cutting revealed the remains of a massive brick chim- 

 ney measuring 10 feet 2 inches b) 6 feet using oyster- 

 shell mortal and laid in English bond. The brick- 

 work was not bonded to, oi abutting against, any wall 



I, in. hi ,iiul it was therefore presumed that the 

 building to which ii belonged had stood on piers. 



I he second trench cut through mixed strata oi sand, 

 black soil, and scattered oystershells extending down- 

 ward to a depth of at least 3 feet 9 inches, at which 

 level a thick layei oi --hells was found. In the top of 

 the shell stratum were fragments of glass wine bottles 

 of the late 1 tli 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 l>e 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 oi artifacts that had 

 been recovered from a single hole at neighboring 

 Rosewell, it was hoped that yet another significant 

 contribution would he 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 documenta- 

 tion) than had been anticipated. On the credit side, 

 however, it did contribute new facts relating to build- 

 ing construction in 17th-century Virginia, as well as 

 yielding a scries of closely dated tools and miscella- 

 neous artifacts, plus one piece of glass that is not only 

 without parallel in America, but which is of sufficient 

 important e to merit a place in the annals of English 

 for this one object alone, the Clay Hank 

 projed would have been eminently worthwhile. 



I [istorical Background 



Archeolog) ma) 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. Ai best ii is a poor substitute 

 for the written word, but when the two are used 

 together the pages of histor) may a< quire an enliven- 

 ing new dimension. 'I his is particularly true of 

 American colonial history where the documentation 

 xtremely full. 



Unfortunatel) Gloucester County was one of those 

 who ords were destroyed during the ( 



War, and it is difficult and often impossible to estab- 

 lish propert) histories over an extended period of 

 time. However, it is debatable just how much of the 

 blame can lie 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 court- 

 house 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 conclu- 

 sive 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 pos- 

 sessions when he arrived in Virginia. Such a deduc- 

 tion 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 re- 

 search into the history of the Porteus family, the re- 

 sults 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 P58. 2 



The location of '".Yew Bottle" has been the subject 



Dp Mrs William Carter Stubbs, Descendants of Mor- 

 decai I i Thomas Booth (New Orleans, 1923), p. 14 



(footnote I. 



BULLETIN 249: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSKI \I OH HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 



