1997 Interim Reporton the APVA Excavations

at Jamestown, Virginia

October 1998

Beverly StraubeNicholas Luccketti

© 1998 by The Association for the Preservation of Virginia AntiquitiesAll rights reserved, including the right to reproduce this report or portions thereof in any form.

Graphics and maps by Jamie E. MayDesign and production by Elliott Jordan

ContentsAcknowledgements ....................................................... iiINTRODUCTION ................................. 11997 EXCAVATIONS.............................. 3James Fort ....................................................................... 3James Town.................................................................... 10Early New Town ........................................................... 12Human Burials .............................................................. 13Testing At The Yeardley House ................................. 15Offshore Testing ........................................................... 15SELECTED ARTIFACTS ...................... 17Beads .............................................................................. 17Jettons ............................................................................ 20Finger Rings................................................................... 21Crucifix .......................................................................... 22Tobacco Pipes ............................................................... 23NOTES .................................................. 29

THE ASSOCIATION FOR THE PRESERVATION OF VIRGINIA ANTIQUITIES204 W Franklin Street, Richmond, VA 23220

Dr. William M. Kelso directed the fieldwork in1997, just as he has since the inception of the Asso-ciation for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities’(APVA) Jamestown Rediscovery in 1994. The full-time field and laboratory staff consisted of archae-ologists Nicholas Luccketti, Eric Deetz, and JamieMay; curator Beverly Straube, operations managerand head conservator Elliott Jordan, and conserva-tor Michael Lavin. Seth Mallios, Garrett Fesler,Thaddeus Pardue, Danny Schmidt, Martha Gates,Camille Hedrick, Jason Burroughs, and DarbyO’Donnell comprised the part-time field crew. TheJamestown Rediscovery summer field school wasmanaged by Fesler and Mallios. Professional archae-ologists Carter Hudgins and Eric Klingelhofer alsoparticipated in the fieldwork, while a number ofarchaeologically experienced volunteers assisted inthe field including Michael Westfall, AlastairMacdonald, JoAnn Robbins, Bill Stoltz, and Rob-ert Dunkerly. Brad Hemp of the Lafayette HighSchool mentor program worked as an excavator andlab technician. Alynne Pilch, an intern from GeorgeMason University, processed artifacts, and HeatherLapham, a University of Virginia doctoral candi-date, examined the glass trade beads and assisted intheir classification.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSIn addition to conducting offshore testing, Wil-

liam and Mary geologist Jerre Johnson contributedhis expertise in procuring lacquer peels and providedgeological information about site and its features.Colonial Williamsburg Foundation vice-presidentCary Carson and architectural historians EdwardChappell, Willie Graham, Carl Lounsbury, andMark Wenger all made several site visits to offer theirideas on the archeological remains of Structure 163.William and Mary Center for Archaeological Re-search archaeologist Dennis Blanton consulted withJamestown Rediscovery staff on prehistoric findingson a number of occasions and supplied a field crewto investigate the prehistoric midden north of thechurch tower under his direction.

Also, many APVA volunteers provided much ap-preciated help throughout the year.

A major enhancement for visitors to the site in1997 was the construction of a viewing platformwith graphics to enable visitors to get a better un-derstanding of the site. The platform was made pos-sible by a grant from James City County. JamestownRediscovery was funded in 1997 by the VirginiaGeneral Assembly, the National Endowment for theHumanities, the National Geographic Society, andindividual members and branches of the APVA.

11

The general plan for the 1997 field season wasto expand the excavation north, east, and southaround the southeast bulwark of James Fort to bet-ter define the fort plan and to continue the investi-gation of major features encountered in 1996. Oneof these features was a slot trench north of the bul-wark. Running perpendicular to the east curtain,the slot trench possibly was an extension of the fort.The excavations continued eastward to follow thebulwark earthwork trench which had turned 90 de-grees in that direction. South of the bulwark, a largepit was partially uncovered and tested in 1996. The

INTRODUCTIONpit contained copper, Irish pennies, and militaryartifacts suggesting that it too was a very early feature.

Other objectives of the 1997 field season werecontinuing to track the fort trace; testing the eastpalisade, opening the north bulwark area and try-ing to locate the west palisade slot trench. Excava-tion of a burial found next to JR102C also was partof the plan. Construction of a wing on the YeardleyHouse was scheduled for 1997 and necessitated ar-chaeological testing of the area to be impacted bythe excavation of the footings.

22

Figure 1: Overhead view ofexcavations at southeast corner ofJames Fort showing bulwark trench,Pit 3, Structure 163, possible JamesTown palisade slot trench, andBurial 2. Site observation deck is inthe center.

33

JAMES FORTThe guide for Jamestown Rediscovery’s excavation

of James Fort is a model based principally on Will-iam Strachey’s description of the fort in 1610.Strachey observed that the fort was:

“...cast almost into the forme of a Triangle, andPallizadoed. The south side next to the river (how-beit extended in a line, or Curtaine sixscore footemore in length, then the other two, by reason theadvantage of the ground doth so require) containes140 yards: the West and East sides 100 only. Atevery Angle or corner, where the lines meete, aBulwarke or Watchtower is raised, and in eachBulwarke a peece of Ordance or two wellmounted.”

1

The accuracy of Strachey’s accountwas verified by previous Jamestown Re-discovery excavations of one-half of theeast bulwark and parts of the southand east fort walls which formed anangle that precisely matched the fig-ures described by Strachey.2 Accord-ingly, the southeast corner of the fortwas used to project the position ofthe north end of the east curtain,the north bulwark, and the line ofthe west curtain of James Fort.

East CurtainThe slot trench of the east curtain palisade was

identified, but not excavated, in a test trench (JR98)on the north side of the church tower in 1996. Theinitial excavation showed intact stratigraphy, as didthe test trench (JR96) on the south side of the churchtower. This confirmed that the area inside the ironfence always had been considered churchyard andnever was used agriculturally, thus it never wasplowed.

Excavation of this test trench was expanded in1997. A layer of black sandy loam (JR98D) wasencountered between 1’2” and 1’4” below modern

1997 EXCAVATIONS

Figure 2. Plan of testpits in church yard.

44

grade and thought to be original topsoil. This wassealed by a heavy brick bat and brick dust scatter(JR98C) in the west half of the trench, while theeast half was covered by a layer of shell mortar plas-ter, and brick (JR98B). Both of these layers werebelow root mat and modern topsoil (JR98A).Clearly cutting through the original topsoil butsealed by JR98B was a narrow trench (JR98L), di-rectly on line with the projected path of the eastcurtain. Part of the trench was obscured by a morerecent hole (JR98F). The 11” wide trench was ap-proximately the same width of the previously exca-vated palisade trenches and certainly seemed to bepart of the east curtain palisade. There was, how-ever, some concern with the difficulty of detectingdistinct postmolds within the trench. There werepostmold-like patches of dark loam in the trench,but they changed shape each time the trench wastroweled down a inch or two. This resulted in a de-cision to examine the trench by digging in from theside. This method of excavation removed all thesubsoil along the west side of the trench, exposingthe outside face. Instead of finding the expected cleanstraight edge of the palisade construction trench,there were two bulges of mixed fill that measured1’1” by 1’4” and 1’6” by 1’6”. Next, the trench wassectioned down the center lengthwise leaving theeast side intact, however this also failed to revealany postmolds. Therefore, it appears that the postswere removed from their foundation trench by dig-ging them out which resulted in the bulges or dis-mantling holes of mixed fill. But the palisade trenchwas not entirely disturbed; an obvious postmoldwithin a typical slot trench was evident in the southprofile of the test trench after the slot trench had

been excavated. The archaeological evidence alsosuggests that the palisade posts were extracted nottoo long after they were erected. The dismantlingholes not only were sealed by the same layers thatcapped the palisade trench, but they were devoid ofartifacts, indicating that the dismantling holes weredug and filled before any midden accumulated fromthe settlement.

The undisturbed topsoil stratum (JR98D) con-tained a large quantity of prehistoric pottery sherds,mostly Mockley ware and thereby dating to theMiddle Woodland period. Dennis Blanton con-ducted the excavation of the unplowed lower A-horizon (JR98H) in this test trench. His prelimi-nary observations of the results are as follows:

“To find traces of activity of this age that survivesundisturbed by plowing is rare, indeed, anywherein the Tidewater region. Though directly adjacentto a paling trench for the fort enclosure, the de-posit predates the military intrusion by up to 700years. Pottery sherds in these early layers date pri-marily to the end of the Middle Woodland period(Mockley), although an appreciable number arerepresentative of the succeeding Late Woodland pe-riod. (There appeared to be a general stratigraphicseparation of the Middle and Late Woodland sherdsin this unplowed layer, but whether the ceramics[Roanoke] are associated with the English occupa-tion or earlier native activity is still uncertain).

This evidence is interesting and important inits own right, but it also is instructive about thesite eventually chosen for the English toehold. Else-where on the island Middle Woodland occupationsare virtually unheard of, most likely because fresh-water had become chronically scarce due to sea levelrise. The presence of a relatively intensive encamp-ment in what is now the churchyard indicates thatthis may have been one of the remaining well-watered places on the island after about AD900.The elevation of this area puts it among the high-est points on the island, a factor which guaranteedrelatively superior drainage.”

3

Figure 3. Portion of south profile of JR98.

55

North BulwarkThe search for the north bulwark was based on

the assumption that it resembled the configurationof the southeast bulwark and that it was located 300’along the east curtain as indicated in the Stracheymodel of James Fort. Initially, a 5’ by 10’ test trench(JR145) was positioned to intersect the projectedbulwark earthwork trench. This area of Jamestownalso had been farmed in the past so there was a plow-zone beneath the sod. Excavation of the plowzone(JR145A) soon produced flint, Bartmann sherds,copper scrap, and sherds of Midlands Purple ware;the same kinds of artifacts that were found in theearliest features at the southeastern corner of JamesFort. A 1’2” wide trench, similar to the palisade slottrenches of the curtains and bulwark, and threepostholes were found cutting into the subsoil. Sev-eral expansions were then made to the original test

trench in an effort to obtain a larger pattern of fea-tures for better interpretation. A large round fea-ture was found, about 7’ in diameter and east of thenarrow trench. Possibly a well, this feature may beassociated with a late 17th-century building (JR58)located about 40’ to the southeast. One foot nineinches west of the narrow ditch was a 3’ wide ditchand three more postholes. A test excavation of thewide ditch (JR145B) yielded prehistoric pottery, 1English tobacco pipe stem, 1 fragment of case bottle,1 piece of lead scrap, 1 spade nosing and 7 morepieces copper scrap. All the artifacts recovered sofar from the 3’ wide trench, like the plowzone finds,are consistent with those from 1st period features ofJames Fort. The obvious difficulty with the conjec-tural north bulwark features is that the suspected

Figure 5. Reverse stratigraphy and possible truncated slot trench in JR139.

Figure 4. Plan of features inprojected north bulwark area.

truncated slot trench

66

palisade slot trench is on the outside—the wrongside—of the possible earthwork trench. No test cutswere made into the well-like feature, the narrowtrench, or the postholes.

Another 5’ by 10’ test trench (JR139) was exca-vated in the north face of the north wall of the Con-federate fort to intercept the projected east palisadetrench. This likely would be the last position wherethe east palisade trench would survive at the northend since the very wide and deep trench of the Con-federate fort surely obliterated any trace of the pali-sade trench that was there. The fill that formed theConfederate fort rampart consisted of a 1’7” thicklayer of orange clay (JR139B) that was clearly rede-posited subsoil. The clay sealed 1’4” of brown loam(JR139C,F) that contained an abundance of arti-facts dating to the second half of the 17th century.Beneath this was an ancient topsoil. The reversestratigraphy of subsoil superimposed on 17th-cen-tury loam layers indicated that the rampart, at leastin this area, was constructed from soil dug out tocreate the adjacent moat. Beneath the Confederatefort fill was a shallow trough-shaped feature thatcould be the bottom of a truncated trench. The pos-sible palisade slot trench was on-line with thearchaeologically documented east wall palisade, al-though the feature is so insubstantial that it is diffi-cult to make any interpretation of it with confidence.

West CurtainA 3’ by 20’ test trench (JR155) was excavated

inside the Confederate fort in hopes of finding thepalisade slot trench for the west curtain of JamesFort. The excavation revealed no accumulation oftopsoil, indicating that the area had been graded

during the construction of the Confederate fort.However, there were features still present; a 2’9” by3’0” posthole and several ditch-like features. Oneof the ditch-like features was 1’ wide and on thetheoretical line of the of the west curtain, allowingthat it may be a remnant of the palisade slot trench.

Pit 3 (JR69 & 124)

Figure 6. Plan of test trench JR155 in Confederate Fort.

Figure 7. Pit 3 afterexcavation.

77

The north end of this feature was first uncov-ered in square JR54 and was partially excavated ascontext JR69 in 1996. The rest of the pit was un-covered and fully excavated in 1997 as contextJR124. This was done to insure that there was nocontamination from later features, that is post-Pit 3artifacts being mixed into Pit 3 contexts. This mayhave occurred in the 1996 excavation of the northend where some subtle post-Pit 3 ditch fill was ex-cavated as part of the layers of the pit.

Pit 3 essentially was a round hole, about 15’ indiameter and 6’ deep below modern grade. It hadsmooth vertical sides that rounded at the bottom toa flat floor. The initial episode of backfill on thebottom of the pit consisted of 1’0” of clay and sandlayers (JR124J, L, M, P) that contained few arti-facts and very little shell, bone, brick, or charcoal.Above this was a 6” layer of loam with many oystershells and much charcoal (JR124F) that was themain refuse deposit in Pit 3. The artifacts from thisstratum were plentiful, early, and largely military innature. More than 7,400 artifacts were recoveredfrom JR124F including 63 local and 35 English to-bacco pipe bowls and stems, Native AmericanRoanoke simple-stamped pottery, Border ware,Dutch and Spanish coarsewares including olive jar,delftware (all from drug jars), Martincamp flasks,Midlands Purple butter pot, Chinese porcelain,Frechen jugs, Raeren jugs, crucibles, 26 glass beads,3 copper beads, 1 Irish coin, 12 jettons, 7 lead clothseals, pieces of iron armor, 9 iron bandolier bottles,5 copper bandolier bottles, 6 brigandine plates, ironchain mail, 3 bullet molds, 1 dagger, 3 matchlocks,5 pieces for 2 helmets, 1 jackplate, sword bladepieces, 27 bullets, 236 shot, and sprue. The arti-

facts suggest a deposition date of c. 1610. Addition-ally, a very significant piece of a glass flask was foundin JR124L because it crossmended with anotherpiece of flask from JR105D, a lower layer in themiddle-section of the southeast bulwark trench.These pieces in turn crossmended with a flask frag-ment in JR81F which is another sealed layer in thebulwark trench. The crossmending process suggeststhat the bulwark trench and Pit 3 likely were filled inat the same time and therefore may be contemporary.

A 1’4” thick layer of brown sandy loam with fewoyster shells and little charcoal (JR124D) sealedJR124F. Although it contained markedly fewer ar-tifacts than the total in JR124F, many of the 1143artifacts from JR124D were the same as those inJR124F, such as Roanoke simple-stamped pottery,Border ware, olive jar, delftware drug jars,Martincamp flasks, Frechen jugs, glass beads, ironbandolier bottles, bullets, shot and sprue. However,JR124D also had approximately 14 artifacts thatdate to the 2nd quarter of the 17th century such as 6Jamestown potter sherds (c.1630-45), 2 Meridacostrel sherds (c.1620s & 1630s), 1 “WC” and 1“RC” marked pipe bowls (both c. 1630-1650), and1 “EL” marked pipe bowl (c.1631-41). A layer ofbrick-filled loam (JR124B) dating to the 1630scapped JR124D. JR124B is a context that is part ofMidden I that is discussed later in the report underthat heading.

Although the artifacts collected from JR124Dtechnically make it a post-Pit 3 fill that was depos-ited in the 1630’s, it is quite possible, even prob-able, that JR124D is legitimate c. 1610 Pit 3 fillthat is lightly contaminated, perhaps through some

Figure 8. Pit 3 stratigraphy.

88

form of turbation. Pit 3 began at the level of thesurrounding subsoil. JR124B not only sealed thetop layer in Pit 3, but it also spread well beyond theedges of Pit 3 where it lay on subsoil. Accordingly,JR124B was a 1630s horizon that lay directly onsubsoil except where it covered Pit 3. The JR124Dstratum was contained exclusively within the sub-soil sides that formed the edges of Pit 3 and filledthe top space of the pit. As the uppermost layer, itwas cut by at least two later ditches and sealed by adeposit which all dated to 1630s or later. Thus, therewere opportunities for some intrusive material toget mixed into JR124D. Further, the absence ofbrick in JR124D also may be indicative of an ear-lier rather than later date of deposition. TheJamestown Rediscovery project has shown that brickis a material more prevalent in post-original settle-ment (c. mid-1620s) features. Both JR124D andJR124F have little brick, while, in contrast, the su-perimposed JR124B layer and the two intrusiveditches contain comparatively much more brick.Given this situation, and that 99% of the artifacts

from JR124D date to the same time as JR124F, onecould argue that JR124D should be considered asslightly tainted Pit 3 context.

Access to Pit 3 apparently was gained from thewest where the edge of the pit was interrupted by a2’6” wide section of undisturbed subsoil that slopeddown into the pit (Fig. 9). This bank of subsoil couldhave been the foundation for wooden steps or aramp. Whatever the exact date of construction forPit 3, the inside of the bulwark at that time musthave had a wooden platform rather than an earthenramp, if it ever had an earthen ramp.

One of the ditches that cut through Pit 3 wasthe continuation of a zig-zag ditch (JR94G) thatwas found running north-south through the south-east bulwark. The zig-zag ditch is probably associ-ated with a snake fence that likely marked a prop-erty line. Since the zig-zag ditch cut through both thebulwark trench and Pit 3, it must date to after thedemise of James Fort. Spanish costrel and Jamestownpotter sherds were recovered from the zig-zag ditch fill,suggesting it dates to the 2nd quarter of the 17th century.

Figure 9. Excavator points tobank of subsoil that may havebeen entrance ramp into Pit 3.

Figure 10. Stratigraphy ofsoutheast bulwark trench, JR83:JR82A–plowzone, JR82L–yellowclay, JR82V, W, X–sandy brownloam.

99

A small part of Pit 3 was not excavated. The sub-soil edges of the southwest perimeter of Pit 3 werenever uncovered due to the deep and heavily dis-turbed fill above it. Perhaps a 2’ wide band of thelower layers of Pit 3 remains along this side.

Southeast Bulwark TrenchThe 1997 field season continued to follow the

path of the 4’ wide trench that was concentric tothe bulwark palisade slot trench. After making ap-proximately ¼ of a circle (the trace of the bulwarktrench is actually more banana-shaped than round),the bulwark trench made a 90 degree turn to theeast. It continued eastward for nearly 8’, curvingslightly to the south, where the south chimney foun-dation for Structure 163 removed most of the bul-wark trench. If the floor construction of Structure163 is not as deep as the bottom course of the chim-ney foundation, it is possible that the bottom fewinches of the bulwark trace survive within the build-ing. The bulwark trench at this point is nearly 2’6”deep below subsoil with tapering sides and a roundedbottom. It had two major fills, a lower deposit ofsandy brown loam (JR82 V, W, X) and an upperlayer of yellow clay (JR82L).

Southeast Bulwark OverviewThe smooth and regular form of Pit 3 indicates

that it was carefully constructed for some purposeand not simply a clay quarry. The distinction isreadily apparent when Pit 3 is compared to the ir-regular shape and profiles of Pit 1 (JR1-4). It is alsoquite obvious that if the bulwark palisade slot trenchwere projected to make an unbroken circle, it wouldextend across the center of Pit 3, surely an illogicalconstruction plan. Therefore, one of the followingmust be true:

1) the bulwark palisade slot trench did continueas an unbroken circle at one time, but it andPit 3 are of different periods and did not co-exist, or

2) the bulwark palisade slot trench did not runas an unbroken circle, but stopped short ofPit 3, or

3) the bulwark palisade slot trench and thebulwark earthwork trench are contemporary,and the east curve of the bulwark earthworktrench is a modification to accommodate theaddition of Pit 3.

A factor that severely hinders analyzing the se-quence of the bulwark construction is the extensive

loss of land at the south end of the site. Perhaps thisis most evident in the postholes that were excavatedwithin the bulwark. None of the postholes weremore than 3”-4” deep, suggesting that at least 1’ ormore of grade has been lost. This is particularlytroublesome when trying to assess the bulwark pali-sade slot trench. Does the slot trench stop where itdoes because it has been graded away and it is onlya coincidence that this is the point where the bul-wark earthwork trench turns east or did this hap-pen by design? What is clear is that the c.1608Zuniga map, the only known depiction of JamesFort, shows round bulwarks at each corner. The scaleof the actual drawing is so small however, that itlikely precluded the inclusion of any details such asa protrusion on the southeast bulwark, if indeed onewere present at the time the map originally wasdrawn.4

A round bulwark scenario might consist of a the-sis that the first bulwark was erected with dispatchto complete the fort as quickly as possible and thatthe bulwark in this case was simply a round pali-sade as shown by Zuniga. This bulwark was replacedlater by a more substantial bulwark, represented bythe earthwork trench, and included Pit 3, while thecomplete trace of the palisade slot trench has beenimpacted by land loss. There is documentary evi-dence of several episodes of fort repair/rebuild dur-ing the first decade of settlement. The first time oc-curred after the great fire of 1608 when

“…this new supply being lodged with the rest, ac-cidentally fired the quarters, and so the Towne;

Figure 11. Detail of James Fort from Zuniga map.

1010

which being but thatched with reeds, the fire wasso fierce as it burnt their pallisadoes (though 10.or 12 yardes distant), and their armes, bedding,apparell, and much private provision.”

5

Another occasion for extensive repair or modifica-tions to James Fort was in the spring of 1610 whenThomas Gates and others who were shipwrecked onBermuda in 1609 eventually made their way toJamestown. The previous winter was the tragic“Starving Time” in Virginia and the new arrivalsfound the fort in ruinous condition with

“…the palisades torn down, the ports open, thegates from off the hinges, and the empty houses(which owners had taken from them) rent up andburnt,...”

6

Lord De La Warr, the new governor, landed shortlythereafter and had the fort repaired. More changeswere made a year later when Sir Thomas Gates re-turned to Virginia:

“The Towne [James Town] it selfe by the care andprovidence of Sir Thomas Gates, who for the mostpart had his chiefest residence there, is reduced intoa handsome forme, and hath in it two faire rowesof houses, all of framed Timber, two stories, andan upper Garret, or Corne loft high, besides thethree large, and substantial Storehouses, joynedtogether in a length some hundred and twenty foot,and in breadth forty, and this town hath been latelynewly, and strongly impaled, and a faire platformefor Ordence in the west Bulwark raised.”

7

There is archaeological evidence that suggests thatthe bulwark earthwork trench was open before Oc-tober of 1608. A layer of frothy slag-like materialpreviously was excavated in the north end of thebulwark earthwork trench.8 Thought to be the wastefrom melting the raw materials to make glass,samples of the solidified froth were petrologicallyexamined and found to contain more than 90%silica, confirming that this material is glass gall9 andtherefore cannot date any earlier than the time ofthe arrival of the first glassmakers at Jamestown inthe fall of 1608.10

A second possible scenario for the southeast bul-wark is that since the earthwork trench and the pali-sade slot trench are concentric, they must be con-temporary and therefore, since the bulwark trenchhonors Pit 3, Pit 3 is a first period feature. In thisinstance, the bulwark palisade slot trench either isthe remains of a stockade erected on top of theearthen rampart, a very typical feature of fort con-struction of that period, or a retaining wall to hold

the earth of the rampart, also a common feature ofearthen fort construction.

Another plausible scenario is that the greaterdepth of the eastward turn of the bulwark trench isa modification to accomidate a newly added Pit 3into a round bulwark. In this case, both the pali-sade slot trench and the earthwork trench arc arefirst period fort features forming the north half of around bulwark.

Pit 3 most likely functioned as some type of safestorage chamber or magazine. In the early 17th cen-tury, there were several different types of magazinesfor military supplies. Munition magazines were usedto hold all sorts of military equipment except gun-powder. There was a munition magazine at JamesFort, though the following account suggests that itwas an above ground structure:

“After we disembarked, which was on Monday,the following Thursday [7 January] there was afire that spread so that all the houses in the fortwere burned down, including the storehouse formunition and supplies, leaving only three [un-

burned].11

Very little is known about English powder maga-zines before 1650.12 In addition to security, gun-powder magazines were built to protect their con-tents from fire and water. There are examples of laterpowder magazines that are deep holes in the ground,however, they are well-lined to inhibit the develop-ment of moisture.13 One military historian suggeststhat Pit 3 was an expense magazine. This would havecontained the provisions for immediate use by thegun crews of the southeast bulwark in case of at-tack. As they were expended, gunpowder and am-munition would be replenished from the mainmagazine.14

JAMES TOWNPalisade (JR140-144)

A palisade slot trench was found perpendicularto the juncture of the east curtain and the southeastbulwark. The 1’0” wide trench extended off of a1’9” gate framed by two distinct postholes, one atthe south end of the east curtain (JR147A, B, C)and the second at the west end of the town palisade(JR140). This possible town palisade continued ina straight line for nearly 60’.

Trowel cleaning the trench revealed that it con-tained many obvious and generally round post-

1111

molds. The entire trench was excavated 1”-2” to fur-ther highlight the postmolds. The only artifactsfound during this procedure were sherds of prehis-toric pottery, flakes, and a lead drip, suggesting thatthe palisade indeed was constructed during the firstyears of the settlement. This early date was supportedby a test excavation of the trench in which a 4’ longsection with 6 postmolds was bisected laterally downthe center of the trench. The excavation of the sec-tion produced no European artifacts. Like the testof the east curtain slot trench north of the churchtower, the section initially was dug from the out-side, removing subsoil and the mottled yellow clayconstruction backfill, leaving the brown loam post-molds intact. Subsequently, a second lateral sectionwas made through the center of the 6 postmolds.The postmolds were round and flat bottomed, mostmeasuring 7”-9” in diameter. The palisade slottrench was 1’0” deep into the subsoil, which addedto the 1’0” of overlying plowzone, proves that the

slot trench was originally at least 2’0” deep.The palisade may be an enclosure surrounding

the town that quickly grew up outside the confinesof James Fort. John Smith’s comments suggest thatthis may have occurred as early as the summer of1608, the same time that he refers to the fort asbeing 5-sided.15 A rectangular palisade attached tothe east wall of the triangular fort would create a 5-sided enclosure. This also would explain the previ-ously discussed archaeological evidence of the eastcurtain being dug out not long after it was erected.Further, the highest ground, and thereby most suit-able for building houses, is the ridge running fromthe church northeast to the present NPS Visitor Cen-ter. This, of course, is the ground outside the eastcurtain, and the area that this palisade seems to beprotecting.

Figure 12. In situpostmolds and partiallyremoved construction fillfrom one side of slottrench in JR141.

Figure 13. Lateral section through James Town palisade, JR141.

1212

EARLY NEW TOWNStructure 163 (JR100)

Structure 163 was a substantial post-James Fortbuilding that disturbed part of the east bulwark ofthe fort. Its 30’ east-west by 50’ north-south foot-print extended across the APVA property line ontoNPS property, although approximately 90% ofStructure 163 is on APVA land. A federal Antiqui-ties Permit was granted by the NPS to JamestownRediscovery to dig test trenches on NPS property tolocate the northeast corner of Structure 163. Thelocation of the building was manifested by threetypes of backfill: brick rubble in the south half,yellow clay in much of the north half, and a denseconcentration of clinker in the center. Structure 163had at least one, and probably two chimneys on thewest side.

The southwest corner of Structure 163 wasarchaeologically investigated in 1997. It was filledwith a top layer of brown loam and brick bits(JR100A) over a layer of heavy brick rubble(JR100C). Cutting through the rubble was arobber’s trench (JR100B) along the outside of thebuilding whose foundations had been extensivelysalvaged. A section of the south foundation survivedand showed that the building had a dry-laid cobblefoundation that was 3’6” wide. The brick chimneybase foundation measured 8’ by 6’ and about one-half of the last course of brick remained in situ. Part

of the last course was left, showing that the founda-tion was 1 and ½ bricks wide. Stone was used in-stead of half-bricks on the outside of some of thechimney base foundation.

Careful cleaning and removal of the brick rubbleuncovered sections of fallen, but articulated brick-work. These, in turn, lay on ash layer which pains-taking excavation with small tools and a heavy-dutyvacuum cleaner revealed a clear grid of burned tim-bers and boards that were the remains of the woodenfloor. Other architectural details also were exposedby careful excavation. The front of the fireplace con-tained what seems to be part of a herring-bone pat-tern of Dutch bricks that might have been a hearth.Near these were 8 red clay bricks, the same size asthe Dutch brick, that also formed some type of pav-ing. Large numbers of Dutch bricks were foundalong the chimney base and adjoining wall lines.Fragments of pantiles and pieces of square brickpavers were recovered from the rubble layer as well,all suggesting a building that was quite architectur-ally advanced for its time in Virginia. Preliminarydating evidence consists of the fact that Structure163 cuts through the bulwark earthwork trench, in-dicating that it was built after the demise of JamesFort in the mid-1620s. The absence of any winebottle glass in the fill excavated off the southwestcorner of the building suggests that Structure 163was abandoned before c.1650.

Midden I (JR83M, P, Q, R; JR93F-H, J-N, Q, R, V; JR94E-H; JR124A,B)

An extensive deposit of refuse was encoun-tered off the southwest corner of Structure 163.The various component layers generally were arich brown loam heavily laden with tobaccopipes and ceramics, animal bone including manycow bones, oyster shell, and charcoal. The dat-able artifacts suggest that the midden was de-posited during the 1630s and 1640s. It may berelated to nearby Structure 163, although at thistime, there is no conclusive evidence to deter-mine whether the midden preceded Structure163 or accumulated during the occupation ofStructure 163.

Figure 14. Cobblestone foundation, brick chimneybase and charred remains of wooden floor,southwest corner of Structure 163.

1313

HUMAN BURIALSPrior to the 1997 field season, two human buri-

als had been found, but only one was excavated.JR102C was found in the southeast corner of JamesFort. The skeleton was that of a Caucasian male,about 19-22 years old and approximately 5’6” tall.The grave was oriented with the head at the westend. Soil stains and nails in situ indicated that theindividual was buried in a wooden coffin, while astraight pin found at the skull and a copper stainnear the right knee implied that the body had beenwrapped in a shroud. A .60 caliber musket ball and21 small pieces of lead in the right knee revealedthat the cause of death was a devastating gunshotwound.16 The paucity European artifacts found inthe burial fill suggested a very early date of inter-ment; arguably sometime before 1610 and morelikely during the first year or two of settlement. Asecond burial was discovered in a test trench (JR91)in the church yard south of the church tower whiletracing the slot trench for the east curtain. Orientedeast-west, it is unexcavated at present.

Burial 2 (JR156C)A burial was found in a decayed coffin 3’ north

of Burial JR102C and excavated in 1997. The 6’long and 2’3” wide rectangular grave shaft was nearlyaligned with Burial JR102C, though not exactlyparallel. The long axis of JR102C was 62 degreeswest of north while JR156C was 53 degrees west ofnorth. Like JR102C, most of JR156C had beencovered by the gravel road that led to the pre-1925steamboat landing and, consequently, the burial fillwas compacted.

The top layer in the burial was a 4” thick layer ofbrown loam (JR156A), most likely plowzone thatwashed into a shallow depression that formed afterthe wooden coffin eventually deteriorated and col-lapsed and the original burial fill subsided. Belowthis was the primary burial fill (JR156B), a 7”-1’2”thick layer of dark orange clayey sand mottled with

Figure 15. Plan of excavated burialsinside James Fort

1414

dark sandy loam flecked with brick or daub andcharcoal. This layer, which was the subsoil excavatedto make the grave shaft and subsequently redepos-ited back into the grave on top of the coffin, con-tained 93 historic artifacts including a lead ball, 6lead shot, 2 brass rivets, a copper scrap, 2 pipestemfragments, 5 glass beads, a glass doublet button, 8nail fragments, 4 Border ware sherds, 2 delftwaresherds, 1 Martincamp sherd, 1 North Devon plainsherd, 1 crucible sherd, 5 case bottle fragments, bricknuggets and pieces of clinker. This collection standsin conspicuous contrast to the neighboring grave,JR102, whose grave shaft fill (JR102B, C) yieldedonly 15 nail fragments (many assuredly from thedecomposed coffin), 9 lead shot, 2 straight pins, 1aiglet, 1 Border ware sherd, 1 Nueva Cadiz bead,and 1 jetton.

The preliminary analysis indicated that the in-dividual was a Caucasian woman, about 35 yearsold, and about 4’8” tall. She had only 5 teeth at thetime of her death and several of her tooth socketswere completely healed over.17 The coffin had col-lapsed and several large pieces of wood were lyingon the skeleton. Scientific analysis of the wood in-dicated that it was yellow pine.18 Several nails werefound in a line down the center of the coffin, sug-gesting that the coffin had a gable lid. The use of acoffin in the burial suggests that the woman wassomeone of status.

Documents indicate the first English women atJamestown were Mistress Forest and Anne Burraswho landed with the Second Supply in October of1608.19 Anne Burras is known to have married JohnLaydon and both listed as living in Elizabeth City

Figure 17. Skeletal remains of Burial 2, JR156CFigure 16. Plan of nails and section of Burial 2.

1515

in the 1625 Muster.20 In contrast, Mistress Forest,almost certainly the wife of gentleman Thomas For-est, is never mentioned again in the historical record,implying that she died soon after her arrival atJamestown.

The archaeological evidence suggests that boththis woman and JR102C were people of status,which may explain why they were buried inside thefort, perhaps near the earliest church. However, theymay have been buried inside the fort because attimes, it was unsafe to linger outside the fort duringthe first years of the settlement. This danger periodseems to have lasted only until 1610 when theJamestown colonists destroyed the Paspahegh vil-lage,21 an event that corresponds with the absence ofany further reports of Powhatan attacks on James Fort.

TESTING AT THEYEARDLEY HOUSE

It became apparent from the profusion of arti-facts recovered during the first four years ofJamestown Rediscovery that the Dale House artifactand conservation labaoratory would soon be inad-equate to store the Jamestown Rediscovery artifactcollection. The APVA decided to build a new wingon to the 1907 Yeardley House that would containa state-of-the-art storage facility. The new wing, areplica of the original house, would be located onthe north side of the original house and addition.

The footprint of the new Yeardley House wing,which included the location where J.C. Harringtonfound a large ditch in 1939, was tested in 1997.22

Four test trenches (JR500-503) were excavated tocheck the paths of the foundation constructiontrenches and the area in the center of the building.The north side of the Yeardley House was found tobe severely disturbed and there were several utilitytrenches that criss-crossed the area. Surprisingly, nocolonial plowzone or old topsoil was found any-where, nor were any 17th-century arti-facts found despite ¼” screening of theexcavated soil. In fact, there were veryfew artifacts of any kind. It seems thatthe entire area was graded at the timeof the construction of the YeardleyHouse which would explain why all thestrata above subsoil dated to the 20th

century and the complete absence ofany colonial artifacts. Based on these

Figure 18. Profile of “Harrington trench” in Yeardley House yard.

findings, the remainder of the wing footprint wasexcavated using a backhoe and then hand cleanedto look for features.

Test trench JR503 intersected the wide trenchfound by Harrington. A section through the 10’6”wide trench showed the it was almost 3’ deep andfilled primarily with sandy orange clay and varioushues of light grey and brown sandy loam threadedwith sand laminations. No artifacts were recoveredfrom the fill. The “Harrington trench” was alsofound in the mechanically expanded test trenchJR500, giving the trench a northeast-southwest ori-entation. It is possible that the trench was part ofthe defenses constructed at Jamestown in 1676 dur-ing Bacon’s Rebellion, or that it was a major prop-erty boundry. The northeast-southwest orientationof the trench, if unchanging, would carry it to thelast statehouse which one assumes would have beenprotected during the conflict. The foundation of thenew wing of the Yeardley House spanned the“Harrington trench” which will remain preservedbeneath the foundation and crawl space of the ad-dition.

OFFSHORE TESTINGGerald Johnson of the Geology Department at

the College of William and Mary tested the riverbottom offshore from the James Fort site in an ef-fort to determine the amount of erosion that hasoccurred off Church Point during the last 400 years.Six vibracores were taken at 75’ and 125’ intervalsin a line about 150’ offshore and parallel to the sea-wall. The cores revealed a deeply buried sand layerrepresenting an earlier beach of unknown date thataccumulated over an ancient swamp deposit.23 Twosamples of wood found in the vibracores in the layerabove the sand layer were radiocarbon dated and re-turned dates of 2000 +/- 40 BP and 2140 +/- 40 BP.24

1616

1717

BeadsEighty-nine beads were recovered from Pit 3 in-

cluding 82 made of glass, 2 lapidary, 2 fashioned ofshell, and 3 copper beads.

The disc shell beads each measure 3 mm in di-ameter and were most likely produced by NativeAmericans. These thin white beads do not appearin the archaeological record until the Late Wood-land Period. Some researchers believe that perhapsthe technology to manufacture them was not pos-sible until Contact and European tools could beused. Their presence at Jamestown in a 1607-1610context may help to substantiate this idea.

The tubular copper beads were manufactured bythe colonists as trade items from sheet copper theybrought from Europe.25 There is no evidence thatthe colonists were also producing the glass beadsdespite the fact that crucibles containing molten glassand sand, glass cullet, and glass gall all point to theglassmakers working within the fort soon after theirarrival in 1608.

The discussion that follows for the glass and lapi-dary beads is derived from an unpublished reportprepared for the APVA by Heather Lapham.26 Thisanalysis is preliminary and ongoing as every featureadds more beads to the assemblage, now number-ing close to 600. However, this study of Pit 3 isvaluable for bead scholars as it provides a tightlydateable context, c.1607-1610, for this bead se-quence.

All the glass beads from the pit were identifiedand typed according to the Kidd and Kidd classifi-cation system for beads.27 This system, which is basedon manufacturing techniques and physical charac-teristics, provides a standard by which the beads canbe compared throughout the site and with assem-blages elsewhere in eastern North America.

All but one bead (773-JR) from Pit 3 could beidentified according to the typology. The anoma-lous bead is a light maize mold-pressed bead as de-scribed by Karlis Karklins’ re-evaluation of the Kidd’sclassification system.28 Of the remaining glass beads,80 are drawn and 1 is wound. Drawn beads, whichare the most common on 17th-century sites, were

formed by two glassworkers pulling a glass ballformed from molten glass into a long hollow tubeabout 50’ in length. The cooled tube was then bro-ken into bead lengths, creating many beads. Woundbeads had to be produced one at a time. Moltenglass was wrapped around a thin metal rod and ro-tated above a flame to shape the bead and to addlayers. The Kidd and Kidd system designates woundbeads by the prefix W.

SELECTED ARTIFACTSFROM PIT 3

The most common type of glass bead from thepit, comprising 29.3% of the assemblage, is widelyknown as the Nueva Cadiz bead. The name is de-rived from an island of the coast of Venezuela wherethe beads were first discovered in a 16th-centurySpanish port. They have traditionally been associ-ated with Spanish explorations and colonization ofsoutheastern North America, Mexico and SouthAmerica in the early to middle 16th century. Thesebeads also occur on late 16th and early 17th centurysites in eastern North America. There are distinctdifferences in color and color sequences between theearly “Spanish” beads and those found later so itmay be possible to develop a typology of this type.

Figure 19. Mold-pressed bead (773-JR).

Figure 20. Two types of Nueva Cadiz beads found atJamestown, Kidd IIIc1 (top) and Kidd IIIc3 (bottom).

1818

The Nueva Cadiz beads come in two varieties:IIIc1 (17.1%) which are square tubular turquoisebeads, and IIIc3 (12.2%) which are square tubularnavy blue beads. They all exhibit ground ends andall but one are composed of three layers of glass. Aunique IIIc1 bead (454-JR) consists of five layers:turquoise, white, turquoise, white, turquoise.

The turquoise IIIc1 beads, with an average lengthof 15.7 mm, tend to be larger than the navy bluevariety IIIc3 which have an average length of 10.6mm. A similar pattern has been recorded with theearly 16th-century Neuva Cadiz beads in Peru.29

Nueva Cadiz beads have been located on severalnortheastern early 17th-century Native Americansites.30 Seventy-eight Nueva Cadiz beads have beenrecovered from the James Fort site thus far. Besidesbeing found in much larger quantities than any othersite in the northeast, these beads differ in two sub-stantial ways. The IIIc1 beads are smaller in size,particularly diameter, and the IIIc3 variety is notfound in any other northeastern assemblage.

Pit 3 also yielded bead types that are fairly com-mon in eastern North American areas of early 17th-century trade. Kidd variety IIa56 (circular navy bluebeads) comprising 12.2% of the assemblage, IIa13(round white beads) making up 20%, and IIa40(round robin’s egg blue) which are 9.8% of the to-tal, are among these. Many of the latter exhibitedevidence of a speo heat rounding. In this method,beads are altered on a spit rotating in a furnace. Thisprocess of rounding results in partial fusion betweensome of the beads and projecting “tails” of glass onone end.

The IIa56 beads are remarkable for their smallsize, measuring between 2 and 3 mm. This may be

result of the archaeological retrieval methods, whichincluded fine mesh water screening.

One-half of a “gooseberry” bead, Kidd varietyIIb18, was found in Pit 3. The half contained 6stripes. In the southeastern regions of the UnitedStates, gooseberries have been found as late as themid 18th century31 while in the northeast this vari-ety clusters in the late 16th and early 17th centuries.32

Four chevron beads, exhibiting distinct star-likepatterns when viewed from the end, were identi-fied. Three are tubular Kidd type IIIm1 beads andare comprised of seven glass layers with faceted orground ends. This is characteristic of the 16th-cen-tury chevron beads. The fourth bead (IVk2) is moretypical of the early 17th century chevrons.33 It isround and made up of only five layers.

The first type IVb35 bead to be found at the sitewas recovered from Pit 3. It is a large round darknavy bead with 9 simple white stripes. It is a variantof the Kidd typology in that it has more stripesand a translucent turquoise blue interior ratherthan dark navy.

The single wound bead in the pit is a melon-shaped, light maize bead with molded impressionsof alternating vertical ridges and twisted rope de-signs. Kidd WIIe is the closest variety for this bead.It appears very similar to the seven oaks gildedFigure 21. Common 17th-century bead types recovered

from Pit 3. Row 1: Kidd IIb18, Kidd IIa56, Kidd IIa40;Row 2: Kidd IIa15, Kidd IIa28, Kidd IIa55; Row 3: KiddIva19, Kidd IIa57, Kidd IIa13.

Figure 22. Chevron beads: Kidd IIIm1 (left)and Kidd IVk2 (right).

Figure 23. Theonly Kidd typeIVb35 beadrecovered fromthe JamestownRediscoveryproject area todate.

1919

ddiK ddiK ddiK ddiK ddiKyteiraV

noitpircseD noitpircseD noitpircseD noitpircseD noitpircseD tnuoC tnuoC tnuoC tnuoC tnuoC %%%%%

31aII .daebetihweuqapo,dnuor,muidemotllamS 61 02

51aII .daebetihweuqapo,lavo,muidemotllamS 6 3.7

82aII .daebneergmlapkradtneculsnart,dnuor,muideM 3 7.3

04aII .daebeulbgges’niboreuqapo/tneculsnart-imes,dnuor,muidemotllamS 8 8.9

55aII .daebeulbyvanpeedotyvanetirbtneculsnart,dnuor,muidemotllamS 3 7.3

65aII eulbyvanpeedotyvanetirbtneculsnart,ralucric,llamsotllamsyreV.daeb

01 2.21

75aII .daebeulbyvantneculsnart,lavo,llamS 1 2.1

81bII evlewtro,nevele,thgiehtiwdaebsselroloc,dnuor,egralotmuideM.sdaebyrrebesoogdellacylnommoC.sepirtsetihweuqapo

1 2.1

1cIII daebeulbesiouqruttneculsnart,ralubut-erauqs,egralyrevotmuideMeuqapo/eulbesiouqruttneculsnart:sreyalssalgeerhtfodesirpmoc

.sdaebzidaCaveuNdellacylnommoC.eulbesiouqruttneculsnart/etihw

41 1.71

3cIII fodesirpmocdaebeulbyvantneculsnart,ralubut-erauqs,egralotmuideMauqathgiltnerapsnart/etihweuqapo/yvantneculsnart:sreyalssalgeerht

.sdaebzidaCaveuNdellacylnommoC.neerg

01 2.21

1mIII fodesirpmocdaebeulbyvantneculsnart,ralubut,egralyrevotmuideMeuqapo/etihweuqapo/eulbyvantneculsnart:sreyalssalgneves

tneculsnart/etihweuqapo/eulbyvantneculsnart/etihweuqapo/doowder.sdaebnorvehcdellacylnommoC.eulbyvan

3 7.3

91aVI :sreyalssalgeerhtfodesirpmocdaebeulbyvantneculsnart,ralucric,llamS.eulbyvantneculsnart/etihweuqapo/eulbyvantneculsnart

3 7.3

*53bVI desirpmoc;sepirtsetihwelpmis9htiwdaebyvankradraelcdnuor,egraLdnasepirtseroM*(.eulbesiouqruttneculsnart,etihw,yvankrad:sreyal3fo

).yteirav53bVIddiKnahtrolocroiretnitnereffid

1 2.1

2kVI ,etihw,yvanetirb:sreyaleviffognitsisnocdaebyvanetirbraelc,muideMsegdirgnikamnihtyrevsireyaledistuoehT.yargthgil,etihw,eulbetirb

.daebnorvehcadellacylnommoC.sepirtssaraeppareyaltxenfo

1 2.1

*eIIW htiwsdaebeziamthgileuqapo/tneculsnart,depahs-nolem,egraLralimiS.snoisserpmidedlom"epordetsiwt"dnasegdirlacitrevgnitanretla

htimSnidetciped’dedlomdedligskaoneves‘asadeifitnedidaebaot.)elbaliavasiyteiravddiKcificepsoN*(.)4woR,1erugiF:3891(

1 2.1

b1BM yteiravddiKatonsisihT(.daeblavoemorhconomnialpdesserp-dloM).]5891[snilkraKsilraKnidebircsedsanoitacifidomatub

1 2.1

3tiPnisdaeBssalGlatoT 3tiPnisdaeBssalGlatoT 3tiPnisdaeBssalGlatoT 3tiPnisdaeBssalGlatoT 3tiPnisdaeBssalGlatoT 2828282828

GLASS BEADS FROM PIT 3

2020

molded bead that has been found in association withSpanish settlements in Florida and Georgia.34

Two lapidary beads are also part of the assem-blage. One is a round faceted quartz crystal mea-suring 13.4 mm in diameter. This type of bead “isone of the best-known lapidary-bead varieties of theSpanish colonial era”.35 Found in the southeasternUnited States in contexts dating to the last half ofthe 16th century, this sophisticated bead is thoughtby some researchers to have been reserved for spe-cial gifts.36

The other lapidary bead is an irregular nugget-shaped carnelian bead measuring 7.9 mm in diam-eter. It is possibly faceted although the wear makesthat difficult to determine with certainty. Carnelianbeads occur most frequently on 18th-century Span-ish sites in an elongated, tapered, rectangular form.The few carnelian beads from the 16th century re-flect a flat square or diamond-shape more akin tothe bead from Pit 3.37

This preliminary analysis of the beads from Pit3 provides a view of the types of beads the colonistswere trading with the Indians during the first fewyears of settlement. The similarities with assemblages

from16th-century Spanish exploration and settle-ments are interesting and bear further study. Someof the varieties, particularly the Nueva Cadiz, goose-berry and seven-layer chevron beads, have also beenreported on sites in the Netherlands. This possiblyindicates that the beads were all manufactured atthe same place. Venice dominated the glassbeadmaking industry in 16th-century Europe and itis likely that it became the source for all the “trad-ing kits” carried by Europeans attempting to barterwith Native American populations. Questions ofsource and date will continue to be asked of thebead data as more examples are excavated fromsealed contexts.

JettonsNinety jettons or casting counters have been re-

covered from the excavations so far. Twenty per cent(n=18) of them were found in Pit 3. Seventeen ofthe Pit 3 jettons were produced by HansKrauwinckel II, a Nuremberg jetton master from1586 to 1635. Krauwinckel spelled his first nameHanns to distinguish his work from that of his uncleHans Krauwinckel I. His jettons are well made withregular die axes reflecting the reforms instituted inthe Krauwinckel workshops during the 1580s.38

As described in the 1995 Interim Report, jettonsare accounting aids used during calculations withRoman numerals.39 Their presence in such largenumbers on early 17th-century Virginia sites maynot be solely the result of the need for an oculararithmetic, however. Jettons were widely used in theseventeenth and eighteenth centuries as gaming to-kens. In addition, as cheap copper objects, the jettonswould make attractive trade items for the Indianswho desired copper.

All of the Krauwinckel jettons are of the rose andorb variety and all but one have the master’s nameon the reverse with the orb and the legend on theobverse with the crowns. Five different legends areemployed: GOTES REICH BLIBT EWICH [God’skingdom lasts forever] (n=8); GOTES SEGENMACHT REICH [God’s words bring riches] (n=5);GOTT ALLEIN DIE EERESEI [Honor God alone](n=2); DAS WORT GOTES BLIBT EWICK [Theword of God lasts forever] (n=1); and HEVT RODTMORGEN TODT [Today red tomorrow dead] (n=1).

One jetton was made in France for the use of theConseil du Roi in King Henry III’s administration,1574 - 1589. On the obverse it has a crowned shield

Figure 24. The single wound bead, KiddWIIe, from Pit 3.

Figure 25. Two lapidary beads from Pit 3: round facetedquartz crystal (left); irregular nugget-shaped carnelian (right).

2121

of France bearing 3 lis enclosed in the collar of theOrder of St. Michael with the legend: NIL NISICONSILIO , loosely translated as Only with Coun-sel. The reverse bears three crowns with the legendMANET VLTIMA COELO. This could mean TheFinal Hope is in Heaven as most of the jettons haveinspirational admonitions on one side. On the otherhand, this could be a witty pun by the jetton’s makerfor coelo also means “engraving tool” i.e., The FinalHope is in the engraving tool! The jetton was prob-ably produced in the Paris mint which was “respon-sible for producing all jetons destined for use in thevarious offices of the Central Administration andfor all local bodies of the Paris region, both publicand private”.40

Finger RingsThree finger rings were excavated from Pit 3. Two

are base metal decorative rings made in imitation ofprecious metal examples and the third is a merchant’sbrass signet ring.

One of the decorative rings is made of brass withthe round-sectioned hoop and bezel cast in onepiece. The round bezel has beading around the 8mmdiameter opening which once held a gemstone orpaste jewel.

The second decorative ring is made of lead. Thehoop, bezel and setting are cast as one piece and thecasting seams are still apparent running up over thesquare bezel and square-cut setting. Lead finger ringshave been found in London contexts as early as the10th century and they continued to be popularamong the common folk as substitutes for silver.41

Rings were very popular adornment during the16th and 17th centuries. It was not uncommon formen and women to wear rings on every finger ofeach hand, excepting the middle finger but includ-ing the thumb. Rings were often given as memen-tos and when they did not fit the finger “they wereworn elsewhere–on the hat, ruff, ears and on thesleeve”.42

The signet ring has a simple round-sectionedhoop with a round bezel. It is engraved with a

Figure 26. Obverse and reverse of copper jetton made inNuremberg, Germany, by Hans Krauwinckel II.

Figure 27. Obverse of copper jetton made for theadministration of France’s king Henry III c. 1574-1589.

Figure 28. Top: brass finger ring(634-JR) missing setting; bottom:

lead finger ring (645-JR).

2222

merchant’s mark within a beaded border. The mark,which is in reverse so it will be positive whenstamped, consists of a 4 whose vertical stroke isflanked by double crosses. This type of mark wasoriginally used in Europe as a personal symbol tomark property and as a legally recognized signaturebefore the time of widespread literacy. Merchantsused them “to mark their products or containers,thereby guaranteeing the quality of their produc-tion”.43 A similar ring was excavated from the 1653shipwreck of the Dutch East Indiaman Lastdragerand is believed to be Dutch.44

The ring’s presence at Jamestown may not meanthat the tradesman owning the ring was there. Itmay have been carried by a factor to show that hewas empowered to conduct official business on themerchant’s behalf.

CrucifixA cast lead crucifix found in Pit 3 hints at the

belief systems of some of the colonists which, un-less recorded in their own words, would be unknownto us today.

The crucifix, which has a very long vertical ele-ment, bears three figures: the body of Christ be-neath a horizontal plaque, a praying woman–-prob-ably Mary—and what appears to be a death’s headabove crossed bones. This latter symbol representsimmortality and was used on crucifixes from the15th to the 17th centuries.45

The crucifix is not pierced for wearing on a chainand there is presently no visible means of attach-ment on the back. Crucifixes adorned the exteriorof bibles and collection boxes. They were also some-times worn in hats as signs of pilgrimage to Euro-pean shrines and other religious sites. Another pos-sibility is that the crucifix formed part of a rosary.Other artifacts that may be rosary-related have been excavated fromplowzone contexts at James Fort.These include two faceted jet beadsand a small brass medallion. “Jet wasused in Spain from the sixteenth cen-tury onward for pendants as well asfor beads and was particularly popu-lar for use in rosaries and for otherreligious or magical items. A stringof jet beads attached to a crucifix wasfound in a late 17th-century burial atSt. Augustine.” 46

The small oval brass medallion(609-JR) bears the head of Jesus witha rayed mandala on one side and thehead of Mary, similarly attired, on theother. A comparable medallion, witha different design, was excavated inassociation with what appear to be jetrosary beads from a 1656 Dutch ship,Vergulde Draeck.47 These small reli-gious medallions have also beenfound on Spanish shipwrecks includ-ing the Santo Christo de Castello (mid17th century) and the Atocha (1622).

Figure 29. Portrait of Sir Henry Lee, champion to QueenElizabeth, wearing rings on his fingers and on stringsaround his neck, arm, and wrist.

Figure 30. Brass signet ring bearinga merchant’s mark (568-JR).

Figure 31. Cast lead crucifixin two pieces (912-JR).

2323

Four pewter medallions with the same design asJR182 were recovered from the Spanish Armadashipwreck Girona.48

While common enough on sites where Catholi-cism is practiced, crucifixes are very rare discoveriesin post-Reformation English contexts.49 Perhaps itspresence at Jamestown can be explained by the verynature of the colonial experience. The perils anduncertainties of life would provide a ripe environ-ment for reliance on amulets, including religioussymbols, for bodily protection. On the other hand,Anglicanism in this early time period was strugglingto define itself and perhaps a symbol from theCatholic Church would not be considered so un-usual. After all, the Church of England was not es-sentially a new church but a reformed perpetuationof the Church of Rome. While Elizabeth I hadwished the new liturgy to sound Protestant, she per-petuated the ritual of the Catholic Church, evenmaintaining a crucifix on her altar. By the end ofher reign, there were as many religious conversionsback to Catholicism as there were to Protestantism.Elizabeth’s paradoxical orthodoxy continued underJames I for, as a Scottish Protestant, he was com-mitted to Calvinist theology, but he was also a pro-ponent of the Church of England’s idea of RoyalSupremacy.50

Finally, it must be remembered that there were anumber of individuals at Jamestown who came fromcountries other than England that were still Catho-lic. The crucifix could have easily belonged to oneof them. For instance, current research indicates thatthe three German glassmakers that arrived in 1608

were possibly from Grossalmerode, a Catholic areaof Germany near Kassel. Another possiblity is theIrish Catholic named Francisco Maguel who spenta year in Virginia. He was present at Jamestownwhen Captain George Kendall, whom he identifiesas a Catholic English captain, was executed for mu-tiny in 1607.51

Tobacco PipesClay tobacco pipes identified as English, Dutch,

and of local manufacture have been recovered fromPit 3.

The Dutch pipes consist of two molded stemswith baroque decoration from JR124D and a com-plete burnished tobacco pipe from JR124F. Thebaroque pipes date no earlier than 163052 and canthus be considered part of the intrusive material thatfound its way into this layer. The burnished pipebowl is cut off plain at the opening with no millingaround the rim. It also has a crowned rose maker’smark on the heel. This is one of the earliest symbolsused on Dutch pipes, although not all include acrown. It is believed that the mark originated withEnglish pipemakers working in the Netherlands inthe beginning of the 17th century. The mark quicklybecame popular and was used by Dutch pipemakersinto mid century.53

There are seven English marked pipes from thecontexts included in Pit 3. Four of these pipes werefound in JR124D and bear heel marks (RC, WC,and EL) placing them in the second quarter of the17th century. These are among the intrusive materi-als from the D layer. The three remaining markedpipes are from JR124F and are among the earliestknown London marks. Two bear the incuse initialsIR that may stand for London pipemaker JohnRosse. This mark has been found in pre-1610 con-texts, as has the other mark, which is an incuse oakleaf.54 Both of these marks occur on pipes recov-ered from Basing House in Hampshire, England,whose occupation covers the late 16th and early 17th

centuries.55

By far the most interesting pipes are among thelocally made examples, particularly the 23 fragments

Figure 32. Two jet rosary beads (516-JR and 504-JR)and a small brass religious medallion (609-JR).

Figure 33. Complete Dutch clay tobacco pipe with a crowned rose maker’s mark (877-JR).

2424

bearing the stamp of what may be the first Euro-pean tobacco pipemaker in the New World. RobertCotton is identified as a Tobacco-pipe-maker on JohnSmith’s list of individuals who arrived at Jamestownon the Phoenix in January 1608.56 No other men-tion is made of Cotton so it is not known how longhe remained at Jamestown or if he actually prac-ticed his trade in the colony. He is not mentionedin the muster of 1624-25 so presumably he has ei-ther perished or returned to England by then. Witharchival information lacking, the material evidencein the way of very accomplished mold-made claytobacco pipes fabricated from the Virginia red clayand decorated on the stem with European stampsmay provide the sole documentation for this earlycraftsman’s work. These distinctive pipes only oc-cur in the early James Fort features dating no laterthan 1610—Pits 1, 3, and 4—and have not beenrecorded on any other early Virginia sites.

Samples of these pipes were submitted for analy-sis to determine if the clay was from the Jamestownarea. Kimberly Schlussel, a geology student at theCollege of William and Mary, synthesized the pipedata from binocular microscope, X-ray diffraction,neutron activation analysis and textural analysis forher senior thesis. Her findings, which are on filewith Jamestown Rediscovery, are consistent with thetobacco pipes being local products.

The decorative marks on the pipes are of twotypes and must have been applied by small metalstamps to the leather-hard pipe once it was removedfrom the mold. Sometimes the pipe stems are oc-tagonally faceted before they are stamped. The fac-eted pipe stems go from octagonal to round, just asa 17th-century musket barrel, before the stem end.

The stamps consist of four fleur-de-lis forming across within a diamond-shaped cartouche. The sidesof the diamond are incurving as on the 1580-1610pipes thought to be the product of WilliamBatchelor.57 Batchelor was a London pipemaker asmust have been Robert Cotton. Clay tobacco

pipemaking began as an industry in London in thelatter half of the 16th century and was almost en-tirely restricted there by monopoly until the seconddecade of the 17th century.58 Another indication ofLondon influence is seen in Cotton’s mark. It re-flects the decoration on late 16th- and early 17th-century London pipes which most often take theform of incuse “diamond patterns enclosing initials,crosses or fleur-de-lis” on the stems.59

The most commonly used mark, Type 1 (n=22),consists of incuse stylized fleur-de-lis; while, the sec-ond mark, Type 2 (n=2), has relief fleur-de-lis withbroader leaves. Accompanying the Type 2 mark is asecondary stamp of the same broad-leaf fleur-de-lisbut incuse and without the surrounding diamond.The Type 1 mark is usually applied around the stemin rows of 3 to 4 impressions which, if applied care-fully, result in a negative pattern of rows of circles.Sometimes the area of stem on the bottom of thepipe is left unmarked. Type 2 is usually applied verygeometrically: two of the diamond stamps and twoof the plain stamps are impressed to form a largerdiamond or four of the diamond stamps are im-pressed to form a diamond shape.

At least two two-piece molds appear to have beenused to form the pipes. This is reflected in the mea-surement of the angle of the bowl to the stem takenalong the lower planes. Five of the pipes had enoughof the bowl remaining to take this measurement.Two of them were molded with the bowl at a 132°angle to the stem. Both of these pipes had a stemhole diameter measurement of 5/64”. The remain-ing three measurable pipes were molded with bowlsat a 117° angle to the stem. These pipes had stemhole diameter measurements of 6/64”. It is notknown if this statistic is significant since so few ofthe stems included enough of the bowl to calculatethe angle.

Two of the pipes had complete bowls, one mea-suring 22mm in length and the other 23mm inlength. There were no complete stems but an idea

Figure 34. Faceted Robert Cotton tobacco pipe (527-JR),bearing the Type 1 mark.

Figure 35. Left: the Type 1 mark. Right: the Type 2mark appearing on Robert Cotton clay tobacco pipes.

2525

of length is suggested by a Robert Cotton pipe ex-cavated recently from Pit 4 which has an incom-plete stem measuring 88mm in length.

Nineteen of the pipes had stems complete enoughto measure the stem hole diameter (SHD). Eight ofthese measure 5/64” and 10 measure 6/64”. Theone measurable pipe with the Type 2 mark mea-sures 8/64th of an inch. This substantially large stemhole with the different decoration may be impor-tant but until more pipes can be studied with theType 2 mark this can not be established.

This is just a preliminary study of what appearsto be one of the first crafts practiced in theJamestown colony. It has long been known fromthe records that there was a pipemaker in the colonyduring its first year of existence but until now hisproducts were unknown. The presence of this crafts-man at early Jamestown and the fact that he prac-ticed his craft could indicate how important smok-ing was to the early colonists. They knew they werecoming to a place where tobacco was readily avail-able. Not only was tobacco known as an intoxicant,

the fuming vapor of tabacco wil cause some to bedrunke,& to have a reeling giddines in theirheads…

60

but it was also considered by many to be a medicinein the early 17th century.

The drie leaves of Tabacco are good to be used,taken in a pipe set on fire, and suckt into thestomacke, and thrust forth againe at the nostrelsagainst the paines of the head, rheumes, aches inany part of the body….

61

Did the Virginia Company include Cottonamong the first craftsmen as a way to keep the colo-nists happy and healthy? Was the assurance that the

colonists would have the proper instruments withwhich to consume the weed a medical move? Orwas a pipemaker sent to Virginia upon the insis-tence of the gentlemen among whom smoking wasa fashionable pastime? Perhaps Cotton’s role wassimilar to the jeweler Daniel Stallings–to make tradeitems that the indigenous population would acceptin exchange for food? Clay Native American pipesare certainly known from this period and Cotton’sproducts seem to be a melding of the native andEnglish traditions.

As Pit 4 is excavated there should be more datato add to the present study, perhaps even pipe wast-ers or pipemaking tools. From pits 1, 3, and 4 thereare fragments that appear to be of the same fabric asthe Robert Cotton pipes that are mending into ob-jects that look like pipemaking saggars. A saggar isa portable clay container in which the pipes wouldhave been fired to keep them out of direct contactwith the fire. This piece of kiln furniture would beparticularly necessary if the pipemaker were shar-ing his furnace with another craftsman. Tobaccopipes have been found with glazed products in En-glish 17th-century kilns.62

The saggars appear to have been unused, as thereis no fire damage to the outer surfaces. One is cylin-drical with cutouts and buttresses on at last two sides.The earliest archaeologically recovered cylindricalsaggar is from Barnstaple in North Devon, datedby pipe typology to c. 1610-30.63 A pipe from thesaggar has a maker’s mark on the heel of LC. Is thisjust coincidence, or could the C stand for Cottonand represent another pipemaker in Robert Cotton’sfamily? These and other questions will be addressedas excavation and research continue.

117˚

132˚

Figure 36. Robert Cotton tobacco pipes showing thebowl-to-stem angles created by two different pipe molds.

Figure 37. Fragments of a clay sagger probably madeby Robert Cotton to fire his clay pipes.

2626

txetnoC txetnoC txetnoC txetnoC txetnoC pmatS pmatS pmatS pmatS pmatSepyT kraMdesserpmIfonoitpircseD kraMdesserpmIfonoitpircseD kraMdesserpmIfonoitpircseD kraMdesserpmIfonoitpircseD kraMdesserpmIfonoitpircseD DHS DHS DHS DHS DHS

E96RJ 1 selcricsmrofecapsevitagen;esabnodepmatston,swor3fosnmuloc5 46/5

E96RJ 1;selcricsmrofecapsevitagen;esabnodepmatston,swor3fosnmuloc5

elgnamets-lwob°23146/5

E96RJ 1gnitecaflanogatco;esabnodepmatston;)etelpmocni(swor4fosnmuloc5

selcricsmrofecapsevitagen;stecaflauqenuhtiw46/6

E96RJ 1sworowttsriffoecapsevitagen;esabnodepmatston;swor4fosnmuloc7

evomdnateemhcihwsenilgnitaludnumrofsworowttsal,selcricsmrofelgnamets-lwob°711;rehtohcaemorfyawa

46/6

F96RJ 1 selcricsmrofecapsevitagen;esabnodepmatston;swor3fosnmuloc5 46/6

F421-F96RJ 1dnuorayawehtlladepmats;swor2fonmuloc1dnaswor3fosnmuloc5

;elgnamets-lwob°711;stecaflauqenuhtiwgnitecaflanogatco;metsgnolmm32,lwobetelpmoc

46/6

F96RJ 1 tnemgarfdesserpmiylpeeD a/n

F96RJ 1lauqenuhtiwgnitecaflanogatco;esabnodepmatston;swor3fosnmuloc5

gnolmm22,lwobetelpmoc;elgnamets-lwob°711;stecaf46/6

D421RJ 1 metsdnuorayawehtlladepmats;)etelpmocni(swor3fosnmuloc5 46/5

D421RJ 2 tnemgarF a/n

F421RJ 1;elgnatadesserpmispmatsowt;3-3-1-3-1-3:sworgniyravfosnmuloc6

dnuorayawehtlladepmats46/5

F421RJ 1 selcricsmrofecapsevitagen;esabnodepmatston;swor3fosnmuloc5 46/5

F421RJ 2lladepmats;).cni(ylgnisdepmats1,dnomaidmrofotdesserpmispmats4

dnuorayaweht46/8

F421RJ 1gnitecaflanogatco;dnuorayawehtlladepmats,).cni(swor3fosnmuloc8

selcricsmrofecapsevitagen;stecaflauqenuhtiw46/6

F421RJ 1ecapsevitagen;esabnodepmatston;2fonmuloc1,swor3fosnmuloc5

elgnamets-lwob°231;selcricsmrof46/5

F421RJ 1 esabnodepmatston;)etelpmocni(snmuloc3 46/6

F421RJ 1 dnuorayawehtlladepmats;)etelpmocni(snmuloc5 46/6

F421RJ 1 esabnodepmatston;swor3fosnmuloc5 46/6

F421RJ 1 dnuorayawehtlladepmats,)etelpmocni(snmuloc4 46/6

F421RJ 1 tnemgarF a/n

F421RJ 1 dnuorayawehtlladepmats;2-1-2-3-3-3:sworgniyravfosnmuloc6 46/5

F421RJ 1 tnemgarF a/n

H421RJ 1 dnuorayawehtlladepmats;)etelpmocni(snmuloc6 46/5

ANALYSIS OF ROBERT COTTON PIPES FROM PIT 3

2727

2828

2929

NOTES1 William Strachey, “A True Reportory of the Wreckand Redemption of Sir Thomas Gates, Knight,” in A Voy-age to Virginia in 1609, ed. Louis B. Wright (Charlottesville,VA: Univ. Press of Virginia, 1964), 79-81.2 William M. Kelso and Beverly A. Straube. 1996Interim Report on the APVA Excavations at Jamestown, VA(Richmond VA: Association for the Preservation ofVirginia Antiquities, 1997), 12-13.3Dennis Blanton. JR98 Excavation Report (On file,APVA Jamestown Rediscovery, 1998).4 Conventional wisdom is that the Zuniga map wasmade by copying John Smith’s map of Virginia.5 Philip L. Barbour, ed., The Complete Works of CaptainJohn Smith (1580-1631) (Chapel Hill: The Univ. ofNorth Carolina Press, 1986), I:217.6 Strachey, 64.7 Ralph Hamor, A True Discourse of the Present Estate ofVirginia in Barbour, II:242.8 Kelso and Straube, 5-7; Nicholas Luccketti andBeverly Straube. 1995 Interim Report, JamestownRediscovery (Richmond VA: Association for thePreservation of Virginia Antiquities, 1996), 46-48.9 Dr. Glen Izett, personal communication, 1997.10 Barbour, II:180181.11 Philip L. Barbour, ed., The Jamestown Voyages underthe First Charter 1606-1609 ( Cambridge: TheUniversity Press, 1969), 69.12 Andrew Saunders, personal communication, 1997.13 For example, powder magazines at FortMichilmackinac in MI and Fort Chiswell in VA.14 John Kenyon, personal communication, 1997.15 Barbour, 1986, II:325.16 Kelso and Straube, 10-11.17 Douglas Owsley, personal communication, 1998.18 Emily Williams, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation,personal communication, 1998.19Barbour, 1986, I:242.20 Annie Lash Jester and Martha Woodroof Hiden,Adventurers of Purse and Person Virginia 1607-1625 (Richmond, VA: Order of First Families of Virginia,1964), 49.21 Barbour, 1986, II:236.22 J.C. Harrington, “Memorandum for the Superinten-dent” (on file, APVA Jamestown Rediscovery), 1939.23 Gerald Johnson, “Preliminary Report on JamestownRediscovery Vibracores” (on file, APVA JamestownRediscovery), 1997.24 Testing done by Beta Analytical Inc., Feb. 19, 1998,Sample 1: 2000 +/- 40 BP, Sample 2: 2140 +/-40 BP.25 Luccketti and Straube, 43-47.26 Heather Lapham. Glass beads from 1607 James Fort,Jamestown, Virginia (Report submitted to the Associa-tion for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities, 1998).27 Kenneth Kidd and Martha Kidd. “A classification

system for glass beads for the use of field archaeolo-gists,” Canadian Historic Sites; Occasional Papers inArchaeology and History (Ottawa: Parks Canada, 1970),1:45-89. Reprinted in Proceedings of the 1982 GlassBead Conference, Research Records 16 (Rochester:Rochester Museum and Science, 1983), 219-258.28 Karlis Karklins. “Guide to the description andclassification of glass beads.” In Glass Beads, 2ndedition. Studies in Archaeology, Architecture andHistory (Ottawa: Parks Canada, 1985).29 Marvin Smith and Mary Elizabeth Good. EarlySeventeenth Century Glass Beads in the Spanish ColonialTrade (Greenwood: Cottonlandia Museum Publica-tions,1982), 53.30 Gerald Fenstermaker. “Early SusquehannockIroquois colored trade bead chart, 1550,” Archaeologi-cal Research Booklets III (Lancaster: 1974); Ira Smithand Jeffrey Graybill. “A report on the Shenks Ferryand Susquehannock components at the Funk site,Lancaster county, Pennsylvania,” Man in the Northeast(1977), 13:45-65.; Heather Lapham. “The analysis ofEuropean glass trade beads recovered fromMonogahela sites in Greene county, Pennsylvania”(Report submitted to the Bead Society of GreaterWashington, Washington, D.C., 1995).; MarthaSempowski. “Early historic exchange between theSeneca and the Susquehannock,” Proceedings of the1992 People to People Conference. Research Records23, (Rochester: Rochester Museum and ScienceCenter, 1992).; Charles Wray, Martha Sempowski andLorraine Saunders. Tram and Cameron: Two Early contactEra Sites. Research Records 21 (Rochester: RochesterMuseum and Science Center, 1991).; Smith and Good:51-52.31 Henry Miller, Dennis Pogue, and Michael Smolek,“Beads from the seventeenth century Chesapeake,”Proceedings of the 1982 Glass Bead Conference,Research Records 16 (Rochester: Rochester Museumand Science, 1983), 127-144. Marvin Smith. “Chronol-ogy from glass beads: the Spanish period in thesoutheast, c.A.D. 1513-1670,” Proceedings of the 1982Glass Bead Conference, Research Records 16 (Roches-ter: Rochester Museum and Science Division, 1983),147-158.32 Ian Kenyon and William Fitzgerald. “Dutch glassbeads in the northeast: an Ontario perspective,” Manin the Northeast 32 (1986), 1-34. Charles Wray.“Seneca Glass Trade Beads c. A.D. 1550-1820,”Proceedings of the 1982 Glass Bead Conference,Research Records 16 (Rochester: RochesterMuseum and Science Division, 1983), 41-49.33 Marvin Smith. “The chevron trade bead in NorthAmerica,” The Bead Journal 3(1) (1976), 15. Smith,1983: 148.

3030

34 Smith, 1983.35 Kathleen Deagan. Artifacts of the Spanish colonies ofFlorida and the Caribbean, 1500-1800 (Washington,D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1987), 180.36 Jeffery Brain. Tunica Treasures (Cambridge, MA: ThePeabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnography,Harvard University, 1979).37 Deagan, 18238 Michael Mitchiner. Jetons, Medalets & Tokens: TheMedieval Period and Nuremberg (London: Seaby, 1988),I:320.39 Luccketti and Straube, 25.40 Mitchiner, I:979.41 Geoff Egan and Frances Pritchard, Dress Accessoriesc.1150-1450 (London: HMSO, 1991),334.42 Diana Scarisbrick. Tudor and Jacobean Jewellery(London: Tate Publishing, 1995), 93.43 Robert Sténuit. “Early Relics of the VOC trade fromShetland: The wreck of the flute Lastdrager lost off Yell,1653,” The International Journal of Nautical Archaeologyand Underwater Exploration (1974) 3.2:243.44 Jeremy N. Green. The Loss of the VerenigdeOostindische compagnie jacht “Vergulde Draeck, WesternAustralia 1656, BAR Supplementary Series 36(I)(1977), 449.45 Anonymous, The Coinhunter Magazine. (1995) 53: 7.46 Deagan, 182-183.47 Green, 223.48 Laurence Flanagan. Ireland’s Armada Legacy (Dublin:Gill and Macmillan Ltd., 1988), 179.49 Egan, personal communication, 1997.50 Kevin Sharpe, “Stuart Monarchy and PoliticalCulture” in John Morrill ed., The Oxford Illustrated

Hisory of Tudor and Stuart Britain (Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 1996).51 Philip L. Barbour. “Captain George Kendall:Mutineer or Intelligencer?” The Virginia Magazine ofHistory and Biography, (1962) LXX:312.52 D.H. Duco, De Nederlandse Kleipijp (Leiden: StichtingPijpenkabinet, 1987), 88.53 Duco, 72.54 Adrian Oswald. Clay pipes for the Archeologist, BritishArchaeological Reports 14 (1975), 34.55 Stephen Moorhouse. “Finds from Basing House,Hampshire (c.1540-1645): Part Two,” Post MedievalArchaeology (1971) 5:74-75.56 Barbour, II:162.57 Oswald, 76.58 Colin Andrew Tatam. “The Clay Tobacco PipeIndustry in the Parish of Newington, Southwark,London,” The Archaeology of the Clay Tobacco Pipe XIII.ed. by Peter Davey. BAR British Series 239, (1994), 5.D. J. Markell:. “The Clay Tobacco Pipes,” in Ian P.Horsey. Excavations in Poole1973-1983 (Dorchester:Dorset History and Archaeological Society, 1992),159.59 Oswald, 96.60 Edmund Garniner (1611) Phisicall and ApprovedMedicines. The English Experience Number 191 (NewYork: Da Capo Press, 1969), 53.61 Garniner, 18.62 Allan Peacey. “The development of the tobacco pipekiln in the British Isles,” Internet Archaeology 1:11.1.2(http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue 1/Peacey/furn.html).63 Peacey, 1:6 (http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue 1/Peacey/ch5a.html).

3131

3232

3333

3434

THE ASSOCIATION FOR THE PRESERVATION OF VIRGINIA ANTIQUITIES204 W Franklin Street, Richmond, VA 23220