USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Historical archaeology of the Indian Key (8MO15) warehouse

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Historical archaeology of the Indian Key (8MO15) warehouse an analysis of nineteenth-century ceramics
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Lamb, Lisa Nicole
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla.
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
jacob housman
ironstone
monroe county
pearlware
whiteware
Dissertations, Academic -- Applied Anthropology -- Masters -- USF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Summary:
ABSTRACT: This thesis describes the archaeological investigation of the Warehouse Complex on Indian Key (8MO15), Monroe County, Florida, through the study of the ceramics recovered from excavations conducted there by the State of Florida from 1972 to 1973 and by the University of South Florida from 1998 to 2002. The Warehouse Complex is composed of two distinct architectural areas, referred to as Feature A and Feature C. This complex lies on the north shore of Indian Key, located in the Atlantic Ocean in the Middle Keys near Islamorada, Florida. The town of Indian Key was founded in the early 1820s, and was burned by a group of Spanish Indians in 1840, during the Second Seminole War. Despite the disbanding of the main community at Indian Key following the 1840 attack, the island and its remaining structures experienced re-use throughout the 1800s and into the early 1900s by various groups, including the United States Navy, farmers, shipbuilders, and fishers. Despite its relatively populated history, little historical documentation exists detailing the occupation of Indian Key throughout the nineteenth century. This study used current historical archaeological methods to examine the ceramics left behind in archaeological deposits in the warehouse. This examination had several goals: to add to the known history of the island, to re-construct the lifeways of the people who lived at Indian Key, to determine the use (and re-use) of this specific area on the island, and to identify specific functional areas within the warehouse.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.A.)--University of South Florida, 2003.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Lisa Nicole Lamb.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 309 pages.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 001441461
oclc - 53994179
notis - AJM5901
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0000134
usfldc handle - e14.134
System ID:
SFS0024830:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

Historical Archaeology of the I ndian Key (8MO15) Warehouse: An Analysis of Ninet eenth-Century Ceramics by Lisa Nicole Lamb A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Anthropology College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Bren t R. Weisman, Ph.D. Member: Robert H. Tykot, Ph.D. Member: Nancy Marie White, Ph.D. Date of Approval: October 16, 2003 Keywords: Monroe County, pearlware, whiteware, ironstone, Jacob Housman Copyright 2003, Lisa Nicole Lamb

PAGE 2

Dedication This thesis is dedicated to my mother, in gratitude for her unwavering support and encouragement, and her belief in the value of an education.

PAGE 3

Acknowledgments First and foremost, I would like to tha nk Dr. Brent R. Weisman for his patient guidance of this thesis. Hi s advice has been invaluable to my education as an archaeologist. I would also like to thank Dr. Nancy Marie White for taking me under her wing as a first-year student, and inviting me to participate in many of her projects. I am indebted to Dr. Robert H. T ykot for his ability always to find time for his students, despite his very busy schedule. Thank you all. The hard work of the students that pa rticipated in the 1998 and 1999 excavations as well as the graduate volunteers, David Bu tler, Jill Titcomb (ne Clay), Kelly Driscoll, and Lisa Tucker, is appreciate d. Kelly’s friendship and s upport in the years since has been invaluable. Also, thanks to Debbi e Roberson, the font of knowledge in the Anthropology Department, and to Lori Collins, M.A., for their help and advice. Both the FPS and the FOIASP provided much-needed fina ncial and logistical support. Property Manager Pat Wells and former and current park rangers Bill Cater, Rod Hamm, Melba Nezbed, Bob Rose, and Stephen Werndli were especi ally crucial to this project’s success. I am indebted to Henry Baker and Dave Di ckel of BAR for their loan of material related to the 1972-1973 excavations on Indian Key. I owe a big thank you to all of the employees of the Tampa office of Panamerican Consultants, Inc., especially Paul Jones, Lucy Jones, and Jim Ambrosino, for thei r support, knowledge, and encouragement. Finally, thank you to my wonderful fianc, Bobby Quinn, for prompting me to keep working! I love you.

PAGE 4

i Table of Contents List of Tables iv List of Figures v List of Acronyms viii Abstract x Chapter One: Introduction 1 Research Design 9 Objectives 9 Research Issues 10 Territorial Period (1821-1844) 11 Statehood Period (1845-1860) 12 Civil War Period (1861-1865) 13 Reconstruction Period (1866-1879) 15 Research Strategy 16 Chapter Two: Physical Setting 20 Geology of the Keys 20 Environment of the Keys 22 Hydrology 22 Physiographical Region and Land Use 24 Vegetation 26 Fauna 28 Climate 29 Chapter Three: Culture History 32 Regional Post-Contact History 32 History of Indian Key 43 Chapter Four: Methods 62 Archival Research 62 Informant Interviews 63 Field Methods 64 Site Mapping 65

PAGE 5

ii Surface Collection 66 Excavation of Test Units 67 Archaeological Monitoring 73 General Field Procedures 73 Laboratory Methods 74 Analysis of Historic Ceramics 77 Laboratory Documentation 78 Curation 79 Chapter Five: Architecture and Site Plan 80 Archaeological Background of the Warehouse Complex 86 Pre-1960 Excavations 87 Excavations by Irving Eyster 88 Excavations by the State of Florida 89 Excavations by the University of South Florida 92 1998 Field Season 92 1999 Field Season 96 2000 Field Season 98 2001 Field Season 100 2002 Field Season 100 Comparative Archaeological Studies 101 Cisterns 102 Warehouses and Similar Structures 104 Chapter Six: Classificati on of Historic Ceramics 108 Ceramic Manufacturing 109 Ware Types 110 Terracotta 111 Stoneware 112 Earthenware 113 Coarse Earthenware 114 Refined Earthenware 115 Creamware 116 Pearlware 117 Whiteware 117 The Classification of Whiteware vs. Ironstone 119 Porcelain 121 Vessel Decoration 123 Glazes 124 Decorative Patterns and Techniques 126 Vessel Shapes and Functions 132

PAGE 6

iii Ceramic Artifacts from Features A and C (8MO15) 134 Analysis of the Assemblage 134 Chapter Seven: Stratigraphy 138 Chapter Eight: Results 163 Conclusion 177 Public Archaeology 179 References Cited 184 Appendix 205 Appendix A: Catalog of Material Recovered 206

PAGE 7

iv List of Tables Table 3.1 Summary of the Periods of Occupation on Indian Key 46 Table 6.1 Chronology of Edged Decorati ons on Pearlware and Whiteware 130 Table 6.2 The Median Manufacture Dates and a Range of Known Manufacture Dates for Select Ceramic Types 135 Table 7.1 Mean Ceramic Date s for Deposits in Feature A 148 Table 7.2 Mean Ceramic Dates for Deposits in Feature C 149 Table 8.1 Form-Function Categories for Ceramic Vessels 173

PAGE 8

v List of Figures Figure 1.1. Map showing the location of Indian Key in Section 13 of Township 64 South, Range 36 East, on the Upper Matecumbe Key, Fla. 1971 USGS 7.5’ topographic quadrangle. 3 Figure 1.2. Map showing the location of the Warehouse Complex on Indian Key, along with other nearby archaeological features. 5 Figure 1.3. Map of Indian Key in 1840, as drawn by Henry Perrine, Jr. 6 Figure 1.4. Photograph of features A (left) and C (right) of the Warehouse Complex, facing grid west. 6 Figure 1.5. Photograph of Feature A of the Warehouse Complex during the 1998 excavation, facing grid northwest. 7 Figure 1.6. Photograph of the cleared floor of Feature C of the Warehouse Complex, facing grid west. 7 Figure 2.1. Map showing the approximate ex tent of Florida’s shoreline during the Paleoindian Stage, wh en sea levels were 130 to 165 feet below those at present. 21 Figure 2.2. Photograph of the remains of two cisterns on Indian Key, taken from the observation tower near the center of the island, facing southeast. 23 Figure 2.3. Photograph of the Matheson House on Lignumvitae Key, showing the covered cistern at the rear of the house. 31 Figure 3.1. Reproduction of a portio n of John James Audubon’s “Booby Gannet, male” drawing, showing the background landscape that appears to represent Indian Key in the 1830s, possibly with Lower Matecumbe Key in the background. 50 Figure 3.2. Map of Indian Key showi ng the layout of the town in 1840, from the base map drawn by Charles Howe. 52

PAGE 9

vi Figure 3.3. Illustration of “Indian Key, The Wrecker’s Rendezvous,” drawn ca. 1870. 58 Figure 4.1. Map showing the locations of all test units excavated by USF in Feature A of the Warehouse Complex, as well as Baker’s (1973) Trench 1 (Sections 1 through 5). 68 Figure 4.2. Map showing the locations of all test units excavated by USF in Feature C of the Warehouse Complex. 69 Figure 4.3. Map showing the locations of all 3 x 3 m test squares excavated by Baker (1973) in features A a nd C of the Warehouse Complex. 72 Figure 4.4. Map showing the locations of all trenches excavated by the FPS in Feature A of the Warehouse Complex. 75 Figure 4.5. Map showing the locations of all trenches excavated by the FPS in Feature C of the Warehouse Complex. 76 Figure 4.6. Photograph of conservation efforts in Feature A, facing grid west. 77 Figure 5.1. Profile of the trench dug along the grid north wall of Feature A during Baker’s 1972 investigation. 90 Figure 5.2. Plan view of the possible co lumn support in the grid southeast corner of Feature C. 91 Figure 5.3. Feature A filled with wate r prior to conserva tion, facing grid west. 97 Figure 7.1. Illustration of spatially ove rlapping excavation units in Feature A, and the mean ceramic date of each. 150 Figure 7.2. Illustration of spatially ove rlapping excavation units in Feature C, and the mean ceramic date of each. 150 Figure 7.3. Map of Feature A, illustrating the mean ceramic date for each provenience. 151 Figure 7.4. Map of Feature C, illustrating the mean ceramic date for each provenience. 152

PAGE 10

vii Figure 7.5. Plan view of the brick and plaster floor in the grid southwest corner of Feature C. 153 Figure 7.6. Key to representative profiles of the Warehouse Complex, Feature A. 155 Figure 7.7. Representative profile of th e entrance to Feature A on the grid east wall. 155 Figure 7.8. Representative profiles of areas with one plaster floor within Feature A. 156 Figure 7.9. Representative profiles of areas with two plaster floors within Feature A. 157 Figure 7.10. Modified Harris (1989) matrix, showing the sequence of depositional layers in Feature A. 158 Figure 7.11. Map of the plaster floor pa ttern within Feature A. 159 Figure 8.1. Ware frequency in Features A and C combined. 166 Figure 8.2. Ware frequency in Feature A. 167 Figure 8.3. Ware frequency in Feature C. 167 Figure 8.4. Examples of whiteware sh erds recovered from Feature A. 168 Figure 8.5. Examples of pearlware sh erds recovered from Feature A. 168 Figure 8.6. Spatial distribution of ceram ic artifacts by count in Feature A. 170 Figure 8.7. Spatial distribution of ceram ic artifacts by count in Feature C. 171 Figure 8.8. Examples of ceramic toys recovered from the warehouse. 176 Figure 8.9. Photograph of Features A and C of the warehouse, showing the rope barrier, faci ng grid northeast. 182

PAGE 11

viii List of Acronyms amsl – above mean sea level BAR – Bureau of Archaeological Research BD – below datum bmsl – below mean sea level CC – cream-colored DEP – Department of En vironmental Protection DNR – Department of Natural Resources FAS – Florida Anthropological Society FDHR – Florida Division of Historical Resources FOIASP – Friends of the Islamorada Area State Parks FMSF – Florida Master Site File FPS – Florida Park Service FS – field specimen GIS – Geographical Information Systems GPS – Geographical Positioning System MNV – Minimum Numb er of Vessels NAD – North American Datum NOAA – National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NRHP – National Register of Historic Places

PAGE 12

ix SAA – Society for American Archaeology SC – surface collection SEAC – Southeastern Archaeological Conference SHA – Society for Historical Archaeology USCGS – United States Coast Guard Survey USGS – United States Geographic Survey USF – University of South Florida UTM – Universal Transverse Mercator

PAGE 13

x Historical Archaeology of the Indian Key (8MO15) Warehouse: An Analysis of Nineteenth-Century Ceramics Lisa Nicole Lamb ABSTRACT This thesis describes the archaeologica l investigation of the Warehouse Complex on Indian Key (8MO15), Monroe County, Fl orida, through the st udy of the ceramics recovered from excavations conducted there by the State of Florida from 1972 to 1973 and by the University of South Florida fr om 1998 to 2002. The Warehouse Complex is composed of two distinct architectural areas referred to as Featur e A and Feature C. This complex lies on the north shore of Indian Key, located in the Atlantic Ocean in the Middle Keys near Islamorada, Florida. The to wn of Indian Key was founded in the early 1820s, and was burned by a group of Spanis h Indians in 1840, during the Second Seminole War. Despite the disbanding of the main co mmunity at Indian Key following the 1840 attack, the island and its rema ining structures experienced re-use throughout the 1800s and into the early 1900s by various groups, in cluding the United States Navy, farmers, shipbuilders, and fishers. Despite its rela tively populated history, little historical documentation exists detailing the occupati on of Indian Key throughout the nineteenth century. This study used current histori cal archaeological methods to examine the ceramics left behind in archaeological deposit s in the warehouse. This examination had

PAGE 14

xi several goals: to add to the known history of the island, to re-cons truct the lifeways of the people who lived at Indian Key, to determin e the use (and re-use) of this specific area on the island, and to identify specific functional areas within the warehouse.

PAGE 15

1 Chapter One: Introduction “About two o’clock in the morning of August 7th, 1840, my parents and sisters were awakened by the sound of rifles and muskets, the fall of glass from the broken window, and the yells of savages.” This passa ge, written by Henry B. Perrine (1885:20), recalls in vivid detail the tragic events of the day the community of Indian Key was attacked by Spanish Indians (w hose genesis is described in further detail in Chapter Three) looking for gunpowder in the midst of the Second Seminole War. Contrast that quote with one from Henry’s sist er Hester, recalling her first view of Indian Key in 1838: I cannot forget our delight on first seei ng this beautiful l ittle island – of only 12 acres. It was truly a “Gem of the Ocean.” The trees were many of them covered with morning glories of all colors, while the Waving Palms, Tamarinds, Papaws, Guavas, Sea-Side Grape tree, and many others too numerous to mention made it seem to us like fairy land, coming as we did from the midst of snow and ice (Walker 1947 [1845]:71). Indian Key today certainly seems like the island in Hester Perrine’s description. Its quiet solitude, unmarked by development, be ckons visitors to recall the famous day of its destruction. This is the st ory that has been told about In dian Key thus far. However, recent archaeological investigations have indi cated that there are interesting periods of the island’s history missing from its popular narrative, and that the two images of Indian Key – fire-swept chaos and deserted island – are only two of the many that can describe this busy location, alive with human activity throughout the nineteenth and twentieth

PAGE 16

2 centuries. The intent of this study is to a llow the historical archaeological record to provide insight into the sequence of occ upation at Indian Key, and the associated political, economic, and social structures of its various communities. Indian Key was first recorded as an ar chaeological site (8MO15) at the Florida Master Site File (FMSF) of the Bureau of Archaeological Research (BAR) in Tallahassee in 1951, and was listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in 1972. This thesis presents the results of the Univer sity of South Florida’s (USF) excavations conducted in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002. The 1998 and 1999 excavations took place as part of the archaeological field sc hools led by Dr. Brent R. Weisman, with Anna East assisting as the field supervisor in 1998 and the author assisting as the field supervisor in 1999. This thesis is also the resu lt of the internship of the author with the Florida Park Service (FPS) from January to June of 1999 (Lamb 1999b). Further work was conducted from 2000 to 2002, with Dr. Weisman serving as the principal investigator. Indian Key is an island of approximately 11 acres designated as a Historic State Park. It is located in the Atlantic Oc ean between Upper Matecumbe Key and Lower Matecumbe Key, near Islamorada, Florida. Indian Key is found in the north half of Section 13 of Township 64 South, Range 36 East on the Upper Matecumbe Key, Fla. 1971 USGS 7.5’ topographic quadrangle (Fig ure 1.1). The Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates for the cen ter of the key are Zone 17, Easting 532600, Northing 2751300 (North American Datum [ NAD] 27). The island is managed by the

PAGE 17

3 FPS, under the direction of property manage r Pat Wells, based at nearby Lignumvitae Key. Figure 1.1. Map showing the location of Indi an Key in Section 13 of Township 64 South, Range 36 East, on the Upper Matecumbe Key, Fla. 1971 USGS 7.5’

PAGE 18

4 8MO15 is a large site with 22 distinct ar chitectural and archae ological features, as defined by Henry Baker (1973) in his archaeological invest igations for the State of Florida in 1972 and 1973. The study presente d here focuses specifically on the ceramic artifacts recovered from features A and C. Feature A, together with Feature C, makes up the Warehouse Complex of Indian Key, located on the eastern side of the island (figures 1.2 and 1.3). For the purpose of clarity and ease in mapping and excavation, 60 (eastnortheast) of magnetic north was deemed grid north by USF in 1998 prior to the initiation of excavations. Throughout this report, direc tions that are not speci fically prefaced with the word “grid” are referring to magnetic di rections. Directions prefaced by the word “grid” are referring to th e established grid. Although features A and C are often consid ered together, as they are clearly related and have a common wall, the two features can be de scribed separately (Baker 1973:12-13). Features A and C combined measur e approximately 66 feet (ft.) (20 meters [m]) grid north-south and 46 ft. (14 m) grid east-west (Baker 1973:13; figures 1.4 to 1.6). Feature A lies to the grid south of Feature C, and was constructed by excavating a large, open, rectangular area from the coral bedrock, so that the leveled be drock floor of the feature lies approximately one meter below s ea level. This bedrock floor was at least partially covered in plaster to create a smoot h surface, and at least one additional plaster floor was created thereafter, in the grid nor theastern section of Feature A (Lamb 1999a; Weisman et al. 2001:11). It is presumed that the coral quarried to create Feature A was then used to construct the upper walls of f eatures A and C. Brick, mortar, and plaster were also used as construction materials. The most recent interpretation (espoused by

PAGE 19

5 Figure 1.2. Map showing the location of the Warehouse Complex on Indian Key, along with other nearby archaeological features.

PAGE 20

6 Figure 1.3. Map of Indian Key in 1840, as drawn by Henry Perrine, Jr. (Baker 1973:51 and Brookfield and Griswold 1985 [1949]:43, after Perrine 1885). Structure H is the loca tion of the warehouse. Figure 1.4. Photograph of features A (l eft) and C (right) of the Warehouse Complex, facing grid west.

PAGE 21

7 Figure 1.5. Photograph of Feature A of the Warehouse Complex during the 1998 excavation, facing grid northwest. Figure 1.6. Photograph of the cleared fl oor of Feature C of the Warehouse Complex, facing grid west.

PAGE 22

8 Weisman et al. 2001:12) of the floor of Feature A is that it is the base of a former cistern cut out of bedrock in 1838 by stonecutter and quarryman James A. Dutcher, who was contracted by Jacob Housman, the founde r of the 1830s community on Indian Key (Dutcher and Dutcher 1846). Feature C is at sea level, and its floor consists of bedrock smoothed over with plaster, overlain by a layer of brick and a second layer of plaster. It has seamless plastered walls, which also suggest a cistern function. In addition, shallow cuts in the bedrock are located outside of the grid east wall of Feature A, serving as gutters for drainage. These gutters run parallel to Second Street, which would have led grid north to the wharf. A clearer interpretation of the func tion of Feature A, which is one of the goals of this study, would also eluc idate the function of Feature C. This study aims to clarify the nature and function of f eatures A and C through the study of the ceramic artifacts recovered there. The warehouse is the largest architectura l feature of the historical site, whose earliest temporal component is the remains of a town built in the 1830s by Jacob Housman as a base for his wrecking and salv age operations. The I ndian Key warehouse, and the artifacts remaining in it, can tell us about the communal natu re of the site, the care and maintenance (and re-use) of the stru ctures, and the organization of the material goods. The importance of establishing a secu re temporal sequence of occupation is threefold. First, it will provide a basis for an updated public site in terpretation. Second, the archaeological interpretation will allow us to evaluate, refine, and amend the reliance on solely documentary interpretation. Third, it will answer research questions about a

PAGE 23

9 period in Florida’s history that is often overlooked: the Territor ial period. This period is often studied as part of the history of the Seminole Wars, but is less often investigated with regard to domestic households or co mmercial enterprises, both of which existed on Indian Key. The Territorial period also falls between the more academically popular Colonial periods (consisting of the First Spanish period, 1513-1763, the British period, 1763-1783, and the Second Spanish period, 17841821) and the Civil War period, and is thus less well documented than these two time periods in southern Florida. Research Design The creation of a research design is necessary to guide an archaeological investigation throughout the many stages from planning to publication. The research design for the excavation of the Indian Ke y Warehouse Complex, and specifically the analysis of the ceramics recovered from th e warehouse, serves several purposes. It outlines the goals of the research, defines the sequence of events to be completed, and provides a basis for the interpretation of data as well as an evaluation of the investigation’s results. Objectives The objectives of the 1998 and 1999 excavati ons were to locate and document the existence of any evidence of historic cultural activities within features A and C of the Warehouse Complex, as defined by Baker (1973), and its immediate surface surroundings. Cultural activities are typically manifested as artifacts, ecofacts, and structural remains. Archaeological surveys a ttempt to locate evidence of these activities

PAGE 24

10 using methods that are capable of identifying th e types of features expected at the site. At the Warehouse Complex, these activities could include conti nual or temporary occupation, and permanent residence or occasion al use. They are clearly evidenced by the structural remains, including the cut co ral bedrock foundation of Feature A and the brick and coral walls surrounding Feature A and Feature C. There are specific research questions that wi ll be addressed as part of this thesis. The research topics include the socioeconomic status of the Indian Key residents, the commercial or domestic functions of the ware house and its re-use over time by different communities, the impact of the wrecking ope rations on the 1830s community, the daily life of the island’s inhabitants, and networks of trade, tran sportation, and commerce. The project also aspires to su pport the research and pres ervation goals outlined in More Than Orange Marmalade: A Statewide Comprehensiv e Historic Preservation Plan for Florida (Tesar 1995) for the following contexts, which are potentially represen ted at Indian Key: Territorial Period (1821-1844), Stat ehood (1845-1860), Civil War (1861-1865), Reconstruction (1866-1879), Post-Reconstr uction (1880-1897), Turn-of-the-Century (1898-1916), World War I and Aftermat h (1917-1920), Boom Times (1921-1929), Depression and New Deal (1930-1940), World War II a nd Aftermath (1941-1949), and Modern Period (1950-present) (George 1995b, 1995c, 1995d, 1995e, 1995f, 1995g, 1995h, 1995i, 1995j, 1995k, 1995l). Research Issues The warehouse at Indian Key contains arti facts belonging to seve ral different time periods and discrete individuals and groups of people. Because this site may have a large

PAGE 25

11 variety of cultural components, research issues are defined for the most strongly represented periods: Territorial, Stat ehood, Civil War, and Reconstruction. Territorial Period (1821-1844) This period is bracketed by the years in which Florida became a Territory of the United States of America (1821) and became a state in the Union (1845). Research goals for this pe riod are defined for five areas: settlement patterns, economic development, social organi zation, military affairs, and transportation (George 1995b:163). Topics of inquiry related to settlement pa tterns include: the “prevalence, dispersal, and products of subsistence farming, and its in terrelationships with plantation agriculture and commercial communities;” the developmen t of rail, water, and road systems; the establishment and expansion of towns and co mmercial enterprises within towns, and the associated construction of buildings for government, business, and residential use (George 1995b:163). The focus of research efforts should be on recording the extent, spatially and temporally, of settlement s during this period (George 1995b:163). Research issues regarding economic de velopment should include the study of agricultural development and it s links to past practices and crops, especially including citrus groves, timber products, and cattle ranching. The “devel opment of systems of commerce, trade, transportation and the iden tity of import and e xport products” should also be studied (George 1995b:163). In the area of social organization, resear ch conducted on sites occupied during the Territorial period should include demographi c studies (using census, town, and church records, as well as other pertinent sources ), including studies of Native Americans,

PAGE 26

12 escaped slaves, and Caribbean, Central American, South American, and Spanish populations. Members of all of these ethnic or social groups and others, including the Spanish Indians, occupied Florida during the Territorial period (George 1995b). The most pressing issue in the research ar ea of military affairs is “site specific research to identify the location, extent, and composition of fortifica tions, arsenals, battle sites, and other military-related properties” (George 1995b:163). In the arena of transporta tion, the goal is to identify the extent of Territorial period “maritime, riverboat, railroad, and roadway networks” (George 1995b:163). These systems are directly tied to other areas of research, such as settlement patterns, agriculture production and ma rketing, and “the politic al, social, and economic interrelationships between coastal a nd inland communities” (George 1995b:163). Specific preservation goals ar e also given for this peri od, in order of priority. They include locating and eval uating properties of this peri od, conducting excavations at archaeological sites to determine diagnostic ar tifacts for this period and to establish the archaeological manifestations of “vari ous resource types,” acquiring significant properties related to this pe riod through the state, inte rpreting sites for the public, encouraging local government involvement in acquisition and preservation of significant properties, and nominating appropr iate properties to the NRHP. Statehood Period (1845-1860) The Statehood period refers to those years after which Florida was granted Statehood and prior to the initiation of the Civil War (George 1995c:164). Five research goal categories are also presented for this period: settlement

PAGE 27

13 patterns, economic development, social organi zation, military affairs, and transportation (George 1995c:167). The goals for research involving settlement patterns are similar to those given for the Territorial period, but also include the creation of a pr edictive model for the location of Statehood period sites, gi ven the documentation provided by “maps, manuscripts, and public land records” of the period (George 1995c:167). The research goals regarding economic de velopment are similar to those for the Territorial period (George 1995c). Social organization research goals include demographi c studies, including groups traditionally excluded from historical documen tation, such as Native Americans, escaped slaves, and Caribbean, Central American, South American, and Spanish populations (George 1995c:167). Research related to military affairs a nd transportation should focus on the same goals as those outlined for the Territorial period. The preser vation goals for this period are the same as those for the Territorial period, in the same order (George 1995c). Civil War Period (1861-1865) The Civil War lasted from 1861 to 1865. Florida seceded from the Union and joined the Confederacy in 1861. During this period, many of Florida’s resources were devoted to th e war effort (George 1995d). There are five areas for which research goals are listed during this period: military affairs, settlement patterns, economic development, social organization, and transportation. Regarding settlement patterns during the Civil War, some small communities may not have been rebuilt following the end of th e conflict, due to th eir destruction during

PAGE 28

14 periods of attack. The “extent of agricultu ral persistence geogra phically needs to be studied to determine from what locations and to what extent the state supplied products to the Confederacy” (George 1995d:170). Other to pics that should be examined include: “the maintenance or disruption of interrel ationships with plantation agriculture and commercial communities;… [developing a] predictive model for locating Civil War skirmish or battle sites; and understa nding community events ” (George 1995d:170). In the realm of economic development, research efforts should address the “continuity or cessation of ke y agricultural practices, financial activity, and the increase in smuggling and blockade running on Flor ida’s coastline” (George 1995d:170). An increase in salt works and cattle ranching o ccurred, and the distri bution and extent of these industries, as well as th eir persistence after th e war, is of resear ch interest (George 1995d). In terms of social organization, the research goal is once again to develop demographic studies, including an understanding of “social mobility and persistence” (George 1995d:170). For research regarding transportation, the goal is to identify the extent of Civil War period riverboat, rail, and roadway netw orks in Florida, wh ich can indicate the potential locations of “engagement s and skirmishes” (George 1995d:170). Archaeological artifacts related to th e Civil War may be located along these transportation networks (George 1995d). The preservation goals for this period ar e the same as those for the Territorial period, in the same order.

PAGE 29

15 Reconstruction Period (1866-1879) The Reconstruction pe riod refers to those years in Florida immediately following the e nd of the Civil War to 1879, chosen for the “economic and social transformations occurr ing in Florida,” although other historians have typically chosen the year 1876 to cl ose the Reconstruction period, based on the presidential election of that year (George 1995e:171). Four areas of research goals are given for this period: settlement patterns, economic development, social organization, and transportation (George 1995e:173). Research on settlement patterns during this period should focus on the premise that some small communities may have not been rebuilt following th e end of the Civil War, and some new communities were established. The themes of continuity and change should be examined (George 1995e). Research efforts regarding economic de velopment in the Reconstruction period should address the “persistence of key agricu ltural practices and fi nancial, commercial, and manufacturing activities following the war” (George 1995e:173). The geographic distribution and extent of cer tain industries, especially cattle ranching, should be examined. Site-specific information on “postbellum towns, rural communities, ranches, saw mills and naval stores operations, rail a nd river facilities and operating equipment” would also be useful (George 1995e:173). The research goal for understanding soci al organization duri ng the Reconstruction Period is to develop demogr aphic studies, including the marginalized populations mentioned previously.

PAGE 30

16 For transportation research, the goals are similar to those listed for the Civil War period, with the exception that transportation networks reveal more about settlement patterns and growth after the war, and do not indicate the location of military activities (George 1995e). The preservation goals for the Reconstruc tion period are to locate and evaluate previously unrecorded properties of this pe riod; conduct archaeological excavations at a range of sites from this context to dete rmine diagnostic artifacts and to recognize “archaeological manifestations of various resour ce types;” acquire significant sites of this period through the state; interp ret sites of this period stat ewide for the public; encourage local government to preserve and acquire these sites; and nominate appropriate Reconstruction period sites to the NRHP (George 1995e:174). Research Strategy The research strategy is composed of seven stages: a background investigation (including previous archaeologi cal research), a historic document search, the formulation of a predictive model based on previous survey s of the area and simila r types of historic sites, the field survey, laboratory work, data interpretation, and th e presentation of the results. The Monroe County soil survey and the relevant environmental literature were checked to compile an account of the e nvironmental setting and geological region in which Indian Key exists (presented in Chap ter Two). Previous archaeological work undertaken near the project area and in the Florida Keys was examined through a comprehensive search of the relevant arch aeological literature. The FMSF was checked for any previously recorded sites or struct ures in the project ar ea and to provide an

PAGE 31

17 indication of prehistoric and hi storic cultural activities in the vicinity of Indian Key (presented in Chapter Three). The historic document search was an exte nsive process, involving the compilation of all available primary and secondary source s related to the human occupation or use of Indian Key. These documentary sources were used to provide info rmation regarding the purpose of the settlement on Indian Key, the ex istence of discrete occupational periods, the construction of structur es on the key, and demographi c and personal information about the inhabitants of Indian Key. Thes e sources also provided a background for the interpretation of the political, economic, and social organization of the island’s population. A predictive model was created to identif y the areas that would provide the most relevant information to support the goals of the project. This model was based on the findings of Henry Baker (1973) from his 1972-1973 field investigations. Henry Baker was consulted by the author during the background research conducted for this investigation. Baker’s (1973) report listed th e existence of ninet eenthand twentiethcentury artifacts within secure contexts in th e stratigraphic layers of features A and C. Test units during the 1998 field season were placed to further elucidate the internal structural layout of the warehouse suggested by Baker (1973), as well as to examine previously unexcavated sections, such as the ce nter and far grid west areas of Feature A. Test units during the 1999 field season expa nded on the most contextually sound test units of the previous year, as well as those with the densest concentration of artifacts or those containing structural elements, such as a plaster floor.

PAGE 32

18 The field survey was conducted over the course of several seasons. Students enrolled in the 1998 and 1999 field schools s ponsored by USF and led by Dr. Weisman excavated Feature A (and Feature C, in 1998) of the Indian Key Warehouse Complex. Graduate student volunteers also participated in the 1999 excavations. Further work was completed in Feature A in informal cleanup sessions from 2000 to 2002, in preparation for conservation and stabilization work done by historical preser vationist Dr. Frank Matero of the University of Pe nnsylvania (Matero and Fong 1997). All laboratory work was completed at the archaeology laboratory in the Department of Anthropology on the Tampa cam pus of USF, under the supervision of Dr. Weisman. In addition to the artifacts collected during the USF excavations, an analysis of the ceramic artifacts collected in feat ures A and C by Henry Baker during the 19721973 state-sponsored excavations was undertaken by the author for inclusion in the study presented here. The interpretation of data for this paper was completed by the author, and is based on the ceramic archaeological assemblage accu mulated by Henry Baker and his team in 1972 and 1973, and by the USF excavations. The laboratory methods and basis of ceramic analyses are more fully described in ch apters four and six. The goal of this study is to interpret th e layout, function, and chr onological occupation and re-use of the Indian Key warehouse through an analysis of the cer amic artifacts recovered from there and their placement in secure stratigraphic contexts. The results of these excavations are presente d in several places, in addition to this thesis: in four interim reports (Lamb 1999, 2000; Weisman 2000b; Weisman et al. 2001)

PAGE 33

19 to the FPS at Lignumvitae Key, and at a poste r session at the 2002 meeting of the Florida Anthropological Society (FAS) in St. Peters burg, Florida (Weisman, Collins, Broadbent, and Lamb 2002). Future possible outlets fo r publication include further FAS meetings, the Society for American Archaeology (SAA) the Society for Historical Archaeology (SHA), the Southeastern Archaeological Conference (SEAC), The Florida Anthropologist and other master’s theses from USF.

PAGE 34

20 Chapter Two: Physical Setting Geology of the Keys The Florida Keys are a geological featur e unique within the continental United States. They lie in a southwest-extendi ng arc reaching from the tip of the Florida peninsula, near the city of Homestead and the metropolitan Miami area, to Key West. The total length of approximately 135 miles is divided into the upper and lower keys. The upper keys, of which Indian Key is a pa rt, extend from Bisca yne Bay to Big Pine Key and include the well-known Key Largo. Th e lower keys stretch from Big Pine Key to Key West, the southernmost point in the co ntinental United States. As well as being geographically distinguished from each ot her, the upper and lower keys are also geologically distinct. The upper keys are composed of Key Largo Limestone and are oriented in a northeast-southwest direction. The lower keys are composed of Miami Limestone and are oriented perpendicularly to the upper keys, in a linear northwestsoutheast direction (Lane 1986:1). The peninsula of Florida is the portion above sea level of the Floridan Plateau, a wide, flat, geologic feature that separates the Gulf of Mexi co from the Atlantic Ocean (Lane 1986:1). The edge of the plateau is on ly three to four miles from the Atlantic Coast, but stretches over 100 miles from the Gu lf Coast. The now submerged portion of this landform was occupied during the pe riod of the Pleistocene (1.8 million to 11,000

PAGE 35

21 B.P.) when sea levels were appreciably lower than they are at pres ent (Figure 2.1). The majority of the carbonate sediment in the ke ys is the result of accumulated sand and mud that has formed on top of late Pleistocen e bedrock during the past 7000 years (Randazzo and Halley 1997:255). Until about 4000 years ago, the Florida Keys were a ridge of dry land. Then the sea level rose to the point where water flowed through low spots in the ridge, creating islands. Sea level continues to rise gr adually today, having risen approximately six feet in the keys over the past 2000 years (Mueller and Winston 1997). Figure 2.1. Map showing the approximate ex tent of Florida’s shoreline during the Paleoindian Stage, when sea levels were 130 to 165 feet below those at present (from Milanich 1994:39).

PAGE 36

22 Coral reefs, living and dead, form a line around the southern rim of the Floridan Plateau’s escarpment. The dead coral reefs are the islands of the Florida Keys. The southern edge of the plateau lies approximate ly four to eight miles south of the keys. Living coral reefs grow in the shallow waters close to sunlight on the seaward side of the keys (Lane 1986:1). Environment of the Keys Hydrology Sources of freshwater are historically a nd currently scarce in the Florida Keys. The groundwater resources are shallow and quickly depleted, and water must be transported to the keys from the Florida pe ninsula. Water resources in southern peninsular Florida are not abunda nt either. This area has the most severe water problems of the state (Patton and Fernald 1984). Sout h Florida and the Florida Keys are underlain by the Biscayne (or Surficial) Aquifer (whi ch is highly saline in the keys) and the Floridan Aquifer, both of which are replenis hed by rainfall (Hyde 1975). The limestones of the Floridan Aquifer underlie all of Florida and supply gr ound water to most of these areas, except in the southernmost and wester nmost parts of Florid a (including the keys) (Hyde 1975). On some of the larger islands in the lowe r keys, there are freshwater lenses that float on top of more saline groundwater. Thes e freshwater lenses ar e typically recharged by rainfall, and are critical for the survival of wildlife on these isla nds (LaPointe 1997). Historically, cisterns were used to catch ra inwater, and this was certainly the case on

PAGE 37

23 Indian Key, where the archaeological remains of at least nine cisterns still exist (Baker 1973) (Figure 2.2). Figure 2.2. Photograph of the remains of tw o cisterns on Indian Key, taken from the observation tower near the center of the island, facing southeast. This lack of water resources in the ke ys is documented historically by Hester Perrine, a daughter of botanist Dr. Henry Perrine and a survivor of the attack on Indian Key during the Second Seminole War. She recalls the day she accompanied her father to “Lower Matecumba.” Lower Matecumbe, as it is now known, is a separate key located approximately three-quarters of a mile to the northwest of Indian Key. Hester Perrine and her father were walking along the beach when they came across a “Fairy Grotto” (Walker 1947 [1845]:71-72). She describes it as a “small sparkling spring perhaps ten or fifteen feet across; various cacti in bloom & fruit, with other flowers upon the banks; the overarching trees interlacing their boughs, while innumerable air plants in full bloom

PAGE 38

24 added brilliancy to the scene, the sun scar cely penetrating. I shall never forget my amazement & delight” (Walker 194 7 [1845]:72). Her delight refl ected the rar ity of this occurrence within the keys. Her brother Henry also noted th e lack of freshwater in th e keys, stating that “there were no wells at Indian Key. The only water available for drinking or washing purposes was rain water collected in cisterns built above ground, and in casks” (Perrine 1885:17). During the dry season they had to collect water by filling barrels from a sinkhole on Lower Matecumbe, presumably the “fairy grotto” described a bove (Perrine 1885:17). Physiographical Region and Land Use The elevation at Indian Key ranges from 0 ft. (0 m) to 8 ft. (2.4 m) above mean sea level (amsl). Indian Key is located di rectly on the boundary between the Low Coral Keys physiographic region to the north and th e Oolite Keys physiographic region to the south, both of which are part of the Distal or Southern Z one (White 1970:Map 1-C). The surface of the Low Coral Keys is smooth and flat in the center of the keys, and slopes gently downward toward the shore. White (1970:20) observes that the surface of these keys was created when the sea level was approxi mately four to five feet higher than the present sea level. Indian Key, along with Key West was one of the first inhabited cities in the keys. Jacob Housman chose this location to create a town due to its geographical positioning, which was central to his plan to cond uct a wrecking business from the island. Shipwrecks, especially during the First Span ish period (ca. A.D. 1500 to 1763) were due to several factors, including th e use of ships that were not seaworthy, a lack of accurate

PAGE 39

25 navigational tools, and an absence of na vigational maps and information about the Florida Straits (Schene 1976:7). Although na vigational information increased in time, wrecks still occurred, mainly due to incr eased commercial traffic through the Florida Straits. The location of wrecking settle ments was dependent on a good, deep harbor, a nearby source of fresh water, and closeness to a dangerous reef upon which ships were likely to wreck (Schene 1976:15). Indian Key was a good location for Housman to establish a town with a wreckingbased economy due to its isola tion, its situation opposite Alli gator Reef, and its proximity to Carysfort Reef, 35 miles awa y, considered the most dangerous part of the reef (Schene 1976:37). In 1848, the collector of customs in Key West wrote, “the portion of these reefs which has proved most dest ructive to commerce, is that which lies between Indian Key and Key Biscayne, a distance of about eigh ty miles. No American survey has ever been made of it, and that of [George] Gaul d, if I am not mistaken, embraced only a part of Carysfort Reef” (Ware 1982:234) In addition to its proximity to several reefs and its isolation, Indian Key was loca ted midway between the two predominant settlements of the 1830s in that region, Key West to the sout h and Key Biscayne to the north. Indian Key also had the advantage of possessing a rela tively deep harbor. Large vessels could come over the 19 feet of water over the reef in the Atlantic Ocean, a nd boats that did not draw more than nine feet of water could come to the shore of Indian Key. The presence of a freshwater source at nearby Lower Matecumbe Key was an additional enticement (Schene 1976:38-39).

PAGE 40

26 Concerns about navigational safety pr ompted the placement of day markers, which were painted iron poles, 36 fe et tall, with barrels attached to the top. Despite this measure, more than 600 vessels were wrecked along the reefs of the keys between 1848 and 1858, for an estimated loss of 22 million dollars (Bansemer 2002). To further aid in navigation, the Alligator Reef lighthouse was constructed and was first lighted on November 25, 1873 (Dean 1998:212). Sections of the lighthouse were assemb led on Indian Key in the early 1870s (Dean 1998:211). Its original estimated cost was $130,000, but the U.S. Congress eventually appropriated $185,000 in funds for its construction. The plea for a lighthouse in this district stated that w ith its construction on Alligator Reef, “the entire extent of this dangerous coast and reef will be perfectly lighted as it is believed any capable and intelligent mariner could desire ” (National Archives 1873). Regarding the process of its construction, the historical record states that: It is erected in a very exposed position upon the northeast extremity of Alligator Reef, in five feet of wate r, but within two hundred yards of the deep water of the Gulf. The neares t land, Indian Key, four miles to the westward, has been used during the er ection of the structure as a depotquarters for the mechanics and laborers employed upon the work, and for machine shop, smithy, &c. A new wharf was built at this key, upon which were landed the materials of the li ght-house when sent from the North, where the iron-work of the structure, with the keeper’s dwelling and lantern, were manufactured [National Archives 1873]. Vegetation The soil series mapped for Indian Key by the Soil Survey of Monroe County, Keys Area, Florida is Pennekamp gravelly muck, 0 to 2 percent slopes, extremely stony (Hurt et al. 1995:Inset, Sheet Number 20). Pennekamp gravelly muck is well drained and

PAGE 41

27 is found on tropical hammocks in the uplands of the upper keys. The characteristics of the soil found in the area of features A and C are further discussed in Chapter Seven, but Pennekamp gravelly muck generally supports tropical hammock vegetation, such as poisonwood, gumbo-limbo, wild tamarind, strangle r fig, wild coffee, and canella. This type of mesic environment is classified by the Florida Natural Ar eas Inventory (1990:1112) as a Coastal uplands: maritime hammock natural community. In the case of Indian Key, the natu ral vegetative environment has been extensively altered by human intervention. The famous botanist Dr. Henry Perrine moved to Indian Key in 1837. His purpose was to create an experi mental tropical plant station. He chose Indian Key for its tropical cl imate, its prior estab lishment as a town, its available acreage for plants, and its proximity to Charles Howe, his friend with whom he had been corresponding (Carter 1998). With him, he brought exotic and tropical specimens (including seeds and plants) from Me xico, where he had served as one of one hundred Consuls appointed by the State Depart ment. Dr. Perrine and his wife, Ann, had been stationed in Campeche, Mexico, on the Yucatan Peninsula. While there, President John Quincy Adams commissioned him (and the other Consuls) to find trees and plants that could be grown in the United States a nd provide useful products, such as “timber; grains, fruit and vegetable seeds and plants for food; and plants for medicines” (Carter 1998:21). Dr. Perrine followed this directive whol eheartedly, and U.S. Senate Document 300, 25th Congress, 2nd session, 1837-38, provides informa tion regarding plants brought to the keys by Dr. Perrine (Baker 1973:38). A shortened version of this list includes

PAGE 42

28 agave, arrow root, cashew nuts, cassava, coffee arabica, cotton vine, several varieties of flax, grass rope, grass cordage, sisal he mp, mango, pulque, strawb erry prickly pear, tamarind, tobacco, and turmeric (Baker 1973:38-39). Several of these species are still present on the key today, including sisal hemp, sea grape, and tamarind trees. Along with Dr. Perrine’s exotic additions to the island, other types of human modification have altered the natural environmen t. For example, the settlers of Indian Key cleared areas of land for construction, an occurrence that was not unusual for homesteaders in the early ni neteenth century. Upland areas in hardwood hammocks provided favorable environments in which to live. In addition, domestic plants were often planted near the homes, including “pineapples, Key limes, sapodillas, and other fruit trees and vegetables” (Williams 1997: 290). Pineapple cultivation became popular when Bahamians moved back to the keys after the Seminole Wars, and this crop economically sustained large populations in the upper keys. The wood from mahogany and slash pine trees was used to build boats and homes. The Spaniards who visited the keys used lignumvitae wood for their ship construction. Buttonwood and other native trees were used to provide charcoal, a majo r energy source for early settlers in the keys (Viele 1996). Fauna Areas mapped with Pennekamp grave lly muck generally support woodland wildlife (Hurt et al. 1995). Typical species of animals that thrive in a tropical hardwood hammock include mammals such as eastern gray squirrels, raccoons, and opossums. Birds of the tropical hardw ood hammocks include cardinals, red-bellied woodpeckers,

PAGE 43

29 vireos, and warblers. Reptile species include brown and green anoles (a type of lizard) and several species of snakes, including cora l snakes, Everglades racers, Florida ribbon snakes, rat snakes (also known as corn snakes ), ringneck snakes, and rough green snakes (Nielsen 1997:38). The created environment at Indian Key has apparently not changed the natural environment enough to disturb the natural anim al species present, as many of the above listed animals can be found on the island toda y. Typically, negative impacts to animal species are the results of land clearing, the pr esence of harmful exotics (such as Brazilian pepper), plant collecting or poaching, introduced animals (such as domestic dogs and cats) that become predators for smaller mammals, birds, and snakes, and/or the introduction of trash or fill dirt to the na tural environment (Nielsen 1997:38). Due to Indian Key’s protected status as a Historic State Park, these negative impacts have not occurred or have been minimal. Climate By the Late Archaic period, between 5000 and 2500 years ago, the climate and vegetation of south Florida approached mode rn conditions; that is a subtropical wetland (Carr 1997). The climate existing in the ke ys throughout the 1800s and during the early and mid 1900s would have been similar to th e present climate. The climate of Monroe County today includes long summers that ar e hot and humid, occasionally cooled by ocean breezes. The winters are also warm, but can sometimes turn cooler due to cold fronts from the north. Rainfall occurs year -round, and hurricanes en ter this area every few years (Hurt et al. 1995).

PAGE 44

30 The climate of the keys, and of central a nd south Florida in general, has had an impact on the lives of its inhabitants both hi storically and currently. Currently, it can affect (for better or worse) the tourism industry (includi ng recreational diving, boating, and fishing activities) and the commercial fishing industry, tw o of the driving forces in the economy of the Florida Keys (Jordan 1997:14). One of the most powerful impacts on both the natural and built environments of th e keys is the hurrican e, which has caused damage to archaeological sites and standing st ructures alike, including those at Indian Key. In the historical past, people adapted to the heat, humidity, insects, and weather in various ways. One type of adaptation is architectural. As previously mentioned, numerous cisterns were (and continue to be ) constructed in south Florida in order to obtain a reliable source of freshwater. Mo st houses in south Florida prior to the widespread use of air-conditioning (ca. 1950) ar e constructed in a manner that allows the air to flow through the structure in the form of breezeways, open porches, and large windows (Ste. Claire 1998:121). Nineteenth-cen tury homes often have louvered shutters and overhanging eaves to protect the occupa nts from heat and glare (Hatton 1987:12). Natural local building materials, such as wood and coral, were used along with less regional materials, such as stone and brick. This is the case at Indian Key, where the foundation of the warehouse remains standing (m ade of excavated coral blocks), and the upper part has long since burned down, as it was made of wood. In addition, pegs, or “treenails,” were used to secure the joints of many structures, as they were more flexible and resistant to hurricane-force winds than traditional iron nails (Hatton 1987:14).

PAGE 45

31 Other adaptations include creative insect repellents, especially for mosquitoes, which carried malaria and yellow fever. Window screens were not available until the 1880s, so other methods had to be developed for insect control. A common early 1800s device was a blown-glass fly trap, which was f illed with sugar water and uncorked just prior to a meal, when it would attract the insects, which coul d then be trapped in the recorked bottle (Ste. Claire 1998:22). Charlo tte Arpin Niedhauk (1973), who lived at Lignumvitae Key in the mid-1930s, wrote of us ing smoke to discourag e the presence of flying insects. She lived in the Matheson House (8MO3447), built in 1919, which now serves as the office for the FPS and storage fo r documents related to the properties they oversee, including Indian Key. This building has a covered cistern, like many structures of the period in th e keys (Figure 2.3). Figure 2.3. Photograph of the Matheson House on Lignumvitae Key, showing the covered cistern at the rear of the house.

PAGE 46

32 Chapter Three: Culture History Regional Post-Contact History At the time of initial European contact, southern Florida was inhabited by four tribes – the Ais, Jeaga, Tequesta, and Ca lusa (Schene 1976:11, citing Fairbanks 1974a). The Calusa or small bands affiliated with th em or under their control lived in the keys (Schene 1976:11). The information about th ese culture groups is limited to the archaeological work done in this area a nd the documentation from Spanish contacts during the sixteenth century. However, doc umentary information is sparse, as the Spanish did not permanently settle this area; instead, they concentrated their efforts on establishing missions on the mainland, especi ally in St. Augustin e and north Florida (Sturtevant 1978:141). This was partly due to the lack of a traditi on of horticulture in south Florida (Milanich 1978). The first recorded European contact in this region is Ponce de Leon’s initial visit to the keys in 1513. Early maps indicate Ponce de Leon recorded the keys as Los Martires (The Martyrs) while searching for gol d. The earliest recorded European contacts with the Calusa were made by Span ish explorers and missionaries in the 1560s (Hann 1991). The Jesuits established a shor t-lived mission from 1565 to 1572 in the area of present-day Miami on Biscayne Bay (Andrews 1943:36).

PAGE 47

33 An early historical source of informati on regarding the protohistoric period of the Florida Keys is found in the writings of He rnando de Escalante Fontenada (1944 [1575]). Escalante Fontenada was a Spaniard captured by the Calusa Indians in the mid-sixteenth century who spent nearly two decades traveli ng with them. He recorded his experiences in 1575 after returning home to Spain, and provi ded a description of Indians living in the area of the keys during the period of his cap ture. According to Escalante Fontenada (1944 [1575]), the Calusa predominantly contro lled (directly or indi rectly) many of the islands in the keys. The Calusa were the firs t group of people to profit from the “wrecked property that could be found fl oating near the shore or on the beach” (Schene 1973:11). This was an enterprise that was eventually entered into by American settlers (including Jacob Housman, the founder of the 1830s community on Indian Key), who competed with the established Bahamian wreckers. The area of Matecumbe was first specif ically mentioned in 1573, when Pedro Menndez de Aviles wrote to the king of Sp ain, noting that the local Indians were a danger to the Spanish, and sugges ting that they be enslaved. His petition was rejected the next year. In 1605, the frigate Nuestra Seora del Rosario ran aground near the coast of Matecumbe. Indians furnished the stranded Sp aniards with food, water, and assistance in freeing and fixing their ship. Although the Fl orida Straits was an important navigational waterway for the Spanish, a nd there were undoubtedly numerous instances of Spanish contacts with the Indians, there are relatively few historical records of these interactions (Goggin and Sommer 1949:24-25) The Indians living on the Matecumbe keys are mentioned sporadically in Spanish account s throughout the rest of the seventeenth

PAGE 48

34 century (Goggin and Sommer 1949:25). Andr ews (1943:38) notes that during the seventeenth century, “the re gion from the Keys north to the lands south of Cape Caaveral was, geologically sp eaking, in all ways West India n, similar in structure to the Bahamas themselves.” Similarly, most cult ural activity was centered on the oceans and the coastal rivers, not in th e inland areas (Andrews 1943). In 1743, the governor of Cuba, Juan Francisco de Gemes y Horcasitas, recommended that missionaries be sent to the keys in an attempt to Christianize the Native Americans there rather than having them brought to Cuba. This recommendation was the result of earlier events, when in th e first decade of the 1700s hundreds of Calusa brought to Cuba had died of sickness (Stu rtevant 1978:142-143). A Franciscan mission was established in the area of present-day Miami in 1743, but was cancelled the next year (Andrews 1943:36; Wilkinson 2002c). John Goggin observed that Spain’s lack of sovereignty over the South Florida Indians was demonstrated in 1748 by their ransoming back to the Indians a former English prisoner of theirs (Sturtevant 1978:146). From this period forward, Goggin and Sommer (1949:26) note that there is “little information about the Indians of the Keys and none about the Matecumbe Indians as such.” The local indigenous populations were apparently dwindling by the early 1700s in this area (Goggin and Sommer 1949:26). The influx of Lower Creeks into Florid a began as early as 1703, following the advancement of Captain James Moore of S outh Carolina into the peninsula (Andrews 1943:36). When the new English Colony of Georgia was formed in 1732, it allowed for the passage of even more northern Indians into Florida, heading south rather than west as

PAGE 49

35 they were forced out of their native lands by European expansion. These Indians were from many different tribes, but the origin of the name Semino le apparently came from the Creek word “Sim-in-oli,” referring to groups such as the Oconee Indians, Lower Creeks who left populous areas within the Creek sphe re of influence to live by themselves in smaller groups (Neill 1956:8; Swan ton 1998 [1922]:398; Weisman 1999:14). A group of Oconee Indians from Georgi a moved into Florida by 1750, and were the nucleus of the group that would beco me known as the Seminoles (Swanton 1998 [1922]:398-399). Escaped African-American slav es who had fled to Florida were also affiliated with the Seminoles. Fairbanks (1978:178) notes that: The acculturational situation of the Se minole differed significantly from that of the other larger and more politically organi zed southeastern tribes such as the Creek. Among those tribes blacks were often held in chattel slavery by wealthy or powerful indivi duals and probably contributed less to the acculturation process. Tr usted [black] advisors… counseled Seminole leaders on the basis of their extensive participation in plantation culture. They also often served as interpreters, and the Indians did not have to rely on the biased reporting of white bilinguals. Weisman (2000a:136-137) notes that the “Seminole variant of the plantation system (which included the Black Seminol e farms) developed as an adaptation to interior Florida environments and in re sponse to changing economic conditions in colonial Florida.” Thus, the relationsh ip between the blacks and the Seminoles was not only a matter of cultural exchange, but had economic underpinnings. The friendly relationship between the blacks (whom many European-American settlers saw as property to be returned) and the Seminoles furthered the tensions between the settlers and Seminoles.

PAGE 50

36 The demise of the local Indians due to European expansion, and the consequent displacement of Creek native populations from th e north into south Fl orida, is recorded historically. In the 1760s, ma inland Creek tribes attacked the Calusa Indians, forcing them from island to island until they reach ed Key West. In 1775, Bernard Romans noted that Key West and Vaca Key were “the last refuges of the Caloosa nation; but even here the water did not protect them against th e inroads from the Creeks, and in 1763 the remnant of this people, consisting of about ei ghty families, left this last possession of their native land, and went to the Havannah” at the beginning of the British period (Sturtevant 1978:141, from Romans 1998 [1775]). During his excursion, Romans used a Spanish Indian guide (whose cultural affiliation is further explained below), further underscoring the lack of indigenous Indian gr oups in this area by that time (Goggin and Sommer 1949:27). The few Calusa who escap ed to Cuba left behind an “island of bones,” Cayo Hueso in Spanish, which was translated as Key West (Langley and Langley 1982:7). When Florida was returned to Spain in 1783, Spain never settled the area, but Key West was given to Juan Salas for services rendered to the government (Langley and Langley 1982:8). During the seventeenth and ei ghteenth centuries, south Florida had no permanent European se ttlements. Spanish fisherman from Cuba did establish temporary camps, or ranchos on the Gulf coast and in the keys, but otherwis e, there wa s very little contact (Hann 1991:173 ; Milanich 1995:230). When the American Revolution began in 1776, large numb ers of Lower Creek Indians were living in south Florida. The Cr eeks sided with the English over the Americans

PAGE 51

37 in the war of 1812, but were defeated by General Andrew Ja ckson in the following Creek War (1813-1814). This caused the Creeks to cede tw o-thirds of their la nd to America, and forced many more Indians to migrate into Fl orida. The First Se minole War (1817-1818) began three years later, when U.S. troops disregarded an order from Seminole chief Neamathla not to trespass on Seminole hunt ing territory. The war was quickly won by General Jackson, but it initia ted fifty more years of warfar e between the Americans and the Seminoles (Wilkinson 2002f). Florida was ceded to America by Spain in 1819, and in 1821 General Jackson was appointed Florida’s military governor, with or ders to possess and occupy the ceded lands and establish a territorial government (Wilkinson 2002f). The first settlement in the keys was founded at Key West in 1822 by John Si monton, who bought the island from Salas (Maxwell 1989:142). Simonton began this set tlement with other immigrants from the Bahamas, and the key’s population later grew with an influx of people moving from New England. Other settlers came from the sout heastern United States, England, and the West Indies. These people thrived off the wr ecking business; secondary sources of employment were fishing, sponging, and turtle catching (turtling), a nd, to a lesser degree, farming (Viele 1996; Wilkinson 2002d). Farming techniques, plants, and seeds appropriate for the keys were brought to Florida by the Bahamians, who were well acquainted with the geology of coral islands (Wilkinson 2002d). The other keys slowly became inhabited as well (Viele 1996). After the Treaty of Moultrie Creek was signed in 1823, the Seminoles were moved to a four-million-acre reservation in the central Florida peninsula south of Ocala.

PAGE 52

38 When Andrew Jackson was elec ted president of the United St ates in 1829, he prompted Congress to pass the Indian Removal Act (1830) forcing the relocation of the Indians to Oklahoma. The Indians who remained in Florida became known as the Florida Seminoles, and were led by Chief Osceo la. The Second Seminole War (1835-1842) began soon afterwards. The war was ignite d when Major Francis Langhorne Dade and his troops were ambushed and killed while ma rching north from Fort Brooke in Tampa to Fort King in Ocala (Mahon 1967). The genesis of the “Spanish Indians,” as they are referred to in documentation from the 1820s and 1830s, is unclear. However, the Spanish Indians are distinct from the Seminoles, who had maintained ties with th e European Spaniards who remained in the territory. The Seminoles traded with the Spaniards, spoke their language, and participated in the wrecking activities. Fairbanks (1978:183) notes that although trading between the Seminoles and the Spaniards continued, and the Seminoles used many European material items, the “decline of Span ish authority in Florid a and the nature of Seminole relations with the Spaniards mean t that little acculturation took place.” The Spanish Indians were probably a congl omeration of remaining native Florida Calusa Indians, Apalachee Indians who had move d south along the Gulf coast in the late 1600s or early 1700s, and “Spanish fishermen or individuals of mi xed Spanish-Indian ancestry” (Weisman 1999:80). It is also possi ble that the Spanish Indians were composed of a mixture of Seminole and Calusa Indi ans (Weisman 1999:80). They were led by a man named Chakaika, whose tribal origins ar e unknown, but who is claimed as a member

PAGE 53

39 of the Seminoles by that group in interviews with William C. Sturtevant in the 1950s (Sturtevant 1953; Weisman 1999:81-82). In 1839, Chakaika and his followers killed soldiers led by Colonel William S. Harney. This was the first incident specifica lly ascribed to the Spanish Indians, although others later occurred (Covington 1993; Weisma n 1999). This was followed the next year by the destruction of the town of Indian Key, told in more detail in the section below, “History of Indian Key.” After this attack, Colonel Harney (survivor of the earlier attack) killed Chakaika in the Everglades (Covingt on 1993:135; Weisman 1999:82). The growth of the keys abruptly stoppe d during the Second Seminole War for fear of attack. The people who inhabited the sma ller keys at the time fled to Key West for protection. Indian Key was the only other key that remained inhabited. During this time a light vessel, the Florida was anchored off Key Largo to warn ships away from the Florida Reef. Indians had made repeated trips to the mainland of Key Largo and had destroyed a small building and farm-garden ther e. After months of seeing no signs of Indians, the crew of the Florida assumed they were safe. Some crewmen, accompanied by Captain Walton, who had gone ashore to gather firewood, were attacked by an Indian war party, killing the cap tain (Viele 1996). Few Indians were left in the keys by the end of the Second Seminole War. Most of Florida’s Indian population was relocated to the Oklahoma Territory or moved to the swamps of the Everglades (Milanich 1995). Another consequence of the war was the Armed Occupation Act of 1842, which enabled any man to claim 160 acres of land south of Gainesville and Palatka, under the condition that he live on the land for 5 years and

PAGE 54

40 cultivate at least 5 acres (V an Landingham 1998:6-8). Wilkin son (2002f) notes that there were several other effects of the war: an in crease in internal expl oration and mapping of Florida, the establishment of trails and roads, the establishment of forts that served as focal points for the growth of new towns, a nd an economic surge due to an increase in spending. The American government felt that in order for Florida to continue to grow in the 1850s, the Seminoles had to be pushed furthe r south or out of the state entirely. Increased tensions led to the onset of the Third Seminole War (1855-1858). Approximately 1,500 U.S. soldiers fought in this war against the Seminoles, who were led by Billy Bowlegs. At the war’s end, Billy Bowlegs and approximately 150 other Seminoles were sent west, and Sam Jones (also known as Abiaka) remained in the Everglades with approximately 200 me n, women, and children (Weisman 1999; Wilkinson 2002f). In 1924, Congress granted all Indians citizenship status. The Seminole population increased from 208 in 1880 to 605 in 1940, the result of “better health measures and adequate food” (Covi ngton 1993:232). The Semi noles were granted reservations throughout sout h Florida, with the Miccosukee legally establishing themselves as a separate trib e in 1962 (Covington 1993:269). Outside of Key West, and intermittently, Indian Key, the keys remained mostly uninhabited after the Seminole Wars until 1874, when the keys were surveyed and divided for homesteading (Hurt et al. 1995). In addition, the lack of deep-water harbors slowed development in the upper keys (W ilkinson 2002d). In the 1860s, there was an influx of Cubans fleeing the C uban revolution. This influx led to an expansion of the

PAGE 55

41 already growing cigar industry. By 1870, ever y major island in the lower keys was occupied, primarily by fruit and vegetable farm ers but also by some wreckers and fishers (Viele 1996). Although Florida was part of the Conf ederacy during the Civil War (1861-1865), Key West remained in the hands of the Union for the entire duration of the war. Due to their low population density a nd lack of natural resources or strategic im portance, the keys played a small role in the Civil Wa r (Wynne and Taylor 2001:91-93). The Union Navy enforced the blockade fr om South Carolina to Key We st with the South Atlantic Blockading Squadron. Key West was the head quarters for the navy’s East Gulf Coast Blockading Squadron. No military fighting took place in the keys, but hundreds of Union soldiers were killed by typhoid and yellow fever, and many more were sickened by a shortage of fresh water and vegetabl es (Wynne and Taylor 2001:199-201). Black Bahamians began to move into th e lower keys in the 1880s, and made up the majority of the population by 1900. As the nineteenth century dr ew to a close, the farmers began to leave and the local econom y relied more heavily on producing firewood and charcoal for Key West. In 1886, a fire destroyed most of Key West, including homes, businesses, and factories, leading to a demise in the growth of the city and to the relocation of the cigar industry to Tampa (Homan and Reilly 2000). Once the Bahamians moved back to the keys, the rise of pineapple cultivation accounted for much of the increased population in the upper keys. Captain Ben Baker is credited as the first commercial pineapple fa rmer, when he brought stocks from Cuba and

PAGE 56

42 planted them on his Key Largo property. Fo llowing his success, many acres of woods were cleared for pineapple planting (Viele 1996). In 1944 Reinhold P. Wolff observed, “for the last fifty years the history of South Florida has been closely connected with the hi story of transportation in the United States” (Wolff 1944:45). This connection began when the construction of the Overseas Railroad by railroad magnate Henry Flagler commen ced in 1906 (Parks 1968). The hurricane of 1906 killed many railroad workers and damage d railroad beds, and ruined pineapple plantations in the upper keys. It was a setbac k from which the planters never recovered. A blight, two more hurricanes, and competition from the cheaply produced Cuban pineapples drove the planters out of busin ess completely. By 1915, no more pineapples were being grown for commerci al purposes in the keys (V iele 1996). In 1926, fewer than 500 people lived in Key West and only 17 lived in Marathon. The railroad, which was completed in 1912, ran from Homestead to Ke y West, and increased settlement of the keys. These settlers were mostly wreckers, rail workers, spongers, and farmers (Hurt et al. 1995; Viele 1996). The population of Key West actually dropped somewhat during the early twentieth century, resulting in very little new construc tion; however, World War I temporarily boosted the economy (U.S. Departme nt of the Interior 1982). Tourism was not a significant part of the keys’ economy at that time. The Great Depression in the 1930s left Key West as one of America’s poor est cities (Homan and Reilly 2000). Key West rebounded when the Federal Emergenc y Relief Administration focused on turning the city into a tourist de stination. The economic rebound was impeded somewhat by the

PAGE 57

43 Labor Day Hurricane of 1935 that washed out por tions of the railroad (Parks 1968). This hurricane killed many World War I veterans that had become laborers on the railroad under the Works Progress Administration (WPA), and today a memorial to those killed stands in Islamorada (on Lower Matecumbe Ke y, approximately one mile west of Indian Key). An archaeological study of a 20-mile porti on of the former railroad from Windley Key to Long Key identified a barracks, kitchen f acility, and cistern rela ted to the railroad era in Islamorada (8MO1475; Smith 1995), illu strating the nature of the occupation of this area during this period. The completi on of U.S. Highway 1 in 1938 helped the tourist industry substantially and soon Key West became one of the most popular vacation spots in Florida. Farming increased, especially in the upper keys, with principal crops of key limes and tomatoes. The completion of the highway also served to substantially increase settle ment throughout the keys. Tourism is the primary economic force in the keys today (Langley and Langley 1982). History of Indian Key Baker (1973:40) notes that there is a bi as regarding the inte rpretation of Indian Key’s historic periods of occupation. Pr ior to 1820, the only evidence of European occupation of the key exists in the form of a few Spanish olive jar sherds (probably from early fishing ranchos or offshore wrecks). Therefore, most of the research has focused on the decade of the 1830s because that time period is the most well-documented, archaeologically and historically. The ev ents of that decade have excited popular interest, and even inspired a speculative fic tional account of Jacob H ousman’s life (Carter

PAGE 58

44 1976), as well as a romance novel set on Indi an Key in the 1970s (Hess 1978). A novel about a young wrecker in the Florida Keys se t during the mid 1800s also uses the attack on Indian Key as a plot point (Bache 1999 [1866]). Indian Key for a time was known as “Cayuelo de las Matanzas,” as shown on the 1742 Juan Liguera navigational chart (Wilkins on 2002b). Variations of this name, as well as “Cayo Frances,” or “Frenchman’s Ke y,” appear on navigational charts of this period. George Gauld’s chart of 1775 is the fi rst recorded use of the name “Indian Key” (Ware 1982; Wilkinson 2002b). “Matanza” is the Spanish word for “slaughter,” and popular narrative tells that the name of the key came about because several hundred Frenchmen were supposedly killed there by Ca lusa Indians in 1755, although there is no archaeological evidence or known documentary record (including in France) of this occurrence (Morris 1995:125). This story first appears in written li terature in Bernard Romans’ (1998 [1775]) account of his travels, and it is one of several folk lore tales regarding Indian Key that have been told and perpetuate d in avocational and popular lit erature and within the local community (Eyster and Brown 1976:2; Williams 1962 [1837]). It is possible that this particular speculation may be the result of Romans’ (1998 [1775]) borrowing of other writer’s tales or confusion of Indian Key w ith a fort on the Matanzas River, near St. Augustine, where as many as two hundred French Huguenots were killed in 1565 by Pedro Menndez (Clegg 1976:7-8; Gannon 1965; Roberts 1976 [1763]:24, Wilkinson 2002b). Schene (1973:9-10) notes that Romans may have exa ggerated this story due to

PAGE 59

45 the folklore that existed as early as th e period of his travel s regarding the name “Matanza.” Other unsubstantiated claims about Indian Key include a visit to the island by Ponce de Leon in 1513, and the use of the isla nd as a trading post by Antonio Gomez in the late seventeenth or early eighteenth cen tury (Eyster and Brow n 1976:1-2; Eyster and Eyster 1997:6; Florida Society of Colonial Dames 1964; Nelson 1983). Jerry Wilkinson (2002b), a local historian, notes that the history of Indi an Key is “littered with contradictions and unsubstantiated tales passed down through time.” Havana was the main Spanish trading post in this area duri ng the early 1700s, and the lack of fresh water on Indian Key probably would have precluded a permanent (or even semi-permanent) settlement there during that period (Wilkin son 2002b). The only record of an Antonio Gomez connected with Indian Key is the acc ount of a Portuguese man by that name who traded with the Seminole Indians in 1856 (N ational Archives n.d., in Swanson 2002). He is listed on the 1860 Dade County census as a resident of Miami (Swanson 2002). The history of Indian Key can be su mmarized by discussing each of its occupational periods separately (Table 3.1). It was first occupied by Native Americans in prehistoric and protohistoric times. There is no historical documenta tion of occupation of Indian Key by Europeans or Americans until 18 24, when Silas Fletcher settled the island. Jacob Housman created a wrecking commun ity there from 1831 to 1840, and a naval contingent, complete with a hospital and suppl y depot, occupied the island from 1840 to 1842. From 1851 to 1852, the island was used as a base for construction of the Carysfort Reef Lighthouse. This was followed by farmi ng and ship construction in the 1860s and

PAGE 60

46 Table 3.1. Summary of the Periods of Occupation on Indian Key Type of Occupation Period(s) of Occupation Years of Occupation Prehistoric Indians (Native American) South and Southeast Florida: The Everglades Region, 2500 B.P. to Contact (Kozuch 1995) 500 B.C.-A.D. 1513 Keys Indians under the Calusa Indian sphere of influence (Native American) First Spanish Period, 1513-1763 (George 1995a) 1513-1763 Mercantile store (European-American) Territorial Period, 1821-1844 (George 1995b) 1824-1831 Wrecking community (European-American) Territorial Period, 1821-1844 (George 1995b) 1831-1840 Naval contingent (American) Territorial Period, 1821-1844 (George 1995b) 1840-1842 Carysfort Reef Lighthouse construction (American) Statehood Period, 1845-1861 (George 1995c) 1851-1852 Farming and ship construction (American) Civil War Period, 1861-1865 (George 1995d) and Reconstruction Period, 1866-1879 (George 1995e) 1860s-1870s Alligator Reef Lighthouse construction (American) Reconstruction Period, 1866-1879 (George 1995e) 1870-1873 Farming and railroad construction (American) Turn-of-the-Century Period, 1898-1916 (George 1995g) 1905-1912 Fishing camp (American) Turn-of-the-Century Period, 1898-1916 (George 1995g), World War I and Aftermath Period, 1917-1920 (George 1995h), Boom Times Period, 1921-1929 (George 1995i), and Depression and New Deal Period, 1930-1940 (George 1995j), World War II and Aftermath Period, 1941-1949 (George 1995k), Modern Period, 1950-present (George 1995l) 1913-1960 Historic State Park (formerly State Historic Site) (American) Modern Period, 1950-present (George 1995l) 1971-present

PAGE 61

47 1870s, and construction of the Alligator R eef Lighthouse on the island from 1872 to 1873. Indian Key was informally home to a fish camp in the early 1900s. Its current incarnation as a Historic State Park (formerly known as a State Historic Site) began in 1971, when it was purchased by the State of Fl orida. Indian Key (8MO15) was listed on the NRHP the next year. The first recorded year of historical o ccupancy on Indian Key is 1824. Transfer of property during the Territorial Period in the keys was not always legally recorded, but was unofficially conducted. This occurred be cause most of the land belonged to the federal government, except for Key West and Marathon, which were Spanish land grants that had been declared valid (Wilkinson 2002a ). Silas Fletcher, the first recorded inhabitant of Indian Key, settled there in 1824 to open a store on behalf of the mercantile company Snyder and Appleby. He took on Jo seph Prince as a partner in 1825, and they subsequently bought out Snyder and Appl eby’s holdings (Wilkinson 2002b). According to Monroe County deed records, Joseph Prince sold his share of the partnership to Silas Fletcher in 1825, and it wa s shortly after this point that the island began attracting wreckers, incl uding Jacob Housman. However, Prince returned in 1826 to open a competing store with Fletcher. Flet cher sold Thomas Gibson all of his “right, title, and interest to Indian Key” fo r $2500 on November 13, 1828 (Wilkinson 1993). The population of Indian Key in 1828 was estimated at 50 people, primarily turtlers and wreckers (Wilkinson 2002b). H ousman purchased a one-story building on Indian Key from William Johnson in Novemb er 1830, and also purchased a two-story house, a store, a ninepin alley, a billiard room and table, an outhouse, and a kitchen on

PAGE 62

48 the island from Thomas Gibson and his wi fe Ann for $5000 in July 1831 (Wilkinson 1993). Housman actually settled on the key in 1831, and began to spend large amounts of money developing the island (Dodd 1948) His dry goods store was extremely successful, as he held a monopoly on this type of merchandise in the sparsely populated upper keys. Housman bought Prince’s remain ing rights to the is land in 1835 for $5000. Indian Key rapidly increased in population, and soon the Tropical Hotel opened under the management of Samuel Spencer (Schene 1973:40-44). The town’s physical development and economic success motivated Housman to attempt to free Indian Key from the political control of Key West. Both islands at that point were under the admi nistration of Monroe County. To this end, Housman successfully petitioned the Flor ida Territorial Legislative Council to create Dade County, with Indian Key as the county seat, thus dividing it from Monroe County (Day and Norman 1997:4). Indian Key’s position in th e county was further se cured with the onset of the Second Seminole War in 1836. Many i nhabitants of the newly formed Dade County (modern-day Monroe County) were forced to relocate to Indian Key because of the protective measures it afforded them. Cape Florida and Key Vacas were the other main settlements included in Dade County, although Housman assured Indian Key’s prominence by building a courthouse on the isla nd from his own funds (Dodd 1948:10). In the late 1830s, French na turalist Francis de la Porte, Comte de Castelnau, wrote of his visit to Indian Key, and describe d the town he found there as follows: There are about 50 inhabitants, 20 of th em Negroes. Almost all of them live on the wreckage of shipwrecks common to these parts. I mention this little settlement only because it is a county seat, has a court and sends a member to the assembly. There are about a dozen houses, but not a bush,

PAGE 63

49 and no wild animal lives there. Ther e it is forbidden to sell strong liquors to sailors. They can get to Matecumbe Island, about a mile away, at low tide with no more than one foot of wa ter. A causeway is needed to join them. This little island is six and a half leagues from the coast. Several cannons have been taken there since th e beginning of the Indian Wars. The climate is magnificent and very h ealthy. There are no fevers and the sun shines every day … (Keynoter, 31 July 1983). John Lee Williams (1962 [1837]) also visite d the town during this period. He describes the general area of Matecumbe, including Lignumv itae Key and Indian Key. Of Indian Key, he writes: Much of the island is improved as a garden, the rocky surface being covered by a bed of mould [sic] drawn up from the channel. Several buildings ornament the island; a superb Hotel overtops them all, erected by the enterprising proprietor, Mr. H ousman. Large stores are supported here principally by the wrecking busine ss. This little island is becoming a fashionable resort for invalids from the north, the climate being healthy and pleasant, and the insects less nume rous than in most of the keys. Indian Key is 75 miles south west fro m Cape Florida, and 75 north east from Key West (Williams 1962 [1837]:36). Documentary sources such as the two c ited above have served as the primary source for the interpretation of the island, and can here be used to supplement the archaeological research. Another source of information for the Housman period of occupation of Indian Key was John Jame s Audubon. Audubon (1979:ix-xi), a famous naturalist, traveled throughout the United States (including th e keys) sketching birds, and subsequently published a four-volume set titled The Birds of America between 1827 and 1838. Audubon spent the night on Indian Key on April 28, 1832 in a hammock set up on a veranda (Proby 1974:330). One of his dr awings created in the keys, the “Booby Gannet, male” (No. 86, Plate 426) has a landsca pe in the background that appears to be

PAGE 64

50 Indian Key (Figure 3.1; Audubon 1993:107). A udubon noted that one of his traveling companions, George Lehman, had made a sketch of the island (Proby 1974:330). Figure 3.1. Reproduction of a portion of John James Audubon’s “Booby Gannet, male” drawing, showing the background landsca pe that appears to represent Indian Key in the 1830s, possibly with Lower Ma tecumbe Key in the background (from Audubon 1993:107). When Henry Perrine and his wife, daughter s, and son arrived on Indian Key in 1838, they found that “Charles Webb and three or four other families with their servants and slaves were already established” ther e (Robinson 1942:18). Dr. Perrine had brought with him the necessary plants and spent the next 18 months planting them on Indian Key as well as other nearby keys, as most re quired human care to thrive (Robinson 1942). Charles Howe, another inhabitant of the is land, served as Perrine’s partner, as the Postmaster for the island, and as the Coll ector of Customs (Weidenbach 1995:13). The first post office was opened on Indian Key on May 21, 1933. It was subsequently closed

PAGE 65

51 on May 29, 1843, then re-established from November 1850 to November 1873, and reestablished again for a brief period from Ma y to September 1880, when it finally closed (Bradbury and Hallock 1992:40). The island’s layout has been fairly well documented (Figure 3.2), and Dr. Perrine’s house, located on the waterfront, was a three-story ho me with a cupola. Charles Howe’s house was behind that of Dr. Perrine ’s. Senator English’ s house was located at the other end of the island, and his kitchen (named as Feature B by Baker [1973]) is adjacent to the grid southwest corner of F eature A of the Warehouse Complex. Cottages for visitors, slave quarters, and cisterns were spread out between these two shores (Weidenbach 1995:13). Three wharves were constructed, two on th e north shore, and one on the south shore (Dodd 1948:5). “Hick’s P ool Hall” sat on one of the wharves, and was an alternative to the entertainment of nine-pins and billiards at the Tropical Hotel (Weidenbach 1995:13). The structures at Indian Key were wood-frame vernacular dwellings, an architectural style common to the north. Housman was raised in Staten Island, New York, and possibly modeled his town after th e styles he was familiar with, although he spent a great deal of time in Key West as well (Hine and Davis 1925:114). This woodframe style was a holdover from English architecture (Deetz 1996:140-146; Glassie 1968:124), and did not necessarily suit the Florid a Keys landscape or climate. Similarly, the town was laid out with a central town s quare and roads set on a grid system, and soil was brought in to create gardens (Brown stone 1984:30; Dodd 1948:5). Second Street,

PAGE 66

52 one of the several planned road s in the town, led to one of the island’s wharves on the north shore, next to which stood the warehouse (Weidenbach 1995:13). Figure 3.2. Map of Indian Key showing th e layout of the town in 1840, from the base map drawn by Charles Howe (Schene 1976:12).

PAGE 67

53 The first troubling occurren ce during the Second Semi nole War for the residents of Indian Key came on March 17, 1836. A Span iard from the mainland of Florida or Cuba arrived at the key, ostensibly to trade; however, further inquiry revealed that he had two Seminole companions stationed on an isla nd one mile away. The citizens of Indian Key arrested all three, and one of the Indian s escaped, but not before the citizens learned that a hostile Seminole force was gathering at Cape Sable. Afraid that the escapee would return with more men, the citizens appealed to Commodore Dallas for protection, and the cutter Dexter was sent to patrol their waters (Buker 1997:28-29, 49). This protection continued through 1839, with othe r ships sent to cruise be tween Key West, Indian Key, and Tampa Bay (Buker 1997:35). In the late summer of 1839, a military group was stationed at Indian Key, which was used as a naval supply depot. A military hospital was set up, but was discontinued in October of that year (Buker 1997:88-90). Mi litary forces, along with the base hospital, were relocated in the spring of 1840 to nei ghboring Tea Table Key. In March of that same year, in financial distress, Housman mortgaged Indian Key to Smith Mowry, Jr., and Joseph Lawton, both of Charleston, South Carolina (Wilkinson 2002b). Housman’s profits had been compromised by the interr uption of trade during the Second Seminole War and the revocation of this wrecki ng license in 1838 (Schene 1976:63). McLaughlin and his crew set out for Key Biscayne in early August, leaving only five men on Tea Table Key (Weidenbach 1995:20). The Spanish Indians, led by Chakaika, planned an attack upon learning of Indian Key’s unprotected status. They attacked the town on August 7, 1840 in the hopes of obtaining arms and powder. Most of

PAGE 68

54 the town, including the warehouse, was burned, and 13 of its inhabitants were killed (Eyster and Brown 1976:12; Sc hene 1973:74-76). Chakaika escaped and fired a cannon that he had taken from Indian Key at a naval boat launched from Tea Table Key. The attack was unusual because it occurred at night, and because it marked one of the few instances during the Seminole Wars where Indi ans fired a piece of U.S. artillery (Buker 1997:106-107). Following the attack, Jacob Housman a nd Lt. John T. McLaughlin agreed to remove the military base from Tea Table Key and relocate it back to Indian Key, reserving a portion of the isla nd for Housman’s personal use. The hospital and supply depot were subsequently moved to Indian Ke y, and remained there for the duration of the war (Buker 1997:108). Indian Key was the base of operations for the “Mosquito Fleet” led by Lt. McLaughlin, who had trained his men to use canoes in order to travel throughout the Everglades and fight the Seminoles on their own territory (Buker 1997:117-118). This type of warfare, using th e many rivers of Florida for travel, “placed an almost intolerable burden upon the Semi noles,” and led to the end of the Second Seminole War in 1842 (Buker 1997:134). The period of Indian Key’s occupatio n during which the Warehouse Complex was constructed is situated in a larger historical context. Florida’s Comprehensive Historic Preservation Plan defines Florida’s archaeological and historical contexts (Tesar 1995). It summarizes the body of knowledge gath ered thus far for each context, and indicates areas of research that warrant fu rther investigation. Paul George (1995b:160163) has written the section on the Territori al Period, which dates from 1821 to 1844.

PAGE 69

55 This is inclusive of the decade of Indian Key’s earliest period of documented historical occupation. The Territorial Period is bracketed by two major political events in Florida’s history: its designation as a te rritory of the United States in 1821, and its acceptance as a state in 1845. Andrew Jackson was appoi nted provisional governor, and Florida’s population grew to nearly 35,000 people by 1830. This growth prompted the establishment of several new communities including Tallahassee, Key West, Fort Brooke (present-day Tampa), Jacksonville, a nd Apalachicola. This growth was one of the factors that facilitated Housman’s request fo r a division of counties in the keys, as this was a trend throughout Florida. The ec onomy was mainly based on plantation and subsistence farming, along with citrus pr oduction. Logging and sugar processing were also important economic activities. The Second Seminole War “devastated much of peninsular Flor ida,” with damage cost estimates ranging from 30 to 40 million dollars (George 1995b:161). After the war, population growth resumed, and acce ss to the interior of the st ate became easier with the clearing of the river channels especially in the St. Johns Apalachicola, and St. Marks rivers. Most buildings of this time period in Florida were constructed of wood; therefore, most are not preserved in the archaeologi cal record. The warehouse’s structural foundations, although subject to erosion and other negative impacts, have survived because it was built on the coral bedrock of the key with sturdy construction materials such as brick, mortar, plaster, and cut coral blocks. The or iginal wooden walls and roof

PAGE 70

56 were destroyed in the fire that decimated the town in 1840, and a ny reconstruction that may have occurred in the past has not survived. Only two residents returned to live at Indian Key after the attack, and Housman relocated to Key West, where he died in a sh ip maintenance accident a short while later. Housman’s wife Elizabeth arranged for him to be buried on Indian Key (Schene 1973:77). In 1952, Charles Brookfield and Oliv er Griswold (1985 [1949]), authors of They All Called it Tropical removed Jacob Housman’s badly damaged tombstone and placed it in the care of the Historical Museum of Southern Florida. The bones from Housman’s grave were reportedly sent to the Department of Anthropology at the University of Miami, Miami, Florida; however they have never been re-located (Jerry Wilkinson, personal communication 1999). H ousman’s grave marker was eventually returned to the shore of Indian Key, but va ndalism forced the FPS to relocate it to nearby Lignumvitae Key, the location of the Park Se rvice office. A replica stone was then placed on the original location at Indian Key. A naval contingent under the command of Lt. John McLaughlin remained on Indian Key from 1840 to 1842, with a fluctuat ing complement of men ranging from 100 to 600 (Weidenbach 1995:4). The navy erected 17 buildings in addition to a hospital and a personal home for McLaughlin on the island du ring those years. However, there are no known maps detailing the lo cation of these buildings. The historical and archaeological evidence for the occupation of Indian Key after 1842 is less extensive than th at of the 1830s. In 1842, the two South Carolinian mortgage holders, Mowry, Jr. and Lawton, appeared to claim their lease payments. They

PAGE 71

57 eventually foreclosed on th e island and bought it at aucti on on January 15, 1844 for $355. Their purchase included the buildings the Navy ha d left behind. A hurricane in that year apparently caused considerable damage to the structures. W. H. Hilliard was hired as a manager for the island, and is believed to ha ve operated a store on Indian Key after the hurricane (Wilkinson 2002b). Day and Norman (1997:4) note that Indi an Key was mentioned in an 1849-1850 survey of the Florida Keys for the federal government and that “Bahamian fishermen, shipbuilders, and farmers” began moving to Indian Key in the 1850s. In 1851, survey engineer George Meade arranged for a 15-month lease of Indian Key from Hilliard for the construction of the Carysfort Reef Lighthouse (Wilkinson 2002b). After the lighthouse was completed in 1852, the island remained a center for small military operations and farming. In 1852, Lawton sold his interest in Indian Key (including Hilliard’s store) to Mowry. William Bethel, the sole occupant of Indian Key in 1856, and Mowry, Jr. applied to the U. S. Army for protection during the Third Seminole War. A military garrison was subsequently dispatched (Wilkinson 2002b). Mowry’s claim of 24 to 25 houses on the island in 1856 is contradict ed by a survey conducted the year earlier, which listed seven structures. It is unclear which, if either, number is accurate, although Wilkinson (2002b) speculates that the surv eyor may not have included residential structures in his count. Indian Key was reverted to Monroe County from Dade County in 1866 (Wilkinson 2002b). In the early 1860s, Dr. J.B. Holder visited the island (Figure 3.3). His observations indicate that the island was occupied during this period. Indian Key’s

PAGE 72

58 involvement in the Civil War (1861-1865) was limited, although its habitation may have caused it to be used as a sour ce of water by blockade runners. Figure 3.3. Illustration of “Indian Key, The Wrecker’s Rendezvous,” drawn ca. 1860 (Holder 1871). The exterior boundaries and interior sect ion lines for Township 64 South, Range 36 East were surveyed in 1873 and appr oved by the Surveyor General in 1874 (Department of Environmental Protection [DEP ] 1874). The surveyor’s notes show that Lignumvitae Key and Lower Matecumbe Key we re subdivided into plots of varying acreage, and that Indian Key, surveyed at 8.77 acres, was occupied by William Bethel (DEP 1874). The 1860 census for Dade County listed three families, with 13 people total, living on Indian Key (U.S. Census Office 1864; Wilkinson 2002g). The 1870 census for Indian Key lists nine families, with a total of 46 people. These families were the Bethels, the Pinders the Roberts, the McCooks, the Sands, and the Baselys. Occupations given by the occupants included carpenter, farmer, housekeeper, seaman, and servant (U.S. Ce nsus Office 1872; Wilkinson 2002g). William Bethel was deeded Indian Key on July 19, 1881, and the island was subsequently granted

PAGE 73

59 (or sold) to Lewis W. Pierce, Douglas T. Sweeney, George T. Warren, and Peter A. Williams on August 31, 1882 (State of Florida 2003). Construction of the Alligator Lighth ouse began on Indian Key in late 1870 (Wilkinson 2002b). Amongst the local farmers a nd ship-builders, the contractors for the lighthouse built “a new wharf, quarters for mech anics and laborers… a capacious cistern, a smithery, and a large shed for the iron-wo rk and other materials for the lighthouse, whence it can be transported as wanted to the reef” (Dean 1998:211, citing Jutro 1975:138). In addition, they built a fuel wharf and an adjacent coal storage building. The iron pile structure was built by Paulding Kemble in New York and then shipped to Indian Key. After assembly of the li ghthouse was completed on the island, it was transported to the northeast end of Alligator Reef, where workers constructed a platform and landing jetty to put the lighthouse into place (Dean 1998:211-212). It was lighted in 1873, and the Coast Guard stationed men to live on Alligator Reef Lighthouse until 1963, when it was automated (Dean 1998:212). Monroe County’s modern boundaries were established in 1887, when it was split from present-day Broward, Collier, Dade, He ndry, and Lee counties (Wilkinson 2002e). During this decade, Indian Key was “a stop-off point for ships to purchase water” (Baker 1973:41). It was also used for farming, incl uding bananas. Duri ng construction of the Overseas Railroad in the 1900s, Henry Flagler used the wharf at Indian Key and tried unsuccessfully to drill for fresh water. He used the island to support dredging operations in the upper Middle Keys (Wilkin son 2002b). Flagler ac tually purchased

PAGE 74

60 Indian Key from the state in 1909, but subse quently deeded it to Elizabeth H. Smith on June 30 of that year (State of Florida 2003). From 1913 until the state’s acquisition of the island in 1971, it was intermittently used as a temporary fishing camp and picnic spot. It was, for all intents and purposes, unoccupied. The Labor Day hurricane of 1935 struck while two former telegraph operators, Lee F. Coulter and William Hanlin, were operating a fishing camp there. Their friend Jack Horsley had been visiting them on the island that day with 20 friends when the Coast Guard began dropping evacuation noti ces due to an impending storm. Horsley and his friends left the island immediately, but Coulter and Hanlin did not, and died during the hurricane as a result Horsley reported these events in a letter to the Miami Herald (Wilkinson 2002b). The hurricane had an additional effect on the key besides the presumed destruction of the remaining struct ures. It dumped sand from the Indian Key Fill (created during construction of the Over seas Railroad) into the waters surrounding Indian Key, ending its use as a relatively d eep-water port (Day and Norman 1997:30). During a visit to Indian Key in 1944, J ohn Goggin reported that two shacks along with several old brick circular cisterns were standing. He al so noted a square cistern cut into the bedrock, the locati on of the Feature A of the Warehouse Complex. Goggin did not record a prehistoric site; however, he noted a refuse pile on the north shore containing potsherds (“Glades Gritty ware”) and shell celts (Wilkinson 2002b). Following World War II, Monroe County’ s development continued with the installation of a rural electr ical system and a water pipe line in 1942 (Wilkinson 2002e). Although the majority of the population of the keys resided in Key West, this

PAGE 75

61 demographic began to shift with the devel opment of the middle and upper keys through tourism from the 1950s onward. Due to their rapid growth, the keys were declared an Area of Critical State Concern in April 1975 (Wilkinson 2002e). The State of Florida purchased Indian Ke y in 1971. The first Indian Key festival, including a recreation of th e August 7, 1840 attack, took pl ace during the Bicentennial, on August 7, 1976. Plans for reconstruction of th e town were discussed at one point, but never took place. Its placement on the NRHP an d its designation as a State Historic Park, as well as its geographical isol ation due to the lack of a causeway from U.S. Highway 1, have ensured its protection over the years, a nd today it serves as a place of historic interest for the public, interprete d and managed by the FPS.

PAGE 76

62 Chapter Four: Methods Archival Research Prior to the initiation of fieldwork, pr imary and secondary documentary records were consulted to supplement the archaeological material that woul d be recovered during field investigations. Despite the presence of documentary data asso ciated with Indian Key, a separate archaeological i nvestigation of the site was necessary to begin to form a more complete view of the community. Some of the problems inhere nt in relying solely on documentary information include a bias on the part of the author, possible misinterpretation or human error in record ing, and the limited scope of documentary records. Official records are only made fo r specific reasons, such as legal (property inheritance, e.g.) or tax pur poses. As such, they are necessarily Eurocentric (one of Charles Orser’s [1996] four haunts of hist orical archaeology), because they were recorded under European law, in most cases by a European. This also applies to the Territorial period of America, when laws we re created and enforced by American citizens towards a specific agenda. In addition, not ev eryone in the community is represented in these documents – slaves were often one group missing from the documentary record, due both to illiteracy (many were unable to create their own writte n records) and their status as non-citizens. Indeed, this exclusion applies to almost everyone not part of the

PAGE 77

63 dominant cultural group (duri ng the period of Indian Key’ s occupation, this would be males of European descent and would also include people of wealth). Another possible avenue of misinformation regarding the history of Indian Key is the tradition of oral storytelling. While entertaining, some of the information about Indian Key has no basis in documentary or archaeological record. For example, it is widely reported in the keys th at Indian Key was one of the first stopping points of Ponce de Leon in the sixteenth century. However, no known primary documentation supports this idea, nor does the archaeologi cal evidence uncovered thus far. The interplay between documentary reco rds and archaeological data creates a historic context from which to begin an arch aeological interpretati on to support or refute this context, and allows for a placement of the site within local and regional chronologies. Specific documentary records examined includ ed local histories, historic maps, and previous archaeological research. Backgr ound and archival research efforts were designed to provide a comprehensive cultural co ntext for Indian Key as an archaeological site. These research efforts complemented fieldwork and provided a foundation to aid in the analysis and interpreta tion of recovered artifacts. Informant Interviews Informant interviews were conducted during the course of the six-month internship with the FPS from January to June 1999 (Lamb 1999b). Henry Baker was interviewed by the author in March 1999 at his office at the BAR in Tallahassee. The curation facilities at the BAR loaned USF th e artifacts from the 1972-1973 excavations of

PAGE 78

64 Indian Key for USF to conduct further re search in conjunction with the ongoing excavations. The ceramic artifacts from feat ures A and C collected during the 1972-1973 excavations were included in this study. In addition, Baker loaned his field notes from the excavation of features A and C to USF. A second informant interview was conducted with Jerry Wilkinson, the president of the Historical Preservation Society of the Upper Keys. His wife Mary was also present during the interview, which was conducted at their home in Tavernier, Florida in June 1999. Wilkinson shared his knowledge of the history of Indian Key (and the upper keys in general) and donated a Libr ary of Congress plate print of “Indian Key, the Wreckers’ Rendezvous” from Holder (1871) to be given to the Floridia na collection at the Special Collections Department of the USF library at the Tampa campus. A third informant interview was with Irving Eyster, a local archaeologist who has conducted excavations and an archaeological field school on Indian Key in the 1960s and assisted in the 1970s excavations led by Henry Baker. His wife Jeane, co-author of the book Islamorada and More with Irving Eyster (Eyster and Ey ster 1997), also participated in the interview. The interview itself t ook place at the Eysters’ home in Islamorada, Florida, in June 1999. Eyster shared informa tion regarding his previous work at Indian Key, and his theories on the is land’s occupation and history. Field Methods The primary objective of the investigati on of features A and C of the Warehouse Complex at Indian Key was to answer research questions related to the function(s) of the area, the re-use and maintenance of this community structure over time by different

PAGE 79

65 individuals and groups, and th e time periods during which occupation of the site took place. Another objective was to make recommendations to the FPS about the management and preservation of this area. The archaeological testing procedures were designed to recover those classes of data necessary to meet these objectives. This includes data related to site integrity, including the presence of intact cultural zones, the degree of natural disturbances, and the degr ee of disturbance by past human activity. Testing also was conducted to collect data on the depth and horizo ntal distribution of archaeological deposits, to ascertain the pr esence or absence of subsurface cultural features, such as intact structural foundati ons, and to assess the position and function of the site within th e cultural chronology of the region. Field methods consisted of three discre te tasks: site mapping, surface collection, and test unit excavation. A 1A-32 permit wa s obtained from the FDHR in Tallahassee, allowing the archaeological investigati on of this state-owned site by USF. Site Mapping A sketch map of the site was produced using a grid system based on the grid coordinates system created at the site by Henry Baker (1973) of the BAR in 1972. Baker’s grid system was established usi ng the United States Coast Guard Survey (USCGS) Indian Key 1 Marker as the primary su rvey station and horizon tal control point. Baker (1973:8) defined this marker as a point 100 m north an d 100 m west of “an imaginary base point offshore.” Each USF test unit was assigned a north and an east grid coordinate, and each is named for its grid coordinates at the southwest corner (datum corner) of the test unit, with

PAGE 80

66 two exceptions. Test Unit 98N/88E is named fo r the northwest corner of the test unit, which was assigned as the datum corner due to its much higher elevation. Test Unit 98N/101E is named for the southeast corner of the test unit, which was assigned as the datum corner for the same reason. Topographic maps were produced for features A and C using an automatic level and a transit. Elevations recorded with the level were tied in to a United States Geographic Survey (USGS) benchmark on the island, resulting in adjusted elevations above mean sea level (amsl) and below mean sea level (bmsl). The transit and automatic level were also used to plot th e locations of test units and rele vant structural features. In addition, the opening and closi ng elevations of each excav ated level were recorded, resulting in a depth below datum (BD) for each level. These were then converted to elevations amsl and bmsl using the aforementioned USGS benchmark, located at the southeastern shore of Indian Key. The US GS reference marker is a tidal benchmark whose station name is Indian Key 2. It is located at latitude 24 52’ 37.98677” (north) and longitude 080 40’ 34.61995” (west) (NAD 83). This benchmark replaces an earlier Indian Key 1857 benchmark, for which there ar e no data available (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] 2002). UTM coordinates for the Indian Key warehouse were recorded using the Upper Matecumbe Key, Fla. 1971 USGS 7.5’ topographic quadrangle map. These coordinates are based on NAD 27. Surface Collection A general surface collection was made of the entire area surrounding and including features A and C. This surface collection was made by means of a pedestrian

PAGE 81

67 survey of the area, and artifacts were colle cted and their provenience noted according to their general position within the Warehouse Co mplex. General surf ace collection bags were given a field specimen (FS) number consisting of th e feature number, the last 2 digits of the year in which it was collecte d, and the letters SC (surface collection). Artifacts collected on the surface wi thin the confines of a test unit grid were given an FS number as part of that unit. Excavation of Test Units The excavation of formal test units was unde rtaken in order to explore and record soil stratigraphy, artifact placement and densit y, and intact features present at the warehouse. The placement of test units initiall y was based on the results of the previous test units excavated by Henry Baker (1973) during the 1972-1973 field season. Because Baker’s test units (referred to as Trench 1, S ections 1 through 5) were concentrated in the grid northeastern corner of F eature A, the USF excavations attempted to place units in other, undocumented and undisturbe d, areas of features A and C. Test units were placed near Baker’s (1973) as well, to further inve stigate his hypotheses re garding site function and layout. USF excavated a total of eleven test units in Feature A (94.29N/93E, 95N/93.1E, 96N/93.1E, 97N/85E, 97N/91E, 97N/95E, 97N/96E, 97.1N/98E, 97.1N/99E, 98N/88E, and 98N/101E) and three test units in Feature C (104N/93E, 104.26N/97.6E, and 105N/94E) (Figures 4.1 and 4.2). Test excava tion units were placed within those areas exhibiting the best potential for the recovery of signifi cant site data, based on the apparent depth of the deposits, l ack of disturbance, and possibl e structural features related

PAGE 82

68 to the construction of the walls and doorwa ys of the warehouse. In addition, the FPS wanted to remove all incidental soil and accumulated cultural layers from the floor surface of the warehouse as part of the conservation effort. This conservation effort has been completed by Dr. Frank Matero and his te am from the University of Pennsylvania’s Architectural Conservation Laboratory (Weisman et al. 2001). USF was to assess the archaeological integrity of these cultural layers and interpret them. Figure 4.1. Map showing the locations of all test units excavated by USF in Feature A of the Warehouse Complex, as well as Baker’s (1973) Trench 1 (Sections 1 through 5).

PAGE 83

69 Figure 4.2. Map showing the locations of all test units excavated by USF in Feature C of the Warehouse Complex.

PAGE 84

70 Large pieces of architectural rubble we re collected and bagged by hand from the surface of the warehouse floor. Test unit excavation was performed in arbitrary 5centimeter (cm) levels within zones defined by recognizable stratigraphic breaks. Levels were dug in 5-cm increments rather than the standard 10-cm increments due to the shallow nature of the deposit. All levels were excavated by hand w ith the use of trowels and shovels. Each level was given a unique FS number, formatted as the feature number, followed by the last 2 digits of the year of the excavation, follo wed by the provenience number. Shoveling techniques included scra ping the unit floors to remove soil a few centimeters at a time. Soil horizon interfaces were excavated by trowel with the hope of encountering feature stains. These interfaces were also later interprete d as discrete levels when examining the stratigraphy of th e site, after Harris (1989). When a feature was encountered, it was treated separately, with individual recording, photography, sifting, a nd content analysis. At leas t one representative profile and plan view was drawn and photographed for each test unit, with the soil composition and color of each level recorded by reference to Munsell soil colors. In situ artifacts were also mapped. Feature plan views were sepa rately drawn. The only exception was Test Unit 97N/85E, which was photographed but was not hand-profiled due to its relatively shallow depth. All soils recovered from th e regular strata were dryscreened through 1/4-inch (in.) hardware cloth; soils recovered from features were dry-screened through 1/8-in. hardware cloth. Separate provenience data we re recorded for each unit by level. Test units were excavated until the natural coral bedrock (a culturally sterile zone) was

PAGE 85

71 reached. All test units, with the exceptions of 98N/88E and 105N/94E, measured 1 x 1 m in size, oriented to grid nor th. Test Unit 98N/88E measur ed 1.8 x 1 m, with the longer axis oriented along grid north -south. Test Unit 105N/94E measured 5.8 x 1.95 m, with the longer axis oriented along grid east-west. Baker (1973) had previously excavated Trench 1 along the grid northeast corner of Feature A (Figure 4.1). This trench was divided into 5 sections, each measuring 1 x 2 m (oriented grid east-west). Baker (1973) also excavated si x 3 x 3 m squares in Feature A (N238/W88, N238/W91, N241/W88, N241/W 91, N241/W94, and N244/W94) and ten 3 x 3 m squares in Feature C (N 232/W75, N235/W75, N238/W82, N241/W79, N241/W82, N241/W85, N245/W81, N245/W84, N245/W88, N248/W84), all of which contained ceramic artifacts except N241/W85 (Figure 4.3). These units were named for the north and west coordinates of their sout heast corner, the datum point for each test square. All of Baker’s proveniences were given an FS number consisting of 72 (the last 2 digits of the year they were excavated), 20 (the site reference), and the provenience number. For the purpose of clarity, the aut hor has added an A or a C preceding the FS number, to indicate the feature from which that FS was collected. All of Baker’s (1973) test squares and Trench 1 were collected in layers (the equivale nt of USF’s zones), defined by stratigraphic breaks, and levels (a rbitrary increments of approximately 10 cm within each layer). Ceramic artifacts collected from soil samples taken from the 3 x 3 m squares were analyzed as part of this study, but did not have a recorded vertical depth.

PAGE 86

72 Figure 4.3. Map showing the locations of all 3 x 3 m test squares excavated by Baker (1973) in features A a nd C of the Warehouse Complex.

PAGE 87

73 Archaeological Monitoring At the completion of the excavations by USF, approximate 1 x 3 m grids were laid out in those portions of features A and C considered to be filled with re-deposited material or backfill from previous investiga tions. These grids were labeled Trench 1A, Trench 1B, etc., and their locations are s hown in Figures 4.4 and 4.5. In addition, one unit, designated as Unit 1, was excavated by the FPS in the grid southeastern corner of Feature C, and uncovered a possible column su pport. Its exact location is shown in Figure 5.2 (Chapter Five). All of the mate rial was removed with shovels. Soil was screened through 1/2-in. hardware cloth mesh and bagged according to general provenience rather than specifi c zones and levels, as was done for the formal test units. This soil removal was the final recovery of material done in preparation for conservation efforts by the University of Pennsylvania’s Hi storic Preservation pr ogram (Figure 4.6). Soil was screened through 1/2-in. hardware cloth mesh in 3 levels of 6 in. each. Monitoring of the soil removal was conducted by members of the master’s program in Public Archaeology program at USF and by Park Ranger Bob Rose, a state-certified archaeological monitor. A grid system was de vised to define the provenience of artifacts removed during this process, and is illustra ted in Chapter Seven. After the removal of soil, the floors of features A and C were c overed with clean white gravel placed over a geofabric barrier by the memb ers of the University of Pennsylvania’s Historic Preservation program.

PAGE 88

74 General Field Procedures This section discusses the more gene ral aspects of the field procedures implemented during the 1998 and 1999 investiga tions at 8MO15. Standardized field specimen inventories, test unit summaries, level forms, feature forms, and photograph logs were maintained throughout the project. Plan view and profile drawings were created to illustrate the stratigraphy of each excavation unit. Photographs were taken to document each excavation unit. General site photography was also done to show weather, environmental, and structural condi tions prior to, during, and following the field investigation. Photographs incl uded color print, color slid e, and VHS video formats. Artifacts and ecofacts recovered were segregat ed by provenience (level and stratum) and collected accordingly. All ar tifacts and ecofacts were bagged in the field and given an FS number unique to their provenience. This collection process included artifacts found during the course of surface inspection and s ubsurface excavation. This system allows a measure of control over artifact recovery a nd curation, and ensures that artifacts from separate proveniences are not mixed. All field measurements were made in metric format, although measurements of the structural features themselves were also taken in English format due to the use of that measurement format during the period of the warehouse’s construction. Laboratory Methods General laboratory procedures began with an inventory of all material that had been collected. The inventory was correlated with the FS list compiled in the field. Conservation methods begun in the field were continued in the la boratory, where the

PAGE 89

75 material is washed or otherwise stabilize d. The recovered material was cleaned and processed according to standard archaeol ogical laboratory proce dures. The initial analysis and sorting involved identifying different histor ic artifacts and sorting the resulting data by material and functional groupings. Figure 4.4. Map showing the locations of all trenches excavated by the FPS in Feature A of the Warehouse Complex.

PAGE 90

76 Figure 4.5. Map showing the locations of all t renches excavated by the FPS in Feature C of the Warehouse Complex.

PAGE 91

77 Figure 4.6. Photograph of conservation effo rts in Feature A, facing grid west. The goal of any artifact analysis is to provide data by which the hypotheses or research topics can be addressed. Classifi cation of the artifacts and ecofacts produces information that can be used to determine site function (including discrete intra-site functional areas), cultural affilia tion, and chronological period. Analysis of Historic Ceramics Analysis of the material began with th e classification of ceramics according to paste, glaze, decoration, hardness, diagnosti c features, temporal period, manufacturing information, and economic value. This anal ysis also took into account temporal and spatial patterning, thus facilitating site in terpretation. All material was tabulated by various categories, including provenience and analytical class. These artifacts were classified by functional groups after South (1977). South’s (1977:9596) nine original groups were as follows: Activities (e.g., tools) Architectural (e.g., br icks, nails, window

PAGE 92

78 glass), Arms (e.g., gunflint, lead shot), B one (e.g., faunal remains from butchering activities), Clothing (e.g., butt ons, boot soles), Furniture (e .g., cabinet glass, drawer handles), Kitchen (e.g., container glass, an iron stove fragment), Personal (e.g., jewelry, gaming pieces), and Tobacco Pipe (e.g., kaolin pipe stems). South’s (1977) groups were used in this study because of their inclusiven ess and applicability to a household and/or a commercial assemblage. A majority of ceram ic artifacts falls in to the Kitchen Group, including those related to the storage, se rving, or consumption of food. However, ceramics can belong to other groups. For exam ple, a ceramic doll arm would fall into the Personal Group and a kaolin clay pipe fragment would fall into the Tobacco Pipe Group. Laboratory Documentation Standardized forms were used to reco rd data concerning recovered cultural materials. Each catalog sheet listed the site number, site name, name of the person who did the cataloging, date cataloged, field specim en number, and provenience. Information recorded on the catalog sheet s included class, category, descriptor, modifier, group, count, and weight for each artifact Class refers to a general ma terial type of artifact, i.e., stone, metal, glass, ceramic, etc. Category re fers to a more specific material description of the artifact. For example, ceramic arti facts could be coarse earthenware, porcelain, whiteware, etc. Descriptor is a specific description of the artifact; for example, a Chinese porcelain plate fragment. The modifier column lists diagnostic, decorative, or functional attributes of the artifact such as color or base or rim attr ibutes. Count refers to the number of artifacts from a specific provenien ce that fit into this exact categorization. Weight was taken in grams and is measured to a tenth of a gram. Additionally, scaled

PAGE 93

79 color photographs of certain diagnostic or representative artifac ts were taken. An inventory of all ceramic artifacts analyzed from the warehouse is included as Appendix B. Curation For the purposes of curation, ceramic arti facts that were used in cross-mending analysis were labeled with India ink over a clear enamel base in an inconspicuous location, preferably on the surf ace of the artifact that did no t contain decoration or other diagnostic or photographi c-worthy attributes. Materials were bagged by FS number in appropriately sized, twoto fourmillimeter (mm) thick, polyvinyl bags with zip-lock closures. The bags were labeled with permanent ink markers with the s ite number and site name, FS numbers, provenience information, materi al content, and date collected. The individual material bags were then placed by provenience in la rger, four-mm thick, polyvinyl bags with ziplock closures. Written on the outside of these bags with permanent ink were the FS number, provenience information, and the materi al included within the bag. All curated materials were placed in storage boxes w ith exterior labels. These steps ensure provenience control and accessibility for furt her study and curation. Because Indian Key is owned by the state, all materials recovered during the investigation will be returned to the curation facilities at the BA R, Tallahassee, Florida, afte r the completion of this study, where they will be permanently curated. Docu mentary records, including notes, field and analysis forms, and photographic records ar e curated separately in the archaeological laboratory at the Department of Anth ropology at USF.

PAGE 94

80 Chapter Five: Architecture and Site Plan At least two maps drawn in 1840 exis t, each representing the location of structures on Indian Key at that time. Th e first is “Ground Plan of Indian Key in 1840,” drawn by Henry B. Perrine (1885) (see Figure 1.3). The second is dated January 1840 and was drawn based on data compiled from Indian Key citizen Charles Howe (see Figure 3.2). A map similar to Howe’s was reproduced in a 1972 advertisement that encouraged visitors to come to the site (Eyster and Brown 1976). Baker (1973) mentions both 1840 maps, noting that the Howe map co rresponds closely to the 1972 contour map that he and his team created. However, Perrin e’s appears to be more accurate with regard to the placement of the building Baker labeled as Feature B. This is known as Senator English’s kitchen, and is grid south of and adjacent to Feature A. The results of the Global Positioni ng System (GPS) and Geographical Information Systems (GIS) mapping completed by USF in 2000 indicate that a town plan did exist, although not one as precise as the maps of the time would suggest. An ongoing research question for site 8MO15 is the dete rmination of what building codes (formal or informal), given the time period, the ge ography, and the social and economic setting, govern the architecture of specific buildings and the overall layout of the site (Weisman et al. 2001). Although features A an d C are commonly known as the Warehouse Complex, and Feature B is known as Senator English’s kitchen, th e terms “warehouse”

PAGE 95

81 and “kitchen” cannot be known to be accura te without archaeological evidence to indicate that these bu ildings did in fact serve these functions. Henry Baker (1973) and his team identif ied 22 archaeological features during the course of their 1972-1973 field season, and 16 of these were partially or fully excavated. Each was assigned an arbitrary letter de signation and was plotted according to the established grid system. Features A and C were jointly known as the Warehouse Complex, because “they are both obviously rela ted,” as they share an adjoining wall (Baker 1973:12). When taken as a whole, they are the largest structure on the island, indicating that they are the remains of the warehouse used by Housman (Baker 1973). In addition, its position on the island clearly matc hes that of the warehouse as indicated on the Howe (1840) and Perrine (1885) maps. Perrine (1885:13) describes the warehouse as large and “three stories in hei ght … crowned with a lofty cupola.” According to him, it was the most prominent structure on the island (Perrine 1885:13). The warehouse was beyond Housman’s home from the Perrine’s, and stood in front of the second wharf (Perrine 1885:24). Feature A is the grid south section of the Warehouse Complex. It was constructed by literally excavating the feature from the cora l bedrock (possibly with dynamite), as the leveled floor is one meter below the natura l bedrock surface. This natural bedrock’s shallow depth below the ground surface prevents “severe limitations affecting most uses” of the Pennekamp gravelly muck soil that char acterizes Indian Key (H urt et al. 1995:7). This coral limestone bedrock is near the surface in all areas of the keys except for marginal areas of mangrove swamps (Hurt et al. 1995). Once the interior walls of

PAGE 96

82 Feature A were formed by removing this be drock, the remaining interior stone was quarried and used to create th e walls of the warehouse. Detailed mapping and photo documentation of the walls and floors of features A and C were priorities during the 2000 field seas on. This was due to the great potential for conservation, stabilization, and interpretation of the Wa rehouse Complex (Matero and Fong 1997; Weisman et al. 2001). This doc umentation, along with the 1998 and 1999 excavations, produced a hypothesis regarding the sequence of stratigraphic layers in features A and C. The preliminary interpretatio n of Feature A is that it consisted of a thin layer of plaster applied over smoothed bedrock surface. An additional plaster floor was excavated in the grid northeast portion of Feature A. This floor possibly represents a later use of this portion of the structure. Th e grid north side of Feature A has had a brick and mortar pad added to the central part of the wall adjoining Feature C. A brick step (possibly a door threshold) was located on the grid east wall in the grid southeast corner of the structure, near the tidal opening. These additions were probably built in the 1870s, but one of the goals of this th esis is to ascertain or dispro ve this supposition (Weisman et al. 2001:10-11). The floor in Feature C is created from a layer of thin plaste r placed over smoothed bedrock. A single course of bric ks was laid over this plaster. The brick course was then covered by another plaster layer. This uppe r plaster layer continued seamlessly along the walls, which were constructed of coursed cora l blocks. This seamless wall, which seems to indicate the function of a cistern, continues throughout Feat ure C. The bricks, which are hand-made, are mortared. Some of them ar e half-size and quarter-size. Both the first

PAGE 97

83 plaster floor and the bricks c overing it are covered in “semicir cular or arc-like patterns of scratches or scoring,” some of which ar e deep gouges. These gouges are as yet unexplained. No indications of any types of room divisions, doors, or windows exist (Weisman et al. 2001). Weisman et al. (2001:11) raise severa l research questions related to this observable stratigraphy. The first is whethe r the floor construction sequence occurred during one episode, or whether the plaster ov er the bedrock, the brick floor, and the second plaster floor were built separately or in some co mbination. The second is the function of Feature C. The floor sequence of Feature B (identif ied by Baker [1973] as Senator English’s kitchen) is extremely simila r to that of Feature C. If Feature C has been interpreted as a cistern, is Feature B also actually a cistern? The overall architectural layout of 8MO15 is addresse d in another thesis (Driscoll 2003). However, the architectural questions related specifically to the Warehouse Complex will be addressed in this study. It is known that in 1838 Jacob Housman hired a stonecutter and quarryman named James A. Dutche r to cut a large cistern out of bedrock (Dutcher and Dutcher 1846). Perrine (1885:26) mentions that a large cistern was located beneath the warehouse. Clearly, Feature A is this structure. However, this raises the question of the function of Feature C, which is presumed to be a cistern due to the seamless plaster floor and walls. If Feature A is the cistern refe rred to by Perrine and commissioned by Housman, is Feature C also a cistern (possibly from a separate time period)? If this is the case, the coursed co ral block wall separating features A and C may have once been an outside wall.

PAGE 98

84 Complicating the archaeological evidence is a signed affidavit signed by a captain of the U.S. Navy stating that the “s torehouse” (presumably the warehouse) was temporarily used in 1839 as a military hos pital (Weisman et al. 2001). Wilkinson (personal communication 1999) noted that the references to the warehouse in print (e.g., Perrine 1885) indicate that the warehouse was the upper (wooden) structure over the cistern (presumably Feature A), and that a tr ap door in the floor of the warehouse opened over the cistern. Perrine’s (1885) description of the re fuge sought in the warehouse during the 1840 attack by two ship’s carpenters, Gla ss and Bieglet, and a young boy, James Sturdy, sheds light on the architecture of the warehouse: Bieglet knew that under the warehous e was a large cistern, and that it could be entered by a trap-door in the floor of the piazza directly in front of the wide door which led into the warehouse. With his two companions he hastened thither, and raising the trap they quietly let themselves down into the water beneath which was brea st-high to the men, and reaching the boy’s neck. I do not know how long they had been there before they heard the voices of passing Indians, but it must have been about daybreak that by looking out between the piazza floor a nd the foundation wall, they saw a number of them passing by … (Perrine 1885:26-27). In the dawn, Bieglet climbed out of the cistern, entered the warehouse, and ascended the stairs of the cupola above, wher e “by opening a small cr evice in the blinds” he saw Indians scattered about the island. He then retreated to his place of concealment in the cistern and from there saw the Perrines’ escape. Shortly after, he heard the Indians come into the warehouse above his head, tumble some prepared bales of hay, and leave again. They had apparently set it on fire, because smoke began to billow and fill the cistern. Bieglet and his companions were afra id the floor would collapse on top of them

PAGE 99

85 after being burned through and they hastened to escape. Upon raisi ng the trap door, they saw a sheet of flame “pouring out of the door of the warehouse directly across the opening.” James had already succumbed to the smoke and did not respond to the calls of the other two. Bieglet and Glass “raised themse lves nearly to the sheet of flame,” held their breath, and ran through it, suffering burned hair, ey ebrows, arms, and shoulders. James’ body was found afterwards “in the ruins, in the water of th e cistern” (Perrine 1885:27). A study of the bricks used in the constr uction of several features on Indian Key, presented in interim reports by Weisman ( 2000b) and Weisman et al. (2001), is also illuminating in determining the age of certa in structural elements of the Warehouse Complex. The bricks found between the two pl aster layers in Feat ure C are sand-struck hand-made bricks that are poorly fired and have a moderate grog content. These bricks measure 22-23 cm long, 11 cm wide, and 5-6 cm thick. These types of bricks date prior to 1850, which indicates that they were laid during the Housman period. Machine-made bricks are present in the step found along the gr id east wall of Feature A and in the brick pad midway along the interior of the grid north wall of Feature A. The machine-made bricks measure 19-19.5 cm long, 9 cm wide, and 5-6 cm thick. It was previously hypothesized that the brick pad served as th e base or back of an iron coalor woodburning stove, which became fused to the mo rtar and brick matrix extending onto the floor of Feature A (Lamb 1999a). These mach ine-made bricks are later than the handmade bricks, and indicate a later (post-1850) use of the warehouse, perhaps during the Pinder period. The third type of brick r ecovered is firebrick. A single example lies

PAGE 100

86 within Feature A, and is mortared onto the brick pad. This firebr ick is tempered with coarse grog, and measures 23 cm long, 11 cm wide, and 5 cm thick (Weisman et al. 2001). Archaeological Background of the Warehouse Complex Professional archaeological investigati ons of Indian Key began in the 1960s, although the island has incited popular curiosity since the 1870s, when Harper’s New Monthly Magazine published a story, “Along the Flor ida Reef” (Holder 1871), describing Indian Key as one of the few keys inhabite d during that period. Following is a brief history of the archaeological study of Indian Key as it relates to the study of the Warehouse Complex presented in this thesis. In his memoirs, Henry B. Perrine (1885) recalls his return trip to Indian Key in 1876 (having left with the rest of his family af ter his father was killed during the attack of 1840). He notes the added presence of the A lligator Reef lighthouse approximately five miles offshore. Of Indian Key, he states, “the island itself of course bears but faint resemblance to its former appearance; the wharves all gone, but very few of the many palm trees left, and the few buildings now upon it not at all like those which were destroyed by the Indians. I showed the boys were [sic] the vessel lay at anchor off Tea Table Key, to which we escaped thirty-six ye ars before” (Perrine 1885:38). He mentions the “disastrous” effects on many of the ke ys wreaked by a hurrican e the previous week (Perrine 1885:38).

PAGE 101

87 In his memoir, Perrine (1885:39) also obser ves that the Indian Key of his memory is different than the one he enc ountered in the 1870s, stating that, Strange to say there was much in th e actual aspect of the island, which seemed like the realization of the dr eams which had before seemed widly [sic] unnatural. Where formerly there had been comparatively smooth walks, and grounds kept free from weeds, everything was now rough calcareous rocks, and debris of various kinds weeds nearly everywhere. Only an overgrown cistern marked the spot where Charles Howe’s buildings once stood (Perrine 1885:39). Most of the ornament al trees planted by his father were gone, although the sisal hemp remained (Perrine 1885:4 0). Of the warehouse, he says that, “the cistern, in which the sailor, Bieglet, and young Sturdy were concealed, when the Indians fired the warehouse above them, is still there with a dwelling house erected above it” (Perrine 1885:40). During the period of Perri ne’s re-visit to the island, it was occupied by William Bethel, and several wooden dwellings had been constructed in the center of the island (Perrine 1885:40). One of the general misconceptions about I ndian Key is that Perrine investigated an Indian mound with human remains there duri ng his return trip to the keys; however, it seems clear from a careful read ing of Perrine’s (1885:52) text that the mound he refers to lies off Biscayne Bay, not on Indian Key. Irvi ng Eyster conducted th e first professional archaeological investigation of Indian Key in the 1960s. Pre-1960 Investigations Prior to 1960, Indian Key suffered from apparently frequent looting. Russell Niedhauk, a former caretaker of Indian Ke y, reported to Henry Baker (1982:100) that

PAGE 102

88 “some time after the turn of the century, a local Upper Matecumbe entrepreneur rented boats and shovels to visiting treasure hunters a nd sent them off to dig on Indian Key.” Excavations by Irving Eyster Eyster (personal communication 1999) reports that a fishing camp existed on Indian Key up until the arrival of Hurricane Donna in 1960, when its remains washed up onto the east side of the town square. He al so noted that large square beams existed near the warehouse up until the 1950s or 1960s. No photographs of I ndian Key during its 1830s period of occupation are known; Eyst er (personal communi cation 1999) reports that a letter from Dr. Henry Perrine to his brother approximately a month before his death (on August 7, 1840) mentions photography as a new invention (the daguerreotype was introduced in 1839). In additi on, Dr. Perrine reportedly wr ote a book with some pen and ink drawings, but only a few dozen copies were printed, and none are known to exist. Apparently, one of Charles Howe’s desce ndants had the last copy (Eyster, personal communication 1999). Irving Eyster’s work at Indian Key has been reported in one publication, An Excavation on Indian Key, Florida (Eyster 1965). The 1965 excavation of the rectangular cistern in the cen ter of the island (Baker’s [ 1973] Feature F) was conducted as part of an archaeological field school Eyster taught that summer for the University of Miami. Eyster (1975) has also publish ed a more general book on South Florida archaeology, The Handbook of South Florida Archaeology

PAGE 103

89 Excavations by the State of Florida The first archaeological i nventory and excavation of the island as a whole was conducted by the State of Florida from 1972 to 1973, under the supervision of Henry Baker, project archaeologist. Prior to the initia tion of the project, Baker (1973) had two initial objectives: to prepare a topographical map showing all of th e major archaeological features, and to conduct a systematic archaeol ogical survey of the en tire island with the goal of identifying historically significant structures. Once these objectives were met, the second part of the project focused on “correlating the archaeological data with the cartographi c and historical materials available, testing the working hypotheses formed during the first stag e of the project, and carrying out extensive and intensive archaeologi cal excavations in an effort to gain an overall understanding of the site” (Baker 1973:1). Although Baker (1973) identified at least 22 distinct features at Indian Key, it is hi s work at features A and C that are relevant to this study. Baker (1973:12) considered features A and C together as “the Warehouse Complex.” Feature C is slight ly less wide than Feature A, and contains an irregularly laid brick floor. As previously mentione d, a tidal hole approxima tely two meters in diameter that has an apparent opening into th e sea is located in th e grid southeast portion of Feature A. The higher elevation of the bedrock around this featur e than in the other areas prompted Baker (1973:14) to suggest th at the area of the tid al hole was separated from the rest of the struct ure by an interior wall.

PAGE 104

90 A one-meter wide and ten-meter long trench (oriented grid east-west) was excavated in Feature A along the dividing wa ll between features A and C. A profile drawn of this trench reveals the base of the previously hypothesized interior wall, and layers formed from natural activity, such as storms (Figure 5.1). The grid southwest corner of Feature A produced a large trash pit, which included a corroded iron stove/furnace, coal fragments, and artifacts from the late nineteenth century. This area of the warehouse appears to have been re-u sed in one of the post-Housman periods. Figure 5.1. Profile of the trench dug along the grid north wall of Feature A during Baker’s 1972 investigatio n (from Baker 1973:62). The rubble in the grid east portions of F eature C was removed to the level of the brick floor. The interior north wall was lined with three courses of “stepped bricks” in the grid southwest corner, which were finish ed with plaster (Baker 1973:14). The grid

PAGE 105

91 northwest corner has two granite blocks mortar ed at a 45 angle from the corner. Baker (1973:15) suggests that these two features may have served as part of a support structure for a raised wooden floor during a post-Hous man occupation period. The excavation of the grid northeast corner revealed a shallo w depression that is pa rtially covered with plaster. This depression was likely the base of a support post or a he avy object. The grid southeast corner was not excavated due to the stand of Jamaica dogwood trees growing there (Baker 1973:15). However, this corner was excavated in 1999 (designated as Unit 1) by volunteers working with the FPS, a nd a possible column support was uncovered (Figure 5.2). Figure 5.2. Plan view of the possible column support in the grid southeast corner of Feature C.

PAGE 106

92 Baker (1973:40) concluded his investigat ion of Indian Key by noting that its condition was poor due to the effects caused by th e actions of “treasure hunters, curiosity seekers, and vandals using tools ranging from shovels to dynamite in an effort to retrieve trophies.” The topsoil at the island was th in, and had been disturbed over the years through natural causes, such as hurricanes. Baker (1973) also notes that although the written historical record is the easiest way to organize the archaeological data, it also leaves the false impression that the only period of occupancy on the key was during the 1830s. He mentions that there were indeed ot her periods of occupation, and suggests that more extensive work be done in the future. The work that would be done at 8MO15 by USF beginning in 1998 built upon Baker’s (1973) earlier work. Another study of the archaeology of I ndian Key was conducted for the state by the Archaeological and Historical C onservancy, Inc., as part of their Archaeological, Historical, and Architectur al Survey of the Middle Keys (Carr et al. 1987). Carr et al. (1987:17) describe 8MO15 as c ontaining a “prehistoric shell and artifact scatter, blackdirt midden, historic foundations cisterns, historic graves, [and] historic refuse.” The authors note that there has been slight to moderate disturban ce to the site, but that most deposits are intact and that preservation should be of the utmost priority for park management (Carr et al. 1987). Excavations by the University of South Florida 1998 Field Season The USF excavations at 8MO15 were conducted for one week in June 1998, as part of a field school led by Dr. Weisman. Th ese excavations were

PAGE 107

93 an initial step in maintaining the integrity of the cultural resour ce and preparing it for stabilization. Stabilization of this site is a primary objective identified in the maintenance plans outlined for Indian Key (Decker et al 1989; DEP 1997). The goal of USF was to remove rubble lying on top of the archaeologi cal deposits and to properly excavate those deposits. Prior to stabilization efforts, Indi an Key was threatened by various negative impacts, both natural and from human activity. These included erosion, collapse of the rock walls, vandalism, and unauthorized collect ion of artifacts. The decision to excavate the Warehouse Complex first was made for seve ral reasons. First, it had already been partially surveyed and excavated by the State of Florida (Baker 1973). It is a component of the site that repr esents an integration of the entire community. Also, the warehouse complex was a focal point for the wrecking activ ity that served as the economic basis of the community during the Housman period. The initial research focus during the 1998 field season was to gain an understanding of the means of construction of the warehouse st ructure, the pattern of its maintenance, and its possible re-use over time. The 1998 excavations also provided a collection of artifacts from which to gather data relating to site function and the economic status of the inhabitant s of Indian Key. Fieldwork consisted of the excavation of eight test units of varying dimensions and depths. These were judgmentally placed in features A and C. Within Feature A, five test units were excavated. Test Unit 97N/85E, located in the gr id west half of Feature A, contained the remains of a plaster floor pres umably laid to smooth over the uneven floor of the bedrock. Test Unit 98N/88E was also ope ned in the grid west half of Feature A,

PAGE 108

94 and its north side was adjacent to the common wall separating features A and C. The northwest corner of the test unit contains in situ brickwork that was part of a secondary floor, along with an iron plate, th at had been laid over the orig inal plaster floor (parts of which had been burned). This plaster floor was laid to create a surface for a cast-iron stove, parts of which were found in Zone 1, Level 1. Test Unit 97N/91E was arbitrarily placed near the grid north wall of Feature A, approximately at the midpoint between the grid east and grid west walls of the warehouse. This placement was made in the hop es of determining an interior structural change in the warehouse layout. Below the surface layer, a plaster floor was excavated that existed only in the east ha lf of the test unit. Below the plaster floor lay a level of cultural soil approximately 3 to 4 cm thick, be low which was found another plaster floor. One of the goals of this ceramic study is to determine whether the two plaster floors are contemporaneous, or whether the second floor re presents a later mainte nance or re-use of the structure. Test Unit 94.29N/93E, located along the gr id south wall of Feature A, just grid east of the center of the warehouse, produ ced an extremely dense concentration of artifacts. A feature was uncovere d in the northeast corner of the test unit in the interface between Zone 2, Level 3, and Zone 3, Level 1. The lack of plaster flooring and the representation of more than one temporal period (judging from the diagnostic artifacts) will be interpreted as part of this study. Test Unit 98N/101E, placed along the grid ea st wall of Feature A, included part of the wall within its boundaries The depth of this test unit extended more than 50 cm

PAGE 109

95 below the bedrock foundation of the walls of Feature A, indicating beyond doubt that this was an entrance to the warehouse. The entr ance had been cut down to the level of the warehouse’s bedrock floor. The same type of formation could be observed approximately one meter to the grid south of this unit, further confirming this hypothesis. Rubble that was in the entranceway formed the impression of a continuous wall. This rubble was determined to have fallen across th e doorway from the or iginal wall over the years. Test Unit 104N/93E was placed in the center of the grid east half of Feature C. This test unit produced the remnants of a pl aster floor over an inta ct brick floor, which was mapped. Test Unit 105N/94E was located in the grid northeast co rner of Feature C, and was quite large, measuring 5.8 x 1.95 m, or iented along a grid eas t-west axis. The test unit was excavated in an effort to es tablish a correlation betw een the exposed brick area of the grid northeast corner of the bu ilding and the brick fl oor uncovered in Test Unit 104N/93E. The two test units were si milar in composition, as both contained a relatively intact brick floor c overed with plaster and mortar. The makeshift nature of the plaster was initially ascribed to poor or quick craftsmanship. In the western two meters of this test unit, a patch of plaster overlying the brick fl oor indicated two layers of flooring. The first could have been a simple foundation, and the second could have been used as a sealant to prevent moisture from seeping through the coral bedrock and brick. Another possibility is that it functioned as a cistern, with th e purpose of retaining water. Test Unit 104.26N/97.6E was also located in Feature C, and was an extension of Test Unit 105N/94E to the grid south. Once the area was cleared, a feature appearing to

PAGE 110

96 be a posthole was uncovered. An overlying fill of broken coal, shell, and mortar was excavated, and the only artifact collected wa s a square fragment of rusted iron found in situ in the floor of the feature. This could be the remnant of an iron plate placed under a wooden support beam. The purpose of this would be to prevent the wood from rotting, by decreasing the build-up of mo isture. The sloping walls of this feature were composed of a plaster floor that origin ally covered the brick floor. The floor of the feature is possibly made of plaster, which would indi cate a third floor surface below the brick. However, it could be the flattened surface of the underlying bedrock. The sloping walls and root concentrations may be helpful in fu ture excavations as a means of identifying possible locations of other postholes. 1999 Field Season The fieldwork completed during the week of June 14 to June 18, 1999 was both a continuation of the June 199 8 fieldwork and a necessary precursor to the efforts to stabilize the site. Figure 5.3 de monstrates the potential natural damage that could be done to the site in its former condition. A complete ar chaeological assessment of this feature was necessary before the restoration process could begin. Archaeological investigations typically pr oceed with a well-defined objective, as part of a research design. This research design guides the project and determines what areas of the site will be excavated, and at wh at level of intensity, depending on the type of information that is sought. In this case, the research design was influenced by the findings of the June 1998 excavation, which in turn was based on information provided by Baker’s (1973) earlier report. Although test units had previously been excavated in

PAGE 111

97 both features A and C, the focus of the field investigation shifted ex clusively to Feature A in the 1999 field season, for several reasons. Figure 5.3. Feature A filled with water pr ior to conservation, facing grid west. It had been determined, based on the hypothesis of Baker (1973) and the findings from Test Unit 98N/101E, that the doorwa y to the warehouse was along the grid east wall. To further delineate the entrancewa y to the warehouse, Test Unit 97.1N/99E was opened adjacent to 98N/101E. When this test unit proved to be informative, Test Unit 97.1N/98E was opened in order to obtain a cont iguous plan view and profile view of this area. Another test unit, 97N/95E, was placed in the grid east-cen tral portion of the warehouse, where no other work had yet been d one. It too was expa nded to include Test Unit 97N/96E. Finally, Test Unit 95N/93.1E was opened adjacent to the previously excavated 94.29N/93E in order to ascertain the lack of a plas ter floor in this area and

PAGE 112

98 reveal more information about the feature th at was located there. Test Unit 95N/93.1E was also expanded to include Test Unit 96N/93.1E. The objective was to identify different functional areas of the warehouse, by examining the presence or absence of plas ter flooring and possible wall sections. Irregularities in the layout of the plaster fl oors could indicate separate occupational layers as well as different functional areas. Anothe r objective was to analyze the stratigraphy of the warehouse to determine if discrete occupati onal layers were inta ct and well-defined. This was the reason for excavating four test units along a single grid east-west transect (97N-98N). This allowed for a profile of f our grid north walls, adjacent except for a onemeter gap between Test Units 97.1N/98E and 97 N/96E, to be created. More generally, it allowed the recovery of more diagnostic artifacts from whic h to create an occupational sequence of the warehouse. In November 1999, the author and two other members of the Public Archaeology program for the Master’s degree in anthropol ogy at USF (Jill A. Clay and Kelly A. Driscoll) returned to Indian Key to conduct archaeological monitori ng of the removal of built-up fill in Feature A by the FPS staff. Th ese artifacts were collected using a -in. hardware cloth screen, and the ceramics are included in this study, al though their vertical provenience is not as secure as those collected from the test units, as artifacts from different stratigraphic zones were not bagged separately. 2000 Field Season. The on-site collaboration of USF’s Public Archaeology program and the University of Pennsylvani a’s Historic Preservation program began during the 2000 field season. The results of this collaboration produced the development

PAGE 113

99 of a five-year plan for the research, preser vation, and interpretation of the archaeological remains on Indian Key (Weisman et al. 2001) The 2000 investigations had three main goals: the recovery and documentation of archaeological remains in those areas scheduled for conservation, the gathering of in formation for interpretive purposes from previously little-explored areas, and th e mapping of “archaeological, architectural, historical, and modern landscape features” using GPS and GIS technology (Weisman et al. 2001:1). The first and last goals are the ones that most directly add to an understanding of the Warehouse Complex. Th e maps created by Collins (2002) from her GPS/GIS study of the warehouse were consulted for this thesis. Soil that was considered to be re-dep osited fill from the Warehouse Complex was screened through -in. mesh (as opposed to th e standard -in. mesh) to remove a large amount of soil quickly, in order to facilita te conservation efforts led by the group from the University of Pennsylvania. Part of the soil sifted was known to be backfill from previous investigations (Weisman et al. 2001). The determinati on that the layers consisted of re-deposited material and backfill was based on stratigraphic profiles completed in the 1998 and 1999 field seasons (Lamb 1999a, 2000). These efforts produced artifacts, but the results lack the sp ecific archaeological provenience necessary to contribute to the stratigra phic study of the warehouse, as presented in Chapter Seven. However, the ceramic artifacts recovered were cataloged and are included in the ceramic study as part of the sample us ed to analyze the types of cer amics present at features A and C.

PAGE 114

100 2001 Field Season The 2001 field season focused on excavations at Feature F, a cistern along Fourth Street (Weisman and Collins 2001). The main bearing of these excavations on the study at hand is the simila rity in cistern construction between Feature F and Feature C, described below. 2002 Field Season The USF 2002 field season took place during the months of March and June and was part of the ongoing stabilization project (Weisman, Collins, Broadbent, and Bell 2002). The 2002 excavations focused on the area of Fourth Street, and specifically on features F and G, rectangul ar structures indicat ed by their remaining stone foundations. Built during the Housman period, features F and G were detached kitchens and/or cisterns. Thes e structures were associated with residential cottages, now destroyed, that fronted Fourth Street. These areas were investigated with the goal of obtaining household information related to the Housman period. The investigation indicated that the cu ltural material recovered dated from between the 1830s and 1860s, with the majority of the ar tifacts dating to the early to mid 1850s (Weisman, Collins, Broadbent, and Bell 2002:4). This patte rn was also noticed during the 2001 investigation. For example, the ceramic assemblage “is dominated by white ironstone decorated and plain patterns typical of the late 1840s and 1850s stylistic change away from the popular British transfer-prints and deco rated earthenwares” (Weisman, Collins, Broadbent, and Bell 2002:22, citi ng Dieringer and Dieringer 2001). These vessels with molded patterns were cheaper and more easily available than highly decorated ceramics, and are typical of middle-class assemblages. Shackel (1996) observes that this trend is

PAGE 115

101 coincidental with the growth of labor orga nizations and increasing child labor laws in England. An increase in the production of the more easily manufactured molded pieces may have been in response to these pressures (Weisman, Collins, Broadbent, and Bell 2002:22). The structural design of th e cisterns was investigate d, and can shed light on the construction of features A and C, the subject of this thesis. Apparently, a foundation was laid by choosing a location and st aking it with iron spikes driv en into the bedrock. Then, strings set at 90 angles were used to a form a rectangular area. The soil overlying the bedrock was removed, and slabs of rock 4-6 cm thick were chiseled from the bedrock to a depth of 20 cm. The chiseled slabs were then laid on their sides and formed the walls of the foundation. The excavated floor of the be drock became the bottom of the cistern, and was subsequently smoothed. This smoothing and subsequent filling of cavities and holes in the bedrock is specifically noted in th e Warehouse Complex as well as in features F and G. Once the walls were in place, and th e floor was smoothed, both were lined with a seamless plaster layer to hold water (Wei sman, Collins, Broadbent, and Bell 2002:5). Comparative Archaeological Studies The archaeological l iterature concerning studies of other cisterns and warehouses was consulted to provide an indication of the ty pes of structural remains and artifacts that would be associated with these features. This was not a comprehe nsive study, but rather a guideline to assist with the interp retation of features A and C at 8MO15.

PAGE 116

102 Cisterns The Midsouth Archaeological Research Ce nter at the University of Tennessee conducted archaeological investig ations of two pre-1890s unde rground cisterns in an old City Hall complex in Knoxville (Carnes 1982). These cisterns are circular in shape. A single course brick pad, with a plaster lini ng, was uncovered on the floor of one of the cisterns. The function of this was conjectured to be a filter for sediment in the bottom of the cistern. The floor contour is concave, w ith tapering walls. The interior taper was formed by a single row of bricks around the in terior circle, covered in a cement plaster lining. This cistern was dome shaped, but the plaster dome had been previously removed prior to excavation. On the second cistern, the dome was intact. It had been formed by bricks mortared into the shape of an arch and covered by seamless plaster. This dome had openings, possibly vents, situated at equal distances around it. At least one of these openings was for a pipe leading into the cister n. Carnes (1982:19) not es that this was a common practice, as cisterns of this period were often composed of a circular brick casing with an interior ceme nt plaster lining. These cist erns had a ceramic artifact distribution as follows: Porcelain – 10.3% Refined stoneware – 7.8% Coarse stoneware – 0.2% White earthenware – 76.9% Burned/unidentified – 4.8% Carnes (1982:55) notes that an earl y description (Bettesw orth and Hitch 1981 [1734]) of cistern construction states that many early cisterns were built directly

PAGE 117

103 underneath a house. “The lining of the cister n was composed of stone or brick laid in ‘terras’ or horizontal rows. A plaster lining was sometimes (though it seems, not always) laid over this to provide a wa tertight seal.” The descrip tion recommended that cement be used to join the brick or st one. The bottom should be cove red with sand “to sweeten and preserve” the water’s taste (Bettesworth and Hitch 1981 [ 1734]:np). The cistern was filled by rainwater through gravity-fed channe ls or pipes running into it. Carnes (1982:56) also states that the construction of cisterns has re mained basically the same for the past two centuries. An investigation of the remains of th e Town of Woolsey was made by a team from the University of West Florida, Pensacola, from 1994 to 1998 (Archeology, Inc. 2001). The town was built in the 1820s by the Navy to house the workers who built the U.S. Naval Yard in Pensacola, Florida. Features uncovered duri ng the archaeological investigations included street s, sections of a seawall a nd other retaining walls, midden deposits, wells, cisterns, support posts, refuse pi ts, and various architectural remains. The town survived until 1862, when it was burne d during the Civil War. The remaining structures were razed by the military in the 1920s (Archeology, Inc. 2001). The cisterns located at the site are extremely similar to those found on Indian Key dating to the Naval period of occupation. They are circular, with a foundation of mortared brick. The brick interior was c overed with plaster. The cisterns are approximately 2 m (6.6 ft.) in diameter, and thus are smaller than those found at Indian Key (Archeology, Inc. 2001). For purposes of comparison with the warehouse, the main

PAGE 118

104 point of interest is that the cisterns here have a seamless plaster interior, as seen in Feature C. Warehouses and Similar Structures A historical investigation of the group of islands known as Cedar Keys conducted in the 1940s describes the settlement of the f our main islands (Cedar Key, formerly Way Key; Atsena Otie Key, formerly Depot Key; Seahorse Key; and North Key), from the mid-1810s until the 1920s (Burtchaell 1949). These islands are located of off the central Florida Gulf coast, and as with Indian Ke y, the only access to them is by boat. Atsena Otie Key was the location of a former tow n, with formal streets and homesites. A recent archaeological investigation reveal ed that 8LV15 (Atsena Otie Key) is a multi-component site containing, among other prehistoric and historic features, the remains of a mill near the wharf and a milita ry hospital (Ambrosino et al. 2002). The U.S. Army used the island as a base of supplies and a hospital for war casualties during the Second Seminole War (1835-1842) (Burtcha ell 1949:11). The complex of buildings on Atsena Otie Key during the war, including the aforementioned hospital, officers’ and enlisted men’s quarters, and storehouses, was arranged in an orderly, but not fortified, manner (Ambrosino et al. 2002:26). Followi ng the war, homesteading began on the island, and the hospital (along with its out buildings) was aucti oned for $30.00 (Fishburne 1997:216). The remains of the hospital were identif ied by Ambrosino et al. (2002:74) as Locus 41, and it is a large depression with three concrete/tab by U-shaped chimney foundations. Numerous bricks were found, and an 1884 bird’s eye view map identifies

PAGE 119

105 this structure as being large, and two storie s in height. Henry Ba ker’s (1988:15) earlier excavation of site 8LV15 noted that the form er location of the hospital was marked by a depression 37 ft. (11 m) wide and 47 ft. (14 m) long. He also states that the building may have employed a sunken ground floor or basement, and that “it is intere sting to note that such construction techniques were typical of mid-nineteenth century American military hospitals” (Baker 1988:18). Types of ceramics that were associated with deposits of this period on Atsena Otie Key include pear lware (Gaudy Dutch and hand-painted), porcelain, stoneware, and whitewa re (Ambrosino et al. 2002). Two wharves and two warehouses, as well as several homes, other buildings, and a sawmill were built on Atsena Otie Key between 1843 and 1860 (Chance 1997); however, recent archaeological inve stigations have not been ab le to pinpoint the location of these warehouses, which may have been re-used as part of the mill activities (Ambrosino et al. 2002:28). Warehouses in one of the major ports of the 1830s, Apalachicola, were multistory brick structures (Sc huh 1990:315-316). Letters from a cotton warehouse clerk from 1838-1840 reveal that he worked in one of these warehouses, and that he and a fellow clerk shared sleeping quarter s on the second floor. The warehouse was apparently divided into functional areas, as the clerk also mentions a counting room on the second floor, and offices elsewhere in the building (Schuh 1990:318). An archaeological, historical, and ar chitectural evaluation of the Cantrell Warehouse and the Enterprise Mill in Sussex County, Delaware (O’Connor et al. 1985) was conducted for the Delaware Department of Transportation. The structure was built

PAGE 120

106 in the late nineteenth centu ry, and operated into the 1940s It was converted into a warehouse in the 1950s. A 1910 Sanborn map shows the mill/warehouse as a frame structure with three one-story sheds attached to the rear of the main structure (O’Connor et al. 1985:34). It had a br ick foundation, and asphalt shi ngle siding. Double-hung sash wooden sash windows were a source of light (O’Connor et al. 1985:39). The structure is described as having slate or tin roofing, and the office section was heated by a wood stove (O’Connor et al. 1985:34). Another near by mill is described as a three-story frame structure (O’Connor et al. 1985:28). In his master’s thesis, titled The Archaeology of a Fl orida Antebellum Period Boarding House; the Ximenez-Fatio H ouse (SA 34-2), St. Augustine, Florida Frederick Paul Gaske (1982) compares the antebellum period (1821-1860) remains in St. Augustine to those at Indian Key. He suggests that Jacob Housman may have exaggerated Indian Key’s prosperity to further his own business interests and remain competitive with Key West. Gaske (1982:177) surmises that “sin ce Indian Key was a newly settled frontier settlement, it did not have the same access to established supply lines that St. Augustine, an urban center with a major tourist industry, had during this period.” Given this supposition, he compares the tw o sites using South’s (1972) Carolina artifact distribution pattern fo r the St. Augustine site and th e frontier artifact distribution pattern for Indian Key. For the Architecture Group, this indicates that “a newly built structure which was occupied for only a s hort period of time and then destroyed, as Feature B [on Indian Key] was, could be e xpected to reveal a greater percentage of architectural items from its construction than one that has been occupied considerably

PAGE 121

107 longer” (Gaske 1982:178). The relative pe rcentage of the Kitchen Group to the Architectural Group would also be expected to be lower at Indian Key (Gaske 1982:177178). For purposes of the comparison of archite ctural styles during their concurrent periods of occupation, it is helpful to consult Gaske’s (1982:216) chart on the architectural evolution of the extant kitc hen structure. He notes that during the structure’s Hotel period (1821-1900), it has a wood exterior with a masonry foundation, an interior covered with an ormigon (a Spanis h term for concrete) floor, a shingle-roofed porch erected late during th is period (ca. 1888-1893), and a courtyard area between the kitchen and the house. Gaske’s (1982) comparative study focused more on the architectural elements of both the Ximenez-Fa tio House in St. Augus tine and Feature B at Indian Key than their ceramic assemblages, but his work is nevertheless helpful in providing an example of Sout h’s (1972) artifact dist ribution patterns.

PAGE 122

108 Chapter Six: Classificati on of Historic Ceramics The purpose of classifying historic cerami cs is to create a synthesis of the archaeological data from which information can be discerned. This information can range from the date of the site’s occupation to an understanding of the trade network that allowed members of the community to obtain certain materials. From its inception, the discipline of historical archaeology has been challenged by problems regarding the classification of those ceramics. Consumers during the nineteen th century classified ceramics according to their decorative styles, such as “painted, edged, dippe d, and printed,” rather than their paste, which is the characteristic by which archaeo logists commonly define ware types (Sutton and Arkush 1996:199). Therefore, when analyz ing historic ceramics it is important to note the decoration as well as the ware type (as defined by the paste), to better integrate historical and archaeological data. Majewski and O’Br ien (1987) caution against classifying ceramics solely by ware type, gi ven that these ware types often temporally overlap or, more often, are not clearly defined. An example of the unclear definition of ware types is given below, in a section titled The Classification of Whiteware vs. Ironstone As a second argument against classi fying ceramics solely by ware type, Majewski and O’Brien (1987:99) state that “gro ups and types that result from ware-based

PAGE 123

109 sorting are archaeological constr ucts that may have little or nothing in common with how ceramic items were cataloged, marketed, and purchased.” A discussion of ceramic manufacturing during the relevant period follows as do sections defining the ware types, decorations, vessel shapes, and vessel func tions by which the Indian Key Warehouse Complex assemblage was classified. This chapter concludes with discussion of the specific types of analyses applied to the assemblage. Ceramic Manufacturing The industrial manufacture of ceramics wa s firmly established by 1850, replacing the earlier family potteries (M yers 1980). There was a smalle r range of vessels available during the 1800s than during the 1700s. This was due to the success of English ceramic manufacturers in the 1800s, which disc ouraged competition and created a more homogeneous product. English refined earth enwares displaced other European types, such as white salt-glazed stoneware and tin-glazed coarse eart henware (Miller 1980). During the 1800s, English ceramic tablewar e was considered by Americans to be the most desirable. In fact, American potters only produced stoneware and coarse earthenware in the first half of the 1800s due to the expense of competing with popular English refined earthenwares (Majewski and O’Brien 1987:103). In the 1900s, American-made wares became more popular, due in part to the establishment of the American Potters Guild in 1898. This guild was formed to promote American ceramic products. By 1909, the Sears catalog liste d a line of products from American

PAGE 124

110 manufacturers, including Homer Laughlin of East Liverpool, Ohio (Sutton and Arkush 1996:194). Ware Types Ceramics can be initially distinguished as impermeable or permeable (Rosenthal 1954). Impermeable wares are fired at hotter temperatures than permeable wares, in order to vitrify the paste and make the wa res non-porous. Types of impermeable wares include stoneware and porcelain (Cotter 1968). Permeable wares have pastes that are less well-fused than impermeable wares, and are so ft in varying degrees. They include heavy clay wares, such as brick and tile, refractory ware (firebrick ), terracotta, and earthenware (Cotter 1968; Majewski and O’Brien 1987). Ceramics are often distinguished by their le vel of vitrification. Vitrification is “the process whereby clays harden, tighten, and finally become gl assified as firing temperatures increase beyond red heat ” (Rhodes 1973:17-18, from Majewski and O’Brien 1987:108). Ceramics fall into one of three categories of vitrification: nonvitrified, semi-vitrified, and vitrified. The four main types of historic ceramics are terracotta (non-vitrified), st oneware (vitrified), earthe nware (semi-vitrified), and porcelain (vitrified) (Sutton and Arkush 1996:191), although Deet z (1993, 1996) lists only the latter three.

PAGE 125

111 Terracotta Terracotta wares are coarse and porous, and fired at temperatures under 900 C. Common terracotta wares include some bricks, fl ower pots, and tiles; they range in color from yellow to red to brown (Cotter 1968) They are usually unglazed, but may be covered with a slip (Rice 1987:5). Most br icks are not terracotta, but are fired until vitrified, at temperatures rangi ng from 870 to 1200 C. They are typically classified by their physical characteristics, su ch as their size, shape, colo r, and hardness; they can be generally dated according to these characteri stics but often contain a maker’s mark as well (Gurcke 1987; Harley 1974; Nol Hume 1970). However, the bricks found at features A and C of 8MO15 were not considered part of the ceramic assemblage for this study; rather, they are considered as part of an architectural study (Driscoll 2003). Terracotta roofing tiles were often used on brick buildings for their fire-resistant qualities. They were usually rectangular in shape, alt hough Nol Hume (1970:295) notes that these same types of tiles were often us ed for bake ovens and in “bonding courses for stone walls.” The remnants and quantity of mo rtar on a tile can often indicate whether or not it was used for roofing (Nol Hume 1970:295). Tiles were not included as part of the ceramic assemblage for this study, as they were considered to be ar chitectural in function, and not suited for comparison with the ceramic s studied here, which ar e generally part of the Kitchen functional group, as defined by S outh (1977). Terracotta vessels, such as flower pots, were incl uded in this study.

PAGE 126

112 Stoneware Stoneware has a non-porous gray paste, a nd is fired at 1200 to 1400 C. This temperature range is hot enough to achieve at le ast partial vitrificati on of the vessel (Rice 1987:6). Although stoneware is naturally im permeable, a glaze was often applied to stoneware vessels for aesthetic appeal a nd ease in cleaning (Deetz 1996:69). English stoneware was sometimes unglazed. When a glaze was applied, it was typically a salt glaze, which can withstand higher kiln temper atures than a lead glaze (Deetz 1993:178). Stoneware is typically used in the manufacture of utilitarian vessels (Greer 1981:268). Stoneware was initia lly manufactured in Germany and exported to England, and later made in both countries. Alt hough it was common during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, stoneware did not become a fine tableware until the eighteenth century (Sutton and Arkush 1996:191). Ther e are three German types of stonewares: brown stoneware bottles (bellarmines), dati ng to the seventeenth century; blue-on-gray stonewares (made in Westerwald), dating from the seventeenth century through the third quarter of the eighteenth centu ry; and monochromatic brownish gray stoneware (made in Hhr) (Deetz 1993:178-179). Brown stoneware s were manufactured in England beginning in the eight eenth century, and white stonewares began to be manufactured in the first quarter of that ce ntury (Deetz 1993:179). White salt-glazed stoneware was a typical English tableware be tween 1740 and 1770, replacing de lftware, a type of tinglazed coarse earthenware (Nol Hume 1970:115).

PAGE 127

113 Stoneware was not produced until the mid-eighteenth century in New England due to unsuitable local clays for firing at high temperatures. Unglazed porcelain and semi-porcelain were also introduced in the colonies during this period (Cotter 1968:1516). Throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and into the twentieth as well, utilitarian stoneware vessels were used in Europe and America (Cotter 1968:13-14). A typical example of this is the nineteenth-c entury crock, which is American and has a brown, gray, or greenish-gray body color with a va riety of colored interior lead glazes. It always has a salt-glazed or lead-glazed exte rior, and can be decorated with hand-painting, scratching, or sponging. Similar in style to this is the ginger b eer bottle, a stoneware vessel which dates from 1820 to 1860 (Smith 1990:30). These bottles were made from a mold, and are often Bristol-glazed. Ginger beer bottles were manufactured in America, Australia, Canada, and England (Stau 1984). Stoneware peaked in popularity in th e 1770s and was often decorated with molding, painting, transfer printing, or inci sed printing (Cotter 1968: 14). When painted, it was often with broadly applied brushstroke s of mottled blue or brown (Cotter 1968:910). Wedgwood made many improvements on this type of ceramic, but his Queen’s ware (creamware), a type of earthenware, eventua lly drove it from the market (Cotter 1968:910). Earthenware Earthenware is semi-vitreous and permeable This type of pottery is fired at temperatures ranging from 800 to 1200 C. It may be glazed for impermeability or

PAGE 128

114 unglazed, although Rice (1987:6) notes that if the firing temperature is high enough, a glaze may form on the exterior surface (Sut ton and Arkush 1996:191). The paste texture of earthenware can be defined as either coarse or refined. This definition is based on the size of the grain: if it has visibl e grains that are the size of sand or larger, it is classified as coarse, if it has a “chalky, powder y, or glassy appearance,” it is classified as fine (Sutton and Arkush 1996:197, from Rice 1987). Earthenwar e has a yellow to white paste that is harder than terracotta (Cotter 1968). Coarse Earthenware Unglazed types included heavy wares such as brick and tile (Cotter 1968:10-11). Lead glaze is one type of glaze used on earthenware, and can be clear or colored. Colored l ead glazes remain transparent, allowing decoration on the body to be seen. These are typically found on Spanish colo nial sites dating from the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries (Deagan 1987). An example of a lead-glazed coarse earthenware vessel is the Spanish olive jar. Tin oxide added to a lead glaze produces a tin glaze, also known as tin enamel. This glaze is opaque, and does not allow the underlying body to show through (Deetz 1993:17 8). Tin-enameled coarse earthenwares include majolica vessels and tiles from Sp ain, Portugal, Holland, and Italy; faience vessels from France; and delftware from E ngland and Holland (Co tter 1968:10-11; Deetz 1993:178). Due to their early pe riod of use (from the fifteenth to eighteenth centuries), these types of vessels are limited in their representation in the ceramic assemblage studied here.

PAGE 129

115 English slipware was produced in England throughout the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries. The slip was applied to a coarse earthenware body and was composed of a mixture of water and clay. The body ranges in color from buff to reddish brown to purple. Buckley ware was a type common in the third quarter of the 1700s. It has a purple-red body with a black glaze (Nol Hume 1970:132-135). Astbury is a clear lead-glazed coarse earthenware with a red body. It dates from 1725 to 1750 (Smith 1990:10). Jackfield is a black lead-gl azed coarse earthenware that has a purple or gray body. It dates from 1745 to 1790 (Nol Hume 1970:123; Smith 1990:9). American redware has a red body and a bl ack glaze, and generally dates from 1625 to the early 1800s. Turnbaugh (1983) notes that lead-glazed red wares are common in archaeological assemblages dating to th e seventeenth and eight eenth centuries in America, especially in New England. Whiel don ware is a lead-glazed red ware decorated in colorful “naturalis tic, rustic, and rococo designs” that date from 1750 to 1775 (Nol Hume 1970:124). Yellowware, named for its ye llow paste, was imported into America from England in the 1820s, and was made to replace porous, fragile red wares. It had a clear lead glaze. Yellowware began to be produced in several cities in America by the 1840s and 1850s, and reached its peak in the from 1870 to 1900, although it was manufactured as late as the 1930s (Richardson 2003). Refined Earthenware Coarse earthenware rapidly declined as tableware after 1800, as refined earthenwares became more common. English potters switched from coarse earthenware vessels due to their co lor limitations. Creamware, pearlware, and

PAGE 130

116 whiteware are important refined earthenware types dating to a period extending from the late eighteenth century to the twentieth century. Creamware Creamware has a yellowishor cream-col ored clay body with a clear lead glaze, which displays a yellowish or greenish cast (Nol Hume 1970; Price 1979, 1981). The glaze often is deep green or yellow-green wher e it pools or puddles in vessel crevices. Creamware was developed in the late 1750s and early 1760s, and was initially known as cream-colored (CC) ware. It was popular in England by 1765, but the first note of it in the colonies is 1769, suggesting a lag time be tween the appearance of ceramic types in Europe and in America (Nol Hume 1978: 46). According to South (1972), the manufacture of creamware was discontinue d around 1820. Nol Hume (1970:125) notes that creamware is so ubiquitous on archaeologi cal sites of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries that it has been found in locations as far-flung as “the nowuninhabited edge of a steaming volcano on the West Indian island of Nevis and high on Admiral Rodney’s lookout point on tiny Pigeon Island off St. Lucia.” Early creamware was either undecorated, or decorated by painting or transfer printing. Later creamware was decorated with a “molded variety of patterns in pierced borders,” or decorated with painted enamel colo rs such as green, red, lilac, and yellow, or blue feather edging (Cotter 1968:12).

PAGE 131

117 Pearlware Pearlware was invented in 1775, when We dgwood added kaolin and ground flint to the paste of creamware and used oxide of cobalt to whiten the yellow tone. Pearlware exhibits a white clay body and a clear le ad glaze (Nol Hume 1970; Price 1979). The glaze displays a bluish or greenish cast with a deeper blue color where the glaze puddles in vessel crevices, due to th e presence of cobalt (Price 1981). Pearlware was commonly exported to America beginning in 1785, and its production generally dates from 1779 to 1830 (Nol Hume 1978). Pearlware began to wane in popular ity during the 1820s and 1830s. Some researchers have suggested that pearlware la sted until the 1850s, and perhaps as late as the 1890s (Price 1979). However, pearlware app ears to be confined primarily to the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, and was most popular from 1780 through the 1820s (Price 1981). It can be distinguished from creamware by the whiter paste, the characteristic blue pooling in vessel crevices (and bluish cast to the glaze), and thicker vessel types. It is also of ten decorated with blue transf er-print designs, although rarely with other transfer-printed colors (Sut ton and Arkush 1996:193) Price (1981:25-26) notes that undecorated pearlware vessels are rare, and that undecora ted pearlware sherds are often from the undecorated po rtions of decorated vessels. Whiteware Hard-paste types of earthenware classi fied as whiteware occur in the late eighteenth through the nineteenth centuries. Whiteware exhibits a white clay body and a

PAGE 132

118 clear glaze and lacks the colored tints of creamware and pearlware (Nol Hume 1970; Price 1979). Whiteware began to replace pearlware beginning in the 1820s, and continued to be produced throughout the ni neteenth century (Price 1981; Nol Hume 1970). Whiteware was initially decorated using similar motifs and methods as those used for the decoration of pearlware; undecorat ed whiteware vessels became common in the midto late-nineteenth century (Price 1981). The production of white-bodied ceramics in the 1800s supplanted the popular cream-colored (CC) wares of the 1700s. G odden (1999:10) identifies these “nineteenth century durable wares” as “‘Ironstone China,’ ‘S tone China’ or later ‘Granite’. Different manufacturers were to coin va rious other trade names.” Ma son’s patent ironstone china became instantly popular following its debut in 1813 in England. Mason initially produced ironstone in an attempt to replicat e Chinese porcelain, due to a customs duty of 100 percent on the importation of porcelain to England (Miller 1991). Ironstone is a refined earthenware with a hard paste and a clear glaze, containing “a large proportion of ground flint and iron slag” (Cotter 1968:13; Pr ice 1981). These vessels are thicker than creamware and pearlware (Sutton and Arkush 1996:194). Ironstone is dense, with great strength and weight, and often has a minutel y crazed glaze (Cotter 1968:13). Octagonal shapes were especially popular, and date approximately from 1840 to 1860 (Wetherbee 1980:14). These vessels were often elaborat ely decorated, and were imported from Staffordshire, England (Godden 1999).

PAGE 133

119 A shift in the popularity of English ea rthenwares during th e 1840s involved a decline in popularity of transf er-printed and other color-pain ted vessels, and an increase in popularity of plain, or white, ironstone, of ten with molded relief designs. The occurrence of ironstone in America dates fr om ca. 1845-1930, as it was being imported to the United States by the 1840s. Based on invoices, it is considered to be the dominant type in use from the 1850s to the 1900s, especi ally in the middle-class market in America (Miller 1991; Sutton and Arkush 1996:193-194). Berge (1980:190) observes that it was used extensively by the military during the nineteenth century due to its sturdy character, and is referred to as hotel ch ina (Sutton and Arkush 1996:191). The Classification of Whiteware vs. Ironstone Majewski and O’Brien (1987:105) observe th at “the single most disconcerting problem in ware-based ceramic analysis is the disagreement among researchers over the definitions of wares, such as pearlware, whiteware, and ironstone.” For example, ironstone is sometimes classified as a s ub-type of whiteware, and other times as a separate category co-existing with whiteware Majewski and O’Br ien (1987) note that some researchers, including S outh (1977), use “whiteware” as a generic term to describe any type of earthenware pottery (as well as porcelain) that ha s a white body. Others, such as Price (1979, 1981) and Worthy (1982), attemp t to use objective means to distinguish between the various types of white earthenwares. The problem does not lie simply with the inability of archaeological researchers to agree on a classification system. The producer s and marketers of these wares themselves

PAGE 134

120 often used terms such as “earthenware,” “chin a,” and “porcelain” indiscriminately. This problem resulted in complaints by members of the ceramic indus try during the early 1900s (U.S. Department of Commerce 1915:193, from Majewski and O’Brien 1987:112). In an attempt to solve this problem, at least one member of the American Ceramic Society began work on a classificati on system for dinnerware (Watts 1939). Price (1981:26) notes that although the term “ironst one” is in use in the archaeological literature, it presents problems in classifying nineteenth-century refined earthenwares. Ironstone is di fficult to distinguish visually from whiteware, particularly in sherds dating prior to 1870. The harder pa ste of ironstone, compared with whiteware, is often presented as a disti nguishing characteristic but is difficult to quantify. South (1974b:248, 252) suggests that a si ngle category be used to classify these wares, “Whiteware/Ironstone.” Price (1981:27) uses this single category, but refers to it only as “whiteware.” A classification scheme by Worthy (1982) proposes four categories by which to classify nineteenthand twentieth-century ceramics: decoration, form, function, and technology. This last category is the one that applies to ware type s, and uses certain technological aspects of the clay bodies to sort them into four types: earthenware, stoneware, porcelaneous stoneware, and por celain. Majewski and O’Brien (1987:106) note that Worthy (1982) uses the term stonewa re incorrectly to refer to semi-vitreous earthenware, and uses the term porcelaneous st oneware incorrectly to refer to vitreous “hotel china,” as defined by Norton (1952, 1970). Worthy’s (1982) classification is

PAGE 135

121 based on technological differences among wares which she believes led to the diversity of ceramic wares after 1850. Majewski and O’Brien (1987:107) offe r their own method of classifying whiteware, but discuss them in terms of their technological attr ibutes, under three categories: nonvitreous, semi-vitreous, and vitr eous white-bodied wares. Ceramics were measured using a Moh’s scale. This is a s cale that measures the hardness of materials based on a scale of 1 to 10, talc being 1 and diamond being 10 (Sutton and Arkush 1996:339). Earthenware has a Moh’s value of 3-5, stoneware has a value of 6-8, and porcelain has a value of 8-9 (Cotter 1968: 8-9). However, South (1974b:248), for example, “found it difficult ‘…on the basis of hardness…’ to di stinguish between ironstone, white granite, and white earthenw are (Cochrane 1993:89). For this study, the term “ironstone” was used to identify only t hose refined earthenware vessels that had an ironstone maker’s mark. Otherwise, the inclusive term “whiteware” was used. Porcelain Porcelain differs from white-bodied ceram ics in its opacity, the result of its vitrification. The fine cl ay body of porcelain is transl ucent along thinner edges. Different varieties of porcelain are difficult to discern. Consequentl y, porcelain often is not considered a good temporal marker. Porc elain is fired at ve ry high temperatures, ranging from 1250 to 1450 C, which ensures that it is always vitrified (Sutton and Arkush 1996:191). Porcelain can be either hard-p aste or soft-paste. Hard-paste porcelain is true “China,” referring to its country of origin. Soft-pas te porcelain is “absorbent and

PAGE 136

122 does not appear as fine-grained or dense as hard-paste porcelai n” (Sutton and Arkush 1996:191). Any Chinese porcelain found at Indian Key likely would belong to the Chi’ing Dynasty (1644-1912), and can be more specifically dated if a Chinese reign mark is present (Nol Hume 1970:264). Chinese porcelain was exported to Europe beginning in the sixteenth century, and it was an expensive tablewar e through the second quarter of the 1700s (Hughes and Hughes 1968:19; Nol Hume 1970:257). After th is period, it became more available and less expensive, and it was one of the mo st popular types by the beginning of the nineteenth century, although its quality had declined (Nol Hume 1970:257). Direct import of Chinese porcelain to America bega n in 1785 and continued until approximately 1835. Chinese export porcelains were “made for the European market and were often modified to meet the tastes and vessel form needs of European and American consumers” (Sutton and Arkush 1996:192). The decline of exports from China to America began after the War of 1812 and continued due to “an overstocked market, a decline in quality, increased importation of improved European wa res (notably English creamware), and the development of American potte ry manufacture” (Cotter 1968:17). The process by which Chinese porcelain was made was a state secret until 1709, prompting many European imitations (G leeson 1998; Sutton and Arkush 1996:192). Semi-china and semi-porcelain (the term used in this study) are terms used to describe soft-paste wares manufactured in Europe in th e nineteenth century in an attempt to mimic Chinese porcelain. These were negligible in terms of their export to America (Cotter

PAGE 137

123 1968:9-10). Most are decorated under the glaze with blue pain ting (Cotter 1968:13). These soft-paste wares are fired twice, the first time at 1200 to 1300 C, and the second time (after glazing) at 150 C lower. Bone ch ina is another type of imitation porcelain. It is midway between a soft and hard paste, a nd was perfected by Josiah Spode ca. 1805. It is more translucent than hard porcelain, and often has bril liant color decoration (Cotter 1968:15). Vessel Decoration The decoration of vessels is one of th e main means of ceramic identification, along with the type of paste and the presen ce of a maker’s mark (Sutton and Arkush 1996:192). Categories of decora tion include glazes, decorativ e patterns, and decorative techniques. Maker’s marks have been in us e since classical times; however, beginning in the Industrial Revolution in the late 1700s, large pottery houses in England began adopting uniform marks to iden tify their wares. American pottery houses soon followed suit (Orser and Fagan 1995:79). Maker’s marks are helpful in establishing an absolute range of date for an item’s manufacture. These are usually applied to the vessel in one of four ways: impressing, printing, hand-painting, or stamping. The mark usually consists of the maker’s full name or initials, as well as a “royal seal or arms trademark, crest, pattern name, type of body, or initials” (Sutton and Arkush 1996:203, from Berge 1980:212). Registry marks were used on English ceramics between 1842 a nd 1883, and can indicate the year, month, or

PAGE 138

124 date of manufacture. These registry marks are listed in sources such as Godden (1963, 1999), Haslam (1973), and Wetherbee (1974, 1980). Glazes Glazes are applied to vessels for three r easons: to render a vessel non-porous, “to improve the appearance of the vessel, and to protect decoration,” such as hand-painting or transfer-printing, underneat h the glaze (Majewski and O’ Brien 1987:109). Glazes are technically a type of glass. An early type of glaze is a salt glaz e, which was created by throwing salt into the kiln when the fire wa s at its hottest point. During the 1800s, glazes are commonly one of three varieties: alka line, feldspathic, and lead (Majewski and O’Brien 1987:110; Shepard 1961:44). Alkaline glazes are made of s ilicates of potash and soda; they have a glassy a ppearance and a tendency towards crazing. Feldspathic glaze is made from powdered feldspathic rock mixed with other ingredients such as lime, potash, sand, or quartz. This glaze is translucen t, highly vitrified, and typically used on porcelain. Lead glazes have a lower melting poi nt than feldspathic glazes, and work well with many types of clay bodies (Majewski and O’Brien 1987:110). Certain glazes are particularly useful as chronological markers. Salt-glazed stonewares are recognized by a textured surface resembling that of an orange peel (Greer 1981:181). According to South (1972), salt-gla zed stoneware was manu factured as early as the late seventeenth century. Salt-g lazed stoneware was popular between 1720 and 1770, and declined in popularity from the competition of creamware, although it was manufactured until 1820. It can be white salt-glazed (1740-1770) or brown salt-glazed,

PAGE 139

125 which was produced later (Miller and Stone 1970). “Scratch blue” ceramics are a type of salt-glazed white stoneware that was incise d and filled with cobalt prior to firing, to produce a design of thin blue lines. This st yle was primarily popular in the third quarter of the 1700s (Nol Hume 1970:117). Lead-glaze d stonewares included “Littler’s blue,” a cobalt blue lead glaze placed over a white salt glaze. It was popular from ca. 1750 to 1765 (Nol Hume 1970:119-120). Dry-bodied red and black stonewares were also produced around this period (Nol Hume 1970:123). Albany glaze is a dark brown to black s lip (clay glaze) named for alluvial clays from the Hudson River valley in New York (Greer 1981:265). According to Greer (1981:194), the use of Albany glaze began in th e first quarter of the nineteenth century, and they were common by the last quarter of that century. Espenshade (2002:187) notes that “implicit in many discussions of Southe rn stoneware is the belief that potters generally adopted Albany glaze when it became available.” It was shipped to the southern United States from Albany, and was us ed by many potters instead of salt or ash glaze. However, some utilitarian potters continued to use homemade alkaline glazes rather than the new import (Espen shade 2002:187). Br istol glaze is a chemically-produced white glaze first devel oped in England during the Victorian period (Greer 1981:210-212). American potters adopt ed Bristol glaze for stonewares during the 1880s. A combination of Albany and Bristo l glazes were common until about 1920 (with the Bristol as the exterior glaze and the Albany as the interior glaze), after which Bristol was almost always used alone.

PAGE 140

126 Rockingham is a type of stoneware that has been prepared with a yellow glaze, and then covered with a brown glaze. Its ea rliest date of manufacture was 1826, and it was initially made in England. American po tteries were produci ng the type by 1835. In 1849, a similar glaze known as Flint Enamel was pa tented in America. It continued to be produced in America into the twentieth century (Brewer 1996). Decorative Pattern s and Techniques Porcelain was often decorated with a hand-painted blue and white underglaze motif. The most popular patterns were Nanking and Canton, the antecedents of the Willow pattern. The Nanking and Canton patterns are common during the first half of the 1800s (Nol Hume 1970:262). Josiah Spode introduced the Willow pattern ca. 1784, and it became extremely popular. This was a tr ansfer-print design us ed on earthenwares in imitation of Chinese blue-on-white porcelai n. However, Chinese porcelain was always hand-painted, as transfer printing was a English deco ration (Nol Hume 1970:137). The Fitzhugh pattern was a nother Chinese blue-on-white pattern, consisting of a circular medallion at the center (or other times, an eagle or a cipher), with four panels of floral design. Cotter (1968: 17) notes that the presence of an eagle on Chinese pottery indicates that the vessels were being manufactured specifica lly for export to America. Besides blue-on-white designs other popular Chinese porcela in decorations were black and brown pencil applied under a glaze a nd monochrome or polychrome overglaze enamel (Cotter 1968:17).

PAGE 141

127 Lowestoft motifs were also popular du ring the early 1800s, and consisted of porcelain with pictures commemorating historical events or depicting western landscapes. Lowestoft motifs also often consisted of ceramics painted with “armorial emblems, pictures, or other symbols which included the na me of the purchaser or their family crest” (Sutton and Arkush 1996:193). A popular style in the 1820s was porcelain with Rose Medallion-style red patterns and pictures of Manda rin figures (Sutton and Arkush 1996: 193). These wares were made directly for the European market, and ar e decorated by overglazing. Overglaze designs are easily destroyed after being buried or expos ed to dirt. Some porcelain ceramic sherds that are recovered from archaeological contex ts appear to be plain, when actually the former overglaze design has simply worn off the vessel. Wares containing overglaze designs were most common in th e late 1700s (Nol Hume 1970:259). Chronologically, there were several important decoration types used on white-bodied ceramics. Transfer-printed decorations consist of monochrome designs applied to ceramics via the impression of inked waxed paper onto the ceramic. The decoration of the waxed paper came from coppe rplate engravings (P rice 1979). Although the technique was mastered as early as the 1750s, transfer printing did not become popular on white-bodied ceramics until some time between the 1770s and 1790s (Nol Hume 1970). Transfer printing continued into the 1880s (Coysh and Henrywood 1982). Transfer-print designs are us ually depictions of “idyllic landscape scenes or historic events” (Sutton and Arkush 1996:193). They can also include floral, animal, or

PAGE 142

128 geometric designs (Price 1981:36). Transfer printing was popular because it could be applied quickly and inexpensively (Samford 1996). Early transfer-print colors are black and sometimes sepia, beginning from the 1750s in England. By the next decade, blue transfer-printing had been introduced. Light blue printing was popular until 1790, when deep blue replaced it, lasting from 1800 to 1825. After this, light blue was again fashionabl e until printing in colo rs arose in the mid 1800s (Cotter 1968:13). Transfer printing wa s first used on creamware beginning in 1765, and on pearlware beginning in 1787 (Richa rdson 2003). Black transfer-printed wares with sentimental and political messages were created at Staffordshire from 1760 to 1830. Wedgwood produced these after 1830. Othe r colors, such as brown, green, purple, and red became more common post-1820 (Price 1981:36). Creamware was usually simply decora ted by molding, hand-painting, or black transfer printing (Cotter 1968; Sutton and Arkush 1996:193). Plain-rimmed creamwares were also produced, and date primarily to contexts of the 1790s and early 1800s (Nol Hume 1970:126). An early paint color wa s brownish yellow. Later creamware decorations include green, red, lilac, and yellow painted designs, as well as featheredging (Cotter 1968). Feather-edging is a molded rim desi gn resembling feathers, commonly found on creamware. Shell-edged rims, which consist of an incised or molded lines around the rim on which colored bands were applied, are commonly found on pearlware and whiteware, although they are also found on creamware in some early instances (Price 1979).

PAGE 143

129 Shell-edged decorations date from ab out 1780 to 1830 (Nol Hume 1970; Price 1979; Smith 1990). The blue-edged rims are typically earlier, while the green-edged rims are later (Smith 1990:25). A molded relief shelledged design indicates an earlier date of manufacture, and is found on both creamware and whiteware, while an incised design indicates a later date of ma nufacture, and is not known to exist on creamware. The “chicken-foot” variant of shell-edged designs, consisting of regularly spaced clusters of two or three lines, is also found only on pearlware or whiteware (Sussman 1977:106). Nol Hume (1970:131) notes that as th e marketplace became more demanding, the makers of these ceramics would save time by swiping a single brush stroke around the rim rather than carefully brus hing inward to create the char acteristic shell-edged look. In the late seventeenth an d early eighteenth centuries shell-edging was popular on a large variety of serving pieces, but towards the end of its prominence (ca. 1830) it was found mainly on serving platters (Sussman 1977:109). Plain rims were found throughout the pearlware period, although rims can also be a series of regular sc allops. Those with “indentations at alternately short and long in tervals” are generally found only after ca. 1810 (Sussman 1977:110). Other early ni neteenth-century edge decorations on pearlware include molded relief in “floral, leaf, scroll, or geometric motifs,” painted in blue (Sussman 1977:108). Simple painted bl ue bands are also found on early examples of pearlware. Brown or red bands on cream ware were also popular during this period (Sussman 1977). Miller (1989) has devel oped a chronology of edge decorations, shown below in Table 6.1.

PAGE 144

130 Table 6.1. Chronology of Edged Decoration s on Pearlware and Whiteware (adapted from Miller 1989) Edged Decoration Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Rococo Style, irregular scalloped rim and undecorated center 1795 1780-1810 Evenly scalloped shell-edged rim 1820 1800-1840 Embossed edge 1830 1820-1840 Unscalloped shell-edged rim with impressed pattern 1855 1840-1870 Unscalloped and unmolded shell-edged rim 1870 1850-1890 Annular ware is another type of decora ted pearlware. Annular wares (often incorrectly referred to as mocha, which is ac tually a sub-type) were those wares (either pearlware or whiteware) decora ted with broad, engine-turned grooves filled with color. The sub-type of this decoration consisting on ly of bands (stripes) of color, known as banded annularware, was most popular fr om 1795 to 1815 (Nol Hume 1970:131). Marbled annularware consists of a swirled design with no specific motif (Smith 1990:27). Wormy finger-painted annularwa re dates from ca. 1790 to 1820 (Smith 1990:27). It is characteristically done with black, blue, and white colors (Nol Hume 1970:132). Mocha ware (ca. 1799 to 1830), anothe r type of annular ware, c onsists of brown fern-like designs made from a mixture of tobacco juice and urine (Nol Hume 1970:131; Smith 1990:27). Cat’s eye annularware is decorated with a finger-painted oval or eye design (Smith 1990:27).

PAGE 145

131 Flow blue decorations are comprised of pa inted or transfer-pri nted designs that "flowed out or bled into the surrounding und ecorated portions of the vessels" (Price 1979:21). They consist of floral designs, and the blue is cobalt (Smith 1990:27). Flow blue decorations date from approxima tely 1820 to 1870, and are found on whiteware (Price 1979; Smith 1990). Spatterware dates from 1780 to 1850 a nd was manufactured in England. The peak production period was from 1810 to 1840, and was commonly exported to America. It is identified by hand-painted or transfer-printed designs on the sides or center of wares that are accented by spatter work, applie d by powdering. Sponge-decorated wares arose from spatterware, and were produced from 1830 to approximately 1850 or 1860. They are decorated by the applicati on of color to a ceramic using an inked sponge. The decoration is commonly a wide band of color(s) around the rim and upper body of the vessel, and is also found in combination w ith hand-painted designs (Price 1981:37-38). Stamping is another decorative technique that occurs concurrently with sponging and hand-painting, and refers to the application of a design on a ceramic using an inked stamp, sometimes cut from a piece of sponge. This decoration is found only on whiteware, and typically consists of a repea ting floral or geomet ric design around the rim or body of a vessel. Stamped whiteware t ypically dates to the 1840s or 1850s (Price 1981:38). Whiteware that lacks painted decoration can have a molded, raised floral or geometric design around the rim. Molding usua lly occurs on thick vessels, and dates to

PAGE 146

132 the 1840s and 1850s. Vessels with this type of decoration were “likely cheaper and more readily available than more highly decorate d wares, particularly during the 1850s and are associated with the middle-class market. Thei r popularity coincides wi th growth of labor organizations and a tightening of child labor la ws in Britain, and the reduction in labor to produce these less-decorated wa res may have been a correlating response” (Weisman, Collins, Broadbent, and Bell 2002:22, from Shackel 1996). Undecorated whiteware, sometimes also classified as ironstone, lacks any type of “printed, painted, or molded decoration” (Price 1981:41). These were produced in mass quantities, and are most common after the Civil War (Pri ce 1981:41, from Fairbanks 1974b:77). Decalcomania consists of polychrome decorations made possible through the use of decals (Majewski and O'Brien 1987). Althoug h this type of decoration persisted at least through the mid-twentie th century, decalcomania d ecorations were most popular from 1880 to 1920. Vessel Shapes and Functions Ceramic vessels and vessel sherds recove red from historic archaeological sites are typically classified under the Kitchen functional group. Vessel s in this group are used for the preparation, serving, consumption, and storag e of food. Ceramic artifacts can also be classified under other func tional groups; for example, the Architectural group (e.g., terracotta roof tiles), the Clothing group (e .g., buttons), the Personal group (e.g., chamber pots, cosmetic jars, and doll parts), or the Tobacco group (e.g., smoking pipes).

PAGE 147

133 Vessel forms are often a clue to their function. For example, forms associated with food include “plates, platters, saucers, bowls, covered dishes, pitchers, ladles, mugs, and cups,” as well as bottles, jars, and cr ocks (Sutton and Arkush 1996:195). The color of the ceramic paste can also be an indicati on of vessel function; for example, white paste suggests tableware or personal items while ye llow paste indicates crockery or mixing bowls. The most common vessel forms in refined earthenware assemblages dating to the nineteenth century include plates, cups, bowls, and saucers. Platters pitchers, teapots, and covered tureens were also used, but are less common (Price 1981:28). In the early to mid 1800s, plates are generally small in diamet er and relatively deep, cups lack shoulders and handles, bowls are large in diameter and may or may not have shoulders, and saucers are relatively deep and dish-shaped. After 1870, the vessel forms remained the same, but plates tend to be larger and shallower, cups have handles, bowls are larger, and saucers are shallower (Price 1981:29). Deetz (1996:74-75) explains Lewis Binford’s (1962) three levels of functions for artifacts, as they relate to ceramics. Technomic function refers to strictly utilitarian functions, and “relates directly to the technology of a culture” (Deetz 1996:74). An example of a ceramic that serves this function is a plate for eating food. Socio-technic function refers to social functions that do not se rve a strictly utilita rian purpose. An example of this would be a fancy tea set that is kept in a china cabinet; it is not used in a utilitarian way, but rather serves a social function (e.g., to de monstrate the owner’s wealth, or for aesthetic appeal). An ideo-technic function is a religious or ideological

PAGE 148

134 function. An example of a ceramic artifact th at serves an ideo-tec hnic function would be a basin to hold holy water. The functional make-up of the ceramic assemblage at the Warehouse Complex will be examined as part of the analysis. Ceramic Artifacts from Features A and C (8MO15) Analysis of the Assemblage Mean ceramic dating was used to date certain strata (described in Chapter Seven). This process works by averaging the dates of manufacture for the artifacts within a deposit, and adjusting the average so that the “more frequently occurring artifacts have a greater impact on the calculation” (Barber 1994:166). This idea was originated by Stanley South (1972, 1974a, 1977), who argued that changes in artifact frequency occur in a predictable pattern. Initially, they occur infrequently, then they rise to “numerical prominence,” then occur infrequently again, and finally disappear (Barber 1994:166). To calculate the mean ceramic date, the following formula is used: (d1f1) ________ f1 where d1 = median manufacture date of type i; and f1 = the frequency of type i. Thus, the mean ceramic date fo r a deposit is calculated by: 1. “multiplying the frequency of each type by the median manufacture date for that type, 2. adding these products together, and 3. dividing this sum by the sum of th e frequencies of the individual types” (Barber 1994:167).

PAGE 149

135 Ideally, this formula is used with vessel counts, although frequen tly it is used with assemblages containing only pottery sherds (e.g., Deagan 1976). A Minimum Number of Vessels (MNV) for each provenience was defined for use in calculating a mean ceramic date. Sussman (2000) warns against using sher d counts as equivalent to object (vessel) counts, as her experiments have shown that statistical analyses using sherd counts and object counts from the same assemblage re sult in drastically different outcomes. South (1977) and others have provided me dian manufacture da tes and a range of known manufacture dates for common ceramic type s. An excerpt of the relevant ceramic types is presented in Table 6.2. Table 6.2. The Median Manufacture Dates and a Range of Known Manufacture Dates for Select Ceramic Types (partial ly adapted from Bense 1999:Appendix 3, Smith 1990, and South 1977:Table 31) Sub-Type Ceramic Type Median Date Manufacture Date Range Stoneware Brown Brown salt-glazed mugs 1733 1690-1775 British brown stoneware 1733 1690-1775 Nineteenth-century crock (American) 1850 1800-1900 Blue, gray Westerwald, stamped bl ue floral devices, geometric design 1738 1700-1775 Gray Salt-glazed gray stoneware with Albanyglazed interior 1858 1815-1900 White Molded white salt-glazed stoneware 1753 1740-1765 Transfer-printed white salt-glazed stoneware 1760 1755-1765 “Scratch blue” white sa lt-glazed stoneware 1760 1744-1775 White salt-glazed stoneware 1763 1720-1805 Debased “scratch blue” white salt-glazed stoneware 1780 1765-1795 Table 6.2 continued on next page

PAGE 150

136 Table 6.2 (Continued) SubType Ceramic Type Median Date Manufacture Date Range Porcelain Overglaze enamelled Chinese export porcelain 1730 1660-1800 Underglaze blue Chinese porcelain 1730 1660-1800 Plain white porcelain (European) 1798 1745-1850 Overglaze enamelled China trade porcelain 1808 1790-1825 Canton porcelain 1815 1800-1830 European porcelain 1823 1745-1900 Earthenware Coarse Redware (lead-glazed) 1770 1725-1815 Yellowware (lead-glazed) 1849 1797-1900 Astbury 1738 1725-1750 Refined Jackfield 1760 1740-1780 Feather-edged creamware 1785 1750-1820 Creamware (indeterminate) 1785 1750-1820 Blue hand-painted pearlware 1800 1780-1820 Finger-painted wares on creamware or pearlware 1805 1790-1820 Annular pearlware 1805 1790-1820 Blue and green shell-edged pearlware 1805 1780-1830 Pearlware (indeterminate) 1805 1780-1830 Transfer-printed pearlware 1818 1795-1840 Willow transfer-print pattern on pearlware 1818 1795-1840 Mocha 1843 1795-1890 Flow blue whiteware 1845 1820-1870 Ironstone 1857 1813-1900 Molded whiteware 1860 1820-1900 Blue transfer-printed whiteware 1860 1820-1900 Whiteware (indeterminate) 1860 1820-1900 Rockingham 1865 1830-1900

PAGE 151

137 On the subject of analyzing ceramics, Deetz (1996:72-73) eloquently observes that: as one looks at the neatly sorted p iles of potsherds in an archaeological laboratory it is difficult to picture the whole pieces they represent in a living context. A baby plays with a bow l of food on the floor; her father drinks ale from a stoneware mug while her mother removes an earthenware pot from the fire, where it has been simmering a pottage. On the cupboard are proudly displayed tw o large blue-and-white delft plates, one badly chipped. Outsides, the chickens drink from a shallow earthenware milk pan. As with all artif acts, ceramics are a part of a living totality, and they must be understood in their functional and symbolic role. This study aims to examine that totality, and to understand how the ceramic remains found at the Warehouse Complex reflect the periods of its occupation, and the activities associated with each. Deetz (1993:177) notes that the value of cer amics in the study of the past results from their “fragility, durabi lity, and universality” in early America. The average uselife of a frequently used ceramic piece was five years (excepting heirloom pieces), and thus the ceramic pieces left in th e archaeological record date the deposit to a period fairly close to the ceram ic’s period of manufacture. At the least, they provide a terminus post quem (date after which), or the earliest period to which the piece could date. Their fragility as an intact object and their durability as a broken object contribute to their usefulness as artifacts for study.

PAGE 152

138 Chapter Seven: Stratigraphy Stratigraphic descriptions of archaeologica l sites are based on certain principles of geological theory. This practice began in the early nineteenth century, following the publication of Charles Lyell’s classic treatise, Principles of Geology in 1833. Lyell’s 1997 [1883] work was based on years of ongoing research by him and his colleagues, and reiterated the concept of uniformitarianis m. The principle of uniformitarianism, introduced by James Hutton in 1785, stated that the geological processes that had occurred in the past were still ongoing (Ren frew and Bahn 1991:22). This indicated that the rock stratification that could be observ ed in nature was the product of many millions of years of deposition, and was still occurring. Edward Harris (1989:5), author of Principles of Archae ological Stratigraphy notes that there are thre e axioms related to the laws of geological stratigraphy. They are the laws of Superposition, Original Horizontality, and Original Continuity. The Law of Superposition stat es that strata are deposite d one on top of another in chronological order, making the bottom layer of a series of strata the first one deposited, and therefore the oldest, and the top layer th e most recently deposited, and therefore the youngest. The concept of relative dating of arch aeological strata emerged from this law. Once relative dates have been established for th e strata at a site, ch ronological dating is

PAGE 153

139 used to further refine the temporal identity of those strata. The secure assignment of a specific temporal period to a stratum is possible only wh en diagnostic artifacts are present, or where one of several recognized dating techniques is f easible. Of course, diagnostic artifacts, defined as artifacts belongi ng to a specific period of manufacture or use, are only diagnostic due to their previ ous recovery from a chronologically dated context (in the case of all prehistoric sites), or due to historical documentation (as is the case with the Indian Key ceramics). The dating of archaeological strata using diagnostic artifacts is often imprecise. Artifacts that have a known manufacture da te (such as coins) simply establish a terminus post quem a “date after which,” which notes that the deposit can be no earlier than the date of the artifact, but could conceivably be much later. The reverse scenario also applies when an artifact is found in one s ecurely dated context and the same type of artifact is then found in another, undated context. This provides a terminus ante quem a “date before which,” meaning that the artifact is at least as old as th e previous context but possibly dates to earlier (Renfrew and Ba hn 1991:115). This problem is especially pronounced in historical archaeol ogical assemblages, where secu rely dated artifacts, such as ceramic platters passed down as family heir looms, may have been curated and kept for a long period, and then discarded or lost long after their initial period of use. The second law, the Law of Original Hori zontality, states that “strata formed under water will have generally horizontal surf aces and that layers now having inclined surfaces have been tilted since the time of their deposition” (Harri s 1989:5). The third law, the Law of Original Continuity, states th at at the time of their deposition, strata were

PAGE 154

140 whole and lacked exposed edges, such as those visible as the result of “erosion or dislocation of the deposit” (Har ris 1989:5). These two laws ha ve traditionally not had as much of an impact on archaeological practice as the first law of superposition. Indeed, stratigraphic descriptions are of ten presented as a recounting of the layers of different soil strata (as defined by differing soil types a nd color) noted at the site, from the ground surface to the final layer of th e excavation (usually a culturally sterile level). The layer nearest the ground surface would most often be labeled Stratum I, the next layer would be Stratum II, and so forth. For prehistoric s ites, and many historic sites, these layers occasionally correspond to the layers described in geological soil surveys of the area, and where they do not, it is assumed that some type of cultural modification or other disturbance has taken place. Edward Harris (1989:8) argues that ge ological stratigraphi c theory does not always apply to archaeological sites, and that it does not fu lly account for the fact that archaeological layers are not deposited by sedimentary deposi tion; they are human-made. Also, archaeological artifacts are not natural it ems subject to a life cy cle and evolutionary change. They are objects, “created, preserve d, or destroyed,” mainly by humans (Harris 1989:8). These objects may exist simultaneously in several parts of the world, or they may be in use in one part of the world during one period, and then used by another culture in another period, un like the fossil record, which can be linked chronologically across the globe. However, the general principles of geol ogical stratigraphy con tinue to influence widely archaeological excavations. Willey and Sabloff (1993:96) suggest that modern

PAGE 155

141 archaeological stratigraphy did not begin until the 1910s. As they put it, “stratigraphic excavation was the primary method in the dr ive for chronological control of the data” (Willey and Sabloff 1993:96). The delay in Am erica’s use of methods that had been in practice in Europe since the 1880s owed main ly to the lack of interest in gradual chronological changes in cultu ral periods and the inability to identify major dramatic shifts in cultures, as reflected by strati graphy or artifactual assemblages (Willey and Sabloff 1993:97). A leading advocate of the tr end toward modern strati graphic description, A.V. Kidder, conducted his excavations so that they “followed the contours of the ‘natural or physical strata, and potsherds were assigned pr oveniences according to such strata units’” (Willey and Sabloff 1975:95, as quoted in Harris 1989:9). The idea of excavating according to natural soil contours is sta ndard in archaeology today, and was a method used in the investigation presented here. Kathleen Kenyon expanded on this idea in the 1950s by noting “the idea of stratification mu st be taken to incl ude things like pits, ditches, and other types of inte rfaces, which were not strata or layers in the strict sense” (Harris 1989:11). The Wheeler-Kenyon system of archaeologi cal stratigraphy, named for Kathleen Kenyon and her mentor, Mortimer Wheeler, provi ded two important id eas that continue to influence archaeology. These are the id eas of interfaces betw een strata and the numbering of strata, with its consequential benefits for artifact provenience (Harris 1989:11). Harris (1989:19) emphasizes that stra tigraphy is an important archaeological

PAGE 156

142 remnant of a site, one that is “undesigned,” un like other features such as hearths, walls, or artifacts. Harris (1989:30) proposes f our laws of archaeological stratigraphy, adapted from and in addition to the previously discussed geological laws of st ratigraphy. He argues that these are necessary not only becaus e archaeological stra ta are human-made (intentionally or not), but because geologica l strata “were usually solidified under water and may cover many square miles. Archaeologi cal strata, by contrast, are unsolidified, of limited area, and of diverse composition” (H arris 1989:29). Given th e premise that all sites are stratified, albeit in differing degrees, the first law of archaeological stratigraphy is the Law of Superposition. This law states “i n a series of layers a nd interfacial features, as originally created, the upper units of stratification ar e younger and the lower are older, for each must have been deposited on, or created by the removal of, a pre-existing mass of archaeological stratifica tion” (Harris 1989:30). He further emphasizes that the importance of stratigraphic deposition in arch aeology lies in the in terfaces between soil strata, not from a study of the soil itself or the artifacts contained w ithin each stratum. The second law is the Law of Original Horizontality. This law states, “Any archaeological layer deposited in an unconso lidated form will tend towards a horizontal position. Strata which are found with tilted su rfaces were originally deposited that way, or lie in conformity with the contours of a pre-existing basin of deposition” (Harris 1989:31). These “pre-existing basin[s]” in archaeological terms refer to structural features such as walls or ditches that inte rrupt and shape the horiz ontal stratigraphy of a

PAGE 157

143 site. Any tilting of surfaces should be examin ed to determine if it was naturally deposited that way, and if so, why. The third law of archaeologi cal stratigraphy is the Law of Original Continuity, which states, “Any archaeological deposit, as originally laid down, or any interfacial feature, as originally created, will be bounde d by a basin of deposition, or may thin down to a feather edge. Therefore, if any edge of a deposit or inte rfacial feature is exposed in a vertical view, a part of its original exte nt must have been removed by excavation or erosion, and its continuity must be sought, or its absence explai ned” (Harris 1989:32). This law is the basis for correlating stratigraphi c layers that are separated, for example, by balks or a distance of unexcavated land. The fourth law is the Law of Stratigraphi cal Succession. It states, “A unit of archaeological stratification takes its place in the stratigraphic sequence of a site from its position between the undermost (or earliest) of the units which lie above it and the uppermost (or latest) of all th e units which lie below it a nd with which the unit has a physical contact, all other superpositiona l relationships being redundant” (Harris 1989:34). Harris (1989:34) introduces this last concept to create his Harris Matrix, a diagrammatic method of expressing stratigra phic relationships, a modified version of which is used for this thesis. There are three basic classes of stratigra phic layers. The first is the standard definition of a stratum, a layer of materi al deposited horizonta lly on the pre-existing layer. This first class is further sub-divi ded into two groups, natural layers and humanmade layers. This sub-classification does not refer to the types of materials found in the

PAGE 158

144 strata (e.g., sand as natural or brick as hum an-made), but rather to the method of the deposition of these materials (e.g., sand de posited by a flood versus sand deposited intentionally by a wheelbarrow). The second cl ass is features that cut into previous layers, such as ditches, which Harris (1989:47) refers to as a “feature interface.” The third class is features around which other layers build up, such as walls, referred to by Harris (1989:47) as “upstanding strata.” The soil strata recorded at the Warehouse Complex on Indian Key are examined here to derive information about functional areas and the chronology of the site, based on the types of ceramics found in stratigraphically linked proveniences. The soil series mapped for Indian Key by the Soil Survey of Monroe County, Keys Area, Florida is Pennekamp gravelly muck, 0 to 2 percent slopes, ex tremely stony (Hurt et al. 1995:Inset, Sheet Number 20). Thes e soils are well drained and are found on tropical hammocks in the uplands of the upper keys. The surface area of these soils is often covered with medium sized stones and the high water table is at a depth of 3.5 ft. (1.1 m) to 5.0 ft. (1.5 m) below the surface during most of the year (Hurt et al.1995). When discussing soils, geological term inology is used to describe the soil horizons, which are layers of soil having dist inct characteristics produced by soil-forming processes. These horizons are approximately parallel to the surface, and are named with uppercase letters. Often a lowe rcase letter follows the hor izon designation, indicating a subdivision of a major horizon. The O horizon is “an organic layer of fresh and decaying plant residue at the surface of a mineral soil” (Hurt et al. 1995:48). An Oa horizon indicates the presence of highly decompos ed organic material (Soil Survey Staff

PAGE 159

145 1987:274). The A horizon is “the mineral horizon at or near the surface in which an accumulation of humified organic matter is mixe d with the mineral ma terial” (Hurt et al. 1995:48). It can also be a plowed surface horiz on that was originally part of a B horizon (the mineral horizon below an O, A, or E hor izon). The R layer is consolidated rock found beneath the soil. It is composed of unweathered bedrock, and usually underlies a C horizon. However, it can also be found direc tly underneath an A or a B horizon (Hurt et al. 1995). A typical pedon of Pennekamp gravelly mu ck, 0 to 2 percent slopes, extremely stony, is as follows. The Oa horizon consists of black (10YR 2/1) gravelly muck from 0 cm (0 in.) to 8 cm (3 in.) below ground surf ace. The A horizon extends from 8 cm (3 in.) to 20 cm (8 in.) below ground surface, and consists of dark reddish brown (5YR 3/2) very gravelly loam. The R layer generally occurs at 20 cm (8 in.) below surface, and consists of soft to hard, rippable coral limestone bedr ock (Hurt et al. 1995). This description of the natural soil stratigraphy mapped for Indian Key will be compared to the mostly human-made stratigraphy of the Warehouse Complex, in an effort to identify the sequence and cause of deposition for the layers excavated there. First, mean ceramic dates were calculated for each of the deposits, using the formula described in Chapter Six. These mean ceramic dates will be discussed in Chapter Eight; they were taken from a count of the minimum number of vessels in each provenience. Several of the excavated deposits overlap one another spatially, as shown in Figures 7.1 and 7.2. This occurred becau se USF undertook excavations in some of the same areas as Baker (1973) did, and because the floor clean-ups (Trenches 1A, 1B, etc.)

PAGE 160

146 were conducted after the excavations were co mplete, to remove any remaining material, such as unexcavated redeposited fill. Tabl es 7.1 and 7.2 show the mean ceramic dates averaged from all deposits in a specific test uni t or trench. These da tes were plotted onto a map of each feature (Figures 7.3 and 7.4) to determine if any horizontal clustering is evident. No horizontal clustering is immediat ely obvious for Feature A, although Baker’s (1973) Trench 1 along the grid north wall tends to contain a later assemblage of ceramics, particularly in Sections 2 th rough 5 (1836-1860). The earlier da tes tend to be in the grid west half and the grid south east corner; however, a sherd with a maker’s mark dating to 1892 (FS A-72-20-238) was found in the grid so uthwest corner, indicating that this portion of the warehouse was being used (possi bly for a discard area) during the Turn-ofthe-Century period (George 1995g), during whic h time farming and railroad construction activities were taking place on Indian Key. Other securely dated sherds in Feature A include one from 1845 to 1858 in 97N/96E ( FS A-99-38), one from 1851-1900 in Trench 1B (FS A-00-06), and one from 1865-1886 in Trench 2B (FS A-00-07). These clearly indicate the re-use of Feature A during the post-Housman periods. The warehouse entrance has one of th e lowest mean ceramic dates (1824), indicating that was created in the Housman era and filled in at a later point. Crossmended vessels in Feature A were found in proveniences N238/W91 and N241/W91 (adjacent to one another), and the baulk between N241/W94 and N244/W94 (just outside the grid west wall) and N238/W91 (in the grid southwest corner). Th is pattern of crossmending, particularly the latter example, tends to indicate that there has been a great deal

PAGE 161

147 of disturbance. This distur bance is further evidenced by tw o occurrences of sherds from the same set of vessels found in both Featur e A and Feature C. Pearlware cup sherds from the same set were found in both Tr ench 1, Section 3 (FS A-72-20-286) and N245/W81 (FS C-72-20-280). Whiteware octagonal cup sherds from the same set were found in both Trench 1, Section 3 (FS A-7220-291) and N248/W84 (FS C-72-20-276). In addition, the dates for several of th e overlapping excavation units (Figures 7.1 and 7.2) are vastly different. In these cases the date from the earlier excavation is probably more accurate, as many of the tren ches dug in 2000 were simply conducted to clean up any remaining surface material prior to the placement of the geotextile fabric and gravel fill, with no regard for vertical provenience. This discrepancy can also be explained by the idea that units placed on prev iously excavated areas can be expected to encounter disturbed backfill. There is no evidence of hor izontal clustering in Feature C either. The mean ceramic dates in the feature range from 1805 to 1860. This wide range of dates is due mostly to the lack of a reliable dating technique for undecorate d whiteware vessels, which were manufactured from 1820 to 1900. The mean ceramic date for this type of vessel is 1860, which leaves a 40-year gap in either temporal direc tion. This would not be a problem for sites with a much larger span of occupation throughout time, but the occupation at Indian Key is limited to a 100year period. Based on the ceramics alone, including the presence of pearlware dating to the Housman era in Feature C, such as banded annularware (1790-1820) shell-edged (1780-1830), an d blue transfer-printed (1795-1840), it appears that F eatures A and C were built contemporaneously.

PAGE 162

148 Table 7.1. Mean Ceramic Dates for Deposits in Feature A Year Excavated Deposit Mean Ceramic Date Baker, 1972 N238/W88 1812 Baker, 1972 N238/W91 1841 Baker, 1972 N241/W88 1816 Baker, 1972 N241/W91 1838 Baker, 1972 N241/W94 1841 Baker, 1972 baulk between N241/W94 and N241/W93 1846 Baker, 1972 baulk between N241/W94 and N244/W94 1839 Baker, 1972 Trench 1, Section 2 1847 Baker, 1972 wall between Trench 1, Section 2 and Trench 1, Section 3 1860 Baker, 1972 Trench 1, Section 3 1836 Baker, 1972 Trench 1, Section 4 1851 Baker, 1972 Trench 1, Section 5 1860 USF, 1998 94.29N/93E 1839 USF, 1999 surface near 94.29N/93E 1845 USF, 1999 95N/93.1E 1841 USF, 1999 96N/93.1E 1854 USF, 1998 97N/85E 1842 USF, 1998 97N/91E 1843 USF, 1999 97N/95E 1839 USF, 1999 97N/96E 1844 USF, 1999 97.1N/98E 1838 USF, 1999 97.1N/99E 1841 USF, 1998 98N/101E 1824 USF, 1998 surface collection (general) 1841 USF, 1999 floor clean-up (general) 1847 USF, 2000 surface collection (general) 1841 USF, 2000 Trench 1A 1842 USF, 2000 Trench 1B 1831 USF, 2000 Trench 2A 1835 USF, 2000 Trench 2B 1827 USF, 2000 Trench 3A 1853 USF, 2000 Trench 4A 1826 USF, 2000 Trench 4B 1831 USF, 2000 Trench 5A 1830 USF, 2000 Trench 5B 1829

PAGE 163

149 Table 7.2. Mean Ceramic Dates for Deposits in Feature C Year ExcavatedDeposit Mean Ceramic Date Baker, 1972 N232/W75 1846 Baker, 1972 N235/W75 1823 Baker, 1972 N238/W82 1805 Baker, 1972 N241/W79 1823 Baker, 1972 N241/W82 1859 Baker, 1972 N245/W81 1841 Baker, 1972 N245/W84 1850 Baker, 1972 N245/W88 1842 Baker, 1972 N248/W84 1850 USF, 1998 105N/94E 1816 USF, 1999 FPS Unit 1 1839 USF, 1999 surface collection (general) 1854 USF, 2000 Trench 1A 1840 USF, 2000 Trench 1B 1852 USF, 2000 Trench 1C 1824 USF, 2000 Trench 2C 1831 USF, 2000 Trench 3C 1805 USF, 2000 Trench 4C 1860 USF, 2000 Trench 4D 1830 USF, 2000 Trench 4E 1860 USF, 2000 Trench 5C 1860 USF, 2000 Trench 5D 1828 USF, 2000 Trench 6E 1828

PAGE 164

150 Figure 7.1. Illustration of sp atially overlapping excavatio n units in Feature A, and the mean ceramic date of each. Figure 7.2. Illustration of sp atially overlapping excavatio n units in Feature C, and the mean ceramic date of each.

PAGE 165

151 Figure 7.3. Map of Feature A, illustra ting the mean ceramic date for each provenience.

PAGE 166

152 Figure 7.4. Map of Feature C, illustra ting the mean ceramic date for each provenience.

PAGE 167

153 The vertical stratigraphy was very revealing, in contrast to the lack of evident horizontal clustering. Detailed profiles were only available for Feature A, as there was limited soil in Feature C; however, plan view s were made of the brick floor that was encountered just below the surface in Featur e C (Figure 7.5). The stratigraphy of Feature C consists of the natural bedrock (at sea level) smoothed over by a layer of plaster, followed by a single course of brick flooring, th en a thin veneer of protective plaster, covered by a second plaster floor. This uppe r plaster floor extends up along the coral walls to form a seamless, waterproof seal. In the grid southwest corner of Feature C are two additional courses of bricks shown in Figure 7.5, below. Figure 7.5. Plan view of the brick and plast er floor in the grid southwest corner of Feature C (from Baker 1973:53). The stratigraphy of Feature A is more comp licated. Profiles from ten test units, excavated by USF in 1998 and 1999, were comp ared and matched according to their

PAGE 168

154 elevation above mean sea level (amsl). The ke y to these profiles is shown in Figure 7.6, and the profiles themselves are shown in Figures 7.7 to 7.9. An examination of the vertical stratigraphy showed that there were ten distinct stra ta. These strata were mapped as part of a modified version of a Harris ( 1989) matrix (Figure 7.10). Some of the strata were continuous throughout the feature, while others were intermittent. The natural coral bedrock was identified as Stratum 1. This surface was known to have been created in 1838 by dynamite (Dut cher and Dutcher 1846). The coral bedrock was never a living floor, but was rather immediately covered by a layer of plaster (Stratum 2). This layer of plaster, which was variably dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) or pale brown (10YR 8/3), ex tends throughout the central por tion of the feature (Figure 7.11). Notably, Baker (1973) did not encounter the presence of a plas ter floor in Feature A in the trench he dug along the grid north wa ll (see Figure 5.1), nor in the 3 x 3 m test squares he dug in the grid west half. It ma y be that this plaster floor once extended over the entire area of the feature, but did not withstan d the natural elements that could have disturbed the site, such as tropical storms or fire. The first plaster floor (Stratum 2) is ce rtainly associated with the Housman era, and the interface between it and Stratum 4 likely served as the floor of the cistern for a short period. It may have been that the plas ter did not hold well, or that a better design was needed, prompting the construction of Feature C, clearly the more well-made cistern of the two. Stratum 3 was a concentration of charcoal found only in test unit 95N/93.1E, and appears to have been the result of a burn episode, as an earthenware tile was found directly above it (perhaps from a roof collapse).

PAGE 169

155 Figure 7.6. Key to representative profiles of the Warehouse Complex, Feature A. Figure 7.7. Representative prof ile of the entrance to Featu re A on the grid east wall.

PAGE 170

156 Figure 7.8. Representative prof iles of areas with one plaster floor within Feature A.

PAGE 171

157 Figure 7.9. Representative prof iles of areas with two plas ter floors within Feature A.

PAGE 172

158 Figure 7.10. Modified Harris (1989) matrix, showing the sequence of depositional layers in Feature A. Stratum 4 in most cases lies directly atop Stratum 2 (the plaster), and consists of sand fill that is variably brown (10YR 4/3), gr ayish brown (10YR 5/2), or very dark gray (10YR 3/1). The mean ceramic date range for the initial plaster floor is 1821 to 1842 (which fits with the featur e’s date of construction), based on FSs A-99-19, 39, and 42. The mean ceramic dates for Stratum 4 range from 1800 to 1854 (from FSs A-98-22, 32, and 33 and A-99-9, 12, 14, 16, 18, 21, 26, 30, 32, 35, and 38). This fill extends from approximately 0.25 m amsl to 0.60 m amsl. Presumably, Stratum 4 is due to the burn

PAGE 173

159 episode in 1840, when the upper wooden struct ure over Feature A would have collapsed, burying its contents, including the ma ny broken pieces of ceramics. Figure 7.11. Map of the plaster floor pattern within Feature A.

PAGE 174

160 A second episode of fill was labeled Stra tum 5, and consists of gray (10YR 6/1) sand. It has a mean ceramic date of 1839 ( FS A-99-10). Stratum 5 is intermittent, and occurs only in test unit 95N/93.1E, the unit wi th the charcoal concentration. Stratum 6, the second plaster floor that overlies Stratum 4 in the gr id northeast portion of the warehouse, was variably light br ownish gray (10YR 6/2), light gray (10YR 7/1), or very pale brown (10YR 8/3). This plaster floor was almost certain ly a repair that was placed over the burned warehouse remnants, probabl y for re-use by the Navy during their period of occupancy from 1840 to 1842. Stratum 6 has a mean ceramic date of 1844 (FS A-9920). Stratum 7 exists only in the entrance to the warehouse, in the center of the grid east wall. This area’s function as an entr ance had previously been speculated, but the stratigraphy indicates w ithout doubt that it was a doorway. The stratum in question lies directly over coral bedrock, and is an episode of sand fill that is light gray (10YR 7/1) in color. The mean ceramic date for this fill is 1821, based on FS A-98-35. This fill is probably associated with Stratum 4 throughout the rest of the warehouse, as it extends from approximately 0.22 to 0.55 m amsl, and could be the result of the fire that destroyed the original structure. Stratum 8 is a third episode of sand fill, light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) in color, that covers the second plaster floor. This fill has a mean ceramic date of 1845 to 1860, and is clearly later than the Housman peri od. It was probably an accumulation of items from a discard pile for the occupants of this site during the period of the Carysfort Reef Lighthouse construction (1851 to 1852) and the farming and ship construction era (1860s

PAGE 175

161 and 1870s) during the Statehood, Civil War, and Reconstruction periods, respectively (George 1995c, 1995d, and 1995e). Stratum 8 is the last stratum to present clear evidence of use by the site’s occupants. Stratum 9 was likely created by natural fo rces, such as storm washover. Both it and Stratum 10 are ephemeral. Stratum 9 is found only in units 96N/93.1E and 98N/101E, and Stratum 10 is found only in unit 94.29N/93E. Stratum 9 has a mean ceramic date range of 1845 to 1854, based on FSs A-98-35 and A-99-26. It consists of light gray (10YR 7/1) sand. Stratum 10 lies in an area characterized as re-deposited fill (see Figure 4.1), and has a mean ceramic da te of 1834 (FSs A-98-11 and A-98-12). It could be re-deposited from other areas of the warehouse or from nearby Feature B (Senator English’s kitchen). When examining the stratigraphy as a w hole, three distinct functional areas emerge. The first is the entrance to th e warehouse, which clearly has a separate stratigraphic signature from the re st of Feature A. The second is the area originally used during the Housman era, which appears to have been all of Features A and C. The third is the area re-used by other groups after the fire in 1840. This is the area in the center of the grid east half of the warehouse, where tw o plaster floors are evid ent. Feature C was also re-used during these subs equent periods, although this de termination is based more on the ceramic analysis, as presented in Chapte r Eight, than the stratigraphic analysis. In addition, it appears that the grid east quarter of the warehous e may have been a separate room, as it lacks a second plaster floor. It may have been the area below the floor of the

PAGE 176

162 piazza, which was directly in front of the wi de door leading into the warehouse, which had the cistern below it (Perrine 1885:26-27). A comparison of the natural soil stra tigraphy mapped for this area with the stratigraphy excavated du ring this archaeological investigat ion clearly indicates that the deposits within the warehouse are the result of human activity. No trace of black gravelly muck, the Oa horizon, or dark reddish brown very gravelly loam, the A horizon, exists (Hurt et al. 1995). The R laye r, the coral limestone bedrock, is evident as Stratum 1, but even it was modified by dynamiting.

PAGE 177

163 Chapter Eight: Results A long-standing premise in historical ar chaeology is that variations in ceramic assemblages are associated with differences in socioeconomic status of the owners and users of those ceramics (Miller 1980; Shepar d 1987). The attempt by archaeologists to connect material culture with the socioeconom ic status of the owners and/or users of those materials is a direct result of Bi nford’s declaration that “the study and establishment of correlations be tween types of social structur e classified on the basis of behavioral attributes and struct ural types of material elements [is] one of the major areas of anthropological research yet to be de veloped” (Spencer-Wood 1987:321). However, until Miller (1980) developed an economic scaling technique for quantifying these variations, this relationship was not measurable (Henry 1987:368). Miller (1980:1) created an index value system based on “price lists, bills of lading, and account books.” His price indices, originally given for the years 1796 to 1855, were later updated to include the ra nge of years from 1787 to 1880, and are therefore more useful for Indian Key (Miller 1991). According to Mi ller (1980), the cost of an item (and therefore, its st atus) is directly related to its decoration rather than ware type. Based on Miller’s (1980, 1991) work, an index value system could not be easily created for the warehouse assemblage. The small size of most of the sherds did not allow for an accurate description of vessel sizes (s uch as plate diameters), which are necessary

PAGE 178

164 for that type of analysis. An index value system could more easily be created with a smaller assemblage, such as that from Features F and G. In his scheme, Miller (1980) notes that there are four le vels of ceramics, in order from the cheapest to the most expensive: (1) undecorated creamware (CC); (2) simple decorations on pearlware such as shell-e dged types or banded a nnularware; (3) handpainted vessels; and (4) transfer-printed vessels (with the exception of the Willow pattern, which is placed in its own categor y because it is less expensive than other transfer-printed motifs). In the warehouse assemblage, the more expensive (decorated) sherds are those from the Housman era. The preponderance of sherds from the upper strata associated with the la ter re-use of the site is undecorated whiteware, and in many cases they are utilitarian ironstone vessels, such as those used by the military in the midnineteenth century. Ceramics are often chosen for study by arch aeologists due to th eir readily visible stylistic changes through time. Several theo ries have been proposed to explain this change. Deetz argues that the change in co lonial ceramics is caused by the introduction of “a Georgian, or modern, worldview” (L eone 1999:195). Mill er (1980) believes thatchange is associated with cause. Leone suggests that ceramic stylistic change is caused by capitalism and the regula ted labor shifts and routines associated with it (Leone 1999). A study completed by Baugher and Venables (1987) concluded that status, rather than geographical location, seemed to have been the deciding factor when consumers during the eighteenth century chose their cerami cs. Fine ceramics were noted at all seven

PAGE 179

165 archaeological sites they studied, even those three that were in frontier or rural areas (Baugher and Venables 1987). However, Miller and Hurry (1983) count er that different economic centers may have had differential access to ceramics, depending on location. They conclude that economic isolation tends to skew the relationship between ceramics and socioeconomic status, and that individua l factors about the site must be known and taken into consideration in or der to make an accurate interp retation of the standard of living of the site’s occupant s (Miller and Hurry 1983). The archaeological study of features F a nd G at Indian Key revealed that the ceramic assemblage was dominated by plain and decorated vessels common to the late 1840s and 1850s, including “a variety of white wares, spongeware, yellowware, ironstone, crockery, and terracotta vesse ls, and at least one Rocki ngham mug or pitcher handle” (Weisman 2002:2). These are among the leas t expensive wares of the period (Weisman 2002:2). Ironstone wares dominated the assemblage, with only an ephemeral representation of the Housman era through pear lware and other decorated wares dating to the 1830s and earlier (Weisman, Collins, Br oadbent, and Bell 2002:22). The frequencies of each type of ware for features A and C are shown in Figures 8.1 to 8.3. Before the mid 1870s, the main types of whiteware decorations were simple, such as hand-painted bands or lines (Cochrane 1993: 82). American wares prior to the 1880s were primarily undecorated, and were less popular than European imports (Cochrane 1993:85; Worthy 1982:330). American wares were undecorated because there was a lack of experienced personnel in this area of expertise; all of the good ceramic decorators lived in Europe, where their wages were hi gher. An increase in decorated American

PAGE 180

166 wares took place in the 1880s, due to the econom ic need to complete with the decorated European wares, which began flooding the market in response to the tariff of 1883 (Cochrane 1993:83-86). Features A and C have sim ilar ratios of ware types, with whiteware being the most common (50.3 and 49.8 percent, respectively ) (Figure 8.4). Pearlware is the next most common type, representing 32 and 33.8 per cent, respectively, of the assemblage (Figure 8.5). Porcelain, semi -porcelain, stoneware, and yello wware were all represented in smaller amounts. Interestingly, Feature A contains several ware types that are not found in Feature C, including coarse earthenwa re, creamware, and ironstone. The lack of ironstone in Feature C is simply a function of terminology, as explained in Chapter Six. 0.5 0.1 0.8 32.4 2.9 0.1 7.4 4.7 50.2 0.9 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Coarse Earthenware Creamware Ironstone Pearlware Porcelain Refined Earthenware, UID Semi-Porcelain Stoneware Whiteware Yellowware Percentage of MNVs Figure 8.1. Ware frequency in Features A and C combined.

PAGE 181

167 0.6 0.1 1 32 3.2 0.1 7.6 4.2 50.3 0.9 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Coarse Earthenware Creamware Ironstone Pearlware Porcelain Refined Earthenware, UID Semi-Porcelain Stoneware Whiteware Yellowware Percentage of MNVs Figure 8.2. Ware frequency in Feature A. 33.8 1.6 6.8 6.8 49.8 1.2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Pearlware Porcelain SemiPorcelain Stoneware Whiteware Yellowware Percentage of MNVs Figure 8.3. Ware frequency in Feature C.

PAGE 182

168 Figure 8.4. Examples of whiteware sherd s recovered from Feature A (L-R: cup handle, FS A-99-9; ironst one plate, FS A-72-20-234). Figure 8.5. Examples of pearlware sherd s recovered from Feature A (Top, L-R: banded annularware, green shell-edged, and blue shell-edged, all from FS A-98-36; Bottom, L-R: hand-painted, FS A-99-1; banded annularware, FS A-98-33; and Gaudy Dutch, FS A-98-SC).

PAGE 183

169 Many (if not most) of the undecorated white ware vessels in Feature C are likely ironstone, but were not identified as such unle ss a maker’s mark was present. The lack of coarse earthenware and creamware in Featur e C suggests that Feat ure A dates slightly earlier than Feature C. A total of 1,375 ceramic sherds, weighi ng a total of 8.518 kilograms (kg), were recovered from the warehouse. Of that tota l, 1,119 sherds (6.892 kg) came from Feature A and 256 sherds (1.626 kg) came from Feat ure C. The minimum vessel count (MNV) was 1,173, although this figure is probably quite inflated due to the difficulty of crossmending the many pieces of undecorated whit eware found in the assemblage. For example, 28 percent of the sherds weighed 1.0 g or less and 44 percent of the sherds weighed 2.0 g or less. This high percentage of small sherds increased the difficulty of piecing them together, particularly between separate proveniences. The spatial distribution of the ceramics, as shown in Figures 8.6 and 8.7, indicates areas of clustering with regard to ceramic locations in the warehouse. Feature A is especially noteworthy, as most of the ceramic s were recovered from the grid east portion of the warehouse. This may have been the portion of the ware house where the ceramic items were stored, before it burned down. Also, a large concentration of ceramics is noted in the grid southwest corner, in Baker’s 3 x 3 m test squares. These ceramics may possibly be discarded from n earby Feature B (Senator English’s kitchen), which lies directly to the grid south of that corner. Feature C does not have such a markedly skewed distribution, but it appears as though the ceram ics tend to cluster along the grid north wall. This is likely simply the result of the pl acement of the test units, which tended to be

PAGE 184

170 Figure 8.6. Spatial distribut ion of ceramic artifacts by count in Feature A.

PAGE 185

171 Figure 8.7. Spatial distribut ion of ceramic artifacts by count in Feature C.

PAGE 186

172 on that side of the feature. However, re latively fewer ceramics overall were recovered from Feature C, indicating that it did not fulf ill the initial storage function presumed to be the main reason for the warehouse’s existence during the Housman era. Fewer ceramics were found in both features in the grid west half. Perhaps the upper wooden structures did not extend over the entire area, but rather stopped halfwa y over the cist erns below. Form-function categories for the ceramic ve ssels are shown in Table 8.1. Most of the ceramic vessels were related to fo od (as opposed to non-food) functions. Food functions include the pr eparation, serving, and eating of meal s, as well as the storage of food items. For example, jugs were used to hold many different substances, including alcohol (beer, cider, whiskey, and wine), oil, molasses, and vinegar. Jars and crocks stored butter, cheese, fruit preserves, lard, pi ckled vegetables, and sa lted meat (Jones et al. 1998:34). Stoneware croc ks were popular throughout the nineteenth century because they were able to keep foods cold for a l ong period of time (Jones et al. 1998:33). Nonfood functional vessels include those used for decoration, health/hygiene, toys, and general household functions. Vessels used for food functions make up 90.5 percent of the assemblage in Feature A, and 91.4 percent of the assemblage in Feature C. Of these types of vessels, plates used for eating represented the highest percentage (35.1 per cent in Feature A and 28.6 percent in Feature C), followed by cups (23.7 and 23.5 percent, respectively), and bowls used for eating (9.5 and 10.1 percent, respectively). Serving vessels were only slightly represented, in the forms of large bowls platters, teapots, and pitchers. Smaller,

PAGE 187

173 more elaborate, pieces such as relish dishes were apparently lacking or were too broken to be identifiable. Table 8.1. Form-Function Categories for Ceramic Vessels (adapted from Worthy 1982:339-340) Vessel Function Vessel Form Feature A (by count) Feature A (by percentage) Feature C (by count) Feature C (by percentage) Food Serving Bowl (large) 2 0.2 4 1.7 Platter 9 0.9 7 2.9 Teapot 11 1.2 2 0.8 Teapot lid 4 0.4 Pitcher 2 0.2 Miscellaneous (sugar, cream) Eating Plate 328 35.1 68 28.6 Bowl 88 9.5 24 10.1 Cup/bowl 83 8.8 25 10.5 Teaware, unidentified 31 3.3 7 2.9 Drinking Cup 222 23.7 56 23.5 Saucer 29 3.1 10 4.2 Mug 2 0.2 2 0.8 Bottle 3 0.3 6 2.5 Utilitarian (Kitchen) Crock/jar 26 2.8 7 2.9 Canister 3 0.3 Bowl (mixing) 4 0.4 Jug 1 0.1 Table 8.1 continued on next page

PAGE 188

174 Table 8.1 (Continued) Vessel Function Vessel Form Feature A (by count) Feature A (by percentage) Feature C (by count) Feature C (by percentage) Non-Food Decorative Vase 7 0.7 3 1.3 Plate (display) 1 0.1 Candy dish, etc. 1 0.1 Unidentified 9 1.0 2 0.8 Utilitarian (Household) Brazier 3 0.3 Cosmetic jar 1 0.1 Chamber pot 10 1.1 5 2.1 Flower pot 1 0.4 Unidentified 2 0.2 1 0.4 Toys Cup 7 0.7 1 0.4 Bowl 1 0.1 Saucer 5 0.5 2 0.8 Doll 2 0.2 Unidentified 1 0.1 1 0.4 Other Unidentified Unidentified 37 4.0 4 1.7 Lucas (1994) has undertaken a study of the material forms of tableware during the 1880s and 1890s, and what these forms indicate as to the style of di ning. Dinner in the Old English style, which orig inated in the eighteenth cen tury, was served by placing all of the food items on the table before the dine rs were seated, and then allowing them to help themselves. Later, decorative centerpi eces were added to the table setting and

PAGE 189

175 dinners were served in separate courses. This style of dining, known as la Russe, was popular in the United States by th e 1870s, and involved a surplus of extra plates as well as servants. A shortage of servants in th e 1890s prompted many families to convert to an American style of dining, in which the host or hostess would portion the food out on individual plates and then serve them to each person. Community meals, such as those served at boardinghouses, are served in a dining style described by Lucas (1994:84) as la Pell-Mell, whic h involves a lack of table ornamentation such as vases or relish dishes. Boardinghouses typically contained inexpensive, non-matched sets, with a prepondera nce of plates, large platters, and bowls. In contrast, family assemblages contained fine r items such as teawares (Mrozowski et al. 1996:62). Based on the limited number of se rving vessels and the greater number of individual plates and cups, it can be theori zed that the families on Indian Key practiced an informal American or la Pell-Mell style of dining rather than the formal la Russe style. The relatively smaller number of non-f ood ceramic vessels, such as vases, cosmetic jars, flower pots, and chamber pot s, suggest that the warehouse was not used domestically at any point in time. Rather it appears that its function was mainly for storage and perhaps for large, informal m eals such as those served in a military commissary. Another non-food item recovered wa s toys, which identifies the presence of children at the site; notably, ceramic dolls (n=2) and semi-porcelain teaware sets consisting of miniature cups (n=8), saucers (n=7), and a bowl were found (Figure 8.8).

PAGE 190

176 These toys were recovered from both Featur es A and C, but were unfortunately not temporally diagnostic. Figure 8.8. Examples of ceramic toys recove red from the warehouse (L-R: cup, FS A-72-234; cup, FS A-72-20115, and saucer, FS A-98-2). Generally, historical archaeology inve stigations tend to try to match the archaeological signature of a site to a preexisting patter n, as proposed by South (1977). For example, the Frontier Pattern is define d by South (1977:146) as having an inverse ratio of Architecture and Kitchen artifacts, as compared to the Carolina Pattern, which is generally applied to British colonial sites (South 1977:83) The Carolina Pattern is described as having a 63.1 mean percentage of artifacts belonging to the Kitchen Group, and a 25.5 mean percentage of artifacts be longing to the Architectural Group (South

PAGE 191

177 1977:107). The Frontier Pattern, in contrast has a 27.6 mean percentage of Kitchen Group artifacts and a 52.0 mean percentage of Architectural Gr oup artifacts (South 1977:147). The Frontier Pattern, which would gene rally be applied to an area of isolation such as Indian Key, does not really apply to th is artifact assemblage. This is due mainly to the access that the various communities had to imports from Europe, particularly England, due to their location on a shipping route. The Housman-era occupants had a particularly diverse assemblage of ceramics, perhaps due to the accessibility of many different shipments from wrecked vessels as well as from those that made regularly scheduled stops. An accurate depiction of the pattern of the warehouse, or Indian Key as a whole, cannot be given here, as not all of the artifact groups (e.g., Architectural, Activities, Tobacco) were included in this study. Conclusion In sum, the extant remains of Feature A are consistent with other Housman-era cisterns on the island, such as Features B, F, and G, which were rect angular in shape with mortared coral bedrock walls, and coral bedr ock floors covered with a layer of plaster (Driscoll 2003). The upper re mains of Feature A were w ooden, and were burned in 1840, and the depositional nature of the site does not allow for speculation about the upper part’s floor plan. Any divi ders in the warehouse above th e cistern would have been wooden and no longer exist. A wood-frame dwel ling was noted to have been built atop Feature A and/or C in the 1880s by Perrine (1885:40), but there is no archaeological evidence for this area’s use as a residence. Clearly, it was re-used but its function during

PAGE 192

178 its various periods of re-use may also ha ve been only as a ci stern or as a trash pile/disposal area. The construction for the later periods of the island tended to be in the center of the island rather than on the shore (Baker 1973; Driscoll 2003); perhap s the area near the water, so crucial for storage of wrecked sa lvage, was too disturbed or exposed to the elements for satisfactory use as a construction, hospital, or housing ar ea. Its re-use as a cistern is evident, though, and it must have been valuable to justify the community’s expenditure on repairs. An example of a post-Housman-era modification is the brick pads in Feature A, which are different from th e bricks used on the fl oor of Feature C. Different usages have been proposed for th is area, and would be expected to be discernable through archaeological excavation. For example, it is known that in late 1875 there was a Camp Bell hospital detachment on Indian Key due to the yellow fever outbreak in Key West (Collins 2002:11). Uses for the warehouse such as a hospital or a housing era in the midor late -nineteenth century would be e xpected to have a distinct archaeological assemblage of healthor household-related ceramic items, such as medicine or cosmetic jars, ashtrays, spittoons, so ap trays, etc. For the most part, these are lacking – the ceramic artifacts uniformly appear to be part of matched dinner or tea sets. An avenue for future research would be to examine all of th e classes of artifacts together in the warehouse. Certainly a comprehensive study of glass, ceramics, pipestems, and architectural material could sh ed more light on the subject than the study of any of the items by themselves, although th is would require a considerable dedication of resources that may be bette r spent examining less well-kno wn features on the island.

PAGE 193

179 A major goal of this thesis was to allow th e artifacts to become a primary source of interpretation, rather than a supporting source to the documentary record. The analysis of the ceramic artifacts in the warehouse has cl early indicated that not only did it have subsequent use beyond the widely document ed wrecking period, but that its function changed through time. Public Archaeology The current interpretive sign posted by th e FPS at the location of the Warehouse Complex reads: “These are the foundations of the tw o largest buildings on the island, the warehouses. They were used by Jacob Housman to store salvaged property. The floor of the building to the east [Feature C] is brick laid over bedrock. A peculiar feature wh ich lacks an explanation are two granite slabs that were cemented to the floor at a 45 angle from the northeast corner.” As a side note, Baker (1973:15) speculates that the granite slabs mentioned above may have “served as partial supports for a raised wooden floor during one of the later periods of the site’s occupation.” In terpretive efforts in the past have included plans for both the re-creation of the town as it existed in the 1830s and the construction of a causeway from U.S. Highway 1 to Indian Key. Neither cam e to fruition for various reasons. Jacob Housman himself apparently proposed a causeway from Indian Key to Upper Matecumbe Key or Lower Matecumbe Key as early as th e 1830s; however, many of his plans for the town were left incomplete when it was att acked and burned. The Florida Department of Natural Resources (DNR) also made inquiries about this possibility in the 1980s, but was unable to come to terms with local priv ate landowners on Upper Matecumbe and Lower

PAGE 194

180 Matecumbe keys. Given its isolation, Indian Key is actually in a prime preservation situation, although the many visitors who travel here via boat without a preceding tour of Lignumvitae Key (where many of the interpretive materials are housed) may be confused by the lack of a detailed explanation for the island’s remains. Weisman (2000:20-21) has offered suggesti ons regarding the interpretation of the archaeological components of Indian Key. These include: The creation of a visitor center on the ma inland itself, with “artifact exhibits, video, diorama, and supporting publicati ons” that would be available to the passing motorist; the placement of interpretive signage at th e boat dock to greet visitors and explain the themes of Indian Key’s archaeology as it relates to Florida and American history; the placement of interpretive panels at the observation tower, oriented towards Alligator Reef, so that the visitor can s ituate himself or herself with regard to Housman’s town plan and the ch anging land use of the island; and, “limited unobtrusive feature-specific in terpretation of architectural elements at points on the trail system, examples of which might include the footprints in the warehouse, a preserved portion of a plas ter floor, or the unique tabby-plaster construction of the Howe Ci stern” (Weisman 2000:21). Specific suggestions for the interpretati on of the warehouse, based on the ceramic and stratigraphic analysis of its remains, are given below. Indian Key has an ability to offer both residents and visitors to the keys a connection to th e history of the area. As Sieber (1997:59) notes, “Anthropologists have tended to study tourism in places that are remote from their own communities, among people where the distinctions between tourists and their ‘hosts’ seem clear.” In the keys, the reside nts tend to take a great pride and interest in the history of their chosen hom e. This can be seen through the activeness of the local historical and civi c societies (such as the Friends of the Islamorada Area State

PAGE 195

181 Parks) and the presence of many local histor y buffs. The interpretation of the island should be geared not only to those who are visiting from elsewhere, but to those who would like to visit Indian Key on a day trip. As such, there should be a balance between a general history of the keys (which the re sidents likely would be familiar with), and a specific history of Indian Key and its architec tural and archaeological details. Shackel (2000:136-138) gives an example of how to present details regarding the artifacts found in a specific area. His study of boarding houses in Harper’s Ferry gives an example of the table setting for one boarding house, suggesting that there were different wares for the boardinghouse owners and th eir tenants. A photograph of different matched sets of ceramics could be included on a display, showing the visual difference between decorated and undecorated wares. This difference also highlights the choices made by the Housman-era occupants of th e island (decorated wares for a well-off household) and the later occupants such as the military personnel, fishers, farmers, etc. (undecorated ironstone and whiteware for more practical, less social usages). The current signs for Indian Key are small metal, weather-proof plates attached to wooden posts at various points of interest around the island. My first recommendation for an updated sign based on the archaeol ogical remains of the Warehouse Complex would be to move the location of the sign. Cu rrently, it is located at the grid northwest corner of the warehouse, along Northwest Stre et. I would re-locate the signage to the grid east side of the warehouse, as it seems mo re likely that visitors would approach the feature from that side, coming up the path from the dock (along Second Street). If they approach this way, visitors are greeted by a roped barrier but no si gn (Figure 8.9). This

PAGE 196

182 could be frustrating for the visitor, but it al so makes the job of park management more difficult, as people are curi ous, and could possibly walk around inside the warehouse, perhaps causing inadvertent damage if ther e are no signs giving them either an identification of the feature or an indication as to the im portance of the resource. Figure 8.9. Photograph of Features A and C of the warehouse, showing the rope barrier, facing grid northeast. The signs should give a clear indication of the location of Features A and C, both in relation to the island and to each other. Th ey could make the following points about the warehouse, based on the rese arch done thus far: Feature A was created by dynamiting coral to create a rectangular hole in the ground for use as a cistern. The coral was covered with an in itial plaster floor during the Housman era (to create a seamless, waterproof floor for the cistern). The walls were made of coral, mortar and brick, with a wooden upper structure that was burned during the attack in 1840.

PAGE 197

183 The entrance to Feature A was in the cente r of the grid east wall. This doorway was right off of the main path (Second St reet) leading grid south from the former dock. This sloped path provided easy access for Housman and his workers to load merchandise from wrecked ships and supplies for the community into the warehouse. Feature C can be distinguished from Feat ure A by its higher floor (the natural level of the coral bedrock), as well as th e patterned brick which covers it. This area also served as a cistern, and was likel y a later addition to the warehouse. It was once sealed by plaster that was laid over the bricks and continued seamlessly up the walls, allowing the structure to retain the rainwater that was the community’s only source of fresh water. The archaeology of the island can help to fill gaps left by only a study of the documentary record, which tends to focu s on important events, famous people, and legal standing. Artifacts such as cer amics, glass, pipestems, buttons, and nails provide a direct link to the lifes tyle of the men, women, and children who lived on Indian Key. Economic and social diversity existed on the island, and an interpretive tour should make note of this. Some of the community (especially during the 1830s) were wea lthy businesspeople, such as Jacob Housman, while others were wealthy vacationers, middle-class laborers, or slaves. The variations in the date of the artif acts reflect the nearly continuous (if not always large) population of Indian Key fr om the 1830s to the 1930s. This can be seen archaeologically in th e growing percentage of gl ass vs. ceramics, when the former vessels become more popular than the latter in the late 1800s. The warehouse is a reminder of the commer cial activity of the island, at a time when it was the largest settlement in the keys aside from Key West. People moved purposefully, and there must have been an advantage (economic or otherwise) for them to do so, despite the he at, bugs, and relative isolation. Areas along major waterways were (and are) popular for settlements, and early Florida coastal towns are an example of the importance of sea commerce before the advent of the railroads in the late nineteenth century. These suggestions are made to enhance th e public interpretati on and enjoyment of this Historic State Park, based on the arch aeological work completed thus far. The interpretation of the island w ill undoubtedly continue to be refined as the archaeological work is synthesized, making an invaluable c ontribution to the existi ng history of Indian Key.

PAGE 198

184 References Cited Andrews, Charles M. 1943 The Florida Indians in the Seventeenth Century. Tequesta 1943(3):36-48. Ambrosino, James N., Lisa N. Lamb, Lucy D. Jones, and Paul L. Jones 2002 An Archaeological Reconnaissance of At sena Otie Key, Cedar Key National Wildlife Refuge, Levy County, Florida Prepared for the Suwannee River Water Management District, Live Oak, Florida. Panamerican Consultants, Inc., Tampa, Florida. Archeology, Inc. 2001 Woolsey Archeology: A Glimpse of a 19th Century Navy Town URL: http://www.archeologyinc.org/woolse y.html. Accessed October 3, 2001. Audubon, John James 1979 The Art of Audubon: The Complete Birds and Mammals. Times Books, New York. 1993 Treasury of Audubon Birds in Full Color: 224 Plates from The Birds of America. Dover Publications, Inc., New York. Bache, Richard Meade 1999 [1866] The Young Wrecker on the Florida Reef or, the Trials and Adventures of Fred Ransom The Ketch & Yawl Press, Key West. Baker, Henry 1973 Archaeological Investigations at Indian Key, Florida. Miscellaneous Project Report Series No. 7. Bureau of Archaeol ogical Research, Division of Historical Resources, Department of Stat e, Tallahassee, Florida. 1982 The Archeology of Indian Key: An Overview. The Florida Anthropologist 35(3):100-104 1988 An Archaeological Survey of Atsena Otie, Levy County, Florida Florida Preservation Services, Tallahassee. Ms. No. 2129 on file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee. Bansemer, Roger 2002 Alligator Reef Lighthouse, 1873. URL: http://www.bansemer.com/fllighthouses/alligator_reef.ht m. Accessed August 26, 2002.

PAGE 199

185 Barber, Russell 1994 Doing Historical Archaeology: Exer cises Using Documentary, Oral, and Material Evidence Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Baugher, Sherene, and Robert W. Venables 1987 Ceramics as Indicators of Status a nd Class in EighteenthCentury New York. In Consumer Choice in Historical Archaeology edited by Suzanne M. SpencerWood, pp. 31-53. Plenum Press, New York. Bense, Judith A. (editor) 1999 Archaeology of Colonial Pensacola University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Berge, Dale L. 1980 Simpson Springs Station: Historic al Archaeology in Western Utah Cultural Resource Series No. 6. Utah Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake City. Bettesworth, A., and C. Hitch 1981 [1734] Builder’s Dictionary or Gen tleman and Architect’s Companion Reprint. Privately published, n.p. Binford, Lewis A. 1962 Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity 28(2):217-226. Bradbury, Alford G., and E. Story Hallock 1962 A Chronology of Florida Post Offices Handbook No. 2. The Florida Federation of Stamp Clubs, n.p. Brewer, Mary 1996 Collector’s Guide to Rockingham, Th e Enduring Ware: Identification and Values Collector Books, Paducah, Kentucky. Brookfield, Charles M., and Oliver Griswold 1985 [1949] They All Called it Tropical: True Ta les of the Romantic Everglades, Cape Sable, and the Florida Keys Ninth edition. Histor ical Association of Southern Florida, Miami. Brownstone, Douglass L. 1984 A Field Guide to America’s History Facts on File, Inc., New York. Buker, George E. 1997 Swamp Sailors in the Second Seminole War University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

PAGE 200

186 Burtchaell, Peter Edward 1949 Economic Change and Population at Cedar Key Unpublished Master’s thesis on file, University of Florida, Gainesville. Carnes, Linda F. 1982 Archaeological and Historical Investigat ions of the North and South Cisterns, Old City Hall Complex, Knoxville, Tennessee Prepared for Anderson, Notter, Finegold, Inc., Boston, Massachusetts. Midsouth Anthropological Research Center, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Carr, Robert S. 1997 Prehistoric Settlement of the Florida Keys. In The Florida Keys Environmental Story: A Panorama of the Environment, Culture, and History of Monroe County, Florida edited by Dan Gallagher, pp. 68-69. Seacamp Association, Inc., Big Pine Key, Florida. Carr, Robert S., David A llerton, and Ivan Rodriguez 1987 An Archaeological, Historical, and Arch itectural Survey of the Middle Keys Prepared for the Florida Division of Archives and History, Tallahassee. Archaeological and Historical Conservanc y, Inc., Miami, Florida. Ms. No. 1514 on file, Florida Division of Hist orical Resources, Tallahassee. Carter, Kaye Edwards 1976 The Rumskudgeon: Housman, Wrecker of Indian Key BPK Press, Hialeah, Florida. 1998 Henry Perrine: Plant Pioneer of the Florida Frontier Tailored Tours Publications, Lake Buena Vista, Florida. Chance, Marsha A. 1997 Cultural Resource Management Recommenda tions for Atsena Otie Island, Levy County, Florida Prepared for the Suwannee River Water Management District, Live Oak, Florida. Environmental Se rvices, Inc., Jacksonville, Florida. Cochrane, Robert E. 1993 Some Technological, Economical, and Archaeological Aspects of the Nineteenth Century Americ an Whiteware Industry with Particular Consideration of Trenton, New Jersey Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee. Collins, Lori D. 2002 Positively Fourth Street: a GIS-based Landscape Approach to Historical Archaeology at Indian Key Historic al State Park, Florida (8MO15) Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anth ropology, University of South Florida, Tampa.

PAGE 201

187 Clegg, John A. 1976 The History of Flagler County Privately published, n.p. Cotter, John L. 1968 Handbook for Historical Archaeology John L. Cotter, Wyncote, Pennsylvania. Covington, James W. 1993 The Seminoles of Florida University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Coysh, A.W., and R.K. Henrywood 1982 The Dictionary of Blue and Wh ite Printed Pottery, 1780-1880 Baron Publishing, Woodbridge, England. Day, Jane S., and Sandra L. Norman 1997 Indian Key: Historic Research Report. Research Atlantica, Inc., Coral Gables, Florida. Deagan, Kathleen A. 1976 Archaeology at the National Greek Orth odox Shrine, St. Augustine, Florida Florida State University Notes in An thropology Number 15. University of Florida Presses, Gainesville. 1987 Artifacts of the Spanish Colonies of Florida and the Caribbean, 1500-1800, Volume I: Ceramics, Glassware, and Beads Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Dean, Love 1998 Lighthouses of the Florida Keys. Pineapple Press, Inc., Sarasota, Florida. Decker, H. Carlton, William Flynn Wescott, George Gann-Matzen, Charles Alden, and Henry Baker 1989 Programmed Plan for the Stabilization, Maintenance, and Pr otection of Indian Key State Historic Site, M onroe County, Florida. Prepared for the Friends of Islamorada Area State Parks, Islamorada Florida. HCDA, Inc., Coral Gables, Florida. Deetz, James 1993 Flowerdew Hundred: the Archaeology of a Virginia Plantation, 1619-1864 University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville. 1996 In Small Things Forgotten: an Archaeology of Early American Life Revised edition. Anchor Books, New York. Department of Environmental Protection 1874 Plat map, Township 64 South, Range 36 Ea st. On file, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee.

PAGE 202

188 Department of Environmental Protection continued 1997 Indian Key State Historic Site Historic Structures Cyclical Maintenance Plan Prepared for Friends of Islamorada Area State Parks and Indian Key State Historic Site, Islamorada, Florida. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee. Dieringer, Ernie, and Bev Dieringer 2001 White Ironstone China: Plate Identification Guide, 1840-1880 Schiffer Publishing, Ltd., Atglen Pennsylvania. Dodd, Dorothy 1948 Jacob Housman of Indian Key. Tequesta 1948(8):3-19. Driscoll, Kelly 2003 An Archaeological Study of Architectur al Form and Functi on at Indian Key, Florida Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, Tampa. Dutcher, James A., and Susan Dutcher 1846 Affidavit given to Thomas Jefferson Sm ith, Justice of the Marine Court of the City of New York, April 15, 1846. National Archives, Washington D.C. Escalante Fontenada, Hernando de 1944 [1575] Memoir of Do. d’Escalante Fonten ada Respecting Florida, Written in Spain About the Year 1575. Translated from the Spanish with notes by Buckingham Smith, edited by David O. True University of Miami, Miami, Florida. Espenshade, Christopher T. 2002 Taming the Groundhog: Excavations at the Sligh Stoneware Pottery, Paulding County, Georgia. Early Georgia 30(2):183-193. Eyster, Irving R. 1965 Excavation on Indian Key, June through Sept., 1965 Privately published, n.p. 1975 Hand Book of South Florida Archaeology Privately published, n.p. Ms. on file, Special Collections – Fl oridiana, Tampa Library, Univ ersity of South Florida, Tampa. Eyster, Irving R., and Darlene Brown 1976 Indian Key. Jeannie’s Magic Printing, Long Key, Florida. Eyster, Jeane, and Irving R. Eyster 1997 Islamorada and More Pigeon Key Foundation, Inc., Marathon, Florida.

PAGE 203

189 Fairbanks, Charles H. 1974a Ethnohistorical Report on the Florida Indians Garland, New York. 1974b The Kingsley Slave Cabins in Duval County, Florida, 1968. The Conference on Historic Site Archaeology Papers 1972 7:62-93. 1978 The Ethno-Archeology of th e Florida Seminole. In Tacachale: Essays on the Indians of Florida and Southeastern Georgia during the Historic Period edited by Jerald T. Milanich and Samuel Proc tor, pp. 163-193. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville. Fishburne, Charles C., Jr. 1997 The Cedar Keys in the 19th Century Cedar Key Histori cal Society, Cedar Key, Florida. Florida Natural Areas Inventory 1990 Guide to the Natural Communities of Florida Florida Natural Areas Inventory and Florida Department of Natural Resources, Tallahassee. Florida Society of Colonial Dames 1964 Triangle of History Historical marker located on U.S. Highway 1, Indian Key Fill, Florida. Dedicated January 15, 1964. Gannon, Michael 1965 The Cross in the Sand. University of Florida Press, Gainesville. Gaske, Frederick Paul 1982 The Archaeology of a Florida Ante bellum Period Boarding House; the Ximenez-Fatio House (SA 34-2), St. Augustine, Florida Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Fl orida State University, Tallahassee. George, Paul S. 1995a Chapter 2: First Spanish Period Context, 1513-1763. In Part III: Historic /Architectural Contexts edited by Louis D. Tesar, pp. 150-153. More Than Orange Marmalade: A Statewide Comprehe nsive Historic Preservation Plan for Florida. Florida Department of Stat e, Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee. 1995b Chapter 5: Territorial Period, 1821-1844. In Part III: Historic /Architectural Contexts edited by Louis D. Tesar, pp. 160-163. More Than Orange Marmalade: A Statewide Comprehensive Historic Pres ervation Plan for Florida. Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee. 1995c Chapter 6: Statehood Period, 1845-1860. In Part III: Historic /Architectural Contexts edited by Louis D. Tesar, pp. 164-167. More Than Orange Marmalade: A Statewide Comprehensive Historic Pres ervation Plan for Florida. Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.

PAGE 204

190 George, Paul S. continued 1995d Chapter 7: Civil War Pe riod Context, 1861-1865. In Part III: Historic /Architectural Contexts edited by Louis D. Tesar, pp. 168-170. More Than Orange Marmalade: A Statewide Comprehe nsive Historic Preservation Plan for Florida. Florida Department of Stat e, Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee. 1995e Chapter 8: Reconstruction Period Context, 1866-1879. In Part III: Historic /Architectural Contexts edited by Louis D. Tesar, pp. 171-174. More Than Orange Marmalade: A Statewide Comprehe nsive Historic Preservation Plan for Florida. Florida Department of Stat e, Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee. 1995f Chapter 9: Post-Reconstructi on Period Context, 1880-1897. In Part III: Historic /Architectural Contexts edited by Louis D. Tesar, pp. 175-179. More Than Orange Marmalade: A Statewide Co mprehensive Historic Preservation Plan for Florida. Florida Department of Stat e, Division of Hist orical Resources, Tallahassee. 1995g Chapter 10: Turn-of-the-Century Period Context, 1898-1916. In Part III: Historic /Architectural Contexts edited by Louis D. Tesar, pp. 180-184. More Than Orange Marmalade: A Statewide Co mprehensive Historic Preservation Plan for Florida. Florida Department of Stat e, Division of Hist orical Resources, Tallahassee. 1995h Chapter 11: World War I and Afte rmath Period Context, 1917-1920. In Part III: Historic /Archi tectural Contexts edited by Louis D. Tesar, pp. 185-188. More Than Orange Marmalade: A Statewide Comprehensive Historic Preservation Plan for Florida. Florida Depa rtment of State, Di vision of Historical Resources, Tallahassee. 1995i Chapter 12: Boom Times Period Context, 1921-1929. In Part III: Historic /Architectural Contexts edited by Louis D. Tesar, pp. 189-193. More Than Orange Marmalade: A Statewide Comprehe nsive Historic Preservation Plan for Florida. Florida Department of Stat e, Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee. 1995j Chapter 13: Depression and New Deal Period Context, 1930-1940. In Part III: Historic /Architectural Contexts edited by Louis D. Tesar, pp. 194-196. More Than Orange Marmalade: A Statewide Co mprehensive Historic Preservation Plan for Florida. Florida Department of Stat e, Division of Hist orical Resources, Tallahassee. 1995k Chapter 14: World War II and Afte rmath Period Context, 1941-1949. In Part III: Historic /Archi tectural Contexts edited by Louis D. Tesar, pp. 197-199. More Than Orange Marmalade: A Statewide Comprehensive Historic Preservation Plan for Florida. Florida Depa rtment of State, Di vision of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.

PAGE 205

191 George, Paul S. continued 1995l Chapter 15: Modern Period Context, 1950-present. In Part III: Historic /Architectural Contexts edited by Louis D. Tesar, pp. 200-202. More Than Orange Marmalade: A Statewide Comprehe nsive Historic Preservation Plan for Florida. Florida Department of Stat e, Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee. Glassie, Henry 1968 Pattern in the Material Folk Culture of the Eastern United States University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Gleeson, Janet 1998 The Arcanum: the Extraordinary True Story Warner Books, Inc., New York. Godden, Geoffrey A. 1963 British Pottery and Porcelain, 1780-1850 Arthur Baker, Ltd., London. 1999 Godden’s Guide to Ironstone: Stone & Granite Wares Antique Collectors’ Club Ltd., Woodbridge, England. Goggin, John M., and Frank H. Sommer III 1949 Excavations on Upper Matecumbe Key, Florida. Yale University Publications in Anthropology, No. 41. Ya le University Press, New Haven. Greer, Georgeanna H. 1981 American Stonewares: The Art and Craft of Utilitarian Potters Schiffer Publishing Limited, Exton, Pennsylvania. Gurcke, Karl 1987 Bricks and Brickmaking: a Handbook of Historical Archaeology The University of Idaho Press, Moscow. Hann, John H. 1991 Missions to the Calusa. University of Florida Press, Gainesville. Harley, Laurence S. 1974 A Typology of Brick: with Numeri cal Coding of Brick Characteristics. Journal of the British Archaeological Association 37:63-87. Harris, Edward C. 1989 Principles of Arch aeological Stratigraphy Second edition. Academic Press, London. Haslam, Malcolm 1973 Pottery Crescent Books, New York.

PAGE 206

192 Hatton, Hap 1987 Tropical Splendor: An Architectural History of Florida Alfred A. Knopf, New York. Henry, Susan L. 1987 Factors Influencing Consumer Beha vior in Turn-of-the-Century Phoenix, Arizona. In Consumer Choice in Historical Archaeology edited by Suzanne M. Spencer-Wood, pp. 359-395. Plenum Press, New York. Hess, Kamelle 1978 The Darkness at Indian Key. Manor Books, Inc., New York. Hine, Charles Gilbert, and William T. Davis 1925 Legends, Stories, and Folklore of Old St aten Island: Part I – The North Shore. The Staten Island Historical Soci ety, Staten Island, New York. Holder, J. B. 1871 Along the Florida Reef. Harper’s New Monthly Magazine 42(February 1871):355ff. Homan, Lynn M., and Thomas Reilly 2000 Images of America: Key West Arcadia Publishing, Charleston, South Carolina. Hughes, G. Bernard, and Therle Hughes 1968 English Porcelain and Bone China, 1743-1850 Praeger, New York. Hurt, G. Wade, Chris V. Noble, and Robert W. Drew 1995 Soil Survey of Monroe County, Keys Area, Florida. Soil Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. Hyde, Luther W. 1975 Principal Aquifers in Florida Revised edition. U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Bureau of Geol ogy, Florida Department of Natural Resources, Tallahassee. Jones, Elizabeth A., Patricia M. Samford, R.P. Stephen Davis, Jr., and Melissa A. Salvanish 1998 Archaeological Investigations at the Pettig rew Site on the University of North Carolina Campus, Chapel Hill, North Carolina Research Report No. 20. Research Laboratories of Archaeology, The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

PAGE 207

193 Jordan, Bill 1997 Weather and Climate of the Florida Keys. In The Florida Keys Environmental Story: A Panorama of the Environment, Culture, and History of Monroe County, Florida edited by Dan Gallagher, pp. 14-18. Seacamp Association, Inc., Big Pine Key, Florida. Jutro, Peter Richard 1975 Lignumvitae Key Unpublished Ph.D. disserta tion, Cornell University, New York. Keynoter 1983 Naturalist Viewed key: Indi an Key – Naturalist’s view. Keynoter 31 July 1983. Key West, Florida. Kovel, Ralph, and Terry Kovel 1967 Know Your Antiques Crown Publishers, Inc., New York. Kozuch, Laura 1995 Chapter 12: South and Southeast Flor ida: The Everglades Region, 2500 B.P. to Contact. In Part II: Archaeological Contexts edited by Jerald T. Milanich and Claudine Payne, pp. 93-98. More Than Orange Marmalade: A Statewide Comprehensive Historic Preservation Plan for Florida. Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee. Lamb, Lisa N. 1999a Preliminary Report on Archaeologica l Excavations at the Indian Key Warehouse, Summer 1998 Dr. Brent R. Weisman, Principal Investigator. Prepared for the Florida Park Service, Lignumvitae Key, Florida. Unpublished Ms. on file, Department of Anthropology, Un iversity of South Florida, Tampa. 1999b Archaeological and Historical Preser vation Assessment Study of the Indian Key State Historic Site (8Mo15): an Internship with the Florida Park Service, Lignumvitae Key, Florida Unpublished Ms. on file, Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, Tampa. 2000 Preliminary Report on Archaeological Ex cavations at the Indian Key (8Mo15) Warehouse Complex, Feature A, June 1999 Dr. Brent R. Weisman, Principal Investigator. Prepared for the Florida Park Service, Lignumvitae Key, Florida. Unpublished Ms. on file, Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, Tampa. Lane, Ed 1986 Geology of the State Parks in the Florida Keys. Leaflet No. 14. Bureau of Geology, Division of Resource Management Department of Natural Resources, Tallahassee, Florida.

PAGE 208

194 Langley, Joan, and Wright Langley 1982 Key West: Images of the Past. Christopher C. Belland and Edwin O. Swift, III, Key West, Florida. LaPointe, Brian E. 1997 Hydrology of Monroe County. In The Florida Keys Envi ronmental Story: A Panorama of the Environment, Culture, and History of Monroe County, Florida edited by Dan Gallagher, pp. 22-23. Seacamp Association, Inc., Big Pine Key, Florida. Leone, Mark P. 1999 Ceramics from Annapolis, Maryland: A Measure of Time Routines and Work Discipline. In Historical Archaeologies of Capitalism edited by Mark P. Leone and Parker B. Potter, Jr., pp. 195218. Plenum Publishers, New York. Lucas, Michael T. 1994 A la Russe, la Pell-Mell, or la Practical: Ideology and Compromise at the Late Nineteenth-Century Dinner Table. Historical Archaeology 28(4):80-93. Lyell, Charles 1997 [1833] Principles of Geology Penguin Books, London. Mahon, John K. 1967 History of the Second Seminole War University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Majewski, Teresita, and Michael J. O’Brien 1987 The Use and Misuse of Nineteenth-Cen tury English and America Ceramics in Archaeological Analysis. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory Volume 11, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 98-210. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego. Matero, Frank G., and Kecia L. Fong 1997 Condition Survey and Recommendations for the Conservation and Management of the Indian Key State Historic Site Architectural Conservation Laboratory, University of Pe nnsylvania, Philadelphia. Maxwell, Michael 1989 Monroe. In Guide to Florida’s Historic Architecture edited by the Board of Regents of the State of Florida, pp. 142-143. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

PAGE 209

195 Milanich, Jerald T. 1978 The Western Timucua. In Tacachale: Essays on th e Indians of Florida and Southeastern Georgia during the Historic Period, edited by Jerald T. Milanich and Samuel Proctor, pp. 59-88. Universi ty Presses of Florida, Gainesville. 1994 Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 1995 Florida Indians and the Invasion from Europe. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Miller, George L. 1980 Classification and Economic Scaling of 19th Century Ceramics. Historical Archaeology 14:1-40. 1989 A Chronology of English Shell Edged Pearl and White Wares George L. Miller, Williamsburg, Virginia. 1991 A Revised Set of CC Index Values fo r Classification and Economic Scaling of English Ceramics from 1787 to 1880. Historical Archaeology 25(1):1-25. Miller, George L., and Silas D. Hurry 1983 Ceramic Supply in an Economically Isolated Frontier Community: Portage County of the Ohio We stern Reserve, 1800-1825. Historical Archaeology 17(2):80-92. Miller, J. Jefferson, and Lyle M. Stone 1970 Eighteenth-Century Ceramics from Fort Michilimackinac Smithsonian Studies in History and Technology 4. Morris, Allen 1995 Florida Place Names Pineapple Press, In c., Sarasota, Florida. Mrozowski, Stephen A., Grace H. Ziesing, and Mary C. Beaudry 1996 Living on the Boott: Historical Archae ology at the Boott Mills Boardinghouses, Lowell, Massachusetts University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst. Mueller, Erich, and George O. Winston 1997 Geologic History of the Florida Keys. In The Florida Keys Environmental Story: A Panorama of the Environment, Culture, and History of Monroe County, Florida edited by Dan Gallagher, pp. 4-13. Seacamp Association, Inc., Big Pine Key, Florida. Myers, Susan H. 1980 Handcraft to Industry: Philadelphia Cerami cs in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century. Smithsonian Studies in History and Technology 43.

PAGE 210

196 National Archives n.d. Memoirs of Reconnaissance, Compiled by Major Francis N. Page, Department of Florida, War Department Record Group 393, National Archives – Records of the U.S. Army Continental Commands, 1821-1920. National Archives, Washington, D.C. 1873 Alligator Reef Light Station cli pping file. Record Group 26. National Archives, Washington, D.C. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2002 National Geodetic Survey URL: http://www.ngs.noaa.gov. Accessed April 4, 2002. Neill, Wilfred T. 1956 The Story of Florida’s Seminole Indians. Great Outdoors Publishing Company, St. Petersburg, Florida. Nelson, James 1983 Indian Key lives again – in history. Miami Herald 7 August. Miami, Florida. Niedhauk, Charlotte Arpin 1973 Charlotte’s Story: An Undated Florida Key Diary, 1934-1935 Exposition Press, Smithtown, New York. Nielsen, Annette F. 1997 Tropical Hardwood Hammocks. In The Florida Keys Environmental Story: A Panorama of the Environment, Culture, and History of Monroe County, Florida edited by Dan Gallagher, pp. 37-40. Seacamp Association, Inc., Big Pine Key, Florida. Nol Hume, Ivor 1970 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America Alfred A. Knopf, New York. 1978 Pearlware: Forgotten Milestone of English Ceramic History. In English Pottery and Porcelain edited by Paul Atterbury, pp. 42-49. Universe Books, New York. Norton, Frederick Harwood 1952 Elements of Ceramics Addison-Wesley, Cambridge, England. 1970 Fine Ceramics McGraw-Hill, New York.

PAGE 211

197 O’Connor, Jim, Kevin W. Cunningham, Ellis C. Coleman, and Thomas W. Brockenbrough, Jr. 1985 Archaeological, Historical, and Archite ctural Evaluation of the Cantrell Warehouse/Enterprise Mill, State Site 7S-E-37, Stein Highway, Sussex County, Delaware Archaeology Series No. 33. Location and Environmental Studies Office, Delaware Department of Transportation, Dover. Orser, Charles E., Jr. 1996 A Historical Archaeology of the Modern World Plenum Press, New York. Orser, Charles E., Jr., and Brian M. Fagan 1995 Historical Archaeology HarperCollins College Publishers, New York. Parks, Pat 1968 The Railroad that Died at Sea: the Flor ida East Coast’s Key West Extension The Stephen Greene Press, Brattleboro, Vermont. Patton, Donald J., and Edward A. Fernald 1984 Water Problems: Global, National, State In Water Resources: Atlas of Florida edited by Edward J. Fernald and Dona ld J. Patton, pp. 2-8. Institute of Science and Public Affairs, Florida State University, Tallahassee. Perrine, Henry B. 1885 A True Story of Some Eventful Years in Grandpa’s Life. E.H. Hutchinson Press, Buffalo, New York. Price, Cynthia R. 1979 Nineteenth Century Ceramics in the Eastern Ozark Border Region Monograph Series 1. Center for Archaeo logical Research, Southwest Missouri State University, Springfield. 1981 Early to Mid-Nineteenth Cent ury Refined Earthenwares. In A Guide for Historical Archae ology in Illinois edited by Charles E. Orser, Jr., pp. 24-49. Mid-American Research Center, Loyola University, Chicago. Proby, Kathryn Hall 1974 Audubon in Florida With selections from the writings of John James Audubon. University of Miami Press, Coral Gables, Florida. Randazzo, Anthony F., and Robert B. Halley 1997 Geology of the Florida Keys. In The Geology of Florida edited by Anthony F. Randazzo and Douglas S. Jones, pp. 251-259. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

PAGE 212

198 Renfrew, Colin, and Paul Bahn 1991 Archaeology: Theories, Methods, and Practice Thames and Hudson, Inc., New York. Rhodes, Daniel 1973 Clay and Glazes for the Potter Chilton, Philadelphia. Rice, Prudence M. 1987 Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Richardson, Andrea 2003 SMU Archaeology Lab Ceramics Database St. Mary’s University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. URL: http:// www.stmarys.ca/academic/ arts/anthropology/ sdavis/ceramics/welcome.html. Accessed January 31, 2003, Roberts, William 1976 [1763] An Account of the First Discover y, and Natural History of Florida. The University Presses of Florida, Gainesville. Robinson, T. Ralph 1942 Henry Perrine, Pioneer Horticulturist of Florida. Tequesta 1942(2):16-24. Romans, Bernard 1998 [1775] A Concise Natural History of East and West Florida Pelican Publishing Company, Gretna, Louisiana. Rosenthal, Ernst 1954 Pottery and Ceramics Penguin Books, Melbourne, Australia. Samford, Patricia M. 1996 Response to a Market: Dating English Underglaze Transfer-Printed Wares. Historical Archaeology 31(2):1-30. Schene, Michael G. 1973 History of Indian Key. Miscellaneous Project Repor t Series No. 8. Bureau of Archaeological Resources, Division of Hist orical Resources, Department of State, Tallahassee, Florida. 1976 Indian Key. Tequesta 1976(36):3-27. Schuh, Niles (editor) 1990 Apalachicola in 1838-1840: Letters from a Young Cotton Warehouse Clerk. The Florida Historical Quarterly 68(3):312-323.

PAGE 213

199 Shackel, Paul A. 1996 Culture Change and the New Technology: An Archaeology of the Early American Industrial Era Plenum Press, New York. 2000 Archaeology and Created Memory: P ublic History in a National Park Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York. Shepard, Anne O. 1961 Ceramics for the Archaeologist Publication 609. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, D.C. Shepard, Steven Judd 1987 Status Variation in Antebellum Al exandria: an Archaeological Study of Ceramic Tableware. In Consumer Choice in Historical Archaeology edited by Suzanne M. Spencer-Wood, pp. 163-198. Plenum Press, New York. Sieber, R. Timothy 1997 Urban Tourism in Revitalizing Downtowns: Conceptualizing Tourism in Boston, Massachusetts. In Tourism and Culture: An Applied Perspective edited by Erve Chambers, pp. 59-76. State Univer sity of New York Press, Albany. Smith, Greg C. 1995 Overseas Heritage Trail Research: A Se arch for the Remains of the Florida East Coast Railroad, Monroe County, Florida Report of Investigations No. 66. Prepared for the Florida Department of Transportation, District Six, Miami, Florida. Environmental Services, Inc ., Jacksonville, Florida. Ms. No. 4398 on file, Florida Division of Hist orical Resources, Tallahassee. Smith, Sue N. 1990 A Guide to the Identification of Post C ontact Period Ceramics in St. Augustine, Florida St. Augustine Archaeological Asso ciation, St. Augustine, Florida. Soil Survey Staff 1987 Keys to Soil Taxonomy SMSS Technical Monogra ph No. 6. Soil Management Support Services, Ithaca, New York. South, Stanley 1972 Evolution and Horizon as Revealed in Ceramic Analysis in Historical Archeology. The Conference on Historic Site Archeology Papers 6:71-116. Institute of Archeology and Anthropo logy, University of South Carolina, Columbia. 1974a The Horizon Concept Revealed in the Application of the Mean Ceramic Date Formula to Spanish Majolica in the New World. The Conference on Historic Site Archeology Papers 7:96-122. Institute of Archeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

PAGE 214

200 South, Stanley continued 1974b Palmetto Parapets: Exploratory Arc haeology at Fort Moultrie, South Carolina, 38CHS0 Anthropological Studies 1. Occas ional Papers of the Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia. 1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology Academic Press, New York. Spencer-Wood, Suzanne M. 1987 Miller’s Indices and Consumer-Choice Profiles: Status-Related Behaviors and White Ceramics. In Consumer Choice in Historical Archaeology edited by Suzanne M. Spencer-Wood, pp. 321-358. Plenum Press, New York. State of Florida 2003 Land Document Search URL: http://199.73.242.56. Accessed March 1, 2003. Stau, Sven 1984 The Illustrated Stone Ginger Beer Stau Printing, Buffalo, New York. Ste. Claire, Dana 1998 Cracker: The Cracker Culture in Florida History The Museum of Arts and Sciences, Daytona Beach, Florida. Sturtevant, William C. 1953 Chakaika and the “Spanish Indians” : Documentary Sources Compared with Seminole Tradition. Tequesta 1953(13):35-73. 1978 The Last of the South Florida Aborigines. In Tacachale: Essays on the Indians of Florida and Southeastern Geor gia during the Historic Period edited by Jerald T. Milanich and Samuel Proctor, pp. 141-162. The University Presses of Florida, Gainesville. Sussman, Lynne 1977 Changes in Pearlware Dinnerware, 1780-1830. Historical Archaeology 11:105-111. 2000 Objects vs. Sherds: A St atistical Evaluation. In Studies in Material Culture Research edited by Karlis Karklins, pp. 96-103. The Society for Historical Archaeology, California, Pennsylvania. Sutton, Mark Q., and Brooke S. Arkush 1996 Archaeological Laboratory Methods: an Introduction Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa. Swanson, Gail 2002 Invented History: Antonio Gomez and his Spanish Trading Post on Indian Key. URL: http://www.keyshistory.org/IK-An tonio-Gomez.html. Accessed October 2, 2002.

PAGE 215

201 Swanton, John R. 1998 [1922] Early History of the Creek Indians & Their Neighbors University Press of Gainesville, Florida. Tesar, Louis D. (editor) 1995 Part III: Historic /Arc hitectural Contexts. In More Than Orange Marmalade: A Statewide Comprehensive Historic Preservation Plan for Florida Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee. Turnbaugh, Sarah Peabody 1983 17th and 18th Century Lead-Glazed Redwares in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Historical Archaeology 17(1):3-17. U.S. Census Office 1864 The Eighth Census of the United States: 1860. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1872 The Ninth Census of th e United States: 1870 Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Commerce 1915 The Pottery Industry Miscellaneous Series No. 21. United States Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of the Interior 1972 National Register of Historic Places Inventory – Nomination Form: Indian Key. National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 1982 National Register of Historic Places Inventory – Nomination Form: Key West Historic District. National Park Servic e, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Van Landingham, Kyle S. 1988 Pictorial History of Sai nt Lucie County, 1565-1910 (revised). St. Lucie Historical Society, Fort Pierce, Florida. Viele, John 1996 The Florida Keys: A History of the Pioneers Pineapple Press Inc., Sarasota, Florida. Walker, Hester Perrine 1947 [1845] The Perrines at In dian Key, Florida, 1838-1840. Tequesta 7(1947):6978.

PAGE 216

202 Ware, John D. 1982 George Gauld: Surveyor and Cartographer of the Gulf Coast. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville. Watts, Arthur Simeon 1939 Classification of Ceramic Dinnerware. Bulletin of the American Ceramic Society 18:314-315. Weidenbach, Nell Colcord 1995 Lt. John T. McLaughlin, USN: Myster y Man of the Second Seminole War. Foxcord House, Port Charlotte, Florida. Weisman, Brent R. 1999 Unconquered People: Florida’s Seminole and Miccosukee Indians University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 2000 An Interim Report on the Indian Key Stabilization Project Prepared for the Friends of Islamorada Area State Parks, Inc., Islamorada, Florida. Unpublished Ms. on file, Department of Anthropology, Un iversity of South Florida, Tampa. 2002 Summary of Archaeological Inves tigations, Indian Key Stabilization Archaeology, Florida Park Service/Univ ersity of South Florida, 2001 Season, DEP Contract #RP427 (lette r report dated July 25, 2001). URL: http://www. cas.usf.edu/anthropology/arch/Weisma n/IndianKey.htm. Accessed March 17, 2003. Weisman, Brent R., and Lori D. Collins 2001 Archaeological Investigations of Fe ature F: Indian Key Stabilization Unpublished Ms. on file, Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, Tampa. Weisman, Brent R., Lori D. Collins, Alexis Broadbent, and Chris Bell 2002 Investigations on Fourth Street, I ndian Key Historic State Park, Monroe County, Florida. Unpublished Ms. on file, Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, Tampa. Weisman, Brent R., Lori Collins, Alex is Broadbent, and Lisa N. Lamb 2002 Archaeology at Indian K ey Historic State Park Poster presented at the 54th Annual Meeting of the Florida Anth ropological Society, May 3-5, 2002, St. Petersburg, Florida.

PAGE 217

203 Weisman, Brent R., Lori Collins, and Kelly Driscoll 2001 Historical Archaeology of Indian Key (8MO15) M onroe County, Florida: Report of the 2000 Investigations Prepared for the Florida Park Service, Lignumvitae Key, Florida. Unpublis hed Ms. on file, Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, Tampa. Wetherbee, Jean 1974 A Handbook on White Ironstone Privately published, New York. 1980 A Look at White Ironstone Wallace-Homestead Book Company, Des Moines, Iowa. White, William A. 1970 The Geomorphology of th e Florida Peninsula Bulletin No. 51. Florida Geological Survey, Tallahassee. Wilkinson, Jerry 1993 A Bit of Keys History: “Jacob Housman.” The Reporter 30 September. 2002a Early Land Ownership. URL: http://www.keyshistory.org/Land% 20Ownership.html. Accessed September 23, 2002. 2002b General History of Indian Key URL: http://www.keyshistory.org/IKgeneral-history1.html. Accessed September 23, 2002. 2002c Historic Florida Indians. URL: http://www.keyshistory.org/histindians.html. Accessed September 23, 2002. 2002d History of Early Settlements. URL: http://www.keyshistory.org/ firstsettlements.html. Accessed September 23, 2002. 2002e History of Monroe County URL: http://www.keyshistory.org/ monroecounty.html. Accessed September 24, 2002. 2002f History of the Seminoles URLs: http://www.keyshistory.org/ seminolespage1.html and http://www.ke yshistory.org/seminolespage2.html. Accessed September 23, 2002. 2002g The Upper Keys U.S. 1870 Census. URL: http://www.keyshistory.org/ census.html. Accessed September 23, 2002. Willey, Gordon R., and Sabloff, Jeremy A. 1975 A History of American Archaeology W.H. Freeman, San Francisco. 1993 A History of American Archaeology 3rd edition. W.H. Freeman and Company, New York. Williams, John Lee 1962 [1837] The Territory of Florida: or S ketches of the Topography, Civil and Natural History, of the Count ry, the Climate, and the In dian Tribes, from the First Discovery to the Present Time. A facsimile reproduction of the 1837 edition with introduction by Herbert J. Doherty, Jr. Fl oridiana Facsimile and Reprint Series, University of Florida Press, Gainesville.

PAGE 218

204 Williams, T. Ann 1997 Unique and Endangered Plants and Plant Communities. In The Florida Keys Environmental Story: A Panorama of the Environment, Culture, and History of Monroe County, Florida edited by Dan Gallagher, pp. 289-292. Seacamp Association, Inc., Big Pine Key, Florida. Wolff, Reinhold P. 1944 Recent Economic Trends in South Florida. Tequesta 1944(4):45-49. Worthy, Linda H. 1982 Classification and Interpretation of Late-Nineteenth and Early-TwentiethCentury Ceramics. In Archaeology of Urban America: the Search for Pattern and Process edited by Roy S. Dickens, Jr., pp. 329-360. Academic Press, New York. Wynne, Lewis N., and Robert A. Taylor 2001 Florida in the Civil War Arcadia Publishing, Charleston, South Carolina.

PAGE 219

205 Appendix

PAGE 220

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A: Catalog of Material Recovered FS Provenience Zone, Level Opening Elevation Closing Elevation Count Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-98-11 94.29N/ 93E 1, 2 0.68 0.61 1 0.5 semiporcelain UID body sherd, plain 1823 17451900 Unknown A-98-11 94.29N/ 93E 1, 2 0.68 0.61 1 3.0 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-98-12 94.29N/ 93E 1, 3 0.61 0.55 1 1.0 coarse earthenware UID body sherd, leadglazed interior (brown) 1850 18001900 Unknown A-98-12 94.29N/ 93E 1, 3 0.61 0.55 1 3.5 pearlware plate base sherd, plain, foot ring 1805 17801830 Kitchen A-98-12 94.29N/ 93E 1, 3 0.61 0.55 1 2.0 pearlware plate body sherd, shelledged (blue), impressed, individual brush strokes, UID rim 1820 18001840 Kitchen A-98-12 94.29N/ 93E 1, 3 0.61 0.55 1 0.5 semiporcelain UID body sherd, plain 1823 17451900 Unknown A-98-12 94.29N/ 93E 1, 3 0.61 0.55 1 5.5 whiteware plate base sherd, plain, foot ring 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-98-16 94.29N/ 93E 2, 1 0.55 0.50 2 13.0 stoneware mug body sherds, saltglazed exterior (brown), leadglazed interior (dark brown) 1858 18151900 Kitchen A-98-16 94.29N/ 93E 2, 1 0.55 0.50 4 15.0 whiteware bowl rim sherds (3, 2 cross-mend) and body sherd (1), plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-98-30 94.29N/ 93E 2, 3 0.46 0.30 1 2.0 pearlware plate body sherd, Gaudy Dutch (blue, green, yellow), floral motif 1830 18201840 Kitchen A-98-30 94.29N/ 93E 2, 3 0.46 0.30 1 1.0 pearlware UID, teaware body sherd, plain, transfer-printed (blue) 1818 17951840 Kitchen 206

PAGE 221

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Zone, Level Opening Elevation Closing Elevation Count Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-98-30 94.29N/ 93E 2, 3 0.46 0.30 1 2.0 whiteware plate rim sherd, shelledged (blue), impressed, individual brush strokes, straight rim 1855 18401870 Kitchen A-98-21 94.29N/ 93E (Feature 1) 2, 3 0.46 0.37 1 10.5 whiteware cup/ bowl body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-98-21 94.29N/ 93E (Feature 1) 2, 3 0.46 0.37 1 10.5 whiteware cup/ bowl body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-98-32 94.29N/ 93E 3, 1 0.33 0.29 1 0.5 pearlware plate body sherd, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen A-98-33 94.29N/ 93E (west wall) 3, 1 0.31 0.31 1 9.0 pearlware bowl body sherd, banded annularware (blue, gray) 1800 17851815 Kitchen A-98-33 94.29N/ 93E (west wall) 3, 1 0.31 0.31 1 2.0 pearlware cup/ bowl body sherd, transfer-printed (blue), Willow pattern 1818 17951840 Kitchen A-99-51 floor cleanup surface near 94.29 N/93E n/a n/a 1 2.0 pearlware plate body sherd, Gaudy Dutch (green, yellow), floral motif 1830 18201840 Kitchen A-99-51 floor cleanup surface near 94.29 N/93E n/a n/a 1 3.0 pearlware plate body sherd, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen 207

PAGE 222

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Zone, Level Opening Elevation Closing Elevation Count Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-99-51 floor cleanup surface near 94.29 N/93E n/a n/a 1 1.5 pearlware plate body sherd, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen A-99-51 floor cleanup surface near 94.29 N/93E n/a n/a 1 16.5 pearlware plate base sherd, plain, foot ring 1805 17801830 Kitchen A-99-51 floor cleanup surface near 94.29 N/93E n/a n/a 1 4.0 pearlware plate body sherd, plain, burned 1805 17801830 Kitchen A-99-51 floor cleanup surface near 94.29 N/93E n/a n/a 1 8.0 pearlware plate base sherd, transfer-printed (black), floral motif 1818 17951840 Kitchen A-99-51 floor cleanup surface near 94.29 N/93E n/a n/a 1 0.5 pearlware plate body sherd, transfer-printed (blue) 1818 17951840 Kitchen A-99-51 floor cleanup surface near 94.29 N/93E n/a n/a 1 9.0 pearlware plate rim sherd, edged (green), molded, single brush stroke, scalloped rim 1830 18201840 Kitchen A-99-51 floor cleanup surface near 94.29 N/93E n/a n/a 1 16.0 pearlware plate rim sherd, shelledged (blue), impressed (worn), individual brush strokes, straight rim 1855 18401870 Kitchen 208

PAGE 223

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Zone, Level Opening Elevation Closing Elevation Count Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-99-51 floor cleanup surface near 94.29 N/93E n/a n/a 1 2.0 pearlware plate rim sherd, shelledged (blue), impressed, individual brush strokes, scalloped rim 1820 18001840 Kitchen A-99-51 floor cleanup surface near 94.29 N/93E n/a n/a 1 13.0 pearlware plate rim sherd, transferprinted (black) 1818 17951840 Kitchen A-99-51 floor cleanup surface near 94.29 N/93E n/a n/a 1 0.5 pearlware saucer base sherd, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen A-99-51 floor cleanup surface near 94.29 N/93E n/a n/a 1 0.5 pearlware UID, teaware body sherd, transfer-printed (blue) 1818 17951840 Kitchen A-99-51 floor cleanup surface near 94.29 N/93E n/a n/a 1 6.0 porcelain bowl rim sherd, embossed design (grapes) 1823 17451900 Kitchen A-99-51 floor cleanup surface near 94.29 N/93E n/a n/a 1 6.0 semiporcelain candy dish rim sherd, plain 1823 17451900 Kitchen A-99-51 floor cleanup surface near 94.29 N/93E n/a n/a 1 1.5 semiporcelain cup body sherd, plain 1823 17451900 Kitchen 209

PAGE 224

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Zone, Level Opening Elevation Closing Elevation Count Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-99-51 floor cleanup surface near 94.29 N/93E n/a n/a 1 22.5 semiporcelain cup rim sherd, plain 1823 17451900 Kitchen A-99-51 floor cleanup surface near 94.29 N/93E n/a n/a 1 2.0 semiporcelain cup rim sherd, plain 1823 17451900 Kitchen A-99-51 floor cleanup surface near 94.29 N/93E n/a n/a 1 49.0 stoneware jar body sherd, saltglazed exterior (gray), lead-glazed interior (brown) 1858 18151900 Kitchen A-99-51 floor cleanup surface near 94.29 N/93E n/a n/a 1 72.0 stoneware jar rim sherd, saltglazed exterior (worn off), leadglazed interior (worn off) 1858 18151900 Kitchen A-99-51 floor cleanup surface near 94.29 N/93E n/a n/a 1 23.0 whiteware bowl, serving base sherd, plain, foot ring 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-51 floor cleanup surface near 94.29 N/93E n/a n/a 2 38.5 whiteware cup body sherd (1) and rim sherd (1), painted band around rim (brown), painted (brown), flower 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-51 floor cleanup surface near 94.29 N/93E n/a n/a 1 0.5 whiteware cup body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen 210

PAGE 225

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Zone, Level Opening Elevation Closing Elevation Count Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-99-51 floor cleanup surface near 94.29 N/93E n/a n/a 1 1.5 whiteware cup handle sherd, painted band down handle (pink) 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-51 floor cleanup surface near 94.29 N/93E n/a n/a 1 19.5 whiteware cup rim sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-51 floor cleanup surface near 94.29 N/93E n/a n/a 1 2.0 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-51 floor cleanup surface near 94.29 N/93E n/a n/a 1 9.0 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-51 floor cleanup surface near 94.29 N/93E n/a n/a 1 5.0 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-51 floor cleanup surface near 94.29 N/93E n/a n/a 1 1.0 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-51 floor cleanup surface near 94.29 N/93E n/a n/a 1 0.5 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-51 floor cleanup surface near 94.29 N/93E n/a n/a 1 1.0 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen 211

PAGE 226

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Zone, Level Opening Elevation Closing Elevation Count Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-99-51 floor cleanup surface near 94.29 N/93E n/a n/a 1 2.0 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-51 floor cleanup surface near 94.29 N/93E n/a n/a 1 1.0 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-51 floor cleanup surface near 94.29 N/93E n/a n/a 1 1.0 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-51 floor cleanup surface near 94.29 N/93E n/a n/a 1 8.0 whiteware plate rim sherd, embossed design (flowers) 1850 18401860 Kitchen A-99-51 floor cleanup surface near 94.29 N/93E n/a n/a 1 1.5 whiteware plate rim sherd, painted band around rim (brown) 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-51 floor cleanup surface near 94.29 N/93E n/a n/a 1 0.5 whiteware plate rim sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-51 floor cleanup surface near 94.29 N/93E n/a n/a 2 6.5 whiteware plate/ bowl base sherds, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-51 floor cleanup surface near 94.29 N/93E n/a n/a 1 2.0 whiteware plate/ bowl base sherd, transfer-printed (light blue) 1860 18201900 Kitchen 212

PAGE 227

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Zone, Level Opening Elevation Closing Elevation Count Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-99-51 floor cleanup surface near 94.29 N/93E n/a n/a 2 25.0 whiteware shallow bowl base sherds, plain, cross-mend 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-51 floor cleanup surface near 94.29 N/93E n/a n/a 1 1.0 whiteware UID body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Unknown A-99-51 floor cleanup surface near 94.29 N/93E n/a n/a 1 2.0 yellowware cup body sherd, glazed (yellow), molded parallel bands around rim (white) 1849 17971900 Kitchen A-99-02 95N/ 93.1E 1, 1 0.70 0.49 1 1.0 pearlware plate body sherd, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen A-99-02 95N/ 93.1E 1, 1 0.70 0.49 1 2.0 semiporcelain cup body sherd, molded design, painted (gold) 1823 17451900 Kitchen A-99-02 95N/ 93.1E 1, 1 0.70 0.49 1 1.0 whiteware cup body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-07 95N/ 93.1E 1, 2 0.55 0.42 1 6.0 whiteware bowl rim sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-07 95N/ 93.1E 1, 2 0.55 0.42 1 6.0 whiteware cup/ bowl rim sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-10 95N/ 93.1E 2, 1 0.49 0.32 1 0.5 semiporcelain cup body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-10 95N/ 93.1E 2, 1 0.49 0.32 2 1.0 whiteware cup body sherds, flow blue 1845 18201870 Kitchen A-99-10 95N/ 93.1E 2, 1 0.49 0.32 2 2.0 whiteware cup rim sherds, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen A-99-10 95N/ 93.1E 2, 1 0.49 0.32 3 20.0 whiteware mug rim sherds (2) and body sherd (1), plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-10 95N/ 93.1E 2, 1 0.49 0.32 1 1.0 whiteware plate body sherd, flow blue 1845 18201870 Kitchen 213

PAGE 228

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Zone, Level Opening Elevation Closing Elevation Count Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-99-10 95N/ 93.1E 2, 1 0.49 0.32 1 1.0 whiteware UID body sherd, painted (blue) 1800 17801820 Unknown A-99-02 95N/ 93.1E 1, 1 0.70 0.49 1 1.0 pearlware plate body sherd, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen A-99-02 95N/ 93.1E 1, 1 0.70 0.49 1 2.0 semiporcelain cup body sherd, molded design, painted (gold) 1823 17451900 Kitchen A-99-02 95N/ 93.1E 1, 1 0.70 0.49 1 1.0 whiteware cup body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-07 95N/ 93.1E 1, 2 0.55 0.42 1 6.0 whiteware bowl rim sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-07 95N/ 93.1E 1, 2 0.55 0.42 1 6.0 whiteware cup/ bowl rim sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-10 95N/ 93.1E 2, 1 0.49 0.32 1 0.5 semiporcelain cup body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-10 95N/ 93.1E 2, 1 0.49 0.32 2 1.0 whiteware cup body sherds, flow blue 1845 18201870 Kitchen A-99-10 95N/ 93.1E 2, 1 0.49 0.32 2 2.0 whiteware cup rim sherds, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen A-99-10 95N/ 93.1E 2, 1 0.49 0.32 3 20.0 whiteware mug rim sherds (2) and body sherd (1), plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-10 95N/ 93.1E 2, 1 0.49 0.32 1 1.0 whiteware plate body sherd, flow blue 1845 18201870 Kitchen A-99-10 95N/ 93.1E 2, 1 0.49 0.32 1 1.0 whiteware UID body sherd, painted (blue) 1800 17801820 Unknown A-99-16 95N/ 93.1E 3, 1 0.38 0.32 1 0.5 whiteware UID body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Unknown A-99-26 96N/ 93.1E 1, 1 0.56 0.29 1 0.5 porcelain saucer body sherd, plain 1823 17451900 Kitchen A-99-26 96N/ 93.1E 1, 1 0.56 0.29 1 6.0 whiteware bowl body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-26 96N/ 93.1E 1, 1 0.56 0.29 2 6.0 whiteware cup body sherds, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen 214

PAGE 229

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Zone, Level Opening Elevation Closing Elevation Count Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-99-26 96N/ 93.1E 1, 1 0.56 0.29 1 0.5 whiteware plate body sherd, glazed (light blue) 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-26 96N/ 93.1E 1, 1 0.56 0.29 1 2.0 whiteware plate body sherd, transfer-printed (light blue), leaf motif 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-98-02 97N/ 85E 1, 1 0.36 0.32 1 2.0 semiporcelain saucer rim sherd, plain, foot ring 1823 17451900 Kitchen A-98-02 97N/ 85E 1, 1 0.36 0.32 1 8.0 whiteware cup/ bowl body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-98-06 97N/ 91E 1, 1 0.49 0.41 2 0.5 semiporcelain saucer base sherd (1) and body sherd (1), plain, foot ring 1823 17451900 Kitchen A-98-06 97N/ 91E 1, 1 0.49 0.41 2 7.0 whiteware plate body sherd (1) and rim sherd (1), plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-98-06 97N/ 91E 1, 1 0.49 0.41 1 6.0 whiteware plate base sherd, plain, foot ring 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-98-10 97N/ 91E 1, 2 0.43 0.37 2 1.5 whiteware plate body sherds, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-98-13 97N/ 91E 1, 3 0.39 0.34 1 2.0 whiteware cup body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-98-22 97N/ 91E 4, 1 0.40 0.35 2 2.0 semiporcelain cup/ bowl body sherds, plain 1823 17451900 Kitchen A-98-22 97N/ 91E 4, 1 0.40 0.35 1 3.0 whiteware cup body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-98-22 97N/ 91E 4, 1 0.40 0.35 1 0.5 whiteware plate body sherd, painted (blue), floral motif 1800 17801820 Kitchen A-99-05 97N/ 95E 1, 1 0.89 0.57 1 0.5 whiteware cup body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-05 97N/ 95E 1, 1 0.89 0.57 1 0.5 whiteware cup body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-05 97N/ 95E 1, 1 0.89 0.57 1 6.0 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen 215

PAGE 230

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Zone, Level Opening Elevation Closing Elevation Count Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-99-11 97N/ 95E 2, 1 0.63 0.50 1 1.0 pearlware cup/ bowl body sherd, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen A-99-20 97N/ 95E 3, 1 0.51 0.44 1 0.5 pearlware saucer rim sherd, transferprinted (blue) 1818 17951840 Kitchen A-99-20 97N/ 95E 3, 1 0.51 0.44 1 0.5 porcelain cup body sherd, plain 1823 17451900 Kitchen A-99-20 97N/ 95E 3, 1 0.51 0.44 1 9.0 whiteware cup/ bowl base sherd, plain, foot ring 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-20 97N/ 95E 3, 1 0.51 0.44 1 4.5 whiteware plate body sherd, plain, burned 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-20 97N/ 95E 3, 1 0.51 0.44 1 1.0 whiteware plate body sherd, transfer-printed (red), floral and geometric motif 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-21 97N/ 95E 4, 1 0.46 0.36 1 1.0 ironstone plate base sherd, plain, partial black maker's mark, "E CHI…BUI MALY PE," unicorn design 1870 18501890 Kitchen A-99-21 97N/ 95E 4, 1 0.46 0.36 1 1.5 pearlware cup body sherd, banded annularware (black, blue, green) 1800 17851815 Kitchen A-99-21 97N/ 95E 4, 1 0.46 0.36 1 0.5 pearlware cup body sherd, banded annularware (light blue, white) 1800 17851815 Kitchen A-99-21 97N/ 95E 4, 1 0.46 0.36 1 0.5 pearlware cup/ bowl body sherd, transfer-printed on both sides (blue) 1818 17951840 Kitchen 216

PAGE 231

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Zone, Level Opening Elevation Closing Elevation Count Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-99-21 97N/ 95E 4, 1 0.46 0.36 1 0.5 pearlware plate body sherd, transfer-printed (blue) 1818 17951840 Kitchen A-99-21 97N/ 95E 4, 1 0.46 0.36 1 1.0 semiporcelain saucer rim sherd, embossed design (seashells) 1823 17451900 Kitchen A-99-21 97N/ 95E 4, 1 0.46 0.36 1 0.5 stoneware UID, teaware body sherd, Rockingham ware 1865 18301900 Kitchen A-99-21 97N/ 95E 4, 1 0.46 0.36 1 3.0 whiteware cup rim sherd, painted band around interior rim (red), painted floral motif on exterior (red) 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-21 97N/ 95E 4, 1 0.46 0.36 1 1.0 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-21 97N/ 95E 4, 1 0.46 0.36 2 1.5 whiteware plate body sherds, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-22 97N/ 95E 4, 2 0.39 0.33 1 0.5 pearlware plate body sherd, painted (blue), floral motif 1800 17801820 Kitchen A-99-22 97N/ 95E 4, 2 0.39 0.33 1 0.5 pearlware plate body sherd, transfer-printed (blue) 1818 17951840 Kitchen A-99-25 97N/ 96E 1, 1 0.87 0.60 1 1.5 whiteware cup body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-25 97N/ 96E 1, 1 0.87 0.60 1 6.0 whiteware plate base sherd, plain, foot ring 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-25 97N/ 96E 1, 1 0.87 0.60 1 18.0 whiteware plate rim sherd, octagonal, molded design 1850 18401860 Kitchen A-99-25 97N/ 96E 1, 1 0.87 0.60 1 0.5 whiteware UID, teaware body sherd, transfer-printed (brown) 1810 17901830 Kitchen 217

PAGE 232

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Zone, Level Opening Elevation Closing Elevation Count Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-99-35 97N/ 96E 3, 1 0.51 0.41 2 6.0 pearlware plate body sherd (1) and rim sherd (1), painted (blue), floral motif 1800 17801820 Kitchen A-99-35 97N/ 96E 3, 1 0.51 0.41 1 4.0 semiporcelain cup base sherd, plain, foot ring 1823 17451900 Kitchen A-99-35 97N/ 96E 3, 1 0.51 0.41 1 11.0 whiteware plate base sherd, plain, foot ring 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-38 97N/ 96E 3, 2 0.45 0.32 1 28.0 ironstone plate base sherd, plain, partial maker's mark (black), "E CHINA…EY&Co… D," unicorn design, Morley, Francis & Co., Hanley, England, 18451858 (Wetherbee 1980:29) 1852 18451858 Kitchen A-99-38 97N/ 96E 3, 2 0.45 0.32 2 10.5 ironstone plate base sherds, plain, foot ring, partial maker's mark (1) (black), same mark as other vessel in FS A-9938 1852 18451858 Kitchen A-99-38 97N/ 96E 3, 2 0.45 0.32 2 1.0 pearlware cup body sherd (1) and rim sherd (1), transfer-printed on both sides (blue) 1818 17951840 Kitchen A-99-38 97N/ 96E 3, 2 0.45 0.32 1 0.5 porcelain UID, decorative body sherd, plain 1823 17451900 Personal 218

PAGE 233

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Zone, Level Opening Elevation Closing Elevation Count Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-99-38 97N/ 96E 3, 2 0.45 0.32 3 2.0 whiteware cup body sherd (1) and rim sherds (2), plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-38 97N/ 96E 3, 2 0.45 0.32 1 2.0 whiteware cup body sherd, painted (red), leaf motif 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-38 97N/ 96E 3, 2 0.45 0.32 1 2.5 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-38 97N/ 96E 3, 2 0.45 0.32 1 1.0 whiteware plate body sherd, painted (blue) 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-38 97N/ 96E 3, 2 0.45 0.32 2 6.0 whiteware plate base sherd (1) and body sherd (1), plain, foot ring 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-28 97.1N/ 98E 1, 2 0.79 0.71 1 2.0 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-28 97.1N/ 98E 1, 2 0.79 0.71 1 0.5 whiteware UID, teaware body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-28 97.1N/ 98E 1, 2 0.79 0.71 1 0.5 whiteware UID, teaware body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-30 97.1N/ 98E 2, 1 0.73 0.55 1 0.5 pearlware cup body sherd, transfer-printed (blue) 1818 17951840 Kitchen A-99-30 97.1N/ 98E 2, 1 0.73 0.55 1 10.0 pearlware plate rim sherd, shelledged (blue), impressed, individual brush strokes, straight rim 1820 18001840 Kitchen A-99-30 97.1N/ 98E 2, 1 0.73 0.55 1 1.0 porcelain saucer rim sherd, plain 1823 17451900 Kitchen A-99-30 97.1N/ 98E 2, 1 0.73 0.55 1 0.5 whiteware cup rim sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-30 97.1N/ 98E 2, 1 0.73 0.55 1 9.0 whiteware plate base sherd, plain, foot ring 1860 18201900 Kitchen 219

PAGE 234

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Zone, Level Opening Elevation Closing Elevation Count Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-99-30 97.1N/ 98E 2, 1 0.73 0.55 1 0.5 whiteware UID body sherd, transfer-printed on both sides (red) 1860 18201900 Unknown A-99-32 97.1N/ 98E 2, 2 0.65 0.45 1 6.0 pearlware plate base sherd, plain, foot ring 1805 17801830 Kitchen A-99-32 97.1N/ 98E 2, 2 0.65 0.45 1 2.0 whiteware cup body sherd, flow blue 1845 18201870 Kitchen A-99-32 97.1N/ 98E 2, 2 0.65 0.45 1 9.0 whiteware plate rim sherd, plain, burned 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-32 97.1N/ 98E 2, 2 0.65 0.45 1 1.0 whiteware plate body sherd, transfer-printed (red), landscape motif 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-32 97.1N/ 98E 2, 2 0.65 0.45 1 33.0 whiteware platter rim sherd, molded design, burned 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-39 97.1N/ 98E 3, 1 0.65 0.37 2 10.0 whiteware plate body sherd (1) and rim sherd (1), painted band around rim (brown) 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-42 97.1N/ 98E 3, 3 0.65 0.65 1 2.5 pearlware cup rim sherd, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen A-99-42 97.1N/ 98E 3, 3 0.65 0.65 4 20.0 pearlware plate body sherds, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen A-99-01 97.1N/ 99E 1, 1 1.07 0.84 1 8.0 pearlware plate body sherd, painted (blue), floral motif 1800 17801820 Kitchen A-99-01 97.1N/ 99E 1, 1 1.07 0.84 1 6.0 pearlware plate body sherd, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen A-99-01 97.1N/ 99E 1, 1 1.07 0.84 1 1.0 pearlware plate body sherd, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen A-99-01 97.1N/ 99E 1, 1 1.07 0.84 1 2.5 pearlware plate body sherd, shelledged (blue), molded, individual brushstroke, UID rim 1830 18201840 Kitchen 220

PAGE 235

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Zone, Level Opening Elevation Closing Elevation Count Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-99-09 97.1N/ 99E 2, 1 0.75 0.59 1 1.0 whiteware cup handle sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-09 97.1N/ 99E 2, 1 0.75 0.59 1 5.0 whiteware cup handle sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-09 97.1N/ 99E 2, 1 0.75 0.59 1 5.0 whiteware decorative, UID body sherd, molded design 1850 18401860 Personal A-99-09 97.1N/ 99E 2, 1 0.75 0.59 1 2.0 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-09 97.1N/ 99E 2, 1 0.75 0.59 1 1.0 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-09 97.1N/ 99E 2, 1 0.75 0.59 1 1.0 whiteware plate rim sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-09 97.1N/ 99E 2, 1 0.75 0.59 1 10.0 whiteware UID, teaware body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-12 97.1N/ 99E 2, 2 0.64 0.53 1 1.0 stoneware UID body sherd, saltglazed exterior (gray), unglazed interior 1858 18151900 Unknown A-99-12 97.1N/ 99E 2, 2 0.64 0.53 1 1.5 whiteware plate body sherd, plain, burned 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-14 97.1N/ 99E 2, 3 0.53 0.47 1 2.0 porcelain UID, decorative body sherd, plain 1823 17451900 Personal A-99-14 97.1N/ 99E 2, 3 0.53 0.47 2 11.5 refined earthenware jar body sherds, glazed exterior (red) (1), glaze worn off (1), wheel-thrown 1820 17801860 Kitchen A-99-14 97.1N/ 99E 2, 3 0.53 0.47 1 2.0 stoneware UID body sherd, saltglazed exterior (white), lead glazed interior (brown) 1763 17201805 Unknown 221

PAGE 236

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Zone, Level Opening Elevation Closing Elevation Count Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-99-14 97.1N/ 99E 2, 3 0.53 0.47 1 1.0 whiteware cup body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-18 97.1N/ 99E 2, 4 0.47 0.36 1 9.5 whiteware cup/ bowl body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-18 97.1N/ 99E 2, 4 0.47 0.36 1 4.0 whiteware plate rim sherd, painted (blue), floral motif 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-18 97.1N/ 99E 2, 4 0.47 0.36 1 18.5 whiteware plate rim sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-18 97.1N/ 99E 2, 4 0.47 0.36 1 12.0 whiteware saucer rim sherd, painted band around rim (brown) 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-19 97.1N/ 99E 3, 1 0.38 0.30 1 1.0 whiteware plate body sherd, transfer-printed (light blue), Willow pattern 1818 17951840 Kitchen A-99-19 97.1N/ 99E 3, 1 0.38 0.30 1 3.0 whiteware plate rim sherd, plain, burned 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-19 97.1N/ 99E 3, 1 0.38 0.30 1 1.5 yellowware decorative, UID rim sherd, glazed (yellow) 1849 17971900 Personal A-99-17 98N/ 101E 1, 3 1.07 0.86 1 0.5 whiteware plate rim sherd, flow blue, same vessel as A-98-SC 1845 18201870 Kitchen A-98-35 98N/ 101E 3, 1 1.07 0.32 1 4.5 pearlware cup/ bowl body sherd, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen A-98-35 98N/ 101E 3, 1 1.07 0.32 3 6.0 pearlware cup/ bowl rim sherd (1) and body sherds (2), plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen A-98-35 98N/ 101E 3, 1 1.07 0.32 1 9.0 pearlware plate body sherd, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen A-98-35 98N/ 101E 3, 1 1.07 0.32 1 1.0 porcelain plate rim sherd, plain 1823 17451900 Kitchen A-98-35 98N/ 101E 3, 1 1.07 0.32 1 2.0 whiteware cup rim sherd, painted band around rim (gold) 1860 18201900 Kitchen 222

PAGE 237

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Zone, Level Opening Elevation Closing Elevation Count Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-98-35 98N/ 101E 3, 1 1.07 0.32 1 2.0 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 6.0 pearlware bowl base sherd, transfer-printed (blue) 1818 17951840 Kitchen A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 2 4.5 pearlware cup body sherd (1) and rim sherd (1), plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 0.5 pearlware cup rim sherd, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 4.0 pearlware cup body sherd, transfer-printed on both sides (blue), floral motif on exterior, geometric marks on interior 1818 17951840 Kitchen A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 0.5 pearlware cup/ bowl body sherd, painted (blue) 1800 17801820 Kitchen A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 1.0 pearlware cup/ bowl body sherd, painted (green) 1800 17801820 Kitchen A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 2.0 pearlware cup/ bowl body sherd, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 5.0 pearlware cup/ bowl body sherd, transfer-printed on both sides (light blue), floral motif 1818 17951840 Kitchen A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 3.0 pearlware plate body sherd, painted (blue), floral motif 1800 17801820 Kitchen 223

PAGE 238

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Zone, Level Opening Elevation Closing Elevation Count Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 2 8.0 pearlware plate base sherd (1) and body sherd (1), plain, foot ring 1805 17801830 Kitchen A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 4.0 pearlware plate rim sherd, shelledged (blue), impressed, individual brush strokes, straight rim 1855 18401870 Kitchen A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 2.0 pearlware plate rim sherd, shelledged (blue), impressed, individual brush strokes, straight rim 1855 18401870 Kitchen A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 7.0 pearlware plate rim sherd, shelledged (blue), impressed, individual brush strokes, straight rim 1855 18401870 Kitchen A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 1.0 pearlware plate rim sherd, shelledged (blue), impressed, individual brush strokes, scalloped rim 1820 18001840 Kitchen A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 2 16.5 pearlware plate/ bowl body sherds, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 4.0 pearlware saucer base sherd, plain, foot ring 1805 17801830 Kitchen 224

PAGE 239

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Zone, Level Opening Elevation Closing Elevation Count Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 2.0 porcelain cup/ bowl body sherd, embossed design (leaves) 1823 17451900 Kitchen A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 6.0 porcelain plate rim sherd, plain 1823 17451900 Kitchen A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 2.5 semiporcelain cup rim sherd, plain 1823 17451900 Kitchen A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 2.0 semiporcelain cup/ bowl body sherd, plain 1823 17451900 Kitchen A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 1.0 semiporcelain plate rim sherd, plain 1823 17451900 Kitchen A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 48.0 stoneware jar body sherd, saltglazed exterior (gray), lead-glazed interior (brown) 1858 18151900 Kitchen A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 4.0 whiteware bowl body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 9.0 whiteware bowl base sherd, plain, burned, foot ring 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 6.0 whiteware bowl rim sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 2.0 whiteware cup rim sherd, glazed (yellow), incised blue parallel bands around exterior rim 1860 18201900 Kitchen 225

PAGE 240

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Zone, Level Opening Elevation Closing Elevation Count Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 12.0 whiteware cup rim sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 4.5 whiteware cup rim sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 6.0 whiteware cup/ bowl body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 3.5 whiteware cup/ bowl body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 1.5 whiteware cup/ bowl body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 6.0 whiteware cup/ bowl rim sherd, plain, burned 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 4.0 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 8.5 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 3.0 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 2 2.5 whiteware plate base sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 20.0 whiteware plate base sherd, plain, foot ring 1860 18201900 Kitchen 226

PAGE 241

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Zone, Level Opening Elevation Closing Elevation Count Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 1.0 whiteware plate rim sherd, transferprinted (pink) 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 2 16.0 whiteware plate base sherd (1) and rim sherd (1), plain, foot ring 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 12.0 whiteware plate body sherd, molded design along rim 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 17.0 whiteware plate base sherd, painted (green, blue, red), flower, foot ring 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 1.5 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 1.5 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 4.0 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 2 4.0 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 6.5 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 6.0 whiteware plate base sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 5.0 whiteware plate base sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen 227

PAGE 242

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Zone, Level Opening Elevation Closing Elevation Count Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 8.5 whiteware plate base sherd, plain, foot ring 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 4.5 whiteware plate base sherd, plain, foot ring 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 3.5 whiteware plate body sherd, plain, burned 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 1.0 whiteware plate body sherd, plain, nail hole near rim 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 4.0 whiteware plate rim sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 3.5 whiteware plate rim sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 13.0 whiteware plate rim sherd, scallopedged, transferprinted (light blue), floral motif 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 2 28.0 whiteware platter body sherds, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 1.0 whiteware saucer base sherd, plain, foot ring 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 23.0 whiteware shallow bowl body sherd, painted band around rim (brown) 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 8.0 whiteware shallow bowl rim sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen 228

PAGE 243

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Zone, Level Opening Elevation Closing Elevation Count Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 2.0 whiteware UID rim sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Unknown A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 1.5 whiteware UID body sherd, painted (brown) 1860 18201900 Unknown A-99-50 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 28.5 whiteware UID, decorative body sherd, molded design, burned 1860 18201900 Personal A-99-52 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 76.0 coarse earthenware brazier body sherd 1820 17801860 Kitchen A-99-52 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 1.0 pearlware plate body sherd, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen A-99-52 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 5.0 pearlware plate body sherd, transfer-printed (blue), Willow pattern 1818 17951840 Kitchen A-99-52 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 1.0 pearlware plate rim sherd, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen A-99-52 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 2.0 pearlware plate rim sherd, shelledged (blue), impressed (chicken foot), individual brush strokes, scalloped rim 1820 18001840 Kitchen A-99-52 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 2.0 pearlware plate rim sherd, shelledged (blue), molded, single brush stroke, straight rim 1830 18201840 Kitchen 229

PAGE 244

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Zone, Level Opening Elevation Closing Elevation Count Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-99-52 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 1.5 pearlware plate rim sherd, transferprinted (blue), geometric motif 1818 17951840 Kitchen A-99-52 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 1.0 pearlware plate rim sherd, transferprinted (blue), leaf motif 1818 17951840 Kitchen A-99-52 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 6.0 porcelain doll body sherd, plain (Nol Hume 1970:318) 1880 18601900 Personal A-99-52 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 5.0 semiporcelain cup body sherd with handle attachment, plain 1823 17451900 Kitchen A-99-52 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 2 3.0 semiporcelain plate/ saucer body sherds, plain 1823 17451900 Kitchen A-99-52 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 1.5 semiporcelain saucer rim sherd, plain 1823 17451900 Kitchen A-99-52 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 2.0 stoneware jar body sherd, saltglazed exterior (gray), lead-glazed interior (brown) 1858 18151900 Kitchen A-99-52 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 23.0 whiteware bowl body sherd, molded design 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-52 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 26.5 whiteware bowl rim sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-52 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 2.0 whiteware cosmetic jar body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Personal 230

PAGE 245

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Zone, Level Opening Elevation Closing Elevation Count Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-99-52 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 2.0 whiteware cup body sherd, glazed (yellow), painted band around rim (brown) 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-52 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 2.0 whiteware cup body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-52 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 0.5 whiteware cup body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-52 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 7.5 whiteware cup rim sherd, painted band around interior rim (brown) 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-52 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 2.0 whiteware cup rim sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-52 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 4.0 whiteware cup rim sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-52 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 2 17.0 whitewar e cup rim sherds, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-52 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 3.0 whiteware cup/ bowl body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-52 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 5.0 whiteware plate body sherd, painted (brown), flower 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-52 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 8.5 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-52 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 4.5 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen 231

PAGE 246

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Zone, Level Opening Elevation Closing Elevation Count Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-99-52 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 1.0 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-52 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 2.0 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-52 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 3.0 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-52 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 4.5 whiteware plate base sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-52 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 6.0 whiteware plate base sherd, plain, foot ring 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-52 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 2.0 whiteware plate base sherd, plain, foot ring 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-52 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 2 11.0 whiteware plate body sherds, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-52 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 2 2.0 whiteware plate body sherds, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-52 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 2 25.5 whiteware plate rim sherd, molded design (curlicues), scalloped rim 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-52 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 37.0 whiteware plate rim sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-52 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 22.0 whiteware plate rim sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen 232

PAGE 247

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Zone, Level Opening Elevation Closing Elevation Count Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-99-52 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 1.0 whiteware plate rim sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-52 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 3.0 whiteware plate rim sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-52 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 3.0 whiteware shallow bowl base sherd, plain, foot ring 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-99-52 floor cleanup surface n/a n/a 1 1.0 whiteware UID body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Unknown A-98SC general surface n/a n/a 1 2.0 pearlware plate body sherd, Gaudy Dutch (green, gray, brown), floral motif 1815 18101820 Kitchen A-98SC general surface n/a n/a 1 1.5 pearlware plate body sherd, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen A-98SC general surface n/a n/a 2 2.0 whiteware cup body sherds, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-98SC general surface n/a n/a 1 1.0 whiteware cup handle sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-98SC general surface n/a n/a 1 0.5 whiteware plate rim sherd, flow blue, same vessel as A-98-17 1845 18201870 Kitchen A-00SC general surface n/a n/a 1 3.0 pearlware cup/ bowl body sherd, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen A-00SC general surface n/a n/a 1 6.0 pearlware cup/ bowl rim sherd, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen A-00SC general surface n/a n/a 1 23.0 pearlware UID, possible chamber pot body sherd, painted (green, yellow), leaf motif 1800 17801820 Personal 233

PAGE 248

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Zone, Level Opening Elevation Closing Elevation Count Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-00SC general surface n/a n/a 1 1.0 semiporcelain plate body sherd, plain 1823 17451900 Kitchen A-00SC general surface n/a n/a 1 31.0 stoneware UID, possible chamber pot handle sherd, unglazed 1850 18001900 Personal A-00SC general surface n/a n/a 1 1.0 whiteware cup body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-00SC general surface n/a n/a 1 2.0 whiteware cup body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-00SC general surface n/a n/a 1 1.5 whit eware cup base sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-00SC general surface n/a n/a 1 1.0 whit eware cup rim sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-00SC general surface n/a n/a 1 43.0 whiteware cup with handle attachment rim sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-00SC general surface n/a n/a 1 3.0 whiteware plate rim sherd, embossed design (scallops) 1850 18401860 Kitchen A-00SC general surface n/a n/a 1 19.0 whiteware UID, decorative body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Personal A-00-01 Trench 1A surface n/a n/a 1 1.0 pearlware cup body sherd, transfer-printed on both sides (blue) 1818 17951840 Kitchen A-00-01 Trench 1A surface n/a n/a 1 1.0 pearlware cup/ bowl rim sherd, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen 234

PAGE 249

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Zone, Level Opening Elevation Closing Elevation Count Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-00-01 Trench 1A surface n/a n/a 1 4.5 pearlware plate rim sherd, shelledged (blue), impressed, individual brush stroke, scalloped rim 1820 18001840 Kitchen A-00-01 Trench 1A surface n/a n/a 1 4.5 pearlware UID, possible chamber pot body sherd, plain 1805 17801830 Personal A-00-01 Trench 1A surface n/a n/a 1 26.0 stoneware crock body sherd, unglazed 1850 18001900 Kitchen A-00-01 Trench 1A surface n/a n/a 1 2.0 whiteware cup body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-00-01 Trench 1A surface n/a n/a 1 2.0 whiteware cup body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-00-01 Trench 1A surface n/a n/a 1 2.0 whiteware cup/ bowl body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-00-01 Trench 1A surface n/a n/a 1 1.0 whteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-00-01 Trench 1A surface n/a n/a 1 3.5 whiteware plate body sherd, plain, foot ring 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-00-01 Trench 1A surface n/a n/a 1 0.5 whiteware plate rim sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen 235

PAGE 250

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Zone, Level Opening Elevation Closing Elevation Count Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-00-06 Trench 1B surface n/a n/a 1 3.0 ironstone plate body sherd, painted (brown), flower, maker's mark (black), "J&G. MEAKIN, HANLEY, ENGLAND," lion and coat-of-arms motif, Meakin, J. & G., Hanley, England, 18511900 (Wetherbee 1980:29) 1876 18511900 Kitchen A-00-06 Trench 1B surface n/a n/a 1 12.5 pearlware cup rim sherd, folded rim 1805 17801830 Kitchen A-00-06 Trench 1B surface n/a n/a 1 1.5 pearlware cup rim sherd, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen A-00-06 Trench 1B surface n/a n/a 1 1.5 pearlware cup rim sherd, transferprinted (blue) 1818 17951840 Kitchen A-00-06 Trench 1B surface n/a n/a 1 13.0 pearlware cup/ bowl body sherd (1) and rim sherds (2), plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen A-00-06 Trench 1B surface n/a n/a 1 2.0 pearlware plate body sherd, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen A-00-06 Trench 1B surface n/a n/a 1 5.0 pearlware plate body sherd, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen A-00-06 Trench 1B surface n/a n/a 1 13.0 pearlware plate body sherd, plain, foot ring 1805 17801830 Kitchen A-00-06 Trench 1B surface n/a n/a 1 1.5 pearlware plate body sherd, transfer-printed (blue), tree motif 1818 17951840 Kitchen A-00-06 Trench 1B surface n/a n/a 1 2.0 pearlware plate rim sherd, transferprinted (blue), leaf motif 1818 17951840 Kitchen 236

PAGE 251

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Zone, Level Opening Elevation Closing Elevation Count Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-00-06 Trench 1B surface n/a n/a 1 0.5 porcelain cup body sherd, plain 1823 17451900 Kitchen A-00-06 Trench 1B surface n/a n/a 1 10.0 porcelain doll body sherd, foot with painted boot (blue) (Nol Hume 1970:318) 1890 18801900 Personal A-00-06 Trench 1B surface n/a n/a 1 1.0 semiporcelain cup body sherd, plain 1823 17451900 Kitchen A-00-06 Trench 1B surface n/a n/a 1 3.0 semiporcelain saucer, toy rim sherd, embossed design (scallops) 1823 17451900 Personal A-00-06 Trench 1B surface n/a n/a 1 1.5 whiteware cup body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-00-06 Trench 1B surface n/a n/a 1 2.0 whiteware cup body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-00-06 Trench 1B surface n/a n/a 1 2.0 whiteware cup/ bowl body sherd, transfer-printed (light blue), leaf and square motif 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-00-06 Trench 1B surface n/a n/a 1 12.0 whiteware plate rim sherd, painted band around rim (brown) 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-00-02 Trench 2A surface n/a n/a 1 1.0 pearlware cup/ bowl rim sherd, transferprinted (purple), Willow pattern 1818 17951840 Kitchen A-00-02 Trench 2A surface n/a n/a 1 2.0 porcelain bowl rim sherd, plain 1823 17451900 Kitchen A-00-02 Trench 2A surface n/a n/a 1 0.5 porcelain cup rim sherd, plain 1823 17451900 Kitchen A-00-02 Trench 2A surface n/a n/a 1 26.0 stoneware crock rim sherd, saltglazed (worn off) 1850 18001900 Kitchen 237

PAGE 252

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Zone, Level Opening Elevation Closing Elevation Count Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-00-02 Trench 2A surface n/a n/a 1 2.0 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-00-07 Trench 2B surface n/a n/a 1 1.0 ironstone saucer body sherd, maker's mark (blue), "…DIEU…ET," lion with coat of arms, F. Jones & Co., Longton, England, 18651886 (Wetherbee 1980:28) 1876 18651886 Kitchen A-00-07 Trench 2B surface n/a n/a 1 3.0 pearlware bowl base sherd, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen A-00-07 Trench 2B surface n/a n/a 1 0.5 pearlware cup body sherd, glazed (light blue) 1805 17801830 Kitchen A-00-07 Trench 2B surface n/a n/a 1 2.5 pearlware cup body sherd, transfer-printed on both sides (black), floral motif 1818 17951840 Kitchen A-00-07 Trench 2B surface n/a n/a 8 18.0 pearlware cup body sherds (6) and rim sherds (2), plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen A-00-07 Trench 2B surface n/a n/a 1 3.0 pearlware jug rim sherd, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen A-00-07 Trench 2B surface n/a n/a 1 1.5 pearlware lid body sherd, transfer-printed (blue) 1818 17951840 Kitchen A-00-07 Trench 2B surface n/a n/a 1 6.0 pearlware plate body sherd, maker's mark (impressed) 1805 17801830 Kitchen A-00-07 Trench 2B surface n/a n/a 1 1.0 pearlware plate body sherd, painted (blue), leaf motif 1800 17801820 Kitchen 238

PAGE 253

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Zone, Level Opening Elevation Closing Elevation Count Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-00-07 Trench 2B surface n/a n/a 1 2.0 pearlware plate body sherd, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen A-00-07 Trench 2B surface n/a n/a 1 5.0 pearlware plate body sherd, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen A-00-07 Trench 2B surface n/a n/a 1 2.0 pearlware plate body sherd, transfer-printed (blue) 1818 17951840 Kitchen A-00-07 Trench 2B surface n/a n/a 1 0.5 pearlware plate body sherd, transfer-printed on both sides (blue) 1818 17951840 Kitchen A-00-07 Trench 2B surface n/a n/a 1 1.0 pearlware plate rim sherd, shelledged (blue), impressed (chicken foot), individual brush stroke, scalloped rim 1820 18001840 Kitchen A-00-07 Trench 2B surface n/a n/a 1 4.0 pearlware plate/ bowl body sherd, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen A-00-07 Trench 2B surface n/a n/a 1 2.5 pearlware UID, decorative body sherd, painted (blue), leaf motif 1800 17801820 Personal A-00-07 Trench 2B surface n/a n/a 1 8.0 pearlware UID, teaware body sherd, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen A-00-07 Trench 2B surface n/a n/a 1 0.5 porcelain cup body sherd, plain 1823 17451900 Kitchen A-00-07 Trench 2B surface n/a n/a 1 13.0 porcelain jar rim sherd, embossed design (grapes) 1823 17451900 Kitchen A-00-07 Trench 2B surface n/a n/a 1 2.0 semiporcelain cup body sherd, plain 1823 17451900 Kitchen A-00-07 Trench 2B surface n/a n/a 2 9.0 semiporcelain cup base sherd (1) and body sherd (1), plain 1823 17451900 Kitchen 239

PAGE 254

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Zone, Level Opening Elevation Closing Elevation Count Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-00-07 Trench 2B surface n/a n/a 2 4.5 semiporcelain cup, toy rim sherds, handle attachment (1), plain 1823 17451900 Personal A-00-07 Trench 2B surface n/a n/a 1 7.0 stoneware crock body sherd, saltglazed exterior (light brown), leadglazed interior (brown) 1858 18151900 Kitchen A-00-07 Trench 2B surface n/a n/a 2 23.0 whiteware bowl base sherd (1) and rim sherd (1), plain, foot ring 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-00-07 Trench 2B surface n/a n/a 1 26.0 whiteware cup base sherd, painted (brown), flower 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-00-07 Trench 2B surface n/a n/a 2 10.0 whiteware cup body sherds, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-00-07 Trench 2B surface n/a n/a 2 19.0 whitewar e cup rim sherds, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-00-07 Trench 2B surface n/a n/a 2 8.0 whitewar e cup rim sherds, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-00-07 Trench 2B surface n/a n/a 1 1.5 whiteware plate rim sherd, transferprinted (pink) 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-00-07 Trench 2B surface n/a n/a 1 3.0 whiteware plate rim sherd, transferprinted (pink), leaf and diamond motif 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-00-07 Trench 2B surface n/a n/a 1 4.0 whiteware plate rim sherd, painted band around rim (brown) 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-00-03 Trench 3A surface n/a n/a 1 2.0 pearlware plate body sherd, transfer-printed (blue), floral motif 1818 17951840 Kitchen A-00-03 Trench 3A surface n/a n/a 1 1.0 pearlware plate/ saucer body sherd, transfer-printed (blue), landscape motif 1818 17951840 Kitchen 240

PAGE 255

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Zone, Level Opening Elevation Closing Elevation Count Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-00-03 Trench 3A surface n/a n/a 1 2.0 porcelain cup/ bowl rim sherd, plain 1823 17451900 Kitchen A-00-03 Trench 3A surface n/a n/a 1 2.0 whiteware bowl base sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-00-03 Trench 3A surface n/a n/a 1 5.0 whiteware bowl base sherd, plain, foot ring 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-00-03 Trench 3A surface n/a n/a 1 5.0 whiteware bowl rim sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-00-03 Trench 3A surface n/a n/a 1 3.0 whiteware cup body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-00-03 Trench 3A surface n/a n/a 1 2.0 whiteware cup rim sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-00-03 Trench 3A surface n/a n/a 1 0.5 whiteware cup/ bowl body sherd, transfer-printed (light blue) 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-00-03 Trench 3A surface n/a n/a 1 0.5 whiteware cup/ bowl body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-00-03 Trench 3A surface n/a n/a 1 5.0 whiteware cup/ bowl body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-00-03 Trench 3A surface n/a n/a 1 5.0 whiteware cup/ bowl rim sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-00-03 Trench 3A surface n/a n/a 1 4.0 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-00-03 Trench 3A surface n/a n/a 1 12.0 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-00-03 Trench 3A surface n/a n/a 1 2.0 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-00-03 Trench 3A surface n/a n/a 1 25.0 whiteware plate body sherd, plain, foot ring 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-00-03 Trench 3A surface n/a n/a 1 2.0 whiteware plate/ saucer body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen 241

PAGE 256

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Zone, Level Opening Elevation Closing Elevation Count Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-00-04 Trench 4A surface n/a n/a 1 2.0 pearlware bowl rim sherd, transferprinted on both sides (blue), leaf motif 1818 17951840 Kitchen A-00-04 Trench 4A surface n/a n/a 1 4.5 pearlware cup rim sherd, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen A-00-04 Trench 4A surface n/a n/a 1 8.0 pearlware cup/ bowl body sherd, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen A-00-04 Trench 4A surface n/a n/a 1 11.0 pearlware plate body sherd, plain, foot ring 1805 17801830 Kitchen A-00-04 Trench 4A surface n/a n/a 1 1.0 pearlware plate rim sherd, painted (blue), leaf motif 1800 17801820 Kitchen A-00-04 Trench 4A surface n/a n/a 1 7.0 pearlware plate rim sherd, plain, molded design 1805 17801830 Kitchen A-00-04 Trench 4A surface n/a n/a 1 15.5 pearlware UID, possible chamber pot body sherd, plain 1805 17801830 Personal A-00-04 Trench 4A surface n/a n/a 1 17.0 pearlware UID, serving vessel knob handle sherd, painted (pink) 1800 17801820 Kitchen A-00-04 Trench 4A surface n/a n/a 1 5.0 porcelain cup body sherd, plain 1823 17451900 Kitchen A-00-04 Trench 4A surface n/a n/a 1 4.0 semiporcelain UID body sherd, plain 1823 17451900 Unknown A-00-04 Trench 4A surface n/a n/a 1 2.0 stoneware UID, teaware body sherd, Rockingham ware 1865 18301900 Kitchen A-00-04 Trench 4A surface n/a n/a 1 3.0 whiteware cup body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-00-04 Trench 4A surface n/a n/a 1 6.5 whiteware plate rim sherd, transferprinted (pink), floral motif 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-00-04 Trench 4A surface n/a n/a 1 12.0 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen 242

PAGE 257

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Zone, Level Opening Elevation Closing Elevation Count Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-00-04 Trench 4A surface n/a n/a 1 1.5 whiteware plate rim sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-00-09 Trench 4B surface n/a n/a 1 1.0 pearlware cup body sherd, transfer-printed on both sides (blue) 1818 17951840 Kitchen A-00-09 Trench 4B surface n/a n/a 1 5.0 pearlware cup rim sherd, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen A-00-09 Trench 4B surface n/a n/a 5 19.0 pearlware cup/ bowl body sherds (2) and rim sherds (3), plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen A-00-09 Trench 4B surface n/a n/a 1 7.0 pearlware plate rim sherd, painted (blue), floral motif 1800 17801820 Kitchen A-00-09 Trench 4B surface n/a n/a 1 17.0 pearlware plate rim sherd, plain, burned 1805 17801830 Kitchen A-00-09 Trench 4B surface n/a n/a 1 5.0 pearlware plate rim sherd, shelledged (blue), impressed, individual brush strokes, scalloped rim 1820 18001840 Kitchen A-00-09 Trench 4B surface n/a n/a 1 1.0 semiporcelain cup body sherd, plain 1823 17451900 Kitchen A-00-09 Trench 4B surface n/a n/a 1 8.0 stoneware crock body sherd, saltglazed exterior (gray), lead-glazed interior (brown) 1858 18151900 Kitchen A-00-09 Trench 4B surface n/a n/a 1 29.0 whiteware canister body sherd, painted stripe below rim (brown), incised lines below rim 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-00-09 Trench 4B surface n/a n/a 2 8.0 whiteware cup body sherd (1) and rim sherd (1), plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen 243

PAGE 258

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Zone, Level Opening Elevation Closing Elevation Count Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-00-09 Trench 4B surface n/a n/a 1 2.0 whiteware cup/ bowl rim sherd, painted bands (4) around rim (brown) 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-00-09 Trench 4B surface n/a n/a 1 11.0 whiteware jar/vase body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Furniture A-00-09 Trench 4B surface n/a n/a 1 5.0 whiteware jar/vase rim sherd, molded design 1860 18201900 Furniture A-00-09 Trench 4B surface n/a n/a 2 13.5 whiteware plate base sherd (1) and rim sherd (1), transfer-printed (pink), foot ring 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-00-09 Trench 4B surface n/a n/a 1 11.0 whiteware teapot body sherd, plain, octagonal 1850 18401860 Unknown A-00-05 Trench 5A surface n/a n/a 4 570.0 coarse earthenware brazier body sherds (3) and rim sherd (1), plain 1820 17801860 Kitchen A-00-05 Trench 5A surface n/a n/a 4 22.0 creamware bowl body sherds (3) and rim sherd (1), plain 1785 17501820 Kitchen A-00-05 Trench 5A surface n/a n/a 1 0.5 pearlware cup/ bowl body sherd, transfer-printed (blue) 1818 17951840 Kitchen A-00-05 Trench 5A surface n/a n/a 1 1.0 pearlware plate body sherd, transfer-printed (black), diamond motif 1818 17951840 Kitchen A-00-05 Trench 5A surface n/a n/a 1 11.0 pearlware plate rim sherd, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen A-00-05 Trench 5A surface n/a n/a 1 1.0 semiporcelain cup body sherd, plain 1823 17451900 Kitchen A-00-05 Trench 5A surface n/a n/a 2 4.0 whiteware cup body sherd (1) and rim sherd (1), plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen 244

PAGE 259

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Zone, Level Opening Elevation Closing Elevation Count Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-00-05 Trench 5A surface n/a n/a 1 8.0 whiteware cup rim sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-00-05 Trench 5A surface n/a n/a 3 15.0 whiteware plate body sherd (2) and rim sherd (1), molded design around rim 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-00-05 Trench 5A surface n/a n/a 1 1.0 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-00-05 Trench 5A surface n/a n/a 1 1.0 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-00-05 Trench 5A surface n/a n/a 2 40.0 whiteware plate rim sherds, embossed design (curlicues) 1850 18401860 Kitchen A-00-10 Trench 5B surface n/a n/a 1 375.5 coarse earthenware brazier rim sherd, plain 1820 17801860 Kitchen A-00-10 Trench 5B surface n/a n/a 1 1.0 pearlware bowl body sherd, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen A-00-10 Trench 5B surface n/a n/a 1 8.5 pearlware bowl/jar body sherd, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen A-00-10 Trench 5B surface n/a n/a 1 4.5 pearlware cup handle sherd, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen A-00-10 Trench 5B surface n/a n/a 1 4.0 pearlware jar/vase rim sherd, plain 1805 17801830 Furniture A-00-10 Trench 5B surface n/a n/a 3 27.0 pearlware plate rim sherds, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen A-00-10 Trench 5B surface n/a n/a 1 5.0 whiteware cup/ bowl body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-00-10 Trench 5B surface n/a n/a 1 20.0 whiteware plate rim sherd, embossed design (curlicues) 1850 18401860 Kitchen A-00-10 Trench 5B surface n/a n/a 1 1.0 whiteware shallow bowl rim sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen A-00-10 Trench 5B surface n/a n/a 1 16.0 whiteware UID body sherd, molded design 1860 18201900 Unknown 245

PAGE 260

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Zone, Level Opening Elevation Closing Elevation Count Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-00-10 Trench 5B surface n/a n/a 1 4.0 whiteware UID body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Unknown A-00-10 Trench 5B surface n/a n/a 1 14.5 whiteware UID body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Unknown C-98-36 105N/ 94E 1, 1 0.85 0.85 1 1.0 pearlware cup body sherd, black lettering "AN… And… Thro" 1805 17801830 Kitchen C-98-36 105N/ 94E 1, 1 0.85 0.85 1 0.5 pearlware cup body sherd, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen C-98-36 105N/ 94E 1, 1 0.85 0.85 1 2.0 pearlware cup body sherd, banded annularware (brown, green) 1800 17851815 Kitchen C-98-36 105N/ 94E 1, 1 0.85 0.85 1 1.5 pearlware cup/ bowl body sherd, glazed (yellow) 1805 17801830 Kitchen C-98-36 105N/ 94E 1, 1 0.85 0.85 1 3.0 pearlware cup/ bowl body sherd, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen C-98-36 105N/ 94E 1, 1 0.85 0.85 1 2.0 pearlware cup/ bowl rim sherd, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen C-98-36 105N/ 94E 1, 1 0.85 0.85 1 4.0 pearlware cup/ bowl rim sherd, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen C-98-36 105N/ 94E 1, 1 0.85 0.85 1 1.0 pearlware cup/ bowl rim sherd, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen C-98-36 105N/ 94E 1, 1 0.85 0.85 1 4.0 pearlware plate body sherd, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen C-98-36 105N/ 94E 1, 1 0.85 0.85 1 2.5 pearlware plate base sherd, plain, foot ring 1805 17801830 Kitchen C-98-36 105N/ 94E 1, 1 0.85 0.85 1 6.0 pearlware plate rim sherd, shelledged (blue), impressed, individual brush stroke, straight rim 1855 18401870 Kitchen 246

PAGE 261

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Zone, Level Opening Elevation Closing Elevation Count Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group C-98-36 105N/ 94E 1, 1 0.85 0.85 1 1.0 pearlware plate rim sherd, shelledged (green), impressed, single brush stroke, scalloped rim 1820 18001840 Kitchen C-98-36 105N/ 94E 1, 1 0.85 0.85 1 9.0 pearlware shallow bowl rim sherd, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen C-98-36 105N/ 94E 1, 1 0.85 0.85 1 0.5 pearlware UID, teaware body sherd, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen C-98-36 105N/ 94E 1, 1 0.85 0.85 1 1.0 porcelain UID body sherd, plain 1823 17451900 Unknown C-98-36 105N/ 94E 1, 1 0.85 0.85 1 1.0 semiporcelain plate body sherd, plain 1823 17451900 Kitchen C-98-36 105N/ 94E 1, 1 0.85 0.85 1 8.0 stoneware mug body sherd, saltglazed exterior (brown), leadglazed interior (dark brown) 1858 18151900 Kitchen C-98-36 105N/ 94E 1, 1 0.85 0.85 1 11.0 whiteware cup/ bowl body sherd, embossed design (leaves) 1850 18401860 Kitchen C-99-44 floor cleanup (FPS Unit 1) 1, 1 0.0" 6.0" 1 5.5 porcelain bowl rim sherd, plain 1823 17451900 Kitchen C-99-44 floor cleanup (FPS Unit 1) 1, 1 0.0" 6.0" 1 11.0 stoneware mug body sherd, saltglazed exterior (gray), lead-glazed interior (brown) 1858 18151900 Kitchen C-99-45 floor cleanup (FPS Unit 1) 1, 2 6.0" 12.0" 1 0.5 pearlware saucer rim sherd, transferprinted (blue) 1818 17951840 Kitchen 247

PAGE 262

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Zone, Level Opening Elevation Closing Elevation Count Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group C-99-45 floor cleanup (FPS Unit 1) 1, 2 6.0" 12.0" 1 1.5 yellowware cup/ bowl body sherd, glazed (yellow) 1849 17971900 Kitchen C-99-46 floor cleanup (FPS Unit 1) 1, 3 12.0" 18.0" 1 0.5 pearlware cup/ bowl body sherd, glazed (pink) 1805 17801830 Kitchen C-99-46 floor cleanup (FPS Unit 1) 1, 3 12.0" 18.0" 1 2.5 whiteware cup rim sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen C-99-46 floor cleanup (FPS Unit 1) 1, 3 12.0" 18.0" 1 2.0 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen C-99-47 general surface n/a n/a 1 16.5 whiteware plate rim sherd, embossed design (scallops) 1850 18401860 Kitchen C-99-48 general surface n/a n/a 1 1.0 semiporcelain plate body sherd, plain 1823 17451900 Kitchen C-99-48 general surface n/a n/a 1 12.0 whiteware bowl rim sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen C-99-48 general surface n/a n/a 1 4.5 whiteware cup body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen C-99-48 general surface n/a n/a 1 0.5 whiteware plate base sherd, transfer-printed (red), foot ring 1860 18201900 Kitchen C-99-48 general surface n/a n/a 1 1.0 whiteware plate rim sherd, flow blue 1845 18201870 Kitchen C-99-48 general surface n/a n/a 1 10.0 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen C-99-48 general surface n/a n/a 1 34.0 whiteware plate base sherd, plain, foot ring 1860 18201900 Kitchen 248

PAGE 263

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Zone, Level Opening Elevation Closing Elevation Count Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group C-99-48 general surface n/a n/a 1 4.5 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen C-99-48 general surface n/a n/a 2 10.0 whiteware plate body sherds, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen C-00-11 Trench 1A surface n/a n/a 1 12.0 stoneware bottle body sherd, ginger beer bottle, neck 1840 18201860 Kitchen C-00-12 Trench 1B surface n/a n/a 1 1.0 pearlware UID, teaware body sherd, transfer-printed (blue), floral motif 1818 17951840 Kitchen C-00-12 Trench 1B surface n/a n/a 1 0.5 semiporcelain cup body sherd, painted (green, pink), flower 1823 17451900 Kitchen C-00-12 Trench 1B surface n/a n/a 1 1.0 whiteware cup body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen C-00-12 Trench 1B surface n/a n/a 1 2.0 whiteware cup rim sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen C-00-12 Trench 1B surface n/a n/a 1 21.0 whiteware plate base sherd, plain, foot ring 1860 18201900 Kitchen C-00-12 Trench 1B surface n/a n/a 1 2.0 whiteware plate rim sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen C-00-12 Trench 1B surface n/a n/a 1 19.0 whiteware shallow bowl base sherd, foot ring, maker's mark (green), "H&C:L," Haviland and Company, Haviland, France, 1876-1886 (Kovel and Kovel 1967:38) 1881 18761886 Kitchen C-00-12 Trench 1B surface n/a n/a 1 24.0 whiteware teapot rim sherd, octagonal 1850 18401860 Kitchen 249

PAGE 264

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Zone, Level Opening Elevation Closing Elevation Count Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group C-00-13 Trench 1C surface n/a n/a 1 2.0 pearlware plate body sherd, transfer-printed (blue), geometric motif, scalloped rim 1818 17951840 Kitchen C-00-13 Trench 1C surface n/a n/a 1 5.0 pearlware plate body sherd, transfer-printed on both sides (blue), Willow pattern 1818 17951840 Kitchen C-00-13 Trench 1C surface n/a n/a 1 9.0 pearlware plate, thick rim sherd, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen C-00-13 Trench 1C surface n/a n/a 1 52.0 pearlware serving bowl rim sherd, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen C-00-13 Trench 1C surface n/a n/a 1 2.0 pearlware UID, teaware body sherd, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen C-00-13 Trench 1C surface n/a n/a 1 5.0 whiteware plate base sherd, plain, foot ring 1860 18201900 Kitchen C-00-13 Trench 1C surface n/a n/a 1 37.0 whiteware UID, possible chamber pot body sherd, molded design 1860 18201900 Personal C-00-14 Trench 2C surface n/a n/a 2 51.0 pearlware chamber pot with handle body sherd, plain 1805 17801830 Personal C-00-14 Trench 2C surface n/a n/a 1 5.0 pearlware cup body sherd, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen C-00-14 Trench 2C surface n/a n/a 1 0.5 pearlware cup body sherd, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen C-00-14 Trench 2C surface n/a n/a 1 1.0 pearlware cup body sherd, transfer-printed (blue), floral motif 1818 17951840 Kitchen C-00-14 Trench 2C surface n/a n/a 2 2.5 pearlware cup body sherds, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen 250

PAGE 265

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Zone, Level Opening Elevation Closing Elevation Count Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group C-00-14 Trench 2C surface n/a n/a 2 0.5 pearlware cup body sherds, transfer-printed on both sides (blue) 1818 17951840 Kitchen C-00-14 Trench 2C surface n/a n/a 1 1.0 pearlware cup/ bowl body sherd, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen C-00-14 Trench 2C surface n/a n/a 1 4.5 pearlware cup/ bowl body sherd, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen C-00-14 Trench 2C surface n/a n/a 1 4.5 pearlware jar/vase rim sherd, banded annularware (blue, green) 1800 17851815 Furniture C-00-14 Trench 2C surface n/a n/a 1 1.0 pearlware plate body sherd, partial maker's mark (black) 1818 17951840 Kitchen C-00-14 Trench 2C surface n/a n/a 1 1.0 pearlware plate body sherd, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen C-00-14 Trench 2C surface n/a n/a 1 0.5 pearlware UID body sherd, transfer-printed (blue) 1818 17951840 Unknown C-00-14 Trench 2C surface n/a n/a 1 13.5 semiporcelain UID, decorative body sherd, molded design 1823 17451900 Personal C-00-14 Trench 2C surface n/a n/a 1 13.0 stoneware crock body sherd, saltglazed exterior (light brown with blue paint), leadglazed interior (brown) 1738 17001775 Kitchen C-00-14 Trench 2C surface n/a n/a 1 1.0 stoneware crock body sherd, saltglazed, exterior and interior (light brown), Nottingham ware 1755 17001810 Kitchen C-00-14 Trench 2C surface n/a n/a 2 6.0 whiteware cup body sherd (1) and rim sherd (1), plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen 251

PAGE 266

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Zone, Level Opening Elevation Closing Elevation Count Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group C-00-14 Trench 2C surface n/a n/a 1 1.0 whiteware cup body sherd, glazed (light blue) 1860 18201900 Kitchen C-00-14 Trench 2C surface n/a n/a 1 6.0 whiteware cup body sherd, painted band around rim (brown) 1860 18201900 Kitchen C-00-14 Trench 2C surface n/a n/a 1 4.0 whiteware cup body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen C-00-14 Trench 2C surface n/a n/a 1 1.0 whiteware cup body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen C-00-14 Trench 2C surface n/a n/a 1 2.0 whiteware cup body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen C-00-14 Trench 2C surface n/a n/a 1 28.0 whiteware cup body sherd, plain, foot ring 1860 18201900 Kitchen C-00-14 Trench 2C surface n/a n/a 1 3.5 whiteware cup rim sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen C-00-14 Trench 2C surface n/a n/a 1 8.5 whiteware cup/ bowl body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen C-00-14 Trench 2C surface n/a n/a 1 1.0 whiteware cup/ bowl rim sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen C-00-14 Trench 2C surface n/a n/a 1 0.5 whiteware plate body sherd, transfer-printed (pink), floral motif 1860 18201900 Kitchen C-00-14 Trench 2C surface n/a n/a 1 9.0 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen C-00-14 Trench 2C surface n/a n/a 2 26.0 whitewar e plate rim sherds, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen C-00-14 Trench 2C surface n/a n/a 1 1.0 whiteware saucer rim sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen C-00-14 Trench 2C surface n/a n/a 1 48.0 whiteware shallow bowl base sherd, plain, foot ring 1860 18201900 Kitchen C-00-14 Trench 2C surface n/a n/a 1 22.0 whiteware shallow bowl base sherd, plain, foot ring 1860 18201900 Kitchen C-00-15 Trench 3C surface n/a n/a 1 8.0 pearlware plate, thick body sherd, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen 252

PAGE 267

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Zone, Level Opening Elevation Closing Elevation Count Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group C-00-16 Trench 4C surface n/a n/a 1 5.0 whiteware cup rim sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen C-00-16 Trench 4C surface n/a n/a 1 4.0 whiteware plate rim sherd, transferprinted (green), scalloped rim 1860 18201900 Kitchen C-00-18 Trench 4D surface n/a n/a 1 4.0 pearlware cup body sherd, glazed (light brown) 1805 17801830 Kitchen C-00-18 Trench 4D surface n/a n/a 1 9.0 pearlware cup body sherd, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen C-00-18 Trench 4D surface n/a n/a 1 3.5 pearlware cup handle body sherd, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen C-00-18 Trench 4D surface n/a n/a 1 14.0 pearlware plate rim sherd, shelledged (blue), worn, impressed (chicken foot), individual brush stroke, straight rim 1855 18401870 Kitchen C-00-18 Trench 4D surface n/a n/a 1 8.0 pearlware saucer base sherd, painted (blue), flower, foot ring 1800 17801820 Kitchen C-00-18 Trench 4D surface n/a n/a 1 4.0 pearlware saucer base sherd, plain, foot ring 1805 17801830 Kitchen C-00-18 Trench 4D surface n/a n/a 1 6.0 pearlware saucer body sherd, shelledged (blue), impressed, individual brush stroke, UID rim 1820 18001840 Kitchen C-00-18 Trench 4D surface n/a n/a 1 1.5 whiteware cup rim sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen C-00-18 Trench 4D surface n/a n/a 1 4.0 whiteware plate rim sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen C-00-18 Trench 4D surface n/a n/a 1 7.0 whiteware plate, thick body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen 253

PAGE 268

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Zone, Level Opening Elevation Closing Elevation Count Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group C-00-18 Trench 4D surface n/a n/a 1 1.0 whiteware UID body sherd, transfer-printed (pink) 1860 18201900 Unknown C-00-20 Trench 4E surface n/a n/a 1 8.0 whiteware plate rim sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen C-00-17 Trench 5C surface n/a n/a 1 4.0 whiteware cup/ bowl body sherd, plain 1860 18201900 Kitchen C-00-19 Trench 5D surface n/a n/a 1 4.0 pearlware plate body sherd, transfer-printed (blue), Willow pattern 1818 17951840 Kitchen C-00-19 Trench 5D surface n/a n/a 1 47.0 pearlware serving plate, thick base sherd, plain, foot ring 1805 17801830 Kitchen C-00-19 Trench 5D surface n/a n/a 1 9.5 whiteware jar/vase body sherd, molded rings around body 1860 18201900 Furniture C-00-21 Trench 6E surface n/a n/a 1 2.0 pearlware cup/ bowl base sherd, plain 1805 17801830 Kitchen C-00-21 Trench 6E surface n/a n/a 1 8.0 pearlware jar/vase body sherd, transfer-printed (black), floral motif 1818 17951840 Furniture C-00-21 Trench 6E surface n/a n/a 1 1.0 whiteware plate body sherd, transfer-printed (pink) 1860 18201900 Kitchen 254

PAGE 269

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Layer Level Count Weight (g)Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-72-20228 N238/W88 surface n/a 1 2.0 whiteware cup/bo wl body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-72-20229 N238/W88 1 1 1 15.0 pearlware bowl body sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-72-20229 N238/W88 1 1 1 3.5 pearlware bowl ri m sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-72-20229 N238/W88 1 1 1 4.0 pearlware bowl ri m sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-72-20229 N238/W88 1 1 1 4.0 pearlware cup/bowl body sherd, painted (black, blue), floral motif 1800 1780-1820 Kitchen A-72-20229 N238/W88 1 1 1 2.0 pearlware jar rim s herd, folded rim 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-72-20229 N238/W88 1 1 1 25.0 semiporcelain plate rim sherd, plain 1823 1745-1900 Kitchen A-72-20230 N238/W88 1 2 1 3.0 pearlware bowl body sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 A-72-20230 N238/W88 1 2 1 2.0 pearlware plate body sherd, painted (blue), leaf motif 1800 1780-1820 Kitchen A-72-20115 N238/W91 1 1 1 5.5 pearlware bowl base sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-72-20115 N238/W91 1 1 1 6.5 pearlware bowl rim sherd, transferprinted (blue) 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen A-72-20115 N238/W91 1 1 1 6.0 pearlware bowl, thick body sherd, banded annularware (brown, white, yellow) 1800 1785-1815 Kitchen A-72-20115 N238/W91 1 1 1 0.5 pearlware cup body sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-72-20115 N238/W91 1 1 1 0.5 pearlware cup body sherd, transferprinted (blue) 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen A-72-20115 N238/W91 1 1 1 0.5 pearlware cup rim sherd, transferprinted (blue) 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen A-72-20115 N238/W91 1 1 1 1.5 pearlware cup rim sherd, transferprinted (blue) 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen 255

PAGE 270

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Layer Level Count Weight (g)Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-72-20115 N238/W91 1 1 1 1.0 pearlware plate body sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-72-20115 N238/W91 1 1 1 1.5 whiteware plate body sherd, flow blue1845 1820-1870 Kitchen A-72-20115 N238/W91 1 1 2 19.0 pearlware plate base sherds, plain, foot ring 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-72-20115 N238/W91 1 1 1 1.0 pearlware plate rim sherd, glazed (green) 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-72-20115 N238/W91 1 1 1 7.0 pearlware plate rim sherd, shelledged (blue), impressed, individual brush strokes, even scalloped rim 1820 1800-1840 Kitchen A-72-20115 N238/W91 1 1 1 2.5 pearlware saucer base sherd, painted (blue), foot ring 1800 1780-1820 Kitchen A-72-20115 N238/W91 1 1 1 1.0 pearlware saucer rim sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-72-20115 N238/W91 1 1 1 4.0 pearlware UID, teaware body sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-72-20115 N238/W91 1 1 1 1.0 porcelain handle handle sherd, plain 1823 1745-1900 Kitchen A-72-20115 N238/W91 1 1 1 10.0 porcelain jar/vase rim sherd, incised lines (2) around outer rim 1823 1745-1900 Furniture A-72-20115 N238/W91 1 1 1 7.0 semiporcelain UID, teaware rim sherd, embossed design (corncob) 1823 1745-1900 Kitchen A-72-20115 N238/W91 1 1 2 5.0 semiporcelain cup, toy body sherd (1) and rim sherd (1), plain 1823 1745-1900 Personal A-72-20115 N238/W91 1 1 1 2.0 semiporcelain UID, teaware rim sherd, plain 1823 1745-1900 Kitchen A-72-20115 N238/W91 1 1 1 4.0 stoneware crock rim sherd, unglazed (worn off) 1850 1800-1900 Kitchen A-72-20115 N238/W91 1 1 1 1.0 stoneware cup rim sherd, Rockingham ware 1865 1830-1900 Kitchen 256

PAGE 271

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Layer Level Count Weight (g)Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-72-20115 N238/W91 1 1 1 12.0 whiteware bowl ri m sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-72-20115 N238/W91 1 1 1 19.0 whiteware bowl base sherd, plain, foot ring 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-72-20115 N238/W91 1 1 1 17.0 whiteware bowl ri m sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-72-20115 N238/W91 1 1 2 17.0 whiteware teapot body sherd (1) and rim sherd (1), lid sherd with button handle, glazed (blue and white), same vessel as A-72-20250 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-72-20115 N238/W91 1 1 2 25.0 whiteware cup body sherd (1) with cup handle and rim sherd (1), painted stripe along outer edge of handle and along inside rim (brown) 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-72-20115 N238/W91 1 1 1 1.0 whiteware cup body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-72-20115 N238/W91 1 1 1 1.0 whiteware cup body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-72-20115 N238/W91 1 1 1 3.0 whiteware cup body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-72-20115 N238/W91 1 1 1 1.0 whiteware cup body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-72-20115 N238/W91 1 1 1 1.5 whiteware cup handl e sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-72-20115 N238/W91 1 1 1 1.0 whiteware cup ri m sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-72-20115 N238/W91 1 1 1 4.0 whiteware cup/bowl body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-72-20115 N238/W91 1 1 1 9.5 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen 257

PAGE 272

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Layer LevelCount Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-7220-115 N238/W91 1 1 1 2.5 whiteware plate base sher d, plain, foot ring 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-115 N238/W91 1 1 1 2.0 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-115 N238/W91 1 1 1 1.0 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-115 N238/W91 1 1 1 8.0 whiteware plate base sher d, plain, foot ring 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-115 N238/W91 1 1 1 6.0 whiteware plate base sherd, plain, burned, foot ring 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-115 N238/W91 1 1 1 12.0 whiteware plate base sherd, transfer-printed (pink), landscape motif, foot ring 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-115 N238/W91 1 1 1 4.0 whiteware plate rim s herd, molded design 1850 1840-1860 Kitchen A-7220-115 N238/W91 1 1 1 2.0 whiteware plate ri m sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-115 N238/W91 1 1 1 1.0 whiteware saucer rim sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-115 N238/W91 1 1 1 6.0 whiteware shallow bowl body sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-115 N238/W91 1 1 1 4.0 whiteware shallow bowl base sherd, plain, foot ring 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-115 N238/W91 1 1 1 6.0 whiteware shallow bowl rim sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-115 N238/W91 1 1 1 0.5 whiteware UID body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Unknown A-7220-115 N238/W91 1 1 1 1.0 whiteware UID body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Unknown A-7220-115 N238/W91 1 1 1 36.0 whiteware vase rim sherd, outwardly flared rim, molded design, crossmends with A-72-20-238 1860 1820-1900 Furniture A-7220-115 N238/W91 1 1 1 2.0 yellowware cup/bowl body sherd, glazed (yellow, white) 1849 1797-1900 Kitchen 258

PAGE 273

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Layer LevelCount Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-7220-120 N238/W91 1 2 1 4.0 pearlware bowl body sherd, transfer-printed (blue), floral motif 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen A-7220-120 N238/W91 1 2 1 5.0 pearlware cup/bowl body sherd, transfer-printed (blue), floral motif 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen A-7220-120 N238/W91 1 2 1 3.0 pearlware plate body sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-120 N238/W91 1 2 1 1.0 pearlware plate body sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-120 N238/W91 1 2 1 17.0 pearlware plate base sher d, plain, foot ring 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-120 N238/W91 1 2 1 15.0 pearlware platter rim sherd, transfer-printed (blue), peacock motif 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen A-7220-120 N238/W91 1 2 1 2.0 porcelain UID body sherd, plain 1823 1745-1900 Unknown A-7220-120 N238/W91 1 2 1 5.0 semi-porcelain cup handle sherd, molded design 1823 1745-1900 Kitchen A-7220-120 N238/W91 1 2 1 1.0 semi-porcelain cup rim sherd, plain 1823 1745-1900 Kitchen A-7220-120 N238/W91 1 2 1 73.0 semi-porcelain plate rim sherd, plain, foot ring 1823 1745-1900 Kitchen A-7220-120 N238/W91 1 2 1 5.0 stoneware crock body sherd, salt-glazed exterior (gray), lead-glazed interior (brown) 1858 1815-1900 Kitchen A-7220-120 N238/W91 1 2 1 49.0 stoneware crock base sherd, unglazed exterior (worn off), leadglazed interior (brown) 1858 1815-1900 Kitchen A-7220-120 N238/W91 1 2 1 12.0 whiteware bowl rim sherd, painted band around interior rim (brown) 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-120 N238/W91 1 2 1 1.0 whiteware cup body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-120 N238/W91 1 2 1 1.0 whiteware cup ri m sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-120 N238/W91 1 2 1 2.0 whiteware cup ri m sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen 259

PAGE 274

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Layer LevelCount Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-7220-120 N238/W91 1 2 1 23.0 whiteware plate bas e sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-120 N238/W91 1 2 1 1.0 whiteware plate base sher d, plain, foot ring 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-120 N238/W91 1 2 2 15.0 whiteware plate base sherds, plain, foot ring 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-120 N238/W91 1 2 1 6.0 whiteware plate rim s herd, molded design 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-120 N238/W91 1 2 1 0.5 whiteware saucer rim sherd, painted (blue), geometric border 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-120 N238/W91 1 2 1 42.0 whiteware shallow bowl rim sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-120 N238/W91 1 2 1 1.0 whiteware UID, teaware body sherd, glazed (yellow) 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-120 N238/W91 1 2 1 1.0 whiteware UID, teaware body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Unknown A-7220-120 N238/W91 1 2 1 9.0 yellowware bowl rim sher d, glazed (yellow) 1849 1797-1900 Kitchen A-7220-129 N238/W91 1 3 1 1.0 pearlware saucer bod y sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-235 N241/W88 surface n/a 1 2.0 pearlware plat e body sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-236 N241/W88 1 1 1 26.0 pearlware shallow bowl rim sherd, plain, foot ring 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-236 N241/W88 1 1 1 2.0 whiteware cup ri m sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-237 N241/W88 2 1 1 4.0 pearlware plate body sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-237 N241/W88 2 1 1 1.0 pearlware UID body sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 53.0 ironstone plate base sherd, plain, maker's mark (black), "PARIS", foot ring 1875 1850-1900 Kitchen 260

PAGE 275

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Layer LevelCount Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 10.0 pearlware bowl body sherd, banded annularware (brown, white, yellow) 1800 1785-1815 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 3.0 pearlware bowl body sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 2.0 pearlware bowl body sherd, plain, burned 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 0.5 pearlware cup body sherd, Gaudy Dutch (green) 1830 1820-1840 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 0.5 pearlware cup body sherd, Gaudy Dutch (pink) 1830 1820-1840 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 0.5 pearlware cup body sherd, transfer-printed (blue) 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 0.5 pearlware cup body sherd, transfer-printed (blue) 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 1.0 pearlware cup body sherd, transfer-printed (blue), tree motif 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 0.5 whiteware cup handle sherd, painted (blue) 1800 1780-1820 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 4.0 pearlware cup ri m sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 0.5 pearlware cup/bowl body sherd, glazed (brown)1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 1.0 pearlware plate body sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 0.5 pearlware plate body sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 8.5 pearlware plate base s herd, plain, foot ring 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 5.0 pearlware plate body sherd, plain, burned 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 0.5 ironstone plate body sherd, transfer-printed (black), "Imp…Gran" 1877 1853-1900 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 0.5 pearlware plate body sherd, transfer-printed (blue) 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen 261

PAGE 276

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Layer LevelCount Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 6.0 pearlware plate body sherd, transfer-printed (blue), floral motif 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 1.0 pearlware plate body sherd, transfer-printed (blue), leaf motif 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 3 4.0 pearlware plate body sherds (2) and rim sherd (1), transfer-printed (black) 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 0.5 pearlware plate rim sherd, edged (green), molded, single brush stroke, straight rim 1830 1820-1840 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 2.0 pearlware plate ri m sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 0.5 pearlware plate rim sherd, transfer-printed (blue) 1818 1795-1940 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 13.0 pearlware shallow bowl base sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 19.0 pearlware shallow bowl base sherd, plain, foot ring 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 33.0 pearlware UID, decorative rim sherd, incised lines on body (diagonal design) 1805 1780-1830 Personal A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 8.0 pearlware UID, possible chamber pot body sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Personal A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 4.0 pearlware UID, possible chamber pot body sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Personal A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 2.0 pearlware UID, teaware body sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 1.0 porcelain cup body sherd, plain 1823 1745-1900 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 2 0.5 porcelain cup bod y sherds, plain 1823 1745-1900 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 1.0 semi-porcelain cup body sherd, molded design around rim, painted band around rim (gold) 1823 1745-1900 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 0.5 semi-porcelain cup body sherd, plain 1823 1745-1900 Kitchen 262

PAGE 277

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Layer LevelCount Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 2.0 semi-porcelain cup rim sherd, plain 1823 1745-1900 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 0.5 semi-porcelain cup rim sherd, plain 1823 1745-1900 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 5.0 semi-porcelain cup, toy base sherd with handle, plain 1823 1745-1900 Personal A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 4.0 semi-porcelain plate body sherd, plain 1823 1745-1900 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 1.0 semi-porcelain saucer, toy rim sherd, molded design 1823 1745-1900 Personal A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 0.5 semi-porcelain UID body sherd, plain 1823 1745-1900 Unknown A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 1.0 semi-porcelain UID body sherd, plain 1823 1745-1900 Unknown A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 2.5 semi-porcelain UID, toy body sherd, plain 1823 1745-1900 Personal A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 3.5 stoneware crock body sherd, lead-glazed exterior and interior (brown) 1858 1815-1900 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 1.0 stoneware crock body sherd, salt-glazed exterior (brown), leadglazed interior (brown) 1858 1815-1900 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 2.5 stoneware crock body sherd, salt-glazed exterior (gray), lead-glazed interior (brown) 1858 1815-1900 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 4.0 stoneware crock body sherd, salt-glazed exterior and interior (gray) 1858 1815-1900 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 2.0 stoneware crock body sherd, unglazed (worn off) 1850 1800-1900 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 5.5 whiteware cup body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 0.5 whiteware cup body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 0.5 whiteware cup body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen 263

PAGE 278

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Layer LevelCount Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 1.0 whiteware cup body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 0.5 whiteware cup body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 2.0 whiteware cup body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 0.5 whiteware cup body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 1.0 whiteware cup body sherd, transfer-printed (pink), floral motif 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 2 7.0 whiteware cup bod y sherds, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 7.0 whiteware cup ri m sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 1.0 whiteware cup ri m sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 1.0 whiteware cup ri m sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 0.5 whiteware cup/bowl body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 0.5 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 1.0 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 2.0 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 0.5 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 0.5 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 1.5 whiteware plate base s herd, plain, foot ring 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 5.0 whiteware plate base s herd, plain, foot ring 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 1.0 whiteware plate base sherd, plain, burned, foot ring 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen 264

PAGE 279

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Layer LevelCount Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 10 5.0 whiteware plate body sherds, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 2 2.0 whiteware plate base s herds, plain, foot ring1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 2.5 whiteware saucer base sherd, plain, foot ring 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 2.5 whiteware shallow bowl base sherd, transfer-printed (pink), foot ring 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 0.5 whiteware UID, teaware body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 1.0 whiteware UID, utilitarian body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 1 7.0 yellowware cup/bowl body sherd, glazed (yellow, white) 1849 1797-1900 Kitchen A-7220-234 N241/W91 1 1 3 11.0 stoneware teapot body sherds, Rockingham ware 1865 1830-1900 Kitchen A-7220-238 N241/W91 2 1 1 8.5 ironstone plate body sherd, maker's mark (black), "ONSTONE CHINA …HNSON BROS…ENGLAND," Johnson Bros., Hanley, England, 1883-1900 (Wetherbee 1980:28) 1892 1883-1900 Kitchen A-7220-238 N241/W91 2 1 1 10.0 pearlware bowl body sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-238 N241/W91 2 1 1 18.5 pearlware bowl base s herd, plain, foot ring 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-238 N241/W91 2 1 1 6.0 pearlware bowl rim sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-238 N241/W91 2 1 1 6.0 pearlware bowl, thick body sherd, transfer-printed (blue), landscape motif 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen A-7220-238 N241/W91 2 1 1 2.0 pearlware canister body sherd, glazed (light blue) 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-238 N241/W91 2 1 1 2.0 pearlware cup ri m sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen 265

PAGE 280

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Layer LevelCount Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-7220-238 N241/W91 2 1 1 1.0 pearlware cup rim sherd, transfer-printed (blue), floral motif 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen A-7220-238 N241/W91 2 1 1 4.0 pearlware cup/bowl body sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-238 N241/W91 2 1 1 4.0 pearlware lid body sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-238 N241/W91 2 1 2 2.0 pearlware lid body sherds, transferprinted (blue) 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen A-7220-238 N241/W91 2 1 1 5.0 pearlware pitcher, small body sherd with handle attachment, transfer-printed (blue) 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen A-7220-238 N241/W91 2 1 2 4.5 pearlware plate body sherd (1) and rim sherd (1), plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-238 N241/W91 2 1 1 1.0 pearlware plate body sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-238 N241/W91 2 1 1 7.5 pearlware plate base s herd, plain, foot ring 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-238 N241/W91 2 1 1 7.0 pearlware plate base sherd, plain, burned, foot ring 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-238 N241/W91 2 1 1 3.0 pearlware plate body sherd, transfer-printed (black) 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen A-7220-238 N241/W91 2 1 2 4.0 pearlware plate base sherds, transferprinted (blue), landscape motif, foot ring 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen A-7220-238 N241/W91 2 1 1 3.0 pearlware plate rim sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-238 N241/W91 2 1 1 1.0 pearlware plate rim sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-238 N241/W91 2 1 1 1.0 pearlware plate rim sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-238 N241/W91 2 1 1 1.0 pearlware plate rim sherd, shell-edged (blue), impressed, individual brush strokes, UID rim 1820 1800-1840 Kitchen 266

PAGE 281

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Layer LevelCount Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-7220-238 N241/W91 2 1 1 0.5 pearlware plate rim sherd, edged (green), molded, single brush stroke, straight rim 1830 1820-1840 Kitchen A-7220-238 N241/W91 2 1 3 16.0 pearlware plate rim sherds, shell-edged (blue), fused together, impressed, individual brush strokes, scalloped rim 1820 1800-1840 Kitchen A-7220-238 N241/W91 2 1 1 24.0 pearlware platter base s herd, plain, foot ring 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-238 N241/W91 2 1 1 2.0 pearlware saucer base sherd, transfer-printed (blue), landscape motif, foot ring 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen A-7220-238 N241/W91 2 1 1 10.0 pearlware shallow bowl bas e sherd, plain, foot ring 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-238 N241/W91 2 1 2 27.0 pearlware UID, possible pitcher or chamber pot base sherds, plain, crossmend 1805 1780-1830 Unknown A-7220-238 N241/W91 2 1 1 0.5 pearlware UID, teaware body sherd, transfer-printed (blue) 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen A-7220-238 N241/W91 2 1 2 1.0 porcelain cup body sherds, plain 1823 1745-1900 Kitchen A-7220-238 N241/W91 2 1 1 0.5 porcelain UID body sherd, plain 1823 1745-1900 Unknown A-7220-238 N241/W91 2 1 1 0.5 semi-porcelain c up rim sherd, plain 1823 1745-1900 Kitchen A-7220-238 N241/W91 2 1 1 3.5 semi-porcelain cup/ bowl rim sherd, plain 1823 1745-1900 Kitchen A-7220-238 N241/W91 2 1 1 0.5 semi-porcelain saucer, to y rim sherd, molded design 1823 1745-1900 Personal A-7220-238 N241/W91 2 1 1 0.5 semi-porcelain UID body sherd, plain 1823 1745-1900 Unknown A-7220-238 N241/W91 2 1 1 3.0 stoneware crock body sherd, salt-glazed exterior (brown), leadglazed interior (brown) 1858 1815-1900 Kitchen 267

PAGE 282

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Layer LevelCount Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-7220-238 N241/W91 2 1 12 16.0 whiteware cup body sherds (5) and rim sherds (7), plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-238 N241/W91 2 1 1 2.0 whiteware cup rim sherd, painted band around interior rim (brown) 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-238 N241/W91 2 1 1 1.0 whiteware cup rim sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-238 N241/W91 2 1 1 1.0 whiteware cup rim sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-238 N241/W91 2 1 1 2.0 whiteware cup/bowl body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-238 N241/W91 2 1 1 1.5 whiteware cup/bowl body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-238 N241/W91 2 1 1 4.0 whiteware cup/bowl rim sherd, transfer-printed (pink) 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-238 N241/W91 2 1 3 9.0 whiteware plate body sherd (1) and rim sherds (2), plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-238 N241/W91 2 1 1 2.0 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-238 N241/W91 2 1 1 0.5 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-238 N241/W91 2 1 1 1.0 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-238 N241/W91 2 1 1 0.5 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-238 N241/W91 2 1 1 1.0 whiteware plate base s herd, plain, foot ring 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-238 N241/W91 2 1 3 7.5 whiteware plate rim sherds, transfer-printed (pink), floral motif, 2 crossmend 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-238 N241/W91 2 1 1 4.0 whiteware UID, teaware body sherd, molded design 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-238 N241/W91 2 1 1 21.5 whiteware vase rim sherd, outwardly flared rim, molded design, crossmends with A-72-20-115 1860 1820-1900 Furniture 268

PAGE 283

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Layer LevelCount Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-7220-238 N241/W91 2 1 4 17.0 stoneware teapot body sherds (2) and rim sherds (2), Rockingham ware 1865 1830-1900 Kitchen A-7220-242 N241/W91 2 2 1 12.0 whiteware bowl base s herd, plain, foot ring 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-239 N241/W94 surface n/a 1 9.0 pearlware bowl body sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-239 N241/W94 surface n/a 1 5.0 pearlware bowl body sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-239 N241/W94 surface n/a 1 1.0 whiteware cup/bo wl body sherd, flow blue 1845 1820-1870 Kitchen A-7220-239 N241/W94 surface n/a 1 2.5 pearlware shallow bowl base sherd, painted (worn off), burned, foot ring 1800 1780-1820 Kitchen A-7220-243 N241/W94 1 1 1 9.0 stoneware bottle body sherd, ginger beer bottle 1840 1820-1860 Kitchen A-7220-243 N241/W94 1 1 1 4.0 pearlware bowl body sherd, glazed (light blue) 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-243 N241/W94 1 1 1 0.5 pearlware cup body sherd, transfer-printed (blue) 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen A-7220-243 N241/W94 1 1 1 5.0 pearlware cup handle sherd, incised bands down handle 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-243 N241/W94 1 1 1 0.5 whiteware cup rim sherd, flow blue on both sides 1845 1820-1870 Kitchen A-7220-243 N241/W94 1 1 1 1.0 pearlware plate body sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-243 N241/W94 1 1 1 6.0 pearlware plate body sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-243 N241/W94 1 1 1 7.5 pearlware plate body sh erd, plain, foot ring 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-243 N241/W94 1 1 1 4.0 pearlware plate body sherd, transfer-printed (black), floral motif 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen A-7220-243 N241/W94 1 1 2 4.0 pearlware plate body sherds, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen 269

PAGE 284

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Layer LevelCount Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-7220-243 N241/W94 1 1 1 2.0 pearlware plate rim sherd, shell-edged (blue), impressed, individual brush strokes, straight rim 1855 1840-1870 Kitchen A-7220-243 N241/W94 1 1 2 2.5 pearlware plate rim sherds, transfer-printed (blue), geometric motif 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen A-7220-243 N241/W94 1 1 1 6.0 pearlware platter base s herd, plain, foot ring 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-243 N241/W94 1 1 1 1.0 pearlware UID, teaware body sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-243 N241/W94 1 1 1 0.5 whiteware cup body sherd, painted bands (blue) 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-243 N241/W94 1 1 1 2.0 whiteware cup body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-243 N241/W94 1 1 1 0.5 whiteware cup body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-243 N241/W94 1 1 3 13.0 whiteware cup body sherds (2) and rim sherd (1), plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-243 N241/W94 1 1 2 1.0 whiteware cup body sherds, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-243 N241/W94 1 1 1 1.0 whiteware cup/bowl body sherd, transfer-printed (light blue), landscape motif 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-243 N241/W94 1 1 1 0.5 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-243 N241/W94 1 1 1 1.0 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-243 N241/W94 1 1 1 4.0 whiteware UID, teaware body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-244 N241/W94 1 2 1 0.5 pearlware cup body sherd, Gaudy Dutch (brown, green, red) 1830 1820-1840 Kitchen A-7220-244 N241/W94 1 2 1 0.5 pearlware cup body sherd, painted (blue) 1800 1780-1820 Kitchen A-7220-244 N241/W94 1 2 1 1.0 pearlware cup body sherd, transfer-printed (black), leaf motif 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen 270

PAGE 285

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Layer LevelCount Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-7220-244 N241/W94 1 2 1 0.5 pearlware cup body sherd, transfer-printed (blue), landscape motif 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen A-7220-244 N241/W94 1 2 1 4.0 pearlware cup handle sherd, painted (blue), floral design 1800 1780-1820 Kitchen A-7220-244 N241/W94 1 2 1 1.0 pearlware cup/bowl body sherd, glazed (black, blue), annularware 1808 1785-1830 Kitchen A-7220-244 N241/W94 1 2 1 1.0 pearlware cup/bowl body sherd, painted (black, gray, green), annularware 1808 1785-1830 Kitchen A-7220-244 N241/W94 1 2 1 0.5 pearlware cup/bowl body sherd, transfer-printed (blue), dot and feather motif 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen A-7220-244 N241/W94 1 2 3 5.0 pearlware plate body sherd (1) and rim sherds (2), edged (green), molded, single brush stroke, scalloped rim 1830 1820-1840 Kitchen A-7220-244 N241/W94 1 2 1 0.5 pearlware plate body sherd, banded annularware (brown, green, white) 1800 1785-1815 Kitchen A-7220-244 N241/W94 1 2 1 1.0 pearlware plate body sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-244 N241/W94 1 2 1 3.0 pearlware plate body sherd, shell-edged (blue), impressed, individual brush strokes, scalloped rim 1820 1800-1840 Kitchen A-7220-244 N241/W94 1 2 1 4.0 pearlware plate body sherd, shell-edged (blue), impressed, single brush stroke, straight rim 1855 1840-1870 Kitchen A-7220-244 N241/W94 1 2 2 1.0 pearlware saucer body sherd (1) and rim sherd (1), painted (blue), hatch marks 1800 1780-1820 Kitchen A-7220-244 N241/W94 1 2 1 1.0 pearlware saucer body sherd, painted (blue) 1800 1780-1820 Kitchen A-7220-244 N241/W94 1 2 1 1.0 pearlware saucer base sherd, transfer-printed (blue), foot ring 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen A-7220-244 N241/W94 1 2 1 0.5 pearlware UID, utilitarian body sherd, glazed (brown) 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen 271

PAGE 286

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Layer LevelCount Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-7220-244 N241/W94 1 2 2 2.0 semi-porcelain cup, toy base sherds, one with handle attachment 1823 1745-1900 Personal A-7220-244 N241/W94 1 2 2 4.0 semi-porcelain pl ate body sherds, plain 1823 1745-1900 Kitchen A-7220-244 N241/W94 1 2 1 2.0 stoneware crock body sherd, salt-glazed (worn off) 1858 1815-1900 Kitchen A-7220-244 N241/W94 1 2 1 3.0 stoneware crock body sherd, salt-glazed exterior and interior (brown) 1858 1815-1900 Kitchen A-7220-244 N241/W94 1 2 1 4.5 coarse earthenware cup/bowl body sherd, glazed (white) on interior, lead-glazed (brown) on exterior, Astbury ware 1738 1725-1750 Kitchen A-7220-244 N241/W94 1 2 1 19.0 whiteware bowl base sherd, glazed (yellow), glazed white lines (2) around base, foot ring 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-244 N241/W94 1 2 1 1.0 whiteware bowl body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-244 N241/W94 1 2 1 2.0 whiteware bowl body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-244 N241/W94 1 2 1 4.0 whiteware bowl base sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-244 N241/W94 1 2 1 4.5 whiteware bowl rim sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-244 N241/W94 1 2 1 63.5 whiteware bowl rim sherd, plain, base 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-244 N241/W94 1 2 2 6.5 whiteware bowl rim sherds, plai n 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-244 N241/W94 1 2 1 2.0 whiteware teapot lid sherd with button handle, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-244 N241/W94 1 2 1 0.5 whiteware cup body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-244 N241/W94 1 2 1 1.5 whiteware cup rim sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-244 N241/W94 1 2 1 1.0 whiteware cup/bowl body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen 272

PAGE 287

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Layer LevelCount Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-7220-244 N241/W94 1 2 1 0.5 whiteware cup/bowl body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-244 N241/W94 1 2 1 3.0 whiteware cup/bowl body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-244 N241/W94 1 2 1 2.0 whiteware cup/bowl body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-244 N241/W94 1 2 1 0.5 whiteware cup/bowl body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-244 N241/W94 1 2 1 2.0 whiteware cup/bowl rim sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-244 N241/W94 1 2 1 1.0 whiteware cup/bowl rim sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-244 N241/W94 1 2 1 8.5 whiteware jar base s herd, plain, foot ring 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-244 N241/W94 1 2 1 1.5 whiteware plate, thick body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-244 N241/W94 1 2 1 1.0 whiteware saucer body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-244 N241/W94 1 2 2 1.0 whiteware saucer body sherds, transferprinted (light blue), leaf motif 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-244 N241/W94 1 2 1 3.0 whiteware shallow bo wl rim sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-244 N241/W94 1 2 1 2.0 whiteware UID, teaware body sherd, transfer-printed (pink), floral motif 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-244 N241/W94 1 2 1 0.5 whiteware UID, teaware body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-244 N241/W94 1 2 1 2.0 whiteware UID, teaware body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-244 N241/W94 1 2 1 5.0 whiteware vase rim sherd, outwardly flaring body, molded design 1860 1820-1900 Furniture A-7220-244 N241/W94 1 2 1 2.5 yellowware cup/bowl body sherd, glazed (yellow), glazed white lines (3) around rim 1849 1797-1900 Kitchen A-7220-245 N241/W94 1 3 1 1.0 pearlware plate body sherd, transfer-printed (blue), Willow pattern 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen 273

PAGE 288

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Layer LevelCount Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-7220-246 N241/W94 2 1 1 1.0 pearlware cup body sherd, transfer-printed (blue) 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen A-7220-246 N241/W94 2 1 1 1.0 pearlware saucer body sherd, transfer-printed (blue), geometric motif 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen A-7220-246 N241/W94 2 1 1 1.0 pearlware UID, teaware body sherd, transfer-printed (blue), floral motif 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen A-7220-246 N241/W94 2 1 1 1.0 semi-porcelain c up rim sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-246 N241/W94 2 1 1 16.5 whiteware bowl body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-246 N241/W94 2 1 1 2.0 whiteware bowl body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-246 N241/W94 2 1 1 5.0 whiteware bowl rim sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-246 N241/W94 2 1 1 0.5 whiteware cup body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-246 N241/W94 2 1 1 1.0 whiteware cup body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-246 N241/W94 2 1 1 0.5 whiteware cup rim sherd, plain, crossmends with A-72-20-247 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-246 N241/W94 2 1 2 28.0 whiteware cup rim sherds, one with handle, plain, cross-mend 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-246 N241/W94 2 1 1 1.0 whiteware cup/bowl rim sherd, painted band around interior rim (red) 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-246 N241/W94 2 1 1 1.0 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-246 N241/W94 2 1 1 2.0 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-246 N241/W94 2 1 1 13.0 whiteware plate rim sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-246 N241/W94 2 1 2 6.0 whiteware plate rim sherds, plai n 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-246 N241/W94 2 1 2 30.5 stoneware teapot body sherd (1) and rim sherd (1), Rockingham ware 1865 1830-1900 Kitchen 274

PAGE 289

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Layer LevelCount Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-7220-247 N241/W94 2 2 1 1.0 pearlware cup body sherd, transfer-printed (blue), floral motif 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen A-7220-247 N241/W94 2 2 1 12.0 porcelain bowl rim sherd, embossed design (grapes), same vessel as A99-51 1823 1745-1900 Kitchen A-7220-247 N241/W94 2 2 1 1.0 porcelain cup/bowl body sherd, plain 1823 1745-1900 Kitchen A-7220-247 N241/W94 2 2 1 53.0 whiteware bowl rim sherd, molded design on body 1850 1840-1860 Kitchen A-7220-247 N241/W94 2 2 1 6.0 whiteware bowl rim sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-247 N241/W94 2 2 3 52.0 whiteware cup base sherd (1), rim sherd (1), and handle sherd (1), plain, foot ring 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-247 N241/W94 2 2 1 15.0 whiteware cup base s herd, plain, foot ring 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-247 N241/W94 2 2 1 8.0 whiteware cup rim sherd, plain, crossmends with A-72-20-246 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-247 N241/W94 2 2 1 3.0 whiteware cup/bowl rim sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-247 N241/W94 2 2 1 2.0 whiteware plate body sherd, molded design around rim, burned 1850 1840-1860 Kitchen A-7220-247 N241/W94 2 2 1 2.0 whiteware plate rim sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-247 N241/W94 2 2 1 37.0 whiteware plate, th ick rim sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-248 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 1 0.5 pearlware saucer body sherd, transfer-printed (blue), Willow pattern 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen A-7220-248 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 1 0.5 porcelain cup body sherd, plain 1823 1745-1900 Kitchen A-7220-248 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 1 3.0 semi-porcelain bowl, toy rim sherd, plain, foot ring 1823 1745-1900 Personal A-7220-248 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 1 3.0 semi-porcelain saucer, toy rim sherd, embossed design (scallops) 1823 1745-1900 Personal 275

PAGE 290

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Layer LevelCount Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-7220-248 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 1 3.0 whiteware bowl base sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-248 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 1 13.0 whiteware bowl base sher d, plain, foot ring 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-248 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 1 5.0 whiteware bowl base sherd, plain, burned, foot ring 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-248 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 1 0.5 whiteware cup body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-248 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 1 0.5 whiteware cup body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-248 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 1 1.0 whiteware cup body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-248 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 1 0.5 whiteware cup rim sherd, painted band around interior rim (brown) 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-248 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 1 4.5 whiteware cup rim sher d, plain, octagonal 1850 1840-1860 Kitchen A-7220-248 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 4 19.0 whiteware cup ri m sherds, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-248 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 1 1.0 whiteware cup/bowl rim sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-248 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 2 12.0 whiteware plate body sherd (1) and rim sherd (1), transfer-printed (pink), floral motif 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-248 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 1 0.5 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-248 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 1 1.0 whiteware plate body sherd, plain, burned 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-248 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 1 3.5 whiteware plate rim sherd, plain, burned 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-248 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 4 116.0 stoneware teapot body sherds (3) and rim sherd (1), Rockingham ware 1865 1830-1900 Kitchen A-7220-269 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 1 0.5 pearlware cup body sherd, transfer-printed (blue), floral motif 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen 276

PAGE 291

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Layer LevelCount Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-7220-269 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 1 2.5 whiteware cup rim sherd, painted band around exterior and interior (red), painted (green), floral motif 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-269 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 1 4.0 pearlware cup/bowl body sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-269 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 1 1.0 pearlware cup/bowl body sherd, transfer-printed on both sides (blue), floral motif 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen A-7220-269 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 1 2.5 pearlware cup/bowl body sherd, transfer-printed on both sides (blue), floral motif 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen A-7220-269 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 1 1.0 pearlware plate rim sherd, shell-edged (blue),impressed, individual brush strokes, scalloped rim 1820 1800-1840 Kitchen A-7220-269 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 2 0.5 pearlware saucer body sherd (1) and rim sherd (1), transfer-printed (blue), floral motif 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen A-7220-269 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 1 21.0 pearlware teapot body sherd, transfer-printed (blue), floral motif 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen A-7220-269 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 3 12.0 semi-porcelain cup body sherd (1), rim sherd (1), and cup handle sherd (1), plain 1823 1745-1900 Kitchen A-7220-269 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 1 28.0 semi-porcelain cup rim sherd, plain 1823 1745-1900 Kitchen A-7220-269 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 2 8.0 semi-porcelain plate body sherd (1) and rim sherd (1), two molded rings around center of interior 1823 1745-1900 Kitchen A-7220-269 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 3 17.0 stoneware bottle body sherds, ginger beer bottle 1840 1820-1860 Kitchen A-7220-269 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 1 9.0 whiteware plate base sher d, plain, foot ring 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-269 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 1 6.0 whiteware shallow bowl body sherd, glazed (light blue) 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen 277

PAGE 292

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Layer LevelCount Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-7220-270 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 1 4.0 coarse earthenware UID, teaware body sherd, lead-glazed (black), Jackfield ware 1758 1740-1776 Kitchen A-7220-270 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 1 1.0 pearlware cup body sherd, embossed design (dots) 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-270 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 1 0.5 pearlware cup body sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-270 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 1 1.0 pearlware cup body sherd, transfer-printed (blue) 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen A-7220-270 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 7 83.0 pearlware cup body sherds (3) and rim sherds (4), plain, octagonal, foot ring, two body sherds cross-mend 1850 1840-1860 Kitchen A-7220-270 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 1 4.0 pearlware cup rim sherd, incised band around rim 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-270 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 1 2.0 pearlware cup ri m sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-270 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 2 1.0 pearlware plate body sherd (1) and rim sherd (1), transfer-printed (blue), leaf motif 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen A-7220-270 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 1 1.0 pearlware plate body sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-270 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 1 0.5 pearlware plate body sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-270 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 1 0.5 pearlware plate body sherd, plain, burned 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-270 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 2 5.0 pearlware plate rim sherds, shell-edged (blue), impressed, individual brush strokes, straight rim, burned 1855 1840-1870 Kitchen A-7220-270 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 2 1.0 porcelain UID, teaware body sherds, plain 1823 1745-1900 Kitchen A-7220-270 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 4 2.0 semi-porcelain cup body sherd (1) and rim sherds (3), plain 1823 1745-1900 Kitchen A-7220-270 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 1 1.0 semi-porcelain cup rim sherd, plain 1823 1745-1900 Kitchen 278

PAGE 293

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Layer LevelCount Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-7220-270 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 1 1.0 semi-porcelain saucer, toy rim sherd, molded design 1823 1745-1900 Kitchen A-7220-270 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 3 69.0 stoneware bottle body sherds, ginger beer bottle 1840 1820-1860 Kitchen A-7220-270 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 1 38.0 stoneware crock base sherd, salt-glazed exterior (brown), leadglazed interior (black) 1858 1815-1900 Kitchen A-7220-270 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 1 7.0 stoneware crock body sherd, salt-glazed exterior (brown), unglazed interior 1858 1815-1900 Kitchen A-7220-270 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 1 7.5 whiteware canister lid sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-270 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 3 113.5 whiteware chamber pot body sherds (2) and rim sherd (1), plain 1860 1820-1900 Personal A-7220-270 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 1 1.0 whiteware cup body sherd, glazed (light blue) 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-270 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 1 2.0 whiteware cup base sherd, painted (blue), floral motif, foot ring 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-270 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 2 1.5 whiteware cup body sherds, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-270 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 1 2.0 whiteware cup ri m sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-270 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 1 2.0 whiteware cup ri m sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-270 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 2 29.0 whiteware plate body sherd (1) and rim sherd (1), transfer-printed (pink), floral motif around rim, landscape motif in interior center 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-270 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 5 23.0 whiteware plate body sherd (1) and rim sherds (4), plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-270 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 1 2.0 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen 279

PAGE 294

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Layer LevelCount Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-7220-270 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 2 60.5 whiteware shallow bowl base sherd (1) and rim sherd (1), plain, foot ring, cross-mend 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-270 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 1 16.0 whiteware shallow bowl body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-270 N241/W94 (soil sample) n/a n/a 1 39.0 stoneware teapot body sherd with handle attachment, Rockingham ware 1865 1830-1900 Kitchen A-7220-260 baulk b/w N241/W94 and N241/W93 1 1 1 0.5 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-260 baulk b/w N241/W94 and N241/W93 1 1 1 1.0 whiteware saucer body sherd, transfer-printed (light blue) 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-260 baulk b/w N241/W94 and N241/W93 1 1 1 6.0 pearlware plate rim sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-260 baulk b/w N241/W94 and N241/W93 1 1 1 1.0 semi-porcelain cup ri m sherd, plain 1823 1745-1900 Kitchen A-7220-260 baulk b/w N241/W94 and N241/W93 1 1 1 0.5 whiteware cup rim sher d, plain, burned 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-260 baulk b/w N241/W94 and N241/W93 1 1 1 1.0 pearlware plate rim sherd, shell-edged (blue), impressed, individual brush strokes, scalloped rim 1820 1800-1840 Kitchen A-7220-261 baulk b/w N241/W94 and N241/W93 2 1 1 7.0 ironstone plate base sherd, foot ring, maker's mark (black), "…MELLOR, T," Mellor, Taylor, & Co., Burslem, England, 1880-1904 (Wetherbee 1980:29) 1892 1880-1904 Kitchen 280

PAGE 295

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Layer LevelCount Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-7220-261 baulk b/w N241/W94 and N241/W93 2 1 2 8.0 whiteware plate base sherds plain, foot ring1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-261 baulk b/w N241/W94 and N241/W93 2 1 1 26.0 stoneware teapot body sherd with handle attachment, Rockingham ware 1865 1830-1900 Kitchen A-7220-261 baulk b/w N241/W94 and N241/W93 2 1 1 0.5 pearlware plate body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-261 baulk b/w N241/W94 and N241/W93 2 1 1 1.0 pearlware plate body sherd, transfer-printed (blue) 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen A-7220-261 baulk b/w N241/W94 and N241/W93 2 1 1 1.0 pearlware plate body sherd, transfer-printed (blue) 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen A-7220-261 baulk b/w N241/W94 and N241/W93 2 1 1 2.0 semi-porcelain cup handl e sherd, plain 1823 1745-1900 Kitchen A-7220-261 baulk b/w N241/W94 and N241/W93 2 1 1 6.5 whiteware cup handle sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-250 baulk b/w N241/W94 and N244/W94 surface n/a 1 2.0 pearlware plate body sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-250 baulk b/w N241/W94 and N244/W94 surface n/a 1 1.0 whiteware teapot lid sherd, painted (blue, white), same vessel as A72-20-115 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-251 baulk b/w N241/W94 and N244/W94 1 1 1 32.5 whiteware bowl base sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-251 baulk b/w N241/W94 and N244/W94 1 1 1 0.5 pearlware plate body sherd, banded annularware (black, white, yellow) 1800 1785-1815 Kitchen 281

PAGE 296

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Layer LevelCount Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-7220-251 baulk b/w N241/W94 and N244/W94 1 1 1 1.0 pearlware plate body sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-251 baulk b/w N241/W94 and N244/W94 1 1 1 0.5 pearlware saucer/plate body sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-251 baulk b/w N241/W94 and N244/W94 1 1 1 0.5 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-251 baulk b/w N241/W94 and N244/W94 1 1 1 0.5 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-251 baulk b/w N241/W94 and N244/W94 1 1 1 1.0 pearlware UID, teaware body sherd, transfer-printed (black) 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen A-7220-251 baulk b/w N241/W94 and N244/W94 1 1 2 1.0 pearlware cup/bowl body sherds, transferprinted (blue) 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen A-7220-251 baulk b/w N241/W94 and N244/W94 1 1 1 0.5 whiteware cup rim sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-251 baulk b/w N241/W94 and N244/W94 1 1 1 2.0 whiteware cup/bowl rim sherd, transfer-printed on both sides (light blue) 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-253 baulk b/w N241/W94 and N244/W94 1 2 1 4.0 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-255 baulk b/w N241/W94 and N244/W94 2 2 1 5.0 whiteware bowl body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-255 baulk b/w N241/W94 and N244/W94 2 2 1 1.0 whiteware UID, teaware body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen 282

PAGE 297

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Layer LevelCount Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-7220-255 baulk b/w N241/W94 and N244/W94 2 2 1 2.0 whiteware cup/bowl body sherd, plain, burned 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-298 Trench 1, Section 2 1 1 1 1.0 pearlware cup rim sherd, transfer-printed (blue) 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen A-7220-298 Trench 1, Section 2 1 1 1 1.0 whiteware cup body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-298 Trench 1, Section 2 1 1 1 2.0 whiteware plate rim sher d, molded design 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-299 Trench 1, Section 2 1 2 1 11.0 whiteware bowl body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-299 Trench 1, Section 2 1 2 1 2.0 whiteware bowl, thick body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-299 Trench 1, Section 2 1 2 1 1.0 whiteware cup body sherd, painted (blue), dot motif 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-299 Trench 1, Section 2 1 2 1 9.0 whiteware cup base sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-299 Trench 1, Section 2 1 2 1 1.5 whiteware cup rim sherd, painted band around interior rim (gold) 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-299 Trench 1, Section 2 1 2 4 19.0 whiteware plate body sherd (1) and rim sherds (3), plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-299 Trench 1, Section 2 1 2 1 5.0 whiteware shallow bowl base s herd, plain, foot ring 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-299 Trench 1, Section 2 1 2 1 5.0 whiteware UID, poss. chamber pot base sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Personal A-7220-300 Trench 1, Section 2 1 3 1 3.0 pearlware plate body sherd, transfer-printed (blue) 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen A-7220-300 Trench 1, Section 2 1 3 1 13.0 pearlware plate body sherd, transfer-printed (blue) 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen A-7220-302 Trench 1, Section 2 2 3 1 2.0 whiteware cup body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-302 Trench 1, Section 2 2 3 1 6.0 whiteware cup/bowl ri m sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-302 Trench 1, Section 2 2 3 1 1.0 whiteware plate rim sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen 283

PAGE 298

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Layer LevelCount Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-7220-305 Trench 1, Section 2 2 4 1 1.5 pearlware cup body sherd, transfer-printed (blue) 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen A-7220-305 Trench 1, Section 2 2 4 2 4.0 pearlware plate rim sherd, banded annularware (black, blue) 1800 1785-1815 Kitchen A-7220-305 Trench 1, Section 2 2 4 1 13.0 semi-porcelain cup, to y handle sherd, plain 1823 1745-1900 Kitchen A-7220-305 Trench 1, Section 2 2 4 1 5.5 semi-porcelain shallow bo wl rim sherd, plain 1823 1745-1900 Kitchen A-7220-305 Trench 1, Section 2 2 4 1 1.0 whiteware bowl, thick body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-305 Trench 1, Section 2 2 4 1 2.0 whiteware cup rim sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-305 Trench 1, Section 2 2 4 1 2.0 whiteware plate body sherd, transfer-printed (pink) 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-305 Trench 1, Section 2 2 4 1 20.0 stoneware teapot body sherd, Rockingham ware 1865 1830-1900 Kitchen A-7220-314 Trench 1, Sections 2 and 3 (floor cleanup) n/a n/a 1 2.5 whiteware plate body sherd, painted band around rim (brown) 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-283 Trench 1, Section 3 1 1 1 1.0 pearlware cup body sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-283 Trench 1, Section 3 1 1 1 1.0 pearlware cup base sherd, plain, foot ring 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-283 Trench 1, Section 3 1 1 1 1.0 pearlware cup rim s herd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-283 Trench 1, Section 3 1 1 1 4.0 pearlware cup/bowl body sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-283 Trench 1, Section 3 1 1 1 2.0 pearlware plate body sherd, Gaudy Dutch (brown, green) 1830 1820-1840 Kitchen A-7220-283 Trench 1, Section 3 1 1 1 1.0 semi-porcelain UID body sherd, plain 1823 1745-1900 Unknown A-7220-283 Trench 1, Section 3 1 1 1 0.5 whiteware cup rim sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen 284

PAGE 299

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Layer LevelCount Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-7220-283 Trench 1, Section 3 1 1 1 2.0 whiteware plate rim sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-283 Trench 1, Section 3 1 1 1 1.0 whiteware plate rim sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-286 Trench 1, Section 3 1 2 1 4.0 pearlware cup base sherd, plain, foot ring, same vessel as C-72-20280 1805 1780-830 Kitchen A-7220-286 Trench 1, Section 3 1 2 1 2.5 semi-porcelain bowl body sherd, embossed lettering, "…es…" 1823 1745-1900 Kitchen A-7220-286 Trench 1, Section 3 1 2 1 2.5 semi-porcelain cup ri m sherd, plain 1823 1745-1900 Kitchen A-7220-286 Trench 1, Section 3 1 2 1 0.5 whiteware cup/bowl bas e sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-286 Trench 1, Section 3 1 2 1 1.0 whiteware plate rim sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-286 Trench 1, Section 3 1 2 1 5.0 yellowware plate rim sherd, glazed (yellow) 1849 1797-1900 Kitchen A-7220-288 Trench 1, Section 3 2 1 1 1.5 pearlware cup rim sherd, Gaudy Dutch (blue, green) 1830 1820-1840 Kitchen A-7220-288 Trench 1, Section 3 2 1 1 2.0 pearlware cup, toy body sherd, transfer-printed on both sides (blue), floral motif, foot ring 1818 1795-1840 Personal A-7220-288 Trench 1, Section 3 2 1 1 1.0 pearlware plate rim sherd, transfer-printed (blue), floral motif 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen A-7220-288 Trench 1, Section 3 2 1 1 0.5 pearlware UID, teaware body sherd, transfer-printed (blue) 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen A-7220-288 Trench 1, Section 3 2 1 1 0.5 porcelain UID, decorative body sherd, plain 1823 1745-1900 Personal A-7220-288 Trench 1, Section 3 2 1 2 4.0 semi-porcelain cup body sherd (1) and rim sherd (1), plain 1823 1745-1900 Kitchen A-7220-288 Trench 1, Section 3 2 1 1 2.0 whiteware cup/bowl body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-310 Trench 1, Section 3 2B 1 1 0.5 whiteware cup handle sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen 285

PAGE 300

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Layer LevelCount Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-7220-291 Trench 1, Section 3 2 2 1 3.0 pearlware bowl body sherd, banded annularware (black, brown, green) 1800 1785-1815 Kitchen A-7220-291 Trench 1, Section 3 2 2 1 1.0 pearlware cup rim sherd, transfer-printed (blue) 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen A-7220-291 Trench 1, Section 3 2 2 2 5.0 pearlware plate body sherd (1) and rim sherd (1), plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-291 Trench 1, Section 3 2 2 1 2.0 pearlware plate base sherd, transfer-printed on both sides (blue), floral motif, foot ring 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen A-7220-291 Trench 1, Section 3 2 2 1 8.0 semi-porcelain cup ri m sherd, plain 1823 1745-1900 Kitchen A-7220-291 Trench 1, Section 3 2 2 1 1.0 semi-porcelain cup, toy body sherd, plain 1823 1745-1900 Personal A-7220-291 Trench 1, Section 3 2 2 1 13.5 stoneware lid body sherd, lead-glazed on exterior (reddish brown) and interior (dark brown) 1858 1815-1900 Kitchen A-7220-291 Trench 1, Section 3 2 2 4 12.0 whiteware bowl body sherds, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-291 Trench 1, Section 3 2 2 1 14.0 whiteware bowl rim sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-291 Trench 1, Section 3 2 2 1 26.0 whiteware chamber pot base sher d, plain, foot ring 1860 1820-1900 Personal A-7220-291 Trench 1, Section 3 2 2 1 27.0 whiteware cup rim sherd, octagonal, same vessel as C-72-20-276 1850 1840-1860 Kitchen A-7220-291 Trench 1, Section 3 2 2 1 1.0 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-291 Trench 1, Section 3 2 2 1 12.0 whiteware plate rim sher d, molded design 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-291 Trench 1, Section 3 2 2 1 1.0 whiteware plate rim sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-291 Trench 1, Section 3 2 2 1 29.0 whiteware shallow bowl ri m sherd, plain, burned 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-293 Trench 1, Section 4 1 1 1 1.0 whiteware cup body sherd, glazed (light blue) 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen 286

PAGE 301

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Layer LevelCount Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group A-7220-293 Trench 1, Section 4 1 1 1 4.0 whiteware cup/bowl ri m sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-293 Trench 1, Section 4 1 1 1 3.0 whiteware plate, thick rim sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-293 Trench 1, Section 4 1 1 1 1.0 whiteware UID, teaware body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-293 Trench 1, Section 4 1 1 1 1.0 whiteware UID, teaware body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-293 Trench 1, Section 4 1 1 1 2.0 yellowware cup body sherd, plain 1849 1797-1900 Kitchen A-7220-296 Trench 1, Section 4 1 2 1 1.0 whiteware cup body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-311 Trench 1, Section 4 2B 1 1 13.0 pearlware plate base sherd, incised ring around interior, foot ring 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen A-7220-311 Trench 1, Section 4 2B 1 1 2.0 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-309 Trench 1, Section 4 3 1 1 4.0 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen A-7220-312 Trench 1, Section 4 4B 1 1 6.0 semi-porcelain UID body sherd, plain 1823 1745-1900 Unknown A-7220-282 Trench 1, Section 5 1 1 1 4.0 whiteware plate, thick body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-7220-403 N232/W75 1 1 2 9.0 pearlware plate body sherd (1) and rim sherd (1), shell-edged (blue), impressed, single brush stroke, straight rim 1855 1840-1870 Kitchen C-7220-403 N232/W75 1 1 1 4.0 pearlware plate body sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen C-7220-403 N232/W75 1 1 1 3.0 semi-porcelain c up rim sherd, plain 1823 1745-1900 Kitchen C-7220-403 N232/W75 1 1 1 22.0 stoneware bottle body sherd, salt-glazed exterior (brown), leadglazed interior (brown) 1858 1815-1900 Kitchen C-7220-403 N232/W75 1 1 1 2.0 whiteware bowl base sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen 287

PAGE 302

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Layer LevelCount Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group C-7220-403 N232/W75 1 1 1 5.5 whiteware bowl base s herd, plain, foot ring 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-7220-403 N232/W75 1 1 1 20.0 whiteware bowl rim sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-7220-403 N232/W75 1 1 1 5.5 whiteware cup rim sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-7220-403 N232/W75 1 1 1 42.0 whiteware shallow bowl, thick rim sherd, plain, base 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-7220-413 N232/W75 1B 1 2 5.5 whiteware cup/bo wl body sherds, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-7220-406 N232/W75 1 2 1 5.0 pearlware cup/bowl body sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen C-7220-406 N232/W75 1 2 1 3.0 pearlware plate rim sherd, shell-edged (blue), molded, individual brush strokes, scalloped rim 1830 1820-1840 Kitchen C-7220-406 N232/W75 1 2 1 2.0 pearlware saucer base sherd, transfer-printed (blue), floral motif, foot ring 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen C-7220-406 N232/W75 1 2 1 2.0 semi-porcelain cup, toy rim sherd, plain 1823 1745-1900 Personal C-7220-406 N232/W75 1 2 1 1.0 semi-porcelain UID, toy body sherd, plain 1823 1745-1900 Personal C-7220-406 N232/W75 1 2 1 3.0 whiteware bowl body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-7220-406 N232/W75 1 2 1 4.0 whiteware bowl, thick body sherd, painted on both sides (blue), floral motif 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-7220-406 N232/W75 1 2 1 1.0 whiteware cup rim sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-7220-406 N232/W75 1 2 1 4.5 whiteware plate, thick body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-7220-417 N232/W75 (outside wall) 1 1 1 1.0 pearlware cup body sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen C-7220-417 N232/W75 (outside wall) 1 1 1 1.5 pearlware plate base sherd, maker's mark (impressed) 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen 288

PAGE 303

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Layer LevelCount Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group C-7220-417 N232/W75 (outside wall) 1 1 1 2.0 pearlware plate body sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen C-7220-417 N232/W75 (outside wall) 1 1 1 2.0 pearlware plate rim sherd, painted (blue), floral motif 1800 1780-1820 Kitchen C-7220-417 N232/W75 (outside wall) 1 1 1 3.0 semi-porcelain plate body sherd, plain 1823 1745-1900 Kitchen C-7220-417 N232/W75 (outside wall) 1 1 1 1.0 semi-porcelain saucer, toy rim sherd, plain, molded design 1823 1745-1900 Personal C-7220-417 N232/W75 (outside wall) 1 1 1 22.5 stoneware crock body sherd, glazed exterior (brown), unglazed interior (worn off) 1858 1815-1900 Kitchen C-7220-417 N232/W75 (outside wall) 1 1 1 4.0 whiteware bowl body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-7220-417 N232/W75 (outside wall) 1 1 1 5.0 whiteware bowl base sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-7220-417 N232/W75 (outside wall) 1 1 2 12.0 whiteware bowl body sherds, plain, unglazed (worn off) 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-7220-417 N232/W75 (outside wall) 1 1 1 6.0 whiteware bowl rim sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-7220-417 N232/W75 (outside wall) 1 1 1 8.0 whiteware bowl rim sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-7220-417 N232/W75 (outside wall) 1 1 1 13.0 whiteware bowl, thick body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-7220-417 N232/W75 (outside wall) 1 1 1 1.0 whiteware cup rim sherd, painted (blue), floral motif 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-7220-417 N232/W75 (outside wall) 1 1 1 4.0 whiteware cup rim sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-7220-417 N232/W75 (outside wall) 1 1 1 2.0 whiteware plate base sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-7220-417 N232/W75 (outside wall) 1 1 1 1.0 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-7220-421 N232/W75 (outside wall) 1B 1 1 0.5 pearlware cup body sherd, transfer-printed (blue) 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen 289

PAGE 304

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Layer LevelCount Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group C-7220-421 N232/W75 (outside wall) 1B 1 1 1.0 semi-porcelain cup body sherd, plain 1823 1745-1900 Kitchen C-7220-421 N232/W75 (outside wall) 1B 1 1 13.0 stoneware crock rim sherd, 19th century crock (American) 1850 1800-1900 Kitchen C-7220-421 N232/W75 (outside wall) 1B 1 1 7.0 whiteware cup base sherd, unglazed (worn off), plain, foot ring 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-7220-421 N232/W75 (outside wall) 1B 1 1 6.0 whiteware plate body sherd, molded design 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-7220-421 N232/W75 (outside wall) 1B 1 1 3.0 whiteware plate ri m sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-7220-422 N232/W75 (outside wall) 1B 2 1 35.0 whiteware cup base sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-7220-422 N232/W75 (outside wall) 1B 2 1 1.0 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-7220-419 N232/W75 (outside wall) 2 1 1 1.0 semi-porcelain saucer, to y rim sherd, plain 1823 1745-1900 Personal C-7220-419 N232/W75 (outside wall) 2 1 1 17.0 whiteware plate rim sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-7220-419 N232/W75 (outside wall) 2 1 1 1.0 whiteware plate rim sherd, transfer-printed (light blue) 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-7220-419 N232/W75 (outside wall) 2 1 1 14.5 whiteware UID, functional body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-7220-398 N235/W75 1 1 4 19.0 pearlware bowl body sherds (3) and rim sherd (1), plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen C-7220-398 N235/W75 1 1 1 5.0 pearlware bowl rim sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen C-7220-398 N235/W75 1 1 1 2.0 pearlware cup ri m sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen C-7220-398 N235/W75 1 1 1 2.0 pearlware cup rim sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen C-7220-398 N235/W75 1 1 1 2.0 pearlware cup/bowl body sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen C-7220-398 N235/W75 1 1 1 1.5 pearlware cup/bowl body sherd, transfer-printed (blue) 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen 290

PAGE 305

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Layer LevelCount Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group C-7220-398 N235/W75 1 1 1 0.5 pearlware plate body sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen C-7220-398 N235/W75 1 1 1 2.0 pearlware plate body sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen C-7220-398 N235/W75 1 1 1 5.0 pearlware plate base sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen C-7220-398 N235/W75 1 1 1 9.0 pearlware UID, teaware body sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen C-7220-398 N235/W75 1 1 1 1.5 porcelain cup rim sherd, painted band around interior rim (gold) 1823 1745-1900 Kitchen C-7220-398 N235/W75 1 1 1 8.0 whiteware bowl, th ick base sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-7220-398 N235/W75 1 1 1 31.0 whiteware chamber pot handle sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Personal C-7220-398 N235/W75 1 1 1 2.0 whiteware cup/bowl rim sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-7220-398 N235/W75 1 1 1 1.0 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-7220-398 N235/W75 1 1 1 2.0 whiteware plate base s herd, plain, foot ring 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-7220-398 N235/W75 1 1 1 6.0 yellowware cup/bowl body sherd, glazed (yellow)1849 1797-1900 Kitchen C-7220-400 N235/W75 1 2 1 22.0 pearlware chamber pot base sherd, plain, foot ring 1805 1780-1830 Personal C-7220-400 N235/W75 1 2 1 0.5 pearlware cup body sherd, transfer-printed on both sides (blue) 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen C-7220-400 N235/W75 1 2 1 1.0 whiteware UID, teaware body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-7220-105 N238/W82 surface n/a 1 4.5 pearlware cup/ bowl rim sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen C-7210-100 N241/W79 1 1 1 4.5 semi-porcelain plate body sherd, plain 1823 1745-1900 Kitchen C-7220-090 N241/W82 1 1 1 2.0 whiteware plate rim sherd, incised ring around rim 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen 291

PAGE 306

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Layer LevelCount Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group C-7220-090 N241/W82 1 1 1 4.0 whiteware UID, possible chamber pot body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Personal C-7220-098 N241/W82 1 1 1 4.0 stoneware bowl rim sherd, salt-glazed exterior and interior (gray) 1858 1815-1900 Kitchen C-7220-279 N245/W81 1 1 1 2.0 pearlware cup body sherd, glazed (light blue) 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen C-7220-279 N245/W81 1 1 1 1.0 pearlware cup body sherd, plain 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen C-7220-279 N245/W81 1 1 1 2.0 pearlware cup body sherd, transfer-printed (blue) 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen C-7220-279 N245/W81 1 1 1 9.0 pearlware plate base s herd, plain, foot ring 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen C-7220-279 N245/W81 1 1 1 4.0 pearlware saucer body sherd, painted (blue), floral motif, foot ring 1800 1780-1820 Kitchen C-7220-279 N245/W81 1 1 1 1.0 semi-porcelain UID, decor ative rim sherd, scalloped edge 1823 1745-1900 Personal C-7220-279 N245/W81 1 1 1 13.0 stoneware bottle body sherd, ginger beer bottle 1840 1820-1860 Kitchen C-7220-279 N245/W81 1 1 1 11.0 stoneware crock body sherd, salt-glazed exterior (brown), leadglazed interior (brown) 1858 1815-1900 Kitchen C-7220-279 N245/W81 1 1 1 19.0 stoneware crock body sherd, unglazed (worn off), 19th century crock (American) 1850 1800-1900 Kitchen C-7220-279 N245/W81 1 1 1 14.0 whiteware bowl body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-7220-279 N245/W81 1 1 1 1.0 whiteware cup body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-7220-279 N245/W81 1 1 1 7.0 whiteware cup base sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-7220-279 N245/W81 1 1 2 2.0 whiteware cup body sherds, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-7220-279 N245/W81 1 1 1 0.5 whiteware cup rim sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen 292

PAGE 307

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Layer LevelCount Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group C-7220-279 N245/W81 1 1 1 1.0 whiteware cup rim sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-7220-279 N245/W81 1 1 1 2.0 whiteware cup/bowl body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-7220-279 N245/W81 1 1 1 2.0 whiteware cup/bowl base sherd, plain, foot ring 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-7220-279 N245/W81 1 1 1 4.0 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-7220-279 N245/W81 1 1 1 3.0 whiteware plate base s herd, plain, foot ring 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-7220-279 N245/W81 1 1 1 0.5 whiteware saucer body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-7220-279 N245/W81 1 1 2 4.0 whiteware UID, teaware body sherds, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-7220-280 N245/W81 1 2 1 6.5 pearlware bowl base sherd, transfer-printed (blue), foot ring 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen C-7220-280 N245/W81 1 2 1 5.0 pearlware cup base sherd, plain, foot ring, same vessel as A-72-20286 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen C-7220-280 N245/W81 1 2 1 1.0 pearlware plate base s herd, plain, foot ring 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen C-7220-280 N245/W81 1 2 1 1.0 semi-porcelain UID body sherd, plain 1823 1745-1900 Unknown C-7220-415 N245/W84 1 1 1 12.0 stoneware bottle body sherd, ginger beer bottle 1840 1820-1860 Kitchen C-7220-415 N245/W84 1 1 1 14.0 whiteware flower pot rim sherd, glazed (yellow on exterior, white on interior) 1860 1820-1900 Furniture C-7220-415 N245/W84 1 1 1 6.0 whiteware plate base s herd, plain, foot ring 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-7220-415 N245/W84 1 1 1 1.0 whiteware saucer body sherd, painted (blue), dot design 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-7220-420 N245/W84 1 2 1 2.0 semi-porcelain plate body sherd, glazed (pink), molded design 1823 1745-1900 Kitchen 293

PAGE 308

Appendix A continued on next page Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Layer LevelCount Weight (g) Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group C-7220-420 N245/W84 1 2 1 5.0 stoneware crock body sherd, salt-glazed exterior (brown), glazed interior (clear) 1858 1815-1900 Kitchen C-7220-263 N245/W88 1 3 1 1.0 pearlware bowl rim sherd, painted on interior (blue) 1800 1780-1820 Kitchen C-7220-263 N245/W88 1 3 2 2.0 whiteware plate bod y sherds, flow blue 1845 1820-1870 Kitchen C-7220-263 N245/W88 1 3 1 0.5 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-7220-263 N245/W88 1 3 1 6.0 whiteware plate body sherd, plain, burned 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-7220-274 N248/W84 surface n/a 2 20.0 whiteware cup/bowl base sherd (1) and rim sherd (1), plain, foot ring 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-7220-274 N248/W84 surface n/a 1 2.5 whiteware pl ate body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-7220-275 N248/W84 1 1 1 12.0 pearlware bowl rim sherd, molded design 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen C-7220-275 N248/W84 1 1 1 1.0 pearlware saucer rim sherd, transfer-printed (blue), floral motif 1818 1795-1840 Kitchen C-7220-275 N248/W84 1 1 1 8.0 porcelain plate base s herd, plain, foot ring 1823 1745-1900 Kitchen C-7220-275 N248/W84 1 1 1 0.5 semi-porcelain c up rim sherd, plain 1823 1745-1900 Kitchen C-7220-275 N248/W84 1 1 1 17.0 stoneware bottle body sherd, ginger beer bottle 1840 1820-1860 Kitchen C-7220-275 N248/W84 1 1 1 1.0 whiteware cup body sherd, transfer-printed (pink), floral motif 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-7220-275 N248/W84 1 1 2 3.0 whiteware cup body sherd (1) and rim sherd (1) with handle attachment, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-7220-275 N248/W84 1 1 1 1.0 whiteware cup body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-7220-275 N248/W84 1 1 1 2.0 whiteware plate body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-7220-275 N248/W84 1 1 1 13.0 whiteware plate, thick body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen 294

PAGE 309

Appendix A (Continued) FS Provenience Layer Level Count Weight (g)Type Vessel Form Description Median Manufacture Date Manufacture Date Range Group C-72-20275 N248/W84 1 1 1 9.0 whiteware plate, thick body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-72-20275 N248/W84 1 1 1 1.5 whiteware UID, teaware body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-72-20275 N248/W84 1 1 1 8.0 yellowware teapot handle sherd, glazed (yellow) 1849 1797-1900 Kitchen C-72-20276 N248/W84 1 2 1 6.0 pearlware plate base sherd, plain, foot ring 1805 1780-1830 Kitchen C-72-20276 N248/W84 1 2 1 16.5 stoneware bottle base sherd, ginger beer bottle 1840 1820-1860 Kitchen C-72-20276 N248/W84 1 2 1 1.0 whiteware bowl body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-72-20276 N248/W84 1 2 1 17.0 whiteware cup body sherd, octagonal, same vessel as A-72-20291 1850 1840-1860 Kitchen C-72-20276 N248/W84 1 2 1 5.0 whiteware cup body sherd, painted (brown), flower 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-72-20276 N248/W84 1 2 1 2.0 whiteware cup body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-72-20276 N248/W84 1 2 1 2.0 whiteware cup/bowl body sherd, plain 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-72-20276 N248/W84 1 2 1 2.0 whiteware plate body sherd, maker's mark (stamped), "G. ALSOUR" 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-72-20276 N248/W84 1 2 1 1.0 whiteware plate body sherd, painted (black), flower 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-72-20276 N248/W84 1 2 1 2.0 whiteware plate base sherd, plain, foot ring 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen C-72-20276 N248/W84 1 2 2 30.0 whiteware plate body sherds, molded rings (2) around interior of underside, foot ring 1860 1820-1900 Kitchen 295


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 001441461
003 fts
006 m||||e|||d||||||||
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 031203s2003 flua sbm s000|0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0000134
035
(OCoLC)53994179
9
AJM5901
b SE
SFE0000134
040
FHM
c FHM
090
GN397.5
1 100
Lamb, Lisa Nicole.
0 245
Historical archaeology of the Indian Key (8MO15) warehouse
h [electronic resource] :
an analysis of nineteenth-century ceramics /
by Lisa Nicole Lamb.
260
[Tampa, Fla.] :
University of South Florida,
2003.
502
Thesis (M.A.)--University of South Florida, 2003.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
538
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 309 pages.
520
ABSTRACT: This thesis describes the archaeological investigation of the Warehouse Complex on Indian Key (8MO15), Monroe County, Florida, through the study of the ceramics recovered from excavations conducted there by the State of Florida from 1972 to 1973 and by the University of South Florida from 1998 to 2002. The Warehouse Complex is composed of two distinct architectural areas, referred to as Feature A and Feature C. This complex lies on the north shore of Indian Key, located in the Atlantic Ocean in the Middle Keys near Islamorada, Florida. The town of Indian Key was founded in the early 1820s, and was burned by a group of Spanish Indians in 1840, during the Second Seminole War. Despite the disbanding of the main community at Indian Key following the 1840 attack, the island and its remaining structures experienced re-use throughout the 1800s and into the early 1900s by various groups, including the United States Navy, farmers, shipbuilders, and fishers. Despite its relatively populated history, little historical documentation exists detailing the occupation of Indian Key throughout the nineteenth century. This study used current historical archaeological methods to examine the ceramics left behind in archaeological deposits in the warehouse. This examination had several goals: to add to the known history of the island, to re-construct the lifeways of the people who lived at Indian Key, to determine the use (and re-use) of this specific area on the island, and to identify specific functional areas within the warehouse.
590
Adviser: Weisman, Brent R.
653
jacob housman.
ironstone.
monroe county.
pearlware.
whiteware.
690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Applied Anthropology
Masters.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.134