smaller size, a rim sherd from a jar of Biicklev ware'" 

 from North Wales, and a rim from a pan of a type 

 made at Yorktown. The latter should not be con- 

 fused with previous references to Yorktown ijrown 

 stonewares. Although invariably present in the 

 same contexts, it is uncertain whether both were 

 products of the same factory. There is, howe\er. no 

 doubt that they were in production contemporan- 

 eously at Yorktown. probnblv between aljout 1730 

 and 1770. 



The Indian wares can be divided into two groups — 

 those made by Indians for Indians and those made by 

 Indians for colonists. Reference has already been 

 made (p. 162) to the legendary association between 

 Rosewell and Pocahontas and Powhatan, and numer- 

 ous fragments of so-called late Woodland and early 

 Contact pottery have been found in ploughed fields 

 to the east of the house. It is also possible that quan- 

 tities of oyster shells found 6 inches below the surface 

 on a promontory overlooking the creek to the south- 

 west of the house might have Indian associations. ^*' 

 Nevertheless, the only stratified Indian artifacts yet 

 found at Rosewell came from area B of the e.\ca\ated 

 pit, where they were found in a secondary deposit 

 (described on p. 164) apparently representing the site 

 of an Indian cooking fire built in the lee of the pit's 

 southeast face. The sherds found therein are of con- 

 siderable significance in view of the fact that they 

 came from a strictly Indian deposit overlying 18th- 

 century colonial refuse, yet are of a type normally 

 attributed to the pre-Contact or early Contact eras. On 

 this evidence it may be suggested that truly native forms 

 continued in use throughout the colonial centuries and 

 cannot, at this time, be readily pinned down to any 

 particular phase of the period. 



More readily identified are the Colono-Indian 

 products that were made in p.seudo-European shapes 

 in the traditional manner — that is, hand-worked, 

 shell-tempered, and stick- or pebble-burnished. Many 

 fragments of these wares have been foimd in exca- 

 vations at Williamsburg in dated contexts ranging 

 between about 1740 and about 1770. .Shapes copy 

 English delftware porringers, bowls, and cups, 

 Westerwald chamber pots, metal, triple-legged, and 

 triangular-handled cooking pots, and flat-handled 



skillets. Fragments of \essels of comjjarable shapes 

 have been found in an 18th-century context at James- 

 town, Yorktown, Tutter's Neck, and Greenspring 

 Plantation. One leg of a cooking pot was found in 

 the second layer of the Rosewell pit, and a large 

 part of a bowl was recovered from layer B5. Small 

 sherds from no fewer than five other vessels were 

 also recovered, most coming from the second and 

 third layers. 



Fragments of the.se Colono-Indian wares have been 

 found on the Pamunkey Reservation along with 

 European sherds dating from the second half of the 

 IHth centur>', and there is little doubt that the 

 former were made there. It has been suggested that 

 the wares were produced by the Pamunkey Indians 

 for use among slaves,^" for it is thought unlikely that 

 any European, however poor, would be reduced to 

 making use of such inferior wares. The slaves, on 

 the other hand, would not be used to eating in Euro- 

 pean style and with European kitchen utensils and 

 tablewares. There can be no denying that the pres- 

 ence of the Colono-Indian wares in Williamsburg, at 

 Jamestown, and on the great plantation sites must be 

 occasioned by a common denominator — and that can 

 reasonably be represented by the presence of slaves 

 on each and all of the sites. 



The presence of true Indian wares in the Rosewell 

 pit can hardly be accounted for in the same way. 

 There is evidence that in the 17th and 18th centuries 

 Indians were used as servants and hired to act as 

 hunters and to rid plantations of unwelcome beasts 

 of prey. It is possible, though not proved, that John 

 Page hired them for some such purpose and that they 

 camped in the vicinity of the pit. 



Glass from the Rosewell pit can be divided into 

 three unequal groups: beverage bottles, jars, and 

 pharmaceutical phials; fine glass wares such as wine 

 glasses, decanters, mirror plate, and cupping glasses; 

 and window glass. 



Glass wine bottles represented approximately two- 

 thirds of all the artifacts found in the pit and ranged 

 in date from around 1700 into the 1760's. Although 

 it was not possible to divide up the thousands of body 

 fragments into their respective bottles, a coimt of the 

 bases and necks showed (at a conservative estimate) 

 that no fewer than 351 were represented and that the 



'5 K. J. Barton, "The Buckley Potteries II, Excavations at 

 Prescot's Pottery 1954," Flintshire Miscellany, 1956, no. 1, 

 reprinted from Flintshire Historical Journal, vol. 16. 



3'' A minute fragment of brick found with the shells in the 

 only trial hole dug does not support this possibility. 



^~ In a paper prepared by the present author and delivered by 

 C. Malcolm Watkins at the Ethno-Historic Conference on the 

 .'\merican Indian, Washington, D.C., 1958. 



172 



BULLETIN 225: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 



