NORTH-SOUTH SECTION THROUGH PIT STRATA 





NATURAL CLAY 



EAST-WEST SECTION THROUG H PI T ST RATA 



SCALE 1/4= I 



Figure 4. — North-south and east-west sections through the pit. 



DATING EVIDENCE 



The earliest possible date for the primary filling, 

 1740, does not necessarily indicate the date of the 

 digging of the pit. The presence of numerous brick- 

 bats, with shell mortar attached, in the lower eroded 

 clay stratum suggests that a brick structure had been 

 altered or demolished at the same time or soon after 

 the pit was dug. In view of the facts that the pit 

 was much too large to have been dug solely as a trash 

 repository and that it received very little refuse for 

 some time after the digging (indicated by the clay 

 silting), it is reasonable to suggest that it was dug as 

 a borrow pit for clay needed in brickmaking. 



If this theory can Ije accepted, it only remains 

 to establish the dales at which building or alterations 

 were in progress on the Rosewell Plantation to learn 

 the date at which the pit was dug. The principal con- 

 struction years, as stated previously, occurred between 

 about 1720 and 1743 or 1744. The date of the pit's 

 primary filling could conceivalily indicate that it was 



dug during the last spate of building when Mann Page 

 II was completing the mansion. On the other hand, 

 it seems extremely unlikely that the pit would have 

 been left open until the late 1760's, when the bulk of 

 the trash was deposited. Furthermore, after the ar- 

 cheological excavations had been completed it was 

 found that the re-dug pit silted to a depth of 18 inches 

 in the course of three winter months. It is reasonai)le, 

 therefore, to infer that the pit was dug and filled with 

 trash within one year. 



On the evidence of the artifacts recovered from the 

 various strata, it would be possible to create a slow- 

 progression from the 1740"s to the late 1760's; how- 

 ever, the absence of later material in the lower levels 

 provides only negative evidence that can Ije readily 

 disputed. Since there were comparatively few items 

 of late date in the upper layers, and there were many 

 more items in those layers than in the lower one.s, it 

 is quite reasonalile statistically for later items to be 

 missing altogether, thus creating false dating evidence. 



PAPER 18: EXCAVATIONS AT ROSEWELL 



165 



