of about 1710-1780. On the evidence of association 

 and by the use of the Harrington system ofstem-holc 

 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: 



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 mathe- 

 matical formula based on Harrington's chart which 

 enables one to arrive at a mean date for the deposi- 

 tion of a group of pipes. Audrey Noel Hume has 

 subsequently demonstrated that a sampling of ap- 

 proximately 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. 61 For- 

 tunately, the Tutter's Neck pipes, though few in 

 number, do fall within the period of greatest accu- 



61 J. C. Harrington, ''Dating Stem Fragments of Seventeenth 

 and Eighteenth Century Clay Tobacco Pipes," Quarterly 

 Bulletin Archeologieal Society of Virginia (September 1954), vol. 9, 

 no. 1, no pagination. Audrey Noel Hume, "Clay Tobacco 

 Pipe Dating in the Light of Recent Excavations." ibid. (De- 

 cember 1963). vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 22-25. Lewis H. Binford, 

 "A New Method of Calculating Dates from Kaolin Pipe Stem 

 Samples," Southeastern Archeologieal Newsletter (June 19621, vol. 9, 

 no. 1. pp. 19-21. 



PAPER 53: EXCAVATIONS AT TUTTER's NECK 



racy. 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). 



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 out- 

 side 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: 



RM 



H S 



I S 



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 Planta- 

 tion. 62 There were at least seven pipemakers 

 with these initials working in the late 17th and 

 early 18th centuries." 3 T.N. 30, Pit B. 



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. 



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 live 



« 2 See Ivor Noei, I [ume, "Excavations at Rosewell. Gloucester 

 County, Virginia, 1957-1" ler 18 in Contributions from 



the Museum of History ami Technology: Papers 12 It U.S Na- 

 tional Museum Bulletin 225, by various authors; Washington: 

 Smithsonian Institution, 1963), p. 222. fig. 35, no. 7, and p. 220. 



» Adrian Osu m d, "The Archaeology and Economic I [istorj 

 of English Clay Toba( 1 1 1 Pipes," Journal of the British Archaeologi- 

 ociation (London. 1960), 3d series, vol. 23, p. 83. 



53 



