5: Artifact Descriptions This chapter presents descriptions of the arti- HAFTED BIFACE facts recovered during the data recovery at Sites One complete hafted biface was recovered from 44NR0009 and 44NR0012. Prehistoric artifacts Feature 6 (Stratum I). This heavily sharpened, are discussed first, followed by historic artifacts, or retouched, hafted biface, fashioned from jas- which represent the primary component of the per, most closely resembles the Big Sandy type, site that was the focus of data recovery. which has been dated to the Early Archaic period (8000–6000 BC) (Justice 1995:60–63) (Figure PREHISTORIC ARTIFACTS 5.1). Data recovery at Sites 44NR0009 and 44NR0012 INFORMAL TOOLS yielded 21 prehistoric artifacts, all of which were recovered from historic deposits (and thus were Two informal quartzite tools were recovered from redeposited, either intentionally or inadvertently, Feature 6. One of these is a broken hafted biface by the historic-era occupants of the two sites). Of with utilized edges from Stratum I, and the other this amount, one (5%) is from Feature 1 at Site is a utilized flake from Stratum II (Figure 5.2). 44NR0009 and 20 (95%) are from Feature 6 at Site 44NR0012. The prehistoric assemblages for INFORMAL GROUNDSTONE TOOLS each site are briefly described below and summa- Archaeologists recovered five informal ground- rized in Table 3 and Appendix A. stone tools all from Feature 6 deposits. Represented Treatment of artifacts in this section is descrip- types include two complete quartzite hammer- tive and intended to give a general characterization stones (Stratum I), one quartzite mano/pestle of the material. Artifacts are described according (Stratum I), one quartzite metate (Stratum III), to standard categories, as defined in Chapter 2. and one unidentified, groundstone tool fragment (Stratum III) (see Figure 5.2). Site 44NR0009 FIRE-CRACKED ROCK INFORMAL TOOL Feature 6 yielded 10 pieces of fire-cracked rock Stratum II of Feature 1 yielded one utilized (six quartzite, three quartz, and one unidentified). quartzite flake. Seven of these came from Stratum I, two from Site 44NR0012 Stratum II, and one from Stratum III. DEBITAGE HISTORIC ARTIFACTS Two pieces of debitage (one quartz and one The study of the recovered artifact assemblage quartzite) were recovered from Stratum I of and material culture offers a valuable means of Feature 6. gaining insight into the daily lives and behavior of 163 Figure 5.1. Site 44NR0012, Big Sandy hafted biface (8000–6000 BC) (Feature 6 Stratum I). Figure 5.2. Site 44NR0012, selected prehistoric artifacts (hammerstone (F6 I); mano (F6 I); hafted biface (F6 I); unidentified, broken hafted biface [F6 III]). 164 ARTIFACT TYPE QUARTZ QUARTZITE JASPER UNIDENTIFIED HAFTED BIFACES Big Sandy 1 Subtotal 1 INFORMAL TOOLS Utilized Flakes 2 Utilized (Broken) 1 Hafted Biface Subtotal 3 INFORMAL GROUNDSTONES Hammerstones 2 Mano/Pestle 1 Mettate 1 Unidentified 1 Subtotal 4 1 DEBITAGE 1 1 FIRE-CRACKED ROCK 3 6 1 TOTAL 4 14 1 2 TableTable 3. 3. Sites Sites 44NR0009 44NR0009 andand 44NR0012, 44NR0012, prehistoric prehisto artifactsric artifacts by rawby rmaterial.aw material. the historic period occupants at Sites 44NR0009 interpret time periods of activity and deposition, and 44NR0012. Analysis of ceramics, glass, and in consideration with the features and deposits faunal remains, for example, can provide clues from which they came, to interpret possible about socioeconomic status, diet, and refuse dis- changes in site development and usage over the posal patterns of households and the community course of the eighteenth and early nineteenth over time, which can provide a much better un- centuries. As described in the previous chapter, derstanding of how communities like Newtown the thousands of artifacts and dozens of features and its inhabitants shaped and contributed to the from these sites are vestiges of a rich, seemingly history of colonial Virginia and the United States unbroken continuum of activity in highly discrete than the incomplete record, alone, can provide. concentrations that can be tapped for valuable The following is a presentation of the results of information about the people who lived here over certain analyses of artifacts recovered from fea- the course of Newtown’s existence. tures and deposits associated with the occupants The analysis focused on ceramic artifacts, but of Sites 44NR0009 and 44NR0012 during the includes others as well, such as glass, faunal re- first quarter of the eighteenth century into the mains, architectural material, tools, and personal first quarter of the nineteenth century. The as- items. The data are integrated with historical semblages from these sites have been examined to and archaeological evidence to help identify the 165 socioeconomic status of the occupants at Site Site 44NR0012 ceramic cross-mends exist 44NR0009 and 44NR0012 and to reconstruct between 65 vessels throughout Feature 6 deposits, their life ways. This presentation is preceded but mostly from Strata I–III. At least 12 different by a discussion of ceramic cross-mendings and forms are represented, including bowls, saucers, mean ceramic dates for the sites. This informa- plates, cups, pans, mugs, dishes, tea bowls, tea tion contributes to the interpretation of the sites pots, pots, jars, and chamber pots (see Appendix by revealing refuse disposal patterns, activity E). areas, and intensity of occupation, and episodes Glass vessel fragments from Sites 44NR0009 of abandonment. Artifact analyses, coupled with and 44NR0012, though not as prolific as ceram- feature data, are used to address research issues ics, represent portions of 132 identified vessels. in Chapter 6. The 26 glass vessels from Site 44NR0009 include 16 wine bottles, three tumblers, three phials, two Summary of Historic Ceramic Cross-mend stemware, one case bottle, and one indeterminate and Mean Ceramic Date Analyses tableware. Site 44NR0012 glass vessels (n=106) include 42 wine bottles, 26 phials, 13 stemware, Ceramic cross-mending is a valuable analytical eight tumblers, eight case bottles, three dram tool for establishing relationships between features glasses, two indeterminate tableware vessels, and strata (Noel Hume 1985: 267). It has the and one each of a salt, a possible sugar bowl, an potential to provide information on refuse dis- oil/vinegar bottle and a bottle of indeterminate posal practices and activity areas. Ceramic cross- function. mending at Site 44NR0009 and 44NR0012 was The distribution of vessel mends at Sites undertaken as part of the vesselization of sherds 44NR0009 and 44NR0012 suggests that refuse (see Laboratory Methods in Chapter 2). Site was not transported in large amounts across 44NR0009 yielded a minimum of 139 ceramic these sites. At least nine ceramic vessels (Vessels vessels, while vesselization and mending analysis 6, 14, 44, 60, 71, 78, 87, 90, and 92) at Site resulted in identification of a total of 312 vessels, 44NR0009 document cross-mends and an asso- at minimum, represented in the assemblage from ciation between deposits, some of these at quite Site 44NR0012 (see Appendices A and E). a distance from each other such as Vessels 14, Site 44NR0009 includes two vessels with 44, and 89 from Features 1 and 4. Cross-mends cross-mends from different features. Specifically, between strata within features, such as in Feature fragments of a single Staffordshire slipware cham- 4 at Site 44NR0009, and in Features 6 and 10 at ber pot (Vessel 78) were recovered from Features Site 44NR0012, suggests that these features may 4 and 56, contiguous trash pits in the northwest have been filled over a fairly brief period of time, corner of the site. In addition, fragments from a though the presence of a few pieces of creamware single Buckley coarse earthenware bowl (Vessel suggests that the initial deposits were probably 14) were recovered from Feature 4 and from cellar capped with additional deposits later in the eigh- Feature 1. Features 1 and 4 are the most spatially teenth century, as the initial fill deposits subsided distinctive early colonial period features on the over time creating surface depressions that once site, separated by nearly 27 m (88.5 ft.). Both again became attractive for trash disposal. features yielded among the highest number of ar- In general, the broader periods within the tifacts (n=1,283 and n=1,725, respectively) of any eighteenth century in which temporally diagnostic features at the two sites, and each was abandoned artifacts and features can be categorized include about the same time during the second quarter of ca.1720–1750s (Period I), ca. 1750–1770s the eighteenth century. (Period II), and ca. 1770–1820s (Period III). 166 The mean ceramic date formula developed by relatively late in the occupation of the two sites. Stanley South (1977:68–82) has become an ac- The Period III artifacts likely represent ephemeral cepted standard type of analysis used to establish activity or much less intensive occupation very the period of major activity at British-American late in the history of settlement in Newtown, or colonial sites, based upon the relative quantities of perhaps even following abandonment of the town, various ceramic ware types represented in a given as the landscape transitioned back into farmland. assemblage in light of the documented manufac- Given that most of the mean ceramic dates and ture date ranges for the specific ware types. The TPQs for the features and deposits generally fall period of major activity may also be thought of within the first half of the eighteenth century, as the period of major sherd breakage. South’s activities on the sites may have indeed peaked formula is based on sherd counts and assumes late in Period I or early in Period II, a decade or a high frequency of sherds are those that were so prior to the American Revolution and other in greatest use. The mean ceramic date derived (transitional) events in Newtown’s history (see from the formula should, according to South, Chapter 3, Historical Background).