September 25, 1746. V _Mercer and Marlborough, from Zenith to Decline, 1751-1768_ THE OHIO COMPANY The long last period of Mercer's life and of the plantation he created began at a time of growing concern about the western frontier and the wilderness beyond it. In 1747 this concern had been expressed in the founding of the Ohio Company of Virginia by a group of notable colonial leaders: Thomas Cresap, Augustine Washington, George Fairfax, Lawrence Washington, Francis Thornton, and Nathaniel Chapman. George Mason was an early member, and so, not surprisingly, was John Mercer, whose prestige as a lawyer was the primary reason for his introduction to the company. We learn from the minutes of the meeting on December 3, 1750. "[Resolved] That it is absolutely necessary to have proper Articles to bind the Company that Mason ..., Scott & Chapman or any two of them, apply to John Mercer to consider and draw such Articles and desire him attend the next general meeting of the Company at Stafford Courthouse...."[120] At the meeting in May 1751, Mercer presented the Articles and was "admitted as a Partner on advancing his twentieth part of the whole Expence."[121] From then on he was virtually secretary of the company, as well as its chief driving force. He was made a committee member with Lawrence Washington, Nathaniel Chapman, James Scott, and George Mason, who was treasurer. The "Committee" was the central or executive board. With the leading members living in Stafford County or nearby, most of the meetings of both the company and the committee were held at Stafford courthouse, and occasionally in private houses of the members. We can imagine with what pride Mercer noted in his journal for February 5-7, 1753, "Ohio Committee met at my house." The important role played by the Ohio Company in the Mercers' lives--and by them in the Company--is fully recounted in the _George Mercer Papers Relating to the Ohio Company of Virginia_. FOOTNOTES: [120] _The George Mercer Papers_, op. cit. (footnote 51), p. 5. [121] Ibid. GEORGE, JOHN, AND JAMES Mercer doubtless threw himself into the Ohio Company's affairs with characteristic drive and enthusiasm. We may surmise that there was heady talk at Marlborough about the frontier and of dangerous exploits against the Indians and the French--enough, at least, to have stirred youthful cravings for adventure among the Mercer boys. Certain it is that George and John Fenton, aged 19 and 18, respectively, joined the frontier regiment of their neighbor Colonel Fry as young officers "upon the first incursions of the French."[122] James, aged 16 and too young for soldiering, exhibited an unusual aptitude for architecture. His talent was noticed by William Bromley, the master joiner on the mansion house, who told Mercer that James "had a most extraordinary turn to mechanicks." On the strength of this, Mercer decided that James should become a master carpenter or joiner, then synonymous with "architect." In America in 1753 professional architects, as we know them, did not exist; gentlemen, some very talented, designed and drafted, while skilled joiners or carpenters followed general directions, executing, engineering, and inventing as they went along. Mercer's decision was as unconventional as it was prescient, being made at a time when gentlemen were not expected to learn a trade, yet at a moment when the respected place the professional architect was later to have could be envisioned. Indeed, he explained his feeling that those who possessed architectural skills "were more beneficial members of society, and more likely to make a fortune, with credit, than the young Gentlemen of those times, who wore laced jackets attended for improvement at ordinaries, horse races, cock matches, and gaming tables." Motivated by this honest sense of values, forged in the experience of a self-made man, Mercer proceeded to bind James "apprentice to Mr. Waite, a master carpenter and undertaker (of Alexandria), who covenanted to instruct him in all the different branches of that business. At the same time I bound four young Negro fellows (which I had given him) to Mr. Waite, who covenanted to instruct each of them in a particular branch. These, I expected, when they were out of their time, would place him in such a situation as might enable him to provide for himself, if I should not be able to do any more for him. It is notorious that I received the compliments of the Governour, several of the Council, and many of the best Gentlemen in the country, for having set such an example, which, they said, they hoped would banish that false pride that too many of their countrymen were actuated by." On June 25, 1753, Mercer noted in his journal, "At home. Bound son James & Peter & Essex to W^m Waite for 5 y^{rs}." However commendable this effort to banish "false pride" may have been, it was probably not a realistic solution for James' career. James, as we shall see, was to make his own choice later and was to follow with great distinction in his father's footsteps as a lawyer. FOOTNOTES: [122] All the foregoing quotations in this section are from Purdie & Dixon's _Virginia Gazette_, September 26, 1766. GROWING BURDENS, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND DEBTS Meanwhile, Mercer had announced his intention to publish a new edition of the _Abridgment_. In doing so, he adopted a hostile, testy approach that was unusual even in 18th-century advertising. Implying that he was doing a favor to an ungrateful populace, he stated in the Virginia _Gazette_ on August 16, 1751, "I have been prevail'd upon to print it, if I have a prospect of saving myself, though the Treatment I met from the Subscribers to the last had determined me never to be again concerned in an Undertaking of this Kind." On the following February 20, he announced in the _Gazette_ that if there were 600 subscribers by the last of the next General Court he would send the copy to press. If not, he would return the money to those who had subscribed, "which I should not have troubled myself with, if I could have thought of any other Expedient to secure myself against the base Usage I met with from the Subscribers to my former _Abridgment_, who left above 1200 of them on my Hands." This kind of advertising had its predictable response: publication of the new _Abridgment_ was postponed indefinitely. The first suggestion that all was not well in Mercer's financial affairs was given in an advertisement in the _Gazette_ on April 10, 1752. In this he noted that he had agreed to pay the debts of one Francis Wroughton, a London merchant, out of Wroughton's effects. However, although Wroughton's effects had not materialized, he promised to make payment anyway, "notwithstanding a large Ballance due to myself." He concluded, "Besides Mr. _Wroughton's_ Debts, I have some of my own (and not inconsiderable) to pay, therefore I hope that such Gentlemen as are indebted to me will, without putting me to the Blush which a Dunn will occasion, discharge their Debts...." Perhaps to alleviate these difficulties, he had advertised in the Gazette on the previous March 15 that he would lease "3,000 Acres of extraordinary good fresh Land, in Fairfax and Prince William," but there is no evidence that he was successful. Signs of irritability became increasingly noticeable. In 1753 he outraged his fellow justices at Stafford court--so much so that they brought charges against him before the Executive Council "for misbehavior as a Justice."[123] It was decided that, although "his Conduct had been in some Respects blameable, particularly by his Intemperance, opprobrious Language on the Bench, and indecent Treatment of the other Justices, ... that in Consideration of his having been a principal Instrument in a due Administration of Justice, and expediting the Business of the County, it has been thought proper to continue him Judge of the Court."[124] A growing burden of debt, in contrast to the prosperity of the preceding decade, clearly affected Mercer's attitude, as we can see in a Gazette advertisement on November 7, 1754: "I will not undertake any new, or finish any old Cause, 'til I receive my Fee, or Security for it to my liking: And I hope such Gentlemen as for above these seven years past have put me off with Promises every succeeding General Court will think it reasonable now to discharge their accounts." Concurrent with indebtedness was an almost annual increase in the size of his family. In 1752 Grace Fenton Mercer was born, the next year Mungo Roy, and in 1754 Elinor. At the same time, he still pursued the restless activity that characterized his earlier years. On July 24, 1753, Mercer went "to Balthrop's, Smith's Ordin^{ry} & Vaulx's,"[125] a distance of 27 miles, during which he "Overset." On the 25th he went on eight miles farther "to Col^o Phil Lee's"[126] for a three-day meeting of the Ohio Company, then went the whole 35 miles home on the 28th. On September 6 he was called eight miles away "to Boyd's hole on Inquest as Coroner & home by 4 in the morn^g," while the next day he was "at home. Son Mungo Roy born ab^t 2 in the morning." On the 19th Mungo Roy was christened. Four days later he went 15 miles to Fredericksburg for the christening of William Dick's son Alexander, returning home the next day. The following day Mercer journeyed 14 miles and back to "Holdbrook's Survey" by way of Mountjoy's, and repeated the trip the next day, stopping at Major Hedgman's[127] coming and going. On October 5 he made a three-day trip to Williamsburg, covering the distance in stretches of 16, 52, and 42 miles per day, respectively. He went by way of Port Royal, where he "Met M^r Wroughton," presumably the London merchant whose creditors he had agreed to pay. The second day took him by way of King William courthouse. On the return on November 4-6, he came via Chiswell's Ordinary[128] and New Kent courthouse (which he noted had "Burnt"), covering a total of 110 miles. On June 3, 1754, his clerk reported to duty, according to a journal entry: "Rogers came here at £50 p^r annum." Rogers remained in Mercer's employ until 1768. Mercer seems to have been driving himself to the limit, not to achieve success as in the prior decades, but rather to hold secure what he already had. The specter of debt now hung over him, as it did over nearly every planter, under the increasing burdens of the French and Indian War. The 17th-century wisdom of William Fitzhugh and Robert Beverley in seeking to lead the colony away from complete dependence upon tobacco was apparent to those who would remember. Marlborough, although still technically a town, was now in reality a tobacco plantation, and Mercer, despite his status as a lawyer, was as irretrievably committed to the success or failure of tobacco as was Fitzhugh 70 years earlier. The hard years were now upon all, and, like his equally hard-pressed debtors, Mercer was suffering from them. FOOTNOTES: [123] _Executive Journals of the Council_, op. cit. (footnote 66), vol. 5, p. 410. [124] Ibid., p. 434. [125] The Balthrop family lived in King George County; Smith's ordinary has not been identified; "Vaulx's" probably refers to the home of Robert Vaulx of Pope's Creek, Westmoreland County. Vaulx was father-in-law of Lawrence Washington and died in 1755. [126] Philip Ludwell Lee, proprietor of "Stratford," Westmoreland County, 1751-1775, grandfather of General Robert E. Lee. "Old Stratford and the Lees who Lived There," _Magazine of the Society of Lees of Virginia_ (Richmond, May 1925), vol. 3, no. 1, p. 15. [127] Peter Hedgman was another Stafford County leader. He was burgess from 1742 to 1755. "Members of the House of Burgesses," _VHM_ (Richmond, 1901), vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 249. [128] George Fisher visited Chiswell's ordinary: "On Monday May the 12th 1755, at Day Break, about half an hour after Four in the morning, I left Williamsburg to proceed to Philadelphia.... About Eight o'clock, by a slow Pace, I arrived at Chiswell's Ordinary. Two Planters in the Room, I went into, were at Cards (all Fours) but on my arrival, returned into an inner Room." "Narrative of George Fisher," _WMQ_ [1] (Richmond, 1909), vol. 17, pp. 164-165. LIFE AT MARLBOROUGH DURING THE FRENCH AND INDIAN WARS On March 11, 1755, after nearly 30 years of uncertainty about his titles to Marlborough, Mercer at last was granted the entire 52-acre town in a release from the feoffees, Peter Daniel and Gerard Fowke. This was made with the provision that he should be "Eased from making improvements on the other twenty-six Lots (those not built upon), to prevent their forfeiture and the County will be wholly reimbursed, which it is not probable it ever will be otherwise as only one Lot has been taken up in forty-seven years last past and there is not one House in the said town which has not been built by the said Mercer."[129] While the day-to-day events of Marlborough went on much as ever, the conflict between the British and the French spread from Canada southward along the western ridge of the Appalachians. This expansion, inevitably, was reflected in the Mercers' activities in many ways, both great and small. As the struggle approached its climax, Braddock's troops came to Virginia in March 1755, and were quartered in Alexandria. Among them was John Mercer's brother, Captain James Mercer, who was a professional soldier. On March 25 John left Marlborough for Alexandria, probably to greet James and to have him billeted at William Waite's house where young son James already was living as Waite's apprentice. This bringing together of two far-flung members of the Mercer family had unanticipated results. Captain James was a British gentlemen-officer, untouched by the leveling influences of colonial life and therefore untempted to banish "false pride" by any such radical means as John had employed with young James. Indeed, the sight of his nephew learning a mechanical trade must have been a rude shock, for we learn from John Mercer that Captain James "found means to make his nephew uneasy under his choice; and I was from that time incessantly teazed, by those who well knew their interest over me, until I was brought to consent very reluctantly that he should quit the plumb and square" and become a lawyer.[130] Mercer returned to Marlborough by way of George Mason's, near the place where a few months later William Buckland was to begin work on "Gunston Hall." He remained there all day on April 1--"at M^r Mason's wind bound," he wrote in his journal. The next day he went "home through a very great gust." The problems of managing a plantation went on through peace and through war. Besides a multitude of Negroes, there were also indentured white servants at Marlborough. One of these ran away and was advertised in the _Virginia Gazette_ on May 2, 1755: ... a Servant Man named _John Clark_, he pretends sometimes to be a Ship-Carpenter by Trade, at other Times a Sawyer or a Founder ... he is about 5 feet 7 inches high, round Shoulders, a dark Complexion, grey eyes, a large Nose and thick Lips, an _Englishman_ by birth; had on when he went away, a blue Duffil Frock with flat white Metal Buttons and round Cuffs, red corded Plush Breeches, old grey Worsted Stockings, old Shoes, and broad Pewter Buckles, brown Linen wide Trousers, some check'd Shirts, and a Muslin Neckcloth; had also an old Beaver Hat bound round with Linen. On October 24, the _Gazette_ carried another advertisement related to Mercer's problems of personnel: A Miller that understands the Management of a Wind-mill, and can procure a proper Recommendation, may have good Wages, on applying to the Subscriber during the General Court, at _Williamsburg_, or afterwards, at his House in _Stafford_ County, before the last Day of November, or if any such Person will enclose his Recommendation, and let me know his Terms by the Post from _Williamsburg_, he may depend on meeting an Answer at the Post-Office there, without Charge, the first Post after his Letter comes to my Hands. _John Mercer_ In the meanwhile, the war had broken out in full scale, and the disaster at Fort Duquesne had taken place. Mercer apparently learned the bad news at a Stafford court session, for he noted in his journal on July 9, after observing his attendance at court, "General Braddock defeated." We can imagine his concern, for both George and John Fenton were participants in the campaign. On April 18, 1756, John Fenton was killed in action while fighting under Washington.[131] Curiously, his death was not mentioned in the journal. Instead, we learn of the death of John Mercer's horse on the way to Williamsburg in April and of the fact that, on his return in May, Mercer lost his way and traveled 46 miles in a day. He tells us that he went "to M^r Moncure's by water" on May 26, a distance of 15 miles, and that he made a round trip from Mr. Moncure's to Aquia Church for a total of 12 miles. On July 14, he noted that he went "to Maj^r Hedgman's & returning thrown out of the chaise & very much bruised." The demands of the war are revealed in journal entries made in June 1757. On the 20th he wrote, "to Court to prick Soldiers & home," and on the 27th, "to Court to draft Soldiers & home." As at other times in the journal, birth and death, in their tragic immediacy and repetitiveness, were juxtaposed in September: on the 24th, "Son John born"; on the 27th, "Brother James died at Albany"; on the 28th, "Son John died." In 1758 George Mason ran for the office of burgess from both Stafford and Fairfax. On July 11, Mercer went to the Stafford elections, where "Lee & Mason" were chosen. On the 15th, he went "to M^r Selden's & home by water to see M^r Mason," who evidently had come to Marlborough for a visit. Four days later, he traveled to Alexandria for the elections there and saw "Johnston & Mason" elected. In the fall of 1758 he went, as usual, to Williamsburg. His route this time was long and devious, taking him to both Caroline and King William County courthouses on the way, for a total of 121 miles in five days. We learn of one of the hazards of protracted journeys in the 18th century from a notation repeated daily in his journal for four days following his arrival: "at Williamsburg Confined to Bed with the Piles." On November 15, soon after his return to Marlborough, Mercer was sworn to the new commission of Stafford justices. Five days previously his son Catesby had been buried, but, as usually happened, new life came to take the place of that which had survived so briefly. On May 17, 1759, Mercer recorded, "Son John Francis born at 7 in the Evening." John Francis evidently was given an auspicious start in life by a christening of more than ordinary formality: "May 28. to Col^o Harrison's with the Gov^r Son christened." During 1759 the second edition of the _Abridgment_ was published in Glasgow, Scotland, this time with neither public notice nor recrimination.[132] On November 25, Mercer met the growing problem of his indebtedness by deeding equal shares of some of his properties, as well as whole amounts of others, to George and James Mercer, Marlborough and a few other small holdings excepted. Fifty Negroes were included in the transaction. This action was followed immediately by the release of the properties under their new titles to Colonel John Tayloe and Colonel Presley Thornton for a year, thus providing cash by which George and James could pay £3000 of John Mercer's debts.[133] The Ohio Company was experiencing its difficulties also. Mercer's importance in it was demonstrated by his appointment to "draw up a full State of the Company's Case setting forth the Hardships We labour under and the Reasons why the Lands have not been settled and the Fort finished according to Royal Instructions...."[134] This was his most responsible assignment during his activity in the company. Indebtedness throughout these years lurked constantly in the background, now and then breaking through acutely. In 1760, for example, William Tooke, a London merchant, brought suit to collect £331 1s. 6d. which Mercer owed him. Two years later Capel Hanbury sued Mercer for £31 10s.[135] In 1761 George Washington and George Mercer ran for burgesses from Frederick County in the Shenandoah Valley, and both were elected. John Mercer, evidently anxious to be present for the election, undertook the arduous journey to Winchester, leaving Marlborough on May 15. His itinerary was as follows: May 15 to Fredericksburg 15 16 to Nevill's Ordinary 37 17 to Ashby's Combe's & Winchester 32 18 at Winchester (Frederick Election) (Geo Washington and Geo Mercer elected) 19 to M^r Dick's Quarter 18 20 to Pike's M^r Wormley's Quarter 12 21 to Snickers's Little River Quarters & Nevill's 60 22 to Fallmouth & home 50 In the previous year Anna had been born, and now, on December 14, 1761, Maria arrived. Between the 8th and the 20th of August, 1762, entries were made that suggest that there was an epidemic of sorts at Marlborough: "Cupid died // Tom (Poll's) died // Daughter Elinor died // Miss B. Roy died." In his long letter to George, written in 1768, he reflected on the fact that, although through the years 98 Negroes had been born at Marlborough, he, at that time, had fewer than the total of all he had ever bought. "Your sister Selden," he wrote "attributes it to the unhealthiness of Patomack Neck, which there may be something in.... I thank God, however, that my own family has been generally as healthy as other people's."[136] FOOTNOTES: [129] John Mercer's Land Book, loc. cit. (footnote 12). [130] Purdie & Dixon's _Virginia Gazette_, September 26, 1766. [131] John Clement Fitzpatrick, ed., _The Writings of George Washington_ (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1931), vol. 1, p. 318. [132] "Journals of the Council of Virginia in Executive Sessions, 1737-1763," _VHM_ (Richmond, 1907), vol. 14, p. 232 (footnote). [133] _The George Mercer Papers_, op. cit. (footnote 51), p. 190. [134] Ibid., p. 179. [135] "Proceedings of the Virginia Committee of Correspondence 1759-67," _VHM_ (Richmond, 1905), vol. 12, p. 4. [136] _The George Mercer Papers_, op. cit. (footnote 51), p. 213. THE END OF THE WAR AND THE STAMP ACT The year 1763 marked the end of the war. It also signaled a turning point in the colonies' relations with England. In a royal proclamation the King prohibited the colonies from expanding westward past the Appalachian ridge, in effect nullifying the Ohio Company's claims and objectives. George Mercer was appointed agent of the company and was dispatched to England to plead its cause. By this time Britain was beginning to apply the other allegedly oppressive measures which preceded the Revolution. Antismuggling laws were enforced, implemented by "writs of assistance," thus increasing colonial burdens which had been avoided previously by widespread smuggling. The South was particularly hard hit by parliamentary orders forbidding the colonies the use of paper money as legal tender for payment of debts. In a part of the world where a credit economy and chronic indebtedness made a flexible currency essential, this measure was a disastrous matter. Despite the ominousness of the times, Mercer continued with the daily routine, the minutiae of which filled his journal. He noted on January 9, 1763, that he went to Potomac Church--"Neither Minister or clerk there." On February 21 he went a mile--probably up Potomac Creek--to watch "John Waugh's halling the Saine & home." On March 1 his merchant friend John Champe was buried. After the funeral Mercer went directly to Selden's for an Ohio Company meeting. From December 10 until March 1765, Mercer was sick. Of this interval, he wrote George in 1768 that "My business had latterly so much encreased, together with my slowness in writing, & Rogers, tho a tolerable good clerk, was so incapable of assisting me out of the common road, that when you saw me at Williamsburg, I was reduced by my fatigue, to a very valetudinary state."[137] Indebtedness, overwork, advancing age, and the reverses of the times had evidently caused a crisis. Passage of the Stamp Act in 1765, to raise revenues to support an army of occupation in the colonies, struck close to John Mercer, for George, while in England, had been designated stamp officer for Virginia. George returned to Williamsburg, little expecting the hostile greeting he was to receive from a crowd of angry planters. Quickly disavowing his new office, he returned the stamps the following day. Many made the most of George's tactical blunder in accepting the stamp-officer appointment. Indeed, the Mercers seem to have been made the scapegoats for the frustrations and turmoil into which the mother country's actions had plunged the colony. George Mercer was hanged in effigy at Westmoreland courthouse, and James Mercer took to the _Gazettes_ to defend him. There were counterattacks on James while he was absent in Frederick County, and Mercer himself rushed in with a lengthy satirical diatribe entitled "Prophecy from the East." Occupying all the space normally devoted to foreign news in Purdie & Dixon's _Virginia Gazette_ for September 26, 1766, this struck out at anonymous attackers whom Mercer scathingly nicknamed Gibbet, Scandal, Pillory, and Clysterpipe. He later explained to George that James' "antagonist was backed by so many anonymous scoundrels, that I was drawn in during his abscence at the springs in Frederick to answer I did not know whom tho it since appears D^r Arthur Lee was the principal, if not the only assassin under different vizors, & he was so regardless of truth that he invented & published the most infamous lies as indisputable facts: on your brother's return I got out of the scrape but from a paper war it turned to a challenge, which produced a skirmish, in which your bro. without receiving any damage broke the Doctors head, & closed his eyes in such a manner as obliged him to keep his house sometime...."[138] Of John Mercer's own attitude towards the Stamp Act there can be no question. On November 1, 1765, he noted in his journal, "The damned Stamp Act was to have taken place this day but was proved initially disappointed." He is said to have written a tract against the Stamp Act, although no copy has survived. FOOTNOTES: [137] Ibid., p. 187. [138] Ibid. THE CLOSING YEARS[139] The elements of tragedy mark Mercer's final years--the tragedy of John Mercer and Marlborough interwoven with the epic failures of the colonial experiment. Prompted by his illness, he quit his legal practice in the courts in 1765. In the same year he "gave notice to the members of the Ohio Company, that my health & business would not longer allow me to concern myself in their affairs which they had entirely flung upon my hands." He also "on account of my deafness, refused to act as a justice, which I should not have done otherwise, as I have the satisfaction to know that I have done my country some service in this station." Heavily in debt, disillusioned and embittered by the dwindling results of his struggles, he wrote that "I have attended the bar thirty-six years, through a perpetual hurry and uneasiness, and have been more truly a slave than any one I am, or ever was, master of; yet have not been able, since the first day of last January, to command ten pounds, out of near ten thousand due me." Recoiling from his situation, he desperately sought a way out and a means to recover his losses. With self-deceptive optimism he seized upon the idea of establishing a brewery at Marlborough, since "our Ordinaries abound & daily increase (for drinking will continue longer than anything but eating)." Accordingly, he built a brewhouse and a malthouse, each 100 feet long, of brick and stone, together with "Cellars, Cooper's house & all the buildings, copper & utensils whatever, used about the brewery." He depended at first on his windmill for grinding the malt, but to avoid delays on windless days, "I have now a hand-mill fixed in my brewhouse loft that will grind 50 bushels of malt (my coppers complement) every morning they brew." To get his project under way, Mercer plunged further into the depths of debt by buying 40 Negroes "to enable me to make Grain sufficient to carry on my brewery with my own hands." These cost £8000, "a large part of which was unpaid, for payment of which I depended on the Brewery itself & the great number of Debts due to me." But the external fate which was driving him closer and closer to destruction now struck with the death of John Robinson, treasurer of the colony, who, having lent public funds promiscuously to debtor friends, had left a deficiency of £100,000 in the colonial treasury. A chain reaction of suits developed, threatening James Hunter of Fredericksburg, Mercer's security for purchase of the slaves. The brewery lumbered and stumbled. Mercer's first brewer, a young Scot named Wales, prevailed upon him to spend £100 to alter the new malthouse. On September 16, 1765, William King, evidently a master brewer, arrived. He immediately found fault with Wales' changes in the malthouse. Within three weeks, however, King died. King's nephew, named Bailey, then came unannounced with a high recommendation as a brewer from a man he had served only as a gardener. Mercer was impressed: "You may readily believe I did not hesitate to employ Bailey on such a recommendation, more especially as he agreed with King in blaming the alteration of the malt house & besides found great fault with Wales's malting." Faced with rival claims as to which could brew better beer, Mercer allowed each to brew separately. "Yet though Bailey found as much fault with Wales's brewing as he did with his malting, that brewed by Wales was the only beer I had that Season fit to drink." Wales, however, brewed only £40 worth of beer, barely enough to pay his wages, let alone maintenance for himself and his wife. Although Bailey brewed enough to send a schooner load of it to Norfolk, it was of such "bad character" that only two casks were sold, the remainder having been stored with charges for two months, then brought back to Marlborough, where an effort to distill it failed. In 1766 there was a similar tale. Five hundred fifty bushels of malt were produced, but much of the beer and ale was bad. In January 1766, Andrew Monroe[140] was employed as overseer. "Wales complains of my Overseer & says that he is obliged to wait for barley, coals & other things that are wanted which, if timely supplied with he could with six men & a boy manufacture 250 bushels a week which would clear £200.... My Overseer is a very good one & I believe as a planter equal to any in Virginia but you are sensible few planters are good farmers and barley is a farmer's article," Mercer wrote to George. Besides the overhead of slaves and nonproductive brewers, the establishment required the services of two coopers at £20 per year. Purdie & Dixon's _Virginia Gazette_ for April 10, 1766, carried the advertisement of Mercer's brewery: To be SOLD, at the MARLBOROUGH BREWERY STRONG BEER AND PORTER at 18d. and ALE at 1s. the gallon, _Virginia_ currency, in cask, equal in goodness to any that can be imported from any part of the world, as nothing but the genuine best MALT and HOPS will be used, without any mixture or substitute whatsoever; which, if the many treaties of brewing published in _Great Britain_ did not mention to be frequently used there, the experience of those who have drunk those liquors imported from thence would point out to be the case, from their pernicious effects. The severe treatment we have lately received from our Mother Country, would, I should think, be sufficient to recommend my undertaking (though I should not be able to come up to the English standard, which I do not question constantly to do) yet, as I am satisfied that the goodness of every commodity is its best recommendation, I principally rely upon that for my success; and my own interest, having expended near 8000 l. to bring my brewery to its present state, is the best security I can give the publick to assure them of the best usage, without which such an undertaking cannot be supported with credit. The casks to be paid for at the rate of 4s. for barrels, 5s. for those between 40 and 50 gallons, and a penny the gallon for all above 50 gallons; but if they are returned in good order, and sweet, by having been well scalded as soon as emptied, the price of them shall be returned or discounted. Any person who sends bottles and corks may have them carefully filled and corked with beer or porter at 6s. or with ale at 4s. the dozen. I expect, in a little time, to have constant supply of bottles and corks; and if I meet the encouragement I hope for, propose setting up a glasshouse for making bottles, and to provide proper vessels to deliver to such customers as favour me with their orders such liquors as they direct, at the several landings they desire, being determined to give all the satisfaction in the power of Their most humble servant, JOHN MERCER Foolhardy though the brewery was, a glass factory would have been the pinnacle of folly. Yet it was seriously on Mercer's mind. In his letter to George he wrote: A Glass house to be built here must I am satisfied turn to great profit, they have some in New England & New York or the Jerseys & find by some resolves the New England men are determined to increase their number. Despite his manifest failure, Mercer confidently attempted to persuade George of the possibilities of the brewery and even the glasshouse. Shifting from one proposal to another, he suggested that he could "rent out all my houses and conveniences at a reasonable rate," or take in a partner, although "I have so great a dislike for all partnerships, nothing but my inability to carry it on my self could induce me to enter into one." In spite of these desperate thrashings about in a struggle to survive, Mercer's empire was collapsing. When Monroe arrived as overseer, he found [according to Mercer] but 8 barrels of corn upon my plantation, not enough at any of my quarters to maintain my people, a great part of my Stock dead (among them some of my English colts & horses in the 2 last years to the am^t of £ 375. 10. --) & the rest of them dying, which would have infallibly have been their fate if it had not been for the straw of 1000 bushels of barley & the grains from the brewhouse.... Convinced of his [Monroe's] integrity, I have been forced to submit the entire management of all the plantation to him. The following passage from the letter summarizes Mercer's financial predicament: "I reced in 1764 £1548 ... 4 ... 3-1/2 & in 1765 £961 ... 5 ... 4-1/2 but since I quitted my practice I reced in 1766 no more than £108 ... 16 ... 1 of which I borrowed £24.10.--& 7 ... 1 ... 6 was re'ced for the Governor's fees. £20 ... 8 ... 4 I got for Opinions &c and from the brewery £28 ... 3 ... the remaining £28 ... 16 is all I received out of several thousands due for all my old & new debts. In 1767 I reced £159 ... 9 ... 3 of which borrowed £5 ... 15 ...--the governor's fees £10 ... 7 ... 6 reced for opinions &c £49 ... 6 ...--from the brewhouse £66 ... 14 ... of which £94 ... 14 ... 3 was from the brewery & 9 in 1766 I gave a collector £20 besides his board ferrage & expences & finding him horses & his whole collection during the year turned out to be £27 ... 2 ... 10. In the two years my taxes levied and quitrents amounted to £199 ... 8 ... 1 which would have left a ballance of £1 . 13 . 3 in my favour in that time from the brewery & my practice (if it could be so called) & all my debts, in great part of which you and your brother are jointly & equally interested. What then remained to support me & a family consisting of about 26 white people & 122 negroes? Nothing but my crops, after that I had expended above £100, for corn only to support them, besides rice & pork to near that value & the impending charge of £125 for rent, of £140 to overseers yearly, remained, & £94 ... 14 ... 3 out of those crops, as I have already mentioned, proceeding from the brewery, was swallowed up in taxes (tho the people in England say we pay none, but I can fatally prove that my estate from which I did not receive sixpence has, since the commencement of the war, paid near a thousand pounds in taxes only)." On December 25, 1766, Mercer made public his situation in Rind's _Virginia Gazette_: The great Number of Debts due to me for the last seven Years of my Practice, and the Backwardness of my Clients (in attending whose Business, I unhappily neglected my own) to make me Satisfaction, would of itself, if I had had no other Reason, have obliged me to quit my Practice. And when I found that by such partial Payments as I chanced to receive I was able to keep up my Credit, I can appeal to the Public, whether any Person, who had so many outstanding Debts, was less importunate, or troublesome, to his Debtors, But when I found, upon my quitting the Bar, all Payments cease, and that I would not personally wait upon my Clients, I could not approve of the Method of Demand, by the Sheriff, too commonly in Practice, without Necessity. I therefore employed a Receiver, who, ever since the first day of _January_ last, has been riding through the _Northern Neck_, and even as far as _Williamsburg_, and who to this Time has not been able, out of near ten thousand Pounds, to collect as much as will pay his own Wages, and discharge my public taxes (for Proof of which I will produce my Books to any Gentleman concerned or desirous to see them). This too, at a Time when my own Debts contracted by the large Expences I have been at for some Years past for establishing a Brewery, has disabled me by any other Means from discharging them, (except when they would take lands, Assignments of Debts, or any thing I can spare, without Detriment to my Plantations or Brewery). Selling Lands avail nothing, I have bonds for some sold four or five Years ago but I can't get the Money for them. I therefore cannot be thought too unreasonable to give this public Notice (which the Circumstances of the Country make most disagreeable to me) that I shall be against my inclination obliged to bring Suits, immediately after next _April_ General Court, against all persons indebted to me who do not before that Time, discharge their Debts to me or my Son _James Mercer_, who will have my Books during the said Court to settle with every Person applying to him. And as some Persons have since my quitting the Practice, sent to me for Opinions and to settle Accounts without sending my Fees, to prevent any more Applications of that Sort, I give this Public Notice, that tho' I shall always be ready to do any Thing of that Kind (which can be done at my own House) upon receiving an adequate Satisfaction for it, it will be in vain to expect it be any Messenger they may send without they send the Money. There are some Gentlemen who must know that nothing in this Advertisement can relate to them but that any of their Commands will at any Time, be readily complied with by their and the Public's humble Servant JOHN MERCER Dec. 8, 1766 [Illustration: Figure 16.--ADVERTISEMENT of the services of Mercer's stallion Ranter. Andrew Monroe, grandfather of the President, was Mercer's overseer. (Purdie's _Virginia Gazette_, April 18, 1766.)] Andrew Monroe, as manager of the plantation, advertised over his own name in Purdie & Dixon's _Virginia Gazette_, of April 18, 1766, the services of "The well known Horse RANTER," an English stallion imported by Mercer in 1762 (fig. 16). One senses that without Monroe, Marlborough would have collapsed completely. In spite of his ministrations, however, there were difficulties with the staff. Purdie & Dixon's _Gazette_ carried the following on June 6, 1766: MARLBOROUGH, STAFFORD county, May 26, 1766. Run away from the subscriber, some time last _February_, a Negro man named TEMPLE, about 35 years old, well set, about 5 feet 6 inches high, has a high forehead, and thick bush beard; he took a gun with him, and wore a blue double breasted jacket with horn buttons. I suspect he is harboured about _Bull Run_, in _Fauquier_ county, where he formerly lived. I bought him, with his mother and sister, from Mr. _Barradall's_ executors in _Williamsburg_ above 20 years ago, and expected he would have returned home; but as he has been so long gone, I am doubtful he may endeavour to get out of the country by water, of which he may understand something, as he was two years on board the _Wolf_ sloop of war in the _West Indies_, and carries the marks of the discipline he underwent on board. Likewise run away last Whitsun holydays two indented servants, imported from LONDON last September, viz. JOSEPH WAIN of Bucknell, in the county of Oxford, aged 22 years, about 5 feet 4 inches high, round shouldered, stoops pretty much in his walk, has a down look, and understands ploughing. WILLIAM CANTRELL of Warwickshire, aged 19, about the same height, and stoops a little, but not so much as WAIN, has a scar under one of his eyes, but which is uncertain, has some marks of the smallpox, his hair is of a dark brown and short, but Wain's is cut off, he pretends to understand ploughing and country business, and has drove a waggon since he has been in my service; they both have fresh look. The clothes they left home in were jackets of red plaids, brown linen shirts, _Russia_ drill breeches with white metal buttons, and thread stockings; _Cantrell_ with an old hat and new shoes, and _Wain_ with a new hat and old shoes; But as it is supposed that they were persuaded to elope with four _Scotch_ servants belonging to the widow _Strother_, on _Potowmack_ run in this county, whom they went to see, and who went off at the same time, it is probable that they may exchange their clothes, or have provided some other. It is supposed that they will make for _Carolina_, where it is said an uncle of one of Mr. _Strother's_ servants lives; and as several horses are missing about the same time in these parts, it is very probable they did not choose to make such a journey on foot. Whoever secures my servants and Negro, or any of them shall, besides the reward allowed by law, be paid any reasonable satisfaction, in proportion to the distance and extraordinary trouble they may be put to. JOHN MERCER Mercer seems to have been concerned principally with his brewers and with the wasteful scheme they furthered with their incompetencies. Even they seem to have been beyond his strength, for he became ill in January 1766, and suffered recurrently the rest of the year. From his journal we can detect a once-strong man's struggle against the first warnings of approaching death: August 26 Rode 6 m. & home had a fever 12 27 sick 28 Rode 5 m. & home 10 29 2 m. & D^o had an Ague 4 30 D^o 31 D^o Sept 1 Had an Ague 2 Rode 5 m. & home 10 * * * Sept 22 to M^r Selden's & ret'^d abo^t a mile but went back 12 23 home by 12 and went to bed 10 24 Confined to my bed (remained so rest of month) Oct 1 Confined to my bed and very ill 5 D^o Sat up a little 6 D^o Better 7 D^o D^o 8 Drove out 3 m & home 6 He informed George that after his return from Mr. Selden's on September 23 he was for "several days under strong delerium and had the rattles." By the beginning of 1768, however, he was able to boast that "I think I may safely aver that I have not been in a better [state of health] any time these twenty years past, & tho' I am not so young, my youngest daughter ... was born the 20th day of last January." On April 22, 1766, he noted in the journal that the "Kitchen roof catched fire" and on May 15 that he "Took Possion [sic] of my summer house." The latter was probably located in the garden, where, during his convalescence in the spring, he was able to make a meticulous record of the blooming of each plant, flower, tree, and shrub, constituting a most interesting catalog of the wild and cultivated flora of 18th-century Marlborough. The catalog is indicative of Mercer's ranging interests and his knowledge of botanical terms (see Appendix L). That the garden was perhaps as interesting as the house is borne out by the fact that in 1750, as the house was reaching completion, Mercer had brought from England a gardener named William Blacke, paying Captain Timothy Nicholson for his passage. Mercer's close attention to the natural phenomena around him began with his illness in 1766. On January 4, only a few days after he had become ill, he installed a thermometer in his room, and eight days later moved it to his office. Regularly, from then until the close of his journal, except when he was absent from Marlborough, he recorded the minimum and maximum readings. One has only to look at the figures for the winter months to realize that "heated" rooms, as we understand them, were little known in the 18th century. Only on Christmas Eve in 1767 did the temperature range from a low of 41° to as high as 63°, because, as Mercer noted, "A good fire raised the Thermometer so high." Although Mercer apparently found surcease from his cares in the peaceful surroundings at Marlborough, his responsibilities went on nevertheless. The cost of keeping slaves remained an enormous and wasteful one: "Every negroes cloaths, bedding, corn, tools, levies & taxes will stand yearly at least in £5," he wrote to George. In his letter he placed an order through George for clothing, which included 25 welted jackets "for my tradesmen & white servants," indicating the large number of white workmen on his staff. It also included 20 common jackets, 45 pair of woolen breeches, 1 dozen greatcoats, 5 dozen stockings, 1-1/2 dozen for boys and girls, 4 dozen "strong felt hats & 600 Ells of ozenbrigs. We shall make Virg^a cloth enough to cloath the women and children, but shall want 50 warm blankets & 2 doz of the Russia drab breeches." Against the advice of his merchant friend Jordan, he declined to order a superior grade of jacket for his Negroes that would last two years, since "most negroes are so careless of their cloathes & rely so much on a yearly support that I think such jackets as I had are cheapest & last the year very well." He ordered George to buy new sheeting for family use, including "84 yds of such as is fit for comp^a," inasmuch as "my wife is ashamed of her old sheets when any strangers come to the house." He also placed an order for windmill sails, which, he observed, were costly in the colony, and could be made only at Norfolk. My millwrights directions were The Drivers 3 foot 6 inches broad } } 23 feet long. The leaders 3 3 } A Suit I had made at Norfolk by those dimensions proved too long, something, they should be of Duck N^o. 2. In addition, he ordered nails, 50 yards of haircloth, a yard wide, for the malt kiln, a "drill plow with brass seed boxes for wheat, turnips, lucarn pease &c," and a considerable number of books, particularly for his children. "Bob. Newbery at the Bible & Sun in S^t. Paul's churchyard can best furnish you at the cheapest rate with books best adapted to the real instruction as well as amusement of children from two to six feet high." The long letter was finally finished on January 28, 1768, its great length partly dictated by the fact that the river had frozen, immobilizing the posts. He noted in his journal that on February 16 he was in Fredericksburg and "dined at my Sons being my birthday and 63 y^{rs} old." On the 24th he attended a meeting of the Ohio Company at Stafford courthouse and on March 14 returned there for a court session. The next day he went home to Marlborough, perhaps never to leave again. The journal ended at the close of the month. The next that we hear of him appeared in Rind's _Virginia Gazette_ on October 27: On Friday, the 14th instant, died at his house in Stafford County, John Mercer, Esq., who had practiced the law with great success in this colony upwards of forty years. He was a Gentleman of great natural abilities inspired by an extensive knowledge, not only in his profession, but in several other branches of polite literature. He was of a humane, generous and chearful disposition, a facetious companion, a warm friend, an affectionate husband, a tender parent, and an indulgent master. [Illustration: Figure 17.--PLATE FROM MARIA SIBYLLA MERIAN'S _Metamorphosis Insectorum Surinamensium efte Veranderung Surinaamsche Insecten_ (Antwerp, 1705), an elegant work in Mercer's Library.] FOOTNOTES: [139] All quotations and sources not otherwise identified in this section are from John Mercer's letter to George, December 22, 1767-January 28, 1768. _The George Mercer Papers_, op. cit. (footnote 51), pp. 186-220. [140] Grandfather of President James Monroe. "Tyler-Monroe-Grayson-Botts," _Tyler's Quarterly Historical Genealogical Magazine_ (Richmond, 1924), vol. 5, p. 252. VI _Dissolution of Marlborough_ JAMES MERCER'S ADMINISTRATION OF THE ESTATE James Mercer was now "manager" of John Mercer's estate. George, heavily in debt, remained in England never returning to Virginia. The staggering task of rescuing the estate from bankruptcy was left to James. The immediate necessity was to reduce wasteful overhead at Marlborough and to liquidate non-essential capital investment. On December 15, 1768, James advertised in Rind's _Virginia Gazette_: A large and well chosen collection of BOOKS, being all the library of the late _John Mercer_, Esq., deceased, except such as are reserved for the use of his children. Those to be sold consist of more than 1200 volumes now at home, with which it is hoped may be reckoned upwards of 400 volumes which appear to be missing by the said _Mercer's_ catalogue.... The borrowers are hereby requested to return them before the 19th of _December_ next, the day appointed for the appraising of the estate.... Also to be sold, about 20 mares and colts, and 40 pair of cows and calves. The colts are the breed of the beautiful _horse Ranter_, who is for sale; his pedigree has been formerly published in this Gazette, by which it will appear he is as well related as any horse on the continent. He cost 330 l. currency at his last sale, about 4 years ago, and is nothing worse except in age, and that can be but little in a horse kept for the sole use of covering.... Except for attempting to dispose of the library and the horses and livestock, no significant changes were undertaken until after September 7, 1770, when John Mercer's widow, Ann Roy Mercer, died. Reduction of the plantation to simpler terms then began in earnest. Purdie & Dixon's _Virginia Gazette_ published the following advertisement on October 25, 1770: _To be SOLD on MONDAY the 19th of NOVEMBER, if fair, otherwise next fair day, at MARLBOROUGH, the seat of the late JOHN MERCER Esq: deceased._ The greatest part of his personal estate (except slaves) consisting of a variety of household furniture too tedious to mention; a number of well chosen books, in good condition; a very large and choice flock of horses, brood mares, and colts, all blooded, and mostly from that very beautiful and high bred horse _Ranter_ a great number of black cattle, esteemed the best in the colony, equal in size to any beyond the Ridge, but superiour to them, because they will thrive in shorter pastures; also 700 ounces of fashionable plate, and a genteel family coach, not more than seven years old, seldom used, with harness for six horses. Those articles were appraised, in December 1768, to 1738 l. The horses and black cattle are since increased, and now are in very good order; so that any person inclinable to purchase may depend on having enough to choose out of. Also will then be sold several articles belonging to a BREWERY, _viz._ a copper that boils 500 gallons, several iron bound buts that contain a whole brewing each, coolers, &c. &c. and a quantity of new iron hoops and rivets for casks of different forms, lately imported. Purchasers above 6 l. will have credit until the _Fredericksburg September_ fair, on giving bond with security, with interest from the day of sale; but if the money is paid when due, the interest will be abated. Proper vessels will attend at _Pasbytansy_, for the conveyance of such as come from that side of _Potomack_ Creek. It is clear that Ranter and his colts, as well as the cattle, had not been disposed of at the former sale. Further, it is obvious that there was an end to brewing at Marlborough, a result which James must have been all too glad to bring about. This sale, however, was also unsuccessful. In the May 9, 1771, issue of Purdie & Dixon's _Virginia Gazette_ we learn that "The wet Weather last _November_ having stopped the Sale of the personal Estate of the late _John Merser_, Esquire, the Remainder ... will be sold at _Marlborough_, on Monday, the 27th of this Month, if fair...." We learn that the family beds, apparently alone of the furniture, had been sold, and that the chariot had been added to the sales list. Apparently the library still remained largely intact, as "a great Collection of well chosen Books" was included. Ranter was still for sale, now at a five percent discount "allowed for ready money." But again--so an advertisement of June 13 reads in the same paper--the sale was "prevented by bad Weather." June 20 was appointed the day for the postponed sale. This time an additional item consisted of 200 copies of Mercer's "old Abridgment" (doubtless the 1737 edition), to be sold at five shillings each. In the meanwhile, James had employed one Thomas Oliver, apparently of King George County, as overseer for the four plantations which were in his custody--Aquia, Accokeek, Belvedere, and Marlborough. On May 31, 1771, Oliver made a detailed report to Mercer on "the true state & Condition of the whole Estate and its Contents as they appear'd when this return was fill'd up".[141] Included in it was an inventory of every tool, outbuilding, vehicle, and servant. The Marlborough portion of this is given in Appendix M. Oliver added an N.B. summarizing the condition of the animals and the physical properties. The following of his remarks are applicable to Marlborough: ... The work of the Mill going on as well as Can be Expected till M^r. Drains is better, the Schoo and Boat unfit for any Sarvice whatsoever till repair'd. if Capable of it. the foundation of the Malt house wants repairing. the Manor house wants lead lights in some of the windows. the East Green House wants repairing. the west d^o wants buttments as a security to the wall on the south side. The barn, tobacco houses at Marlbrough & Acquia must be repaired as soon as possible.... five stables at Marlbrough plantation must be repair'd before winter. we have sustai'd no damage from Tempest or Floods. it will Expedient to hyer a Carpinder for the woork wanted can not be accomplish'd in time, seeing the Carpenders must be taken of for harvest which is Like to be heavy. I will advertise the sale at Stafford Court and the two parish Churches to begin on the 20th of June 1771.... P.S. The Syder presses at Each plantation & Syder Mill at Marlborough totally expended.... Negro Sampson Marlbro Company Sick of the Gravel.... Negro Jas Pemberton at Marlb^h Sick Worme Fever. The sale as advertised and, presumably, as posted by Oliver was again a failure. Apparently no one attended. The situation must have been regarded then as desperate, for James advertised on August 29, 1771, in Purdie & Dixon's _Virginia Gazette_ substantially the same material as before. This time, however, it was "To be SOLD, at the Townhouse in _Fredericksburg_, on the 24th day of _September_ next (being the second Day of the Fair)." Added to the former list were "About two Hundred Weight of HOPS of last Crop," "About four hundred Weight of extraordinary good WOOL with a variety of Woollen and Linen Wheels, Reels, &c.," as well as "A Number of GARDEN FLOWER POTS of different forms. Some ORANGE, LEMON and other EVERGREENS, in Boxes and Pots." The valuable but unwanted Ranter was again put up. But once more bad luck and an apathetic (and probably impecunious) populace brought failure to the sale. On October 24, 1771, Purdie & Dixon's _Virginia Gazette_ printed the following advertisement and James Mercer's final public effort to convert some of his father's estate into cash: _To be SOLD to the highest Bidders, some Time Next Week, before the RALEIGH Tavern in Williamsburg,_ The beautiful Horse RANTER, a genteel FAMILY COACH, with Harness for six Horses, also several Pieces of FASHIONABLE PLATE, yet remaining of the Estate of the late John Mercer, Esquire, deceased. Credit will be allowed until the 25th of April next, the Purchasers giving Bond and Security, with Interest from the Sale; but if the Money is paid when due, the Interest will be abated. Any Person inclinable to purchase RUSHWORTH'S COLLECTION may see them at the Printing Office, and know the Terms. At the same Place are lodged several Copies of the old Abridgment of the VIRGINIA LAWS, containing so many Precedents for Magistrates that they are esteemed well worth five Shillings, the Price asked for them. JAMES MERCER _Williamsburg, October 24._ N.B. The Plate is lodged with Mr. Craig, and may be seen by any inclinable to purchase. James did not attempt to sell the plantation itself or the slaves, but evidently sought to reestablish Marlborough on an efficient and profitable basis. That he failed to do so is brought out in a letter that George Mason wrote to George Washington on December 21, 1773. In it is expressed the whole tragic sequence of debt compounding debt in the plantation economy and the insurmountable burden of inherited obligations: The embarrass'd Situation of my Friend Mr. Jas. Mercer's Affairs gives Me much more Concern than Surprize. I always feared that his Aversion to selling the Lands & Slaves, in Expectation of paying the Debts with the Crops & Profits of the Estate, whilst a heavy Interest was still accumulating, wou'd be attended with bad Consequences, independent of his Brother's Difficulties in England; having never, in a single Instance, seen these sort of Delays answer the Hopes of the Debtor. When Colo. [George] Mercer was first married, & thought in affluent circumstances by his Friends here, considerable purchases of Slaves were made for Him, at high prices (& I believe mostly upon Credit) which must now be sold at much less than the cost: He was originally burthened with a proportionable part of his Father's Debts: most of which, as well as the old Gentleman's other Debts, are not only still unpaid, but must be greatly increased by Interest; so that even if Colo. Mercer had not incurr'd a large Debt in England, He wou'd have found his Affairs here in a disagreeable Situation. I have Bye me Mr. James Mercer's Title-Papers for his Lands on Pohick Run & on Four-mile Run, in this County; which I have hitherto endeavoured to sell for Him in Vain: for as he Left the Price entirely to Me, I cou'd not take less for them than if they had been my own.[142] FOOTNOTES: [141] _A Documentary History of American Industrial Society_, edit. John P. Commons (New York: Russell & Russell, 1958), vol. 1, facsimile opp. p. 236. [142] _Letters to Washington_, and _Accompanying Papers_, edit. S. M. Hamilton (Boston and New York: Houghton, Mifflin, 1901), vol. 4, p. 286. MARLBOROUGH DURING AND AFTER THE REVOLUTION Despite the seeming unwisdom of doing so, James Mercer held on to Marlborough until his death. He was an active patriot in the Revolution, serving as a member of the Virginia Committee of Safety. Marlborough, too, seems to have been a participant in the war, when Lord Dunmore, on a last desperate foray, sailed his ships up the Potomac and attacked several plantations. That Marlborough was a target we learn from the widow of Major George Thornton of the Virginia militia, who "was at the bombardment of Marlborough, the seat of Judge Mercer, on the Potomac...."[143] In Purdie's _Virginia Gazette_ of August 2, 1776, we read: Lord Dunmore, with his motley band of pirates and renegradoes, have burnt the elegant brick house of William Brent, esq., at the mouth of Acquia Creek, in Stafford county, as also two other houses lower down the Potowmack River, both the property of widow ladies. Marlborough was no longer the property of a "widow lady," but accurate reporting even today is not universal, and Marlborough may have been meant. In any case, the mansion was not destroyed, although we do not know whether any other buildings at Marlborough were damaged or not. John Francis Mercer, James' half brother, appears to have lived at Marlborough after his return from the Revolution. He served with distinction, becoming aide-de-camp to the eccentric and difficult General Charles Lee in 1778. When Lee was court-martialed after the Battle of Monmouth, John Francis resigned, but reentered the war in 1780.[144] He apparently settled at Marlborough after the surrender at Yorktown, at which he was present. In 1782 he was elected to both the Virginia House of Delegates and the Continental Congress. General Lee died the same year, stipulating in his will: To my friend John [Francis] Mercer, Esq., of Marlborough, in Virginia, I give and bequeath the choice of two brood mares, of all my swords and pistols and ten guineas to buy a ring. I would give him more, but, as he has a good estate and a better genius, he has sufficient, if he knows how to make good use of them.[145] It is not probable that John Francis' "genius" was sufficient to make profitable use of Marlborough. He moved to Maryland in 1785, and later became its Governor.[146] James Mercer died on May 23, 1791. In 1799 the Potomac Neck properties were advertised for sale or rent by John Francis Mercer in _The Examiner_ for September 6. We learn from it that there were overseer's houses, Negro quarters and cornhouses, and that "the fertility of the soil is equal to any in the United States, besides which the fields all lay convenient to banks (apparently inexhaustible) of the richest marle, which by repeated experiments made there, is found to be superiour to any other manure whatever." "30 or 40 Virginia born slaves, in families, who are resident on the lands" were made "available." FOOTNOTES: [143] GEORGE BROWN GOODE, _Virginia Cousins_ (Richmond, 1887), p. 213. [144] Ibid. [145] "Berkeley County, West Virginia," _Tyler's Quarterly Historical and Genealogical Magazine_ (Richmond, 1921), vol. 3, p. 46. [146] Ibid. THE COOKE PERIOD: MARLBOROUGH'S FINAL DECADES The plantation was bought by John Cooke of Stafford County. Cooke took out an insurance policy on the mansion house on June 9, 1806, with the Mutual Assurance Society of Virginia.[147] From this important document (fig. 43) we learn that the house had a replacement value of $9000, and, after deducting $3000, was "actually worth six thousand Dollars in ready money." The policy shows a plan with a description: "Brick Dwelling House one Story high covered with wood, 108 feet 8 Inches long by 28-1/2 feet wide, a Cellar under about half the House." Running the length of the house was a "Portico 108 feet 8 Inches by 8 feet 4 Inches." A "Porch 10 by 5 f." stood in front of the "portico," and another was located at the northeast corner of the building, "8 by 6 feet." The policy informs us that the house was occupied not by Cooke, but by John W. Bronaugh, a tenant or overseer. The records do not reveal how long the mansion survived. That by the beginning of the century it had already lost the dignity with which Mercer had endowed it and was heading toward decay is quite evident. After John Cooke's death Marlborough was again put up for sale in 1819, but this time nothing was said of any buildings, only that the land was adapted to the growth of red clover, that the winter and spring fisheries produced $2500 per annum, and that "Wild Fowl is in abundance."[148] Undoubtedly as the buildings disintegrated, their sites were leveled. There remained only level acres of grass, clover, and grain where once a poor village had been erected and where John Mercer's splendid estate had risen with its Palladian mansion, its gardens, warehouses, and tobacco fields. Even in the early 19th century the tobacco plantation, especially in northern Virginia, had become largely a thing of the past. Within the memory of men still alive, the one structure still standing from Mercer's time was the windmill. Except for the present-day fringe of modern houses, Marlborough must look today much as it did after its abandonment and disintegration. FOOTNOTES: [147] Policy no. 1134. On microfilm, Virginia State Library. [148] _Virginia Herald_, December 15, 1819. ARCHEOLOGY AND ARCHITECTURE [Illustration: Figure 18.--AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF MARLBOROUGH. The outlines of the excavated wall system and Structure B foundation can be seen where Highway 621 curves to the east.] VII _The Site, its Problem, and Preliminary Tests_ The preceding chapters have presented written evidence of Marlborough's history and of the human elements that gave it life and motivation. Assembled mostly during the years following the excavations, this information was not, for the most part, available in 1956 to guide the archeological survey recounted here. Neither was there immediate evidence on the surface of the planted fields to indicate the importance and splendor of Marlborough as it existed in the 18th century. In 1954, when Dr. Darter proposed that the Smithsonian Institution participate in making excavations, he presented a general picture of colonial events at Marlborough. He also provided photostats of the two colonial survey plats so frequently mentioned in Part I (fig. 2). From information inscribed on the 1691 plat, it was clear that a town had been laid out in that year, that it had consisted of 52 acres divided into half-acre lots, and that two undesignated acres had been set aside for a courthouse near its western boundary. It was known also that John Mercer had occupied the town in the 18th century, that he had built a mansion there, that a circular ruin of dressed lime-sandstone was the base of his windmill, and that erosion along the Potomac River bank had radically changed the shoreline since the town's founding 263 years earlier. But nobody in 1954 could point out with any certainty the foundation of Mercer's mansion, nor was anyone aware of the brick and the stone wall system, the two-room kitchen foundation, or the trash pits and other structures that lay beneath the surface, along with many 18th-century household artifacts. It remained for the archeologist to recover such nonperishable data from the ground. In August 1954 Messrs. Setzler, Darter, and Watkins spent three days at Marlborough examining the site, making tests, and, in general, determining whether there was sufficient evidence to justify extended excavations. The site is located in the southeastern portion of what was known in the 17th century as Potowmack Neck (now Marlborough Point), with the Potomac River on the east and Potomac Creek on the south (map, front endpaper). It is approached from the northeast on Highway 621, which branches from Highway 608 about 2-1/2 miles from the site. Highway 608 runs from Aquia Creek westward to the village of Brooke, situated on the Richmond, Fredericksburg, and Potomac Railroad about four miles east of the present Stafford courthouse on U.S. Route 1. Highway 621 takes a hilly, winding course through the woods until it debouches onto the flat, open peninsula of the point. The river is visible to the east, as the road travels slightly east of due south, passing an intersecting secondary road that runs west and south and then west again. The latter road ends at the southwestern extremity of the Neck, where Accokeek Creek, which meanders along the western edge of the Neck, feeds into Potomac Creek. At the point near the Potomac Creek shore where this road takes its second westerly course lies the site of the Indian village of Patawomecke, excavated between 1938 and 1940 by T. D. Stewart. [Illustration: Figure 19.--HIGHWAY 621, looking north from the curve in the road, with site of Structure B at right.] Beyond this secondary road, Highway 621 continues southward to a small thicket and clump of trees where it curves sharply to the east, its southerly course stopped by fenced-in lots of generous size (with modern houses built on them) that slope down to Potomac Creek. After the highway makes its turn, several driveways extend from it toward the creek. One of these driveways, obviously more ancient than the others, leaves the highway about 200 feet east of the clump of trees, cutting deeply through high sloping banks, where vestiges of a stone wall crop out from its western boundary (fig. 22), and ending abruptly at the water's edge. Highway 621 continues to a dead end near the confluence of creek and river. Some 200 feet west of the turn in the highway around the clump of trees, is a deep gully (or "gutt" in 17th-century terminology) that extends northward from Potomac Creek almost as far as the intersecting road that passes the site of the Indian village. This gully is overgrown with trees and brush, and it forms a natural barrier that divides the lower portion of the point into two parts. A few well-spaced modern houses fringe the shores of the point, while the flat land behind the houses is given over almost entirely to cultivation. Since the two colonial land surveys were not drawn to scale, some confusion arose in 1954 as to their orientation to the surviving topographic features. However, the perimeter measurements given on the 1691 plat make it clear that the town was laid out in the southeastern section of the point, and that the "gutt" so indicated on the plat is the tree-lined gully west of the turn in the highway. Bordering the clump of trees at this turn could be seen in 1954 a short outcropping of brick masonry. A few yards to the north, on the opposite side of the road, crumbled bits of sandstone, both red and gray, were concentrated in the ditch cut by a highway grader. In the fields at either side of the highway, plow furrows disclosed a considerable quantity of brick chips, 18th-century ceramics, and glass sherds. In the field east of the clump of trees and north of the highway, opposite the steep-banked side road leading down to Potomac Creek, could be seen in a row the tops of two or three large pieces of gray stone. These stones were of the characteristic lime-sandstone once obtained from the Aquia quarries some four miles north, as well as from a long-abandoned quarry above the head of Potomac Creek. It was decided to start work at this point by investigating these stones, in preference to exploring the more obvious evidence of a house foundation at the clump of trees. This was done in the hope of finding clues to lot boundaries and the possible orientation of the survey plats. Excavation around these vertically placed stones disclosed that they rested on a foundation layer of thick slabs laid horizontally at the undisturbed soil level. Enough of this wall remained _in situ_ to permit sighting along it toward Potomac Creek. The sight line, jumping the highway, picked up the partly overgrown stone wall that extends along the western edge of the old roadway to the creek, indicating that a continuous wall had existed prior to the present layout of the fields and before the construction of the modern highway. The excavation along the stone wall was extended northward. At a distance of 18.5 feet from the highway the stone wall ended at a junction of two brick wall foundations, one running north in line with the stone wall and the other west at a 90° angle. These walls, each a brick and a half thick, were bonded in oystershell lime mortar. Test trenches were dug to the north and west to determine whether they were enclosure walls or house foundations. Since it was soon evident that they were the former, the next question was whether they were lot boundaries matching those on the plat. If so, it was reasoned, then a street must have run along the east side of the north-south coursing wall. Accordingly, tests were made, but no supporting evidence for this inference was found. Nevertheless, the indications of an elaborate wall system, a probable house foundation, and a wealth of artifacts in the soil were enough to support a full-scale archeological project, the results of which would have considerable historical and architectural significance. Determining the meaning of the walls and whether they were related to the town layout or to Mercer's plantation, learning the relationship of the plantation to the town, discovering the sites of the 1691 courthouse and Mercer's mansion, and finding other house foundations and significant artifacts--all these were to be the objectives of the project. The problem, broadly considered, was to investigate in depth a specific locality where a 17th-century town and an 18th-century plantation had successively risen and fallen and to evaluate the evidence in the light of colonial Virginia's evolving culture and economy. Accordingly, plans were made, a grant was obtained from the American Philosophical Society, as recounted in the introduction, and intensive work on the site was begun in 1956. VIII _Archeological Techniques_ The archeologist must adopt and, if necessary, invent the method of excavation best calculated to produce the results he desires, given the conditions of a particular site. The Marlborough site required other techniques than those conventionally employed, for instance, in excavating prehistoric American Indian sites. Moreover, because the Marlborough excavations constituted a limited exploratory survey, the grid system used customarily in colonial-site archeology was not appropriate here, and a different system had to be substituted. It was decided in 1956 to begin, as in 1954, at obvious points of visible evidence and to follow to their limits the footings of walls and buildings as they were encountered, rather than to remove all of the disturbed soil within a limited area. By itself this was a simple process, but to record accurately what was found by this method and relate the features to each other required the use mainly of an alidade and a stadia rod. Only to a limited extent were some exploratory trenches dug and careful observations made of the color and density of soil, so as to detect features such as wooden house foundations, postholes, and trash pits. Once located, such evidence had to be approached meticulously with a shaving or slicing technique, again taking careful note of soil changes in profile. All this required the establishment of an accurate baseline and a number of control points by means of alidade and stadia-rod measurements. Then eight points for triangulation purposes in the form of iron pipes were established at intervals along the south side of the highway, east of its turn at the clump of trees, on the basis of which the accompanying maps were plotted. The full extent of the excavations is not shown in detail on these maps, particularly in connection with the walls and structures. The walls, for example, were exposed in trenches 5 feet wide. Similar trenches were dug around the house foundations as evidence of them was revealed. IX _Wall System_ DESCRIPTIONS OF EXCAVATIONS On April 2, 1956, the junction point of the three walls found in the 1954 test was reexcavated. The bottom layer of horizontally placed stones 1.8-1.9 feet wide was found _in situ_, while most of the vertical stones from the second course had been broken or knocked off by repeated plowing. Construction of the highway had completely removed a section of the wall. The corner of the two brick walls was revealed to have been superimposed on the northernmost foundation block of the stone wall, thus indicating that the stone wall preceded the building of the brick ones. The upper stone block that had been removed to make room for this brick corner still lay a few feet to the east where it had been cast aside in the 18th century. This part of the stone wall, together with its continuation beyond the highway to the creek, was designated Wall A (figs. 21 and 24). Exposure of the brick wall running westward from Wall A (designated Wall A-I) disclosed broken gaps in the brickwork, the gaps ranging from 1.8 to 3 feet in length, and the intervening stretches of intact wall, from 7.33 to 8 feet. Eight-foot spacings are normal for the settings of modern wooden fence posts, as such a fence south of the highway illustrated. It is assumed, therefore, that, following the destruction of the exposed part of the brick wall, a wooden fence was built along the same line, requiring the removal of bricks to permit the setting of fence posts (fig. 26). Wall A-I intersected the modern highway at an acute angle, disappeared thereunder and reappeared beyond. South of the clump of trees it abutted another wall of different construction which ran continuously in the same direction for 28 feet. Because of their manner of construction, the two walls at their point of juncture were not integrated and, hence, probably were constructed at different times. The 28-foot section later proved to be the south wall of the mansion, designated as B. (This wall will be considered when that structure is described, as will another section that continued for less than 4 feet to the point where a 12-foot modern driveway crossed over it.) To the west of the driveway another wall (B-I), still in line with Wall A-I, extended toward the "gutt." Of this only one brick course remained, a brick and a half thick. About midway in its length were slight indications that the wall footings had been expanded for a short distance, as though for a gate; however, the crumbled condition of the brick and mortar fragments made this inference uncertain. Near the edge of the "gutt," 146 feet from the southwest corner of the Structure B main foundation, Wall B-I terminated in an oblique-angled corner, the other side of which was designated Wall B-II. This wall ran 384 feet in a southwesterly direction under trees and beneath a boathouse along the "gutt," ending at the back of Potomac Creek. It was constructed of rough blocks of the fossil-imbedded marl that underlies Marlborough and crops out along the Potomac shore. Walls A, A-I, B-I, and B-II, together with the creek bank, form an enclosure measuring a little over two acres. Returning to the point of beginning excavation, the brick wall which is extended north from stone wall A (designated as Wall A-II) was followed for a distance of 175 feet. Like Wall A-I, it was a brick and a half thick (a row of headers lying beside a row of stretchers), and was represented for a distance of 36 feet by two courses. Beyond this point for another 30 feet, a shift in the contour of the land, allowing deeper plowing in relation to the original height of the wall, had caused the second course of bricks to be knocked off. From there on, only occasional clusters of bricks remained, the evidence of the wall consisting otherwise of a thin layer of mortar and brick. Wall A-II terminated in a corner. The other side of the corner was of the same construction and ran westerly at right angles for a total distance of 264.5 feet, passing beneath the highway (north of the turn) and stopping against the southeast corner of a structure designated E. Extending south from Structure E was an 84-foot wall (Wall E) a brick and a half thick, laid this time in Flemish bond (header-stretcher-header) in several courses. Another east-west wall, of which only remnants were found, joined Wall E and its southern terminus. Six feet west of Wall E this fragmentary wall widened from three to four bricks in thickness in what appeared to be the foundation of a wide gate, with a heavy iron hinge-pintle _in situ_; beyond this it disappeared in a jumble of brickbats. Upon completion of the wall excavations, a return was made to Wall A, where a visible feature had been observed, although not investigated. This feature was a three-sided, westward projection from Wall A, similarly built of Aquia-type stone, forming with Wall A a long, narrow enclosure. The southern east-west course of this structure meets Wall A approximately 62 feet north of the creek-side terminus of Wall A and extends 59 feet to the west. The north-south course runs 100 feet to its junction with the northern east-west segment. The latter segment is only 55 feet long, so the enclosure is not quite symmetrical. No excavations were made here. However, in line with the north cross wall of the enclosure, trenches were dug at four intervals in a futile effort to locate evidence of a boundary wall in the present orchard lying to the east of the road to the creek. SIGNIFICANT ARTIFACTS ASSOCIATED WITH WALLS _Date_ _Artifact_ _of Manufacture_ _Provenience_ Wine-bottle base. Diameter, 1735-1750 Adjacent to junction 5-1/8 inches. of Walls A, A-I, (USNM 59.1717 fig. 29; ill. 35) A-II, 13 inches above wall base and undisturbed soil. Wine-bottle base. Diameter, 1750-1770 Surface 4-5/8 inches. (USNM 60.117) Polychrome Chinese-porcelain 1730-1770 In disturbed soil teacup base. between junction of Blue-and-white porcelain sherds. Walls A, A-I, A-II, (USNM 60.118; 60.121) and modern Highway 621. Buckley coarse earthenware. (USNM Surface 60.80; 60.108; 60.136; 60.140) Staffordshire white salt-glazed ca. 1760 Surface ware. (USNM 60.106) Brass knee buckle. (USNM 60.139; ca. 1760 Surface fig. 83e; ill. 49) Hand-forged nails. Surface Scraping tool. (USNM 60.133; fig. Surface 89b; ill. 76) Fragment of bung extractor. (USNM Surface 60.134; fig. 89d) Sherds of heavy lead-glass decanter ca. 1720 Trenches beside Wall and knop of large wineglass or B-2. pedestal-bowlstem. (USNM 60.149) Westerwald stoneware. before 1750 Surface (USNM 60.104; 60.121) Tidewater-type earthenware. (USNM 60.141; 60.154) Iron gate pintle. (USNM 60.90; figs. Wall E gateway, 6 29 and 88) inches from west end, south side, 13 inches above undisturbed soil, in bricks in second course. Brass harness ring. (USNM 60.53; 2 inches west of figs. 29 and 83i) Wall E gateway, on top of third course of bricks, 7 inches above undisturbed soil. Bridle bit. (USNM 60.67; figs. 29 5 inches west of and 91c) Wall E gateway, first course, 4 inches above undisturbed soil. Bottle seal, marked with "I^[C.]M" (See matching Underneath bridle and first three digits of date seal dated 1737 bit (see above). "173...." (USNM 60.68) on wine bottle, USNM 59.1688; fig. 78; ill. 37) Fragment of iron potlid (USNM 60.69; Southwest corner of fig. 87a) Wall E gateway, 7 inches above undisturbed soil, at lowest brick course. Indian celt, with hole drilled for 16 inches east of use as pendant. (USNM 60.87) southwest corner of Wall E gateway, at undisturbed soil, 7 inches below wall base. Iron loop from swingletree. (USNM 30 inches east of 60.86) southwest corner of Wall E gateway, at undisturbed soil, 7 inches below wall base. Wine-bottle base. Diameter 4-1/2 1735-1750 Wall E gateway. Top inches (USNM 60.83) course of bricks, 16 inches north of pintle (see above). Iron plow colter. (USNM 60.88, Wall E gateway. Top ill. 79) course of bricks, 5.5 feet east of pintle (see above). In addition to the artifacts listed above numerous others were excavated from the trenches, although few of these have archeological value for purposes of analyzing the structures. Only the finds accompanied by depth and provenience data are significant in evaluating these structures, and in the case of the gateway few are helpful to any degree. The fragmentary bottle seal found there matches exactly a whole seal that occurs on a wine bottle described in a subsequent section. That seal is dated 1737, and thus this seal must have been similarly dated. Its presence near the lowest level suggests that the wall was in construction at the time the seal was deposited. Bottles were used for a long time, however, so the seal may have reached its final resting place years later than 1737. The Indian celt no doubt fell from the topsoil while the trench in which the wall was built was being excavated. The swingletree gear next to it probably was left there during the construction. The colter, although it appears to be of early 18th-century origin, may have been in use late in the 18th century after the wall had been removed. Since the colter is badly bent, it may have struck the top of the underground wall foundation, and, having been torn off from the plow, perhaps was left on the bricks where it fell. [Illustration: Figure 20.--EXCAVATION PLAN of Marlborough.] [Illustration: Figure 21.--EXCAVATION PLAN of wall system.] [Illustration: Figure 22.--LOOKING NORTH up the old road leading to the creek side.] [Illustration: Figure 23.--OUTCROPPING OF STONE WALL along old road from creek side.] [Illustration: Figure 24.--JUNCTION OF STONE WALL A, running from creek side to this point, with brick Wall A-I at top left, Wall A-II at right.] [Illustration: Figure 25.--LOOKING NORTH in line with Walls A and A-II, Wall A-I joining at right angles.] [Illustration: Figure 26.--WALL A-II. Breaks in wall date from subsequent placement of fence posts.] [Illustration: Figure 27.--JUNCTION OF WALL A-I with southeast corner of Structure B.] [Illustration: Figure 28.--WALL E, south of kitchen, showing gateway foundation.] [Illustration: Figure 29.--DETAIL OF GATEWAY in Wall E, showing iron pintle for gate hinge in place; also bridle bit (see fig. 91c), harness ring, and bottle base (see ill. 35).] [Illustration: Figure 30.--WALL B-II looking toward Potomac Creek, with "Gutt," shown in 1691 survey, at right.] [Illustration: Figure 31.--WALL D, looking east toward Potomac River from Structure E (kitchen).] HISTORICAL DATA AND INTERPRETATION OF WALL SYSTEM John Mercer commented with exasperation in his Land Book about the unresolved discrepancies between the Buckner survey of 1691 and the missing Gregg survey of 1707 (p. 14). There are as many disparities between Buckner's plat and the plat resulting from the Savage survey of 1731. In the latter a new row of lots is added along the western boundary, pushing the Buckner lots eastward. Where in the Buckner plat the lots and streets in the lower part of the town west of George Andrews' lots turn westerly 1° from the indicated main axis of the town, paralleling the 30-pole fourth course of the town bounds which runs to the creek's edge, the Savage map shows no such change. Yet Savage, in describing the courses of the survey in a written note on the plat, shows that he followed the original bounds. He does note a 4°, 10-pole error in the course along Potomac Creek, "which difference gives several Lots more than was in the old survey making one Row of Lots more than was contained therein each containing two thirds of an Acre." This was doubtless a contrivance designed to reconcile the Gregg and Buckner surveys and also to benefit John Mercer. In any case, it is clear that the plats themselves are both unreliable and inaccurate. What was actual was shown in the archeological survey of 1956 with its record of boundary walls and at least one street. An attempt has been made in figure 14 to give scale to the Buckner survey by superimposing the archeological map over it. There, Wall B-II, if extended north for 111 feet beyond its length of 384 feet to equal the 30 poles (495 feet) of the fourth course, would exactly touch the southwest corner of lot 21 where the fourth course began. But, in spite of this congruence, the other features of the plat are distorted and disagree with the slightly northwest-southeast basic orientation of the street and wall system. The simplest explanation might be that the layout was made on the basis of the 1707 Gregg survey. Since it was following the second Act for Ports of 1705 that the town achieved what little growth it made prior to Mercer's occupancy, it is probable that the town's orientation was made according to this survey. Whether or not this is the case, the road to the creek side was fundamental to the town, and probably was built early in its history and maintained after the town itself was abandoned. We know from archeological evidence that Wall A antedates the brick walls that were connected with it. Further evaluation of the wall system in relation to the entire site will be made later. It may be concluded for now that Wall A and the road beside it represent the main axis of the town as it was laid out before Mercer's arrival, that the stone walls were built before that event, that Wall B-II follows the fourth course somewhat according to Buckner's plat, and that the brick walls may date as late as 1750, as some of the associated artifacts suggest. [Illustration: Figure 32.--EXCAVATION PLAN of Structure B.] X _Mansion Foundation_ (_Structure B_) DESCRIPTION OF EXCAVATIONS With the exception of Wall A, the protruding bit of brickwork near the clump of trees (where Highway 621 makes its turn to the southeast) was the only evidence remaining above ground in 1956 of Marlborough's past grandeur. Designated Structure B, it was plainly the remains of a cellar foundation, which the tangled thicket of vines and trees adjacent to it tended to confirm. Since its location corresponded with the initially estimated position of the courthouse, it seemed possible that the foundation might have survived from that structure. Excavation of Structure B began accidentally when the excavators began following the westward course of Wall A-I, as described in the preceding section on the "Wall System." Wall A-I abutted, but did not mesh with, the corner of two foundation walls, one of which ran northward and the other continued on for 28 feet in the same direction as Wall A-I. The brickwork in the 28-foot stretch of Wall A-I was laid in a step-back, buttress-type construction. At the bottom course the wall was 2.65 feet thick, diminishing upward for five successive courses to a minimum of 1.5 feet. A wall running northward--the east foundation wall--was exposed for 16 feet from the point of its junction with Wall A-I until it disappeared under the highway. It was found to have the same buttress-type construction. There was no evidence of a cellar within the area enclosed by the foundation walls south of the highway. Excavation of the east foundation wall was resumed north of the highway, but here no buttressing was found, with evidence of a cellar visible instead. This evidence consisted of a curious complex of features, comprising remnants of two parallel cross walls only 4.5 feet apart with a brick pavement between 4.8 feet below the surface. The east wall and the cross walls had flush surfaces. The northerly cross wall was tied into the brickwork of the east wall, showing that it was built integrally with the foundation. The northerly cross wall had been knocked down, however, to within five courses on the floor level. The pavement was fitted against it. The southerly cross wall was not tied into the brickwork of the east wall, and the pavement had been torn up next to it. Thus it was evident that this wall had been erected subsequent to the building of the foundation, that it had shortened the cellar by 4.5 feet, and that the cellar extended southward to a point beneath the highway where it was impossible to excavate. Documentary evidence to confirm this alteration will be shown below (p. 91). Extending 12.5 feet north of the original cross wall was another cellarless section, with step-back buttressing again featuring the foundation wall. Another paved cellar was in evidence north of this, extending for 26 feet, with a final 14.25-foot cellarless portion as far as the north wall of the structure. The interior of the cellar, to the extent that inviolate trees and shrubs made it possible to determine, was filled with brickbats and debris, large portions of which were removed. Evidence, however, of construction of cross walls and of floor treatment remained concealed. [Illustration: Figure 33.--SITE OF STRUCTURE B before excavating, looking northeast.] The entire length of this extraordinary foundation totaled 108 feet. The northwest corner of Structure B was not excavated because it was hidden beneath a group of cedar trees which could not be disturbed. South of the trees, however, the section of the west-wall foundation was exposed to a length of 15.5 feet. This section was situated partly in, and partly north of, the north cellar area. The cross measurement, from outer edge to outer edge, was 28 feet, the same as the length of the south foundation wall. Another short section of the west foundation wall also was exposed from the southwest corner as far as a private driveway which limited the excavation. Abutting the exterior of the north wall of the foundation a flagstone pavement was found, extending 8.45 feet northward and 16 feet westward from the northeast corner. Against the foundation, within this space, was a U-shaped brick wall, forming a hollow rectangle 5 feet by 3.6 feet (inside). The space was filled with ashes, loose bricks, and other refuse. This brickwork was the foundation for a small porch, the lime-sandstone slabs surrounding it having been an apron or a small terrace. Extending westward from the cedar trees, beyond the projected 28-foot length of the north wall, was a short section of brick wall foundation, the outer surface of which was faced with slabs of red sandstone and dressed on the top with a cyma-reversa molding. The tops of the slabs were rough, but each had slots and channels for receiving iron tie bars (ill. 3) that were still in place. This wall was inset four inches to the south of the alignment of the main north foundation wall. [Illustration: Figure 34.--SOUTHWEST CORNER OF STRUCTURE B. Piazza foundation extends to left, with red sandstone block at junction of piazza with main foundation. To the left of top of sign, molded red-sandstone trim can be seen which apparently surrounded the piazza. Bricks in front of trim appear to have been added later as step foundation. Brick buttressing of main-foundation footing appears at right.] The northwest corner of this additional structure was hidden under the highway. Even now, however, the discerning eye can pick up the contour of a wall running parallel with the west foundation wall under the blacktop pavement. For a brief distance, between the point where the road swings eastward from it and the private driveway covers it again, excavation exposed this wall. Designated Wall C, it was 22 inches thick, entirely of brick, with no evidence remaining of red sandstone on the outside. The exterior surface was 9.5 feet beyond the west foundation wall. At the southwest corner of the foundation, evidence matching that at the northwest corner was found. Here, again inset 4 inches from the line of the main south foundation wall, were to be seen the tops of red-sandstone slabs like those found at the north end (fig. 36), in this case with one tie rod still in place. The driveway obscured the point to which the corner of this extending structure could presumably be projected. Subsequent construction against the sandstone slabs had covered their surfaces with a rubble of brick and mortar that appeared to be the foundation for masonry steps (fig. 35). Projecting out from the southwest corner of the foundation was a rectangular red-sandstone block which appeared to be the corner of these superimposed steps. Although situated under the driveway, it was apparent by projection that Wall B-I joined the southwest corner of Wall C. It will be demonstrated from surviving records that Wall C, with its connecting sections, was the foundation of a full-length veranda. The belief which persisted for a time that Structure B might have been the courthouse was dispelled by documentary evidence showing that it was John Mercer's mansion. [Illustration: Figure 35.--SOUTHWEST CORNER OF STRUCTURE B, showing molded-sandstone trim with added brickwork in front. Bricks also covered red-sandstone block, lower right. (Diagonally placed bricks at left are not part of structure.)] SIGNIFICANT ARTIFACTS ASSOCIATED WITH STRUCTURE B _Date _Artifact_ of Manufacture_ _Provenience_ 2 rim sherds from ca. 1730 Beneath flagstone in brown-banded; porch apron north "drab," stoneware of Structure B. mug (USNM 59.1754; fig. 67b) Iron candle-snuffer 1730-1750 Debris at south end (USNM 59.1825; ill. 62) of Structure B. Small crescent-shaped Debris at south end chopping knife of Structure B. (USNM 59.1837; fig. 85a) Silver teaspoon ca. 1730-1750 Wall debris near (USNM 59.1827; fig. 86d) north end. In addition, there was the usual variety of 18th-century delftware, Nottingham and white salt-glazed stoneware, pieces of a Westerwald stoneware chamber pot, and much miscellaneous iron, of which only a hinge fragment and a supposed shutter fastener probably were associated with the house. None of this material has provenience data, nearly all of it having turned up in the process of trenching. Little of it, therefore, throws much light on the history of the structure. The most important artifacts found in and around Structure B are those of an architectural nature, and these will be considered primarily in the following section. ARCHITECTURAL DATA AND ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURE B That the "manor house," as Thomas Oliver called it in 1771, was an extraordinary building is both revealed in the Structure B foundation and confirmed by the insurance-policy sketch of 1806. Long, low, and narrow, fronted by a full-length veranda and adorned with stone trim for which we can find no exact parallel in 18th-century America, it was as individualistic as John Mercer himself. Yet, far from being a vernacular anachronism or a mere eccentricity, it was apparently rich with the Georgian mannerisms that made it very much an expression of its age. [Illustration: Figure 36.--SOUTH WALL OF STRUCTURE B, looking east. Base of veranda extends to bottom of picture at left. Molded-sandstone trim appears through brick rubble that has been attached to it, evidently as base for steps.] The measurements made of the foundation when excavated, as we have seen, show a length of 108 feet and a width of 28 feet for the main structure, with an overall width, including the projecting Wall C, of 37 feet 6 inches. The insurance policy states a length of 108 feet 8 inches and a width of 29 feet 6 inches for the main foundation, plus a separate width for the "portico" (as the structure above Wall C was called) of 8 feet 4 inches. These small discrepancies probably lie in the differences between measuring a standing house and a foundation. Despite the fact that the foundation was far from fully excavated because of the presence of trees and highway, it is clear, nevertheless, that two cellars of unequal size were situated within the main foundation, separated by sections where there were no cellars. These findings correspond with the notation on the insurance-policy plan, "a Cellar under about half the House." [Illustration: Figure 37.--CELLAR OF STRUCTURE B, showing remains of original cross wall at left and added cross wall at right. Mercer probably referred to the latter in 1749 in his account with Thomas Barry: "Underpinning and altering the cellar."] The partly destroyed cross wall extends about midway across the foundation, acting as a retaining wall. As described above, this cross wall was found to be tied into the brick pavement that abutted it on the south side. The bricks in the main foundation walls and in the partly destroyed cross wall and pavement, on the basis of sample measurements, show a usual dimension of about 8-1/2 by 2-3/4 by 4 inches. An occasional 9-inch brick occurs--about 10 percent of the sample. In contrast, the bricks in the second cross wall are all 9 inches long, except two that are 8-1/2 inches and one that is 8-3/4 inches. Similar sizes prevail in the bricks exposed in the "portico" foundation (Wall C) at the south end. The significance of these brick sizes will be discussed later. It is clear that Wall C was the foundation of the "portico," and that by "portico" the writer of the insurance policy meant veranda or loggia. The policy also shows a "Porch 10 by 5 f." extending from the middle of the veranda. The highway now covers this spot. In the space between the two parallel cross walls within the main foundation, the debris yielded a large section of a heavy, red-sandstone arch, 14 inches wide, 9 inches thick, and 3 feet 2 inches long. This arch was roughhewn on the flat surfaces and on about half of the outer curved surface, or extrados. The inner surface, or intrados, and the remainder of the extrados are smoothly dressed (fig. 38). At the south end of the main foundation another curved red-sandstone piece was recovered. This piece curves laterally and has a helically sloped top surface. It is 25 inches long, 14-1/2 inches high at the highest point, and 9 inches thick. Presumably, it was part of a flanker for a formal outdoor stair or steps (fig. 39). Also at the south end was found a cast-mortar block with grooves on the back for metal or wooden fastenings (USNM 59.1823; fig. 40). This was perhaps part of a simulated ashlar doorframe. A few gauged or "rubbed" bricks occur that are slightly wedge shaped. [Illustration: Figure 38.--SECTION OF RED-SANDSTONE ARCH found in cellar, presumably from an arcade surrounding the veranda.] Turning to the documentary evidence, one may recall that an item dated September 1747, "By building part of my House," appeared in David Minitree's account in Ledger G. Two years later, in 1749, several items related to the house appeared in the account of Thomas Barry, "By Building the Addition to my House/ By 22 Arches/ By 900 Coins & Returns/ By a Frontispiece/ By Underpinning & altering the Cellar." In 1749 and 1750 William Copein was paid for mason's work. [Illustration: Figure 39.--HELICALLY CONTOURED red sandstone, possibly a flanker for the steps at the south end of the veranda, near which it was found.] [Illustration: Figure 40.--CAST-CONCRETE BLOCK, probably part of a rusticated door enframement. Found at south end of Structure B. (See ills. 1 and 2.)] [Illustration: Figure 41.--DRESSED RED-SANDSTONE SLAB (originally in one piece), molded on both edges. Although last used as a doorstep in Structure E, this slab was probably designed as trim for the sides of steps connected with the main house (Structure B).] [Illustration: Illustrations 1 and 2.--Front and back of cast-concrete block, probably part of a rusticated door enframement (fig. 40). One-fourth. (USNM 59.1823.)] [Illustration: Figure 42.--FOSSIL-EMBEDDED black sedimentary stone, used for hearths and fireplace surrounds in the mansion.] There is a clear sequence here. "Building part of my house" referred to the basic brick structure built in 1747 by Minitree on the main foundation. The work of William Monday, the carpenter, followed in 1748. This doubtless included building the roof, setting beams, laying floors, and building partitions. Then in 1749 Barry built the "Addition to my House"--almost certainly the veranda. The item for 22 arches is difficult to understand unless one relates it to the veranda and divides the figure in two. The veranda was probably an arcade having 11 arched openings, with arched facings of rubbed brick both inside and outside the arcade. Thus, for the bricklayer, each actual arch would have required two arches of brick. The intrados, or undersurfaces, of the arches were probably red sandstone, like the fragmentary arch found in the site; the basic element of the arch was then faced on each side with bricks also arranged in an arch formation. The arcade at Hanover courthouse seems to have been built in a somewhat similar fashion, except that there the brick facing appears on the exterior of the arch only. The "900 Coins and Returns" probably are gauged bricks, that is, bricks ground smooth on a grindstone to provide a different texture and richer red color to contrast with the ordinary wall brick. They were widely used in Virginia mansions of the 18th century for corner and arch decoration. At Marlborough over 600 rubbed bricks would have been required to trim the piers of 11 arches, while the remainder may have decorated the porch. The porch, we may be sure, was the "Frontispiece." [Illustration: Illustration 3.--Iron tie bar used to secure dressed red-sandstone slabs to each other. One-fourth. (USNM 59.1833.)] [Illustration: Figure 43.--FOUNDATION OF PORCH at north end of Structure B, surrounded by flagstone pavement.] The item for "Underpinning & altering the cellar" probably refers to the knocked-out original cross wall and the added parallel cross wall, although the reasons for the change will always remain a mystery. As has been noted, the average brick sizes in the main foundation, on the one hand, and those of bricks in the new cellar cross wall and in the veranda were mostly different. Probably the distinctions represent the differences between Minitree's and Barry's bricks. [Illustration: Figure 44.--PLAN OF MANSION HOUSE drawn on a Mutual Assurancy Society of Virginia policy of 1806 after the house was acquired by John Cooke. (_Courtesy of Virginia State Library._)] The detailed sequence of joiners', plasterers', and painters' work during the 1748-1750 period has already been given attention in the historical section, enough to indicate that the mansion was one of luxurious appointments. The insurance policy describes it as a "Brick Dwelling House one Story high covered with wood." In modern parlance this would be called a story-and-a-half house with a wood-shingled roof. The veranda, probably in the form of an arcade, was trimmed with dressed red sandstone and perhaps paved with the squares and oblongs of this material found scattered around the site. The small projecting porch mentioned in the insurance policy provided a central pavilion. The appearance of the house from here on must be left wholly to speculation with only hints to guide us. We know, for instance, that a considerable amount--three books--of gold leaf was employed. Was there, perhaps, a small gilded cupola to break the long expanse of roof line? Were the 162 ballusters, purchased from George Elliott towards the time of completion, made for staircases indoors or for a balustrade along the roof? Or did they border the roof of the veranda? To these questions there can be no answer. Another question is whether the house, described as one story high, was built over a high basement or near ground level. Here we have evidence pointing to the latter, since the foundation had two separate cellars, equalling "a Cellar under about half the House." A high or English basement, by contrast, would have been continuous. Furthermore, the veranda was at, or near, the ground level. The ground floor thus might have been as much as 3 feet higher, reached by steps from the veranda--but not a whole story higher. The depth of the cellars, ranging from about 4 to 5 feet below ground level, implies that the first floor was not more than 3 feet above ground level. Suggestions as to details of trim and finish are made here and there, again in fragmentary hints. Several broken pieces of a dark-gray, fossil-embedded marble survive from the "chimney-pieces" and hearths of fireplaces (fig. 42). They may be the "hewn stone from Mr. Nicholson" paid for in 1749. A piece of plaster cyma-recta cornice molding shows that some rooms, at least, had plaster rather than wooden ceiling trim (USNM 59.1829, ill. 4). Thomas Oliver's statement that "the Manor house wants lead lights in some of the windows" suggests an unparalleled anachronism, since the term "lead light" is an ancient one referring to casement sashes of leaded glass. But it is inconceivable, in the context of colonial architectural history, that this house should have had leaded-casement windows, and it is very probable, therefore, that the semiliterate Oliver was indulging in a rural archaism to which he had transferred the meaning of "sash lights." The latter term was used commonly to denote double-hung, wooden-sash windows, such as Georgian houses still feature. In support of this inference is the complete lack of archeological evidence of leaded-glass windows. [Illustration: Illustration 4.--Cross section of plaster cornice molding from Structure B. Same size. (USNM 59.1829.)] The cellarless areas of the foundation may have provided the footings for chimneys. These probably stood several feet from the ends, perhaps serving clusters of four corner fireplaces each, for each floor. One may surmise that there was a hip roof, with a chimney rising through each hip. A porch at the north end had a rectangular brick base 4 by 6 feet, surrounded by a flagstone area 16 feet wide and 8 feet 5 inches in extent from the house. This evidence, however, differs from the figures given in the insurance plan which shows a "Porch 8 by 6 feet." The mansion embodied some characteristics which are traditional in Virginia house design and others which are without parallel. The elongated plan indicated by the foundation was more frequently encountered in Virginia dwellings of the late 17th and early 18th centuries than in the "high Georgian" mansions of the 1740's and 1750's. Turkey Island, for example, built in Henrico County in the 17th century, was 103 feet long, 5 feet less than Marlborough.[149] The additions to Governor Berkeley's Green Spring Plantation, built during the late 17th century, consisted of an informal series of rooms, one room in depth for the most part. Waterman is of the opinion that Green Spring was "in a sense an overgrown cottage without the real attributes of a mansion."[150] The excavations conducted in 1954 by Caywood have altered the basis for this opinion somewhat, but, with its 150-foot length, Green Spring remains an early example of the elongated plan.[151] Aside from being elongated, Marlborough derives from the ubiquitous informal brick cottage of Virginia. So indigenous is this vernacular form that it is often found in houses of considerable pretension, even in the 18th century. Such are the Abingdon glebe house in Gloucester County, Gunston Hall in Fairfax, and the Chiswell Plantation, known as "Scotchtown," in Hanover. Robert Beverley noted the Virginians' fondness for this style, commenting that they built many rooms on a floor because frequent high winds would "incommode a towering Fabrick"--an explanation as delightful as it is absurd.[152] That these one-story houses could be completely formal is demonstrated in the unique early 18th-century addition to Fairfield (Carter's Creek Plantation) in Gloucester County, which burned in 1897. This dwelling had a full hip roof, with dormers to light the attic rooms, and a high basement. Its classical cornice was bracketed with heavy modillions, while a massive chimney protruded from the slope of the hip.[153] Gunston Hall, on the other hand, reverted to the gable-end form. Although essentially a Virginia cottage, it is richly adorned with Georgian architectural detail. Completed in 1758, only eight years after Marlborough, and owned by Mercer's nephew George Mason, this building may be more closely related to Marlborough than any other existing house.[154] [Illustration: Figure 45.--THE VILLA of "the magnificent Lord Leonardo Emo" at "_Fanzolo_, in the _Trevigian_;" illustrated in _The Architecture of A. Palladio_ (Giacomo Leoni, ed., 3rd edition, corrected, London, 1742). Palladio's was one of the works owned by Mercer and probably used by Bromley. The arcaded loggias of the one-story wings of this building may have contributed to the inspiration of Marlborough. (_Courtesy of the Library of Congress._)] Of all the one-story Virginia houses that have come to our attention, only Marlborough has a full-length veranda. To be sure, there are multiple-story houses with full-length verandas, the most notable being Mount Vernon. Elmwood, built just before the Revolution in Essex County, is another, having a foundation plan similar to Marlborough's.[155] The Mount Vernon veranda is part of the remodeling of 1784, so that neither house reached its finished state until a quarter of a century after Marlborough's completion. Marlborough may thus at the outset have been unique among Virginia dwellings in having such a veranda. However, full-length verandas on buildings other than dwellings were not unknown in Virginia prior to the construction of Marlborough, for they occurred in an almost standard design in the form of arcaded loggias in county courthouses. Typical were King William and Hanover County courthouses, both built about 1734 (figs. 5 and 61). The arcaded loggia is Italian in origin and is traceable here to Palladio, whose influence was diffused to England and the colonies in a variety of ways. We know that _The Architecture of A. Palladio_ was one of four architectural works acquired by Mercer in 1748 and apparently lent to his "architect," joiner William Bromley. The direct influence of this work on the overall plan of Marlborough probably was negligible. However, Palladio illustrates the villa of "the magnificent Lord Leonardo Emo" at "_Fanzolo_, in the _Trevigian_" (fig. 45), which may have caught Mercer's eye. This building had a central, raised pavilion with two one-story wings, each approximately 100 feet long. Each wing had a full-length, arcaded veranda. The wings were intended for stables, granaries, and so forth. Palladio commented: "People may go under shelter every where about this House, which is one of the most considerable conveniences that ought to be desir'd in a Country-house."[156] Mercer may have been impressed by this argument and by the arcade in the design. He was already familiar with arcades at the capitol at Williamsburg and at the College of William and Mary, as well as at outlying courthouses where he practiced, the courthouse at Stafford probably included. In any case, he did not have the veranda built until 1748 or 1749, after the main structure had been completed. It is significant, in this regard, that it was not until March 1748 that he settled accounts with Sydenham & Hodgson for the four architectural books (including Palladio). A formal garden apparently was laid out in the nearly square, walled enclosure behind the mansion. It is perhaps wholly a coincidence that Palladio, writing about the villa at Fanzolo, commented, "On the back of this Building there is a square Garden." [Illustration: Figure 46.--EXCAVATION PLAN of Structure E, looking southwest.] FOOTNOTES: [149] HENRY CHANDLEE FORMAN, _The Architecture of the Old South_ (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1948), pp. 74-75. [150] Op. cit. (footnote 94), p. 21. [151] LOUIS CAYWOOD, _Excavations at Green Spring Plantation_ (Yorktown, 1955), pp. 11, 12, maps nos. 3 and 4. [152] ROBERT BEVERLEY, op. cit. (footnote 5), p. 289. [153] WATERMAN, op. cit. (footnote 94), pp. 23-26; FISKE KIMBALL, _Domestic Architecture of the American Colonies and of the Early Republic_ (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1927), p. 42. [154] ROSAMOND RANDALL BEIRNE and JOHN HENRY SCARFF, _William Buckland, 1734-1774; Architect of Virginia and Maryland_ (Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1958). [155] WATERMAN, op. cit. (footnote 94), p. 298. [156] ANTONIO PALLADIO, _The Architecture of A. Palladio ... Revis'd, Design'd, and Publish'd By Giacomo Leoni ... The Third Edition, Corrected ..._ (London, 1742), p. 61, pl. 40. XI _Kitchen Foundation_ (_Structure E_) DESCRIPTION OF EXCAVATIONS Structure E was a brick foundation, 17 feet by 32 feet, situated at the northwest corner of the enclosure-wall system. Its south wall was continuous with Wall D, which joined it, and was at right angles to Wall E. The latter abutted it in line with an interior foundation wall which bisected the structure into two room areas, designated X and Y. Thus it once stood like a bastion extending outside the enclosure walls, but remaining integral with them and affording a controlled entrance to the enclosure (fig. 46). The east end of Structure E extended under a modern boundary fence to the present edge of the highway. Ditching of the highway had cut into the foundation and exposed the debris and slabs of stone in place, which indeed had provided the first clues to the existence of the structure. Clearance of the easterly area, Room X, revealed a pavement of roughly rectangular slabs of mixed Aquia-type lime-sandstone and red sandstone. These slabs were flaked, eroded, and discolored, as though they had been exposed to great heat. The pavement was not complete, some stones having apparently been removed. The scattered locations of the stones remaining _in situ_ implied that the entire room was originally paved. Between the northwest corner of Room X and a brick abutment 5 feet to the south was a rectangular area where the clay underlying the room had been baked to a hard, red, bricklike mass (fig. 49). Wood ash was admixed with the clay. This was clearly the site of a large fireplace, where constant heat from a now-removed hearth had penetrated the clay. Extending north 3.8 feet beyond the bounds of the room at this point was a U-shaped brick foundation 4.75 feet wide. Near the southeast corner of the room, just outside of the foundation, which it abutted, was a well-worn red-sandstone doorstep, which located the site of the door communicating between Structure E and the interior of the enclosure--and, of course, between Structure E and Structure B, the distance between which was 100 feet. Room Y, extending west beyond the corner of the enclosure walls was perhaps an addition to the original structure. The disturbed condition of the bricks where this area joined Room X, however, obscured any evidence in this respect. In the northeast corner, against the opposite side of the fireplace wall in Room X, was another area of red-burned clay. Lying across this was a long, narrow slab of wrought iron, 34.5 by 6 inches (fig. 50), which may have served in some fashion as part of a stove or fire frame. In any case, a small fireplace seems to have been located here. Approximately midway in the west wall of Room Y, against the exterior, lay a broken slab of red sandstone, which obviously also served as a doorstone. That it had been designed originally for a more sophisticated purpose is evident in the architectural treatment of the stone, which is smoothly dressed with a torus molding along each edge and a diagonal cut across one end (fig. 41). No evidence of floor remained in this room, except for a smooth surface of yellow clay which became sticky when exposed to rain. [Illustration: Figure 47.--FOUNDATION of Structure E (kitchen).] The north half of Room Y was filled with broken bricks, mortar, plaster, nails, and--significantly--small bits of charred wood and burned hornets' nests. The concentration of debris here could be explained by the collapse of the chimney as well as the interior wall into the room. The crumbly condition of the southwest portion of the exterior-wall foundation also may indicate a wall collapse. Few artifacts were recovered in this area. North of Room X lay a large amount of rubble and artifacts, suggesting that the north wall had fallen away from the building, perhaps carrying with it shelves of dishes and utensils. Both rooms contained ample evidence in the form of ash, charcoal, burned hornets' nests, and scorched flagstones to demonstrate that a fire of great heat had destroyed the building. ARCHITECTURAL DATA AND INTERPRETATION John Mercer's account with Thomas Barry (Ledger G) itemizes for 1749, "building a Kitchen/ raising a Chimney/ building an oven." It is clear from the features of Structure E, its relation to Structure B, and the custom prevalent in colonial Virginia of building separate dependencies for the preparation of food, that Structure E was the kitchen referred to in Barry's account. Like this building, kitchens elsewhere were almost invariably two rooms in plan--a cooking room and a pantry or storage room. One of the earliest--at Green Spring--had a large fireplace for the kitchen proper, and in the second room a smaller fireplace, both served by a central chimney. An oven stood inside the building between the larger fireplace and the wall.[157] At Stratford (ca. 1725) the kitchen is similarly planned, as it is at Mannsfield (Spotsylvania County).[158] Mount Vernon has an end chimney in its kitchen, and only one fireplace. The floor of the kitchen proper is paved with square bricks, while the second room has a clay floor. The Stratford kitchen is paved with ordinary bricks. Such examples can be multiplied several times. [Illustration: Figure 48.--PAVED FLOOR OF ROOM X, Structure E, showing HL door hinge in foreground. (See fig. 88a.)] The physical relationship of the kitchen to the main house in Virginia plantations was dictated in part by convenience and in part by the Palladian plans that governed the architecture of colonial mansions. Structure E's relationship to Structure B is representative of that existing between most kitchens and their main buildings. Mount Vernon, Stratford, Blandfield, Nomini Hall, Rosewell, and many other plantations have, or had, kitchens located at points diagonal to the house and on axes at right angles to them. Usually each was balanced by a dependency placed in a similar relationship to the opposite corner of the house. Sometimes covered walkways connected the pairs of dependencies, curved as at Mount Vernon, Mount Airy, and Mannsfield, or straight as at Blandfield in Essex County (1771). Marlborough, as we shall see, was not typical in its layout, but the relationship between kitchen and house was the customary one. The thickness of the foundations in Structure E was the width of four bricks--approximately 17 inches. As usual in the case of the lower courses of a foundation, the bricks were laid in a somewhat random fashion. The intact portions of the south and west walls revealed corners of bricks laid end to end so as to expose headers on both sides. The east wall showed pairs of bricks placed at right angles to each other, so that headers and stretchers appeared alternately. On the north wall of Room X bricks were laid as headers on the outside and as stretchers, one behind the other, on the inside. These variations probably are due to different bricklayers having worked on the building simultaneously. Since oddly assorted courses would have been below ground level, care for their appearance was minimal. Finished exterior brickwork was required only above the lowest point visible to the eye. [Illustration: Figure 49.--NORTH WALL of Structure E, looking east. Sign stands on partition wall between Rooms X and Y and in front of rectangular section of burnt red clay, upon which fireplace hearth stood. Projecting foundation at left may have supported an oven. Iron slab (see fig. 50) lies _in situ_ with trowel on top.] Brick sizes ran from 9 to 9-1/2 inches long, 4 to 4-1/2 inches wide, and 2-1/4 to 2-3/4 inches thick. These measurements are similar to those of bricks in the veranda foundation and the added cellar cross wall of Structure B. It is apparent from Ledger G that the elements in Structure B, as well as the kitchen, were all built by Thomas Barry. Barry probably used bricks that he himself made, according to the custom of Virginia bricklayers, so that the archeological and documentary evidences of the extent of his work in the two buildings reinforce each other. The protruding rectangle of bricks at the north end of Structure E resembles the foundation for steps in Structure B. However, its position directly adjacent to what must be assumed to have been the fireplace precludes the possibility of its having been the location for a step. Moreover, the pavement and doorstones at the west and south demonstrate that the floor of the kitchen was at ground level, so that a raised step at the north side would have been not only unnecessary, but impossible. [Illustration: Figure 50.--WROUGHT-IRON SLAB, found in Room Y, Structure E, behind fireplace. Purpose unknown. Size, 6 by 35 inches.] We know from the ledger that Barry built an oven and raised a chimney. That the latter was a central chimney may be assumed on the basis of the evidence of the two fireplaces placed back to back. There is, however, no archeological evidence that there was an oven within the structure, and every negative indication that there was not. The rectangular protrusion, exactly in line with the end of the fireplace thus was apparently the foundation for a brick oven, the domed top of which extended outside the building, with its opening made into the north end of the fireplace. Protruding ovens are known in New York and New England, but none in Virginia has come to the writer's attention. On the other hand, protruding foundations like the one here are also unknown in Virginia kitchens, except where slanting ground, as at Mount Vernon, has made steps necessary. It may be concluded that Structure E was the plantation kitchen, that it was built in 1749, that it had two rooms (a cookroom with fireplace paving and a large fireplace, and a second room with a smaller fireplace), that an oven built against the exterior of the building opened into the north end of the fireplace, and that the first, and probably the only, floor was at ground level. Archeological evidence points to final destruction of the building by fire. (Mercer indicated that fire had threatened it previously in the entry in his journal for April 22, 1765, which noted "kitchen roof catch'd fire.") In the form of datable artifacts, it also shows that the structure was destroyed in the early 19th century, since the latest ceramic artifacts date from about 1800. [Illustration: Figure 51.--EXCAVATION PLAN of structures north of Wall D.] FOOTNOTES: [157] CAYWOOD, loc. cit. (footnote 151). [158] WATERMAN, loc. cit. (footnote 94). XII _Supposed Smokehouse Foundation_ (_Structure F_) DESCRIPTION OF EXCAVATIONS A nearly square foundation, measuring 18.3 feet by 18.6 feet, with a narrow extended brick structure protruding from it, was situated some 45 feet north of Wall D, about midway in the wall's length. It was oriented on a north-northwest--south-southeast axis, quite without reference to the wall system. The foundation walls and the narrow extension were exposed by excavation, but the interior area within the walls was not excavated, except for 2-foot-wide trenches along the edges of the walls. The foundation itself, about 2 feet thick, consisted of brick rubble--tumbled and broken bricks, not laid in mortar and for the most part matching bricks found elsewhere in Marlborough structures. Scattered among the typical Virginia bricks and brickbats were several distinctively smaller and harder dark-red bricks measuring 7-1/4 inches by 3-1/2 inches (fig. 53). The most interesting feature of the structure was its narrow extension. This had survived in the form of two parallel walls laid in three brick courses without mortar, the whole projecting from the southeasterly wall. The interior measurement between the walls was 1.75 feet and the exterior overall width was 4 feet. Its southern extremity had an opening narrowed to 1 foot in width by bricks placed at right angles to the walls. Approximately 5 feet to the north the passage formed by the walls was narrowed to 1 foot by three tiers of one brick, each tier laid parallel to the passage on each side. At 8.7 feet from its southern terminus the extension intersected the main foundation. Just north of this intersection, bricks laid within the passage were stepped up to form a platform two courses high and one course lower than the top of the foundation. A fluelike opening was formed by two rows of brick laid on top of the platform, narrowing the passage to a width of 5 inches. North of the southeast foundation wall there remained a strip of four bricks in two courses at the level of the opening, forming a thin continuation of the platform for 3.25 feet. SIGNIFICANT ARTIFACTS IN STRUCTURE F The narrow extension contained several bushels of unburned oystershells and some coals. There was limited evidence of burning, although the shells were not affected by fire. A small variety of artifacts was found, few of which dated later than the mid-18th century. The flue or fire chamber yielded the following artifacts: 59.1717 Wine-bottle basal fragments, 5-5-1/2 inches, mid-18th-century form 59.1721 Stem of a taper-stem, teardrop wineglass, misshapen from having been melted, ca. 1730-1740 59.1723 Green window glass, one sherd with rolled edge of crown sheet 59.1724 Blue-and-white Chinese porcelain 59.1725 "Yellowware" sherd, probably made before 1750 59.1727 Westerwald gray-and-blue salt-glazed stoneware 59.1728 Buckley black-glazed ware 59.1730 Miscellaneous late 17th- and early 18th-century delftware fragments 59.1731 Staffordshire salt-glazed white stoneware, some with molded rims, ca. 1760 59.1734 Half of sheep shears (ill. 85) 59.1735 Convex copper escutcheon plate (fig. 83g) 59.1736 Brass-hinged handle or pull for strap (fig. 83j, ill. 89) [Illustration: Figure 52.--STRUCTURE F (supposed smokehouse foundation). Firing chamber in foreground.] Elsewhere, in the trenches next to the foundation walls, artifacts typical of those occurring in other parts of the site were found. Worth mentioning are pieces of yellow-streaked, red earthen "agate" ware, sometimes attributed to Astbury or Whieldon, and sherds of cord-impressed Indian pottery. ARCHITECTURAL ANALYSIS Since the interior of this structure was not excavated, many uncertainties remain as to its identity. The peculiar fluelike structure passing through its foundation, the rubble of bricks used to form the foundation, the huge quantities of oystershells in the flue, with partly burnt coals underneath, give rise to various speculations. So does the orientation of the structure, which is off both the true and polar axes and is also unrelated to the mansion or the wall system. The most likely explanation seems to be that Structure F was the foundation of a smokehouse. A recently excavated foundation in what was known as Brunswick Town, North Carolina, is almost identical (except for the use of ballast stone in the fire chamber and the building foundation). This also is believed to be a smokehouse foundation, since similar structures are still remembered from the days of their use.[159] [Illustration: Figure 53.--VIRGINIA BRICK from Structure B (left) 9 by 4 by 2-3/4 inches. Right, small brick from Structure F, probably imported, 7-1/4 by 3-1/2 by 1-3/4 inches. Perhaps one of the 630 bricks brought on the _Marigold_ by Captain Roger Lyndon and purchased by John Mercer.] The position of the Marlborough structure, outside of the enclosure wall but not far from the kitchen, the relative crudeness of its construction, and its off-axis orientation, support the likelihood of its being a utilitarian structure. The firing chamber and the flue show unquestionably that it was a building requiring heat or smoke. Marlborough had two greenhouses, according to Thomas Oliver's inventory, and these would have required heating equipment. But the small size of this structure and the absence of any indication of tile flooring or other elaboration suggested by contemporary descriptions of greenhouses seem to rule out this possibility. [Illustration: Figure 54.--STRUCTURE D, an unidentified structure with debris-filled refuse pit at left.] FOOTNOTES: [159] STANLEY SOUTH, "An Unusual Smokehouse is Discovered at Brunswick Town," _Newsletter_, Brunswick County Historical Society (Charlotte, N.C., August 1962), vol. 2, no. 3. XIII _Pits and Other Structures_ STRUCTURE D An exploratory trench was dug northward several yards from a point on Wall D, on axis with Structure B. An irregularly shaped remnant of unmortared-brick structure, varying between two and three bricks wide and one course high was discovered at the undisturbed level. This measured 8.5 feet by 6 feet. Adjacent to it, extending 5.8 feet and having a width varying from 6.5 to 7 feet, was a pit 2 feet 8 inches deep, dug 2 feet below the undisturbed clay level, and filled with a heavy deposit of artifacts, oystershells, and animal bones. The artifact remains were the richest in the entire site. Some of the most significant of these are the following: 59.1656 Key (fig. 88) 59.1942 Iron bolt (ill. 69) 59.1663} 59.2029} Two-tined forks (ill. 55-57) 59.1939} 59.1664 Jeweler's hammer (ill. 78) 59.1665 Fragments of a penknife (fig. 85c) 59.1668 Knife blade and Sheffield handle (fig. 86b) 59.1669} 59.1670} Pewter trifid-handle spoons (fig. 86f and g, ill. 58) 59.1672 Pewter "wavy-end" spoon (fig. 86e, ill. 59) 59.1675 Fragments of reeded-edge pewter plate (fig. 86a) 59.1676 Pewter teapot lid (fig. 86c, ill. 60) 59.1678 Brass rings (fig. 83i) 59.1680 Steel scissors (ill. 61) 59.1681 Large fishhook (ill. 88) 59.1682 Chalk bullet mold (fig. 84b, ill. 51) 59.1685 Slate pencil (fig. 85d, ill. 54) 59.1687 Octagonal spirits bottle (fig. 80) 59.1688 Wine bottle: seal "I^[C.]M 1737" (fig. 78, ill. 37) 59.1679 Handle sherd of North Devon gravel-tempered earthenware (ill. 15) 59.1698 Buckley high-fired, black-glazed earthenware (fig. 65) 59.1699 Buckley high-fired, amber-glazed earthenware pan sherds (fig. 65, ills. 17 and 18) 59.1700 Brown-decorated yellowware cup or posset-pot sherds (fig. 64c, ill. 16) 59.1701 Nottingham-type brown-glazed fine stoneware sherds (fig. 67a) 59.1762 Sherd of Westerwald blue-and-gray stoneware, with part of "GR" medallion showing (fig. 66d) 59.1704 Large sherds of brown-glazed Tidewater-type earthenware pan (fig. 63a, ill. 11) 59.1706 Blue-and-white delft plate, Lambeth, ca. 1720 (fig. 69) 59.1707 Blue-and-white delft plate, [?]Bristol, ca. 1750 (fig. 70) 59.1714 Kaolin tobacco-pipe bowls, and one wholly reconstructed pipe (fig. 84f, ill. 53) 59.1715 Steel springtrap for small animals (ill. 86) (Also numerous sherds of Staffordshire white salt-glazed ware and creamware. A single disparate sherd of pink, transfer-printed Staffordshire ware, dating from about 1835, is the only intrusive artifact in the deposit.) The bones were virtually all pork refuse, except for a few rabbit bones. The oystershells, found in every refuse deposit, reflect the universal taste for the then-abundant oyster. [Illustration: Figure 55.--REFUSE FOUND AT EXTERIOR CORNER of Wall A-II and Wall D.] The significance of the structure is not clear. It was probably the site of a privy, the remaining bricks having been part of a brick floor in front of the pit. STRUCTURE G A few feet southeast of Structure D, another much smaller pit was found, surrounded on two sides by a partial-U-shaped single row and single course of bricks. This brickwork measured 5 feet in length, with a 4-foot appendage at one end and a 7-foot appendage at the other. The pit was small and shallow. Typical ceramic artifacts were found, as well as fragments of black basaltes ware (ill. 32) and some early 19th-century whiteware. The function of this pit is unknown. PIT AT JUNCTION OF WALLS A-II AND D Just north of the northeast corner of the wall system a small trash pit was uncovered. It contained a scattering of wine- and gin-bottle sherds, a few miscellaneous, small, ceramic-tableware fragments, and about one-third of a blue-and-white Chinese porcelain plate (figs. 55 and 77). UNIDENTIFIED FOUNDATION NEAR POTOMAC CREEK (STRUCTURE H) About 60 feet from the shore of Potomac Creek, at the southeast corner of the old road that runs from the highway to the creek, bordered by Wall A, were indications of a brick foundation. This structure was explored to the extent of its width (about 15 feet) for a distance northward of 17 feet, then the east wall was traced 22 feet farther north until it disappeared into the bankside and a thicket. The excavated area disclosed quantities of brickbats, a layer of soil, a number of burnt bricks, a layer of black charcoal ash, and a 6-inch deposit of clay. The brick walls were 1.5 feet thick. The structure had been built into the hillside, so that the north end was presumably a deep basement. [Illustration: Figure 56.--EXCAVATION PLAN of Structure H.] [Illustration: Figure 57.--STRUCTURE H, from Potomac Creek shore, looking northeast.] Artifacts were few. A complete scythe (fig. 90) was found embedded in the clay above the brickwork on the east side of the structure, and next to it a large body sherd of black-glazed Buckley ware. A few small ceramic sherds occurred--pieces of redware with trailed slip (fig. 64), and small bits of delft, salt glaze, and Chinese porcelain. The location and implied shape of the building suggest that it had a utilitarian purpose. Near the waterfront, it would conveniently have served as a warehouse, or possibly as either the brewhouse or malthouse, each described by Mercer as having been 100 feet long, of brick and stone. Whether one was of brick and the other of stone, or both were brick and stone in combination, is not clear. There was no evidence of stonework in Structure H. On the other hand, the 100-foot-long rectangular stone enclosure, of which Wall A formed a part, shows no evidence of brickwork. The purposes of both these structures must, for now, remain unexplained, but association with the brewery seems plausible. XIV _Stafford Courthouse South of Potomac Creek_ INTRODUCTION The chief archeological problem of Marlborough at the time of excavation was whether or not Structure B had served as the foundation for both the courthouse and for John Mercer's mansion. Although the possibility still remains that the sites of the two buildings overlapped, preceding chapters have demonstrated that the foundation was constructed by Mercer for his house, and that it did not stand beneath the courthouse. However, in 1957 it was thought that exploration of the late-18th-century courthouse site, located upstream on the south side of Potomac Creek, might reveal a structure of similar dimensions which would help to confirm the possibility that Structure B had originated with the Marlborough courthouse. Furthermore, the Potomac Creek site was of interest by itself and was closely related to John Mercer's legal and judicial career. The location of the site is depicted in surveys included with suit papers of 1743 and 1805.[160] These papers were brought to our attention by George H. S. King of Fredericksburg, and were mentioned in Happel's carefully documented history of the Stafford and King George courthouses.[161] Previously, we had been led to the site by a former sheriff of Stafford County, who recalled listening as a boy to descriptions of the old courthouse building by an ancient whose memory went back to the early years of the 19th century. The old man's recollections, in turn, were reinforced by similar recountings of elders in his own youth. Unscientific though the value of such information may be, it emerges from folk memories that often remain sharp and clear in rural areas, spanning in the minds of two or three individuals the periods of several conventional generations. As clues, at least, they are never to be ignored. In this case we were taken to a rubble-strewn site on an eminence that overlooks Potomac Creek. At the foot of a declivity below, on the old Belle Plains road, we were shown another obvious evidence of structure, which we were told had been the jail. Just to the east of this where a road leads away to the site of Cave's tobacco warehouse (now the "Stone Landing"), we were informed that the stocks had once stood. Of the latter two sites we have no confirming evidence, although both claims are plausible enough. No archeological effort was made to investigate them, since funds were limited. The surveys of 1743 and 1805 are sufficient to confirm with accuracy the courthouse site. Accordingly, an archeological exploration was made between August 19 and August 23, 1957, revealing unmistakably the footings of a courthouse. As will be shown, these footings in no way bore a resemblance to the Structure B foundation. FOOTNOTES: [160] Fredericksburg Suit Papers, 1745-1805 (MS., Fredericksburg, Virginia, courthouse). [161] HAPPEL, op. cit. (footnote 22), pp. 183-194. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND The history of the Potomac Creek courthouse site has been presented thoroughly by Happel, but a brief review is in order here. Happel shows that a courthouse was ordered built in 1665, a year after the establishment of Stafford as a county. He quotes a court reference in 1667 to the road along the south shore of Potomac Creek, running from the "said Ferry," near the head of the Creek, "to the Court house to the horse Bridge," which he identifies as having spanned Passapatanzy Gut. In his opinion, this courthouse was near the mouth of the Creek, but he fails to show that it equally well may have been near the site of the later 18th-century structures. [Illustration: Figure 58.--DRAWING MADE IN 1743, showing location of Stafford courthouse south of Potomac Creek (orientation to south). (Fredericksburg Suit Papers.)] [Illustration: Figure 59.--ENLARGED DETAIL from lower right portion of figure 58, showing location of Stafford courthouse south of Potomac Creek.] We have seen that in 1690 court was first held in Thomas Elzey's house, seemingly located near the 18th-century courthouse site, and that orders were given that it continue to meet there until the new courthouse was ready. The history of the new courthouse at Marlborough has already been recounted, its final demise occurring about 1718. The court's official removal from Marlborough was agreed upon July 20, 1720, and, as already noted, "the head of Ocqua Creek" was designated for the new site, although obviously by error, since Potomac Creek plainly was intended. Happel tells us that the Potomac Creek building burned in 1730 or early 1731 and that the justices were ordered on April 27, 1731, to rebuild at the same place. It is this next building that was depicted on the 1743 survey plat (see fig. 58). In 1744 a bill was presented in the Assembly to relieve persons who had suffered or "may suffer" from the loss of Stafford County records "lately consumed by Fire";[162] apparently the courthouse had again burned. There seems to have been a delay of about five years in rebuilding it this time. Pressures to relocate it were exerted in the meanwhile and hearings were held by the Governor's Council on a petition to "remove the Court House lower down."[163] The Council listened, then "Ordered, that the new Court House be built where the old one stood."[164] [Illustration: Figure 60.--EXCAVATION PLAN of Stafford courthouse foundation.] This settled, Nathaniel Harrison and Hugh Adie contracted in 1749 with the justices of Stafford court to build a "Brick Courthouse, for the Consideration of 44500 lb. of Tobacco, to be furnished by the last of October, 1750."[165] Harrison was a distinguished member of the colony who, as a widower, had moved to Stafford County the previous year and had married Lucy, the daughter of Robert ("King") Carter of "Corotoman" and widow of Henry Fitzhugh of "Eagle's Nest."[166] Harrison, who later built "Brandon" for himself in King George County, probably provided the capital and the materials, and perhaps the design, of the courthouse. Adie, of whom nothing is known, was doubtless the carpenter or bricklayer who actually did the work. [Illustration: Figure 61.--HANOVER COURTHOUSE, whose plan dimensions correspond closely to the Stafford foundation.] The construction was delayed by "many Disappointments, and the Badness of the Weather." Finally, in the spring of 1751, it was about to be brought to completion, "when it was feloniously burnt to the Ground."[167] In April 1752 a special act was passed in order to permit a levy to be made which would allow the Stafford court to reimburse Harrison and Adie for the amount of work which they had accomplished on the courthouse and the value of the materials they had provided.[168] No record exists of the contract for the next--and last--courthouse building on the Potomac Creek site. Quite possibly Harrison and Adie again did the work. This building was used until removal of the court to a new building completed between 1780 and 1783 on a site near the present Stafford courthouse. It remained standing throughout most of the 19th century, according to local memory. In surveys of 1804 and 1805 the structure was identified as the "old court house." FOOTNOTES: [162] _JHB_, 1742-1749 (Richmond, 1909), p. 127. [163] Ibid. [164] _Executive Journals of the Council of Colonial Virginia_ [November 1, 1739-May 7, 1754], (Richmond, 1945), p. 282. [165] _JHB, 1752-1755; 1756-1758_ (Richmond, 1939), p. 55. [166] "Harrison of James River," _VHM_ (Richmond, 1924), vol. 32, p. 200. [167] See footnote 165. [168] HENING, op. cit. (footnote 1), vol. 6, pp. 280-281. DESCRIPTION OF EXCAVATIONS Excavations were conducted in the simplest manner possible, in order to arrive at the objective of determining the dimensions of the courthouse without exceeding available funds. An exploratory trench soon exposed a line of rubble and disturbed soil. This line was followed until the entire outline of the building was revealed. At several points bricks in mortar still remained _in situ_, especially at the south end. Two brick piers extended 4 feet 5 inches into the structure, midway along the south wall at a distance of 5 feet 9 inches apart. [Illustration: Illustration 5.--Above, left, reconstructed wine bottle from Potomac Creek courthouse site. One-fourth.] [Illustration: Illustration 6.--Top, right, fragment of molded white salt-glazed-ware platter from Potomac Creek courthouse site. One-half.] [Illustration: Illustration 7.--Lower, right, iron bolt from Potomac Creek courthouse site. One-half.] The emerging evidence indicated that the structure was rectangular, approximately 52 feet long and 26 feet wide, with a T-shaped projection 25 feet wide extending out a distance of 14 feet 5 inches from the center of the east wall of the building. SIGNIFICANT ARTIFACTS ASSOCIATED WITH POTOMAC CREEK COURTHOUSE Few artifacts occurred in the small area excavated at the courthouse site. Those which did, significantly, related either to the structure itself or to the eating and drinking that probably occurred either alfresco or within the courthouse building. We know that the Ohio Company Committee met there for many years, beginning in 1750, and doubtless lunches and refreshments were served to the members during the day, before they returned to the tavern or to neighboring plantations to dine and spend the night. Portions of wine bottles (of the same dimensions as the Mercer "1737" bottle from Marlborough) were found (ill. 5), along with small fragments of late 18th-century types. A section of the rim of a large, octagonal, white, salt-glazed-ware platter with a wreath and lattice design was recovered from the north-wall footings (ill. 86), and fragments of a salt-glazed-ware dinner plate occurred in the south trench. An oystershell found nearby suggests how the platter may have been used. Two pieces of a white salt-glazed-ware posset pot round out a picture of elegant eating and drinking in the 1760's, as do the fragments of polished, agate octagonal-handled knives and forks. The latter were badly damaged by fire. [Illustration: Illustration 8.--Above, left, stone scraping tool. One-half.] [Illustration: Illustration 9.--Above, right, Indian celt. Found near gate in Wall E. One-half.] Pieces of blue-and-white delft punch bowls were found, as well as a sherd of polychrome delft which dated apparently from 1740 to 1760. Two sherds of creamware plates with wavy edges in the "Catherine" shape reflect the last years of official use of the courthouse. A tantalizing find is a small fragment of cobalt-blue glass, blown in a mold to make panels or oval indentations. This piece may have come from a large bowl or sweetmeat dish. Three sherds of black-glazed red earthenware are the only evidence of utilitarian equipment. Pipe-stems belong to the mid- and late-18th-century category. A George II copper penny is dated 1746. A large mass of pewter, melted beyond recognition, was found near the south end of the structure. Bits of charcoal are held within it. The pewter originally may have been in the form of mugs or tankards. [Illustration: Figure 62.--PLAN OF KING WILLIAM COURTHOUSE, whose plan dimensions correspond closely to the Stafford foundation. (_Courtesy of Historic American Buildings Survey, Library of Congress._)] Evidence of the structure is found in a large number of hand-forged nails, in quantities of window glass melted and distorted, and in pieces of plaster. The last is the typical hard, coarse oystershell plaster of the area, having a smooth surface coat, except for fine lines left by the trowel. There is no evidence of paint. A small slide bolt of wrought iron probably fitted on a cupboard door, or possibly the gate in the bar (ill. 87). Another iron fixture is not identified. Two kinds of window glass occurred. One, the earliest type, is a thin, yellowish glass which is coated with irridescent scale caused by the breakdown of the glass surface. None of this glass shows signs of fire or, at least, of melting. The remainder is a grayish-blue aquamarine, much of it melted and distorted, and some of it accumulated in thick masses where tremendous heat caused the panes literally to fold up. A fragment of yellowish-green glass pane, related to the early type and again coated with scale, varies in thickness and was apparently from a bullseye. No evidence exists of diamond-shaped panes, but, as should be expected, there is indication of square-cornered panes in both types of glass. ARCHITECTURAL ANALYSIS The plan of the footings (fig. 60) shows a T-shaped foundation. This was an immediate clue to the nature of the structure, for the T-shaped courthouse was virtually a standard 18th-century form in Virginia. This foundation, in fact, is almost a replica of the plans of both King William and Hanover County courthouses, each built about 1734[169] (figs. 5, 61, and 62). The King William courthouse measures 50 feet 4-1/4 inches long and 26 feet 4 inches wide in the main structure. Its T section extends 14 feet 9 inches to the original end (to which an extension has been added) and has a width of 23 feet 10-1/4 inches. The Stafford foundation is 52 feet long and 26 feet wide in the main structure. The T-section is 14 feet 5 inches long and 25 feet wide. A closer comparison could scarcely be expected. Hanover's length is 52 feet 4-1/2 inches, the width of the main section 27 feet 10 inches, while the T-section is 15 feet 2-1/2 inches long (in its original part) and 26 feet 7 inches wide. A third example, completed in 1736, is the Charles City County courthouse.[170] The measurements of this building are not available to us, but close examination of photographs discloses a building of about the same size. The earliest of these T-shaped buildings thus far recorded was the York County courthouse, completed in 1733. Destroyed in 1814, its site has been excavated by the National Park Service. Its foundation, measuring 59 feet 10 inches in length and 52 feet in full depth, including the T, was somewhat larger than the others known to us. The records show that it was rather elaborate, with imported-stone floors and compass-head windows.[171] All these buildings had arcaded verandas. Marcus Whiffen raises the question as to which of them, if any, was the prototype, then concludes by speculating that none was, and that all four may have derived from the 1715 courthouse at Williamsburg, the dimensions of which, however, remain unknown. The introduction of the loggia first at the College of William and Mary and then at the capitol led him to postulate that its use in a courthouse also would have originated in Williamsburg.[172] The Stafford foundation showed no trace of stone paving where an arcade might have been, but, since virtually all the bricks had been taken away, it is likely that such a valuable commodity as flagstones also would have been removed as soon as the building was destroyed or dismantled. Two brick piers at the west end of the structure (fig. 36) remain a mystery. They are equidistant from the longitudinal walls, and may have been the foundations for a chimney. However, their positions do not relate to the floor or chimney plans at Hanover or King William courthouses, the other features of which are so nearly comparable. One would suppose every basic characteristic of the Stafford building would have been the same as in these buildings. The piers were perhaps late additions or modifications. The roof was apparently of wood; there were no evidences of slate shingles. The bricks were approximately 8-1/2 inches by 4 inches by 2-3/4 inches, and were probably laid in a patterned Flemish bond, as at Hanover or King William, since some of the bricks were glazed. No lead or other signs of "calmes" used in leaded sash were found, so we must assume that the 1665 courthouse was built elsewhere. FOOTNOTES: [169] MARCUS WHIFFEN, "The Early County Courthouses of Virginia," Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians (Amherst, Mass., 1959), vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 2-10. [170] Ibid. [171] RILEY, op. cit. (footnote 31), pp. 402 ff. [172] WHIFFEN, op. cit. (footnote 169), p. 4. CONCLUSION It may be assumed that the Potomac Creek courthouse, which was built of brick, resembled the courthouses of Hanover, King William, and Charles City, and that its architecture, symbolizing the authority of Virginia's government, reflected the official style expressed in the government buildings at Williamsburg. All the successive Stafford courthouses from 1722 on probably were built on the old foundations; if so, the Stafford building was the earliest T-form courthouse yet known in Virginia. Its similarity to the three structures built in the 1730's shows that an accepted form had developed, possibly, as Whiffen suggests, deriving from a prototype in Williamsburg. The courthouse bears no resemblance, either in its shape or the absence of a basement, to the Structure B foundation at Marlborough. The site, reached more easily than Marlborough from any direction, dictated the removal to it of the courthouse in 1722, thus contributing to the demise of Marlborough as a town. The last structure, especially, was historically important because of the meetings of the Ohio Company held in it. It is of particular interest to the story of Marlborough because John Mercer was, for most of its existence, the senior justice of the Stafford court. ARTIFACTS [Illustration: Figure 63.--TIDEWATER-TYPE POTTERY: a, milk pan (ill. 11); b, base of bowl (ill. 14); c, pan-rim sherds; d, base of ale mug (ill. 12).] XV _Ceramics_ Most of the ceramic artifacts found at Marlborough can be dated within John Mercer's period of occupancy (1726-1768). A meager scattering of late 18th- and early 19th-century whitewares and stonewares reflects the John Francis Mercer and Cooke ownerships (1768-1819). COARSE EARTHENWARE TIDEWATER TYPE.--Mercer's purchase in 1725 of £12 3s. 6d. worth of earthenware from William Rogers (p. 16, footnote 54) probably was made for trading purposes, judging from the sizable cost. Rogers operated a stoneware and earthenware pottery in Yorktown, which evidently was continued for a considerable time after his death in 1739.[173] An abundance of waster sherds (unglazed, underfired, overfired, or misshapen fragments cast aside by the potter), supposedly from Rogers' output, has been found as street ballast and fill in Yorktown and its environs. Microscopic and stylistic comparison with these sherds relates numerous Marlborough sherds to them in varying degrees. For purposes of tentative identification, the ware will be designated "Tidewater type." Some of the ware may have been produced in Rogers' shop, while other articles resembling the Yorktown products may have been made of similar clay and fired under conditions comparable to those at Yorktown. A Marlborough milk pan (USNM 59.1961, ill. 11, and USNM 59.1580) has a salmon-colored body and a lustrous mahogany glaze with fine manganese streaking. Another milk pan (USNM 59.2039, ill. 2, fig. 63a) has a buff body and a glaze of uneven thickness that ranges in color from thin brown with black flecking to a glutinous dark brown approaching black. The most typical glaze color, influenced by the underlying predominant pinkish-buff body, is a light mahogany with black specks or blotches. It occurs at Marlborough on a small sherd (USNM 60.201). A variant glaze occurring on pottery found in Yorktown appears here in a yellowish-buff sherd flecked with black (USNM 60.154). The flecking is only in part applied with manganese; it is also the effect of ocherous and ferruginous particles which protrude through the surface of the body, assuming a dark color. Occasionally the manganese is spread liberally, so that the natural body color shows through only as flecks in a reverse effect (USNM 59.1855); now and then the vessel is uniformly black (USNM 60.141). Tidewater-type forms found at Marlborough include milk pans 15 inches in diameter and about 4-1/4 inches deep (in 1729 Mercer bought "2 milk pans" for 5d. and 5 "gallon basons" for 4s. 7d.), a black-glazed jar cover with indicated diameter of 6-1/2 inches (USNM 59.2013), and fragments of other pans and bowls of indeterminate sizes. A portion of an ale mug has a tooled base and black glaze (USNM 59.2043, fig. 63d, ill. 12). Its diameter is 3-5/8 inches. MOLDED-RIM TYPE.--This is a type of redware with a light-red body and transparent, ginger-brown lead glaze. It is characterized by a rolled rim and a tooled platform or channel above the junction of rim and side. A small number of pan and bowl rims was found at Marlborough. The ware is usually associated with early 18th-century materials from such sites as Jamestown, Kecoughtan, Williamsburg, and Rosewell. It may have originated in England. NORTH DEVON GRAVEL-TEMPERED WARE.--The coarse kitchenware made in Bideford and Barnstaple and in the surrounding English villages of North Devon is represented by only two sherds. This ware is characterized by a dull, reddish-pink body, usually dark-gray at the core, and by a gross waterworn gravel temper. It occurs in contexts as early as 1650 at Jamestown and as late as 1740-1760 at Williamsburg. One of the Marlborough sherds is part of a large pan. It is glazed with a characteristic amber lead glaze (USNM 60.202). The other sherd is a portion of an unglazed handle, probably from a potlid (USNM 59.1679, ill. 15).[174] SLIP-LINED REDWARE.--Numerous 18th-century sites from Philadelphia to Williamsburg have yielded a series of bowls and porringers characterized by interior linings of slip that is streaked and mottled with manganese. These are glazed on both surfaces, the outer surface and a border above the slip on the inner surface usually ginger-brown in color. Comparative examples are a bowl from the Russell site at Lewes, Delaware, dating from the first half of the 18th century, and several pieces from pre-Revolutionary contexts at Williamsburg. A deposit excavated by H. Geiger Omwake near the south end of the Lewes and Rehoboth Canal in Delaware included sherds from a context dated late 17th- to mid-18th centuries.[175] Several fragments of bowls occur in the Marlborough material (USNM 59.1613, 59.1856, fig. 64g). ENGLISH YELLOWWARE.--The few sherds of so-called combed ware occurring at Marlborough, although only the base fragments connect, all seem to have come from a single cup or posset pot having a buff body and characteristically decorated with spiraled bands of dark-brown slip that were created by combing through an outer coating of white slip, revealing an underlayer of red slip. The vessel was glazed with a clear lead glaze (USNM 59.1700, fig. 64c, ill. 16). Comparative dated examples of this ware include a posset pot dated 1735.[176] A chamber pot bearing the same kind of striping was excavated by the National Park Service at Fort Frederica, Georgia (1736-ca. 1750). A piece similar to that from Marlborough was found in the Rosewell deposit, and another in the Lewis Morris house site, Morrisania, New York.[177] Although this type of ware was introduced in England about 1680, its principal use in America seems to have occurred largely between 1725 and 1775. Archeological evidence is corroborated by newspaper advertisements. In 1733 the _Boston Gazette_ advertised "yellow ware Hollow and Flat by the Crate" and again in 1737 "yellow and Brown Earthenware." In 1763 the _Gazette_ mentioned "Crates of Yellow Liverpool Ware," Liverpool being the chief place of export for pottery made in Staffordshire, the principal source for the combed wares.[178] BUCKLEY WARE.--I. Noël Hume has identified a class of high-fired, black-glazed earthenware found in many 18th-century sites in Virginia. He has done so by reference to _The Buckley Potteries_, by K. J. Barton,[179] and to waster sherds in his possession from the Buckley kiln sites in Flintshire, North Wales. The ware probably was made in other potteries of the region also. This durable pottery, more like stoneware than earthenware, is represented by a large number of jar and pan fragments. Two body types occur, each characterized by a mixture of red and buff clay. In the more usual type the red clay dominates, with laminations and striations of buff clay running through it in the manner of a coarse sort of agateware. The other is usually grayish buff with red streaks, although sometimes the body is almost entirely buff, still showing signs of lamination. The glaze is treacly black, often applied unevenly and sometimes pitted with air bubbles. The body surfaces have conspicuous turning ridges. Rims are usually heavy and flat, sometimes as wide as 1-1/2 inches. A variant of the ware is represented in a milk pan with a dominantly red body which has a clear-amber, rather than black, glaze. (USNM 59.1887, ills. 17, 18, and 19 and fig. 65). [Illustration: Illustration 10.--Milk pan. Salmon-red earthenware. Lustrous black lead glaze. Tidewater type. One-fourth. (USNM 59.1961.)] [Illustration: Illustration 11.--Milk pan. Salmon-red earthenware. Dull-brown glaze. Tidewater type. See figure 63a. One-fourth. (USNM 59.2039.)] [Illustration: Illustration 12.--Ale mug. Salmon-red earthenware. Lustrous black lead glaze. Tidewater type. See figure 63d. One-half. (USNM 59.2043.)] [Illustration: Illustration 13.--Cover of jar (profile). Salmon-red earthenware. Brownish-black lead glaze. Tidewater type. Same size. (USNM 59.2013.)] [Illustration: Illustration 14.--Base of bowl. Salmon-red earthenware. Light reddish-brown glaze speckled with black. Virginia type. One-half. See figure 63b. (USNM 59.2025.)] [Illustration: Illustration 15.--Handle of pot lid or oven door. North Devon gravel-tempered ware. One-half. (USNM 59.1679.)] [Illustration: Illustration 16.--Buff-earthenware cup with combed decoration in brown slip. Lead glaze. (Conjectural reconstruction.) One-fourth. See figure 64c. (USNM 59.1700.)] [Illustration: Illustration 17.--High-fired earthenware pan rim. Buff paste laminated with red. Red slip on exterior. Black glaze inside. Type made in Buckley, Flintshire, North Wales. One-half.] [Illustration: Figure 64.--MISCELLANEOUS COMMON EARTHENWARE TYPES, probably all imported from England: a, "molded-rim" types of redware; b, handle of large redware storage jar, probably English; c, base of brown-striped Staffordshire yellowware cup; d, sherd of black-glazed ware; e and f, two slip-decorated sherds; g, redware crimped-edge baking pan, coated with slip; and h, slip-lined manganese-streaked sherds.] MISCELLANEOUS.--Several unique specimens and groups of sherds are represented: 1. A large, outstanding, horizontal, loop handle survives from a storage jar with a rich red body. Two thumb-impressed reinforcements, splayed at each end, secure the handle to the body wall. The top of the handle has four finger impressions for gripping; the lead glaze appears in a finely speckled ginger color (USNM 59.2049, fig. 64b). 2. A single fragment remains from a slip-decorated bowl or open vessel. The body is hard and dark red, the glaze dark olive-brown. The fragment is glazed and slipped on both sides (USNM 59.1614, fig. 64e). Other small sherds of a similar ware are redder in color and without slip. Another, with lighter red body and olive-amber glaze, is slip decorated (USNM 60.161, fig. 64f). [Illustration: Illustration 19.--Rim and base profiles of high-fired-earthenware jars. Buff paste, laminated with red. Black glaze. Buckley type, Flintshire, North Wales. One-half. (USNM 59.2032, 59.1611, and 59.1782.)] 3. A unique sherd has a gray-buff body and shiny black glaze on both surfaces (USNM 59.1815). 4. A group of pale-red unglazed fragments is from the bottom of a water cooler. A sherd which preserves parts of the base and lower body wall has a hole in which a spigot could be inserted (USNM 59.2061, ill. 20). 5. Fragments of a flowerpot have a body similar to the foregoing, but are lined with slip under a lead glaze. A rim fragment has an ear handle with thumb-impressed indentations attached to it (USNM 60.203, ill. 21). 6. Two sherds of a redware pie plate, notched on the edge and lined with overglazed slip decorated with brown manganese dots, imitate Staffordshire yellowware, but are probably of American origin (USNM 59.1612, fig. 64g). [Illustration: Illustration 18.--High-fired-earthenware jar rim. Red paste, laminated with buff. Black glaze. Buckley type. One-half. (USNM 59.2067.)] [Illustration: Illustration 20.--Base sherd from unglazed red-earthenware water cooler, with spigot hole. One-half. (USNM 59.2061.)] [Illustration: Illustration 21.--Rim of an earthenware flowerpot, handle with thumb impressions attached. Slip-decorated, olive-amber lead glaze. One-fourth. (USNM 60.203.)] FOOTNOTES: [173] WATKINS and NOËL HUME, op. cit. (footnote 54). [174] C. MALCOLM WATKINS, "North Devon Pottery and Its Export to America in the 17th Century," (paper 13 in _Contributions from the Museum of History and Technology: Papers 12-18_, U.S. National Museum Bulletin 225, by various authors; Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1963), 1960. [175] The Russell site was excavated by members of the Sussex Archeological Society of Lewes, Delaware. Artifacts from the site are now in the Smithsonian Institution, as are those found by H. Geiger Omwake at the end of the Lewes and Rehoboth Canal. [176] JOHN ELIOT HODGKINS, F.S.A., and EDITH HODGKINS, _Examples of Early English Pottery, Named, Dated, and Inscribed_ (London, 1897), p. 57, fig. 128. [177] J. E. MESSHAM, B.A., and K. J. BARTON, "The Buckley Potteries," _Flintshire Historical Society Publications_, vol. 16, pp. 31-87. [178] GEORGE FRANCIS DOW, _The Arts and Crafts in New England, 1764-1775_ (Topsfield, Mass., 1927), pp. 84, 85, 92. [179] MESSHAM and BARTON, loc. cit. (footnote 177). STONEWARE RHENISH STONEWARES.--The stoneware potters who worked in the vicinity of Grenzhausen in the Westerwald in a tributary of the Rhine Valley held a far-flung market until the mid-18th century. It was not until the Staffordshire potters brought out their own salt-glazed whitewares that the colorful blue-and-gray German products suffered a decline. Before that, Rhenish stonewares were widely used in England and the colonies; those for the British market frequently were decorated with medallions in which the reigning English monarch's initial appeared. Elaborate incising and blue-cobalt coloring gave a highly decorative character to the ware, while salt thrown into the kiln during the firing combined with the clay to provide a hard, clean surface matched only by porcelain. [Illustration: Figure 65.--BUCKLEY-TYPE HIGH-FIRED WARE with laminated body. Four pieces at top have predominantly red body, streaked with buff. All have black glaze, except two at lower right, which have amber glaze.] John Mercer, like so many of his fellow colonials, owned Westerwald stoneware. From Ledger G, we know that in 1743 he bought "2 blew & W^t Jugs 2/." From the artifacts it is clear that he not only had large globose jugs, but also numerous cylindrical mugs and chamber pots. A small group of sherds has a gray-buff paste, more intricately incised than most. Internally the paste surface is a light-pinkish buff. These sherds are probably of the late 17th century, or at least earlier than the predominantly gray wares of the 18th century, which have hastily executed designs.[180] Only two "GR" emblems (_Guglielmus_ or _Georgius Rex_), both from mugs, were recovered (fig. 66d). [Illustration: Illustration 22.--Base of gray-brown, salt-glazed-stoneware ale mug. Rust-brown slip inside. Same size. (USNM 59.1780.)] [Illustration: Illustration 23.--Stoneware jug fragment. Dull red with black dots. Same size. (USNM 59.1840.)] [Illustration: Illustration 24.--Gray, salt-glazed-stoneware jar profile. Probably first quarter, 19th century. Same size. (USNM 59.1615.)] MISCELLANEOUS GRAY-AND-BROWN SALT-GLAZED STONEWARE.--The shop of William Rogers apparently made stoneware of fine quality in the style of the London stoneware produced in the Thames-side potteries.[181] Wasters from Yorktown streets and foundations indicate many varieties of colors and glaze textures, some of which are matched in the Marlborough sherds. Admittedly, it is not possible to distinguish with certainty the fragments of Yorktown stoneware from their English counterparts. Sherds of a pint mug, externally gray in the lower half and mottled-brown in the upper, may be a Yorktown product (USNM 59.1780, ill. 22). The interior is a rusty brown. Fragments of the shoulder of a very large jug, mottled-brown externally and lined in a dull red like that often found on Yorktown wasters, also have body resemblances. (Mercer bought a five-gallon "stone bottle" from Charles Dick in 1745.) [Illustration: Figure 66.--WESTERWALD STONEWARE: a, chamber-pot sherds and handle fragments; b, sherds having yellowish body, probably late 17th or early 18th century; c, sherds of curve-sided flagon; d, sherds of cylindrical mugs including one with "GR" seal.] There are numerous other types of coarse stoneware of unknown origins, including one sherd with a dull-red glaze and black decorative spots (USNM 59.1840, ill. 23). NOTTINGHAM-TYPE STONEWARE.--Several sherds of stoneware of the type usually ascribed to Nottingham appeared at Marlborough. This ware is characterized by a smooth, lustrous, metallic-brown glaze. The fragments are apparently from different vessels. One is a foot rim of a posset pot or jug. Several body sherds have fluting or paneling formed by molding, with turning lines on the interior showing that the molding was executed after the forms were shaped. One sherd is decorated with shredded clay applied before firing when the clay was wet. It appears to come from the globose portion of a small drinking jug with a vertical collar. A handle section comes from a pitcher or posset pot. Interior colors range from a brownish mustard to a reddish brown. Nottingham stoneware was made throughout the 18th century,[182] but these sherds correspond to middle-of-the-century forms (fig. 67a). [Illustration: Figure 67.--FINE ENGLISH STONEWARE: a, Nottingham type; b, "drab" stoneware covered with white slip--brown-bordered mug sherds in _upper left_ came from beneath flagstone north of mansion-house porch, about 1725, "scratch-blue" stoneware, _below_, is about 1750; c, "degenerate scratch-blue" stoneware is about 1790; d, "white salt-glaze" ware _at bottom_ is hand-thrown; _upper right_ is molded, about 1760; e, plate and platter fragments.] DRAB STONEWARE.--The dominant position attained by the Staffordshire potters in the 18th century is due to unremitting efforts to achieve the whiteness of porcelain in their native products. Improvements in stoneware were mostly in this direction, with the first steps plainly evidencing what they failed to achieve. One of the earlier attempts has a gray body coated with white pipe-clay slip obtained at Bideford in North Devon. This slip created the superficial appearance of porcelain, as did tin enamel on the surface of delftware. Although some Burslem potters were making "dipped white stoneware" by 1710,[183] it does not seem to have occurred generally until about 1725. Salt glaze was applied in the same manner as on the earlier and coarser stonewares. Mugs in this ware were banded with an iron-oxide slip, presumably to cover up defects around the rims. [Illustration: Figure 68.--ENGLISH DELFTWARE: a, 17th- and early 18th-century sherds; b, blue-and-white sherd of the first half of the 18th century; c, polychrome fragments, third quarter of the 18th century; d, ointment pots with pink body, 18th century.] Several sherds of this drab stoneware were found at Marlborough, including the base of a jug with curving sides and pieces of tall mugs with brown rims (USNM 59.1893, fig. 67b, ill. 25). The body is characteristically gray, while the slip, although sometimes dull white, is usually a pleasant cream tone. Two sherds were found beneath the flagstones around the north porch of Structure B, where they probably fell before 1746 (USNM 59.1754). One of the Burslem stoneware potters between 1710 and 1715 made what he called "freckled ware."[184] Possibly this describes a sherd of a thin-walled mug from Marlborough (USNM 59.1636) which is coated with white slip inside and is finely speckled, or "freckled," in brown on the outside. Its body is the gray of the drab stoneware, but with a high content of micaceous and siliceous sand. Simeon Shaw, the early 19th-century historian of the Staffordshire potteries, asserted that what he called "Crouch" ware was first made of brick clay and fine sand in 1690, and by 1702 of dark-gray clay and sand.[185] Although his dates are questioned by modern authorities, his order of the progressive degrees of refinement in the paste are acceptable as he suggests them. In respect to the Marlborough sherd, although it is coarser than the white-coated fragments described above, it answers very well Shaw's description of sandy-gray "Crouch" ware. [Illustration: Illustration 25.--Drab-stoneware mug fragment, rim coated with iron oxide. Staffordshire, 1720-30. Same size. (USNM 59.1893.)] [Illustration: Illustration 26.--Wheel-turned cover of white, salt-glazed teapot. Staffordshire. Same size. (USNM 59.1622.)] [Illustration: Illustration 27.--Body sherds of molded, white salt-glazed-ware pitcher or milk jug. Staffordshire. Same size. (USNM 59.1894.)] WHITE SALT-GLAZED WARE.--About 1720 calcined flints were added to the body of the Staffordshire stoneware, thus making possible a homogeneous white body that did not require a coating of slip between the body and the glazed surface.[186] With this ware the Staffordshire potters came closer to their goal of emulating porcelain. At Marlborough the earliest examples of this improved ware are found in two sherds with incised decorations that were scratched into the wet clay (USNM 59.1819, Fig. 67b); the incised lines next were filled with powdered cobalt before firing. This technique is known as "scratch blue," dated examples of which, existing elsewhere, range from 1724 to 1767. The body in the Marlborough specimens is still rather drab, the whiteness of the later ware not yet having been achieved. No slip was used, however, so that the surface color is a pleasant pale gray. One sherd is from a cup with a slightly flaring rim. The exterior decoration is in the form of floral sprigs, while the inside has a row of double-scalloped lines below the rim. The other fragment is from a saucer. Possibly the cup is part of Mercer's purchase in 1742 of a dozen "Stone Coffee cups," for which he paid 18d. In Boston "White stone Tea-Cups and Saucers" were advertised in 1745, and "blue and white ... Stone Ware" in 1751.[187] A later variant on the "scratch blue" is a class of salt-glazed ware that resembles Westerwald stoneware. Here loops, sworls, and horizontal grooves are scratched into the paste. The cobalt is smeared more or less at random, some of it lying on the surface, some running into the incised channels. This style of decoration was applied mostly to chamber pots but also to small bowls and cups. Fragments of all these forms occurred at Marlborough (fig. 67c). After 1740 the body was greatly improved, resulting in an attractive whiteware. Many wheel-turned forms were produced, and these were liberally represented at Marlborough in fragments of pitchers, mugs, teapots, teacups, bowls, posset pots, and casters (fig. 67d). [Illustration: Figure 69.--DELFT PLATE. Lambeth, about 1720. (See ill. 29.)] In the middle of the 18th century a process was developed for making multiple plaster-of-paris molds from brass or alabaster matrices[188] and then casting plates and other vessels in them by pouring in the stoneware clay, diluted in the form of slip. The slip was allowed to dry, and the formed utensil was removed for firing. This molded salt-glazed ware occurs in quantity in the Marlborough finds, suggesting that there were large sets of it. One design predominates in plates, platters, and soup dishes: wavy edges, borders consisting of panels of diagonal lattices--with stars or dots within the lattices framed in rococo scrolls, and areas of basket-weave designs between the panels. On a large platter rim the lattice-work is plain, somewhat reminiscent of so-called Chinese Chippendale design. The pattern is presumably the design referred to in the _Boston News Letter_ for May 29, 1764: "To be sold very cheap. Two or three Crates of white Stone Ware, consisting chiefly of the new fashioned basket Plates and Oblong Dishes."[189] One fragment comes from a cake plate with this border design and a heavily decorated center (fig. 67e). [Illustration: Figure 70.--DELFT PLATE. Probably Lambeth, about 1730 to 1740. (See ill. 30.)] Other molded patterns include gadrooning combined with scalloping on a plate-rim sherd. A rim section with molded rococo-scrolled edge is from a "basket weave" sauceboat. Considerably earlier are pieces of a pitcher or milk jug with a shell design (USNM 59.1894, ill. 27). One rare sherd appears to come from a rectangular teapot or tray. All the white salt-glazed ware from Marlborough represents the serviceable but decorative tableware of everyday use. It must have been purchased during the last 10 years of Mercer's life. TIN-ENAMELED EARTHENWARE.--The art of glazing earthenware with opaque tin oxide and decorating it with colorful designs was an Islamic innovation which spread throughout the Mediterranean and northward to Holland and England. Practiced in England before the close of the 16th century, it became in the 17th and the first half of the 18th centuries a significant source of English tableware, both at home and in America. Because of its close similarity to the Dutch majolica of Delft, the English version was popularly called "delftware," even though made in London, Bristol, or Liverpool. [Illustration: Illustration 28.--English-delftware washbowl sherd. Blue-dash decoration inside. See figure 68b. Same size. (USNM 60.75.)] Surprisingly, a minimum of tin-enameled wares was found at Marlborough, with several sherds reflecting the Port Town period. One of the latter shows the lower portion of a heavy, dark-blue floral spray, growing up, apparently, from a flowerpot. A section of foot rim and the contour of the sherd show that this was a 17th-century charger, probably dating from about 1680 (USNM 60.177, fig. 68a). The leaves are painted in the same manner as on a Lambeth fuddling cup.[190] A section of a plate with no foot rim includes an inner border which encircles the central panel design. It consists of two parallel lines with flattened spirals joined in a series between the lines. The glaze is crackled. This probably dates from the same period as the preceding sherd (USNM 60.99, fig. 68a). Sherds from a larger specimen, without decoration, have the same crackled enamel (USNM 59.2059). There is also a fragment decorated with small, blue, fernlike fronds, again suggesting late 17th-century origin (USNM 59.1756, fig. 68a). A small handle, the glaze of which has a pinkish cast, is decorated with blue dashes, and probably was part of a late 17th-century cup (USNM 59.1730, fig. 68a). [Illustration: Illustration 29.--English delftware plate. One-half. See figure 69. (USNM 59.1707.)] [Illustration: Illustration 30.--English delftware plate. One-half. See figure 70. (USNM 59.1706.)] Several fragments of narrow rims from plates with blue bands probably date from the first quarter of the 18th century. A reconstructed plate with the simplest of stylized decoration was made at Lambeth about 1720 (USNM 59.1707, fig. 69). This plate has a wavy vine motif around its upward-flaring rim, in which blossoms are suggested by stylized pyramids of three to four blocks formed by brush strokes about 1/4-inch wide, alternating with single blocks. The central motif consists of two crossed stems with a pyramid at each end and two diagonal, block brush strokes intersecting the crossed stems. A large fragment of a washstand bowl also has similar plain, block brush strokes along a border defined by horizontal lines--in this case a triplet of three strokes, one above two, alternating with a single block. Edges of similar brush strokes on the lower portion of the bowl remain on the fragment. Garner shows a Lambeth mug embodying this style of decoration combined with a suggestion of Chinoiserie around the waist. He ascribes to it a date of "about 1700," although the block-brush-stroke device, with variations, was practiced until the 1760's at Lambeth.[191] The Marlborough bowl fragment may be from one of the "2 pottle Basons" bought by Mercer in 1744 (fig. 68b, ill. 28). [Illustration: Illustration 31.--Delftware ointment pot. Bluish-white tin-enamel glaze. One-half. (USNM 59.1842.)] [Illustration: Illustration 32.--Sherds of black basaltes ware. Same size. (USNM 59.2021.)] Another reconstructed plate, probably a Lambeth piece, has blue decoration in the Chinese manner. It dates from about 1730 to 1740 (USNM 59.1706, fig. 70). Several small bowl sherds seem to range from the early to the middle 18th century. Polychrome delft is represented by only three sherds, all apparently from bowls, and none well enough defined to permit identification. There are several fragments of ointment pots, all 18th-century in shape. Three sherds of tin-enameled redware are probably continental European. Two of these have counterparts from early 17th-century contexts at Jamestown. A blue-decorated handle sherd from a large jug or posset pot is also 17th century. The predominance of early dating of tin-enamel sherds and the relatively few examples of it from any period suggest that much of what was found either was used in the Port Town or was inherited by the Mercers, probably by Catherine, and used when they were first married. It also points up the fact that delftware early went out of fashion among well-to-do families. ENGLISH FINE EARTHENWARES.--The fine earthen tablewares introduced in Staffordshire early in the 18th century, largely in response to the new tea-drinking customs, are less well represented in the Marlborough artifacts than are those made later in the century. Apparently, the contemporary white salt-glazed ware was preferred. [Illustration: Figure 71.--WHIELDON-TYPE tortoiseshell ware, about 1760.] MARBLED WARE.--The Staffordshire factories of Thomas Astbury and Thomas Whieldon were responsible for numerous innovations, including fine "marbled" wares in which clays of different colors were mixed together so as to form a veined surface. The technique itself was an old one, but its application in delicate tablewares was a novelty. Although Astbury was the earlier, it was Whieldon who exploited the technique after starting his potworks at Little Fenton about 1740.[192] From Marlborough come three meager sherds of marbled ware, probably from three different vessels (USNM 59.1625, 59.1748, 59.1851). They are brownish red with white veining under an amber lead glaze. A posset pot of these colors in the Victoria and Albert Museum is supposed, by Rackham, to date from about 1740.[193] [Illustration: Figure 72.--QUEENSWARE, about 1800.] BLACK-GLAZED FINE REDWARE.--Whieldon made a black-glazed, fine redware, as did Maurice Thursfield at Jackfield in Shropshire.[194] A fragment of a black-glazed teapot handle was found at Marlborough, although the body is more nearly a hard grayish brown than red (USNM 59.1638). TORTOISESHELL WARE.--Cream-colored earthenware was introduced as early as 1725, supposedly by Thomas Astbury, Jr. It was not until the middle of the century, however, that Whieldon began the use of clouded glaze colors over a cream-colored body. After 1756 Josiah Wedgwood became his partner and helped to perfect the coloring of glazes. In 1759 Wedgwood established his own factory, and both firms made tortoiseshell ware in the same molds used for making salt-glazed whiteware.[195] From Marlborough there are several sherds of gadroon-edge plates and basket-weave-and-lattice plates, as well as a piece of a teapot cover. Tortoiseshell ware was advertised in Boston newspapers from 1754 to 1772 (fig. 71).[196] QUEENSWARE.--Josiah Wedgwood brought to perfection the creamware body about 1765, naming it "Queensware" after receiving Queen Charlotte's patronage. Wedgwood took out no patents, so that a great many factories followed suit, notably Humble, Green & Company at Leeds in Yorkshire (later Hartley, Green & Company).[197] [Illustration: Figure 73.--FRAGMENT OF QUEENSWARE PLATTER with portion of Wedgwood mark.] [Illustration: Figure 74.--ENGLISH WHITE EARTHENWARES: a, "pearlware" with blue-and-white chinoiserie decoration, late 18th century; b, two whiteware sherds, one "sponged" in blue and touched with yellow, the other "sponged" in gray; c, shell-edge and polychrome wares, early 19th century; and d, polychrome Chinese porcelain.] [Illustration: Figure 75.--POLYCHROME Chinese porcelain.] The Marlborough creamware sherds are all plain (with one exception), consisting of fragments of wavy-edge plates, bowls, and platters in Wedgwood's "Catherine shape," introduced about 1770, as well as mugs and pitchers (fig. 72). A piece of a large platter has impressed in it the letters WEDG, running up to the fracture. Below this is the number 1 (USNM 59.1997, fig. 73). WHITEWARES USED IN THE FEDERAL PERIOD.--During the late 1770's Wedgwood introduced his "pearlware,"[198] in which the yellow cast of the cream body was offset by a touch of blue. With the use of a nearly colorless glaze that was still slightly bluish, it was now possible to make a successful underglaze-blue decoration. These whitewares were made in three principal styles by Wedgwood's many imitators, as well as by Wedgwood himself. The most familiar of these styles is the molded shell-edge ware, which was used in virtually every place to which Staffordshire wares penetrated after 1800. In a plain creamware version, this was another Wedgwood innovation of about 1765.[199] After 1780, the ware was white, with blue or green borders. The Wedgwood shell-edge design has a slightly wavy edge, and the shell ridges vary in depth and length. At least one Leeds version has a regular scalloped edge, like those found on several other Marlborough sherds. In the 19th century the ware became coarser and heavier, as well as whiter, and in some cases the shell edge was no longer actually molded but simply suggested by a painted border. Some variants were introduced that were not intended to be shell edge in design, but merely blue or green molded patterns. A Marlborough sherd from one of these has a gadrooned edge and molded swags and palmettes. Except for two late rims, painted but not molded, the shell-edge wares from Marlborough probably date from John Francis Mercer's period in the late 1700's and from John Bronaugh's occupancy of the mansion during the Cooke period in the first decade of the 19th century (fig. 74c). [Illustration: Figure 76.--BLUE-AND-WHITE Chinese porcelain.] The success of the new whiteware in permitting the use of underglaze blue resulted in a second class that is decorated in the Chinese manner, after the style of English delft and porcelain. This type was popular between 1780 and 1790, especially in the United States, where many whole specimens have survived above ground. Several sherds are among the Marlborough artifacts and appear to have come entirely from hollow forms, such as bowls and pitchers.[200] Sherds from a blue-and-white mug with molded designs, including the shell motif around the handle, have been found also. [Illustration: Figure 77.--BLUE-AND-WHITE Chinese porcelain.] The third class of whiteware, which was heavily favored in the export trade, consisted of a gay, hand-decorated product, popular at the end of the 18th, and well into the 19th, century. It had pleasing variety, with floral designs in soft orange, green, brown, and blue, often with brown or green borders. A few examples of this later whiteware occur among the Marlborough artifacts (fig. 74b). One sherd from a small bowl is mottled in blue and touched with yellow (USNM 59.1805, fig. 74b). Another is also mottled, but in gray and blue. Such wares as the latter were made by Hartley, Green & Company at Leeds before the factory's demise in 1820 (USNM 59.1950, fig. 74b).[201] The transfer-printed wares that were so popular in America after 1820 are represented by a mere eight sherds, which is in accord with evidence that the mansion house was unoccupied or destroyed after 1819. Of these sherds, only five can be dated before 1830. Two are pink, transfer-printed sherds of about 1835-45, and one is gray-blue, dating from about 1840-1850. BLACK BASALTES WARE.--Another late 18th-century innovation by Wedgwood, imitated by his competitors, was a fine stoneware with a black body, called black basaltes because of its resemblance to that mineral. A few sherds of this were found at Marlborough. Typically, they are glazed on the insides only. They postdate John Mercer by twenty or thirty years. [Illustration: Illustration 33.--Blue-and-white Chinese-porcelain saucer (fig. 76, top left). One-half.] [Illustration: Illustration 34.--Blue-and-white Chinese-porcelain plate (fig. 77, top left). One-fourth. (USNM 60.122.)] CHINESE PORCELAIN.--Oriental porcelain was introduced to the English colonies at a very early date, as we know from 17th-century contexts at Jamestown. As early as 1725 John Mercer acquired "1 China Punch bowl." Presumably the "6 tea cups & Sawcers," "2 chocolate cups," and "2 custard cups" obtained by him the same year were also porcelain. Even before 1740, porcelain was occurring with increasing frequency in America. We are told that in 1734, for example, it can be calculated that about one million pieces of it left Canton for Europe.[202] Doubtless a large proportion was reexported to the colonists. William Walker, Mercer's undertaker for the mansion, left at his death in 1750: "1 Crack'd China bowl," "1 Quart Bowl 6/, 1 large D^o 12.6," "6 China cups & Sawcers 5/," and "12 China plates 15/." It is not surprising, therefore, that 18th-century China-trade porcelain sherds occurred with high incidence at Marlborough. Mercer's accounts show that he acquired from Charles Dick in 1745 "1 Sett finest China" and "2 punch bowls." From the archeological evidence it would appear that he had supplemented this several times over, perhaps after 1750 in the period for which we have no ledgers. Most of the porcelain is blue and white. One group has cloudy, blurred houses and trees, impressionistic landscapes, and flying birds. This pattern occurs in fragments of teacups, small bowls, and a coffee cup. Another type has a border of diamonds within diamonds, elaborate floral designs delicately drawn, and a fine thin body. Similar sherds were found at Rosewell. At Marlborough the design survived in teacups, coffee cups, and saucers. There are several additional border designs, some associated with Chinese landscape subjects or human figures (figs. 76, ill. 24, and fig. 77, ill. 25). A coarse type with a crudely designed border hastily filled in with solid blue is represented in a partly reconstructed plate (USNM 60.122, fig. 77). Polychrome porcelain is found in lesser amounts, although in almost as much variety. Three sherds of a very large punchbowl are decorated in red and blue. Fragments of a small bowl have delicate red medallions with small red and black human figures in their centers. Fine borders occur in red and black. Gold, yellow, and green floral patterns constitute another class (fig. 75). Almost all the porcelain is of high quality, probably reaching a peak during Mercer's middle and prosperous years between 1740 and 1760. We cannot expect to find any porcelain purchased after his death in 1768, and certainly none appears to be connected with the Federal period or with the so-called "Lowestoft" imported in the American China trade after the Revolution. FOOTNOTES: [180] See BERNARD RACKHAM, _Catalogue of the Glaisher Collection of Pottery & Porcelain in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge_ [England] Cambridge, England: (Cambridge University Press, 1935), vol. 2, pl. 150 B no. 2053; and vol. 1, p. 264. [181] I. NOËL HUME, "Excavations at Rosewell, Gloucester County, Virginia, 1957-1959," (paper 18 in _Contributions from the Museum of History and Technology: Papers 12-18_, U.S. National Museum Bulletin 225, by various authors; Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1963), 1962. J. PAUL HUDSON, "Earliest Yorktown Pottery," _Antiques_ (New York, May 1958), vol. 73, no. 5, pp. 472-473; WATKINS and NOËL HUME, loc. cit. (footnote 173). [182] RACKHAM, op. cit. (footnote 180), vol. 1, p. 158. [183] W. B. HONEY, "English Salt Glazed Stoneware," [abstract] _English Ceramic Circle Transactions_ (London, 1933), no. 1, p. 14. [184] Ibid. [185] Ibid.; BERNARD RACKHAM, _Early Staffordshire Pottery_ (London, n.d.), p. 20. [186] BERNARD RACKHAM and HERBERT READ, _English Pottery_ (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1924), p. 88. [187] DOW, op. cit. (footnote 178), pp. 86-87. [188] RACKHAM, op. cit. (footnote 185), p. 92. [189] DOW, op. cit. (footnote 178), p. 92. [190] A. M. GARNER, _English Delftware_ (New York: D. Van Nostrand and Co., Inc., 1948), fig. 23B. [191] Ibid., fig. 37. [192] RACKHAM, op. cit. (footnote 185), p. 28. [193] Ibid., pl. 57. [194] RACKHAM and READ, op. cit. (footnote 186), p. 96. [195] Ibid., p. 97. [196] DOW, op. cit. (footnote 178), pp. 85-95. [197] RACKHAM, op. cit. (footnote 185), p. 29; RACKHAM and READ, op. cit. (footnote 186), pp. 107-109. [198] W. B. HONEY, _English Pottery and Porcelain_ (London: 1947), p. 89. [F99] _Wedgwood Catalogue of Bodies, Glazes and Shapes Current for 1940-1960_ (Burslem, Stoke-on-Trent: Warwick Savage, n.d.), pp. M1, M2. [200] "The Editor's Attic" and cover: _Antiques_ (New York, June 1928), vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 474-475. [201] RACKHAM and READ, op. cit. (footnote 186), p. 110. [202] J. A. LLOYD HYDE, _Oriental Lowestoft_ (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1936), p. 23. XVI _Glass_ BOTTLES ROUND BEVERAGE BOTTLES.--Bottles of dark-green glass were used in the colonial period for wine, beer, rum, and other potables. Although some wines and liquors were shipped in the bottle, they were distributed for the most part in casks, hogsheads, and "pipes" before 1750. John Mercer recorded the purchases of several pipes of wine--kinds unspecified--a pipe being a large or even double-size hogshead. He purchased rum by the gallon, in quantities that ranged from 2 quarts in 1744 to "5 galls Barbadoes Spirits" in 1745 and a "hhd 107-1/2 gall Rum" in 1748. Bottles were used largely for household storage and for the serving of liquors. They were kept filled in the buttery as a convenience against going to the cellar each time a drink was wanted. Bottles usually were brought directly to the table,[203] although the clear-glass decanter was apparently regarded as a more genteel dispenser. Mercer, like his contemporaries, bought his own bottles, as when he purchased "2 doz bottles" from John Foward in 1730. The previous year he had acquired a gross of corks, which would customarily have been inserted in his bottles and secured by covering with cloth, tying around the lips or string rings with packthread, and sealing with warm resin and pitch. Some wines were purchased in the bottle. In 1726 Mercer bought "2 doz & 8 bottles Claret" and "1 doz Canary" from Alexander McFarlane. In 1745 he charged Overwharton Parish for "2 bottles Claret to Acquia," apparently for communion wine. Whether all this was shipped from the vineyards in bottles, or whether Mercer brought his own bottles to be filled from the storekeepers' casks is not revealed. An insight into the kinds of alcoholic drinks consumed in Virginia in Mercer's early period is given in the official price-list for the sale of alcoholic beverages set forth in the York County Court Orders in 1726:[204] This Court do Sett the Rate Liquors as followeth: £ s. d. Liquors Rated Each diet 1 Lodging for each person 7-1/2 Stable Room & Fodder for each horse p^r night 11-1/4 Each Gallon corn 7-1/2 Wine of Virg^a produce p Quart 5 French Brandy p Quart 4 Sherry & Canary Wine p Quart 4 4-1/2 Red & white Lisbon p^r Quart & Claret 3 1-1/2 Madera Wine p Quart 1 10-1/2 Fyall wine p Quart 1 3 French Brandy Punch p Quart 2 Rum & Virg^a Brandy p^r Quart 3-3/4 Rum punch & flip p^r Quart 7-1/2^d made with white sugar 9 Virg^a midling beer & Syder p^r Quart 3-3/4 Fine bottled Syder p^r Quart 1 3 Bristoll Beer Bottles 1 Arrack p^r Quart 10 [Illustration: Figure 78.--WINE BOTTLE, sealed with initials of John and Catherine Mercer, dated 1737 (see p. 148). Found in Structure D refuse pit. Height, 8 inches. (See also ill. 37.)] It will be noted that Bristol beer was sold by the bottle, probably just as it was shipped, and "Fine bottled Syder" apparently came in quart bottles. Probably the wines were dispensed from casks in wine measures. Mercer bought Citron water in bottles, a half dozen at a time, as he did "Mint, Orange flower & Tansey D^o," in 1744. Round beverage bottles ranged in shape from, roughly, the form of a squat onion at the beginning of the 18th century to narrow cylindrical bottles towards the end of the century. The earliest bottles were free-blown without the constraint of a mold, hence there were many variations in shape. After about 1730 bottles were blown into crude clay molds which imparted a roughly cylindrical or taper-sided contour below sloping shoulders and necks. These marked the first recognition of binning as a way of storing wines in bottles laid on their sides. About 1750 the Bristol glasshouses introduced cylindrical brass molds.[205] From then on the problem of stacking bottles in bins was solved and virtually all round beverage bottles thenceforward were cylindrical with long necks. [Illustration: Illustration 35.--Beverage bottle. First quarter, 18th century. Reconstruction based on whole bottle found at Rosewell. One-half. (USNM 59.1717.)] [Illustration: Illustration 36.--Above, beverage-bottle seal, with initials of John and Catherine Mercer, matching the tobacco-cask mark used for tobacco grown at the "home plantation" (Marlborough). See figures 8 and 79. Same size. (USNM 59.1689.)] [Illustration: Illustration 37.--At right, complete beverage bottle, dated 1737, with initials of John and Catherine Mercer (fig. 78). Same size. (USNM 59.1688.)] At Marlborough the earliest form of wine bottle is represented by a squat neck and a base fragment (USNM 59.1717, ill. 35), both matching onion-shaped bottles of the turn of the century, such as one excavated at Rosewell (USNM 60.660). Except for these fragments, the oldest form from Marlborough may be seen in the complete bottle found in refuse pit D (USNM 59.1688; fig. 78, ill. 37). This bottle is typical of the transitional form, sealed examples of which regularly occur bearing dates in the 1730's. Its sides are straight for about three inches above the curve of the base, tapering slightly to the irregular shoulder that curves in and up to a neck with wedge-shaped string ring. Two inches above the base is a seal, bearing the initials I^[C.]M above a decorative device and the date 1737. The arrangement of initials exactly matches that found on Mercer's tobacco-cask seals (p. 30 and footnote 89) indicating the "home plantation" at Marlborough. [Illustration: Figure 79.--BOTTLE SEALS. (See ill. 36.)] Seals were applied by dropping a gather of glass on the hot surface of a newly blown bottle, then pressing into this deposit of glass a brass stamp bearing a design, initials, date, etc. Three similar seals from broken bottles also were found. The same arrangement of initials, but with no date or device of any kind, occurs on seven different seals (fig. 79, ills. 36 and 37). The diameter of the base of the sealed beverage bottle is 5-1/2 inches, the widest diameter occurring on any bottle fragments from Marlborough, excepting the early specimen mentioned above. Bases in gradually decreasing dimensions vary from this size to 2-3/4 inches. Six bases run from 5 inches to 5-1/2 inches; 11 are over 4-1/2 inches and up to 5 inches; 4 are over 4 inches and up to 4-1/2 inches; 3 are over 3-1/2 inches and up to 4 inches; none, except the smallest of 2-3/4 inches, found in a mid-19th-century deposit, is less than 3-3/4 inches. FOOTNOTES: [203] LADY SHEELAH RUGGLES-BRISE, _Sealed Bottles_ (London: Country Life, Ltd.; New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1949), p. 18. [204] _York County (Virginia) Orders & Wills 1716-1726_ (in York County courthouse, Yorktown, Va.), no. 15, p. 571. [205] "Old English Wine Bottles," _The Wine and Spirit Trade Record_ (London, December 17, 1951), pp. 1570-1571. BEVERAGE-BOTTLE BASES _USNM_ _Inches in_ _No._ _Diameter_ _Provenience_ 59.1688 5-1/2 Refuse pit D 59.1717 6 Structure F, firing chamber 59.1717 4-1/2 Structure F, firing chamber 59.1717 4-3/4 Structure F, firing chamber 59.1717 4-7/8 Structure F, firing chamber 59.1717 5 Structure F, firing chamber 59.1717 5-1/8 Structure F, firing chamber 59.1793 2-3/4 S.W. corner, Structure B 59.1870 5-1/4 Wall D, trench 59.1918 4 Structure E, N. side, Room X 59.1921 3-3/4 Debris area, N.E. corner, Structure E 59.1957 5 Structure F, N.E. corner of pavement 59.1957 5 Structure F, N.E. corner of pavement 59.1998 4-3/4 Structure E, N. of fireplace, Room X 59.1998 4-3/4 Structure E, N. of fireplace, Room X 59.2007 3-7/8 North of Structure E, lowest level 59.2007 4-1/4 North of Structure E, lowest level 60.83 4-1/2 Wall E, gateway 60.103 4-3/4 Trench along Wall E 60.117 5-1/8 Junction of Walls A-I and A-II 60.117 4-5/8 Junction of Walls A-I and A-II 60.120 5-1/2 Trash pit no. 2 60.123 5-1/2 Trash pit no. 2 Since beverage-bottle diameters diminished from about 5 inches in the 1750's and 1760's to about 4 inches in the 1770's and 1780's and to 3-1/2 inches in the 1790's and early 1800's, the peak of their incidence at Marlborough occurs between 1750 and 1770, the period of greatest opulence in the Mercer household. [Illustration: Illustration 38.--Upper left, cylindrical beverage bottle, about 1760. One-fourth. (USNM 59.1998.)] [Illustration: Illustration 39.--Upper right, cylindrical beverage bottle, late 18th or early 19th century. One-fourth. (USNM 59.1976, 59.2007.)] OCTAGONAL BEVERAGE BOTTLES.--A rarely seen variation from the round beverage bottle is a club-shaped, octagonal, molded type with long neck, perhaps so shaped in order to permit packing in cases. Cider is said to have been put up in such bottles, and it is also possible that brandies and liqueurs were delivered in them. A quart-size bottle of this shape at Colonial Williamsburg bears the seal "I. Greenhow WmsBgh. 1769." Another, purchased in England, in the G. H. Kernodle collection at the Smithsonian Institution, also has a seal with the name "Jn^o Collings, 1736" (USNM 59.2170). A pint-size example, 9 inches high and dated 1736, is illustrated in plate 95e in the Wine Trade Loan Exhibition catalog.[206] A restored bottle of this form from Marlborough (USNM 59.1687, fig. 80, ill. 40) is 8 inches high, but bears no seal. Among the glass found at Marlborough are also three bases and other fragments of similar bottles. [Illustration: Illustration 40.--Octagonal, pint-size beverage bottle. See figure 80. Half size. (USNM 59.1687.)] SQUARE "GIN" BOTTLES.--Square bottles, usually called "gin" bottles, occur in the Marlborough material. Two base sections and lower pieces of the flat sides have been partly restored (USNM 59.1685, 59.1686, ill. 41), and a neck and shoulder have survived. The bases are 4 inches square, and the whole bottles were probably about 10 inches high. They did not taper but maintained a continuous dimension from shoulder to base. The bases, which are rounded on the corners, have a slightly domed kick-up with a ring-shaped pontil mark. The glass is olive green. The necks are squat--barely 7/8 inch--and have wide string rings midway in their length. [Illustration: Figure 80.--OCTAGONAL SPIRITS BOTTLE.] [Illustration: Illustration 41.--Square gin bottle. One-fourth. (USNM 59.1686, base; 59.1685, top.)] [Illustration: Illustration 42.--Square snuff bottle. One-half. See figure 81. (USNM 59.1680.)] [Illustration: Figure 81.--SNUFF BOTTLE. (See ill. 42.)] Square "gin" bottles were designed for shipment in wooden boxes with compartments in which the bottles fit snugly. Although Dutch gin customarily was shipped in bottles of this shape, indications are that the square bottles may have been used for other purposes than holding gin. For one thing, Mercer's ledgers mention no purchases of gin. There is, in fact, almost no evidence of the sale of gin in Virginia; a single announcement of Holland gin available in Williamsburg in 1752 is the exception until 1773, when gin was again advertised in the _Virginia Gazette_.[207] Its sale had been prohibited in England in 1736.[208] For another thing, square bottles were both imported and manufactured in America for sale new. In 1760 the Germantown glassworks in Braintree, Massachusetts, made "Round and square Bottles, from one to four Quarts; also Cases of Bottles of all Sizes ...,"[209], while George Ball, of New York, in 1775 advertised that he imported "Green glass Gallon square bottles, Two quart ditto, Pint ditto."[210] [Illustration: Illustration 43.--Upper left, wineglass, reconstructed from base fragment having enamel twist for stem. One-half. (USNM 59.1761.)] [Illustration: Illustration 44.--Upper right, cordial glass. One-fourth. (USNM 59.1607.)] A smaller base (USNM 59.1642) has a high kick-up, the dome of which intersects the sides of the base so that the bottle rests on four points separated by arcs. This fragment measures 3 inches square. An even smaller version (USNM 59.1977) is 2-3/4 inches. SNUFF BOTTLES.--Several items in Mercer's ledgers record the purchase of snuff, such as one for a "bottle of snuff" in 1731 for 15d., another in 1743 for 3s., and a third in 1744 for 1s. 6d. Among the artifacts is a partly restored bottle of olive-green glass, shaped like a gin bottle but of smaller dimensions, with a 2-1/4-inch-wide mouth (USNM 59.1686, fig. 81). The bottle is 3-3/4 inches square and 7 inches tall. It has a low kick-up and a smooth pontil mark. Also among the artifacts are a matching base and several sherds of similar bottles. [Illustration: Illustration 45.--Sherds of engraved-glass wine and cordial glasses (fig. 82c). Same size. (USNM 59.1634, 59.1864.)] MEDICINE BOTTLES.--Only a few fragments of medicine bottles occurred in the Marlborough artifacts. This is surprising, in view of Mercer's many ailments and his statements that he had purchased "British Oyl," "Holloway's Citrate," and other patent nostrums of his day. A round base from a greenish, cylindrical bottle (USNM 59.2056) seems to represent an Opadeldoc bottle. Another base is rectangular with notched corners. The last, as well as the base of a molded, basket-pattern scent bottle (USNM 59.2093) may be early 19th century in date. Other medicine-bottle fragments are all 19th century, some quite late (fig. 82). FOOTNOTES: [206] _Wine Trade Loan Exhibition of Drinking Vessels_ [catalog] (London, 1933), no. 226, p. 26, pl. 95. [207] CAPPON & DUFF, _Virginia Gazette Index 1736-1780_, op. cit. (footnote 93), vol. 1, p. 451. [208] ANDRE SIMON, _Drink_ (New York: Horizon Press, Inc., 1953), pp. 139-140. [209] DOW, op. cit. (footnote 178), p. 104. [210] RITA SUSSWEIN, _The Arts & Crafts in New York, 1726-1776_ (New York: J. J. Little and Ives Co., 1938), p. 99. (Printed for the New-York Historical Society.) TABLE GLASS A minimum of table-glass sherds was recovered, and these were fragmentary. Glass is scarcely mentioned in Mercer's accounts, although there is no reason to suppose that Marlborough was any less well furnished with fine crystal than with other elegant objects that we know about. Three sherds of heavy lead glass have the thickness and contours of early 18th-century English decanters, matching more complete fragments from Rosewell and a specimen illustrated in plate 98a in the Wine Trade Loan Exhibition catalog.[211] Two fragments are body sherds; the third is from a lip and neck. [Illustration: Illustration 46.--Clear-glass tumbler blown in a ribbed mold (fig. 82b). Same size. (USNM 59.1864.)] [Illustration: Illustration 47.--Octagonal cut-glass trencher salt (fig. 82a). Same size. (USNM 59.1830.)] [Illustration: Figure 82.--GLASSWARE: a, cut-glass salt (ill. 47); b, tumbler base (ill. 46); c, engraved sherds (ill. 45); d, tumbler and wineglass sherds; e, part of candle arm (see p. 154); f, mirror fragment; g, window glass; and h, medicine-bottle sherds.] Several forms of drinking glasses are indicated. A fragment of a foot from a long-stemmed cordial glass shows the termini of white-enamel threads that were comprised in a double enamel-twist stem. The twists consisted of a spiral ribbon of fine threads near the surface of the stem, with a heavy single spiral at the core. The indicated diameter of the foot is 3-1/4 inches (USNM 59.1761, ill. 43). Fragments of large knops are probably from heavy baluster wineglasses dating from Mercer's early period before 1750. A teardrop stem from a trumpet-bowl wineglass has been melted past recognition in a fire. The stem of a bucket-bowl cordial glass has suffered in the same manner (USNM 59.1607). Still with their shapes intact are two stems and base sections of bucket-bowl wineglass. Two engraved bowl sherds from similar-shaped cordial glasses and a rim sherd from another engraved piece are the only fragments with surface decoration (USNM 59.1634, 59.1864, ill. 45). Several sherds of foot rims, varying in diameter, were found, including one with a folded or "welted" edge. Tumblers, depending on their sizes, were used for strong spirits, toddy, flip, and water. The base and body sherds of a molded tumbler from Marlborough are fluted in quadruple ribs that are separated by panels 1/4-inch wide (USNM 59.1864, fig. 82c, ill. 46). Plain, blown tumbler bases have indicated diameters of 3 inches. A few unusual, as well as more typical, forms are indicated by the Marlborough glass sherds. One small fragment comes from a large flanged cover, probably from a sweetmeat bowl or a posset pot. A specimen of more than usual interest is a pressed or cast cut-glass octagonal trencher salt (USNM 59.1830, fig. 82a, ill. 47). This artifact reflects silver and pewter salt forms of about 1725. A curved section of a heavy glass rod is apparently from a chandelier, candelabrum, or sconce glass (USNM 59.1696, fig. 82e). We have seen that Mercer, in 1748, bought "1 superfine large gilt Sconce glass." Although precise dates cannot be ascribed to any of this glass, it all derives without much question from the period of Mercer's occupancy of Marlborough. FOOTNOTES: [211] Op. cit. (footnote 206), no. 244, p. 66, pl. 68. MIRROR AND WINDOW GLASS We know from the ledgers that there were sconce and looking glasses at Marlborough. Archeological refuse supplies us with confirmation in pieces of clear lead glass with slight surviving evidence of the tinfoil and mercury with which the backs originally were coated. One piece (USNM 59.1693) has a beveled edge 7/8 inch wide, characteristic of plate-glass wall mirrors of the colonial period. A curved groove on this piece, along which the fracture occurred, is probable evidence of engraved decoration. Window glass is of two principal types. One has a pale-olive cast. A few fragments of this type have finished edges, indicating that they are from the perimeters of sheets of crown glass and that Mercer purchased whole crown sheets and had them cut up. It may be assumed that this greenish glass is the oldest, perhaps surviving from Mercer's early period. The other type is the more familiar aquamarine window glass still to be found in 18th-century houses. A large corner of a rectangular pane has the slightly bent contour of crown glass, which is the English type of window glass made by blowing great bubbles of glass which were spun to form huge discs. The discs sometimes were cut up into panes of stock sizes and then shipped to America, or else were sent in whole sheets, to be cut up by storekeepers here or to be sold directly to planters and other users of window glass in quantity. The centers of these sheets increased in thickness and bore large scars where the massive pontil rods which had held the sheets during their manipulation were broken off. The center portions also were cut into panes, which were used in transom lights and windows where light was needed but a view was not. Hence they served not only to utilize an otherwise useless part of the crown-glass sheets, but also to impart a decorative quality to the window. They are still known to us as "bullseyes." A piece of a bullseye pane of aquamarine glass occurs in the Marlborough finds. The pontil scar itself is missing, but the thick curving section leaves little doubt as to its original appearance. A similar fragment was found at Rosewell. XVII _Objects of Personal Use_ Costume accessories recovered at Marlborough are extremely few. There are six metal buttons, all of them apparently 18th century. One of flat brass (USNM 59.2004) has traces of gilt adhering to the surface; another of similar form (USNM 60.85) is silver; a third (USNM 59.2004) is copper. The silver button, 7/8 inch in diameter, could be one of two dozen vest buttons bought by Mercer for 18 pence each in 1741. A brass button with silver surface was roll-plated in the Sheffield manner (USNM 59.2004), thus placing its date at some time after 1762. "White metal"--a white brass--was commonly used for buttons in the 18th century, and is seen here in a fragmentary specimen (USNM 59.2004). One hollow button of sheet brass shows the remains of gilding (USNM 60.73). Only one example was found--a dark-gray shell button--that was used on under-garments (USNM 59.1819). Among the personal articles are two brass buckles, one a simple half buckle (USNM 70.72, fig. 83d, ill. 48), the other a knee buckle (USNM 60.139, fig. 83e, ill. 49). Except possibly for a pair of scissors to be mentioned later, a brass thimble is the only artifactual evidence of sewing (USNM 60.74, fig. 83b, ill. 50). Four thimbles, mentioned in Ledger B, were purchased in 1729, and four in 1731.) Parts of a penknife that were found consist of ivory-casing fragments, steel frame, knife blade, single-tined fork, and other pieces (USNM 50.1665, fig. 85). Two chalk marbles attest to the early appeal of that traditional game, as well as to the ingenuity that went into making the marbles of this material (USNM 59.1682). Chalk also was used to make a bullet mold, half of which, bearing an M on the side, has survived (USNM 59.1682, fig. 84b, ill. 51). A musket ball (USNM 59.1682) from the site could have been made in it. Two gun flints (USNM 59.1629 and 59.1647, fig. 84a) are of white chert. [Illustration: Illustration 48.--Left, brass buckle (see fig. 83d). Same size. (USNM 60.72.)] [Illustration: Illustration 49.--Center, brass knee buckle (fig. 83e). Same size. (USNM 60.139.)] [Illustration: Illustration 50.--Right, brass thimble (fig. 83b). Same size. (USNM 60.74.)] An English halfpenny, dated 1787, was found near the surface in the kitchen debris of Structure E (USNM 59.2041, fig. 83c). Considerably worn, it may have been dropped after the destruction of the building. Two fragments of flat slate were found (USNM 60.95 and 60.113), as well as a hexagonal slate pencil (USNM 59.1685, fig. 85, ill. 54). It is clear that slates were used at Marlborough, probably when Mercer's children were receiving their education from the plantation tutors. [Illustration: Illustration 51.--Chalk bullet mold with initial "M" (fig. 84b). Same size. (USNM 59.1682.)] [Illustration: Figure 83.--SMALL METALWORK: a, copper and white metal buttons; b, brass thimble; c, English halfpenny, 1787; d, brass buckle; e, brass knee buckle; f, brass harness ornament; g, escutcheon plates for drawer pulls and keyholes; h, drop handle; i, curtain and harness rings; and j, brass strap handle.] [Illustration: Illustration 52.--Left, fragments of tobacco-pipe bowl with decoration molded in relief. Same size. (USNM 59.2003.)] [Illustration: Illustration 53.--Above, white-kaolin tobacco pipe (fig. 84f). One-half. (USNM 59.1714.)] [Illustration: Figure 84.--PERSONAL MISCELLANY: a, chert gun "flint;" b, chalk bullet mold and bullet; c, bullet; d, marble; e, piece of chalk; and f, white clay pipes and fragment of terra-cotta pipestem.] [Illustration: Figure 85.--CUTLERY: a, chopping knife; b, table-knife blades; c, parts of penknife; and d, pieces of slate and slate pencil.] [Illustration: Illustration 54.--Slate pencil (see fig. 85d). Same size. (USNM 59.1685.)] As usual in colonial sites, quantities of pipestem and bowl fragments were recovered. Virtually all the bowls reflect the typical Georgian-period white-clay pipe form, with only minor variations. Most of the stems have bores ranging from 4/64 inch (1750-1800) to 6/64 inch (1650-1750). A single stem fragment from a terra cotta pipe of a kind found at Jamestown and Kecoughtan, probably dropped by an Indian or early white trader, is early 17th century (fig. 84f), while two white-clay stem fragments have bores of 1/8 inch (1620-1650). A fragment of a pipe bowl has molded decoration in relief, with what appear to be masonic emblems framed on a vine wreath (USNM 59.2003, ill. 52). XVIII _Metalwork_ SILVER [Illustration: Illustration 55.--Left, fragment of long-tined fork. Second-half (?), 17th century. One-half. (USNM 59.1663.)] [Illustration: Illustration 56.--Center, fragment of long-tined fork. Early 18th century. One-half. (USNM 59.2029.)] [Illustration: Illustration 57.--Right, fork which had two-part handle of wood, bone, or silver. One-half. (USNM 59.1939.)] Mercer, as we have seen, had a lavish supply of plate. Little of this, understandably, was likely to have been thrown away or lost, except for an occasional piece of flatware. One such exception is a teaspoon from the Structure B foundation (USNM 59.1827, fig. 86). It has a typical early Georgian form--ribbed handle, elliptical bowl, and leaf-drop handle attachment on back of the bowl. As in the case of small objects worked after the marks were applied, this has evidence of two distorted marks. Corrosion has obliterated such details as may have been visible originally, although there are fairly clear indications of the leopard's head crowned and lion passant found on London silver. TABLE CUTLERY.--Fragmentary knives and forks from the site date mostly from before 1750. Forks are all of the long, double-tine variety. One, which may date back to the second half of the 17th century, has a delicate shank, widening to a tooled, decorative band, with shaft extending downward which was originally enclosed in a handle of horn, bone, or wood (USNM 59.1663, ill. 55). A fragment of a narrow-bladed knife (USNM 59.1882, fig. 85) may be of the same period as the fork. Two forks, each with one long tine intact, show evidence of having had flat cores for wood or silver handles (USNM 59.2029, 59.1939, ills. 56 and 57). The shanks, differing in length from each other, are turned in an ogee shape. Three blades, varying in completeness, are of the curved type used with "pistol-grip" handles (USNM 59.1667-1668, 59.1939). A straight blade fragment (USNM 59.1999) is probably contemporary with them. Only two knife fragments (USNM 59.1799 and 59.2082) appear to be 19th century (fig. 85). One of the most unusual artifacts is a half section of a hollow Sheffield-plated pistol-grip knife handle. Sheffield plate was introduced in 1742 by a process that fused sheets of silver to sheets of copper under heat and pressure.[212] The metal, as here, was sometimes stamped (USNM 59.1668, fig. 86b). [Illustration: Figure 86.--METALWORK: a, rim of pewter dish; b, table knife with Sheffield-plated handle; c, lid of pewter teapot (ill. 60); d, silver teaspoon; e, wavy-end pewter spoon, early 18th-century shape; f and g, two trifid-end pewter spoons, late 17th-century shape (holes in g were probably drilled to hold cord for suspension from neck).] FOOTNOTES: [212] SEYMOUR B. WYLER, _The Book of Sheffield Plate_ (New York: Crown Publishers, 1949), pp. 4-5. PEWTER Three, whole pewter spoons, as well as several fragments of spoons, were salvaged from the large trash pit (Structure D). Two whole specimens and a fragment of a third are trifid-handle spoons cast in a mold that was probably made about 1690. One of these (USNM 59.1669, fig. 86g, ill. 58) has had two holes bored at the top of the handle, probably to enable the user to secure it by a cord to his person or to hang it from a loop. This circumstance, plus the presence of such an early type of spoon in an 18th-century context, suggests that the spoons were made during the Mercer period for kitchen or slave use from a mold dating back to the Port Town period. The spoons themselves may, of course, have survived from the Port Town time and have been relegated to humble use on the plantation. A somewhat later spoon, with "wavy-end" handle, comes from a mold of about 1710. It has the initial N scratched on the handle (USNM 59.1672, fig. 86e, ill. 59). Another fragmentary example has a late type of wavy-end handle, dating perhaps ten years later (USNM 59.1672). [Illustration: Illustration 58.--Trifid-handle pewter spoon (fig. 86g). One-half. (USNM 59.1669.)] A pewter teapot lid with tooled rim and the remains of a finial may be as early as 1740 (USNM 59.1676, fig. 86c, ill. 60). Two rim fragments of a pewter plate also were found (USNM 59.1675, fig. 86a). KITCHEN AND OTHER HOUSEHOLD UTENSILS CUTLER'S WORK.--In 1725 Mercer bought a pair of "Salisbury Scissors"; there is no clue as to what is meant by the adjectival place name. He purchased another pair of scissors in 1744. In any case, a pair of embroidery scissors, with turned decoration that one would expect to find on early 18th-century scissors, was found in the site (USNM 59.1680, ill. 61). [Illustration: Illustration 59.--Wavy-end pewter spoon (fig. 86e). One-half. (USNM 59.1672.)] [Illustration: Illustration 60.--Pewter teapot lid (fig. 86c). Same size. (USNM 59.1676.)] [Illustration: Illustration 61.--Steel scissors. One-half. (USNM 59.1680.)] [Illustration: Figure 87.--IRONWARE: a, lid for iron pot; b, cooking-pot fragments; c, andiron leg; d, iron ladle; and e, two beaters for box-irons.] IRONWARE.--Pieces of two types of iron pot were found. One type is a large-capacity version, holding possibly five gallons. It has horizontal ribbing and vertical mold seams (USNM 59.1645, 59.1845, 59.60.147, fig. 87). Such, perhaps, was the "gr[ea]t pot" weighing 36 pounds which Mercer bought from Nathaniel Chapman of the Accokeek Iron Works in 1731. Two other fragments are from a smaller pot. The inventory taken in 1771 (Appendix M) lists five "Iron Potts for Negroes," that were probably smaller than those used in the plantation kitchen. Two heaters for box irons were found in the kitchen debris. A heavy layer of mortar adhered to one, suggesting that it may have been built into the brickwork--whether by accident or design there is no way of telling. In that case, however, the specimen would antedate 1749 (USNM 59.2024, 59.2026, fig. 87). Box irons were hollow flatirons into which pre-heated cast-iron slugs or "heaters" were inserted. Two or more heaters were rotated in the fire, one always being ready to replace the other as it cooled. In 1725 Mercer bought a "box Iron & heaters," and in 1731, from Chapman, "2 heaters." Other kitchen iron includes the fragmentary bowl and stem of a long-handled iron stirring spoon (USNM 59.1812), an iron kettle cover (USNM 60.69), and the leg of a large, heavy pair of andirons (USNM 59.1826, fig. 87). A small, semicircular chopping knife has a thin steel blade and an iron shank that originally was inserted in a wooden handle. Lettering, now almost obliterated, was impressed in the metal of the blade: "SHEFFIELD WORKS 6 ENGLISH...." (USNM 59.1834, fig. 85a). [Illustration: Illustration 62.--Iron candle snuffers. One-fourth. (USNM 59.1825.)] FURNITURE HARDWARE.--A few metal furniture fittings were recovered. Six curtain rings, cut from sheet brass and trimmed with a file, vary from 7/8 inches to 1-1/4 inches. On tubular ring (USNM 60.53, fig. 83) may have been used as a curtain ring, although signs of wear suggest that it perhaps may have been a drawer pull. A small, brass, circular escutcheon (USNM 59.1735, fig. 83) comes from a teardrop-handle fixture of the William and Mary style. A round keyhole escutcheon has tooled grooves and holes for four nails (USNM 59.1630, fig. 83), and dates from about 1750. The handsomest specimen of furniture trim found is an escutcheon plate with engraved linear decoration dating from about 1720 (USNM 60.71, fig. 83). An iron bale handle was probably on a trunk or chest (USNM 60.130, fig. 88e). A small strap hinge (USNM 59.1657, fig. 88) is like those found on the lids of 18th-century wooden chests, while a butt hinge may have served on the lid of the escritoire which Mercer owned in 1731 (ill. 63). [Illustration: Figure 88.--IRON DOOR AND CHEST HARDWARE: a, large HL hinge; b, plate from box lock; c, small H hinge for cupboard; d, part of H door hinge; e, bale handle from trunk; f, latch bar or striker; g, small hinges; h, keys; i, latch catch; j, staples; k, part of latch handle; and l, pintles for strap hinges.] [Illustration: Illustration 63.--Iron butt hinge of type used on escritoire lids and other similar items. Same size.] [Illustration: Illustration 64.--End of strap hinge. One-half. (USNM 60.146.)] [Illustration: Illustration 65.--Catch for door latch. Same size. (USNM 59.1801.)] [Illustration: Illustration 66.--Wrought-iron hasp. One-half. (USNM 59.1655.)] [Illustration: Illustration 67.--Brass drop handle. Same size. (USNM 59.1944.)] [Illustration: Illustration 68.--Wrought-iron catch or striker from door latch. One-half. (USNM 59.1768.)] [Illustration: Illustration 69.--Iron slide bolt. One-half. (USNM 59.1942.)] [Illustration: Illustration 70.--Series of wrought-iron nails. One-half.] ARCHITECTURAL AND STRUCTURAL HARDWARE Iron was a fundamental material in the construction of any 18th-century building. Mercer's ledgers make repeated references to the purchase of hinges, locks, latches, and other related iron equipment. Most of this material was obtained from local merchants and was probably English in origin. However, the ledger records numerous purchases from Nathaniel Chapman of iron that was undoubtedly made at his ironworks. It is probable also that many simple appliances were made at Marlborough by slaves or indentured servants trained as blacksmiths. HINGES.--Hand-forged strap hinges were employed throughout the colonies from the first period of settlement to the middle of the 19th century. In addition to the many fragments that probably came from such hinges, one artifact is a typical spearhead strap-hinge terminal with a square hole for nailing (USNM 60.146, ill. 64). Three pintles--L-shaped pivots on which strap hinges swung--were recovered. One was found at the site of a gate or door in the wall south of the kitchen (USNM 60.59, fig. 88l). [Illustration: Illustration 71.--Series of wrought-iron flooring nails and brads. One-half.] [Illustration: Illustration 72.--Fragment of clouting nail. Same size.] [Illustration: Illustration 73.--Hand-forged spike. One-half. (USNM 59.1811.)] Fragments from at least four different H and HL hinges occur. Several entries in the ledgers refer to the purchase of such hinges. A nearly complete HL hinge, probably used on a large door, recalls an item in the account with Charles Dick for June 14, 1744, "2 p^r large hinges 9/" (USNM 59.1945, fig. 88). A piece of a smaller H or HL hinge is of the type used on interior doors (USNM 59.1767, fig. 88), while a still smaller section of an H hinge was perhaps used on a cupboard door. H hinges were more properly known as "side hinges," and we find Mercer using that term in 1729 when he bought a pair of "Sidehinges" for 9d. "Cross-garnet" hinges, where a sharply tapering, spear-headed strap section is pivoted by a pin inserted in a stationary, rectangular butt section, are represented by three imperfect specimens (USNM 59.1657 and 59.1881, fig. 88). Both these types are named, described, and illustrated by Moxon.[213] [Illustration: Figure 89.--TOOLS: a, block-plane blade; b, scraping tool (ill. 76); c, gouge chisel (ill. 77); d, part of bung extractor; e, fragment of ax; f, three dogs or hooks; g, pothook; and h, shim or pin.] LOCKS, LATCHES, AND KEYS.--Only one remnant of the ubiquitous 18th-century "Suffolk" thumb-press door latch was found at Marlborough. This fragment comprises the handle but not the cusps at the ends, by which the age might be determined (USNM 60.137, fig. 88). Mercer purchased an "Iron door latch" from Nathaniel Chapman for ninepence in 1731. In a complete assemblage for these latches, a thumb press lifts a latch bar on the reverse side of the door, disengaging it from a catch driven into the edge of the jamb. One large latch bar was recovered (USNM 59.1972, fig. 88f), as well as two catches (USNM 59.1644, fig. 88i, and 59.1801, ill. 65). Sliding bolts were the usual locking devices when simple thumb latches were used. A survival of one of these is seen in a short iron rod with a shorter segment of rod attached to it at right angles (USNM 59.1942, ill. 69). Purchases of padlocks are recorded, but there is no archeological evidence for them. However, a well-made hasp (USNM 59.1655, ill. 66) has survived, and also three staples (USNM 59.1644, 59.1659, 59.2027, fig. 88j). Mercer bought six staples in 1742 at a penny each. Apparently the principal doors of both the 1730 house and the mansion were fitted with box locks, or "stock-locks," in which wood and iron were usually combined. A heavy iron plate comes from such a lock (USNM 59.1943, fig. 88). Two stock-locks were bought from John Foward in 1731. Another was purchased from William Hunter in 1741. In the same year Mercer acquired from Charles Dick "8 Chamberdoor Locks w^{th} brass knobs." If by knob was meant a drop handle, then a fine brass specimen may be one of these (USNM 59.1944, fig. 83h, ill. 67). Fragments of three iron keys have survived, the smallest of which may have been used with a furniture lock (USNM 59.1644 and 59.1656, fig. 88h). [Illustration: Illustration 74.--Left, blacksmith's hammer. One-half. (USNM 59.2081.)] [Illustration: Illustration 75.--Center, iron wrench. One-half. (USNM 60.91.)] [Illustration: Illustration 76.--Right, iron scraping tool (fig. 89b). One-half. (USNM 60.133.)] NAILS AND SPIKES.--The ledgers point to a constant purchasing of nails which is reflected in the great quantity recovered from the excavations. A 1731 purchase from Chapman comprised 2-, 3-, 4-, 6-, 8-, 10-, 12-, and 20-penny nails, while in the 1740's not only nails but 4-, 6-, 8-, and 10-penny brads were purchased, as well as 20-penny flooring brads. Excepting the last, nearly all these sizes occur in the artifacts. There is also a variety of heavy spikes, ranging from 3 inches to 7 inches in length (see ills. 70-73). [Illustration: Illustration 77.--Left, bit or gouge chisel (see fig. 89c). One-half. (USNM 59.1644.)] [Illustration: Illustration 78.--Right, jeweler's hammer. Same size. (USNM 59.1664.)] FOOTNOTES: [213] ALBERT H. SONN, _Early American Wrought Iron_ (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1928), vol. 2, p. 9. HANDCRAFT TOOLS Marlborough, like most 18th-century plantations, was to a large extent self-sufficient, and therefore it is not surprising to find handtools of several kinds. A blacksmith's hammer (USNM 59.2081, ill. 74), for example, strengthens the view that there may have been blacksmiths at Marlborough. Other tools include a smoothing-plane blade of iron with a 1-inch steel tip (USNM 59.1897, fig. 89a); a set wrench for a 3/4-inch square nut or bolt (possibly for bed bolts), equipped originally with a wooden handle (USNM 60.91, ill. 75); a steel scraping tool or chisel with handle set at an angle (USNM 60.133, fig. 89b, ill. 76); a small half-round bit or gouge chisel (USNM 59.1644, fig. 89c, ill. 77). Three crude lengths of iron with stubby L-shaped ends appear to be work-bench dogs (fig. 89f). One fine tool is from the equipment of a jeweler or a clockmaker (USNM 59.1664, ill. 78). It is a very small hammer with a turned, bell-shaped striking head. Originally balanced by a sharp wing-shaped peen, which was, however, badly rusted and which disintegrated soon after being found, the tool has a tubular, tinned, sheet-iron shaft handle which is secured by a brass ferrule to the head and brazed together with brass. The lower end is plugged with brass, where a longer handle perhaps was attached. In 1748 Sydenham & Hodgson, through William Jordan, imported for Mercer "A Sett Clockmakers tools." This entry is annotated, "Return'd to M^r Jordan." Although the hammer cannot be related to this particular set of tools, the ledger item suggests that fine work like clockmaking may have been conducted at Marlborough. This tool may have been used in the process. [Illustration: Figure 90.--SCYTHE found against outside of east wall, Structure H.] FARMING, HORSE, AND VEHICLE GEAR The 1771 inventory is in some ways a more significant summary of 18th-century plantation equipment than are the artifacts found at Marlborough, since its list of tools is longer than the list of tool artifacts and is pin-pointed in time. However, artifacts define themselves concretely and imply far more of such matters as workmanship, suitability to purpose, source of origin, or design and form, than do mere names. The Marlborough tools and equipment, moreover, correspond, as far as they go, very closely with the items in the inventory, thus becoming actualities experienced by us tactually and visually. [Illustration: Illustration 79.--Wrought-iron colter from plow. One-fourth. (USNM 60.88.)] [Illustration: Illustration 80.--Hook used with wagon or oxcart gear. One-half. (USNM 60.9.)] [Illustration: Illustration 81.--Left, bolt with wingnut. One-half. (USNM 60.145.)] [Illustration: Illustration 82.--Right, lashing hook from cart or agricultural equipment. One-half. (USNM 59.2030.)] For instance, the inventory lists 22 plows at Marlborough. Among the finds is an iron colter from a colonial plow in which the colter was suspended from the beam and locked into the top of the share (USNM 60.88, ill. 79). The colter is bent and torn from exhaustive use (Chapman, in 1731, fitted a plow "w^{th} Iron" for Mercer). From it we learn a good deal about the size of the plow on which it was used and the shallow depth of the furrows it made. [Illustration: Figure 91.--FARM GEAR: a, part of collapsible-top fitting from carriage; b, chain, probably from whiffletree; c, part of bridle bit; d, iron stiffener from a saddle; e, worn chain link; f, base of handle of a currycomb; g, rivet and washer; h, piece of iron harness gear; i and j, two horseshoes; and k, chain to which a strap was attached--probably harness gear.] Four chain traces were on the list, one of which is represented by a length of flat links attached to a triangular loop to which the leather portion of the traces was fastened (USNM 60.64, fig. 91b). The halves of two snaffle bits (USNM 59.2078, 60.67, fig. 91c; ill. 87) correspond to an item for eight "Bridle Bitts." (A "snafflebit" costing 1s. 8d. was among Mercer's purchases for 1743.) A third bit, crudely made of twisted wire attached to odd-sized rings, is a makeshift device probably dating from the 19th century. Three ox chains listed in the inventory are not distinctly in evidence in the artifacts, although a heavy hook, broken at the shank, is of the type used to fasten an ox chain to the yoke (USNM 60.9, ill. 80). Archeological evidence of the two oxcarts and one wagon listed in the inventory is confined to nuts and bolts that might have been used on such vehicles. A long axle bolt (USNM 59.1802) measures 23 inches. A small bolt or staple, split at one end and threaded at the other, has a wingnut (USNM 60.145, ill. 81). A hook with a heavy, diamond-shaped backplate and a bolt hole was perhaps used on a wagon to secure lashing (USNM 59.2030, ill. 82). A heavy, curved piece of iron with a large hole, probably for a clevice pin, appears to be from the end of a wagon tongue, while a carefully made bolt with hand-hammered head (USNM 59.1821) and a short rivet with washer (USNM 59.1881, fig. 91g) in place seem also to be vehicle parts. [Illustration: Illustration 83.--Hilling hoe. One-fourth. (USNM 59.1848.)] [Illustration: Illustration 84.--Iron reinforcement strip from back of shovel handle. One-half. (USNM 59.1847.)] The inventory listed four complete harnesses, the remains of which are probably to be found in four square iron buckles (USNM 59.1644, 59.1901, 60.131, fig. 91h), a brass ring (USNM 59.1678, fig. 83), and an ornamental brass boss (USNM 59.1878, fig. 83j). Twelve "Swingle trees" (whippletree, whiffletree, singletree) are listed in the inventory. The artifacts include three iron loops or straps designed to be secured to the swingletrees. One (USNM 59.2042, fig. 91b) still has two large round links attached. (In 1731 Chapman fitted ironwork to a swingletree.) Ten "Hillinghows," 17 "Weeding hows," and 8 "Grubbing hows" are listed. In the long Chapman account for 1731 we see that Mercer then purchased "5 narrow hoes" and "2 grubbing hoes." The only archeological evidence of hoes is a fragmentary broad hoe (probably a hilling hoe) (USNM 59.1848, ill. 83) and the collar of another. [Illustration: Illustration 85.--Half of sheep shears. One-half. (USNM 59.1734.)] Thirteen axes are listed in the inventory. Again we find Nathaniel Chapman providing a "new axe" in 1731 for five shillings, while William Hunter sold Mercer "2 narrow axes" and "4 Axes" in 1743. One broken ax head occurs among the artifacts, worn back from repeated grinding and split at the eye (USNM 59.1740, fig. 89e). There were four spades and an iron shovel at Marlborough in 1771. An iron reinforcement from a shovel handle occurred in the site (USNM 59.1847, ill. 84), while a slightly less curved strip of iron may have been attached to a spade handle (USNM 59.1662). Once more in Chapman's account we find evidence of local workmanship in an item for "1 Spade." [Illustration: Illustration 86.--Animal trap. One-third. (USNM 59.1715.)] Thirteen scythes were listed in 1771; perhaps the one excavated from the foundation of Structure H on Potomac Creek may have been among these (USNM 59.2400, fig. 90). There were eight sheep shears; half of a sheep shears was found in Structure G (USNM 59.1734, ill. 85). Of the other items on the list, a few, such as stock locks and hammers, have already been mentioned, while the remainder of the list is not matched by artifacts. An item for a chalk-line is supported by a piece of chalk (USNM 59.1683, fig. 84). [Illustration: Illustration 87.--Iron bridle bit (see fig. 91c). Same size.] [Illustration: Illustration 88.--Fishhook. One-half. (USNM 59.1681.)] [Illustration: Illustration 89.--Brass strap handle (see fig. 83j). Same size. (USNM 59.1736.)] A few specimens are not matched in the inventory. One is a springtrap of hand-forged, hand-riveted iron (USNM 59.1715, ill. 86) for catching animals. Another is a fishhook (USNM 59.1681, ill. 88), possibly one of 95 bought in 1744. An iron stiffener for the framework of a saddle is fitted with 10 rivets for securing the leather and upholstery (USNM 59.1847, fig. 91d). The third artifact is an elegantly designed brass fitting for a leather curtain or strap (USNM 59.1736, fig. 83j, ill. 89). It is fitted with a copper rivet at the stationary end for securing leather or cloth; just below the rivet is a recessed groove and shelf, perhaps to receive a reinforced edge; to the lower part of this is hinged a long handle cut in a leaf design. An iron hinge bar is part of the equipment for folding back the top of a chaise (USNM 60.178, fig. 91a). There are several horseshoes, two whole shoes and numerous fragments (fig. 91i and j). Finally, the handle shaft and decorative attachment of an iron currycomb (USNM 59.2077, fig. 91f) recalls Mercer's purchase of "1 curry comb and brush" in 1726. XIX _Conclusions_ Almost no exclusively 17th century artifacts were found at Marlborough; at least, there were very few sherds or objects that could not have originated equally well in the 18th century. The exceptions are the following: Westerwald blue-and-white stoneware with gray-buff paste; several sherds of delft and other tin-enameled ware, late 17th century in type, and an early 17th-century terra cotta pipestem. Otherwise, we find a scattering of things belonging to types that occurred in both centuries: North Devon gravel-tempered ware, which was imported both in the late 17th and early 18th centuries; yellow-and-brown "combed" ware, which elsewhere occurs most commonly in 18th century contexts; pewter trifid-handle spoons, the form of which dates from about 1690 but which may have been cast at a later date in an old mold (a wavy-end spoon in the style of 1710 may also have been cast later). Fragments of an onion-shaped wine bottle may date from the first decade of the 18th century, but the presence of such bottles in the Rosewell trash pit shows that bottles, being too precious to throw away, were kept around until they were broken--in the case of Rosewell for 60 or 70 years. Thus the Marlborough sherds cannot be excluded from the Mercer period. The same may be said of a late 17th-century type of fork. Thus, there is virtually no evidence of the Port Town occupation, especially as the few 17th-century artifacts that were found may well have belonged to the Mercers rather than to Marlborough's previous occupants. The ceramics and glass are the most readily datable artifacts, and these coincide almost altogether with the period of John Mercer's lifetime. Common earthenwares are predominantly Tidewater and Buckley types, with a scattering of others, most of which are recurrent among other Virginia and Maryland historic-site artifacts. No distinct type emerges to suggest that there may have been a local Stafford potter. Common stonewares occur in such a variety of types that no source or date can be attributed, although there is some evidence of the work of William Rogers' shop in Yorktown. Westerwald stonewares are predominantly of the blue-and-gray varieties commonest in the second quarter of the 18th century. There is only a small quantity of delftware, but a great deal of Chinese porcelain. Evidences are that the first kinds of English refined wares, such as drab stoneware, Nottingham stoneware, and agateware, were used at Marlborough, thus pointing to an awareness of current tastes and innovations. The large quantity of white salt-glazed ware suggests that, although it was a cheap commercial product, it was regarded as handsome and congenial to the environment of a plantation house that was maintained in formal style. Except for the white salt-glazed ware, which was probably acquired in the 1760's, most of the table ceramics date from about 1740 to 1760. Bottles and the few datable table-glass fragments are also primarily from this period. Creamwares and late 18th- and early 19th-century whitewares diminish sharply in numbers, reflecting a more austere life at Marlborough in its descent to an overseer's quarters. Later 19th-century wares are insignificant in quantity or in their relation to the history of Marlborough. Tool and hardware forms are less diagnostic. Most of them correspond to ledger entries and to the 1771 inventory, so, without contradictory evidence, they may be assumed to date from John Mercer's period. In general, the artifacts illustrate the best of household equipment available in 18th-century Virginia, and the tools and hardware indicate the extensiveness of the plantation's activities and its heavy reliance on blacksmith work. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS XX _Summary of Findings_ Marlborough's beginnings as a town in 1691 cast the shape that has endured in a few vestiges even until today. The original survey of Bland and Buckner remains as evidence, and by it we are led to believe that the courthouse was located near the "Gutt" to the west of the town, near a change of course that affected the western boundary and all the north-south streets west of George Andrews' lots. Archeological excavation in the area disclosed Structure B, which subsequent evidence proved to be the foundation of Mercer's mansion, built at the pinnacle of his career between 1746 and 1750. No evidence exists that this foundation was associated earlier with the courthouse. Two years after the second Act for Ports was passed in 1705, the second survey was made and was lost soon thereafter. There is evidence that the house built by William Ballard in 1708, on a lot "ditched in" according to this plat, was also in the vicinity of the courthouse. After Mercer moved into this house in 1726, it became clear that the two surveys were at odds, and a new survey was ordered and made in 1731. The maneuvers which followed make it fairly clear that Mercer's residence was encroaching upon the two acres that had been set aside for the courthouse, which by Act of Assembly had reverted to the heirs of Giles Brent after the courthouse had burned and been abandoned about 1718. The 1731 plat provided a whole new row of lots along the western boundary of the town, while pushing the original lots slightly to the east. This device would have assured the integrity of the courthouse land, while relieving Mercer of the uncertainty of his title. When Mercer's petition to acquire Marlborough was submitted in 1747 (the 1731 plat still remained unaccepted), he offered to buy the courthouse land for three times its worth. Since Mercer was guardian of the heir, "Mr. William Brent, the Infant," he was called upon to testify in this capacity at the hearings on his petition. Thus the courthouse, Ballard's house, and Mercer's mansion all appear to have been involved in a boundary difficulty, and we may assume, therefore, that the courthouse during its brief career stood close to the spot where Mercer later built his mansion. This difficulty, in particular, was influential in determining the shape of the town, the manner in which Mercer developed the property and the peculiarities that made Marlborough unique. It was not until 1755 that he was permitted to acquire all the town and by that time Marlborough's character had already been fixed. We have seen that its outstanding feature, the mansion, was architecturally sophisticated, that leading craftsmen worked on it, and that it was as highly individualistic as its master. It was lavishly furnished not only with material elegancies but with a library embracing more than a thousand volumes. Aside from the mansion, the area most actively developed by Mercer lay between it and Potomac Creek, with some construction to the north and the east. In 1731, Mercer built two warehouses which probably stood near the waterside at Potomac Creek where his sloop and schooner and visiting vessels found sheltered anchorage. These burned in 1746, but must subsequently have been rebuilt, since Thomas Oliver in his 1771 report to James Mercer commented that the "tobacco houses" must be repaired as soon as possible. They were probably among the buildings that Mercer had constructed up to 1747, when he reported that he had "saved" 17 of the town's lots by building on them. These lots comprised 8-1/2 acres in the southwest portion of the town. The windmill was built on land near the river shore, east of the mansion. It was probably located a considerable distance from the shore, although erosion in recent times has eaten back the cliff. In the fall of 1958, half of the stone foundations collapsed, leaving a well-defined profile of the stone construction. Fragments of mid-century-type wine bottles found in the lower course of the stones support other evidence that the mill was built in 1746. Mercer mentioned his "office" in 1766. This may have been a detached building used for a law office. Oliver in 1771 listed a barn, a cider mill, two "grainerys," three cornhouses, five stables, and tobacco houses. He mentioned also that "the East Green House wants repairing, the west d^o wants buttments as a security to the wall on the south side." Besides the malthouse and brewhouse built in 1765 (which may have been situated at Structure H and the 100-foot-long stone-wall enclosure attached to Wall A), John Mercer in his 1768 letter mentioned "Cellars, Cooper's house and all the buildings, copper & utensil whatever used about the brewery," as well as the "neat warm" house built for the brewer. When the property was advertised in 1791, "Overseers houses," "Negroe quarters," and "Corn houses" also were mentioned. The development of the area in the southwest portion of the plantation probably sustained--or established for the first time--the character originally intended for Marlborough Town. The situation of the mansion was undoubtedly affected by this, as indeed must have been the whole plantation plan. The archeological evidence alone shows that the plan was abnormal in terms of the typical 18th-century Virginia plantation. The rectangular enclosure formed by the brick walls east of the mansion doubtless framed the formal garden over which the imported English gardener, William Black, presided. It connected at the northwest with the kitchen in such a way that the kitchen formed a corner of the enclosure, becoming in effect a gatehouse, protecting the mansion's privacy at the northwest from the utilitarian slave quarter and agricultural precincts beyond. Walls A-I and A-II, however, related the mansion directly to this plantation-business area and caused it to serve also as a gate to the enclosure. The position of the kitchen dependency northwest of the house is the only suggestion of Palladian layout, other than the garden. The southern aspect of the house and the rigid boundary to domestic activity imposed by Walls A-I and A-II probably prevented construction of a balancing unit to the southwest. Slave quarters, stables, and perhaps the barn apparently were located to the north. Since it was not until 1755 that Mercer came into full title to the town, the town plan and its legal restrictions were influential in determining the way in which the plantation was to grow. The house and the surrounding layout were, therefore, wholly peculiar to the special circumstances of Marlborough and probably also to the individuality of its owner. The approach to the house from the waterside was to the south end of the building, leading up to it by the still-existing road from the creek and along the old "Broad Street across the Town," which probably bordered Walls A-I and B-I. The mansion thus had a little of the character of a feudal manor house, as well as some of the appearance of an English townhouse that abuts the street, with the seclusion of its yards and gardens defended by walls. In many respects it only slightly resembled, in its relationship to surrounding structures, the more representative plantations of its period. The house was well oriented to view, ventilation, and dominant location. The veranda, which afforded communication from one part to another out-of-doors, as well as a place to sit, was exposed to the prevailing southwesterly summer winds. In the winter it was equally well placed so as to be in the lee of northeast storms sweeping down the Potomac. The view, hidden today by trees, included Accokeek Creek and a lengthy vista up Potomac Creek. Presumably, a road or driveway skirted the kitchen at the west and perhaps ended in a driveway in front of the house. The gate in Wall E south of the kitchen would have been a normal entrance for horses and vehicles. Within the garden was the summerhouse built by Mercer in 1765. From the east windows and steps of the house and from the garden could be seen the Potomac, curving towards the bay, and the flailing "drivers" of the windmill near the Potomac shore. The excavated and written records of Marlborough are a microcosm of Virginia colonial history. They depict the emergence of central authority in the 17th century in the establishment of the port town as a device to diversify the economy and control the collecting of duties. In the failure of the town, they demonstrate also the failure of colonial government to overcome the tyranny of tobacco and the restrictive policies of the mother country. They go on to show in great detail the emergence in the 18th century of a familiar American theme--the self-directed rise of an individual from obscure beginnings to high professional rank, social leadership, personal wealth, and cultural influence. They demonstrate in Mercer's career the inherent defects of the tobacco economy as indebtedness mounted and economic strains stiffened. In Mercer's concern with the Ohio Company and westward expansion they reflect a colony-wide trend as population increased and the need grew for more arable land and areas in which to invest and escape from economic limitations. They show that the war with the French inevitably ensued, with its demands on income and manpower, while following this came the enforcement of trade laws and the immediate irritants which led to rebellion. So Marlborough gives a sharp reflection of Virginia's history prior to the Revolution. It was touched by most of what was typical and significant in the period, yet in its own details it was unique and individual. In this seeming anomaly Marlborough is a true illustration of its age, when men like Mercer were strong individuals but at the same time typifying and expressing the milieu in which they lived. Mercer's rise to wealth and leadership occurred at a time when favorable laws held out the promise of prosperity, while boundless lands offered unparalleled opportunities for investment. It remained for those best able to take advantage of the situation; Mercer's self-training in the law, his driving energy, and his ability to organize placed him among these. The importance of his position is signified by the justice-ship that he held for so many years in Stafford County court; the brick courthouse on the hill overlooking the upper reaches of Potomac Creek was the architectural symbol of this position. Although most of his income was derived from legal practice, it was his plantation that was the principal expression of his interests and his energies. Mercer was in this respect typical of his peers, whose intellectual and professional leadership, on the one hand, and agricultural and business enterprise, on the other, formed a partnership within the individual. The great plantation house with its sophisticated elegancies, its outward formalities, and its rich resort for the intellect in the form of a varied library, was the center and spirit of the society of which men like Mercer were leaders. With the death of the system came the death of the great house, and the rise and fall of Marlborough symbolizes, as well as anything can, the life cycle of Virginia's colonial plantation order. Appendixes APPENDIX A Inventory of George Andrews, Ordinary Keeper [Stafford County Will Book--Liber Z--1699-1709--p. 168 ff.] An Inventory of the Estate of George Andrews taken the (six) October 1698. 6 small feather beads with Bolsters 5 Ruggs 1 Turkey Work 1 Carpet 1 old small Flock Bed boulster Rugg 4 pair Canvis Shooks 2 pair Curtains and valleins 4 Chests 1 old Table 1 Couch 1 Great Trunk 1 small ditto 1 Cupboard 2 Brass Kettles 1 pieis Dowlas 2 spits 1 Driping pan & fender 6 Iron Pots 5 pair Pot-hooks 6 dishes 1 bason 2 dozen of plates 4 old chairs made of kain 9 head horses + mares 3 Colts of 1 year old each 4 head Oxen 2 Chaine Staples 8 Yoaks 7 Cows + calves 1 Bull 2 barron cows 2 five year old stears 6 Beasts of a year old each 30 head of sheep being yews and lambs 4 Silver spoons 1 Silver dram cup 1 Lignum vitae punch Bowl 1 Chaffing Dish 1 Brass Mortar & Iron Pestle 2 ditto & 1 great iron pestle 1 broad ax 2 narrow D^o 1 Tennant Saw 1 Whipsaw 1 drawing knife 2 augurs 1 Frow 1 pair Stilliards & too with Canhooks 1 Saddle & Curb bridle 3 servants 2 Men 1 Woman 3 years + 6 months to serve 1 Welshman 4 years to serve the other servant named Garrard Moore 13 months to serve 1 old Chest drawers 1 old plow 1 old pair Cart wheels w^{th} a Cart 2 old Course Table Cloths & 8 Napkins 4 Towels 1 Gall^n Pott 1 Paile Pott 2 Chamber Potts 2 tankards a parsil of old Bottles 1 old Looking Glass 1 Grid Iron 1 Flesh fork & Skimmer 1 pair Spit hooks Iron square 3 pair Iron tongs 2 Nutmeg graters 3 Candlesticks 1 old Great Boat old Sails Hawsers Graplin 1 Box Iron 1 Warming pan 2 pair Pot racks Jurat in Curia Returned by John Waugh Jun^r APPENDIX B Inventory of Peter Beach [Stafford County Will Book--Liber Z--1699-1709--p. 158-159.] Estate of Peter Beach. Inventory taken by William Downham, Edward Mountjoy, W^m Allen "having mett together at the house of Mr. Peter Beach." "Dan'l Beach Alex and Mary Waugh executors Nov. 20, 1702" To 4 three year old heifers. at 350 Tob^o p 1400 To 1 stear 6 years old at 600 To 5 D^o 4 year old at 2000 2600 To the 2 yr old at 2800 To 2 Bulls at 600 3400 To 8 Cows & Calves at 4000 To 2 Barron Cows 900 4900 To 1 Mare & Mare Filly at 1200 To 1 two year old horse 400 1600 To 1 D^o 5 years old at 1000 To 1 very old D^o at 150 1150 To 1 Feather bedd + Bedstead + furniture 1500 To 1 do at 1200 2700 To 2 D^o at 2000 To 1 Old Flock Bed + Feather pillow at 300 2300 To one servant Bot 9 years to serve 3000 to 4 stoolth 8 Chairs @ 160- 3160 To 9 old flagg & boarded Chairs 130 To 1 small old table & stool 100 230 To 1 old Standing Cupboard 150 To Looking Glass at 30 100 To 1 pair small Stilliards at 60 to 1 Iron Spit+Dripping pan at 80 140 To 1 pair old Tongs and fire shovel at 30 To 2 Ladles+Chafing Dish 50 80 To 1 old Narrow Ax + frow at 30 To 1 Box Iron & Heaters at 25 55 To a passel of Glass Bottles at 40 To a Parcel of old Iron at 50 90 To 8 old Pewter Dishes and three Basons Ditto at 228 To 1 small Table Cloth + 6 Napkins at 50 to 4 Tinpanns 1 Copper Sawspan at 150 100 To 2 2 quart Potts 1 Pewter Tankard Old 20 To 1 old Warming Pan 20 To 1 Brass candlestick 1 Skimmer Old 15 35 To pasl of Earthen Ware 50 To 3 Iron Potts 2 p^r potthooks 250 To 1 Brass Kettle at 300 600 To 1 Brass kettle at 60 To 23 pewter plates old 110 To 4 old Chests 250 420 To 1 Frying Pan 1 Meal Sifter 15 To a parcel of old Tables and Cyder Cask 350 365 To 1 Pewter Sheaf[214] 50 To 1 old Gun 100 To 2 Bibles at 40 190 To 1 Pewter Chamber Pott 10 To 3 Pewter Salts 1 Dram Cup 15 25 To 1 pair Iron Spansils[215] at 50 ----- Total [_sic_] 26010 Daniel Beach was janitor of the Court House, being paid 200 pounds tobacco annually 1700-1703: 1700 and 1701--"To Daniel Beach for cleaning the Court House" 1702 and 1703--"To Daniel Beach for Sweeping the Courthouse." FOOTNOTES: [214] A cluster or bundle of things tied up together; a quantity of things set thick together. [New Oxford Dictionary] [215] SPANCEL: A rope or fetter for hobbling cattle, horses, etc.; especially, a short, round rope used for fettering the hind legs of a cow during milking. [New Oxford Dictionary] APPENDIX C Charges to Account of Mosley Battaley for Goods Sold by Mercer [From Ledger B, p. 1] £ s. d. 1725 October 12^{th} To Ball^{ns}. y^r Acco^{tt} Book A for (75) 3 10 3 To a Sword & Belt 14 To 1 Snuff 8 To 1 best worsted Cap 5 To 1 p^r Neats Leather Saddlebags 12 9 To 2 silk Romall handkerchiefs @ 3/ 6 To 1 p^r Seersuckers 1 13 To 1 fine Hat N^o 7 13 6 To Cornelius Tacitus in fol. 7 13^{th} To 1 p^r mens white topt Gloves 1 6 To 50 4^p Nails 2 14^{th} To 5-1/4 y^{ds} Broadcloath at 9/ 2 7 3 To 7 y^{ds} Shalloone at 2/ 14 To 8 Sticks Mohair at 3^d 2 To 7 doz Coatbuttons at 7-1/2^d 4 4-1/2 To 4 doz. breast d^o at 3-3/4 1 3 To 3 hanks Silk at 9^d 2 3 To 1-1/4 y^{ds} Wadding at 10^d 1 3 To 1 p^r Stone buttons set in Silver 5 15^{th} To 1 p^r large Scissars 7-1/2 To 1 p coll^d binding 1 7-1/2 To 1 p holland tape 1 6 To 6 ells broad Garlix N^o F at 2/11 17 6 To 1 p^r womens wash gloves 1 6 19^{th} To 1 y^d black ribband 10 To 1 horn & Ivory knife & fork 1 21 To 1 fine hat N^o 7 13 6 To 1/4 y^d Persian 1 3 To 2 y^{ds} silk Ferritting at 5^d 10 22 To Cash won on the Race against Cobler 5 29 To 1/4 y^d broadcloath 2 3 To 1 q^t Rum 1 3 To a Sword & Belt 14 3 To Club in Punch 2 To 1^£ sugar & 1 q^t Rum 2 30 To Club with Quarles 9 Novb^r 20 To 1 quire best paper 1 6 Dec^r 13 To 1 narrow axe 2 3 16 To 1200 10^d Nails 5 30 To 1 p^r Shooebuckles 7-1/2 To 100 6^d Nails 9 To y^r Stafford Clks notes 162^£ tob^o 1 3 Feb 5 To Cash on Acc^t Thomas Harwood 10 ------------------- Mar 5 To D^o 18 6 11-1/2 ------------------- 21 To 1 q^t Rum & 1^£ Sugar 2 3 Ap^l 3 To 2 q^{ts} D^o & 1 y^d Muslin 6 26 To 1 q^t D^o to Tho^s Benson 1 6 Sept^r 16^{th} To 1/2 y^ Druggett 1 10-1/2 To 2 y^{ds} Wadding 1 6 To p^d for rolling down Thomson's hhd. tob^o 10 ------------------- £19 10 1 APPENDIX D "Domestick Expenses" [From Ledger B] £ s. d. 1725 Sept^r 9^{th} To Cash for Exp^s at Stafford & Spotsylvania 1 3 To 7-1/2 y^{ds} Grown Linnen Sarah & Pitts 7 6 To 11 fowls & 1 quarter beef 17 6 To 100^£ Sugar to this day expended 2 16 6 To Cash for Exp^s Urbanna 3 1-1/2 To Horsehire &c 6 To p^d John Marnix for bringing my Sloop 2^d 10 To p^d his ferrage 1 3 To Cash for Exp^s Poplar Spring 1 3 To Exp^s at Bowcocks 10 To Exp^s at M^{rs}. Powers's 1 5 7-1/2 To a man to cart down Cook & barber 1 3 To Exp^s at Gibbons's 2 To Exp^s at Dalton's 15 To given Serv^{ts} at Col^o Page's 2 6 To 1-1/2 doz. red Port at 22/6 1 13 9 To 1-1/2 doz. mountain at 30/ [Note 1] 2 5 To Exp^s poplar Spring 2 3 To 1 bar^l tar & pitch for the Sloop 1 6 6 To 50^1 pork 8 4 To 25^l bisquet 3 6 To 1 China punch bowl 10 To 6 Glasses 3 To 8^l Candles 6 To given Servants at M^r Standard's 3 1-1/2 To Ferrage & Exp^s Piscattaway & Hob's Hole 4 4-1/2 To Exp^s Essex Court & Ferrage at Keys 1 3 To p^d William Warrell Wages 1 To p^d Patrick Cowan D^o 1 2 11 To horsehire from York 2 To a Trunk 6 To a Saddle & Furniture self 3 15 To 1-1/2 y^d Cotton 2 5-1/4 To 1 horsewhip 6 9 To 1 p^r Shooes & buckles Pitts 6 7-1/2 Oct^r 2 To 2 silk Romall handkerchiefs [Note 2] 6 To 6 loaves 9^s 38-3/4^£ double refin'd Sugar 2 18 7-1/2 To 2^l Tea at 15/ 1 10 To 6^l Chocolate 15 To 15-1/4^l Castile Soap at 13^d 17 1-3/4 To 15^l Gunpowder at 9^d 11 3 To 1 mans worsted Cap 3 10-1/2 To 1 Wig Comb & Case 9 To 1 purse wrought with Silver 2 3 To 2 p^r buttons set in Silver at 3/ 6 To 1 p^c 9^d 14-3/4 Ells bag holland at 7/10-1/2 5 14 2 To 2 p^r mens fine worsted hose at 6/ 12 To 2 p^r mens fine thread D^o at 5/ 10 To 1 p^r womens silk D^o 12 To 1 p^r womens fine worsted D^o 5 6 To 1 p^r Scissars with silver Chain 10 6 To 1 box Iron & heaters 9 9 To 1 fine hat n^o 6 12 To 1 fine Dandriff Comb 1 6 To 1 ounce fine thread 7-1/2 To 1 fine hat N^o 7 9 To 30 y^{ds} fine Dutch Check at 2/6 3/15 To 1 m^s pins 1 6 To 2 p^c tape 2 4 To 1 hat N^o 5 gave Sam 2 6 To 1 quire best paper 1 3 To 1 Storebook 1 5 To 1 p^r Seersuckers 1 13 To 1 hoop petticoat 1 1 To 1 womans side Saddle & furniture 3 11 3 To 2 y^{ds} silver ribband at 22-1/2 3 9 To 1 hat N^o 12 9 To 1 y^d fine strip't muslin 6 To 1 y^d fine Kenting [Note 3] 4 To 4-1/2 y^{ds} white Cotton Sarah at 18^d 5 9 To 4-1/2 y^{ds} filletting D^o at 3^d [Note 4] 1 1-1/2 To 2 skeins thread 2 To 1 p^r wom^s wash gloves 1 6 To 1/4^l w^t bio: thread 1 5 To 1/2 doz: plates 7 6 To 2 porringers 2 6 To 1 p^r fine blankets 1 13 To 1 y^d fine strip'd muslin 6 To 1 Cadow Sarah [Note 5] 3 6 To Earthen Ware 10 To 1-1/2 bushel Wheat 4 6 To 2 fowls 10 To Battalay's Account for Rum both in day 2 1 3 To 1-1/2 y^d red Cotton 2 5-1/4 To 1 p^r womens Shooes 3 6 To 1 p^r patterdashers [Note 6] 14 3 To 5 Candlesticks 17 6 To 1 Bed Cord 2 To 3 maple knives & forks 2 Oct^r 22 To Cash lost at a Race 2 To Tho^s Watts for Ditto 10 To Expences there 1 4 To 6 y^{ds} silk ferriting at 5^d [Note 7] 2 6 25 To 16-1/2 y^{ds} Cantaloons at 7-1/2 for Pease [Note 8] 10 3-3/4 To 1 P^r mens thread hose 5 To 1 p^r mens silk Ditto 1 1 To 2-1/4 y^{ds} fine Kenting at 4/6 10 1-1/2 26 To 1 p^r wom^s worsted hose 3 To 1 knife & fork 8 27 To a Steer 1 11 9 To 2 yew haft knives & forks 1 3 28 To 2 q^{ts} Rum 4 6 To 1 yew haft knife & fork & 1 p^r Studds 1 10-1/2 29 To 1 p^r Salisbury Scissars 2 6 To 1-1/2 Gallon Rum 4 6 To 1 speckled knife & fork 5 Nov^r 4 To 1 writing Desk 5 16 8 To 1 Glass & Cover 8 9 To 18^l Pewter at 1 8 To 6 tea Cups & Saucers 14 To 2 Chocolate Cups 2 4 To 2 Custard Cups 1 9 To 1 Tea Table painted with fruit 16 4 To 6 leather Chairs at 7/ 2 2 To 1 sm^l walnut eating table 8 To 1/2 doz Candlemoulds 10 GLOSSARY 1. "Mountain: 5. (In full _mountain wine_). A variety of Malaga wine, made from grapes grown on the mountains."--_A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles,_ Sir James A. H. Murray, ed., vol. 6 (Oxford, 1908), p. 711. 2. "Romal: 1. A silk or cotton square or handkerchief, sometimes used as a head-dress; a thin silk or cotton fabric with a handkerchief pattern."--Ibid., vol. 8, pt. 1 (Oxford, 1910), p. 764. 3. "Kenting: A kind of fine linen cloth."--Ibid., vol. 5, (Oxford, 1901), p. 673. 4. "Filleting: 2. a. A woven material for binding; tape; a piece of the same; a band or bandage."--Ibid., vol. 4 (Oxford, 1901), p. 217. 5. "Caddow: A rough woolen covering ... 1880. _Antrim & Down Gloss._ (E. D. S.) _Cadda_, _Caddaw_, a quilt or coverlet, a cloak or cover; a small cloth which lies on a horse's back."--Ibid., vol. 2 (Oxford, 1893), p. 13. 6. Patterdashers. Probably the same as "spatter-dash. A legging or gaiter extending to the knee, worn as a protection from water and mud." Webster's _New International Dictionary of the English Language_, second ed., unabridged; Springfield, Mass., G. & C. Merriam Co., 1958. 7. Ferreting. Same as "Ferret. 2. A stout tape most commonly made of cotton, but also of silk; then known as Italian ferret." Murray, _op. cit._, (no. 1) vol. 4 (Oxford, 1901), p. 165. 8. "Cantoloon. _Obs._ A wollen stuff manufactured in the 18th c. in the west of England." Ibid., vol. 2: (Oxford, 1893), p. 79. 9. "Soosy ... 1858. Simmond's _Dictionary of Trade._ Soocey, a mixed striped fabric of silk and cotton in India."--Ibid., vol. 9. pt. 1 (Oxford, 1919), p. 428. £ s. d. To 1 Tea table 18 To 1 brass chaffing dish 5 To 6 copper tart pans 6 Nov^r 4^{th} To 1 p^r mens yarn hose 2 To 1 silk Romal 3 To Expences Spotsylvania Court &C 1 7 4 To 1 p^r bellows To 2 funnells To Coffeepot, teapots, &c 7 To 1 Seabed Sheets Table Linnen &c 3 10 To Cash to Pitts to bear Expences at Court 2 9 To a pack of Cards 9 To 1 pair mens Shooes 5 6 To 1 silk Romall handkerchief 3 11 To 6-1/2 y^{ds} Cantaloons @ 9^d 4 8-1/2 17 To 16 q^r 22 y^{ds} Scotch Cloth @20^d-1/4 1 17 1-1/2 20 To p^d William Warrell Wages for this day 1 6 8-1/2 22 To 6-1/4^l tallow @ 6^d 3 16 To 3-1/2 y^{ds} Cantaloons & 40^l coll'd thread 3 4 To 1 maple knife & fork 1 25 To 154^l pork at 1-1/2 19 3 To 91^l D^o at 1-1/2 11 4-1/2 Dec^r 19 To 2 p^r wom^s Shooes 11 X^tmas To Cash for Lost at Cards & sundry Expenses 1 18 19 To p^d Thomas Morris for pork 6 7 5 To p^d Pitts Wages till February 4 19 9-1/2 To p^d Thomas Collins D^o till March 18 2 To 3 Ells y^d w^d Garlix 3/ 9 To sundrys from M^r Crompton p^r Acc^t 1 19 1-1/2 Feb 26 To 1 q^t rum 27 4 q^{ts} D^o 7 6 Mar 2 To 2 q^{ts} D^o 5. 1 q^{ts} D^o 7 2 q^{ts} D^o 8^{th}. 5 q^{ts} D^o 15 9 To 2 q^{ts} D^o To sundry Exp^s to this Day 1 10 To 2 q^t Rum 12th 2 q^{ts} D^o 15th 2 q^{ts} D^o 9 15 To 5 p^{ts} Rum 1^l Sugar & 2 y^{ds} Check 7 6 18 To 7 gall^s Rum & 16^l Sugar 2 9 6 To Cash for taking up W^m Hall's horse 10 To D^o at Stafford Court 4 To Sundrys to W^m Dunn 1 17 6 June 11 To cleaning out the house 6 9 To 1500 10^d Nails used about it. 11 3 To 1 doz. Canary 1 10 To p^d Tho^s Collins his Wages to May 11 3 To 2 doz & 8 bottles Claret 2 8 To 3 Cows & Calves & 1 featherbed 11 To 1 [?] Chints 18 To 21-1/2y^{ds} coll^d blew at 2.6 2 13 1-1/2 To 15 y^{ds} course Check at 16^d 1 To 12 y^{ds} best D^o 18 To Account Rum &c to this day 2 10 To Wheat Corn fowls &c 3 2 3 To sundrys of M^c farlane as p^r Acc^t 5 11 1-1/2 To sundrys of Alex^r Buncle as p^r D^o 15 17 9-1/2 To 7-1/2 y^{ds} y^d w^d Check @ 2/ to W^m Dunn 15 To 2-1/2 y^{ds} brown linnen @ 10^d to D^o 2 1 To p^d M^{rs} Bourne for sundrys 5 To p^d for a Coffin & digging ye Child's grave 1 5 To sundry Expences for fowls &c 17 4 To John Chinn's Acc^t ferrages &c for going to W^{ms}burgh 2 5 6 To 2 p^r Andirons 2 Trunks &c 2 7 6 To 2 dishes & 4-3/4 y^{ds} India Persian 1 13 1-1/2 To 1 p^r Shooes & buckles 6 To Cash to Bates to go for my horse 7 2 To D^o lost at Race & gave Scarlett Handcock 2 12 To Cash for Exp^s 3 9 To John Barber for going to Gloucester 11 6 To gave W^m Johnson 7-1/2 To paid for Apples 6 To paid Eliz^a Rowsey Wages 6 9 To 5 gall^s Rum 1 5 To sundrys bought of Thomas Hudson as by his account 12 6 10 To 1 y^d princes Linnen W^m Johnson 1 3 To Cash for 1/2 doz. Spoons &c 4 10-1/2 To D^o for Exp^s on a Journey to W^{ms}burgh 1 19 3-1/2 To Mosley Battaley's Acc^t for his fee for 1726 2 10 To allowed him for extraordinary service 4 15 1 To Peter Whitings Account Palms & Sail Needles 2 6 56^1 Cordage 1 8 3 To Cha^s McClelland's Account for sundrys Going to Col^o Mason's for Eliz Rowsey 10 Going to York & sundrys 1 5 6 Going to Nich^o Smith's 10 To Rob^t Spotswood's Account for sundrys 1 10 To Geo. Rust's Acc^t for 1 Ironpot 5 To John Dagge's Acc^t of sundrys 1 Oven 17 6 Bringing over 10 Sheep from Sumn^{rs} 5 To John Randolph's Acc^t for Lawyers fees 4 2 To Esme Stewart's D^o for Toys 2 To George Walker D^o for Law Charges 4 15 5 To 2 Gall^s Rum of Simon Peirson 10 To John Maulpus's Acc^t for 2 bar^{ls} Corn 1 1 To Thomas Hudson's D^o for 2 bar^{ls} D^o 15 To Joshua Davis's D^o for paid Thomas Jefferies for a Gun 2 To M^r Graeme's Acc^t for sundry books 2 9 3 To Jn^o Quarles's D^o for 1 p^r sm^l Stilliards 7 6 To Hen Woodcock's D^o for Ferrages 9 To Harry Beverley's D^o for Lawyer's fees 4 2 To Rob^t Wills's Acc^t for sundrys 18 8 To Rose Dinwiddie's Acc^t for 1 p^r mens yarn hose & 2 bush^{ls} Wheat 7 6 To Peter Hedgman's D^o for sundrys 2 2 7 To Mary Fitzhugh's D^o for 8 bus^{ls} Wheat 9 To Lazarus Pepper's D^o for Quitrent of 187 Acres of Land 4 6 To Quitrents of 2087 Acres of Land for the year 1725 2 8 To Cash Account for sundrys 11 8 To Rawleigh Chinn's Acc^t for sundrys 0 0 0 Keeping my horse for a Race 15 1-1/2 barr^l Corn 15 1 Shoat 18 Fodder 17^d 5 Geese 7/6 10 5 4 days hire Moll 1 3 Dressing Deerskins for Will Dunn 4 Plowing & fencing my Garden 1 4 A Gun 18 To Alexand^r M^cfarlane's Acc^t A Caddow & 1 p^r blankets 16 1 wom^s horsewhip 6 1£ Gunpowder & 10^£ Shot 5 10 1 womans bound felt 4 6 To 12^l Gunpowder & 20^l Shot 2 To Henry Floyd's Acc^t for 5 pecks Corn 2 6 To Ja^s Whalley's D^o for 7 fowls 3 To Ja^s Horsenaile's D^o for sundrys 1 19 9 To John Holdbrook's Acc^t for taylor's work 2 11 6 To John Tinsley's Acc^t for Fodder & tallow 14 To Hugh French's Acc^t for a Serv^t woman 12 To D^r Roy for a visit & medicines my Child 12 6 To Edw^d Snoxall's Acc^t for 1 bush^l hommonybeans 4 To Edw^d Simm's Acc^t for sundrys 6 11 11 To Ralph Falconer's D^o for D^o 1 10 To Tho^s Eves for fowls 4 6 To 1 olives 5 To 1 pair mens Shooes W^m Dunn 5 To 3 Ells Dowlass D^o 5 6 To 1-1/2 bush^l Corn 3 To 3-3/4 y^{ds} Check for finding my Saddle 5 To 10 y^{ds} fustian 2/6 1 5 To 5-1/4 doz Coat Buttons 10^d 4 2 To 3 hanks silk & 2 hanks mohair 3 2 To 4 Soosey handkerchiefs [Note 9] 12 To 12 yd^s Check & 1 p^r mens gloves 4 To 2 yd^s Wadding 1 6 To 6-1/4 bush^{ls} Corn 13 To 2-3/4 bush^{ls} pease 11 To 2 bush^{ls} potatoes 4 -------------------- £285 2 3-1/4 APPENDIX E Mercer's Reading 1726-1732 [From Ledger B] _Mr. John Graeme_ 1726 By sundry Book bo^d of him belong^s to the Hon^{ble} Col^o Spotswood. Viz. The History of England 3 vols £4. 2 Clarendon's History 6 vols 2. 2 Tillotson's Works 15 vols 5.15 Plutarch's Lives 5 vols 1.10 Dryden's Virgil 3 vols 17.6 Cowley's Works 2 vols 13. Milton's Paradise Lost 6.6 Secret Memories 7.7 Chamberlayne's State of England 6.6 Wilkin's Mathematical Works 5.6 Petronius 5. Tilly's Orations 5.6 [Symbol: dagger]Bible 4 Hudibras 2 vol 5.3 Callipoedia 2. Dunster's Horace 6. De Gennes Voyage 3. Banquet of Xenophon 3. Congreve's Plays 4. Lock's Essays 12. Evelyn's Gardening 1. [Symbol: dagger]Littleton's Dictionary } [Symbol: dagger]Present State of Russia } [Symbol: dagger]Sedley's Works } 1. [Symbol: dagger]New Voyages } [Symbol: dagger]New Travels } [Symbol: dagger]Cole's Dictionary } [All except those marked by [Symbol: dagger] are listed as returned on the debit side] * * * * * Law Books Bought of Mat Stotham May 1732 Salkeld's Reports 1.18. Ventris's Reports 1.15. Jacob's Law Dictionary 1. 8. Maxims of Equity 10. Cursus Cancellaris 6. Hearn's Pleader 1. 5. Lilly's Practical Register 2 vol 14. Treatise of Trespasses 6. Laws of Evidence 8. Laws of Ejectments 8. The 5 last extraordinary scarce _Account of Books lent & to whom_ (1730) History of the Netherlands Jn^o Savage July 13 Coles's Dictionary History of the Royal Society Col^o Fitzhugh Rochesters Works Andrew Forbes Evelyn's Sylva Ralph Falkner Woods Institutes 1^{st} Vol. Parson Rose Mathesis Juvenilia } Ozenam's Mathem. Recreations } Edmund Bagge Cockers Arithmetick Robert Jones 30 Mariners Compass rectified M^r Savage Travels thro' Italy &c Cap^t Hedgman Daltons Justice D^o _A Catalogue of the Books bought March 1730 of Mr Rob^t Beverley_ Coke's Reports temp Eliz^a Reg 1.10 Dalton's Officium Vicecomitum 1. Coke upon Littleton 1. Cokes 2^d, 3^d & 4^{th} Institutes 2. 4 Cooks Reports 1. Laws of Virginia fol^o printed two 1. 4 Compleat Clerk 12. Swinburne [18th-century author] 12. Laws of the Sea 14. Godolphin's Orphans Legacy 9. Symboleography 14. Sheppards Grand Abridgment 1.10. Three Sets of Wingates Abridgm^t of Statutes 15. Instructor Clericalis in 7 parts 1.15. Woods Institutes 2 vol 8vo 12. Placita Generalia 5. Tryals per pair 5. Practical Register 6. Law of Obligations & Conditions 3.6 Reads Declarations 4. Clerks Tutor 6. Prasca Cancellaria 6. Fitzherberts new Naturabrevium 6. Brownlows Declarations 6. Clerks Guide 3.6 Melloy de Jure maritime 6. Grounds of the Law 3. Compleat Attorney 5. Terms of the Law 5. Finch's Law 3. Doctor & Student 3. Greenwood of Courts 3.6 Law of Conveyances 3. Practice of Chancery 5. English Liberties 2. Reports in Chancery 3. Meriton 3. Exact Constable 1. Littletons Tenures 2. Written Laws of Virginia 25. --------- £46. 7.6 Woodbridge of Agriculture The Compleat Angler Salmons Dispensatory The accomplished Cook History of the Royal Society March y^e 4th 1730, I promise to deliver the above mentioned books being fifty two in number to M^rJohn Mercer or his Order on demand. Witness my hand the day & year abovewritten. Rob^t Beverley Test John Chew Copy APPENDIX F Credit side of Mercer's account with Nathaniel Chapman [From Ledger B. Nathaniel Chapman was Superintendent of the Accokeek Iron Works.] 1731 Sep 9 By Ball^[a.] bro^[t.] from fol 36 £ . 2.4 By 500 2^d Nails @ 2/5 p m . 2.5 By 500 3^d D 3/ 3. By 1^m 4^d D^o 4/ 4. By 6^m 6^d D^o 5/ 10. By 4^m 8^d D^o 7/9 1.11. By 4^m 10^d D^o 9/6 1.18. By 8^m 12^d D^o 12/ 1.16. By 2^m 20^d D^o 14/ 1. 8. By 1 handsaw file 5^d .5 By 1 p^r mens wood heel shooes 6/6 6.6 By 1 half Curb bridle 6/ 6. By 1 halter 2/4 2.4 By 1 boys hat 2/ 2. 25 By 1 coll^d thread 3/ 3. Oct 29 By 16 1-1/2 20^d } Nailes }2000 20^d @ 1. 6. By 27 1-1/2 24^d D^o } 13/ By 2^m 8^d D^o 7/ 15.6 By 4^m 10^d D^o 9/6 1.16. By 5^m 12^d D^o 12/ 3. January 1 By 1 p^r girls Shooes By 4y^{ds} Cotton 2/4 9.4 By 1 double Girth 2/ 2. By 1 Garden hoe By 2-1/2 y^{ds} Kersey 4/1-1/2 10.3-3/4 By 1-1/2 y^{ds} Shalloone 1/9 2.7-1/2 By my Ord^r in favour of W^m Holdbrook 4. 1.3-1/2 By 2 hanks sowing Silk 9^d 1.6 By Cash overpaid 1.2 By 1-1/2 y^d Garlix N^o 24 2.5 10 By 1 Iron pot g^t 36^l-1/2 at 4^d 12.2 By 1 bushel Salt 2.6 By 1 new Axe 5. By 1 p^r pothooks & wedges 16^l-1/2 at 8^d 11. Feb. 7 By 1 plough & Swingle tree fitted of w^{th} Iron 9.6 By 5 narrow hoes 12.6 By 2 grubbing hoes 10^l-1/2 at 8^d 7. By 1 Ironwedge 4^l-1/2 at 8^d 3. By 2 new horse Collars 8. By 2 p^r Hames & Ironwork 1.6 By 2 p^r Iron traces g^t 19^{lb} at 8^d 12.8 By Iron door Latch 9 By 1 Ironrake 1.6 By 2 Heaters By putting a leg in an old Iron pott Mar By 17-1/2 double refin'd Sugar @ 16^d 1. 3. By 100^l Sugar 35/& 3 gall^s Rum 7/6 2. 2.6 -------------- £28.15.8-3/4 APPENDIX G Overwharton Parish Account [From Ledger B] ------------------------------------+--------------------------------- | Overwharton Parish Dr. | Contra | 1730 |1730 March | March 15 To a Book to keep the | By W^m Holdbrook's fine Parish Register £1.11. | for Adultery £5 To drawing Bonds between | By Ebenezer Moss's for Blackburn & the | swearing & Sabbath Churchwardens ab^t | breaking 1.15. building the Church 1. | By Edward Franklyn's for To fee v Moss 11.8 | swearing when reced 3. Ballenger | Cabnet | -------- | £9.15. | 15 | To 1/3 W^m Holdbrooks's | fine 1.13.4 | To 1/3 Eliz^a Bear's D^o | To fee v Franklyn 1. | To paid Burr Harrison by | Ord^o Vestry 2.10. | ------- | £8.11 | £1.4 | ------- | £9.15 | 1732 |1732 April | To fee v Coulter £ .15. | March 25 | By Ball^a 1.4 | By Eliz^a Ballengers fine | for a bastard | By Alice Jefferies' D^o | By Ann Holt's D^o APPENDIX H Colonists Identified by Mercer According to Occupation [From Ledger G] William Hunter Merchant Fredericksburg Jonathan Foward Merchant London William Stevenson Merchant London Robert Rae Merchant Falmouth Robert Tucker Merchant Norfolk David Minitree Bricklayer [Williamsburg] Thomas Ross Merchant Alexandria William Monday Carpenter Abraham Basnett Oysterman John Booth Weaver John Pagan Merchant Fairfax John Grigsby Smith Stafford Francis Hogans Wheelwright Caroline Doctor Spencer [Physician] Fredericksburg William Threlkeld Weaver Elliott Benger Loftmaster Gen'l. William Brownley [Bromley] Joiner Andrew Beaty Joiner George Wythe Attorney-at-Law Williamsburg William Jackson Wheelwright Stafford James Griffin Carpenter William Thomson Tailor Fredericksburg Jacob Williams Plasterer Joseph Burges Plasterer Henry Threlkeld Merchant Quantico Cavan Dulany Attorney-at-law [Prince William?] Peter Murphy Sawyer John Fitzpatrick Weaver Cuthbert Sandys Merchant Fredericksburg Henry Mitchell Merchant Occaquan John Harnett Ship Carpenter Nanjemoy John Graham Merchant Essex Fielding Lewis Merchant Fredericksburg Robert Duncanson Merchant Fredericksburg John Fox Smith Fredericksburg Robert Gilchrist Merchant Port Royal Robert Jones Attorney-at-Law Surrey [Jonathan] Sydenham & Hodgson Merchants King George Watson & Cairnes Merchants Nansemond William Prentis Merchant Williamsburg William Mills Weaver Stafford Thomas Barry Bricklayer Edward Powers Shoemaker Caroline Clement Rice Shoemaker King George William Ramsay Merchant Fairfax Andrew Sproul Merchant Norfolk Richard Savage Merchant Falmouth Charles Dick Merchant Fredericksburg William Miller Horse Jockey Augusta Charles Jones Tailor Williamsburg Peter Scott Joiner Williamsburg William Copen [Copein] Mason Prince William John Blacke Gardener Marlborough Richard Gamble Barber Williamsburg Launcelot Walker Merchant John Rider Waterman Maryland John Proby Pilot Hampton John Hyndman Merchant Williamsburg James Craig Jeweler Williamsburg Robert Crichton Merchant Williamsburg John Simpson Wheelwright Fredericksburg George Charleton Tailor Williamsburg Hugh MacLane Tailor Stafford William Kelly Attorney Prince William Walter Darcy Harnessmaker John Carlyle Merchant Fairfax ---- Kirby Mason King George APPENDIX I Materials Listed in Accounts with Hunter and Dick, Fredericksburg Alphabetical Summary of Materials listed in Ledger G in Mercer's accounts with William Hunter and Charles Dick, merchants of Fredericksburg. Definitions are based on information in _A New Oxford Dictionary_, Webster's _New International Dictionary_ (second edition, unabridged), _Every Day Life in the Massachusetts_ Bay Colony, by George F. Dow (Boston, 1935), and a series of articles by Hazel E. Cummin in _Antiques_: vol. 38, pp. 23-25, 111-112; vol. 39, pp. 182-184; vol. 40, pp. 153-154, 309-312. ALLAPINE: A mixed stuff of wool and silk, or mohair and cotton. BOMBAYS: Raw cotton. BOMBAZINE: A twilled or corded dress material of silk and worsted, sometimes also of cotton and worsted, or of worsted alone. In black, used for mourning. BROADCLOTH: A fine, smooth woolen cloth of double width. BUCKRAM: A kind of coarse linen or cotton fabric, stiffened with gum or paste. Murray quotes Berkeley, _Alicphr_ ... (1832), "One of our ladies ... stiffened with hoops and whalebone and buckram." CALAMANCO: A light-weight material of wool or mohair and wool, sometimes figured or striped, sometimes dyed in clear, bright colors, and calendered to a silky gloss to resemble satin. CALICO: Murray defers to Chambers' _Cyclopaedia_ definition (1753): "An Indian stuff made of cotton, sometimes stained with gay and beautiful colours ... Calicoes are of divers kinds, plain, printed, painted, stain'd, dyed, chints, muslins, and the like." It is not to be confused with the modern material of the same name. CAMBRIC: A fine white linen or cotton fabric, much used for handkerchiefs and shirts, originally made at Cambray in Flanders. CAMLET: A class of fine-grained material of worsted or mohair and silk, sometimes figured, sometimes "watered." _Moreen_ is one of its subtypes. CHECK: Any checked, woven or printed, material. DUFFEL: A woven cloth with a thick nap, synonymous with _shag_. Made originally at Duffel, near Antwerp. In a passage quoted by Murray, Defoe (_A Tour of Great Britain_) mentions its manufacture at Witney, "a Yard and three quarters wide, which are carried to New England and Virginia." FRIEZE: A coarse woolen cloth with a nap on one side. GARLIX: Linen made in Gorlitz, Silesia, in several shades of blue-white and brown. HOLLAND: A linen material, sometimes glazed, first made in Holland. KERSEY (often spelled "Cresoy" by Mercer): A coarse, long-fiber woolen cloth, usually ribbed, used for stockings, caps, etc. SHALLOON: A closely woven woolen material used for linings. PRUNELLA: A stout, smooth material, used for clergymen's gowns, and later for the uppers of women's shoes. TAMMY: A plain-woven worsted material, with open weave. Used plain, it served for flour bolts, soup and milk strainers, and sieves. Dyed and glazed, and sometimes quilted, it was used for curtains, petticoat linings, and coverlets. TARTAN: Woolen cloth woven in Scotch plaids. In addition to these fabrics, there are listed "China Taffety," "Silv^r Vellum," "worsted," "Pomerania Linnen," "Russia Bedtick," "Irish linnen," "1 yd. India Persian," "worsted Damask," "Mechlin lace" (a costly Belgian pillow lace, of which Mercer purchased nine yards of "No. 3" at five shillings, and eight yards of "N^o 4" at six shillings), "sprig Linnen," and "6 silk laces at 4-1/2." For trimming and finishing, one finds white thread, black thread, nun's thread, brown thread, blue thread, red thread, colored thread (all bought by the pound), gingham and hair buttons, "gold gimp ribband," "pair Womens buckles," fringe, coat buttons, vest buttons, scarlet buttons, silver coat buttons, shirt buttons, "mettle" vest buttons, "fine" shirt buttons, "course" shirt buttons, "Card sleeve buttons," silver sleeve buttons, and cording. There were several purchases of haircloth, used principally in stiffening lapels and other parts of men's clothing, but used also for towels, tents, and for drying malt and hops. APPENDIX J Account of George Mercer's Expenses while Attending the College of William and Mary [From Ledger G] Son's Maintenance at Williamsburg, Dr. 1750 April 5 To Cash £ 1. 7.6 To D^o p^d M^r. Robinson for Entranc £4.12. M^r. Graeme D^o 4.12. M^r. Preston D^o 4. 6. 8 M^r. Davenport D^o 1.12. 6 Housekeeper 3.10. for Candles 15.10 for Pocket money 3. 6. 4 22.15.4 -------- To Cash p^d for Lottery Tickets 7.10.6 To D^o p^d for washing 1. 1. To M^r Dering for Board 5. To Peter Scott for mending a Table 2.6 To Housekeeping at Williamsburg for sundrys Viz A Featherbed & furniture £8. A Desk 1. 1. 6 An oval Table 1. 1. 3 Chairs 7/ 1. 1. 11. 3.6 --------- -------- July To General Charges for sundrys Viz To Cash p^d M^r Preston as advanced for George £2. 3 to George 2. 3 to the Usher 1.11. 3 5.17.3 --------- August To Cash p^d the Nurse attending J^{no} & Ja^s £2. 3. to John & James 1. 1. 6 3. 4.6 --------- To W^m Thomson for Taylors work 3.10.6 Septemb^r To Cash to George 1. 1.6 October To D^o to D^o to John James & Nurse 6. 9. To John Holt for sundrys 4. 5.7-1/2 To James Cocke for D^o 1.15.9 To Covington the dancing master 2. 3. To James Power for Cash to George 2.3 To William Prentis for sundrys 18. 1.3-1/2 To Rich^d Gamble for two wigs & shaving 5. 7.3 To Books for sundrys 22. 4.7-1/2 To W^m Thomson for Taylors work 1. 9.6 -------------- £126.13.1-1/2 APPENDIX K John Mercer's Library [From Ledger G] "The prices are the first Cost in Sterling money exclusive of Commission, Shipping or other Charges." Sterling LAW BOOKS _Abridgments_ Cases in Equity abridged £ 18. Danvers's Abridgment 3 vol 3.10. Viner's Abridgment 6 vol 8. 8. Davenport's Abridgm^t of Coke on Littleton 2. Hughes's Abridgm^t 2 vol 10. Ireland's Abridgm^t of Dyer's Reports 2. Rolle's Abridgm^t interleaved 2 vol 5. Salmon's Abridgm^t of the State trials 1.15. Statutes abridged by Cay 2 vol 2.10. State trials abridged 1 vol 5.6 Virginia Laws Abridged 8. _Conveyancing_ Ars Clericalis 1 vol 4.6 Compleat Conveyancer 5. Clerk's Guide 5. Clerk & Scriveners Guide 8. Herne's Law of Conveyances 2. Lawyer's Library 3.6 West's Symboleography 5. _Courts & Courtkeeping_ Attorneys Practise in C B 6. Attorney's Practise in B R 2 vol 12. Coke's Institutes 4^{th} Part 15. RK Crown Circuit Companion 6. History of the Chancery 2.6 AR Practise in Chancery 2 vol 7. Practick Part of the Law 6. GI Rules of Practise commonplaced 4. Practise of Chancery 1672 1.6 AR Harrison's Chancery Practiser 6. _Crown_ Coke's Institutes 3rd Part 15. Hale's History of the Pleas of the Crown 2.10. 2 vol/ Hawkins Pleas of the Crown 1.10. Hale's Continuation of the Crown Laws 2.6 Sutton de Pace Regis 5. _Dictionaries_ Consell's Interpreter 10. Jacobus's Law Dictionary 1. 8. Law French Dictionary 6. RI Students Law Dictionary 5. AR Term's de la Loy 5. _Entries_ Aston's 3. TA Brown Lows' Declarations 12. AR Bohun's Declarations 6. Brown's modus intrandi, 2 vol 12. Clift's 1.10. Coke's 1. 1. Lilly's 1. 5. Mallory's Quarer Impedit 17. Placila generalia & specialia 3. Rastallo 1. 1. Robinson's 10. Read's Declarations 3. Vidiano 10. Thompson's 1. _Justices of Peace_ Justicio vade mecum 2. Keble's Assistant to Justices 5. Manual for Justices 1641 2. _Maxims_ Doctor & Student 3.6 Finch's Law 4. Francis's Maxims of Equity 8. Hale's History & Analysis of the Laws 6. Hale's Hereditary Descants 1.6 Hawks's Grounds of the Laws of England 3. Perkins's Laws 2.6 Treatise of Equity 8.6 Woods Institutes of the Laws of England 1. 5. _Miscellanies_ Booth's Real Actions 8. GI Baron & ferne 6. Billinghurst of Bankrupts 1.6 Britton 5. Brown of fines & Recoveries 5. Coke's Institutes. Comments on Littleton Part 2 3. GI Cane's English Liberties 2. GI Curson's Laws of Estates tail 4.6 Domat's Civil Law 2 vol 2. 0. Dugdale's Origine's Judiciales 2. Duncomb's Trials perpais 6. Ejectments, Law of 5. GI Errors, Law of 6. GI Everyman his own Lawyer 5. Evidence, Laws of 6. GI Jacoba's Lex Mercatoria 5. GI Jus or Law of Masters & Servants 3. Landlord's Laws 3. GI Law Quibbles 4.6 Laws of Liberty & Property 2. March's Actions for Slander & Arbitrations 4. Molloy de jura maritimi & navali 7. GI Obligations Laws of 5. Sea Laws 12. GI Treatise of Trover & Conversion 2. GI Trespasses (Law of) Vi & armis 6. Virginia Laws Purvis's 12. Virginia Laws by Parks 2 Vol 2. Uses & Trials (Law of) 6. GI Usury (Law of) 2.6 Freeholders Companion 5. Turnbull's System of the Civil Law 2 vol 12. Jacobs's Collection of Steads for commonplaces 1.6 Chronica Iuridicialia abridged 4. Naval Trade 2 vol. 10. GI Law & Lawyers laid open 2.6 Freeholders Companion 5. Law of Devises & Revocations 3.6 Piffendorf's Law of Nature & Nations 1. 8. Views of Civil & Ecclesiastical Law 2.6 Study & Body of the Law 3. Treatise of Bills of Exchange 2.6 _Parliament_ Cases in Parliament 16. Hunt's Postscript 4. _Readings_ Alleyne's 9. Anderson's 1.15. Barnardiston's 1. 1. Bentses & Dalison's 10. Bridgman's 18. Bulstrode's 4. 4. Brownlow's & Goldenborough's 7. Carter's 8. Carthero's 1. 2. Cases in Chancery 3 P^{ts} 1.10. Cases in B R & B C from 2^d W^m 12 Mod 1.10. Cases in Law & Equity by Macclesfield 10 Mod 1. 4. Coke's 11 Parts 15. 12 & 13 Parts 7. Comberbach's 17. Croke's 3 vol 2.12.6 Cary's 3. Clayton's 3.6 Davis's 11. Dyer's 1.11.6 Farraday's 7 Mod 9. FitzGibbons's 14. Gilbert's Rep^{ts} in Equity & Excheq^r 15. Godbolt's 1. 1. Hardres's 2.10. Hetley's 10. Hobart's 16. Holt's 1.10. Hutton's 13. Jenkins's Centuries 16. Jones's (D^r. W^m.) 2. 5. Jones's (Tho^s.) 15. Keble's 3 vol 1.15. Keilway's 14. Keylings 9. Lane's 16. Latch's 8. Leonard's 4. 4. Loving's 3 Parts 2 vol 2. . Ley's 7. Lilly's 9. Littleton's 11. Lutneyche's 2 vol 4. 4. Modern Cases in Law & Equity 8 & 9 Mod 1. 4. Modern Reports 6 vol 5. 5. Moore's 18. Marsh's 3. Noy's 16. Owens 16. Palmer's 12. Plowden's 2. 5. Pollersten's 2. 2. Popham's 14. Precedents in Chancery 1. 5. Raymond's (D^r. Tho^s.) 2.10. Reports in Chancery in Finch's time 16. Rolles' Reports 2.10. Reports in Chancery 4 vol 15. Salkeld's 3 vol 2.16. Savile's 6. Saunders's 1. 7.6 Sherver's 2 vol 2. Select Cases in Can S. in Ld. King's time . 8. Siderfin's 2. Skinner's 1.10. Styles's 1.10. Talbot's Cases in Equity 15. Tothill's Transactions in Chancery 1.6 Vaughan's 2.10. Ventris's 1.15. Vernon's 2 vol 2. 5. Wynch's 16. William's 2 vol 2.16. Year Books 9 vol 3. 7.6 Yelverton's 5. Zouch's Cases in the Civil Law 2.6 Cases in Chan & B R in Ld Hardwick's time 12. Special & Select Law Cases 1641 6. _Sheriffs_ Treatise of Replevins 3. _Statutes_ Keble's Statutes 2.10. Statutes concerning Bankrupts 2.6 _Tables_ Index to the Reports 12. Repertorium Iuridicum 2. _Tithes & Laws of the Clergy_ Hughes's Parson's Law 1.6 _Wills Ex^{rs} &c_ Godolphin's Orphan's Legacy 12. Meriton's Touchstone of Wills 1.6 AR Nelson's Lex Testimentaria 7. GI Swinburne of last Wills 6. Wentworth's Office of Executors 2. _Writs_ AR Bohun's English Lawyer 5. Fitzherbert with Hale's Notes 16. Fitzherbert's Natura Brevium 6. Registrum Brevium 1. 1. _Omitted_ Laws of Maryland 1. Statutes of Excise 1.6 OTHER BOOKS _Arts & Sciences_ Alian's Tacticks of War 8. Smith's Distilling & Fermentation 5. Weston's Treatise of Shorthand 1. 1. Weston's Shorthand Copybook 4. _Classicks_ {Greek Grammar 2.6 GM {Greek Testament 3.6 Martial 2.6 _Dictionaries_ Colgrave's French Dictionary 15. Salmon's Family Dict. 6. Bailey's English Diet 7. GM Schrevelii Lexicon 7.6 Echard's Gazetteer's Interpreter 3.6 Cole's English Dictionary 2.6 _Divinity_ Tillotson's Sermons 3 vol 2.10. Bibles trua 1.10. Leigh of Religion & Learning 10. Stillingfleck's Origines Sacra 1. Life of King David 6. Newton on Daniel 3. The Sum of Christian Religion 10. Weeks Preparation 2.6 Whole Duty of Man 2.6 The Sacrament explained 2. The Country Parson's Advice 1.6 Addy's Shorthand Bible .10. Atterbury Lewis's Sermons 2 vol 10.6 Atterbury Francis's Sermons 4 vol 1. 2. South's Sermons 6 vol 1.12.6 AS Warburton's divine Legation of Moses 2 vol 16.6 Revelation examin'd with Candour 2 vol 9.6 Scott's Christian Life 1. _History_ Universal History 4 vol 9.11.6 Rushworth's Collections 8 vol 8.16. Rapin's History of England 2 vol 2.10. Keating's History of Ireland 1. 1. Burnet's History of his own Times 2 vol 2.10. Purchas's Pilgrimage 1. Cop's History of Ireland 2 vol 2.10. History of Europe 13 vol at 5/ 3. 5. Historical Register 26 vol at 3/ 3.18. Antiquitatum variarum Auctores 2.6 History of the Turks 4^{th} vol 4.6 Jeffery of Monmouth 4. Burnet's History 3 vol 9. Bladen's Caesar's Commentaries 4.6 History of the Fifth General Council 12. Machiavel's History of Florence 4. Roman History Echard's 5^{th} vol 4. Lehontan's Voyages 2^d vol 4. Description of the 17 Provinces 2. The English Acquisitions in Guinea &c 2. Burnet's Travels 1.6 Heylyn's Help to English History 3.6 History of Spain 1.6 Catholick History 2. History of Virginia 2.6 DuStalde's History of China 4 vol 1. _Husbandry & Gardening_ Quintinye's Gardener 1. Woodbridge of Agriculture 8. Evelyn's Sylvia 12. Houghton's Husbandry 4 vol 1. 2. Bradley's Husbandry 3 vol 15. Gardening 2 vol 6. new Improvements 6. ancient husbandry 4. practical Discourses 8. Farmer's Director 2.6 Ladies Director 2.6 Hop Garden 1.6 Dictionarium Rusticum 6. CD Monarchy of the Bees 1.6 A Discourse of Sallets 1. Pocket Farrier 1. Miscellanies of the Dublin Society 5. {Spectator 8 vol 1. GM {Tatler 4 vol 10. {Addison's Works 4 vol 10. {Guardian 2 vol 5. Pope's Letters 2 vol 5. Present State of Great Britain 6. Persian Letters 2 vol 5. Sedley's Works 1 vol 5. Carson's Lucubrations 2. Acc^t of Society for Reformation of Manners 2.6 Aristarchus Anti Bentlianus 2. Dissertation on the Thebaan Legion 2.6 Secret History of Whitehall 2. The Western Martyrology 2.6 GM Memoria Technica 2.6 Erasmus's Praise of Folly 2.6 Turkish Spy 5 & 6 vol 4. Tom Brown's Letters from the Dead to the Living 2.6 The Intelligencer 2.6 Rone's Lives 4. The Dublin Almanack 1. Maxims & Reflections on Plays 2. Report about Silver Coins 1.6 Essay for Amendment of them 2. Feltham's Resolves 4. The Minister of State 6. Treatise of Honour 5. Lyropadia 6. Hutchinson on Virtue 4. T. Scott on the Passions 2. Lansdowne's Works 3 vol 7.6 Works of the Learned 13 vol 4.11. Boyle's Adventures 3. Leisure Hours Amusement 3. _News & Politicks_ London Magazine 11 vol 3.17. Gentlemen's Magazine 4 vol 1. 6. The Britton 2.6 Common Sense 2 vol 6. The Freeholder 2.6 The Craftsman 6 vol 18. Pues Occurrences 5. The True Britton 2 vol 12. _Philosophy & Mathematicks_ Rarities of Gresham Colledge 16. Bacon's natural History 10. Physiologia 12. GF Derham's Physico Theology 5. Astro Theology 4. Sturmy's Mariners Magazine 14. Gordon's Cosmography 5. Geography 5. Ozanam's Mathematical Recreations 5. Atkinson's Epitome of Navigation 5. General Steads for natural History 1.6 Seaman's Calendar RI Newton's Opticks 6. Keill's Astronomy 6. Baker's Microscope 5.6 Mathew's Invenitis 3 vol 15. _Physick & Surgery_ JM Salmon's Herbal 2 vol 2.12. {Dispensatory 6. JM {Synopsis Medicina 8. {Ars Chirurgica 8. {Medicina Practica 6. JM Beerhaave's Method of the dying Physic 4. JM Sydehamii Opuscula 4. JM Wiseman's Surgery 2 vol 10. JM Sanctorius's Aphorisms 5. Quiney's Dispensatory 6.6 JM Strother on Sickness & Health 3.6 JM on Causes & Cures 2.6 JM Criticon Febrium 2.6 Shaw's Practises of Physick 2 vol 10. Arbuthnot of Aliment 3.6 JM London Dispensatory 3.6 AS Andrey on Worms 4. JM Friends Emmencologia 3. JM Pitcarn's Dissertationes 6. JM Friends' Praelectioned Chymica 2.6 AS Short's Dissertation on Coffee & Tea 2.6 JM Robinson Consumptions 5.6 JM Drake's Anatomy 2 vol 10. JM History of Physic 2 vol 8. JM Mead on Poysons 4. _Plays & Poetry_ Killigrew's Plays 10. Ignoramus Latin & English 3.6 Shakespears Plays 8 vol 1. 5. Ben Johnsons Works 10. Wycherley's Plays 5. Blackmore's Elize 8. DuBartas's Works 12. Prior's Works 3. Pope's Works 9 vol 1. 5. GM Homers Iliad 6 vol 15. Homers Odyssey 5 vol 12.6 Savage's Poems 2.6 GM Thomsons Seasons 2.6 Rochesters Poems 2^d vol 3. Caroley's Works 3 vol 9. Lauderdale's Virgil 2 vol 5. Theocritus 1.6 Broome's Poems 3.6 Ovid's Art of Love 3. Creech's Lucretius 2 vol 8. Barbers Poems 5. Wallace 2. Sandys' Paraphrase on the divine Poems 6. _Trade_ Roberts's Map of Commerce 1. Davenant on Trade & Plantations 2 vol 8. _Omitted_ GB Annesley's Trial 5.6 Speeches at Atterbury's Trial 5. Ladies Physical Directory 2.6 Calvins Sermons 2.6 Nunnery Tales 4. Wingate's Arithmetick 4. Lloyd's Consent of time 7.6 Memoirs of secret Service 2.6 Views of France 2. Account of the Treaty of Uxbridge 2.6 May's Cookery 3. The Triumphs of Peace 1.6 S^r. Walter Raleigh of a War with Spain 2.6 The Romish Horseleech 2.6 Conjectura Cabbalistica 2. Miscellanies by Swift & Pope 4 vol 3. The Syren 4. The Musical Miscellany 6 vol 18. [The following are evidently subsequent additions to the library, which seems thus far to have been cataloged before 1746. The following books listed are referred to the accounts on which they were purchased.] 1746 April To Maj^r. John Champe for sundrys viz. Viner's Abridgment 4 vol £5.16. Ld. Raymond's Reports 2 vol 3. Freeman's Reports 1.15. Lilly's Conveyancer 1.15. Comyn's Reports 1.10. Dalton's Officium Vicic 1. 2. Swinburne [18th-century author] of Wills 1. Herne's Pleader 19. Petyt's Ius Parliamentarium. 18. Tremaine's Pleas of the Crown 15. Wood's Institutes of the Civil Law 13. Trott's Plantation Laws 12. Reports B R 4, 5, 6, 7, & 8 Ann 12. Duke's Law of Charitable Uses 10. GI Abridg^t State Tryals 9 vol 1.16. AR Practising Attorney 2 vol 9. GI Naval Trade 2 vol 9. AR Attorney & Pleaders' Treasury 2 vol 10. Compleat Sheriff 5.6 Orders of the Court of Chancery 5.6 GI Law of Testaments & Last Wills 5.6 Ex^{rs}. & Adm^{rs} 5. Trespasses 5. Merchants 5. GI Awards 4.6 Ejectments 4.6 GI Actions upon the Cse 4.6 Tenures 4.6 Errors 4. Trials in high Treason 4. Mortgages 4. Covenants 4. GI Executions 4. Estates Tail 3.6 GI Securities 3.6 Infants 3.6 Last Wills 3.6 Obligations 3. Master & Servant 3. GI Landlords 2.8 Actions 2.6 Inheritances 2.6 Pledges 2.6 Bastardy 1.6 Non compos 1.6 Trover & Conversion 1.6 Appeals 2. GI Select Trials at the Old Baily 4 vol 11. New Retorna Brevium 4.6 Bacon's Law Tracts 4.6 History & Practise of Common Pleas 4. Doctrina placitandi 4. AR Wentworth's Office of Ex^{rs} 4. Notes of Cses in C B in points of Practise 4. Treasures of Ireland 3.6 English Liberties 3.6 Treatise of Frauds 2.6 Book of Oaths 2.6 Blunt's Fragments Antiquitatis 2.6 Woman's Lawyer 2. Judgments in C B & B R 2. Essay for regulating the Laws 2. Philips's Grandeur of the Laws 2. Special Law Cases 1.6 Bellew's Cases from Statham 1.6 Lawyer's Light 1.6 Ius Tratrum 1. Critica Iuris Genissa 1. Bibliotheca Legum 1. Chambers's Dictionary 2 vol 4. 4. Milton's Works 2 vol 2. 2. Universal History 5^{th}. 39/ 6^{th} 44 7^{th} 57 6. 7.6 Arbuthnot's Tables 16. History of Europe 5 vol 15. Grays Hudibras 2 vol 13. History of Peter the Great 3 vol 13. Nature displayed 4 vol 12. Treatise of Money & Exchanges 10.6 English Compendium 2 vol 10.6 Irish & Scotch each 7.6 15. London Magazine for 1743 & 1744 13.2 Present State of Great Britain 5.6 GF Dycke's Dictionary 5.6 Blandy's Tables 4.6 Geography reformed 3.6 Hewit's Tables 1.8 Trunk Matt & Cord 14. --------- 53.13.6 Sterling Curr^t Entry 2/ Cartage 1/ Searchers 1/ Shipping & Warfage 2/6 Waterage 2/6 Gill Lad 6^d . 9.6 Commission at 2 pr Cent 1. 1.10 Freight & Primage 2-1/2 p^r Cent 1. 7.7-1/4 Insurance Policy & 1/2 p^r Cent Commission to pay 98 in case of Loss 11. 6.6-3/4 67.18. November To M^r William Jordan for Sundrys Viz Broughton's Dictionary 2 vol fol £1. 5. WW Grey's Hudibras 2 11. 6 Modern Husbandman 3 13. GM Rollins Belles Lettres 2 sets 4 1. 1. Pamela 4 8. 8 David Simple 1 2. 2 Joseph Andrews 2. 2 {Harskey's Virgil 2. 8-1/2 GM { Terence 2. 8-1/2 { Horace 2. 8-1/2 Epistle on drinking 5-1/2 Pleasures of Imagination 11 Swift's Sermons 5-l/2 Bulingbroke's Remarks 2. 4 GM Rollins Ancient History 13 vol 2. 5. 6 Irish Historical Library 3. 7. 4.3-1/2 9.11. ---------- 1747 April To Cash pd for 2 of Stith's Histories of Virg^a 1. 1. 8 Debates in Parliament 21 3.18. A Common prayer book 10. 5. 9. 8 ---------- GM To William Parks for Ainsworth's Dictionary 2.10. Memoirs of Pope's Life &c 12. 6 3. 2. 6 ---------- To Doctor McKenzie for the History of London 3.14. 3 CD Lives of the Admirals 4 vol 2. 2. 3 5.16. 6 IP To M^r Jordan for 20 vol Universal History 7.14. October IS To Doctor McKenzie for Costlogon's 2 vol D^o 8. 1. 4 {To Cash paid for Bustorf's Herbron Lexicon .13. GM{ Heereboord's Burgersdicius 4. March To Mrs. Grace Mercer for sundrys Viz {Clark's Romer 2 vol .13. {Murphy's Leucian. Lucian 3. 6 {Robertson's Lexicon 1. {Passons Lexicon 3. 6 GM {Trapp's Virgil 3 vol 9. {Kennet's Antiquities . 5. {Potter's Antiquities 2 vol 10.10 {Salust Minellii 2. 6 {Rowe's Salust 2. 2 {Brown's Roman History 2. 2 Ainsworth's Dictionary 1. 7. {Geographia Classica 4. 6 {Button's Introduction 2. 8-1/2 GM {Erhard's Terence 2. 6 {Plutarch's Lives 8 vol 2. {Francis's Horace 4 vol 13. Gay's Tables 2. 2 GB Tom Brown's Works 4 vol 13. PS Delaney's Sermons 3. 3 Subscription to Shakespear 10.10 9.10. 7-1/2 --------- To D^o for Residue of Subscription to Shakespear 10.10 To Sydenham & Hdgson for sundrys Viz AM Conduct of the Dutchess of Marlborough 4. The other side of the Question 5. Practise of the Ecclesiastical Courts 3. 6 IR Motts Geography 2 vol. fol. maps bound 4.14. Continuation of Rapin 3 vol fol 5.10. Salmon's modern History 3 vol 4^o 3. 3. {Hoppnes Architecture 4^o 10. {Salmon's Palladio Londonensis 4^o 7. WB {Palladio's Architecture 4^o 4. {Langley's City & Country Builder 14. London Magazine 1745, 6, 7 19. 6 Winer's Abridgment 3 vol fol 4.10. Milton's Political Works 2 vol fol 2. 6. A Box 2. 6 ---------- £23.11. 6 Commission Insurance &c 26 pc^t 6. 2. 7 Exchange at 40 pc^t 11.17. 7-1/2 41.11. 8-1/2 To William Jordan for sundrys Viz {London Magazine 1745, 6. 7. 8 1.12. 6 not {Salmon's Gazetteer 3. 6 [?] { Chronology 10. recd {A large Map of the World 2. 6 ---------- 1749 Oct. To Nath Walthoe for the Harleian Miscellany 8 vol 6. 6. To D^o for Guthrie's History of England in Sheets 4. 4. To Cash for Popple's Maps 1.11. 3 1750 May To W^m Parks for sundrys 7.19 Aug To Lyonel Lyde for sundrys £49.8 sterl^g 26 pC^t 49. 8 ------------------------------- 439. 7. 9 91.13.11-1/2 25 pC^t 109.16.11-1/4 549. 4. 8-1/4 ------------------------------- 640.18. 7-3/4 1746 [Currency] Feb. By Gabriel Jones for sundrys marked GJ 13.19. 8 1749 May By W^m Walker for Grey's Hudibras 16. 1 1750 May By John Sutherland for Coeltagon's Dictionary 8. 1. 4 June By George Mason for Rollins belles Letters 15. 23.12. 1 ------------------------------- £617. 6. 6-3/4 1750 April To W^m Parks for sundrys Viz Noblemens Seats by Kip (38) £1. 2. 6 Johnson's Lives of Highwaymen &c 1. 2. 6 Willis's Survey of the Cathedrals 3 vol 1.19. Select Plays 16 vol 3. 3. 8 Views of Scotland 12. Aug^t To Lyonel Lyde for sundrys bo^t of Osborn Viz Universal History 20 vol gilt £9. 8. 6 Merian of Insects 2.10. 9 Gallia et Helvatia Urbes 1.16. 3 Theatrum Urbium Germanis 2 vol 4.11. 4 Noblemen's Seats by Kip (80) 1.16. 3 Churches Palaces & Gardens in France 5. 1. 6 Pozzo's Perspective 1.16. 3 Perrier's Statues 2. 5. 8 100 Views of Brabant & Flanders 1.10. 6 150 Prints of Ovid's Metamorphosis 1.10. 6 Cases in Parliament 8 vol 18. 5. 5 Father Paul's History 15. 3 51. 8. 2 To D^o for sundrys bo^t of George Strahan AR Ld Raymond's Reports 2 vol 4. 7 Barnardiston's Reports in BA 2 vol 2.18 IP Freeman's Reports 2.12. 2 AR Comyns's Reports 2. 3. 6 Viners Abridgment 14^{th} vol 2. 3. 6 AR Barnardiston's Reports in Canc^[Symbol] 1.12. Fortescues Reports 1. 9. AR Talbot's Reports 1. 1. 9 AR Shoner's Cases in Parliament 18.10 Goldesborough's Reports 5. Catalogue of Law Books 2. 2 19.12.11 To M^{rs} Grace Mercer for sundrys Viz GM Preceptor 2 vol £ .13. County of Waterford 8. 3 County of Devon 7. 3 Life of King David 7. Lives of the Popes 1^{st} vol 5. 3 Delany's Sermons 4. 9 Practise of Farming 3. 9 Practical farmer 2 parts 2. Dublin Societies Letters 3. 3 AM Hervey's Meditations 3. 3 London Brewer 1. 8 Hops 8 Bees 8 Grass Seeds 8 Flax 5 Saffron 4 Woollen Manufacture 4 3. 2. 7 ----------- To Cash as paid for sundrys Viz Catalogue of Plants £ 10. 6 Political View 2. History of Amphitheatres 4. Northern Memoirs 2. 6 Life of Oliver Cromwell 3. The Fool 6. The Citizen 2. Greaves's Origin of Weights &c 2. 6 Steele's Romish History 1. 3 D^r Henry Wooten's Pieces 1. 3 Account of Naval Victories 1. 3 Tennent's Physical Enquiries 1. D^r Ratcliffe's Life 6 Extract of Cheyney's Life & Writings 1. 3 History of Nadir Cha 1. 3 Court Register 1. 6 Description of the microscope Ec 6 Richmond Rarities 1. 3 2. 3. 6 ----------- To John Mitchelson for sundrys Viz Life of the Duke of Argyle 7. 6 Parnell's Poems 4. 6 Young's Night Thoughts 5. 3 Farquhar's Works 2 vol 10. 6 Fenton's Poems 4. 6 Devil on Crutches 2 vol 7. 6 History of the Royal Family 4. 6 GM 2 Fer's Geography 9. Hughes's History of Barbadoes 1.15. 4. 8. 3 --------------------------- 706. .11-3/4 1750 By Sons for the following Books Thomson's Travels 4 vol 15. Thomson's Seasons 3. 1-1/2 Pope's Homer 6 vol 18. 9 Rollins Ancient History 13 vol 2.17. Trap's Virgil 3 vol 11. 3 Echard's Terence 3. 1-1/2 Ainsworth's Dictionary 2.10. Spectator 8 1. 5. Tatler 4 12. 6 Addison's Works 4 12. 6 Guardian 2 6. 3 Rollins Belles Lettres 4 13. 1-1/2 Hankey's Virgil 3. 4 Terence 3. 4 Horace 3. 4 Buxtorp's Hebrew Lexicon 13. Heerebord's Burgersdicius 4. Clark's Homer 2 vol 16. 3 Murphy's Lucian 4. 4-1/2 Robertson's Lexicon 1. 5. Passor's Lexicon 4. 4-1/2 Kennet's Antiquities 6. 3 Potter's Antiquities 2 vol 13. 6 Salust Minellii 3. 1-1/2 Rowe's Salust 2. 8-1/2 Brown's Roman History 2. 8-1/2 Geographica Classica 5. 7-1/2 Button's Introduction 3. 4 Plutarch's Lives 8 vol 2.10. Francis's Horace 4 16. 3 Greek Grammar 3. 1-1/2 Greek Testament 4. 4-1/2 Schrevelii Lexicon 9. 4-1/2 Memoria Technica 3. 1-1/2 21. 8. 1-1/2 ------------- By Gerard Fowke for Dycke's Dictionary 11. By Sons for the Preceptor 2 vol 13. 6 Fer's Geography 3. 16. 6 ------------- By Profit & Loss for Freeman's Reports £2.12. 2 Universal History 20 vol 7.14. 10. 6. 2 ------------- By Robert Roseby by his Bro. Alexander Ld. Raymond's Reports 2 vol £4.10. Comyns Reports 2. 5. Barnardiston's Reports in Cane 1.13. Talbot's Reports 1. 2. 6 Shower's Cases in Parliament 19. 6 10.10. ------------- 662. 9. 2-1/4 --------------- £706. .11-3/4 APPENDIX L Botanical Record and Prevailing Temperatures Dates when flowers, trees, and plants bloomed in 1767, with temperatures, extracted from John Mercer's journal, in back of Ledger B _Temp._ March 21 46-63 Daffodil Hyacinths 6 Violet Narcissous 22 60-69 Almond Apricot 24 37-47 Plum sm^l 30 45-48 May Cherry Cucumber hotbed 31 44-52 Beans Pease April 1 47-48 Dwarf Iris 2 41-52 Peach Hyacinth s d 10 D^od 5 Cowslips 3 44-50 rain all night & morn 6 44-46 D^o all night & day 7 44-50 Cherry y & b D^o all night Plum Comm. Wild currant 9 48-32 Peach d bl Asparagus Radishes Crown Imperial 12 44-54 Tulip early 13 54-62 Pear Wall flower 15 48-53 Frittillary rain all night 16 46-60 Green Sagia 17 48-55 Prickson 18 48-60 Columbine Tulips Strawberry 20 34-60 Lilac Catchfly Julia April 22 46-51 Jonquil 24 46-62 Formantil 26 70-78 Syringa Persian Lilac Honeysuckle Virg^a Hyacinth dw ... purp. 28 60-65 Iris la^r blue Narcissus w. 30 64-70 Parrot Tulip May 1 54-60 Rose 3 53-57 Mourn^g bride rain in the night Peony w^t Hyacinth dou. bl. 4 55-63 Purple Stocks D^o in the night & morn. 5 59-66 White D^o 6 54-67 Agerolis Peony red 7 60-72 Honeysuckle 8 59-72 Spiderwort Horsechestnut Snow drop 9 59-65 Yellow Lilly Borage 10 59-65 Fraxinella 11 66-68 Yellow s Rose Fringe tree 12 64-68 Grass pinks 13 63-70 Annual stock 14 65-72 Madeira Iris Sweet w^m 15 60-76 Corn Hay fine rain in the night 16 60-70 Spiraea frietus 17 56-74 Feath^r Hyacinth May 18 67-80 Corn Hay Whitsunday 19 70-82 White rose 20 72-83 Poppy Bladder Senna 21 75-80 Foxglove Swamp Laurel Sm^l bl. Iris Scorzancea Monthly Rose Orange Lemon Citron 22 73-84 Indian Pink a fine rain 23 72-76 Larkspur 24 63-68 Queen's july fl. 25 61-70 Wing'd pea 26 63-70 Monks hood 27 65-72 Catch fly 28 68-79 Apscynum Sago 29 71-79 Sparrow Wistle L. Weymouth's world 30 75-77 Sp Broom A fine rain Dorch. yell Rose 31 73-80 Great Poppy June 1 73-70 Pinks 2 64-73 Gumbogia 3 64-79 W^r Lilly Apscinum vine June 4 74-76 Prickly pear 5 70-64 Jessamine A fine rain 6 60-71 Holyock 7 63-73 Crysanthemum Virg^a Spike Sweet Sultan Orange Lilly 9 65-70 Cat Spa 14 70-81 Flos Adonis 15 72-82 Pleurisy root 17 75-82 Yucca African Marigold 19 70-78 Southern wood 23 70-82 Elacampana 24 74-82 Rock Rose Oriental Asmart 29 82-92 Afr marigold y. July 3 Althaea frutea 5 70 Coxcomb rain all day 7 72-84 Amaranth ordes 8 74-80 Virg^a Saffron 9 75-87 Partridge berr^s 11 84-84 Passion flow^r 16 73-76 Marvel of Peru 18 76-84 Swamp Sweet 20 76-86 Martagon Virg. 23 76-85 Cardinal fl. Sunflower APPENDIX M Inventory of Marlborough, 1771 [John Mercer's widow, Ann Roy Mercer, died at Marlborough September 2, 1770. By the next spring, James Mercer was operating Marlborough as one of four plantations owned by him. The overseer was Thomas Oliver. At the end of May 1771 Oliver drew up a statement of the conditions of the plantations and made a detailed inventory. This document has been reproduced in facsimile in _A Documentary History of American Industrial Society_.[216] The following excerpts consist of the inventory, as it applied to Marlborough only, and of Oliver's statement at the end. The "return," as he called it, covered the period from May 1 to May 31, 1771. The reference to advertising the "sale" is apparently concerned with one of the unsuccessful public sales of John Mercer's personal property.] 56 Horn Cattle 28 Cavallrey 128 Sheap . Swine 22 Plowes 8 Clevices 8 Clevispins 11 leading lines 4 Chaine traces 4 Roap traces 8 Bridle Bitts 8 Back bands 8 Haimes 6 Ox Yoaks 3 Ox Chains 2 Ox Carts 1 Waggons Compleat 4 Horse Harness d^o 4 Horse Collers 12 Swingle trees . Threshing Instruments 4 Fanns 2 Sieves 1 Riddles 1 Halfe bushel Measure 1 Halfe Barrel Measure 1 Harrows 10 Hillinghows 17 Weeding hows 8 Grubbing hows 1 Syder press 1 Syder Mill 15 Axes 4 Wedges 1 Iron Shovels 4 Spades 3 Hay forks . Hay Rakes 2 Dung forks 13 Scythes 4 Cradles . Sickles 8 Sheap Shears 1 Barns 2 Grainerys 3 Corn Houses 5 Stables 4 Stock locks 1 Padlocks 6 Mealbags 1 Boats 1 Schoos 1 Cannow 1 Seaines 2 Cross cutt Saws 1 Whip Saws 2 Hand Saws 3 Adzes 5 Chisels 1 Hammers 1 Frows 2 Gimblets 2 Drawing knives 7 Broad Axes 1 Gouges 1 Compasses 3 Augers 2 2 Yard Rules 1 Chalk lines 3 Sawfiles 1 Curriers knives 1 Tanners knives 1 Tobacco Cask Branding Irons 5 Iron Potts for Negroes 1 Grinding Stoans 6 Scyth stoans 1 Sarvants 29 Negroes in Crop 25 Negroes out of Crop 9 Hyerd out 63 Total amount of Negroes N.B. the Casuality in sheap are 11 sold to M^r Lowery. 1 to Doct^r Clemense. 1 held for the house. dy'd a little time after being Castrated 5 (18) as in the Collem of decress. 1 Calfe dy'd five days after Being Cutt. the remainder of the stock in good Condition. two mares excepted. the work of the Mill going on as well as Can be Expected till M^r. Drains is better. the Schoo and Boat unfit for Any Sarvice whatsoever till repair'd. if Capable of it. the foundation of the Malt house wants repairing. the Manor house wants lead lights in some of the windows. the East Green House wants repairing, the west d^o wants buttments as a security to the wall on the south side. the Barn, tobacco houses at Marlborough & Acquia must be repaired as soon as possible. The two tobacco houses at Belvaderra are in good order. five stables on Marlborough plantation must also be repair'd before winter. we have sustai'd no damage from Tempests or Floods. it will Expedient to hyer a Carpinder for the woork wanted can not be accomplish'd in time, seeing the Carpenders must be taken of for harvest which is Like to be heavy. I will advertise the sale at Stafford Court and the two parish Churches to begin on the 20th of June 1771. this is all the intelligence this month requiers. P.S. The Syder presses at each plantation & Syder Mill at Marlbrough to tally Expended ... Negro Sampson Marlbro Company Sick of the Gravel. Negress Deborah Sick of a Complication of dis^s. Negro Tarter acqui Company Sick plurisy. Negress Phillis sick Accokeeck Company Kings Evil Negro Jas Pemberton at Marlb^h Sick Worme fever. ThS. Oliver For Ja^s. Mercer Esq^r FOOTNOTES: [216] Edit. John P. Commons (New York: Russell & Russell, 1958), vol. 1, facsimile opp. p. 236. Quoted through kind permission of Russell & Russell, publishers. Index _Abridgment of the Laws of Virginia_, 24, 62-63; second edition, 50, 53 Accokeek: plantation, 12, 62; ironworks, 23, 24, 25, 47, 162, 193 Act for Encouraging Adventurers in Ironworks, Mercer's protest against, 23 Acts for Towns (1662), 5; (1680), 5, 7 Act for Ports (1691), 7, 10, 34; suspension of, 8 Act for Ports (1705), 8, 12, 22, 45, 83, 177; suspension of, 9 Adie, Hugh, 118 agricultural implements: hoe, 25, 170 (illustr.) plow, 25; drill plow, 59; iron for, 34; colter for, 73, 168-169 (illustr.) scythe, iron, 113, 114, 168 (illustr.), 171 spade, 170-171 Alexander, Robert, 12, 22 Alexandria, 50, 52, 53 Alexandria Library, viii Allan, William, 34 Allen, William, 184 Ambler, Richard, 16 American Philosophical Society, vii, viii, 69; _Year Book_ of, viii Amson, Doctor, 46 amusements: cards, 51 dancing, 33, 34 game counters, 26 (illustr.) horse racing, 20, 26, 43 loo, 20, 26 lottery, 34 music, 33, 34; books on, 43 pitching, 20 quoits, 20 racing (unspecified), 17 wagers, 26 wrestling, 26 Anderson, Thomas (brickmaker,) 28, 35 andirons, 17, 162 (illustr.) Andrews, George (ordinary keeper), 11, 12, 13, 23, 44, 82, 177; inventory of, 183 "Antigua Ship," 47 apothecary, 36 (_See also_ medicine) Aquia (plantation), 62 Aquia Church (_See under_ church) Aquia Creek, 11, 12 archeological techniques, 70 arches, 36, 91, 94 architect, 36 (_See also_ joiner; carpenter) architecture, books on, 37, 38, 43, 98 _Architecture of A. Palladio_, 98 (illustr. from) art, books on, 43, 200 Ashby, ----, 53 Ashby, Thomas, vii Astbury, Thomas (Staffordshire potter), 108, 138, 139 Astbury, Thomas, Jr. (Staffordshire potter), 139 Bacon, Nathaniel, 10 Bagge, Edmund, 17, 192 Bailey, ---- (brewer), 55 Bailey, Worth, viii ball, musket, 155, 157 (illustr.) Ballard, Thomas, 12, 14, 17, 22 Ballard, William, 177 Balthrop, ----, 51 Barber, William, 12 Barradall, Mr., 58 Barry, Ed, 18 Barry, Thomas (bricklayer), 36, 91, 95, 102, 104, 105 basaltes ware (_See under_ stoneware) basins, 25, 39; earthenware, 125; pottle, 39, 138 Basnett, Abraham ("oysterman"), 35 Battaley (Battaille), Mosley, 16, 17; Mercer's account for, 185 Bayley, Ambrose, 10, 11 Beach, Daniel, 184 Beach, Peter, 12, 13; inventory of, 184 Beaty, Andrew (joiner), 36 bed (_See under_ furniture) bed cord, 17 Belchier, John (cabinetmaker), 40 Belfield, Mr., 42 Belle Plains, 28 Belvedere (plantation), 62 Bensen, Thomas, 185 Berkeley, Governor, 47, 97 Berryman, ----, 22 beverages: ale, 33, 55, 56; arrack, 145; Barbadoes spirits, 145; beer, 55, 145, 146 (Bristol); bottles for, 145-152; brandy, 36, 145; chocolate, 32; cider, 16, 33, 62, 145, 146, 149; citron water, 146; claret, 17, 18, 33, 46, 145; coffee, 32; corn, 145; gin, 150-151; lime juice, 17; Lisbon, 145; Madeira, 25, 145; "Mint [water]," 146; "Orange flower [water]," 146; porter, 56; punch, 13 145; rum, 17, 33, 42, 145; sherry, 145; "Tansey,' 146; tea, 32; wine, 33, 145, 145 (Fyall) (_See also_ bottle; cup; glass; chocolate pot; teapot) Beverley, Robert, 8, 21, 51, 97, 192 biography, books of, 43 birds, singing, 33; birdcage, 33 Biscoe, W., vii Black, William, 33, 178 Blacke, William (gardener), 58 blacksmith, 35, 167, 174 (_See also_ ironworks) Bland, Theodorick, 7, 8. 10, 177 Blane, John, 25 boat, 62; canoe, 25; "Schoo" (schooner), 62, 177; sloop, 15, 16, 32, 42, 177 bones, animal, 111 bookplate, John Mercer's, iv (illustr.) books, 14, 17, 20, 33, 34, 36, 42; Mercer's reading, 191; purchase of, 191-192, 198-208; sale of, 61-62 Booth, John (weaver), 32 botanical record, 209-210 (_See also_ garden) bottles, 25, 56, 145-152; canary, 145; cider, 149; closure for, 145; gin, 112, 150-151 (illustr.); medicine, 152, 153 (illustr.); methods of making, 146-149; octagonal, 149 (illustr.); scent, 152; smelling, 32; snuff, 32, 151 (illustr.), 152; spirits, 111, 150 (illustr.); stoneware, 39; wine, 72, 107, 111, 112, 119 (illustr.), 145-149 (illustr.), 173, 178; wine, seal for, 31 (illustr.), 73, 111, 146-149 (illustr.) bowl: creamware, 141; delftware, 137 (illustr.); earthenware, 124 (illustr.), 127 (illustr.); porcelain, 144; redware, 125, 126, 128; stoneware, 136; whiteware, 143 box iron, heaters for, 17, 162 (illustr.) (_See also_ smoothing iron) Boyd's Hole, 18, 35, 51 Braddock, General, 52 Braintree (Mass.), 151 brands, on tobacco casks, 29-30 brass, 17, 39, 59, 72, 73, 108, 155 (_See also_ specific forms) Braxton, Colonel, 26 Brent, George, 12 Brent, Giles, 7, 12, 22; widow of, 12; heirs of, 177 Brent, Giles, Jr., 7 Brent, Robert, 12 Brent, William, 23, 26 Brent, William (infant), 45, 177; house burned, 63 brewer, 55, 58; house for, 178 brewery, 55, 56-57, 61, 178; sale at, 56; sale of, 61; still, 26, 61 (_See also_ Marlborough, buildings) brewing, books on, 43 Brick House (village in New Kent County), 27 bricklayers, 35, 36, 103-104, 118 bricklaying, 94-95; 103-104, 111, 112; Flemish bond, 72, 121 brickmaking, 35 (_See also_ building materials) bridge, 35 bridle, 25; bit for, 73, 169 (illustr.), 171 (illustr.) Bromley, William (turner), 36, 38, 39, 50, 98 Bronough, John W., 64 Brook (village), 28, 67 Brooke, William, 26 _Brooks_ (ship), 26 broom, hearth, 39 Brunswick Town (North Carolina), 108 brush, curry, 18, 172 bucket, 39 Buckland, William, 52 buckle: brass, 72, 155 (illustr.), 156 (illustr.); iron, 170; pewter, 52; silver, 32 Buckley ware (_See under_ earthenware) Bucknell (Oxford County), 58 Buckner, William, 7, 8, 21, 22, 177 (_See also_ Marlborough, survey 1691) Bucks County Historical Society, viii, 28 building materials: ballusters, 36, 96 bricks, 9, 11, 18, 35, 36, 67, 68, 71, 72, 91, 94, 102, 107, 109 (illustr.), 112; sizes of, 90, 95, 104, 121 clapboards, 25 concrete, 92 (illustr.), 93 (illustr.) flagstones, 35, 86, 97, 101, 102, 121 gold leaf, 36, 95 lime, 9, 35, 69 linseed oil, 36 lumber, 9, 18, 25, 34, 36 marble, 96 mortar, 35, 69, 102, 162 oystershells, 16, 18, 35, 69, 107, 108, 111 paint, 36 plaster, 96, 97 (illustr.), 102, 121 shingles, 34 stone, 35, 36, 68, 71, 72, 86, 87, 89, 91 (illustr.), 92 (illustr.), 94 (illustr.), 101 Bull Run Quarters, 29, 30, 42; slaves at, 41, 58 bullet (_See_ ball) Buncle, Alexander, 17 Burges, Joseph (house painter), 36 Burwell, Carter, 35 buttons, 25, 42, 47, 52, 155; brass, 155; copper, 155, 156 (illustr.); horn, 58; Sheffield-plated, 155; shell, 155; silver, 155; white metal, 42, 58, 156 (illustr.) Byrd, William, 46 cabinetmakers, 25, 35, 40 candle, 40; beeswax for, 41; myrtle wax for, 41; tallow, 41 candle box, 20 candlemolds, 17 candlestick, 14, 17, 20 (brass), 39, 40, 41, 153 (glass, illustr.) (_See also_ sconce) canoe, 25 Canton, Mark, 42 Cantrell, William (servant), 58 Carlyle, John, 30 Carlyle, Sarah, 30 Caroline Courthouse, 27, 28 carpenter, 36, 50, 62, 91, 118; apprentices, 50 carpet, 13 cart (_See under_ vehicle) Carter, Charles, 28 Carter, Lucy, 118; marriage to Nathaniel Harrison, 118 Carter, Robert ("King"), 118 carver, 36, 40 casks, 29, 30, 55, 56, 61, 145, 146; hogsheads, 26, 30, 31, 33, 145; "pipes," 33, 145 Cavanaugh, Philemon, 17 Cave, John, 13, 23, 28, 42 Caywood, Louis, 97 Cedar Point, 18 celt, Indian, 73, 119 (illustr.) ceramics, 68, 105, 125-144; Indian, 108; methods of manufacture, 135-136 (_See also_ specific forms and types) chair (_See under_ furniture) chaise (_See under_ vehicle) chalk, 155, 171 chamberpots: stoneware, 88, 132 (illustr.); yellowware, 126 Chambers, John, 18 Champe, Major John (merchant), 31, 35, 54 Chapman, Nathaniel, 25, 35, 49, 162, 166, 169, 170-171; Mercer's account with, 193 charger, delftware, 137; pewter, 39 chariot (_See under_ vehicle) charities, John Mercer's, 47 Charles City Courthouse, 9 Charleston, George (tailor), 32 chelloes, 18 chest (_See under_ furniture) Chew, John, 192 chimney, 12, 20, 36, 97, 102, 105 (_See also_ mantel; fireplace) china, 39, 144 (_See also_ porcelain) Chinn, John, 20 Chinn, Rawleigh, 17, 20, 25 chinoiserie, 136, 137, 140 (illustr.), 142 Chiswell's Ordinary, 51 Chiswell Plantation, 97 chocolate pot, copper, 39 Chotank Church, 10 church: Aquia, 27, 37, 46-47, 52, 145; undertaker for, 46, 47; church plate, 46 (_See also_ Overwharton Parish) Chotank, 10 Hanover, 35 Mattaponi, 35 New Kent, 35 Pohick (Fairfax), 37 Potomac, 27, 28, 46, 54 (_See also_ Overwharton Parish) Stafford Parish, 10 church, brick, 46 cider press, 62 (_See also_ beverages) Clark, John (servant), 52 Cleve (plantation), 28 clothing, 31-32; breeches, 34, 42, 52, 58, 59; "Russia," 59 children's, 34 coat, 42; greatcoat, 31, 59 gloves, 18, 31, 34; mittens, 34 handkerchief, 31 hat, 17, 18, 25, 31, 52, 58, 59; "Castor," 31; hood, 31 hose, 18 indentured servant apparel, 52, 59 jacket, 58, 59 liveries, 42 mourning, 47 neckcloth, 52 petticoat, 31 shirts, 52, 58 shoes, 17, 18, 31, 34, 42, 52, 58 slave apparel, 42, 58, 59 stockings, 31, 34, 52, 58, 59 suit, 31, 32 trousers, 52 vest, 34 waistcoat, 32 (_See also_ textiles) coach (_See under_ vehicle) coachman, 42 coal, 56, 107, 108 coffin, child's, 17 coins, 119, 155-156 (illustr.) Coke, John (silversmith), 39 colander, 20 College of William and Mary, 20, 34, 47, 99, 121; account of George Mercer's expenses while attending, 197 Collings, Jn^o, 149 Collins, Robert, 18 Colonial Williamsburg, Inc., viii, 30, 149 comb: curry, 18, 169, 172 (and brush); horn, 32; ivory, 16, 32; wig, 25 Combe, ----, 53 combed ware (_See under_ earthenware) Cooke, John, 64, 96, 125 cooper, 56; house for, 55 Cooper, Macartney, Powel & Lyde, 40 Copein, William (mason), 37, 91 copper, 17, 55, 103, 119, 178 (_See also_ specific items) corks, 56, 145 court: Spotsylvania, 27; Williamsburg, 27 courthouse: Caroline, 27, 28, 53 Charles City, 9, 121, 122 Elizabeth City, 9 Hanover, 98, 118 (illustr.), 121, 122 King William, 23 (illustr.), 51, 53, 98, 120 (illustr. floor plan), 121, 122 Marlborough, vii, 8, 11, 45; (1691), 28; cleaning, 13, 184; construction of, 11; contract to build, 10; destruction of, 9, 11; location of, 11, 44, 67; trial in, 12; New Kent, 27, 28, 51 Potomac Creek, vii, viii, 7, 10, 11, 20, 28, 49, 99, 177; architectural analysis of, 121; artifacts from, 119-121; burning of, 118; excavations, 115-122; excavation plan of, 118; historical background, 115-118; map showing location of, 116, 117; surveys, 115 Stafford (_See_ Potomac Creek) Warwick, 11 Westmoreland, 54 Williamsburg, 121 York (1692), 11, 121 courthouses, brick, 11, 118 Covington, ---- (dancing master), 34 cows, 17, 20, 61 Craig, James (jeweler), 47 creamware (_See under_ earthenware) Cresap, Thomas, 49 Crichton, Robert (merchant), 32 crops: barley, 56; corn, 42, 56, 57; hops, 56, 62; malt, 55, 56; peas, 59; rice, 57; turnips, 59; wheat, 59 (_See also_ food; tobacco) _Cumberland_ (ship), 31 cup, 39; chocolate, 17, 144; coffee, 39, 144; custard, 17, 144; dram, 13; fuddling, 137; handle, 137; tea, 17, 72, 136, 144; delftware, 137; earthenware, 127 (illustr.), porcelain, 72, 144; silver, 13, 39; stoneware, 39, 144; yellowware, 128 (illustr.) curry comb, 18, 169 (illustr.), 172 (and brush) curtains, 13; bed, 13; fittings, 172; rings for, 13, 156 (illustr.), 162-163 Custis, Daniel Parke, 31 Custis, John, 31 Dade, Francis, 26 dancing master, 32, 33, 34 Daniel, Peter, 27, 52 Darlington Library, viii Darrell, Sampson, 10, 11, 28 Darter, Oscar H., vii, viii, 67 Davis, Boatswain, 35 Dekeyser, ---- (dancing master), 33 delftware, 88, 107, 114, 136-137, 173; English, 111, 134 (illustr.), 136, 138 (_See also_ specific forms) Dering, William (dancing master), 32, 34 Dick: "Mr. Dick's Quarter," 53 Dick, Alexander, 51 Dick, Charles (merchant), 31, 34, 39, 132, 144, 165, 167; textiles listed in Mercer's accounts with, 196 Dick, William, 51 dish, 39; chafing, 17; oblong, 136; sugar, 39; brass, 17; pewter, 25, 39, 160 (illustr.); silver, 39; stoneware, 136 doctor, 41, 46 (_See also_ medicine) Dogge, John, 17 Donaldson, Captain, 31 door knobs, 39; brass, 167 doors, 37, 38 (illustr.) Downham, William, 184 Drains, Mr., 62 ducks, 25 Dulaney, Daniel, 31 Dunmore, Lord, 63 earthenware, 13, 16, 17, 20, 25, 129 "agate," 108, 173 black-glazed, 119, 139 Buckley, 72, 107, 111, 113, 114, 126-128, 130 (illustr.), 173 combed ware, 126, 173 creamware, 111, 141, 173 marbled, 138-139 molded-rim type, 125-126 North Devon gravel-tempered, 111, 126, 173 pearlware, 140 (illustr.), 141 polychrome, 140, 143 queensware, 139 (illustr.), 140 redware, 114, 125-126, 128 shell-edged, 140, 141-142 Tidewater type, 73, 111, 124-125 (illustr.), 173 tortoiseshell ware, 128 (illustr.), 139 transfer-printed, 143-144 whiteware, 112, 140 (illustr.), 173 yellowware, 107, 111, 126, 128 (illustr.) (_See also_ specific forms) Edgeley, ----, 16 education, 34; hornbook, 33, 34; slate, 156, 158; slate pencil, 111, 156, 158; tutor, 34 (_See also_ College of William and Mary) Edwards, Elizabeth, 39 _Elizabeth_ (ship), 26 Elizabeth City Courthouse, 9 Elliot, George (turner), 36, 96 Elzey, Thomas, 117 Emo, Lord Leonardo, 98 Fairfax, George, 49 Falkner, Ralph, 192 Falmouth (Virginia), 53 Ferguson, John (overseer), 42 ferry, Potomac Creek, 8, 13 fiddler, 34 fireback, iron, 17 fireplaces, 12, 20, 41, 94, 96, 97, 101, 102, 104, 105 (_See also_ chimney; mantel) Fisher, George, 51 fishhooks, 42, 111, 171 (illustr.) fishing, 32, 42, 54, 64; drumlines, 42; perch lines, 42; seine, 42, 54 Fitz, Captain, 32 Fitzhugh, Colonel, 192 Fitzhugh, Ann, 16 Fitzhugh, Henry, 21, 25, 31, 118; widow of, 118 Fitzhugh, William, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 31, 51 Fitzhugh, William, Jr., 9 Fitzhugh, William III, 16 Fitzpatrick, John (weaver), 32 flagon, stoneware, 132 (illustr.) floors (_See_ pavement) flower pots, 62; earthenware, 129 (illustr.) Foard (Foward), John, 25 food, 192; cinnamon, 32; fish, 32; lemons, 26; limes, 33; lime juice, 17; mace, 32; molasses, 17, 32-33; nutmegs, 32; oysters, 32, 40; pork, 32, 57; spices, 32; sugar, 17, 32, 33 (muscovy); venison, 25; wild game, 25 (_See also_ crops) Forbes, Andrew, 192 forks, 111, 159 (illustr.); wooden handled, 17 Forman, Henry Chandlee, 12 Fort Frederica (Georgia), 126 Foward (Foard), John (merchant), 25, 26, 167 Foward, Jonathan, 26 Fowke, Chandler, 18 Fowke, Gerard, 31, 52 Foxhall, Joseph, 32 Fredericksburg, vii, 28, 30, 31, 34, 42, 43, 46, 53, 55, 59, 62, 196 freckled ware (_See under_ stoneware) French, Hugh, 18 Fry, Colonel, 49 funnel, 17 Furnea's (Furnau's) Ordinary, 27, 28 furniture: beds, 13, 20, 25, 40; bolsters, 13; covers, 39; feather, 13, 17; flock, 13; tick, 18 chairs, cane, 13; child's, 20; leather, 17; rush seat, 13, 25 chest, handle for, 163 (illustr.), 165; chest of drawers, 13 cradle, 25 cupboard, 13 couch, 13 desk, 17; repair of, 25 escritoire, 25, 40, 165 looking glass, 39 painted, 17 sale of, 61-62 sconce glass, 39, 41 sideboard, 39 stools, 13 table, 13, 17; marble, 39 garden, 99; botanical record of, 209-210 gardener, 58, 178 Garner, A. M., 137 Garvan, Anthony N. B., viii gateway, 80, 81; pintle for, 73, 81 _George Mercer Papers Relating to the Ohio Company of Virginia_, viii, 15, 59 Gilmer, George (apothecary), 36 glass, 17 (and cover), 68, 145-154; bowl, 119, 154; candelabrum, 153 (illustr.), 154; decanter, 73, 145, 152-154; mirror, 153 (illustr.), 154; posset pot, 154; salt, 153 (illustr.), 154; window, 62, 96, 107, 121, 153 (illustr.), 154 (_See also_ bottle) glasses, 17; cordial, 152 (illustr.), 154; looking, 39; sconce, 39, 41, 154; tumbler, 152, 153 (illustr.), 154; wine, 73, 107, 152 (illustr.), 153 (illustr.), 154 glasshouse, 56; Bristol, 148; Germantown, 151 glassmaking techniques, 146, 148-149, 151-152, 154 _Gooch_ (ship), 40 goose, 25 Graham (Graeme), John, 20, 191 Graham, William (overseer), 41 grater, nutmeg, 13 Gray, William, 28 greenhouse, 62, 109, 178 Gregg, Thomas (surveyor), 9, 14, 21, 22 (_See also_ Marlborough, survey 1707) Grenzhausen (Germany), 129 gun flints, 42, 155, 157 (illustr.) gunpowder, 18, 25, 42 Hamitt, William, 25 Hammersley, Francis, 7, 12 Hampton (Virginia), 9, 47 Hanbury, Capel, 53 hand mill, 55 Hanover Church, 35 Hanover County, 35 Happel, Ralph, 10, 115 hardware, 193 bolt, 111, 119 (illustr.), 121, 164 (illustr.), 166, 167, 168 (illustr.), 170 brad, 34, 165, 167 chain, 169; for door, 39 escutcheon plate, 108, 156 (illustr.), 163 handle or pull, 108, 156 (illustr.), 163 (illustr.), 164 (illustr.), 165, 167, 171 (illustr.) hasp, 164 (illustr.), 166 hinge, 25, 39, 163 (illustr.), 164 (illustr.), 165-166; butt, 164 (illustr.); HL, 20, 103, 163 (illustr.), 165; H, 163 (illustr.), 165 hook, 166 (illustr.), 168 (illustr.), 170 key, 111, 163 (illustr.), 167 latches, 25, 163 (illustr.), 164 (illustr.), 166 locks, 17, 20, 25, 39, 163 (illustr.), 166-167 nails, 17, 18, 25, 34, 72, 102, 121, 165 (illustr.), 167 nuts and bolts, 170 pin, 166 (illustr.) pintle, gate, 73 rivet and washer, 169 (illustr.) shutter fastener, 88 slab, 105 (illustr.) spike, 165, 167 staples, 163 (illustr.), 166 swingletree loop, 73, 170; chain, 169 tie bar, 87, 94 (illustr.) Harmer & King, 41 harnesses, 61, 170; fittings for, 73, 156 (illustr.), 169 (illustr.), 170 _Harrington_ (ship), 31 Harrison, Colonel, 53 Harrison, Lucy Carter, 118 Harrison, Nathaniel, 118 Hartley, Green & Company, 140-141, 143 Harvey, John, 33 Harwood, Thomas, 185 Hayward, Joseph, 12; house of, 12 Hayward, Nicholas, 12 Hayward, Samuel, 12 hearth (_See_ fireplace) Hedgman, Major Peter, 23, 24, 51, 53 Historic American Buildings Survey, viii, 120 history, books on, 20, 43, 191, 200 Hogans, Francis (wheelwright), 30 hogs, 20 Holbrook, Janet, 33 Holdbrook, ----, 51 Hooe, Rice, 15 Hoomes, George, 28 Hopkins, Mr., 22 Hoppus, Edward, 37 horn, objects made from, 32, 58 (_See also_ specific items; musical instruments) hornbook, 33 (illustr.), 34 horses, 17, 20, 26, 56 (and colts), 61, 63; Ranter, 57, 61-62 (sale of) horseshoes, 169 (illustr.), 172 houses: Alexandria, Carlyle house, 30 Carter's Grove, 35 Corotoman, 118 Eagle's Nest, 118 Essex County--Elmwood, 98; Blandfield, 103 Gloucester County--Abingdon glebe house, 97; Fairfield, 97 Greenspring, 47, 97, 102 Gunston Hall, 12, 52, 97 Hanover, Scotchtown, 97 Henrico County, Turkey Island, 97 Jamestown, Isaac Watson's, 12 Joseph Hayward's, 12 King George County, Brandon, 118 Marlborough, 9, 12-13, 17 John Mercer's (1730), 18, 22, 45 John Mercer's "Manor House," 45; construction of, 34-38, 62, 177, 178; excavation of, 84-99; insurance policy for, 64, 96; inventory of, viii, 62, 88, 96, 109, 168, 177, 211-212; plan of, 96 (illustr.) Morrisania (New York), Lewis Morris House, 126 Mount Airy, 103 Mount Vernon, 98, 103, 105 Salvington, 28 Shalstone Manor, 40 Stratford, 51, 102, 103 Spotsylvania County, Mannsfield, 102, 103 Williamsburg, Brush-Everard House, 32 Yorktown, Digges house, 12 house, brick, 12, 63 house, glebe, 35, 97 house, wooden, 12, 20 Hubbard, Benjamin, 27 Hudson, J. Paul, 131 Hudson, Thomas, 20 Hull, Sigrid, viii Humble, Green & Co., 140-141 Hunter, James, 55 Hunter, William (merchant), 30-31, 33, 34, 39, 42, 167, 170; textiles listed in Mercer's account with, 196 hunting, 42; hunting horn, 33 husbandry, books on, 43 Hyndman, John (merchant), 32 indentured servants, 14, 32, 52, 53, 58; apparel of, 52, 58, 59; Thuanus (weaver), 32 Indian, 158; celt, 73, 119; pottery, 108; trial of Nanticoke Indians, 12 indigo, 42 Innes, Enoch, 20 insurance policy, 64, 88-89, 95, 97; house plan drawn on, 96 (illustr.) inventory: George Andrews, 183; Peter Beach, 184; Marlborough (taken by Thomas Oliver, 1771), viii, 62, 88, 96, 109, 168, 177, 211-212 iron, 121, 161-167; slab, 104, 105 (_See also_ specific items; hardware; tools) ironworks: Accokeek, 23, 24, 25, 47, 162, 193; Mercer's protest against Act for Encouraging Adventures in, 23-24 ivory, 16, 32 Jackson, Robert (silversmith), 46 Jamestown, 9, 12, 126, 158 jar: cover, 125, 127 (illustr.); storage, 128 (illustr.); earthenware, 125, 127, 128; Buckley ware, 126, 129 (illustr.); stoneware, 131 (illustr.) Jervers, 18 Jervis, James (widow of), 18 jeweler, 47, 167-168; jeweler's tools, 111, 167-168 jewelry: earrings, 47; ring, 47, 63 jockey, 20 Johnson Fund, vii Johnson, Richard, 16 Johnston, ----, elected as burgess, 53 Joiner, 36, 38, 50 Jones, Booth (overseer), 42 Jones, Charles, 32 Jones, James, 18 Jones, Robert, 192 Jones, Thomas, 32, 41 Jordan, William (merchant), 31, 39, 168 jugs, 39; delftware, 138; stoneware, 131 (illustr.), 134; white salt-glazed, 135 (illustr.), 136 Kecoughtan, 126, 158 Kemp, Peter, 16 Kernodle, G. H., 149 kiln, 36; malt kiln, 59 King, George Harrison Sanford, viii, 115 King, William (silversmith), 39, 55 King, William (brewer), 55 King William Courthouse (_See under_ courthouse) kitchen (_See_ Marlborough, buildings) knife, 17, 111, 158 (illustr.), 160 butcher, 39 chopping, 88, 158 (illustr.), 162 clasp, 25 and fork, 17, 39, 159 pen, 17, 25, 32, 111, 155, 158 (illustr.) shoemaker's, 16 agate-handled, 119 horn-handled, 39 Sheffield-handled, 111, 160 (illustr.) silver-handled, 32 wooden-handled, 17 laces, 18 ladle, iron, 162 (illustr.) Lamb's Creek (plantation), 31 Land Book, John Mercer's, vii, 6, 8, 45, 82 Langley, Battey, 39 Langton, Richard, 39 lanterns, 17, 39 laundry irons, heaters for, 17, 25, 162 law, books on, 17, 21, 191-192, 198-200 ledgers, John Mercer's, 15, 16; Ledger B, 16, 209; Ledger G, 28, 29, 32, 102, 104, 105, 129; contents of, 185-208; accounts for domestic expenses, 186-190 Lee, Captain, 31 Lee, Dr. Arthur, 54 Lee, General Charles, 63; death of, 63; will of, 63 Lee, George, 31 Lee, Colonel Philip Ludwell, 51 Leoni, Giacomo, 98 Lewes (Delaware), 126 Lewis, Fielding, 34, 47 library: Colonel Spotswood's, 20; John Mercer's, 21, 42-43, 61-62 (sale of), 198-208 (purchase of) (_See also_ books) lighting devices, 40, 41 (_See also_ candle; candlestick; sconce) _lignum vitae_, 13 Linton, Anthony, 18, 25 literature, English, books of, 43 Little River Quarters, 53 loom, 32 (_See also_ weavers) Ludwell, Philip, 47 Lyde, Major Cornelius, 40 Lyde, Lyonel (merchant), 40 Lyndon, Captain Roger, 36, 39, 41, 109 Lynn, Doctor, 41 MacLane, Hugh (tailor), 31 malt, 55, 56; malt kiln, 59; malt house, 55, 62 mantels, 36, 37 (illustr.) (_See also_ fireplace) maps, 6, 19, 44, 116, 117 marbles, chalk, 155, 157 (illustr.) _Marigold_ (ship), 36, 109 Markham, James, 21, 26 Marlborough: abandonment of, 14 aerial photograph, 66 buildings-- barn, 62, 113, 178 brewhouse, 55, 114, 178 cider mill, 62, 178 cooper's house, 55, 178 corn houses, 64, 178 grainery, 178 greenhouse, 62, 109, 178 houses, 9, 12-13, 17 kitchen, 36, 58, 67, 101-105, 109, 178 malt house, 55, 62, 114, 178 Negro quarters, 64 office, 178 overseers' houses, 64, 178 privy, 112 prison, 12-13 smokehouse, 106-109 stables, 62, 178 summer house, 58, 178 warehouses, tobacco, 62, 113, 114, 115, 177-178 windmill, 35, 52, 64, 67, 178 excavation plans, 44, 74, 75, 84, 100, 106, 113, 118 inventory, viii, 62, 88, 96, 109, 168, 177, 211-212 maps, 6 naming, 9 surveys-- (1691), 6, 21, 44, 67, 68, 82-83, 177 (1707), 9, 14, 21, 22, 45, 82-83 (1731), 6, 21, 22, 45, 82, 177 (1743), 117 (_See also_ houses, Marlborough; slaves) Mary Washington College, vii mason, 37, 91 Mason, Ann, 28, 47 Mason, Catharine, 16 Mason, George, 9, 12, 13 Mason, Captain George, 10, 12 Mason, Colonel George III, 15, 16, 20, 21, 24, 26, 28 Mason, George IV, 24, 52, 53, 63, 97; elected as burgess, 53 mathematics, books on, 43 Mattaponi church, 35 McClelland, Charles, 17 McFarlane, Alexander, 17, 18 McKenzie, Doctor Kenneth, 46 medicine, 41, 46; books on, 43, 201; bottles for, 152; Aqua Linnaean, 46; British oyl, 46, 152; Daffy's Elixir, 46; Euphorbium, 46; gum fragac, 46; Holloway's Citrate, 46, 152; oil of cinnamon, 46; Opadeldoc, 152; opium, 46; rattlesnake root, 46; rhubarb, 46; spirits of lavender, 46; sago, 46 (_See also_ doctors; apothecary) Mercer, Ann Roy, 48; death of, 61, 211; portrait of, 47 (illustr.) Mercer, Anna, birth of, 53 Mercer, Catesby, death of, 53 Mercer, Catherine, 17, 18, 146, 147; death of, 47 Mercer, Elinor, 51; death of, 53 Mercer, George, 33, 34, 49, 52, 53 (elected as burgess), 54, 56, 59 (_See also George Mercer Papers ..._) Mercer, Grace Fenton, 15, 51 Mercer, James, 33, 34, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 57, 61, 62, 63; death of, 64 Mercer, Captain James, 52; death of, 53 Mercer, John, _passim_; portrait of, 47 (illustr.); death of, 59 Mercer, John (father of John Mercer of Marlborough), 15 Mercer, John III, birth and death of, 53 Mercer, John Fenton, 33, 34, 49, 52; death of, 52 Mercer, John Francis, birth of, 53, 63, 64, 142 Mercer, Maria, birth of, 53 Mercer, Mungo Roy, 51 Mercer, Sarah Ann Mason, 28, 33 Meese, Anne, 12 microscopes, 43 mill, 35, 62; windmill, 35, 52; hand mill, 55 Mills, James, 30 Mills, William (weaver), 32 Minitree, David (bricklayer), 35, 36, 91, 95 Mitchelson, John, 33 mold: bullet, chalk, 111, 155, 156 (illustr.), 157 (illustr.); candle, 17; tart, copper, 17 Moncure, Reverend John, 27, 28, 47, 52 Monday, William (carpenter), 36, 91 Monroe, Andrew (overseer), 31, 55, 57 Monroe, James, 55 Monroe, Thomas, 31 Moore, Bernard, 39 mortar and pestle, 20 mother-of-pearl, 26 Mountjoy, ----, 51 Mountjoy, Edward, 184 mug: creamware, 141; delftware, 137; earthenware, 124 (illustr.), 125, 127 (illustr.); stoneware, 88, 131 (illustr.), 132 (illustr.), 134, 135 (illustr.), 136 mull stick, 39 music, book on, 33 musical instruments: horn, French, 33 (illustr.); fiddle strings, 34; trumpet, 33 Mussen, James, 11 Mutual Assurance Society of Virginia, 64, 96 (_See also_ insurance policy) Nanticoke Indians, 12 National Park Service, 121, 126 needles, 25 Negroes, 25, 41; "Negro Ship," 47; skipper, 42 (_See also_ slaves) Nevill's Ordinary, 53 Newbery, Bob (London bookseller), 59 New Kent Church, 35 New Kent Courthouse (_See under_ courthouse) Nicholson, Captain Timothy, 36, 58 Niemeyer, Mabel, viii Nisbett, William, 25 Noël Hume, Ivor, viii, 126, 131 Norfolk, 9, 33, 47, 55, 59 Occaquan warehouse, 30 occupations, colonists identified by Mercer according to, 195 (_See also_ specific occupations) Ohio Company of Virginia, 25, 49, 51, 53, 54, 55, 59, 119, 122 (_See also George Mercer Papers...._) Oliver, Thomas (overseer), inventory by, viii, 62, 88, 96, 109, 168, 177, 211-212 Omwake, H. Geiger, 126 ordinaries, 8, 11, 12, 13, 27, 28, 51, 53; inventory of ordinary keeper, 183 oven, 17, 36, 102, 104, 105 Overwharton Parish, 16, 26, 27, 46, 145; John Mercer's account for, 194 (_See also_ churches, Potomac and Aquia) painter: house, 36; portrait, 16, 32 painting, 36 (_See also_ portrait) Palladio, Andrea, 37, 98-99 _Palladio Londonensis_ (book), 37, 38 Pamunkey River, 35 pan: baking, 128 (illustr.); frying, 18, 25; milk, 20, 124 (illustr.), 125, 127 (illustr.); sauce, 25, 39; Buckley ware, 126, 127 (illustr.); copper, 25; redware, 125 (illustr.); Tidewater-type earthenware, 124 (illustr.), 125; tin, 39 paper, 18 Parks, William, 21, 43 Parry, ----, 22 Partis, Captain, 5 Passapatanzy, 17, 29, 35, 61 Patterson, ----, 36 pavement, 104, 105; brick, 85, 102-103; stone, 86, 97, 101, 121 Peace Point, 7 Peale, Captain Malachi, 7, 8, 12 Pemberton, James, 62 pepper box, 20 Perry, Captain, 31 Perryman, Captain, 31 pestle, 20 pewter, 13, 17, 52, 119, 160-161 (_See also_ specific items) Phipps, Reverend John (tutor), 34, 40 Pipe, ----, 53 pipe (_See_ tobacco pipe) pistols, 63 pitcher: creamware, 141; stoneware, 133, 135 (illustr.), 136; whiteware, 143 plasterer, 36 plastering, 18; plaster cornice molding, 96, 97 (illustr.) (_See also_ building materials) plates, 20, 39; "basket," 136; cake, 136; pie, 129; creamware, 119, 141; delftware, English, 136 (illustr.), 137; pewter, 111, 161; porcelain, 144; tortoiseshell ware, 140; white salt-glazed, 119 plate warmer, 39 platter: creamware, 141; queensware, 140 (illustr.); white salt-glazed, 119 (illustr.) Pohick Church (Fairfax), 37 Pope, ----, 22 porcelain, Chinese, 107, 112, 114, 140, 144, 173; blue and white, 142 (illustr.), 143 (illustr.); importation of, 144; Lowestoft, 144; polychrome, 140 (illustr.), 141 (illustr.), 144 (_See also_ specific forms) porringer, 25, 39 Port Royal (Virginia), 28, 47, 51 port towns, 5 (_See also_ Acts for Towns) portrait, 32; of John Mercer, 16 (illustr.); of Ann Roy Mercer, 47 (illustr.) posset pot: delftware, 138; glass, 154; marbled, 139; stoneware, 119, 132, 133, 136; yellowware, 126 pot: lid, 73, 162 (illustr.), 126, 127 (illustr.); ointment, 134 (illustr.), 138 (illustr.); repair of, 25; delftware, 134; iron, 17, 161-162 (illustr.); tin, 18 Potawomake (Indian village), vii, 67 Potomac Church (_See under_ church) Potomac Creek (_See_ courthouse, Potomac Creek) Potter, Doctor Henry, 28 potteries: Burslem, 133, 134; Little Fenton, 128; Staffordshire, 135, 138; Yorktown, 125, 131, 173 powder (_See_ gunpowder) Power, James, 39 Powers, John, 27 prison, 12 punchbowl, 39, 119; delftware, 119; _lignum vitae_, 13; porcelain, 17, 144 Purefoy, Henry, 40 Ramsay, William, 31 Randolph, William, 31 razor, 17, 32; strop, 32 Reid, James, 26 "Retirement, The" (plantation), 12 Reyant, Pat, 24 Richards, Mourning, 47 rings: brass, 111, 170; curtain, 13, 156 (illustr.), 162-163 (_See also_ jewelry) Ritchie, Mr., 42 Robinson, ----, 22 Robinson, Berryman, Pope & Parry, 22 Robinson, John, 55 Rock, George, 33 Rogers, ---- (clerk), 51, 54 Rogers, William (potter), 16, 125, 131, 173 Rose, Parson 192 Rosewell (plantation), 126, 131, 144, 147, 148, 152, 154, 173 Roth, Rodris, viii Roy, Ann, marriage to John Mercer, 48 Roy, Mrs. B., death of, 53-54 Roy, Donald E., viii Roy, Doctor Mungo 47, 48 rug, silk, 16; "Turkey work," 13 Russell, Elizabeth, 17 Russell & Russell, viii Russell site (Lewes, Delaware), 126 Rust, George, 17 saddle stiffener, 169 (illustr.), 171 sail, 42; for windmill, 59 sale, John Mercer's estate, 61-63 Salmon, William, 37, 38 sauceboat: silver, 39; stoneware, 136 saucer, 17, 39, 144; Chinese porcelain, 144 (illustr.) Savage, James (overseer), 42 Savage John, 7, 8, 21, 82, 116, 192 (_See also_ Marlborough, survey 1731 and 1743) Scarlett, Martin, 12 Schumacher, Edward G., viii science, books on, 43, 192, 200 scissors, 25, 39, 155; "Salisbury," 17, 161; steel, 111, 161 (illustr.) (_See also_ shears) "sconce glass," 39, 41 Scott, Reverend Alexander, 16 Scott, Jack, viii Scott, James, 49 seal: wine bottle, 31 (illustr.), 73, 146-149; "G R," 131, 132 (illustr.); tobacco cask, 30, 148 seed boxes, 59 Selden, Mr., 53, 54, 58 Selden, Joseph, 28 Selden, Samuel, 28 Setzler, Frank M., vii, 67 Seward, Nicholas (overseer), 42 Shaw, Simeon, 135 shears, sheep, 108, 170 (illustr.), 171 sheep, 17, 20 sheets, 59 shipping, 15, 16 (_See also_ boat) shot, 18, 25, 42 sifter, 18; hair sifter, 39 silver, 32, 39, 159; church plate, 46; sale of, 61, 62-63; Sheffield, 111, 155, 159 (_See also_ specific items) silversmith, 39, 46 Simm, Edward, 18 Simpson, John (wheelwright), 30 skillet, bell metal, 25 skimmer, 20 skins, deer, 16, 31 (buckskin) slate, 156, 158 (illustr.); slate pencil, 111, 156, 158 (illustr.) slaves, 16, 25, 41, 57; carpenter's apprentices, 50; clothing, 32, 42, 58, 59; expenses regarding, 59, 160, 162; number of Negroes born at Marlborough, 54; punishment of, 41; purchase of, 24, 53, 55, 58; quarters of, 64, 178; sale of, 16-17, 64; suicide of, 41; Bob, 24, 42; Boatswain, 42; Caesar, 25; Captain, 42; Cupid, death of, 53; Deborah, 24, 41; Dublin, 24; Essex, 50; Frank, 41; George, 24; Joe, 41-42; Lucy, 24; Margaret, 24; Marlborough, 24; Nan, 24; Nero, 24; Peter, 24, 50; Phillis, 24; Poll, 53; Sampson, 62; Sarah, 17; Stafford, 24; Temple, 58; Tom (death of), 53; Will, 24, 25 sloop (_See under_ boat) Smith, Thomas, 18 Smith's ordinary, 51 smoothing iron, heaters, for, 25 (_See also_ box iron) _Snake_ (ship), 26 Snicker's Little River Quarters, 53 snuff: bottle, 32; box, 32, 25 (repair of) snuffers, candle, 17; iron, 88, 163 (illustr.) Spencer, Doctor, 43 spices (_See_ food) spinning: reel, 62; wheel, 25, 32, 62 spoons: soup, 39; tea, 39, 88, 160; iron, 162; pewter, 111, 160 (illustr.), 161 (illustr.), 173; silver, 13, 39, 88, 159, 160 (illustr.) Spoore, Ann, 28 Spotswood, Colonel Alexander, 20, 26, 191 Spotswood, Robert, 20 spurs, 18 stables, 62 Stafford County, port town for, 7 Stafford Parish Church, 10 Stafford Rangers, 12 Stafford Survey Book, 8 Stamp Act, 54, 55; George Mercer, stamp office, 54 steelyards, 17 Stevens, Samuel, 25 Stevenson, William (merchant), 26 Stewart, T. Dale, vii, viii, 67 still, 26 stoneware, 39, 125, 129, 131-136; basaltes ware, 112, 138 (illustr.), 142; brown-banded, 88; "Crouch" ware, 135 drab, 133 "freckled ware," 134 Nottingham, 88, 111, 132-133, 173 salt-glazed, 114, 131-132 "scratch-blue," 133 (illustr.), 135 Westerwald, 39, 73, 88, 107, 111, 129, 131, 132, 173 white salt-glazed, 72, 88, 108, 111, 133 (illustr.), 135-136, 173 Stotham, Mat, 191 Strother, Widow, 58 Suddath, Henry, 18 Sumner's Quarters (plantation at Passapatanzy), 17, 29, 30 surveys (_See under_ Marlborough) Sussex Archeological Society, 126 swans, 25 swords, 63 Sydenham & Hodgson, 30, 31, 39, 99, 168 Sydenham, Jonathan, 30 tailors, 31, 32-34, 42, 47 Talbott, Mark, 33 Taliaferro, Colonel John, 27, 28; wife of, 43 Taliaferro, Richard, 31 tankard, pewter, 13 Tappahannock (town), 9, 30 tar, 42 Tayloe, George, 31 Tayloe, Colonel John, 53 Taylor, James, 43 Taylor, Robert, 34 teapot: and frame, 39; handle, 139; lid for, 111, 135 (illustr.), 140, 160 (illustr.), 161 (illustr.); earthenware, 139; pewter, 111, 160, 161; silver, 39; stoneware, 135; tortoiseshell ware, 140 temperatures, 209 textiles, 32; listed in accounts, 193, 196; blankets, 17, 42, 59; cotton, 32; counterpanes, 39; drill, 58; duffel, 42; haircloth, 59; linen, 39, 58; "ozenbrigs," 42, 59; sheets, 59; silk, 31; velvet, 32; wool, 25, 32, 62; worsted, 31 (_See also_ clothing; weaving; spinning) thermometer, 59 thimble, 155 (illustr.), 156 (illustr.) Thompson, Matthew, 7 Thomson, William (tailor), 34, 42, 47 Thornton, Francis, 49 Thornton, Major George, widow of, 63 Thornton, Colonel Presley, 53 Threlkeld, William (weaver), 32 tobacco, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 25, 26, 30, 31, 41, 42, 45, 46, 51, 118 (_See also_ warehouses) tobacco cask symbols, 29 (illustr.), 30 tobacco pipe, 119, 156, 157 (illustr.); kaolin, 111, 157 (illustr.); terra-cotta, 157 (illustr.), 158, 173 Todd, Robert, 33 Tooke, William (merchant), 53 tools, 193; adze, 34 auger, 34 ax, 17, 34, 166 (illustr.), 170 bung extractor, 72, 166 (illustr.) chisel, gouge, 166 (illustr.), 167 (illustr.); mortice, 34; paring, 34 hammer, blacksmith's, 167 (illustr.); jeweler's, 111, 167 (illustr.) hollows and rounds, 36 knife, draw, 25, 34 plane, 34, 36, 166 (illustr.), 167 scraping, iron, 72, 166 (illustr.), 167 (illustr.); stone, 119 (illustr.) shovel, 170 (illustr.) socket gouge, 34 tomahawk, 25 wedges, 25 wrench, 167 Torbutt, William (overseer), 42 toys, 33; marbles, 155, 157 (illustr.) trap, animal, 111, 171 (illustr.) tray, 39; silver, 39; stoneware, 136 trees, 62 Trinity College, 15 _Triton_ (ship), 26 trunk, 13; handle for, 163 (illustr.), 165 Tucker, Major Robert (merchant), 33 "Turkey work," 13 turner, 36 twine, ship's, 42 Tyler, Henry, 30 Tyler, Thomas, 32, 34 Tylers, 27 University of Pennsylvania, viii University of Pittsburgh, Darlington Library, viii University of Pittsburgh Press, viii University of Virginia, Mary Washington College, vii Vaulx, Robert, 51 vehicles: carriage, fitting for, 169 (illustr.) cart, tumbling, 30; ox, 169 chaise, 28, 30, 53; hinge for, 172 chariot, 28, 30; sale of, 62 coach, 61, 62 wagon, 58, 170 (_See also_ sloop) veranda, 90, 91, 95, 96, 97, 178 Victoria and Albert Museum, 139 Virginia, map of, 19 (illustr.) Virginia Committee of Safety, 63 Virginia State Library, viii wagon (_See under_ vehicle) Wain, Joseph (servant), 58 Waite, William (carpenter), 50, 52 waiter, (_See_ tray) Wales, Mr. (brewer), 55 Walker, Robert (cabinetmaker), 40 Walker, Major William (cabinetmaker), 25, 28, 35-36, 40, 46, 144 Waller, Benjamin, 46 Waller, Charles, 34 warehouse: Occaquan, 30; tobacco, 25, 34, 42, 62, 113, 115, 177, 178 Warwick Courthouse, 11 Washington, Augustine, 25, 31, 49 Washington, George, 53, 63 Washington, John, 31 Washington, Lawrence, 25, 31, 49 watch, gold, 32 water cooler, earthenware, 129 (illustr.) Watson, Isaac, 12 Waugh, Alex, 184 Waugh, David, 16, 17, 18, 21 Waugh, James, 16 Waugh, John (Parson), 10, 12, 16 Waugh, John, Jr., 16, 21, 22, 25, 54, 183 Waugh, Joseph, 20 Waugh, Mary, 184 Waughhop, James, 34 weavers, 32, 42, 59 Wedgwood, Josiah, 139, 140, 141, 142 West Point (Virginia), 27 wharf, 25 Wheeland, William, 42 wheels, 30 wheelwright, 30 Whieldon, Thomas, 108, 138, 139 Whiffen, Marcus, 35, 121 whip: horse, 16, 17, 18; hunting, 25; thong, 41 Whitehaven (England), 32 whiteware (_See under_ earthenware) Whiting & Montague, 16 Whitticar, Ralph, Jr., vii wig, 34; comb for, 25 Wigley, Job (mason), 37 Williams, Jacob (plasterer), 36 Williams, T. Ben, vii Williamsburg, 27, 32, 34, 35, 36, 39, 41, 47, 48, 52, 53, 54, 57, 58, 126; capitol, 35, 99, 121; courthouse, 121; General Court, 27; student life in, 34, 197 (_See also_ College of William and Mary) Wilson, Captain, 32, 34 Winchester (Virginia), 53 windmill, 35, 52, 64, 67, 178; sails for, 59 windows, 38 (illustr.), 62, 96-97 (_See also_ glass, window) wine (_See_ beverages) Wine Trade Loan Exhibition, 149, 154 Withers, John, 7, 12, 30 _Wolf_ (sloop of war), 58 Woodford, William, 32 Woodstock, 12 wool cards, 32 Wormley, Mr., 53 Wright, Edward, 39 Wroughton, Francis (merchant), 50, 51 Wythe, George, 31 yarn, 18 yellowware (_See under_ earthenware) yoke, 39 York (County), 33; courthouse (1692), 11 Yorktown, 9, 16, 47, 125, 173 * * * * * TRANSCRIBER NOTES: Missing punctuation has been added and obvious punctuation errors have been corrected. Archaic spellings and typographical errors have been retained with the exception of those listed below. Page 9: "bee" changed to "be" (to be approved by an able surveyor). Page 21: "thiry-one" changed to "thirty-one" (one thousand seven hundred and thirty-one). Page 39: "an" changed to "a" (he made a large purchase of silver). Page 55: deleted duplicate "as" (as I have the satisfaction to). Footnote 123: incorrectly references Footnote 115. This has been corrected to reference Footnote 66. Footnote 140: "Geneaological" changed to "Genealogical" (Tyler's Quarterly Historical Genealogical Magazine). Page 88: "18-century" changed to "18th-century" (we can find no exact parallel in the 18th-century America). Page 96: "expance" changed to "expanse" (a small gilded cupola to break the long expanse of the roof). Page 124, Illustration caption: "plan" changed to "pan" (a, milk pan). Page 135: "homogenous" changed to "homogeneous" (thus making possible a homogeneous white body). Page 144: "18-century" changed to "18th-century" (that 18th-century China-trade porcelain sherds). Page 154: "chows" changed to "shows" (from a long-stemmed cordial glass shows the termini). Page 154: "somprised" changed to "comprised" (threads that were comprised in a double enamel-twist). Page 169, illustration caption: "probaby" changed to "probably" (b, chain, probably from whiffletree). Page 173: "expecially" changed to "especially" (especially as the few 17th-century artifacts). Page 178: "acitvity" changed to "activity" (the rigid boundar to domestic activity). Page 178: "apparrently" changed to "apparently" (perhaps the bar apparently were located to the north.) Page 188: "romall" changed to "Romal" for consistency (To 1 Romall handkerchief). Page 188: "handkercheif" changed to "handkerchief" (To 1 silk Romall handkerchief). Page 190: "handkercheifs" changed to "handkerchiefs" (To 4 Soosey handkerchiefs). Page 209: "curran" changed to "currant" (Wild currant). Page 217: "Fallmouth" changed to "Falmouth" (Falmouth (Virginia)). Page 217: "Grorge" changed to "George" (George Mercer Papers Relating to). 
45741	----	[Illustration : BULLETIN 249 WASHINGTON, D.C. 1968] MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY _Papers 52-54 On Archeology_ SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION WASHINGTON, D.C. 1968 _Publications of the United States National Museum_ The scholarly and scientific publications of the United States National Museum include two series, _Proceedings of the United States National Museum_ and _United States National Museum Bulletin_. In these series, the Museum publishes original articles and monographs dealing with the collections and work of its constituent museums--The Museum of Natural History and the Museum of History and Technology--setting forth newly acquired facts in the fields of anthropology, biology, history, geology, and technology. Copies of each publication are distributed to libraries, to cultural and scientific organizations, and to specialists and others interested in the different subjects. The _Proceedings_, begun in 1878, are intended for the publication, in separate form, of shorter papers from the Museum of Natural History. These are gathered in volumes, octavo in size, with the publication date of each paper recorded in the table of contents of the volume. In the _Bulletin_ series, the first of which was issued in 1875, appear longer, separate publications consisting of monographs (occasionally in several parts) and volumes in which are collected works on related subjects. _Bulletins_ are either octavo or quarto in size, depending on the needs of the presentation. Since 1902 papers relating to the botanical collections of the Museum of Natural History have been published in the _Bulletin_ series under the heading _Contributions from the United States National Herbarium_, and since 1959, in _Bulletins_ titled "Contributions from the Museum of History and Technology," have been gathered shorter papers relating to the collections and research of that Museum. The present collection of Contributions, Papers 52-54, comprises _Bulletin_ 249. Each of these papers has been previously published in separate form. The year of publication is shown on the last page of each paper. FRANK A. TAYLOR _Director, United States National Museum_ Papers _Page_ 52. Excavations at Clay Bank in Gloucester County, Virginia, 1962-1963 1 Ivor Noël Hume 53. Excavations at Tutter's Neck in James City County, Virginia, 1960-1961 29 Ivor Noël Hume 54. The "Poor Potter" of Yorktown 73 Part I: Documentary Record C. Malcolm Watkins Part II: Pottery Evidence Ivor Noël Hume Index 113 Papers 52-54 On Archeology CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY: PAPER 52 EXCAVATIONS AT CLAY BANK IN GLOUCESTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA, 1962-1963 _Ivor Noël Hume_ HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 4 ARCHEOLOGICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL EVIDENCE 8 METHOD OF EXCAVATION 10 ARCHEOLOGICAL STRATIGRAPHY 11 THE ARTIFACTS 12 CONCLUSIONS 14 [Illustration: Figure 1.--DETAIL FROM AUGUSTINE HERMAN'S MAP OF VIRGINIA which was published in 1673.] _Ivor Noël Hume_ Excavations at CLAY BANK in Gloucester County, Virginia, 1962-1963 _This paper describes and analyzes artifacts recovered from the Jenkins site at Clay Bank, Gloucester County, Virginia. The building which overlay the excavated cellar hole does not appear on any known map. Among the number of interesting objects recovered was a large stem and foot from an elaborate drinking glass or candlestick of fine quality English lead metal. It was found in association with crude earthenwares, worn out tools, and broken and reused clay tobacco pipes, suggesting that this material was derived from various sources._ THE AUTHOR: _Ivor Noël Hume is director of archeology at Colonial Williamsburg and an honorary research associate of the Smithsonian Institution._ Early in January 1962 a brick foundation was discovered at Clay Bank in Gloucester County following the removal of a walnut tree beside the residence of Mr. William F. Jenkins. The tree was of no great antiquity but the foundation beneath it was thought by Mr. Jenkins to be worthy of archeological examination. The author, therefore, visited the site late in the same month and found that the brick footings were certainly of colonial date. From the small collection of ceramics and other artifacts also exposed by the tree, there was reason to suppose that the building had ceased to exist late in the 17th or perhaps early in the 18th century. The site lay on the north bank of the York River on rising ground immediately west of Clay Bank landing. Little or nothing was known about the property in the colonial period and it was apparently identified on no known maps or land plats. However, the fact that it was adjacent to part of the 18th-century Page family plantation (whose mansion house had been included in previous archeological work[1]) and because the Clay Bank site gave promise of yielding information regarding domestic life in the late 17th century, the author decided to undertake limited excavation in the area of the structure. With the assistance of local volunteer labor and the archeological staff of Colonial Williamsburg, two trenches were dug, one exposing a larger area of the brick foundation, and the other parallel to it some 11 feet to the west in the direction of the river. The first cutting revealed the remains of a massive brick chimney measuring 10 feet 2 inches by 6 feet using oystershell mortar and laid in English bond. The brickwork was not bonded to, or abutting against, any wall foundation and it was therefore presumed that the building to which it belonged had stood on piers. The second trench cut through mixed strata of sand, black soil, and scattered oystershells extending downward to a depth of at least 3 feet 9 inches, at which level a thick layer of shells was found. In the top of the shell stratum were fragments of glass wine bottles of the late 17th century and parts of an iron can. It was clear that the trench was not wide enough to enable the artifacts to be studied in situ or removed in safety, and consequently work was halted until the project could be developed into an area excavation. Both the stratigraphy and the similarity in date of artifacts from top to bottom of the test trench strongly indicated that we were cutting through one deposit, probably the filling of a cellar belonging to the same building as the large brick chimney to the east. Remembering the huge quantities of artifacts that had been recovered from a single hole at neighboring Rosewell, it was hoped that yet another significant contribution would be made to the archeology of colonial Virginia. But in the final analysis the Clay Bank site was to prove less rich and less historically important (owing to a lack of adequate documentation) than had been anticipated. On the credit side, however, it did contribute new facts relating to building construction in 17th-century Virginia, as well as yielding a series of closely dated tools and miscellaneous artifacts, plus one piece of glass that is not only without parallel in America, but which is of sufficient importance to merit a place in the annals of English glass. For this one object alone, the Clay Bank project would have been eminently worthwhile. Historical Background Archeology may be termed the handmaiden of history in that it is truly the servant of the historian, providing information that is not to be gleaned from documentary records. At best it is a poor substitute for the written word, but when the two are used together the pages of history may acquire an enlivening new dimension. This is particularly true of American colonial history where the documentation often is extremely full. Unfortunately Gloucester County was one of those whose Court Records were destroyed during the Civil War, and it is difficult and often impossible to establish property histories over an extended period of time. However, it is debatable just how much of the blame can be laid at the doors of war, as many of the county's colonial records had already been destroyed in a fire at the clerk's office of the Gloucester courthouse in 1820. No acceptable evidence has been found to definitely identify the original owner or the name of the building revealed by the 1962 excavations, though it has been supposed that the adjacent "Ardudwy" (the present home of Mr. and Mrs. Jenkins) was originally named "New Bottle" and was built by Robert Porteus at the beginning of the 18th century. It was hoped that artifacts found on the site might provide evidence to support the Porteus association, but nothing conclusive was forthcoming. The only conceivable shred of evidence, thin to the point of transparency, was provided by a handsome 17th-century latten spoon bearing a thistle as its touchmark, suggesting, perhaps, that it was made by a Scots craftsman. As the family of Edward Porteus, the emigrant and father of Robert Porteus, came from New Bottle in Scotland, it might be argued that the spoon was among Edward's possessions when he arrived in Virginia. Such a deduction is readily assailable, but it is no more so than much other "documentation" relating to the Porteus family in Virginia. The distinguished Gloucester County historian, Dr. William Carter Stubbs undertook considerable research into the history of the Porteus family, the results of which may be summarized as follows: Edward Porteus was living in Gloucester County by 1681 in which year he married the widow of Robert Lee. He died in 1694 leaving a widow and one son, "Capt." Robert Porteus who became heir to "New Bottle" plantation. Robert married the daughter of John Smith of "Purton" and after her death he married a daughter of Governor Edmund Jennings of "Rippon Hall" in York County. His two wives bore him 19 children, the best known of whom was Beilby Porteus who was born in 1731 after Robert had returned to England (in about 1727) to live at York. Beilby Porteus became Bishop of Chester and then of London, and died in 1808. Robert lived on in York until his death in 1758.[2] The location of "New Bottle" has been the subject of dispute for many years, and as the recent excavations have done nothing to resolve the matter, it is not necessary to explore the conflicting opinions and evidence in detail. It is enough to recall that the _Vestry Book of Petsworth Parish_[3] clearly places Robert Porteus in the Second Precinct which extended from Bennit's Creek up the York River to Jones' Creek. The First Precinct had begun at Clay Bank Creek and had reached to Bennit's Creek. Today most of these names have been changed; Clay Bank Creek is marked as Aberdeen Creek, the creek at Clay Bank which was apparently originally known as Bennit's Creek now has no name at all, and only Jones' Creek remains the same. The only extant map that shows both Clay Bank Creek and Bennit's Creek is the Augustine Herman map of Virginia and Maryland published in 1673 (fig. 1). But this shows Bennit's Creek as being as long as the present Jones' Creek, while the latter is omitted from the map altogether. However, as the parish records delineating the bounds of the precincts in 1709 refer to both Bennit's Creek and Jones' Creek there cannot have been any confusion between them. It is therefore reasonably well established that the Porteus property lay between those creeks, which would place it north of the modern community of Clay Bank and south of Jones' Creek. Although it has not been proved that the Porteus land included the York River frontage, it is reasonable to suppose that it did. Thus, if that conjecture is accepted, it becomes highly probable that the present "Ardudwy" and the adjacent early foundation are on what were once Porteus acres.[4] The Porteus family continued to own this or other land in the Second Precinct until at least 1763 as the bounds of that precinct were ordered to be processioned in 1751, 1755, 1759 and 1763 beginning "on the Land of Robt Porteus Esqr."[5] As Robert Porteus never returned to Virginia after 1727 and died in 1758, it must either be assumed that the plantation was taken over by a son or that it was operated by a tenant or manager on "Capt." Robert Porteus' behalf. In the absence of any other documentation indicating the presence of any members of the Porteus family in Gloucester after October 1725,[6] the latter construction seems most reasonable. The continuing references to Robert Porteus' land in the Second Precinct until 1763 may be explained as referring to the estate of the late Robert Porteus. [Illustration: Figure 2.--PLAN OF EXCAVATIONS in relation to the existing house.] [Illustration: Figure 3.--PLAN OF EXCAVATED AREAS and structural remains.] Even if the modern Jenkins property is accepted as having been part of the Porteus plantation it does not necessarily follow that either the excavated foundation or the much modernized "Ardudwy" represent the remains of the Porteus house. However, there may be some grounds for arguing that the foundation and cellar hole were part of the house of Edward Porteus the emigrant. According to legend, Robert Porteus' property had once belonged to a Dr. Green at whose house Nathaniel Bacon died in 1676.[7] Clues to the appearance of Robert Porteus' house are provided by an entry in the _Petsworth Parish Vestry Book_ for November 12, 1704. There it was recorded that the churchwardens drew up an agreement "... wth Ezra Cotten for ye building of a gleebhouse & a kitchen ye Sd house to be of ye Same Dementions as Mr Robt Pourtees. & to be framed on Good white oak Sills and to Stand upon blocks & to be lathd. wth Goo[] oak lathes and Shingled wth Good Siprus Shingles The Sd house to be 36 foot in Length & 20 foot wide, ye Roof to be 18 Inches Jet and to have two outside Chimnies and two Closets adjoyning to them, and all things Ells pertaining according to ye Dementions of ye above Sd Robt Pourtees house, Viz, ye above Sd Kitchin to be foot Long & foot wide"[8] The two important features of these instructions are the measurements of the building and the fact that it was raised on blocks and, therefore, did not have a walled basement beneath it. But while the measurements are stated to be those of the Porteus House, it does not necessarily follow that the elevation of the glebe house on blocks also drew its precedent from that source.[9] However, if it did, then the modern "Ardudwy" could not have been the Porteus home as this building not only measures 47 feet 3 inches by 15 feet 10 inches, but it is also built over a substantial brick-walled basement. On the other hand, the excavated cellar hole (though apparently having ended its life prior to about 1700) was almost certainly part of a building built on blocks or piers. It seems reasonable to suggest that Ezra Cotten was assumed by the churchwardens to know more about the Porteus House than was given in their specifications, in which case it might be supposed that he had actually built that house. By extension it might also be assumed that the job had been completed a comparatively short while before the building of the glebe house was proposed. Therefore, if it can be established that Robert Porteus built himself a new house not too long before November 1704, it would probably follow that he had lived in his father's old house until that time. If Edward's house was then destroyed, it would certainly add further support to the theory that the excavated remains are part of that building. Unfortunately, there seems little likelihood of obtaining any additional information regarding either the site of, or the appearance of Robert Porteus' house. The glebe house does not survive, having been abandoned in 1746,[10] and the only other potential source of information has seemingly been lost. The Reverend Robert Hodgson in his _The Life of the Right Reverend Beilby Porteus_[11] stated that the bishop possessed "... a singular picture which, though not in the best style of coloring, was yet thought valuable by Sir Joshua Reynolds, as a specimen of the extent which the art of painting had reached at that time in America: and he himself very highly prized it, as exhibiting a faithful and interesting representation of his father's residence." This last statement is assumed to be hearsay as Beilby Porteus was born in England in 1731 and did not, as far as we know, ever visit Virginia. Attempts to find the picture have met with no success[12] and in all probability it has long since been destroyed or at best, robbed of its identity. Archeological and Architectural Evidence It is not within the purpose of this paper to include an architectural study of "Ardudwy." Neither the building's measurements nor its basement lend credence to the belief that it was once the home of Robert Porteus. In addition, the 1704 specification called for exterior chimneys while those of "Ardudwy" are interior. The basement walls use shell mortar and include bricks of widely varying sizes, but although many of them have an early appearance, they may well have been reused from elsewhere. Interior details such as mantels and doors would seem to date from the early 19th century. What little of the framing that is visible is pegged but is liberally pierced with both wrought and cut nails. All in all, it seems probable that "Ardudwy" was built in the very late 18th or early 19th century. Archeological evidence supports this belief in that the property is richly scattered with artifacts of the late 17th century and of all dates after about 1800, but has yielded very few items that can be attributed to the 18th century. All appearances point to the abandoning of the immediate area as a habitation site after the destruction of the excavated building around 1700. The subsequent building of "Ardudwy" so close to the early house may be assumed to be coincidental, though the site is certainly a desirable and obvious location for a residence. Little information as to the above ground appearance of the 17th-century structure was forthcoming, partly because it had almost certainly stood on piers or blocks, and partly because the excavations were restricted by limitations of time, labor, and the desire of the owners to retain at least something of their garden. Neither extensive probing nor a soil resistivity survey revealed evidence of a second chimney, nor did they give any clues as to the total length or breadth of the cellar hole. The back wall of the chimney had been deliberately dismantled and only a thin skin of brickbats and mortar on the bottom of the robber trench survived to mark its position. It is therefore quite possible that another chimney was dismantled with sufficient completeness to elude discovery by either of the exploratory methods used. [Illustration: Figure 4.--THE CHIMNEY and underhearth foundation.] The jambs of the partially surviving chimney (fig. 4) were laid in English bond and were 1 foot 7 inches thick and 4 feet 4 inches long.[13] The interior width of the fireplace measured 7 feet, which was large by 18th-century domestic standards, but not uncommon in the 17th century before separate kitchens became the rule.[14] Both jambs were built into the side of the cellar hole and were seated on a bed of small rocks, but the robbed back-wall had rested only on the natural sandy clay at a depth of 2 feet 3 inches below the modern grade. In front of the chimney, and rising from the cellar floor, was a massive brick-walled underhearth 7 feet 6 inches wide and projecting out from the fireplace to a distance of 5 feet. A curious and still unexplained feature of the underhearth was a 4-by 3-inch channel running across the top of the surviving foundation for a distance of 6 feet 9 inches, starting at the south face and terminating 9 inches short of the north. This channel had been bricked over and the remaining bricks had dropped into it (fig. 5) presumably after a wooden beam, which once occupied the space, had rotted or burned out. Traces of burned or carbonized wood lay on the clay bottom of the channel, but the bricks over it displayed no evidence of fire. The only conceivable explanation for the presence of the wood must be that it was part of a frame used to hold the block of natural sandy clay together while the underhearth wall was being erected around it. As the underhearth foundation would have originally risen at least another 2 feet 6 inches above the timber to the floor level of the house, the wood would not have been in danger of igniting from the heat of the domestic fire. But if the house ultimately burned, it is possible that the exposed end of the timber might have caught fire and slowly been consumed along its entire length. The cellar hole had been cut into natural sandy clay to an average depth of 5 feet 3 inches below the modern grade. Its backfilling was predominantly of the same sandy clay and, consequently, the exact edge of the cellar hole was sometimes hard to determine. It was probably because of this similarity between the natural subsoil and the cellar's fill that the feature failed to show up in the soil resistivity survey. Owing to previously mentioned limiting factors, only the southeast corner of the cellar hole was found and only parts of the south and east walls were traced out. Consequently, it can merely be said that the cellar exceeded 27 feet in east/west length and 11 feet 2 inches in width (fig. 3). Three post holes were found against the south face, while the rotted remains of another vertical post were found north of the chimney supporting a much-decayed horizontal board that had served to revet the east face. A broad-bladed chisel (fig. 14, no. 6) was found behind the board where it had probably been lost while the timbering was being installed. Further slight traces of horizontal boards were found along the south face, suggesting that the soft sides of the large cellar hole had been supported in this way. But it was not possible to determine whether the boards had been placed only on sections of the wall that seemed in danger of sliding in or whether the entire interior had been sheathed with planks. The south side of the cellar hole sloped outwards at an approximate 65 percent angle and the traces of boards lay against it.[15] However, it was not possible to tell whether the vertical posts had been similarly sloped, but it is reasonable to assume that they would have done so. [Illustration: Figure 5.--DETAIL OF COLLAPSED BRICKS in the underhearth. (_Photo courtesy of E. DeHardit._)] Parts of the cellar's wooden floor still survived (figs. 6 and 7) and comprised boards ranging in width from 5 to 7 inches laid over sleepers or joists 4 to 6 inches wide. The height of the underlying timbers could not be determined as the weight of the cellar fill might be assumed to have pressed the floorboards down as the wood of the sleepers decayed. Only occasional floorboards survived and the channels left by decayed sleepers did not extend across the full width of the excavated cellar. From these facts it was deduced that the boards had been cut from woods of different types, some of which had decayed more completely than others, and that the sleepers were made from short and sometimes roughly cut lengths of timber. These sleepers may, in fact, have served only as a base for anchoring the ends of floorboards, as was certainly the case northwest of the underhearth where the nails from the ends of five boards had dropped through into the channel left by the decayed sleeper. It may be supposed, therefore, that the sleepers' location would have been dictated by the vagaries of board length rather than by the design of a planned, measured foundation and that they served as ties for the floor, rather than joists raising it off the natural clay beneath. In addition to the remains of the carefully laid floor, another much-decayed board, 10 inches wide, and of uncertain thickness, was found running north/south immediately west of the underhearth. This board was partially covered by mortar, suggesting that it had been set on the dirt during the building of the brick structure. The filling of the cellar in the vicinity of the chimney and underhearth comprised a single massive deposit of sandy clay, scattered through which were numerous iron nails, isolated oystershells and occasional fragments of pottery, glass, and tobacco-pipe stems. A similar unified filling was encountered at the western end of the excavation, but towards the middle a large and irregular deposit of oystershells was sealed within the sand at a depth of 4 feet 6 inches sloping upward to 3 feet 6 inches towards the south wall. The shell layer averaged from 6 to 9 inches in thickness and was found to contain many of the more important artifacts. [Illustration: Figure 6.--REMAINS OF WOODEN FLOOR BOARDS in the cellar. (_Photo courtesy of E. DeHardit._)] On the wooden floor of the cellar lay a thin 1/2-to 1-inch layer of wood ash, mortar, and occasional brickbats. Had this accumulation been considerably thicker it might have suggested that the building above had been destroyed by fire. But although the presence of this skin of debris could not be explained, it was far from sufficient to support such a conclusion. The topsoil over the entire area had been disturbed to a depth of at least 1 foot, presumably by deep plowing. Over the cellar fill, humus and a sandy loam extended to a depth of 1 foot 8 inches at the south edge and to 2 feet 1 inch in the middle. The bottom of this stratum contained nothing but late 17th-or early 18th-century artifacts, including an important and well-preserved latten spoon.[16] A small 19th-century disturbance cut into the south cellar edge towards the west end of the excavation, but caused little disturbance to the main fill. Another, much larger, late 19th-century trash deposit had been dug into the fill to the northwest of the chimney and this had reached to a depth of 3 feet 6 inches below the modern grade. The removal of the walnut tree had created a similar disturbance immediately south of the refuse deposit, while a trench for a 20th-century water pipe had cut yet another slice through the same area. None of these disturbances had caused any damage to the lower filling of the cellar. DATING EVIDENCE FOR THE CELLAR The majority of the excavated artifacts were scattered throughout the cellar fill and were of similar types from top to bottom of the deposit. These objects included wine-bottle and drinking-glass fragments, potsherds of English and perhaps Portuguese tin-enamelled earthenware, and more that 600 tobacco-pipe fragments, all of them indicating a terminal date of about 1700. A quantitative analysis of the tobacco-pipe stem fragments using the Binford formula[17] provided a mean date of 1698. Method of Excavation Digging was initially confined to the immediate vicinity of the chimney foundation (Area B on fig. 3) and to the previously described test trench (A). An east/west trench (D) was next dug to link the two and to isolate the disturbed areas of the tree hole and 19th-century pit in Areas C and G. Owing to a shortage of labor and the rigors of the weather, it was necessary to confine the digging to small areas which could be completed in a single day's work. Consequently, it was not possible to clear the whole area, as one part would be back-filled during the digging of the next. Mr. and Mrs. Jenkins, the owners of the property, were extremely tolerant of the damage that was done to their gardens, but after the clearance of the large area E, they indicated that the project had gone far enough. Nevertheless, they were persuaded to permit the cutting of another smaller test area to the west (F), but when this, too, failed to find the westerly extremity of the cellar, the project was abandoned. Subsequently, relatives of the owners cut into the exposed north face of area E and extracted a number of potsherds and other fragmentary objects from the sand filling.[18] The undercutting of the bank extended to a distance of 1 foot 6 inches without encountering the north edge of the cellar, thus showing that the total width was in excess of 14 feet. Extensive probing all around the total area of excavation failed to produce any further traces of the building, though the 1 foot 8 inches of topsoil and sandy loam was found to be bedded on numerous small deposits of oystershells and scattered brickbats. Test holes found that all the located deposits north and west of the existing house had been laid down or disturbed in the 19th century. Five test traverses with a soil resistivity meter west and south of the excavation area produced numerous anomalies which, when checked out, all failed to be associated with the 17th-century cellar. It seemed that the misleading readings were caused by variations in the density and moisture-retaining qualities of the natural sandy clay subsoil. Early in 1963, while planting a small tree to the south of the existing house, Mr. Jenkins encountered a stratum of oystershells at approximately 8 inches below the present grade. (Fig. 2, Area K.) A series of small test holes was subsequently dug to the south and southeast of the house, and showed that the layer of shells (average thickness 4 inches) overlay the subsoil and was spread over an area at least 15 by 10 feet. A small number of 19th-century pottery fragments were found mixed into the stratum, but the vast majority of the artifacts comprised bottle glass and earthenwares of similar types to those encountered in the cellar hole excavation.[19] The most important item was a pewter spoon handle of late 17th-century character (fig. 15, no. 27) stamped with the initial "M." The presence of this obvious domestic refuse was not satisfactorily explained, but it is concluded that it was originally deposited on the land surface and later disturbed by cultivation. [Illustration: Figure 7.--REMAINS OF DECAYED BOARD on floor in front of underhearth. (_Photo courtesy of E. DeHardit._)] Landscaping work towards the York River west of the house had yielded a few widely scattered fragments of colonial and Indian pottery as well as numerous 19th-century sherds. The colonial material was predominantly of late 17th-or early 18th-century date, but two sherds of Staffordshire combed dishes were of a type unlikely to date before about 1720. No archeological digging was undertaken in these areas. Archeological Stratigraphy Each excavated area was given an identifying letter (fig. 3) and each stratum a number. Thus an artifact marked "B2" was found in the archeological area that contained the chimney and was recovered from the top stratum of sandy loam and clay. It should be noted that not all layers and deposits tabled below were encountered in any one excavation area, while some were confined to single locations. 1. Topsoil and brown loam to 1 foot 8 inches over cellar hole. 2. Sandy loam merging into top of sandy clay fill or silting, spreading over edges of cellar hole and sealing the chimney remains. About 1690-1700 with some top disturbance. 3. Main sandy clay fill, extending to oystershell deposit in central areas. About 1690-1700. 3A. Sandy clay fill extending to within 6 inches of floor in Area B, against wall north of chimney. The same as Strata 3-5 but without the oystershell layer that divided them elsewhere. About 1690-1700. 3B. Sandy clay as above, but from areas where Stratum 4 was absent. About 1690-1700. 4. Oystershell deposit in Areas A, C and E, sealed by sandy clay Stratum 3. About 1690-1700. 5. Sandy clay under oystershell layer, reaching to cellar floor. About 1690-1700. 6. Ash and sand layer on remains of cellar floor; principal artifacts concentrated against south face of cellar hole in Areas D and E. About 1690-1700. 6A. Similar layer to Stratum 6, confined to Area B north of the chimney and underhearth foundation. About 1690-1700. (The same number is given to a chisel found behind a horizontal wall board at this level, but which may have been deposited when the cellar was built rather than at its date of abandonment. Fig. 14, no. 6.) 7. Objects lying in slots left by rotted-floor sleepers. About 1690-1700. 8. Late disturbance at southwest corner of excavation, Area E. 19th century. 9. 3-inch layer of light-grey soil beneath Stratum 2 extending down to top of oystershell layer (4) from southwest; confined to Areas E and F. About 1690-1700, possibly disturbed at upper west edge. 10. Unstratified material from all areas of the cellar-hole excavation, derived from frost disturbances and the results of removing the walnut tree. 11. Finds from oystershell and artifact layer beneath topsoil southeast of the existing house. About 1690-1700 with a few much later intrusions. (Area K, fig. 2.) 12. Surface finds recovered from field west of existing house. The Artifacts The collection of objects from the Clay Bank cellar hole is important for a small number of rare items and because the deposit provided accurate dating for a much larger group of less impressive artifacts. Unfortunately, neither category included pieces that were of much help in establishing anything of the history of the property. A small cannonball of the 3-pound type used by light fieldpieces of the minion class was found in the top of the sand stratum (D3) against the south face of the cellar. Guns of this caliber may well have been used during Bacon's Rebellion, and there might be some who would care to use the excavated ball to support the legend that Bacon died at Clay Bank. The ball, it has been argued, could have been left behind by Bacon's forces when they vacated the site in the fall of 1676. However, such a conjecture, based on so little evidence, can hardly be taken seriously. The single clue pointing to a Porteus family association, the latten spoon with its presumed Scottish mark, hardly merits any more serious consideration than the cannonball. Somewhat more tenable, however, may be the suggestion furnished by two artifacts, that the cellar hole was in the vicinity of a cooper's workshop. The objects in question were a "chisel" (fig. 14, no. 7) used specifically for driving down barrel hoops, and a race knife (fig. 12, no. 3), a tool frequently used by coopers to mark the barrels. No documentary evidence has been found to indicate the presence of a cooper in the Second Precinct of Petsworth Parish in the late 17th century though the Vestry Book does contain an entry for October 4th, 1699, ordering an orphan to be indentured to a cooper in King and Queen County.[20] Other tools from the Clay Bank cellar included spade and hoe blades, a large wedge, and a carpenter's chisel, a range of items that did nothing to support a coopering association, but which did tend to indicate that the artifacts might have come from a variety of sources. The pottery included a high percentage of coarse earthenwares, among which were fragments of two, or possibly three, lead-glazed tygs and a similarly glazed cup (fig. 15, nos. 7, 8, and 9), all objects that would have been best suited either to a yeoman's household or to a tavern. The large quantity of tobacco-pipe fragments present might support the latter construction but the dearth of wine-bottle pieces does not. Numerous fragments of English delftware were found scattered through the filling from top to bottom, most of them in very poor condition. While none of the pieces was of particularly good quality, a medium-sized basin with crude chinoiserie decoration in blue, is of some importance. The vessel (fig. 15, no. 1) is of a form that is extremely rare from the 17th century, but which clearly was the ornamental ancestor of the common washbasins of the 18th century.[21] In marked, and even staggering contrast to the assemblage of cheap and utilitarian earthenware, was the presence of a massive lead-glass stem from a "ceremonial" drinking glass or candlestick, a form undoubtedly made in London in the period 1685-1695 (fig. 10). Although the double-quatrefoil stem units and central melon knop are paralleled by existing glasses, the heavily gadrooned foot is seemingly unknown. This last feature gives the foot such weight that it has led Mr. R. J. Charleston, Keeper of Ceramics at the Victoria and Albert Museum in London, to suggest that the stem may come from a candlestick (fig. 11) rather than from a large, covered glass. However, no parallels for such a candlestick are known. One might be tempted to believe that a glass candlestick would be more likely to have been brought to 17th-century Virginia than would a seemingly pretentious, covered, "ceremonial" drinking-glass. But in 1732, Thomas Jones[22] of Williamsburg made a settlement upon his wife in case of his death, and among the possessions listed were "6 glass decanters, 6 glasses with covers...."[23] Covered glasses ceased to be popular after about 1720 when fashions in glass were turning from the icy sparkle of mass towards more delicate and lighter designs. It is possible, therefore, that the Jones' glass might have been of the general type indicated by the Clay Bank stem. But be this as it may, there is no doubt that the excavated stem is the finest piece of glass of its period yet discovered in America, and that it is sufficiently important to be able to add a paragraph to the history of English glass. Other glass objects included the powdered remains of a small quatrefoil-stemmed wineglass, a form common in the period 1680-1700.[24] Like so many glasses of its type, the metal was singularly impermanent when buried in the ground, and little or nothing could be salvaged of it. Also present were fragments of at least seven wine bottles of the short-necked, squat-bodied forms of the late 17th century, as well as one fragment of a short-necked and everted-mouthed case bottle. A few fragments of cylindrical pharmaceutical bottles were also found as was a well-preserved bottle of similar metal but in wine-bottle shape (fig. 9 and fig. 15, no. 19). Such bottles are thought to have been used for oils and essences, and their manufacture seems to have been confined to the period about 1680-1720. Tobacco-pipe fragments (fig. 16) were plentiful throughout the cellar fill and provided a useful range of bowl forms as well as a key to the dating of the deposit. All the bowls were of types common in the last years of the 17th century, a period in which the two English bowl styles of the second half of the century (one evolving with a spur and the other with a heel) merged together into the single spurred form of the 18th century.[25] In addition, the Clay Bank cellar contained examples of bowls with neither heel nor spur, a style never popular in England, and which seems to have been developed specifically for the American market initially copying the shape favored by the Indians. No fewer than 648 stem fragments were recovered from the cellar and their stem-hole diameters, using J. C. Harrington's chart,[26] indicated a manufacture date in the period 1680-1710. Because pipes are considered to have had a short life, it is generally assumed that the dates of manufacture and deposition are not far apart. Other artifacts from the deposit, notably the large glass stem, the wine bottles, small wineglass and, of course, the pipe bowl shapes, together suggested a terminal date for the group within the period 1690-1700. Using the Binford formula,[27] the 648 stem fragments suggested a mean date of 1698. Experience has shown that the formula is likely to be accurate to three or four years either way on a sampling of that size.[28] The presence of the same maker's initials, I·F, on pipe bowls at different levels of the cellar fill strongly pointed to a homogeneity of deposition. Although it is impossible to identify the owners of the initials with any certainty, it is worth noting that there was a Josiah Fox making pipes in Newcastle-under-Lyme in and after 1683 whose initials are the same as those most common in the Clay Bank cellar. The I·F mark was somewhat unusual in that it was impressed between two X's across the top of the stem (fig. 16, no. 11). All other marks, save one, were in the normal position, to left and right of the heels. These comprised W F (William Ferry, Marlborough, about 1700?), or perhaps W.P., II I (Henry Jones, London, 1688?)[29] and V R. The remaining mark, S A (fig. 16, no. 14) occurred on the bases of two bowls with neither heels nor spurs. From the oystershell layer south of the existing house came a bowl fragment ornamented with the name of a well-known Bristol pipe-making family, I TIPPET, in a raised cartouche on the side. This was probably Jacob Tippett whose name appeared in the Bristol Freedom Rolls in 1680.[30] In addition to the few marked bowls, two stems were of interest in that they had been ground or pared down to enable the pipes to be used again, one being only 2-1/4 inches in length (fig. 16, nos. 12 and 13). Such frugality might be construed as being associated with a household of small means. Also present were a few brown stem fragments and part of one decorated bowl (fig. 8, no. 9) of Virginia, possibly Indian, manufacture. Conclusions The importance of the Jenkins site cellar hole lies solely in its provision of a valuable group of closely dated artifacts. The excavations failed to reveal either the size of the building or any indication of its original ownership and purpose. The structure does not appear on any known map nor can it be equated with any specifications contained in the _Vestry Book_ of Petsworth Parish or any other documentary source now available. Much local legend and speculation has been considered and regretfully rejected in the absence of any supporting evidence. The site does lie in the Second Precinct of Petsworth Parish and it has been established that the Porteus family did own land therein. Consequently it is quite possible that the Jenkins site was once part of that tract. But it does not necessarily follow that the cellar hole was part of the Edward Porteus family residence. A _terminus post quem_ of about 1700 for the filling of the cellar hole has been well established on the archeological evidence. The structure itself is represented by the large cellar hole which had been floored and walled with boards and vertical posts, and by the massive chimney at the east end. The absence of any abutting walling, coupled with our inability to find any traces of other foundations, strongly suggests that the building stood on piers or wooden blocks. The artifacts include a number of extremely interesting objects; but the curious juxtaposition of the large glass stem (figs. 10 and 11) with crude earthenwares, worn-out tools and broken and reused clay tobacco pipes makes it probable that the refuse was derived from different sources. Whereas the iron objects resting on the cellar floor may have been in the building when it was destroyed, it is clear that the large oystershell deposit (and therefore, the glass stem that it contained) must have been brought from elsewhere. It might therefore be deduced that the excavated structure had been a kitchen building or, perhaps, an overseer's house rather than the home of the owner of the glass stem. The dearth of 18th-century colonial artifacts on the Jenkins property seems to indicate, at best, a less intensive occupation after the destruction of the building that overlay the excavated cellar hole. It seems improbable, therefore, that the existing "Ardudwy" was in existence before the late 18th century. Illustrations The objects illustrated in figures 8 through 16 are representative of the principal artifacts found in the Clay Bank excavations. The dating given below refers to the objects' period of manufacture; their terminal or throwaway date is determined by their archeological contexts, which are indicated by area and stratum designations. (See p. 11, Archeological Stratigraphy, and fig. 3.) FIGURE 8 1. Marly fragment from small plate, English delftware, decorated in blue with chinoiserie design, probably of Chinamen, rocks, and grasses. The background color has a very pale-blue tint, unlike the pure whites and pinkish whites that are generally associated with London pieces of the period. The closest parallel for this sherd is in the Bristol City Museum in England[31] and is attributed to Brislington. An example of the style, attributed to Lambeth and dated 1684 is illustrated by F. H. Garner in his _English Delftware_;[32] but unlike the Clay Bank fragment, the central decoration does not reach to the marly. About 1680-1690. E4. (Fig. 15, no. 6.) 2. Handle fragment from chamberpot or posset pot, English delftware, decorated with irregular horizontal stripes in blue. The handle is pronouncedly concave in section, and lacking ornament on its edges (as usually occurs on posset pots)[33] a chamberpot identification seems most likely. The form ranges from the late 17th century at least through the first quarter of the 18th. E2. 3. Mug or jug, lower body and base fragment only, English delftware, white inside, with manganese stipple on exterior. Probably Southwark, first half of the 17th century. E4. (Fig. 15, no. 4). 4. Basin, English delftware, wall fragments only illustrated (for full reconstruction see fig. 15, no. 1), the glaze, pale blue, ornamented with central chinoiserie design of similar character to no. 1. The wall was decorated with narrow horizontal bands and a wide foliate zone below the everted rim. The bowl is important in that it is one of the earliest extant examples of the simple washbasin form that was to become common throughout the 18th century. About 1680-1690. Illustrated sherds A3, C3, F2. 5. Basal fragment of plate, tin-glazed earthenware, decoration of uncertain form in two tones of blue outlined in black. Portuguese? 17th century. C4. 6. Base fragment from globular jug, English brown salt-glazed stoneware, probably from same vessel as no. 7. Late 17th or early 18th century. C3. 7. Neck fragment from bulbous mug or jug, decorated within multiple grooving,[34] ware and date as above. A3. 8. Tyg fragments, black lead-glazed, red-bodied earthenware (sometimes called Cistercian ware), the body decorated with multiple ribbing. (For reconstruction see fig. 15, no. 7.) Such drinking vessels were made with up to six or eight handles, but two was the most usual number and those were placed close together as indicated here. The form was prevalent in the period 1600-1675, though taller examples were common during the preceding century.[35] A3, C3. 9. Tobacco pipe bowl, pale-brown ware, burnished, and decorated with impressed crescents and rouletted lines, local Indian manufacture?[36] Second half of 17th century. E4. 10. Body fragment of cord-marked Indian cooking pot, Stony Creek type,[37] light red-tan surface flecked with ocher and with a localized grey core. Middle Woodland. B1. 11. Projectile point, buff quartzite, broad stem and sloping shoulders. Late archaic. E9. [Illustration: Figure 8.--FRAGMENTS OF ENGLISH DELFTWARE, stoneware, earthenware, and Indian objects.] [Illustration: Figure 9.--BOTTLE OF GREEN GLASS in the form of a miniature wine bottle.] FIGURE 9 A small glass bottle in wine-bottle style but probably intended for oil or vinegar, and fashioned from a pale-green metal comparable to that used for pharmaceutical phials and flasks. The base has a pronounced conical kick, but is not appreciably thicker than the walls of the body. The mouth is slightly everted over a V-sectioned string rim. On the yardstick of wine-bottle evolution such a bottle is unlikely to have been manufactured prior to 1680 or later than about 1720. E5. (See also fig. 15, no. 19.) FIGURES 10 and 11 Stem and foot fragment from an elaborate drinking glass or candlestick, English lead metal of splendid quality. The solid stem is formed from two quatrefoil balusters between which is a melon knop with mereses above and below. The stem terminates in two mereses of increasing size and is attached to an elaborately gadrooned foot, only part of which survives. Any suggestion that the foot is actually part of the base of the bowl is negated by the presence of a rough pontil scar inside it, as well as by the fact that the surviving fragment spreads out at so shallow an angle that no other construction is possible. [Illustration: Figure 10.--AN ELABORATE STEM of English glass, London, about 1685-1695.] The stem form is most closely paralleled by two goblets illustrated in W. A. Thorpe's _History of English and Irish Glass_,[38] one of which contains within its stem an English fourpenny piece of 1680. Because no known goblet exhibits the high, gadrooned foot of the Clay Bank example, it has been suggested that the stem may be that of a candlestick.[39] While this is certainly a reasonable supposition, it must be added that neither have examples of candlesticks been found in this form. (For conjectural reconstruction see fig. 11.) Although it is extremely unfortunate that no upper fragments were found, there is no doubt as to the date of the surviving section, nor is there any denying that it is on a par with the best English glass of its period. London, about 1685-1695. Height of fragment 5-1/4 inches. E4. [Illustration: Figure 11.--THE CLAY BANK STEM RECONSTRUCTED as both a drinking glass and a candlestick. Height of fragment is 5-1/4 inches. About 1685-1695.] FIGURE 12 1. Spoon, latten, tinned, the bowl oval and the handle flat with a trilobed terminal. The back of the bowl possesses an extremely rudimentary rat-tail that is little more than a solid V slightly off-center at the junction of stem and bowl. The maker's mark inside the bowl bears the initials W W flanking a thistle, perhaps suggesting a Scots origin for the spoon. Last quarter of 17th century. E2. 2. Cutlery handle, bone, roughly round-sectioned at its junction with the iron shoulder but becoming triangular towards the top. A4. 3. Race knife, steel, a tool used by coopers and joiners to inscribe barrels and the ends of timbers. At one end is a tapering, round-sectioned tang to which a wooden handle was attached; beside this, and probably originally recessed into the wood, is a rectangular-sectioned arm, terminating in a small blade curved over at the end. The arm is hinged at the shoulder of the tool and could be folded back to inscribe large arcs and to be used as an individual cutting instrument. At the other end is a small blunt spike with spiral grooving and raised cordons, and a small fixed knife with a curved blade that could be used to cut in the opposite plain to that of the moveable arm. The arm is stamped with the maker's name WARD. Attempts to identify an English toolmaker of that name working in the second half of the 17th century have been unsuccessful. The tool is well made and possesses a surprising amount of decoration on the shoulders, in the shape of faceting at the corners and sculpturing of the flat surfaces.[40] E4. (See also fig. 15, no. 22.) [Illustration: Figure 12.--LATTEN SPOON and other small finds.] [Illustration: Figure 13.--CHEEKPIECE FROM BIT, saw set, and other iron objects.] 4. Gimlet, iron, the shaft drawn out at the top to grip the wooden handle, the spoon-shaped blade is badly distorted but the terminal worm still survives in part. B6A. 5. Tack, brass, probably from trunk or upholstery, convex head roughly trimmed, diameter 1/2 inch. C3. 6. Boss, cast brass, from cheekpiece of bridle; the slightly dished edge and central nipple appear to have been ornamental devices more popular in the 17th than in the 18th century.[41] This object overlay the robbed rear-chimney foundation at its northeast corner. B2. 7. Strainer fragment, brass or bronze; the edge flat and therefore not part of a colander, probably originally attached to an iron handle. Diameter approximately 8-1/2 inches. E2. FIGURE 13 1. Object of uncertain purpose, iron, the pointed "blade" without cutting edge and 1/8 inch in thickness, the tang drawn out, rectangular in section and clenched at the end. A2. 2. Object similar to the above,[42] but heavier, the tang wider than the thickness of the "blade," 3/8 inch and 3/16 inch respectively. E4. 3. Knife blade, iron, small flaring shoulders and round-sectioned tang. The blade is of unusual shape and may have been honed down to its present size. C4. 4. Saw wrest or saw set, iron, used to grip and bend the teeth of saws sideways to enlarge the width of the cut and thus prevent the blade from binding.[43] C2. 5. Object of uncertain purpose, iron, comprising a flat strip 5/8 inch in width at one end and tapering to 9/16 inch at the other which exhibits a small right-angled flange before turning upwards and back on itself, narrowing to a thinner strip measuring 5/16 inch in width, and forming a loop. The base strip has a small notch at its broad end.[44] C3. 6. Cramp(?), iron, perhaps intended to be set in mortar and used to join masonry; rectangular in section and drawn down almost to a point at either end. E4. 7. Cheekpiece from snaffle bit, iron, incomplete, angular knee with hole for linking element between rein and bit. This is a 17th-century characteristic common at Jamestown[45] but rare among the many bits from Williamsburg. E2. 8. Staple, iron, both points broken and the back somewhat bowed, probably as a result of having been driven. C3. FIGURE 14 1. Eye of hoe, iron, possibly a grub hoe similar to no. 2, in an advanced state of decay with the blade represented only by the narrow triangular spine; no trace of a maker's mark. C3. 2. Grub hoe, iron, the eye and part of the blade surviving, the spine thick and narrow, no maker's mark. The form has no published parallel either from Jamestown or Williamsburg. An example with similar shoulders, but with a V-shaped blade edge, was found on the Challis pottery kiln site in James City County in a context of about 1730. [C.S.21F; unpublished.] E4. 3. Broad hoe, iron, with eye and part of the originally D-shaped blade surviving; the spine shallow, short and flat, with clearly impressed maker's initials I H within an oval. Circular and oval marks are common in the 17th century but are rare in the 18th.[46] E4. 4. Hoe blade, iron, from which the eye and spine appear to have been removed. It cannot be ascertained whether the blade is part of a cut-down broad hoe or whether it was always roughly square in form. The latter shape was well represented in a cache of agricultural tools of uncertain date found in excavations at Green Spring in James City County.[47] E4. 5. Stirrup, iron, rectangular footplate with its surface hammered to increase the grip, the sides round-sectioned but flattened towards the leather-loop which is drawn out into ornamental ears. The style was common in the late 17th century. E4. 6. Forming chisel, iron, socketed for attachment to a wooden handle, the socket and shaft square-sectioned, the blade 2-1/4 inches wide and the cutting edge improved by a welded plate of superior metal extending 1-7/8 inches up the blade. Found behind a wallboard at floor level. B6A. 7. Cooper's chisel, iron, the blade 1-3/4 inches in width and with a groove running the length of the 1/8-inch broad edge to grip the edge of the hoop while hammering it into place. The shaft is round-sectioned and spreads into a flat mushroom head. C4. 8. Wedge, iron, of large size, rectangular head measuring 2-3/8 inches by 1-7/8 inches, length 7-3/8 inches and weight 4 pounds. The head shows no evidence of heavy usage and consequently there is no clue as to why such an object should have been thrown away. A close parallel (7-1/4 inches in length) was found at Ste Marie I in Canada on the site of the early Jesuit settlement of 1639-1649.[48] B3A. 9. Spade, iron edge from wooden blade, the upper edge of the metal split and the extended sides possessing small winglike projections, and nails at the ends which together served to attach the iron to the wood. Iron edges for wooden spades are not included in the artifact collections from 18th-century Williamsburg, but were plentiful in various sizes in mid-17th-century contexts at Mathews Manor in Warwick County. [Unpublished.] C3. 10. Projectile, solid iron, cast in a two-piece mold, diameter 2-3/4 inches, weight 3 pounds 1 ounce. This is possibly a ball from a minion[49] whose shot weight is given in Chambers' _Cyclopaedia_ (1738) as 3 pounds 4 ounces, the difference possibly being occasioned by the Clay Bank specimen's decayed surface. D3. FIGURE 15 1. Basin, English delftware, reconstruction on basis of rim, body and base fragments, about 1680-1690. (Fig. 8, no. 4) A3, B1, B3, C3, C4, E2, F2, H3. 2. Basin as above, lower body fragments. 3. Basin as above, base fragment. 4. Mug or jug, lower body fragment, manganese stippled. First half of 17th century(?). (Fig. 8, no. 3.) E4. 5. Plate, English delftware, rim and base fragments (also section), decoration in two tones of blue, the fronds outlined in black. London(?). About 1670-1700. A3, E3. 6. Plate, English delftware, about 1680-1690. (Fig. 8, no. 1.) E4. 7. Tyg, black lead-glazed red ware, double handled; height conjectural. 17th century. (Fig. 8, no. 8.) A3, B3, B6A, C3, C4, E3, E9, F3, G2, G3A, H3, 10. 8. Tyg, rim sherd only, brown lead-glazed red ware, thinner than no. 7 and its ribbing not extending as close to the mouth; diameter approximately 4-1/2 inches, 17th century. B1. 9. Mug, black lead-glazed red ware, thin-walled bulbous body; handle conjectural. The form's closest published parallel is a red ware example which was exhibited at the Burlington Fine Arts Club, London, in 1914, and bore the legend MR. THOMAS FENTON in white slip below the rim. The piece was identified as Staffordshire, about 1670.[50] A comparable mug was found in 1964 in excavations at Mathews Manor in Warwick County in a context of the second quarter of the 17th century. [W.S.199; unpublished.] A3, G3A, H3. 10. Rim sherd from large pan, red body liberally flecked with ocher, thin lead glaze, the rim folded and flattened on the upper edge. This fragment is of importance in that it is almost certainly made from the local Tidewater Virginia clay, yet the rim technique has not been found on any of the pottery kiln sites so far located. Date uncertain. K11. [Illustration: Figure 14.--IRON TOOLS, STIRRUP, and cannon ball.] [Illustration: Figure 15.--DRAWINGS OF POTTERY, glass, and metal objects.] 11. Rim sherd from pan or wide bowl, red ware with greenish-brown lead glaze, the rim thickened and undercut. This form, and variants on it, were common from the mid-17th century and on through the 18th, and they are therefore impossible to date on stylistic grounds alone. Probably English. C4. 12. Rim sherd from large shallow pan, red ware with yellowish-green lead glaze; the rim thickened, folded and undercut, the upper surface flattened and with a pronounced ridge at its angle with the bowl; diameter approximately 1 foot 6 inches. Dating considerations as no. 11. Probably English. E4. 13. Rim sherd from storage jar, red ware with brown lead glaze, the rim thickened, folded, and flattened on the top; diameter approximately 10-1/2 inches. The form was common from about 1650 to 1750. Probably English. E2. 14. Storage jar or pipkin, pale-pink ware flecked with ocher and occasional granules of quartz, a clear lead glaze imparts an orange color to the surface, and is locally streaked with green. The rim is heart-shaped in section, having a groove along its upper surface, and the body is extremely finely potted. There is good reason to suppose that this vessel is of Virginia manufacture, in which case the 17th-century colony possessed a potter of greater ability than any of those whose kilns have yet been found. Another fragment of this pot, or one identical to it, was found to the southeast of the existing house. C4, E4, 10, K11. 15. Rim sherd from wide bowl of Colono-Indian[51] pottery, grey shell-tempered ware with stick-or pebble-burnished reduced surface, the rim everted and flattened. The ware is contemporary with the European artifacts from the site and is the earliest datable fragment yet recovered. A3. 16. Rim sherd from bowl of Colono-Indian pottery, buff shell-tempered ware with stick-or pebble-burnished oxidized surface, the rim everted, flattened and very slightly dished. K11. 17. Wine bottle, olive-green glass in an advanced state of decay, the neck short and broad and the mouth slightly everted over a roughly applied string rim, the body squat and slightly broader at the shoulder than at the base, a domed basal kick and no obvious pontil scar. This is a composite drawing illustrating the shape typical of the bottles from the Clay Bank site cellar hole. The two fragments cannot be proved to be part of the same bottle. About 1680-1700. Neck A2. Body F3. 18. Wine bottle, half-bottle size, olive-green glass in an advanced state of decay, the form similar to the above but slightly weaker in the shoulder. About 1680-1700. C4. 19. Bottle, in form of miniature wine bottle, the glass a pale green similar to that used in the making of pharmaceutical phials. (Fig. 9.) About 1680-1720. C4. 20. Base of pharmaceutical bottle, pale-green glass with pronounced conical kick and rough pontil scar, the metal very thin. The principal dating characteristics of these bottles are the shapes of the mouths and the slope of the shoulders; in the absence of those, no close dating is possible.[52] C4. 21. Ring, iron, round section, considerable evidence of wear at one point on the inside edge suggesting that this object had been attached to a link of chain or perhaps has been held by a staple or eye. Such rings are frequently to be found attached to stalls in stables. B6A. 22. Race knife, the dashed outline indicating the angle of the hinged blade in its open position. (See fig. 12, no. 3.) E4. 23. Object of uncertain purpose, iron, slightly convex on the upper face, flat behind, and with a small, flat tongue projecting from the rear. A much rusted lump adhering to the front may conceal a similar projection or it may have simply attached itself in the ground. C3. 24. Collar, iron, four unevenly spaced nail holes for attachment to a wooden shaft having an approximate diameter of 3-1/2 inches. D6A. 25. Object of uncertain purpose, iron, rectangular-sectioned bar narrowing to a small blade-like ear at one end and flattened into the opposite plain at the other, apparently for attachment. E4. [Illustration: Figure 16.--DRAWINGS OF TOBACCO-PIPE BOWL SHAPES from Clay Bank and Aberdeen Creek.] 26. Staple or light handle for a small box, the narrow ends perhaps originally clenched and since broken. C3. 27. Handle of spoon, pewter, a heart-shaped terminal above two small lobes, the letter M stamped with a well-cut die close to the edge, and a roughly incised cross below it. A late 17th-century terminal form. K11. FIGURE 16 1. Tobacco-pipe bowl, clay, white surface and grey core, the bowl heavy and bulbous, large flat heel, rouletted line below the mouth, stem-hole diameter 7/64 inch. (See no. 19 for possible parallel.) About 1650-1690. E7. 2. Tobacco-pipe bowl and incomplete stem, clay, white surface and grey core, cylindrical bowl form with shallow heel extending from the fore edge of the bowl, initials V R on either side of heel, stem-hole diameter 6/64 inch. About 1680-1700. E4. Another example from B6A. 3. Tobacco-pipe bowl, clay, white surface and grey core, form similar to No. 2, but the heel slightly more pronounced and with rouletted line below the mouth, stem-hole diameter 6/64 inch. About 1680-1700. A3. 4. Tobacco-pipe bowl, white clay, form similar to no. 2, but more slender and the heel smaller, stem-hole diameter 6/64 inch. About 1675-1700. E7. 5. Tobacco-pipe bowl, white clay, evolved form of no. 2, the bowl at a more pronounced angle to the stem, stem-hole diameter 6/64 inch. About 1690-1720. A3. 6. Tobacco-pipe bowl, white clay, the bowl shape a cross between no. 2 and the more elegant and slender style of no. 7, pronounced and somewhat spreading heel with maker's initials H I on either side, stem-hole diameter 6/64 inch. About 1670-1700. A3. 7. Tobacco-pipe bowl, clay, white surface and grey core, narrow "swan-neck" form with small heel that is almost a spur, rouletted line below the mouth, stem-hole diameter 7/64 inch, about 1680-1700. E4. Another example (not illustrated) bears the maker's initials WP (or R) on the sides of the heel,[53] stem-hole diameter 6/64 inch. A3. 8. Tobacco-pipe bowl, white clay, form similar to no. 7 except that the bowl is not quite as long and the fore edge of the heel is less pronounced, stem-hole diameter 6/64 inch, about 1680-1700. A3. 9. Tobacco-pipe bowl, white clay, the bowl broader and at a sharper angle to the stem than in the preceding examples, the heel shallow and its fore edge extending from the bowl as in nos. 2-5, stem-hole diameter 6/64 inch, about 1690-1720. A3. This example is significant in that it represents the evolutionary merging of the cylindrical and bulbous bowl forms, with their varying heels and spurs, into a single bowl shape that persisted through the 18th century. It should be noted that the illustrated bowl retains the thin-walled circular mouth common to most examples of its period. The mouth often becomes more oval and the walls thicker in specimens dating later into the 18th century. 10. Tobacco-pipe bowl, white clay, more or less cylindrical rouletted line below the mouth, and with neither heel nor spur. The absence of these last features is thought to have been dictated by English pipemakers catering for the American Indian market and initially copying aboriginal forms. Stem-hole diameter 7/64 inch, about 1680-1700. H3. 11. Fragment of tobacco-pipe bowl and stem, clay, white surface and pink core to bowl, but burnt white through stem; bowl shape apparently similar to no. 10, stamped initials across top of stem at the fracture, I·F flanked on either side by a period and a cross,[54] stem-hole diameter 6/64 inch. E4. 12. Tobacco-pipe bowl and stem fragment, white clay, the form very similar to no. 10 but without rouletting below the mouth. The pipe is of interest in that the stem fracture has been pared down after breaking to create a new mouthpiece and a stem only approximately 2-1/4 inches in length. Stem-hole diameter 7/64 inch, about 1680-1700. C4. 13. Tobacco-pipe stem fragment, white clay, broken off at junction with bowl and pared down at the other end as no. 12 thus creating a 3-inch stem. Hole diameter 6/64 inch, date indeterminate. B6A. 14. Tobacco-pipe bowl, white clay, bowl shape similar to no. 2 but without heel; maker's initials on the base of the bowl, almost certainly SA though the companion initial has been lost from the other side.[55] Stem-hole diameter 6/64 inch, about 1680-1700. C4. 15. Tobacco-pipe bowl, clay, white surface and grey core, slightly more evolved than no. 10 being more sharply angled at its junction with the stem as well as being slightly longer and narrower in the bowl. Note that this pipe still possesses the rouletted line below the mouth that tends to be characteristic of 17th-century examples. Stem-hole diameter 5/64 inch, about 1690-1710. A3. 16. Tobacco-pipe bowl, clay, white surface and grey core, essentially similar to no. 15, but longer in the bowl and even more angled at its junction with the stem. Stem-hole diameter 6/64 inch, about 1690-1710. B3A. (Nos. 17-21 are surface finds from an as yet unexcavated site on farmland owned by Miss Elizabeth Harwood, approximately a mile and a quarter south of Clay Bank, and north of Aberdeen Creek. They are included here as examples of earlier 17th-century occupation in the Clay Bank area, and because one of the stem fragments from this site bears the same X·I·F·X mark as appears on five examples (no. 11) from the Jenkins site cellar hole.) 17. Tobacco-pipe bowl, white clay, flat broad heel, the bowl somewhat bulbous in the mid section, neat rouletted line below the mouth. Stem-hole diameter 7/64 inch, about 1630-1670. 18. Tobacco-pipe bowl, white clay with slipped surface, the bowl shape characteristic of the mid-17th century, flat heel, and roughly applied rouletted line below the mouth; maker's mark VS stamped on upper surface of stem. Stem-hole diameter 7/64 inch, about 1650-1690. 19. Tobacco-pipe bowl, fragment only, clay, white surface and grey core, the bowl extremely bulbous and with a pronounced flat heel. Maker's mark VS stamped on the upper surface of the stem; dies different to those used for no. 18, but undoubtedly the same maker. This is important in that it illustrates the wide difference in bowl shapes produced, apparently contemporaneously, by a single maker. Stem-hole diameter 7/64 inch, about 1650-1690. 20. Tobacco-pipe bowl, white clay, the bowl and early form of no. 3 ornamented on the sides with six molded dots in high relief,[56] the heel similar to no. 17 though slightly deeper. Stem-hole diameter 8/64 inch, about 1640-1670. 21. Tobacco-pipe bowl, white clay with slipped surface, heavy bulbous bowl and flat heel with the maker's mark M B on the base; a narrow rouletted line around the bowl mouth. Stem-hole diameter 7/64 inch, about 1650-1680. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am greatly indebted to Mr. and Mrs. William F. Jenkins for drawing the Clay Bank site to my attention, for permitting me to do considerable damage to their garden in the course of its excavation, and for generously presenting the illustrated artifacts to the Smithsonian Institution. I also owe much to their daughter Mrs. William DeHardit for valuable historical information as well as for her constant and vigorous assistance with the actual digging. I am equally grateful to my wife, Audrey Noël Hume, and to Mr. John Dunton of Colonial Williamsburg for their part in the excavation, also to Mr. A. E. Kendrew, senior vice president of Colonial Williamsburg, and Mr. E. M. Frank, its resident architect, for their comments on both the chimney foundation and on the age of the existing house. I am also indebted to Mrs. Carl Dolmetsch of Colonial Williamsburg's research department for her pursuit of cartographic evidence. In addition I wish to express my thanks to Mr. R. J. Charleston, keeper of ceramics and glass, Victoria and Albert Museum, London, for examining and commenting on the glass, and to Mr. W. D. Geiger, director of craft shops, Colonial Williamsburg, for similar assistance in identifying the tools. Finally, I am indebted to Miss Elizabeth Harwood of Aberdeen Creek for permission to illustrate examples of tobacco pipes found on her land, and to Colonial Williamsburg for subsidizing the preparation of this report. _May 1965_ I. N. H. U.S. Government Printing Office: 1966 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 20402 Price 30 cents FOOTNOTES: [1] IVOR NOËL HUME, "Excavations at Rosewell, Gloucester County, Virginia 1957-1959" (paper 18 in _Contributions from the Museum of History and Technology: Papers 12-18_, U.S. National Museum Bulletin 225, by various authors; Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1963), pp. 153-228. Hereafter cited as _Rosewell_. [2] DR. & MRS. WILLIAM CARTER STUBBS, _Descendants of Mordecai Cooke and Thomas Booth_ (New Orleans, 1923), p. 14 (footnote). [3] _Vestry Book of Petsworth Parish, Gloucester County, Virginia 1677-1793_, annotated by C. G. Chamberlayne, The Library Board (Richmond, 1933), p. 97. Hereafter cited as _Vestry Book_. [4] _Records of Colonial Gloucester County Virginia_, compiled by Polly Cary Mason (Newport News, 1946), vol. 1, p. 86. The Gloucester rent roll of 1704 showed Robert Porteus owning 892 acres and Madam Porteus (presumably his widowed mother) with 500 acres. The latter may have been situated elsewhere in the parish and have been property inherited by her at the death of her first husband, Robert Lee. [5] _Vestry Book_, pp. 284, 295, 304, 318. [6] _Vestry Book_, October 6, 1725, pp. 186-187. "Petso Parish Detter this Year in Tobacco ... To Robert Portuse Esqr for Keeping Two barsterd Children vizt John & Watkinson Marvil 01333 1/2." [7] _William & Mary Quarterly_ (1896), ser. 1, no. 5, p. 279. "Oldmixon says that Bacon died at Dr. Green's in Gloucester, and Hening describes this place in 1722 as 'then in the tenure of Robert Porteus Esq.'" But as Robert Porteus purchased additional land in 1704, Dr. Green's home site may not have been the same as that of Edward Porteus. [8] _Vestry Book_, p. 85. The kitchen measurements are absent. [9] _Vestry Book_, pp. 74-75. At a previous vestry meeting on 28th June, 170[2?] details of the proposed glebe house were given as follows: "Six & thirty foot Long & twenty foot wide with two Outside Chemneys two 8 foot Square Clossetts planckt above & below, with two Chambers above Staires and ye Staires to Goe up in ye midst of ye house with 3 Large Glass windows Below Stair [] Each to have 3 Double Lights in ym with a Glass window in Each Chamber above Staires Each to have 3 Lights in ym & Each Clossett to have a window in it and Each window to have 3 Lights." There is no evidence that these specifications were derived from Robert Porteus' house. [10] _Vestry Book_, p. 273. May 28, 1746: "Ordered this Present Vestry, have thought it Better to Build a New Glebe house rather then to Repair the old one...." Then follow specifications for the new building. [11] ROBERT HODGSON, _The Life of the Right Reverend Beilby Porteus D.D._ (London, 1823) pp. 3-4. Hodgson describes Newbottle in the following terms: "It consisted chiefly of plantations of tobacco; and on one of these, called Newbottle (from a village of that name near Edinburgh, once belonging to his family, but now in the possession of the Marquis of Lothian), he usually resided. The house stood upon a rising ground, with a gradual descent to York river, which was there at least two miles over: and here he enjoyed within himself every comfort and convenience that a man of moderate wishes could desire; living without the burthen of taxes, and possessing, under the powerful protection of this kingdom, peace, plenty, and security." [12] A request for information was published in the English magazine _Country Life_ (May 24, 1962), vol. 131, no. 3403, p. 1251. This yielded a reply from the Reverend W. B. Porteus of Garstang Vicarage, Mr. Preston, Lancashire. He noted that Bishop Beilby Porteus was buried at Sundridge in Kent and that prior to the Second World War family connections of the Bishop's wife named Polhill-Drabble still lived in that village and were deeply interested in their lineage. The Rev. Porteus feared that Mr. and Mrs. Polhill-Drabble were now dead, and as I have been unable to trace them, I assume that this is the case. [13] Seven courses surviving, top at 2 ft. 2 in. below modern grade. Shell mortar. Specimen bricks: 9 in. by 4-1/8 in. by 2-7/8 in. (salmon) and 7-1/2 in. by 4-1/4 in. by 2 in. (dark red). [14] A late 17th-or very early 18th-century house at Tutter's Neck in James City County, measuring 42 ft. 3 in. by 19 ft. 1 in., possessed a chimney at either end with dimensions of 9 ft. 11 in. by 4 ft. 11 in. and 9 ft. 9 in. by 5 ft. The jambs varied in thickness from 1 ft. 6 in. to 1 ft. 11 in. See footnote 22. [15] ALBERT C. MANUCY, "The Fort at Frederica," Notes in _Anthropology_ (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1962), vol. 5, pp. 51-53. An excavated powder magazine of 1736 exhibited similar construction. [16] E2. Figure 12, no. 1. [17] See footnote 27. [18] The undercutting is shown on the plan (fig. 3, area H) as a straight-edged unit. This has been done for the sake of neatness, but it should be noted that there was actually a series of holes that presented an extremely ragged appearance. [19] An unusual lead-glazed earthenware rim sherd from a jar was probably from the same pot as other fragments (fig. 15, no. 14) found in the cellar hole. [20] _Vestry Book_, p. 56. "Necholas Lewis" indentured to "Henry Morris of Straten Major in ye County of King and Quine ... to Learn ye said orphant ye art of Coopery." [21] _Rosewell_, fig. 26, nos. 1-4. [22] Thomas Jones was the younger brother of Frederick Jones, whose James City County home site at Tutter's Neck was excavated in 1961. See IVOR NOËL HUME, "Excavations at Tutter's Neck in James City County, Virginia, 1960-1961" (paper 53 in _Contributions from the Museum of History and Technology_; U.S. National Museum Bulletin 249; Washington: Smithsonian Institution), 1965, fig. 20, no. 8. Hereafter cited as _Tutter's Neck_. A fragment of a lead-glass gadrooned Romer of the same period as the Clay Bank stem was found on the Tutter's Neck site. [23] MARY STEPHENSON, "Cocke-Jones Lots, Block 31" (MS., Research Dept., Colonial Williamsburg, Virginia, 1961), p. 6. [24] _Tutter's Neck_, fig. 17, no. 17; also I. NOËL HUME, "Some English Glass from Colonial Virginia," _Antiques_ (July 1963), vol. 84, no. 1, p. 69, figs. 4 and 5. [25] IVOR NOËL HUME, _Here Lies Virginia_ (New York: Knopf, 1963), fig. 105. [26] J. C. HARRINGTON, "Dating Stem Fragments of Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century Clay Tobacco Pipes," _Archeological Society of Virginia, Quarterly Bulletin_ (September 1954), vol. 9, no. 1. [27] Mathematical formula based on Harrington's chart, prepared by Lewis H. Binford, University of Chicago. See LEWIS H. BINFORD, "A New Method of Calculating Dates from Kaolin Pipe Stem Samples," _Southeastern Archaeological Newsletter_ (June 1962), vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 19-21. [28] AUDREY NOËL HUME, "Clay Tobacco-Pipe Dating in the Light of Recent Excavations," _Archeological Society of Virginia, Quarterly Bulletin_ (December 1963), pp. 22-25. [29] ADRIAN OSWALD, "The Archaeology and Economic History of English Clay Tobacco Pipes," _Journal of the Archaeological Association_ (London, 1960), ser. 3, vol. 23, pp. 40-102. [30] ADRIAN OSWALD, "A Case of Transatlantic Deduction," _Antiques_ (July 1959), pp. 59-61. [31] W. J. POUNTNEY, _Old Bristol Potteries_ (Bristol, 1920), pl. 3 (lower left), and p. 37. [32] F. H. GARNER, _English Delftware_ (London, 1948), pl. 26B. [33] For a posset pot with these handle characteristics attributed to Brislington, 1706-1734, see W. M. WRIGHT, _Catalogue of Bristol and West of England Delft Collection_, (Bath: Victoria Art Gallery, 1929), pl. 3. [34] For shape parallel (but not body) see _Tutter's Neck_, fig. 18, no. 21. [35] BARNARD RACKHAM, _Mediaeval English Pottery_ (London: 1948), pl. 94. BARNARD RACKHAM, _Catalogue of the Glaisher Collection of Pottery and Porcelain_ (Cambridge, 1935), no. 20, pl. 3A. GRISELDA LEWIS, _A Picture Book of English Pottery_ (London, 1956), fig. 23. [36] J. C. HARRINGTON, "Tobacco Pipes from Jamestown," _Archeological Society of Virginia, Quarterly Bulletin_ (Richmond: June 1951), fig. 4. [37] I am indebted to Dr. B. C. McCary of the Archeological Society of Virginia for the identification of the prehistoric Indian artifacts. CLIFFORD EVANS, "A Ceramic Study of Virginia Archeology," (Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 160; Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1955), p. 69. [38] W. A. THORPE, _A History of English and Irish Glass_ (London, 1929), vol. 2, pl. 29 and 31, no. 2. [39] See p. 13. [40] HENRY C. MERCER, "Ancient Carpenters' Tools," _Bucks County Historical Society_ (Doylestown, Pa., 1951), p. 51 and fig. 49. JOHN L. COTTER, "Archeological Excavations at Jamestown, Virginia," _U.S. National Park Service Archeological Research Series_, no. 4 (Washington, 1958), p. 174, pl. 72 top. [41] COTTER, no. 1, p. 176, pl. 74 top. [42] These objects are extremely common on 18th-century sites. _Rosewell_, p. 224, and fig. 36, no. 8. _Tutter's Neck_, fig. 16, no. 12. [43] MERCER, op. cit., p. 295ff. [44] Two larger examples were found in a cache of metal objects deposited in about 1730 and found on the Challis pottery kiln site in James City County. Two more were encountered in excavations on the Hugh Orr house and blacksmith shop site on Duke of Gloucester Street in Williamsburg where they apparently dated from the mid-18th century. [45] CARL GUSTKEY, "Sir Francis Wyatt's Horse," _The National Horseman_ (April 1953), [no pagination] fig. 2. [46] The majority of marked 18th-century hoes excavated in Virginia exhibit rectangular stamps, while postcolonial marks tend to be stamped on the blades rather than the raised spines and without any die edge being impressed. [47] LOUIS R. CAYWOOD, "Green Spring Plantation," _Archeological Report_, Virginia 350th Anniversary Commission (Yorktown: United States National Park Service, 1955), pl. 9 (bottom). [48] KENNETH E. KIDD, _The Excavation of Ste Marie I_ (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1949), p. 108 and pl. 24b. [49] See p. 12 for a consideration of the ball's possible significance. [50] _Catalogue of Exhibition of Early English Earthenware_, Burlington Fine Arts Club (London, 1914), p. 29 and fig. 41. [51] IVOR NOËL HUME, "An Indian Ware of the Colonial Period," _Archeological Society of Virginia, Quarterly Bulletin_ (September 1962), vol. 17, no. 1, p. 5. [52] IVOR NOËL HUME, "A Century of London Glass Bottles, 1580-1680," _The Connoisseur Year Book_ (London, 1956), p. 102, fig. 14 right. [53] A William Partridge was named in the Bristol Freedom Roll for 1689, cf. OSWALD, op. cit. (footnote 30), p. 88. [54] _Ibid._, p. 70. Perhaps Jacob Fox, Bristol Freedom Roll for 1688, or John Fletcher, Chester Freedom Roll 1673, or Josiah Fox of Newcastle-under-Lyme who was working in 1684. Other examples with this mark occur in groups A3 and A4, also on the Harwood property (surface find) close to the north bank of Aberdeen (Clay Bank) Creek. See p. 14. A single unstratified example has been found in Williamsburg, coming from disturbed topsoil behind Capt. Orr's Dwelling on Duke of Gloucester Street. [55] Oswald lists no maker with these initials in the appropriate period. However, a bowl impressed on the back with the initials S A over the date 1683 was found in the river Thames at Queenhithe (London) and is in the author's collection. See also D. R. ATKINSON, "Makers' Marks on Clay Tobacco Pipes Found in London," _Archaeological News Letter_ (London, April 1962), vol. 7, no. 8, p. 184; no. 24; and fig. 2, no. 24. See also _Rosewell_, p. 221 (footnote 96). [56] A pipe with similar ornament is in the author's collection of examples from the river Thames at London. CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY: PAPER 53 EXCAVATIONS AT TUTTER'S NECK IN JAMES CITY COUNTY, VIRGINIA, 1960-1961 _Ivor Noël Hume_ LOCATION OF THE SITE 32 HISTORY OF THE SITE 32 THE EXCAVATION 42 THE RESIDENCE 43 THE KITCHEN 45 THE REFUSE PITS 46 ANIMAL REMAINS 51 THE ARTIFACTS 52 CONCLUSIONS 55 [Illustration: FIGURE 1.--_Top_: HYPOTHETICAL ELEVATIONS based on foundations discovered on Tutter's Neck site. _Bottom_: Conjectural reconstruction based on elevations of the Tutter's Neck site, about 1740. Elevations by E. M. Frank, director of architecture, Colonial Williamsburg; conjectural drawings by R. Stinely.] _Ivor Noël Hume_ Excavations at TUTTER'S NECK in James City County, Virginia, 1960-1961 _Land clearance for reforestation of property leased from Williamsburg Restoration, Inc., resulted in the exposure of numerous fragments of early 18th-century pottery and glass. Partial excavation of the site, known as Tutter's Neck, revealed foundations of a small colonial dwelling and outbuilding, both of which had ceased to exist by about 1750._ _This paper describes and analyzes the artifacts recovered from refuse pits on the site. These artifacts, which have been given to the Smithsonian Institution, are closely dated by context and are valuable in the general study of domestic life in early 18th-century Virginia._ THE AUTHOR: _Ivor Noël Hume is director of the department of archeology at Colonial Williamsburg and an honorary research associate of the Smithsonian Institution._ In the summer of 1959 the Chesapeake Corporation undertook land-clearance operations prior to reforestation on property leased from Williamsburg Restoration, Inc., lying to the east of College Creek, which runs into the James River below Jamestown Island (see fig. 2). In the course of this work the foundations of a small and hitherto unrecorded colonial residence were bulldozed and largely destroyed. In the spring of 1960, Mr. Alden Eaton, director of landscape construction and maintenance for Colonial Williamsburg, while walking over the razed area, picked up numerous fragments of early 18th-century pottery and glass which he later brought to the writer for identification. As the result of this find a survey of the site was undertaken, and two colonial foundations were located and partially excavated.[57] The area available for study was limited by the need to cause as little disturbance as possible to the newly planted seedlings, by a shortage of time and labor, and by the remarkable speed with which the ground became overgrown with locust trees and infested by mayflies and mosquitoes. The location of the excavation area, nearly a mile from the nearest road, and off a track pitted with mud-filled depressions, made access impossible during most of the winter months; consequently, work was possible only in the spring and fall of 1960. By the summer of 1961 both the approach and the site itself had become completely overgrown. Regardless of these limitations it was possible to obtain full details of the surviving remains of both the dwelling and its associated kitchen, as well as recovering a number of informative groups of domestic artifacts from trash pits under and around the latter structure. Fortunately, the presence of seal-adorned wine bottles in two pits provided data that led to the identification of one of the owners of the property, and thence to a reconstruction of the history of the site in general. It should be noted that whereas the colonial artifacts that have been excavated from Marlborough and Rosewell provide a useful range of household items of the middle and third quarters of the 18th century, respectively, the Tutter's Neck material belongs only to the first 40 years of that century, with the emphasis largely upon the first decade. This last is a phase of Tidewater archeology about which little is known, falling as it does after the end of the Jamestown era and at the beginning of the Williamsburg period. Although, of course, Williamsburg was already being built at the turn of the century, so intensive was the occupation in the following 75 years that few archeological deposits of the city's early days have remained undisturbed. The fact that the Tutter's Neck site was abandoned before 1750, and never again occupied, consequently enhances its archeological importance. Location of the Site The site lies on a steeply sloping promontory at the junction of Kingsmill and Tutter's Neck Creeks, which flow as Halfway Creek into College Creek approximately 1,050 yards to the west. The house stood on the crown of the slope facing west, some 260 yards from the junction of the creeks, and thus possessed a commanding position. Perhaps, at that time, there was a clear view of all vessels passing up College Creek--the main waterway to Williamsburg from the James River. As the crow flew, the house stood approximately three miles from Williamsburg, but by road the route was close to four miles to the eastern edge of the town. While the largest ships generally unloaded their cargoes at landings on the James, the smaller vessels would often carry their cargoes up College Creek to College Landing, about a mile and a quarter from Williamsburg. It seems reasonable to suppose that Halfway Creek was also navigable for these vessels on the high tide. In view of the fact that the curve of the creek's main stream today touches the southern edge of Tutter's Neck, it is likely that a landing existed there in the 18th century. However, no traces of such a landing are now visible. History of the Site There was no known record of the existence of the houses when the Chesapeake Corporation stripped the site in 1959. The only colonial map of the area, the so-called Desandrouin map of 1781 (fig. 4), shows the neck covered by thick woodland, but indicates two or more buildings some distance to the east. These sites also lay within the bulldozed area, but, paradoxically, no traces of these have been found. Comparison of the Desandrouin map with the aerial photograph (fig. 3) will show that a small, marsh-flanked stream flowed across the back of the Neck in the 18th century and emptied into Kingsmill Creek. This stream has since silted up and has cut a new channel that causes it to open into Tutter's Neck Creek to the north of the house site. [Illustration: FIGURE 2.--THE TUTTER'S NECK SITE in relation to College Creek and the James River.] [Illustration: FIGURE 3.--AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH of Tutter's Neck taken soon after bulldozing and before the Jones site (arrow) was found. Photo courtesy City of Williamsburg.] The Desandrouin map suggests that the buildings on Tutter's Neck had ceased to exist by 1781, and this conjecture is supported by the artifacts from the site, none of which date later than mid-century. Considerable difficulty in establishing the lifespan of the house and outbuilding has resulted in part from the fact that any evidence for a terminus ante quem had been stripped away by the bulldozing and in part from the absence of any maps that identify this promontory as Tutter's Neck. Indeed the entire premise is built upon the discovery of wine-bottle seals in one refuse pit beneath the kitchen chimney and in another approximately 125 feet southeast of the house. These seals, bearing the initials "F I," were identified as having belonged to Frederick Jones, who later became Chief Justice of North Carolina. The identification was arrived at on the evidence of the will of David Bray, of James City County, that was contested in 1732. In the legal action, reference was made to "... one messuage,[58] plantation, piece or parcel of land," known as Tutties Neck, or "three hundred acres, more or less, lying and being in the parish of Bruton." This land was stated to have been purchased by Bray's mother, Judith Bray, from Frederick Jones; it then was obtained by John Randolph and passed by him in exchange to Thomas Bray.[59] [Illustration: FIGURE 4.--DETAIL OF COLONEL DESANDROUIN'S MAP of 1781. Arrow indicates Jones site.] Thus we know that Frederick Jones had owned a 300-acre tract known as Tutties Neck. Consequently, the discovery of bottle seals bearing the initials "F I" in the vicinity of a "messuage" at the mouth of Tutter's Neck Creek was not without significance. Further corroboration was provided by a letter of 1721 from Frederick Jones to his brother Thomas, in Williamsburg, regarding the incorrect marking of merchandise on the former's account "marked by mistake F I."[60] It was common practice for plantation owners to use the same shipping marks that they used for their wine-bottle seals, and therefore it may be assumed that Jones also owned bottles bearing the initials "F I." Having established with reasonable certainty that the site in question was the "Tutties Neck" that had been purchased by Judith Bray from Frederick Jones, the next step was to attempt to piece together the history of the site both before and after that transaction. Unfortunately, during the Civil War the James City County records were removed for safekeeping to Richmond where they were destroyed. This loss makes any research into the early documentary history of the county extremely difficult, and in many cases well nigh impossible. Source material must be drawn from family papers and from passing references in the records of other counties. Although the history of Tutter's Neck has many significant facts missing, it is surprising that the record is as full as it is. The first reference occurs in 1632 (or 1642) when mention is made of "great neck at the barren neck, next adjoining to Tutties neck, a branch of Archers hope creek."[61] Similar references to "Tutteys" neck and "lutteyes" neck occurred in 1637[62] and in 1646.[63] Later, in 1679, a deed of sale from Edward Gray to William South of Gloucester County refers to a parcel of land at "Tuttis Neck."[64] The same spelling was used in 1682 in the will of Otho Thorpe, of the Parish of All Hallows at the Wall in London, who left to his cousin John Grice and Grice's two elder children his plantation in Virginia called "Tuttis Neck."[65] John Grice is recorded as having been a justice in James City County in 1685 and 1694.[66] No further references to Tutter's Neck are to be found until 1711 when Frederick Jones obtained 100 acres commonly called "Lutties neck,"[67] escheated land,[68] from one Mathew Brown. It is at this point that we run into trouble, for the contents of the pits in which the Jones bottles were found included many items of the late 17th century and none dating later than the first decade of the 18th century. The pit beneath the kitchen chimney also contained a bottle bearing the seal of Richard Burbydge and dated 1701.[69] The inference, therefore, was that Frederick Jones was on the site during the first years of the 18th century. Jones came from England in 1702,[70] having inherited considerable estates from his father, Capt. Roger Jones. In 1704 he is shown in the Virginia Quit Rent Rolls as possessing 300 acres in James City County, 500 acres in New Kent County, and 2,850 acres in King William County.[71] Were it not for the purchase of 1711, it would be reasonable to assume that the 300 acres in James City County were the same that Jones sold to Judith Bray at some unspecified date prior to 1722, the year of his death. [Illustration: FIGURE 5.--Plan of excavated features.] We know that as early as 1703 Frederick Jones had interests in North Carolina, because it was in that year that one Jeremiah Goodridg brought suit against him and he was then described as "late of London."[72] In 1707 Jones received a grant of 4,565 acres in what are now Jones and Craven Counties in North Carolina.[73] At that time he was living in or near Williamsburg--presumably on his 300 acres in James City County; in 1705 he was a vestryman of the Parish of Bruton with its church in Williamsburg,[74] and in the same year both he and David Bray were listed as being among the directors for the building of Williamsburg.[75] It would seem that he was a man of consequence in the county at that time. Among the papers of the Jones family are indentures dated 1708 transferring property in both King William and New Kent Counties from Frederick to his brother Thomas Jones,[76] and it may well be construed that this transfer occurred at the time that Frederick moved to North Carolina. In the same year his plantation in Chowan Precinct, North Carolina, described as "land whereon the church now stands" was chosen as the site for a glebe.[77] This is presumably the same Chowan County plantation on which Jones died in 1722. [Illustration: FIGURE 6.--FREDERICK JONES' WINE-BOTTLE SEALS showing matrix variations: 1, initials from single matrix, with right side of "I" poorly formed (same die as fig. 7, left); 2, initials from separate matrices, with large serifs on "F" and small serifs on "I"; 3-5, initials from separate matrices, with small serifs on both letters; 6, 7, initials from separate matrices, with heavy serifs on both letters. Seal 5 came from Pit A; all others from Pit B. The use of single-letter matrices suggests a 17th-century date for the bottles' manufacture, while the presence of various die combinations makes it probable that the bottles were not all made at the same time. It is likely that the bottles were among Jones' possessions when he emigrated to Virginia in 1702.] In 1711 Frederick Jones and others residing in North Carolina appealed to Governor Spotswood of Virginia for help against the Indians.[78] In the same year his name again occurs on an address to Spotswood concerning Colonel Cary's rebellion.[79] Almost a year to the day later, he is recorded as applying at a council meeting for the return of salt carried from his house ostensibly for "Supporting ye Garrisons."[80] In July 1712 Jones acquired an additional 490 acres in North Carolina.[81] All of this evidence points to his being well settled in his new home by 1712. [Illustration: FIGURE 7.--WINE BOTTLES of Frederick Jones and Richard Burbydge, from Pit B. For scale see figure 19.] The colony of North Carolina developed more slowly than did Virginia. The first permanent English settlement in North Carolina was on the Chowan River in about 1653, with the population being drawn from Virginia. In 1663 the settled area north of Albemarle Sound became Albemarle County, when Charles II granted the territory to eight proprietors, in whose families it remained until an act of Parliament in 1729 established an agreement with seven of them (the eighth refused to sell) and thus turned the territory into a royal colony. Consequently, when Jones moved south, North Carolina was still in its infancy, a haven for piracy and beset by private feuds and troublesome Indians. In the years 1711-1712 occurred an Indian uprising of proportions comparable to those that had threatened the life of the Virginia Colony 90 years before.[82] It was this massacre of 1712 and its effect on the Jones family that occasioned the foregoing apparent digression into the early history of North Carolina. The war with the Tuscarora Indians had begun in 1711 at about the time that Jones and his neighbors had appealed to Virginia for aid, and it was not to end until 1713 when the greater part of the defeated tribe moved north to New York to become the sixth part of the Iroquois Confederation. In October 1712 Jones' plantation was attacked; but in a letter from the president of the council, Pollock, to the Governor of South Carolina, it was stated that the attackers were "... beat off, none killed of our people."[83] Although there was no loss of life, it would appear that the effect on Jones' plantation was considerable. In the Journal of the House of Burgesses at Williamsburg it was recorded that on November 5, 1712, "Frederick Jones, who some years ago removed two slaves out of this colony into North Carolina, his plantation having been totally ruined by the hostilities there; asks permission to bring his said negroes back again without paying duty."[84] Although the petition was granted, there is no indication that Jones did, in fact, return. The important phrase in this notice of petition is the "who some years ago," for it seems probable that this refers to the time when Jones left James City County to settle in North Carolina. Working on the assumption that "some years ago" would be unlikely to refer to a period of time short of three or four years, it can be construed that the date of removal fell in 1708 or 1709 at the latest. However the evidence is interpreted, it still remains curious that Jones should have purchased the 100 acres of "Lutties Neck" in 1711 and that he should sell a 300-acre tract known as "Tutties Neck" to Judith Bray, when in fact he appears to have possessed a total of 400 acres in James City County, only one of which is known to bear a name resembling Tutter's or Tutties' Neck. The only reasonable construction must be that Mathew Brown's escheated acres adjoined 300 acres that already constituted Tutter's Neck. But even then there remains the problem of why only "by estimation, three hundred acres, more or less"[85] were sold to Mrs. Bray. No evidence has been found to show what became of the remaining 100 acres, and the only Virginia property mentioned in Frederick Jones' will of April 9, 1722, was described as "lying in King William County in Virginia, commonly called Horns Quarter."[86] It is unfortunate that the direst gap in the documentary evidence spans much the same period as does the archeological data. However, the genealogy of the Bray family is of some assistance, providing clues even if it cannot offer direct answers. When Thomas Bray died on August 2, 1751, he was described as "Col. Thomas Bray, of 'Little Town,' next to 'Kingsmill,' on James River."[87] That property, lying to the east of the Kingsmill tract, can be traced back as far as 1636, and it is known to have been owned by the Pettus family in the latter part of the 17th century.[88] In about 1697 James Bray, son of James Bray, Sr., of Middle Plantation (later Williamsburg) married Mourning, widow of Thomas Pettus, Jr., and so acquired the "Little Town," or "Littletown," tract.[89] This James Bray had three children, of whom Thomas was the eldest and thus became heir to his father's estate. James Bray, Jr., had two brothers (as well as a sister). The eldest son, Thomas, died intestate. David, the youngest of the three, married Judith (b. 1679, d. Oct. 26, 1720), by whom he had one son, David, Jr.,[90] who married Elizabeth Page (b. 1702, d. 1734) and had no heir. The previously discussed transaction of 1732 following the death of David Bray, Jr., whereby Thomas Bray obtained the "Tuttie's Neck" acres that had been purchased at an unspecified date by Judith Bray,[91] would suggest that Frederick Jones retained the title until 1717. This may be deduced on the grounds that Mrs. Bray would have been unlikely to have purchased land while her husband, David Bray, Sr., was still alive. Thus Jones would seem to have sold Tutter's Neck between 1717 and 1720 when Judith Bray died. Thomas Bray, as stated above, lived at Littletown, and there is no likelihood that he ever resided at Tutter's Neck. He married Elizabeth Meriwether and by her had one child, a daughter named Elizabeth who married Col. Philip Johnson.[92] The daughter died in 1765, and when her husband followed her in 1769 "six hundred acres, with the appurtenances, called and known by the name of Tutty's neck" were offered at auction.[93] It was presumably at this time that the Tutter's Neck land was added to the neighboring Kingsmill plantation of Lewis Burwell. William Allen, of Surry County, purchased Littletown in 1796, and in 1801 he added Kingsmill to his holdings along, one supposes, with Tutter's Neck; for in the inventory made at Allen's death in 1832 the latter property was listed as comprising 923 acres and valued at $2,330.00.[94] As the archeological site under consideration was not occupied beyond the colonial period, there is no need to pursue its history through the 19th century. It is enough to note that Tutter's Neck is included in parcel no. 4 of the Kingsmill Tract now owned by Williamsburg Restoration, Inc. Part of this parcel is leased to the Chesapeake Corporation through whose courtesy excavation was made possible. CAPTAIN ROGER JONES AND FREDERICK JONES The discovery of the Tutter's Neck site and its artifacts associated with Frederick Jones arouses interest in the man himself and his place in colonial America. While those facets of his career directly relating to Tutter's Neck have been outlined above, a few additional facts may serve to round out our picture of the man. In 1680 Capt. Roger Jones of London came to Virginia with Lord Culpeper and was given the task of suppressing piracy in Chesapeake Bay. His efforts in this direction resulted in considerable personal gain and he was able to amass extensive Virginia property. Eventually Roger Jones' activities caused so many complaints that he relinquished his office and returned to London. In 1692 a letter of petition from the Council of Virginia to the Earl of Nottingham, King William's principal Secretary of State, complained bitterly about the ravages by pirates to ships carrying supplies to the colony and in particular about the conduct of Roger Jones. This petition, signed by Francis Nicholson and others of the Council, contained the following enlightening passage: ".... Capt Roger Jones, some time an Inhabitant of this Country, but at present residing in London. A man that, from noething, pretends in a few years to have gained a great Estate, & since he has declared his disaffection to yr Maty before his leaveing this Country, by refuseing to serve in any office, or take the usuall Oaths wee pray yor Lordshps leave to give you his true caracter. He came into this Country a souldier under the L Culpeper; was by his Ldsp made Captaine of a small sloope wh was to have been furnished with twelve men, & was ordered to cruise in our great Bay, to look out for & seize all unlawfull Tradrs, &c. But ye Captaine having learnt to cheate ye King very early, never had above 8 men, altho he constantly received pay for 12 men, for wh ye Lord Culpeper endeavoured to call him to Acct., as well as for his adviseing, trading with & sheltering severall Pyrates & unlawfull Traders, instead of doeing his duty in seizing them. By which means ye sd. Jones laid ye foundation of his p'sent great Estate, as he gives out he is master of."[95] In 1701 Roger Jones died in Stepney, London, and was buried at Mansfield, Nottinghamshire, the home of his wife Dorothy (née Walker) by whom he had two sons. The elder son, Frederick, inherited the larger share of the estate,[96] and both he and his brother Thomas arrived in Virginia in 1702. Thomas remained in the colony throughout his life, but, as already shown, Frederick decided that North Carolina was more to his liking. In about 1708 Frederick disposed of most of his Virginia holdings and moved south, taking with him at least two Negro slaves and his wife Jane, whom he had married while in Williamsburg.[97] There is no doubt that Frederick Jones prospered in North Carolina, and in 1717 he was appointed Chief Justice for the colony,[98] replacing the previous Secretary and Chief Justice, Tobias Knight, who had resigned in disgrace. The latter had made the mistake of being too open an accomplice of Edward "Blackbeard" Teach, the pirate. There is reason to suppose that even if Governor Eden did not personally profit from Teach's activities, he was fully aware that the pirate made his winter quarters in a North Carolina inlet. Teach was not finally cornered until November 22, 1718, in the famous exploit of Lieutenant Maynard off Ocracoke Inlet.[99] Jones had by then been in office for at least a year and he was doubtless aware of the Governor's sympathies. Indeed, with his own father's example to guide him, Jones was clearly an excellent choice for Chief Justice if leniency towards piracy was a prerequisite for the job. Although there is no evidence that Jones profited from Blackbeard's operations, the records show that he was quite prepared to turn the trust of his office to his own advantage. In the end it was a comparatively small manipulation that proved his undoing. In 1721 one Daniel Mack Daniel murdered, by drowning, a certain Ebanezar Taylor and carried off his goods and money to a total of £290.0.0d. When Mack Daniel was apprehended the money was passed for safekeeping to Frederick Jones, who apparently pocketed it. On April 4, 1722, the following entry appeared in the _Colonial Records of North Carolina_:[100] It's the Opinion of this Board that the money lodged in the said Collo ffredk Jones hands late Cheif Justice for the appearance of Robert Atkins and Daniel Mackdaniel at the Genl Court ought to have been deliverd to the present Cheif Justice with the Genl Court Papers & Records. Orderd that the said Collo ffredrick Jones late Cheif Justice doe immediately pay to Christopher Gale Cheif Justice or his Order whatever moneys he has in his hands lodged as aforesaid ... in case of failure hereof the Attorney Genl is hereby Orderd to take proper measures for the recovery thereof. At the session of July 31 to August 4, 1722, Jones was due to appear to answer the charge that he had failed to relinquish the money. But when the session opened, it was reported that Colonel Jones was dead.[101] He had made his will only five days after the initial order of April 4 had been issued.[102] Frederick Jones was in many respects a worthy and upright member of the North Carolina Council, or so one would gather from the opinion of Hugh Jones (no relation), who wrote: "Col. Frederick Jones, one of the Council, and in a good post, and of a good estate in North Carolina, before his death applied to me, desiring me to communicate the deplorable state of their Church to the late Bishop of London."[103] Frederick Jones presumably thought no better of the state of education in the colony, for we know that in the period 1719-1721 two of his sons were at school in Williamsburg.[104] The Excavation As stated in the introduction, the area and intensity of the excavations were limited by time and prevailing local conditions. Being aware of these restrictions from the outset, no attempt was made to undertake the total clearance of either the residence or kitchen. Instead, carefully restricted cuttings were made across the foundations to obtain the maximum information with the minimum effort, at the same time retaining sufficiently large undisturbed areas to merit total clearance of the site at some future date. As the area is now covered by fast-growing trees it is unlikely that such an operation would be feasible within the next 15 or 20 years. In the meantime, however, Colonial Williamsburg has erected concrete markers (see fig. 5) to record the positions of both buildings.[105] No excavation of any sort would have been undertaken at this time had not the foundations been so extensively and irreparably mutilated by the 1959 bulldozing. The loss of all the topsoil and the scooping of the upper courses of the foundations into banks to serve as windbreaks had done such damage that it was essential that something be done before the new growth took hold.[106] The operation should be correctly described, therefore, as a rescue project rather than an archeological excavation in the classic manner. Initial work on the site was confined to a survey of the area and the recovery of artifacts such as ceramics, glass, and brickbats scattered on the top of the disturbed clay. The principal concentration of artifacts was encountered in the brick-strewn vicinity of the residence and kitchen, though neither feature was immediately discernible. This scatter was flanked on the west by a windbreak of humus, clay, and fallen trees, and had run out before reaching a parallel windbreak to the east. Finds extending in the direction of the latter break included English white salt-glazed sherds as well as bottle fragments of the second quarter of the 18th century. A similar scatter of later artifacts was found extending down the southern slope of the neck at that extremity of the two breaks. In no instance were any fragments of white salt glaze found in stratified deposits, and it must be assumed that they emanated from the disturbed topsoil. To the southeast of the eastern windbreak on ground sloping towards the secondary stream was found a scatter of brick dust extending over an area approximately 12 ft. by 14 ft., in the center of which was a concentration of large over-burnt brick fragments with reddened clay beneath. No evidence of any laid bricks was encountered, and it is possible that this was the site of brickmaking rather than of a structure. The only datable artifact found in the vicinity was the base of a wine bottle of the first quarter of the 18th century that was lying in the silted bottom of a nearby rain-washed gully running towards the stream. Close to the southern extremity of the east windbreak was found a refuse pit (Pit A) containing a quantity of late 17th-century or early 18th-century wine-bottle fragments, among them one with the seal "F I." Some 70 feet northwest of this pit was located an area of laid brickbats that measured 4 ft. 6 in. by 4 ft. 6 in.; around the edges of this area were found a few fragments of early 18th-century wine bottles and one bottle base of the mid-century. This last was the latest fragment found on the site. No explanation for the presence of the brickbats was forthcoming, and no further brick deposits were encountered in the vicinity. Beyond the west windbreak and in line with the residence were found numerous glass and pottery fragments of the first and second quarters of the 18th century, none of them in situ. It was presumed that they stemmed from the vicinity of the residence and were spread about by the bulldozing before the windbreaks were pushed up. Over and above the artifacts and features listed above, no other evidence of colonial occupation was discovered except in the immediate vicinity of the two buildings. The location of the structures was at once apparent on the evidence of large quantities of disturbed bricks and mortar scooped into east-west furrows by the bulldozers. Careful probing in the two largest concentrations of brickbats soon located sections of the foundations of both buildings. It was then a simple matter to trace out the plans of each building before any digging was undertaken. This done, test cuttings were made at the corners and across the chimney foundations. Subsequently, additional cuttings were made within each building to determine whether or not either possessed a cellar. In the course of this work on the smaller of the two structures, numerous refuse pits were located that helped to provide a terminus post quem for its construction. Each of these pits was treated as an individual feature and will be discussed in detail in its proper place. The Residence The house, as previously stated, was built on a north-south axis with its west face looking toward College Creek. It looked eastward along the track that led to the road linking Williamsburg with Burwell's Ferry (Kingsmill) on the James River. The residence possessed exterior measurements of 42 ft. 3 in. by 19 ft. 1 in. with a chimney foundation at the south measuring 9 ft. 9 in. by 5 ft. and another, at the north, measuring 9 ft. 11 in. by 4 ft. 11 in. These chimneys had sides of varying thicknesses: 1 ft. 7 in., 1 ft. 9 in., 1 ft. 6 in., 1 ft. 11 in., 2 ft., and 1 ft. 6 in. The east and north foundations of the house itself were a brick and a half (1 ft. 1 in.) in thickness, but the south wall was only one brick thick (9 in.), although the two foundations were bonded into one another at the southeast corner. An even more curious situation was provided by the west wall which extended south from the northwest corner at a thickness of 1 ft. 1 in. and for a distance of 24 ft. 3 in., whereupon it stopped. At this point the three surviving courses were stepped back, indicating that although there was no flush end, the bond had not been intended to continue. At a point 9 in. farther south, one brick and two bats were found continuing on the same line. No further trace of a west wall was found until a point was reached 8 ft. from the southwest corner. Here, stepping down as did the northern section, the foundation continued to the corner, rising to a height of four courses, but only one brick in thickness.[107] Neither the break in the west foundation nor the curious variation in the thickness of the foundations has been explained. It was suspected that the building might have possessed a porch chamber extending to the west, but no westerly projecting foundations abutted against the stepped ends of the west wall. The presence of the west windbreak made any further excavation in that direction impossible, and it could be argued that a porch chamber might not have had foundations as deep as those of the house proper. If this were so, then it is conceivable that they were dismantled along with the rest of the building in the mid-18th century and that any remaining traces have been destroyed by the bulldozing. A single fragment of a polychrome Bristol delftware charger, with nails and window-glass fragments, was found in the builder's trench at the southern extremity of the northern section of the west foundation (deposit T.N. 27).[108] The sherd is attributed to the period about 1680-1700, and it is the only clue as to the construction date of the residence. In loose fill inside the foundation in the same general area as the above find were located part of a lead-glass tumbler and the front of an iron padlock. The tumbler fragment could not date before the first quarter of the 18th century, and might be later. Two test cuttings were made inside the building in the hope of locating a cellar, but none was found. However, a neck of a wine bottle dating no earlier than about 1740 was discovered amid the debris of the house (T.N. 28). It should be noted that this debris showed no indication of burning. It was apparent that the house had been of frame construction resting on brick foundations laid in English bond. It was a little over twice as long as it was broad, and appeared even longer when seen with its massive exterior chimneys at either end. Such a house would probably have been a story and a half in height, having an A roof with dormers probably facing both east and west.[109] Fragments of small panes and lead window cames found in the excavations suggest that the windows were leaded and therefore of casement type. On the first floor there probably were two rooms, a hall and chamber--perhaps divided by a central passage with exterior doors at either end. Prior to the building of the separate kitchen, the hall may have been used for cooking. Above, there were probably two rooms approached by a staircase leading from the passage. This reconstruction assumes, of course, that no porch chamber existed on the west side. Since no evidence of a dirt or brick floor was encountered, it is assumed that the floors were of wood. Beyond establishing, from foundation widths, that the building was of frame construction, it must be noted that no archeological evidence of the above-grade appearance of the building was forthcoming. Mr. E. M. Frank, director of architecture for Colonial Williamsburg, whose conjectural elevation provides the frontispiece to this paper, points out that the roof may have been made from lapping oak strips some four feet in length, as were found at the Brush-Everard House in Williamsburg. He further suggests that the weatherboards could also have taken the form of similar split-oak strips, precedent for which survives in the west wall of the John Blair House, also in Williamsburg. A house of the above proportions and character was a little better than many a yeoman's home in England, although it owed its origins to those same homes. It was larger than the smaller houses of Jamestown, but only just as large as the smaller houses of Williamsburg, whose sizes were regulated by an Act of Assembly in 1705. The Tutter's Neck residence differed from most of the Williamsburg houses in that it had no cellar. While it was a perfectly adequate house for a Williamsburg citizen of average means and status, one might be tempted to assume that it would not long have sufficed as the home of Col. Frederick Jones who, in North Carolina, aspired to 6 children and 42 slaves.[110] On the other hand, it may be noted that the Carters of "Corotoman" on the Rappahannock, one of the wealthiest families in Virginia at the beginning of the 18th century, had lived in a rather similar house prior to the building of an imposing and larger brick mansion. The latter burned in 1729, whereupon Robert "King" Carter moved back into the old 17th-century house. Carter's inventory made at the time of his death in 1732, and now in the possession of the Virginia Historical Society, identifies the rooms in the "Old House" as comprising a dining room, chamber over the dining room, lower chamber, chamber over the lower chamber, and a porch chamber. This last strongly suggests that the "Old House" was of 17th-century date. As other buildings named in the inventory are noted as being of brick (probably advance buildings for the burnt mansion), it may be assumed that the "Old House" was of frame construction and so might well have been of the same class as the Tutter's Neck residence. A further similarity is to be found in the fact that the Carter inventory lists no cellars beneath the "Old House." The Kitchen Like the residence, this subsidiary building was not without its unusual features, the most obvious being the position of the massive chimney standing against the main east-west axis of the building instead of at one of the ends, the normal position. Thus, instead of being supported by the A of the roof, the chimney was freestanding above the first floor with the pitch of the roof running away from it. The building possessed external measurements of 25 ft. 4-1/2 in. by 16 ft. 7-1/2 in.; the foundations, laid in English bond, were one brick (9 in.) thick. The chimney abutted against the north wall, measured 10 ft. by 5-1/2 ft.; its sides were 11 ft., 1 ft. 9 in., and 11 in. thick.[111] Such a building would have stood to a height of a story and a half with one room on the first floor and a rude attic above, probably approached from a ladder. Cuttings across the foundations showed that the bricks were unevenly laid. At one point in the south wall the bricks jogged out to a distance of two inches, as though the foundation had been laid from both ends and failed to meet correctly in the middle. There was no possibility that this unevenness could have been caused by settling or root action after building, for the builder's trench was filled with clearly defined burnt clay that also followed the jog. The same red clay was packed in the builder's trench all around the kitchen building. It was also used to span soft depressions resulting from refuse pits dug and filled with trash before the building was erected. For some unexplained reason the kitchen was constructed over an area that previously had been set aside for the burying of domestic refuse. The largest and earliest of the five pits excavated was situated partially beneath the massive kitchen chimney, whose foundation, not surprisingly, had settled into the pit. Another rectangular pit in the middle of the building was not only topped with a pad of red clay but was partially covered by a cap or pier of laid brickbats that perhaps served as a support for floor joists. The presence of the pits sealed beneath the kitchen provided two pieces of information: that the site had been occupied for some time before its construction, and that it was not built before about 1730 or 1740--this on the evidence of a wine bottle found at the bottom of Pit D. If this was the first separate kitchen building erected on the site, it must be assumed that the cooking was originally carried on in one of the first-floor rooms of the residence. However, the fact that the archeological excavations were so limited makes any conjecture of that kind of dubious value. The unusual construction of the kitchen and its situation in the trash area at a skew with the residence might prompt the conclusion that it was built without much consideration for the beauty of the whole. It is probable that the kitchen was erected after the house had ceased to be the residence of the owner or a tenant of the Tutter's Neck acres, and that the dwelling was then a slave quarter. Such a conclusion is supported by the presence in Pits D-F, of numerous fragments of Colono-Indian pottery, a ware produced by Tidewater Indians in pseudo-European forms and probably intended for the use of the slave population. The construction date of the kitchen in the decade 1731-1740 would place it in the ownership of Col. Thomas Bray, who resided at Littletown (see p. 40). Thus the Tutter's Neck residence is at best unlikely to have been any more than the quarters of an overseer, or, at worst, communal housing for slaves working in that area. Such a conclusion would help to explain the fact that the majority of artifacts found in the site's later deposits were of dates much earlier than their contexts would suggest. Many items of pottery and cutlery were of late 17th-century date, though found in refuse pits of about 1730-1740. This would not be so surprising were it not for the fact that few, if any, such items have been found in excavations at Williamsburg, a town that was firmly established throughout the period covered by the Tutter's Neck occupancy as determined by the excavations. But if the kitchen site was used as a slave quarter, it would be logical to expect that such things as pottery and cutlery would have been old before being relegated to that location. A graphic example is provided by the latten spoon from Pit D that dates from the period about 1660-1690 (fig. 15, no. 13) and which had seen such service that it had been worn down to half its bowl size before being discarded. The Refuse Pits A total of six refuse pits were excavated, five of them entirely or partially sealed beneath the foundations of the kitchen. All five consequently predated that structure, though Pit B (see fig. 5) was probably 20 years earlier than the others. Pits C-F, on the other hand, were probably all dug within a short time of each other. They were approximately the same size and depth and were situated within a few inches of one another, although none overlapped its neighbor. It may be deduced, therefore, that the pits were dug in such close succession that the outlines of the preceding pits were still visible to the digger. It is possible that they may have been privy pits. Concrete evidence indicating the close relationships between these pits was provided by fragments of the same Colono-Indian bowl found in both Pit D and Pit E. PIT A This deposit (T.N. 31) was located farthest from the buildings, being situated, as previously noted, about 125 feet southeast of the residence on the south slope of the neck. As elsewhere on the site, the topsoil over the pit had been removed, leaving only the lower portions of the dirty yellow clay deposit intact. This pit measured 8 ft. by 5 ft. and extended to a depth of only 1 ft. 2 in. into the surrounding natural yellow clay. A tree stump obscured a small part of this oval pit, but it is believed that its presence prevented few, if any, artifacts from avoiding recovery. The finds comprised two or three sherds of coarse pottery of no identifiable form, part of the base of an English delftware mug ornamented with sponged manganese, one clay pipe of about 1700, and fragments of at least 18 wine bottles of the period about 1690-1710. One of these fragments bore an "F I" seal from the same matrix as another found in Pit B. The location of Pit A so far from the house and in a totally different area from the only other pit of the same date (Pit B) suggests that there was little consistency in the deposition of trash in the early years of the century. It is possible that the pits were created when tree stumps were removed and were filled with trash no matter where they happened to be. The fact that modern tree roots invariably sought the richer soil of the pits' contents makes it quite probable that there are numerous other pits on the site that are still hidden beneath standing trees or cut stumps. Dating: There is little doubt that Pit A was filled during the first decade of the 18th century. PIT B This pit (T.N. 30) was approximately circular, with a diameter of 9 ft. 4 in. and a maximum depth of 2 ft. 8 in. It was covered by part of the kitchen's north wall and by the whole of the east side of the kitchen chimney. It was apparent that the builders knew that the pit was there, for a considerable number of brickbats were laid under the foundation of the chimney's northeast corner in an entirely abortive attempt to prevent it from settling. It is probable that the pit was initially a stump hole, there being a large quantity of dirty, greenish-gray clay at the bottom from which no artifacts were recovered (see fig. 8.) It is probable that this clay was redeposited when the stump and attached roots were dug out. Subsequently, the remaining concavity served as a rubbish pit into which more than 120 broken wine bottles were thrown. All these bottles belonged to the same period (1690-1710) as those in Pit A, and among them were five seals marked "F I" and one seal bearing the legend "Richard Burbydge 1701."[112] [Illustration: FIGURE 8.--Section through the filling of Pit B.] Other finds included fragments of English delftware, among them a very large polychrome charger that had been intended as a wall or dresser ornament, and a most unusual saucer-shaped vessel, ornamented with splashes of blue, that resembles a reversed form of the London copies of Nevers faïence.[113] Additional finds included North Devon[114] and other coarse earthenwares, a millefiori bead, and an English wineglass in the Hawley Bishop style dating about 1690. Dating: The evidence of the bottles indicates a filling date in the first decade of the 18th century. PIT C Covering the top of this pit was a layer of reddish clay, the same type of clay that was used in the backfilling of the builders' trench around the kitchen foundations. The clay was directly covered by brick rubble from the building's destruction stratum. From between the clay and rubble (T.N. 15) came fragments of an iron saw some 17 in. long and a brass harness fitting of unusual form. Set into the clay level was the base of a brick pier made from brickbats and intended to provide added support over the soft filling of a pit measuring approximately 6 ft. by 4 ft. 3 in. and having a total depth of 2 ft. 6 in. The walls were carefully trimmed and the bottom was flat, leaving no doubt that this cavity was dug as a refuse pit and was not a converted stump hole. The red clay described above gave way to a yellow clay beneath the brick pier from which level (T.N. 16) came a few unimportant pottery fragments, a shoulder fragment from a wide-mouthed jar, and an iron harness buckle. Beneath this stratum was encountered the main pit filling, comprising a thick stratum of wood ash (T.N. 17) which blended towards the corners of the pit into pale clay (T.N. 18) that has probably silted in from the sides. From the ash deposit came part of a sickle, the bowl of a much-decayed pewter spoon, objects of turned bone, tobacco pipes, and a silvered-brass harness ornament. Somewhat surprisingly, the stratum also contained part of a plate comparable to the delftware charger from Pit B, though the date of the deposit was probably 20 or more years later. The silted clay at the bottom of the pit included numerous clay-pipe fragments whose stem holes, following the Harrington theory, pointed to a date in the period about 1735-1750. Other finds included coarse earthenwares from Yorktown, delftware, and part of a pewter spoon handle. Dating: About 1740. PIT D This was a rectangular rubbish pit measuring approximately 5 ft. 10 in. by 4 ft. and having a maximum depth of 2 ft. 8 in.--measurements closely resembling those of Pit C, which was situated only one foot to the east. Stratigraphy also followed much the same sequence: Four inches of brick rubble on the top (T.N. 26), then 6 inches of red clay (T.N. 22) overlying the main fill of wood ash and becoming mixed with silted clay at the bottom (T.N. 23). The red clay had mixed with the top of the pit fill and a number of artifacts spanned the division of the strata, among them a rim sherd from a polychrome delftware charger (about 1670-1690) and part of an inverted baluster wineglass stem of the beginning of the 18th century. [Illustration: FIGURE 9.--BOWL OF BUFF-COLORED EARTHENWARE with a brown lead glaze and with "ELIZABETH GOODALL 1721" inscribed in slip. Probably Staffordshire. Height, 7-1/2 in. This bowl parallels one of similar ware found at Tutter's Neck (fig. 19, no. 9). Colonial Williamsburg, Department of Collections, no. 1960-430.] The primary ash deposit, which proved to be the richest on the site, included delft drug-jar fragments, porringers and bowls, Westerwald tankard sherds, brown stoneware, Yorktown coarse wares, and much Colono-Indian pottery. Small finds included pewter spoons, scissors, part of a sword guard, iron dividers, and a sickle and table knives of late 17th-century character. Tobacco-pipe fragments pointed to a dating in the third decade of the 18th century, as also did a single wine bottle found at the bottom of the pit. Dating: About 1730-1740, on the above evidence. PIT E This deposit lay some 3 feet to the west of Pit D, and it was found on the last day of excavation. Consequently time only permitted a test hole (measuring 1 ft. 9 in. by 1 ft. 9 in.) to be made into the pit at its northwest corner, from which point horizontal probing indicated that the pit measured 4 ft. by 2 ft. 8 in. and was shown by the test cut to be 2 ft. 9 in. deep. Unlike the other pits in this series, the contents consisted of a single brown-soil deposit (T.N. 24) containing brickbats, oystershells, and a small quantity of ceramics, notably the base of an ornamental delftware cup and a large part of a Yorktown earthenware bowl. Of significance was a fragment of Colono-Indian pottery that joined onto a bowl found in Pit D, indicating that both deposits were of the same date. Additional finds included pipe fragments and an iron horseshoe. Dating: About 1730-1740, principally on evidence of matching sherds of Indian pottery. PIT F This was an oval pit situated 2 feet north of Pit C. Being only partially within the area of excavation and owing to its close proximity to the poorly preserved north foundation of the kitchen, this deposit was only partially excavated, i.e., an area 4 ft. 2 in. by 3 ft. 9 in. The pit had a depth of 1 ft. 10 in. and contained a deposit of ash mixed with dirty clay (T.N. 19). From this filling came several pieces of Colono-Indian pottery, polychrome delftware, Yorktown earthenwares, Chinese porcelain, part of a heavy wineglass knop, and one minute sherd of white salt glaze on which the pit's terminal dating is based. Dating: About 1730-1740. OTHER DEPOSITS YIELDING ARTIFACTS ILLUSTRATED Deposits T.N. 1, T.N. 2.--Deposit T.N. 1 was in a 6-inch stratum of rich black soil outside the northwest corner of the kitchen and partially covered by a large tree stump. While some of the black dirt overlay the corner foundation, its looseness suggests that it was pushed there during the bulldozing. No traces of the stratum extended inside the kitchen, and the artifacts were consistently of dates prior to the construction of the building. Finds included a pewter spoon handle, brown stoneware with a rare white interior, a tobacco-pipe bowl with maker's initials "H S," a wineglass stem comparable to that from pit B, and panes of window glass measuring 2-1/8 in. by 1-7/8 in. and 1-5/8 in. by 2-7/16 in. Deposit T.N. 2 was a 2-inch layer of burnt clay flecked with wood ash. It lay beneath the black soil level and probably was deposited when the kitchen was built. Consequently, the upper level can only have been laid down after that time. Finds included one sherd of Spanish majolica and a fragment of a tobacco-pipe bowl bearing the name of Tippet, a family of Bristol pipemakers in the late 17th and early 18th centuries.[115] Dating: It is assumed that the clay (T.N. 2) was contemporary with the construction date of the kitchen (about 1730-1740) and that the black fill (T.N. 1) was deposited soon afterward. Deposit T.N. 3.--A continuation of the red clay inside the kitchen chimney. Finds include one Rhenish "Bellarmine"[116] sherd and a pewter spoon handle. [Illustration: Figure 10.--FRAGMENTS OF SIMILARLY ORNAMENTED 17TH-CENTURY DELFTWARE from Tutter's Neck, London, and Holland: 1, with blue and orange decoration, from Tutter's Neck, Pit B; 2, with blue decoration, from Tutter's Neck, Pit D; 3, bowl waster with blue, orange, and green decoration, from Toolley Street kiln site, London; 4, plate with blue decoration from Toolley Street site; 5, plate decorated in blue, orange, and green, from Dutch Limburg. The Netherlands dish, earlier than the English examples, clearly indicates the source of the border design.] [Illustration: Figure 11.--INTERIOR BASES OF DELFTWARE SALTS with identical Carolian profiles. _Left_, from Tutter's Neck, Pit D; _right_, from the Thames at London. Diameter of each base is 1-3/4 in.] Dating: Same as T.N. 2, about 1730-1740. Deposit T.N. 4.--A stratum of black soil overlying the red clay outside the southwest corner of the kitchen foundation. Finds include wine-bottle fragments dating about 1690-1710, brown stoneware, Yorktown coarse earthenware, and English delftware sherds. Dating: After kitchen construction, probably in the same decade, about 1730-1740. Deposit T.N. 10.--Black humus mixed with plaster and brickbats outside the west wall of the residence's north chimney. The only find of importance is a well-preserved, two-tined, iron table fork. Dating: The stratum represents the destruction level of the residence, and the scant dating evidence recovered from T.N. 18, etc., suggests that the building had ceased to exist by 1750, or possibly a few years earlier. Deposit T.N. 27.--The field number covers two deposits that blended together in their upper levels. They comprise the back filling of the builder's trench against the residence's west foundation (see p. 44)--from which came a single delftware charger sherd of about 1680-1700--and a stratum of black humus mixed with mortar and plaster representing the destruction layer of the house. The bulldozing had caused considerable disturbance to both layers, but it can be safely accepted that the delft sherd belonged to the construction date of the residence and that a lead-glass tumbler base and an iron-padlock fragment came from the destruction stratum. Dating: The construction date for the house relies on the insufficient evidence of the single delftware sherd mentioned above, i.e., after about 1680. The destruction dating comes not from the items noted here but from the bottle neck discussed under T.N. 28, after about 1740. Deposit T.N. 28.--A test cutting inside the residence on the line of the supposed central hallway that revealed 9 inches of humus mixed with mortar and plaster resting on natural clay. From the above level came one bottle neck of about 1740. On this evidence and on the evidence of unstratified sherds found in the occupation area, it is assumed that the complex had been abandoned by the middle of the 18th century. Dating: After about 1740. Animal Remains Animal bones and marine items were largely confined to the refuse pits previously discussed, although a few garbage bones and oystershells had been spread around the site in the course of the bulldozing. Bones from the pits comprised the usual range of ox, pig, and deer remains that are to be found amid the garbage of most colonial sites. A group of the less readily identifiable bones were submitted to the Smithsonian Institution for examination and the following identifications were provided: Left humerus, wild duck, (white-winged scoter, _Melanitta deglandi_). From T.N. 17. Fibula of pig (_Sus scrofa_), domestic. From T.N. 17. Shaft of humerus, domestic goose. From T.N. 22. Mandible of possum (_Didelphis_ sp. _marsupialis_, subsp. _virginiana_), edible. From T.N. 22. Mandible of "marine gar," or needlefish, of the Belonidae family, probably _Strongylura marina_ (Walbaum), a very common sea fish in this area, which runs in fresh water, and is frequently eaten. From T.N. 24. [Illustration: FIGURE 12.--COLONO-INDIAN CUP excavated at Williamsburg which is comparable to a fragment from Tutter's Neck (fig. 18, no. 17). Height, 3-7/8 in.] Also submitted for examination were specimens from a number of scallop shells, which were plentiful in Pits C and D, and examples of mussel and clam shells from Pit C. The identifications were as follows: Fresh water mussel of a type eaten by the Indians, _Elliptio complanatus_. From T.N. 18. Fossil clam, _Glycymeris_ sp. From T.N. 18. Fossil scallop of a variety no longer living in this area. From T.N. 22. The identification of the scallop as being fossil was somewhat surprising in view of the prevalence of such shells in Pits C and D. However, it should be noted that Pit E (T.N. 24) contained a fragment of fossil whale rib. Such bones are plentiful in the Tidewater marl beds and are frequently found on the shores of the James and York Rivers. The Artifacts TOBACCO PIPES Pipes (fig. 14) were not plentiful, no more than 100 fragments being found in any one deposit. The datable bowls and fragments of pipes closely followed the site's two periods as indicated by the various refuse pits; that is, examples from Pits A and B date from around 1700-1720, and those from the rest of the pits are of types loosely attributed to the period of about 1710-1780. On the evidence of association and by the use of the Harrington system of stem-hole dating, there is no reason to date any of the pipes later than the first half of the 18th century. A few deposits yielded a sufficient number of stem fragments to provide tentative dating, as follows: -------------------+--------+---------------------------+--------- |_No. of_| _Stem diameters_ | _Deposit_ | _frag-_+---------------------------+ _Date_ | _ments_| 4/64" 5/64" 6/64" 7/64"| -------------------+--------+---------------------------+--------- Pit B (T.N. 30) | 91 | 29% 60% 11% |1700-1720 Pit C (T.N. 17, 18)| 82 | 17% 78% 5% |1730-1750 Pit D (T.N. 23) | 49 | 16% 63% 21% |1730-1740 Kitchen (T.N. 1) | 55 | 57% 43% |1720-1740 -------------------+--------+---------------------------+--------- It should be noted that in all cases the samplings are too small for accuracy and that they are based on Mr. Harrington's elementary chart which he, himself, claims to be no more than a point of departure for a new approach to the dating of tobacco-pipe fragments. Nevertheless, the above results do follow fairly closely the dating of the groups arrived at on the evidence of stratigraphy and on the study of associated artifacts of all types. Since this report was first written, Lewis Binford of the University of Chicago has developed a mathematical formula based on Harrington's chart which enables one to arrive at a mean date for the deposition of a group of pipes. Audrey Noël Hume has subsequently demonstrated that a sampling of approximately 900 fragments is needed to maintain consistent results, and that the degree of accuracy rapidly falls off when dealing with groups of pipes dating earlier than 1670 and later than 1760.[117] Fortunately, the Tutter's Neck pipes, though few in number, do fall within the period of greatest accuracy. The following table illustrates the relationships between dates arrived at on the basis of all artifactual and documentary evidence (I), by the use of the Harrington chart (II), and by the Binford formula (III). --------------------+-----------+-----------+------- _Deposit_ | _I_ | _II_ | _III_ --------------------+-----------+-----------+------- Pit B (T.N. 30) | 1702-1710 | 1700-1720 | 1709 Pit C (T.N. 17, 18) | ca. 1740 | 1735-1750 | 1745 Pit D (T.N. 23) | 1730-1740 | 1730-1740 | 1739 Stratum (T.N. 1) | ca. 1740 | 1720-1740 | 1724 --------------------+-----------+-----------+------- The discrepancy in the dating of layer T.N. 1 must be explained by the fact that the soil and its contents were dug from somewhere else and redeposited outside the kitchen building. Had this stratum predated the building, it would undoubtedly have been found on both sides of the foundation and would not have overlaid the red clay level (T.N. 2) which was similar and probably identical to that sealing pits C and D, the latter containing a wine bottle of about 1740 (fig. 19, no. 18). The following maker's marks were found on pipes: [Sidenote: R M] One initial on either side of the heel. Two examples (see fig. 14, no. 3). The initials are not uncommon on pipes of the same shape found at Williamsburg and Rosewell Plantation.[118] There were at least seven pipemakers with these initials working in the late 17th and early 18th centuries.[119] T.N. 30, Pit B. [Sidenote: H S] One initial on either side of the heel. One example (fig. 14, no. 5). Other pipes with these initials have been found at Williamsburg and Rosewell Plantation. Maker not known. T.N. 1. [Sidenote: I S] One initial on either side of the heel. One example (fig. 14, no. 6). The mark is not recorded among previous finds from either Jamestown or Williamsburg. At least five makers with these initials were working in Bristol in the appropriate period. T.N. 17, Pit C. [Illustration: FIGURE 13.--1, IRON SAW FRAGMENTS found under the Tutter's Neck kitchen (T.N. 15); 2-5, iron sickle, padlock, scissors, and dividers, respectively, from various deposits on the site (see figs. 15, 16).] [Sidenote: RICH ARDS AYER] Richard Sayer. Two examples had the name stamped on bases of flat heels; five others had the stamp on the upper sides of stems (see fig. 14, no. 1). All seven stamps occur on glazed pipes of good quality. No previous examples of his pipes have been found at either Jamestown or Williamsburg. Possibly Richard Sayers who is recorded by Oswald as having been working at Newbury in about 1700. T.N. 30, Pit B. [Sidenote: ...IP ...ET] This fragmentary stamp on a molded cartouche on the side of a bowl came from a context of about 1730-1740 (T.N. 2) and was presumably made by the Robert Tippet of Bristol who became a freeman in 1713 and whose pipes have been found in Williamsburg contexts dating as late as the mid-18th century.[120] [Sidenote: RICH TYLER] Presumably Richard Tyler, but the last two letters of the surname are unclear. The stamp appears on a stem fragment within an oval of impressed square dots. Oswald lists a Richard Tyler who was working at Bath in about 1700. Stem-hole diameter, 5/64 in. Unstratified. [Sidenote: W] Fragment from base of bowl of pipe with neither heel nor spur, probably similar in shape to no. 4 of figure 14. The first of a pair of initials molded on either side of the base.[121] Stem-hole diameter, 7/64 in. Unstratified. METAL OBJECTS Metal items (figs. 15-17) from the site provide a valuable series of common domestic and agricultural objects of a period that has as yet received little study. The majority of the principal items came from a single refuse pit beneath the kitchen (Pit D, T.N. 23) and although deposited in the second quarter of the 18th century they are generally of earlier date. The surprising preponderance of late 17th-century items in this and other contexts tends to support the theory that the house served as a quarter toward the end of its life and that the furnishings, tools, and utensils consequently were already worn and old-fashioned when provided for use by the slaves. CERAMICS Like the metal items, the ceramics are predominantly of the late 17th and early 18th century, though frequently found in contexts of the second quarter of the latter century. The quality and variety of the wares is somewhat surprising, the finds including some items that are today of considerable rarity. Notable among them is the saucer in a reversed "Nevers" style that is seemingly without parallel (fig. 18, no. 8), a London delftware "charger" of massive proportions and uncommon design (fig. 18, no. 10), a lead-glazed Staffordshire bowl fragment (see fig. 19, no. 9), and part of a brown-surfaced white stoneware jug that may have come from the factory of John Dwight of Fulham near London.[122] The majority of the delftwares have the appearance of London manufacture, rather than that of Bristol or Liverpool. As a broad generalization it may be claimed that the former trend in Virginia was characteristic of the 17th century but was reversed in the 18th. An unusually large percentage of Colono-Indian pottery was present, predominantly in pits dating from the second quarter of the 18th century. The same contexts also yielded a high proportion of lead-glazed earthenware cream pans manufactured at Yorktown, presumably at the factory of William Rogers that may have been operating as early as 1725.[123] Although all the items found on the Tutter's Neck site emanate from contexts of 18th-century date, most of the delftwares and some of the stoneware items are without parallel in nearby Williamsburg, the 18th-century cultural and economic center of Virginia that lay only three miles away. Once again, therefore, the artifacts point to a 17th-century survival and perhaps, by projection, to a low standard of living. An indication of a terminal date for the life of the site is provided by the total absence of English white salt-glazed stoneware from all except one stratified deposit (Pit F), a ware that does not seem to have reached the colonies before the third decade of the 18th century,[124] most of it arriving after about 1740. It must be recorded, however, that fragments of this later period were found scattered on the surface, but it was impossible to determine whence they came. GLASS BOTTLES Wine bottles[125] provided the key to the entire excavation, first by possessing seals (fig. 6) that identified the owner of the property and secondly by providing dating evidence for the construction of the kitchen; thus there was avoided an error of dating that would otherwise have been inevitable. In addition, the group of bottles from Pit B (T.N. 30) provided a valuable series of specimens of varying shapes, all of which were in use together at the beginning of the 18th century. (See fig. 19, nos. 11-20.) A few small fragments of green pharmaceutical phials were also recovered, but none was sufficiently large to merit illustration. TABLE GLASS Although wine-bottle glass was plentiful, table glass was comparatively scarce. It was confined to the three wineglasses illustrated as nos. 16-18 of figure 17, a 17th-century wineglass-stem fragment similar to no. 17 of figure 17 (see footnote 94), heavy tumbler-base fragments of typical 18th-century type (from T.N. 24, 27), and a fragment from a fine gadrooned Romer of late 17th-century date (fig. 20, no. 8). Conclusions The Tutter's Neck excavations represented the partial exploration of a small colonial dwelling and outbuilding, both of which ceased to exist by about 1750. On the basis of the excavated artifacts the intensity of occupation seems to fall into two periods, the decade of about 1701-1710 and within the years about 1730-1740. Documentary evidence indicates that these periods relate to the respective ownerships of Frederick Jones and Thomas Bray. While the groups of artifacts from refuse pits are closely dated by context and are consequently valuable in the general study of domestic life in early 18th-century Virginia, the history of the site is less well served. The limited nature of the excavation, the loss of the overburden through bulldozing, and the destruction of the James City County court records during the Civil War serve to leave a number of important gaps in the chronology. It is to be hoped that at such time as the new trees have grown up and have been cut there will be archeologists ready and waiting to complete the excavation of this small but historically interesting site. Illustrations The illustrated items are confined to those that are sufficiently complete or readily identifiable as to be of value to archeologists, curators, and historians who may find comparable items elsewhere. In the interest of brevity, repetitive or unstratified objects have been omitted, although occasional exceptions have been made in the latter category where it is considered that the objects are of significance to the study of the structures or the possessions of Tutter's Neck residents, whether or not they can be closely dated. The drawn objects are divided by type and are arranged in chronological order within each group where variations of date are apparent. In most instances the archeological evidence of the date at which the artifacts were deposited in the ground is more accurate than is the overall date range of individual items. Thus the fact that a delftware form that was developed about 1700 continued to be manufactured until about 1740 would give us, in the absence of archeological evidence, a manufacture date of about 1700-1740, but there would be no indication of the length of the object's actual life. On the other hand, the archeological evidence tells us only when the object was discarded, and not when it was made. To avoid confusion, the descriptions of the artifacts only indicate the periods in which the objects were first made and/or were most popular, and then only when such dates are clearly at variance with the archeological termini. Each description ends with the Tutter's Neck field number that indicates the source of the item and provides the terminus post quem for its context. Table 1 provides a summary of the foregoing report for use in conjunction with the artifact illustrations. TABLE 1.--_Location and terminal dates of deposits._ --------------+-------------------------+----------------- _Field Number_| _Deposit_ | _Terminal Date_ (T.N.) | | --------------+-------------------------+----------------- 1 | Kitchen | c. 1740 2 | " | c. 1730-1740 3 | " | c. 1730-1740 4 | " | c. 1740 8 | kitchen vicinity | Unstratified 10 | residence | c. 1740-1750 15 | kitchen | c. 1740 16 | " | c. 1730-1740 17 | Pit C | c. 1725-1735 18 | " " | c. 1725-1735 19 | Pit F | c. 1730-1740 22 | kitchen | c. 1730-1740 23 | Pit D | c. 1730-1740 24 | Pit E | c. 1730-1740 27 | residence | c. 1740_ff_1750 28 | " | c. 1740-1750 29 | slope south of residence| c. 1750-1760 30 | Pit B | c. 1702-1710 31 | Pit A | c. 1702-1710 32 | residence vicinity | Unstratified --------------+-------------------------+----------------- FIGURE 14. TOBACCO-PIPE PROFILES 1. Pipe with bowl shape reminiscent of the 17th century but with the lip horizontal instead of sloping away from the stem as characteristic of the earlier forms. Mouth somewhat oval; spur small; the clay very white and glazed. Marked on the stem with the name Richard Sayer. Stem-hole diameter 6/64 in. Oswald Type 9d.[126] T.N. 30. 2. Fragmentary bowl of cylindrical form, having a shallow heel from which the fore-edge of the bowl springs forward. This is a late 17th-century form. No mark. Stem-hole diameter 6/64 in. T.N. 30. 3. Bowl of basic 18th-century form, but the narrow profile is indicative of an early date within the period. Letters "R M" molded on either side of the heel. Stem-hole diameter 5/64 in. T.N. 30. [Illustration: FIGURE 14.--TOBACCO-PIPE PROFILES. Same size.] 4. Bowl with neither heel nor spur, but the angle of the bowl comparable to that of no. 2. No mark. Stem-hole diameter 5/64 in. T.N. 31. 5. Bowl apparently similar to no. 3, but with the lip missing; smaller heel with molded initials "IIS," but the letters poorly formed and almost illegible. Stem-hole diameter 6/64 in. T.N. 1. 6. Bowl slightly fatter than the above, initials "IS" clearly molded on the small heel, the "I" very thick. Stem-hole diameter 4/64 in. T.N. 17. 7. Bowl with neither heel nor spur, an evolved 18th-century form in the style of no. 6 but somewhat larger. This is clearly a later variation of no. 4.[127] Stem-hole diameter 5/64 in. T.N. 19. 8. Base of bowl and stem fragment, of red clay and of local Virginia manufacture.[128] Apparently a 17th-century form, but found here in an 18th-century context. Stem-hole diameter 10/64 in. T.N. 18. [Illustration: FIGURE 15.--CUTLERY and other small finds. One-half.] FIGURE 15. CUTLERY AND OTHER SMALL FINDS 1. Table knife, iron, with sway-backed and round-ended blade, thin, winglike shoulders, the tang slightly turned over at the end but originally 1-1/2 in. in length. A late 17th-century to early 18th-century blade form.[129] T.N. 23. 2. Table knife, iron, smaller but similar form to no. 1, but with the blade end less rounded. The tang is bent at right angles at approximately its midsection, a presumably fortuitous feature that has been omitted from the drawing. T.N. 23. 3. Table knife, iron, with incomplete blade and broken tang; the blade narrow and somewhat sway-backed, the shoulders extending into a double collar below a somewhat heavy tang. The closest parallel is believed to have been made around 1700.[130] T.N. 23. 4. Table knife, iron, with the blade much worn and the tip missing, long and heavy shoulders, possibly of octagonal form. This knife is of a form typical of the 17th century.[131] T.N. 23. 5. Table fork, iron, two-tined, with the long octagonal shank common in the 17th century,[132] terminating in a rectangular-sectioned tang. T.N. 10. 6. Table knife, iron, with incomplete blade originally with upswept and rounded end, but seemingly used after the end was lost. Back of blade hipped and terminating in octagonal shoulders and rectangular-sectioned tang. Early 18th century. T.N. 28. 7. Terminal of pewter spoon handle, a weak form of the "split end" or "trifid" terminal of the late 17th century.[133] Scratches on the upper surface can be read as the initials "I H." Early 18th century. T.N. 1. 8. Terminal of pewter spoon handle, spatula form, the handle broad and thin. A broad arrow mark (perhaps a rough, merchant's mark) is rouletted onto the upper surface. On the reverse, an Arabic figure 2, marked in a multiplicity of small scratched arcs, is sufficiently large as to make use of the entire area of the terminal. T.N. 18. 9. Pewter spoon handle, with spatula terminal, in an advanced stage of decay and broken off at the junction with the bowl; probably rat-tailed. T.N. 3. 10. Bowl and broken handle of pewter rat-tail spoon, the rat-tail being unusually long and thin after sharply constricting at the heel of the bowl. The handle is narrow and oval in section and could very well have ended in a terminal section of the same type and length as no. 9. T.N. 23. 11. Pewter spoon, normal rat-tail bowl, apparently with spatula handle terminal. This spoon was intact when found, but was in so advanced a state of decay that the weaker sections at both ends lay powdered in the ground and could not be restored. T.N. 23. 12. Pewter spoon bowl and section of straight handle. Bowl is of oval form with rudimentary rat-tail; the handle is rectangular in section. The handle form is characteristic of the 17th century.[134] The spoon is in an advanced stage of decay but appears to have been crudely formed, the bowl being very shallow. T.N. 17. 13. Latten or brass spoon bowl and section of handle, tinned; the bowl oval but worn away by long use. Maker's mark in the bowl: a spoon flanked by the initials "RS" within two rings between which is the legend "DOVBLE WHITED."[135] The form is typical of the second half of the 17th century. T.N. 23. 14. Blade sections of iron scissors. T.N. 23. 15. Blade and incomplete handle from pair of scissors. The blade terminates at an angle of 30° in the manner of modern tailors' scissors, a shape that was common in the 17th century and less so in the 18th. The loop of the handle takes the form of a broad but thin-sectioned band set at a right angle to the blade, an early characteristic.[136] T.N. 23. 16. Pair of iron scissors with one blade broken, of similar type to the above. The loop and shaft of the left section are much more substantial than the right, suggesting that although the components were found attached they were not originally made for each other. T.N. 23. 17. Left side of iron casing for a fleam. An example of similar shape and size was found in excavations at Jamestown. T.N. 23. 18. Pair of iron dividers with bulb terminal and tines somewhat convex on the outside faces.[137] T.N. 23. 19. Iron key with round-sectioned loop: stem round-sectioned and narrow at junction with loop and becoming much wider in midsection, then tapering again as it approaches the web. The pin is solid and terminates in a small nipple; the web is divided and much decayed, with the fore-section represented by only a small fragment that is much thinner than its companion. It would appear that the key had been violently wrenched in a lock, resulting in the breaking of the web and the twisting and fracturing of the loop. T.N. 23. 20. Small tool of uncertain purpose, perhaps an awl. Broad and flat at one end, in the manner of a screwdriver or drill shank, and becoming round-sectioned and narrowing to a point at the other end. T.N. 30. 21. Iron spoon bit with flattened shank terminal. Spoon convexo-concave in section, saucered upwards at the lower end to the same height as the walls of the trough, and terminating in a worm or twist of two surviving revolutions.[138] T.N. 23. 22. Iron quillon and knuckle bow mounting from sword.[139] T.N. 23. FIGURE 16. BUILDERS HARDWARE AND OTHER METAL ITEMS 1. An object of uncertain purpose, made from sheet iron rolled at the sides over a wire to provide round-sectioned edges and more roughly folded for the same purpose at the lower edge. The central hole has been deliberately cut. The object, whose shape resembles the terminal from a cheekpiece of a snaffle bit, has been broken at the narrow end, suggesting that it was too light in construction to have been intended for such a purpose. T.N. 19. 2. Tang and part of blade from an iron sickle. Blade is triangular in section, and the cutting edge commences approximately 2-1/2 in. from the haft. T.N. 23. 3. Blade fragment from sickle of larger size than the above, triangular in section, and bearing some indication that the back has been hammered. T.N. 17. 4. Front plate and part of mechanism of bag-shaped padlock. The keyhole cover is now missing but originally it was hinged, and not pivoting as has been common on locks since the second half of the 18th century.[140] The bolt, which survives, is fitted with a spring at the rear and has two wards projecting from its midsection. T.N. 27. 5. Chest or coffin handle, iron. Handhold is 1/2 in. in width at its widest point and tapers at either end. The terminals, of disk form, serve to hold the handle at right angles to the wood of the chest. Such handles were attached by means of cotter pins. The form was common in the 17th century.[141] T.N. 24. 6. Iron spike of large size, measuring 5-5/8 in. in (surviving) length, 1/2 in. by 7/16 in. at the broken top, and approximately 1/2 in. by 1/4 in. at the bottom. This was the largest spike found on the site. T.N. 22. 7. Iron spike with heavy square head. Length 4-3/4 in.; shaft at head measures 7/16 in. by 5/16 in. and is spatula-ended. T.N. 23. 8. Ring-headed bolt. Collar beneath the loop, with the shaft round-sectioned and 1-13/16 in. of threading above the pyramidical point. The nut measures approximately 7/8 in. by 5/8 in.[142] T.N. 17. 9. Iron bolt or rivet with large thin head 1-1/4 in. in diameter; shaft end probably broken. T.N. 23. [Illustration: FIGURE 16.--BUILDERS' HARDWARE and other metal items. One-half.] 10. Iron rivet with large head approximately rectangular in shape and measuring 1-3/8 in. by 1-3/16 in. Shaft originally round-sectioned but now much decayed and showing evidence of having spread at its flat terminal. T.N. 23. 11. Tube of sheet iron. Wider at one end than the other, having an aperture of 3/8 in. at the narrow end and approximately 7/8 in. at the other end. Possibly the nozzle from a pair of bellows or, conceivably, a large ferrule; however, there seem to be no holes for mounting the iron to wood. The object has been hammered at its wide end, causing the metal to spread and roll and the entire object to buckle and yawn at its midsection. T.N. 23. 12. An object of uncertain purpose sometimes described as a door or shutter latch. The blade section is neither pointed nor sharpened, and the shank or tang is slightly spread at the end.[143] T.N. 18. 13. Fragment of object of uncertain purpose. Sheet iron is folded over at one edge to grip an iron strap, only a small section of which survives. T.N. 23. 14. Iron hasp from trunk or chest lock; has rectangular keeper and rolled terminal for lifting.[144] T.N. 18. 15. Iron strap with rectangular #T#-shaped terminal at one end and pierced by a 7/8 in. rivet at the other end; of uncertain purpose. T.N. 23. 16. Ward plate, possibly from large padlock, iron. T.N. 22. 17. Ward plate from large rimlock. Lugs at either end serve as rivets that pass through iron supports extending back from the front plate. T.N. 17. 18. Bolt, iron, from large rimlock. The head is approximately 1/2 in. thick. Two wards extending from the shaft show that, to lock, the bolt moved from right to left. Unstratified. 19. Bolt, iron, from large rimlock. The head is approximately 1/2 in. thick. The remains of two wards extend from the shaft and show that, to lock, the bolt moved from left to right. T.N. 18. 20. Harness buckle, iron. Almost square-sectioned, with the tang round-sectioned, flattened at the top, and rolled around the buckle. T.N. 16. 21. Harness buckle, iron. The tang side is round-sectioned, the other sides flattened. The tang is pointed, square-sectioned in the shaft, and possesses an ornamental ridge below the point at which it rolls over the frame.[145] T.N. 23. 22. Harness buckle, iron, much decayed. Frame and tang apparently square-sectioned, the former perhaps unintentionally constricted at one side. T.N. 23. FIGURE 17. OBJECTS OF IRON, BRASS, BONE, AND GLASS 1. Ring, iron, with evidence of wear at one side; possibly a handle or a chain terminal. T.N. 23. 2. Loop, iron, with the ends perhaps originally meeting; possibly a handle or a chain terminal. T.N. 19. 3. Horseshoe, iron. Rudimentary key-hold type, much decayed but with slight traces of fullering, probably eight nail holes, four on each side. The lug at left terminal would seem to have been created by the loss of a fragment of the outer edge. This is a typical 17th-century form, but one that continued into the 18th century.[146] T.N. 24. 4. Handle from scythe, iron. The wooden shaft was approximately 1-5/8 in. in diameter at point of contact. T.N. 24. 5. Part of snaffle bit, jointed mouthpiece lozenge-shaped junction of bit and rein loop. T.N. 23. 6. Fragment of iron pot, with two molded cordons on the body. T.N. 30. 7. Leg from iron pot, five-sided and tapering to a point.[147] Base of pot approximately 1/8 in. thick. T.N. 8. 8. Leg with trifid or cloven foot, from iron pot. Legs of this type narrow above the foot and spread again towards the point of junction with the pot base. It was at the narrow midsection that the illustrated leg broke. The form was common in the 17th century. T.N. 18. 9. Tapering iron strap of uncertain purpose. Two small nail holes at the broad end and two larger holes down the length of strap. T.N. 19. [Illustration: FIGURE 17.--OBJECTS of iron, brass, bone, and glass. One-half.] 10. Strap similar to the above. Slightly constricted at midsection but otherwise without taper; positioning of nail holes as in no. 9. The strap is bent in opposite directions at either end, the bend at the right extremity passing through the line of the nail holes, indicating that the bending occurred when the object was used for a purpose other than that for which it was originally intended. T.N. 23. 11. Shoe buckle, iron. Badly decayed, but traces of both iron tines and back loop remain. The frame sides were probably originally only 3/16 in. to 1/4 in. wide. T.N. 23. Shoe buckles of iron are very rarely encountered. 12. Harness ornament, brass. Originally silver-plated or tin-plated, of shell form; five tangs that protrude from the back--four in the area of the shell and one at the tail--were folded over to grip the leather, fragments of which still survived when the fitting was found. The form was common in the 18th century,[148] but most examples found in Virginia are much less angular than is this example. T.N. 17. 13. Harness fitting, brass, with rectangular loop at right angles to the ornamental plate, probably a strap retainer. T.N. 15. 14. Bone tube or nozzle, possibly part of a syringe. Internal bore spreads from 1/8 in. at the narrow, broken end, to 3/8 in. at the other end. The increase in bore begins at a point 3/4 in. from the wide end. The latter terminates on the exterior in a collar above six encircling grooves, below which the tube is trumpet-shaped and ornamented with two shallow incised rings. T.N. 17. 15. Bone tube of uncertain purpose. Trimmed at the narrow end to fit within a collar or extension; the wider end spreading and convex, the interior of this end with spiral groove to create threading to house a screw-ended plug or extension. T.N. 17. 16. Wineglass stem. Heavy and solid inverted baluster with small fortuitous tear; the lead metal a smoky gray with an almost frosted appearance resulting from surface decay.[149] The bowl, though large, was comparatively thin at its junction with the stem and probably, therefore, was of funnel form. Late 17th century. T.N. 22. 17. Light wineglass. Pale straw-colored metal;[150] inverted baluster stem is hollow and gently tooled into quatrefoil form at its junction with the bowl,[151] the latter setting firmly into the top of the stem. The conical foot with central pontil mark is thin and was undoubtedly folded. This is an important 3-piece glass of a type sometimes attributed to Hawley Bishop, George Ravenscroft's successor at the Henley-on-Thames glasshouse.[152] About 1680-1700. T.N. 30. 18. Wineglass stem. Sparkling lead metal; the stem comprising a solid, inverted baluster beneath a massive cushion knop, the base of the bowl nestling firmly within the latter. Late 17th century to early 18th century.[153] T.N. 4. FIGURE 18 ENGLISH DELFTWARE 1. Bowl with everted rim ornamented with crudely overlapping ovals and diamonds in blue; interior of bowl decorated with rings of the same color. The conjectural base and foot are derived from larger bowls of similar form found in excavations at Williamsburg. The glaze is thick, and very white. Late 17th century to early 18th century. T.N. 30. 2. Rim sherd from bowl of form similar to the above, but the blue decoration on the interior of the bowl and the rim plain. T.N. 23. 3. Hemispherical bowl. The foot conjectural, decorated in blue on the exterior with a stylized foliate border made up almost entirely from groups of straight lines. There is a trellis border above the missing foot, and the interior is decorated with a double blue line at the same height, and with a single line 5/8 in. below the rim. This last is decorated with red, imitating the red-brown slipped line that frequently occurs on Chinese export porcelain. Second quarter of 18th century. T.N. 17; one sherd from T.N. 16. [Illustration: FIGURE 18.--ENGLISH DELFTWARE, Indian pottery, and stonewares. One-fourth.] 4. Drug jar. Flat and slightly everted rim, straight body section, and spreading base; the bottom slightly domed and the glaze thin. Ornamented in pale blue with groups of horizontal lines and a body zone decorated with linked ovals created by the drawing of two overlapping wavy lines. Probably of London manufacture and of 17th-century date.[154] T.N. 30. 5. Porringer. Slightly everted rim and handle with heart-shaped aperture; body slightly bulbous and incurving to a straight foot; the glaze thick and gray. Probably of London manufacture.[155] Late 17th century to early 18th century. T.N. 23. 6. Shallow ointment pot or jar. Rim flattened, undercut, and slightly everted; base markedly domed, thick pinkish-white glaze. Almost certainly of London manufacture and dating from latter part of 17th century. T.N. 30. 7. Ointment pot. Thin, slightly everted rim over a bulbous body; the foot slightly spreading beneath it and slightly conical beneath; the glaze thick and gray. 18th century. T.N. 23. 8. Saucer. Conjectural reconstruction derived from base and rim sherds. The base thick; the foot solid and only slightly raised, but the rim thin and with a much more even finish. The piece has a thick white glaze with a slight pink cast and is haphazardly splashed with blue. The technique would appear to be the reverse of the London copies of Nevers faïence whereon white dots are splashed over a blue ground.[156] This object appears to be without parallel in published sources, but may tentatively be given the same dating as the London white on blue, i.e., about 1680-1690.[157] T.N. 30. 9. Pedestal base from a small salt. Base conical within; glaze thick and very white; bowl decorated internally with profile portrait of a cavalier. This extremely unusual item was, by a remarkable coincidence, paralleled by an identical fragment found by the writer on the foreshore of the River Thames at Queenhithe in London. The two are shown together in figure 11. About 1660-1680.[158] T.N. 23. 10. Large dish or charger reconstructed on the basis of base and rim fragments. Diameter approximately 1 ft. 3 in. The rim turns gently downward beyond the wide marly, and the foot is squat and slightly spread. The glaze is thick and white, and the rim decoration takes the form of broad rings of blue enclosing a marly zone ornamented with an alternating lozenge and diamond motif created from two rows of interlocking arcs, the upper painted in orange and the lower in blue. The decoration of the center of the dish is uncertain, but was painted in the same two colors, perhaps in a stylized pomegranate design. Such dishes are frequently decorated on the rim edges with dashes of blue that give them the name "blue dash chargers,"[159] but there is sufficient glaze surviving on this example to indicate that there was no such ornament. Another somewhat unusual feature is that the back of the dish is tin-glazed; the majority of such dishes were coated on the reverse with a thin yellow or yellowish-green lead glaze. Such dishes were frequently used as wall or dresser ornaments and not for use at table; consequently, the footrings are generally pierced for suspension. No suspension holes occur on the small sections of the footring that survive on this example. The dish is believed to be of London manufacture on the evidence of wasters found in the Borough of Southwark,[160] London (see fig. 10), though the style is clearly of Dutch origin.[161] About 1670-1690. T.N. 30.[162] 11. Rim fragment from plate. The glaze slightly pink, narrow marly decorated with alternating lozenge and diamond motif in light blue (see no. 10) bordered by a single and double line of the same color. At least two concentric circles adorned the floor of the plate, but no evidence of the central design survives. Early 18th century. T.N. 23. 12. Pedestal foot and base of salt or cup. The foot conical and shelved internally; the bowl flat-based and with the rolled terminal of a small handle at one side; the glaze somewhat gray. The foot decorated with three somewhat irregularly drawn rings in light blue; the bowl ornamented with rudimentary floral devices; and the handle terminal decorated with two horizontal bars of dark blue, perhaps beneath a vertical, stalked flower. Late 17th century(?). T.N. 24. INDIAN POTTERY 13. Bowl with flattened and slightly everted rim. Colono-Indian[163] pottery, pebble-or stick-burnished, with pink surface; extensive tool marks on the exterior; the ware flecked with red ocher and few traces of shell. T.N. 23, T.N. 24.[164] 14. Shallow bowl or pan with flattened and everted rim. Colono-Indian pottery; the ware buff and heavily shell-tempered and retaining traces of surface burnishing. T.N. 23. 15. Rim and wall fragment of bowl with roughly flattened and everted rim. Colono-Indian pottery, the body pale buff and finely shell-tempered. T.N. 19. 16. Rim sherd from bowl of local Indian pottery. Lip thickened and slightly incurving; body pink to buff and coarsely shell-tempered; the exterior stick-burnished. T.N. 19. 17. Rim and wall fragment of cup or small bowl, the rim slightly everted by tooling beneath it. Colono-Indian pottery; body pinkish buff with traces of red ocher in the clay; exterior surface highly burnished. It is possible that the fragment came from a vessel comparable to that shown in figure 12, which was found in excavations at Williamsburg.[165] T.N. 23. BROWN SALT-GLAZED STONEWARES 18. Body and handle terminal fragments from pint (?) tankard. Mottled purplish-brown exterior and reddish-brown interior; the rim conjectural and the lower body and basal section modeled on no. 19. Probably of English manufacture, London or Bristol.[166] T.N. 1, T.N. 4. 19. Basal and wall fragments of pint (?) tankard. Similar in form to the above. Two fragments present, one with the beginning of the red slip that becomes mottled brown in firing, a feature that normally extends from the midsection upwards to the rim. The lower body is gray, as is the interior; the foot is ornamented with a ridge, cordon, and double ridge. T.N. 17. 20. Rim sherd of quart (?) tankard. Burnt; the rim thinned from the inside and ornamented on the outside with a single groove; dark purplish-brown mottling on the exterior, a little of the slip from which extends over the interior of the rim. T.N. 23. 21. Jug or drinking pot. Bulbous body with good quality tooling at the shoulder; handle with single groove down the spine; the base and neck conjectural, but modeled after the forms produced by Dwight of Fulham in the late 17th century.[167] The ware is a pale gray and appears white beneath the internal salt glaze. It is possible that this is an example of the use of the white salt-glazed body conceived by Dwight, and that it may have come from his factory. The refined clay enables the ware to be thinly and finely potted. T.N. 1. 22. Neck, shoulder, and handle-terminal fragments of jug. The neck ornamented with multiple grooving; the handle terminal pressed into the body with one finger; the glaze a rich purplish brown, reddish brown inside.[168] A common form manufactured in London at the close of the 17th century and made elsewhere, including Yorktown, certainly through the second quarter of the 18th century.[169] T.N. 23. GERMAN SALT-GLAZED STONEWARE 23. Large (Westerwald) tankard, base and lower body sherds only. Stylized foliate and geometric ornament incised and filled with cobalt on an extremely pale-gray body; multiple cordons and grooves above the base; two concave bands filled with blue; the base slightly rising and scored with haphazard lines before firing. T.N. 23. FIGURE 19 COARSE EARTHENWARES 1. Cream pan of Yorktown (?) earthenware.[170] The rim rolled; spout conjectural, based on others from the same group; base slightly rising; exterior of body above base displaying potting rings and knife work; body containing small quantities of quartz grit, pink-cored and yellow at the edges; exterior unglazed but orange-pink slipped, and the interior lead-glazed a ginger brown mottled with iron. T.N. 24. 2. Cream pan. The rim thickened, incurving and undercut; ware as of no. 1, but the internal glaze a darker brown; approximate diameter, 14 in. T.N. 18. 3. Cream pan. Similar to no. 1 but with spout (from which the above was copied), and the exterior slip somewhat more orange in color. T.N. 23. 4. Cream pan. With spout and rolled rim; the ware red-bodied, flecked with quartz grit and red ocher; exterior a deep red to black; internal glaze a dark greenish brown; approximate diameter, 14-3/4 in. T.N. 23. 5. Cream pan. The rim thickened, incurving, and undercut; body pale buff; exterior with pale-orange slip; internal glaze a lustrous purple, presumably somewhat overfired. Fragments with this colored glaze are among the many possible wasters from Yorktown. Diameter approximately 14 in. T.N. 23. 6. Cream pan. Unusual, shouldered rim sherd, perhaps intended to take a cover; red body with ginger-brown glaze; probably English. T.N. 4. 7. Storage jar, body fragments only. Decorated with medial grooves and applied trails pressed in piecrust style beneath the missing rim; the body gray-cored and red at the edges, coated with a light-brown glaze flecked here and there with pale green. Presumably English. T.N. 30. 8. Rim fragment from small cup or pot. Hard yellow body coated with a pale treacly glaze. Probably Staffordshire. T.N. 18. 9. Large cylindrical jar or bowl. The wall vertical, undercut above the slightly spread foot. Hard yellow body as above, coated with thick treacly and streaky brown glaze of a color much later often associated with Bennington. A rim sherd from the same deposit is slightly everted, but since the glaze is much lighter the piece may not belong to the same vessel. Base diameter approximately 10-1/2 in. Probably Staffordshire. An example recently purchased by Colonial Williamsburg (fig. 9) is dated 1721. T.N. 30. 10. Storage jar. The rim everted and ridged internally, probably to seat a lid; gravel tempered, pale-pink earthenware; internal dark apple-green glaze.[171] West of England manufacture. T.N. 30. GLASS BOTTLES 11. Wine bottle of early short-necked form. Olive-green metal; flat string-rim; the mouth everted over rim. About 1680-1700. T.N. 30. 12. Wine bottle with squat body, short and broad neck, and roughly applied string-rim; olive-green metal. The body type may normally be dated around 1700, but some examples are 10 or 15 years earlier.[172] T.N. 30. 13. Wine bottle of olive-green metal. Squatter than the above, but the neck somewhat taller and the shoulder less angular; probably little variation in date.[173] T.N. 30. [Illustration: FIGURE 19.--COARSE EARTHENWARES and glass bottles. One-fourth.] 14. Wine bottle of squat form, olive-green metal. The neck taller than in no. 12 and the string-rim smaller and V-shaped.[174] Seal, on the shoulder, bears the legend "Richard Burbydge 1701." T.N. 30. 15. Wine bottle of squat form, olive-green metal. Somewhat bulbous and the shoulder weak, the string-rim broad and flat.[175] A slightly earlier form than no. 14. The bottle has a seal on its shoulder with the initials "F I" (Frederick Jones) stamped from a single matrix.[176] T.N. 30. 16. Wine bottle of somewhat unusual form. The metal thin olive green has turned black through decay which has almost entirely destroyed the metal. The body round-shouldered, and bulbous in the early manner; but the neck tall and the string-rim almost round-sectioned rather than V-shaped as one might expect of a bottle of this basic form. Were it not for the soft curve of the body and the shape of the string-rim this bottle might be attributed to the third decade of the 18th century. Note brass wire, still attached to neck, that held cork in place. T.N. 30. 17. Wine bottle of half-bottle size. The metal as in no. 16; shoulder angular; neck somewhat writhen with a broad and flat string-rim of 17th-century character. Without the last feature (and its context) this bottle might be thought to date as late as 1725. T.N. 30. 18. Wine bottle, olive-green metal. Short cylindrical body with conical basal kick, straight neck, and down-tooled string-rim. Dated examples occur in the late 1730's, but are more common in the following decade. T.N. 23. 19. Wine-bottle neck of olive-green metal in an advanced state of decay. Wide mouth with everted lip and large round-sectioned string-rim of unusual character. The angular shoulder suggests that the neck comes from a body comparable to that of no. 12. T.N. 31. 20. Pickle jar, everted-mouth fragments only. Olive-green metal in an advanced stage of decay, originally with square body in the manner of the more common case bottles.[177] T.N. 18. FIGURE 20. MISCELLANEOUS SMALL FINDS 1. Harness ornament, plated brass. (See fig. 17, no. 12.) T.N. 17. 2. Harness fitting, brass. (See fig. 17, no. 13.) T.N. 15. 3. Brass button. Hollow cast; both back and front convex; the back with two molding holes on either side of the flat-sectioned brass loop, which spreads directly from the back without any intermediary shank. Such buttons were common in the second half of the 17th century and the first quarter of the 18th century.[178] Diameter, 3/4 in. T.N. 23. 4. Brass curtain ring. The shape cast and then roughly filed flat on either side. This method of manufacture is typical of the 17th and 18th centuries. Diameter, 1 in. T.N. 24. 5. Ornamental brass band from shaft or hilt of uncertain form. The band has become flattened and folded, and the condition of the metal precludes regaining its original shape. However, the band is almost certainly a truncated cone, ornamented with a roughly cutout and scored foliate decoration at the narrow end and plated with a thin band of silver at the other end. Length, 1-3/16 in. T.N. 18. 6. Millefiori or chevron bead of yellow and black glass, almost certainly Venetian.[179] The bead is flattened on its pierced axis and has a diameter of 3/8 in. This example is probably of 17th-century date, but the technique can be traced back to Roman times. T.N. 30. 7. Chinese export porcelain-cup fragment. Decorated in underglaze blue, rough chevron ornament below the rim on the interior. Diameter approximately 3 in. T.N. 23. [Illustration: FIGURE 20.--MISCELLANEOUS small finds.] 8. Lower bowl fragment of lead-glass Romer ornamented with gadrooning or pillar molding. This is undoubtedly the finest glass fragment from the site; it would not have been out of place in the best English household.[180] About 1685. T.N. 30. 9. Indian projectile point of honey-colored quartzite. The edges slightly serrated, and the base slightly concave; the tip missing, but total length originally about 43 mm. Holland Type C.[181] T.N. 16. 10. Indian projectile point of red quartzite. Eared or corner-notched variety; original length approximately 45 mm. Holland Type O.[182] This is an unstratified item discovered on the bared clay surface on the promontory of Tutter's Neck overlooking the junction of Tutter's Neck and Kingsmill Creeks. U.S. Government Printing Office: 1966 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C., 20402--Price 70 cents FOOTNOTES: [57] I am indebted to Colonial Williamsburg, Inc., for permitting the partial excavation of the site, for its generosity in offering to present the bulk of the artifact collection to the United States National Museum, and for its financial assistance in the preparation of this report. I am also much indebted to Audrey Noël Hume and John Dunton who represented the full extent of our field team, and to the latter for his work in the preservation of the iron and other small finds. My gratitude is also extended to A. E. Kendrew, senior vice president of Colonial Williamsburg, and to E. M. Frank, resident architect, the late S. P. Moorehead, architectural consultant, and Paul Buchanan, all of Colonial Williamsburg, for their help in the interpretation of the architectural remains. Further thanks are extended to Thaddeus Tate of the College of William and Mary for his valued council throughout the operation and for reading and commenting on the final report. I also greatly appreciate comments made by C. Malcolm Watkins, curator of cultural history at the Smithsonian Institution, in regard to the European artifacts; the help with the Indian material provided by Ben C. McCary, president of the Archeological Society of Virginia; and suggestions for historical sources made by H. G. Jones, state archivist, North Carolina. Finally, my thanks are extended to Alden Eaton who first found the site and without whose interest another relic of Virginia's colonial past would have been lost. [58] "_Mesuage_, in Common law, is used for a dwelling-house, with Garden, Courtilage, Orchard, and all other things belonging to it" (E. PHILLIPS, _The New World of Words_, London, 1671). [59] WILLIAM WALLER HENING, _Statutes at Large ... A Collection of All the Laws of Virginia ..._, vol. 4 (Richmond, 1820), p. 371. [60] Papers of the Jones Family of Northumberland County, Virginia, 1649-1889 (MSS. Division, Library of Congress), vol. 1. [61] "Patents Issued During the Royal Government," _William and Mary College Quarterly_ (January 1901), ser. 1, vol. 9, no. 3, p. 143. In the 17th century prior to the building of the College of William and Mary, College Creek was known as Archer's Hope Creek, after the settlement of Archer's Hope at its mouth. [62] There was a patent dated February 6, 1637, to "Humphry Higgenson" for 700 acres "called by the name of Tutteys neck, adj. to Harrop ... E. S. E. upon a gr. swamp parting it from Harrop land, W. S. W. upon a br. of Archers hope Cr. parting it from Kingsmells neck, W. N. W. upon another br. of sd. Cr. parting it from land of Richard Brewsters called by the name of the great neck alias the barren neck & N. N. W into the Maine woods." Richard Brewster's 500 acres were described as beginning "at the great Neck alias the barren neck, adj. to Tutteys Neck a br. of Archers hope Cr. parting the same, S. upon a br. of sd. Cr. parting it from Kingsmells Neck...." _Cavaliers and pioneers. Abstracts of Virginia Land Patents and Grants 1623-1800_, abstracted and edited by Neil M. Nugent (Richmond: Dietz Printing Co., 1934), vol. 1, pp. 80, 81. [63] On July 19, 1646, a patent was granted to Richard Brewster for "750 acres, Land & Marsh, called the great Neck of Barren Neck, next adjoining to lutteyes neck." "Patents Issued ...," _William and Mary College Quarterly_ (July 1901), ser. 1, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 94. [64] "Notes from Records of York County," _Tyler's Quarterly Historical and Genealogical Magazine_ (July 1924), vol. 6, no. 1, p. 61. [65] "Virginia Gleanings in England," _Virginia Magazine of History and Biography_ (October 1904), vol. 12, no. 2, p. 179. [66] "List of Colonial Officers," _Virginia Magazine of History and Biography_ (January 1901), vol. 8, no. 3, p. 328; and "Lightfoot Family," _William and Mary College Quarterly_ (October 1894), ser. 1, vol. 3, no. 2, p. 104. [67] "Patents Issued ...," _William and Mary College Quarterly_ (January 1904), ser. 1, vol. 12, no. 3, p. 186. For similar spelling see note 7, above. [68] "Escheat, in Common-law, signifieth lands that fall to a Lord within his Manor, by forfeiture, or the death of his Tenant without Heirs; it cometh from the French word Escheire, to fall" (PHILLIPS, _New World of Words_). [69] On August 14, 1710, Richard Burbydge was among those who signed a report on the inspection of the vessel _Jamaica Merchant_, lying at anchor in the upper district of the James River, at the precept of Governor Spotswood. The inspectors were sworn by Capt. John Geddes, a justice of the peace for James County. (_Calendar of Virginia State Papers and other Manuscripts, 1652-1781_, edit. Wm. P. Palmer, M.D., Richmond, 1875, vol. 1, p. 141.) This is the only reference to Burbydge that has been found. [70] L. H. JONES, _Captain Robert Jones of London and Virginia_ (Albany, 1891), p. 34. [71] "Virginia Quit Rent Rolls, 1704," _Virginia Magazine of History and Biography_, vol. 31, no. 2 (April 1923), p. 157; vol. 31, no. 3 (July 1923), p. 222; vol. 32, no. 1 (January 1924), p. 72. [72] _Colonial Records of North Carolina_, edit. William L. Saunders (Raleigh 1886), vol. 1, p. 590. [73] ALONZO T. DILL, "Eighteenth Century New Bern," _North Carolina Historical Review_ (January 1945), vol. 22, no. 1, p. 18. [74] "Bruton Church," _William and Mary College Quarterly_ (January 1895), ser. 1, vol. 3, no. 3, p. 180. [75] HENING, _Statutes at Large_, vol. 3 (Philadelphia, 1823), p. 431. [76] Papers of the Jones Family ..., vol. 1. [77] _Colonial Records of North Carolina_, vol. 1, p. 680. [78] Ibid., pp. 837, 838. [79] Ibid., p. 787. [80] Ibid., p. 866. [81] Ibid., p. 864. [82] HUGH T. LEFLER AND ALBERT R. NEWSOME, _The History of a Southern State, North Carolina_ (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1954), pp. 56-60. [83] _Colonial Records of North Carolina_, vol. 1, p. 864. [84] "Notes from the Journal of the House of Burgesses, 1712-1726," _William and Mary College Quarterly_ (April 1913), ser. 1, vol. 21, no. 4, p. 249. [85] HENING, _Statutes at Large_, vol. 4 (Richmond, 1820), p. 371. [86] Papers of the Jones Family ..., vol. 1. [87] "Diary of John Blair. Copied from an Almanac for 1751, Preserved in Virginia Historical Society," _William and Mary College Quarterly_ (January 1899), ser. 1, vol. 7, no. 3, p. 151, note 2. [88] CONWAY ROBINSON, "Notes from Council and General Court Records," _Virginia Magazine of History and Biography_ (October 1906), vol. 14, no. 2, p. 188, note 3. [89] "Bray Family," _William and Mary College Quarterly_ (April 1905), ser. 1, vol. 13, no. 4, p. 266. [90] Ibid. [91] HENING, _Statutes at Large_, vol. 4 (Richmond, 1820), p. 371. [92] "Bray Family," pp. 266-267. [93] HENING, _Statutes at Large_, vol. 8 (Richmond, 1821), pp. 460-464. [94] Inventory of William Allen, in Surry County Wills, no. 6, 1830-1834, pp. 341-344. [95] _Calendar of Virginia State Papers_, vol. 1, p. 39. [96] The will of Roger Jones is preserved in the Public Records Office in London, but it is published in full in L. H. JONES, _Captain Robert Jones_, pp. 196-200. [97] L. H. JONES, _Captain Robert Jones_, p. 34. [98] DILL, "Eighteenth Century New Bern," p. 18. [99] SAMUEL A. ASHE, _History of North Carolina_ (Greensboro: C. L. Van Noppen, 1908), vol. 1, pp. 200-204; and LEFLER and NEWSOME, _History of a Southern State_, pp. 63-64. [100] _Colonial Records of North Carolina_, vol. 2, p. 472. [101] Ibid., p. 475. [102] Text of the will is given in L. H. JONES, _Captain Robert Jones_, pp. 200-205. [103] HUGH JONES, _The Present State of Virginia_ [1724], edit. Richard L. Morton (Virginia Historical Society, 1956), p. 104. [104] "The Cocke Family of Virginia," _Virginia Magazine of History and Biography_ (October 1897), vol. 5, no. 2, p. 192. [105] Two concrete fenceposts have been set up on the north-south axis of the residence, the posts being driven immediately beyond the respective chimney foundations. Two additional posts have been erected on the east-west axis of the kitchen. [106] As the work progressed, access to the site became increasingly difficult, necessitating the abandoning of transport farther and farther from the scene of operations. However, in the winter of 1960-1961, after all save the last trench had been dug, the Chesapeake Corporation crew drove a new road through the neck, a road which in fact cut right through the middle of the archeological area. By great good fortune the road passed between the two buildings without doing much more damage than had already been done by the earlier bulldozing. [107] The builders had made use of oystershell mortar. Specimen bricks ranging in color from pale salmon to a purplish red have the following measurements: 8-7/8 in. by 4-1/4 in. by 2-1/4 in. and 8-7/8 in. by 4-1/8 in. by 2-1/2 in. [108] The "T.N." number in parentheses represents the field number of the Tutter's Neck deposit. [109] A house of similar character was photographed at Yorktown in 1862; see A. LAWRENCE KOCHER and HOWARD DEARSTYNE, _Shadows in Silver_ (New York: Scribner, 1954), p. 82, fig. 3, no. 17. The Bracken House in Williamsburg also is similar; see MARCUS WHIFFEN, _The Eighteenth-Century Houses of Williamsburg_ (Williamsburg, 1960), p. 57, and figs. 5, 6. [110] Negroes belonging to the estate of Frederick Jones are listed in Papers of the Jones Family, vol. 1, November 29, 1723. [111] Oystershell mortar was used. Sample bricks are pale salmon to overfired red and measure 8 in. by 3-7/8 in. by 2-1/2 in. and 8-3/4 in. by 3-3/4 in. by 2-1/2 in. [112] IVOR NOËL HUME, "The Glass Wine Bottle in Colonial Virginia," _Journal of Glass Studies_ (Corning Museum, 1961), vol. 3, p. 99, fig. 3, type 6. [113] See F. H. GARNER, _English Delftware_ (London: Faber and Faber, 1948), p. 15 and fig. 30a. [114] See C. MALCOLM WATKINS, "North Devon Pottery and Its Export to America in the 17th Century" (paper 13 in _Contributions from the Museum of History and Technology: Papers 12-18_, U.S. National Museum Bulletin 225, by various authors; Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1963). [115] ADRIAN OSWALD, "A Case of Transatlantic Deduction," _Antiques_ (July 1959), vol. 76, no. 1, pp. 59-61. [116] For an example of comparable shape and date, see figure 6 of IVOR NOËL HUME, "German Stoneware Bellarmines--An Introduction," _Antiques_ (November 1958), vol. 74, no. 5, pp. 439-441. [117] J. C. HARRINGTON, "Dating Stem Fragments of Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century Clay Tobacco Pipes," _Quarterly Bulletin Archeological Society of Virginia_ (September 1954), vol. 9, no. 1, no pagination. AUDREY NOËL HUME, "Clay Tobacco Pipe Dating in the Light of Recent Excavations," ibid. (December 1963), vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 22-25. LEWIS H. BINFORD, "A New Method of Calculating Dates from Kaolin Pipe Stem Samples," _Southeastern Archeological Newsletter_ (June 1962), vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 19-21. [118] See IVOR NOËL HUME, "Excavations at Rosewell, Gloucester County, Virginia, 1957-1959" (paper 18 in _Contributions from the Museum of History and Technology: Papers 12-18_, U.S. National Museum Bulletin 225, by various authors; Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1963), p. 222, fig. 35, no. 7, and p. 220. [119] ADRIAN OSWALD, "The Archaeology and Economic History of English Clay Tobacco Pipes," _Journal of the British Archaeological Association_ (London, 1960), 3d series, vol. 23, p. 83. [120] OSWALD, loc. cit. (footnote 59). [121] NOËL HUME, "Excavations at Rosewell," p. 220, footnote 96. [122] See: J. F. BLACKER, _The A B C of English Salt-Glaze Stoneware from Dwight to Doulton_ (London: S. Paul & Co., 1922), p. 34ff.; and IVOR NOËL HUME, "Bellarmines and Mr. Dwight," _Wine and Spirit Trade Record_ (December 17, 1956), pp. 1628-1632. [123] C. MALCOLM WATKINS and IVOR NOËL HUME, "The 'Poor Potter' of Yorktown" (paper 54 in _Contributions from the Museum of History and Technology_, U.S. National Museum Bulletin 249, by various authors), Washington: Smithsonian Institution, in press. [124] The earliest known importation is indicated in _Boston News-Letter_ of January 17, 1724 (G. F. Dow, _The Arts and Crafts in New England, 1704-1775_, Topsfield, Massachusetts: The Wayside Press, 1927, p. 82). [125] The common term "wine bottle" is used here for the sake of convenience, though it should be realized that bottles were not specifically shaped to contain wine but were used for any and all liquids from beer to oil. [126] ADRIAN OSWALD, "English Clay Tobacco Pipes," _Archeological News Letter_ (April 1951), vol. 3, no. 10, p. 158. The type is attributed to the period about 1700-1750, with the distribution mainly in the southwest of England. [127] See NOËL HUME, "Excavations at Rosewell," p. 220, footnote 96. [128] See J. C. HARRINGTON, "Tobacco Pipes from Jamestown," _Quarterly Bulletin Archeological Society of Virginia_ (June 1951), vol. 5, no. 4, no pagination. [129] See J. F. HAYWARD, _English Cutlery_ (London: Victoria and Albert Museum handbook, 1956), pp. 15-16, pl. 13b. [130] Ibid., p. 16, pl. 17c. [131] For a similar example, see J. PAUL HUDSON, _New Discoveries at Jamestown_ (Washington: National Park Service, 1957), p. 34, second knife from bottom. [132] The 18th-century shanks tend to be bulbous either below the shoulder or at the midsection. [133] A complete spoon with this type terminal was found in excavations at Green Spring Plantation near Jamestown; see LOUIS R. CAYWOOD, _Excavations at Green Spring Plantation_ (Yorktown, Virginia: Colonial National Historical Park, 1955), pl. 11, "G.S. 153." For a Scottish silver spoon with this type terminal see _The Connoisseur_ (April 1910), vol. 26, no. 104, and _Catalogue of the Guildhall Museum_ (London, 1908), pl. 81, no. 16. [134] A spoon handle with a shaft of similar type was found at Jamestown. It bears the mark of Joseph Copeland, a pewterer of Chuckatuck, Virginia, in 1675. See JOHN L. COTTER, _Archeological Excavations at Jamestown, Virginia_ (Washington: National Park Service, 1958), pl. 87, fig. at right. [135] See _Catalogue of the Guildhall Museum_, pl. 71, fig. 3 (for bowl shape) and fig. 5 (for mark). [136] As the 18th century progressed, loops tended to be more round-sectioned. By the end of the colonial period most loops display their greatest width on the same plane as that of the blade. See NOËL HUME, "Excavations at Rosewell," p. 198, fig. 21, no. 13. [137] For a similar example see HUDSON, _New Discoveries at Jamestown_, p. 57. [138] See H. C. MERCER, _Ancient Carpenters' Tools_ (Doylestown, Pa.: Bucks County Historical Society, 1951), p. 182. [139] See NOËL HUME, "Excavations at Rosewell," p. 198, fig. 21, no. 14. [140] Both the baglike shape of the lock and the hinged keyhole cover are indicative of a date in the late 17th century or early 18th century. [141] HUDSON, _New Discoveries at Jamestown_, p. 26. [142] A similarly headed object, but slotted at the other end to hold a linchpin, was found at Jamestown and considered to be an item of marine hardware. HUDSON, _New Discoveries at Jamestown_, p. 85. [143] For similar example see NOËL HUME, "Excavations at Rosewell," p. 224, no. 8. [144] For similar example see HUDSON, _New Discoveries at Jamestown_, p. 20, fig. at top left. [145] Another example with similar frame, but with a broader tang and no ornamental ridge, was found in the same context. [146] See NOËL HUME, "Excavations at Rosewell," p. 224, no. 10, and _Archaeology in Britain_ (London: Foyle, 1953), p. 107, fig. 23, no. 17. [147] It is possible that this leg originally spread out into a foot in the style of no. 6. See HUDSON, _New Discoveries at Jamestown_, p. 30, fig. at left. [148] For similar examples, see NOËL HUME, "Excavations at Rosewell," p. 200, fig. 22, nos. 6, 7. [149] For a parallel of the stem form only, see GEORGE BERNARD HUGHES, _English, Scottish and Irish Table Glass from the Sixteenth Century to 1820_ (London: Batsford, 1956), fig. 35, no. 1. A rather similar baluster shape, about 1695, is shown in E. M. ELVILLE, "Starting a Collection of Glass," _Country Life_ (June 11, 1959), vol. 125, no. 3256, p. 1329, fig. 1. A tavern glass, attributed to the period 1685-1690, whose baluster has a large tear, but which otherwise is a good parallel, is shown in _The Antique Dealer and Collector's Guide_ (April 1954), p. 29, fig. at left. [150] The metal was tested for lead with positive results. [151] A slightly larger stem from a glass of similar form was found outside the kitchen in deposit T.N. 1; not illustrated. [152] For a glass of comparable form, but of soda metal, see G. B. HUGHES, "Old English Ale Glasses," _Wine and Spirit Trade Record_ (April 15, 1954), p. 428 and fig. 1. [153] For a similar stem shape attributed to the last decade of the 17th century see A. HARTSHORNE, _Old English Glasses_ (London, 1897), p. 245, pl. 34. [154] The association of color and style of decoration coupled with the relationship of diameter to height as displayed here is generally indicative of early date. In the 18th century, jars of this diameter tended to be taller, less spread at the base, and with the blue decoration much darker. [155] Waste products from London delftware kilns were used to build up the north foreshore of the River Thames between Queenhithe and Dowgate in the City of London. Among the many fragments recovered from this source were biscuit porringer handles of a type similar to the Tutter's Neck example. The manner in which the rim is folded over the handle seems to be a London characteristic, Bristol examples more often being luted straight to the rim. The Thames material was deposited in the late 17th century and probably came from a pottery on the Bankside on the south side of the river. [156] A very small porringer rim sherd of this ware was found at Tutter's Neck in context T.N. 24; not illustrated. [157] See GARNER, _English Delftware_, p. 15, fig. 30a. [158] Dating based on the Carolian appearance of the figure. [159] E. A. DOWMAN, _Blue Dash Chargers and other Early English Tin Enamel Circular Dishes_ (London: T. Werner Laurie Ltd., 1919). [160] From a kiln site found during building operations for Hay's Wharf between Toolley Street and Pickelherring Street in 1958. [161] See ERNST GROHNE, _Tongefässe in Bremen seit dem Mittelalter_ (Bremen: Arthur Geist, 1949), p. 120, Abb. 78, Abb. 80a. [162] The smaller base fragment was found in stratum T.N. 17, a much later context than the rest. If this fragment does come from the same dish, it must be assumed that the fragments were scattered and that the sherd was moved in fill dug from an earlier deposit. [163] A name coined to describe pottery made by the Pamunkey Indians and others in the 18th century that was copied from English forms and sold to the colonists, presumably for use by those who could not afford European wares. See IVOR NOËL HUME, "An Indian Wave of the Colonial Period," _Quarterly Bulletin of the Archeological Society of Virginia_ (September 1962), vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 2-14. [164] The bowl was important in that the presence of its fragments deep in both T.N. 23 and T.N. 24 indicated that both Pits D and E were filled at approximately the same time. [165] Colonial Williamsburg archeological collection, 10C-58-10B. [166] Brown stonewares similar to those commonly attributed to Fulham, but more correctly called London, were manufactured at Yorktown by William Rogers in the second quarter of the 18th century. See footnote 67. [167] A comparable vessel, ornamented with medallion containing Tudor rose and initials of Charles II, is illustrated in BLACKER, _The A B C of English Salt-Glaze Stoneware_, p. 35. [168] A similar example from a context of 1763-1772 is illustrated by NOËL HUME, "Excavations at Rosewell," fig. 29, no. 1. [169] ADRIAN OSWALD, "A London Stoneware Pottery, Recent Excavations at Bankside," _The Connoisseur_ (January 1951), vol. 126, no. 519, pp. 183-185. [170] Op. cit. (footnote 67). [171] A close parallel that was found at Lewes, Delaware, is illustrated in WATKINS, "North Devon Pottery," p. 45, fig. 25. [172] See SHEELAH RUGGLES-BRISE, _Sealed Bottles_ (London: Country Life, 1949), pl. 4, fig. at lower left, and W. A. THORPE, "The Evolution of the Decanter," _The Connoisseur_ (April 1929), vol. 83, no. 332, p. 197, fig. 2. [173] Another example is illustrated by NOËL HUME, "The Glass Wine Bottle," op. cit. (footnote 56), fig. 3, type 3. [174] Ibid., fig. 3, type 6, illustrates a similar example. [175] Ibid., fig. 3, type 5, shows another example. [176] All other Jones seals from T.N. 30 and T.N. 31 were stamped from combinations of single-letter matrices. See fig. 6. [177] A similar though slightly smaller neck came from T.N. 16, and a square base, probably from an ordinary case bottle, was among the surface finds. Another example is illustrated in NOËL HUME, "Excavations at Rosewell," p. 181, fig. 11, no. 13. [178] NOËL HUME, _Archaeology in Britain_, p. 108. [179] Colorful beads of this character were frequently used as Indian trade goods and are found in Indian graves in Virginia and elsewhere. A long-established legend that beads were manufactured at the Jamestown glasshouse is without archeological evidence. Although many beads have been found on the shores of the James River near Jamestown, there is reason to suppose that all those of European form were imported. [180] See Hughes, _English, Scottish and Irish Table Glass_, p. 195 and fig. 134. [181] C. G. HOLLAND, "An Analysis of Projectile Points and Large Blades," appendix to CLIFFORD EVANS, _A Ceramic Study of Virginia Archeology_ (Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 160, Washington, 1955), p. 167. [182] Ibid., p. 171. CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY: PAPER 54 THE "POOR POTTER" OF YORKTOWN _C. Malcolm Watkins_ and _Ivor Noël Hume_ PART I: DOCUMENTARY RECORD--_C. Malcolm Watkins_ 75 THE CROWN AND COLONIAL MANUFACTURE 76 THE "POOR POTTER" AND HIS WARES 79 APPENDIXES 86 PART II: POTTERY EVIDENCE--_Ivor Noël Hume_ 91 THE SALT-GLAZED STONEWARE 91 STONEWARE MANUFACTURING PROCESSES 102 THE EARTHENWARES 105 CONCLUSIONS 109 [Illustration: Figure 1.--MODERN YORKTOWN, VIRGINIA, showing original survey plat on which William Rogers' name appears on lots 51 and 55. Additional properties which he acquired are mentioned in his will as lots 59, 74, and 75.] The "Poor Potter" of Yorktown _Pottery making in colonial Virginia, strongly discouraged by a mercantilistic England, seemingly was almost nonexistent according to the Governor's reports which mention but one nameless "poor potter" at Yorktown, whose wares are dismissed as being low in quantity and quality. This paper, the combined effort of a historian and an archeologist, provides evidence that the Yorktown potter was neither poor nor nameless, that his ware was of sufficient quantity and quality to offer competition to English imports, and that official depreciation of his economic importance apparently was deemed politic by the colonial Governor._ THE AUTHORS: _C. Malcolm Watkins is curator of cultural history in the Smithsonian Institution's Museum of History and Technology, and Ivor Noël Hume is director of archeology at Colonial Williamsburg and an honorary research associate of the Smithsonian Institution._ Part I: Documentary Record _C. Malcolm Watkins_ In his annual reports on manufactures to the Lords of the Board of Trade during the 1730s, Virginia's royal governor, William Gooch, mentioned several times an anonymous "poor potter" of Yorktown. At face value, Gooch's reports might seem to indicate that manufacturing was an insignificant factor in Virginia's economy and that the only pottery-making endeavor worth mentioning at all was so trivial it could be brushed aside as being almost, if not quite, unworthy of notice. Occasionally, historians have selected one or another of these references to the "poor potter" to support the view either that manufacturing was negligible in colonial Virginia or that ceramic art was limited to the undeveloped skills of a frontier potter.[183] The recent development of archeology, however, as an adjunct of research in cultural history--especially in the historic areas of Jamestown, Williamsburg, and Yorktown--has produced substantial evidence challenging both the accuracy of Gooch's reports and the conclusions drawn from them, which, contrary to Gooch's statements, proves that pottery making in Yorktown was highly skilled and much at odds with the concept of a "poor potter." The observation that a remarkably developed ceramic enterprise had been conducted in or near Yorktown was first made by Mr. Noël Hume, the archeologist partner of this paper, in 1956 when he identified fragments of saggers used in firing stoneware, which were excavated in association with numerous stoneware waster sherds and a group of unglazed earthenware sherds of good quality at the site of the Swan Tavern in Yorktown.[184] The question naturally arose, could these expertly made wares have come from the kilns of the "poor potter"? Although ultimate proof is still lacking, identification with him is sufficiently well supported by documentary and artifactual hints that--until further scientific findings are forthcoming--it is presented here as a hypothesis that the "poor potter" did indeed make them. This portion of the paper considers not only the specifics of artifacts and documents, but also the state of manufactures in Virginia before 1750 and their relationship to the character and attitudes of Governor Gooch. The Crown and Colonial Manufacture It should be noted that, in general, the history of pottery making in colonial America is fragmentary and inconclusive. Scattered documents bear hints of potters and their activities, and occasional archeological deposits contain the broken sherds and other material evidence of potters' products. Difficulty in obtaining information about early pottery manufacture may be related in large part to a reluctance on the part of the colonists to reveal evidence of manufacturing activity to the Crown authorities. It was the established principle of the Mother Country to integrate the colonial economy into her mercantile system, which was run primarily for her own benefit. As a consequence, there increasingly developed a contest between those who sought to protect English manufactures by discouraging production of colonial goods and those who, in America, tried to enlarge colonial self-sufficiency, the latter inevitably resorting to evasion and suppression of evidence in order to gain their advantage. The outlines of this struggle are suggested in the laws and official reports relating to colonial manufactures. In Virginia, during the late 17th and early 18th centuries, influential landowners encouraged manufactures as a way to offset the dominance of tobacco in the colony, while several acts were passed in the Virginia Assembly to establish official port towns which, it was thought, would result in flourishing craft communities. Although, for a variety of reasons inherent in Virginia's economy and geography, most of these failed, the acts nonetheless were consistently opposed by the Crown authorities. The 1704 Act for Ports and Towns, for example, was vetoed by the Crown in 1709 for the following reasons: The whole Act is designed to Encourage by great Priviledges the settling in Townships, and such settlements will encourage their going on with the Woolen and other Manufactures there. And should this Act be Confirmed, the Establishing of Towns and Incorporating of the Planters as intended thereby, will put them upon further Improvements of the said manufactures, and take them off from the Planting of Tobacco, which would be of very ill consequence, not only in respect to the Exports of our Woolen and other Goods and Consequently to the Dependance that Colony ought to have on this Kingdom, but likewise in respect to the Importation of Tobacco hither for the home and Foreign Consumption, Besides a further Prejudice in relation to our shipping and navigation.[185] This forthright exposition of official English attitudes reiterated the policy of colonial economic dependence. The wording of the veto--"encourage their _going on_ with the Woolen and other Manufactures" and "a _further_ Prejudice in relation to our shipping" [italics supplied]--shows that the dangers feared by the Board of Trade regarding the establishment of towns had already become a reality and a threat to English economic policy. Victor S. Clark, in _The History of Manufactures_ in _the United States_, points out that the colonists passed so many laws to encourage their own manufactures "that such British intervention as occurred must be regarded rather as indicating the passive disposition of the home government than as defining an administrative policy vigorously carried out."[186] Nevertheless, from 1700 until the Revolution, reports on American manufactures made by royal governors to the Board of Trade demonstrate not only that the Americans were vigorously promoting manufactures but also that they were being evasive and secretive in doing so in the face of official disapproval. The Board of Trade reported in 1733: "It is not improbable that some former governors of our colonies ... may, in breach of their instructions, have given their concurrence to laws, or have connived for many years at the practice of trades prejudicial to the interest of Great Britain...."[187] Governor Belcher of Massachusetts in his report to the Board of Trade complained that "we cannot conceal from your lordships that it is with the greatest difficulty we are able to procure true informations of the trade and manufactures of New England; which will not appear extraordinary when we acquaint your lordship, that the assembly of the Massachusetts Bay had the boldness to summon ... Mr. Jeremiah Dunbar [Surveyor General of his Majesty's woods in North America] before them and pass a severe censure upon him, for having given evidence at the bar of the House of Commons of Great Britain with respect to the trade and manufactures of this province...."[188] After the Port Act of 1704 was disallowed, the Virginians were harder pressed than the northern colonists, who managed to maintain their frowned-upon industries. Ignoring the Virginians' resentment at being limited almost exclusively to the growing of tobacco, additional economic pressures were put upon them. For example, whereas stripped tobacco--the leaves separated from the stalks--had constituted the principal form of exported tobacco, an Act of Parliament was introduced on January 17, 1729, containing clauses prohibiting the importation into England of "Stript Tobacco." John Randolph, Clerk of the Council of Virginia, wrote a letter to Parliament, petitioning the repeal of the clause. By having to export the stalks, he complained, the planters are loaded with the duty and Freight of that which is not only of no Value, but depreciates the pure tobacco at least 2d in every pound. The Tobacconists are under a temptation to manufacture the Stalk and mingle it with the leaf, whereby the Commodity is adulterated, and of course the consumption of it is lessend. And the Merchants are obliged to keep great quantities in their Warehouses, and at last to sell upon long Credit. In consequence of which the price of the Planters Labors, is fallen below what they are able to bear. And unless they can be relieved, they must be driven to a necessity of Employing themselves more usefully in Manufactures of Woollen and Linen, as they are not able under the present circumstances to buy what is Necessary for their Cloathing, in this Kingdom....[189] Although the usual covering phrase, "other manufactures," was omitted here, it could well have been included. Under such adverse restraints, enterprising Virginians were almost forced to turn to surreptitious manufacturing; perhaps the restraints became excellent excuses for pursuing such manufactures, which, perhaps, were in any case inevitable. Relief came by 1730 with the passage of a new tobacco act, liberalizing the restrictions on the planters. Meanwhile, in 1727, William Gooch was appointed Lieutenant Governor and, owing in part to his political astuteness and sympathetic awareness of the colonists' difficulties, the lot of the planter was greatly improved. Nevertheless, manufacturing persisted as the colonists increased in strength and numbers. Although official restrictions may have been a perverse encouragement to manufactures, the dynamics of a growing population in a new country predetermined even more an expansion of enterprise. Not only did economic depression force the industrious to turn to manufactures as an alternative to poverty, but economic prosperity, when it occurred in the 1730s, provided a financial stimulus to further that prosperity by means of local manufacturing. Governor Gooch doubtlessly understood this. He was remarkable among Virginia's colonial governors for his ability to achieve what the colonists wanted while pleasing the home government. His administration created an era of good feeling during which the Virginians frequently expressed their gratitude and praise. In 1728, after serving as Governor for seven months, he was given £500 by the Assembly as well as an illegal grant by the Council of £300 from the royal quit-rents, which led George Chalmers, an English historian, to comment sourly in 1782 that for this gift "he in return resigned in a great measure, the government to them."[190] This was not altogether a fair conclusion, for, though Gooch, as Campbell in his _History of Virginia_ states, may have been possessed of "some flexibility of principle,"[191] he was an extraordinarily successful Governor. Percy S. Flippin concluded that Gooch "was a striking example of what an energetic, forceful royal governor, who was influenced by conditions in the colony and not altogether by his instructions, could accomplish, both for the colony and for the British government."[192] He repeatedly acted in the interests of the colonists, particularly regarding improved tobacco laws. He attended almost every meeting of the Council, whose members constituted the most influential persons in the colony, and thus established a close working relationship and understanding with those who expressed the colonial view-point. Quite evidently he understood that prosperity in the colony was a prerequisite to successful trade with England and to a substantial tax return. In respect to improving the tobacco laws, we know that he opposed existing British attitudes; in relation to colonial manufactures beneficial to colonial prosperity, we may assume that he was sympathetic, even though he could not advocate them openly. Certainly, as Campbell stated, "Owing partly to this coalition [between Gooch and the planters], partly to a well-established revenue and a rigid economy, Virginia enjoyed prosperous repose during his long administration."[193] Gooch's reports on manufactures to the Board of Trade provide an exercise in reading between the lines. They suggest that he was doing his best to support the colonists while observing the letter of the Crown's instructions. They allude to manufactures here and there, but usually in terms that minimize their importance or that brush aside the possibilities of their growth. Yet in his depreciations one senses that while he was trying to state such facts as were necessary, he actually was trying on occasion to create an impression that was at variance with the whole truth. In tracing the Yorktown potter we shall see that this must have been the case. In his report of 1732 he made a general statement calculated to allow the Lords of the Board of Trade to relax in calm reassurance, while at the same time encouraging their recognition of his wisdom in initiating a new tobacco law: There hath been much Discourse amongst the common People of Sowing Flax and Cotton, and therewith supplying themselves with Cloathing: but since the late Tobacco Law hath begun to raise the Price of that Staple, all these projected Schemes are laid aside, and in all probability will Continue so, as long as Tobacco is of any Value, seeing the necessary Cloathing for the Planters and their Negroes, may be more easily Purchas'd with Tobacco than made by themselves. Nor indeed is there much ground to suspect that any kind of Manufactures will prevail in a Country where handycraft Labour is so dear as 'Tis Here; The Heat in Summer, and severe Colds in Winter, accompani'd with sundry Diseases proceeding from these Causes, such as Labouring People in Great Britain undergo, and where the Earth produces enough to purchase and supply all the necessitys of life without the drudgery of much Toil, men are tempted to be lazy. He then added inconsistently that four ironworks making pots and "Backs for Fireplaces" had been set up in Virginia and admitted that one even included an air furnace. The Lords of the Board of Trade might well have asked how these were accomplished without "the drudgery of much Toil." He also stated that: "there is one poor Potter's work of course earthen Ware, which is of so little Consequence, that I dare say there hath not been twenty Shillings worth less of that Commodity imported since it was sett up than there was before."[194] It is remarkable that Gooch felt the need to mention the potter at all, since pottery making was usually an anonymous, little-noted craft. Nevertheless, in 1733 he reported again on this seemingly insignificant enterprise: As to Manufactures sett up, Wee have at York Town upon York River one poor Potter's Work for Earthen Ware, which is so very inconsiderable that I dare Say there has not been forty Shillings' worth less of that Commodity imported since it was Erected than there was before; the poorest Familys being the only Purchasers, who not being able to send to England for such Things would do without them, if they could not gett them Here.[195] Clearly, we, like the Lords of the Board of Trade, are led to believe that a semiskilled country potter was operating a small shop which produced crude pottery incapable of competing with English wares. The word "poor" can be interpreted doubly, connoting both poverty and low quality. Hence, by inference, it was an enterprise destined to failure. But such an impression of failure was not supported by Gooch's own evidence that the pottery works were continuing year after year. In 1734 he reported: As to Manufactures We have at York Town, on York River, one poor Potters' work for earthen Ware, which is so very inconsiderable, that there has been little less of that Commodity imported since it was Erected, than there was before.[196] The 1735 report was equally depreciating,[197] while the following year Gooch opened his report with the comment: "The same poor Potter's Work is still continued at York Town without any great Improvement or Advantage to the Owner, or any Injury to the Trade of Great Britain."[198] The 1737 report on Trade and Manufactures even contained a special subheading: "Potters' Work." There then followed: "The Potter continues his Business (at York Town in this Colony) of making Potts and Panns, with very little Advantage to himself, and without any dammage to Trade."[199] One wonders why Gooch's persistence in mentioning this enterprise in such terms almost annually did not lead the Board of Trade to question his reasons for mentioning it at all if the pottery was so insignificant. Perhaps they did question it, because in the next report, filed in 1739 after a two-year interval, Gooch dismissed the pottery succinctly, almost impatiently, as though to turn aside further questions that might be raised: "The poor Potter's Operation is unworthy of your Lordships notice." Gooch then proceeded with an admission that: The Common People in all Parts of the Colony, and indeed many of the better Sort, are lately gott into the use of Loom Weaving coarse cloth for themselves and Negroes; And our Inhabitants on the other side of the Mountains, make very good Linnen which they sell up and down the Country. Nor is the making of Shoes with Hides of their own Tanning less practiced, tho' the Leather is very Indifferent.[200] It was easier, of course, to admit that the "common People in all Parts of the Colony" were engaged in domestic manufactures than to allow attention to concentrate on a single commercial, industrial enterprise. Only with difficulty could sanctions have been brought to bear against home industries throughout the colony--a single manufactory reported almost annually for eight years was quite another matter. To have lasted this long, the "poor potter" must have been less than poor, and his pottery must have had an importance that either had to be revealed by truthful statement or dissimulated. It appears that Gooch chose the latter course: the pottery being a large enterprise was noticeable; being noticeable it had to be reported; but being large it contributed to the wealth of the colony while competing with British imports which did not, and therefore it should be condoned. Gooch made a practical decision which may reflect his obligation to the colonists: the pottery works had to be downgraded in his reports and attention distracted from it. The "Poor Potter" and his Wares Who, then, was the "poor potter," and how wide of the mark was Gooch in so designating him? The first clue was found in a ledger kept between 1725 and 1732 by John Mercer, who was to become master of the plantation Marlborough in Stafford County as well as an influential colonial lawyer. In 1725, at the age of 21, Mercer was making his way in the world by trading up and down the rivers of Virginia, buying imported goods in towns like Yorktown, where he had a large account with the wealthy merchant Richard Ambler, and exchanging these imports for raw materials at upstream plantations. Included in John Mercer's ledger is an account with one William Rogers having the following entry: "By Earthen Ware amounting to by Invoice 12. 3. 6."[201] So large an amount implies a wholesale purchase from a potter. Was William Rogers, then, the "poor potter" of Yorktown? Scattered throughout the records are references to several William Rogerses from 17th-and 18th-century Virginia (see Appendix I), but none seems likely to refer to the "poor potter" until one reaches Yorktown. There a deed is recorded from the "Trustees to the Port Land in Yorktown," granting two lots of land on May 19, 1711, to "William Rogers aforesaid Brewer."[202] That he was a brewer admittedly is a weak clue to his being a potter. But, despite this, it is necessary to pursue this William Rogers further. These two lots were granted to Rogers by the Trustees in accordance with previous acts for establishing port towns. Yorktown had been established according to the Act for Ports and Towns in 1691, and Rogers' lots were numbers 51 and 55 (see plat, fig. 1), lying contiguously on the northern border of the town between Read and Nelson Streets. To this day they continue to bear the same numbers. [Illustration: Figure 2.--MAJOR LAWRENCE SMITH'S ORIGINAL SURVEY PLAT of Yorktown, Virginia, made according to the Virginia Port Act of 1691, which set up a port town for each county. This plat, still in the York County records, bears the names of successive lot holders from 1691 on into the 18th century. William Rogers' name appears on lots 51 and 55. He was granted this property by the town feoffees in 1711. Additional properties he acquired are mentioned in his will as lots 59, 74, and 75.] For year after year nothing appears in the York County records to indicate that William Rogers was connected even remotely with a pottery works. That he was soon prospering as a brewer is suggested by the mention of "Roger's [sic] best Virga aile," as selling at sixpence per quart, in a list of liquor prices presented for Yorktown tavern keepers on March 19, 1711.[203] In 1714 an indentured woman servant of Rogers ran away and was ordered to serve an additional six months and four days.[204] His name occurs in 1718 in two small court actions to collect bad debts and in another against Robert Minge for trespass. He is recorded in these simply as "Wm. Rogers."[205] There is no other significant mention until 1730, when the wife of "William Stark, Gent." relinquished her right of dower to lands in the County, so as to permit their sale to "William Rogers."[206] Later in the same year "Mr. Wm. Rogers" was sued by Henry Ham, a bondservant, for his freedom.[207] In 1734 "William Rogers gent" took oath as "Capt. of the Troop."[208] Later that year "William Rogers gent" was appointed "Surveyor of the Landings, Streets, and Cosways in York Town."[209] LIST OF PLAT OWNERS --PARTIAL NAME * ILLEGIBLE 1. Thomas *; W-- 2. Neillson; Buckner 3. John Ande--; Buckner 4. (?) Th[r]e[l]keld 5. (?) Q[u]arl[e]; Read; Buckner 6. John *; Buckner 7. Henry Alexander; P. Lightfoot 8. Thomas Greenwood; J. Walker; (?) Amos * 9. Robert L[e]ighton; Sam. Cooper 10. Mr. Joseph; Mr. J. Walker 11. Ralph *; Lightfoot 12. *; Wm. Cary 13. (?) Owen; David 14. Robert Moore; Wm. Cary 15. William Webb; Jno. Trotter 16. Mr. Thomas; Lightfoot 17. Mr. Dudley Diggs; Lightfoot 18. *; Wm. Cary 19. Thomas Collyer; Wm. Cary 20. Thomas Branson; Wm. Cary 21. Nicholas Harrison; Robt. Ballard 22. Thomas * 23. * 24. Jefferson 25. (?) Charles Hansford 26. William Tomkins 27. James Archer; John (?) Douglas 28. * 29. Saml. Tompson 30. John R-- 31. Will[ia]m Pattisson 32. Thomas (?) Wootton; A. Archer 33. Mr. Edwd. Moss Jr.; *; Jno. Loving 34. Capt. * 35. Capt. Edmond Jennings 36. Coll. Wm. Diggs; Lightfoot 37. Thomas Mountford; Lightfoot 38. Richard Trotter; P. Lightfoot 39. John Wyth; Jno. Martin 40. Richard (?) Trotter 41. David * 42. John *; Diggs 43. Dannll. Taylor 44. Edward Dodds; (?) Jo. Cathafie 45. William Hewit 46. * 47. * 48. Coll. Wm. Cary; 1709 49. James (?) Plowman; 1712 50. Jno. Simson; Edwd. Powers 51. Wm. (?) Anderson; Wm. Rogers 52. * 53. Will[ia]m--son; Edwd. Smith 54. Edward (?) Gibbs; Ballard 55. James Walker; Wm. Rogers 56. * 57. *; Jno. --ton 58. Harrison 59. Harrison 60. Mrs. Young 61. Mrs. Young 62. Let to Morrison; Tho. H-- 63. Robt. Morrison (?) Jr. 64. * 65. Edwd. Power 66. Ed Power 67 and 71. -- Gibbons 67. Deed; Geo. Allen 68. Edward * * 69. Jno. Wyth; Edwd. Webb 70. A. Archer; James (?) Paxton; N. Hooke 71 and 67. -- Gibbons 71. Geo. Allen 72. * 73. Edward Fuller 74. * 75. * In the _Virginia Gazette_ for September 10, 1736, Rogers advertised for rent or sale "The House which formerly belong'd to Col _Jenings_, in which the _Bristol_ store was lately kept ... in _Williamsburg_," and on December 22 put in a notice for an overseer.[210] The following year, on June 20, Rogers was appointed to build the county prison for £160.[211] In the _Gazette_ for May 4, 1739, he announced the sale of "A small shallop ... in _York_ Town: she is about Five Years old...."[212] Then, on December 17, 1739, we find that Rogers had died and that his will was presented in court. He had identified himself as "Wm. Rogers ... Merchant." The will lists the distribution of his lands and property (see Appendix II) to his wife Theodosia, to one daughter, Mrs. Susanna Reynolds, and to his son William Rogers--the latter being under age. In addition to town properties a "Trace of parcel of Land lying & being and adjoining to Mountford's Mill Dam in the County of York commonly called & known by the Name of Tarripin Point" went to William Rogers, Jr.[213] It is only when we arrive at this document that we find the clue we are seeking: "my interest is that no potters ware not burnt and fit for sale should be appraised." Who but a potter (or the owner of a pottery) would have had in his possession unfired "potters ware" not "fit for sale"? Any remaining doubts that Rogers operated a pottery are dispelled by the inventory (see Appendix III), which describes the estate of a wealthy man, not a "poor" potter. He owned 29 Negroes, considerable plate, a clock worth £6, a silver-hilted sword and spurs, and a silver watch. There were many pictures, including "a Neat Picture of King Charles the Second" and "52 pictures in the Hall." Some of the rooms had "Window Curtains & Vallins," and one of the beds had "work'd Curtains & Vallins" [presumably crewel-worked]. The furniture included a marble table, "12 Chairs with Walnut frames & Cane bottoms," a "japand corner cupboard," "Couch Squab and pillows," "pcl Backgammon Tables," and a great deal more of lavish furnishings. But more important for us is a grouping of items:[214] 1 pr large Scales & Weights £2.10 a pcl crakt redware £2 a parcel crakt Stone Do £5 11 pocket bottles 3/8 1/2 barrel Gun powder £2.10 1 old Sain & ropes £1.10 1 horse Mill £8 2300 lb. old Iron £9.11. 8 26 doz qt Mugs £5.4 60 doz pt Do 7.10 11 doz Milk pans £2.4 9 large Cream potts 4/6 9 Midle Sized Do 3/ 12 Small Do 2/ 2 doz red Saucepans 4/ 2 doz porringers 4/ 6 Chamber potts 2/ 4 doz bird bottles 12/ 3 doz Lamps 9/ 4 doz small stone bottles 6/ 4 doz small dishes 8/ 6 doz puding pans 2/ 26 Cedar pailes £2.12 40 Bushels Salt £4 With this, added to the provision in the will, we have adequate proof that Rogers ran a pottery shop and that he made both stoneware and red earthenware. Further evidence is found in the _Virginia Gazette_ for February 4, 1740: To be Sold by Way of Outcry, at the house of Mr. William Rogers, deceas'd ... all the Household Goods, Cattle, and Horses; also a very good drought of Steers, 3 Carts, a Parcel of Wheat, and Salt, a large Parcel of old Iron, Parcel of Stone and Earthen Ware, a good Worm Still, a very good Horse Mill to go with one Horse; also a new Sloop, built last March with all new Rigging, and very well fitted, with 2 very good Boats and several other Things.[215] The horse mill was probably the potter's traditional clay-grinding mill, while we may assume that the large amount of salt was intended for stoneware glaze. Other items in the inventory show that Rogers was in both the brewing and the distilling business and every evidence is that he had achieved great affluence. Governor Gooch's last report on the "poor potter" was filed in 1741 (none having been sent in 1740). In it he stated: The poor potter is Dead, and the business of making potts & panns, is of little advantage to his Family, and as little Damage to the Trade of our Mother Country.[216] There is little question now that this William Rogers was, indeed, the "poor potter." We also learn from this report that the business was being continued by his family after his death. This is confirmed by a number of documentary clues, the first of which occurs in an indenture of 1741 (proved in 1743 in the York County Deeds). It begins: I George Rogers of Bra[i]ntree in the County of Essex [England] coller Maker Send Greeting. Whereas William Rogers late of Virginia Mercht was in his life time younger brother to me the said George Rogers and at the time of his death left an Estate to his only son named William Rogers which sd last mentioned William Rogers dyed lately intestate so that in right of Law the said Estate is devolved & come unto me.... This document served to appoint "Thomas Reynolds of London Mariner" as his attorney and to assign to him all his rights in the estate.[217] We hear no further of George, suggesting that his claim on the estate was settled permanently, but of Thomas Reynolds we learn a good deal. On June 6, 1737, as captain of the ship _Braxton_ of London, he arrived at Yorktown from Boston "where she was lately built." He brought from New England a cargo of 80,000 bricks, "Trayn Oyl," woodenware, and hops.[218] It was he who had married Susanna Rogers.[219] He sailed to Bristol on September 30, 1737, perhaps to sell or deliver his new ship in England. In any case, he returned from London the following April as master of the ship _Maynard_. He made several crossings in her until he docked her at London on October 10, 1739.[220] While there he must have learned of the death of his father-in-law; whether for this reason or some other, his name was no longer listed among those of shipmasters arriving at and leaving Yorktown. Since he then would have been in effect the head of the family, he probably gave up the sea and settled in Yorktown to manage William Rogers' enterprises, because William, Jr.,--intended to take over the principal family properties upon his coming of age--died within about a year of his father's death. Reynolds, both on his own account as Susanna's husband and as attorney for George Rogers, logically would have succeeded to proprietorship. In any case, by 1745 he was established so successfully at Yorktown that he was made a justice of the peace. At some point he went into partnership with a Captain Charles Seabrook in a mercantile venture that involved ownership of the ocean sloop _Judith_ and two "country cutters" named _York_ and _Eltham_.[221] Reynolds lived next to the Swan Tavern in Yorktown and was characterized by Courtenay Norton, wife of the merchant John Norton, as having "shone in the World in Righteousness."[222] He died in 1758 or 1759. That the pottery was being operated, presumably by Reynolds, at least until 1745 is evident from an advertisement by Frances Webb of Williamsburg in the _Virginia Gazette_ for June 20, 1745. This called attention to "all Sorts of _Rogers'_ Earthenware as cheap as at York." And, although we have no assurance that the earthenware was made at the Rogers pottery, we learn from the _Gazette_ that two days prior to this the sloop _Nancy_ had sailed from Yorktown for Maryland, bearing a "Parcel of Earthenware."[223] How long the pottery may have flourished is not known. There is no further mention of it after 1745, and the shipping records do not suggest that earthenware or stoneware products were then being shipped out of York River. The most significant fact about the "poor potter" is the revelation that he made stoneware. Stoneware manufacture is a sophisticated art, requiring special clays, high-temperature firing, and the ability to use salt in glazing. When William Rogers acquired his first lots in Yorktown in 1711, no stoneware, so far as we know, was being made in North America. By 1725, when Rogers sold earthenware to John Mercer, the Duché family apparently had just succeeded in making stoneware in Philadelphia.[224] Since we have no documentary evidence of Rogers' first production of stoneware, we do not know whether his stoneware antedated that of the Duchés; we know only that after he died in 1739 numerous pieces of stoneware were listed in what were obviously the effects of his pottery shop. There is strong archeological evidence, however, that it was made about 1730 (see p. 110). Although Rogers may not have been the first to make stoneware in colonial North America, that he was at least one of the first must have elevated him to a position of prominence among colonial potters. Far from being a poor potter who conducted a business "with very little advantage to himself, and without any damage to Trade," he was supplying a colonial market that heretofore had been filled solely from England and Germany. There is a hint that he may have shipped his wares to North Carolina, because the _Virginia Gazette_ announced on September 21, 1739: "Cler'd out of York River ... September 11. Sloop Thomas and Tryal, of North Carolina, John Nelson, for North Carolina ... some Stone Ware."[225] Three years before, Rogers had sued in court to collect "a Bill Payable to him from one Richard Saunderson of North Carolina."[226] The possibility that the stoneware in the sloop _Thomas and Tryal_ had been made by Rogers is highly conjectural, since European imports often were redistributed and transshipped in American ports. But, since its cargo as a whole consisted of non-European materials, this still remains a possibility. The most notable inference that Rogers' stoneware may have infiltrated distant colonial markets is found in the Petition of Isaac Parker to the Massachusetts Court to establish a stoneware manufactory in Charlestown, Massachusetts, filed in September 1742: "... there are large quantities of said ware imported into this Province every year from New York, Philadelphia, & Virginia, for which ... returns are mostly made in Silver and Gold by the gentn who receive them here."[227] Since there is no evidence that stoneware was being made at this time in Virginia, other than at Yorktown, it is reasonable to suppose that the "poor potter's" heirs shipped stoneware all the way to New England and that they were paid in hard cash, as distinct from tobacco credits, which would have been the case with local customers. However this may be, the Rogers enterprise, even if its products were confined to Virginia, appears to have been extensive, wealth-producing, and quite the opposite of Governor Gooch's appraisal of it in his reports to the Board of Trade. As to the location of his kilns, we know that Rogers owned two lots, where he apparently lived, at the northern boundary of the town. He also owned a warehouse by the riverside and other lots on which he was building dwellings when he died. He owned land at "Tarripin Point" and two lots in Williamsburg. Governor Gooch repeatedly located the pottery in Yorktown: "We have here at York Town upon York River one poor Potter's Work ...," or, "the Potter continues his Business (at York Town in this Colony)." This is rather good evidence that the kilns were within the town limits rather than at some outside location, such as "Tarripin Point." A waterfront location would have been desirable for many reasons, but, since a potter's kiln would have been a fire hazard not to only Rogers' but to other warehouses, it is questionable whether nearby kilns would have been tolerated. English practice was usually to locate potter's kilns at the far edges of towns or outside their limits. Nevertheless, there were many exceptions, and kilns sometimes were located near the water, especially when practical reasons of convenience in loading ships outweighed the dangers. The North Devon potteries were heavily committed to water transportation, and at least two of the kilns at Bideford in North Devon in the 17th century, for example, were located near the water in what were then densely settled areas.[228] The North Walk Pottery in nearby Barnstaple was also on the water's edge, close to a thickly populated area;[229] in 17th-century America we find a parallel in the pottery of William Vincent, located at the harbor's edge in Gloucester, Massachusetts, where it was easy for him to ship his wares along the coast.[230] The 18th-century potteries of Charlestown, Massachusetts, which also had wide markets, were clustered along the harbor shore amid a welter of wharves and warehouses.[231] It is conceivable, therefore, that the Yorktown waterfront may have been similarly exposed to the dangers of a potter's kiln, since Rogers transported his wares by water. More logical from the standpoint of safety, however, would be the pair of lots on the western edge of the town where Rogers apparently dwelt after they were granted to him in 1711. Although it is not conclusive, his inventory, which includes the lists of earthenwares and stonewares mentioned above, appears to have been taken in a sequence beginning with the house and followed by one outbuilding after another. Presumably these were located close together. Things pertaining to the kitchen and perhaps to the quarters follow the contents of the house (in which the "work room" is mentioned), then the distilling apparatus followed by the brewing equipment. Next come the pottery items, then a miscellany of laundry, garden, and cooking gear, and finally stable fixtures and a horse. It is not until the end of the inventory that the boats and their rigging and equipment, doubtless located at the waterside, are mentioned. These speculations are offered for what they are worth in suggesting possibilities for future archeological discovery of the kiln site. The question of William Rogers' own role in the pottery enterprise perhaps will never be solved conclusively, although, as Mr. Noël Hume points out, there is no evidence that he himself was a potter. His beginnings almost surely were humble ones, humble enough for a potter. We know that his brother George was a maker of horse collars--a worthy occupation, but not one to be equated with the role of an 18th-century gentleman--in Braintree, Essex County, England. There were many potters in Essex in the 17th and early 18th centuries, and one wonders if William Rogers was trained by one of them. But the Essex Records do not reveal a William Rogers whose dates or circumstances fit ours. We do find that a George Rogers died at Braintree in 1750.[232] Whatever may have been William's early training, it is apparent that he knew the art of brewing and that he engaged in it at Yorktown. To be sure, nearly every farmer and yeoman in the colonies knew how to brew. Furthermore, commercial brewing was probably accepted as an honorable industry by the Crown authorities, since the colonial demand for beers and ales must have always been in excess of the exportable supply. It is possible, we may speculate, that Rogers was trained as a potter but practiced brewing and preferred to be known publicly as a brewer. In any case, he was essentially a businessman whose establishment made ale as well as pottery for public consumption, and it is clear that by 1725 he was conducting a potter's business on a considerable scale. To have done so he must have employed potters and apprentices, yet in cursory searches of the York County records, we have been unable to discover any reference either to potteries or potters, reinforcing the suspicion that every effort--including Gooch's apologetic references--was being made to conduct the pottery in a clandestine manner. Thus, the only thing we know with certainty is that William Rogers was a very successful entrepreneur who carried on more than one kind of business. We also can deduce from what is disclosed in the records that he ascended high in the social scale in Virginia and that the rate of this ascent was, not surprisingly, in proportion to the increase of his wealth. Whether or not he was a trained potter, one thing is certain: he was not a "poor potter." As to the role of his son-in-law and successor, Thomas Reynolds, we know with certainty that Reynolds was not a potter. For at least five years and perhaps longer, however, he evidently ran the pottery, which means that there were trained hands to produce stonewares and earthenwares. Who they were or where they came from are not revealed in the records. If, however, we can prove that the wares about to be discussed were made by them, it becomes clear that they were a remarkably competent lot, often able to equal if not to excel their English peers. The persistence of the pottery for at least 20 and perhaps more than 34 years was owing in part, no doubt, to Governor Gooch's apologetic treatment of it in his reports to the Lords of the Board of Trade and to his leniency toward colonial manufacturers in general. Basically, however, it was a response to public need and to a growing independence and a socio-economic situation distinct from the mother country's. The Virginians had a will and direction which impelled them beyond the restrictions imposed upon them to grow tobacco and do little else. The "poor potter" is significant because he exemplified the impulse to break these restrictions and to move the colony toward a craft-oriented economy. Because his wares were skillfully made and sometimes were scarcely distinguishable from those of his English competitors, he was able to hold his position economically and at the same time to become personally wealthy and influential. The scope of his enterprise--more clearly demonstrated in the archeological section of this presentation--should lead to a reappraisal of Governor Gooch's attitudes toward the endeavors of the colonists. His reports to the Board of Trade are shown to have been dissimulations instead of statements of fact. They evidence a daring and suggest a wisdom and a degree of pragmatism on the part of the Governor that might well have been continued by the Crown and its authorities. This entire episode illustrates a remarkably fluid phase of Virginia's history in which the opportunity for an energetic man to rise from obscurity to wealth and position foretold a pattern that became legendary in American society. Governor Gooch undoubtedly sensed these internal pressures, as much psychological as economic, to seek the rewards of industry and enterprise. That the pottery later ceased to function and Virginia's manufactures in general failed to develop may reflect the differences in attitudes between Governor Gooch and his successors and the stubborn impositions by the Crown that eventually led to the American Revolution. There seems little doubt that the "poor potter," William Rogers, and the maker of the pottery so liberally dispersed around Yorktown and elsewhere in Virginia are one and the same. Further archeological investigation and discovery of a kiln or kiln dump should provide the evidence needed for proof. APPENDIXES I: Other Virginians by the Name of William Rogers In order to feel absolutely certain that the William Rogers of Yorktown was the "poor potter" so often mentioned by Governor Gooch, a check was made through the records of all 17th-and 18th-century Virginians named William Rogers to see if any others might possibly have been associated with the Yorktown pottery. The earliest William Rogers found was listed as one of a group of 60 persons transported and assigned to Richard Cooke in Henrico County.[233] In 1639 a "Mr. William Rogers" was viewer of the tobacco crop in Upper Norfolk.[234] In 1718 a William Rogers died in Richmond County.[235] It is quite evident that none of these was the "poor potter." In 1704 a William Rogers owned 200 acres in Accomack County on the Eastern Shore,[236] and in 1731 a will of William Rogers was recorded there.[237] In Surry County several men of this name are noted. One of them was bound as an apprentice in 1681;[238] this William Rogers was probably the same man who was listed in 1687 in the Surry militia "for Foot."[239] In 1702 a William Rogers took up some newly opened land "on the South side of Blackwater," which was measured by the surveyor for Charles City County (only meaning, perhaps, that Surry did not have its own surveyor).[240] In 1704 a William Roger (sic) owned 450 acres in Surry.[241] Two years later William Rogers, Jr., had 220 acres surveyed on the "S. side of Blackwater" in Surry County.[242] Meanwhile a William Rogers had recorded a will in Surry in 1701, and another (presumably William Rogers, Jr.) did so in 1727.[243] A William Rogers was listed in Lancaster in 1694 as the husband of Elizabeth Skipworth,[244] and he appears to have been tithable in the Christ Church parish in 1714.[245] Wills are recorded under the name in Lancaster County in 1728 and 1768.[64] None of these records dispute the strong evidence discovered at Yorktown concerning the identity of the "poor potter." II. Evidence of William Rogers' Properties _Virginia Gazette_, SEPTEMBER 10, 1736 "To be Lett or Sold, very reasonably. The House which formerly belong'd to Col _Jenings_, in which the _Bristol_ store was lately kept, being the next House to _John Clayton's_, Esq.; in _Williamsburg_: It is a large commodious House, with Two Lots, a Garden, Coach-House, Stable, and other Outhouses and Conveniences. Enquire of Capt. _William Rogers_, in _York_, or of _William Parks_, Printer in _Williamsburg_." ROGERS' WILL (1739) To his wife Theodosia: "... two Lotts--lyeing & being in the City of Wmsburgh together with the Dwelling House and other houses thereunto belonging" and also "... a Lott lying behind Cheshire's Lott number 63 in York Town that I bought of Mr. George Reade, with all the Improvements upon it during his life and after his death." ["Behind _Cheshire_'s Lott" apparently means Lot 59, next to it. See plat.] "... one certain Tract or Parcel of Land, lying being and adjoining to Mountford's Mill Dam in the County of York commonly called & known by the Name of Tarripin Point." "... the parcel of Land that I bought of Mr Edwd Smith except one Chain and that to be laid off at the end next the Lott that I bought of Francis Moss with all the Improvements on it and in case I should dye before I build upon it, I shall leave all the plank & framing stuff together with the window frames & all the other things designed for the House to my Wife and not to be appraised with my Estate and if my Carpenter is not free that he shall not be appraised but serve his time out and with my said Wife." [Francis Morse owned Lot 75, extreme southwest corner. Therefore, this was probably Lot 74.] * * * * * "unto my son Wm Rogers all my Lotts in Yorktown where I now dwell with all the houses thereunto belonging." "also the warehouse by the waterside and all other my Lands and Tenements wherever lying except the Lotts & Land before given to my Wife." * * * * * To his daughter Susanna Reynolds: "the Lott that I bought of Mr Francis Morse known by the No 75 together with the Brickhouse and all other Improvements upon it also one Chain of the Land that I bought of Mr Edward Smith to be taken at the end next to the Lott to her & her heirs for Ever in case I dye before the House is done I then leave also bricks enough to finish the house, together wth the window frames & doors and what other framing was design'd for her house...." 64 _Virginia Wills and Administrations_, loc. cit. (footnote 53). III: Inventory of William Rogers' Estate[246] Pursuant to an Order of York Court Dec. the 17th 1739 We the Subscribers being first sworn before Wm. Nelson junr Gent have appraised the Estate of Capt. Wm. Rogers decd. as followeth Vizt. Waterford £25 Betty £25 Adam £30 Blackwall £30 £110. 0. 0 Nanny £18 Lazarus Son of Nanny £5 23. 0. 0 Amy Daughter of Nanny £16 Grace Daughter of Nanny 8£ 24. 0. 0 Barnaby £15 Samson £25 Quaqua £25 Tony £30 95. 0. 0 Jo £30 York £25 Jack £25 George £22 Tom 30 132. 0. 0 Monmouth £30 London £30 Ben £30 Pritty £30 120. 0. 0 Phillis £25 Sarah £30 Harry £25 Lucy £12 92. 0. 0 Little Nanny £25 Phoeby £20 Phil son of Phoeby £5 50. 0. 0 Cato £20 James £18 Peg £16 54. 0. 0 Household Goods &c. 1 Clock £6 one Silver hilt Cutting Sword and one pr. Silver Spurrs 4£ 10. 0. 0 1 Tea Pott 5 Spoons 2 pt. Cans and 2 Salts of Silver 11. 15. 0 To a parcel China ware £10 a pcl Glasses & Table Stand £1.10 11. 10. 0 a pcl books £4 a pcl Sheets Table Linnen and one wt. Quilt 22l 26. -- -- 1 Silver Salver 1 pt. Can 2 Salts 11 Spoons and one Soop Do 14. -- -- 1 Silver Watch £4 one horse Colt £4 a Coach & 4 horses £40 48. -- -- a Neat Picture of King Charles the Second 2. 10. 0 1 Marble Table £2 one corner cupboard wth. a glass face 20/ 3. -- -- 1 Looking Glass £1.10 1 pr. Glass Sconces 15/ £2. 5. 0 1 Chimney Glass wth. a pr. brass arms £2 a japaned corner Cupboard 2. 15. 0 12 Chairs wth. Walnut frames & Cane bottoms 5. -- -- 1 Dutch picture in a guilt frame 0. 10. 0 7 Cartoons 4 glass Pictures 4 Maps & 3 small Pictures 1. 5. 0 1 Large walnut Table £1.15 one less Do 20/ 2. 15. 0 1 small Table & one Tea board 5/ one Iron back 12/ 0. 17. 0 1 pr. And Irons 20/ one Iron fender 1 pr. Tongs & Shovel fire 7/6 1. 7. 6 1 Iron plate frame 7/6 8 China Pictures in large frames 8/ 0. 15. 6 1 Copper Cistern 13/ 12 Ivory handle knives & forks £1.10 2. 3. 0 11 Eboney Do 12/6 12 Desart Do wth. Ivory handles 12/ 1. 4. 6 4 Window Curtains & Vallins £1.10 one small Cherry Table 6/ 1. 16. 0 2 Mares & one Colt £5 a pcl of Carpenters Tools £2.10 7. 10. 0 27 head Cattle £17 Six high back Chairs wth. rush bottoms £1.10 18. 10. 0 1 Bed Bolster Pillow Bedsted 1 pr. blankets & Quilt 3. -- -- 2 small pine Tables 0. 4. 0 1 large Bed Bolster 1 Pillow 1 pr. blankets Bedstead Curtain rod Workt Curtains & Vallins 7. 1 Bed Bolster 2 pillows 1 pr. blankets 1 Old Quilt old blue Hangings & Bedsted 4. -- -- 1 Looking Glass 20/. 2 pr. window Curtains 10/ one pr. Sconces 6/ 1. 16. 0 1 pr. large mony Scales & weights 12/6 1 pr. less do 5/ 0. 17. 6 1 pr. small do 2/6 5 rush bottom Chairs wth black frames 7/6 0. 10. 0 A Chimney piece 10/ 52 Pictures in the Hall 10/ 1. 1 Couch Squab and pillow 30/ 1 japand Tea Table 5/ 1. 5. 0 1 Small pine Table 1/ 2 Walnut Stools 3/ 0. 4. 0 1 Chimney Glass 4/ one pr. Sconces 7/6 1 Dressing Table 2/ 1. 09. 6 1 Looking Glass wth Drawers 20/ one Iron back 6/ £1. 6. 0 1 pr. And Iron 7/6 1 pr. Tongs & fire Shovel 4/ 0. 11. 6 1 brass fender 5/ 1 Case wth Drawers 1.5 1. 10. 0 1 pr. Backgammon Tables 12/6 Tea Chest & Cannisters 6/ 0. 18. 6 1 Dresing Box 5/ 1 Trumpet 5/ 1 large Elbow Chair 7/6 0. 17. 6 A Dutch Picture in a guilt frame 2. 0 1 Bed Bedstead Bolster 2 pillows 1 blanket 1 Quilt Curtains Vallins & Curtain Rod 6. 0. 0 1 Bedstead wth Sacking bottom 1 small Bed & one pillow 1. 10. 0 1 Dram Case & 6 Bottles 12/6 2 pr. window Curtains 10/ 1. 2. 6 1 Copper preserving pan 10/ 1 pr. large pistols 15/ 1. 5. 0 1 pr. Holsters 5/ 1 pr. holster Caps & housing laced and flowerd with Silver 20/ 1. 5. 0 14 bottles Stoughton's Elixir 14/ 6l Chocolate 18/ 1. 12. 0 20 lb Cocanuts £2, 50 Ells Ozn brigs £2.10 4. 10. 0 15-1/2 yds Dorsay 9 Strips twist 2 hh Silk 5 doz Coat and 2 doz. brest buttons 2. 0. 0 3 Cloth brushes 3/ 28 Maple handle knives 5/10 0. 8. 10 10 Yarn Caps 2/6 3 horn books 6d 3 Baskits 4/ 0. 7. 0 1 Iron back in the work room 5/ 1 Do in the Little Chamber 6/ 0. 11. 0 1 Iron fender 1 pr Tongs & fire Shovell 5/ 1 pr Andirons 2/ 0. 7. 0 5 brass Candle Sticks 2 Tinder boxes & 1 Iron Candle Stick 14/ 0. 14. 0 1 Flasket and a parcel Turners Tools 0. 18. 0 8 pr Negros Shoes £1.4. 72 yds Cantaloon £1.4 2. 8. 0 11 yds Coarse Stuff 5/6 1 old Desk 20/ 1 Cedar Press 15/ 2. 0. 6 13 Cannisters 3/6 16 Tin patty pans 12 Cake Do 2 Bisket Do 12 Chocolate Do 2 Coffee pots and 1 Funnell 11/6 0. 15. 0 1 Box Iron & 2 heaters 5/ 1 Coffee mill 4/ £0. 9. 0 1. 2 hour Glass 1/ 5 broad hows 13/ 1 Spining Wheel 5/ 0. 19. 0 2 4l flat Irons 6/ 1 Trooping Saddle blue housing Crooper & Brest plate 20/ 1. 6. 0 An Ozenbrig Skreen 10/ 1 small pine Chest 2/6 0. 12. 6 1 Walnut Table 12/6 5 Candle Moulds 7/6 1. -- -- 1 Bark Sifter 5/ 10 Pictures 4/ 1 Cold Still 12/6 1. 1. 6 1 pr Stilliards 7/6 12 New Sickles 12/ 10 old Do 2/6 1. 2. 0 2 larger Sieves and 1 Hair Sifter 7/6 1 Case wth. 14 bottles 15/ 1. 2. 6 1 Bell Metal Skillet 12/ 1 pr brass Scales & weights 10/ 1. 2. 0 1 Coffee Roaster 4/ 1 fire Shovell 1 pr Tongs & 1 Iron fender 3/ 0. 7. 0 6 woodin Chairs and 1 old Cane Do 0. 8. 0 1 pewter Ink Stand 2/6 1 Tea Kettle 5/ 0. 7. 6 2 Trivets 2 pr Sheep Sheers and 1 pr Bellows 5/ 0. 5. 0 1 Warming pan 5/ 20 doz Quart bottles 2£ 1 whip Saw 20/ 3. 5. 0 3 Empty Casks and 2 beer Tubbs 7/6 0. 7. 6 2 Powdering Tubbs and 1 large Cask 0. 6. 0 A Meal Binn 3/ 3 Spills 9/ 1 worm Still £2/10 3. 2. 0 4 Wheel barrows 8/ 3 Spades 7/ a Copper Kettle £2.10 3. 5. 0 1 large Iron pott 12/6 1 Iron Kettle 15/ 1 Flasket 1/6 1. 9. 0 1 Iron pott 1/6 1 Bed Bolster Bedsted 1 Rugg & 10 Blanket 1/10 1. 11. 6 1 Bed Bolster Bedsted Blanket and 1 old Quilt 17. 6 1 old Table 1/6 6 oxen Ox Cart Yokes & Chains 13. -- -- 80 lb Ginger 10/ 24 lb. Alspice £1.4 55 lb. Rice 5/ 1. 19. 0 50 lb. Snakeroot £1/5 34 lb. Hops 17/ 124 lb. feathers £5.3.4 7. 5. 4 a pcl old Sails & riging 3. -- -- 1 pr large Scales & weights £2.10 a pcl crakt red ware £2 £4. 10. 0 a parcel crakt Stone Do £5 11 pocket bottles 3/8 5. 3. 8 1/2 barrel Gun powder £2.10 1 old Sain & ropes £1.10 4. -- -- 1 horse Mill £8 2300 lb. old Iron £9.11.8 17. 11. 8 26 doz qt Mugs £5.4 60 doz pt Do 7.10 12. 14. 0 11 doz Milk pans £2.4 9 large Cream potts 4/6 2. 8. 6 9 Midle Sized Do 3/ 12 Small Do 2/ 0. 5. 0 2 doz red Saucepans 4/ 2 doz porringers 4/ 0. 8. 0 6 Chamber potts 2/ 4 doz bird bottles 12/ 0. 14. 0 3 doz Lamps 9/ 4 doz small stone bottles 6/ 0. 15. 0 4 doz small dishes 8/ 6 doz puding pans 2/ 0. 10. 0 26 Cedar pailes £2.12 40 Bushels Salt £4 6. 12. 0 104 lb. pewter in Dishes & plates 5. 4. 0 1 Gallon 1. 2qt 1 qt 1 pt & 1 1/2 pt pewter pott 0. 16. 0 1 pewter Bed pan 5/ 12 Sheep £3 3. 5. 0 6 Washing Tubbs 12/ 1 Chocolate pott & Mill 6/ 0. 18. 0 6 Tea Spoons & a Childs Spoon of Silver 1. -- -- 7 Bell Glasses 16/ 1 Kitchen jack 26/ 2. 2. 0 1 pr Andirons 15/ 1 large Copper pott & Cover 30/ £2. 5. 0 1 less Do 17/6 1 Marble Mortar 12/6 1. 10. 0 1 Bell Metal Do and Iron Pestle 0. 10. 0 2 large knives 1 Choping Do 1 Basting Ladle 1 Brass Skimer 1 pr small Tongs and flesh fork 0. 5. 0 1 Copper Stew pan 1 Copper & 1 Iron frying pan 1 Tin fish Kettle 0. 14. 0 1 Brass Skillet and 2 Tin Covers 0. 9. 0 1 Iron Crane and 1 large Pestle 0. 8. 0 1 Water pail 1/6 1 Iron pott 1 pr hooks & 1 Iron Ladle 6/ 0. 7. 6 1 larger Iron pott & hooks 6/ 1 horse Cart & wheels £3 3. 6. 0 1 old whip Saw 10/ 1 Set old Chain harness for 3 horses 20/ 1. 10. 0 1 Set Do for 3 Horses £4 8 Iron Wedges 12/6 4. 12. 6 1 Bay horse £1.5 1 pr wooden Scales 2/ 2 Baskets 2/6 1. 9. 6 1 old horse Cart £1.5 212 bushels wheat a 1/6d £15.18. 17. 1. 0 [sic] 1 old Boat 10/ a New Sloop Boat Sails Rigging 2 Anchors 2 Cables 1 old Hawser and 1 Grapnell 90. 0. 0 1 Glass Light 3/ 2 Wyer Sieves 7/6 0. 10. 6 ------------ £1224. 5. 6 [sic] John Ballard John Trotter Ishmael Moody Part II: Pottery Evidence _Ivor Noël Hume_ The Salt-Glazed Stoneware Attention was first drawn to the potential importance of the 18th-century pottery factory at Yorktown in 1956 when an examination of the National Park Service artifacts from the town revealed large quantities of stoneware sagger fragments visually identical to those previously retrieved from a site at Bankside in London.[247] On the assumption that where kiln "furniture" is found there also must be examples of the product, a more careful search of the Yorktown collections was made, yielding numerous fragments of brown salt-glazed stoneware tankards and bottles which, although at first sight appearing to be typically English, were found to have reacted slightly differently to the vagaries of firing than did the average examples found in England. The largest assemblage of stoneware and sagger fragments came from the vicinity of the restored Swan Tavern, although the actual relationship of the pieces, one to another, was not recorded in the National Park Service's archeological report on the excavations. Nevertheless, the presence on the same lot of fragments of pint tankards adorned with a sprig-molded swan ornament (fig. 3) along with numerous pieces of sagger (fig. 12) seemed positive enough evidence. English tavern mugs of the 18th century were frequently decorated with an applied panel copying the sign which hung outside the hostelry.[248] The Swan Tavern at Yorktown was probably no exception, and to the often illiterate traveler it would have been identified either by a painted sign or perhaps by a swan carved in wood and set above the entrance. The significance of the swan-decorated tankards is simply that the tavern keeper would have been unlikely to have sent to England for such objects when, as the saggers so loudly proclaim, a local potter could supply them as needed and without cost of transportation. The above reasoning seemed to link the saggers with brown salt-glazed stonewares rather than with products in the Rhenish tradition, which would have been the other obvious possibility.[249] Wasters were thinly represented among the sherds from Yorktown, although many underfired or overburned pieces were initially claimed as such. A more mature study of the Yorktown potter's products has shown that these variations would not have been considered unsalable, nor, in all probability, would they have been marked down as "seconds." Examples exhibiting both extremes of temperature have been found in domestic rubbish pits at Williamsburg, clearly showing that such pieces did find a ready sale. Figure 4 illustrates a mug fragment from Williamsburg with a large, heavily salted roof-dripping lodged above the handle and overflowing the rim, a blemish the presence of which is hard to explain if the mug was fired in a sagger. Such a piece found in the vicinity of a kiln reasonably could be considered a waster. It must be deduced, therefore, that, providing the Yorktown potter's vessels would hold water and stand more or less vertically on a table, they would find a market. The site of Rogers' kilns in or near Yorktown has not been found, nor have his waster tips and pits been located. In the absence of such concrete evidence, a study of his wares may be thought premature. But, while numerous questions obviously remain to be answered, sufficient data have now been gathered to identify a considerable range of brown stoneware as being of Tidewater Virginia manufacture. There is, of course, good reason to suppose that much, if not all, of it is a product of the Rogers factory, although until that site is dug one cannot be certain. It can be argued, perhaps, that if there was one more or less clandestine stoneware potter at work in the area, there might well be others. It could also be added that two earthenware-pottery-making sites have been discovered in the Jamestown-Williamsburg area for which no documentary evidence has been found. The very fact that such enterprise was officially discouraged reduces the value of the negative evidence to be derived from the absence of documentation. The most convincing evidence for the identification of Rogers' stoneware comes from the already mentioned Swan Tavern mugs and from a quantity of sherds found in a 4-to 7-inch layer beneath Yorktown's Main Street in front of the Digges House in the spring of 1957. This material was exposed during the laying of utilities beside the modern roadway. So tightly packed were the fragments of saggers and pottery vessels that they appeared to have been deliberately laid down as metaling for the colonial street. Several years later Mr. Watkins discovered that in 1734 William Rogers had been appointed "Surveyor of the Landings, Streets; and Cosways in York Town." It is reasonable to suppose, therefore, that Rogers disposed of his kiln waste by using it for hard core to make good the roads under his jurisdiction. Such a use of potters' refuse has ample precedent in that the wasters and sagger fragments from the 17th-century-London delftware kilns were dumped on the foreshore of the river Thames to serve the same purpose. Similarly, stoneware waste from the presumed Bankside factory[250] was used there to line the bottoms of trenches for wooden drains. The pottery fragments found in the Yorktown road metaling comprised unglazed, coarse-earthenware pans and bowls; pieces of badly fired, brown, salt-glazed stoneware jars and bottles; and numerous sagger fragments. In the years since interest first was shown in the products of the Yorktown factory, a useful range of examples has been gathered from excavations in Williamsburg and in neighboring counties. The single most significant item was recovered from another kiln site in James City County (known as the Challis site) on the bank of the James River. This object, a pint mug (fig. 5), is the best preserved specimen yet found. It is impressed on the upper wall, opposite the handle, with a pseudo-official capacity stamp[251] comprising the initials W R beneath a crown (William III Rex) which, perhaps, might have led to an intentional misinterpretation as the mark of William Rogers' factory. The official English marks generally were incuse or stamped in relief with the cypher and crown within a borderless oval. They were always placed close to the rim, just left of the handle. Rogers' stamp was set in a much more pretentious position and was enclosed within a rectangle marking the edges of the matrix (fig. 6). The Challis site mug was a key piece of evidence, being the first example found that illustrated the position of the W R stamp, and it was sufficiently intact for a drawing to be made, its capacity measured, and its variations of firing studied. The association of the Challis mug with the Rogers factory is based on the fact that there is an identical stamp among the Park Service's artifacts from Yorktown (fig. 7), along with another pseudo W R stamp which had been applied to the _base_ of a tankard. A measured drawing of the Challis mug was given to Mr. James E. Maloney of the Williamsburg Pottery,[252] who kindly agreed to undertake a series of experiments to reproduce the piece in his own stoneware kiln, using local Tidewater clay. The results of the first trials were extremely successful, and they showed that it would be possible to reproduce exact copies of the Yorktown wares from this clay (fig. 8). Thus any doubt as to the supply source was dispelled. The conditions of firing at the Williamsburg Pottery, however, are somewhat different from those that would have prevailed in the 18th century. Mr. Maloney's kiln is fired by oil rather than wood, so that the localized variations of color resulting from the reducing effects of wood smoke have been eliminated. In addition, Mr. Maloney's pots are fired without the use of saggers, thus providing more uniform atmospheric and salting conditions than would have been possible with the 18th-century method of stacking the kilns. [Illustration: Figure 3.--PINT AND QUART MUGS of brown salt-glazed stoneware made for the Swan Tavern at Yorktown. Each mug is decorated with an applied swan in high relief.] The Yorktown mugs were hand thrown, but a template was used to shape the ornamental cordoning. It was first assumed that a single template had served to fashion both the cordons at the base and the groove below the lip. We had such a tool made of aluminum, copying the Challis mug's ornament, and proportionately enlarged to allow for shrinkage in firing. But in using this template Mr. Maloney discovered that it was impossible to shape the whole exterior of the vessel in one movement without the tools "chattering" against the wall. Since none of the Yorktown sherds nor, indeed, any of the brown-stoneware mugs I have studied in England exhibit this feature, it is clear that the potters used only a small template which molded the base cordoning alone, a technique in marked contrast to that of the German Westerwald potters of the same period, whose mass-produced tankards and chamberpots invariably exhibit considerable "chattering." Shaping the lip of the Yorktown tankards appears to have been accomplished entirely by hand as was the application of the encircling groove below it. Because the clay used in the manufacture of these brown stonewares is relatively coarse, it does not lend itself readily to the thin potting so characteristic of English white salt-glaze or the refined Nottingham and Burslem brown stonewares. Consequently, it was necessary to pare down the mouths of the mugs to make them acceptable to the lips of the toper. This interior tooling, extending about half an inch below the rim, is found on all the Yorktown and English brown stonewares of this class. The technique is the reverse of that used by the Westerwald potters, whose mugs are thinned from the outside, leaving the straight edge on the interior.[253] Having imbibed from both types of tankard, I believe that the English (and Yorktown) technique is distinctly preferable. One's upper lip does most of the work; the paring of the inside of the vessel shapes the rim away from that lip and carries the ale smoothly into the mouth. [Illustration: Figure 4.--YORKTOWN STONEWARE MUG FRAGMENT marred by kiln drippings lodged above the handle. The fragment was found in Williamsburg. Height of sherd 4 centimeters.] The treatment of the single-reeded handle on the Challis site mug equals the best English examples, being thin and of sufficient size to accommodate three fingers, with the top of its curve remaining below the edge of the rim so that the thumb cannot slip over it. In addition, the lower terminal is folded back on itself and impressed. While it has often been said that the signature of a potter is found in the shaping of his rims and his handles, we must remember that in a large commercial pottery the person who applies the handles often is not the same workman as he who throws the pot. This explains the considerable variety among the handles of supposed Yorktown tankards, some of them very skillfully fashioned and applied, others appallingly crude. It is inconceivable that all can be the work of a single craftsman. [Illustration: Figure 5.--YORKTOWN STONEWARE MUG, found in James City County, which was discarded about 1730. Height 12.5 centimeters; capacity 17 fluid ounces.] The iron-oxide slip into which the upper part of the body and handle of the Challis site mug was dipped provided the vessel with a pleasing purplish-to-green mottling when struck by the salt, but, compared to its English prototypes, the variations of color and the unevenness of the size of the mottling label it a product of inferior firing. Nevertheless, in criticizing the Yorktown stoneware, we might remember Dr. Johnson's comment on women preachers, whom he likened to a dog walking on its hind legs, saying: "It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all." [Illustration: Figure 6.--SILVER REPRODUCTION of the matrix used by the Yorktown potter to apply unofficial excise stamps. Height 1.45 centimeters.] [Illustration: Figure 7.--EXAMPLES OF W.R. STAMPS on Yorktown stoneware mugs. Right, from below the rim; left, on the underside of the base. Enlarged.] On the evidence of the many fragments of Yorktown mugs found in Williamsburg excavations, it may be supposed that the Challis example was of above-average quality. Many of the Williamsburg sherds are both badly overfired and poorly mottled, owing either to inadequate salting or to the use of a slip of the wrong consistency. The much-restored specimen shown in figure 9 was found in a mid-18th-century rubbish deposit[254] and apparently had belonged to John Coke, who kept tavern in Williamsburg east of the Public Gaol. In this example, the intended mottled effect has become a solid band of purple, and the body color below has turned dark gray. I had long supposed that both were the result of overfiring. Experiments by Mr. Maloney, however, clearly showed that the gray body may result from a reducing atmosphere as readily as by excessive temperature, while the purple zone could be due to the slip's being too thick. Two test mugs fired side by side at a temperature of 2300° F., using thick and thin slips of iron oxide, produced the solid-purple band and the brown mottle respectively. [Illustration: Figure 8.--REPRODUCTION OF A YORKTOWN salt-glazed stoneware mug made from local clay at the Williamsburg pottery. Height 12.8 centimeters.] [Illustration: Figure 9.--POOR-QUALITY MUG of probable local stoneware, discarded in the mid-18th century. Found in Williamsburg. Height 13.4 centimeters; capacity 23 fluid ounces.] Before dismissing the John Coke mug as merely an example of wrong slip consistency, it should be noted that this piece has none of the characteristics of the Challis mug; the handle is quite different in both size and shape and is applied without the folded terminal, the proportions are poor, and the template used for the base cordoning is so worn on its bottom edge that the wide upper cordon is more pronounced than the base itself, thus giving the whole vessel a feeling of stubby instability. In addition, the body appears to have been scraped round after the slip had been applied, possibly to remove the excess. All in all, it is a miserable mug, and we may be forgiven for wondering whether it is really a product of William Rogers' operation. Some of his tankards may have been made by apprentice potters, which would account for somewhat varying shapes. But the handle is not an inept creation as handles go; it is simply an entirely different type from that used on the English stoneware that Rogers copied. Even more curious is the question of the template, which should have been discarded long before. While the throwing variations of Rogers' potters may have been overlooked, little can be said for a master craftsman who would allow the use of tools so worn as to mar the esthetic quality of every mug produced. We may wonder whether there was another stoneware potter at work in Virginia in the mid-18th century or whether, after Rogers' death, his factory's standards were allowed to deteriorate to the level of the John Coke mug. Although the tavern tankards are the most informative of the Yorktown products, numerous other stoneware forms were produced. These are well represented in the National Park Service and Colonial Williamsburg collections. The most simple and at the same time the most attractive of these is a group of hemispherical bowls (fig. 10), two of which were found in the same deposit as the Coke mug.[255] One, which had been dipped into an iron-oxide slip in the same manner as were the tankards, has a pale gray body with a narrow band of brown mottling below the rim. The other Coke bowl has a dirty greenish-gray body, while the slipped band is a heavy purplish-brown with little mottling. The entire bowl is too heavily salted, an infirmity which often may have afflicted these pieces. A fragment of a slightly smaller and even more heavily salted bowl was found in 1961 by Mrs. P. G. Harrison in her flower bed at Yorktown,[256] thus seeming to confirm the Yorktown origin of the Coke bowls. [Illustration: Figure 10.--HEMISPHERICAL BOWLS of Yorktown stoneware, discarded in the mid-18th century. Found in Williamsburg. Rim diameter of both 17.15 centimeters.] There is no doubt that bottles and jars, some of considerable size, were among the Yorktown factory's principal products, but this does not mean necessarily that all such items found in the vicinity of Yorktown or Williamsburg are Rogers' pieces. Just as the tavern tankards were copies of English mugs, so the bottles and jars had their prototypes among the wares of English, brown-stoneware potters. The difference is simply that the kitchen vessels have rarely attracted the attention of collectors and therefore are poorly represented in English museums. Consequently we have little opportunity to study them and to determine how such pieces differ from those made at Yorktown. At this stage it is possible to be sure only of the Virginia origin of those examples whose clay is clearly of the local variety. Such an identification can be made only when the piece is markedly underfired and retains the coloring and impurities characteristic of earthenwares of proven Virginia manufacture. Fortunately, the large bottles are small mouthed and neither slipped nor glazed on the inside, thus ensuring that, if the piece is underfired the earthenware characteristics will be readily discernible. Fragments of underfired stoneware bottles were among the most common sherds recovered from the colonial roadway at Yorktown, providing invaluable evidence to aid the identification of the Rogers stoneware body composition and color. It must be reiterated, however, that this guide is confined to underfired products and that those correctly burned cannot be distinguished as yet from others of English manufacture. The globular bottle shown in figure 11 is underfired and consequently not a true "stoneware," but from the outside it bears all the characteristics of a good quality product. This undoubtedly local and almost certainly Yorktown example was found on the John Coke site in Williamsburg[257] in a context of about 1765. The body is evenly potted, the cordoning below the mouth neatly tooled, and the broad strap handle rugged and tidily shaped into a finger-impressed rat-tail terminal. The handle can, perhaps, be faulted, in that it will accommodate only two fingers with comfort, and it is a little wider in proportion to its size than any I have seen in England. The iron-oxide slip which extends to the midsection of the body is well mottled and predominantly of good color. Ignoring the under-firing, this bottle may be classed as a very creditable piece of potting, seemingly quite as good as most such vessels turned out by English potters in the mid-18th century.[258] [Illustration: Figure 11.--AN UNDERFIRED YORKTOWN "stoneware" bottle, discarded about 1765. Found in Williamsburg. Surviving height 24.77 centimeters.] Globular-bodied jars with everted collar-like mouths can be proved to have been made at Yorktown on the evidence of a few small under-and over-fired sherds recovered from the old road metaling in front of the Digges House. The best example recovered from a dated archeological context in Virginia is a jar found in a rubbish deposit of about 1763-1772 at the plantation of Rosewell in Gloucester County.[259] But like the well-fired bottles, its Yorktown provenance cannot yet be proved. The last major category of kitchen stoneware believed to have been made at the Yorktown pottery is a group of pipkins (fig. 13, no. 7). These were often overburned and improperly salted, turning the body a greenish gray and the iron-oxide slip to a coarse brown mottling with a similar greenish hue. The bodies of these vessels are generally bag-shaped and are broader toward the base than at the rim, which is slightly everted and tooled into a rounded lip over a cordon of comparable width. The handles were made separately in solid rolls that were pierced longitudinally with a stick or metal rod to avoid warping in firing or heat retention in use. They possess pestle-like terminals that were luted to the body after shaping. No definite evidence has yet been found to identify these vessels as Yorktown products, but they do exhibit color characteristics, particularly when overfired, comparable to those of one of the Coke hemispherical bowls as well as to some of the tankard fragments. [Illustration: Figure 12.--AN INCOMPLETE SAGGER and lid for quart tankards, with a Swan Tavern pint mug seated in it. Found at Yorktown.] [Illustration: Figure 13.--YORKTOWN STONEWARE BOTTLE AND PIPKIN, and characteristic earthenware rim forms.] Figure 13 1. Creampan, rim sherd of typical Yorktown form, slightly flaring externally and incurving within, hard red earthenware with grey-to-pink surface and one spot of dark-brown glaze on the outside; presumably biscuit and rejected before glazing. Diameter approximately 10-1/4 inches. Found at Yorktown along with other similar rims beneath the roadway south of the Digges House. Colonial Williamsburg collection. 2. Creampan, section from rim to base, a typical example of the "rolled-rim" technique, the body poorly fired, pink earthenware flecked with ocher, presumably biscuit and rejected before glazing. The sherd is badly twisted and is an undoubted waster. Diameter approximately 16 inches. National Park Service collection from Yorktown. No recorded context. 3. Creampan, rim and wall fragment, rim technique similar to no. 2, but heavier and the body thicker; pale pink earthenware flecked with ocher. Presumably biscuit and rejected before glazing. Diameter uncertain. National Park Service collection from Yorktown. No recorded provenance. 4. Creampan, rim and wall fragment, the rim form a variant on the everted and rolled technique, seemingly having been turned out and then rolled back toward the interior. The body orange-to-pink earthenware flecked with ocher, presumably biscuit and rejected before glazing. Diameter approximately 10-1/8 inches. National Park Service collection from Yorktown. No recorded provenance. Fragments of three pans of this type were present in the as-yet-unpublished group of artifacts from the Challis site in James City County whence came the key Rogers stoneware tankard (fig. 3), all of which were buried around 1730. 5. Funnel, lower rim fragment, lead-glazed pale pink-bodied earthenware similar to the two examples illustrated in figure 15; the rim everted and tooled beneath, a technique paralleled by those on numerous bowls found at Yorktown and Williamsburg. A rim sherd of this form was among the pieces found in front of the Digges House. The funnel is thin walled, well potted, and coated with a ginger-to-yellow mottled glaze both inside and out. National Park Service collection from Yorktown; no recorded context. The comparable funnels cited above were discarded in the mid-18th century. 6. Porringer, small rim fragment only, but bearing traces of handle luting which thus identifies the vessel; the rim everted and flattened on the top, pale pink-bodied earthenware, presumably biscuit and rejected before glazing. Diameter approximately 6-1/8 inches. National Park Service collection from Yorktown; no recorded provenance. 7. Pipkin, brown salt-glazed stoneware, bag-shaped body with slightly rising base, the rim thickened, slightly everted, with a tooled cordon beneath. The handle (not part of this example) was made as a solid roll and when soft pierced longitudinally with a stick. The glaze is well mottled and a purplish green. The body was thrown away in the mid-18th century, but the handle is unstratified. Colonial Williamsburg archeological collection (body) E. R. 140.27A, (handle) 30B. Other fragments from Williamsburg show that the rim usually was drawn slightly outward at a point at right angles to the handle to create a simple spout. Excavated examples of these pipkins range in rim diameter from 4-1/8 to at least 5-5/8 inches. 8. Bottle, brown salt-glazed stoneware, neck and handle fragment only, the body dark gray and the oxide slip a deep purple to yellow as a result of overfiring. Glazing also occurs on the fractures, identifying this piece as a waster and therefore of considerable importance. Other blemishes include roof drippings on the handle and body which indicate that the bottle was fired without the protection of a sagger. The cordoning on the neck is well proportioned, and the handle terminates in a neatly fingered rat-tail. National Park Service collection from the Swan Tavern site at Yorktown; unstratified. S. T. 213. [Illustration: Figure 14.--BROWN LEAD-GLAZED EARTHENWARE CREAMPAN of typical Yorktown type, probably dating from the second quarter of the 18th century. Found in Williamsburg. Rim diameter 35.56 centimeters.] Stoneware Manufacturing Processes The types of kiln used by the Yorktown potters as well as their techniques of manufacture will not be known until the factory site is located and carefully excavated. Until that time, the Yorktown stonewares raise more questions than they answer. The most important of these is the shape of the kilns and how they were fired. The wares run the gamut from such under-burning that the iron-oxide slip has evolved no further than a zone of bright-red coloring, to overfiring which has turned the slip a deep purple and the body to almost the hardness and color of granite. Do these differences result from a lack of control over entire batches, or do they stem from temperature variations inherent in different parts of the kiln? Mr. Maloney's experiments, made without the use of saggers, have shown that close proximity to the firebox can unexpectedly and dramatically affect the wares. Thus, one mug of his first test series was placed much closer to the direct heat than were the rest, with the result that it emerged with an overall dark, highly glossed surface somewhat reminiscent of Burslem brown stoneware. The only real evidence of the Yorktown manufacturing process comes from the many sagger fragments that have been found around the town. The largest single assemblage was discovered on the Swan Tavern site, but another group of large pieces was recovered from beneath the Archer Cottage at the foot of the colonial roadway leading down to the river frontage. In neither instance is it likely that the sherds were serving any practical purpose, and so it is hard to imagine why they would have been taken to these widely distant locations. The Park Service Yorktown collection includes sections through three saggers of different sizes, one for holding quart tankards (fig. 12), another for pint mugs, and a third which might have served for the bowls, the last being 5-3/4 inches in height and having an interior base diameter of approximately 8 inches, with walls 1/2 inch thick and side apertures 5-1/2 inches apart.[260] These apertures are pear shaped and are common to all the Yorktown saggers, as they are also to the examples excavated at Bankside in London.[261] The tankard saggers have three such holes plus a vertical slit which extends from the top to the bottom to house the handles, but it is not known whether the wide and shallow example described above would have possessed this feature. If this example was intended only for bowls, a slot would not have been needed and an extra aperture probably would have been substituted: but were it also used for pipkins, a handle opening would have been essential. The purpose of the pear-shaped apertures was to enable the salt fumes to percolate freely around the vessels being fired. For the same reason sagger lids sometimes were jacked up on small pads of clay, or the sagger rim scooped out here and there to let the fumes enter from the top. A careful examination of some of the Yorktown vessels shows that those closest to the salting holes received excessive fuming through the sagger apertures, the outlines of which were transferred to the pots in patches or stripes of heavy greenish mottling. [Illustration: Figure 15.--YELLOW LEAD-GLAZED EARTHENWARE CREAMPAN of local Tidewater manufacture, probably dating from the second quarter of the 18th century. Found in Williamsburg. Rim diameter 34.29 centimeters.] Other kiln furniture found in Yorktown includes fragments of sagger lids having an average thickness of 3/4 of an inch and various lumps of clay which served as kiln pads and props.[262] Without knowing the type of kilns used it is impossible to determine how the saggers were employed. It is obvious, however, that they prevented the pots from sticking together in the kiln, from being dripped upon by the fusing brickwork of the roof, and from becoming repositories for the salt as it was thrown or poured into the kiln. But, as Mr. Maloney demonstrates daily, it is perfectly possible to make good stoneware without saggers, though wasters will accrue from the mishaps just described. If a single-level "crawl-in" or "groundhog" type kiln is used, the number of pots discarded as wasters is more than offset by the space saved through not using saggers. It can be argued, therefore, that Rogers' kiln was of a type in which the saggers served the additional function of allowing the pots to be stacked one on top of the other instead of being spread over a wide flat area, in which case it is possible that the kiln or kilns were of the beehive variety.[263] [Illustration: Figure 16.--LEAD-GLAZED EARTHENWARE BOWL of typical Yorktown type, probably dating from the second quarter of the 18th century. Found in Williamsburg. Rim diameter 18.95 centimeters.] The manufacture of stoneware requires only one firing at a temperature of about 2300° F., and it takes Mr. Maloney approximately 13 hours to burn them, although at Yorktown the use of saggers may have necessitated prolonged "soaking" of up to 24 hours or more. The salt was thrown in at the peak temperature and repeated at least twice at intervals of about a half hour. When the fire was extinguished the kiln would have been allowed to cool for up to two days and two nights before it could be unloaded. Mr. Maloney has stated that his stoneware kiln, which he considers small, takes approximately three hours to load. Thus, if the Yorktown factory worked at full capacity, it probably would have been possible to fire each kiln once a week. But, not knowing how many workmen were engaged in the operation, we would be unwise even to guess at the size of its output. The listing of stoneware and coarse earthenware included in Rogers' inventory is not particularly large, although £5 worth of "crackt" stoneware might have represented a considerable quantity of "seconds" or wasters when one considers that 26 dozen good quart mugs were worth only 4 shillings more. Pint mugs are the most commonly found stoneware relics of the Yorktown factory. Following the "26 doz. qt Mugs £5.4.," a value of 4d. per mug, we find "60 doz pt Do 7.10."[264] A stock of 60 dozen would be reasonable because, as Mr. Maloney has stated, a good potter can throw approximately 12 dozen a day. [Illustration: Figure 17.--A PAIR OF BROWN LEAD-GLAZED local earthenware funnels, paralleled by a fragment from Yorktown, discarded in the mid-18th century. Found in Williamsburg. Rim diameters: left, 18.25 centimeters; right, 18.42 centimeters.] Before leaving the evidence of the inventory it should be noted that the vessels which we usually term storage jars are probably synonymous with Rogers' "9 large Cream Potts 4/6"; but where are the large stone bottles? The "4 doz small stone bottles 6/" were likely to have been of quart capacity. We can only suppose that the large bottles were not included in the batches fired just before Rogers died and that, consequently, he had none in stock. The Earthenwares Besides the stonewares, the inventory includes the following items of earthenware: 11 doz Milk pans £2.4 9 Midle Sized Do 3/ 2 doz red Saucepans 4/ 6 Chamber potts 2/ 3 doz Lamps 9/ 4 doz small dishes 8/ 9 large Cream potts 4/6 12 Small Do 2/ 2 doz porringers 4/ 4 doz bird bottles 12/ 4 doz small stone bottles 6/ 6 doz puding pans 2/ This listing might be read to indicate that the Yorktown factory produced considerably less earthenware than stoneware, a construction that could be supported by the earlier inventory reference to "a pcl crakt redware" with a value of only £2 as against the £5 worth of "crackt" stoneware. We may wonder whether a ratio of 40 to 60 percent may not be a reasonable guide to the proportionate output of coarse-ware and stoneware, although it must be admitted that we do not know the relative sizes of the two parcels of cracked wares. It must be added also that, besides the inventory, the only extant direct documentary reference to the Rogers' factory products (1745) is to earthenware, not stoneware. Furthermore, we know that 20 years earlier he had sold a considerable quantity of earthenware to John Mercer of Marlborough. Prior to the discovery of the Yorktown evidence we had known of no stoneware manufacturing in Tidewater Virginia in the 18th century, but archeological evidence had revealed the presence of earthenware kilns in the 17th century, with the possibility of two or three operating at much the same time.[265] It can easily be argued that there would have been more in the 18th century, though no kiln sites have yet been found. These considerations cannot be ignored, and consequently we must carefully avoid the trap of attributing all 18th-century, lead-glazed earthenwares made from Tidewater clay to the Rogers factory. A wood-fired Yorktown kiln burning pottery made from Peninsula clay and coated with a clear lead glaze would produce wares possessing variations of texture and color similar to those emerging from a comparable kiln, say, at Williamsburg.[266] Therefore, in attempting to assess the range and importance of Rogers' earthenwares we must use potting techniques alone as our guide to their identification. [Illustration: Figure 18.--UNGLAZED EARTHENWARE BOTTLE, probably of Yorktown manufacture, discarded about 1765. Found in Williamsburg. Surviving height 23.81 centimeters.] The principal evidence comes from the cut beside Main Street in Yorktown in front of the Digges House,[267] where numerous rim fragments of overfired and unglazed creampans were found. Others were recovered from the edges of the roadways on three sides of the adjacent colonial lots 51 and 55, shown on the 18th-century plat (Watkins, fig. 1) as having belonged to William Rogers. The rims from these deposits flared slightly, were tooled inward, and were flattened on the upper surface (fig. 13, no. 1). Fragments of such bowls, usually coated on the inside with a mottled lead glaze varying in color from light ginger to the tone and appearance of molasses, depending on the color of the body, are frequently found in Williamsburg (fig. 14) and on plantation sites in contexts of the second quarter of the 18th century. This creampan form is one of two made from Virginia clay which constantly turn up in contemporaneous archeological deposits. The second form (figs. 13, no. 2, and 15) possesses an everted and rolled rim,[268] an entirely different technique from that described above. I am inclined to doubt that these and their variants were made at the Rogers factory and have termed them products of the "rolled-rim" potter. Nevertheless, a few unglazed fragments of such pans (fig. 13, nos. 2-4) are represented in the National Park Service collections from uncertain archeological contexts in Yorktown.[269] The fact that they are unglazed suggests that they may have been made there, though undoubtedly not by the craftsman who threw the flattened-rim creampans. Other earthenware sherds from the Digges House group include small, folded-rim fragments which may have come from storage jars or flowerpots. Another fragment was sharply everted over a pronouncedly incurving body. This could have been part of a small bowl or porringer. The Williamsburg archeological collections include a number of bowls of this form, one of which is illustrated in figure 16. A similar rim form is present on a pair of lead-glazed funnels (fig. 17) from a mid-18th-century context at the Coke Garrett House in Williamsburg and on a presumed funnel fragment (fig. 13, no. 5) in the Park Service collection from Yorktown.[270] Also from Yorktown comes the only known porringer fragment (fig. 13, no. 6), a biscuit sherd with a flattened rim and traces of the luting for a handle.[271] Although the type is not represented among stratified finds from Yorktown, mention must be made of an unglazed earthenware water (?) bottle found in Williamsburg,[272] which is clearly a stoneware form and thus probably was made at the Yorktown factory (fig. 18). Perhaps the most baffling item listed in Rogers' inventory was the reference to "4 doz bird bottles 12/", for it was hard to imagine that he would have been making the small feeder bottles for cages which were normally fashioned in glass. However, it now seems reasonably certain that the Rogers bird bottles were actually bird houses. Figure 19 illustrates two bottle-shaped vessels of Virginia earthenware coated with lead glazes identical in color to examples found on a creampan and other presumably Rogers products excavated in Yorktown. The example on the left has lost its mouth but when complete was undoubtedly comparable to the specimen at right. The former was found in 1935 during the demolition of a chimney of the "Pyle House" at Green Spring near Jamestown.[273] It was mortared into the chimney twelve feet above the ground with its broken mouth facing out but with its base stopping short of the flue. The bottle is now in the collection of the National Park Service at Jamestown, and a recent examination showed that it still contained a lens of washed soil lying in the belly clearly indicating the position in which it had been seated in the chimney brickwork. A stick had been thrust through the wall before firing and emerged on the inside at the same point that the lens of dirt was resting. It was apparent, therefore, that the hole was meant for drainage. The stick hole was present in both bottles as also was an ante cocturam cut in the base (fig. 20) which removed almost half of the bottom plus a vertical triangle. It is believed that this feature was intended to enable the bottles to be hooked over pintles or large nails which latched into the #V# and prevented them from rolling. In this way they could have been mounted under the eaves of frame buildings as nesting boxes (or bottles) and although firmly secure when hooked, they could be easily lifted off for cleaning. Evidence of such use is provided by slight chipping on the inner face of the vertical #V# cut of the second bottle (right) where the bottle had abraded against the nail or pintle. The date of the Green Spring bottle is uncertain, though the paper label accompanying it says "Probably 1720, date of building of house." However, it is clear that the bottle was not installed in the intended portable manner and it is possible that it was added at a later date. The complete example (fig. 19, right) was recently discovered in a sound archeological context during excavations at the James Geddy House in Williamsburg, being associated with a large refuse deposit dating in the period about 1740-60.[274] It may be noted that in the 1746 inventory of the estate of John Burdett, tavern keeper of Williamsburg, there are listed "16 bird Bottles 3/".[275] As it seems unlikely that a tavern keeper would have a stock of birdcage bottles when he apparently had no birdcage, it may be suggested that the reference is to bottles similar to those discussed here. In support of this conclusion, attention is drawn to the fact that Rogers' new bottles were valued at 3d each, while Burdett's (used?) seven years later were appraised at 2-1/4d.[276] [Illustration: Figure 19.--TWO EARTHENWARE "BIRD BOTTLES" believed to be of Rogers' lead-glazed earthenware showing drainage holes in sides. Bottle on left is from a house chimney near Green Spring and, on right, is from the James Geddy House in Williamsburg. Height 18.42 centimeters, and 21.91 centimeters, respectively.] It seems evident that the Rogers earthenware was fired to biscuit, glazed, and fired again in a glost oven; no other explanation accounts for the large quantities of unglazed earthenware found at Yorktown. Mr. Maloney's experiments at the Williamsburg Pottery have amply demonstrated that the Yorktown earthenware could have been glazed in the green state and would not have required a second firing. Furthermore, the study of a late-17th-century kiln site in James City County has confirmed that not all potters thought it necessary to make glazing a separate process. It is curious that the Rogers factory found it desirable to take this second and seemingly uneconomical step. The making of stoneware certainly would not have been a double-firing operation, and, although some of the pieces actually are fired no higher than the earthenware, they have been slipped and salted. Consequently we must accept the bottle discussed above as an intentional earthenware item which had passed through only the first kiln. Furthermore, its presence in Williamsburg indicates that it was never meant to be glazed. And finally, it should be noted that an unglazed handle fragment, probably from a similar bottle, was among the sherds recovered from the roadway in front of the Digges House. [Illustration: Figure 20.--BASES OF THE "BIRD BOTTLES" depicted in figure 19, showing holes for suspension. Base diameters: left, 10.48 centimeters; right, 10.16 centimeters.] Conclusions The Rogers inventory contains such a wide variety of forms that one may claim without fear of contradiction that his factory was _capable_ of producing any of the kinds of kitchen vessels and general-purpose containers that the colony may have required. Consequently, a Yorktown origin may reasonably be considered for any of the wares made from local clay that turn up in contexts of the appropriate period. In the Williamsburg collections are such varied lead-glazed, earthenware items as closestool pans, chamber pots, straight-sided dishes, lidded storage jars, wide-mouthed and double-handled storage bins, pipkins, and chafing dishes. But whether all these things were made, in fact, at Yorktown cannot be known until the factory site is found and excavated. In the meantime, a few conclusions can be drawn on the basis of the existing archeological evidence. There can be no doubt that the Rogers factory at Yorktown was a sizable operation and that it employed throwers as capable in their own field as any in England. Our slender knowledge of Rogers' own background does not indicate that he himself was a potter. It must be supposed, therefore, that he obtained the services of at least a journeyman potter apprenticed in one of the brown-stoneware factories in England. One can only guess at the center in which this unknown craftsman was trained, but it is more than likely that he came from London and might have worked at Fulham,[277] or more probably at Southwark, or even, perhaps, at Lambeth, the types of sagger and the wares produced at Yorktown being stylistically identical to the fragments found on the latter sites. Not knowing the number of craftsmen employed, we cannot hope to determine the size of Rogers' output or the number of kilns in operation. But one would suppose that he had at least two kilns, one for stoneware and the other for lead-glazed earthenware, although they could, conceivably, have been interchangeable. An indication that lead-glazed wares were sometimes burned in the salt-glaze kiln is provided by a single creampan in the Williamsburg collection,[278] which is both lead-glazed and heavily incrusted with salt. It is possible, however, that, knowing that there would be "cold" spots in the kiln,[279] the potter tried to make use of every available inch and inserted a few lead-glazed pieces along with the stoneware. Documentary evidence relating to the distribution of Rogers' products has been discussed by Mr. Watkins (pp. 83-84), and, although some of it tends to be equivocal, we are left with the impression that both stoneware and earthenware were shipped for trade elsewhere, but that such shipments were probably infrequent and not of large quantities.[280] When seemingly comparable fragments are unearthed on sites beyond the environs of the York and James Rivers one must use extreme caution in attributing them to Yorktown. Clay of a generally similar character lies beneath much of Tidewater Virginia, and, since little serious historical archeology has been undertaken in the state beyond the Jamestown-Williamsburg-Yorktown triangle, it is much too soon to assume that apprentices trained at Yorktown did not set up their own kilns in other counties. In short, techniques of manufacture such as are exhibited by the shaping of earthenware rims and handles should be the only acceptable guide for identification, and even these are not infallible. As for the stoneware, the manufacturing techniques are so English in character that they are of no help. Thus, once the Rogers stoneware was shipped out of Yorktown, it must have lost its identity as totally as Governor Gooch presumably had hoped that it would. Archeological evidence for the date range of the Yorktown ware is not very conclusive. The Challis site mug seems to have been thrown away around 1730, and this provides the earliest tightly dated context in which the wares have been found. The largest single assemblage of probable Yorktown products was the extensive refuse deposit believed to have been associated with John Coke's tavern in Williamsburg, but this was not discarded before mid-century. Other fragments of stoneware tankards, jars, and pipkins have been found at the Anthony Hay and New Post Office Sites in Williamsburg in contexts ranging from 1750 to 1770, while more, possibly Yorktown pieces, were encountered in a rubbish deposit interred in the period 1763-1772 at Rosewell in Gloucester County. These are, of course, dates at or after which the pieces were thrown away; they do not necessarily have a close relationship with the dates of manufacture. Nevertheless, the recovery of so many fragments from late contexts does suggest that the factory continued in operation after the last documented date of 1745.[281] The most obvious source for dating evidence is clearly at Yorktown itself, but, unfortunately, little of the large National Park Service collection has any acceptable archeological associations. The fragments recovered from the roadway in front of the Digges House were accompanied by no closely datable items. While it is tempting to associate this deposit with Rogers' tenure as "Surveyor of the Landings, Streets; and Cosways" beginning in 1734,[282] it is also possible that he provided the City of York with road metaling before that date and that after his death his successors continued to do so. The quantity of sagger fragments from the vicinity of the Swan Tavern might have been associated in some way with the fact that Thomas Reynolds (see Watkins, p. 83) occupied the adjacent lot. More sagger fragments were found in the backfilling of the builder's trench around the recently restored Digges House on Main Street, which the National Park Service believes to have been constructed in about 1760.[283] But it can be argued that the sagger pieces were scattered so liberally around the town that their presence in the builder's trench does not necessarily imply that the factory was still operating at that date. In summation, it may be said that the quantities of stoneware and earthenware with possible Yorktown associations which have been found in archeological sites in Tidewater Virginia leave little doubt that the venture established by William Rogers was of considerable value to the colony. There can be equally little doubt that Governor Gooch was aware of this fact and that he gave his tacit approval to the venture by minimizing its importance in his reports to the Board of Trade. The quality of the products was good by colonial standards, and their quantity impressive. Consequently, in spite of Governor Gooch's misleading reports, William Rogers begins to emerge as one of the pioneers of industry in Virginia. It is to be hoped that it will be possible eventually to undertake a full archeological excavation of his factory site and so enable Rogers to step out once and for all from behind the deprecatory sobriquet of the "poor potter" of Yorktown that has concealed for more than two centuries his name, his acumen, and his potters' talents. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am indebted to Colonial Williamsburg for helping to subsidize the preparation of this paper and for permission to illustrate specimens from its archeological collections; also to J. Paul Hudson, National Park Service curator at Jamestown for similar facilities; as well as to Charles E. Hatch, senior National Park Service historian at Yorktown, for access to various archeological reports in his library. I am particularly grateful to James E. Maloney of the Williamsburg Pottery for the immense amount of work which he so generously undertook not only to reproduce copies of the Yorktown products but also to recreate the wasters as well, thus providing information regarding the colonial technical processes that could not have been obtained in any other way. I am also grateful to Joseph Grace, Colonial Williamsburg's watchmaker and engraver who made an accurate copy of the unofficial excise stamp used on Rogers' mugs, and to my secretary Lynn Hill, who toiled long and hard to bring order into this report. I am further indebted to Wilcomb E. Washburn, Chairman, Department of American Studies, at the Smithsonian Institution, who first drew my attention to the artifacts in front of the Dudley Digges House; and to my wife Audrey, to John Dunton and William Hammes, all of Colonial Williamsburg's department of archeology, who through the years have helped collect ceramic evidence from Yorktown. I. N. H. U.S. Government Printing Office: 1967 FOOTNOTES: [183] For example: THOMAS JEFFERSON WERTENBAKER, _The Old South, The Founding of American Civilization_ (New York: Scribner's, 1942), p. 265; J. PAUL HUDSON, "Earliest Yorktown Pottery," _Antiques_ (May 1958), vol. 73, pp. 472-473. [184] This material is located in the collection of the Colonial National Historical Park, Jamestown, Virginia. [185] "Reasons for Repealing the Acts pass'd in Virginia and Maryland relating to Ports and Towns," _Calendar of Virginia State Papers and Other Manuscripts_, edit. William P. Palmer (Richmond, 1875), vol. 1, pp. 137-138. [186] VICTOR S. CLARK, _The History of Manufactures in the United States, 1607-1860_ (Washington, D.C.: The Carnegie Institution, 1916), pp. 26-27. [187] Ibid., p. 203. [188] Ibid., p. 204. [189] Library of Congress Transcripts: Great Britain, Public Records Office, Colonial Office 5, vol. 1322, p. 185. [190] PERCY SCOTT FLIPPIN, "William Gooch: Successful Royal Governor of Virginia," _William & Mary College Quarterly Historical Magazine_ (1926), ser. 2, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 37-38; FLIPPIN, _The Royal Government in Virginia (1624-1775)_ (New York: Columbia University Press, 1919), pp. 124 ff. [191] CHARLES CAMPBELL, _History of the Colony and Ancient Dominion of Virginia_ (Philadelphia, 1810), p. 448. [192] FLIPPIN (1926), op. cit. (footnote 8), p. 38. [193] CAMPBELL, op. cit. (footnote 9), p. 414. [194] Library of Congress Transcripts: Great Britain, Public Record Office, Colonial Office 5, vol. 1323, p. 82. [195] Ibid., p. 133. [196] Ibid., p. 189. [197] Ibid., vol. 1324, p. 3. [198] Ibid., pp. 30-31. [199] Ibid., p. 104. [200] Ibid., vol. 1325, p. 83. [201] C. MALCOLM WATKINS, _The Cultural History of Marlborough, Virginia_, (_Contributions from the Museum of History and Technology_, U.S. National Museum Bulletin 253), Washington: Smithsonian Institution, in press. [202] York County Records: Deeds & Bonds, vol. 2, 1701-1713, p. 365 (In York County Courthouse, Yorktown, Va.). [203] York County Records, Book 14: _Orders & Wills_, 1716-1720. [204] Ibid., pp. 307, 317, 357, 386, 394, 439. [205] York County Records, Book 17: _Orders, Wills, &c._, 1729-1732, p. 136. [206] Ibid., p. 296. [207] York County Records, Book 18: _Orders, Wills, & Inventories_, p. 15. [208] Ibid., p. 121. [209] Ibid., p. 157. [210] LESTER J. CAPPON and STELLA F. DUFF, _Virginia Gazette Index, 1736-1780_ (Williamsburg, Va.: Institute of Early American History and Culture, 1950); and the _Virginia Gazette, 1736-1780_ (Williamsburg, Va.: Issued on microfilm by the Institute of Early American History and Culture from originals loaned by other institutions, 1950), reel 1. [211] EDWARD M. RILEY, "The Colonial Courthouses of York County, Virginia," _William & Mary Quarterly Historical Magazine_ (1942), ser. 2 (hereinafter designated _WMQ_ 2), vol. 22, pp. 399-404. [212] _Virginia Gazette_ microfilm, op. cit. (footnote 28), reel 1. [213] York County Records, Book 18: _Orders, Wills, & Inventories_, pp. 525, 537 ff. [214] Ibid., pp. 553 ff. [215] _Virginia Gazette_ microfilm, op. cit. (footnote 28), reel 1. [216] Library of Congress Transcripts, op. cit. (footnote 12), vol. 1325, p. 83. [217] York County Records, Book 5: _Deeds_, 1741-1754, p. 64. [218] _Virginia Gazette_ microfilm, op. cit. (footnote 41), reel 1 (June 17, 1737). [219] _Tyler's Quarterly_ (Richmond, Va., 1922), vol. 3, p. 296. [220] _Virginia Gazette_ microfilm, op. cit. (footnote 28), reel 1 (Sept. 30, 1737; April 17, 1738; June 23, 1738; July 7, 1738; April 20, 1739; July 13, 1739; Aug. 24, 1739; January 25, 1740). [221] "Reynolds and Rogers," _WMQ_ 1 (1905), vol. 13, pp. 128, 129. [222] _John Norton & Sons, Merchants of London and Virginia_, edit. Frances Norton Mason (Richmond, Va.: Dietz, 1937), p. 518. [223] _Virginia Gazette_ microfilm (Parks' Virginia Gazette, June 20 and July 4, 1745); I. NOËL HUME, Part II, p. 110. [224] "The Votes of Assembly of the Province of Pennsylvania," _Pennsylvania Archives_ (Harrisburg), ser. 8, vol. 3, pp. 2047-2049. (From Rudolf Hommel, in correspondence with Lura Woodside Watkins.) [225] _Virginia Gazette_ microfilm, op. cit. (footnote 28), reel 1. [226] York County Records, Book 18: _Orders, Wills, & Inventories_, p. 290. [227] "Petition of Isaac Parker, September, 1742," _Massachusetts Archives_, vol. 59, pp. 332-333 (quoted in LURA WOODSIDE WATKINS, _New England Potters and Their Wares_ [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1950], p. 245). [228] _Bideford-in-Devon: Official Guide to Bideford and District_, edit. Sheila Hutchinson (Bideford, about 1961), p. 35. [229] C. MALCOLM WATKINS, "North Devon Pottery and Its Export to America in the 17th Century" (paper 13 in _Contributions from the Museum of History and Technology: Papers 12-18_, U.S. National Museum Bulletin 225, by various authors; Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1963), pp. 28-29. [230] LURA WOODSIDE WATKINS, _New England Potters and Their Wares_ (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1950), p. 16. [231] Ibid., p. 24. [232] _The Register of Burials in the Parish of Braintree in the County of Essex from Michaelmas ... 1740_ (MS in Essex County Record Office, Chelmsford, England), p. 40. [233] "Abstracts of Virginia Land Patents," prepared by W. G. STANARD, _Virginia Magazine of History & Biography_ (hereinafter designated _VHM_) (1899), vol. 5, p. 186. [234] "Viewers of Tobacco Crop, 1639," _VHM_ (1898), vol. 5, p. 121. [235] _Virginia Wills and Administrations 1632-1800_, comp. Clayton Torrence (Richmond, Wm. Byrd Press, Inc., n.d.), pp. 364-365. [236] _English Duplicates of Lost Virginia Records_, comp. Louis des Coquets, Jr. (Princeton, N.J.: Privately printed, 1958), p. 128. [237] _Virginia Wills and Administrations_, loc. cit. (footnote 53). [238] LYON G. TYLER, "Education in Colonial Virginia," _William & Mary College Quarterly Historical Magazine_ (1897), ser. 1 (hereinafter designated _WMQ_ 1), vol. 5, p. 221. [239] "Extracts from the Records of Surry County," _WMQ_ 1 (1903), vol. 11, p. 83. [240] _English Duplicates_, op. cit. (footnote 54), p. 73. [241] Ibid., p. 210. [242] Ibid., pp. 81, 83, 86. [243] _Virginia Wills and Administrations_, loc. cit. (footnote 53). [244] "Virginia Gleanings in England," _VHM_ (1921), vol. 29, p. 435. [245] "Tithables in Lancaster County, 1716," _WMQ_ 1 (1913), vol. 21, p. 21. [246] From _Orders, Wills, & Inventories_, York County Records, no. 18, pp. 553 ff. The linear totals given in the right-hand column are not always the sum of the amounts noted in each line, but they are presented here as faithfully as possible. [247] ADRIAN OSWALD, "A London Stoneware Pottery, Recent Excavations at Bankside," _The Connoisseur_ (January 1951), vol. 126, no. 519, pp. 183-185. [248] J. F. BLACKER, _The A. B. C. of English Salt-Glaze Stoneware_ (London: 1922), pp. 46, 48, 51, 56, 57, 63, and 65. [249] Kiln waste found in recent excavations in Philadelphia indicate that Anthony Duché was manufacturing stoneware there in the style of Westerwald in the 1730s. [250] No trace of a kiln was found on the Bankside site in Southwark; it is probable that the waste came from another location nearby, possibly from the factory established in Gravel Lane around 1690, which continued under various managements until about 1750. It may be noted that, in the same way that much Southwark delftware has been erroneously attributed to Lambeth, it is likely that brown stonewares in the so-called style of Fulham was made in Southwark before Lambeth rose to prominence in that field. See F. H. GARNER, "Lambeth Earthenware," _Transactions of the English Ceramic Circle_ (London: 1937), vol. 1, no. 4, p. 46; also JOHN DRINKWATER, "Some Notes on English Salt-Glaze Brown Stoneware," _Transactions of the English Ceramic Circle_ (London, 1939), vol. 2, no. 6, p. 33. [251] W. R. excise or capacity stamps continued to be impressed on tavern mugs long after William III was dead. The latest published example is dated 1792. DRINKWATER, op. cit. (footnote 69), p. 34 and pl. XIIIb. [252] The Williamsburg Pottery, on Route 60 near Lightfoot, specializes in the reproduction of 18th-century stoneware and slipware. [253] I. NOËL HUME, _Here Lies Virginia_ (New York: Knopf, 1963), fig. 55. [254] Colonial Williamsburg, E. R. (Excavation Register) 140.27A. [255] E. R. 140.27A. [256] Colonial Williamsburg, cat. no. 1913. [257] E. R. 157G.27A (also 159A, 165A, 173, and 173A). [258] The majority of archeologically documented pieces have been recovered from English domestic sites and not from kiln dumps. [259] I. NOËL HUME, "Excavations at Rosewell, Gloucester County, Virginia, 1957-1959," (paper 18 in _Contributions from the Museum of History and Technology: Papers 12-18_, U. S. National Museum Bulletin 225, by various authors; Washington, Smithsonian Institution, 1963), p. 208, no. 3 and p. 209, fig. 28, no. 3. [260] U.S. National Park Service collection at Jamestown: Yorktown the first from the Swan Tavern Site and the others from Project 203, F. S. 8, unstratified material recovered during sewer digging on Main Street, 1956-1957. [261] OSWALD, op. cit. (footnote 66), fig. IX. [262] U.S. National Park Service collection at Jamestown: Yorktown, S. T. 1933. [263] Mr. Maloney is of the opinion that saggers could just as usefully have served a "groundhog" kiln where they would have enabled the pots to be stacked up to four in height. [264] See WATKINS, Part I, footnote 32. [265] Op. cit. (footnote 72), pp. 208-220. [266] It must be stressed that no evidence of any such kiln exists. See also footnote 30. [267] This material is divided between the colonial archeological collections of the Smithsonian Institution and of Colonial Williamsburg. [268] I. NOËL HUME, "Excavations at Tutter's Neck, James City County in Virginia, 1960-1961," paper 53 in _Contributions from the Museum of History and Technology_ (U.S. National Museum Bulletin 249); Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1966, fig. 19, nos. 1, 3, and 4. [269] N.P.S. Collection at Jamestown: Yorktown, no provenance. [270] Bowl IC.1.18C, Funnels E.R. 140.27A, and National Park Service collection at Jamestown: Yorktown, no provenance. [271] National Park Service collection at Jamestown: Yorktown, no provenance. [272] E.R. 157A, C, and G, 27A. [273] National Park Service collection, J. 13049 (G.S.), with label reading "Pyle House Green Spring. Built into brickwork of chimney--removed in securing brick for Lightfoot House by C.? T. (10.29.35)." [274] Colonial Williamsburg archeological collections, E. R. 987D.19B, cat. 3275. [275] "Inventory and Appraisement of estate of John Burdett," York County Records, Book 20, _Wills and Inventories_, pp. 46-49. [276] Since this paper was written and the bird bottles identified, a number of additional fragments have been recognized among mid-eighteenth-century finds from Williamsburg excavations, including a small, pierced lug handle fitting the scar on the Geddy example (fig. 19, right). The hole through the handle lined up with that through the shoulder clearly indicating that their combined purpose was to provide an alternative method of suspension for use when the bottles were hung in trees. [277] There is a long-established belief that Fulham was the principal source of 18th-century brown-stoneware vessels. While the art of making the ware was first developed there by John Dwight, the factory fell into decline after his death in 1703 and remained in virtual oblivion until the 19th century. [278] Archeological area 2B2, context unknown. [279] Mr. Maloney has pointed out that a margin of 150°F. is sufficient to make the difference between earthenware and stoneware. [280] Export records for the York River should be treated with some caution as goods often were imported from one place and later exported to another. But if we accept the 1739 and 1745 _Virginia Gazette_ references (Watkins, footnotes 38 and 41) as being to wares of Yorktown manufacture, by the same token we must draw comparable conclusions from the Naval Office Lists for Accomac (Eastern Shore of Virginia), which show "1 shipment" of "stoneware" exported to Maryland in 1749. Similarly we would have to assume that there was an earthenware factory operating near the James River in 1755 when the records list the exporting of "2 crates Earthenware" to the Rappahannock. Such conclusions may, indeed, be correct, though there is as yet no evidence to support them. Naval Office Lists, Public Records Office, London; cf. _Commodity Analysis of Imports and Exports, Accomac, Virginia, 1726-1769_, and for the _Rappahannock, Virginia, 1726-1769_ microfilm books compiled under the direction of John H. Cox, University of California, 1939 (unpublished). [281] _Virginia Gazette_, June 20, 1745. [282] WATKINS, Part I, footnote 37. [283] Large numbers of wine-bottle fragments also were recovered from the builder's trench, and provided archeological support for a construction date after about 1760. Index Act for Ports and Towns (1691), 80 Act for Ports and Towns (1704), repeal of, 76, 77 act prohibiting importation of "stript tobacco," 77 petition for the repeal of, 77 ale, 80 Allen, William, 41 Ambler, Richard (merchant), 79 architectural drawings, Tutter's Neck, 30 Atkins, Robert, 42 Bacon, Nathaniel, 7 ball, cannon, 12, 22, 23 (illustr.) basin, English delftware, 15, 16 (illustr.), 22, 24 (illustr.) bead, glass, 47, 70, 71 (illustr.) Belcher, Governor (Massachusetts), 77 Board of Trade (London), reports to, 75, 76, 77, 78-79, 82-83, 84, 85, 111 boat "shallop," 82 sloop, 82 bone, 18, 47 bones, animal, 51-52 bottles, 36, 43, 51, 82 bird, 82, 107, 108 (illustr.), 109 (illustr.) case, 13 oil or essence, 13 pharmaceutical, 13, 24 (illustr.), 25, 55 stoneware, 91, 92, 98 (illustr.), 100 (illustr.), 101, 105 water, 107 wine, 4, 10, 13, 14, 24 (illustr.), 25, 39 (illustr.), 43, 44, 45, 46, 49, 51, 55, 68-70 (illustr.) wine, miniature, 17 (illustr.), 24 (illustr.), 25 wine, seals for, 32, 35, 36, 37 (illustr.), 43, 46, 55, 69, (illustr.), 70 Yorktown earthenware, 106 (illustr.) bottle glass, 11 bowls: delftware, 49, 64-66 (illustr.) earthenware, 48 (illustr.) Indian pottery, 67 Staffordshire, 55 stoneware, 96, 97 (illustr.) Yorktown earthenware, 49, 104 (illustr.), 107 _Braxton_ (ship), 83 Bray, David, Sr., 40 Bray, David, Jr., 35, 37, 40 Bray, Elizabeth, 41 Bray, Elizabeth Meriwether, 41 Bray, James, Sr., 40 Bray, James, Jr., 40 Bray, Judith, 35, 36, 37, 40 Bray, Thomas, 35, 40, 45, 56 brewing, 80, 82, 85 Brewster, Richard, 36 Bristol (store), 82, 87 Brown, Matthew, 36, 40 bricklaying, English bond, 4, 8, 44, 45 brickmaking, 43 bricks (_See under_ building materials) broad arrow, 58 (illustr.), 59 Bruton Parish, 35 church, 37 buckle, shoe, 63 (illustr.), 64 (_See also_ harness) building materials: bricks, 43, 87; shipment of, 83; sizes of, 8, 44, 45 lathes, oak, 7 lumber, 7, 9, 10, 14; oak strips, 44; weatherboards, 44 (_See also_ floor) mortar, 4, 8, 10, 43, 44, 45, 51 oystershells, 4, 10, 11, 12, 14, 44, 45, 49, 52 plaster, 51 shingles, cypress, 7 Burbydge, Richard (seal of), 36, 39, 46, 69 (illustr.), 70 Burdett, John (tavern keeper), 107, 108 Burwell, Lewis, 41 Burwell's Ferry (Virginia), 43 (_See also_ Kingsmill) button, brass, 70, 71 (illustr.) can, iron, 4 Carter, Robert "King", 45 Cary, Colonel Thomas, rebellion led by, 39 Challis site (James City County), 92, 94, 95, 96, 110 Chalmers, George, 78 chamber pots, 82; handle of English delftware, 15, 16 (illustr.) charger, delftware, 49, 51, 55, 65 (illustr.), 66 Charles II, 39, 82 Charleston, R. J., 13 Chesapeake Corporation, 31, 32, 41, 42 Cheshire, ----, 87 chimney, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14; bird bottles in, 107-108; Tutter's Neck, 36, 43, 45, 49 chinoiserie, 13 Chowan Precinct (North Carolina), 37-39 churches: Bruton Parish, 37 Chowan Precinct (North Carolina), 37-38 Clark, Victor S., 76 Clay Bank, excavations at, 3-27; excavation plans, 6 Clayton, John, 87 clock, 82 closets, 7 clothing, 77, 78 Coke, John (tavern keeper), 95, 96, 97, 110 collar, iron, 24 (illustr.), 25 College Landing (Virginia), 32 Colonial Williamsburg, Inc., 3, 5, 31, 32, 42, 44, 96 ceramics, 10, 11, 31, 32, 46 Indian, 11, 15, 16 (illustr.) shipment of, 82, 84 Staffordshire, 11 (_See also_ specific forms and types) Colono-Indian pottery, 24 (illustr.), 25, 45, 49, 55, 65 (illustr.), 67; bowl, 65 (illustr.), 67; cup, 52 (illustr.) cooper, 12 Cotton, Ezra, 7 Council of Virginia, 40, 77, 78 petition complaining about piracy, 41 Culpeper, Lord, 41 cup, Colono-Indian pottery, 52 (illustr.); delftware, 49; earthenware, 12, 68, 69 (illustr.); porcelain, 70, 71 (illustr.) curtains, 82; rings for, 70, 71 (illustr.) cutlery, 46, 58 (illustr.); bone handled, 18, 19 (illustr.) (_See also_ knife; fork) Daniel, Daniel Mack, 42 delftware, 50 (illustr.): bowls, 49 charger, 49, 51, 55 cup, 49 drug jar, 49 English, 13, 15, 16 (illustr.), 22, 23, (illustr.), 44, 46, 47, 51, 64-67, 65 (illustr.) plate, 47 porringers, 49 salts, 51 (illustr.) Desandrouin (cartographer), 32, 34, 35 doors, 8 drug jar, 49, 65 (illustr.), 66 Duché, Anthony (potter), 91 Duché family (potters), 84 Dunbar, Jeremiah, 77 Dwight, John (Fulham potter), 55, 109 earthenware, 14 bowl, 48 (illustr.) Cistercian, 15, 16 (illustr.) English, 10, 68, 69 (illustr.) lead-glazed, 11, 22, 24 (illustr.) North Devon, 47 Staffordshire, 48 (illustr.) tin-enameled (Portuguese), 10, 15, 16 (illustr.) Yorktown, 47, 49, 51, 55, 68, 69 (illustr.) (_See also_ specific forms; William Rogers) Eaton, Alden, 31 Eden, Governor, 42 elevations, hypothetical (Tutter's Neck), 30 _Eltham_ (ship), 83 excavation plans, Clay Bank, 6; Tutter's Neck, 37, 47 excise stamps, 92, 95 (illustr.) Ferry, William (tobacco pipe maker), 14 firebacks, 78 fireplace, 8, 9 flax, 78 Fletcher, John (tobacco pipe maker), 27 floor, wooden, 9, 10 (illustr.), 11 (illustr.), 44 fork, table, 51, 58 (illustr.), 59 flower pots, 107 Fox, Jacob (tobacco pipe maker), 27 Fox, Josiah (tobacco pipe maker), 14 framing, 8 Frank, E. M., 44 funnel, Yorktown earthenware, 100 (illustr.), 101, 105 (illustr.) furnace, air, 78 furniture, 82 Gale, Christopher, 42 Geddes, Captain John, 36 glass, 10, 31, 43; bead, 47, 70, 71 (illustr.); decanter, 13; stem of drinking glass or candlestick, 13, 14, 17 (illustr.); reconstructed drawing of, 18; window, 44, 49 (_See also_ bottle) glasses, drinking, 10; Romer, 55, 71 (illustr.), 72; tumbler, 44, 51, 55; wine, 13, 14, 47, 49, 55, 64; with covers, 13 glebe-house, 7, 38 Gooch, Governor William, 75, 76-77, 78-79, 82-83, 84, 85 reports to Board of Trade, 75, 76, 78-79, 84, 85, 111 Goodridg, Jeremiah, 37 Gray, Edward, 36 Green, Dr., 7 Grice, John, 36 gunpowder, 82 Ham, Henry, 81 hardware: band, brass, 70, 71 (illustr.) bolt, 60, 61 (illustr.), 62 boss, brass, 19 (illustr.), 21 handle, 60, 61 (illustr.) hasp, 61 (illustr.) key, 58 (illustr.), 60 latch, 61 (illustr.), 62 loop, 62, 63 (illustr.) nails, 8, 10, 44 padlock, 44, 51, 54 (illustr.), 60, 61 (illustr.) rivet, 61 (illustr.), 62 spike, 60, 61 (illustr.) staple, 20 (illustr.), 21, 24 (illustr.), 27 strap, 61 (illustr.), 62, 63 (illustr.), 64 tack, 19 (illustr.), 21 ward plate, 61 (illustr.), 62 harness: boss from bridle, 19 (illustr.), 21 buckle, 47, 61 (illustr.), 62 cheekpiece from snaffle bit, 20 (illustr.), 21 fitting for, 47, 70, 71 (illustr.) ornament, 47, 63 (illustr.), 64, 70, 71 (illustr.) snaffle bit, 62, 63 (illustr.) spoon bit, 58 (illustr.), 60 stirrup, 22, 23 (illustr.) Harrison, Mrs. P. G., 97 Harwood, Elizabeth, 28 hearth, 9, 10, 12 Herman, Augustine, 2, 5 Higgenson, Humphry, 36 Hodgson, Reverend Robert, 7 Horns Quarter (King William County), 40 horseshoe, 49, 62, 63 (illustr.) houses: "Ardudwy" (Clay Bank), 4, 5, 7, 8, 14 brick, 45, 87 Corotoman, 45 Green Spring, Pyle House, 107, 108 Jamestown, 44 Tutter's Neck, drawings of, 30 (illustr.) Williamsburg: John Blair, 44 Brush-Everard, 44 Coke Garrett, 107, 108 James Geddy, 107 Anthony Hay, 110 New Post Office, 110 Yorktown: Archer Cottage, 102 Digges house, 92, 98, 106, 107, 108, 110 (_See also_ Tutter's Neck, buildings) indentured servants, 81 Indians: appeal to governor for help against, 38, 40 Iroquois Confederation, 40 pottery, 11, 15, 16 (illustr.) (_See also_ Colono-Indian pottery) projectile point, 15, 16 (illustr.), 71 (illustr.) 72 tobacco pipes, 14 uprising, 39-40 war with Tuscarora Indians, 39-40 inventory, William Rogers' estate, 82, 88-90, 105, 109 iron, unidentified objects, 20 (illustr.), 21, 24 (illustr.), 25-27 (_See also_ specific items) ironworks, 78 _Jamaica Merchant_ (ship), 36 Jamestown, 44, 107 jar: earthenware, 24 (illustr.), 25, 47, 68, 69 (illustr.) pickle, glass, 69 (illustr.), 70 stoneware, 92 storage, 24 (illustr.), 25, 68, 69 (illustr.), 105, 107 Jenings, Col., 82, 87 Jenkins, William F., 3, 4, 11 Jennings, Governor Edmund, 4 Johnson, Elizabeth Bray, 41 Johnson, Col. Philip, 41 Jones, Dorothy Walker, 41 Jones, Frederick, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44-45, 56; property attacked by Indians, 40; will of, 40; wine bottle seal of, 35-36, 38 (illustr.), 39 (illustr.), 69 (illustr.), 70 Jones, Henry (tobacco pipe maker), 14 Jones, Hugh, 42 Jones, Jane, 41 Jones, Captain Roger, 36, 41; complaints about the conduct of, 41 Jones, Thomas, 13, 35, 37, 41 _Judith_ (ship), 83 jug, brown stoneware, 65 (illustr.), 67; white stoneware, 55 kilns, 104; "furniture", 76, 91, 92, 93-94, 99 (illustr.), 103-104; location of, 84, 105-106; types of, 104; use of refuse of, 92 (_See also_ pottery making) Kingsmill (Virginia), 40, 41 (See also Burwell's Ferry) kitchen: Clay Bank, 7, 8 Tutter's Neck, 30, 36, 43, 44; conjectural reconstruction of, 30 (illustr.); excavation of, 45-46 knife, iron, 20 (illustr.), 21; table, 49, 58 (illustr.), 59 Knight, Tobias, 41 lamps, 82 latten (_See under_ spoon) leather, 79 Lee, Robert (widow of), 4 Little Town (Virginia), 40, 45 majolica, Spanish, 49 makers' marks: latten spoon--R S, 58 (illustr.), 59 W W, 4, 18 pewter spoon--M, 27 tools--I H, 21 WARD, 18 (_See also_ tobacco pipe) Maloney, James E., 92-96, 102-105 mantels, 8 manufacturing in colonial Virginia, 76-79 reports on trade and manufactures, 75, 76, 78-79 manufacturing in New England, 77 map, Tutter's Neck, 33 (illustr.); Virginia (1673), 2 (illustr.), 5; (1781), 32, 34, 35 (illustr.); Yorktown, 74; (1691), 80 marks: broad arrow, 58 (illustr.), 59 excise stamp on stoneware, 92, 95 (illustr.) shipping, 36 (_See also_ makers' marks; tobacco pipes) Marlborough (plantation), 32, 79, 105 _Maynard_ (ship), 83 Maynard, Lieutenant, 42 Mercer, John, 79, 84, 105 Meriwether, Elizabeth, 41 Middle Plantation (Williamsburg), 40 mill, horse, 82 Minge, Robert, 81 Morse (Moss), Francis, 87 Mountford's Mill Dam, 82 mug, 82; English delftware, 15, 16 (illustr.), 22, 24 (illustr.), 46; redware, 22, 24 (illustr.); reproductions, 96 (illustr.); stoneware, 91, 92, 93 (illustr.), 94 (illustr.), 99 (illustr.), 104-105 _Nancy_ (sloop), 83 National Park Service, 91, 92, 93, 96, 102, 107, 110 Negroes, 40, 78, 79, 82 (_See also_ slaves) Nelson, John, 84 Nelson, William, 88 "New Bottle" (plantation), 4; location of, 4-5 New Bottle (Scotland), 4 Nicholson, Francis, 41 Norton, Courtenay, 83 Norton, John (merchant), 83 oil, 83 ointment pot, 65 (illustr.), 66 Page, Elizabeth, 40 Page family, 3 pan: cream (Yorktown earthenware), 55, 68, 69 (illustr.), 100 (illustr.), 101, 102 (illustr.), 103 (illustr.), 106, 109-110 milk, 82 pudding, 82 sauce, 82 Tidewater earthenware, 22, 24 (illustr.), 25, 92 Parker, Isaac, 84 Parks, William (printer), 87 Petsworth Parish (_See under Vestry Book of_) Pettus family, 40 Pettus, Mourning, marriage of, 40 Pettus, Thomas, Jr. (widow of), 40 pewter (_See_ spoon) pictures, 82 pipe (_See_ tobacco pipe) pipkin, 24 (illustr.), 25, 99, 100 (illustr.), 101 piracy, 41-42 plate, English delftware, 15, 16 (illustr.), 22, 24 (illustr.), 65 (illustr.), 67; tin-glazed earthenware, 15, 16 (illustr.) Pollock, ----, 40 porcelain, Chinese, 49 cup, 70, 71 (illustr.) porringers, 82; delftware, 49, 65 (illustr.), 66; Yorktown earthenware, 100 (illustr.), 101, 107 Porteus, Beilby, 4, 8 Porteus, Edward, 4, 7, 14 Porteus, Robert, 4, 5, 7, 8 pot, cream, 82; iron, 62, 63 (illustr.), 78 potteries, Charlestown, Mass., 84 Fulham (England), 109 Gloucester, Mass., 85 North Devon, England, 84 North Walk, England, 84-85 Philadelphia, 84 Williamsburg, 92-96, 102-105 pottery: inventory of, 82, 85 pottery making, 78-79, 83-84, 102-105, 110; experiments in, 92-96, 102-105 prison, 82 gaol, 95 projectile point, 15, 16 (illustr.), 71 (illustr.), 72 Purton (plantation), 4 Randolph, John, 35, 77 Reade, George, 87 Reynolds, Sir Joshua, 7 Reynolds, Susanna Rogers, 82, 83, 87 Reynolds, Thomas, 83, 84, 110 ring: curtain (brass), 70, 71 (illustr.); iron, 24 (illustr.), 25, 62, 63 (illustr.) "Rippon Hall" (plantation, York County), 4 Rogers, George, 83, 84 Rogers, Theodosia, 82, 87 Rogers, William (Yorktown potter), 75-111 brewer, 80, 82, 85 Captain of the troop, 82 death of, 82, 83 inventory of, 82, 88-90, 105, 109 surveyor, 82, 92 Rogers, William, Jr., 82, 83, 87 Rogers, William (others of same name), 86-87 Rosewell (plantation), 3, 32, 98, 110 salt, 39, 82 salt dishes, delftware, 51 (illustr.), 65 (illustr.), 66, 67 saucer, 55, 65 (illustr.), 66 Saunderson, Richard, 84 Sayer, Richard (tobacco pipe maker), 54 scales, 82 Seabrook, Captain Charles, 83 seal, wine bottle, 32, 35, 36, 37 (illustr.), 43, 46, 55, 69 (illustr.), 70 shells, 52 shoes, manufacture of, 79 Skipworth, Elizabeth, 87 slaves, 45; brought to North Carolina from Virginia, 40, 41; ceramics made for use by, 45; listed in inventory, 88; quarters for, 46 Smith, Edward, 87 Smith, John (daughter of), 4 Smith, Major Lawrence, 80 South, William, 36 spoon: latten, 4, 10, 12, 18, 19 (illustr.), 46, 58 (illustr.), 59 pewter, 11, 24 (illustr.), 27, 47, 49, 58 (illustr.), 59 Spotswood, Governor Alexander, 36, 37 Stark, William (wife of), 81 still, 82 (See also brewing) stoneware: Bellarmine, 49 brown, 49, 51, 65 (illustr.), 67-68 excise stamps on, 92, 95 (illustr.) manufacture of, 83-84, 102-105, 110 Westerwald tankard, 49, 65 (illustr.), 68 white, jug, 55 white salt-glazed, 43, 49 strainer, brass or bronze, 19 (illustr.), 21 stratigraphy, Clay Bank, 11-12 Tutter's Neck, 49 Stubbs, William Carter, 4 Swan Tavern (Yorktown), 76, 83, 102, 110; mugs from, 91, 92, 93 (illustr.), 99 (illustr.) sword, 49, 58 (illustr.), 60, 82 tankard, brown stoneware, 65 (illustr.), 67, 91; Westerwald stoneware, 49, 65 (illustr.), 68 tanning, 79 Tarripin Point (Virginia), 82, 84, 87 taverns, 80 Taylor, Ebanezar, 42 Teach, Edward "Blackbeard" (pirate), 41-42 textiles: cotton, 78; linen, 77, 79; manufacture of, 79; wool, 76, 77 _Thomas and Tryal_ (ship), 84 Thorpe, Otho, 36 Tippet, Robert (tobacco pipe maker), 54 Tippett, Jacob (tobacco pipe maker), 14 tobacco, 76, 77; act of 1730, 77; laws regarding, 78 tobacco pipes, 10, 13, 14, 26 (illustr.), 27-28, 46, 47, 49, 52-54; dating of, 10, 13, 14, 47, 52-54; Indian, 14, 15, 16 (illustr.); profiles, 57 (illustr.) tobacco pipes, makers' marks on: H I, 14, 26 (illustr.), 27 H S, 49, 53, 57 (illustr.) I F, 14, 26 (illustr.), 27 I S, 53-54, 57 (illustr.) M B, 26 (illustr.), 28 R M, 53, 57 (illustr.) S A, 14, 26 (illustr.), 28 V R, 14, 26 (illustr.), 27 VS, 26 (illustr.), 28 W, 54 W F, 14 W P (or R), 14, 26 (illustr.), 27 X·I·F·X, 26 (illustr.), 28 tobacco pipes, makers of: William Ferry, 14 John Fletcher, 27 Jacob Fox, 27 Josiah Fox, 14, 27 Henry Jones, 14 Richard Sayer, 54, 56, 57 (illustr.) I. Tippet, 14, 49 Robert Tippet, 54 Richard Tyler, 54 tools, 14 chisel, carpenter's, 12; cooper's, 13, 22, 23 (illustr.); forming, 9, 12, 22, 23 (illustr.) cramp, 20 (illustr.), 21 dividers, 49, 54 (illustr.), 58 (illustr.), 60 fleam, 58 (illustr.), 60 gimlet, 19 (illustr.), 21 hoe, 12, 21, 22, 23 (illustr.); broad, 21, 23 (illustr.); grub, 21, 23 (illustr.) race knife, 12, 18, 19 (illustr.), 24 (illustr.), 25 saw, 47, 54 (illustr.) saw wrest, 20 (illustr.), 21 scissors, 54 (illustr.), 59, 60 scythe, 62, 63 (illustr.) sickle, 47, 49, 54 (illustr.), 60, 61 (illustr.) tools: spade, 22, 23 (illustr.) unidentified, 58 (illustr.), 60 wedge, 12, 22, 23 (illustr.) tube, bone, 63 (illustr.), 64; iron, 61 (illustr.), 62 Tutter's Neck, 30-72; aerial photograph of, 32 buildings: drawings of, 30 excavation of, 43-46 kitchen, 30, 36, 43, 44, 45-46 residence, 30, 43-45 excavation plan of, 37, 47 map of, 33 (illustr.), 34, 35 (illustr.) tyg, earthenware, 12, 15, 16 (illustr.); 22, 24 (illustr.) Tyler, Richard (tobacco pipe maker), 54 unidentified objects, iron, 20 (illustr.), 21, 24 (illustr.), 25-27 (_See also_ specific items) _Vestry Book of Petsworth Parish_, 5, 7 Vincent, William (potter), 85 Virginia: colonial economy, 76-79 Ward, ---- (toolmaker), 18 warehouse, 87 weaving, 79 Webb, Frances, 83 Williamsburg, 13, 35, 37, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 82, 83, 84, 87, 91, 92, 95, 110 (_See also_ Colonial Williamsburg, Inc.) Williamsburg Pottery, 92-96; experiments at, 102-105 Williamsburg Restoration, Inc., 31, 41 windows, 7, 44; frames for, 87; lead cames for, 44 (_See also_ glass, window) woodenware, 83 _York_ (ship), 83 Yorktown, 74-111; list of plat owners, 81 map of, 74; (1691), 80 Transcriber's Notes: Simple spelling, grammar, and typographical errors were corrected. Italics markup is enclosed in _underscores_. Bold markup is enclosed in =equals=. Fancy or unusual font markup is enclosed in #number signs#. P. 54 Sidenote text may appear to be oddly split between lines but this is what is portrayed on the image.