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 Bin- 

 ford formula,- 7 the 648 stem fragments suggested a 

 me. in date of 1698. Experience has shown that tin- 

 formula is likely to be accurate to three or lour years 

 either way on a sampling of that sizi 



I lie presence of the same maker's initials, i-r, on 

 pipe bowls at different levels of the cellar fill strongly 

 pointed to a homogeneity of deposition. Although 

 is 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 Xewcastle-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 com- 

 prised w F (William Ferry, Marlborough, about 

 1700?), or perhaps w.p., h i (Henry Jones, London, 

 1688?) 29 and v R. The remaining mark, sa (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 

 pipemaking 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', 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. 



2' Mathematical formula based on Harrington's chart, pre- 

 pared by Lewis II. Binford, University of Chicago. See Lewis 

 II. Binford, "A New Method ol Calculating Dates from 

 Kaolin Pipe Stem Samples," Southeastern Archaeological News- 

 June 1962), vol. 9, no. 1. pp. 19 -21. 

 Audrey Noel Hume, "< laj tobacco-Pipe Dating in the 

 Light of Recent Excavations," Archeological Society of Vi> 

 Quarterly Bulletin (December 1963), pp. 22-25. 



'-"'Adrian Oswald, "The Archaeology and Economic His- 

 tory of English ( Hay I oba< co Pipes," Journal oj ' i«ical 

 Association (London, I960), sor. 3, vol. 23. pp. 40-102. 



30 Adrian Oswald, "A Case ol Transatlantic Deduction," 

 Antiques (July 19 »— 61 . 



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 

 cither 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 quern of about 1700 for the filling of the 

 cellar hole has been well established on the archeo- 

 logical 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 in- 

 teresting objects; but the curious juxtaposition of the 

 large glass stem (figs. 10 and 11) with crude earthen- 

 wares, wornout 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 else- 

 where. It might therefore be deduced that the ex- 

 cavated 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 build- 

 ing that overlay the excavated cellar hole. It seems 

 improbable, therefore, that the existing "Ardudwy" 

 was in existence before the late 18th centurv. 



1 1 



BULLETIN 249: CONTRIBUTIONS I ROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 



