south, one brick and two bats wen- found continuing 

 on the same line. No furthei trace ol .1 west wall was 

 found until a poinl was reached 8 ft. from the south- 

 wesl corner. I [ere, stepping down as did the northern 

 section, the foundation continued to the corner, rising 

 a height of four courses, but only one brick in 



thi< km 



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 founda- 

 tions as deep as those of the house proper. If this 

 were so, then it is conceivable that they were dis- 

 mantled along with the rest of the building in the 

 mid-1 8th 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 ex- 

 tremity of the northern section of the west foundation 

 (deposit T.N. 27). 52 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. 53 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 cham- 

 ber — perhaps divided by a central passage' with ex- 

 terior 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 en- 

 countered, it is assumed that the floors were of wood. 

 Beyond establishing, from foundation widths, thai 

 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 Williams- 

 burg. 



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 Williams- 

 burg, whose sizes were regulated by an Act of Assem- 

 bly 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 



51 Tin- 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 ,s in. by 4' 4 in. l>y 2' , in. 

 n. by i : . in. by 2'- in. 



IN" number in parentheses represents the field 

 numl" fthi Tutter's Neck deposit. 



53 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 Williams- 

 burg (Williamsburg, 1960), p. 57, and figs. 5, 6. 



•14 



l.l I.I.ETIN 249: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 



