The Artifacts 



It is not to be inferred that all the items represented 

 by the artifacts, or finds, were made in the period 

 1763-1772. but merely that they were thrown away 

 at that time. It can be assumed, however, that most 

 of them were in use contemporaneously and thus, 

 together, they represent an important insight into 

 the possessions of a late colonial plantation owner. 

 But in considering the finds in this light it is neces- 

 sary to remember that the objects that were broken 

 and thrown away were generally those that were in 

 common use, not the items which were more decora- 

 tive than useful and which would have been preserved 

 with care. Consequently the absence of such objects 

 does not necessarily indicate that they did not exist 

 at Rosewell. 



The finds fall into six main classes, (1) ceramics 

 and glasswares, (2) personal and domestic possessions 

 representing such things as buttons, pins, scissors, 

 curtain rings, etc., (3) stable relics and metal tools such 

 as spurs, harness buckles and fittings, horseshoes, 

 locally made hinges, knives, and iron- and brass- 

 working waste; (4) animal and bird bones, (5) marine 

 specimens, and (6) architectural items comprising 

 fragments of worked marble, Portland stone, bricks, 

 ivon nails, window glass and painted plaster. 



FiGURK 6. — Bra.ss dif. used in bookbinding, 

 that was found near Rosewell graveyard sub- 

 sequent to the dig. Face of die, enlarged in 

 lower figure, is i inch wide. 



CERAMICS AND GLASSWARES 



This is by far the largest group. In addition to 

 tablewares it includes ceramic and glass items that 

 were used in the kitchen and in the bedroom. In 

 general, it may be said that the quality of the table- 

 wares was good, that Chinese export porcelain was 

 much used at Rosewell, and that the Pages owned 

 at least one set of matching cups and saucers of varying 

 sizes. Plates and bowls were numerous and of vary- 

 ing quality. The best of them, decorated in under- 

 glaze blue as well as in overglaze enamel, were on 

 a par with the best examples from the Governor's 

 Palace in Williamsburg. 



English white saltglaze wares, also plentiful and 

 generally of good quality, included tankards, teapots, 

 cups, saucers, bowls, and plates. Only one small 

 fragment was found to be ornamented with applied 

 enamels. Of considerable interest is a small fragment 

 of a molded teapot in the shape of a house with 

 a shield of arms and lion and unicorn supporters over 

 the doorway. Teapots made in the shape of early 

 Georgian houses were not uncommon; it is popularly 

 believed that they were presented by friends to people 



who had recently moved into or built a new house. 

 .Mthoueh no evidence has been found to confirm or 

 deny this story, it would be pleasant to be able to associ- 

 ate the Rosewell fragment with Mann Page II's com- 

 pletion of the mansion. (See fig. 8.) 



There is a three-storied-house teapot in the Burnap 

 Collection that is attriliuted to about 1740; -* another 

 appears in Griselda Lewis' Picture History of English 

 Pottery and is given the same date.-" However, 

 Bernard Rackham, in his Early Staffordshire Pottery, 

 indicates that molded wares of this and other types 

 were not in production before aljout 1745.^" Never- 

 theless it does seem possiijle that the teapot could 



-* Frank I', ami Harriet Burnap Cotlection of Englisli Pottery in the 

 William Rockhill .Velson Gallery of Art, Kansas City, 1953, here- 

 inafter referred to as Burnap. 



-' Griselda Lewis, Picture Book oj English Pottery, London, 

 1951, p. 24. 



30 Bernard Rackham, Early Staffordshire Pottery, London, 1951, 

 p. 24. 



P.APER 18: EXCAVATIONS .•\T ROSEWELL 



169 



