|USFDC Home | USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations||| RSS|
This item is only available as the following downloads:
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 001498140
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 041209s2004 flua sbm s000|0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0000550
Investigating Second Seminole War sites in Florida
h [electronic resource] :
identification through limited testing /
by Christine Bell.
[Tampa, Fla.] :
University of South Florida,
Thesis (M.A.)--University of South Florida, 2004.
Includes bibliographical references.
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 116 pages.
ABSTRACT: This thesis uses the results of limited testing at the Fort Dade (1836-1842) and Hope Homestead (1842-ca. 1900) archaeological sites to establish a method for quickly identifying threatened sites with minimal disturbance to surrounding areas. Artifact analysis, pattern recognition, and comparison with similar known sites are key elements. Pedestrian survey, metal detection, posthole and shovel testing, and test excavation are tools used to accomplish this. Artifact analysis is used to establish date ranges for the sites, as well as the material variation between military and homestead occupations. Artifacts used for analysis include glass, ceramics, nails, arms and personal items. Quantitative analysis of artifact assemblages is utilized to determine broad site type classification, and further contribute to preliminary identification.Correspondence analysis helps differentiate sites according to length and type of occupation. With refinement, this method could be used for preliminary identification of many Seminole War sites. Rapid and widespread development in Florida has made identification of Seminole War sites a priority, so they can be recorded and preserved before they are lost forever.
Adviser: Weisman, Brent R.
x Applied Anthropology
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
i Investigating Second Seminole War Sites in Florida: Identification Through Limited Testing by Christine Bell A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Anthropology College o f Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Brent R. Weisman, Ph.D. Robert H. Tykot, Ph.D. E. Christian Wells, Ph.D. Date of Approval: November 19, 2004 Keywords: Historical archaeology, artifact dating, military forts, corres pondence analysis, homesteads Copyright 2004, Christine Bell
ii Acknowledgements None of this work would be possible without the support of family, friends, and the wonderful volunteers who helped at our sites. Thank you to Debbie Rober son, Lori Collins and my committee members Dr. Weisman, Dr. Wells, and Dr. Tykot. I couldnt have made it through grad school without Toni, and Belle, and even Mel. A special thanks to Walter for inspiring me from the start.
i T able of Contents List of Tables ................................ ................................ ...................... iii List of Figures ................................ ................................ ...................... iv A bstract ................................ ................................ ............................. vi Chapter 1. Introduction ................................ ................................ ........ 1 Chapte r 2. Historical Review ................................ .............................. .8 Th e Seminoles ................................ ................................ .......... 8 The M ilitary Presence ................................ ............................. 11 Fort Dade ................................ ................................ ..... 1 6 The Arme d Occupation Act ................................ ..................... 2 2 Chapter 3. Pr evious Archa eology ................................ ...................... 2 4 Hist oric Seminole Archaeology ................................ ............... 2 4 Artifact S ummary for Seminole sites ............................. 2 5 Second Seminole War Forts ................................ ................... 2 6 Artifact Summary f or Fort and B attlefield sites .............. 3 1 Second S eminole Era Homesteads ................................ ........ 3 1 Discussion ................................ ................................ .............. 3 2 Chapter 4. Researc h Designs and Methods ................................ ...... 34 Fort Dade ................................ ................................ ................ 3 4 Methods ................................ ................................ .................. 3 5 The Hop e Homestead Site ................................ ...................... 4 1 Chapter 5. Fort Dade Results and Discussion ................................ ... 4 6 Ce ramic Analysis ................................ ................................ .... 4 6 Tobacco Pip e Analysis ................................ ............................ 48 G lass Analysis ................................ ................................ ........ 5 0 N ail Analysis ................................ ................................ ........... 5 3 Na il Distribution ................................ ............................ 57 Miscellane o us Metal Artifacts ................................ ................. 59
ii G unflints ................................ ................................ .................. 6 0 Personal Items ................................ ................................ ........ 6 1 Discussion ................................ ................................ .............. 6 4 Chapter 6. Hope Homest ead Results and Discussion ....................... 6 5 Ce ramic Analysis ................................ ................................ .... 6 5 G lass Analysis ................................ ................................ ........ 6 5 Flat glass ................................ ................................ ..... 6 8 N ail and Metal Analysis ................................ ........................... 69 O ther Items ................................ ................................ ............. 7 1 Discussion ................................ ................................ .............. 7 1 Chapter 7. Qu antitative Analysis ................................ ...................... .7 2 Sa mple Selection ................................ ................................ .... 7 2 Souths Artifact Patterns ................................ ......................... 7 3 D iscussion ................................ ................................ .............. 7 4 Correspon dence Analysis ................................ ....................... 7 5 Discussion ................................ ................................ .............. 79 Clu ster Analysis ................................ ................................ ..... .8 2 Discussion ................................ ................................ .............. 8 3 Summary ................................ ................................ ................ 8 3 Chapter 8. Conclusions and Recommendations ............................... 8 6 Hope Homestead ................................ ................................ .... 8 6 Fort Dade ................................ ................................ ................ 8 8 Re f erences ................................ ................................ ........................ 9 2 Ap pendices ................................ ................................ ........................ .vii Appendix A: Fort Dade Artifacts ................................ ............. .viii Appendix B: Hope Homestead Artifacts ................................ .. xv i
iii List of Tables Table 1. Pennyweight nail classification ................................ ............ 56 Table 2. Moir formula for dating flat glass ................................ .......... 6 8 Table 3. Comparison with Souths Artifact Patterns ........................... 7 4 Table 4. Percentage of artifacts by site ................................ ............. 7 5 Table 5. Brainerd Robinson coefficients ................................ ............ 8 0
iv List of Figures Figure 1 Study area ................................ ................................ ........... .2 Figure 2. Second Semino le War military sites ................................ ... 12 Figure 3. Prince map of Fort Foster ................................ ................... 18 Figure 4. Dr agoons at the Withlacoochee ................................ ......... 19 Figure 5. Second S eminole War sites ................................ ............... 2 7 Figure 6. Fo rt Dade site map ................................ ............................. 38 Figure 7. Burned wood and ch arcoal, Unit 2, Fort Dade .................... 4 0 Figure 8. Hope Homestead, mid 1800s ................................ ............. 4 2 Figure 9 Hand drawn profile map ................................ .................... .4 3 Figure 10. Photoprofile ................................ ................................ ...... 4 4 Figure 11. Simple photoprofile ................................ ........................... 4 5 Figure 12. Ceramics from Fort Dade ................................ ................. 4 7 Figure 13. Pipe bowl pieces from Fort Dade ................................ ...... 49 Figure 14. Pipe distribution by section, Fort Dade ............................. 49 Figure 15. Pipe stem s ections from Fort Dade ................................ .. 5 0 Figure 16. Bottle finished from Fort Dade ................................ .......... 5 2 Figure 17. The four categories of nail types ................................ ...... 5 4 Figure 18. Four inch spike from T4, Fort Dade ................................ .. 57
v Figure 19. Assortment of nails and spikes from Fort Dade ................ 58 Figure 20. Nail distrib ution by unit, Fort Dade ................................ ... 59 Figure 21. Metal artifacts from Fort Dade ................................ .......... 6 0 Figure 22. Musket gunflints from Fort Dade ................................ ...... 6 1 Figure 23. Pencil leads ................................ ................................ ...... 6 2 Figure 24. Carved bone fork handle, Unit 4, Fort Dade ..................... 6 3 Figure 25. Two tined fork dated 1760 1800 ................................ ....... 6 3 Fi gure 26. Hope Homestead ceramics ................................ .............. 6 6 Figure 27. Ink bottle from Hope Homestead ................................ ...... 6 7 Figure 28. Skeleton key, fish hook, lamp wick wheel ......................... 7 0 Figure 29. Doorknob, Trench A, Hope Homestead ............................ 7 0 Figure 30. Correspondence Analysis ................................ ................. 7 7 Figure 31. Cluster Analysis using Wards method ............................. 8 4
vi Investigating Second Seminole War Sites in Florida: Identification Through Limited Testing Christine Bell Abstract This thesis use s the result s of limited testing at the Fort Dade (1836 1842) and Hope Homestead (1842 ca. 1900) archaeological sites to establish a method for quickly identifying threatened sites with minimal disturbance to surrounding areas. Artifact analysis, pattern recognition and comparison with similar known sites are key elements. P edestrian survey, metal detection, posthole and shovel testing, and test excavation are tools used to accomplish this. Artifact analysi s i s used to establish date ranges for the sites, as well as the material variation between military and ho mestead occupa tions. Artifacts used for analysis include glass, ceramics, nails, arms and personal items. Q uantitative analysis of artifact assemblages is utilized to determine broad site type classification, and further contribute to preliminary ide ntification. Correspondence analysis helps differentiate sites according to length and type of occupation With refinement, this method could be used for preliminary identification of many Seminole War sites. Rapid and widespread development in Florida ha s made identification of Seminole War sites a priority, so they can be recorded and preserved before they are lost forever.
1 Chapter 1. Introduction The goal of this thesis is to use the results of limited testing at the Fort Dade and Hope Homestead sites (Figure 1) to establish a method for the identification of Second Seminole War sites with minimal disturbance to t he surrounding areas, in order to aid in their protection and preservation. Artifact analysis and pattern recognition, as well as comparison with contemporary sites, are key elements in differentiating type and length of occupation. Statistical analysis of assemblages shows similarities and differences in site usage. Documentary research gives clues to location and recorded activity at each site, and identification of the cultural processes involved in the creation of the archaeological record. This provide s a context for the common usage of artifacts found, and aids in the recognition of activity areas, which are key in determining site function. The Second Seminole War (1835 1842) was the most costly Indian war the United States ever fought, both i n human casualties and resources spent (Mahon 1985, Knetsch 2003). Soldiers, settler s and natives found themselves caught up in a conflict fought for many reasons. The United States government was determined to open th e territory to new homesteaders in ord er to take advantage of potential resources. Slaveholders fought to
2 Figure 1. Study area
3 eliminate a haven for runaways who sought refuge with the Seminoles. Seminoles fought to retain their lands and way of life. But once started, this conflict o pened up the new Florida frontier, creating an infrastructure of roads, bridges, forts and towns in interior lands previously known only to the natives. The results changed the course of Florida history. Fort Dade was constructed to protect the brid ge spanning the W ithlacoochee River. This bridge was part of the Fort King road, which ran from Fort Brooke in Tampa to Fort King in Ocala. The fort was a frontier outpost and a station in the transportation, communication and supply network for the Army. It was briefly the Headquarters of the Army in 1837 while Major General Thomas Jesup was in residence, and the location of the signing of the Articles of Capitulation. General Jesup gave the order for the building of the fort on December 23, 1836, exactly one year after Major Francis L. Dade set out for Fort King with his ill fated expedition from Fort Brooke, and named it after Major Dade (Carter 1960). A bridge was first erected at this site in 1828 when the Fort King Road was opened, but it had been att acked and burned repeatedly (McCall 1868). This new fort was occupied seasonally until it burned in 1838; it was then rebuilt and occupied sporadically until its final abandonment in 1842. Little is documented of any activities on this property after that. The Seminole Wars H istoric Foundation acquired the property thought to contain the fort through the efforts of Frank Laumer, noted local historian, and Dr. Brent Weisman, University of South Florida anthropology professor
4 and president of the foun dation. Dr. Weisman first proposed this project to me during our field season at Indian Key in the summer of 2002, and work began in earnest in December of that year. Our aim for the first phase of investigation was to locate the fort and study the behavioral significance of the artifact distributions, in order to discover statistical and spatial patterns that could guide further phases here, and at any contemporary frontier fort site. This initial phase was broken down into three stages: pedestrian survey and metal detection, posthole and shovel testing, and test excavation. Each stage was shaped by the results of the tests that had preceded it. Metal detection and limited shovel testing provided the first formulation of artifact density. Af ter studying Fort Foster, after which Fort Dade was supposedly modeled, I created a template to scale, and mapped out positions that were similar in relation to the bridge, the road, and the defense of both. A grid was then established across the areas lik ely to contain remnants of the fort, and four sections were selected for posthole tests. Tests that produced nails, glass, gunflints and tobacco pipe pieces, especially those that had been burnt, were analyzed for patterns indicating walls or building rema ins. Excavation units were located according to artifact density and patterns found. The Hope Homestead site is located on private property, and owner concerns about privacy and time constraints have guided the methodology. This was the home of the W illiam Hope family, one of the first families to
5 settle in Hernando County. Hope acquired 160 acres through the Armed Occupation Act in 1842 and by the time of the 1850 census, owned 2240 acres. He also owned at least 157 slaves before the outbreak of th e Civil War (Knetsch 1994). The Hope family continued to occupy the home until the end of the nineteenth century. This project is still in its early stages, but initial results have illuminated differences between fort and homestead artifact assemblages. T o understand which items are typically fort or military related, it is beneficial to examine items that are not. The difference in length of site occupation also figures prominantly into our comparisons. Most of our field methods at Hope are the same as th ose used at Fort Dade, but some new techniques in mapping and profiling have been utilized in an effort to maximize volunteer hours available. Refinement of these new methods should lead to their inclusion in future investigations, especially in cases of s alvage archaeology. Public education and involvement were part of the plans from the beginning. The first units were opened at Fort Dade with the participation of the Seminole Wars Historic Foundation members, including the master of Second Seminole War history, Dr. John Mahon. Field trips from archaeology classes at USF brought students out to see field methods first hand. High school students and their parents from Zephyrhills were enthusiastic volunteers, and archaeology buffs from the Hernando Hi storical Museum have continued to contribute their time and effort. Public involvement is
6 essential to preservation efforts, raising awareness and providing people with a stake in the future of these and other Seminole War sites. Statistical and a rtifact analyses presented here are useful in determining broad site type classifications, and should contribute to preliminary identification of Second Seminole War sites with limited testing and minimal disturbance, both of which are key when dealing wit h private owners and protected properties. My investigations of Fort Dade and the Hope Homestead are part of a larger project, the recording and preservation of Seminole War archaeological sites currently threatened by rampant and unregulated devel opment. It is imperative that preservation efforts for sites from this period continue, and archaeological investigation is one of the best tools we have to identify their locations a nd help secure our historical heritage. Historic preservation of these Fl orida sites must be a priority now, before they are lost forever. As an anthropologist, I am sensitive to the stigma certain terminology holds for different cultural groups. The use of the terms Indian, black and even white have raised many issues in writing this thesis. America and Americans were very different in 1840. Some black people were born in Africa, some were born here, but none were really Americans until after Emancipation, so the term African American is inappropriate. Seminoles were no t native to Florida, and sworn enemies of Americans, so Native American seems a poor term for this group. White Americans could be
7 referred to as Euro Americans, but projecting the political correctness of our time back into history feels awkward and unwie ldy. When the terms black, white, or Indian are used, they are not meant to cause any offense, but rather to reflect the nineteenth century context of the history.
8 Chapter 2. Historical Review The Seminoles Early Semi nole history in Florida is divided into two periods. During the Colonization Period, from 1716 1767, Creek Indians started to move into the vacuum left by the depopulation of Floridas native peoples. This was partly in response to hostilities by the Briti sh backed Yamasee Indians and partly due to inducements by Spanish traders. Lower Creeks, in the first wave of migration, first settled in the old Apalachee area around Tallahassee, the Apalachicola drainage and the central Florida region. There was genera l continuity with Creek architecture and social structure, but increasing separation from Creek political affiliations (Mahon and Weisman 1996). Upper Creeks, devastated by the Creek War of 1813 1814, formed a second wave of migration, as refugees fled to Florida ( Weisman 1999). The beginning of the Enterprise Period, from 1767 1821, saw the Seminole settlements spreading more widely across Florida. By the early 1800s, prosperous from trade with the Europeans, many large settlements may have been similar to colonial plantations. This is also the period that includes numerous Black Seminoles, who lived in their own villages near those of the Seminoles in a symbiotic relationship, trading agricultural products for
9 protection (Mahon and Weisman 1996). This is n ot to say they were equals, for the Seminoles considered these blacks to be their property, and refused to give them up without compensation. The presence of these blacks, both free and runaway slaves, was as much an issue of contention with the white sett lers in nearby areas as was the violence between Indians and whites that pervaded the frontier. Tensions between American settlers and Seminoles near the Georgia boundary were escalating in Spanish Florida in 1816. The United States had established Fort Scott in the southwestern corner of Georgia, just a few miles from the border. Across the river was the Miccosukee village known as Fowltown, led by Neamathla. General Gaines, commanding Fort Scott, considered the Miccosukee village to be inside the area of the Fort Jackson Treaty, while Neamathla considered soldiers cutting timber on his villages land trespassers. An impasse was reached (Knetsch 2003). On November 21, 1817, Gaines attacked Fowltown with 250 men, killing five Indians. The Seminoles r etaliated by opening fire on a boat coming up the river on Nove mber 30, and killed 37 soldiers, six women and four children (Mahon and Weisman 1996). These events, following the destruction of the Negro Fort, precipitated the First Seminole War. In March of 1818, Major General Andrew Jackson was ordered to Fort Scott with the power to wage war as he deemed prope r. He arrived with a force of 3 300 soldiers and militia and 1500 Creek Indians, to fight against 1000 Seminoles and 300 Black Seminoles. By l ate May, Jackson had swept
10 through northern Florida, destroying Indian settlements and crops, had marched through Spanish St. Marks and captured Pensacola, where he personally assumed the right to make the laws for a province of a foreign power now under his control and with whom the United States was not at war (Knetsch 2003:40). Although Jackson inflicted damage to the Seminole settlements, and effectively scattered many tribes, they avoided any serious bloodshed and lived to fight another day a recur ring theme in the Seminole Wars. In 1821, Florida became a territory of the United States, surrounded by slaveholding settlers that resented the Seminole propensity for sheltering runaway slaves. As American settlers streamed into the newly abandon ed territory of northern Florida, and slave hunters made periodic raids into Seminole areas, the conflicts increased, and the need for a treaty separating the factions became apparent. Removal of the Seminoles to the lands west of the Mississippi was the u ltimate goal, but containment on a reservation within Florida was the temporary solution. Neamathla, leading 425 Seminoles, arrived at Moultrie Creek, south of St. Augustine in 1823 to meet with the government representatives. The treaty signed there creat ed a reservation from the Big Swamp in the north to Charlotte Harbor in the south, no closer than 15 miles to the Gulf or 20 miles to the Atlantic; this would prevent trade between the Seminoles and the Spanish fishermen who plied the coast. The treaty pro vided for the distribution of hogs and cattle an d an annual sum of $5000 for 20 successive years. Rations for resettlement
11 and compensation for improvements on lands abandoned were also included, as well as $1 000 annually each for a school and blacksmith. No more runaway slaves were to be allowed sanctuary, but compensation was to be provided upon delivery of slaves captured (Sprague 1848). Although this compromise looked promising in theory, the government of the United States was ill equipped to c arry out the provisions. Seminoles that relocated to the reservation were faced with unfamiliar lands for agriculture and foraging, as well as shortages of the rations expected to sustain them during the transition. They were forced to range outside the bo undaries of the reservation, raiding and foraging for self preservation (Covington 1993). The Military Presence Fort Brooke was established in January of 1824 for the protection of the Seminoles from encroachment by the American settlers, to preven t the Indians from receiving arms and ammunition from the Spanish, and as a depot for supplies to be distributed in accordance with the Treaty of Moultrie Creek. Located at the mouth of the Hillsborough River at Tampa Bay, (Figure 2) this fort was the beg inning of a network of roads and forts to be built that would comprise the fledgling infrastructure for the interior of the state. The Fort King Road was opened from Fort Brooke to Fort King in the first months of 1828, bridging the Little Hillsboro ugh and Little and Big
12 Figure 2. Second Seminole War military sites (a dapted from Mahon 1985)
13 W ithlacoochee Rivers, and creating a route for the transport of troops, supplies and communications (McCall 1868). Fort Brooke became one of the most im portant forts in Florida; serving often as headquarters for the Army, and as the focal point of Indian removal and emigration. It was also an important depot for receiving goods and information from other ports. Creating a network of roads and fort s was essential to the successful occupation of the Army of the South. As General Jesup said in a letter from 1838: Under no circumstances would I advise the assembling of large Army again in Floridait should be remembered that we are the only comm anders who have ever been required to go into an unexplored wilderness, catch savages, and remove them to another wilderness. Search all history and another instance is not to be found (Carter 1960:494 6). Even the guides employed by the Army were often unfamiliar with the landscape the forces needed to travel through, and those officers charged with exploring and mapping were often unable to do their jobs. Jesup stated to Poinsett in a letter dated April 9, 1837, We have possessed Florida sixteen years ; during the whole of that period we have had a topographical corps on the register but we have, perhaps, as little knowledge of the interior of Florida as of the interior of China (Carter 1960: 496). During the Territorial Period, the army constructed a bout 250 forts, and connected them with a network of roads. This network was built primarily to enable the military to carry out the campaigns of the Seminole Wars, and only
14 secondarily for the protection of the civilian settlers, but its construction was instrumental in opening the new territory and connecting it to the rest of the country. Gad Humphries, who served as Indian agent from 1822 to 1830, tried to protect the Seminoles from white settlers moving o nto the reservation created by the Trea ty of Moultrie Creek. However, the demand for the return of slaves harbored by the Seminoles continued to mount, even though the Seminoles had delivered many runaways back to their owners. Compounding this was the passage of the Indian Removal Act in May o f 1830. On May 9, 1832, another treaty was signed at Paynes Landing on the Ocklawaha River (Covington 1993). By signing this treaty, the Seminoles were finally agreeing to be removed to lands west of the Mississippi River after examination of this land by their representatives. Terms of this treaty included a blanket and a homespun frock upon arrival in the new lands, annuities, and compensation similar to those outlined by the Moultrie Creek treaty (Sprague 1848). Although many Seminoles signed this treat y, they considered it very much conditional upon the approval and acceptance of the western lands by those who examined them. The United States considered this a formality. Once again, even with interpreters, the two sides were speaking different languages In the following years there was much dissension within the Seminole factions. Some saw emigration as inevitable, while others were prepared to sacrifice their lives to keep their homeland. Charley Emathla was one of the
15 former, who sold his cattl e in preparation for emigration in November of 1835. While en route back to his farm, he was confronted by Osceola and others strongly opposed to giving up. After a confr ontation, Osceola killed Emathla, threw the cattle money onto the corpse, and left bo th lying on the trail as a warning to others (Knetsch 2003). By December, heightened tensions had both the citizens and soldiers on alert. On December 23 rd 1835, Major Francis Langhorne Dade set out from Fort Brooke with a detachment of men to rei nforce Fort King, unaware that the Seminoles had decided on their own course of action. On the morning of December 28 th Osceola led an attack on Fort King, killing the Indian agent W iley Thompson and six others in retaliation for the humiliation Osceola h ad suffered at Thompsons hands. On the same morning, Jumper and Micanopy led a band of 180 warriors in an ambush on Dades column. All but three of 108 men were k illed outright, and of the two that made it back to Fort Brooke, only one survived to tell th e tale (Laumer 1995). The Second Seminole War had begun. A series of commanders led the Army of the South in Florida during this period. Brevet Brigadier General Duncan Clinch was in command at the time of the Dade battle, but was soon replaced by Brevet Major General W infield Scott. Scott, like many of his peers, believed that the great European military tactics could be used to fight this war. The Seminoles had never heard of the great European military tactics, and refused to be engaged according to the rules. Richard Keith Call, governor of the Florida territory, replaced Scott, but
16 had little success. Andrew Jackson, now President, brought in Brevet Major General Thomas S. Jesup, quartermaster general of the army, to take command in November, 18 36 (Carter 1960). Jesup was known for his efficiency and effectiveness as quartermaster general and for making reforms in his department, and had also been conducting a highly successful campaign against the Creeks in Alabama and Georgia (Knetsch 2003). In his orders from the acting Secretary of War, B. F. Butler, Jesup was instructed to immediately make all suitable arrangements for a vigorous attack upon their [Seminole] strongholds, andestablish posts at or near the mouth of the Wythlacoochie, at Fort King, and at Volusia and you will take the proper measures for securing through them, the safety of the frontier. You will also through the same posts, and by such means of transportation as may be most certain and economical, make permanent arra ngements for procuring sufficient and regular supplies (Carter 1960). Fort Dade General Jesup issued an order from Fort Brooke in late December, 1836 reading: A fort will be erected on the Big W ithlacoochee, at the point where the Fort King Ro ad crosses it, which will bear the name of the gallant and lamented Dade (Jesup 1836). Fort Dade was a frontier outpost and a station in the transportation, communication, and supply network for the Army. It was the headquarters of the Army of the South f rom January to the end of March, 1837, while General Jesup was in residence.
17 Lieutenant Colonel W illiam S. Foster and his troops arrived at the site of Fort Dade on December 23 rd exactly one year after Major Dade and his men set out on their ill f ated mission. Two first person accounts of the first days at the site and the construction of the fort survive: the journal of Lt. Col. Foster, and the diary of Brevet Lt. Henry Prince. Both officers, members of the 4 th Infantry, had just come from buildin g Fort Foster (Figure 3) on the Hillsborough River. General Jesups order instructed the command to commence building in a similar manner asdone at the Hillsborough & fortify the place so as it might be made a depot for provisions as expeditiously as pos sible. But Fosters journal tells us that Good timber is not only Scarce but Scattering. The Growth near the River on this side being a mixture of scrub oaks & pine, consequently the pine is neither straight tall & lofty as when it Grows by itself (Miss al and Missal 2004). Previous companies that had constructed the bridge when the Fort King Road was opened would have taken the best timber available, further limiting Fosters supply. Fortunately, enough of the old bridge remained sound for them t o rebuild it quickly, (Figure 4) and set to work on the fort. According to Prince, on December 4 th : Finished the bridge the Fort is 4,5 & 6 logs advanced (Laumer 1998:67). The term 5 & 6 logs advanced is inconsistent with typical palisade construc tion. Foster is more specific, and uses the term breastwork in several passages. For example: Some openings between the logs and Some pine logs were put on the top of our
18 Figure 3. Prince map of Fort Foster (Adapted from Laumer 1998) Breastworks t his morning, also commenced throwing up a breast to intersect the Block houses & carry up the same at once. A Breastwork being deemed sufficient together with the Block houses, as we have no time to spare than to Render the place secure against an attack from Indians (Missal and Missal 2004). This indicates Fort Dade was not built in the same manner as Fort Foster, but as an adaptation to the resources available at the site. It must have been sufficient, however, for General Jesup took up residence, maki ng the new fort his base of operations starting in January. Fort Dade is where Jesup arranged a meeting with several of the Seminole chiefs to be held on February 18 th The Seminoles, after a year of constant attacks and the destruction of thei r fields and resources, seemed willing to negotiate with Jesup. There were great expectations that this could
19 Figure 4. Dragoons at the W ithlacoochee (Library of Congress) lead to the end of the war. Hundreds of troops were stationed in and around the fort, as well as battalions of Creek Indian allies numbering over 700. February 18 th came and went with no sign of the chiefs. After many delays, a council was finally arranged at Fort Dade on March 5 th The next day, all agreed to a treaty titl ed Capitulation of the Seminole nation of Indians and their allies by Jumper, Holatoochee, or Davy, and Yaholoochee, representing the principal chief Micanopy (Mahon 1985:200). This became commonly known as the Articles of Capitulation. According to this treaty, the hostilities would cease immediately, the entire nation would emigrate at
20 government expense, with compensation for their cattle and ponies, and with subsistence provided for twelve months after they settled out west. More importantly, the Seminoles would be allowed to take their black allies with them (Sprague 1848). Micanopy was to be a hostage, and ceremoniously spoke these words: I have heard your talk and you have now heard mine. He above sees into our hearts and best knows whether we are in earnest or not. It is my lot to be in the circumstances in which I am and I say nothing about it (Laumer 1998:84). Although Micanopy managed to say not one meaningful word in this speech, it was taken as a sign that the great chief was resigned to the end of the war and emigration. A date was set of April 10 th for the Indians to come into the Fort Brooke area for emigration. Twenty six vessels lay in the harbor to transport them to New Orleans, the first leg of their journey. The em barkation time changed from week to week as the chiefs awaited the arrival of friends and relatives to accompany them. It took until the middle of May for large numbers to arrive, but Jesup was patient, believing the war was at its end. A message even arri ved from Osceola, giving his support of the treaty. Volunteers and militia were discharged, the marines were sent back north, and large numbers of citizens returned to their homes. It seemed the war was finally over. Then, around midnight on June 2 Osceola and Coacoochee, with about 200 Miccosukees Indians appeared at the camp, and before the break of dawn the entire group, over 700, had vanished into the wilderness (Mahon 1985). This brilliant piece of Seminole diplomatic strategy was extremely
21 e mbarrassing to General Jesup, who submitted his resignation. Jesup wrote: Our cunning enemy has again foiled us, and has shown himself as successful in the cabinet as in the field. During their protracted negotiations, they were enabled to suppl y themselves with provisions, clothing, and ammunition; they brought in large droves of cattle, the captured property of our citizens, which they sold to the government, and received certificates therefore at a certain valuation: these were taken by trader s as so much money, and they were enabled to purchase supplies. They obtained ammunition from the Creek volunteers, who received it from the ordnance officers, for the purpose of hunting (Motte 1963:268). The Indians were now well provisioned, and their crops far advanced, with the Armys well known fear of summer sickness giving them several months of respite. This was a turning point for Jesup and the war. Crucified in the press, Jesup felt the need to redeem himself, and withdrew his resignation General Jesup was not totally complacent before the Indians disappearance. In a letter dated June 1, he writes, Since my letter of the 30 th I have ascertained that matters are not right here seize all the Indians you can I regret you did no t take those who were in your possession. I rely entirely on you we shall have the war to amuse us next winter unless we abandon emigration. By June 5 th Jesup was furious, and wrote, The Seminoles, including Micanopy, Jumper and Cloud have fled, and c onsequently, all our labours are lost ----------------There is but one way to remove these people from this country, and that is to exterminate them (National Archives, personal communication from Joe Knetsch 2004).
22 Fort Dade remained a frontier outpost and supply depot as the war continued. Beginning in November of 1837, Fort Dade was occupied seasonally, given up during the fever ravaged summer and reclaimed every September of October (Laumer 1966). It was burned along with the bridge in the sum mer of 1838, rebuilt, and re occupied until its final abandonment in 1842. At least 6 men lost their lives at Fort Dade, including commanding 1 st Lieutenant Thomas B. Adams of Boston, grandson of second President John Adams, who commanded the post in late 1837 (Sprague 1848). After the forts occupation ended, the site was deserted, and we know little of what happened there from 1842 until the present. The Armed Occupation Act In 1838 Governor Richard K. Call suggested the only way to finally def eat the Seminoles was to attract settlers who would defend and work the land (Mahon 1985). Senator Thomas Hart Benton of Missouri adopted this idea, and introduced the Armed Occupation Act in 1840. Slavery became an issue as Benton accused the large slaveh olders of desiring all the good land for themselves and, indeed, their opposition defeated the bill (Covington 1961). In May of 1842, President John Tyler announced the end of the Second Seminole War, and in that address proposed that settlers movi ng to Florida be provided with food for one year, and loaned powder and guns from the government warehouses for their defense (Richardson 1897). This
23 encouraged Senator Benton to re introduce the Armed Occupation Act in June 1842. An amendment to provide a rms and rations for the settlers was defeated, but the bill was signed and passed on August 4, 1842 (Covington 1961). This act opened an area of 200,000 acres south of Newnansville (present day Gainesville) for settlement. The law granted 160 acres to any head of household or single man over the age of 18 that was able to bear arms. (A woman with sons and slaves able to bear arms could file for land, and was usually approved.) The settler was required to erect a house, clear and cultivate at least f ive acres of his land, and live on the property for a period of five years. Land could not be cleared for the purpose of selling timber, but only for domestic use. Restricted areas included land within two miles of any permanent military post, coastal isla nds, and any private claims previously established. The southern boundary was the Peace River, demarcation of Seminole reservation lands (McKethan 1989). During the nine month period in which this law was in effect, a total of 1,184 permits was issued, reg istering 189,440 acres of land, and bringing approximately 6,000 new settlers into central Florida (Covington 1961).
24 Chapter 3. Previous Archaeology Historic Seminole Archaeology In creating a research design for the archaeological inves tigation of Second Seminole War sites, it is helpful to review the archaeology that has been done on similar sites. This allows us to examine the nature of artifact preservation in central Florida soils, and to gauge the range of artifacts we can reasonabl y expect to obtain. Beginning with the archaeology of the Seminoles, and moving into the archaeology of Seminole War forts and settlements, the results obtained should help to frame the parameters of the research questions. Archaeological remains f rom the Seminole Colonization Period (1716 1767) may be best known from two sites: Oven Hill (8DI15), on and in the Suwannee River ; and A 296 (8AL296) on the eastern edge of Paynes Prairie near Gainesville. Two key archaeological sites that illustrate tr ade goods from the Enterprise Period are the Zetrouer site (8AL66) and Nicholson Grove (8PA114) ( Weisman 1989). At the Zetrouer site just east of the Alachua savanna, a male Seminole was buried with an iron trade tomahawk and iron knife on his chest, a gla ss mirror under his knees, and
25 the remains of three pouches, two containing shot and flints and one containing powder, indicating a musket (not in evidence) (Goggin et al. 1949 ; Fitts 2001 ). The Newmans Garden site (8CI206), near Lake Tsala Apop ka, is slightly later than the E nterprise P eriod, dating ca. 1823 1836. Across the creek from Newmans Gardern, at the Zellner site, a military greatcoat button was dated to 1820 1839 ( Weisman 1986a, 1986b). Charred wood and several small pieces of daub recovered at this site may indicate the presence of a board house, consistent with Seminole structures of the time. Seminole presence has been documented at the Fort Dade site, including the chiefs charged with negotiating with General Jesup and the followers that accompanied them. Creek battalions also documented at the site would have shown many similarities in material goods to Seminoles. Artifact summary for Seminole sites Aboriginal goods w Charred wood and daub w Globular jars, bowls, bo ttles with Seminole brushed surface treatment, rims feature both plain and punctated styles w Chert projectile points, tools and debitage Trade goods w European ceramics, featuring pearlwares, banded wares, glazed
26 earthenwares, and spanish olive jars w Gl ass beads, bottle sherds in black and light green, mirror w Clay smoking pipes, both plain and green glazed w Silver cones, brooches and earrings, metal buttons, iron and brass kettles, buckles, horse tack, razors and iron nails w Gun parts, shot, flints, and powder Second Seminole War Forts Artifact catalogues from Fort Foster (8HI112, Baker 1996) and Fort King (8MR60, Ellis 1994) illustrate items representative of military forts of the Fort Dade region and time period (Figure 5) Aboriginal pottery w as found at both site s, along with projectile points and chert, both raw and worked. However it is difficult to ascertain dates for these materials and whether or not any are associated with Seminole War time periods. Some items do not easily lend themselves to categorization. A knife handle may have been a personal possession, or kitchen related depending on the type. Cut and burned large mammal bone indicates food usage, but smaller animal species bone may have been intrusive to the units and test s. Horse teeth found at Fort King could have originated anytime from first contact to 20 th century. Building materials, such as brick and concrete fragments, were recovered at both sites, as were charcoal and wood. Fort Foster excavations revealed a hairpi n possibly indicating the presence of a woman. The toothbrush found reminds us of the minutiae of everyday life,
27 Figure 5. Second Seminole War sites
28 even during a war. The sharks tooth could be prehistoric in context, or perhaps a soldiers souvenir. At the archaeological investigations of the Okeechobee Battlefield (8OB10) (Figure 5) metal detecting yielded over 99 percent of the artifacts recovered, thus the resulting artifact catalogue is proportionately skewed (Carr et al. 1989). T he only non metal artifacts recovered are a single olive green bottle glass sherd, two sherds of prehistoric Belle Glade pottery and faunal bone fragments. Although some of the metal artifacts are the same as those found at Fort Foster and Fort King, many are not. This may reflect the different equipment carried by a force in the field, as opposed to the troops in an established camp. Specifically, there are more weapon related artifacts here: a sword tip, plume holder, ramrod tip, gun barrel, and bayonet. Tools not appearing at the forts are iron mattocks, iron file, iron pick, and iron axe. A copper gorget, silver ring, copper button and spur fragment reflect personal items, while numerous iron kettle fragments, and iron chest handles may be military issue The Fort Pierce (8SL24) collection of nearly 1000 art ifacts was not excavated by archaeologists, but assembled by a local resident over a period of three years from 1965 to 1967 (Clausen 1970). This sites integrity has been compromised by privat e collectors, making future archaeo logical investigations unlikely; therefore this collection represents the only site assemblage available for comparative study. This assemblage is especially relevant to Fort Dade, as Fort Pierce was built during the 1837 1838
29 campaign of General Jesup, and also used as the headquarters of the Army of the South for a brief period. Like Fort Dade, it had a brief initial occupation, was burn ed, and then later was rebuilt. The overwhelming majority of artifacts are me tallic, indicating the use of metal detectors at the site. Many of these are similar to those found at other fort sites, but of special interest is the more than 200 buttons collected. Only 17 of these could be identified as non military. Buttons represent ing Artillery, Dragoons and Infantry were found, along with three patterns of General Service design. Materials were identified as white metal, yellow metal, brass, pewter and iron, and ranged in diameter from 13.8 mm, or vest size, to 20.0 mm, known as jacket or great coat size. Preservation of the lettering and designs on a large number of these buttons is impressive (Clausen 1970:6 10). Two coins were found, and the lettering on these was preserved as well, allowing their identification: a Spani sh one real dated 1817, and a United States half dime minted in New Orleans in 1840. Personal or activity category items that were unique to this site included 378 pieces of white clay pipe stem and bowl, an ivory die and silver gaming disc, portio ns of two pairs of iron scissors, a straight razor blade with bone handle, an iron spoon or fork handle, two gilded shirt studs, and fragments of a brass locket. Excavations from the site of Fort Micanopy, originally called Fort Defiance (8AL42) reveal historic artifacts from the Second Seminole War period, but it is unknown whether the fort or forts were actually located within
30 the project area (Stokes 1997). Military buttons dating to the 1830s and 1840s, collected prior to the SEARCH (Southeast ern Archaeological Research, Inc.) project provide the best evidence for a military occupation on this property, but the architectural signature of a fort was not discovered. It is equally possible that soil disturbance from agricultural use of this land i n the twentieth century has obscured remains of the fort, or that the fort was not located on the project property. The presence of military artifacts in the general vicinity of a fort location is significant to the ongoing investigations of Fort Dade, as that footprint has not yet been accurately pinpointed. This investigation started with a metal detector survey to locate artifact concentrations. Shovel tests at 10 m intervals and test units were then used to examine these concentrations. Artifac ts from metal detection survey include two diagnostic military buttons: one dated to 1820 1839 and the other to 1850 1860. One hundred thirty two shovel tests were completed, with only four sterile, for a total of 1042 historic artifacts. The temporal span of these artifacts ranges from a Spanish Olive Jar fragment to present day material, indicating a long term, multicomponent occupation of this area. Eighteen test units were excavated across the property, producing similar results. Cultural material recov ered from this site reflects both military occupation and civilian homestead presence, and should show the greatest variance.
31 Artifact summary for fort and battlefield sites w Glass forms: medicine, condiment and spirits bottle, jug, flask, bottle seal, foo d and sauce jars, window or lamp chimney flat glass, toy marble, beads, buttons w Glass colors: clear, clear pink, clear aqua, amethyst, yellow, light green, medium green, black, blue, amber, brown, milk w Clay smoking pipes, plain, patterned, and green glaz ed w Ceramics, including porcelain, terra cotta, earthenware, whiteware, and pearlware w Architectural items including, square cut and wire nails, spikes, iron hinge, staple, key, hook, and strap iron w Personal items such as, coins dating from 1782 to 1930, but tons of iron, pewter and brass, buckles and ring fragments w Ammunition in sizes .22, .32, .38, and .45 caliber, musket balls, rifle shot, swan shot, shotgun shells and shot, musket and rifle flints, lead flint holder, lead striker plate, and various g un parts Second Seminole War Era Homesteads Investigations at Indian Key (8MO15 )(Figure 5) were carried out over a period of four years, but the data considered here came from the 2000 field season ( Weisman et al. 2001). Two areas investigated in this season are considered here. The first was Feature Q, the Howe household compound, dating to 1828 1840. Documentary sources place a main house, cistern,
32 kitchen, and slave dwellings in this compound. A wide variety of ceramics was recovered from Featur e Q, including hand painted, transfer print, and blue and green shell edged pearlwares. Also found were several types of glazed stonewares and glazed coarse earthenwares. Sherds of possible colonoware (earthenware pottery made by slaves) were also uncovere d. Glass was found in hues of clear, pale green, and olive green. Buttons consisted of bone, mother of pearl, and flat metal. A single gunflint was the only Arms group artifact. Faunal remains were preserved relatively well here, with large amounts of pig and cow bone present. The second area is that of features G and F, known as the Sturdy Smith and Mott cottages on Fourth Street, or the rectangular plastered wall coral block foundations remaining of these small cottages. Architectural artif acts have a higher frequency here, which may result from continued reoccupation of this area in subsequent periods. There are fewer kitchen items and less faunal bone than at Feature Q, but mother of pearl and bone buttons are again present, perhaps an ind ication of female inhabitants. Discussion The artifact assemblages of the sites described in this section reveal not only some of the many items used in the era of the Second Seminole War, but also the preferential preservation of various artifacts. Faunal material was preserved much better in the shallow soils of Indian Key than in the central Gulf Coast region of Florida. Metal artifacts exposed to high
33 temperatures show superior preservation, and little or no corrosion. Items such as ceramic and g lass are little affected by soil conditions. Knowledge of previous archaeological discoveries can be helpful for interpretation of little known objects. While every site reveals evidence of its own unique history, knowledge of the methods used and artifact s recovered in previous investigations better prepares us to handle any contingency that may arise in new excavations.
34 Chapter 4. Research Designs and Methods Fort Dade The Seminole Wars Historic Foundation has owned t he property believed to be the site of Fort Dade for several years, but this project was the first archaeological investigation undertaken. Our goal was to identify the location of the fort proper, the bridge, and any activity areas immediately surrounding the fort, such as the stables, the blacksmith, or the sawyer. There was also a great interest in finding the areas occupied by the large bands of Creeks who assisted the United States Armed forces, and the Seminoles who have been documented at the fort fo r at least short periods. As historical documentation and research into the forts history continued, many other questions emerged. Did the presence of wealthy and/or important officers, such as Jesup and Adams, leave a presence of more prestigious materia l goods? Did the periodic abandonment of the fort mean the evacuation of all usable goods as well? And what can the material remains tell us about the cultural processes, behaviors and interaction of the soldiers, officers, militiamen, and Native Americans who were present at this outpost in the wilderness of nineteenth century Florida? Unfortunately, this Phase I period of initial testing leaves us with many more questions than answers.
35 Methods The first step in this project was research into hist orical documentation of the fort and its location. There were many first person accounts and reports available, including post returns, correspondence, journals, books, and maps. Invaluable to our efforts was the experience of local historian Frank Laumer, who accumulated copious amounts of historical information about the area and the era. Laumer painstakingly recreated the route of the Fort King road, from Tampa to Ocala, and then walked it in 1963 (Goza 1964). This recreation helped pinpoint the probable river crossing and bridge location, as well as the general vicinity of the fort. A specific site map showing the exact location will not be included with this thesis due to concerns about continued looting and vandalism on the property. In the spring of 2002, a group of archaeology students performed extensive pedestrian survey at this site, followed by limited shovel testing and metal detection. All material recovered from excavation was screened through quarter inch metal hardware mesh, an d bagged and identified according to level and unit. Field specimen num bers were assigned sequentially and recorded in a catalog. Each level was recorded on a separate sheet, with opening and closing elevations, soil descriptions, and artifacts recovered. These general procedures were followed throughout all further excavations.
36 In December of that year, a survey team established a grid on the property, with a datum point designated 500 North/500 East located 10 ft. north and east of the southwest corner of the property. Grid North is 1 30 east of magnetic north. For the sake of comparison with historical documentation, all measurements are in feet and inches. Iron rebar stakes were sunk at 600N and 700N on the 500E line, and at 500N and 600N on t he 600E line. Stakes made of PVC pipe were set every 20 ft. between the iron rebar. Subsequent survey established points 400N/500E and 400N/600E. General mapping of the site was also done at this time, making note of property boundaries, previously looted areas, the path that extends from the river to the datum point, and the faunal feature excavated during the spring shovel testing. It was determined that initial sampling would be done with posthole testing, spaced every 10 ft. alo ng establi shed lines. The first section was 55 postholes along the lines 500N 540N, extending from 500E 600E. The second section was south of this, forming a rectangle with the corners at 490N/560E, 490N/600E, 460N/560E, and 460N/600E and containing 20 holes. The th ird posthole section extended north from the 600N line to the 650N line, and from 520E to 550E, with a total of 24 tests. The fourth and final section of posthole tests extended north almost to the river, bounded by the coordinates 700N/600E, 700N/640E, 57 0N/640E, and 570N/600E, with postholes numbering 70 (Figure 6) Posthole tests were conducted to a
3 7 depth of 24 inches, or until sterile sand was encountered, and artifacts from each hole were bagged and identified by location coordinates. Approximate depth of sterile white sand was recorded, and any distinct color changes in soil were noted. All postholes were refilled on the same day they were dug. An archaeologist must always be flexible, and every research design should allow for re evaluation a t each step. The results of sampling and testing should logically dictate the placement of excavation units. Posthole test artifacts were used to determine placement of initial test units. Cultural materials were examined for patterning, and a note was mad e of all artifacts that were burned or melted, especially those considered architectural, as it was known the fort was burned in 1838. The first three 5 x 5 units were located along the 500N line, with their southwest corners at 500N/590E, 500N/580E, and 500N/570E, and labeled A, B, and C respectively A central point for the location of the transit was established, and three lengths of PVC pipe were set into the ground as holders for the tripod legs, so the exact position could be recapture d every time. An elevation datum point was made using a large nail in a tree approximately 20 ft. away for consistency of set up as well. Stakes were driven into the four corners of the units, and string tied around the stakes. Loose leaves and debris were
38 Figure 6. Fort Dade site map. Blue dots = artifacts found, red dashes = sterile posthole tests
39 cleared from the ground surface, and opening elevations were taken with the transit. The first 1 inch of root mat was removed with a shovel and screened. Each unit had one recorder responsible for the paperwork for each level for consistency. Levels were arbitrarily defined as six inches, unless soil changes or artifact patterns indicated otherwise. After the initial root mat was removed, all excavation was done with trowels. As a general rule, Zone 1 consisted of two levels, and Zone 2 consisted of two or three, depending on soil changes. Zone 3 was designated for the levels below historical cultural materials. The average depth reached was 24 to 28 inches below ground surface, usually reaching the white sterile sand. Artifact s, bagged and recorded by level and assigned field specimen numbers, were cleaned a nd examined after the field day but kept together by level until further analysis was initiate d. Any artifacts mapped in situ were given map specimen numbers and bagged individually, elevations were taken and recorded, and map specimen numbers were recorded on both maps and bags. Profiles were only mapped after the first units if stratigraphy warra nted, as there is very little variation in color or pattern in most walls. As pointed out earlier, each phase in a research design should be flexible, and include the analysis of results gained at each stage, to target data collection more precisel y. In this case, after analyzing the artifact patterning of the initial units, it was decided to trench north from the northwest corner of Unit C, in order to intersect one of the fort walls. Each trench unit was 3 x 1, with six inch balks between, ext ending for a total
40 Figure 7. Burned wood and charcoal, Unit 2 of six units. In June of 2003, with the help of volunteer labor from Weismans field school, we opened 5 x 5 units to the north and west of the trench (Figure 6). Large charcoal and partia lly burned wood pieces in Unit 2 (Figure 7) led us to open units to its east, north and northwest (a tree was directly to the west). Before excavation of the burned feature in Unit 2 could be completed, vandals struck the site, ripping up the unit and area and totally destroying any traces of whatever had burned. Having recorded elevation levels of the burned material before the destruction of the unit, it was decided to excavate the remaining units down
41 to this level, to expose what was expected to be the comtemporaneous ground surface. Phase 1 investigations were completed with the accomplishment of this task. The Hope Homestead site This property came to the attention of Brent Weisman through the efforts of Toni Carrier, who had been con tacted by Hope family members (Figure 8) For various reasons, the current property owners are under time constraints to pour a new foundation and begin construction of their house. When they were made aware of the history of the site, they requested our help to recover cultural materials and identify the location of the homestead as quickly as possible. Our research design is to salvage all artifacts possible, and provide the owners with a prioritization of areas deemed most valuable for future research. This project was accomplished with the help of a team of volunteers, many of whom had no experience in archaeology. Carrier and I used the same basic methods for excavating and recording employed at Fort Dade, but here our arbitrary levels were fo ur inches rather than six. Due to the salvage nature of this project, some adaptations were made. Inexperienced volunteers were given brief indoctrinations, then partnered with graduate students or more experienced volunteers, who explained methods and
42 Figure 8. Hope Homestead, mid 1800s procedures as they arose during the day. This allowed us to concentrate on tasks other than direct supervision. In order to avoid the time consuming process of posthole testing, one of the volunteers created a four foot metal probe that was used to search systematically for subsurface architectural remains. Instead of mapping each instance in which resistance was found, a pin flag was inserted into each spot. The resulting pattern was then digitally photograph ed from an eight foot ladder from several different angles. Excavation test units were then placed at coordinates likely to be near the homestead foundation.
43 Shortcuts in salvage operations need not signify loss of important information. Crea ting hand drawn wall profiles (Figure 9) and unit maps were taking too many volunteer hours but, unwilling to lose map proveniences and stratigraphy, I started experimenting with digital photography. Using Trench D as an example, I took several close up di gital photgraphs, put them together in a Photoshop software application, then traced the stratigraphic demarcations. I keyed the elevations and Munsell colors to numbers and letters superimpos ed over the resulting photograp for easier i denitification and to preserve as much of the wall surface as possible. I call this a photoprofile (Figure 10) Digital unit or feature mapping can be done in a similar manner. In most cases, the digital photo is best taken from a 6 8 ft. height, to avoid pasting seve ral photographs together. Measurements are taken from the Figure 9. Hand drawn profile map, Trench D West wall, Hope Homestead
44 Figure 10. Photoprofile, West wall Trench D, Hope Homestead Southwest corner to the center of each map specimen, as the shape and size of the item is visible in the picture. Photomapping and photoprofiling techniques can save many hours in the field. A simplified version of this process can be used to show walls without clearly defined stratigraphy for comparison to other units (Figure 11). This is useful for comparing soil color and the appearance of features such as brick or charcoal at varying elevations. Stratigraphy shown in the walls at the Hope site, such as in Figure 10, is fairly consistent across th e area. The appearance of three distinct levels
45 Figure 11. Simple photoprofile, North wall, Trench D, Hope site. seems to indicate three different depositional periods. Artifacts recovered from each level, as well as window glass (see Table 2, pg. 69) fall within differing ranges, supporting this hypothesis The basic field methods for excavation and recording are the same for each of these sites, but adaptations must be made to accommodate differences in time and labor availability, as wel l as the mandates of the property owner and/or sponsor.
46 Chapt er 5. Fort Dade Results and Discussion Ceramic Analysis Early nineteenth century ceramics commonly in use include the refined earthenwares: pearlware, whiteware, and mochaware; a nd ironstone, stoneware, and porcelain. Pearlware (1780 1830), widely popular, was in essence creamware with a blue tinged glaze, giving the product the appearance of a whiter paste (Sussman 1977). A bluish pooling of the glaze around the base is character istic of pearlware. The most common examples are the shell edged plates with rims painted in either blue or green, and the blue willow pattern. Whitewares (1815 1920) are named for their lighter paste containing significant amounts of kaolin. They are gene rally fired at lower temperatures for a relatively short period of time, resulting in a more porous ceramic. Whitewares composed the largest ceramic group found at the Fort King site (Ellis 1994). Mochawares (1795 1890), a form of Annularware, have a past e similar to pearlware and are painted. Ironstones (1813 1900) are denser and less porous than whitewares, and generally thicker bodied. Stonewares are non porous ceramics with an ashy gray paste, and more impurities than porcelain. All the stoneware foun d at Fort King was salt glazed.
47 Figure 12. Ceramics from Fort Dade, Unit 1 No aboriginal ceramics have been found at the Fort Dade site. Of six pieces of historical ceramics recovered from the site, one is a piece of coarse earthenware tile, and the remaining five are from the same plate, all found in the same context, Unit 1 (Figure 12) Two pieces were discovered in the first level, two in the second, and the fifth in the last, or fourth level. The paste is refined earthenware, most resembling p earlware, finely glazed, with a translucent blue band around the rim. Thickness of this plate is 3 mm. The curvature of the two cross mending rim sherds indicates a diameter of 9
48 inches or more. All of these pieces were exposed to high temperatures, possib ly a result of the forts burning, altering their original coloring, but these pieces are consistent with the period of fort occupation. Tobacco Pipe Analysis Tobacco pipes, made of white clay, consist of two parts: a bowl and a stem. These pipes were typically used for a few days or weeks, then discarded. Several methods have been devised to date pipe stems according to the size of the bore, but all lose their accuracy after about 1780 (Barber 1994). The bore on all the pipe stems found at Fort Da de is 4/64 5/64, typical of the period after 1780. No effigy pipe bowls have yet been recovered, but some bowl pieces show raised ribbing. One bowl piece shows a design that may match several stem pieces recovered at Fort Dade (Figure 13, center right). Th e pipe stems have a series of dots, or raised circles and bisecting lines in a design that repeats up the stem (Figure 15) These are the only stems with designs, and no makers marks have been found on either bowls or stems to help identify manufacturer o r origin. This leaves us with very little to date these tobacco pipe pieces, but they are commonly found on Second Seminole War fort and homestead sites. Pipe artifacts can, however help us identify activity areas when found as primary refuse. The distrib ution of pipe at Fort Dade is highest in the area of the Trench units (Figure 14)
49 Figure 13. Pipe bowl pieces from Fort Dade Figure 14. Pipe distribution by section, Fort Dade Pipe Distribution 3 12 .1 1.2 0 5 10 15 1 Tot al weigh t 16 .3 g Ini tial Tren ch Units
50 Figure 15. Pipe stem sections from Fort Dade Glass Analysis In 1800, most glass bottles were still freeblown, as they had been for thousands of years. Their bases showed pontil scars, indentations where the pontil rod was attached to the base to hold the bottle while the top was finished, a nd the body was smooth and without mold or seam lines. The next century saw the development of many technological changes that provide excellent terminus post quem dates The one piece dip mold formed only the body, and the bottom was slightly smaller than the shoulder. These bottles sometimes have mold marks, but not always. The
51 clamp on lipping tool was created around 1820, an improvement on the sheared lip with the crude blow over finish. Henry Ricketts patented his three part mold in 1821. This mold u sed one large body piece from base to shoulder, and two shoulder portions that folded out to allow the bottle to be removed after blowing (Sutton and Arkush 1998). The two piece mold was introduced ca. 1845, and replacement of the pontil rod with the snap case occurred between 1850 and 1860, eliminating the deep pontil scar on the bottom of the bottle. The use of these changes in dating glass requires caution, as delays in their adoption in places, storage time for aged products, such as wine, and the possi bility of re use of glass bottles may add years to their deposition dates (Newman 1970). Patented in 1827, the pressing machine was used to produce large quantities of inexpensive tableware. Pressed glass is identified by the sharply defined impres sed patterns on the exterior and a smooth inner surface. Piece molds used in this process usually left three or four mold marks. Pre 1850 pressed glass has a grainy finish and the background is usually stippled, while later pressed glass was fire polished to a smooth reflective finish (Lorrain 1968). There is much debate among researchers on the value of using color as a dating technique. It is generally accepted that black glass, a very dark olive green glass used in wine and liquor bottles occurs p rior to 1880. Solarized purple or amethyst glass, which is colorless glass manufactured with manganese and then exposed to the suns rays, can be dated to 1890 1920
52 (Lockhart 2000). A wide range of colors result from the addition of iron impurities to gla ss, and before the last quarter of the nineteenth century, these impurities were responsible for much of the variation in commercially made glass containers. Pale yellow, a range of greens, amber brown and the darker green black glass were all relatively common in the nineteenth century, and rarely limited to specific purposes, minimizing the value of color in dating (Jones and Sullivan 1985). However, color can have great value in organizing and categorizing artifacts, especially in smaller assemblages. Figure 16. Bottle finishes from Fort Dade, hand applied finish on wine bottle ( second from right)
53 Glass recovered at Fort Dade made up roughly 11 percent of the assemblage, and weighed 566 g. Several pieces of bottle bases showed evidence of dee p pontil scars, or kick ups, clearly dating to before 1850 1860. The majority of glass sherds were shades of green, from the dark olive black glass to a medium green, colors used in wine and liquor bottles of the period. Clear glass sherds were found; so me are the flat thin glass of lanterns, and some are the clear bottle glass commonly found in medicine bottles (Figure 16) Many of the glass pieces were burned or melted. One piece of glass was clear with a metal coating on one side, obviously a sh erd from a mirror. The hand applied lip on a green wine bottle indicates a date range of 1840 1860 (Sutton and Arkush 1998). Glass was dist r ibuted fairly evenly between the units, with a slightly higher density in the trench area. Nail Analysis Nai ls are valuable for approximate dating of nineteenth century historical sites, as many changes in nail technology were introduced during this era; the drawback to their use is the long periods that certain nail types persisted. Prior to 1790, nails were ha nd wrought, and made one at a time by a blacksmith. Using square iron rods, the nail maker heated the metal, and then hammered all four sides of the rod to form a point. The hot nail was then inserted into a hole in a nail header or anvil, and the head was formed by pounding with a hammer. Head shapes included the rosehead, the broad
54 butterfly head, and the narrow L head. Use of wrought nails continued into the early nineteenth century (Visser 1996). The years 1790 1830 encompassed the transition f rom wrought to machine cut nails. The earliest machines sheared nails from a sheet of iron, which was moved back and forth with every stroke to produce a tapered shank. These are known as Type A nails. Then the nail was held in a clamp and headed by hand. Soon, machines took over this task as well. Machine headed nails tended to be more regular and thicker than those headed by hand. By the 1820s, a design improvement that flipped the iron bar over after each stroke allowed the cutter to remain stationary, i mproving the uniformity of the nails. These are the Type B nails (Figure 17). Figure 17. The four categories of nail types (Visser 1996)
55 Cutting the nail leaves a small burr along the edge of the metal. Type A nails have burrs on the diagonally opposit e edges, while the Type B nails have burr s on the same side (Visser 1996). Refinements in the art of iron casting and the adoption of steam power produced wide plate and sheet iron, which were in turn used to produce nail plates, starting in approxi mately 1830. This allowed nails to be manufactured with the iron grain running the length of the nail instead of across, and increased strength dramatically. All nails made by this method have flat points with four sharp corners ( Wells 1998). W ire nails were made of iron during the 1800s, but wrought iron wire could not be made as cheaply as nail plates, and the finished nails were softer than those cut. These iron wire nails were used in smaller sizes for items such as cigar boxes and pocket book f rames (Nelson 1968). Steel wire nails became available around 1880, and were produced in competitive quantities by the late 1890s. They outsold cut nails by the turn of the century, and composed over 90 percent of the nail market by 1920 ( Wells 1998). Diag nostic traits for nails include material, uniformity of the shaft and head, shaft shape, and the presence of burrs on the same or diagonally opposite sides. Nails are classified according to the pennyweight system (denoted by a d),in which the designation increases with length (Table 1) Historical archaeologists have further subclassified nails by length and presumed function: small construction nails are defined as 2d 5d, used in the final st
56 1 = 2d 2 = 6d 3 = 10d 4 = 30d 1 = 3d 2 = 7d 3 = 12d 5 = 40d 1 = 4d 2 = 8d 3 = 16d 5 = 50d 1 = 5d 2 = 9d 4 = 20d 6 = 60d Table 1. Pennyweight nail classification (Sutton and Arkush 1998) stages of carpentry; nails from 6d 16d are considered medium, and gener al purpose; nails 20d and up are large, and used for house framing, fence construction, or similar activities (Sutton and Arkush 1998). There were 441 iron nails found at the Fort Dade site, comprising 48 percent of the assemblage by count, and 31 p ercent of artifacts by weight. Nails ranged in size from 1 inches to spikes 4 inches in length, or 5d to 20d, representing all construction nail sizes, but the majority were 2 2 inches in length. A large number of the nails were covered with a reddish pa tina, a coating of red iron oxide resulting from exposure to very high temperatures (Figure 18) These nails were all extremely well preserved. Some of the Fort Dade nails were corroded beyond identification as to type, but those identified were machine cu t iron nails (Figure 19) Heads were mainly rectangular or square with some irregularities in shape, consistent with early machine headed manufacture. Shaft shape is fairly uniform among the sample, with a straight taper. Burr pattern is typically on the s ame side, or Type B manufacture. Additionally, some nails in this assemblage bear evidence of cracking, a possible indication of the grain running across
57 Figure 18. 4 inch spike from T4, Fort Dade the shaft, not lengthwise. Th e most common point shape is slightly rounded. Based on this evidence, the most probable dates of manufacture for the Fort Dade nails are after 1820, and the advent of machine heading, but before the common use of nail plates in the mid to late 1830s. Nai l Distribution The distribution of nails at Fort Dade, both corroded and burned, has been influential in the placement of excavation units. The presence of large numbers of nails should indicate the presence of architectural features, hopefully lead ing us to fort structures. Nails with a patina of iron oxide could represent the burning of fort buildings or walls in the fire of 1838. Figure 20 shows a strong linear nail pattern diagonally across the site from southeast to northwest. If this is an indication of a wall or building, we
58 Figure 19. Assortment of nails and spike s from Fort Dade should see a higher concentration of artifacts on one side or the other. Posthole testing to the northeast revealed more sterile holes than anywhere els e on the property. Testing to the south and west exposed a large number of artifacts, many burned, possibly indicating the location of the forts buildings.
59 Figure 20. Nail distribution by unit, Fort Dade. Yellow: 0 75 g, Orange: 75 125 g, Re d: > 125 g Miscellaneous Metal Artifacts Many pieces of unidentified flat metal were unearthed at Fort Dade. In Unit 1, where the ceramic sherds were found, flat metal pieces with a rolled rim type finish were also discovered. These could have come from the typical metal cup carried by the soldiers as basic equipment. Metal staples
60 Figure 21. Metal artifacts from Fort Dade from 1 to 2 were found in several places, but these may be related to later barbed wire fence building activities. Most of the remaining miscellaneous metal items were so badly corroded that identification was impossible. Figure 21 shows a small ovoid metal plate with two holes, possibly either furniture hardware or a gun plate. The hook next to it is still a mystery. Lead sprue (the molten lead that overflows bullet molds) found in units B and U4 indicates bullet manufacture at the fort. Gunflints Gunflints are the predominant artifacts in the Arms category. One small piece of lead shot encountered at Fort Dade, and one found at Hope are the only others. Two of the Fort Dade gunflints came from posthole tests; in fact the very first posthole test dug yielded an unused French gunflint. One of the gunflints was burned at such high temperatures that it broke into severa l pieces (Figure 22). French gunflints of the time were typically light medium
61 Figure 22. Musket gunflints from Fort Dade brown, usually called honey colored. These flints had a slightly concave bottom and steep back bevel. English gunflints tended to be in the gray to blue black range, and were more rectangular and trapezoidal in cross section (Harding 2002). Personal Items There are two types of artifacts whose inclusion in this category is debatable. One is pencil leads and the other is a bon e fork handle. The
62 Figure 23. Pencil leads. Left: Fort Dade, right: Hope Homestead pencil lead from Fort Dade is similar to those used by engineers of the time (Figure 23) and might well have been a common tool, but it seems more like an item carried in ones pocket for personal use. It could have been used for drawing maps, or sketches, as easily as recording measurements. The bone fork handle (Figure 24) is carved in a complex decorative scoring, to resemble scales, and an identical two tined fork (Figure 25) found dates to 1760 1800 (Dunning 2000). Because of the apparent age, and c omplexity of decoration, this must have been a personal possession, not an
63 Figure 24. Carved bone fork handle, Unit 4, Fort Dade army issued utensil. The heavy use wear on the handle reinforces the image of a soldier carrying this around for years, using it at every meal, perhaps squatting around a campfire. Figure 25. Two tined fork dated 1760 1800 (Dunning 2000)
64 Discussion Initial testing at the For t Dade site has not unearthed definitive evidence of a fort structure at this time. However, artifactual evidence supports activity areas and architectural details consistent with the forts occupation from 1836 1842. Ceramics and glass sherds found are co nsistent with the time period, and compare favorably to those recovered at contemporary fort sites (Baker 1996 ; Ellis 1994). Gunflints are suitable for the muskets used by the military at that time, and the presence of several unused, high quality flints a rgues for abundance not found at camp or homestead sites. Numerous tobacco pipe pieces may indicate activity areas reflecting leisure time, or less regulated activities. The strongest evidence for the presence of Fort Dade at this time is the large amount of well preserved nails, which can be dated to the period from 1820 to the mid to late 1830s. Some of these nails are large enough to be suitable for bridge construction, and all are within the range of uses at a fort with blockhouses, hospital, storehouse s, and outlying structures. The discovery of such artifacts as the bone fork handle and engineers pencil lead serve s to enrich our understanding of daily activities, and also to stimulate our imaginations in recreating scenarios from everyday life at this wilderness outpost.
65 Chapter 6. Hope Homestead Results and Discussion Ceramic Analysis Heavy whiteware sherds of different thickness and condition dominate ceramics found at the Hope homestead site, but there is a great variety of wares and p atterns (Figure 26) Coarse earthenwares and brown salt glazed crockery stonewares are in evidence. Transferware with a blue flower and stripe pattern may be similar to the willow pattern. A red and green flowered pattern resembles gaudy dutch. Other examp les include Annularware with two brown stripes over light blue, and blue Scottish spongeware (1840 1920). Several shades of yellow wares in va rying thickness were also found, as well as many examples of whiteware, which varies in thickness and paste. Becau se so many of these wares have an extended date range of manufacture, we can only place this assemblage in a general nineteenth century range. Ceramics at Hope homestead made up about 12 percent of the total assemblage by weight. Glass Analysis Gla ss at the Hope Homestead came in a diverse array of colors and types. Pontil scarred black glass bases of the pre 1860 era were
66 Figure 26. Hope Homestead ceramics re recovered, along with other shades of green, pale aqua, pale pink, amber, brown, blu e, red and clear sherds. Medicine bottle finishes and sherds similar to those found at Dort Dade were found, as well as the unusual finish on an ink bottle (Figure 27) dated to 1830 1850 (McKearin and W ilson 1978).
67 Figure 27. Ink bottle from Hope Ho mestead Pressed glass in the form of tableware and decorative glass was smooth, reflective and fire polished, unlike the grainy stippled pressed glass from pre 1850. This may indicate an increase in prestige wares after 1850 as the family fortunes increased. Ground glass bottle stoppers, and heavy leaded glass pieces from what was likely a decanter reinforce this possibility. Three small four hole glass buttons, one black and two white, also came from this homestead. Above: Ink bottle from Hope Homestead. Inset: Ink bottle from McKearin and W ilson 1978.
68 Flat Glass Flat glass wa s analyzed for its value in dating by Alexis Broadbent Sykes (2003) using samples from Indian Key. In her analysis, the formula developed by Randall Moir (1982) gave the most accurate and consistent results. This formula is: 84.22 x glass thickness (m m) + 1712.7 = date of manufacture No flat glass from window panes has been recovered from Fort Dade, but the Hope Homestead flat glass from Trench B shows some interesting tendencies. Hope Unit Avg. Thickness(mm) Formula Date B East Z1,L1 2. 16 1895 B West Z1,L1 2.33 1909 B Z1,L2 2.02 1883 B Z2,L1 1.75 1860 Table 2. Moir formula for dating flat glass, Hope Homestead Trench B In keeping with the rules of stratigraphic deposition, the ea rliest date comes from the lowest level. If this date is accurate, this section may have been constructed later than the original homestead. The earlier date in the east section of the first level reflects the difference in ground surface elevation, which may result from erosion or ground disturbance in this area. Trench A did not have sufficient amounts of flat glass for analysis.
69 Nail and Metal Analysis Hope H omestead nails varied from 1 inch (or 2d), to 6 inches (or 60d) in size. These artifac ts made up about 33 percent of the assemblage by weight. Corrosion is more prevalent on these nails making material, burr pattern and point shape harder to discern. All three nail types, wrought, machine cut and wire, are represented. Nail head shapes incl ude round, square, rectangular, hemispherical and tent shaped, and shaft shapes are visibly different. In the one case where the cut nail burr pattern was evident, it was on the same side, or Type B. Trench A had many more nails than Trench B, but not enou gh work has been completed to discuss nail distribution at this site. The Hope site also had many pieces of flat, unidentified metal. There were also several pieces of heavy wire, entwined, but without barbs. Some pieces were easily recognizable, as shown in Figures 28 and 29. All of the items shown in these figures were used in the early nineteenth century and can still be found in use today. Thus, while may not be able to help us with dating, they can help us understand how certain technologies ha ve persisted over decades and centuries.
70 Figure 28. Skeleton key, fish hook, lamp wick wheel, Hope Homestead Figure 29 Doorknob, Trench A, Hope Homestead
71 Other Items Only one gunflint was discovered at Hope Homestead. It was gray, and most li kely of English origin. This flint was smaller than those found at Fort Dade, and sized for a pistol rather than a musket. The pencil lead from the Hope site is flatter and more rectangular than its Fort Dade counterpart, (Figure 23) possibly made f or different usage. Prehaps its smaller circumference was designed to fit the hand of a child. Discussion The first homestead in Hernando County may have started out somewhat isolated and self sufficient, but with economic improvements came a gre at variety of household goods. Ceramics encountered at this site exhibit a wide var iety of time periods and styles and along with the range of glass colors and types, signify an increasing availability of trade goods from domestic and imported sources. Wi ndow glass, which following Moirs formula, conforms to age appropriate thickness, allows us to assess the integrity of stratigraphic levels within units. Nails show the evolution of technology in the nineteenth century, from the wrought nails most likely created on site, to the wire nails that came into prominence at the end of the century. Some items, such as the fish hook and lamp wick wheel are nearly timeless, and only their context in Zone 2, Level 1, below disturbed soil helps us place them in time.
72 Chapter 7. Quantitative Analysis Sample Selection Fort Dade was the site of a short term, strictly military occupation, while Hope Homestead had a long term civilian habitation. These are opposite ends of the spectrum, and therefore would be expected to be distinguishable in any quantitative analysis. In order to create a more representative sample for the purposes of analysis, two more sites from the Second Seminole War era were added. One, Fort Micanopy, had both military and homestead comp onents over a long period. The second, Indian Key, was a short term homestead site, with limited military occupation after the homestead was destroyed in a Second Seminole War attack. Two additional criteria were foremost in the selection of these sites. First, a complete, itemized artifact catalog was required, and second, each item needed to be measured by weight, a system not commonly used in the past. The Fort Micanopy site, with 7 units, and the Indian Key site, with 5 units were chosen. This produce d a sample size of 28 units.
73 Souths Artifact Patterns Th e first step in this quantitative analysis was a comparison to Stanley Souths Frontier and Carolina artifact patterns (South 197 7). South argued that historical archaeology should be a scien ce, with regular use of hypotheses, laws, and scientific testing procedures. South proposed that historical archaeology could be quantifiable, and that artifacts found at different sites could be counted, grouped into categories, and then compared with the artifact groups at other sites in a logical and scientific manner. He believed that people living in the same cultural tradition should leave the same kinds of artifacts in roughly similar percentages (Orser and Fagan 1995). Souths material categ ories were: Kitchen, Architecture, Furniture, Arms, Clothing, Personal, Tobacco Pipes, and Activities (South 1977). These categories were derived from excavations much more extensive in both size and scope than the limited testing involved here (Table 3) I have reduced our categories to five: Kitchen, which contains glass, ceramics and fauna; Architectural, containing nails and building materials; Personal, including the few buttons found; Arms and Tobacco Pipes remain the same (Table 4) Miscellaneous met al tends to be unidentified, or of unknown function, so this category was subtracted from the artifact total before percentages were calculated. The most important ratio, that of the Kitchen group to the A rchitecture group, is preserved. T he remaining grou ps are so small that they have little influence.
74 Artifact Groups Souths Frontier Fort Dade Hope MIC IK Souths Carolina Kitchen 27.6 25.0 32.0 40.1 79.9 63.1 Architectural 52.0 71.8 67.8 57.8 19.1 25.5 Pipe 9.1 1.1 <0.1 0.5 0.7 5.8 Arms 5.4 0.9 <0.1 1.1 0.1 0.5 Personal 0.2 0.9 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.2 Table 3. Comparison with Souths Artifact Patterns Discussion The most important ratio in determining Souths patterns is that of Kitchen to Architecture. The assemblages from Fort Dade, Hope Homestea d and Fort Micanopy show a ratio closer to the Frontier Pattern, while Indian Key more closely resembles the Carolina Pattern. Examination of other categories is problematic, as the amounts of Pipe, Arms and Personal items are so small. Kitchen and Archite cture combined comprise 96.8 99.8 percent of the artifact total for these sites, compared to 79.6 percent for the Frontier, and 88.6 percent for the Carolina Patterns. Another concern with this comparison is the inability to compare individual artifact cat egories, such as ceramics, which are subsumed under larger categories under Souths classifications.
75 Site Cer Glass Nails Metal Faun Pipe Bldg Pers Arms Dade 0.5 21.6 61.2 9.7 0.5 0.9 3.6 0.8 0.8 Mic 9.5 22.9 16.5 15.9 1.4 0.4 32.1 0.4 0.9 Hope 12.4 15.7 33.2 10.0 0.8 <0.1 27.8 0.1 <0.1 IK 19.3 10.8 2.7 44.2 14.5 0.4 7.9 0.2 <0.1 Table 4. Percentages of artifacts by site In comparing the artifacts by the categories in Table 4 (Miscellaneous metal included) the variation is more obvious, but still difficult to interpret. To add each unit individually would be cumbersome and awkward to deal with. So I searched for alternative methods of analysis. Correspondence Analysis The primary goal of Correspondence Analysis (CA) is to transform a table of numerical information into a graphical display, which facilitates the interpretation of large, multivariate datasets. Correspondence Analysis is intended to reveal features in the data, rather than to confirm or reject hypotheses about the unde rlying processes. The concepts of CA are geometric rather than statistical. The only statistical concept linked to CA is the Pearson chi square statistic, which assesses the significance of the association between the row and column variables (Greenacre 19 85). The three main concepts of Correspondence Analysis are profiles,
76 masses, and chi squared differences. To compare each row and column, it is necessary to reduce them to the same base by computing percentages relative to row or column total. This set of percentages, calculated for a row or column of frequencies is called a profile. The profiles are examples of mathematic vectors that define points in a multidimensional space. Each profile is condensed into a unique point in this space. The second concept is mass associated with each profile. The mass is used to weight each profile differently in the analysis, and thus to allow each number to contribute equally to its corresponding profile point. Distance in CA is a weighted Euclidean distance to me asure, and thus depict, distance between profile points. Here the weighting refers to differential weighting of the dimensions of the space, not to the weighting of the profiles themselves. This has the effect that artifact counts (or weights) which occur less frequently are made to contribute more highly to the interprofile distance, while those that occur more frequently are made to contribute less. This is done by dividing each of the squared differences in the distance calculation by the corresponding e lement of the average profile. Theoretically, this is variance standardizing, and in practice it tends to equalize the roles of the artifact counts (weights) in measuring distances between profiles (Greenacre and Blasius 1994). In interpreting a CA plot, t he closer a profile point (row) comes to one of the vertices (column) the more the corresponding row and column are associated.
77 Figure 30. Correspondence Analysis plot Chi square = 22676.679 Degrees of freedom = 216 Probability = 0.000
78 The advantage of Correspondence Analysis is that the analysis of the row pro files and the column profiles of the same table have interrelated results, which may show certain similarities. There is a fundamental relationship between the two sets of points that permits us to make inferences from the scatterplot, decreasing subjectiv ity, and in potentially discouraging preconceived hypotheses. Correspondence Analysis shows the discreteness of the spatial patterning, but does not give us numerical comparisons about the strength of relationships. In order to compare similarity o f assemblages numerically, it is possible to calculate Brainerd Robinson similarity coefficients ( br) (Brainerd 1951; Robinson 1951). T h is statistic totals the absolute value of the differences of the type percentages between defined categories for pairs o f assemblages (Brainerd 1951; Cowgill 1990; Robinson 1951). By subtracting any calculated difference from 200, an equivalent measure of similarity is obtained. The formula is: br AB = 200 S ( i = 1 to N ) | P i A P i B | where P i A is the percentage representation of attribute or type i in assemblage A and P i B is the percentage representation of attribute or type i in assemblage B The sum of the differences is subtracted from 200, because the maximum possible distance between two collections, based on percentages, is 200. Thus, a br value of 200 represents the highest possible similarity, while zero represents the lowest possible similarity. For
79 more intuitive results, the br coefficient can be scaled by dividing the statistic by 200; thus a br value of 1 represents identical assemblages, while a br value of zero represents totally different assemblages ( Wells 2004:39). One potential problem with this statistic is that it is possible fo r a particular br coefficient value to be based on the two assemblages having fairly similar percents of all categories, or very similar percents for most categories and still have quite different percents for a few categories (Cowgill 1990). Therefore, it is necessary to examine the raw data sets and to specify the conditions upon which the degree of similarity is based ( Wells 2004:40). Discussion In the material class, the categories Arms and Ceramics are separated the farthest, and Glass occurs mo st centrally. Glass is perhaps the most common artifact found at any historic site of this period, so it is not unusual that the other categories would radiate out from this one. Fauna, an outlying category, varies in amounts found due to preservation con ditions in different soil types, and food preparation and disposal practices. Studying the distribution of the site units, Fort Dade, with the most units, has the tightest cluster structure. The only unit not within this cluster, U1, is that which contained the ceramic sherds. The rest are centrally located between Arms, Nails, and Pipe. At the opposite end of the spectrum, the
80 Table 5. Brainerd R o binson coefficients
81 Indian Key units are closest to the Ceramics, Metal and Fauna categories, whi ch might indicate kitchen structures, or other food preparation areas. Fort Micanopy artifact assemblages show the widest range and the most central associations, with the exception of TU1, which had an overwhelming majority of building material. This gene ral pattern supports the long term occupation of this site with both fort and homestead components. Artifacts from Hope Homestead, also the site of a long term occupation, are found within the same range as those of Fort Micanopy. Comparisons on a site to site basis are easily made with the use of the Brainerd Robinson coefficient table (Table 5) For example, comparisons between Fort Dade U3 and any of the Indian Key units yield coefficients from .28 to .35, highly dissimilar, as we would expect fr om the very different site occupations. This is reinforced by their positions at opposite ends of the Correspondence Analysis plot. Comparing Hope units to any of the Fort Micanopy units, the range is from .53 to .84 or similar to very similar. These are b oth sites with extended habitation, and diverse assemblages, and this is reflected in the comparison. The two military sites are never more similar than .70, and average much less. This indicates that length of occupation, not site function, is the more si gnificant factor. The use of both comparative tools, CA and Brainerd Robinson uphold this, and provide a valuable general classification range for these sites.
82 Cluster Analysis Cluster Analysis was chosen as a tool to evaluate the results of the C orrespondence Analysis. The object of cluster analysis is to sort cases into groups, or clusters, so that the degree of association is strong between members of the same cluster and weak between members of different clusters. According to the Correspondenc e Analysi s plot, three clusters are expected. Fort Dade should form one, Indian Key another, and the Hope and Micanopy sites should cluster together. Like Correspondence Analysis, this can reveal associations and structure within data. First, the measure o f distance must be selected. In this case I have chosen Squared Euclidean distance to be consistent with the Correspondence Analysis. Next, a choice must be made from the seven available algorithms in SPSS. Wards method was selected because it u ses an analysis of variance approach to evaluate the distances between clusters. This method attempts to minimize the Sum of Squares of any two clusters that can be formed at each step. In general, this method is regarded as very efficient, but it does ten d to create clusters of smaller size. The last step is to choose the number of clusters, or the range of numbers of clusters that will be acceptable. This is often a matter of trial and error to see what meaningful patterns emerge. For this analysi s, the range of 2 5 clusters was selected because it contains the range of sites analyzed, without fragmenting the results.
83 Discussion The Cluster Analysis shows groupings or clusters at three meaningful levels. The first grouping separates IKQ1 and IKQ7 from all other assemblages. These two units have the highest percentages and highest weights of ceramics. They also share the highest faunal weights and percentages. The next level separates Hope TB, Micanopy TU1, and Hope TA into a cluster, seem ingly differentiated by the high percentages of building materials and nails. At the third distinction, IKF and IKQ5 form a cluster. Their common denominator is a large amount of miscellaneous metal. All the Fort Dade units, all but one Micanopy unit (TU1) and IKGF make up the last cluster. Summary While both Cluster Analysis and Correspondence Analysis are capable of grouping complicated assemblages from relatively large numbers of cases, the Cluster Analysis is much less clear about its criteria for creating distinctions. Correspondence Analysis clearly shows not only the associations with each artifact category, but also the relative position of each unit to every other in terms of these associations. The addition of the Brainerd Robinson coeffi cients table to this analysis makes it possible to evaluate the quantitative degree of association between any two units listed
84 Dendrogram using Ward Method C A S E 0 5 10 15 20 25 Label Num + --------+ -------+ --------+ --------+ --------+ FDA 1 FDT3 6 FDT2 5 FDU2 11 FDT1 4 FDT5 8 FDU1 10 FDU5 14 MCTU3 24 FDU3 12 FDU4 13 MC TU2 23 MCTU8 27 FDC 3 FDT4 7 FDB 2 FDT6 9 MCTU13 28 IKGF 18 MCTU6 25 MCTU7 26 IKF 17 IKQ5 20 HPTB 16 MCTU1 22 HPTA 15 IKQ1 19 IKQ7 21 Figure 3 3. Cluste r Analysis using Ward Method 4 Cluster solution 3 Cluster solution 2 Cluster solution
85 In future investigations, it should be possible to compare the results of initial test excavations of a Second Seminole War site against this range of data, and gain immediate insight into the occupation components of the new site.
86 Chapter 8. Conclusions and Recommendations Hope Homestead Variation is the keyword for this site. This was a frontier settlement, but had documented contact with trade centers from its beginning yea rs. W illiam Hope began a large ranching operation, and regularly drove his cattle to market in Tampa, where he sold them for a handsome profit (Stanabeck 1976). The Florida Census listed Hope as a planter, and owner of 2,240 acres of land. He also owned 15 7 slaves by the time of the Civil War (Knetsch 1994). As the countys first white settler, and a slaveholder, we would expect a great degree of self sufficiency. The presence of wrought nails could indicate a blacksmith on the property, and the many types of bricks found could mean some local manufacture occurred. Ceramics and glass found span the range of time and social status. Simple, heavily used whiteware ceramic sherds were unearthed next to Scottish spongeware and transfer patterned pearlware. A utilitarian ink bottle finish (1830 1850) was discovered in the same context as a ground glass bottle stopper in pale pink from a decanter or perfume bottle. Flat glass measured and tested with Moirs formula (Moir 1982) gave us a range from circa 1860 1908, and showed thickness (and age) increasing with depth of
87 deposition. Faunal remains were sparse here; whether due to soil preservation or location function is still unclear. Many of the items recovered at the Hope site offer a glimpse into lif e in nineteenth century Florida. A fish hook, a wick wheel from a kerosene lamp, a doorknob and a skeleton key to go with it are all familiar to us today, and allow us to put ourselves into the picture, imagining what life might have been like for the Hope s. Using statistical analysis, the Hope Homestead site profile falls in the middle range of our samples. Examining Souths Artifact Patterns, this site is closer to the Frontier than the Carolina, but does not conform to either. Correspondence A nalysis reveals a location between the long range occupation of the Fort Micanopy site and the homestead site of Indian Key. Cluster Analysis shows the strongest associations with Fort Micanopy Test Unit 1, with its high percentage of building material, an d Indian Key Units F and Q5, which have a majority of miscellaneous metal. In all comparisons, the Hope site is least closely related to Fort Dade, a site of short occupation and very different function. Plans for the immediate future at the Hope H omestead site include finding and mapping the boundaries of the main house, and recovering all cultural material possible before the foundation for the new house is poured. The next step will be the search for outbuildings and activity areas, especially th e location of the slave quarters. Long range plans include a display of artifacts at the Hernando Historical Museum, and other local
88 venues. The interest and cooperation of the property owners and volunteers ensure that this site will be active in the mont hs and years to come. Fort Dade Initial testing at the Seminole Wars Historic Foundation property in Pasco County has not revealed the exact location of Fort Dade, or even the certainty that it is on this property. But the results of this testing h ave produced artifacts and distributions consistent with a fort occupation and, in identifying where the fort is not, we grow closer to discovering where the fort is. Reconnaissance up and down the banks of the W ithlacoochee, on foot and in canoe, during high water levels and low, have convinced me the bridge associated with the fort was located just to the west of this property. One of the main functions of the fort was to defend the bridge, so maps showing it to be just east of the bridge and the Fort King road support the position we are exploring. Posthole testing results directed us to the excavation units opened, with a positive test to negative test ratio of 30:45, or 2:3, in posthole sections 1 and 2. Section 3 has a 7:17 ratio, and S ection 4 is the lowest with only 3 out 70 holes positive. This led to the establishment of three initial 5 x 5 units along the 500N line. Units B and C had the highest artifact yields, but the combination of nails and some kind of plaster or mortar in Un it C was tantalizing. The next step was a trench north, with the intention of bisecting
89 any building or wall in the area. While this trench contained an abundance of treasures, no architectural footprint appeared in the soil. Five more units north and west of the trench completed this initial phase without turning up evidence of a palisade wall, building foundation, or other tangible remains of a fort structure. The ceramic sherds encountered in Unit 1 have not been dated with any certainty, but the y are consistent in paste and style with other ceramics of the period. No whole glass vessels were recovered, but the combination of black glass and deep pontil scars on several pieces suggest a date prior to 1850, as well as the hand applied finish on a wine bottle found. Tobacco pipe stem and bowl pieces cannot be accurately dated, but they are commonly found at military fortifications of the Second Seminole War. Nails are the best artifacts for dating this site, as many have been well preserved by expo sure to high temperatures. Technological changes in the manufacture of nails narrow the date range to the period between 1820 and the mid to late 1830s. Gunflints found were suitable for the muskets commonly used by American forces in this conflict, and th e presence of lead sprue indicates bullets used in these muskets were made here. It was hoped that a study of artifact assemblage patterns, variation and ratios would reveal a definitive method for differentiating Seminole War fort sites from other types of occupations after initial testing. The result is less than definitive, but still useful. Comparison with Souths Artifact Patterns shows the highest Architectural to Kitchen ratio of the sites tested. Cluster Analysis places the Fort Dade units in a single cluster, but one that is also
90 associated with three units from Fort Micanopy and one from Indian Key. The use of Correspondence Analysis gives us the clearest picture of the associations between the different units studied, with an easily discern ible grouping of all but one of the Fort Dade units, and the exception is the unit with ceramics. Theoretically, if an artifact assemblage from a new Second Seminole War site was plotted in CA with these same data, a fort site would appear in the upper lef t quadrant, and a homestead site in the lower right. The longer the period of occupation, the more the site would approach the center of the plot. If this method is adopted by researchers and field investigators, more investigations will be available to re fine this hypothesis. According to nineteenth century map details, and sketches available of other forts, the most likely orientation and shape of the fort was that of a diamond or square with one corner pointed towards the river. The nail distrib ution map of Fort Dade, Figure 21, shows a linear pattern running southeast to northwest across the area of excavated units. Previous testing and survey, as well as discussion with friends and colleagues, led me to believe this line might be the forts sou thwest boundary, with the interior of the fort closer to the river. I have decided this was incorrect, and if this was a wall line, it would have been the northeast wall, with the interior of the fort lying to the south and west. The next phase of excavati on should place units on a line running due west, and possibly due south, in order to seek out a similar nail distribution line. If the fort walls were breastwork, and not palisade, this concentration of nails may be the only architectural evidence
91 of oute r walls remaining. Soil analysis may be productive in locating the stables and other activity areas, and may be useful in finding the exact placement of the Fort King road as it approached the bridge. It is important to continue the public educatio n component of the work at this site in the days to come. Field trips for high school and college students not only teach the value of archaeol ogy, but also impart a comprehension of the vital need for preservation of historical sites, which are so endange red in todays Florida. Future investigations at Fort Dade should be conducted with the purpose of creating a sense of the past, while protecting our historys future.
92 References Baker, Henry 1996 Fort Foster Revisited: Archaeological E xcavations at 8HI112. Florida Archaeological Reports 34. Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahasee. Benton, Thomas Hart 1856 Thirty Years View; or, A history of the working of the American government for thirty years, from 1820 to 1850. Chiefly taken from the Congress debates, the private papers of General Jackson, and the speeches of ex Senator Benton, with his actual view of the men and affairs: with historical notes and illustrations, and some notices of eminent deceased contemporaries: by a senato r of thirty years. Appleton, New York. Brainerd, George W. 1951 The Place of Chronological Ordering in Archaeological Analysis. American Antiquity 16(4): 293 301. Carr, Robert S., Marilyn Masson and W illard Steele 1989 Archaeological Inve stigations at the Okeechobee Battlefield. The Florida Anthropologist 42(3): 205 236. Carter, Clarence Edwin 1960 The Territorial Papers of the United States, Vol. XXV. AMS Press, New York. Clausen, Carl J. 1970 The Fort Pierce Collection. Bure au of Historic Sites and Properties Bulletin No. 1 Division of Archives, History and Records Management, Tallahassee.
93 Covington, James W. 1961 T he Armed Occupation Act of 1842. Florida Historical Quarterly 40(1): 41 52. 1993 The Seminoles of Florida. Uni versity Press of Florida, Gainesville. Cowgill, George L. 1990 Why Pearsons r is Not a Good Similarity Coefficient for Comparing Collections. Ameri can Antiquity 16(4): 310 313. Dunning, Phil 2000 Composite Table Cutlery from 1700 to 1930. In Studies in Material C ulture Research, Karlis Karklins, editor, pp 32 45. Society for Historical Archaeology, Uniontown, Pa. Ellis, Gary D. 1993 Archaeological Study Fort King Site ( 8MR60), North Tract. City of Ocala, Marion County, Florida. Fitts, Mary Elizabeth 2001 Two eighte enth century Seminole burials from Alachua County, Florida. Masters thesis, University of South Florida, Tampa. Goggin, John M., Mary E. Godwin, Earl Hester, David Prange 1949 An Historic Indian Burial Ala chua County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 2: 10 24. Goza, W illiam M. 1964 The Fort King Road 1963. Florida Historical Quarterly 43(1): 52 70. Greenacre, Michael J. 1985 Theory and Applications of Correspondence Analysis. Academic Press, London. Greenacre, Michael J. and Jorg Blasius 1994 Correspondence Analysis in the Social Sciences. Academic Press, San Diego. Harding, David 2000 Gunflints: Further studies by David Harding. www.weymouthdiving.co.uk/armaments.htm accessed August 20 02.
94 Jesup, Thomas S. 1836 Orders Number 26, Record Group 94. National Archives, Washington. Jones, Olive and Catherine Sullivan 1985 The Parks Canada Glass Glossary. National Historic Parks and Sites Branch, Parks Canada. Knetsch, Joe 1994 Forging the Florida Fr ontier: The Life and Career of Samuel E. Hope. The Sunland Tribune, 20(November): 31 41. 2003 Floridas Seminole Wars, 1817 1858. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston, S.C. Laumer, Frank 1966 This was Fort Dade. Florida Historical Quarterly 45: 1 11. 1995 Dades Last Command. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Laumer, Frank (editor) 1998 Amidst a Storm of Bullets: T he Diary of Lt. Henry Prince in Florida 1836 1842. University of Tampa Press, Tampa. Lockhart, Bill 2000 Dating Soft Drink Bottles. http://alamo.nmsu.edu/~lockhart/EPSodas/Chapter1 4/Chap2.htm Accessed June 2004. Lorrain, Dessamae 1968 An Archaeologists Guide to Nineteenth Century American Glass. Historical Archaeo logy 1968: 35 44. Mahon, John K. 1985 History of the Second Seminole War 1835 1842. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville. Mahon, John K. and Brent R. Weisman 1996 Floridas Seminole and Miccosukee Peoples. In A New History of Florida, Michael Gannon, editor, pp. 183 206. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. McCall, George A. 1868 Letters from the Frontier. Lippincott, Philadelphia.
95 McKearin, Helen and Kenneth M. W ilson 1978 American Bottle & Flasks and their Ancestry. Crown Publishers, New York. McKeth an, Alfred A. 1989 Hernando County, Our Story. Hernando County Museum, Brookesville. Missal, John and Mary Lou Missal 2004 The Miserable Pride of a Soldier: The Journals of Col. Wm. S. Foster. Manuscript in preparation. Moir, Randall W. 1982 Windo ws to our Past: A Chronological Scheme for the Thickness of Pane Fragments from 1635 1982. Masters thesis on file, Department of Anthropology, Southern Methodist University, Dallas. Motte, Jacob Rhett 1951 Journey into Wilderness; an Army Surgeons Account of Life in Camp and Field during the Creek and Seminole Wars, 1836 1838. University of Florida Press, Gainesville. Nelson, Lee H. 1968 Nail Chronology as an Aid to Dating Old Buildings American Association for State and Local History, Technical Leaflet No. 48, Nashville. Newman, T. Stell 1970 A Dating Key for Post Eighteenth Century Bottles. Historical Archaeology 70 75. Orser, Charles E. Jr. and Brian M. Fagan 1995 Historical Archaeology. HarperCollins College Publishers, New York. Richardson, James D. 1897 A Com pilation of The Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789 1897. United States Government Printing Office, Washington. Robinson, W. S. 1951 A Method for Chronologically Ordering Archaeological Deposits. American Antiquity 16(4): 293 301.
96 South, Stanley 1977 Meth od and Theory in Historical Archaeology. Academic Press, New York. Sprague, John T. 1848 The Origin, Progress and Conclusions of the Florida War. D. Appleton & Co, New York. Stanabeck, Richard J. 1976 A History of Hernando County 1840 1976. Daniels Publi shers, Orlando. Stokes, Anne V. 1996 An Investigation of Site 8AL42: A Multicomponent Second Seminole War Site (1836 1843). Southeastern Archaeological Research, Inc, Gainesville. Sutton, Mark Q. and Brooke S. Arkush 1998 Archaeological Laboratory Method s: An Introduction. Kendall/Hunt Publishing, Dubuque, IA. Sussman, Lynne 1977 Changes in Pearlware Dinnerware, 1780 1830. Historical Archaeology 11: 105 111. Sykes, Alexis Broadbent 2003 Signs of Life: Rediscovering Nineteenth Century Indian Key through Gl ass Analysis. Masters thesis, University of South Florida, Tampa. Visser, Thomas D. 1996. Nails:Clues to a Buildings History. www.uvm.edu/~histpres/203/nails.html Weisman, Brent R. 1986a The Cove of the W ithlacoochee: A First Look at the Archaeology of an Interior Florida Wetland. The Florida Anthropologist 39(1): 4 21. 1986b Newmans Garden (8CI206): A Seminole Indian Site near Lake Tsala Apopka, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 39(3 ): 208 220. 1989 Like Beads on a String: A Culture History of the Semiole Indians in North Peninsular Florida. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 1998 Unconquered People: Floridas Seminole and Miccasukee Indians. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
97 Weisman, Brent R., Lori Collins, and Kelly Driscoll 1997 Historical Archaeology of Indian Key (8MO15) Monroe County, Florida. Report to the Florida Park Service, University of South Florida, Tampa. Weisman, Bren t R., Lori Collins, Alexis Broadbent, and Chris Bell 2001 Investigations on Fourth Street, Indian Key Historic State Park, Monroe County, Florida. Report to the Florida Park Service, University of South Florida: Tampa. Wells, E. Christian 2004 From Hohokam t o Oodham: The Protohistoric Occupation of the Middle Gila River Valley, Central Arizona. Anthropological Research Papers No. 3. Gila River Indian Community, Sacaton, AZ. Wells, Tom 1996 Nail Chronology: The Use of Technically Derived Features. Historical Arch aeology 32(2): 78 99.
viii Appendix A: Fort Dade Artifacts FS # Unit Level Type Wt(g) % Total Count %Total Burnt 83 500N/ 590E Z1,L 1 Glass 3 50 2 66.3 N 83 Z1,L 1 Nails 3 50 1 33.3 N 84 500N/ 590E Z1,L 2 Glass 9 58.1 4 80 Y 84 Z1,L 2 Nails 6.5 41.9 1 20 N 85 500N/ 590E Z2,L 1 Glass 2 2.9 4 22.2 N 85 Z2,L 1 Nails 59 86.8 11 61.1 Y 85 Z2,L 1 Gunflint 6.5 9.6 2 11.1 Y 85 Z2,L 1 Pipe 0.5 0.7 1 5.6 Y 86 500N/ 590E Z2,L 2 Nails 3 35.3 1 33.3 Y 86 Z2,L 2 Pipe 1 11.8 1 33. 3 N 86 Z2,L 2 Ceramic, Aboriginal 4.5 52.9 1 33.3 N 87 500N/ 590E Z2, L3 Ceramic, Aboriginal 6 100 2 100 N 59 500N/ 580E Z1,L 1 Glass 4 12.7 5 35.7 Y 59 Z1,L 1 Nails 26 82.5 6 42.9 Y 59 Z1,L 1 Building material 0.5 1.6 2 14.3 N 59 Z1,L 1 Gunflint 1 3.2 1 7.1 Y 65 500N/ 580E Z1,L 2 Glass 53.5 23.8 23 33.8 Y 65 Z1,L 2 Nails 152 67.6 37 54.4 Y 65 Z1,L 2 Misc. Metal 5 2.2 4 5.9 N 65 Z1,L 2 Building material 5 2.2 1 1.5 N
ix 65 Z1,L 2 Pipe 6 2.7 2 2.9 Y 65 Z1,L 2 Faunal bone 3.5 1.6 1 1.5 N 76 500N/ 580E Z2, L 1 Glass 54 52.7 12 44.4 Y 76 Z2,L 1 Nails 42.5 41.5 11 40.7 Y 76 Z2,L 1 Misc. Metal/Lead sprue 5 4.9 3 11.1 N 76 Z2,L 1 Chert 1 1 1 3.7 N 81 500N/ 580E Z2, L2 Nails 3 30 1 20 N 81 Z2,L 2 Building material 1 10 2 40 N 81 Z2,L 2 Gunflint 6 60 2 40 Y 8 2 500N/ 580E Z2,L 3 Chert 4 100 3 100 N 88 500N/ 570E Z1,L 1 Glass 2 10.3 5 45.5 Y 88 Z1,L 1 Nails 13.5 69.2 5 45.5 N 88 Z1,L 1 Chert 4 20.5 1 9 N 89 500N/ 570E Z1,L 2 Glass 11 19.8 8 40 Y 89 Z1,L 2 Nails 44.5 80.2 12 60 Y 100 500N/ 570E Z2,L 1 Glass 69 29.4 21 32.8 Y 100 Z2,L 1 Nails 100 42.6 25 39.1 Y 100 Z2,L 1 Building material 60.5 25.8 17 26.6 U 100 Z2,L 1 Chert 5 2.1 1 1.6 N 110 500N/ 570E Z2,L 2 Glass 2.5 10.6 1 9.1 Y 110 Z2,L 2 Nails 19 80.9 7 63.6 Y Z2,L Building 2 8.5 3 27.3 U
x 2 material 124 505N/ 570E Z1,L 1 Glass 16.5 31.1 11 61.1 Y 124 Z1,L 1 Nails 16.5 31.1 4 22.2 Y 124 Z1,L 1 Building material 20 37.7 3 16.7 U 125 505N/ 570E Z1,L 2 Glass 23 44.7 9 50 Y 125 Z1,L 2 Nails 28.5 55.3 9 50 N 126 505N/ 570E Z2,L 1 Glass 0.5 1.6 2 16.7 N 126 Z2 ,L 1 Nails 19.5 63.9 7 58.3 N 126 Z2,L 1 Gunflint 8.5 27.9 1 8.3 N 126 Z2,L 1 Pipe 2 6.6 2 16.7 N 127 Z2,L 2 Nails 7.5 100 2 100 N 128 510N/ 570E Z1,L 1 Glass 23.5 40.9 5 41.7 Y 128 Z1,L 1 Nails 26 45.2 6 50 N 128 Z1,L 1 Ceramic, tile 8 13.9 1 8.3 N 12 9 510N/ 570E Z1,L 2 Glass 3.5 4.2 6 18.8 Y 129 Z1,L 2 Nails 76 91.6 22 68.8 Y 129 Z1,L 2 Pipe 3 3.6 3 9.4 N 129 Z1,L 2 Faunal bone 0.5 0.6 1 3.1 N 130 510N/ 570E Z2,L 1 Pipe 0.5 100 1 100 N 131 514N/ 570E Z1,L 1 Glass 1.5 60 1 25 N 131 Z1,L 1 Nails 0.5 20 2 50 N 131 Z1,L 1 Pipe 0.5 20 1 25 N 132 514N/ Z1,L Glass 5 19.2 3 33.3 Y
xi 570E 2 132 Z1,L 2 Nails 20.5 78.8 5 55.6 Y 132 Z1,L 2 Pipe 0.5 1.9 1 11.1 N 133 514N/ 570E Z2,L 1 Glass 8 10.6 3 13.6 N 133 Z2,L 1 Nails 67 88.7 18 81.8 N 133 Z2,L 1 Pipe 0.5 100 1 100 N 135 518N/ 570E Z1,L 1 Glass 3 100 5 100 N 136 518N/ 570E Z1,L 2 Glass 51.5 26.9 18 37.5 Y 136 Z1,L 2 Nails 101 52.7 22 45.8 Y 136 Z1,L 2 Large iron spike 30.5 15.9 1 2.1 Y 136 Z1,L 2 Misc. metal 4 2.1 136 Z1,L 2 Pipe 3.5 1.8 6 12.5 N 136 Z1, L 2 Pencil lead 1 0.5 1 2.1 N 137 518N/ 570E Z2,L 1 Glass 4 12.9 2 20 Y 137 Z2,L 1 Nails 25 80.6 6 60 N 137 Z2,L 1 Pipe 2 6.4 2 20 N 138 522N/ 570E Z1,L 2 Glass 18.5 30.6 6 27.3 Y 138 Z1,L 2 Nails 32 59.9 11 50 N 138 Z1,L 2 Faunal bone 9 14.9 3 13.6 N 13 8 Z1,L 2 Ceramic, Aboriginal 1 1.7 2 9.1 N 139 522N/ 570E Z2,L 1 Glass 25 35.7 7 35 Y 139 Z2,L 1 Nails 45 64.3 13 65 Y 140 Z2,L Nails 2 100 1 100 N
xii 2 141 526N/ 570E Z1,L 1 Glass 28.5 87.7 11 61.6 Y 141 Z1,L 1 Nails 3 9.2 6 33.3 N 141 Z1,L 1 Pipe 1 3.1 1 5.6 N 142 526N/ 570E Z1,L 2 Glass 16.5 14.2 15 39.5 N 142 Z1,L 2 Nails 41 35.2 16 42.1 N 142 Z1,L 2 Large iron spike 47.5 40.8 1 2.6 N 142 Z1,L 2 Misc. metal 9 7.7 4 10.5 N 142 Z1,L 2 Pipe, decorated 2 1.7 1 2.6 N 142 Z1,L 2 Faunal shell 0.5 0.4 1 2.6 N 143 526N/ 570E Z2,L 1 Misc. metal, plate 1 100 1 100 N 144 526N/ 570E Z2,L 2 Glass 65 73.4 35 77.8 N 144 Z2,L 2 Nails 15 16.9 4 8.9 N 144 Z2,L 2 Misc. metal 7.5 8.5 5 11 N 144 Z2,L 2 Chert 1 1.1 1 2.2 N 145 540N/ 570E Z1,L 1 Glass 4 53.3 7 77.8 Y 145 Z 1,L 1 Ceramic, glazed 3.5 46.7 2 22.2 Y 146 540N/ 570E Z1,L 2 Glass 0.5 11.1 2 66.7 N 146 Z1,L 2 Ceramic, glazed 4 88.9 1 33.3 Y 148 540N/ 570E Z2,L 2 Glass 4 29.6 1 25 N 148 Z2,L 2 Nails 4.5 33.3 1 25 N 148 Z2,L 2 Ceramic, glazed 5 37 2 50 Y 149 540N/ Z1,L Nails 25.5 60 12 Y
xiii 544 E 1 149 Z1,L 1 Misc. metal 17 40 U 150 540N/ 544E Z2,L 1 Glass 10 11.2 7 Y 150 Z2,L 1 Nails 63.5 71.3 16 Y 150 Z2,L 1 Misc. metal 11 12.4 U 150 Z2,L 1 Building material 4.5 5.1 2 U 151 540N/ 544E Z2,L 2 Misc. metal 0.5 25 1 50 N 151 Z2,L 2 Chert 1.5 75 1 50 N 152 540N/ 552E Z1,L 1 Glass 5 3.7 3 N 152 Z1,L 1 Nails 68 50.9 20 Y 152 Z1,L 1 Misc. metal 60 44.9 U 152 Z1,L 1 Chert 0.5 0.4 2 N 152 A 540N/ 552E Z1,L 2 Glass 0.5 0.4 1 N 152 A Z1,L 2 Nails 118.5 94 30 Y 152 A Z1,L 2 Misc. metal 6 4.8 U 152 A Z1,L 2 Pipe 0.5 0.4 1 Y 152 A Z1,L 2 Chert 0.5 0.4 3 N 153 540N/ 552E Z2,L 2 Nails 2 13.8 1 14.3 N 153 Z2,L 2 Chert 12.5 86.2 6 85.7 N 154 546N/ 544E Z1,L 1 Glass 8.5 13.4 5 N 154 Z1,L 1 Nails 21 33.1 8 N 154 Z1,L 1 Misc. metal 34 53.6 U 155 546N/ Z1,L Glass 5 2.6 4 Y
xiv 544E 2 155 Z1,L 2 Nails 104 53.5 22 Y 155 Z1,L 2 Misc. metal 21 10.8 U 155 Z1,L 2 Pipe 1 0.5 1 N 155 Z1,L 2 Bone fork handle 20 10.3 2 N 159 546N/ 544E Z2,L 1 Glass 3.5 3.5 2 Y 159 Z2,L 1 Nails 58.5 58.5 12 N 159 Z2,L 1 Misc. metal 26.5 26.5 U 159 Z2,L 1 Misc. metal, lead sprue 2.5 2.5 1 U 159 Z2,L 1 Chert 9 9 2 N 160 546N/ 544E Z2,L 2 Glass 1 2.3 2 N 160 Z2,L 2 Nails 4.5 10.5 2 N 160 Z2,L 2 Misc. metal 37 86 U 160 Z2,L 2 Chert 0.5 1.2 2 N 156 546N/ 538E Z1,L 1 Glass 12.5 41 2 Y 156 Z1,L 1 Nails 10.5 34.4 3 N 156 Z1,L 1 Misc. metal 3 9.8 U 156 Z1,L 1 .38 cal shell casing 4 13.1 1 N 156 Z1,L 1 Chert <0.5 1.6 1 N 157 546N/ 538E Z1,L 2 Glass 1.5 4.1 2 N 157 Z1,L 2 Nails 32 87.7 11 N 157 Z1,L 2 Misc. metal 2.5 6.8 U 157 Z1,L Pipe 0.5 1.4 1 N
xv 2 161 546N/ 538E Z2,L 1 Chert 2 100 2 100 N
xvi Appendix B: Hope Homestead Artifacts UNIT LEVEL TYPE WEIGH T (G) % TOTAL % TOTAL W/O BRICK Trench A West Z1,L1 Glass 26.5 2.5 13.4 Z1,L1 Flat glass 5 0.5 2.5 Z1,L1 Nails 56 5.3 28.3 Z1,L1 Misc.metal 9 0.9 4.5 Z1,L1 Ceramic 100.5 9.5 50.8 Z1,L1 Building material/Brick 859.5 81.3 Z1,L1 Faunal bone 1 0.1 0.5 Trench A East Z1,L1 Glass 452 26.1 41.2 Z1,L1 Flat glass 22.5 1.3 2.1 Z1,L1 Nails 440 25.4 40.1 Z1,L1 Misc. metal 80 4.6 7.3 Z1,L1 Ceramic 100 5.8 9.1 Z1,L1 Building material/Brick 632.5 36.6 Z1,L1 Slate 3 0.2 0.3 Trench A Z1, L2 Glass 209 11.5 Z1, L2 Flat glass 29 1.6 Z1, L2 Nails 1000.5 55.2 Z1, L2 Misc. metal 297.5 16.4 Z1, L2 Ceramic 215 11.9 Z1, L2 Pipe 2 0.1 Z1, L2 Lead shot 1.5 0.1 Z1, L2 Misc. 2.5 0.1 Z1, L2 Faunal bone 39.5 2.2 Z1, L2 Aboriginal 15 0.8 Trench A Z 2,L1 Glass 31 33.9 Z2,L1 Flat glass 1 0.1 Z2,L1 Nails 38 41.5 Z2,L1 Misc. metal 13.5 14.8 Z2,L1 Ceramic 4.5 4.9 Z2,L1 Slate 0.5 0.5 Z2,L1 Building material 2.5 2.7 Z2,L1 Bone 0.5 0.5 Trench B West Z1,L1 Glass 15.5 7.4 Z1,L1 Flat g lass 22 10.5
xvii Z1,L1 Nails 109 52 Z1,L1 Misc. metal 8.5 4.1 Z1,L1 Ceramic 37 17.7 Z1,L1 Slate 1 0.5 Z1,L1 Faunal bone 3.5 1.7 Z1,L1 Oyster shell 13 6.2 Trench B East Z1,L1 Glass 15.5 2.2 12.4 Z1,L1 Flat glass 10.5 1.5 8.4 Z1,L1 Nails 62 8.8 49.6 Z1,L1 Misc. metal 22 3.1 17.6 Z1,L1 Ceramic 13.5 1.9 10.8 Z1,L1 Building material/Brick 579 82.2 Z1,L1 Faunal bone 1.5 0.2 1.2 Trench B Z1,L2 Glass 309.5 20.3 Z1,L2 Flat glass 52 3.4 Z1,L2 Nails 614 40.4 Z1,L2 Misc. metal 195 .5 12.9 Z1,L2 Ceramic 350 23 Trench B Z2, L1 Glass 50 11.7 Z2, L1 Flat glass 5.5 Z2, L1 Nails 152 35.5 Z2, L1 Misc. metal 120 28 Z2, L1 Ceramic 100.5 23.5