ARCHITECTURAL VARIATIONS IN PENSACOLA’S

THREE PRESIDIOS

by

James Nottingham Greene

B.S., University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, 2004

A thesis submitted to the Department of Anthropology College of Arts and Sciences The University of West Florida In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts

2009

© 2008 James Nottingham Greene

ii

The thesis of James Nottingham Greene is approved:

Norma J. Harris, M.A., Committee Member Date

John J. Clune, Ph.D., Committee Member Date

Elizabeth D. Benchley, Ph.D., Committee Chair Date

Accepted for the Department/Division:

John R. Bratten, Ph.D., Chair Date

Accepted for the University:

Richard S. Podemski, Ph.D., Dean of Graduate Studies Date

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A special thanks to my committee members Dr. Elizabeth Benchley, Norma

Harris, and Dr. Jay Clune for their wisdom and guidance. Dr. Benchley, as my committee

chair you have spent uncountable hours working with me on all aspects of my thesis. You

have helped me complete the thesis process and provided the means for me to become a

field director on various projects downtown. Fieldwork with you has been valuable and

helped me with my own interpretations. Norma, you have always been there for me and if

not for you I would likely not be here. I and many other graduate students look up to you because of your diligence, no nonsense, and compassion. You are what we strive to be, a

great archaeologist and a good friend. Dr. Clune, your history courses are the best I have

taken. I always looked forward to your classes, which set the basis for my research.

The entire department of anthropology at UWF has helped me through the years.

Jan Lloyd, your lab skills are the best I have experienced. What I learned from you can be

applied to lab situations in the future. Lee McKenzie (a.k.a. Lee-O-Tech) created all my

digitized figures. Lee thanks for not sugar coating the thesis process. It is safe to say that

there is no other person like you. I will never forget you or your 49 cent Equate chicken

pot pies. I would also like to thank Greg Cook for helping Krista out with her thesis, for

throwing great crawfish boils, and for being the coolest guy on the street. Oh, Greg,

congratulations on the upcoming chance at fatherhood. Ken Alderman also deserves

thanks for helping me go to conferences and his dedication to this department. I would

iv

also like to thank Dr. Judith Bense who is an inspiring leader and not afraid to get things done.

In receiving the Pat and Hal Marcus Fellowship, I have been able to complete my thesis in a timely manner. Graduate students are lucky that this fellowship and other grants and scholarships are available. I greatly appreciate the fellowship, for without it, I may not have completed my graduate studies.

I would like to thank the friends I have made at UWF who helped me achieve my goals and made my time here memorable. Primarily, I would like to thank Krista Jordan-

Greene. She is my wife, best friend, and a much better archaeologist than she credits herself. We met at UWF, and she is the primary reason moving to Pensacola was a good decision. Thanks to Mary Furlong for being the best landlord/public archaeologist I know. April Holmes, we had some good times working in the field together, which I will not forget. Chris and Kristy Mickwee, you both are awesome. Chris, you are the most intelligent, diligent, and theoretical graduate student in the department. You deserve more credit than you receive. Great things will come from you in the future. Roc Jarvis, you are the man. You have the best field skills, an analytical personality, and a clear understanding of how to go about life. Brian Adams, well you are a UWF legend in white

Jordans. Shane Pickett (Puddin), you have been a great roommate and a good friend.

Thanks for being there. And to all the friends I’ve made in Pensacola, Amanda aka Wo- manda, Larry, Josh, Paul, Heather, Paul Mall, the ultimate Frisbee crew, Wayne, Vivian,

Laura, Elizabeth Murphy, Juan G., Irina, and Sarah Price. It has been a good time and I hope the best for all of you.

v

I would also like to extend my thanks to Dr. Kirby Kemper, Vice president of

Research at Florida State University, and Dr. Elizabeth D. Benchley of the Archaeology

Institute at the University of West Florida for their permission to use of certain figures within this thesis. These figures made my thesis more easily understood. The permission letters are provided in appendix A and B at the end of this thesis.

Last, but not least, I would like to thank my family. Catherine Greene, thank you for countless edits of my thesis and research papers. You have been there every step of the way and I appreciate it. Dr. W. O. Greene, thank you for being my father and a mentor. You are my motivation. Without support from both of you my graduate career would not have been possible. Thank you for everything.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... iv

LIST OF TABLES ...... ix

LIST OF FIGURES ...... xii

ABSTRACT ...... xiv

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

CHAPTER II. ENVIROMENTAL SETTING ...... 5 A. Physiography...... 7 B. Climate ...... 8 C. Flora ...... 9 D. Fauna ...... 9 E. Presidio Santa María de Galve ...... 10 F. Presidio Isla de Santa Rosa ...... 12 G. Presidio San Miguel ...... 12 H. Discussion ...... 12

CHAPTER III. HISTORICAL CONTEXT ...... 14 A. Presidio Santa María de Galve ...... 14 B. Presidio Isla de Santa Rosa ...... 18 C. Presidio San Miguel ...... 24 D. Discussion ...... 28

CHAPTER IV. THE ARCHITECTURE OF PENSACOLA’S THREE SPANISH PRESIDIOS ...... 29 A. The Laws of the Indies ...... 29 B. Spanish Architectural Terminology ...... 31 C. Spanish Colonial Floor Plans ...... 34 D. French Architecture on the Gulf Coast ...... 35 E. Presidio Santa María...... 38 F. Historical Data, Presidio Santa María ...... 39 G. Archaeological Data, Presidio Santa María ...... 46 H. Presidio Santa Rosa...... 51 I. Historical Data, Presidio Santa Rosa ...... 51 J. Archaeological Data, Presidio Santa Rosa ...... 53 vii

K. Presidio San Miguel ...... 63 L. Historical Data, Presidio San Miguel...... 63 M. Archaeological Data, Presidio San Miguel ...... 72 N. Archaeological and Historical Data Comparison ...... 82 O. French Gulf Coast and Spanish Architecture at Pensacola ...... 85 P. Discussion ...... 85

CHAPTER V. ARTIFACT ANALYSIS ...... 87 A. Building Material Assemblage, Presidio Santa María ...... 88 B. Building Material Assemblage, Presidio Santa Rosa ...... 90 C. Building Material Assemblage, Presidio San Miguel ...... 92 D. Excavation Areas and Features, Presidio Santa María ...... 95 E. Excavation Areas and Features, Presidio Santa Rosa ...... 110 F. Excavation Areas and Features, Presidio San Miguel ...... 134 D. Architectural Model of Building Types ...... 147 E. Wood Structures ...... 148 F. Wood Structures with Plastered Walls ...... 148 G. Buildings Constructed with Nogging ...... 148 H. Cooking Facilities ...... 149 I. Presidio Comparison ...... 150 J. Window Glass and Hardware ...... 151 K. Discussion ...... 154

CHAPTER VI. DISCUSSION ...... 155 A. Constructed Landscapes ...... 156 B. Conceptualized Landscapes ...... 158 C. Ideational Landscapes ...... 163

RERFERENCES ...... 170

APPENDIXES ...... 176 A. Kirby Kemper’s Copyright Permission Letter ...... 177 B. Elizabeth D. Benchley’s Copyright Permission Letter ...... 180

viii

LIST OF TABLES

1. First Spanish Period Archaeological Data ...... 82

2. First Spanish Period Historical Data ...... 83

3. Building Materials at Santa María with Brick ...... 89

4. Building Materials at Santa María without Brick ...... 89

5. Building Materials at Santa Rosa with Brick ...... 91

6. Building Materials at Santa Rosa without Brick...... 92

7. Building Materials at San Miguel with Mortar, Brick and Stone ...... 93

8. Building Materials at San Miguel without Mortar, Brick and Stone ...... 93

9. Weight of Building Materials by Area at Santa María ...... 97

10. Density of Building Materials at Santa María by Area ...... 97

11. Building Material Assemblage of the North West Wall Barracks ...... 100

12. North West Wall Barracks, Assemblage of Structural Features ...... 100

13. Building Material Assemblage of the North Wall Barracks ...... 101

14. North Wall Barracks, Assemblage of Structural Features ...... 101

15. Building Material Assemblage of the South West Wall Barracks ...... 102

16. Southwest Wall Barracks, Assemblage of Structural Features ...... 103

17. Building Material Assemblage of the Hospital ...... 104

18. Hospital, Assemblage of Structural Features ...... 104

19. Building Material Assemblage of the Warehouse ...... 105

ix

20. Warehouse, Assemblage of Structural Features ...... 106

21. Building Material Assemblage of the Church ...... 107

22. Church, Assemblage of Structural Features ...... 108

23. Building Material Assemblage of the Village ...... 108

24. Village, Assemblage of Features 648 and 435...... 109

25. Village, Assemblage of Features 251, 438, 481, 465, and 466...... 110

26. Building Material Assemblage at Santa Rosa by Area ...... 113

27. Density of Building Materials by Area at Santa Rosa ...... 114

28. Building Material Assemblage of the North and South Ditch Profiles ...... 114

29. Building Material Assemblage of the North Ditch Profile Extension ...... 115

30. Building Material Assemblage of the South Ditch Profile Extension ...... 116

31. Building Material Assemblage of Block 1 North ...... 117

32. Block 1 North, Assemblage of Feature 32 ...... 118

33. Block 1 North, Assemblage of Feature 27 ...... 118

34. Block 1 North, Assemblage of Feature 105 ...... 119

35. Building Material Assemblage of Block 1 South ...... 122

36. Block 1 South, Assemblage of Features 57, 198, 199 and 214 ...... 123

37. Block 1 South, Assemblage of Features 128 and 234 ...... 123

38. Building Material Assemblage of Trench 13 East ...... 125

39. Trench 13 East, Assemblage of Feature79/156/165 Complex ...... 125

40. Trench 13 East, Assemblage of Features 72 and 115b ...... 126

41. Trench 13 East, Assemblage of Features 73, 116 and 109 ...... 127

42. Building Material Assemblage of Trench 13 West ...... 128 x

43. Trench 13 West, Assemblage of Feature 40 ...... 129

44. Trench 13 West, Assemblage of Feature 60 ...... 130

45. Trench 13 West, Assemblage of Feature 62/215/219 Complex ...... 131

46. Trench 13 West, Assemblage of Feature 190 ...... 132

47. Trench 13 West, Assemblage of Features 86, 138 and 154 ...... 133

48. Building Material Assemblage of Old Christ Church...... 135

49. Building Material Assemblage of Plaza Ferdinand ...... 136

50. Building Material Assemblage of the Commanding Officer’s Compound ...... 137

51. Density of Building Materials at San Miguel ...... 137

52. Old Christ Church, Assemblage of Features 69 and 97 ...... 138

53. Old Christ Church, Assemblage of Features 119, 125, and 118 ...... 139

54. Old Christ Church, Assemblage of Feature 92 ...... 140

55. Old Christ Church, Assemblage of Feature 140 ...... 140

56. Plaza Ferdinand, House Lot 1, Assemblage of Features 21 and 48 ...... 142

57. Plaza Ferdinand, House Lot 1, Assemblage of Western Building Posts ...... 143

58. Plaza Ferdinand, House Lot 2, Assemblage of Feature 122 ...... 143

59. Plaza Ferdinand, House Lot 2, Assemblage of Posts in Trench 6 ...... 144

60. Commanding Officer’s Compound, Assemblage of Block 1 North ...... 146

61. Commanding Officer’s Compound, Assemblage of the Ell Extension ...... 147

62. Weight and Percentage of Building Materials for Each Presidio ...... 151

63. Count and Weight of Window Glass and Hardware at Presidio Santa María ...... 152

64. Count and Weight of Window Glass and Hardware at Presidio Santa Rosa ...... 153

65. Count and Weight of Window Glass and Hardware at Presidio San Miguel ...... 154 xi

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Pensacola Bay system ...... 6

2. Pensacola’s Spanish Presidios, 1698-1763 ...... 11

3. A Perspective View of Pensacola by Dominic Serres, 1743 ...... 23

4. Spanish map of Fort San Miguel, 1763 ...... 26

5. 1699 map of Presidio Santa María de Galve by Jayme Franck ...... 41

6. François Le Maire 1713 map of Fort San Carlos de Austria ...... 43

7. 1719 French map of Fort San Carlos de Austria ...... 45

8. Officer’s Barracks at Santa María de Galve plan map (Bense and Wilson 2003) ....47

9. Santa Rosa, Trench 13 West composite plan view (Harris and Eschbach 2006) .....55

10. Santa Rosa, Block 1 South plan view of features (Harris and Eschbach 2006) ...... 58

11. Santa Rosa, Trench 13 East composite plan view (Harris and Eschbach 2006) ...... 60

12. Santa Rosa, Block 1 North composite plan view (Harris and Eschbach 2006) ...... 62

13. Spanish map of Fort San Miguel, 1763 ...... 65

14. Durnford’s 1765 map of Pensacola...... 70

15. 1765 View of Pensacola drawing by George Gauld ...... 71

16. 2005 and 2006 excavation units on 1764 British map (Benchley 2007b) ...... 75

17. 2005 and 2006 plan maps, First Spanish features (Benchley 2007b) ...... 78

18. 8ES49 Old Christ Church First Spanish features (Williams 2004) ...... 81

19. 1713 Fort map ...... 96

xii

20. Santa María, Northwest Wall Barracks (Bense and Wilson 2003) ...... 99

21. Santa Rosa, Pensacola site map (Harris and Eschbach 2006) ...... 112

22. Santa Rosa, Block 1 South composite plan view (Harris and Eschbach 2006) ...121

23. Plan of the Harbour and Settlement of Pensacola ...... 160

24. Agustin Lopez’s 1756 map ...... 162

xiii

ABSTRACT ARCHITECTURAL VARIATIONS IN PENSACOLA’S THREE PRESIDIOS

James Nottingham Greene

This thesis uses landscape archaeology theory to analyze architectural elements at Pensacola’s eighteenth century Spanish garrisons. Historical documents and archaeological features for each presidio are analyzed to delineate construction variations through time. Landscape archaeology theory is used to interpret the observed variations in architecture. This analysis shows how architectural characteristics were transformed and adapted to each of the three environmental settings selected by the Spanish during the

eighteenth century.

xiii CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this thesis is to examine similarities and differences in architectural style and construction methods at Pensacola’s three presidios and to gain an understanding of architectural stability and change using the perspective of landscape analysis. This study will enhance our understanding of the human past by delineating

First Spanish construction methods specific to West Florida and by evaluating the development of Pensacola’s colonial communities.

The three presidios of Pensacola (Santa María 1698-1719, Santa Rosa 1722-1752 and San Miguel 1752-1763) provide an opportunity to compare diachronic changes in

First Spanish Period architecture. Landscape archaeology theory will help to understand the variations in architecture at each settlement by showing how the culture transformed and adapted to each environmental location (Crumley 1994:5-7; Knapp and Ashmore

1999:1-30).

The term landscape, when referred to by archaeologists, is not well defined.

Ashmore and Knapp state that the concept of landscape is unstable, that it moves to and fro between a natural and cultural continuum and that its meaning is relative to specific artistic and scientific viewpoints (Knapp and Ashmore 1999:5-16). In other disciplines, such as geography, the term landscape is clearly defined. For example, a geographic definition of landscape considers it a portion of the earth that the observer sees and

1 2 comprehends (Stine et al. 1997:1-5). The archaeologist’s understanding of the term landscape is more dynamic than the generalized geographic understanding. An example of this is Shackel and Little’s placement of a landscape within the terminology of an artifact. Terming a landscape as an artifact suggests that each landscape holds expressions of ideals, emulation, and power assertion. The landscape is a three dimensional artifact that is important to an observer, such as a religious center (Shackel and Little 1994:97-100). John Whinberry takes this concept further by stating that a landscape is not merely a series of artifacts, but that the perceived area also has a set of ideals or symbols that reinforce the economic, political and social structure of society

(Whinberry 1994:3-12). The integration of physical and cultural elements is key to understanding the term landscape from an archaeological perspective.

Several archaeologists have written about landscape theory. Wendy Ashmore and

Bernard Knapp consider landscape archaeology theory a holistic approach that stresses the interrelationship of people and their places and constructed features through time and space (Knapp and Ashmore 1999:5-16). Along similar lines Carole Crumley states that the theory is the study of the material relationship between humans and the environment

(Crumley 1994:6). To clarify the theoretical concept, Ashmore and Knapp describe three categories of landscapes: constructed landscapes, conceptualized landscapes, and ideational landscapes. Constructed landscapes are physically visible features created by human ideas and emotions, for example buildings, villages and towns. Conceptualized landscapes are natural environments or features that have been given meaning through social practices and experiences. These environments may incorporate religious and/or powerful cultural meanings such as sacred caves. Ideational landscapes signify not just the physical landscape but the emotional meaning the place holds. Examples are cultural 3 centers that signify power and authority (Knapp and Ashmore 1999). These categories provide a useful framework to examine Pensacola’s presidios. Landscape archaeology theory strives to take observed features, whether they are physically constructed, conceptualized, or ideational and place them within the cultural system in which they exist, a truly holistic approach.

The unit of analysis is the greater Pensacola area within Escambia County,

Florida. Pensacola’s Spanish presidios are located in three different environmental locations that shaped land use. Aspects of constructed, conceptualized and ideational landscapes will be the focus of this analysis. The analysis will list the architectural characteristics of each presidio and show how they vary through time and space. In order to effectively describe the variations in architecture, three factors will be considered: the composition of individual structures, the function of buildings, and the environmental setting of each settlement. The composition of individual structures will be provided by describing construction methods generated from historical and archaeological data.

Aspects of the natural environment to be considered include site location (i.e. barrier island or mainland) and the access to natural resources such as fresh water, trees, faunal and floral resources and building materials. Examining these factors will provide a greater understanding of each settlement’s constructed, conceptualized, and ideational landscape.

Three lines of evidence will aid in interpreting the variations in architecture at

Pensacola’s presidios. First, the use of maps and historical documents will help in understanding the physical and conceptual landscape of each area. Historical maps will provide information about the perceived environment and the arrangement of individual buildings. Historical documents will provide details about the population, settlement 4 history, and building details. Second, an assessment of archaeological features discovered at a series of excavations will yield further information on construction methods. Third, artifact data gleaned from the Santa María, Santa Rosa and San Miguel databases will help in dating structural features and in providing detailed information on building materials used at each site. These data, combined with landscape analysis, will aid in interpreting the constructed, conceptualized, and ideational landscape of each settlement and illustrate variations in architecture through time and space.

CHAPTER II

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

Pensacola, in Escambia County, is located in Northwest Florida (Figure 1). This area was favored by Europeans because of its deep bay system that allowed for safe anchoring. The shoreline incorporated a sandy barrier island, inland forests, marine terraces and high ridges. The area had several freshwater systems that included rivers, streams, and springs, making this location favorable for settlement. A drawback of the region was acidic sandy soils that were not conducive to agricultural production. The following discussion will cover the physical and environmental setting of Pensacola as well as a site specific synopsis of Presidios Santa María, Santa Rosa and San Miguel in order to show the variations in environmental settings at each site. This discussion is adapted in large part from the work of John Phillips (Phillips 2001) and Elizabeth

Benchley (Benchley 2007a:3-7).

5

7

Physiography

Escambia County is in the East Gulf Coastal Plain region of the Southeastern

United States, with extensive drainage systems, diverse coastal environments, and a pine and hardwood forested inland. The drainage systems within the region include two major rivers, Perdido and Escambia. Perdido River is a small river that drains into Perdido Bay along the western edge of the county. The streams associated with the Perdido drainage system are narrow and make up correspondingly narrow flood plains. The adjacent eroded valley consists of low lying sandhills and natural forests of pine and bottom land hardwoods. Escambia River, along the eastern edge of the county, is a much larger river that drains into Escambia Bay. Being the largest and longest river in the region, Escambia

River is wide with a broad flood plain. This extensive floodplain creates a wetland that supports a large wildlife population. The river valley surrounding Escambia River is demarcated with low lying sand hills, clay rich bluffs, and forests with pine and hardwoods (Benchley 2007a:5).

The extensive coastal environment in the Pensacola region includes four bays and a portion of Santa Rosa Sound. The four bays around Pensacola are Perdido, Pensacola,

Escambia and East. The deepest are Pensacola and Escambia. Here, deep waters are relatively close to the shoreline providing good locations for harbors and careening ships.

The pass from the Gulf of Mexico into Pensacola Bay is also deep, allowing for large draft ships to enter the bay system. Several miles of bay and sound coastline have wetlands, cliffs, and countless white sand beaches (Benchley 2007a:5). Resources within the bay include aquatic wildlife such as many species of fish, turtles, and shellfish such as oysters. 8

The mainland of the Pensacola region had a forested inland and two large peninsulas. The forested inland consisted of longleaf pine and hardwoods, predominantly oak. These forests supplied lumber to Spanish colonists for timber framed buildings, the construction of forts and the production of naval supplies. The two large peninsulas within the Pensacola region are Garcon Point and Gulf Breeze (Figure 1). Garcon Point has dry sandy soils along its northern portion and wetlands from the central to the southern portions. These wetlands supported extensive cypress swamps. Both shorelines along the east and west side of this peninsula have eroded during seasonal storms.

The Gulf Breeze Peninsula is long and narrow, extending 30 miles in length from the Navarre area to the city of Gulf Breeze on the western end. The narrow peninsula, ranging from 0.5 to 2 miles wide, has sand dunes, live oaks and sandy pine scrubs with some hardwood hammocks along the shoreline. The peninsula, like Garcon Point, is eroding from seasonal storms (Benchley 2007a:5). Town Point, along the northwestern end of Gulf Breeze was an important location for ship careenage in colonial times. This area has deep water at the shoreline allowing ships to come close for cleaning and repair

(Jordan-Greene 2007).

Climate

Northwest Florida’s climate is warm, temperate and humid (Phillips 2001:1).

Summers are hot and muggy with an average temperature of 80 degrees Fahrenheit. The typical winter is mild, with an average of 54 degrees Fahrenheit. Annual precipitation is around 65 inches a year, with rain occurring throughout the year. Winds prevail from the south and southwest during the spring and summer and from the north and northwest 9 during the fall and winter. Hurricanes are also a common threat, with the current season extending from June to November (Phillips 2001:1).

Flora

Northwest Florida exhibits a variety of vegetation groups within several environmental settings. The uplands comprise a mixed pine and oak forest with an overstory of “longleaf, sand and slash pine, post oak, black jack oak, turkey oak and live oak and an understory of saw palmetto, lopsided Indian grass and chalky bluestem

(Phillips 2001:6).” The lowland stream terraces have long leaf pine, red oak, live oak, magnolia, dogwood and hickory. Areas along streams are forested with long leaf pine, cypress, blackgum, water oak and titi, with an understory of huckleberry, fern, greenbrier, waxmyrtle and gallberry. The swampland community has grasses, sedges, and rushes, with an overstory of cypress, sycamore, and sweet gum, juniper, longleaf pine and water tolerant oaks (Phillips 2001:6). During colonial times floral resources were necessary for settlement construction. Materials such as pine and cedar for wall posts of buildings and forts, and cypress bark, palmetto fronds and wood shingles were used as roofing materials. Likewise, live oaks were used in ship framing, pines for naval stores, and cypress for masts.

Fauna

Among the variety of wildlife there are several mammal species, avian species, reptiles and aquatic animals. There are small to medium sized mammals such as the common skunk, opossums, gray squirrels, the gray fox, racoon, and deer. The reptile community includes box turtles, spotted turtles, diamond-back terrapin, fence lizard, the blue-tailed skink, the black snake, cottonmouth snake, pygmy rattlesnake, black snake 10 and water snake. Avian species characteristic of this area are a variety of song birds, water fowl, doves, woodpeckers, hawks and other raptors. Aquatic wildlife is abundant with species such as catfish, mullet, snapper, minnows and shellfish such as oysters, mussels, crabs, and shrimp (Phillips 2001:6).

Presidio Santa María de Galve

Presidio Santa María de Galve is located on today’s Pensacola Naval Air Station on top of a sandy bluff looking out toward Pensacola pass (Figure 2). This area was chosen by the Spanish to defend the opening of the bay against rival European powers.

Atop the bluff at approximately 15 to 25 ft Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL), the vegetation would have included long leaf pine, a variety of oak, and many other species characteristic of a maritime hammock environment. Fresh water resources consisted of a seep spring at the bluff’s base and sources associated with creeks feeding into Bayou

Grande to the north. The placement of this presidio proved to be insufficient because cannon fire could not reach the mouth of the bay to defend the pass from European ships and its mainland location made it susceptible to Indian attack (Clune et al. 2003:33).

12

Presidio Isla de Santa Rosa

Presidio Santa Rosa was located on Santa Rosa Island, near its western tip (Figure

2). Santa Rosa, a barrier island, stretches from Pensacola to Fort Walton Beach. The island is 50 miles long and no wider than 0.7 miles. Vegetation along the coastline consisted of sea oats, grasses, sparse pines and live oaks. Today, wetlands border the site area. The town faced Pensacola Bay where there was an anchorage for ships. The highest spot at the site is six feet AMSL. Because of this area’s low elevation it was (and is still) susceptible to storm surge and it was often inundated during hurricanes (Harris and

Eschbach 2006:3).

Presidio San Miguel

Presidio San Miguel was situated on a low sandy rise or marine terrace remnant on the mainland along Pensacola Bay, at around six to ten feet AMSL (Figure 2). This location, now downtown Pensacola, was surrounded by wetlands to the west, north and east that were drained by two fresh water creeks recently known as Washerwoman and

Cadet Creeks. The eighteenth century vegetation was probably consistent with a lowland environment of long leaf pine, red oak, live oak, magnolia, dogwood and hickory. Like the other site locations, this area is comprised of mainly sandy soils and is not conducive to agricultural practices (Benchley 2007a:7).

Discussion

Northwest Florida has a diverse environment with uplands, marine terraces, wetlands, and coastal resources. The main attraction of Pensacola during the colonial period was the deep water bay and vast forests of pine and oak that were used in construction of buildings, forts, ships and later the lumber industry. While the geographic 13 location and climate of each presidio are similar, their microenvironments differ. These differences include site locations in an elevated marine terrace (Santa María), coastline/barrier island (Santa Rosa) and a low marine terrace (San Miguel). CHAPTER III

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

In order to compare the consistencies and differences of Pensacola’s Spanish colonial architecture it is necessary to understand the historical backgrounds of Presidios

Santa María, Santa Rosa and San Miguel. Pensacola, known by Tristan de Luna (1559) as the “Bay of Ochuse,” acquired its modern name in 1686 when a Spanish reconnaissance expedition recorded the name of the local Indians as “Panzacola” (Weber

1992:155; Weddle 1973). After Luna’s failed colonization attempt of Pensacola in 1559, the Spanish did not try to colonize the area until mid-November of 1698. Presidios Santa

Maria (1698-1719), Santa Rosa (1722-1752), and San Miguel (1752-1763) represent the

First Spanish Period occupation of Pensacola.

Presidio Santa María de Galve

The establishment of Presidio Santa María by Andrés de Arriola occurred in response to the encroaching French along the Mississippi River and British traders to the east and north of the Gulf Coast. Occupation of Pensacola in 1698 proved to be fortunate because in January of 1699 French mariners led by Pierre Le Moyne Sieur d’Iberville sailed into Pensacola, hoping to establish a French settlement. There, Iberville discovered that the Spanish had beaten him and his crew in staking claim to what seemed

14 15 to be a grand bay (Weber 1992:156; McWilliams 1965). Although the bay seemed to be bountiful, the reality of Santa María was quite the opposite (Weber 1992:158).

Arriola and Austrian military engineer Jayme Franck selected the bluffs overlooking the pass into the bay as the site for Fort San Carlos de Austria. The area, known as the Barranca de San Tome, positioned the fort so that the Spanish could defend the pass from European powers, but the fort’s location made construction a continuous work in progress. The challenge was to keep up the wall of the enclosure, therefore making it defensible. Keeping the enclosure defensible proved quite difficult and expensive with an untrained workforce and an environment that continually eroded the bluff and rotted the wooden posts of the structures. Clune notes that the fort’s constant repair necessitated restocking construction materials and filling Santa María’s orders quickly became bothersome for officials in New Spain (Clune 2003:21).

Santa María functioned as a military settlement and a penal colony. The population was multi-cultural reflecting the ethnicity of New Spain, with mestizos, mulattos, zambos and a small percentage of New World born Spanish. There were several acting governors at the presidio, most notable was Andres de Arriola (1698-

1709). Other individuals who played a role in sustaining the settlement consisted of conscript soldiers, skilled laborers, convict laborers, religious personnel, slaves, and

Native Americans. Convict laborers were sent to Pensacola to serve out their penalties for various crimes committed against the state and church in New Spain. These individuals worked alongside conscript soldiers. The soldiers received wages for their work while the convict laborers (forzado) only received rations. All these individuals aided in sustaining the settlement for its 21 years of occupation (Clune 2003:21). 16

The settlement and fort at Santa María went through many rebuilding episodes.

For example, the military engineer Jayme Franck stated that because of the ignorant workers, poor supplies and nothing to work with but wood, the fort was beginning to rot even before construction was finished. Franck reasoned that because of these circumstances, completing the fort was impossible (Clune et al. 2003:33). Subsequent engineers looked to French carpenters for the construction of buildings and for fortification designs (Wilson 1971:124). The French carpenters from Mobile were especially talented. They used nails and spikes sparingly, relying instead on mortise and tenons (Childers et al.1998:5).

Structures at Santa María also suffered the fate of constant rotting because of rain and humidity. Buildings at Santa María were located inside and outside the fort. By 1714, the structures inside the fort included a church, three barracks, warehouses and a hospital.

These buildings were initially constructed of makeshift saplings with thatched roofs, and later were constructed with timber frames and roofed with shingles (Clune et al. 2003:42-

51).

The War of Spanish Succession, 1702-1713, insured that the inhabitants of Santa

María had other problems besides a hot and humid climate. During this time, the Spanish occupants of Florida were on the defensive. The British Carolinians and their Native

American allies warred across northern Florida, destroying the San Luis mission in

Apalachee and forcing the Spanish occupants to abandon the province in 1704 and seek temporary refuge at Santa María (Weber 1992:159).

The Carolinians and their Indian allies then moved farther west and burned the village at Presidio Santa María in 1707. Despite the Carolinian’s efforts, the Spanish held the fort and continued to occupy the settlement. The War of Spanish Succession 17 weakened Spain’s position in the southeast by destroying its largest mission system and influence among the local Native Americans (Weber 1992:159).

During the War of Spanish Succession (1702-1713), the occupants of Santa María were forced to move inside the fort walls of San Carlos de Austria and abandon the village complex for eight years. All public and domestic structures were located inside the fort, creating a miserable, cramped existence. If not for the French in Mobile who provided supplies, carpenters, and priests, the settlement would not have survived as long as it did (Weber 1992:158).

In 1713, the Treaty of Utrecht ended the War of Spanish Succession. After the war, the inhabitants of Santa María enjoyed a few years of peace, with the ability to venture outside the fort without fear of hostile encounters. Sadly, these years of peace were short lived. French relations soured by 1718 with the start of the War of Quadruple

Alliance (Weber 1992).

The War of Quadruple Alliance (1718-1720) left Spain on its own, while France was allied with England, Holland and Austria. The English and the French regarded the conflict as an opportunity to take Spain’s North American settlements from Texas to

Pensacola. In January of 1719, the French, led by Jean Baptiste Le Moyne Sieur de

Bienville, took control of Santa María de Galve. Through several confrontations in

August and September of 1719 the Spanish officially lost Pensacola to the French. The

French, having no long term plans to occupy Pensacola, persuaded their Indian allies to plunder what was left of the presidio (Clune 2003:23; Weber 1992:165). The same year the Spanish constructed a fort 150 miles to the east at San José on St. Joseph’s Peninsula, just to the west of the Apalachicola River. San José stood as the main Spanish outpost for West Florida for the next three years until Spain reclaimed Pensacola in 1722. 18

Presidio Isla de Santa Rosa

Rather than rebuilding Presidio Santa María, the Spanish moved their primary occupation across the bay to Santa Rosa Island, creating Presidio Isla de Santa Rosa. Led by Alejandro Wauchope, the Spanish built a fort on Punta de Siguenza. This location turned out to be unfavorable and Wauchope sought better ground:

On the twenty seventh, I went to Santa Rosa Island in order to examine the

fittest place on the Punta de Siguenza . . . having seen that the fittest place

on said point for the fortress had ought to be constructed is impossible for

the purpose of habitation with too many marshes and trees for protection. I

made to select another, which in addition to being sheltered by the first

trees on the island, it enjoys some more advantage [Wauchope 1723 AGI

Mexico 380, in Childers 2003:23].

The actual presidio site is about three-quarters of a mile to the east of today’s

Siguenza Point, along the north side of the island. In the first years of the settlement, structures consisted of barracks, a paymaster’s office, domestic buildings, a powder magazine and a lookout tower (Coker 1999:16).

Siguenza Point, long considered a poor location for the fortification, did have some strategic value years earlier. Andrés de Pez recommended that two forts be constructed; one fort at Siguenza Point and the other located on the San Tomé Bluff so that the entrance of the bay could be defended by crossfire. Likewise, the first Governor of Pensacola, Andrés de Arriola, deemed it necessary for two forts to defend the pass, but his military engineer Jayme Franck dissuaded the governor. In 1718, the Spanish Military engineer Antonio Jose Martinez built a small fortification on the point, only to have it fall during the French occupation of Pensacola. Another military engineer, Bruno Caballero 19 de Elvira, sent a report to Spain in November 1722 recommending that a fort not be built on Siguenza Point but rather on Aguero Point near St. Tomé, a more suitable location.

His reasons against Siguenza Point were the loose sand, a low elevation and a limited number of pine trees in the area. This report reached Spain after Wauchope had begun to reoccupy Pensacola and construct a fort and settlement east of Siguenza Point (Clune et al. 2006:30).

The Spanish began their presidio construction by using salvaged materials from

San José and materials from Veracruz. The fort envisioned by Wauchope was to be square, with bastions and at least 48 guns, but the fort never enjoyed such firepower. In

1727, the fort appears to have had no bastions and the fort complex only included a covered way, a powder magazine and a warehouse. The fort was little more than a small stockade with 12 guns and no barracks inside for the soldiers. By 1734, governor Diego de Escobar began construction of a new fort at Seguenza Point that proved worthless during a hurricane in that year. It was not until 1741, when the new Governor Gervasio

Cruzat y Góngora arrived, that reconstruction of the fort began at Siguenza Point. When he arrived, he found the fort at the Santa Rosa settlement in disrepair because of a hurricane in 1740. It consisted of a wooden stockade with a few cannons and stakes buried in the sand. The fortification built under Cruzat’s supervision near the pass had brick construction in some of the bastions, but again in that same year, another hurricane destroyed the unfinished fortification. The fort near the settlement, though under constant repair, was standing in 1752, meaning it was rebuilt before the final hurricane that inundated the settlement (Clune et al. 2006:34).

The structures within the Santa Rosa settlement also had to be rebuilt time and time again (Harris and Eschbach 2006). In 1722, buildings consisted of a warehouse, 20 powder magazine, paymaster’s office, two barracks, a house for Captain Pedro Primo

Rivera, 24 small buildings for workmen, convicts and others, as well as 8 large domestic houses for the officers (Report of don Joseph de Yberri, August 29, 1753, in Autos of the

Hurricane of the second, third and forth of November of 1752 AGI México 2448, in

Childers 2003:13; Clune et al. 2006). By 1727, there was a church situated in the village.

The floor of the church served as a cemetery, although there may have been other burials adjacent to the church for less affluent individuals (Clune et al. 2006:35).

The first residents of Santa Rosa came from San José, around 200 individuals in all. Childers notes that the individuals who vacated San José for Santa Rosa consisted of

179 soldiers and sailors, as well as 24 laborers. Women and children were also present.

An unknown number of Tocobaga and Apalache Native Americans accompanied the settlers to Santa Rosa (Childers 2003:30). Later some of the individuals from San José accompanied Wauchope to Veracruz.

There was an assortment of people at Presidio Santa Rosa. The presidio generally had 200 to 500 inhabitants during occupation. By the 1752 hurricane, it is unclear how many individuals lived at the settlement. The populace of the presidio consisted of military personnel, convicts, civilian laborers, servants, slaves and Indians. Convict laborers were Mestizos, Castizos and Mulattos. They had the most grueling task of constructing the fort. Apparently the life expectancy of a convict laborer was low. For example, Governor Ascona asked for more laborers in 1750, claiming there were only 24 workable men. Franciscan friars, the religious leaders of the community, were from the

Province of Santa Elena, in Havana. This group included a senior chaplain, an assistant and a few missionaries (Clune et al. 2006:41). 21

Several families resided at Santa Rosa, receiving stipends and/or rations for occupying the presidio. In 1741, Governor Cruzat arrived with 6 families and 65 children. The number of families increased to 13 in 1743, 21 in 1752 and 32 in 1753. The civilian population continued to increase at San Miguel with 172 families receiving stipends in 1763 (Clune et al. 2006:41).

Women at Santa Rosa were attached to military personnel and earned stipends

(Clune et al. 2006:41). In 1754, 35 young women were sent from Veracruz on a volunteer basis. The women were either the wives of soldiers or were to be married upon arrival.

Spanish and Mexican women were not numerous and some men took local Indian women as their wives or concubines (Clune et. al. 2006:41).

Food shortages were occasionally a problem at Santa Rosa. At the presidio’s start, food was brought via the situado from Veracruz. The situado was not reliable and the settlement attempted to produce staple goods on the mainland by farming and the practice of animal husbandry. At times the Spanish suffered acute food shortages, especially after hurricanes. The shortages forced the Spanish to again turn to the French in Mobile to restore their supplies and ensure the settlement’s survival. The Spanish in Pensacola quickly learned that supplies of food, hardware and munitions could come from a variety of sources, many of which were not legal (Clune et al. 2006:42-43).

Miliary engineers seemed to be lacking at Santa Rosa. The Spanish military engineer Bruno Caballero de Elvira worked on designing the defenses for the presidio; he did this in Havana and did not design any structure while present at Pensacola. Another engineer, Jose Berbegal accompanied Wauchope at the settlement’s founding, but died before ever constructing anything. This left Wauchope alone and the construction of the presidio fell on the governors and commandants of the settlement (Clune et al. 2006:40). 22

The engraving A Perspective View of Pensacola by Dominic Serres in 1743, confirms that Santa Rosa had all the requirements of a typical frontier settlement (Figure

3). Having a fort, church and village, Santa Rosa was a functional Spanish outpost. The fate of the presidio, however, was plagued with multiple hurricanes that repeatedly destroyed the settlement. A more detailed description of the Serres 1743 engraving will be provided in the following chapter. 1 4 2 3 5 6

A Perspective View of Pensacola 1. The Fort 2. The Church 3. The Governors House 4. The Commandants House 5. A Well 6. A Bungo Public domain. Serres, Dom. 1743. "A perspective view of Pensacola", from Universal Magazine, volume 34 (January 1764), opp. p. 36. Illustration on file at Special Collections, John C. Pace Library, The University of West Florida, Pensacola. Adapted by The Archaeology Institute, The University of West Florida, Pensacola. Figure 3. A Perspective View of Pensacola by Dominic Serres, 1743. 24

Presidio San Miguel

The final hurricane in 1752 prompted the settlers of Santa Rosa to seek refuge on the mainland. Engineer Colonel Phelipe Feringan was sent from Veracruz to survey the damage of the hurricane and make recommendations for relocation. In 1754, Feringan recommended that the majority of the garrison and residents be moved to the mainland, where downtown Pensacola sits today. Several years passed before formal orders came to relocate the Presidio (Report to the King of Spain, April 26, 1788, New York City Public

Library Manuscripts, in Childers 2001:7). In 1756 the Viceroy of New Spain, Marques de las Amarillas, officially ordered the presidio to move to the mainland, naming it Presidio

San Miguel de las Amarillas. The name changed a year later when the king ordered it to be called Presidio San Miguel de Panzacola. In October, a two hundred-soldier garrison manned the presidio. During a three year period, the fortification slowly took shape to a dimension of seven hundred feet east to west (Coker 1999:18).

The construction of the fort was not in the manner that Feringan originally envisioned. Feringan’s plan was to construct a pinwheel or pentagonal shaped structure.

The structure’s design was meant to increase the dependability of the fort by encompassing a greater number of bastions and, in turn, a greater range of fire. New

Spain did not accept Feringan’s plans, but did accept new plans for a fortification devised by Antonio Lopez de la Camara Alta (Estado Mayor of Veracruz, August 12,1754 AGI

Mexico 2448; Consulta of Phelipe Feringan, September 20,1755 AGI 2449, in Childers

2001:54; Dodson 2006:13).

In 1757 the Talapoosa Indians threatened to attack the settlement warranting the quick construction of the fort. Built under supervision of Feringan, the fortification did 25 not resemble the pinwheel pattern he so desired, but was a four sided rectangular fort with four bastions on the corners of the structure (Coker 1999:20).

In 1760, renewed fears of Indian attacks prompted the Spanish to destroy the houses along the outside perimeter of the stockade in order to have a sufficient line of fire. All the inhabitants then moved into the fort. The 1763 Presidio San Miguel map reveals that the majority of San Miguel inhabitants were living in small buildings inside the fort walls (Figure 4). In August of 1760, instead of an Indian attack, a hurricane destroyed half of the stockade and blew off the roofs of most of the structures. The inhabitants suffered that winter with no roofs to protect their homes from the elements

(Coker 1999:20). Digitized photographic film (35mm slide) of MP Fl y La 64, Seville, Spain. On file, John C. Pace Library, The University of West Florida, Pensacola, Special Collections. Dr. W. S. Coker Slide Collection.

Figure 4. Spanish map of Fort San Miguel, 1763. 27

In October of 1761, the new governor Diego Ortíz Parrilla arrived. He was sent to

Pensacola to investigate gross mismanagement charges and the failure to prepare the fort properly for defense by his predecessor Governor Diego Roman. For the next two years during the Seven Years War (1756-1763), Ortíz Parrilla worked on improving the defenses of the presidio. During this time he repaired the stockade and reinstated the production of bricks and mortar (Diego Ortíz Parrilla to the Viceroy January 26, 1763

AGN Indeferente de Guerra 260B, in Childers 2001:42). During the war, the British captured Havana and Manila from the Spanish. Spain agreed to cede Florida to the

British in order to regain Manila and Havana at the end of the war. By 1763, the British were in control of Florida and began their 18 year occupation (Coker 1999:22).

The population of San Miguel was more diverse than presidios Santa María and

Santa Rosa because of an influx of merchants and civilians. By 1756, the official number of inhabitants at San Miguel was around 478 people, with women and children accounting for 202. In 1757, numbers increased to at least 700 with an increase of 95 women, 140 forsados and other military personnel and merchants (Order to the paymaster and Governor of San Miguel de Panzacola November 26, 1756 AGN General de Parte 38

Expediente 221; Note of the vecinos of Panzacola that are presently found in this Plaza of

Veracruz December 27, 1763 AGN Carceles y Presidios 13 Expediente 5; Decree of the

Viceroy July 9, 1756 AGN Marina 268A; Decree of the Viceroy November 17, 1756

AGN Marina 268A, in Childers 2001:84). By December 1761 troop strength was 218 and included 43 cavalrymen and four women counted as soldiers. An additional influx of military support came from Veracruz and Havana in that same year, increasing the number of enlisted to 505 making the total population around 1126. The population included approximately 184 Yamassee Apalachino Indians who were residing at the 28 presidio. A year later, the Viceroy ordered the additional troops to return to their former stations under the assumption that there was no need for an inflated military force (Juan de Pardo to Julian de Arriaga, May 20, 1762, in Childers 2001:85). The population of the presidio continued to fluctuate until the British occupation in 1763.

On August 5, 1763, the British arrived in Pensacola bay with four large naval transports. According to Articles Nineteen and Twenty of the Treaty of Paris, the transfer of Pensacola was to be a peaceful one. Apparently, the British were not impressed with the condition of the presidio. Colonel Prevost noted that the town of Pensacola was

“nothing more than 100 huts and a dilapidated stockade”(Childers et al. 2007:38). The inhabitants of Pensacola who left the presidio for Veracruz totaled 771 individuals including military personnel, civilians and 209 Yamassee-Apalachino Indians (Childers et al. 2007:38).

Discussion

The individual situation at each presidio was different. At Santa María the inhabitants dealt with the constant threat of attack. The population at Santa Rosa endured the heat and multiple hurricanes on Santa Rosa Island. At San Miguel, in spite of threats of attack, the population was the largest of the three presidios, with an influx of merchants and families. Ultimately, the Spanish were successful in controlling the Bay of

Pensacola for 65 years. By the end of the First Spanish Period, San Miguel was a sizable settlement, and the inhabitants left Pensacola for New Spain peacefully. CHAPTER IV

THE ARCHITECTURE OF PENSACOLA’S THREE SPANISH PRESIDIOS

The use of documentary and archaeological evidence related to Pensacola’s three presidios will attempt to show how architecture varied through time. This chapter includes brief discussions on the Laws of the Indies, architectural terminology, Spanish and French architecture along the Gulf Coast, and architectural techniques used in each of the presidios.

The Laws of the Indies

The Laws of the Indies, created in 1542 and modified subsequently, were Spanish ordinances that pertained to town planning. These laws provided a template for the design of Spanish colonial towns. The entire New World colonial empire was expected to conform to the spatial traditions stipulated under these ordinances. They maintained that the settlements would include recognizable features while remaining adaptable to the various geographic locations. Like all other Spanish colonial settlements, Pensacola was subject to the original designs provided by the law (Crouch et al.1982).

There are several ordinances pertaining to town construction. Ordinance # 40 states that the location of the settlement should not be too high in elevation because these areas are affected by winds and are not easily accessible, nor should it be located in a lowland area where the climate is unhealthy. A proper location for a settlement is in the

29 30 middle ground where good winds can be enjoyed especially from the north and south.

Once a possible site had been chosen, inhabitants, under ordinance # 110, began by dividing the place into squares, streets and building lots. The grid pattern of a town was to begin with the plaza or square and have principal streets branching out from the center, to allow space for the town to grow. Secondary ordinances, # 113-134, deal with the placement of buildings within a town. For example, ordinance # 117 stipulates that the street would be laid in such a manner that if the town increased in size, the street would not necessitate rebuilding. Public and governmental buildings are to be around a central plaza. The church, one of the more important public buildings, was to be the focal point encompassing an entire block. Once the public buildings and domestic structures were constructed, ordinance #128 stipulates that the inhabitants were to construct a palisade wall or ditch encircling the plaza or the entire settlement (Crouch et al. 1982).

The three presidios of Pensacola do not adhere to the ordinances stipulated under the Laws of the Indies. Public, religious and governmental buildings at each presidio were generally in centralized locations, however secondary structures were not built outside the center in a grid pattern. At Santa María, after establishing a grid-like town plan, the settlement’s inhabitants were forced to live within the walls of the fort because of Indian attacks and the War of Spanish Succession. Because of the war, the settlement did not grow outside the fort. At Santa Rosa the grid-like spatial organization was not apparent. At San Miguel, the settlement inside the fort was organized into compounds.

There was, however, an open space in the center of Fort San Miguel that could be interpreted as a plaza. 31

Spanish Architectural Terminology

Understanding architectural nomenclature is important when describing the buildings present at Spanish colonial Pensacola. Many of these terms are still used today.

Wall posts are located at the corners and centers of the walls and support the weight of a structure (Manucy 1997:125). The wall posts were either driven into the ground (post in ground) placed into a trench (post in trench) or placed on a sill (post on sill). A sill is a horizontal piece of wood at the bottom of a window frame, a door, or even a whole building (Blackburn 1980:15). Sills were used to prevent wall posts from sinking in the soft sand and also to reduce the wicking of moisture, which caused wood posts to rot.

Fastened to sills were floor joists used to support board flooring. The presence of flooring has been surmised in at least some buildings at all three presidios.

The First Spanish colonial buildings in Pensacola were constructed with either timber framing or earthfast techniques. Timber framing consists of support posts and horizontal tie beams. The horizontal tie beam at the base of the structure is a sill.

Archaeologically, a timber framed structure should have widely spaced posts and deep corner posts. An earthfast structure does not have tie beams or a sill. Within the archaeological record, earthfast structures will have many side by side posts that may be either set in the ground individually or in a trench (Manucy 1997).

Vertical framing between wall posts are known as studs. These smaller posts are used to strengthen a wall and make it rigid. Studs may also be called a brace (Manucy

1997:125; Blackburn 1980:31). In Spanish colonial Pensacola, once the studs were in place, the wall would be finished with lathing, clapboard siding, or nogging. Laths are thin strips of wood that are attached to the studs and wall posts. Once the lath has been attached, either tied, woven, or nailed, an exterior material is applied, either palmetto 32 thatch, daub (packed clay and earth), or plaster (lime produced from baking oyster shells)

(Manucy 1997). Plaster could be applied over clay packed walls.

Clapboard siding was also used to cover walls. Sometimes known as siding or cladding, it is a British term referring to wood planks used in covering the walls of a building (Blackburn 1980:152). Here, clapboard siding refers to the wooden board siding of buildings. In Florida, where trees were plentiful, vertical boards (clapboard siding) were frequently used to cover walls. Clapboard siding also reduces the number of studs needed for construction (Manucy 1997:95).

Another wall construction technique is nogging. Nogging, an English term also known as chinking, refers to brick work built up between the timbers of a house and later covered with plaster (Blackburn 1980:120). The Spanish have a similar technique called cobing and the French call it bousillage, where the area between the studs and wall posts were filled with a mixture of clay and brick to form a wall (Manucy 1997:95).

Roofing is a key component in the integrity of a structure. The main framing elements of a roof in Spanish colonial Florida were the roof plate, roof posts, the rafters, and the ridge pole. A roof plate is a horizontal timber that rests on top of the walls and holds the weight of the roof. It is 3 to 6 inches wide like the wall posts. Roof posts are the center line support for the roof and may also act as a door frame. The ridge pole is the center horizontal timber that rests on the roof posts and is where the rafters are fastened.

Rafters are the timbers that extend from the ridge pole to the eave, acting as a frame for covering the roof with the chosen material (Manucy 1997:70).

The gable roof is the only roof recorded in First Spanish colonial Pensacola

(Gauld 1765; Serres 1743; Franck 1699). A gable roof technically has one hip and two gables. A hip is the top-most line of a roof, also referred to as a peak. Essentially it is the 33 meeting place of two opposing angles, known as the rafters. A gable is the triangular part of a wall under the pitched roof. The center post of this wall is the roof post. The gable is the exterior roof wall that supports the rafters (Blackburn 1980:89). Besides the roof post, other framing pieces of the gable are the tie beam and queen posts. Tie beams are horizontal timbers used to support the roof, just like the ridge post. Queen posts are vertical timbers that fasten to the rafters and tie beams. Queen posts perform the same function as studs in making the gable ridged (Manucy 1997:70).

Various roofing materials were used at Pensacola’s three presidios including palmetto thatch, wood shingles and cypress bark (Clune et al. 2006; Childers 2003, 2001;

Childers et al.1998; Serres 1743). Roofing materials will be described in more detail in the next section of this chapter.

Kitchens and hearths were also important structures in First Spanish Pensacola.

For the most part, Spanish colonial kitchens were located inside residential compounds but were often detached from the main living quarters. Kitchen structures were generally located near gardens and wells. Hearths within these structures were often in the corners and consisted of round bake ovens and elevated stoves, to facilitate building a fire underneath. A wood framed plastered chimney or hood was likely associated with these structures. Ovens could be stand-alone buildings (Manucy 1997:107-115). In some instances, in St. Augustine, for example, kitchens were located inside the living quarters.

The hearth and hood were wood framed and packed with tabby. Tabby is similar to poured concrete and is made by baking limestone or similar lime-based rock or shell. In

St. Augustine, tabby was made from rock composed of cemented coquina. Wooden rafters supported a tabby ceiling. A drain spout was attached to the hood and acted as a 34 ventilation system (Manucy 1997:117). Pensacola differed from St. Augustine in that tabby was rarely used.

Spanish Colonial Floor Plans

Floor plans for First Spanish Period buildings at Pensacola’s three presidios and

St. Augustine range from simple one room structures to two-story multi-roomed buildings. The single roomed structures may have attached galleries/porches and be part of multiple buildings within a compound. Buildings within compounds usually consisted of at least one residential building, separate kitchen, storage building, warehouse, or shed and a well. Small gardens were also often enclosed within the walls of the rectangular compound (Manucy 1997:65; Feringan and Parilla 1763a).

Two-story multiple roomed buildings were rectangular with two to four rooms.

Architectural features such as loggias and galleries were exhibited on these buildings. A loggia was a room with one side open to the outside. The main entrance to the building was either through the loggia or gallery. Stairways were usually accessible through the loggia or gallery in two-story structures. Second story street balconies were a common feature on buildings in St. Augustine (Manucy 1962:48-55). Chimneys were located along the ends of structures at St. Augustine. In First Spanish Pensacola, chimneys are rarely depicted on historical maps or engravings and have not been uncovered archaeologically (Gauld 1765; Serres 1743; Franck 1699; Manucy 1962:48-55).

French Architecture on the Gulf Coast

French architecture along the Gulf Coast existed within Louisiana, Texas,

Mississippi, and Alabama. Architectural styles were originally influenced from French

Canada and the Caribbean. French towns contemporary with First Spanish Period 35

Pensacola were at Mobile, Biloxi, and New Orleans. Similarities in architectural styles were due in part to French carpenters being hired to construct the buildings at Santa

María (Clune et al. 2003:39) The Mobile carpenters were considered to be highly skilled craftsman and may have influenced First Spanish Period architecture at Pensacola.

Some early eighteenth century French buildings on the Gulf Coast were earthfast structures with vertical posts placed directly into the ground. Other buildings were constructed using mortis and tenon, creating timber framed structures. Typically, timber framed French buildings were built up on piers made of cypress blocks or of brick.

Construction on piers was done primarily to avoid dampness in the living space and to allow air to circulate freely underneath the structure. The raised French building was constructed as early as 1726 along the Gulf Coast (Edwards 1994:158; Pickens 1948:34).

Typical French Colonial buildings reflect spacious attributes such as hip pitched roofs that cover a gallery on at least two sides of the enclosure. The doors and windows of

French buildings were generally narrow. Most structures had interior chimneys and were either square or rectangular in shape (Edwards 1994:158; Pickens 1948:34).

The gallery or porch was a key feature of French Colonial buildings along the

Gulf Coast. Galleries generally ran along one or more sides of the building. The roof of structures extended to cover the gallery. The gallery roof and floor protected the structure by keeping the elements from reaching the walls of the building. Galleries provided outside access to multiple rooms in the structure and effectively eliminated the need for interior corridors. Stairways were also typically constructed within the gallery of two story buildings (Pickens 1948:35). Since galleries were at the same level as the main floor, buildings could be subdivided easily. If there was a need for more interior space, then portions of the gallery could be enclosed efficiently (Pickens 1948:35). 36

Materials used to construct French Colonial buildings along the Gulf Coast were procured primarily from local resources. Wood was the main building material. Brick and mortar were used to construct piers. Clay mixed with organic materials was packed between upright posts creating bousillage. Brick, mortar and plaster were also materials used in bousillage. In two story buildings, the walls of the first story usually had bousillage and the second story was primarily constructed of wood with clapboard siding.

Roofs were either covered with wood shingles or palmetto fronds (Pickens 1948:35;

Edwards 1994:178; Gums 2002:15).

In 1702 the center of French activity along the Gulf Coast was at Mobile Bay. In a report written by Nicholas de la Salle on August 31, 1704, there is a good description of buildings associated with Fort Louis at the site of Old Mobile. Inside the fort was a two story timber framed house 68 by 16 ft. This structure was built using piece on piece construction having a shingled roof and a gallery on one side facing the river. The term piece on piece construction, or piece sur piece, can be described as dovetailed square timbers laid on each other and pegged together. Log cabins are built in this fashion

(Wilson 1971:81). The warehouse was 40 by 26 ft and the church was 62 by 16 ft. Both buildings had shingle roofs. Outside the fort within the town was a workshop that had palmetto fronds for roofing and a small warehouse that was built with upright stakes (La

Salle 1704, in Wilson 1971:81).

In another description of Fort Louis, Sieur Chevillot describes the houses in the town as constructed with timbers supported by wooden stakes placed 1 ft into the ground.

Some of the building foundations were made of stone found north of Mobile (Chevillot

1711, in Wilson 1971:82). Sieur Chevillot stated, “The homes are 20 to 25 ft in height.

Some of the buildings are constructed with a mortar made with earth and lime” (Chevillot 37

1711, in Wilson 1971:82). The lime was made from oyster shells located within Mobile

Bay (Wilson 1971:82).

Excavations by the University of South Alabama have discovered several structures associated with the French colonial town of Old Mobile (1702-1711). There were three post-in-trench earthfast structures that may have been associated with a storage facility and soldier’s barracks. The structures were situated closer to the river’s edge than the other buildings at Old Mobile. Fort Louis is suspected to be southeast of these structures (Gums 2002). Structure 30 was a small post-in-ground building that measured 11.5 by 19 ft. The building was surrounded by a crude fence of upright posts placed in trenches. The fence directly abutted the north and east sides of the building.

Structure 30 was interpreted as a possible storehouse with the fence used to secure the building. Two smaller wall trenches were located inside the structure indicating interior wall partitions. Other structural features located within the building consisted of posts that were used as roof supports (Gums 2002:15-16).

Structures 31 and 32 were located side by side 9 ft apart and 56 ft east of

Structure 30. Structure 31 was a post-in-trench earthfast rectangular structure measuring

14.4 by 17.2 ft. A small shed or extension was located just off the east side of the building. Only the northeast corner of Structure 32 was excavated. Similar to Structures

30 and 31, Structure 32 had post-in-trench construction. All three structures were aligned to the town grid at a 40 degrees west of north orientation (Gums 2002:19).

Other architectural examples excavated at Old Mobile, Structures one, three, and five were multiple room timber framed structures that had post-on-sill construction.

Prepared clay floors and brick fireplaces were other structural features identified during excavations. The fireplaces were located in the center or interior of the structures and not 38 attached to exterior walls. Fireplaces within structures at Old Mobile were not uniformly associated with every structure. Clay extraction pits were also found next to most of the buildings. The clay was used for bousillage. Structures one, three, and five also had attached fences that delineated residential lots (Gums 2002:21-24).

The descriptions of typical French colonial structures within the Gulf Coast provides a basis for comparison with contemporary Spanish colonial structures. This comparison will be briefly addressed at the end of this chapter. The goal of the next section is to provide information related to how the Spanish in Pensacola employed different building methods through time. Historical documentation and archaeological field data will be presented chronologically for all three presidios.

Presidio Santa María

Excavations at Pensacola’s three presidios have produced multiple examples of buildings useful for this analysis. At Presidio Santa María, the occupation was largely spent inside the fort because of Indian attacks related to the War of Spanish Succession

(1702-1713). Structures within the fort consisted of a hospital, a church, a series of warehouses and three barracks, one for officers and the others for military personnel and convicts. Most of the buildings were reportedly burned by the French in 1719, which was verified archaeologically by the University of West Florida during four years of excavation (Bense ed. 2003).

Historical Data, Presidio Santa María

Historical documents describing buildings at Santa María provide insight into construction methods. At the settlement’s start, documents state that buildings were make-shift structures constructed with sapling frames, walled and roofed with thatched 39 palmetto fronds. Later, once the settlement was established, buildings became more substantial with timber replacing saplings. Walls of buildings were covered with clapboard siding and the roofs were made of shingles rather than palmetto fronds (Clune et al. 2003:42-51). For example, by late 1708 the soldiers’ barracks were constructed with clapboard siding and palmetto thatch roofs. The buildings were 13.75 ft in length and 13 ft in width. The soldiers slept in such a fashion so that eight individuals could live in these barracks (Guzman 1709; Moscoso 1709, in Clune et al. 2003:50).

The church inside the fort was described as a timber framed structure with clapboard siding. The church also reportedly had window glass, which is consistent with the archaeological data recovered from this structure (Arriola 1702, in Clune et al.

2003:47). The hospital had dimensions of 35 by 12.5 ft. This building was timber framed and is consistent with the general architectural patterns found at the site with clapboard siding and a shingled roof (Guzman 1706:42-51).

Military buildings described at Santa María included a 19.25 ft square warehouse.

This building was constructed with a timber frame and was destroyed during the 1704 fire. The supply warehouse had clapboard siding and a shingled roof (Arriola 1706: 49).

By October 1705, a larger warehouse was constructed. The structure was 55 by 25 ft with a shingled roof that was caulked at the seams and sealed at the ends with lead sheeting to make the roof watertight (Guzman 1705, in Clune et al. 2003:49). 40

Historical maps depicting Santa María provide visual information on what the structures looked like, the layout of the settlement and the inhabitant’s understanding of their environment. The 1699 Franck map depicts the fort, gun placements, and associated structures (Figure 5). The two buildings inside the fort are the guardhouse and the governor’s house. On the map these structures seem to have clapboard siding with iron fasteners and gabled roofs that possibly have shingles. The governor’s house also has three visible windows. Structures outside the fort consist of a church, house for the priest,

Captain Juan Jordan’s house, and several small homes within the village. These structures also seem to have clapboard siding and shingled roofs. Other noticeable details are a cemetery in the village (separate from the church), and the fence surrounding

Captain Jordan’s house.

42

The 1713 Map of the Coast of Pensacola from the Santa Rosa Massacre

(Dauphin) Island, by Le Maire is another good map depicting Presidio Santa María in relation to its surrounding environment (Figure 6). The map shows the Presidio after the start of the War of Spanish Succession, when the inhabitants were forced to live inside the fort walls. The structures are not as detailed as on the 1699 Franck map, but the map does show the location of structures and their layout within the fort. This map shows the church, hospital, warehouse, guardpost, governor’s house, and soldiers barracks. The Le

Maire map depicts the presidio in relation to Pensacola and Mobile Bays, but no village is present. Other landmarks on the map are Santa Rosa Island, Perdido River and Deer

Point. Explanation Explanation of the Map 0f the letters on the map letters of the Fort E G A. Church of the coast A. Fort San Carlos de Austria Fort San Carlos B. Hills that stand out above B. Hospital the fort de Austria C G C. Warehouse of Pensacola C. Island 14 leagues in length in its present form D. The end of the Island and F H D.Guard Post from Santa Rosa site of new construction D B E. Governors House E. Canal of 400 feet which A G to Massacre separates the island * F. Main Gate F. Sand Banks G G G.Soldiers Barracks (Dauphin) G. Where they anchor ships H.Cistern H. Entrance or channel for Island the ships Massacre 1713 Scale of 60 French fathoms (ca. 6' each) for the Fort Island

H 4 5 E H 6 Mobile Santa Rosa Island C E D 3 Perdido or Lost River Bay F 4 G 7 6 F Santa Rosa Bay Deer Point B B Fort ASan Carlos B de Austria Mobile River

* Gov. Salinas recommended moving the Presidio to Santa Rosa Island and planned to cut a canal across the Island to serve as a defensive barrier. In 1713, he sent Fr. Le Maire’s map to Spain with his proposal. Scale of 15 leagues New Fort Louis

Digitized, enhanced, with legend translation and text added. Mapas y Planos, FLA. y La., 34, Archivo General de Indias, Seville, Spain. Translation by Dr. W.S. Coker Figure 6. François Le Maire 1713 map of Fort San Carlos de Austria. 44

The 1719 French Map of Fort San Carlos de Austria shows Presidio Santa María at the end of its occupation (Figure 7). Here the southern bastions of the presidio were altered to compensate for the erosion of the bluff line. The map does not include any information on what building materials were used. The map does provide a final representation of the fort layout, with the barracks on the western side, the church and warehouse in the center, and the military and government buildings on the eastern side.

46

Archaeological Data, Presidio Santa María

Archaeological investigations by the University of West Florida discovered the remains of buildings located inside and outside the fort. Portions of Fort San Carlos de

Austria were also excavated. Structures located inside the fort consisted of burned earthfast and timber framed buildings. Some of the buildings had sills set below walls and others had posts placed into a hole or set into linear trenches. Other wall trench features consisted of small posts set closely into shallow trenches creating wall partitions within buildings. Within the village at Santa Maria structural features consisted of one post-on-sill building and a fence line used to delineate a compound wall or to enclose domesticated animals.

Within the fort, the officer’s barracks at Santa María consisted of burned boards and posts (Figure 8). An interesting feature was its post-on-sill foundation that was roughly one foot wide with straight edges and a flat base, and between 0.3 to 0.5 ft deep.

Sill trenches were set at right angles to large corner posts that were one foot in diameter and two feet deep. The sill was made of a wooden timber with the upright studs fastened vertically for support. Fourteen iron fasteners (consisting of nails and spikes) were piece- plotted on top of the burned sills. Outside the building were hundreds of pieces of broken window glass, suggesting that the officers enjoyed incoming sunlight. The absence of midden and disturbance inside the building suggests it had a wood floor

(Bense and Wilson 2003:115). There were also several smaller posts located outside the building, likely some type of enclosure or pen. Other architectural elements found were lead roof sheeting to cover the eaves and a hearth in situ just outside the building. The hearth was lined with ladrillos (Spanish bricks) (Bense and Wilson 2003:115).

48

Architectural elements of the Northern West Wall Barracks reveal that this building had post-in-trench construction, as well as interior wall partitions. The posts set in the eastern wall trench were in pairs, one large and one small, with 1.2 ft between posts. The trench dimensions were approximately one foot wide and 1.2 ft deep. One of the deepest cultural features in the area, the trench and its associated fill was relatively devoid of any cultural materials. The paucity of artifacts implies the structure was one of the older buildings within the fort, built before any midden had accumulated. The paired posts were set upright and were probably studs used to fasten clapboard siding. The western wall trench was much more shallow and exhibited many replacement posts. In the front of the structure were three sets of large posts, spaced five feet apart. The clustering of these posts is indicative of replacement posts similar to what was found in the western wall of the building. There were also four post molds located between the front and back of the building, which were interpreted as interior supports and wall partitions. Like the other posts, evidence for replacement was present. Small amounts of plaster were found in association with the Northern West Wall Barracks and interpreted as material used as finishing on the interior walls. The barracks appear to have had dirt floors, as cultural materials were found in the interior of the building. There was also evidence of sub-floor pits or cellars for storage. Bense concludes that these barracks were used by military personnel (Bense and Wilson 2003:131).

The north wall barracks had post-in-ground walls and evidence of burning. The remains consisted of charred posts and postholes in two segments of a refuse-filled wall trench, indicating that this building was constructed after midden had time to accumulate.

Like most of the other buildings, the structural features included evidence of post 49 replacement and rebuilding (Bense and Wilson 2003:132). Architectural artifacts found within this building included ladrillos, twenty nails, and one spike.

On the 1713 Le Maire map there is a 30 by 60 foot structure just to the east of the northwestern barracks that is labeled a hospital (Figure 7). Architectural remains of the hospital consisted of eleven large postholes. Some of the largest postholes averaged 1.6 ft in diameter. The size and alignment of these posts suggest that they were main supports for the structure. Five other posts were found, but were much more shallow, indicating interior partition walls with the larger posts along the perimeter (Bense and Wilson

2003:144). Excavations uncovered three wall trenches associated with the building, with the longest running 12 ft along the south wall of the structure. The wall trenches were adjacent to the larger load-bearing posts, suggesting the walls were fastened to the larger posts, similar (but on a larger scale), to the construction exhibited in the officer’s barracks (Bense and Wilson 2003:144).

Another feature of the hospital was the absence of cultural materials found within the interior of the building, suggesting that the floor of the structure was covered with wood planks. The lack of cultural material under the floor of the structure also suggests that this building was constructed before midden accumulation. A dripline from the roof overhang was observed just outside the building. Architectural artifacts found in this building consist of brick and mortar including 81 ladrillo fragments, as well as 43 nails, six spikes and ten pieces of window glass. Finished plaster was also found, and interpreted as wall covering for some of the interior walls (Bense and Wilson 2003:146).

The occurrence of brick and mortar appears to be associated with hearths and cooking facilities rather than being part of the hospital foundation or piers. In summary, the wood 50 building was constructed with large perimeter posts supporting the roof and rafters

(Bense and Wilson 2003:146).

The church was a large structure located 20 to 25 ft to the east of the hospital on the edge of the center plaza. Documents indicate that the first two churches at Santa

María burned, but they have not been found archaeologically. The third church, built in

1706 is described as having exterior boards and an interior vaulted ceiling (Bense and

Wilson 2003:150). This building was apparently in use for 13 years from 1706 to 1719 when it was burned along with the rest of the fort. Architectural features associated with the church were six posts arranged in two parallel rows along a north and south axis. The posts were set in rows about 12 ft apart. The posts were 1 to 1.5 ft in diameter and a maximum depth of 4 ft. Like the other buildings, replacement posts were evident with large, more shallow posts next to the original posts. The replacement posts were shoved under the rafters between the older posts. The post patterning of the Church suggests that this building had an internal framing of posts spaced at intervals of 12 to 15 ft. There were no wall or floor remains recovered from the excavation. However, a floor may have been present above the sub-floor cemetery. Architectural artifacts recovered include aqua and green window glass, as well as a few fasteners and bricks (Bense and Wilson

2003:158).

Another structure found during excavation was a house located in the village near the northeast bastion. Franck’s 1699 map shows a house in the general location with a u- shaped fence, a gabled roof, and clapboard siding (Figure 5). Excavations of this building revealed that it was 8 ft wide and had corner posts. The walls exhibited post-on-sill construction and there was little in the way of artifacts inside the structure suggesting that the floor was covered with wood planks or occupied for a very short period of time 51

(Bense and Wilson 2003:163-165; Pokrant 2001:49). Adjacent to the west of this building was a fence line or compound wall. The fence consisted of a 90 ft long wall trench with narrowly spaced posts. The wall trench was oriented on a southwest to northwest axis. The fence trench was cone shaped in profile and was shallow ranging from 0.5 to 2 ft deep. Because of the shallow nature of this wall trench, it was interpreted as fence line used to enclose a garden or domesticated animals (Pokrant 2001:45).

Presidio Santa Rosa

When the garrison moved to Santa Rosa Island in 1722 the settlers had to deal with a different physical environment. Relocated on a sandy barrier island, it was more difficult to procure building resources from the mainland, so many of the original structures were built from cedar boards and other materials transported to Pensacola from

San José on St. Joseph’s Peninsula and from Veracruz (Childers 2003:2). The buildings at Santa Rosa included a multiplicity of types, such as a church, hospital, powder magazine, and offices. Roofing at Santa Rosa likely consisted of cypress bark, a material described at San José (Childers 2003:2).

Historical Data, Presidio Santa Rosa

Historical documents provide evidence about architectural techniques not seen in the archaeological record. Two barracks were dismantled at San José and brought to

Santa Rosa. These buildings were 40 ft in length, 18 ft in width and 8 ft in height. They were an improvement on the barracks at Santa María because they were floored with cedar boards, rather than just dirt. The soft, sandy beach at both San José and Santa Rosa probably necessitated having some type of floor. The roofs of these barracks were originally made of cypress bark, also brought from San José. Documentary evidence also 52 states that a few structures, such as the paymaster’s office and powder house, had brick and stone used in their construction (Santa Rosa Inventory 1723 AGI Mexico 380, in

Childers 2003:22).

The first residential structures at Santa Rosa were documented as being 24 small and 8 larger buildings occupied by military personnel. These buildings, which were brought from San José, were much like the barracks, built with clapboard siding and roofed with cypress bark. The inhabitants of the 24 small residences included workmen and some forsados. The 8 larger residences housed senior officers but were reportedly made of the same materials as the small residences. Another structure was the home of

Captain don Pedro Primo de Rivera. It had clapboard siding and had a width of 10 ft, a length of 20 ft and a height of 10 ft. This building, like others, was moved from San José

(Santa Rosa Inventory 1723 AGI Mexico 380, in Childers 2003: 22).

Other historically documented structures at Santa Rosa were a powder magazine and a gun room. The magazine was 40 by 20 ft and 20 ft tall. This structure was made of cedar boards and fastened with nails that came from Veracruz. The gun room was 8 by 10 ft. The structure had clapboard siding that was moved from San José (Santa Rosa

Inventory 1723 AGI Mexico 380, in Childers 2003: 22).

The only depiction of Presidio Santa Rosa is the engraving A Perspective View of

Pensacola by Dominic Serres in 1743 (Figure 3). This engraving provides a snapshot of what the fort and adjacent settlement may have looked like during Serres’ visit in 1743.

The fortification to the east of the settlement was constructed with upright timbers or boards in a rectangular shape. The fort had no bastions, but had cannon portholes that faced the bay. There were three gable roofed one-storied buildings located inside the fort.

Just to the east of the fort, the settlement was established along streets. Most buildings 53 faced the streets. Some structures were surrounded by fences or compound walls that delineated residential boundaries. The structures had gable roofs with most having evidence of clapboard siding. Some of the buildings, such as the Governor’s house, had smooth exterior walls suggesting the possibility of plaster finishing. There is an octagonal shaped structure as well as a two story building labeled Governor’s house. The octagonal and two story building were larger than any other structures in the settlement.

It is clear that the settlement was spread out along the island rather than being confined to the boundaries of the fort.

Archaeological Data, Presidio Santa Rosa

Archaeological excavations undertaken by Florida State University in 1965 and the University of West Florida from 2002 to 2004 have revealed much about this settlement (Smith 1965; Bense 2002; Harris and Eschbach 2006). Archaeological evidence shows that damage caused by repeated storms and floods required multiple rebuilding episodes. The absence of maps of the community makes it difficult to assign function to the archaeological remains, as was possible at Santa María. Therefore, the archaeology of Santa Rosa will be described by feature or feature complexes. Santa Rosa excavations have produced multiple examples of First Spanish Period building episodes.

These examples will aid in understanding construction methods on the island.

Florida State University excavations, directed by Hale G. Smith (1965), resulted in multiple trench excavations across the site of Presidio Santa Rosa. In Trench 6 an entire collapsed wooden building was uncovered. Known as Feature 13, this building had post-on-sill construction, with multiple posts set into the sills. Feature 13 had several 54 feature subsections ranging from A to M. These feature subsections were described in

Smith’s report and consist of wall trench sections, posts and sills (Smith 1965:29-31).

During UWF excavations (2002-2004), some early structures located at Santa

Rosa were small buildings located in Trench 13 West. In Feature 40, for example, the excavated section of the construction trench measured 8 feet northwest to southeast and more than 5.5 ft northeast to southwest (Figure 9) This trench was shallow and had intermittent posts indicating that it was a relatively small structure. Feature 60, another post in trench construction, was located only 1.5 to 2 ft west of Feature 40 and was similar in size. There were no other associated features that could indicate building function. Artifact analysis provides a terminus post quem (TPQ) of 1722 for Feature 40 and 1725 for Feature 60. Harris suggests that Feature 60 may be a replacement trench for the earlier Feature 40 construction trench (Harris and Eschbach 2006:218; Eschbach

2007:121-122).

56

Three wall trenches were located along the south ditch profile, at the very western edge of the site. Features 121, 122 and 127 were deeply buried underneath a large amount of midden and other feature complexes. Feature 121 was the least substantial and may have been a fence. The others were substantial trenches with large posts indicating a sizable structure. Each trench had a TPQ of 1722, with few artifacts present (Harris and

Eschbach 2006:219-220). These buildings were likely destroyed during one of the many hurricanes. Because of the dense midden and numerous feature complexes located above these wall trenches, it is likely that other activities occurred in the area after their dismantlement (Harris and Eschbach 2006:219-220; Eschbach 2007:121).

Large construction trenches were revealed during excavations in several places at

Santa Rosa. One trench in particular was in Trench 13 West (Figure 9). The post-on-sill trench, Feature 62, extended a minimum 25 ft in length suggesting a very large structure.

Window glass associated with the construction trench indicates it was a public or high status building. Artifact analysis has provided a TPQ of 1740 for Feature 62 (Eschbach

2007). Abundant Spanish ceramics suggest this was a domestic structure; however, some colonial buildings had multiple uses such as government offices that also housed officials

(Harris and Escabach 2006:220). 57

A relatively well-preserved structure found during UWF excavations of Block 1

South includes a wall trench associated with burned building remains. Known as Feature

57, this building was octagonal in shape (Figure 10). In the 1743 Serres engraving of

Santa Rosa an octagonal building is identified as a church. Artifacts associated with the

Feature 57 building remains did not suggest it functioned as a church, but instead Harris suggests that the variety of artifacts found indicate that this was a different type of public structure, possibly a warehouse. Hale Smith’s FSU excavations in Trenches 8 and 9, located just to the west of the UWF’s Block 1 South, revealed many wall trenches connected to each other that may be associated with Feature 57. In reviewing the data,

Harris projects this building to be around 60 feet in diameter (Harris and Eschbach

2006:222).

Figure 10. Santa Rosa, Block 1 South plan view of features (Harris and Eschbach 2006). 59

The artifact assemblage of the octagonal structure (Feature 57) provides a TPQ of

1750 (Harris and Eschbach 2006:223). The problem here is that the TPQ date does not match up with the Serres engraving of Santa Rosa in 1743 that depicts an octagonal building. This means that Feature 57 was not the octagonal building in the Serres engraving because it did not exist until 1750. The late date of Feature 57 and the 1743 octagonal building in Serres engraving suggest there were multiple buildings with this shape. Octagonal shaped buildings could be an example of an adaptation to environmental factors. Similar octagonal buildings have been observed along the

Carolina and Georgia coasts for protection from storms on barrier islands. Some lighthouses are constructed in a similar manner, allowing strong winds to move around rather than push against a structure (Thomas Pinckney to Major Pierce Butler May 25,

1805, in Harris and Eschbach 2006:223).

Another environmental adaptation is elevating structures on piers, allowing storm surge to flow under the building. Piers have only been documented historically at Santa

Rosa and not verified archaeologically. However, there were a few scattered deep posts that may indicate elevated structures (Harris and Eschbach 2006:220-222).

Another building trench complex within Trench 13 East may be associated with the church at Santa Rosa (Figure 11). This building trench (Feature 79) and associated middens (Features 156 and 165) yielded artifacts such as clay figurines, rosary beads and two candle sticks that support the church interpretation. The building’s orientation to the cardinal directions provides further evidence suggesting this building was a church. The other buildings at Santa Rosa are generally oriented between 10 to 15 degrees east of north (Harris and Eschbach 2006:222; Eschbach 2007; Gordon 2006).

61

Three other notable wall trenches discovered at Santa Rosa were Features 27, 32, and 105 located in Block 1 North (Figure 12). These overlapping wall trenches were not contemporaneous. Features 27 and 32 were parallel to each other and similar in construction, each averaging 1.0 ft in width and having a maximum depth of 1.31 ft. Both wall trench features 27 and 32 contained regularly spaced post indicating earthfast construction. Feature 105 was much narrower and shallower than the other two wall trenches, measuring 0.8 ft wide and 0.91 ft deep. Feature 105 was also an earthfast wall trench with consecutively spaced posts. All three wall trenches had similar architectural artifacts within them, except Feature 27 which had two large spikes and four nails. The architectural material consisted of handmade brick, nails, spikes, mortar, and tile. The

TPQ’s for each wall trench differ and range from 1650 (Feature 105), 1700 (Feature 32), and 1750 (Feature 27) (Harris and Eschbach 2006:142-147).

63

Presidio San Miguel

After the 1752 hurricane, Santa Rosa’s residents moved to the mainland. The move led to the construction of a new presidio, Presidio San Miguel de Panzacola. During the

First Spanish period, San Miguel had multiple buildings located within and outside the fort walls. Buildings consisted of a church, a hospital, a governor’s house, armory, storehouses and several barracks and individual residences. San Miguel’s buildings and fort were always subject to rot and hurricanes, so much so that the British Major William

Forbes considered the Spanish presidio to be nothing more than a “rotten stockade”

(Childers et. al. 2007:38; Born 1963:62). Archaeological and historical data provide information relating to building methods and the variety of structures at the presidio. This information is presented here with the historical data first, followed by archaeological data.

Historical Data, Presidio San Miguel

Documentary evidence for architecture at Presidio San Miguel provides insight into First Spanish architectural characteristics. At the time of British arrival, many domestic structures at San Miguel consisted of earthfast timber frames and walls made of clapboard siding and cypress bark. In general, the roofs of these structures were made of palmetto leaves or cypress bark. The use of brick and stone was not common and was generally restricted to the gunpowder warehouse and the foundations of the governor’s house (Gordon 2002:165).

When Governor Diego Ortiz Parrilla arrived at San Miguel in 1761 he chastised military engineer Phelipe Feringan Cortez for allowing the fort and buildings to fall into a state of disrepair. Because of rot and/or the flimsiness of the fort (especially following 64 the hurricane of 1760), Ortiz ordered that defenses be enhanced. A map drafted in 1763 by Feringan and Ortiz shows what San Miguel looked like just as the Spanish were leaving Pensacola (Figure 4). The architecture detailed on this map provides an understanding of town planning and dimensions of structures.

The official version of Feringan and Ortiz’s 1763 map (Figure 13) is a little less detailed, but does include building construction information in the legend. Many storage facilities such as the warehouse in the governor’s compound were built of wood, had clay walls and a bark roof. Other domestic buildings such as the soldier’s barracks had board walls and bark roofs, while the prisoner’s barracks had clay walls and a bark roof. The officer’s barrack and civilian houses were 14 feet high, had clay walls that were covered with lime plaster and roofed with cypress bark. Public buildings such as the church were built with board walls and bark roofs. The hospital, like the prisoners’ barracks, was made of clay walls and had a bark roof (Childers et al. 2007:14-66). Courtesy of David Dodson and Spanish Archives. Digitized photographic reproduction of map (m.2v.426) M.XLII 426, on file Biblioteca Nacional, Madrid, Spain.

Figure 13. Spanish map of Fort San Miguel, 1763. 66

When the British acquired Florida at the end of the Seven Years War, the Spanish in Pensacola inventoried the crown’s property inside San Miguel before turning over the settlement. The residents outside the fort privately sold their properties to the British and because of this, these structures do not appear in the official inventory. Although the buildings and lots mentioned in the inventory are just a sample of the structures at the settlement, they do provide insight concerning construction techniques. Methods of construction varied at San Miguel and can be grouped by socio-economic status. The buildings ranged in size, for example, the home of Captain Don Santiago Benito Eraso was 74 ft square, made of wood, walled with plaster, roofed with cypress bark and floored with wood planks. On the other end of the spectrum, the home of Don Francisco

Lovio was only 14 by 11 ft, walled with clapboard siding and sheeted with cypress bark.

Like the walls, the roof was covered with cypress bark. These examples show that the civilian buildings inside the fort ranged in size and in the use of building materials

(Childers 2001).

Construction methods such as clay packing, nogging, clapboard siding, cypress bark covering and plastering are all listed in the documents. An example was the home of

Augustin de la Sierra, which was 33 by 11 ft, walled with plaster, roofed with cypress bark and floored with wood planking. Another example was the home of Don Joséph

Ribera, which was walled with clapboard siding and roofed with cypress bark. At San

Miguel many of the buildings had cypress bark roofs, in contrast to the other two presidios where buildings were roofed with palmetto thatch or wood shingles (Childers

2001).

It is important to note that civilian structures at San Miguel were very diverse.

They varied in size, materials used and physical aesthetics. Low status residences were 67 constructed with clay walls or cypress bark. The higher status residences were constructed with clapboard siding or had plaster finished walls. A few of these structures were two stories high and had loggias and galleries, which provided shaded, open air spaces (Childers 2001:23-34).

The Captain of the Calvary, Captain Don Luis Joséph de Ullate, had a compound that was 60 by 110 ft enclosed with pitch pine. The main house was built of wood and had plastered walls, and wooden floors for both stories. The roof was gabled and covered with cypress bark. The home had a gallery and two apartments. Within the compound there was a storehouse made of wood with plastered walls, and roofed with cypress bark, measuring 38 by 13 ft. A 13 by 8 ft detached kitchen was made of wood, had plastered walls and cypress bark for roofing. Another small house was located in the compound that measured 16 by 8 ft. The structure was enclosed and roofed with cypress bark.

Altogether the buildings and compound were appraised at 1500 pesos in 1763 (Childers

2001:27-28).

The Governor’s residence was a two story structure with a gabled roof made of cypress bark. The building had a loggia and second story gallery with an exterior stairway. The first floor was elevated and floored with two layers of brick on top of wooden planks. The structure’s foundation and supports consisted of square posts set into the ground. Stone was laid between the posts about two feet above the surface and then nogging was used for the rest of the first floor. A layer of plaster finished the walls of the structure (Dodson 1974:183, Gordon 2002:77).

The inventories of the crown’s property also provide insight into public, religious and military structures inside the fort, the church, and hospital. The church was a timber- framed structure that had clapboard siding and a cypress bark roof. The inventory does 68 not say if the floor of the church was used as a burial ground. The hospital’s dimensions were 44 by 22 ft. This building had timber framing with clay packed walls and plaster finish, and cypress bark as a roofing material. Military structures listed within the inventory were the soldiers’ barracks and the prisoners’ barracks. The soldiers’ barracks were a timber-framed structure with clapboard siding and cypress bark roofing. The prisoners’ barracks were also a timber-framed structure, but the walls were packed with clay rather than covered with clapboard siding. Like the soldiers’ barracks, this building had cypress bark for roofing (Childers 2001).

Historic maps at San Miguel trace the Presidio’s beginnings and the transition into British rule. The Plano del Presidio de San Miguel de Panzacola is a draft map created by Diego Ortiz Parilla and Phelipe Feringan Cortez in 1763 (Figure 4). The map shows the completed fort and sketches the buildings inside. Many important buildings are labeled such as the governor’s house, soldiers’ barracks, guard houses, hospital and chapel. Other interesting features on this map include the compound configuration of the buildings. For example, the Governor’s compound includes the house, warehouse, cooking facilities and a garden that are all within a fence. Captain Ullate’s compound is located in the lower left hand corner of the map. Here the Captain’s quarters has two stories, a gallery facing the street and a separate warehouse. Galleries are shown on numerous two story buildings within the fort.

The 1765 Plan of the New Town of Pensacola and Country adjacent, showing the

Gardens and Situation of the Blockhouses by Elias Durnford provides a depiction of the

Presidio two years after the British took control of Florida (Figure 14). Durnford, an engineer, created this map showing the proposed grid layout for the new town of

Pensacola.

69

Another good view of San Miguel is in the 1765 engraving View of Pensacola by

George Gauld (Figure 15). The engraving was sketched two years after the British took control, but it does depict some of the original first Spanish structures. On the right hand side of the painting there is a row of buildings with gable roofs. These buildings, labeled

Indian Town on the engraving, appear to have no windows and rounded doorways. Just to the right of these buildings there are some structures that may have plaster finished or clay packed walls. The roofs are possibly made of shingles. There are also four buildings with gable roofs in the center of the engraving. These Spanish buildings appear to have plaster finished or clay packed walls and shingled roofs. Public domain. Gauld, George. 1765. A View of Pensacola in West Florida, Digitized photographic negative of pen and ink drawing (LC-USZ62-45384) on file with the Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. (Circa 1765). Painting by Dave Edwards, Pensacola, Florida, contracted by The Archaeology Institute, The University of West Florida, Pensacola.

Figure 15. 1765 View of Pensacola drawing by George Gauld. 72

Archaeological Data, Presidio San Miguel

The archaeological data for First Spanish period architecture at San Miguel is limited because most features excavated at the continuously occupied site date to later colonial periods. However, archaeological investigations by the University of West

Florida discovered the remains of a large Spanish building just to the west of the Presidio in Plaza Ferdinand in 2000 and 2001. This building and lot are evident on Durnford’s

1765 map of Pensacola (Figure 14). The Spanish owner is not known, but it appears

Alexander Moore, a British merchant, probably owned the property after 1763. Moore bought several Spanish buildings outside the fort, and at the request of the military, built a bake house on the property in 1764. Because of its location in Plaza Ferdinand, the remains of this building and associated lot have been relatively undisturbed (Benchley and Whitaker 2007:66-94).

The large building located to the west of the fort was the primary focus of investigation by UWF in 2000 and 2001. According to Durnford’s 1765 map, this building had dimensions of 40 by 63 ft and appears to have had loggias on the north and south sides of the building. There were also two other buildings in the lot complex, a probable kitchen measuring 18 by 50 ft and an outbuilding measuring 17 by 30 ft. These buildings surrounded a courtyard in a walled compound (Benchley and Whitaker

2007:66-94; Durnford 1765).

Investigations in Plaza Ferdinand uncovered a large building in the exact location it was predicted. The building had square posts placed every three to six feet within a 2.5 ft wide construction trench. The overlying fill associated with the building consisted of ladrillo fragments, clay, and oyster shell mortar. An interpretation of the overlying fill was that is was a wall fall of brick, clay, and mortar that were used as nogging between 73 upright posts (Benchley and Whitaker 2007:66-94). The loggia area was also found along the north wall and had a limestone foundation. A tabby pad may have supported a second-story stairway or porch. The southern wall of the main house had widely spaced posts with little artifacts or brick rubble and was interpreted as a light duty building trench associated with an open gallery. Another construction trench, located just north of the large building, had posts every 3 ft. Like the north wall trench, this trench was capped with a large amount of brick and mortar rubble. Artifacts found in association with this building included Majolica and Plain Creamware. The occurrence of Plain Creamware indicates that this building was remodeled during the British period (Benchley and

Whitaker 2007:66-94).

Other building remains associated with the large structure were an unexpected wall trench to the west of the main house and two rows of posts marking the location of the north western outbuilding. The wall trench had regularly spaced upright posts and associated wall fill of ironstone, bricks, and limestone added during the British occupation of the lot. Plaster was also found in association with Northwest outbuilding posts suggesting that, like the larger building, it had plaster finished walls. Two possible stoves appear at the north end of the building on Durnford’s 1765 map, indicating that the

Northwest structure was a kitchen (Benchley and Whitaker 2007:66-94).

Located to the east of the large structure in Plaza Ferdinand was a modest sized house and four outbuildings. The house measured 36 by18 ft. The house and outbuildings can be seen on Durnford’s 1765 map. Archaeological investigations of this house lot discovered a narrow trench that extended east to west across the excavation block.

Known as Feature 122 the shallow trench may have been a sill foundation for a building.

Feature 122 was the only First Spanish wall trench found in the excavation area. The 74 narrow wall trench may have been the southern wall for the modest sized house.

However, Feature 122 may have been the southern fence line for the house lot. Other architectural features located within the excavation area consisted of a row of post that extended north to south. One of these posts intruded upon Feature 122. Plaster fragments were located within the upper fill zone of these post features. It appears that these post were a part of a larger building similar to the western outbuilding associated with the large house lot (Benchley and Whitaker 2007:66-94).

Other First Spanish Period architectural remains associated with Presidio San

Miguel are building trenches related to Captain Ullate’s compound (Figure 16).

Archaeological investigations by the University of West Florida in 2005 and 2006 yielded data related to the courtyard and structures associated with the officer’s compound (Benchley 2006; Benchley 2007b). Excavations in downtown Pensacola are complex because of the multiple uses of the urban setting. The areas of excavation that contained First Spanish period building trenches were Block 1 North and Block 1 West

Extension.

76

The site of Captain Ullate’s compound is located east of the T.T. Wentworth

Museum on Zarragossa Street in downtown Pensacola. The compound would have been located inside the southwest corner of Fort San Miguel. Prior excavations were done in the late 1980s and early 1990s by UWF to examine the British and Second Spanish use of the area known as the Commanding Officers’ Compound. Excavations in 2005 and 2006 concentrated on defining the nature of a First Spanish Period well and testing the surrounding area for buildings associated with the compound. During these excavations many building episodes were discovered that were associated with the First Spanish,

British and Second Spanish Periods (Benchley 2007b).

Structures within Captain Ullate’s compound consisted of a barrack (Ullate’s residence), a separate kitchen and storage facilities. The East to West barrack had a North to South extension that was presumably used as a warehouse. This ell extension was attached to the northwest corner of the barrack and runs north. The ell extension was one of the main feature complexes excavated during the 2005 and 2006 field seasons

(Benchley 2007b).

The First Spanish Period architectural remains found at Captain Ullate’s

Compound were presumably associated with the ell extension of the barrack (Figure 16).

There were five construction trenches associated with the ell extension, Features 206,

253, 207, 208, and 392 (Figure 17). The ell extension had two large east and west exterior construction trenches, both with double rows of posts. This double post pattern is likely associated with the renovation of the structure during the British period. The east and west walls were exposed across 15 ft of excavated area with the trenches continuing into the north and south profile walls. There were three smaller construction trenches that intersected each other (Figure 17). These trenches may have been used as floor supports 77 or as wall partitions to support the structure’s roof. Datable ceramics associated with the ell extension were Agateware, El Morro, Redware, Puebla Blue and White, Plain

Majolica, Plain Faience and Plain Creamware, suggesting that the structure was built by the Spanish and later occupied by the British (Benchley 2007b).

79

Another architectural feature associated with the First Spanish period excavated during 2005 and 2006 field excavations was a possible fence (Feature 205). The Feature

205 construction trench runs east to west along the north edge of the West Extension. The construction trench predates all the other trenches related to the ell extension of the barracks because all of the trenches cut through Feature 205. It also is cut by and predates the San Miguel fort wall, indicating it was built and dismantled before 1757. No discernable posts were discovered within Feature 205. Trench fill looked swirled as if the posts were pulled during demolition. The trench had an exposed length of 16 ft east to west, a width of 0.60 ft north to south and a depth of 1.30 to 1.50 ft. Artifacts associated with this feature were small bits of charcoal and some ceramics and pottery such as

Puebla Blue and White Majolica, San Augustin Blue and White, Plain Faience and one piece of Painted Mexican Red. Less than ½ inch brick was also recovered from this feature (Benchley 2007b).

First Spanish structural features found within Block 1 North consisted of four construction trenches (Features 174,188, 189 and 168), possibly associated with one or two structures (Benchley 2006). The plan view (Figure 17) suggests that the north to south trench (Features 189/168) could be associated with the east to west trench (Feature

174) along the north excavation wall. The other east to west trench seems to be cutting into the north-south trench and may be a later construction episode.

Other architectural components related to Presidio San Miguel were discovered during excavations at Old Christ Church by UWF in1998 under the direction of Dr.

Elizabeth D. Benchley. Excavation underneath and behind Old Christ Church revealed seven First Spanish construction trenches, six located inside and one located behind the church. Three of these construction trenches were part of a small building (Features 118, 80

119, and 125). The small building abutted a compound or stockade wall (Features 69 and

97) that extended north to south. Another wall trench was located just to the west of the small building (Feature 92) (Figure 18). Collectively, these construction trenches had large amounts of charred wood suggesting the structures burned (Williams 2004:95-96).

Artifacts associated with these structures and compound wall consisted of carbonized wood, mortar, indeterminate brick, fasteners and ceramics such as San Luis Polychrome,

Puebla Blue and White, Delft and Faience. These ceramics are consistent with the First

Spanish Period in downtown Pensacola.

The other First Spanish wall trench recorded (Feature 140) was located behind

Old Christ Church (Figure18). Feature 140 has been interpreted as a compound or stockade wall. The wall trench was filled with water deposited sand and charcoal. A

British well cut into this feature, indicating the wall trench predates the well’s construction. Feature 140 continued into the northern wall of the excavation unit, and its full length was not determined. Artifacts found in association with this feature consisted of mortar, brick, and El Morro. Williams suggests that Feature 140 was associated with the First Spanish Period (Williams 2004:111).

82

Archaeological and Historical Data Comparison

The information presented above shows that there are variations in architecture at

Pensacola’s three presidios. Structures seem to generally have similar floor plans, primarily square or rectangular in shape. Differences relate to varying construction methods and the use of materials. In order to provide clarity on this subject, architectural features can be compared and contrasted using archaeological data (Table 1) and historical data (Table 2).

Table 1. First Spanish Period Archaeological Data

Architectural Feature Santa Maria Santa Rosa San Miguel Foundation/Footing Post on Sill Yes Yes No* Post in Trench Yes Yes Yes Post in Ground Yes Yes Yes Brick Foundation No No No Brick /Wood Pier No Yes No

Walls Nogging or Chinking No No* Yes Wall Partitions Yes Yes Yes Plaster/Mortar Yes Yes Yes

Flooring Earth Floor Yes Yes No* Wood Floor Yes Yes Yes Sub Floor Pits Yes No Yes

Floor Plan Square or Rectangular Yes Yes Yes Octagonal No Yes No Loggias No Yes Yes Galleries No Yes Yes * = No Evidence for Feature 83

Table 2. First Spanish Period Historical Data

Architectural Feature Santa Maria Santa Rosa San Miguel Framing Timber Yes Yes Yes

Roofing Gable Roof Yes Yes Yes Palmetto Fronds Yes Yes Yes Wood Shingles Yes Yes Yes Cypress bark No Yes Yes

Wall Finishing Palmetto Fronds Yes No No Clapboard Siding Yes Yes Yes Plaster No Yes Yes Clay Packed No No Yes Bark Covered No No Yes Nogging No No Yes

Flooring Wood Floor Yes Yes Yes Earth Floor Yes No No Brick Laid on Joists No No Yes

Floor Plan Square or Rectangular Yes Yes Yes Octagonal No Yes No Loggias No No Yes Galleries No No Yes Two Stories No Yes Yes

Five categories generated from archaeological field data are used to compare the information (Table 1). The first category, foundations, seems to be homogeneous with buildings at each presidio having similar foundations except that no First Spanish sills have been found at San Miguel. The second category, wall finishing, is more variable.

Here nogging is only exhibited at Presidio San Miguel. The flooring category is problematic because floors are not always evident in the archaeological record. The last category, floor plans, shows that in general most structures were square or rectangular in 84 shape. At Santa Rosa, however, at least one octagonal shaped structure existed. The floor plan of this structure may have been designed to cope with the numerous storms occurring at the settlement. Archaeological evidence for galleries has been recognized at

Santa Rosa and San Miguel. Loggias were found only at San Miguel.

Five categories gathered from historical data area presented above (Table 2). The first category is framing. As far as we know all the structures built during the First

Spanish Period were timber framed. The roofing category has some variability. Gable roofs appeared at all three presidios and are the only roofing style used during the First

Spanish Period. Palmetto thatch was used as a roofing material at all of the presidios.

Palmetto thatched roofs occurred because of the availability of palmetto fronds near all three presidios. Wood shingles are recorded at all three presidios. Creating wood shingles may have been a time consuming task. Palmetto fronds and later cypress bark were likely easier to procure from the immediate environment and took less time to manufacture into a roofing material than shingles. The wall finishing category varies greatly with the greatest diversity at San Miguel where five techniques were used including palmetto fronds, clapboard siding, plaster, clay packed, bark covered, and nogging.

The flooring and floor plan categories show some consistencies and differences

(Table 2). Wood floors appear to be present at all three presidios. Even though there is no evidence of earthen floors at Santa Rosa or San Miguel it is likely that they existed, especially in structures associated with low status individuals or outbuildings. Flooring with brick laying on floor joists has only been documented historically at the Governor’s house at San Miguel and is a high status feature. As for the floor plan category, the historical documents coincide well with the archaeological data. Buildings have a consistent shape, with the exception of the octagonal shaped building at Santa Rosa and 85 features such as loggias and galleries, which are present at San Miguel. Two story buildings were located at San Miguel and Santa Rosa. At Santa Rosa, the Governor’s house was the only two story structure at the presidio.

French Gulf Coast and Spanish Architecture at Pensacola

To briefly compare eighteenth century French Gulf Coast construction with contemporary Spanish architecture at Pensacola, building styles and materials are considered. Early French construction mirrored architectural examples at Santa Maria with earth fast, post in trench construction. Structures 30, 31 and 32 (possible barracks) at

Old Mobile were similar to structures at Santa Maria. Similarities consist of one room earth fast buildings with post in trench construction. In the early to mid eighteenth century, the French built their structures on piers with either cypress stumps or brick and mortar. To date, there is no conclusive evidence that Spanish buildings at Pensacola were constructed on piers. The hipped roof and a central chimney, typical of French architecture, was not present during the First Spanish Period at Pensacola. Materials used for constructing buildings is the same between French and Spanish architecture, which reflects the similarities in natural resources along the Gulf Coast.

Discussion

After reviewing the archaeological and historical data it is clear that there are similarities and differences in architecture at Pensacola’s three presidios. For example, buildings are similar in shape, made of wood and have gabled roofs. Differences include wall covering techniques, such as clapboard siding at Santa María and plastering at San

Miguel. The observed variations in architecture gathered from reviewing archaeological and historical data may be clearer with an artifact analysis at each presidio. Such an 86 analysis can also further our understanding of how architecture changed through time and space. The next chapter will cover the artifact analysis by reviewing materials from all three presidios. CHAPTER V

ARTIFACT ANALYSIS

A quantitative analysis of building materials found in association with Pensacola’s three presidios will help in understanding changes in architecture through time and space.

The UWF Santa María, Santa Rosa and San Miguel databases can be used to support the evidence provided by historical and archaeological field data. The artifact analysis compares the weight and percentage of various building materials for each presidio.

Counts are not taken into consideration because during the lab analysis materials such as mortar and brick fragments were not consistently counted. Analyzing weight tends to emphasize heavier artifacts such as bricks/ladrillos. For example, a typical complete ladrillo from Santa María weighs 1,990 g. The average weight of a wrought nail is around

16 g. It would take 124 wrought nails to equal 1 ladrillo. Complete artifact equivalents will be provided to produce clarity in the presence of building material weights and interpretations. Another complication is that bricks and tiles are coded differently between the various databases. Many bricks classified as ladrillos at Santa María would have been classified as tiles at Santa Rosa. Fragmented bricks and tiles are also frequently lumped into the brick fragment category. Consequently bricks and tiles are presented as they were classified for each site, but little significance is attributed to the function of the different categories. Mortar and plaster were also classified differently between the

87 88 various databases. For example, the code “mortar/plaster unspecified” at Santa María makes distinguishing between the two difficult. Furthermore, plaster deteriorates over time and is often classified as mortar. Therefore plaster has been lumped into the mortar category for this analysis.

Building Material Assemblage, Presidio Santa María

At Presidio Santa María, the artifact assemblage under consideration comes from architectural features across the site, including building trenches, posts, enclosures, and facilities such as outdoor hearths. This analysis does not include materials recovered from the fort wall trenches. The materials analyzed include nails, hinges, and other hardware, ladrillos/bricks, tiles, mortar, burned timbers, lead sheeting, and window glass. Bricks make up the highest percentage by weight at Santa María with 81% (Table 3). The category of handmade brick was associated with later occupations, and was taken out of all analyses for Santa María. Handmade brick was excluded by removing Level 1, which appears to have included materials from later occupations. Handmade brick was rarely found below Level 1, and any occurrences were removed from the data set. Other materials related to structures were fasteners. Nails and spikes made up 14% of the total.

Other metal objects such as latches, hinges and lead sheeting made up less than 1% of the total by weight. Mortar accounts for 1% of the total. The amount of mortar used is low with only a few of the interior walls having mortar or plaster finish (Bense and Wilson

2003). Burned timbers were also recovered from excavations amounting to 3% of the total. Window glass and tiles make up less than 1% of the assemblage found in association with building remains. 89

Table 3. Building Materials at Santa Maria with Brick.

Building Materials Weight (g) Percentages Brick 574,179 81 Tile 358 <1 Mortar 4,766 1 Daub 281 <1 Burned Timbers 24,012 3 Fasteners 102,220 14 Hardware 170 <1 Lead Sheet 40 <1 Window Glass 613 <1 Total 706639 100

Brick weight overwhelms the other materials in the assemblage. The amount of brick makes the other materials seem insignificant. If brick is taken out of the analysis, all the other materials are more visible (Table 4). Here fasteners and burned timbers play a large role with 77% and 18% respectively. Mortar makes up 5% of the assemblage. Other materials still have low percentages with hardware, window glass, lead sheeting, daub and tile having less than 1% of the assemblage. With brick absent, fasteners are the primary archaeological building material.

Table 4. Building Materials at Santa María without Brick.

Building Materials Weight (g) Percentages Tile 358 <1 Mortar 4,766 5 Daub 281 <1 Burned Timbers 24,012 18 Fasteners 102,220 77 Hardware 170 <1 Lead Sheet 40 <1 Window Glass 613 <1 Total 132461 100 90

Building Material Assemblage, Presidio Santa Rosa

Architectural materials collected at Presidio Santa Rosa are from features

associated with construction trenches, postholes and post molds. At Santa Rosa, bricks make up the largest percentage of building materials with 35% of the assemblage by weight (Table 5). Fasteners, such as nails and spikes, make up 30% and tiles make up

19% of the assemblage. Mortar makes up 10% of building materials recovered. The low amount of mortar recovered at the site suggests it was not used as a primary building material. The preservation of mortar may have also been poor due to the acidic soils at

Santa Rosa. Stone makes up 6% of the total. Other materials such as window glass, daub, lead sheeting, hardware, and burned timbers make up less than 1% of the total assemblage. Bricks comprise the largest percentage of building materials by weight at the site. However, it is likely that most of the structures were built with wood and fastened with nails and spikes. During excavations there were no brick foundations uncovered, but brick was found in close proximity to many building remains. Some brick may represent the remains of cooking facilities (Eschbach 2007). 91

Table 5. Building Materials at Santa Rosa with Brick.

Building Material Weight (g) Percentages Brick 74,957 35 Mortar 21,707 10 Tile 40,154 19 Daub 26 <1 Fasteners 64,860 30 Hardware 682 <1 Stone 11,804 6 Sheet 13 <1 Window Glass 33 <1 Burned Timber 0.2 <1 Total 214,236 100

Like Santa María, Santa Rosa has a high percentage of brick that overshadows the other materials. By removing brick from the analysis the other materials are more visible (Table 6). Here fasteners and tile make up the highest percentages. Interestingly, tile accounts for 29% of the adjusted assemblage. This material may have been used as flooring or as facing around a hearth or stove. Fasteners, with 47% of the adjusted assemblage, indicate that this material was commonly used in the construction of wood buildings at Santa Rosa. Mortar accounts for 16% of the assemblage. Mortar was not extensively used, but may be associated with structures that had plaster finished walls.

Stone accounts for 8% of the adjusted total. Other materials such as window glass, daub, burned timbers, hardware, and lead sheeting account for less than 1% of the total.

Without the presence of brick, the other materials within the assemblage are more evident. 92

Table 6. Building Materials at Santa Rosa without Brick.

Building Material Weight (g) Percentage Tile 401,54 29 Mortar 21,707 16 Daub 26 <1 Fasteners 64,860 47 Hardware 682 <1 Sheet 13 <1 Window Glass 33 <1 Stone 11,804 8 Burned Timber 0.20 <1 Total 139,279 100

Building Material Assemblage, Presidio San Miguel

Building remains recovered from Presidio San Miguel are associated with Captain

Ullate’s compound inside the fort, large structures located just to the west of the fort in present day Plaza Ferdinand and First Spanish building remains found under Old Christ

Church. The predominate building material recovered at San Miguel was mortar, which makes up 45% of the assemblage (Table 7). Brick is 31% of the assemblage, and stone makes up 18%. These materials were used in nogging and are primarily associated with the large structure west of the fort that had post-in-trench construction with stone, brick and mortar chinking between the uprights. Fasteners make up 4% of the total, considerably less than at Santa María and Santa Rosa. Daub and tile both account for 1% of the total. All other artifacts within the assemblage, such as unmodified clay, window glass, came, hardware, and lead sheeting each make up less than 1% of the total. This sample of architectural material from Presidio San Miguel reflects a new reliance on oyster shell mortar and plaster. The material may have been more easily procured and manufactured from this mainland location. 93

Table 7. Building Materials at San Miguel with Mortar, Brick and Stone.

Building Materials Weight (g) Percentages Brick 136,049 31 Tile 4,742 1 Mortar 201,540 45 Daub 2,247 1 Clay 5 <1 Stone 81,327 18 Fasteners 15,617 4 Came 3 <1 Sheet 9 <1 Hardware 58 <1 Glass 80 <1 Total 441,678 100

As with the other two presidios San Miguel is dominated by a few materials.

These materials including mortar, brick, and stone. When these materials are taken out, the remainder are easier to discern (Table 8). Fasteners account for 64% of the assemblage. Tiles were 20% of the assemblage. Daub made up 9% and carbonized wood accounted for 6% of the total. Other materials such as unmodified clay, window glass, hardware, came and lead sheeting are still each less than 1% of the assemblage.

Table 8. Building Materials at San Miguel without Mortar, Brick and Stone.

Building Materials Weight (g) Percentages Tile 4,742.20 20 Daub 2,247.40 9 Clay 4.80 <1 Fasteners 15,617.24 64 Came 2.90 <1 Sheet 9.10 <1 Hardware 57.60 <1 Window glass 80.11 <1 Carbonized wood 1,474.00 6 Total 24,235.35 100 94

There are differences apparent in the percentage of building materials at each presidio. A big difference is the high amount of mortar at San Miguel, which makes up

45% of the total. The percentage of mortar significantly increased relative to building materials observed at Santa María and Santa Rosa, the former had only 5% and the latter had 10% of the total. The previous tables demonstrate that there is architectural variation among Pensacola’s three presidios through time. The intra-site comparison of architecture at each presidio will help to explain these variations and provide further insight into the architectural relationships of each settlement and variations through time and space. 95

Excavation Areas and Features, Presidio Santa María

Excavations at Santa María were conducted at several identifiable building complexes across the site, such as the Church, the South West Wall Barracks and the

Village (Figure 19). For this analysis the structural components of each area were examined, excluding the fort wall. Analyzing structural components allows for the building materials of each structure or excavation area to be compared with one another and to be reviewed individually. Table 9 compares the weight of architectural material across the site. The South West Wall Barracks had the highest amount of building materials for any area at 52% of the total assemblage. The next highest area was the

North West Wall Barracks, which consisted of 21% of the total. The Hospital had the third largest amount with 14% of the total. The other areas produced less substantial building remains with the Church making up 2%, the Warehouse 8%, the Village 2% and the North Wall Barracks less than 1% of the total. One problem with these observations is that the areas of excavation range in size and the frequencies are biased toward larger excavation areas. Even after taking this bias into consideration, the data provide an idea of what areas have the most and least amounts of building materials across the site.

97

Table 9. Weight of Building Materials by Area at Santa María.

Area of Excavation Weight (g) Percentages NW Barracks 2,757.70 <1 NW Wall Barracks 150,894.80 21 SW Wall Barracks 370,636.00 52 Church 17,374.50 2 Hospital 97,653.60 14 Village 13,229.59 2 Warehouse 54,093.60 8 Total 706,639.79 100

One way of accounting for the difference in size of excavation areas is to calculate the density of excavated building materials per square foot by dividing the total weight of material by the square footage of the excavation area. At Santa María the density of building materials across the site varies (Table 10). The two areas with the highest density are the South West Wall Barracks and the North West Wall Barracks, with 804.4 and

669.27 g per square foot. Another area of high density is the hospital. The Village has a much lower density of architectural remains. These distributions are similar to the distribution of architectural material by weight and suggest that comparing weights alone will provide reliable distributional data.

Table 10. Density of Building Materials at Santa María by Area.

Area of Excavation Grams Per ft2 Excavated ft2 NW Barracks 24.00 116.10 NW Wall Barracks 669.27 225.46 SW Wall Barracks 804.40 460.76 Church 48.00 360.00 Hospital 256.75 380.34 Warehouse 60.10 900.00 Village 6.34 2086.56 Total 1,868.86 4,529.22 98

Each area at Santa María will now be analyzed to see what kind of variation existed across the site. The North West Wall Barracks area produced 150,894.8 g of building materials (Figure 20). Of this total 78% was made up of brick, 15% fasteners,

6% burned timber and 1% mortar (Table 11). Brick accounted for 117,126.9 g, which equals 59 whole ladrillos. Nails accounted for 23,355.2 g, which equals 1,459.7 whole nails.

100

Table 11. Building Material Assemblage of the North West Wall Barracks.

Building Materials Weight (g) Percentages Brick 117,126.90 78 Mortar 1,950.30 1 Fasteners 23,355.20 15 Burned Timber 8,462.40 6 Total 150,894.80 100

To refine this analysis of the North West Wall Barracks, only the features directly associated with the structure were considered (i.e. wall trenches and posts). The features associated with the Northwest Wall Barracks were Features 459, 580, 192, 593, 660, 453, and 594. Building materials directly associated with the North West Wall Barracks building include brick, fasteners and mortar (Table 12). Brick is still the highest percentage with 57% of the total. Fasteners make up 43% and mortar accounts for less than 1% of the assemblage. Brick accounts for 760 g, which is 0.40 whole ladrillos.

Fasteners totaled 576.20 g or 36 whole nails. The small amount of brick relative to iron fasteners within posts and wall trenches suggests that this building was predominately made of wood.

Table 12. North West Wall Barracks, Assemblage of Structural Features.

Building Material Weight (g) Percentage Brick 760.00 57 Mortar 1.30 <1 Fasteners 576.20 43 Total 1,337.50 100

Building materials recovered from the North Wall Barracks were bricks and fasteners (Table 13). Bricks made up the largest with 94% of the assemblage. Fasteners 101 here only made up 6% of the total. Brick accounted for 2,598 g or 1.3 whole ladrillos.

Fasteners accounted for 160 g or ten whole nails. The small amount of brick within this assemblage suggests that this material was not used in construction.

Table 13. Building Material Assemblage of the North Wall Barracks.

Building Materials Weight (g) Percentage Brick 2,598.20 94 Fasteners 159.50 6 Total 2,757.70 100

Building materials associated with the structural features of the North Wall

Barracks were brick and fasteners (Table 14). Building features associated with the North

Wall Barracks were Features 121, 129, 132, and 122. Brick, with 708.6 g made up 94% of the total. Nails with 43.5 g amounted to 6% of the assemblage. Brick with 708 g accounted for 0.35 whole ladrillos. Nails with 43.5 g accounted for three whole nails. The low amount of brick and fasteners found within this structure suggested that they were not important elements in construction of the building.

Table 14. North Wall Barracks, Assemblage of Structural Features.

Building Materials Weight (g) Percentage Brick 708.60 94 Fasteners 43.50 6 Total 752.10 100

Building materials associated with the South West Wall Barracks exhibited a greater variety than the other two barracks (Table 15). Brick made up the largest amount with 86% of the total. The second largest material category was fasteners, which made up 102

13% of the total. Material such as window glass, mortar, hardware and daub were also found in association with this building. These materials each made up less than 1% of the assemblage by weight. The hardware was a door latch. Brick accounted for 319,596 g or

161 whole ladrillos. This was the highest concentration of brick at the site and was undoubtedly due in part to one or more brick hearth features located next to the structure

(Figure 8).

Table 15. Building Material Assemblage of the South West Wall Barracks.

Building Material Weight (g) Percentage Brick 319,596.00 86 Mortar 557.15 <1 Daub 268.40 <1 Fasteners 49,934.50 13 Hardware 134.20 <1 Window glass 145.75 <1 Total 370,636.00 100

To refine this analysis, only wall trench and post features directly associated with the South West Wall Barracks will be considered. The features under investigation are

Features 167, 261, 169, 289, 269, 243, 149, 146, 238, 166, 279, 198, 162, and 266.

Building materials associated only with the structural features are brick, fasteners, window glass, hardware, and daub (Table 16). Fasteners have the highest percentage with

60% and brick was second with 40% of the assemblage. All the other materials each make up less than 1% of the total by weight. Brick accounts for 2,169.75 g or 1.09 whole ladrillos. Fasteners account for 3,006 g or 203 whole nails. Unlike other areas, brick does not overshadow fasteners. This distribution suggests that nails and spikes played a large role in the construction of this wood building complex. The large amount of brick within 103 the surrounding area and not in the architectural features suggests that cooking facilities were detached but located near the main structure. This is a good model for the argument that high brick frequencies outside the structure are associated with a cooking facility, because at least one hearth was identified next to the structure (Feature 143A).

Table 16. South West Wall Barracks, Assemblage of Structural Features.

Building Materials Weight (g) Percentages Brick 2,169.75 40 Mortar 1.15 <1 Daub 4.40 <1 Fasteners 3,241.00 60 Hardware 12.20 <1 Window glass 12.70 <1 Total 5,441.20 100

Unlike most barracks at Santa María, the public structures such as the hospital exhibited a variety of building materials (Table 17). The largest amount of building material at the hospital was brick, making up 69% of the total. Fasteners made up 14% and a burned timber made up 16% of the total. Other materials found in association with this building are mortar, lead sheeting, and window glass. Each of these artifact types make up less than 1% of the total. There was no hardware found in association within this building. Lead sheeting was likely used as a roofing material along the eaves of the building. Brick here accounts for 67,722.6 g or 34 whole ladrillos. The presence of brick may be indicative of a cooking facility rather than structural use. Brick may have been placed within the drip line to reduce erosion; however, Bense only mentions that “refuse” was used to fill in the drip line adjacent to the building (Bense ed. 2003:148). 104

Table 17. Building Material Assemblage of the Hospital.

Building Material Weight (g) Percentage Brick 67,722.60 69 Mortar 352.00 <1 Fasteners 13,948.00 14 Window glass 62.70 <1 Sheet 18.70 <1 Burned timber 15,549.60 16 Total 97,653.60 99

As with the other structures, brick overshadows the rest of the materials, so the analysis will be refined using only the structural features of the hospital. The structural features of the hospital are Features 418, 487, 524, 526, 531, 532, 533, 534, 569, 570,

629, 658. Building materials associated with the structural features of the hospital are fasteners, bricks, and window glass (Table 18). In this analysis brick makes up 58% and fasteners 41% of the total. Window glass accounts for 1% of the assemblage. Brick totals

485g or 0.24 whole ladrillos. Nails total 344.40 g or 21.5 whole nails. The relatively small amount of brick suggests that this material was not incorporated into the building’s foundation. Nails seem to have been used in the construction of this building.

Table 18. Hospital, Assemblage of Structural Features.

Building Material Weight (g) Percentage Brick 485.00 58 Fasteners 344.40 41 Window Glass 4.90 1 Total 834.30 100

The warehouse is another public building excavated at Santa María (Table 19).

Materials used for construction were similar to the hospital. In the vicinity of the 105 warehouse, brick was the highest percentage with 81% of the total. Mortar was also found in the area making up 2% of the total. The small amount of mortar is probably not associated with the building’s construction. Fasteners were an important building material with 17% of the assemblage. Like the hospital, window glass was present at the warehouse. Lead sheeting was used on the eaves of the building as a roofing material.

Both window glass and lead sheeting accounted for less than 1% of the total assemblage for the warehouse. There was no hardware found in association with this building’s excavation. Brick accounted for 43,735 g or 22 whole ladrillos.

Table 19. Building Material Assemblage of the Warehouse.

Building Material Weight (g) Percentage Brick 43,734.90 81 Mortar 1,135.20 2 Fasteners 9,198.20 17 Sheet 11.00 <1 Window Glass 14.30 <1 Total 54,093.60 100

To refine the analysis of the warehouse, the structural features are investigated.

The structural feature associated with the warehouse were Features 641, 559, 652, 641,

588, 589, 145, 666, and 652. Building materials associated with the structural features of the warehouse are brick, fasteners, mortar, lead sheeting, and window glass. The percentages of these materials are similar to the percentages in the block excavation of the warehouse, described above (Table 20). Bricks account for 11,928 g or six ladrillos.

Fasteners amounted to 9,198.2 g, which is equal to 574 whole nails. The large amount of nails suggests that this material was heavily used in the construction of this building. 106

The amount of brick is too small to be considered a substantial building material and may mean that there was an oven or hearth nearby.

Table 20. Warehouse, Assemblage of Structural Features.

Building Material Weight (g) Percentage Brick 9,855.00 78 Mortar 309.60 2 Fasteners 2,508.60 20 Sheet 3.00 <1 Window Glass 3.90 <1 Total 12,680.10 100

The church area had a wide variety of building materials (Table 21). Brick dominates by weight with 70% and mortar accounts for 1% of the total. Brick accounts for 12,302 g or 6 whole ladrillos. Fasteners account for 24% of the assemblage and represent a material that was heavily relied on for this building’s construction. Window glass (3%) and tiles (2%) were also found in association with this building. The occurrence of window glass and tiles within the assemblage provides evidence that this structure was one of the most elaborate at the site. Lead sheeting used as a roofing material was also found and made up less than 1% of the total assemblage for the church.

Bricks may have been associated with a cooking facility outside the church and tile could have been used as a covering for an oven, stove, or altar. 107

Table 21. Building Material Assemblage of the Church.

Building Materials Weight (g) Percentage Brick 12,302.40 70 Tile 358.60 2 Mortar 159.50 1 Fasteners 4,156.90 24 Sheet 9.90 <1 Window Glass 387.20 3 Total 17,374.50 100

In order to refine this analysis, the structural features (wall trenches and posts) of the church need to be investigated. The structural features of the church were Features

475, 592, 506, 508, and 510. Building materials associated with the structural features of the church were brick, fasteners, mortar, lead sheeting, tile, and window glass (Table 22).

Brick accounted for 68% and fasteners 21% of the assemblage. Mortar made up 2% and window glass 4% of the total. Tile was 5% of the total and lead sheeting made up less than 1% of the total. Brick weighed 441 g or 0.2 whole ladrillos. Nails weighed 138 g equaling nine whole nails. The small amount of brick found in association with this structure suggests that this material was redeposited from a nearby cooking facility and not used as a foundation or floor. Few fasteners were found suggesting that the timbers of the church may have been joined using mortise and tenons or with treenails. 108

Table 22. Church, Assemblage of Structural Features.

Building Materials Weight (g) Percentage Brick 441.40 68 Tile 32.60 5 Mortar 10.00 2 Fasteners 138.30 21 Sheet 0.90 <1 Window glass 24.20 4 Total 647.40 100

The village is the other area under consideration, including a structure located near the northeast bastion (Table 23). Brick accounted for 84% and mortar accounted for 4% of the total. Fasteners made up only 11% of the total. Other materials such as a door hinge, window glass and daub were found within the village assemblage, but each made up less than 1% of the total. In all, the village assemblage varied little from the rest of the assemblages across the site. Brick within the village area likely was associated with outdoor kitchen/hearths. The low percentage of fasteners suggests that these materials were not frequently used within the village and that structures may have been pegged with treenails or lashed together.

Table 23. Building Material Assemblage of the Village.

Building Materials Weight (g) Percentage Brick 11,097.70 84 Daub 13.00 <1 Mortar 611.45 4 Fasteners 1,468.14 11 Hardware 36.20 <1 Window glass 3.10 <1 Total 13,229.59 100 109

Features associated with the structure located near the Northeast bastion in the village consist of two feature complexes. Located in the long east to west trench within

Area E these feature complexes consist of Features 648 and 435 post-on-sill wall trenches associated with a small structure and Features 251, 438, 481, 465, and 466 fence line.

Building materials associated with Features 648 and 435 post-on-sill wall trenches consist of brick, daub, fasteners, and window glass (Table 24). Fasteners had the largest amount with 57% of the total. Brick accounted for 40% of the assemblage. Daub and window glass were much less with 2% and 1% respectively. Fasteners weighed 285 g, equal to

17.8 whole nails. Fasteners were used to bind boards to the posts of this wood structure.

Brick only weighed 205 g equal to 0.1 whole ladrillos. Brick were not used in the construction of this small structure.

Table 24. Village, Assemblage of Features 648 and 435.

Building Material Weight (g) Percentages Brick 205 40 Daub 9 2 Fasteners 285 57 Window Glass 0.1 1 Total 499 100

Building materials associated with Features 251, 438, 481, 465, and 466 fence line consisted of brick, mortar, and fasteners (Table 25). Bricks were the highest percentage with 81% of the assemblage. Fasteners made up 18% and mortar had less than 1% of the percentage. Fasteners weighed 53 g equal to 3.3 whole nails. The fence line measured around 90 ft in length. The low amount of fasteners suggests that they were not heavily 110 used in the construction of this fence. Brick weighed 240 g equal to 0.1 whole bricks. The amount of brick suggests that it was not used in construction.

Table. 25 Village, Assemblage of Features 251, 438, 481, 465, and 466.

Building Material Weight (g) Percentage Brick 239.80 81 Mortar 2.20 <1 Nail 53.15 18 Total 295.15 100

At Presidio Santa María there was a narrow range of building materials present across the site. All of the buildings and areas were consistent with bricks being the dominant structural material by weight. The small number of bricks associated with building remains, however, suggests that this material was either redeposited from or was associated with cooking facilities. Brick could have been used to shore up posts, or as nogging between uprights, but these uses were not found in situ in the field. On the other hand, ladrillos were found in situ as part of an outdoor hearth at Santa María. Other materials such as window glass, lead sheeting, tiles, and occasionally building hardware were present in the assemblage. Tile may have been used in association with hearths.

When considering all the structures, the materials were quite homogeneous at Santa

María.

Excavation Areas and Features, Presidio Santa Rosa

The architectural features excavated at Santa Rosa Pensacola included 47 wall trenches associated with buildings and or fence lines. There were 91 postholes outside of construction trenches. Two floors and 2 burned roofs or wall falls were also excavated. 111

The construction episodes at Santa Rosa were very complex because of repeated building after multiple hurricanes. For the most part, UWF investigations were not able to correlate the archaeological remains with particular buildings recorded on drawings or in documents. In order to create an intra-site comparison, each excavation area will be individually analyzed. Areas will first be assessed as a whole and then subdivided into construction episodes. The areas under consideration are the North and South Ditch

Profiles, Block 1 North, Block 1 South, Trench 13 East and Trench 13 West (Figure 21).

113

The distribution of building materials by weight across the site varied at Santa

Rosa due to the size and density of materials in excavation areas (Table 26). Block 1

South had the greatest amount of building materials with 35% of the total. Trench 13

West had the second highest amount with 26%. Trench 13 East had 22% and the North and South Ditch Profiles had 9%. Block 1 North had 8% of the total by weight.

Table 26. Building Material Assemblage at Santa Rosa by Area.

Area of Excavation Weight (g) Percentage T13W 54,801.60 26 T13E 47,869.91 22 BLK1N 16,697.80 8 BLK1S 76,485.30 35 NDP / SDP 18,382.00 9 Total 214,236.61 100

In order to compare the density of building materials across the site, the excavated area at Santa Rosa was divided by the total weight of materials. At Santa Rosa the excavation areas with the highest density of building materials were Trench 13 West and

Trench 13 East with 256.38 g and 253.38 g of building materials per square foot respectively (Table 27). Block 1 South had 230 g and Block 1 North had 206 g per square foot. When reviewing this analysis it is interesting to note that Block 1 North had a high density considering there were only 81 square feet excavated from this area, the smallest under comparison. 114

Table 27. Density of Building Materials by Area at Santa Rosa.

Area Grams Per ft2 Excavated ft2 T13W 256.38 213.75 T13E 253.38 188.92 BLK1N 206.14 81.00 BLK1S 230.00 333.00 Total 945.90 816.67

The North and South Ditch profiles located on either side of the mosquito control/flood ditch were used to gain an understanding of the stratigraphy at Santa Rosa.

Intact midden was revealed in the profiles. According to Harris and Eschbach (2006:123) the highest concentration of artifacts found was on the west end of the ditch and material remains decreased to the east. Within the ditch profile contexts, brick was the greatest percentage with 69% (Table 28). Tiles came in second at 16% and fasteners third with

13% of the assemblage. Materials such as hardware and mortar made up 1% of the total.

Window glass made up less than 1% of the total. The amount of brick equaled 12,654 g or 6.35 whole ladrillos. Fasteners accounted for 2,416 g or 151 whole nails. The other materials found in this assemblage reflect the variety of materials found at the site.

Table 28. Building Material Assemblage of the North and South Ditch Profiles.

Building Material Weight (g) Percentage Brick 12,653.80 69 Mortar 265.90 1 Tile 2,882.00 16 Fasteners 2,416.60 13 Hardware 160.50 1 Window Glass 3.10 <1 Total 18,381.90 100 115

During the North and South Ditch Profile excavations a few features were uncovered. These discoveries warranted expansion of several small profile units to one 10 ft and two adjacent 5 ft long profiles. The ten foot excavation was located along the eastern side of the north ditch profile. The two 5 ft excavations were along the western end of the south ditch profile. These two excavation areas were of interest because they provided insight into the use of building materials on the extreme eastern and western sides of the site. The north ditch profile extension contained midden deposits and two features, 24 and 30. Feature 24 was a small posthole and Feature 30 may have also been a posthole. Although numbers are small, brick made up the largest amount of building materials in these features with 82% of the total (Table 29). Tiles and fasteners were present with tiles accounting for 11% and fasteners only 7% of the assemblage by weight,

(two pieces of brick and seven small nail fragments) (Harris and Eschbach 2006:126).

Table 29. Building Material Assemblage of the North Ditch Profile Extension.

Building Material Weight (g) Percentage Brick 561.30 82 Tile 75.40 11 Fasteners 47.30 7 Total 684.00 100

Within the two adjacent South Ditch Profile extensions, an intact midden and six features were recorded. These features consisted of wall trenches, postholes, a layer of ash, and a pit feature of unknown function. Out of all the building materials recovered, bricks made up the largest amount with 65% (Table 30). Two other significant materials were tiles at 20% and fasteners at 14% of the total. Mortar made up only 1% and hardware accounts for less than 1% of the total. This area had a greater variety of materials than the 116 north ditch profile. Harris and Eschbach (2006:126) suggested that this area had two different occupations beginning with a more affluent Spanish public structure and possible fence (Features 121 and 122) and later an Indian household (Features 23 and 35). There were 3,302 g of brick recovered, which amounts to only 1.6 whole ladrillos. Fasteners weight a total of 695.40 g, which is equivalent to 43 whole nails. This number of fasteners suggests that the structures in this area of Santa Rosa were predominatly made of wood.

Table 30. Building Material Assemblage of the South Ditch Profile Extension.

Building Material Weight (g) Percentage Brick 3,301.50 65 Tile 1,043.00 20 Mortar 42.30 1 Fasteners 695.40 14 Hardware 9.90 <1 Total 5,092.10 100

The building materials from Block 1 North are comparable to those found in other areas across the site (Figure 13). This area was located along the west sidae of Siguenza

Slough on the east end of the site and was expanded after a shovel test in the area yielded

106 artifacts (Bense 2002). When the block was opened, three construction trenches were identified: Features 27, 32 and 105. These trenches were found not to be contemporaneous, but were similar in construction and were interpreted to be either fence lines or construction trenches for buildings (Harris and Eschbach 2006:139-150). Building materials associated with the entire block consisted of brick, mortar, fasteners, window glass and tiles (Table 31). Out of all these materials, fasteners accounted for 54% of the assemblage. Brick was 29% and tiles were 16% of the total. Mortar made up 1% and window glass was less than 1% of the total. Fasteners amounted to 9,047 g with spikes 117 making up 6,064.9 g of the total. The average spike weighs around 125 g making the potential number of whole spikes 48.5. The high number of spikes suggested that some of the construction trenches were not walls of residential buildings, but possibly part of a compound or fort wall or other large structure (Eschbach 2007: 142). Other non- architectural artifacts were numerous, consisting of ceramics, pottery, glass, and metal/military items (Harris and Eschbach 2006).

Table 31. Building Material Assemblage of Block 1 North.

Building Material Weight (g) Percentage Brick 4,800.91 29 Mortar 171.90 1 Tile 2,674.60 16 Fasteners 9,047.10 54 Window Glass 3.30 <1 Total 16,697.81 100

To refine the Block 1 North analysis, the three construction trenches will be looked at individually. Feature 32, a 5.5 ft long wall trench, had a TPQ of 1722. This trench had brick, mortar, fasteners, tiles and window glass within its assemblage (Table 32). Brick was the highest at 70%. Tiles accounted for 18% and fasteners 12% of the assemblage.

Mortar and window glass made up less than 1% of the total. Brick had a weight of 1884.4 g, amounting to 0.94 whole ladrillos. It is possible that brick may have been used here to shore up posts within the construction trench, however this was not seen in situ. The low number of fasteners suggested that this particular early construction trench is a part of a building and not a compound wall (Eschbach 2007:136). 118

Table 32. Block 1 North, Assemblage of Feature 32.

Building Material Weight (g) Percentage Brick 1,884.41 70 Tile 486.40 18 Mortar 0.20 <1 Fasteners 333.80 12 Window Glass 0.60 <1 Total 2,705.41 100

The Feature 105 wall trench was contemporary with Feature 32, with a TPQ of

1722. This construction trench had brick, fasteners, mortar and tile within its assemblage

(Table 33). Brick accounted for 78% of the total. Tile had 16% and fasteners 6%. Mortar accounted for less than 1% of the assemblage. Brick weighed 324.4 g, which is only 0.16 whole ladrillos. The low amount of brick here suggested that it was not a part of a foundation and may be redeposited. Nails amount to 26.20 g, which is equivalent to 1.6 whole nails. Feature 105 had no spikes and it may have been a wall associated with a building, maybe an interior wall (Eschbach 2007:136).

Table 33. Block 1 North, Assemblage of Feature 27.

Building Material Weight (g) Percentage Brick 92.90 2 Tile 410.40 11 Mortar 5.70 <1 Fasteners 3,207.10 86 Window glass 2.40 <1 Total 3,718.50 100

Feature 27 was the final construction trench in Block 1 North. Aranama

Polychrome gave this wall trench a TPQ of 1750 (Eschbach 2007:136). Feature 27 wall trench had brick, fasteners, mortar, window glass, and tiles within its assemblage (Table 119

34). Here fasteners account for 86% of the total. Tiles were 11% and brick only 2% of the assemblage. Mortar and window glass accounted for less than 1% of the total. Spikes here amounted to 2,914.2 g, equal to around 23.31 whole spikes. With the occurrence of such a large quantity of spikes within Feature 27, this trench may have been the remnants of a substantial wall.

Table 34. Block 1 North, Assemblage of Feature 105.

Building Material Weight (g) Percentages Brick 324.40 78 Tile 66.20 16 Mortar 0.10 <1 Fasteners 26.20 6 Total 416.90 100 120

Another area with multiple building episodes was Block 1 South. Forty features were excavated within 19 units. The features consisted of wall trenches, post holes, refuse pits and a burned roof/wall fall. Two major construction episodes dominated this block.

An octagonal shaped structure and associated burned ceiling/wall fall and a second structure ran parallel to the octagonal building (Figure 22). The diverse materials consisted of brick, daub, mortar, limestone, fasteners, window glass, hardware, tiles, and lead sheeting (Table 35). Fasteners were most abundant by weight with 31% and bricks were second with 24% of the total. Mortar and stone each made up 15% and tile was 14%. All the other materials accounted for less than 1% of the assemblage. Fasteners account for

23,982.5 g or 1,498.9 whole nails. Within the fasteners total, spikes amount to 2,017.9 g or

16.14 whole spikes. The occurrence of spikes suggest that a compound wall or large building may have been within Block 1 South. The high number of nails also supports the interpretation that this area had many episodes of timber frame building construction

(Harris and Eschbach 2006).

122

Table 35. Building Material Assemblage of Bock 1 South.

Building Material Weight (g) Percentage Brick 18,226.10 24 Tile 10,455.40 14 Mortar 11,706.90 15 Daub 5.50 <1 Stone 11,804.00 15 Fasteners 23,982.50 32 Sheet 4.60 <1 Hardware 295.20 <1 Window Glass 5.10 <1 Total 76,485.30 100

Analyzing individual construction episodes individually will provide an understanding of the similarities and differences in building materials within Block 1

South. The octagonal shaped structure, demarcated by Features 57, 198, 199 and 214, was an earth-fast building with post-in-trench construction. The presence of Aranama

Polychrome gives this structure a TPQ of 1750. Materials located within the structural features were fasteners, brick, and mortar (Table 36). Brick dominated by weight with

76% of the total. Fasteners accounted for 24% of the total. Mortar accounted for less than

1% of the assemblage and was not likely a major material for construction. Brick accounts for only 72.6 g or 0.036 whole ladrillos. The small amount of brick found in association with this structure suggested that this material was redeposited and not associated with the building. A small amount of mortar suggested this structure did not have plaster finished walls. Fasteners amount to 23.1 g, which is equal to 1.4 whole nails.

Fasteners may have been salvaged after the building was destroyed. Harris and Eschbach state that this building was likely a warehouse or public building in function (Harris and

Eschbach 2006:155). 123

Table 36. Block 1 South, Assemblage of Features 57, 198, 199 and 214.

Building Material Weight (g) Percentage Brick 72.60 76 Mortar 0.30 <1 Fasteners 23.10 24 Total 96.00 100

The structure parallel to the octagonal shaped structure in Block 1 South was more diverse in building materials. Structural features consisted of Features 128 (wall trench) and 234 (dirt floor). Architectural materials within the context of this structure consisted of daub, fasteners, brick, hardware, mortar and tile (Table 37). Here, mortar accounts for 53% of the total. Brick makes up 14% and fasteners 16%. Tile accounted for

16% of the assemblage. Hardware such as a hinge made up 1% and daub made up less than 1% of the total. The high percentage of mortar suggested that this building might have had plaster finished walls. Fasteners accounted for 792.6 g or 49.5 whole nails. The large amount of fasteners suggested that the primary building material for this structure was wood.

Table 37. Block 1 South, Assemblage of Features 128 and 234.

Building Material Weight (g) Percentage Brick 699.30 14 Tile 804.70 16 Daub 1.30 <1 Mortar 2,727.90 53 Fasteners 792.60 16 Hardware 68.10 1 Total 5,093.90 100 124

Another large excavation area was Trench 13 East. Within this trench there were three building episodes evident (Figure 12). One wall trench feature complex,

79/156/165, was likely remnants of the church. Another building episode consisted of

Features 72 and 115b. These building remains were situated just to the east of the church wall trench complex. Feature 72 and 115b could be associated with the church because of their north to south orientation. A third substantial set of building features were Features

73, 116 and 109. These features located on the east end of Trench 13 were found under the midden associated with the Feature 79/156/165 complex. They likely underlaid and predated the church structure and could have been part of an earlier church or other structure (Harris and Eschbach 2006:166).

The Trench 13 East building materials consisted of brick, daub, fasteners, hardware, window glass, mortar, lead sheeting, and tile (Table 38). Here fasteners had the greatest weight making up 40% of the total. Brick was 29% and mortar was 13% of the assemblage. Tile accounted for 18% of the total. Other materials such as lead sheeting, window glass, hardware, daub and burned timbers each made up less than 1% of the total.

Fasteners accounted for 19,288.3 g or 1,205.5 whole nails. Within this amount, spikes accounted for 730.1 g, which equates to 5.8 spikes. If spikes were subtracted from the overall fasteners total, nails weigh 18,558.2 g or 1,160 whole nails. The high amount of nails suggested that this large structure was made of wood. Brick accounted for

13,876.31 g or 6.97 whole ladrillos. The brick was not associated with an in situ foundation and may be redeposited from cooking or other facilities in the area. In order to understand the distribution of these materials, an analysis of each building episode needs to be conducted. 125

Table 38. Building Material Assemblage of Trench 13 East.

Building Material Weight (g) Percentage Brick 13,876.31 29 Tile 8,468.40 18 Daub 5.60 <1 Mortar 6,198.40 13 Fasteners 19,288.30 40 Sheet 4.60 <1 Hardware 21.50 <1 Window Glass 6.70 <1 Burned Timber 0.10 <1 Total 47,869.91 100

The wall trench complex mentioned above, Features 79/156/165, was oriented north to south, which was unlike any other building at Santa Rosa. This building episode, interpreted as a church, had brick, fasteners, tile, and mortar (Harris and Eschbach

2006:166; Gordon 2005). It has a TPQ of 1750 (Eschbach 2007: 130). Here mortar accounted for 84% of the total (Table 39), brick was 6%, while tiles and fasteners each accounted for 5% of the total. This wall trench complex had the highest amount of mortar at Santa Rosa, with 5,271.2 g, suggesting that the walls of this structure were plastered.

Brick accounts for 360 g, which is equal to 0.18 whole ladrillos. Brick was likely redeposited and not a part of the building’s construction.

Table 39. Trench 13 East, Assemblage of Feature 79/156/165 Complex.

Building Material Weight (g) Percentage Brick 360.00 6 Tile 289.80 5 Mortar 5,271.20 84 Fasteners 323.80 5 Total 6,244.80 100 126

The second building complex in Trench 13 East was composed of Features 72 and

115b, located to the east of Feature complex 79/156/165. The TPQ of this building complex is 1722, making its construction earlier than the Feature 72/156/165 wall trench of the church (Eschbach 2007:130). Building materials associated with these features consist of brick, fasteners, window glass and mortar (Table 40). Brick had the highest weight making up 65% of the total. Fasteners were 33% and mortar made up 3% of the total. Window glass, although present, made up less than 1% of the assemblage. Brick accounted for only 52.5 g or 0.02 whole ladrillos. Fasteners accounted for 26.5 g or 1.65 whole nails. The low amount of brick suggested that this material was redeposited.

Mortar amounts for 2.2 g and was likely another redeposited material. Window glass accounted for only 0.1 g. These construction trenches were oriented in the same direction as the Features 79/156/165 construction trenches. It has been noted by Harris and

Eschbach that Features 72 and 115b may be associated with the larger Feature 79, 156, and 165 complex (Harris and Eschbach 2006:166). These construction trenches may have been a part of an earlier church and would account for the similar orientation of the two structures.

Table 40. Trench 13 East, Assemblage of Features 72 and 115b.

Building Material Weight (g) Percentage Brick 52.50 65 Mortar 2.20 3 Fasteners 26.50 33 Window Glass 0.10 <1 Total 81.30 101 127

Another set of wall trenches in Trench 13 East were Features 73, 116, and 109.

These features were located under the midden associated with the Feature 79/156/165 church. Features 73, 116, and 109 likely predate the church construction but do have the same TPQ of 1750 (Harris and Eschbach 2006:69; Eschbach 2007:130). Building materials found in association with these features consisted of brick, fasteners, mortar and tile (Table 41). Brick was the largest and took up 59% of the assemblage. Tiles made up

26% and fasteners were 14% of the total. Mortar accounted for a small amount totaling

1%, which determined that this structure did not have plastered walls. Brick weighed

1,002 g equal to 0.5 whole ladrillos. Although this was the highest percentage within

Trench 13 East, this material was not substantial enough to be considered a construction material.

Table 41. Trench 13 East, Assemblage of Features 73, 116 and 109.

Building Material Weight (g) Percentages Brick 1,002.00 59 Tile 437.10 26 Mortar 10.30 1 Fasteners 245.80 14 Total 1,695.20 100

Another area of Santa Rosa excavation that yielded architectural features and material was Trench 13 West. This area had numerous refuse pits and piles, posts, and 14 trench sections (Figure 10). The 14 trench sections made up four building episodes, two of which were burned structures. With the exception of one early burned structure, this area was on the highest elevation of the site, and the buildings were oriented between 10 and 15 degrees east of north. The architectural materials found in association with this 128 area were quite diverse with daub, window glass, brick, hardware, lead sheeting, burned timbers, and tile (Table 42). Brick made up the largest percentage with 46% of the assemblage. Tile was 29% and fasteners were 18% of the total. Mortar made up 6% of the assemblage. All the other materials such as hardware, window glass, lead sheeting, burned timbers, and daub made less than 1% of the assemblage. Brick totaled 25,399.1 g or 12.76 whole ladrillos.

Table 42. Building Material Assemblage of Trench 13 West.

Building Material Weight (g) Percentage Brick 25,399.10 46 Tile 15,673.70 29 Daub 14.80 <1 Mortar 3,364.20 7 Fasteners 10,125.60 18 Hardware 205.10 <1 Sheet 4.00 <1 Window Glass 15.00 <1 Burned Timber 0.10 <1 Total 54,801.60 100

Trench 13 West building episodes have been grouped into 5 associated feature complexes. These are Features 62, 215 and 219, Feature 40, Feature 60, Feature 190, and

Features 86, 138 and 154.

Excavation of Feature 40 took place in 2003. This small, shallow building was located in Trench 13 West under a midden layer, suggesting that this building episode was present early within the site’s occupation. Feature 40 has a TPQ date of 1722. It had deep corner posts and other more shallow posts set in trenches. Five feet of the wall trench were documented northeast/southwest and 3.3 ft northwest/southeast. The function of this structure is unclear. Associated materials consisted of brick, mortar, fasteners, 129 tiles, and hardware (Table 43). Surprisingly, tiles were the largest with 44% of the total.

Bricks were 32% and fasteners were 15% of the assemblage. Mortar made up 9% and hardware made up less than 1% of the total. Brick accounts for 255.2 g or 0.128 whole ladrillos. This is a very small amount of brick and suggested that it was not an extensively used material. Tile accounted for only 339.3 g. Even though these materials were not numerous, the presence of both brick and tile suggested that a hearth or oven was nearby.

Non-architectural artifacts consisted of multiple ceramics, metal, glass, and gun flints

(Harris and Eschbach 2007:121-122).

Table 43. Trench 13 West, Assemblage of Feature 40.

Building Material Weight (g) Percentage Brick 255.20 32 Tile 339.30 44 Mortar 69.70 9 Hardware 0.60 <1 Fasteners 114.00 15 Total 778.80 101

Feature 60, with a TPQ of 1722, was a building trench located in Trench 13 West

(Eschbach 2007:121). Feature 60, located 1 ft to the west of Feature 40, was an earth fast construction trench. The corner post of this feature was much deeper than the rest of the trench suggesting that the corners were the load bearing section of the building (Figure

21). Materials found in association with Feature 60 were brick, fasteners, mortar, tiles and hardware (Table 44). Brick made up the greatest amount with 45% of the total. Fasteners also had a substantial presence with 31% of the assemblage. Tiles were 21% and mortar made up 3% of the total. Hardware was less than 1% of the assemblage. Brick accounted for 906.8 g or 0.45 whole ladrillos, a low amount of brick. Tile accounted for only 430 g. 130

Table 44. Trench 13 West, Assemblage of Feature 60.

Building Material Weight (g) Percentage Brick 906.80 45 Tile 430.00 21 Fasteners 624.30 31 Hardware 8.00 <1 Mortar 61.60 3 Total 2,030.70 100

Located 0.5 feet to the west of Feature 60 in Trench 13 West, was the Feature

62/215/219 wall complex. Excavation of Feature 62, which was excavated 27 feet north to south, began in 2003 and continued in 2004. There were multiple features and midden fill intruding upon the Feature 62 construction trench suggesting that this building was repaired and expanded several times. At least part of this wall trench had post-on-sill construction. A part of the complex was Feature 215, which was a wall trench perpendicular to Feature 62 and may have been a fence or porch extension. Another section of Feature 215 was interpreted as a door to the structure. Feature 219, located along the southern end of the excavation, may have been a demolition trench. Each feature in this complex had a TPQ of 1740, making this building later than Features 40 and 60 (Eschbach 2007:121).

Building materials associated with feature complex 62/215/219 consist of brick, daub, fasteners, hardware, window glass, mortar, lead sheeting, and tiles (Table 45).

Brick made up the largest percentage accounting for 34% of the total. Tiles were 27% and fasteners accounted for 26% of the assemblage. Mortar accounted for 12% while all the other materials such as daub, window glass, hardware and lead sheeting accounted for less than 1% of the total. Brick accounted for 766.3 g or 0.38 whole ladrillos. The 131 presence of brick here is not substantial and was likely redeposited, possibly from wall trench Features 40 and 60. Comparatively, the amount of brick in this feature complex was similar to other feature complexes across the site with brick amounts numbering in the hundreds of grams. The exceptions were Feature 32 in Block 1 North and Features

73/116/109 in Trench 13 East where brick numbered in the thousands of grams. Tile with only 608.6 g likely followed the same fate as the brick in the assemblage. The absence of a substantial amount of brick and tile may suggest that this material was salvaged. The presence of Feature 219 demolition trench strengthens this argument. The mortar may be what is left of plaster used on the exterior or interior walls of the building, or it was redeposited from elsewhere like the brick and tiles or taken away with salvaged brick.

Fasteners here amounted to 593 g or 37 whole nails. This feature complex (62/215/219) had a TPQ of 1740 and Eschbach (2007) states that the post on sill construction of this large building suggests it was a higher status structure with previous lower status occupations represented in the feature fills (Eschbach 2007:147).

Table 45. Trench 13 West, Assemblage of Feature 62/215/219 Complex.

Building Material Weight (g) Percentage Brick 766.30 34 Daub 4.20 <1 Tile 608.60 27 Fasteners 593.00 26 Hardware 7.60 <1 Sheet 0.40 <1 Window Glass 0.40 <1 Mortar 269.30 13 Total 2,249.80 100 132

Another feature possibly associated with Feature 62 is Feature 190. Feature 190 was a wall trench that may be a repair or expansion trench of Feature 62. Feature 190 was around 8 feet in length and 0.5 feet wide and located parallel to Feature 62 along the south units of the Trench 13 West excavation. Materials associated with the construction trench include fasteners, brick, mortar and tile (Table 46). Bricks made up the largest weight with 83% of the assemblage. Tile was 11% and fasteners 6% of the assemblage.

Mortar made up less than 1 percent of the total. Brick amounted to 289.8 g or 0.14 whole ladrillo. Comparatively, this amount of brick was consistent with other wall trenches within Trench 13 West, with brick numbering in the hundreds of grams. If the larger structure (Feature 62) had a cooking facility, this material may have been recycled during the demolition of this building.

Table 46. Trench 13 West, Assemblage of Feature 190.

Building Material Weight (g) Percentage Brick 289.80 83 Tile 37.40 11 Mortar 0.30 <1 Fasteners 22.70 6 Total 350.20 100

Within the extreme western units of Trench 13 West were Features 86, 154 and

138, each having a TPQ of 1722 (Eschbach 2007:121). These features were part of a burned wall. Building materials associated with this structure consisted of fasteners, brick, window glass, mortar, and tiles (Table 47). Tile made up 43% of the assemblage.

Bricks and fasteners also made up a large portion of the total with brick at 35% and fasteners at 22%. Mortar accounted for 1% and window glass made up less than 1% of 133 the total. Brick weighed 420.6 g equal to 0.21 whole ladrillo. Brick was a small amount and was not used in foundation construction. Tiles amounted to 519.3 g. Fasteners weighed 264.1 g equal to 16.5 whole nails. This was a timber framed structure fastened together with nails. Carbonized wood debris was in high quantity with 3,206.3 g (Harris and Eschbach 2006:183).

Table 47. Trench 13 West, Assemblage of Features 86, 138 and 154.

Building Material Weight (g) Percentage Brick 420.60 35 Tile 519.30 43 Mortar 13.10 1 Fasteners 264.10 22 Window Glass 0.60 <1 Total 1,217.70 101

The percentages of building materials associated with structural remains at Santa

Rosa Pensacola differ from Santa María. The differences in building materials were evident in the greater use of mortar and tile at Santa Rosa. Brick may have been used in association with cooking facilities or as nogging in building construction. The relatively low amounts of brick across the site suggest that it was not a primary material used in construction at Santa Rosa. Mortar may have been the remnants of exterior or interior wall plastering, especially at the church. Tiles may have been associated with cooking facilities or used in building construction. At Santa Rosa the buildings excavated were timber framed structures. The church may have had plastered walls, which was not exhibited at Santa María on any of the buildings. One octagonal shaped structure was present. 134

Excavation Areas and Features, Presidio San Miguel

The following analysis of architectural materials at Presidio San Miguel presents the Plaza Ferdinand, Commanding Officer’s Compound and Old Christ Church data bases. These areas represent a sample of materials excavated inside and outside the fort and should provide a range of architectural materials used at Presidio San Miguel.

At the Old Christ Church parcel east of Fort San Miguel, building materials found in association with First Spanish wall trenches and posts included fasteners, brick, mortar, unmodified clay and window glass (Table 48). Fasteners made up 44% and bricks 27% of the total. The next highest percentage was mortar with 20%. Window glass was 7% and unmodified clay made up 1% of the assemblage. Brick weighed 89.5 g or 0.04 whole ladrillos, which was not abundant enough to have been used in foundation construction.

Fasteners weighed 147 g, equal to 9.1 whole nails. No spikes were found within this assemblage. The presence of unmodified clay suggests that this material was recognized in the field and collected without screening. Unmodified clay was present at Santa Rosa in Trench 13 West and may have been present at Santa María, but subsequently pushed through a screen and not collected. A high amount of carbonized wood, 1,474 g, was collected at Old Christ Church suggesting that these buildings were primarily made of wood and that they burned to the ground (Williams 2004:96). 135

Table 48. Building Material Assemblage of Old Christ Church.

Building Material Weight (g) Percentage Brick 89.50 27 Mortar 67.30 20 Unmodified clay 4.80 1 Fasteners 147.00 44 Window glass 22.10 7 Total 330.70 99

Building materials within Plaza Ferdinand consisted of brick, stone, fasteners, mortar, plaster, daub, tile, window glass, lead sheeting, came, and hardware (Table 49).

Here mortar made up 46% of the assemblage. Brick and stone were next with the former at 31% and the latter at 19% of the assemblage. Fasteners made up 2% of the assemblage.

Tile and daub accounted for 1% of the total. All other materials such as window glass, lead sheeting, came, and hardware accounted for less that 1% of the assemblage. Brick weighed 128,422.1 g or the equivalent of 64.5 whole ladrillos. This was the largest amount of brick recovered from any of the presidios. Mortar weighed 193,751.8 g and stone 81,327.1 g. The high amount of mortar, brick and stone was associated with nogging between the upright posts of the large building in Plaza Ferdinand. The nogging was documented as a wall fall by the excavators (Benchley and Whitaker 2007). Some mortar could also have been the remains of the plastered walls of the structures. Stone was located within the loggia foundation of this building, and may have acted as a footer to support load-bearing beams and the threshold. Fasteners amount to 9752.44 g, which is equal to 609.5 whole nails. The amount of fasteners suggested that this material was used extensively in constructing the two house lot compounds. There were no spikes within this assemblage. 136

Table 49. Building Material Assemblage of Plaza Ferdinand.

Building Material Weight (g) Percentage Brick 128,422.10 31 Tile 4,742.20 1 Mortar 193,751.80 46 Daub 2,247.40 1 Stone 81,327.10 19 Fasteners 9,752.44 2 Hardware 57.60 <1 Came 2.90 <1 Sheet 9.10 <1 Window glass 58.01 <1 Total 420,370.65 100

At Captain Ullate’s Compound, located in the southwest corner of Presidio San

Miguel, the materials analyzed came from building features associated with the ell extension of the captain quarters, a fence line that predated the ell extension and other building facilities within the compound. These building features were from Features 205,

188, 189, 168, 208, 207, 212, 210, 213, and 211 (Figure 18). These materials were less diverse than Plaza Ferdinand with just fasteners, brick and mortar present. Mortar made up the largest percentage with 37% of the total. Brick was close behind with 36% of the assemblage and fasteners were last with 27% (Table 50). This material came directly from fill associated with wall trenches and other building features. Brick weighed 7,537.6 g or 3.78 whole ladrillos. Mortar weighed 7,720.8 g and may have been used to plaster some of the walls within the compound. Fasteners weighed 5,717.8 g or 357.3 whole nails. The large amount of nails suggested that wood was the major construction material at the compound (Benchley 2006). 137

Table 50. Building Material Assemblage of the Commanding Officer’s Compound.

Building Material Weight (g) Percentage Brick 7,537.60 36 Mortar 7,720.80 37 Fasteners 5,717.80 27 Total 20,976.20 100

In order to compare these sites with one another, it is helpful to determine the density of building materials by weight at each site. The density is obtained by dividing the sum of weight by the square footage of each excavation. By doing so the density of building materials per square foot is obtained (Table 51). Plaza Ferdinand had the highest density of building materials with 398 g per foot squared. The densities at the

Commanding Officer’s Compound and Old Christ Church were much lower with 31 and

4.1 g per foot squared. The high density of building materials at Plaza Ferdinand was due to the large amount of brick and mortar associated with a large building.

Table 51. Density of Building Materials at San Miguel.

Area Gram Per ft2 Excavated ft2 C.O.Comp 31 675 Old C Church 4 79 Plaza 398 1,057 Total 433 1,811

As with the other two presidios, the goal of an intra-site analysis of architecture at

San Miguel is to provide information of the spatial distribution on building materials across the three sites and evidence about the socioeconomic relationships at each site. The analysis of Old Christ Church is split up into four building episodes. 138

As stated within Chapter 4, Features 69 and 97 were interpreted as a compound or stockade wall (Figure 19). Features 118, 119, and 125 were associated with a small structure inside the church. Also inside the church was Feature 92, a wall trench interpreted as a house wall. Feature 140, located outside the church, was the other large wall trench interpreted as a compound wall. Each of these building episodes will be analyzed separately.

Features 69 and 97 compound or stockade wall had building materials consisting of brick, mortar, fasteners, and window glass (Table 52). Fasteners accounted for 68% of the total. Brick made up 22% and mortar 10% of the assemblage. Window glass amounted to 1% of the total. Fasteners, consisting of nails weighed 75 g equivalent to 4.6 whole nails. The presence of fasteners suggested that this material was used to fasten boards to posts. Brick weighed 24 g or 0.01 whole ladrillos. The low amount of brick suggested that this material was not used in construction. Carbonized wood was also collected from Features 69 and 97 amounting to 378 g, suggesting this compound wall burned.

Table 52. Old Christ Church, Assemblages of Features 69 and 97

Building Materials Weight (g) Percentage Brick 24.00 22 Mortar 11.00 9 Fasteners 75.00 68 Window glass 0.60 1 Total 110.60 100

Building materials associated with Features 119, 118, and 125 were brick, mortar, and fasteners (Table 53). Fasteners accounted for 33%, brick 65% and mortar 2% of the 139 assemblage. Brick weighed 19.8 g or 0.01 whole ladrillos. This sparse material was not used in the construction of the building. Fasteners, consisting of nails, weighed 9.9 g or

0.61 whole nails. Carbonized wood was collected from these features totaling 708 g, suggesting that this structure burned (Williams 2004:97).

Table 53. Old Christ Church, Assemblage of Features 119, 125, and 118.

Building Material Weight (g) Percentage Brick 19.80 65 Fasteners 9.90 33 Mortar 0.70 2 Total 30.40 100

Building materials found in association with Feature 92 included mortar, brick, fasteners, and window glass (Table 54). In this assemblage, fasteners were 55% of the total. Window glass made up 24%, while mortar accounted for 19% of the assemblage.

Brick only made up 3% of the total. The difference between this building trench and the

Feature 69 complex was that the materials vary in quantity. Window glass was more abundant, with 20.9 g, suggesting that there may have been a window associated with this wall. Fasteners were the dominant material and suggest that this was a wooden wall. The low amounts of brick and mortar suggest that these materials were used minimally in the buildings construction. Carbonized wood was also collected from this feature totaling

123g. 140

Table 54. Old Christ Church, Assemblage of Feature 92.

Building Material Weight (g) Percentage Brick 2.40 3 Mortar 16.40 19 Fasteners 48.80 55 Window glass 20.90 24 Total 88.50 101

Feature 140 located outside of the church had similar building materials to the other building features at the site. Building materials associated with this feature are unmodified clay, fasteners, brick, mortar and window glass (Table 55). Brick and mortar were the highest percentages with 43% and 39% of the assemblage. Fasteners were 13% and unmodified clay had 5% of the total. Window glass accounted for 1% of the total.

Bricks weighed 43.3 g or 0.02 whole ladrillos, and mortar weighed 39 g. Fasteners weighed 12.9 g or 0.8 whole nails. The amount of brick and mortar is low suggesting that this material was likely redeposited and not used in the construction of this structure.

After each of the building episodes at Old Christ Church were reviewed it was clear that these were timber framed structures. Carbonized wood was also collected from this feature. Weighing 265.5 g, the occurrence of carbonized wood suggested that this structure also burned.

Table 55. Old Christ Church, Assemblage of Feature 140.

Building Material Weight (g) Percentage Brick 43.30 43 Mortar 39.00 39 Unmodified clay 4.80 5 Fasteners 12.90 13 Window glass 0.60 1 Total 100.60 100 141

At Plaza Ferdinand, the excavation was split into two house lot areas known as

House Lot 1 and House Lot 2. Both compounds were originally constructed by the

Spanish and later occupied and modified by the British. House Lot 1 included a large, possibly two story main building (Features 21 and 48 wall trenches) and a western building demarcated by posts. The western building was possibly a kitchen. House Lot 2, in Trench 6, consisted of a smaller excavation area designed to locate midden deposits associated with a house (around 36 x 18 feet) and four small associated outbuildings.

House Lot 2 is located toward the north east corner of Plaza Ferdinand. The interpretation of this area stated that building remains consisted of a wall trench (Feature 122) and posts likely associated with a small structure. The Plaza Ferdinand house lots differ in size and complexity and were good candidates for examining architectural variability in a terminal

First Spanish occupation (Benchley and Whitaker 2007:66-123).

House Lot 1 had the greater amount of building materials of the two lots. The main building, demarcated by Features 21 and 48 wall trenches, contained a variety of building materials consisting of brick, tile, mortar, stone, fasteners, lead sheeting, and window glass (Table 56). Mortar was the highest with 52% of the total. Brick accounted for 20% and stone was 27% of the assemblage. All the other materials amounted to less than 1% of the total. Brick weighed 62,127.24 g or the equivalent of 31.21 whole ladrillos. This was a substantial amount of brick and was associated with the nogging used in the building. Mortar weighed 157,404.88 g. This material was also associated with the nogging used in the building and was used as a plaster wall covering. Fasteners, having less than 1% of the assemblage, weighed 844.55 g or 52.78 whole nails. This material was used extensively within this building. Stone, another substantial building 142 material weighed 81,327.1 g. The stone here was used as a footer for the loggia and threshold of the structure. Clearly the main house was a substantial structure that had a heavy reliance on the combination of brick, mortar, stone, and wood with the use of fasteners.

Table 56. Plaza Ferdinand, House Lot 1, Assemblage of Feature 21 and 48.

Building Material Weight (g) Percentage Brick 62,127.24 20 Tile 603.10 <1 Mortar 157,404.88 52 Stone 81,327.10 27 Fasteners 844.55 <1 Sheet 4.70 <1 Window glass 3.20 <1 Total 302,314.77 100

The western building in House Lot 1 demarcated by posts also had a substantial variety of building materials (Table 57). The materials consisted of brick, daub, mortar, fasteners, tile, and window glass. Mortar was the highest with 41% of the total. Brick and daub were also present with 30% and 25% of the assemblage. Tile made up 3% and fasteners 2% of the total. Window glass made up less than 1% of the total. Brick weighed

2,686.2 g, which equates to only 1.34 whole ladrillos. This material may have been used to shore up the posts of this structure. Fasteners weighed 166.6 g, equal to 10.41 whole nails. This material was used moderately within construction. Mortar weighed 3,703.9 g and daub weighed 2,232.7 g. The occurrence of these materials suggests that this structure had clay packed and plaster finished walls. 143

Table 57. Plaza Ferdinand, House Lot 1, Assemblage of Western Building Posts.

Building Material Weight (g) Percentage Brick 2,686.20 30 Daub 2,232.70 25 Fasteners 166.60 2 Window glass 0.50 <1 Mortar 3,703.90 41 Tile 290.50 3 Total 9,080.40 101

The wall trench in House Lot 2 (Feature 122) had a smaller variety of building materials when compared to the buildings in House Lot 1 (Table 58). These materials consisted of brick, mortar and fasteners. Fasteners were the highest with 83% of the total.

Brick had 15% and mortar 2% of the assemblage. Fasteners weighted 191.10 g equal to

11.9 whole nails. Fasteners were a primary building material associated with this wall trench. Brick weighed 34.10 g, equal to 0.01 whole ladrillos. Mortar weighed 4.90 g.

Brick and mortar were both probably associated with Feature 114, a post that intruded into the Feature 122 wall trench. This wall trench may have either been a fence line or more likely a part of a wooden structure fastened with nails.

Table 58. Plaza Ferdinand, House Lot 2, Assemblage of Feature 122.

Building Material Weight (g) Percentage Brick 34.10 15 Mortar 4.90 2 Fasteners 191.10 83 Total 230.10 100

Building materials associated with the line of posts in Trench 6 of House Lot 2 consisted of brick, mortar and fasteners (Table 59). Mortar was the highest with 61% of 144

3the total. Fasteners accounted for 20% and brick 19% of the assemblage. Brick weighed

827 g, equal to 0.41 whole ladrillos. Fasteners weighted 878.5 g equal to 54.9 whole nails. Spikes in this assemblage weigh 57.5 g, equal to 0.46 whole spikes. The high amount of nails associated with these six posts suggested that wood fastened with nails was the primary material used in the construction of this building. Mortar weighed 2,658 g. This material was located at the top of the posts, suggesting the structure had plaster finished walls.

Table 59. Plaza Ferdinand, House Lot 2, Assemblage of Posts in Trench 6.

Building Material Weight (g) Percentage Brick 827.00 19 Mortar 2,658.00 61 Fasteners 878.50 20 Total 4,363.50 100

The main building in House Lot 1 was clearly the largest building and had nogging consisting of brick and mortar packing between upright posts and stone used as a footer for the loggia threshold. The stone may have made the loggia more durable by supporting load bearing beams. The possible kitchen in House Lot 1 and the outbuilding in House Lot 2 were similar, both having been made of wood and covered with plaster.

House Lot 1 had the most variable types of building materials in Plaza Ferdinand.

Excavations at the Commanding Officer’s Compound located in the southwest corner of the fort provide good examples of construction episodes inside Presidio San

Miguel. Architectural remains under investigation were features within Block 1 North, features associated with the ell extension of Captain Ullate’s barracks and Feature 205 wall trench. Wall trenches located within Block 1 North are Features 188, 189 and 168. 145

These wall trenches may or may not be associated with each other by function, but were associated by proximity. Feature 205 in Block 1 West Extension was not associated with the ell portion of the officer’s barracks but was an earlier fence line associated with the compound. Wall trench and post features associated with the ell extension of Ullate’s barracks were 208, 207, 212, 210, 213, and 211. These features date to the First Spanish

Period and represent post-in-trench buildings that were associated with the warehouse of the compound. This building may have been a storage area or warehouse in First Spanish times. It later became the main building of the British Commanding Officer’s Quarters and then the Government house during the Second Spanish Period. The goal of this analysis was to see what variations in building materials exist within the First Spanish building remains.

In Block 1 North building materials consisted of bricks, mortar, and fasteners

(Table 60). Mortar was the largest accounting for 57% of the total but weighed only165 g.

Brick comprised 23% and fasteners were 21% of the assemblage. Brick weighed 66.3 g or

0.03 whole ladrillos. Fasteners accounted for 61 g or 3.81 whole nails. Mortar and brick were not common enough to have been part of the foundation construction. It was safe to assume that these buildings were made of wood and fastened together with only a few nails. The association of these wall trenches was not well understood, except that they were in close proximity to each other and that they were constructed during the First

Spanish Period. 146

Table 60. Commanding Officer’s Compound, Assemblage of Block 1 North.

Building Material Weight (g) Percentage Brick 66.30 23 Mortar 165.00 57 Fasteners 61.00 21 Total 292.30 101

Feature 205 was a single wall trench that appeared to be an early First Spanish fence line associated with the compound. Feature 205 extended close to 30 feet east to west along the Block 1 West Extension. All other wall trenches cut across this feature including the west wall of Fort San Miguel, which meant Feature 205 was earlier than the other buildings in the compound. The only building material found in association with this feature was mortar. This material weighed only 79.5 g and can be associated with the trench fill. The fill of this wall trench was very mixed and no post molds were documented. The fence was probably built with wood posts that were pulled during the dismantling of Feature 205.

Features associated with the Ell Extension of the Captain Ullate’s quarters,

Features 208, 207, 212, 210, 213, 211, and subsections, were either posts or wall trenches. The building materials associated with the ell extension of the officer’s quarters were brick, mortar and fasteners (Table 61). Here fasteners were the largest percentage with 38%. Brick was 34% and mortar made up 28% of the assemblage. Brick weighed

3,151.50 g or 1.58 whole ladrillos. This was not enough brick to be considered a foundation construction material and it may have been redeposited. Mortar weighed

7,720.8 g. This material amount suggested that it was the remnants of wall plastering, a 147 common feature at San Miguel. The high number of fasteners, 5,717.8 g or 367.36 whole nails, suggested that the ell extension was made of wood.

Table 61. Commanding Officer’s Compound, Assemblage of the Ell Extension.

Building Material Weight (g) Percentage Brick 3,151.50 34 Mortar 2,638.70 28 Fasteners 3,571.40 38 Total 9,361.60 100

It was clear that most of the structures in Ullate’s Compound were made of wood.

Wood construction was true for the ell extension of the officers quarters, which was a warehouse fastened with nails. As for Feature 205, this was likely a fence linen not fastened with nails. The Block 1 North buildings, east of the west extension, were likely made of wood with redeposited mortar and brick within the construction trenches. Plaza

Ferdinand afforded a greater variety of construction materials when compared to Captain

Ullate’s Quarters, and structures under Old Christ Church.

Architectural Model of Building Types

Using the information described for the three presidios it was possible to generate a model of building types based on building material ratios. There were three basic building types that could be identified. The first were wood structures with walls covered with clapboard siding or other organic materials such as cypress bark. Second were wood structures with plastered walls. Third were buildings that were constructed with brick and mortar foundations using the technique of nogging. 148

Wood Structures

Wood structures would have had low amounts of brick and mortar. There could have been low or high amounts of iron fasteners depending on whether the structure was pegged with nails, treenails, or lashed together. If the building had been burned, charred timbers or wood would be present. The building may have had clapboard siding. Clay or daub could have also been present as a wall packing material. A good example of a wood structure would be the Northwest Wall Barracks at Santa María (Table 12). This structure had a high number of fasteners (576.20 g) and a low amount of brick (760 g), suggesting it had clapboard siding. Other materials, such as window glass and lead sheeting do not help in discerning building type. If a structure had a low frequency of nails and a large amount of clay or daub it may have had clay packed walls (Bense and Wilson 2003).

Wood Structures with Plastered Walls

Structures with plastered walls should have had a high ratio of mortar. Nails should have been present but may or may not have been numerous depending partially on the size of the building.. All other characteristics described for wood structures would apply, such as burned timbers and clay. An example of a plastered building would be the church at Santa Rosa (Table 38). Here, mortar had a high frequency over nails, tiles and brick, with mortar/plaster weight in the thousands of grams (Harris and Eschbach 2006).

Buildings Constructed with Nogging

Buildings constructed using nogging would have had a high amount of mortar and a binder such as brick. Posts would be regularly spaced within a wall trench with mortar and brick in between. All other materials should have been heavily overshadowed by the 149 weight of mortar and brick. An example of mortar and brick overshadowing other materials was the main building in House Lot 1 within Plaza Ferdinand (Table 54). Here brick and mortar weighed in the thousands of grams. Stone may have been present if footers were needed to support load bearing posts or joists. This material may have weighed in the thousands of grams. Fasteners were numerous, weighing in the thousands of grams. Other materials such as tiles or window glass may have represented structural features such as a hearth and the presence of windows. Importantly, the materials used for nogging, mortar and brick, should have been abundant in order to construct such a substantial structure.

Cooking Facilities

Cooking facilities were often associated with residential structures. Cooking facilities such as hearths, ovens and stoves were not architectural types but were areas of important activities associated with residences. These facilities would have exhibited a moderate to high amount of brick and possibly mortar and tile. Cooking facilities may have been associated with a house or kitchen or located outside near a structure. Of all three presidio excavations, Santa María had the only documented example of a cooking facility (a hearth) just outside the South West Wall Barracks (Table 15). The hearth just outside of the South West Wall Barracks was made of ladrillos. Brick in the area weighed in the thousands of grams. The percentages may have varied in amounts, but the presence of brick, tile, and mortar indicated the possibility of a cooking facility. Further analysis of non-architectural materials, such as kitchen and utilitarian items, was important to help strengthen the cooking facility interpretation. 150

Presidio Comparison

Delineating building materials used at all three presidos allows for a comparison of the types of materials used through time (Table 62). The table provides the weight and percentage of building materials used at all three Presidios. It shows that through time, the types of materials were used consistently, but their amount varied. For example, out of the twelve building material categories, Santa María utilized nine, Santa Rosa ten, and

San Miguel eleven. The weight distribution of mortar, brick and stone materials did change dramatically. Mortar weighed in the thousands of grams at Santa María and Santa

Rosa; however, it weighed in the hundreds of thousands of grams at San Miguel. Brick weighed in the hundreds of thousands of grams at Santa María and San Miguel, while at

Santa Rosa brick weighed seventy four thousand grams. Stone was not used in construction at Santa María. At Santa Rosa stone weighed 11,804 g and at San Miguel

81,327.1 g. Fasteners varied through time, from 102,220 g at Santa María, to 64,860 g at

Santa Rosa, and 15,617 g at San Miguel. Fasteners at San Miguel were less than at both

Santa María and Santa Rosa. Fewer fasteners may reflect new wall covering methods, such as the use of nogging and clay rather than clapboard siding. The amount of other materials, such as window glass, hardware and lead sheeting were stable and only varied by hundreds of grams through time. 151

Table 62. Weight and Percentage of Building Materials for Each Presidio.

Building Material Santa María Santa Rosa San Miguel Wt (g) % Wt (g) % Wt (g) % Brick 574,179 81 74,957 35 136,049.00 31 Tile 358 <1 40,154 19 4,742.00 1 Mortar 4,766 1 21,707 10 201,539.90 45 Clay 0 0 0 0 4.80 <1 Daub 281 <1 26 <1 2,247.40 1 Burned Timber 24,012 3 0.2 <1 0 0 Stone 0 0 11,804 6 81,327.10 18 Fasteners 102,220 14 64,860 30 15,617.00 4 Hardware 170 <1 682 <1 58.00 <1 Came 0 0 0 0 3.00 <1 Sheet 40 <1 13 <1 9.00 <1 Window Glass 613 <1 33 <1 80.00 <1 Total 706,639 100 214,236 100 441,677.20 100

Window Glass and Hardware

To further refine the analysis of architectural attributes at all three presidios, window glass and hardware have been isolated from other building materials. The presence or absence of window glass and hardware could shed light on building function and the importance of certain buildings within the community. The existence of these materials also aided in interpreting buildings’ characteristics. For example, the existence of door hinges or latches suggests that the part of the building excavated incorporated a doorway. Likewise, window glass suggests that the wall excavated had a window. For this analysis, the frequencies of window glass and hardware have been broken down by excavation area for each site.

The distribution of window glass and hardware at Santa María is spread across the site (Table 63). At Santa María, the Southwest Wall Barracks, the church, and the village had the highest percentages of window glass on the site. Hardware was present at the 152

Southwest Wall Barracks and the village. The existence of hardware within these areas may reflect the high status of the Officer Barracks and Captain Jordan’s residence in the village. The other barracks may not have had sealable doors or windows that required wrought hardware. Window glass was also abundant at the South West Wall Barracks and the church. This material further reflects the upper status of these areas. The abundance of window glass at the Church (63% by weight) shows the importance of this public structure within the community. At Santa María window glass and hardware were not evenly distributed across the site, suggesting that they were primarily associated with upper status residences and important public buildings.

Table 63. Count and Weight of Window Glass and Hardware at Presidio Santa María.

Santa Maria Hardware Window Glass Ct % Wt (g) % Ct % Wt (g) % SW Barracks 1 50 134.20 7 456 80 145.75 24 Hospital 0 0 0 0 10 2 62.70 10 Warehouse 0 0 0 0 9 2 14.30 2 Church 0 0 0 0 86 15 387.20 63 Village 1 50 36.20 21 8 1 3.10 1 Total 2 100 170.40 100 569 100 613.05 100

The distribution of window glass and hardware at Santa Rosa is also spread across the site (Table 64). Window glass was located at all the areas excavated at Santa Rosa.

Hardware was also located at all areas except for Block 1 North. This wide distribution suggested that these materials were more widely available and that buildings uniformly had wood closures such as doors and shutters. The areas with the highest percentages of hardware and window glass were Trench 13 West, Trench 13 East, and Block 1 South.

Within Trench 13 West there were Features 40 and 60, Feature complex 62/215/219 a 153 high status post on sill structure, and Feature complex 86/154/138 the extreme western burned building. Hardware was present in the high status post on sill structure and within

Features 40 and 60. Window glass was present in the high status structure and the burned building. Within Trench 13 West at least two buildings had window glass and two had hardware. Perhaps this was a high status residence for officers and the governor.

Hardware had the highest percentage within Block 1 South, with the large octagonal structure interpreted as a possible warehouse (Harris and Eschbach 2006). The high amount of hardware was used to secure the structure. This structure may have housed the supplies for the presidio.

Trench 13 East also had window glass. This area incorporated the Church, an important structure within the community. Window glass and hardware were widely distributed across the site, but several areas stood out such as Trench 13 West and Block

1 South (Table 62). The Church at Santa Rosa however, did not dominate the glass assemblage as it did at Santa María de Galve.

Table 64. Count and Weight of Window Glass and Hardware at Presidio Santa Rosa.

Santa Rosa Hardware Window Glass Ct % Wt (g) % Ct % Wt (g) % NDP and SDP 3 7 160.50 24 3 9 3.10 9 Block 1 North 0 0 0 0 3 9 3.30 10 Block 1 South 14 34 295.20 43 5 16 5.10 15 Trench 13 East 11 27 21.50 3 6 19 6.70 20 Trench 13 West 13 32 205.10 30 15 47 15.00 45 Total 41 100 682.30 100 32 100 33.20 99

The distribution of window glass and hardware at Presidio San Miguel varies by site (Table 65). Hardware was only found at Plaza Ferdinand. Window glass was present 154 at Old Christ Church and Plaza Ferdinand with Plaza Ferdinand having the most. The

Plaza Ferdinand glass was associated with the two story structure in House Lot 1.

Hardware was also associated with the large structure. There was no window glass or hardware present in House Lot 2 associated with the back yard and a small outbuilding.

Window glass associated with Old Christ Church suggested that there were windows associated with the timber framed structures. The amount of window glass was similar to the totals found in Trench 13 West at Santa Rosa. The Commanding Officer’s Compound had no window glass or hardware found within First Spanish building features, which may have been a warehouse. At San Miguel, Plaza Ferdinand had the highest percentages of window glass and hardware because of the high status nature of House Lot 1.

Table 65. Count and Weight of Window Glass and Hardware at Presidio San Miguel

San Miguel Hardware Window Glass Ct % Wt (g) % Ct % Wt (g) % Old Christ Church 0 0 0 0 17 14 22.10 28 C.O.Comp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Plaza Ferdinand 2 100 57.60 100 102 86 58.01 72 Total 2 100 57.60 100 119 100 80.11 100

Discussion

This chapter showed that building material amounts changed through time.

Dramatic changes occurred in the amounts of brick, mortar, and stone. Reasons for these changes were various and tied to the Spanish culture transforming and adapting to the local environment, the subject of the next chapter. CHAPTER VI

DISCUSSION

At Pensacola’s three presidios, occupied by the Spanish for 65 years, architectural variations are evident in the use of building materials and architectural styles. Building materials were primarily wood, but show an increase in the use of mortar, brick, and stone through time. For example at Santa María the primary material was wood and at

San Miguel mortar and brick became more heavily used. Architectural styles also varied with single story buildings at Santa María, the addition of octagonal shaped structures at

Santa Rosa, and more two story buildings with galleries and loggias at San Miguel.

The use of archaeological landscape theory can help explain the subtle changes in Spanish architecture by examining the constructed, conceptualized, and ideational landscapes of colonial Pensacola. The constructed landscape discussion will present a summary of the architectural characteristics of each presidio drawn from archaeological and documentary data. The use of historic maps will illustrate the conceptualized landscape discussion by providing evidence of the Spanish Pensacolian’s increasingly sophisticated knowledge of their environment. The ideational landscape discussion will use historic descriptions to examine the ideas and emotions that each place evoked.

155 156

Constructed Landscapes

The constructed landscape at Santa María was fairly homogenous. The homogeneity was true for both architectural styles and building materials. Construction methods were consistent with timber frame and earthfast buildings, board walls and thatched or shingled roofs. Building foundations consisted of either post-in-ground, post- on-sill or post-in-trench construction. Structures were usually either square or rectangular in shape. The main differences were in the quality of construction and building size. In regards to building materials, it was clear that at Santa María the primary material used was wood. Saplings and later, large posts were used for the framework. Clapboard siding was used as wall covering and palmetto thatched fronds or wooden shingles were used as roofing material. Bricks made up the largest percentage of building material by weight.

Nails had the second highest percentage and were used to fasten the clapboard siding to the support posts. The materials did not vary greatly, and were fairly evenly distributed across the site.

Presidio Santa María, located on the bluff at NAS Pensacola, was not positioned in accordance with the Law of the Indies. The location of Santa María was influenced by its strategic military purpose to protect the pass into Pensacola Bay. Santa Maria was also unable to grow outside its central location because of the constant threat of attack.

At Santa Rosa the constructed landscape was also relatively homogeneous when comparing architectural styles and building materials. Corresponding with the influx of population, there were numerous civilian and military houses with 24 small and 8 larger residences at the beginning of the settlement. The size variations in residential buildings suggested that this settlement was becoming more complex than Santa María. Timber framed and earth fast structures predominated with post-in-ground, post-on-sill and post- 157 in-trench foundations. Most buildings were single story, with board walls and gabled roofs. Some were in fenced compounds. An octagonal building possibly used as a warehouse has been documented archaeologically and another octagonal building was identified as a church on the Serres engraving. The building proposed as the church from archaeological evidence appeared to have been rectangular, however, and was aligned with cardinal directions. Archaeology suggests that this building had plastered walls.

Serres’ engraving also identified a two-story governor’s residence at Santa Rosa, which has not been documented through archaeology (Harris and Eschbach 2006).

Building materials found archaeologically at Santa Rosa were predominately bricks by weight with fasteners, tiles, and mortar falling close behind. Mortar might have been the remnants of wall plastering and was primarily found associated with the walls of the presumed church at Santa Rosa as well as with the high status structures within

Trench 13 West. Other materials such as hardware were more common at Santa Rosa than at Santa María. Fasteners were also heavily used at Santa Rosa, reflecting the predominance of wood buildings with clapboard siding. There was a slight increase in the variety of building materials at Santa Rosa when compared with Santa Maria. Similar to

Santa Maria, the location of Santa Rosa on a barrier island did not adhere to the Law of the Indies; but was situated to protect the pass of Pensacola Bay.

The constructed landscape of San Miguel was heterogeneous in styles, construction methods, and building materials. Architectural styles varied in relation to size and aesthetics, with some military and civilian buildings reaching two stories in height and exhibiting such features as loggias and galleries. Residences were situated in compounds with separate kitchens and storage facilities. Construction methods ranged from basic one room, earth fast or timber framed structures with clapboard siding to 158 buildings that had multiple rooms with mortar and brick nogging between upright posts.

Plaster finished and clay packed walls were also common features on structures at San

Miguel. The kinds of building materials had changed in comparison to Presidios Santa

María and Santa Rosa. Materials such as mortar, brick and stone were much more heavily used, making up the largest percentage of building materials at the site. Fasteners had higher percentages by weight at Santa María and Santa Rosa, but only accounted for 2% of the assemblage at San Miguel. Other materials such as window glass, hardware, and lead sheeting were also present. The inhabitants of San Miguel had a greater reliance on the use of mortar, clay, and brick as building materials than at the other presdios.

San Miguel’s location on a low marine terrace was not in accordance with the

Laws of the Indies. However, instead of military purposes the presidio’s location was in a favorable location for the procurement of resources. This point will be explained in the conceptualized and ideational landscapes discussions.

Conceptualized Landscapes

The conceptualized landscape at Pensacola was shaped by Spanish historic context and site specific situations through time. Because of the constant threat of attack by British allied Native Americans, the Santa María settlement was confined to a limited area where it was impossible for the residents to become self sustaining and explore their environment. For example, the 1713 LeMaire map of Santa María showed the coastline, the pass into Pensacola Bay, and waterways leading to Mobile (Figure 6). This map did not show the entire Pensacola bay system nor many of the natural resources in the area.

The inhabitants did harvest nearby forests for pine to build the presidio and cypress to 159 export as ship’s masts. The low variability in architectural materials at Santa María likely was related to the limited Spanish access to the surrounding environment.

The conceptualized landscape of Santa Rosa was illustrated by the Plan of the

Harbor and Settlement of Pensacola, which depicts Spanish Pensacola in the 1740's. The map shows that toward the end of Santa Rosa’s occupation, the inhabitants had a better understanding of their regional environment than in the 1713 map (Figure 23). This map suggested that during Santa Rosa’s occupation, the inhabitants focused on the resources of Pensacola Bay rather than the Gulf coast and Mobile. The map shows Presidio Santa

Rosa as well as the former settlement at Santa María on the mainland. Some important mapped landmarks include the Gulf Breeze Peninsula with its careening place and locally available resources in Oyster Cove near Garcon Point. Public domain. 1763. "PLAN of the HARBOUR and SETTLEMENT of PENSACOLA ", map inset of "A MAP of the New GOVERNMENTS, of EAST & WEST FLORIDA ", from Gentleman’s Magazine, volume 33 (November 1763), p. 552-554. Illustration on file at Special Collections, John C. Pace Library, The University of West Florida, Pensacola.

Figure 23. Plan of the Harbour and Settlement of Pensacola. 161

The 1756 Map of the Bay and Port of Santa María de Galve showed that by this time, the Spanish conceptualized landscape included a solid grasp of the physical geography of Pensacola (Figure 24). This map shows a variety of cultural and natural landmarks that were important for the establishment and growth of San Miguel. Several

Spanish communities were mapped including San Miguel (before it had a fort), Santa

Rosa, San Nicolas, San Antonio, and scattered haciendas and homesteads. Natural features shown include bays, rivers, trees, and wetlands. Natural resources depicted include oyster beds (for manufacturing lime and plaster), and stone and clay sources. A

Spanish brick factory was also mapped. By 1756, the Spanish conceptualized landscape had expanded to include a wide variety of resources and locations in framing the community as a proper self-supporting colony. It was clear the San Miguel inhabitants were familiar with and exploited a wide range of environmental resources and incorporated many of them into new building techniques and materials not used at the other two presidios. With permission. Rush, N.O. 1966. Spain’s Final Triumph Over Great Britain in the Gulf of Mexico, page 128. Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida. Figure 24. Agustin Lopez’s 1756 map. 163

Ideational Landscapes

Spanish attitudes and feelings toward Pensacola can be discerned in selected quotes that reveal the Ideational Landscape for each presidio. This discussion will demonstrate how Spanish attitudes about Pensacola changed through time. For Santa

María, Don Carlos de Siguenza was ordered by the King to survey the port of Pensacola and determine a site for settlement and fortification of the entrance. In his 1693 report to the King, Siguenza wrote how favorable Pensacola was:

The depth of four and a half to eight fathoms, without hazards of shoals or

reefs and with places where frigates may sail right up to the very beach . . .

There is room for a hundred shipyards, or as many as desirable. It is

readily seen how eagerly our enemies will seek this location and how

difficult it will be to dislodge whoever occupies this port [Siguenza 1693,

in Leonard 1939:193-195].

Siguenza also wrote in the report that there was an abundance of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife within the region. Siguenza considered Pensacola not only a favorable environment for settlement, but a port with a good strategic location that was in danger of being occupied by Spain’s enemies.

Captain Juan Jordan de Reina was on a scientific expedition in 1686 designed to obtain accurate geographical knowledge of the Gulf of Mexico. Jordan kept a journal account of the expedition. When the Spanish reached Pensacola Bay he wrote,

I set sail west by southwest on February 6 and, after covering a matter of

six leagues, I shifted west-northwest. About eleven o’clock I saw a bay, 164

the best I have ever seen in my life. We put into it, finding a depth of

eight, nine and ten fathoms at its entrance, which is not very wide; after

steering northwest, north and northeast inside the bay I anchored in seven

fathoms. The Indians call this bay Panzacola ... I climbed to the top of the

mast and looked in a north and northeast direction I could not see the

shore [Jordan 1686, in Leonard 1936:553].

Jordan’s description demonstrates how appealing Pensacola Bay was to the expedition. The phrase “the best I have ever seen in my life” reflects the importance of this place. This expedition and Jordan’s description of the deep bay were critical in convincing the Spanish to settle Pensacola in 1698.

Later in the occupation, the inhabitants of Santa María were suffering because of the constant threat of Indian attack and the lack of food. In a letter to the King, dated 15

July 1713, Don Gregorio de Salinas, the Duke of Linares, described the dismal situation at Santa María:

This garrison was found with only a pound of flour because the

enemies had occupied all the places where it might be possible to find

some meat without immediately falling into their hands and being seized

or killed. Thus, fearful of them, they are suffering the greatest needs such

as they have never experienced. Further, I ask to give me credit with the

commissary of the company, from what might supply me with flour,

which I might need until a return voyage [Don Gregorio de Salinas

Varona 1713 AGI Mexcio 486, July 30, 1714].

Salina’s description demonstrated that the garrison at Santa María was in poor condition. The statement “they are suffering the greatest needs such as they have never 165 experienced” showed the true dismal nature of this occupation. Initially, Pensacola seemed to be an ideal bay for an occupation, but by the end of Santa Maria, the inhabitants were trapped in their own fort.

At Presidio Santa Rosa, Alejandro Wauchope was responsible for relocating the presidio to Pensacola from San José. A quote from Wauchope describes his efforts in establishing the Presidio on San Rosa Island. Wauchope set out to build the presidio on

Punta de Siguenza, but found this area to be unfavorable and sought for better ground:

It [Punta de Siguenza] is impossible for the purpose of habitation with too

many marshes . . . I made to select another, which in addition to being

sheltered by the first trees on the island, it enjoys some more advantage

[Wauchope 1723 AGI Mexico, in Childers 2003:23].

Wauchope’s description of Santa Rosa Island made the place seem unfavorable for settlement. The phrase “it enjoys some more advantage” implies that this was the best place for settlement at a location not really suitable for habitation. Here Wauchope was concentrating on Santa Rosa Island and not suggesting other suitable locations within the bay.

The location of Presidio Santa Rosa was so unsuitable for habitation that commandant Pedro Primo de Rivera and Paymaster Don Bernardo Joseph de Almonazid complained of the settlement’s situation in a letter to the King, dated 22 October 1727:

This small terrain which we are situated is the worst in all the bay . . .

there are others [locations] that are very fit and good within the district

and surroundings [of this bay] since this Island is a narrow strip of sand

that floods when there is any storm [Rivera and Almonacid 1727]. 166

Rivera and Almonazid’s description of Santa Rosa Island was bleak. These statements showed that the inhabitants did not favor their environment. Within five years after the occupation of Santa Rosa, the inhabitants were already writing about the need to move to a more favorable location. These negative feelings toward the barrier island landscape persisted throughout the 30 year occupation.

Documents relating the move from Santa Rosa to the mainland shed light on the ideational landscape for San Miguel. In translations provided by Wayne Childers, there was a description which explained that the site of San Miguel was prime for settlement.

Childers noted that “The population on the Island had been in the habit of coming to the mainland to hunt, fish, and gather firewood . . . the best fishing was to be found on the mainland side of the bay” (Report to the King of Spain 1788, in Childers 2001:9). This information suggested that the inhabitants considered the mainland area the most bountiful location for food and timber.

In a 1753 letter to the Viceroy, Don Joseph de Yberri described why the location of San Miguel was the best for the settlement. Prior to Yberri’s description, there had been talks about placing the presidio near the old site of Presidio Santa María at Punta

Aguero next to Bayou Grande. This location would still have been able to protect the pass into Pensacola Bay. In Yberri’s description he wrote why San Miguel was the more favorable location:

The one already named because it is the fittest . . . the area found there has

trees for masts and spars, tar and raw turpentine for careening ships. Also

this place is adorned with two beautiful streams of sweet and healthy

water and covered with useful timber. In the same neighborhood and next

to the settlement is where ladrillos, lime, and other effects are made for the 167

construction of the fort and houses. It follows to this that whatever thing

that is necessary to bring there from outside can be done with ease

because of the peacefulness of the sea whose vecinos enjoy moderate

conveniences . . . The port forms a sheltered area within the distance of

three leagues from its mouth. There is the secure anchorage for the ships

where all of them anchor because the bottom is loose . . . This said port

also has four rivers that adorn it [Yberri 1753:34 and 69, in Autos of the

Hurricane 1752 AGI Mexico 2445].

Yberri’s description provided a good argument for the location of Presidio San

Miguel. His description touts this location as the most bountiful within the bay. Being close to diverse natural resources for sustenance and the presidio’s construction were some of the reasons why the inhabitants considered the location ideal for the presidio. In contrast to the description of Santa María and Santa Rosa, San Miguel was characterized as peaceful, sheltered, and beautiful, an idyllic ideational landscape. Through time the

Spanish inhabitants went from placing their presidios in strategic military locations to those that were more favorable for the procurement of natural resources.

Landscape analysis has provided a framework for understanding variations in architecture through time and space at Pensacola’s three presidios. This variation could be seen in the use of building materials, construction methods, building styles, and adaptations to the environment as the Spanish perceived it. Architectural variations occured due to changes in population composition coupled with an adaptation to each site’s micro-environment. Through time, the inhabitants gained a more detailed understanding of their macro-environment, which both allowed and was enhanced by the 168 local procurement and manufacture of building materials. Both spatial and temporal constraints affected variations in architecture at the presidios of Pensacola.

At Santa María, because of a small, primarily military population, constant threat of attack, and limited environmental knowledge or access, architectural styles and construction methods were relatively homogeneous. At Santa Rosa the population had a greater understanding of the natural resources within the region. This increase in environmental knowledge led to variations in building size and construction materials.

On a barrier island, adaptations in architectural styles also occurred because of the threat of storm activity. At San Miguel, architectural variability was at an all time high. The variability was due to the rise in population diversity with an influx of merchants and civilians. Their presence affected the number of structures and increased building material variation across the site. With an indepth knowledge of the environment and natural resources, use of building materials became more varied with a greater reliance on the use of locally produced mortar and brick. The inhabitants of Pensacola’s three presidios became more aware of their macro environment through time, which ultimately promoted diversity within their constructed space. It became clear that the architectural characteristics of each presidio were a product of the relationship between Pensacola’s

Spanish colonial culture and their environment.

There is a need for further research using landscape archaeology theory in relation to Spanish colonialism in Pensacola, and the entire region of West Florida. This theoretical framework could be used in investigating variations in land use between

Pensacola’s presidios and other presidios in Louisiana, Texas and settlements in East

Florida such as St. Augustine. Incorporating maritime components such as shipwrecks would also be beneficial by associating wrecks with their contemporary settlements. To 169 conclude, landscape archaeology theory can be applied to provide a framework for interpreting Spanish colonial sites within West Florida and elsewhere.

170

REFERENCES

Benchley, Elizabeth D. 2007a. Location and Physical Setting. Edited by Elizabeth D. Benchley. In The Colonial People of Pensacola: History and Archaeology of the Community associated with Spanish San Miguel de Panzacola (1754-1763) and British Pensacola (1763-1781). Report of Investigations No. 107, pp. 3-7. Archaeology Institute, University of West Florida, Pensacola.

2007b. 2006 Investigations at the Commanding Officer’s Compound (8ES1150). Report of Investigation No. 156. Archaeology Institute, University of West Florida.

2006 Archaeology of Old Pensacola: 2005 Investigations at the Commanding Officer’s Compound (8ES1150). Report of Investigation No. 152. Archaeology Institute, University of West Florida.

Benchley, Elizabeth D. and April Whitaker 2007 Archaeological Results: Plaza Ferdinand (8ES981). In The Colonial People of Pensacola: History and Archaeology of the Community associated with Spanish San Miguel de Panzacola (1754-1763) and British Pensacola (1763-1781). Report of Investigations No. 107, pp. 66-94. Archaeology Institute, University of West Florida, Pensacola.

Bense, Judith A. (editor) 2003 Presidio Santa María de Galve. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.

Bense, Judith A. 2002 Field Report 2002, Archaeological Evaluation Presidio Isla de Santa Rosa (8ES22). Prepared for National Park Service, Gulf Island National Seashore. Report of Investigation No. 105. Archaeology Institute, University of West Florida.

Bense, Judith A. and H. James Wilson 2003 Archaeological Remains. In Presidio Santa María de Galve, edited by Judith A. Bense, pp. 83-210. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.

Blackburn, Graham 1980 The Parts of a House. Richard Marek Publishers, New York.

Born, J. D., Jr. 1963 British Trade in West Florida, 1763-1783.Unpublished Ph.D dissertation, department of history, University of New Mexico.

171

Cartes, Marines 1719 French Map of Fort San Carlos de Austria. Chicago: The Newberry Library Edward E. Ayer Collection.

Childers, R. Wayne 2001 Report Three for the Colonial People Project: Special Services Contract. Unpublished report on Collections from the Archivo General de la Nacion (AGN) submitted to the Archaeology Institute, University of West Florida.

2003 Supplies for the Presidio of Santa Rosa Punta de Siguenza 1722-1755. Unpublished report submitted to the UWF Archaeology Institute.

Childers, R. Wayne, Jay Clune and Brenda Swann 1998 Report on Food Supplies at Santa María De Galve. Unpublished report submitted to the UWF Archaeology Institute.

Childers, R. Wayne, John James Clune, Cindy L. Bercot, David B. Dodson 2007 Historical Analysis: Settlers, Settlement, and Survival: A Comparative Study of Spanish San Miguel de Panzacola (1754-1763) and British Pensacola (1763- 1781). Edited by Elizabeth D. Benchley, pp.14-66. In The Colonial People of Pensacola: History and Archaeology of the Community associated with Spanish San Miguel de Panzacola (1754-1763) and British Pensacola (1763-1781). Report of Investigations No. 107. Archaeology Institute, University of West Florida, Pensacola.

Clune, John J. 2003 Historical Context and Overview. In Presidio Santa María de Galve, edited by Judith A. Bense, pp. 12-25. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.

Clune, John J., Wayne R. Childers, William S. Coker, and Brenda N. Swann 2003 Settlement, Settlers and Survival. In Presidis Santa María de Galve, edited by Judith A. Bense, pp. 25-83. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.

Clune, John J., R. Wayne R. Childers, and April L. Whitaker 2006 Documentary History of Santa Rosa Pensacola (1722-1752): Settlement, Settlers and Survival. Edited by Norma Harris and Krista Eschbach, p. 19-47 In Presidio Isla de Santa Rosa Archaeological Investigations. Report of Investigation No. 133. Report prepared for the Gulf Island National Seashore, National Park Service, Archaeology Institute, University of West Florida.

Coker, William S. 1999 Pensacola, 1686-1821. In Archaeology of Colonial Pensacola, edited by Judith Bense, pp. 5-61.University of Florida Press, Gainesville.

172

Crouch, Dora P., Daniel J. Garr, and Axel I. Mundigo 1982 Spanish City Planning in North America. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

Crumley, Carole L. (editor) 1994 Historical Ecology: Cultural Knowledge and Changing Landscapes. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Dodson, David B. 1974 Architecture in Pensacola, Florida, 1698 to 1860. Unpublished B.A. Thesis, School of Arts and Sciences, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.

2006 Medieval to Modern: The Architectural Evolution of Presidio Design, Pensacola, Florida, 1698 – 1763. Paper presented at the Gulf-South Conference, Pensacola, FL.

Durnford, Elias 1765 Plan of the New Town of Pensacola and Country adjacent, showing the Gardens and situation of the Blockhouses. Digitized photographic reproduction of PRO CO 700 Florida No. 20, London town and photocopy of PRO MPG 528, London fort.

Edwards, Jay D. 1994 The Origins of Creole Architecture. Winterthur Portfolio, 29: 155-189.

Eschbach, Krista L. 2007 An Examination of Eighteenth Century Spanish Colonial Socio-Economics as seen at Presidio Isla de Santa Rosa. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of West Florida, Pensacola.

Feringan, Phelipe and Diego Ortiz Parilla 1763a. Plano del Presidio de San Miguel de Panzacola. Spain: Biblioteca Nacional, Ministerio de Educacion y Cultura, Map on file, UWF Special Collections, Coker Collection.

1763b. Presidio San Miguel. Map accompanying a letter from Don Diego Ortiz Parilla to the Count of Ricla on the 2 September 1763. Map translations by Dr. Elizabeth Benchley 3/19/05, Mapas y Planos de Florida y Louisiana, no 64, Map on file, UWF Special Collections, Coker Collection.

Franck, Jayme 1699 Map of the Presidio Santa María de Galve. Seville: Ministerio de Educacion y Cultura, Archivo General de Indias.

Gauld, George 1765 View of Pensacola. Digitized photocopy of engraving. Library of Congress.

173

Gordon, Elsbeth 2002 Florida’s Colonial Architectural Heritage. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.

Gordon, Marissa Condosta 2006 Spatial Organization of Presidio Isla de Santa Rosa (1722-1752). Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of West Florida, Pensacola.

Gums, Bonnie L. 2002 Earth Fast (Pieux en Terre) Structures at Old Mobile. Historical Archaeology 36:13-25.

Guzman, Joseph de 1709 Relation, 1709. AGI Mexico 633, Translation courtesy of R. Wayne Childers.

Harris, Norma J. and Krista L. Eschbach 2006 Presidio Isla de Santa Rosa Archaeological Investigations. Report of Investigation No. 133, Prepared for the Gulf Island National Seashore, National Park Service by the Archaeology Institute, University of West Florida.

Jordan-Greene, Krista D. 2007 A Maritime Landscape of Deadman’s Island and Old Navy Cove. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of West Florida, Pensacola.

Knapp, B. and W. Ashmore (editors) 1999 Archaeological Landscapes: Constructed, Conceptualized and Ideational. In Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives, edited by B. Knapp and W. Ashmore, pp. 1-32. Blackwell, Oxford.

Leonard, Irving A. 1939 Spanish Approach to Pensacola, 1689-1693. The Quivira Society, Albuquerque, New Mexico, pp. 193-195.

1936 The Spanish Re-Exploration of the Gulf Coast in 1686. The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 547-557.

Maire, Fr. Francois Le 1713 Map of the Coast of Pensacola from the Santa Rosa to Massacre (Dauphin) Island, 1713. Seville: Archivo General de Indias.

Manucy, Albert 1997 Sixteenth-Century St. Augustine: The People and Their Homes. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.

174

1962 The Houses of St. Augustine, 1565-1821. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.

McWilliams, Richebourg G. 1965 Iberville at the Birdfood Delta: Final Discovery of the Mississippi River. In Frenchman and French Ways in the Mississippi Valley, edited by John Francis McDermott, p. 147. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

Phillips, John 2001 Phase 1 Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Heritage Oaks Commerce Park, Escambia County, Florida. Report of Investigation No. 96, Archaeology Institute, University of West Florida.

Pickens, Buford L. 1948 Regional Aspects of Early Louisiana Architecture. Paper presented at the Society of Architectural Historians, Boston.

Pokrant, Marie E. 2001 The Santa María Village: Archaeology and History at First Pensacola, 1698- 1719. Unpublished Master’s thesis Department of History, University of West Florida, Pensacola.

Rivera, Perdro Primo de and Bernardino de Almonacid 1727 Letter to the King, October 22, 1727. Biblioteca Nacional Madrid, Coleccion de Documentos para la Historia de Florida, 290 UWF Coker Collection roll 60, p. 117.

Rush, N. Orwin 1756 Map of the bay and port of Santa María de Galve. In Rush, Spain’s Final Triumph over Great Britain in the Gulf of Mexico. Florida State University: 1966, p,128.

Serres, Dominic 1743 A Perspective View of Pensacola. London: Printed in An account of the First Discovery and Natural History of Florida by William Roberts, Gentlemen’s Magizine,1763.

Shackel, Paul and Barbara Little 1994 Plantation and Landscapes Studies. In Historical Archaeology of the Chesapeake, edited by Paul Shackel and Barbara Little, pp. 97-100. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Smith, Hale G. 1965 Archaeological Excavations at Santa Rosa Pensacola. Florida State University, Tallahassee.

175

Stine, Linda F., Martha Zierden, Lesley M. Drucker and Christopher Judge 1997 Carolina’s Historical Landscapes, Archaeological Perspectives. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

Varona, Don Gregorio de Salinas 1713 Letter to the Most Excellent Senor, 7-15-1713. AGI Mexico 486, Translations courtesy of R. Wayne Childers.

Weber, David J. 1992 The Spanish Frontier in North America. Yale University Press, London.

Weddle, Robert S. 1973 Wilderness Manhunt: The Spanish Search for La Salle. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Whinberry, John 1994 Plantation and Landscapes Studies. In Historical Archaeology of the Chesapeake, edited by Paul Shackel and Barbara Little, pp. 3-12. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Williams, Carrie A. 2004 Land Use at the Site of Old Christ Church Pensacola, Florida. Unpublished Master’s thesis Department of History, University of West Florida, Pensacola.

Wilson, Samuel 1971 Gulf Coast Architecture. In Spain and Her Rivals on the Gulf Coast, edited by Ernest F. Dibble and Earle W. Newton, p. 124. The State of Florida, Department of State, Historic Pensacola Preservation Board, Pensacola.

Yberri, Don Joseph de 1753 Hacienda de los Tepetates. Letter to the Most Excellent Senor. In the Auto of the Hurricane of 1752, AGI Mexico 2448, p. 69, Translations courtesy of R. Wayne Childers.

APPENDIXES

176 Appendix A

Kirby Kemper’s Copyright Permission Letter

177 178

James Greene Archaeology Institute University of West Florida 11000 University Parkway Pensacola, FL 32514

April 9, 2008

Dr. Kirby Kemper, Vice President for Research Florida State University 1847 West Tennessee Street Tallahassee, FL 32306

Dear Dr. Kemper;

I am completing a master’s thesis at the University of West Florida entitled “Architectural Variations in Pensacola’s Three Presidios.” I am writing to request permission to reprint the following material in my thesis:

1. Map of Pensacola Bay and Port of Santa Maria de Galve, located on page 128, as found in:

N. Orwin Rush 1966 The Battle of Pensacola: Spain’s Final Triumph Over Great Britain in the Gulf ofMexico. Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida.

A print copy of my thesis will be archived in the John C. Pace Library at the University of West Florida in Pensacola. The requested permission extends only to my thesis. I recognize that any future use of this material by me will require additional permission from Florida State University. These rights will in no way restrict republication of the material in any form by you or others authorized by you.

Thank you for your attention in the matter.

Sincerely,

James Greene 179

Mr. Greene

The material you wish to cite in your thesis, which was published by or for Florida State University, may be used with proper attribution, for that purpose only, under the “fair use” exception to copyright law, without any claim of infringement by Florida State University.

Signature:_ ____ Title: Vice President for Research, Florida State University Print Name: Dr. Kirby W. Kemper

Florida State University 109 Westcott Building 222 S. Copeland Avenue Tallahassee, FL 32306-1330

Date:____April 9, 2008__ Appendix B

Elizabeth D. Benchley’s Copyright Permission Letter

180 181

James Greene Archaeology Institute University of West Florida 11000 University Parkway Pensacola, FL 32514

January 27, 2009

Dr. Elizabeth D. Benchley Archaeology Institute University of West Florida 11000 University Parkway Pensacola, FL 32514

Dear Dr. Benchley:

I am completing a master’s thesis at the University of West Florida entitled “Architectural Variations in Pensacola’s Three Presidios.” I am writing to request permission to reprint the following material in my thesis:

1. Officer’s Barracks at Santa Maria de Galve plan map (Bense 2003) 2. Santa María, Northwest Wall Barracks (Bense 2003) 3. 1713 Fort Map. Figures found in:

Bense, Judith A., ed. 2003 Presidio Santa Maria de Galve. University of West Florida Press, Gainesville.

4. Santa Rosa, Block 1 North composite plan view (Harris and Eschbach 2006) 5. Santa Rosa, Block 1 South plan view of features (Harris and Eschbach 2006) 6. Santa Rosa, Trench 13 East composite plan view (Harris and Eschbach 2006) 7. Santa Rosa, Trench 13 West composite plan view (Harris and Eschbach 2006) Figures found in:

Harris, Norma J. and Krista L. Eschbach 2006 Presidio Isla de Santa Rosa Archaeological Investigations. Report of Investigation No. 133, Prepared for the Gulf Island National Seashore, National Park Service by the Archaeology Institute, University of West Florida.

8. 2005 and 2006 excavation units on 1764 British map (Benchley 2007) 9. 2005 and 2006 plan maps, First Spanish features (Benchley 2007) Figure found in:

Benchley, Elizabeth D. 182

2006 Archaeology of Old Pensacola: Investigations at the Commanding Officer’s Compound (8ES1150).Report of Investigations No.152. Archaeology Institute, University of West Florida.

10. 8ES49 Old Christ Church First Spanish features (Williams 2004) Figure found in:

Williams, Carrie A. 2004 Land Use at the Site of Old Christ Church Pensacola, Florida. Unpublished M.A. Thesis Department of History, University of West Florida, Pensacola.

A printed copy of my thesis will be archived in the John C. Pace Library at the University of West Florida in Pensacola. The requested permission extends only to my thesis. I recognize that any future use of this material by me will require additional permission from the Archaeology Institute of the University of West Florida. These rights will in no way restrict republication of the material in any form by you or others authorized by you.

Thank you for your attention in the matter.

Sincerely,

James Greene 183

Mr. Greene

The materials you wish to cite in your thesis, which were created by the Archaeology Institute of the University of West Florida may be used, with proper attribution, for that purpose only, under the “fair use” exception to copyright law, without any claim of infringement by the Archaeology Institute of the University of West Florida.

Signature:______Title: Director of the Archaeology Institute of the University of West Florida. Print Name: Dr. Elizabeth D. Benchley

Archaeology Institute University of West Florida 11000 University Parkway Pensacola, FL 32514

Date:______