to have been any mi n the quarters oi an 



overseer, or, at worst. ial housing for slaves 



vvoi king in thai at 

 Sui elusion wi uld help to explain the fact 



,i tifacts found in the site's later 

 deposits iti much earlier than their con- 



n-Ms would suggest. Man) items oi potter) and 

 cutlery were i i late 17th-century elate though found 

 in refuse pits of about 1730 I 10 'I his would not 

 be so surprising wen- it not for the fact that few, il 

 any, such items have been found in excavations .it 

 Williamsburg, a town that was firmly established 

 throughout the period covered by the Tutter's Neck 

 occupancy as determined b) the excavations. But 

 it the kiti hen site was used as a slave quarter, it 

 would be logical to expect that such things as p< ttery 

 and cutlery would have been old before being 

 relegated to thai 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 

 stun lure, though Pit B i 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 

 ea< h other. They were approximately the same size 

 and depth and were situated within a few inches of 

 one another, although none overlapped in neighbor. 

 It may be deduced, therefore, that the pits were dug 

 in such close succession ih.n the outlines of the 

 preceding pits were still visible to the digger. It is 

 possible that they may have been privy pits. Con- 

 crete evidence indicating the close relationships 

 between these pits was provided b\ fragments of 

 the .mi Colono-Indian bowl found in both Pit 

 I) and Pit E. 



PIT A 



This deposit (T.N. 31) was located farthest from 



the buildings, being situated, as previously noted, 



Ul 125 feet Si utheast of the residence on the south 



of the neck. As elsewhere on the site, the 



oil over the pit had been removed, leaving 



nly the lower portions i 1 the dirty yellow clay 



t. This pit measured 8 ft. by 5 ft. and 



to a depth of only 1 ft. 2 in. into the sur- 



rounding natural yellow clay. A tree stump obsi tired 



a small p. in of this oval pit. but il is believed that 

 iis presence prevented lew, if any, anil. his from 

 avoiding recovery. The finds comprised two or 

 three sherds i 'i coarse potter) of no identifi ible form, 

 part of the base of an English delftware mug orna- 

 mented with sponged manganese, one cla) pipe of 

 about 1700, and fragments of at least IS wine bottles 

 of the period about 1690-1710. One of these h la- 

 ments 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 con- 

 sistency in the deposition c 1 trash in the early yeai 

 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 pit-- on the 

 site that are still hidden beneath standing trees or 

 cut stumps. 



Hating: There is little doubt that Pit A was tilled 

 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 cla) 

 was redeposited when the stump and attached roots 

 were dug out. Subsequently, the remaining con- 

 cavity seised as a rubbish pit into which more than 

 120 broken wine buttles wore thrown. All these 

 bottles belonged to the same period (1690—1710) 

 as those in Pit A. .\m\ anion',; them were five seals 

 marked "I" I" and one seal bearing the legend 

 "Richard Burbvclge P01." "' 



sb Ivor Noei Hume, "The class War Bottle in Colonial 

 Virginia," Journal of Glass Studies (Corning Museum, 1961), 

 vol. 3, p. 99, Rg. 5, t\ pe (>. 



46 



ETIN 249: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 



