Materials of Conquest: a Study Using Portable X-Ray Fluorescence

MATERIALS OF CONQUEST: A STUDY USING PORTABLE X-RAY FLUORESCENCE

SPECTROMETRY IN THE METALLURGICAL ANALYSIS OF TWO SIXTEENTH-

CENTURY SPANISH EXPEDITIONS

Sarah Elizabeth Linden

B.A., Texas A&M University, 2008

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

2013

The thesis of Sarah Elizabeth Linden is approved:

______Amy Mitchell-Cook, Ph.D., Committee Member Date

______John R. Bratten, Ph.D., Committee Member Date

______John E. Worth, Ph.D., Committee Chair Date

Accepted for the Department:

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

Accepted for the University:

______Richard S. Podemski, Ph.D., Dean, Graduate School Date

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Over the course of my thesis work, I have been very fortunate to have the help and support of many people to whom I am greatly indebted. I would like to take an opportunity to thank each of them.

First and foremost I would like to thank my UWF committee members, John Worth, John

Bratten and Amy Mitchell-Cook for their guidance and help throughout this entire process. John

Worth deserves a special thank you for dedicating so much time and brainpower to helping me flush out and wrap up my extensive research. This thesis would not be what it is without his help.

I would like to thank each of the research institution that allowed me access to their archaeological collections for my research: The University of Alabama, Moundville, Isabel

Anderson Comer Museum, University of West Georgia, and University of Georgia. A big thank you goes out to James Langford for helping me gain access to artifacts that are in private hands.

Thank you to everyone who supported and helped me financially. Dr. Elizabeth

Benchley, thank you for supporting my trek through in the interior Southeast to collect the data needed for this project. Also, I would like to thank Olympus Innov-x for granting me the use of the pXRf and making this project possible.

To my family, thank you so much for putting up with all of the turmoil that came along with earning this degree. I know you guys never thought I would finish, but I was just doing it in my own time! John, thank you so much for supporting me throughout this painstaking process, I only wish I could have finished it faster to give you some reprieve from the grief!

The person whom I would like to thank the most and definitely deserves the most credit for helping me finish this project is John Koepke. Without his extensive knowledge and hours of

iv hard work that he graciously donated to help me, this project would never be completed. More than anyone else involved, this thesis would never have been completed without his help. Thank you does not even come close to expressing my true gratitude.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... iv

LIST OF TABLES ...... viii

LIST OF FIGURES ...... ix

ABSTRACT ...... x

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

CHAPTER II. HISTORICAL CONTEXT ...... 4 A. Hernando de Soto Expedition ...... 7 B. Tristán de Luna Expedition ...... 11 C. The Martin Site, Tallahassee, Florida ...... 19 E. The Emanuel Point Shipwrecks, Pensacola Bay, Florida ...... 19 F. The Hightower Village Site, Childersburg, Alabama ...... 20 G. The Etowah Mounds, Cartersville, Georgia ...... 21 H. The Leake Site, Bartow County, Georgia ...... 21 I. The Little Egypt Site, Murray County, Georgia ...... 22 J. The King Site, Rome, Georgia ...... 22 K. The Poarch Farm Site, Murray County, Georgia ...... 23 L. Summary ...... 23

CHAPTER III. METHODS ...... 24 A. Portable X-Ray Fluorescence ...... 24 B. Benefits of Portable XRF ...... 25 D. Project Logistics...... 30 E. Data Organization ...... 31 F. Functional Typologies ...... 31 G. Euclidean Distance Score ...... 40 H. Development of the Standard Mathematical Procedure ...... 41

CHAPTER IV. RESULTS ...... 45 A. Metal Analysis ...... 48 B. Comparison of Baseline Metals with Interior Site Metals ...... 53 C. Iron ...... 56 D. Summary ...... 58

CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS...... 60 A. Contributions to Archaeology ...... 61

REFERENCES CITED ...... 63

APPENDICES ...... A. Expanded Data for Baseline Sites ...... 68 B. Interior Iron Elemental Analyses ...... 84 C. Interior Copper Elemental Analyses ...... 93 D. Statistical Comparisons of All Site Assemblages ...... 101

vii

LIST OF TABLES

1. Example of the Standard Mathematical Procedure Results from the Martin Site ...... 43

2. Statistical Data for the Martin and Emanuel Point Sites Iron Artifacts ...... 46

3. Statistical Data for the Martin and Emanuel Point Sites Copper Artifacts ...... 47

4. Closeness Scores between Sites Iron Assemblages ...... 48

5. Compositional Definitions of Metals ...... 49

6. Breakdown of Martin and Emanuel Point Brass, Bronze, and Copper Trace Elements ...... 50

7. Elemental Breakdown of Brass from Martin and Emanuel Point Shipwrecks ...... 51

8. Statistical Breakdown of Iron Composition for Control Sites Assemblages ...... 57

9. Summary of Metal Category Characteristics in the Two Control Assemblages ...... 58

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Ax head from Hightower Village ...... 33

2. Indeterminate iron artifact from the Etowah site ...... 34

3. Sword fragment from the Leake site ...... 34

4. Ax head from Little Egypt ...... 35

5. Rolled copper tube from Hightower Village site ...... 36

6. Copper disc from Hightower Village site ...... 37

7. Rolled copper artifact from Etowah assemblage ...... 37

8. Hawk’s bell from Little Egypt assemblage ...... 38

9. Coosawattee plate from Poarch site ...... 38

10. Scatter plot of copper (Cu) and iron (Fe) values for the all samples from all sites ...... 44

11. Element proportions from Martin site brass...... 51

12. Element proportions from the Emanuel Point shipwrecks brass ...... 52

13. Comparative elemental analysis between Martin and Emanuel Point brass ...... 54

14. Element breakdown of brass composition by site ...... 55

15. Element breakdown of bronze composition by site ...... 55

16. Element breakdown of copper composition by site ...... 56

ABSTRACT

MATERIALS OF CONQUEST: A STUDY USING PORTABLE X-RAY FLUORESCENCE SPECTROMETRY IN THE METALLURGICAL ANALYSIS OF TWO SIXTEENTH- CENTURY SPANISH EXPEDITIONS

Sarah Elizabeth Linden

This study traced metallic materials recovered from a number of 16th-century Spanish archaeological sites across the southeastern United States using handheld portable X-Ray fluorescence (pXRF) technology. Artifacts recovered from the Hernando de Soto winter encampment site (Martin site), and the Tristán de Luna colonization fleet shipwrecks (Emanuel

Point shipwrecks), and European artifacts of unknown origin from Native American archaeological sites were tested using an Olympus Innov-X pXRF analyzer. Through the use of basic mathematical analysis, iron and copper alloy artifacts evaluated using standard deviation and Euclidean distance scoring techniques resulting in a basic chemical comparison. Findings were not able to conclusively tie particular artifacts to specific expeditions, but similarities in whole sample sets were found, leading to interesting conclusions and potential for further analysis.

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

This study’s original design was to connect European artifacts of unknown origin recovered from sites in northwest Georgia and Alabama to the Hernando de Soto expedition

(1539-1543) or the Tristán de Luna y Arellano Expedition (1559-1561) through portable x-ray fluorescence elemental analysis of metal artifacts. Each of these Spanish expeditions encountered southeastern Native American Coosa chiefdom in Alabama and northwest Georgia while exploring the interior in the mid-16th century. No other European expedition came into direct contact with the Coosa chiefdom during the 16th century; therefore, any European artifacts found in archaeological excavations in these areas should have originated from either one, or both, of the campaigns.

Hernando de Soto and his men wandered the interior of La Florida for four years on an exploratory mission searching for gold and silver before his death on the banks of the Mississippi

River in 1542 (Clayton et al. 1993). Although Soto never found gold or silver throughout his journey, he came into contact with multiple native groups, including the Coosa, located in northwest Georgia, and traded European goods for food and supplies. His route through the southeastern United States has been tentatively reconstructed using primary documentation

(Hudson 1997). Only the location of his first winter encampment has been found (Hudson et al.

1989). The site is located in Tallahassee, Florida, and was found in 1987 by archaeologist Calvin

Jones. Thorough excavation yielded diagnostic 16th-century European artifacts such as 2,000 links of iron chain mail, 20 links of brass chain mail, 1 iron crossbow quarrel, 6 types of wrought iron nails, 2 brass buckles, and 2 brass fastener pieces (Ewen and Hann 1998).

Nearly twenty years after Hernando de Soto’s expedition came Tristán de Luna’s colonization attempt. Luna was outfitted with enough supplies to remain self-sufficient for an entire year. These supplies reduced the need for supplies from natives and gave the colony the best chance at maintaining peaceable relations and success (Hudson et al. 1989). After losing most of his supplies and foodstuffs in a hurricane, Luna sent a detachment of men north into the interior to find the Coosa and to find food for his colonists starving on the coast (Hudson et al.

1989). Historical documentation describes instances of trade and interaction between Luna’s men and the native Coosa (Priestley 1928). Archaeologically, two shipwrecks discovered in 1992 and

2006 in Pensacola Bay have been positively identified to be part of Luna’s 1559 colonization fleet. Faculty and students from University of West Florida (UWF) are currently excavating the second ship (EPII) and have recovered artifacts such as a solid bar of pig iron, iron spikes, nails and other fasteners, copper crossbow points, iron barrel hoops, and a large iron anchor (Smith et al. 1998a:ii-iii; Cook 2009:93).

Archaeologists have recovered European artifacts in Indian burials in northwest Georgia along the Coosawattee and Etowah river valleys, where the Coosa chiefdom is believed to have been located. Excavations in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, on various sites all within a 35 km section of the Coosawattee River, yielded horseshoes, spikes, iron wedges, and iron axes

(Langford and Smith 1990). Another archaeological site, the Hightower Village site in

Sylacauga, Alabama, produced European objects such as iron bracelets and celts.

Sourcing these artifacts and successfully connecting them to one of the two Spanish expeditions in question could help track the route of either or both expeditions, as well as shed light on trade relations between Europeans and Natives. Hernando de Soto’s expedition was outfitted with supplies directly from Spain, while Tristán de Luna’s expedition was supplied and

2 loaded in Vera Cruz, Mexico. The expeditions were loaded in different locations that result in two distinctive artifact assemblage origins.

Using X-ray fluorescence analysis, artifacts from known Soto and Luna archaeological sites were analyzed to determine their elemental signatures. In theory, the difference in origin of the artifact samples may produce a unique elemental signature based on the presence or absence of trace elements. Once analyzed, elemental signatures were taken from the northwest Georgia artifacts and compared to those from the known sites of Soto in Tallahassee and Luna artifacts from Pensacola Bay. After all data was gathered and comparisons made, it was hoped that this research could determine which artifacts found in northwest Georgia came to La Florida with

Soto or Luna, or perhaps could be attributed to another source.

Successfully linking the artifacts in question to either of the Spanish expeditions adds to our understanding of Contact Period trade relations, as well as providing information concerning the routes both expeditions took while exploring the interior of La Florida . This project also contributes to the continued development of the use of chemical sourcing technology within archaeological research by helping to expand a database of case studies to apply to varying projects. Additionally, this study uses archaeological information from both underwater and terrestrial sites in an attempt to draw information from both site types and analyze them as one project derived from the full circle of two expeditions that explored the New World first by water and then by land.

CHAPTER II

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

It took only 50 years after Columbus landed on the beaches of the New World for Spain to gain control of the circum-Caribbean region and for the Native American populations residing there to feel the crippling effects of a Spanish presence. Conquistadors, such as Hernán Cortés and Francisco Pizarro, successfully subdued entire native civilizations, exploiting regional resources, confiscating food supplies, spreading disease, and enslaving the people, all the while winning favor and riches for the Spanish crown and gaining vast personal wealth. That wealth helped Spain become the richest and most powerful nation in Europe, funding the growth of an empire based on the exploitation of the Indies as “a source of commodities which were highly valued and in short supply in Europe itself: pearls, obtained from waters round the coasts of

Venezuela; dye-stuffs; emeralds and most important of all, gold and silver” (Elliot 1989:19).

Primarily, Spain needed these items to cover war expenses, but also to cushion transactions between the mercantile industries and pay for luxury items coming from India and the Far East

(Elliot 1989:19).

At the time of Columbus’ discovery in 1492, Spain was not a unified country. The marriage of Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile in 1469 was the first step towards creating a Spanish identity within the previously divided country. After the union, Ferdinand and

Isabella set out to homogenize Spanish society. The composite monarchy caused most 16th- century men and women to consider themselves Aragonese or Castilian rather than Spanish. To combat this philosophy and promote nationalism centered on Christianity, Ferdinand and Isabella ordered the expulsion of Jews, Moors and all other religions other than Catholicism. This decisive act helped to unify the diverse population on the Iberian Peninsula and to create a new

Spanish society. Only conversion to Catholicism saved individuals from immediate expulsion.

Within this new Spanish society, only men who could prove pure Spanish lineage were allowed to hold public office, and soon an impenetrable bureaucratic hierarchy formed with only pureblood Christian Spaniards concentrated at the top, a philosophical ideal reflected in the construction of a Spanish empire in both the 16th and 17th centuries (Elliot 1989:13).

Ferdinand and Isabella did not focus only on strengthening Spain; they strategically married their offspring to neighboring monarchs and cemented a Spanish presence and authority throughout Europe. Efforts to maintain and solidify this growing empirical power kept the country at war throughout most of the early 16th century. Spain constantly faced conflict on multiple fronts and needed financial support in order to maintain power. Given their need to fund

Spanish growth in Europe, the monarchs looked to the Americas. Seemingly endless resources could be brought back to Spain, filling Spanish coffers and aiding in the growth of the monarchy.

Establishing and maintaining an “ideologically Spanish” population in the New World was of utmost importance to the crown. Like the religious cleansing of the Iberian population, much of the Spanish effort in the New World was aimed at educating the native populations in the ways of Christianity. Spaniards felt that this was their duty, but educating and instructing the natives in the ways of the faith and in the ways of Christian men also placed them in a subordinate position in society (Elliot 1989:14). This mentality was reflected in the dealings and treatment of the natives shown by conquistadors during initial Spanish expeditions into the New World.

Spain’s exploration of La Florida was an attempt to expand New Spain, which was flourishing throughout Central and South America and the Caribbean Islands. As the number of exploratory and conquering expeditions increased, so did Spain’s knowledge of the geography and potential resources. Ambitions pushed the Spanish occupation farther and solidified an

Iberian presence in North America (Francis 2006:55). In an effort to expand the empire, while keeping control over New Spain, a bureaucratic ruling class was created by granting wealthy conquerors an encomienda, a grant of rights to rule over and collect taxes on the labor of populations residing there (Francis 2006:55). Lured by the possibility of a governorship and riches, wealthy Spanish men often funded their own expedition in the name of the Spanish monarchy (Ewen 1990:84).

One such individual was Juan Ponce de León, who in 1513 conducted the first voyage sanctioned by the Spanish crown to La Florida . The monarchy gave the ex-governor of San

Juan, Puerto Rico, three years to find and settle the island of Bimini, rumored to be located north of the Bahamian Islands (Milanich 1990:7). He landed north of present-day Cape Canaveral and continued south around the peninsula of Florida, where he sailed through the Florida Keys and northwards into the Gulf of Mexico and landed at an unknown harbor. Here, Ponce de León and his men battled with local native peoples for nine days, probably the Calusa, a well-established tribe in the area. Ponce de León returned to Florida in 1521 in an attempt to establish a settlement, most likely among the same Calusa Indians, but he died shortly after his arrival from a wound (Milanich 1990:8)

Another conquistador, Lucas Vásquez de Ayllón, undertook the first colonization of the

Atlantic coast in 1526. He set out from Puerto Plata, the modern day capital of the Dominican

Republic with 6 ships, 500 men, 90 horses and tools and supplies to explore the coast of present day South Carolina (Arias 2005:23). He most likely landed near Sapelo Sound on the Georgia coast. The Spanish built several homes and a fort, but due to inclement weather and native attacks, the expedition failed with the colony only lasting around three months (Milanich

1990:10; Arias 2005:23).

A third expedition by Pánfilo de Narváez was the first to encounter a Mississippian culture in the New World in 1528 (Hoffman 1994). The Spanish monarchy commissioned

Narváez to land in south Florida and to follow along the coastline around the Gulf of Mexico into northern Mexico, exploring the landscape and the geography of the region (Hoffman 1994).

They planned to travel across land to the aboriginal town of Aute, south of present day

Tallahassee where they hoped to rendezvous with their ship. After reaching Aute, the majority of the men in the Narváez expedition became ill and the party could no longer travel. The company built several boats in order to sail the coastline to Mexico, but the majority of the men drowned or washed out to sea. The natives captured four men who spent eight years wandering and living in captivity. These early Spanish expeditions to La Florida reported the presence of gold and other precious metals and minerals, driving the Spanish to fund ever larger and more extensive expeditions, such as that of famed conquistador Hernando de Soto and the colonization attempt of Tristán de Luna (Hoffman 1994).

Hernando de Soto Expedition

Little is known of Hernando de Soto’s early years; knowledge of his family is limited, and his birthplace remains elusive. It seems he was the son of a nobleman, but did not expect much in the way of an inheritance, which suggests he was not the eldest son (Duncan 1997:3-4).

During the 16th century, it was not acceptable to seek work below your status, so with no land or wealth to support him, Soto, as a teenager, sought adventure and prosperity in the New World.

By his early 30s, Soto was a lieutenant in the army of conqueror Francisco Pizarro. He became a major player in the conquest of Peru, personally leading a vanguard of the expedition through the Andes Mountains (Ewen and Hann 1998:5). He became an incredibly wealthy man, receiving four shares of the Inca treasure, roughly equivalent to four and a half million dollars

7 today (Ewen and Hann 1998:5). The power-hungry Spaniard was not satisfied with his monetary wealth and fervently sought land, titles and personal glory in other regions of New Spain.

Interestingly, the King of Spain, Charles V had other plans for the young conquistador. He named Soto governor of Cuba and ordered him on an expedition to La Florida to solidify a

Spanish presence there and to perhaps find another wealthy civilization to conquer (Duncan

1997:210). Within a year, the time limit set by the king to ensure a timely departure, Soto self- funded and organized one of the most well prepared Spanish expeditions thus far. He hired 600 of the most aptly trained soldiers and a number of Franciscan priests to spread Christianity along the lands encountered in the journey. He also brought translators to communicate with the

Indians and native servants to help carry supplies and round out his army (Duncan 1997:210-

211).

A self-funded expedition such as Soto’s would only be considered a success when royal favor was gained by finding a new source of wealth. Any other ending and the undertaking would be viewed as a failure and he could be tried for treason (Ewen 1990:84). Hernando de

Soto believed the possible payoff outweighed the risk and wagered his fortune on an expedition into the land where all other Spaniards had failed before him (Ewen 1990:84).

Three Spanish conquistadors had attempted to subdue La Florida before Soto. Juan

Ponce de León tried in 1521, followed by Lucas Vásquez de Ayllón in 1526 and Pánfilo de

Narváez in 1528 (Ewen and Hann 1998:7). All three expeditions failed, and all three leaders died in their attempts. Each of the expeditions believed they were thoroughly equipped, but each faced adversity during their travels for which they were not prepared. Inclement weather, native attacks, starvation and other hardships plagued each of the conquistadors and soon cursed Soto as well.

The expedition sailed from Havana, Cuba, on 18 May, 1539 and landed a week later near

Tampa Bay, Florida. He left a contingent of 100 men at a base camp and instructed them to remain there and sustain it (Milanich 1990:84). He marched the rest of the army inland and then turned north, reaching the lands of the Apalachee chiefdom by October. The Spaniards engaged the hostile natives, and secured their capital, Anhaica Apalachee. Soto quickly discovered that the village was amply supplied with food and had plenty of lodging for his large army, and having found no gold in the months since he landed, he decided to camp for the winter to rest and determine his next step (Ewen 1990:85).

However, the winter of 1539 was not restful (Ewen and Hann 1998:8). The Apalachee, who were furious at having lost their principal village, attacked Soto and his men incessantly for nearly five months. Soto and his men had stolen Apalachee food and supplies and enslaved the village occupants. Hundreds of natives died throughout the long winter. The natives spent the entire five months harassing the Spaniards whenever possible (Ewen and Hann 1998:8). An account of the expedition by Rodrigo Ranjel, Soto’s personal secretary, describes the winter,

“They burned the settlement on two occasions and killed many Christians with ambushes on some occasions. And although the Spaniards pursued them and burned them, they never showed any desire to come to peace” (Ewen and Hann 1998:8). This quote describes the tumultuous environment in which the Spaniards and the Natives spent the winter of 1539.

Soto and his men reached northwest Georgia and the Coosa chiefdom in 1540. After slowly trekking along the Little Tennessee and then Tellico rivers and passing through several small villages, Soto came into the principal town of Coosa (Smith 2000:35). The chief, described as “a powerful one and a ruler of a wide territory, one of the best and most abundant that they found in Florida,” greeted the Spanish (Ranjel 1993:112). The area of Coosa had plentiful

9 resources and an abundance of food that Soto and his men needed after so many months of traveling. There were many fruit and nut trees as well as large planted fields of corn and beans.

Soto quickly took the chief hostage and captured many of his people to serve as slaves of his expedition (Hudson 1997:218). The Spanish rested at Coosa and replenished their supplies for twenty-five days before moving forward, taking the Coosa chief with them (Smith 2000:37).

On the edge of the Etowah River, Soto came to the town of Itaba (Smith 2000:37). The large earthen mounds at the site were most likely overgrown by trees and bushes and the village was probably sparsely populated (Hudson 1997:224). Soto was forced to wait because high floodwaters prevented a crossing. He purchased some Indian women in exchange for mirrors and knives (Smith 2000:37).

Similar to his acquisition of the Apalachee capital, brutal military tactics prevailed throughout Soto’s trek across the interior. During his four-year expedition with encounters with

Native peoples, it was not unusual for Soto to capture the leader of a chiefdom or simply to intimidate, threaten, or spread fear across the Southeast (Duncan 1997:362). Even so, the expedition ended in failure. Soto’s men could not survive solely on foodstuffs stolen from the

Native Americans, and by the time the dwindling army reached the banks of the Mississippi

River in 1541, Soto and his men were exhausted and starving. Intimidated by Chief Quigualtam on the opposite side of the river, Soto gave up on his expedition (Ewen and Hann 1998:10).

Scouting parties were sent to find an escape route back to Havana, but they could not confirm that the Mississippi River made it all the way south to the sea. Hernando de Soto died of a fever before the dwindling army’s eventual escape and rescue.

Although the expedition was perceived as a failure because Soto never found gold and vast wealth, and ultimately lost his life in the wilderness, it proved to be one of the most historic

10 events in United States’ history. Hernando de Soto’s expedition paved the way for Spain’s more successful colonization attempts throughout the 17th century. Soto and his men penetrated farther into the interior than any conquistador before and his introduction of European diseases to the native populations throughout the Southeast weakened the resident chiefdoms over time, making them less of a threat to Spanish enterprises. Even though Soto is known for brutality, murder and failure, his expedition changed the face of American history forever.

Tristán de Luna Expedition

In 1558, 20 years after Hernando de Soto’s last expedition, Viceroy don Luís de Velasco appointed Tristán de Luna y Arellano as governor of the not-yet-established Florida colony

(Priestley 1928:xxviii). Luna was instructed by Velasco to organize a self-sufficient colony on the Florida coast near the town of Ochuse (Pensacola Bay) and then proceed inland, establishing a second town at the site of the Coosa chiefdom previously visited by Soto and finally, travel to

Santa Elena on the Atlantic coast in modern South Carolina, where a third town would be established. He was ordered to maintain a peaceable relationship with the Native population and establish a self-sufficient colony as soon as possible (Hudson et al. 1989).

There were many motivations behind establishing the new colony on the Gulf of Mexico.

One primary incentive stemmed from the ideas of Franciscan friar Andrés de Olmos. With a chain of Spanish missions established along the Gulf coast, friars could more easily convert the native population to Christianity, as well as provide a network to aide Spanish shipwrecked sailors (Hudson et al. 1989). A handful of survivors from Hernando de Soto’s expedition fervently advocated the establishment of a second settlement at Coosa where food and supplies were plentiful. In addition, founding a settlement there would satisfy the Spanish desire to establish a road from the anticipated colony at Santa Elena to the Spanish silver mines in

Mexico. Establishing a central stronghold in the interior Southeast would also prevent the

French, or any other European nation, from encroaching on potential resources, such as gold and silver that were hoped to be plentiful throughout the region.

Luna’s expedition, outfitted in Veracruz, Mexico, became the most well-equipped and well-supplied endeavor to date (Priestley 1928:xxvii). The colonists had enough provisions to last an entire year, allowing them time to establish their own food sources in their new environment. Upon arrival in Ochuse, modern day Pensacola, Florida, Luna found an almost non-existent population. He located one cornfield, but no substantial food source of any kind.

The lack of a native population and their food supplies became a grave issue when five weeks after the colonists’ arrival, a violent hurricane struck the coast. The colony’s food supplies were kept in what was thought to be the safest place available, the ships anchored in the bay. The hurricane sank or grounded all but three of the vessels and destroyed a huge portion of their food supply (Priestley 1928:xxxvi; Cook 2009: 93-99; Smith 2009:79-81).

As the colonists began to starve, Luna knew he needed to move them into the interior where they could access native food supplies. Luna ordered a detachment of approximately 150 men led by Sergeant Major Mateo del Sauz and Captain Cristóbal Ramírez de Arellano into the interior to search for Piachi and the Alabama River (Hudson et al. 1989). Sauz and Ramírez searched along the bank of the Alabama River until they came upon Nanipacana (Alabama), a large town of approximately 80 houses. Luna moved his colony to Nanipacana. The Indians quickly fled to the other side of the river and scorched the crops growing in their fields to prevent the colonists from acquiring them (Priestley 1928:xxxviii).

The colonists soon exhausted all resources at Nanipacana and resorted to eating acorns, roots, and other wild plants. Luna sent a second detachment of roughly 100 men further

12 northward in search of Coosa, the large and dominant chiefdom visited by the Soto expedition 20 years prior. The designated group left April 15, 1560 and on their way to Coosa came upon a multitude of smaller towns that were devoid of vital foodstuffs (Hudson et al. 1989). When they finally found Coosa, they found eight individual towns. The original plan for the colonizing expedition was to establish a permanent settlement at Coosa; therefore, Sáuz and Ramírez stayed in the area for several months.

The famed chiefdom at Coosa was drastically smaller than reported by Soto’s men only

20 years earlier (Priestley 1928:xli). One of two friars in the detachment described the fields surrounding the village as vastly overgrown and uncultivated. The land surrounding the river junction where Coosa was located was thickly forested, more so than they had seen during previous travels (Smith 2000:44).

The Indians fed and clothed Sáuz and his men and in return, the Spaniards helped the

Coosa fight off a tributary tribe, the Napochies, who refused to pay tribute and did not adhere to the governing structure used by the Coosa. The combination of Spanish and native troops quickly subdued the rebellious Napochies (Priestley 1928:xliii). Despite initial cooperation, the

Coosa chiefdom was no longer large enough, or successful enough to support the Luna expedition, so Sauz and his men turned back toward the coast and returned to Ochuse, where the colonization attempt ended in failure. The survivors abandoned the site in 1561.

A third explorer, Juan Pardo, reached the deep interior of the Southeast during the mid-

16th century. The Spanish finally established a colony at Santa Elena, in modern-day South

Carolina, and although successful, the colony was increasingly low on food and supplies (Smith

2000:45). In 1566, Juan Pardo was sent to find a road from Santa Elena to the silver mines in

Zacatecas, Mexico. More realistically, it is thought that Pardo and his detachment were sent into

13 the interior to live off of the Indians and alleviate some of the strain on the dwindling resources of the colony (Smith 2000:45). He had an abundance of trade and gift items in hopes that he would develop a working relationship with the Indians who were needed for Spanish survival.

After traveling into modern Tennessee, Pardo and his companions learned of a native plot against them. The chief of Satapo refused to give them any food unless it was rightfully paid for and threatened to attack the Spaniards (Smith 2000:45). Pardo decided that instead of waiting for an attack, and the inevitable bloodshed, he would return to Santa Elena. He never reached the interior towns of Coosa like Soto or Luna, but he did reach areas that were under their influence.

Due to their varied cultural backgrounds and having experienced only recent attempts to consolidate, many Spaniards did not necessarily identify themselves as “Spaniards,” but as

“Christians” (Hudson 1998:17). Solidarity among the Spanish was rooted deeper in religion than nationality, allowing for a variety of races and skin colors to be viewed favorably as long as they were participants and believers in the Christian faith. Spanish views of the native peoples they encountered in the New World revolved around a sort of relativism. How closely did natives resemble Spanish society and the values held in high esteem by Spanish culture? By the time of

Luna’s expedition, the Spanish government encouraged explorers to engage the Native

Americans. Conquistadors were instructed to treat the Native Americans hospitably, educate them in the ways of Christianity and teach them how to be more like the Spaniards (Elliot 1989).

Even still, to conquistadors like Hernando de Soto, native people were merely an obstacle to fame and fortune (Ewen 1990:84). When resistance was met, the Spanish used brutality to subdue the natives. One of the Soto expedition accounts, authored by a man known only as a

“Gentleman of Elvas,” describes an instance of brutality as Soto and his men tried to enter the town of Mavilla:

The Indians fought with so great a spirit that they drove us outside again and

again. It took them so long to get back that many of the Christians, tired out and

suffering great thirst, went to get a drink at a pond located near the stockade, but it

was tinged with the blood of the dead and they returned to the fight. The

governor, seeing this, with those who accompanied him entered the town on

horseback together with the returning foot. This gave an opportunity for the

Christians to succeed in setting fire to the houses and overthrow and defeat the

Indians. (Elvas 1933:101)

Most of the information we have regarding Native American inhabitants comes from the accounts of Spain’s early explorers and their expeditions, essentially giving modern researchers only a European perspective. Even though our knowledge is often one-sided and biased, the relationship was not surprisingly tumultuous and, in most cases, violent.

The conquistadors possessed a medieval approach towards the rest of the world as shown through their thoughts, actions and fighting tactics (Hudson 1997:10). Early Spanish expeditionary entradas did not carry their food with them. Instead, they gained control over ruling chiefs, and then exploited the concentrated wealth of the native peoples they encountered.

The Spanish stole stores of grain and corn and left villages destitute. The Spaniards did not place much value on the Indian way of life and paid little attention to their traditions and culture.

As stated above, the Spanish did not hold Native culture in high esteem but nonetheless,

Spanish artifacts have been found in multiple archaeological sites throughout the areas where

Hernando de Soto and Tristán de Luna traveled and explored. These objects most likely entered the hands of natives in multiple ways, such as direct gift-giving to high status individuals, trade, pilfering, access through combat, native exchange networks and even shipwreck salvage (Hally

15 et al. 2008). While instances such as the one described by the Gentleman of Elvas were common and came to characterize how we think of the Spanish and Native American interaction, it is most likely that relationships were more complicated, intricate, and changed over time.

In the 20 years between Soto and Luna, there is evidence of a significant attitude change among the Spanish. The authorities instructed Tristán de Luna to treat the Indians well and to attempt to stay independent of them. Not only was his expedition the most expensive up until that time, it was the best provisioned and supplied in order to give the colony the greatest chance at success and independence. Luna’s men displayed the attitude shift between the two expeditions and their intentions toward the natives in the venture against the Napochies.

Essentially a repayment for their much-needed hospitality, Sáuz and the other Spaniards attempted to build a working relationship for the benefit of both parties within the established social structure of the Native Americans they now depended on (Priestley 1928:xliii).

Chiefdoms and polities of the interior Southeast had various rankings of complexity.

Religious elite, who generally occupied the top of the hierarchical sociopolitical system, ruled the people within individual tribes and polities. In contrast, a single chief led a smaller tribe. A dominant chieftain who controlled the subsidiary villages and territories surrounding him ruled groups of these tribes. The capital or center of the sociopolitical chiefdom was a destination and hub for information and goods for people inhabiting the areas (King 2003:17). As a result, chiefs and their political centers held religious and economic importance as well as political dominance that often coincided with their geographical location and the availability of fertile lands and natural resources (King 2003:17).

The southeastern United States is an environmentally diverse area, with regions varying from Coastal Plains to the Appalachian Highlands and forests. The area is dissected by large and

16 small river systems, providing nutrient-rich deposits perfectly suited for native agricultural practices (Milanich 1990:4). Native American people inhabited the southeastern United States during the 16th century. These pockets often occurred within river valleys and were surrounded by uninhabited buffer zones (Smith 2000:10). Agriculturally dependent Mississippian people grew maize and other crops in order to sustain their families and pay tribute to their chieftain.

They typically constructed large sprawling towns with plazas surrounded by special buildings on constructed earthen mounds of varying sizes and heights (Milanich 1990:6).

Professional and amateur archaeologists have found countless artifacts, reflecting not only the practical and functional needs of the people inhabiting the area, but that also shed light on the ideologies of these large and diverse Mississippian societies. As suggested by their dependence on agriculture in order to feed their large populations, cultural beliefs revolved around agricultural and fertility processes, both in nature and humanity. Even though full-fledged

Mississippian cultures are characterized by extensive agricultural practices and large stratified societies with symbolic mounds, smaller and simpler tribes during the 16th century reflected the same Mississippian cultural traditions, but on a smaller scale (Milanich 1990:6).

A number of 16th-century Native populations throughout the interior Southeast reflected common cultural similarities, suggesting prolific networking between tribes and chiefdoms, but they are not identical. Simple adaptation variances such as fluctuations in subsistence practices can be attributed to different habitation environments, while evolution of different dialects could possibly be attributed to multiple factors such as isolated geographic location and language evolution as well as other factors (Milanich 1990:6).

All that is left now are the archaeological remains and primary documents of the expeditions that encountered them. Jerald Milanich, in his chapter for Columbian Consequences:

Archaeological and Historical Perspectives on the Spanish Borderlands wrote:

When first encountered by Europeans, the native peoples of interior La Florida

must have been incredible to behold. Mississippian chiefs, costumed in

magnificent feather cloaks and skillfully crafted accouterments reflecting their

high status, were carried in canopied litters on the shoulders of their principal

subjects to meet the Europeans. Diplomacy, political alliances, and military force

resulted in complex chiefdoms that integrated large territories under a hierarchy

of rulers and chiefs. Large populations allowed polities to develop and rise and

fall as the ties that bound them were forged or broken. Those ties would be

permanently destroyed with the coming of the Europeans. (Milanich 1990:7).

The splendid Native American people that Milanich describes no longer exist.

Archaeological sites associated with them have been identified throughout the southeastern

United States. The remains are undoubtedly Native American, but also are potentially connected to either the Hernando de Soto expedition and/or the Tristán de Luna expedition of the 16th century. Each of the interior sites tested in this project correspond with probable routes of the entradas . Both professional archaeologists and amateur artifact collectors have discovered 16th- century European artifacts (Hally et al. 1990:123). Geographically, these archaeological sites lie from the waters of Pensacola Bay, east to Tallahassee, Florida, and then north through Alabama and Georgia. Much of the evidence of a Spanish presence has been found in Native American

18 burials, located in areas thought to be within the Coosa territory along the Coosawattee River in northwest Georgia. Artifacts used as controls and test samples in this project were discovered at the archaeological sites listed and described below.

Martin Site (Soto’s Winter Encampment) Tallahassee, Florida

In 1987, on the brink of a commercial construction project, archaeologist Calvin Jones convinced the president of the construction company to allow him to investigate a site in downtown Tallahassee, Florida (Ewen and Hann 1998). With only two days to survey, he promptly began strategically shovel testing the area. In the first test pit, Jones found sherds from a Spanish olive jar. Excited to find Spanish artifacts at the site, Jones organized a research strategy around the limited budget of the state and the limited time with which they had to work due to the construction project. At first Jones believed he had come across an old Spanish mission site, but the artifacts the archaeological crew began finding did not fit the mold of a

Spanish mission assemblage, leaving Jones puzzled about what he had stumbled upon (Ewen and

Hann 1998:51-53). After further analysis and test excavations, he concluded that the evidence found at the site pointed to the location of Hernando de Soto’s first winter encampment where

Soto and his men had camped for five months during the winter of 1539 (Ewen and Hann 1998).

Consequently, all construction was postponed and archaeology began on what became known as the Martin Site in the middle of downtown Tallahassee. Artifacts include a large amount of nails, a Clarksdale bell, a crossbow bolt and other metal items. All artifacts recovered are housed at the

Florida Bureau of Archaeological Resources (BAR) in Tallahassee.

Emanuel Point Shipwrecks, Pensacola Bay, Florida

The Florida BAR discovered the first Emanuel Point shipwreck in 1992 during a shipwreck survey of Pensacola Bay (Smith et al. 1998b:1). Soon after state excavations began,

The University of West Florida’s anthropology program began to assist in the project.

Archaeological excavations on the shipwreck continued from 1992-1995, and again between

1997 and 1998 culminating with 40% of the shipwreck excavated and recorded (Smith et al.

1998b:2). After analysis of the artifact assemblage, archaeologists determined the shipwreck fell within the appropriate dates to be from the 1559 Tristán de Luna expedition to colonize

Pensacola (Ochuse) (Smith et al. 1998b:2).

In 2006, UWF archaeological field school students discovered a large ballast pile less than 400 meters to the east, lying along the same sandbar and oriented in the same direction as

EPI. Test excavations revealed lead strips tacked to the outer hull of a ship, olive jar sherds, and diagnostic filler pieces placed between heavy wooden frames that suggested Iberian construction.

Fieldwork was conducted during the UWF archaeological field methods courses of 2007 and

2008 (Cook 2009:93). UWF continues excavation on this second shipwreck, known as Emanuel

Point II. Artifacts from both Emanuel Point shipwrecks are housed at UWF’s archaeological laboratory and storage facility in Pensacola, Florida. A number of artifacts from the first

Emanuel Point shipwreck are also on display at the T.T. Wentworth Museum in downtown

Pensacola and on the UWF campus at the Archaeology Institute.

The Hightower Village Site, Childersburg, Alabama

The Hightower Village site was occupied of a population by Native Americans, of the

Lamar culture, between the late 16th and early 17th century (Hally 1994:182). Extensive excavations by the University of Alabama and the Comer Museum in Sylacauga, Alabama, revealed European goods and believed to date between 1560 and 1650. The University of

Alabama and the Comer Museum in Sylacauga, Alabama, dug the site and the museum now houses the artifact collection. The mixture of both Native and European objects at the site is

20 thought to reflect Native American contact with the Tristán de Luna detachment of 1560 who traveled directly through this area, or that of the Hernando de Soto entrada 20 years earlier.

Thought to be the village known as Talisi, this site could possibly be the last town under Coosa rule (Smith 2000:38). Sample artifacts include iron celts, ax heads, rolled copper and copper discs.

Etowah Mounds, Cartersville, Georgia

The Etowah Mounds site is located in Bartow County, Georgia, south of Cartersville. It is known as one of the most intact Mississippian archaeological sites in the southeastern United

States (King 2003:1). Etowah is believed to be the location of one of the Native American towns visited by Hernando de Soto during his expedition into the interior Southeast (Smith 2000:37).

The Spanish presence and trade is reflected in the many European artifacts recovered. The mounds at the Etowah site were most likely covered by growth and not in use by the time the

Spanish came through the area (Hudson 1997:224). The artifacts used in this study originate from the plaza located in front of the mounds. Many of the artifacts, including the ones used for this project, are housed at the Antonio J. Waring, Jr. Archaeological Lab at the University of

West Georgia in Carrollton, Georgia.

Leake Site, Bartow County, Georgia

The Leake site is located in the Etowah Valley Historic District in Bartow County,

Georgia. It was occupied during the Middle Woodland and late Mississippian periods, possibly dating as early as 300 B.C. The later era Mississippian people who inhabited the area quite possibly came into contact with the Hernando de Soto expedition in 1542 (Keith 2009). UGA field schools excavated the site during the 1988-1990 archaeological field school seasons (Keith

2009). The artifacts from this archaeological site are housed at the University of Georgia in

Athens, Georgia.

Little Egypt, Murray County, Georgia

Little Egypt is an archaeological site located in Murray County, Georgia near the junction of the Coosawattee River and Talking Rock Creek. The site originally included two, and possibly three, large mounds surrounding a plaza and village area (Smith 2000:31). Investigated by

Warren Moorehead in 1925, David Hally and the University of Georgia excavated it in 1969.

The site was inundated by the damming of the Coosawattee River in 1977, and the site is now submerged in Carters Lake.

Little Egypt is part of a group of archaeological sites that have come to be known as

Carter’s Cluster (Hally et al. 1990:124). Surrounded by smaller villages downriver, Little Egypt appears to be the largest occupation, suggesting it was the capital of the Coosa chiefdom with the other villages operating as lower-level tributaries (Smith 2000:32).

King Site, Rome, Georgia

The King site is an early historic Indian town located in northwest Georgia near the city of Rome (Hally 2008:1). It is believed to be a single component site, most likely affiliated with the Coosa chiefdom, which lies only 50 miles upstream. Several European artifacts were found within Native American burials at this site, and radiocarbon analysis has dated this site to the mid-16th century. It is probable that the site was visited by both the Hernando de Soto expedition and the Tristán de Luna detachment during their travels throughout the interior (Blakely

1988:xiv).

Investigations of this site began in 1971 by Patrick Garrow and his crew of volunteers. At the time Garrow was an anthropology instructor at Shorter College and oversaw weekend

22 excavations over the course of the year (Hally 2008:44). For a nine-month period in 1973-1974, the University of Georgia commenced extensive investigations at the site overseen by Garrow and Hally, funded by grants from National Geographic and the National Endowment of the

Humanities (Hally 2008:45). The artifacts tested during this project are housed at the University of Georgia in Athens.

Poarch Farm Site, Murray, Georgia

The Poarch Farm site is located along the Coosawattee River in northwest Georgia below the main portion of Carters Dam. Artifact collectors worked extensively at the site throughout the 1970s and 1980s and uncovered between 300-400 Native American burials (Langford

1990:40). The village is believed to be part of the Coosa chiefdom and was located close to the capital. It is likely that the villagers came into contact with either or both the Soto and Luna expeditions (Langford 1990:140). Many of the artifacts were conserved and documented at the

University of Georgia, but are now in the possession of the original artifact collectors who found them. A collector living in Calhoun, Georgia keeps the artifacts used in this project.

Summary

Each of these archaeological sites represents some form of cultural exchange between

Spanish Europeans and North American natives during the 16th century. In an attempt to find connections between one, more or all of the collections, artifacts recovered at each of these locations were analyzed using the methods described in the next chapter. Interpretive techniques were developed in order to recognize patterns, correlations and relationships between the sites, the objects and the expeditions they represent. Alone, each of these locations is a single archaeological site, but through the analysis of this project, it may be possible to interpret them together in a brand new way.

CHAPTER III

METHODS

In October of 2010, Olympus Innov-X awarded me the use of an Alpha Unit Portable X-

Ray Fluorescence analyzer (PXRF) for two months to aid in the research for this thesis project.

Upon receipt of this unit, sets of methods were developed for elemental testing on a multitude of archaeological artifacts and analysis of resulting numerical data produced by the PXRF analyzer.

This chapter discusses and elaborates on, portable x-ray fluorescence development and use as well as the development of a standard data collection method that is flexible and useful during the project’s travel period. In addition, this chapter outlines the organization and categorization of all numerical data collected throughout this project and how it was set up for the successive mathematical and statistical analyses that included distance scoring techniques, searching for the

“nearest neighbor,” as well as finding average “chemical fingerprints,” and the standard deviation within multiple sample sets. Each of these methods contributed to the development of this thesis project and outlined a way to analyze pXRF data within archaeological project parameters.

Portable X-Ray Fluorescence

German physicist Wilhelm K. Röntgen (1845-1923 discovered x-rays in 1895 (Shackley

2010:7). Credited as the first man to systematically study “x-rays” as he called them, Röntgen received the Nobel Prize in 1901. Although the medical field integrated the use of x-ray technology, x-rays for scientific study, and chemical analysis known as X-ray Spectroscopy, did not see prominent use commercially until the 1950s (Shackley 2010:7). X-ray Spectroscopy occurs when an electron is removed from the outer ring of an atom by some sort of excitation and an electron from an inner ring replaces it. The energy that this electron transfer produces

24 gives off a characteristic photon energy that can be used to identify particular elements present in the sample (Shackley 2010:16-18). Charles Barkla first noticed this electron exchange in 1909 and Henry G.J. Moseley further expanded upon it in 1913 when he helped to number the elements.

A pXRF analyzer is a tool used to identify elements present within a specific sample and quantitatively measure the exact amount of each element present within that sample’s chemical makeup . The technology is based on the same principle of X-ray Spectroscopy. High-energy, primary x-ray photons are emitted from the excitation source, which in the case of the pXRF analyzer is the x-ray tube housed inside the unit. These emitted photons are powerful enough to knock electrons out of the inner two orbits of an atom, known as K and L orbitals. The loose electrons become unstable ions seeking stability; therefore, electrons from either the L or M orbital quickly move into the vacated space, emitting secondary x-ray photon energy, which is identified and interpreted by the analyzer. This process, from start to finish, results in finding the elements present within a sample, is known as fluorescence (Innov-X Systems, Inc. 2007:1.3-

1.5).

Benefits of PXRF

Archaeological analysis and research is conducted on artifacts of past people and cultures that are irreplaceable and, many times, one of a kind. It is within these parameters that archaeologists find themselves searching for research methods and procedures for conservation, that are safe, reversible, and most importantly, non-destructive. Archaeologists respect the past and its material remains, while also regarding the future and the inevitable improvement and technological advances that it will produce (Shackley 2010:18).

In elemental analysis studies, the pXRF seems to be the perfect solution for archaeological studies. The following are a few of the benefits of using pXRF within an archaeological context. Each of these factors contributed to pXRF being chosen as the method of analysis for this project.

1. Portability: It is portable and can be carried out into the field as well as

deep into an archaeological collections basement;

2. Flexibility with Power Source: It can run on a battery as well as be

plugged into an electrical outlet, making the necessity of a power source a

non-issue;

3. User-Friendly: Most pXRF units are user-friendly, and operation of the

unit can be self-taught using the manual and some experimentation;

4. Minimal Preparation: Samples do not need much, if any preparation, for

testing (Shackley 2010:9). Simply remove sediments caked on the surface

if possible;

5. Non-Destructive: Most importantly, XRF analysis is non-destructive. It

can take a reading on the surface of an artifact without damaging it in any

way.

The Olympus Innov-X Alpha Unit pXRF analyzer is a hand-held, battery operated energy dispersive x-ray fluorescent machine utilized for the detection and quantification of elements ranging from phosphorous through uranium. The unit has an x-ray tube excitation source, silver or tungsten anode using 10-40 kV and between 5 and 50 uA, while offering five differing filter positions. The analyzer uses lithium ion batteries that provide power for four to eight hours, or an

AC adapter may be used with a testing stand. The computer used with the analyzer is a Hewlett

Packard iPAQ with an Intel processor running a Windows CE operating system and uses the

Innov-X systems analyzer software. A stainless steel clip is provided with the unit, and allows the user to calibrate the analyzer before each use. It is mandatory to standardize and calibrate the analyzer each time the software is initiated, or if the unit has been running for four hours or more

(Innov-X Systems, Inc. 2007).

Creating a Standardized Data Collection Method

Not only were the archaeological samples physically located in different museums, universities and collections, different conservation techniques were employed to conserve the objects over the years. It became necessary to take into account what effects these conservation treatments had on the surface makeup of the artifacts, as well as the elemental reading outputs. In early tests, it quickly became obvious that finding the most untreated and cleanest area on the surface of the artifact gave the most accurate elemental reading.

Upon receipt of the pXRF Alpha Unit, analysis began immediately on the Luna collection located at UWF in Pensacola. To produce dependable results, a consistent and reliable method of testing needed to be implemented that would also be the most efficient use of time during limited travel time and access to collections. Three weeks were allotted to experimentation and orientation to the machine. This period also allowed for a familiarity to be developed with the software so that it could be used properly and any malfunctions could be detected quickly and resolved while on the road.

For this study, it was necessary to obtain the most detailed readout possible of the chemical composition of each artifact tested. Theoretically, the presence and amount of trace elements would be the determining factor in developing a possible fingerprint for each collection tested. Upon receipt, the pXRF unit was originally set to “default settings,” conducting ten-

27 second tests, analyzing the material and then comparing it to a database of known alloys. It attempted to match the scanned material to an alloy within the database and then display that result on the iPAQ screen. The archaeological materials from the Luna assemblage consistently produced a generic result of 100% carbon steel; this information was useless when trying to decipher differences in the chemical makeup of multiple artifacts. During further experimentation the unit’s settings were adjusted to conduct 60-second tests using the “analytical mode” setting. These changes produced a more detailed reading of the elements present within the material being tested. Instead of simply matching the artifact to the closest known alloy, the results now included a breakdown of the trace elements present in the sample, providing data needed to begin the project. It is important to note that these elemental percentages were calculated by the instrument’s software from the raw photon data.

After the settings were corrected and confirmed, a standard testing method was created.

Taking into consideration Steven Shackley’s (2010) guidelines for creating a standard protocol to enhance the validity of pXRF studies, a rigid method for data collection was constructed. As discussed earlier, X-Ray fluorescence is a surface analysis, measuring only 100 um beneath the surface (Innov-X Systems, Inc. 2007). To attain the most accurate and precise reading, manipulating the artifact by drilling into it, cutting it or sanding down the surface would provide the best results. Unfortunately, as mentioned previously, the ethical study of archaeological remains does not leave room for permanent destruction of an object. With no ability to alter the artifact’s surface, an initial visual inspection of the object was necessary to find the cleanest and most accessible areas along the surface for testing. After a number of experimental tests, it became apparent that the pXRF unit did not produce identical results when multiple readings were taken at different points across the surface of an artifact. To correct this problem, it was

28 decided to average the multiple results from each artifact tested. Three 60-second tests would be taken along the surface of each artifact, more if the object was very large. The results were then averaged and that average became the artifact’s signature. The pXRF method used does not give exact and precise measurements over and over again across the surface of the artifact, but does give a reliable and consistent indication of what trace elements are, or are not, present at the minimum levels determined by the instrument software.

To further standardize the testing method, trial tests were conducted using various surfaces to determine which would be the best surface to place the samples on while traveling. pXRF, as a surface analysis, is not strong enough to penetrate the artifact completely and take readings from the surface that the artifact is resting on. Even still, precautions were taken to ensure quality readings throughout the project. Surprisingly, the best surface to test on was determined to be the unit’s printed manual conveniently located within the carrying case. When the manual was set on a table and a test conducted on its surface, it consistently gave no reading at all, confirming that there would be no interference with actual artifact chemical composition testing. The manual served this purpose throughout the project, as it was always necessary to carry for quick reference, but also provided a safe platform for testing an artifact in inconvenient settings.

Maintaining organized records of the artifacts tested was important so that they could be referenced after data gathering was complete. Digital photographs were taken of every object not curated at UWF. Each item was photographed with a scale and a reference label that included site number, catalog number, or a description of the object. This provenience information was also recorded in a notebook so it could be easily referenced later. It was very important to keep

29 careful records, as access to collections was limited to a few hours at each curation facility in the fall of 2011. All these records were subsequently curated at UWF.

To summarize, after experimenting and learning how to correctly operate the pXRF

Alpha unit, the standard testing method was:

1. Visually inspect artifact in order to determine best possible testing surface;

2. Place unit manual on available flat surface for a testing platform;

3. Conduct at minimum, three 60-second tests on different areas on the

artifact;

4. Photograph object with artifact number or description and a scale;

5. Record data in notebook for redundancy.

Readings on each artifact collection were recorded in the iPAQ, downloaded, and saved to a computer hard drive for storage.

Project Logistics

Appointments were set with each of the museums or universities housing collections included in the project. Each collection contained 16th-century European artifacts from sites where Native Americans came into contact with either the Soto or Luna expeditions, as discussed in the previous chapter. Over the course of seven days in November and December of

2011, pXRF data was gathered from iron and copper-alloy artifacts within each of these collections using the standard data collection method described above. Once all signatures were recorded, data averages were calculated and recorded for each artifact and entered into an Excel spreadsheet for further analysis.

Data Organization

The entire population of test samples was divided into multiple categories in order to make comparisons and calculations within the data set. First, the samples were divided by archaeological site of origin, with two main control sites serving as the baseline for comparisons.

The groupings are:

Control Site Samples:

1. Martin site (Hernando de Soto’s 1539 winter encampment)

2. The Emanuel Point shipwrecks (Tristán de Luna’s colonization attempt in the

Pensacola region)

Comparison Sites:

1. Hightower Village site

2. Etowah Mounds site

3. Leake site

4. Little Egypt site

5. King site

6. Poarch site

7. Brown Farm site

Functional Typologies

Just as the people who carried, created, and used them, archaeological artifacts are diverse and are not necessarily suited for comparison. Objects used by humans, whether they are personal possessions or utilitarian tools produced on a mass scale, have different purposes, meanings and intended uses for the variety of people owning them. When varying objects are found within the archaeological record, their presence and meaning is interpreted in subjective

31 ways. Not only could the intended use of an object reflect its meaning to the Spaniard who owned it, the object might have an entirely different meaning to the Native to whom it was traded. Intended use could influence the materials used in its production; therefore, simply comparing the compositional makeup of archaeological objects is incomplete on its own, and different applications of individual items must be taken into consideration. A wide array of compositional data in this project necessitated another division of the site samples to help clarify the analysis. Therefore, each site sample was divided into three distinct functional categories: utilitarian goods, personal items, and weapons. These broad categories covered the spectrum as to what types of items the men and women on both the Soto and Luna expeditions chose to help them accomplish and achieve their goals in La Florida . It is important to note that the functional categories used for this project are not intended to correspond to those developed by South

(1977).

With regard to the compositional category of each artifact, many of the artifacts analyzed throughout the duration of this project are made of iron (Fe). Iron ore, in its raw form, consists of iron, manganese, oxygen, phosphorus, silicon and sulfur and is recognized by its grayish, whitish color (Sims 2006:46). To make iron, ore must be reduced using a process known as smelting.

The chemical reaction that occurs when the ore is exposed to high heat removes the impurities, leaving behind a mass of hot iron and slag known as a bloom. Through repeated heating and hammering, the impurities are removed and the metallic particles are condensed, leaving just iron (Sims 2006:46).

The majority of the iron artifacts analyzed in this study are wrought iron. Wrought iron consists of pure iron and an iron silicate, between 0.02 to 0.08% carbon. To produce wrought iron, pig iron is heated until the impurities burn out and the remaining iron is hammered, milled,

32 and reheated, and then silicon slag is added (Sims 2006:46). When formed, wrought iron has a fibrous consistency and can be split along the grain, and it is rust and corrosion resistant (Sims

2006:46). A representative sample of the iron artifacts used for this project is shown in Figures 1 through 4.

FIGURE 1. Ax head from Hightower Village. (Photograph by author, 2011.)

FIGURE 2. Indeterminate iron artifact from the Etowah site. (Photograph by author, 2011.)

FIGURE 3. Sword fragment from the Leake site (Photograph by author, 2011.)

FIGURE 4. Ax head from Little Egypt. (Photograph by author, 2011.)

The second set of artifacts tested consists of copper and copper alloy. Copper (Cu) is an excellent conductor of heat and electricity and has many practical applications. Its color is aesthetically appealing (Walters and Van Tyne 2013:1). Humans used copper as early as 10,000 years ago, and decorative pieces of the metal have been discovered in the Middle East dating to around 8,700 B.C. (Davis 2001:3). These decorative pieces were hammered into various shapes and sizes from nuggets of pure copper otherwise known as “native copper” (Davis 2001:3). The earliest forms of copper originated from a forging process were discovered in Turkey and date to around 7,000 B.C. (Davis 2001:3). The discovery of the alloy bronze, a mixture of copper and tin, resulted in stronger weapons and tools and led humans into the Bronze Age.

Today, copper alloys are metals with 50-94% copper contents and have no other element specified in excess of the copper content (Davis 2001:7). Bronze contains up to 10% tin (Sn) and

0.2% phosphorus (P) (Davis 2001:3). When copper is mixed with zinc, the copper alloy brass is

35 made, which is characterized today by containing up to 40% zinc (Zn) (Davis 2001:3). These two copper alloys are present in the sample collections used for this project. Interestingly, metallurgical techniques alter the properties of copper itself. The additional metals add strength, without reducing ductility and workability. Alloying reduces the electrical conductivity of the copper (Davis 2001:4). A sample of copper alloy artifacts used during this project is shown in

Figures 5 through 9.

FIGURE 5. Rolled copper tube from Hightower Village site. (Photograph by author, 2011.)

FIGURE 6. Copper disc from Hightower Village site. (Photograph by author, 2011.)

FIGURE 7. Rolled copper artifact from Etowah assemblage. (Photograph by author, 2011.)

FIGURE 8. Hawk’s bell from Little Egypt assemblage. (Photograph by author, 2011.)

FIGURE 9. Coosawattee plate from Poarch site. (Photograph by author, 2011.)

Regarding the functional category of each artifact, the utilitarian items category includes objects such as nails, chisels, axes, celts, and wedges, all objects that could be mass-produced in a blacksmith’s shop quickly and inexpensively. Spaniards carried such tools on expeditions in larger quantities than other more luxurious goods and they show up in the archaeological record more frequently. They were less expensive, could be traded more often, and their presence in archaeological sites across the southeastern United States demonstrates one aspect of the

Spanish/Native interaction that took place during the 16th century.

The personal items category includes goods that were most often personal property carried by the wealthier participants of the Spanish expeditions. Men traveling with Soto were required to outfit themselves for the upcoming expedition, and protective items, such as the handmade chainmail discovered at the Martin site, were very expensive (Ewen and Hann

1998:78-79). Chainmail was used as protection, but also reflected the personal wealth of its owner, as it took many months to manufacture (Ffoulkes 2008:44). Decorative items such as brass buckles or clasps are also included in the personal items category. Objects such as these were not only made of different materials than utilitarian goods and the men who owned them viewed them differently in a variety of ways. Meant for decorative or embellishment purposes, these types of artifacts, when found within the archaeological record at Native American burial sites such as the ones included in this project, could reflect an entirely different meaning than finding something as common as a nail or chisel, both indicate a Spanish presence.

The third typological category encompasses all weaponry. The Spanish expeditionary soldier was required to provide his own weapons on an expedition, as the government did not issue these items. These artifacts were not mass-produced, but purchased singly from an armourer or handed down in families. Charles John Ffoulkes (2008:1) describes in his book The

Armourer and His Craft: From the XIth to the XVIth Century states that, “up to the sixteenth century the individual and the personal factor were of supreme importance in war and it was the individual whose needs the armourer studied.” Each of these items could have their own compositional signature, so the test results could shed light on the elemental makeup and therefore the manufacturing process of 16th-century weaponry.

Addressed in my research was whether or not the intended use of a particular item influenced metal composition in any way. Not all collections had artifacts from each category, so those that did were culled for additional analysis. For example, the Martin site assemblage contains artifacts from all three functional categories, and within each category there are representative samples from each metal type (iron, copper, and copper alloy). The Emanuel Point shipwreck assemblages also contain all three functional categories, and within each category all three metals are present. The same categories were used for each of the comparison sites and their sample sets.

Euclidean Distance Score, Closeness Scoring

It was necessary not only to compare similarities and differences between each artifact, but also to determine if there were marked differences between the sample groups from each site when compared against each other. After some experimentation, it was determined that using the

Euclidean distance score statistic yielded the most accurate results needed for basic interpretation of the archaeological chemical composition data, and yet was flexible enough to allow for expansion. The Euclidean distance score is a mathematical way to define the distance between two points (Hietaniemi et al. 1999:246). Using the Pythagorean theorem, the Euclidean distance statistic computes the differences along each axis, sums the squares of the differences, and takes

40 the square root of that sum to measure the distances between the two said points (Hietaniemi et al. 1999:246).

In order to find similarities between artifacts within the entire sample set, the first step was to determine which ones were the most alike chemically and to explore those relationships.

Unfortunately, this process was much more complicated than just comparing and contrasting.

After placing all of the chemical makeup data into a Microsoft excel spreadsheet, I determined that I was comparing on the whole, 17 different elements. Some of those elements were only minute trace elements, but were present nonetheless. With each element representing a difference set of axes, our Euclidean distance score worked within a 17-axis matrix. According to Shashi

Shekhar and Hui Xiong’s Encyclopedia of GIS :

The Euclidean Distance Score can be measured at a various number of

dimensions. For dimensions above three, other feature sets corresponding to each

point could be added as more dimensions within a data set. Thus, there can be an

infinite number of distances used for the Euclidean Distance Score. (Shekhar and

Xiong 2008:245)

The same principle was applied to the chemical composition data no matter how many elements or axes were present. The Pythagorean theorem was repeated throughout the Excel spreadsheet algorithm, showing the distance score between each artifact.

Development of the Standard Mathematical Procedure

After all sample data was divided into its respective alloy and functional groups, a standard mathematical procedure was developed to analyze each set. After examining and documenting the full compositional profile of each sample set (e.g., iron, copper alloy, utilitarian

41 iron, personal iron), a baseline average was determined for each group by site and also for each material and functional group.

From the average, the next step was to determine the degree of variance within each group of data. Calculating variance is one of the most common tools used within inferential statistics. The variance provides a statistical average of the amount of dispersion in a distribution of scores (Urdan 2012:19). The actual variance calculation is simply a measure of the variation of the value of a variable; therefore, it is not used by itself by statisticians. Consequently, variance data is expressed in units that equal the squared value of the variable being tested. For example, finding the variance of a variable measured in inches will be expressed in square inches. In order to simplify the data and therefore the interpretation process, this analysis took the process a step further and determined the standard deviation of the variance, a commonly used statistic (Urdan 2012:20).

Standard deviation within a sample set is the average, or standard difference, between individual scores in a distribution (Urdan 2012:20). This useful statistic can tell a researcher how spread out the scores are within a particular sample. The standard deviation is simply the square root of the variance. This value is expressed in the units of the original data set, providing a more useful number for analysis and comparison. For interpretation purposes, a low standard deviation demonstrates that the samples within the data set do not vary far from the mean, while a high standard deviation score indicates that the values that make up the sample cover a wider range

(Urdan 2012:27).

Once these values were determined for each category, the next step was to analyze the comparisons for final interpretations. In summary, the standard mathematical analysis procedure used for this project included: 1) Calculating the average baseline value for each category; 2)

Calculating the variance within each category; and 3) Determining the standard deviation of each analytical unit. An example table showing the results of this method is shown below in Table 1.

TABLE 1 EXAMPLE OF THE STANDARD MATHEMATICAL PROCEDURE RESULTS FROM THE MARTIN SITE ELEMENT (%) Fe Cu Zn Sn Pb Zr Ti Mn Sb Avg. 99.27 0.15 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 S.D. 1.59 0.40 0.27 0.37 0.37 0.07 0.07 0.01 0.09 CT. 49.00 14.00 11.00 4.00 3.00 5.00 4.00 1.00 2.00

Once these calculations were made and recorded, the results were displayed in a scatter-plot graph. Not only did the scatter plot give the results a visual representation and make them easier to interpret, it also helped to aid in recognizing significant clusters within the artifact samples. In the beginning of the project, scatter plots were made showing each individual artifact within a sample set, and then once statistical data was calculated, sample sets were compared against each other visually (Figure 10).

FIGURE 10. Scatter plot of copper (Cu) and iron (Fe) values for the all samples from all sites.

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

The archaeological sites included in this project provide evidence of two vastly different cultures (Native American and Spanish) that came together in the southeastern United States during the 16th century. This project set out to find out more about that relationship through chemical analysis of the material remains recovered from archaeological excavations. Although pXRF technology is not new, its use in archaeological research has been applied only recently, expanding archaeologist’s capabilities in extracting data from the material remains.

Unfortunately, the original research question for this project, “Can a baseline signature be determined in order to distinguish between the Hernando de Soto archaeological sample set and the Tristan de Luna sample set?” could not be confidently concluded using available data.

Despite the lack of conclusive data, there are suggestions within the dataset that could be investigated in later research.

In order to identify possible connections, multiple methods of analysis were developed and applied to the elemental analysis data. Initial interpretation included separating each respective material and functional category and comparing each assemblage by looking at the predominant element present. The theory was that the proportion of copper or iron represented in the compositional readout would show significant similarities or differences and would be useful in identification of origin or connections within the collections. After an intensive analysis, it was determined that the numbers were too closely related to see clear inter- and intra-assemblage differences. The data shown below in Table 2 is a summary and reiteration of the standard analysis data procedure discussed in the previous chapter, and the expanded results can be found in Appendices A and B. The iron categorical standard analysis data for the two baseline sites

(Tables 2 and 3) shows less than a 1% difference in the chemical makeup of the predominant, identifying element (Fe), thus making it difficult to show a distinct or undeniable difference in the samples that could be linked to to either Soto or Luna’s presence.

TABLE 2 STATISTICAL DATA FOR THE MARTIN AND EMANUEL POINT SITES IRON ARTIFACTS Martin Site Emanuel Point Shipwrecks Element Avg. (%) S.D. Sum Avg. (%) S.D. Sum Fe 99.27 1.59 49.00 98.92 0.95 17.00 Ni n/a n/a 0.00 0.07 0.17 3.00 Cu 0.15 0.40 14.00 0.41 0.40 12.00 Zn 0.10 0.27 11.00 0.02 0.05 3.00 Sn 0.08 0.37 4.00 0.05 0.12 4.00 Pb 0.07 0.37 3.00 0.08 0.16 8.00 Zr 0.02 0.07 5.00 0.07 0.16 4.00 Ti 0.02 0.07 4.00 0.19 0.46 4.00 Co n/a n/a 0.00 0.05 0.10 4.00 Cr n/a n/a 0.00 0.00 0.01 1.00 Mn 0.00 0.01 1.00 0.07 0.12 7.00 Mo n/a n/a 0.00 0.01 0.04 2.00 Sb 0.02 0.02 2.00 0.01 0.03 1.00 Re n/a n/a 0.00 0.05 0.21 1.00

The copper alloy composition data provided more variation. Many of the objects in the

Martin sample contain higher concentrations of lead, zinc, and iron, because they are copper, brass, or bronze. Therefore, the baseline average for copper alloy components varies more widely (Table 3). With the Martin copper at 83.59% and the Emanuel Point copper at 93.33%, the divergence between the two is undeniable and more pronounced than that of the iron.

TABLE 3 STATISTICAL DATA FOR THE MARTIN AND EMANUEL POINT SITES COPPER ARTIFACTS

Martin Site Emanuel Point Shipwrecks Element Avg. (%) S.D. Sum Avg. (%) S.D. Sum Fe 7.97 18.45 18.00 0.80 1.37 29.00 Ni 0.08 0.15 6.00 0.12 0.17 21.00 Cu 83.59 16.89 18.00 93.33 6.99 35.00 Zn 5.40 5.13 15.00 2.15 5.00 10.00 Sn 1.12 2.03 7.00 0.72 1.95 14.00 Pb 1.31 1.46 16.00 2.26 2.43 33.00 Zr 0.00 0.01 1.00 0.03 0.14 6.00 Ti 0.06 0.19 2.00 0.13 0.49 6.00 Co n/a n/a 0.00 0.03 0.06 7.00 Mo n/a n/a 0.00 0.00 0.01 5.00 Sb 0.07 0.18 3.00 0.19 0.38 14.00 Ag n/a n/a 0.00 0.26 1.06 2.00 W n/a n/a 0.00 0.00 0.01 1.00

A closeness score was used to explore the relationships between assemblages. Using

Microsoft Excel, objects could be scored against each other using all elements present in the sample, not just copper and iron. This test took the analysis from a two-dimensional plane into a

10, 13, and even 15 axis space, if the elements present in the sample called for it. By comparing each of the site averages to one sample, a closeness score could be determined showing how the samples ranked compared to the chosen artifact. Below, Table 4 indicates the closeness scores for all iron samples. The values used are the average iron sample signatures for each site. As evidenced below, this basic data does not show a high percentage of likeness between these sample averages, with the highest closeness score of 64% between Martin and the Hightower

Village site assemblages. The implication of this result will be discussed below.

TABLE 4 CLOSENESS SCORES BETWEEN SITES IRON ASSEMBLAGES

Site Martin EP Martin 1.000 0.526 EP 0.526 1.000 D'Olive Creek 0.400 0.416 Etowah 0.526 0.462 Hightower 0.648 0.471 King 0.427 0.364 Little Egypt 0.400 0.340 Poarch 0.472 0.381

This same procedure was repeated for each metallurgical category (iron and copper alloy) and each typological grouping (utilitarian, personal and weaponry) for each metal. This information is noted in Appendices B and C .

Metal Analysis

The most interesting results appeared when the major elements were removed from the analysis completely. Instead of looking at the numerical comparison of the major elements copper and iron, analysis focused on the “minor and trace elements” to find a fingerprint for the associated assemblages. Using documentary evidence, the metallurgical categories, copper alloy and iron, were split into four new groups: iron, copper, bronze, and brass. The metal definitions used for this project are shown below (Table 5):

TABLE 5 COMPOSITIONAL DEFINITIONS OF METALS

Element Metal Type Fe Cu Zn Sn Iron ≥50% <50% Copper ≥50% <2% <2% Bronze ≥50% <2% ≥2% Brass ≥50% ≥2% Other <50% <50%

Using only trace elements, another round of analysis was conducted using these categories. This method proved most interesting when applied to copper alloy artifacts.

Distinctive differences were noted and the copper alloy category was split out into alloy categories (i.e., bronze and brass) based on composition. The assemblage breaks into those copper objects that were smelt with zinc and a small amount of tin (brass), those that were smelted with tin and virtually no zinc (bronze), and those that have virtually no tin or zinc (pure copper).

Raw copper, because of its malleability, was generally alloyed with other metals in order to make it more useful for containers or tools. In the 16th century, the production of copper alloys was quite variable, but based on available colonial-era sources these can generally be reduced to what would today be called brass ( latón /alatón , or azófar ), and bronze ( bronze , or bronçe ). By definition brass is composed of copper and zinc, and bronze of copper and tin; in reality, however, these metals were generally more diverse and variable in their composition, in large part due to the materials used in colonial-era manufacturing processes. Brass was made by smelting pure copper with the mineral calamine (mostly zinc oxide), but it was also made with a portion of old brass or other copper alloys, resulting in the presence of other metals, in addition to copper and zinc, albeit in small proportions (Vargas 1568: 46). Bronze was also quite variable

49 both in the percentage of tin used in the smelting process, as well as the addition of other metals, resulting in bronze suitable for a diverse range of uses ranging from artillery to bells (Alvarez

1838). Broken bronze was also typically recast, resulting in additional diversity in many bronze pieces.

For this project, data collected from the artifacts, combined with the documentary descriptions of Spanish colonial metallurgy, suggested the following breakdown of metal designations based principally on the relative proportions of copper, zinc, and tin in the three major cuprous metals (copper, brass, and bronze). Copper was designated as any metal comprised of more than 50% copper without significant amounts of zinc or tin. Bronze was designated as those copper alloys containing mostly tin, and very little to no zinc, while brass was designated as copper alloys containing mostly zinc and varying (but small) amounts of tin.

The remainder of the sample assemblage metal artifacts is iron, with a handful of zinc artifacts.

While these categories gloss over a considerable degree of variability in both composition and nomenclature throughout the history of metallurgy, they are useful analytical tools for the purposes of this thesis. The average elemental breakdown for these categories in both control samples (Martin and Emanuel Point) combined are shown in Table 6.

TABLE 6 BREAKDOWN OF MARTIN AND EMANUEL POINT BRASS, BRONZE, AND COPPER TRACE ELEMENTS Brass Bronze Copper a Element Avg. Range Avg. Range Avg. Range (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Cu 86.04 76-96 84.87 80-89 96.32 88-100 Zn 9.06 3-21 0.27 0-1 0.05 0-1 Sn 1.28 0-5 8.91 8-10 0.10 0-1 Pb 2.18 0-7 4.60 1-8 1.94 0-8 Fe 1.09 0-3 1.02 0-1 0.87 0-8 aNo copper from the Martin site

There are two significant differences in the two assemblages: the complete absence of pure copper from the Martin site assemblage (as shown in Table 6) and the presence of higher levels of lead (more than double) in all the copper alloy materials from the Emanuel Point shipwrecks, along with concurrently higher levels of antimony and titanium. The differing concentrations present can be seen in Table 7, and Figures 11 and 12.

TABLE 7 ELEMENTAL BREAKDOWN OF BRASS FROM MARTIN AND EMANUEL POINT SHIPWRECKS Martin Site Emanuel Point Element Avg. (%) Range (%) Avg. (%) Range (%) Cu 88.25 80-93 82.55 76-89 Zn 8.10 3-19 10.57 5-21 Sn 0.89 0-4 1.87 0-5 Pb 1.39 0-6 3.42 1-7 Fe 1.14 0-3 1.01 0-2 Sb 0.04 0-1 0.34 0-2 Ti 0.00 0.00 0.06 0-1

FIGURE 11. Element proportions from Martin site brass.

FIGURE 12. Element proportions from the Emanuel Point shipwrecks brass.

The difference in lead composition is small (though more than twice as high in the

Emanuel Point assemblages), but the graph below shows the degree to which other minor elements show less proportional variability in comparison to the difference in lead concentration.

These differences provide a “fingerprint” for brass composition that metals from the interior sites can be compared against. In the Emanuel Point brass, the numerical presence of zinc, tin, lead and antimony are double of that found in the Martin site sample. In a study by Mark Lycett and

Noah Thomas (2008) titled, Metallurgy: Pueblo Indian Adaptation of Spanish Metallurgy , the authors describe the economic environment of 16th-century Mexico, commenting on the Spanish dependence and focus on silver mining and the limited development of copper production. There was more silver mining occurring in Mexico than copper, as the Spanish monarchy used silver to fill their coffers back in Europe. Lycett and Thomas hypothesize that copper mining in Mexico in the 16th century, and into the 17th century, was directly related to its consistent importance in the global setting and its value in forging relationships in frontier societal relationships. Therefore, its continued production, despite the Spanish preference for silver, may have been made possible

52 and efficient due to the adaptation of a new smelting model called saigerprozess developed in central Europe in the 15th and 16th centuries. This way of smelting involved extracting silver from copper using the addition of lead. After removing the silver, the remaining copper was processed a third time, oxidizing the remaining lead, leaving an almost pure copper, usually between 98-99% (Blanchard 2005:974). The Spaniards continued producing silver, but the copper left over from saigerprozess was used to make trade and everyday items such as kettles, knives, and ornaments. If Mexican copper is a byproduct of silver extraction and was produced using the addition of lead, it could explain the almost doubled levels of lead in the copper, brass, and bronze objects from the Emanuel Point shipwrecks, which were outfitted in Vera Cruz,

Mexico, before sailing north to Florida.

In contrast, copper that accompanied Hernando de Soto found at the Martin site came from Spain. Sweden was the largest producer of raw copper throughout the 15th century, and into the 17th centuries alongside Spain (Scott 1988:188). Spain produced its own supply, as well as being Sweden’s largest consumer, importing and minting it into Spanish coins during the 16th and early 17th centuries. As silver was not as much of a focus in the copper mined in those areas, due to its constant import from Mexico and South America, it is possible that the saigerprozess was not used as often, thus decreasing the amount of lead present in copper derived from those areas. Further historical research is needed to explore this hypothesis in greater depth, but initial analysis suggests that the metals coming from mainland Europe were more pure.

Comparison of Baseline Metals with Interior Site Metals

After examining the control samples and finding trends and similarities, the same brass data was examined against the samples from the interior archaeological site assemblages. The baseline data for comparison is shown in Figure 13.

FIGURE 13. Comparative elemental analysis between Martin and Emanuel Point brass.

Examining the brass samples from each of the sample sites with the interior sites, most notably, Hightower Village and Etowah seem to more closely resemble the Emanuel Point shipwreck brass samples based on the artifacts higher levels of lead, iron and zinc (Figure 14).

The sample size is small, but the evidence in the graph below suggests a possible Luna association with much of the brass artifacts from the interior sites.

FIGURE 14. Element breakdown of brass composition by site.

The bronze assemblages, while again a small sample set, tend to favor the Emanuel Point shipwreck baseline. As illustrated in Figure 15 below, higher levels of lead, zinc, and tin more closely resemble the artifacts from the Luna assemblage. The discrepancy in the levels of lead zinc and tin between the samples is definitely of note as the Martin site levels are without a doubt lower.

FIGURE 15. Element breakdown of bronze composition by site.

It is important to note the similarity of bronze samples artifacts from the Poarch and those from Hightower Village in Figure 15. The levels of iron, tin, and zinc are nearly identical. These

55 two samples are also more closely related to the Emanuel Point I bronze sample, suggesting yet again a connection between the shipwrecks and artifacts located in the interior.

FIGURE 16. Element breakdown of copper composition by site

Iron

While the iron assemblages from both the Martin site and the Emanuel Point shipwrecks are most notable for relative purity, the percentages of minor elements present indicate a significant difference between the two assemblages (Table 8).

TABLE 8 STATISTICAL BREAKDOWN OF IRON COMPOSITION FOR CONTROL SITES ASSEMBLAGES

Martin site Emanuel Point shipwrecks Element Avg. (%) Range (%) Avg. (%) Range (%) Fe 99.27 91.00-100.00 98.22 86.00-100.00 Cu 0.15 0.00-2.00 0.49 0.00-2.00 Pb 0.07 0.00-2.00 0.79 1.00-11.00 Mn 0.00 0.00-1.00 0.07 0.00-1.00 Ti 0.02 0.00-1.00 0.18 0.00-1.00 Zr 0.02 0.00-1.00 0.08 0.00-1.00 Ni 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00-1.00 Zn 0.10 0.00-1.00 0.02 0.00-1.00 Sn 0.08 0.00-2.00 0.05 0.00-1.00 Sb 0.02 0.00-1.00 0.01 0.00-1.00 Co 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00-1.00 Mo 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00-1.00 Cr 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00-1.00

These tables show a striking difference between the Martin site iron sample, which is comparatively “pure” and the Emanuel Point iron, which is comparatively “dirty,” containing higher amounts of lead and copper, as well as a range of other minor elements, which, while low in concentration, are not generally present in the Martin site sample. Overall, the best assemblage-level distinction between the two sites could be characterized as follows.

First, the Emanuel Point iron has substantially higher percentages of lead, copper, and titanium, along with a range of minor elements that are generally not present in the Martin site sample. Second, the Martin site iron has only small amounts of copper, lead, zinc and tin as minor elements.

Summary

Overall, the metal assemblages in both control sites can be distinguished from one another using the characteristics summarized in Table 9. These subtle distinctions, most often expressed at the level of whole assemblages as opposed to individual artifacts, seem to provide some guidance to distinguishing the origin of colonial copper and iron from Spain circa 1539

(the Martin site assemblage) and from New Spain circa 1559 (the Emanuel Point shipwreck assemblage).

TABLE 9 SUMMARY OF METAL CATEGORY CHARACTERISTICS IN THE TWO CONTROL ASSEMBLAGES

Metal category Martin site Emanuel Point shipwrecks Pure copper Absent Present

Lower lead concentration, Higher proportion of lead, Brass antimony usually antimony usually present absent

Relatively “pure” Relatively “dirty” (especially lead Iron (except for minor and copper, with a range of other copper, lead, zinc elements) and tin)

Explaining these differences may be relatively simple, though several questions remain.

The Emanuel Point assemblage consisted of metal objects purchased in 1558 and 1559 from locations ranging from Veracruz to Mexico City, thus reflecting the availability of materials in the colonial markets. Was the raw copper (containing some lead) derived from recently established mines in New Spain? Were brass and bronze objects items being made in New Spain from this leaded copper? Were they made using the aforementioned saigerprozess ? Or were brass and bronze being made from recycled items (particularly given the amount of shipping in

58 and out of Veracruz) with diverse origins including Spain? This smelting process might also explain the “dirtiness” of the iron in the Emanuel Point assemblages, which could reflect reforging of scrap iron. Furthermore, Tristan de Luna’s expedition was larger than that of

Hernando de Soto, meaning there were more colonists, and therefore more supplies that could be used for trade. Even after the hurricane, the shipwrecks were accessible to the stranded Spaniards and some of the supplies still onboard could be salvaged. The colonists in Luna’s outfit were starving shortly after the storm, giving them reason to travel the area, trading supplies for food and assistance from the Natives.

The Martin assemblage, however, presumably reflects items purchased in Seville, Spain.

Seville was another colonial port, its location on the European mainland might explain the extent to which the brass is “cleaner” (less iron) and the iron is similarly more pure. The lack of raw copper probably reflects the fact that Seville was a secondary market and not near any copper mines. Copper was not generally used in its raw form for the kinds of objects brought on the

Soto expedition due to its softer composition, which probably accounts for its absence in the

Martin site assemblage. Additionally, Soto’s expedition had fewer men than Luna’s who were mostly soldiers. Instead of amicably trading for food with a wider range of Native individuals, they were much less likely to hand out items widely and instead limited their gift-giving to high- level chiefs.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS

The use of pXRF in archaeological research is not a new development, but its utilization in artifact study is a developing application. This project provided an opportunity to evaluate how “user-friendly” the device could be as well as to evaluate the pros and cons of its use in archaeological analyses.

The pXRF unit used in this research is a very practical instrument for elemental analysis in the field. It is small, compact, and can be carried anywhere. It is simple to use and does not require extensive special training to operate, just some time spent with the accompanying manual. It provided an immediate readout of the composition data of artifacts tested and could easily be connected to a PC for data transfer and storage. Additionally, the analyzer ran on battery power and could be used virtually anywhere, even at remote excavation sites if necessary.

While its practicality is undeniable, the pXRF is not the only solution to archaeological analytical research. It does not penetrate very deeply into the surface of the artifact and when restricted by unique or one-of-a-kind artifacts, defacing them in any way to gain access to a better sample surface is unpractical and unethical. In order to avoid destruction, the analyzer is restricted to obtaining a surface analysis reading that results in a wide variety of elements present, often due to soil or underwater sediments that have leached into the surface of the artifact over time. This forces the pXRF analyzer to investigate a wide variety of trace elements with a miniscule presence in order to make interpretations. It should also be noted that more detailed and fine-grained analyses might be possible when raw photonic spectra are compared instead of relying on elemental percentages calculated solely using instrumental software.

I found during this research that readings with pXRF can be compromised by where the artifact has been conserved or stored. This problem was observed during testing at the Florida

BAR in Tallahassee, Florida, in November of 2010. During pXRF analysis, multiple artifacts have trace amounts of the element Niobium. As this was a strange element to find in metal artifacts and it did not appear during earlier testing of the Emanuel Point objects, it seemed that a distinguishing elemental signature was developing early on in the project. Unfortunately, or fortunately as the case may be, it was discovered that the anode wire used during the electrolysis conservation process contained a niobium core. While this discovery is a testament to the sensitivity of the pXRF analyzer, it proved that results could very easily be skewed and readings could not be conclusive using the precise numerical readings the device provided. In order to combat these data errors, it is suggested to streamline analysis as much as possible when using an XRF machine in a project such as this one. Throughout the duration of this study, the same individual pXRF unit was used on the same settings for all analysis to aid in consistency and to reduce errors.

Contributions to Archaeology

This project created a database of the calculated compositional make-up and portable X-

Ray Fluorescence data of several 16th-century metal artifacts from some of the most important archaeological sites in the southeastern United States. This data can be used in the future, when and if, new 16th-century archaeological sites are discovered to compare against and possibly find more relationships between Spanish expeditions and the Natives they encountered. Additionally, this project evaluated the use of multiple methods of analysis, such as examination of the predominant element present, grading each closeness score and finally, removing the

61 predominant element to look at the fingerprint of each assemblage based solely on the trace elements present.

These research results could be expanded into additional research projects. Examining the objects used in the assemblage analyses more closely by type and/or function could possibly yield very interesting results. For example, comparing nails and spikes against each other from across the collections could produce data that gives insight into possible origin and/or production methods. Additionally, as x-ray fluorescence research continues to develop, techniques used during this project could be expanded upon and improved to yield even more detailed data.

Finally, my results have provided tentative support for the idea that many of the 16th century artifacts in the interior Southeast may be more likely to have derived from the Luna expedition than the Soto expedition, although clearly, additional research is needed to test and clarify this possibility.

REFERENCES CITED

Alvarez, Francisco 1838 Nuevos Elementos de Química a al medicina y a las artes: redactado con arreglo a las Ultimas Ediciones de los Tratados de Orfila, Volume 1. John Worth, translator. Imprenta que fue Fuentenebro, Madrid.

Arias, David 2005 Spanish-Americans: Lives and Faces . Trafford Publishing, Bloomington.

Blakely, Robert L. 1988 Introduction. In The King Site: Continuity and Contact in Sixteenth-Century Georgia , Robert Blakely, editor, pp. xiii-xxiii. University of Georgia Press, Athens.

Blanchard, Ian 2005 Mining, Metallurgy and Minting in the Middle Ages , Vol. 3. Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart.

Clayton, Lawrence, Edward C. Moore, and Vernon James Knight, Jr., (editors) 1993 The De Soto Chronicles: The Expedition of Hernando de Soto to North America in 1539- 1543 , Vol. I & II. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Cook, Gregory 2009 Luna’s Ships: Current Excavations on Emanuel Point II and Preliminary Comparisons with the First Emanuel Point Shipwreck. The Florida Anthropologist 62(3-4):93-99.

Davis, Joseph R. (editor) 2001 Copper and Copper Alloys . ASM International, Materials Park.

Vargas, Bernardo Pérez de 1568 De Re Metallica, John Worth, translator. Casa de Pierres Cosin, Madrid.

Duncan, David Ewing 1997 Hernando de Soto: A Savage Quest in the Americas. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Elliot, John Huxtable 1989 Spain and Its World, 1500-1700 . Yale University Press, New Haven.

Ewen, Charles R. 1990 Soldier of Fortune: Hernando de Soto in the Territory of the Apalachee, 1539-1540. In Columbian Consequences: Archaeological and Historical Perspectives on the Spanish Borderlands East , David Hurst Thomas, editor, pp.83-91. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.

Ewen, Charles R., and John H. Hann 1998 Hernando de Soto Among the Apalachee: The Archaeology of the First Winter Encampment . University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Ffoulkes, Charles John 2008 The Armourer and His Craft . Cosimo, Inc., New York

Francis, John Michael 2006 Iberia and the Americas: Culture, Politics, and History: a Multidisciplinary Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO, Inc. Santa Barbara.

Hally, David 1988 Archaeology and Settlement Plan of the King Site. In The King Site: Continuity and Contact in Sixteenth-Century Georgia , Robert L. Blakely, editor, pp.3-16. University of Georgia Press, Athens. 1994 Ocmulgee Archaeology 1936-1986 . University Press of Georgia, Athens.

Hally, David, James Langford, and Marvin T. Smith 1990 The Archaeological Reality of DeSoto’s Coosa. In Columbian Consequences: Archaeological and Historical Perspectives on the Spanish Borderlands East , David Hurst Thomas, editor, pp.121-138. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.

Hally, David, Marvin T. Smith and John E. Worth 2008 Sixteenth-Century European Artifact Dispersion in the Southeast. Paper presented at the 65th Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Charlotte.

Hietaniemi, Jarkko, Jon Orwant, John MacDonald 1999 Mastering Algorithms with Perl . O’Reilly Media, Inc. Sebastopol

Hoffman, Paul 1994 The Forgotten Centuries: Indians and Europeans in the American South 1521-1704 . University of Georgia Press, Athens.

Hudson, Charles 1998 Knights of Spain, Warriors of the Sun: Hernando de Soto and the South’s Ancient Chiefdoms . University of Georgia Press, Athens.

Hudson, Charles, Marvin T. Smith, Chester B, DePratter, and Emilia Kelley 1989 The Tristan De Luna Expedition, 1559-1561. Southeastern Archaeology 8(1):31-45.

Innov-X Systems, Inc. 2007 Innov-X Systems Alpha Series X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometers Manual, Revision B. Innov-X Systems, Inc., Woburn.

Keith, Scot 2009 Leake Site Update. The Society for Georgia Archaeology. http://thesga.org/2009/12/leake-site-update-2009/. Accessed January 4, 2013.

King, Adam 2003 Etowah: The Political History of a Chiefdom Capital. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Langford, James B. 1990 The Coosawattee Plate: A Sixteenth-Century Catholic/Aztec Artifact from Northwest Georgia. In Columbian Consequences: Archaeological and Historical Perspectives on the Spanish Borderlands East , David Hurst Thomas, editor, pp.139-151. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.

Langford, James B., Marvin T. Smith 1990 Recent Investigations in the Core of the Coosa Province, Lamar Archaeology. In Lamar Archaeology , Mark Williams and Gary Shapiro, editors, pp. 104-116. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Lycett, Mark and Noah Thomas 2008 Metallurgy: Pueblo Indian Adaptations of Spanish Metallurgy. In Encyclopaedia of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures , edited by Helaine Selin, pp. 1651-1658. Springer, Netherlands.

Milanich, Jerald T. 1990 The European Entrada in La Florida : An Overview. Columbian Consequences: Archaeological and Historical Perspectives on the Spanish Borderlands East , ed. by David Hurst Thomas, pp.3-29. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.

Priestley, Herbert Ingram 1928 The Luna Papers: Documents Relating to the Expedition of don Tristan de Luna y Arellano for the Conquest of La Florida in 1559-1561 . The Florida State Historical Society, De Land.

Ranjel, Rangel 1993 Account of the Northern Conquest and Discovery of Hernando de Soto, John Worth, translator. In The De Soto Chronicles: The Expedition of Hernando de Soto to North America in 1539-1543 , Vol. I & II. Lawrence Clayton, Edward C. Moore, and Vernon James Knight, Jr., editors, pp. 247-306. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Scott, Franklin Daniel 1988 Sweden, The Nation’s History . Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.

Shackley, Steven M. 2010 Is There Reliability and Validity in Portable X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry (PXRF)? The SAA Archaeological Record 10(5):17-20. 2010 X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry (XRF) in Geoarchaeology . Springer, New York.

Shekhar, Shashi and Hui Xiong 2008 Encyclopedia of GIS . Springer, New York.

Sims, Lorelei 2006 The Backyard Blacksmith: Traditional Techniques for the Modern Smith . Quarry Books, Beverly.

South, Stanley 1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology . Academic Press Inc., Orlando.

Smith, Marvin T. 2000 Coosa: The Rise and Fall of a Southeastern Mississippian Chiefdom . University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Smith, Roger C. 2009 Luna’s Fleet and the Discovery of the First Emanuel Point Shipwreck. The Florida Anthropologist 62(3-4):79-81.

Smith, Roger C., John R. Bratten, J. Cozzi and Keith Plaskett 1998a The Emanuel Point Ship. Archaeological Investigations 1997-1998 . Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee. 1998b Introduction. In The Emanuel Point Ship. Archaeological Investigations 1997-1998 . Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee.

Urdan, Timothy C. 2012 Statistics in Plain English , 3 rd edition. Taylor and Francis, London.

Walters, J. and Van Tyne, C.J. 2013 Forging Materials: Copper Alloys. Industrial Heating Feb (2013):29-32.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

Martin Site and Emanuel Point Shipwrecks Expanded Data

TABLE A1 MARTIN SITE IRON ARTIFACT INVENTORY

Sample No. Artifact No. Artifact type Metal group Functional group 70 88.5.892.1 Wrought Iron Nail Iron Utilitarian 71 88.5.955.2 Wrought Iron Nail Iron Utilitarian 72 88.5.955.1 Wrought Iron Nail Iron Utilitarian 73 88.5.962.1 Wrought Iron Nail Iron Utilitarian 74 88.5.923.1 Wrought Iron Nail Iron Utilitarian 75 88.5.911.1 Wrought Iron Nail Iron Utilitarian 76 88.5.807.1 Wrought Iron Nail Iron Utilitarian 77 88.5.664.1 Wrought Iron Nail Iron Utilitarian 78 88.5.631.1 Wrought Iron Nail Iron Utilitarian 79 88.5.603.1 Wrought Iron Nail Iron Utilitarian 80 88.5.607.1 Wrought Iron Nail Iron Utilitarian 81 88.5.645.6 Iron Tack Iron Utilitarian 82 88.5.769.1 Wrought Iron Nail Iron Utilitarian 83 88.5.645.4 Iron Tack Iron Utilitarian 84 88.5.764.4 Iron Tack Iron Utilitarian 85 88.5.764.5 Iron Tack Iron Utilitarian 86 88.5.764.6 Iron Tack Iron Utilitarian 90 88.5.40000.1 Coin Iron Personal 91 88.5.40000.2 Coin Iron Personal 93 88.5.1090.2 Wrought Iron Nail Iron Utilitarian 94 88.5.1099.1 Wrought Iron Nail Iron Utilitarian 95 88.5.1085.1 Wrought Iron Nail Iron Utilitarian 96 88.5.119.1 Wrought Iron Nail Iron Utilitarian 97 88.5.1130.1 Wrought Iron Nail Iron Utilitarian 98 88.5.1265.1 Wrought Iron Nail Iron Utilitarian Wrought Iron Nail 104 88.5.40013.1 (untreated) Iron Utilitarian Chain Mail 105 88.5.40018.1 (untreated) Iron Personal 106 88.5.1381.01 Wrought Iron Nail Iron Utilitarian Chain Link Fine 107 88.5.54.2 Example Iron Personal 108 88.5.63.4 Chain Link Iron Personal 109 88.5.161.1 Chain Link Iron Personal 114 88.5.674.1 Chain Link Iron Personal 115 88.5.568.2 Chain Link Iron Personal 116 88.5.565.1 Chain Link Iron Personal 118 88.5.518.1 Chain Link Iron Personal

Sample No. Artifact No. Artifact type Metal group Functional group 120 unknown Buckle Iron Personal 121 88.5.4.1 Crossbow Quarrel Iron Weapon 123 88.5.857.1 Buckle Iron Personal 125 88.5.815.1 Chain Mail Iron Personal 126 88.5.827.1 Chain Mail Iron Personal 127 88.5.834.1 Chain Mail Iron Personal 128 88.5.866.2 Chain Mail Iron Personal 129 88.5.870.1 Chain Mail Iron Personal 130 88.5.955.3 Chain Mail Iron Personal 131 88.5.1450.2 Chain Mail Iron Personal 132 88.5.1562.1 Chain Mail Iron Personal 134 88.5.20787.6 Chain Mail Iron Personal 135 88.5.20787.7 Chain Mail Iron Personal 136 96.109.42.3 Chain Mail Iron Personal

TABLE A2 MARTIN SITE IRON COMPOSITIONAL PROFILE

Element (%) Sample No. Fe Cu Zn Sn Pb Zr Ti Mn Sb 70 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 71 99.68 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 72 99.90 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 73 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 74 99.89 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 75 99.83 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 76 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 77 99.56 0.12 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 78 99.46 0.13 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 79 99.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 80 99.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 81 97.74 0.00 0.00 2.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 82 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 83 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 84 99.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 85 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 86 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 90 93.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.14 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.27 91 91.49 0.00 0.00 0.22 2.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.61 93 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 94 98.82 0.45 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 95 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 96 98.43 1.44 1.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 97 99.86 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 98 99.11 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 104 99.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.30 0.00 0.00 105 99.40 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.18 0.34 0.00 0.00 106 99.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 107 99.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 108 99.46 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 109 99.97 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 111 99.47 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 114 97.43 1.78 1.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 115 98.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 116 99.28 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Element (%) Sample No. Fe Cu Zn Sn Pb Zr Ti Mn Sb 121 98.32 1.63 1.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 123 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 125 99.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 126 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 127 98.65 0.00 0.00 1.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 128 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 129 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 130 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 131 98.55 0.00 1.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 132 99.30 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.08 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 134 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 135 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 136 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TABLE A3 STANDARD ANALYSIS PROCEDURE FOR MARTIN SITE IRON

Element Fe Cu Zn Sn Pb Zr Ti Mn Sb Sum 49.00 14.00 11.00 4.00 3.00 5.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 Avg. 99.27 0.15 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 S.D. 1.59 0.40 0.27 0.37 0.37 0.07 0.07 0.01 0.02

TABLE A4 MARTIN SITE COPPER ALLOY ARTIFACT INVENTORY

Functional Sample No. Artifact No. Artifact type Metal group group 87 88.5.1065.1 Coin Copper Alloy Personal 88 88.5.1218.1 Coin Copper Alloy Personal 89 88.5.1534.1 Coin Copper Alloy Personal 92 unknown Chain Mail Copper Alloy Personal 99 76.16.29.1 Hawk’s Bell Copper Alloy Personal 100 96.109.1.1 Copper Chain Mail Copper Alloy Personal 101 88.5.305.2 Copper Chain Mail Copper Alloy Personal 102 88.5.575.2 Harness (Strap End) Copper Alloy Utilitarian 103 88.5.513.3 Buckle Fragment Copper Alloy Personal 110 88.5.136.2 Chain Link Copper Alloy Personal 112 88.5.79.2 Chain Link Copper Alloy Personal 113 88.5.678.1 Chain Link Copper Alloy Personal 117 88.5.565.2 Chain Link Copper Alloy Personal 119 88.5.24.1 Brass Hasp Copper Alloy Personal 122 88.5.633.1 Buckle Copper Alloy Personal 123 88.5.857.1 Buckle Copper Alloy Personal 124 88.5.972.1 Buckle Copper Alloy Personal 133 88.5.40006.1 Chain Mail Copper Alloy Personal

TABLE A5 MARTIN SITE COPPER COMPOSITIONAL PROFILE

Element (%) Sample No. Fe Ni Cu Zn Sn Pb Zr Ti Sb 87 0.86 0.09 97.36 0.00 0.00 1.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 88 1.26 0.00 92.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.28 0.61 89 0.42 0.54 95.45 0.00 0.00 3.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 92 0.85 0.00 92.54 6.23 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 99 0.63 0.28 81.88 15.02 1.87 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 100 2.93 0.28 86.54 10.16 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 101 0.49 0.00 89.36 7.81 0.00 2.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 102 2.31 0.00 88.90 4.63 2.81 1.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 103 1.15 0.00 90.91 3.54 3.43 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 110 46.95 0.00 49.38 3.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 112 0.57 0.00 92.18 6.97 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 113 1.36 0.00 79.98 18.49 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 117 0.27 0.10 89.41 7.71 0.34 2.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 119 13.38 0.00 79.65 1.61 2.49 1.85 0.00 0.78 0.24 120 0.82 0.00 89.40 0.54 7.81 1.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 122 1.27 0.09 90.73 5.27 0.00 1.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 124 0.79 0.00 88.49 3.34 1.39 5.53 0.00 0.00 0.48 133 67.26 0.00 30.44 2.20 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00

TABLE A6 MARTIN SITE COPPER ALLOY STANDARD ANALYSIS RESULTS

Element Fe Ni Cu Zn Sn Pb Zr Ti Sb Avg. 7.97 0.08 83.59 5.40 1.12 1.31 0.00 0.06 0.07 S.D. 18.45 0.15 16.89 5.13 2.03 1.46 0.01 0.19 0.18 Sum 18.00 6.00 18.00 15.00 7.00 16.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

TABLE A7 STANDARD ANALYSIS OF MARTIN SITE UTILITARIAN AND PERSONAL IRON SAMPLES A

Utilitarian iron Personal iron Element Avg. S.D. Sum Avg. S.D. Sum Fe 99.65 0.57 25.00 98.90 2.20 23.00 Cu 0.12 0.30 9.00 0.13 0.39 4.00 Zn 0.06 0.14 5.00 0.16 0.36 6.00 Sn 0.09 0.45 1.00 0.07 0.28 3.00 Zr 0.03 0.09 3.00 0.16 0.53 4.00 Ti 0.01 0.06 1.00 0.01 0.04 2.00 Mn 0.00 0.01 1.00 0.03 0.08 4.00 Sb n/a n/a 0.00 0.04 0.14 2.00 aOnly one iron artifact from the weaponry category was analyzed (Fe=98.32; Cu=1.63)

TABLE A8 STANDARD ANALYSIS PROCEDURE FOR MARTIN SITE PERSONAL COPPER ALLOY

Element Fe Ni Cu Zn Sn Pb Zr Ti Sb Avg. 8.31 0.08 83.28 5.44 1.02 1.31 0.00 0.06 0.08 S.D. 18.96 0.15 17.36 5.29 2.04 1.50 0.01 0.20 0.19 Sum 18.00 6.00 17.00 14.00 6.00 15.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

TABLE A9 EMANUEL POINT SHIPWRECKS IRON ARTIFACT INVENTORY

Artifact Site Sample No. No. Artifact type Metal group Functional group EPI 196 03,008 Iron Flakes Iron Utilitarian EPI 198 03,029 Slag Iron Utilitarian EPI 199 03,036 Slag Iron Utilitarian EPI 204 00,515 Iron Shot Iron Weapon EPI 212 00,593 Spike Concretion Iron Utilitarian EPI 213 00,510 Spike Concretion Iron Utilitarian EPI 215 0,1778.01 Iron Hook Iron Utilitarian EPI 216 01,778 Iron Spike Heads Iron Utilitarian EPI 217 01,778 Iron Spike Heads Iron Utilitarian EPI 225 00,920 Pintil Iron Utilitarian EPI 229 00,530 Knife Blade Fragment Iron Weapon EPI 233 08,825 Wood Auger Iron Utilitarian EPI 235 01,559 Anchor Iron Utilitarian EPII 238 00,973 Cannon Shot Iron Weapon EPII 239 00,533 Molded Iron Shot Iron Weapon EPII 243 00,920.01 ½ Iron ½ Mold Iron Utilitarian EPII 244 00,597 Concretion Iron Utilitarian

TABLE A10 EMANUEL POINT SHIPWRECKS IRON COMPOSITION RESULTS

Element (%) Catalog Site No. Fe Ni Cu Zn Sn Pb Zr Ti Co Cr Mn Mo Sb Re EP I 196 99.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 EP I 198 96.97 0.38 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.40 1.35 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 EP I 199 96.59 0.26 0.72 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.50 1.43 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 EP I 204 99.03 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 EP I 212 99.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 EP I 213 99.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 EP I 215 98.67 0.00 1.04 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 EP I 216 99.47 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 EP I 217 99.46 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.34 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 EP I 225 99.62 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 EP I 229 98.01 0.58 0.90 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.10 0.00 EP I 233 99.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.86 EP I 235 98.94 0.00 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.40 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 EP II 238 98.52 0.00 0.89 0.17 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 EP II 239 99.73 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 EP II 243 99.53 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 EP II 244 98.80 0.00 1.07 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TABLE A11 EMANUEL POINT SHIPWRECKS IRON AND COPPER STANDARD ANALYSIS RESULTS

Emanuel Point Shipwrecks Iron Copper alloy Element Avg. S.D. Sum Avg. S.D. Sum Fe 98.92 0.95 17.00 0.80 1.37 29.00 Ni 0.07 0.17 3.00 0.12 0.17 21.00 Cu 0.41 0.40 12.00 93.33 6.99 35.00 Zn 0.02 0.05 3.00 2.15 5.00 10.00 Sn 0.05 0.12 4.00 0.72 1.95 14.00 Pb 0.08 0.16 8.00 2.26 2.43 33.00 Zr 0.07 0.16 4.00 0.03 0.14 6.00 Ti 0.19 0.46 4.00 0.13 0.49 6.00 Co 0.05 0.10 4.00 0.03 0.06 7.00 Cr 0.00 0.01 1.00 n/a n/a 0.00 Mn 0.07 0.12 7.00 n/a n/a 0.00 Mo 0.01 0.04 2.00 0.00 0.01 5.00 Sb 0.01 0.03 1.00 0.19 0.38 14.00 Re 0.05 0.21 1.00 n/a n/a 0.00 Ag n/a n/a 0.00 0.26 1.06 2.00 W n/a n/a 0.00 0.00 0.01 1.00

TABLE A12 EMANUEL POINT SHIPWRECKS COPPER ALLOY ARTIFACT INVENTORY

Functional Site Sample No. Artifact No. Artifact type Metal group group EP I 197 1906 Copper Sheet Copper Alloy Utilitarian EP I 200 1459 Crossbow Point Copper Alloy Weapon EP I 201 1459 Crossbow Point (tip) Copper Alloy Weapon EP I 202 2346 Crossbow Point (tip) Copper Alloy Weapon EP I 203 2346 Crossbow Point Copper Alloy Weapon EP I 205 1242 Bronze Pestle Copper Alloy Utilitarian EP I 206 1769 Bronze Mortar Copper Alloy Utilitarian EP I 207 01,916 Base of Cauldron Copper Alloy Utilitarian EP I 208 01,891.02 Copper Funnel Copper Alloy Utilitarian EP I 209 01,891.02 Copper Funnel Inside Copper Alloy Utilitarian Copper Funnel Inside EP I 210 01,891.02 Layer Copper Alloy Utilitarian Utensil Handle Rolled EP I 211 01, 794 Copper Copper Alloy Utilitarian EP I 218 01,485 Brass Scale Weights Copper Alloy Personal EP I 219 01,485 Brass Scale Weights Copper Alloy Personal EP I 220 12,269 Brass Tacks Copper Alloy Utilitarian EP I 221 07,852 Copper Pitcher Copper Alloy Utilitarian EP I 222 07,852 Copper Pitcher Handle Copper Alloy Utilitarian EP I 223 01,710.01 Copper Cauldron Copper Alloy Utilitarian Copper Cauldron EP I 224 01,710.01 Bottom Copper Alloy Utilitarian EP I 226 01,691 Crossbow Point Copper Alloy Weapon Crossbow Point Actual EP I 227 01,691 Point Copper Alloy Weapon EP I 228 02,227 Buckle Copper Alloy Personal EP I 231 00,544 Coin Copper Alloy Personal EP I 232 08,824 Brass Ring Copper Alloy Personal EP I 234 01,452 Copper Cup Copper Alloy Utilitarian Copper Cauldron EP II 236 02,508 Fragments Copper Alloy Utilitarian EP II 237 08,753 Copper Rivet Copper Alloy Utilitarian EP II 240 01,900 Copper Handle Copper Alloy Utilitarian Copper Handle EP II 241 01,900 Secondary Copper Alloy Utilitarian EP II 242 unknown Coin Fragments Copper Alloy Personal EP II 245 01,932 Copper Handle Copper Alloy Utilitarian EP II 246 01,921 Copper Copper Alloy Utilitarian

EP II 247 03,034 Copper Copper Alloy Utilitarian EP II 248 03,043 Copper Copper Alloy Utilitarian EP II 249 01,362 Copper Copper Alloy Utilitarian

TABLE A13 FULL COMPOSITIONAL PROFILE FOR COPPER ALLOY FOUND ON THE EMANUEL POINT SHIPWRECKS Element (%) Catalog Fe Ni Cu Zn Sn Pb Zr Ti Co Mo Sb Ag W No. 197 0.00 0.10 99.08 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 200 2.00 0.00 97.85 0.00 0.04 0.16 0.00 0.63 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 201 1.96 0.00 98.79 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 202 0.12 0.00 99.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 203 0.22 0.00 99.75 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 205 0.58 0.15 85.33 7.27 4.62 1.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.00 0.00 206 2.09 0.10 80.41 4.67 3.98 7.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.74 0.00 0.00 207 0.02 0.34 98.87 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 208 0.43 0.07 95.87 0.00 0.00 3.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 209 1.22 0.67 80.33 0.00 10.00 7.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 210 1.60 0.27 93.80 0.00 0.89 3.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 211 0.17 0.16 99.18 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 218 0.58 0.23 81.13 13.71 0.97 3.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 219 0.48 0.29 76.49 20.97 0.26 1.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 220 2.46 0.15 79.24 15.22 0.00 2.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 221 1.08 0.06 91.10 0.36 0.06 7.12 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.00 222 1.49 0.05 89.37 0.28 0.63 8.07 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 223 0.04 0.07 97.97 0.00 0.00 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.00 224 7.72 0.16 87.59 0.44 0.00 1.83 0.73 1.23 0.07 0.05 0.12 0.00 0.00 226 0.31 0.00 97.04 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 2.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 227 0.80 0.00 99.08 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 228 0.59 0.13 86.46 7.05 0.77 4.60 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 231 0.00 0.00 95.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.64 0.00 232 0.30 0.15 88.77 5.08 2.49 3.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 234 0.18 0.64 92.56 0.00 0.24 6.05 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 236 0.00 0.07 97.87 0.00 0.02 1.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 237 0.10 0.00 99.30 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 240 0.00 0.08 96.03 0.00 0.00 3.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.00 241 0.24 0.00 96.08 0.00 0.00 2.19 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 1.32 0.00 0.00 242 0.06 0.00 95.46 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.33 0.00 245 0.00 0.06 99.37 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 246 0.59 0.00 98.30 0.00 0.00 0.91 0.05 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 247 0.72 0.00 97.40 0.00 0.00 1.64 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 248 0.62 0.00 96.18 0.00 0.00 3.02 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 249 0.00 0.00 99.37 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.08

TABLE A14 EMANUEL POINT SHIPWRECKS IRON COMPONENT ANALYSIS

Emanuel Point Shipwrecks Iron Utilitarian Weaponry Element Avg. S.D. Sum Avg. S.D. Sum Avg. S.D. Sum Fe 98.92 0.95 17.00 98.95 1.03 13.00 98.80 0.73 4.00 Ni 0.07 0.17 3.00 0.05 0.12 2.00 0.15 0.29 1.00 Cu 0.41 0.40 12.00 0.38 0.40 9.00 0.50 0.46 3.00 Zn 0.02 0.05 3.00 0.01 0.03 1.00 0.05 0.08 2.00 Sn 0.05 0.12 4.00 0.06 0.14 3.00 0.02 0.03 1.00 Pb 0.08 0.16 8.00 0.02 0.04 5.00 0.30 0.28 3.00 Zr 0.07 0.16 4.00 0.09 0.18 4.00 n/a n/a 0.00 Ti 0.19 0.46 4.00 0.23 0.52 3.00 0.06 0.13 1.00 Co 0.05 0.10 4.00 0.03 0.06 3.00 0.10 0.19 1.00 Cr 0.00 0.01 1.00 0 0.01 1.00 n/a n/a 0.00 Mn 0.07 0.12 7.00 0.08 0.13 4.00 0.04 0.03 3.00 Mo 0.01 0.04 2.00 0.01 0.05 2.00 n/a n/a 0.00 Sb 0.01 0.03 1.00 n/a n/a 0.00 0.03 0.05 1.00 Re 0.05 0.21 1.00 0.07 0.24 1.00 n/a n/a 0.00

TABLE A15 EMANUEL POINT SHIPWRECKS ELEMENTAL STATISTICAL DATA COMPARISON

Emanuel Point Shipwrecks Copper alloys Utilitarian group Personal group Weaponry group Element Avg. S.D. Sum Avg. S.D. Sum Avg. S.D. Sum Avg. S.D. Sum Fe 0.80 1.37 29.00 4.49 17.51 19.00 0.34 0.26 5.00 0.78 0.73 6.00 Ni 0.12 0.17 21.00 0.14 0.18 17.00 0.14 0.12 4.00 n/a n/a 0.00 Cu 93.33 6.99 35.00 89.69 19.80 23.00 87.28 7.61 5.00 98.71 1.08 6.00 Zn 2.15 5.00 10.00 1.18 3.45 6.00 7.80 8.22 4.00 n/a n/a 0.00 Sn 0.72 1.95 14.00 0.85 2.30 8.00 0.75 0.94 4.00 0.01 0.02 2.00 Pb 2.26 2.43 33.00 3.23 3.07 24.00 2.10 1.86 5.00 0.05 0.06 5.00 Zr 0.03 0.14 6.00 0.06 0.17 7.00 n/a n/a 0.00 n/a n/a 0.00 Ti 0.13 0.49 6.00 0.05 0.25 1.00 0.07 0.16 1.00 0.48 1.05 4.00 Co 0.03 0.06 7.00 0.04 0.07 7.00 n/a n/a 0.00 n/a n/a 0.00 Mo 0.00 0.01 5.00 0.00 0.01 3.00 n/a n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 Sb 0.19 0.38 14.00 0.26 0.44 1.00 0.02 0.06 1.00 n/a n/a 0.00 Ag 0.26 1.06 2.00 n/a n/a 13.00 1.50 2.32 2.00 n/a n/a 0.00 W 0.00 0.01 1.00 0 0.02 1.00 n/a n/a 0.00 n/a n/a 0.00

APPENDIX B

Interior Sites Iron Elemental Analyses

TABLE B1 INTERIOR SITES IRON ARTIFACT INVENTORY Sample Metal Functional Site No. Artifact No. Artifact type group Group Hightower Village 43 A987.30.147 Iron Bracelet Fragment Iron Personal Hightower Village 44 A987.30.146 Iron Bracelet Fragment Iron Personal Hightower Village 45 A987.30.168 Iron Ring Iron Utilitarian Hightower Village 46 A987.34 Ax head Iron Utilitarian Hightower Village 47 A987.30.150 Iron Bar Iron Utilitarian Etowah 137 252/3E Iron Nail Iron Utilitarian Etowah 138 2228/2E Iron Hook Iron Utilitarian Etowah 141 1762/2E Iron Nail Iron Utilitarian Etowah 142 1700/2E Iron Object Iron Utilitarian Etowah 143 1031/2E Iron Bolt Iron Utilitarian Etowah 144 892/4E Iron Object Iron Utilitarian Etowah 145 860/2E Iron Square Nail Iron Utilitarian Etowah 146 550/2E Iron Nail Iron Utilitarian Etowah 147 356/2E Iron Nail Iron Utilitarian Etowah 148 951/E Iron Object Iron Utilitarian Etowah 149 2081/3E Square Nail Iron Utilitarian Etowah 151 744/3E Iron Fragment Iron Utilitarian Etowah 152 1717/3E Iron Object Iron Utilitarian Etowah 153 373/3E Iron Nail Iron Utilitarian Etowah 157 393/72 Iron Fragment Iron Utilitarian Etowah 158 377/72 Iron Fragment Iron Utilitarian Etowah 159 139/72 Iron Pin Iron Utilitarian Etowah 164 535/72 Iron Ring Iron Utilitarian Leake 165 LOT145.1 Piece of Sword Iron Weapon Little Egypt 176 XU5 Iron Fragments Iron Utilitarian Little Egypt 177 XU5 Iron Fragments Iron Utilitarian Little Egypt 178 XU1 Iron Metal Piece Iron Utilitarian Little Egypt 179 38361 Iron Metal Fragment Iron Utilitarian Little Egypt 180 39457 Iron Metal Fragments Iron Utilitarian Little Egypt 183 39822 Iron Fragment Iron Utilitarian Little Egypt 184 288 Iron Iron Utilitarian Little Egypt 185 26415 Iron Fragments Iron Utilitarian Little Egypt 186 39224 Iron Fragments Iron Utilitarian Little Egypt 187 26396 Iron Fragments Iron Utilitarian King 166 117 Iron Celt Iron Utilitarian King 167 BU15 Iron Celt Iron Utilitarian King 168 unknown Iron Piece Iron Utilitarian

Sample Metal Functional Site No. Artifact No. Artifact type group Group King 171 456-M2 Iron Celt Iron Utilitarian King 172 456-M1 Iron Celt Iron Utilitarian King 173 456-M3 Iron Spike Iron Utilitarian King 174 unknown Iron Iron Utilitarian King 175 unknown Iron Knife Iron Weapon Poarch 57 unknown Pike Point Iron Weapon Poarch 58 unknown Iron Wedge or Ax Iron Utilitarian Poarch 59 unknown Knife Handle Iron Weapon Iron Wedge (Inside Poarch 60 unknown groove) Iron Utilitarian Poarch 61 unknown Iron Wedge Iron Utilitarian Poarch 62 unknown Iron Piece Iron Utilitarian Poarch 63 unknown Iron Spike Iron Utilitarian Poarch 64 unknown Sword Iron Weapon Poarch 65 unknown Metal Piece Iron Utilitarian Poarch 66 unknown Bell Clapper Iron Personal Poarch 67 unknown Iron Piece Iron Utilitarian Poarch 68 unknown Iron Spike Iron Utilitarian Poarch 69 unknown Iron Spike Iron Utilitarian

TABLE B2 FULL COMPOSITIONAL PROFILE FOR HIGHTOWER VILLAGE IRON ARTIFACTS

Element Site Sample No. Fe Cu Zn Zr Mn Hightower Village 43 95.78 2.15 1.90 0.03 0.00 Hightower Village 44 99.23 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.63 Hightower Village 45 99.50 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.23 Hightower Village 46 99.80 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.03 Hightower Village 47 99.90 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00

TABLE B3 STATISTICAL COMPARISON FOR HIGHTOWER VILLAGE IRON ARTIFACTS BY FUNCTIONAL GROUPS

Iron Utilitarian iron Personal iron Element Avg. S.D. Sum Avg. S.D. Sum Avg. S.D. Sum Fe 98.84 1.73 5.00 99.73 0.21 3.00 97.51 2.44 2.00 Cu 0.43 0.96 1.00 n/a n/a 0.00 1.08 1.52 1.00 Zn 0.46 0.81 3.00 0.14 0.12 2.00 0.95 1.34 1.00 Zr 0.05 0.06 3.00 0.02 0.03 1.00 0.09 0.08 2.00 Mn 0.18 0.27 3.00 0.09 0.13 2.00 0.32 0.45 1.00

TABLE B4 FULL COMPOSITIONAL PROFILE FOR ETOWAH MOUNDS IRON ARTIFACTS

Element Site Sample Artifact Fe Ni Zr Ti Co Cr Mn Sb V No. No. Etowah 137 252/3E 99.59 0.00 0.12 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 Etowah 138 2228/2E 99.36 0.00 0.06 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 Etowah 141 1762/2E 99.95 0.08 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Etowah 142 1700/2E 99.45 0.00 0.05 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.73 0.00 0.00 Etowah 143 1031/2E 98.91 0.00 0.02 0.23 0.00 0.04 0.67 0.00 0.06 Etowah 144 892/2E 99.73 0.00 0.02 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Etowah 145 860/2E 98.99 0.00 0.11 0.62 0.37 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 Etowah 146 550/2E 99.82 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 Etowah 147 356/2E 98.98 0.00 0.15 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 Etowah 148 951/E 99.44 0.00 0.02 0.29 0.18 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 Etowah 149 2081/3E 98.55 0.00 0.20 0.80 0.22 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.00 Etowah 151 744/3E 99.91 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Etowah 152 1717/3E 99.71 0.00 0.08 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Etowah 153 373/3E 99.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Etowah 157 393/72 98.47 0.00 0.04 0.63 0.49 0.00 0.24 0.06 0.05 Etowah 158 377/72 99.56 0.08 0.17 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 Etowah 159 139/72 99.71 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Etowah 164 535/72 98.47 0.00 0.20 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.00

TABLE B5 STATISTICAL BREAKDOWN FOR ETOWAH MOUNDS UTILITARIAN IRON ARTIFACTS

Iron Element Avg. S.D. Sum Fe 99.35 0.49 18.00 Ni 0.01 0.03 2.00 Zr 0.09 0.07 18.00 Ti 0.32 0.28 15.00 Co 0.09 0.16 5.00 Cr 0.00 0.01 1.00 Mn 0.15 0.19 12.00 Sb 0.00 0.01 1.00 V 0.01 0.02 2.00

TABLE B6 FULL COMPOSITIONAL PROFILE FOR LEAKE SITE IRON ARTIFACT Element Site Sample No. Fe Cu Zn Zr Leake 165 99.74 0.18 0.07 0.01

TABLE B7 FULL COMPOSITIONAL PROFILE OF LITTLE EGYPT SITE IRON

Element Site Sample No. Fe Zr Ti Cr Mn Little Egypt 176 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Little Egypt 177 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Little Egypt 178 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Little Egypt 179 99.85 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.13 Little Egypt 180 99.91 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 Little Egypt 183 99.81 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.13 Little Egypt 184 99.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Little Egypt 185 99.82 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 Little Egypt 186 99.78 0.01 0.20 0.00 0.00 Little Egypt 187 99.95 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00

TABLE B8 STANDARD ANALYSIS FOR LITTLE EGYPT SITE UTILITARIAN IRON

Iron Element Avg. S.D. Sum Fe 99.91 0.09 10.00 Zr 0.03 0.06 7.00 Ti 0.03 0.07 2.00 Cr 0.00 0.01 1.00 Mn 0.03 0.06 2.00

TABLE B9 FULL COMPOSITIONAL PROFILE OF KING SITE IRON

Element (%) Site Sample No. Fe Cu Zn Pb Zr Ti Co Mo King 166 99.98 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 King 167 99.78 0.00 0.07 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 King 168 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 King 171 99.75 0.00 0.14 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 King 172 99.35 0.00 0.20 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 King 173 99.61 0.00 0.14 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 King 174 99.50 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.16 0.00 0.00 King 175 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TABLE B10 STANDARD ANALYSIS PROCEDURE FOR KING SITE IRON

Iron Utilitarian iron Weaponry iron Element Avg. S.D. Sum Avg. S.D. Sum Avg. S.D. Sum Fe 99.75 0.24 8.00 99.71 0.24 7.00 100.00 0.00 1.00 Cu 0.03 0.07 1.00 0.03 0.08 1.00 n/a n/a 0.00 Zn 0.07 0.08 4.00 0.08 0.08 4.00 n/a n/a 0.00 Pb 0.10 0.12 5.00 0.12 0.12 5.00 n/a n/a 0.00 Zr 0.02 0.05 1.00 0.02 0.05 1.00 n/a n/a 0.00 Ti 0.02 0.06 1.00 0.02 0.06 1.00 n/a n/a 0.00 Co 0.02 0.05 1.00 0.02 0.06 1.00 n/a n/a 0.00 Mo 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 n/a n/a 0.00

TABLE B11 FULL COMPOSITIONAL PROFILE FOR POARCH SITE IRON Element (%) Site Sample No. Fe Cu Zn Pb Zr Ti Co Mo Poarch 57 97.60 0.00 1.71 0.21 0.02 0.28 0.17 0.00 Poarch 58 99.28 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Poarch 59 99.26 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Poarch 60 99.37 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Poarch 61 99.60 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Poarch 62 99.82 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Poarch 63 99.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 Poarch 64 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Poarch 65 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Poarch 66 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Poarch 67 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Poarch 68 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Poarch 69 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TABLE B12 STANDARD ANALYSIS PROCEDURE FOR IRON FROM THE POARCH SITE a

Iron Utilitarian iron Weaponry iron Element Avg. S.D. Sum Avg. S.D. Sum Avg. S.D. Sum Fe 99.60 0.67 13.00 99.77 0.29 9.00 98.96 1.23 3.00 Cu 0.22 0.32 5.00 0.23 0.33 4.00 0.24 0.41 1.00 Zn 0.13 0.47 1.00 n/a n/a 0.00 0.57 0.99 1.00 Pb 0.02 0.06 1.00 n/a n/a 0.00 0.07 0.12 1.00 Zr 0.00 0.01 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.01 0.01 1.00 Ti 0.02 0.08 1.00 n/a n/a 0.00 0.09 0.16 1.00 Co 0.01 0.05 1.00 n/a n/a 0.00 0.06 0.10 1.00 Mo 0.01 0.02 1.00 0.01 0.03 1.00 n/a n/a 0.00 aOne iron artifact from the Personal group was tested: Fe = 100

TABLE B13 FULL COMPOSITIONAL PROFILE OF IRON AT THE BROWN FARM SITE

Site Num. Fe Cu Brown Farm 56 94.6 5.37

TABLE B14 STANDARD ANALYSIS PROCEDURE OF PERSONAL IRON AT THE BROWN FARM SITE

Element Fe Cu 56 94.6 5.37

APPENDIX C

Interior Sites Copper Elemental Analyses

TABLE C1 INTERIOR SITE COPPER ARTIFACT INVENTORY Site Sample No. Artifact No. Artifact type Metal group Functional group Hightower Village 32 A987.30.107 Rolled Copper Bead Copper Alloy Personal Hightower Village 33 A987.30.143 Copper Cone Tinkler Copper Alloy Personal Hightower Village 34 A987.30.102 Rolled Copper Copper Alloy Personal Hightower Village 35 A987.30.161 Copper Disc Copper Alloy Personal Hightower Village 36 A987.30.23 Rolled Copper Bead Copper Alloy Personal Hightower Village 37 A987.30.163 Rolled Copper Tube Copper Alloy Personal Hightower Village 38 A987.30.165 Rolled Copper Tube Copper Alloy Personal Hightower Village 39 A987.30.63 Copper Disc Copper Alloy Personal Hightower Village 40 A987.30.164 Rolled Copper Tube Copper Alloy Personal Hightower Village 41 A987.30.166 Rolled Copper Tube Copper Alloy Personal Hightower Village 42 A987.30.142 Rolled Copper Copper Alloy Personal Etowah 139 904/2E Copper Fragment Copper Alloy Personal Etowah 140 768/2E Copper Fragment Copper Alloy Personal Etowah 150 893/3E Iron Object Copper Alloy Utilitarian Etowah 154 1676/3E Copper Flake Copper Alloy Personal Etowah 155 27/72 Copper Copper Alloy Personal Etowah 156 2082/3E Copper or Brass Strip Copper Alloy Personal Etowah 160 1365/72 Copper Fragment Copper Alloy Personal Etowah 161 1221/72 Rolled Copper Copper Alloy Personal Etowah 162 555/72 Copper Fragment Copper Alloy Personal Etowah 163 1718 Copper Bead Copper Alloy Personal Little Egypt 53 unknown Clarksdale Bell Copper Alloy Personal Little Egypt 181 39173 Metal Fragment Copper Alloy Utilitarian Little Egypt 182 39240 Metal Fragment Copper Alloy Utilitarian King 169 456-M4 Copper Plate Copper Alloy Personal King 170 456-M5 Copper Plate Copper Alloy Personal

Site Sample No. Artifact No. Artifact type Metal group Functional group Poarch 48 unknown Wire Coils Copper Alloy Utilitarian Poarch 49 unknown Coosawattee Plate (a) Copper Alloy Personal Poarch 50 unknown Coosawattee Plate (b) Copper Alloy Personal Poarch 51 unknown Crossbow Point Copper Alloy Weapon Poarch 52 unknown Crossbow Point (tip) Copper Alloy Weapon Poarch 54 unknown Clarksdale Bell Copper Alloy Personal Poarch 55 unknown Bead Copper Alloy Personal

TABLE C2 FULL COMPOSITIONAL PROFILE OF COPPER ALLOY AT HIGHTOWER VILLAGE

Element (%) Site Sample No. Fe Ni Cu Zn Sn Pb Zr Ti Hightower Village 32 0.00 0.03 99.46 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 Hightower Village 33 0.35 0.20 86.70 11.15 0.00 1.76 0.00 0.00 Hightower Village 34 0.40 0.00 87.66 4.89 0.00 7.05 0.00 0.00 Hightower Village 35 0.93 0.00 74.66 13.17 0.00 11.24 0.00 0.08 Hightower Village 36 1.46 0.00 96.69 0.00 0.00 1.56 0.01 0.17 Hightower Village 37 1.65 0.00 73.37 14.01 0.00 11.55 0.05 0.39 Hightower Village 38 1.80 0.00 67.81 14.06 0.00 15.90 0.13 0.39 Hightower Village 39 1.83 0.04 76.95 18.09 0.62 2.30 0.02 0.10 Hightower Village 40 1.99 0.20 69.40 10.26 0.00 18.30 0.00 0.00 Hightower Village 41 2.50 0.00 65.98 11.35 0.00 19.87 0.26 0.00 Hightower Village 42 2.80 0.00 64.69 5.58 19.89 6.45 0.00 0.58

TABLE C3 STANDARD ANALYSIS PROCEDURE FOR HIGHTOWER VILLAGE PERSONAL COPPER ALLOY

Element Fe Ni Cu Zn Sn Pb Zr Ti Avg. 1.43 0.04 78.39 9.32 1.86 8.77 0.05 0.16 S.D. 0.91 0.08 12.33 5.93 5.98 7.06 0.08 0.20 COUNT 10.00 4.00 11.00 9.00 2.00 11.00 5.00 6.00

TABLE C4 FULL COMPOSITIONAL PROFILE FOR ETOWAH COPPER ALLOY ARTIFACTS

Element (%) Site Sample Fe Ni Cu Zn Sn Pb Zr Ti Mn No. Etowah 139 0.87 0.00 98.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.02 Etowah 140 1.90 0.05 97.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.77 0.00 Etowah 154 1.10 0.00 98.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Etowah 155 0.53 0.00 99.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 Etowah 156 0.80 0.00 98.97 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.07 Etowah 160 0.92 0.00 98.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.39 0.02 Etowah 161 1.86 0.00 76.86 16.02 0.03 4.97 0.03 0.14 0.02 Etowah 162 2.14 0.00 97.55 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.09 0.20 0.00 Etowah 163 0.52 0.00 98.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TABLE C5 STANDARD ANALYSIS PROCEDURE FOR ETOWAH COPPER ALLOY

Copper Personal copper Utilitarian copper Element Avg. S.D. Count Avg. S.D. Count Avg. S.D. Count Fe 8.52 23.19 10.00 1.18 0.62 9.00 74.50 n/a 1.00 Ni 0.01 0.02 1.00 0.01 0.02 1.00 0.00 n/a 1.00 Cu 89.02 23.52 10.00 96.14 7.26 9.00 24.98 n/a 1.00 Zn 1.60 5.07 1.00 1.78 5.34 1.00 0.00 n/a 1.00 Sn 0.00 0.01 1.00 0.00 0.01 1.00 0.00 n/a 1.00 Pb 0.58 1.56 3.00 0.63 1.65 2.00 0.11 n/a 1.00 Zr 0.03 0.04 5.00 0.03 0.04 4.00 0.04 n/a 1.00 Ti 0.23 0.23 8.00 0.22 0.24 7.00 0.37 n/a 1.00 Mn 0.01 0.02 4.00 0.01 0.02 4.00 0.00 n/a 1.00

TABLE C6 FULL COMPOSITIONAL PROFILE LITTLE EGYPT SITE COPPER ALLOY

Element (%) Site Sample No. Fe Ni Cu Zn Sn Pb Mn Little Egypt 181 0.18 0.00 90.86 6.45 0.00 2.49 0.00 Little Egypt 182 1.05 0.00 87.51 8.94 0.00 2.49 0.00 Little Egypt 53 1.24 0.14 61.87 27.13 2.84 4.52 0.12

TABLE C7 STANDARD ANALYSIS PROCEDURE LITTLE EGYPT SITE FOR COPPER ALLOY

Personal copper Utilitarian copper Element Avg. S.D. Sum Avg. S.D. Sum Fe 1.24 n/a 1.00 0.62 0.62 2.00 Ni 0.14 n/a 1.00 n/a n/a 0.00 Cu 61.87 n/a 1.00 89.19 2.37 2.00 Zn 27.13 n/a 1.00 7.70 1.76 2.00 Sn 2.84 n/a 1.00 n/a n/a 0.00 Pb 4.52 n/a 1.00 2.50 0.00 2.00 Mn 0.12 n/a 1.00 n/a n/a 0.00

TABLE C8 FULL COMPOSITIONAL PROFILE OF KING SITE COPPER ALLOY

Element (%) Site Sample No. Fe Cu Ti King 169 0.62 99.28 0.10 King 170 0.39 99.61 0.00

TABLE C9 STANDARD ANALYSIS PROCEDURE OF KING SITE PERSONAL COPPER ALLOY

Copper Element Avg. S.D. Sum Fe 0.51 0.16 2.00 Cu 99.45 0.23 2.00 Ti 0.05 0.07 1.00

TABLE C10 FULL COMPOSITIONAL PROFILE OF POARCH SITE COPPER ALLOY

Element (%) Site Sample No. Fe Ni Cu Zn Sn Pb Ti Sb Poarch 48 0.01 0.00 88.99 8.83 0.00 2.08 0.00 0.00 Poarch 49 0.03 0.06 97.40 0.00 0.00 1.77 0.00 0.73 Poarch 50 0.25 0.08 98.00 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.68 Poarch 51 0.47 0.00 99.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Poarch 52 1.13 0.00 98.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Poarch 54 1.46 0.10 83.51 8.60 0.94 5.50 0.05 0.00 Poarch 55 4.44 0.00 60.34 4.13 19.68 11.41 0.00 0.00

TABLE C11 STANDARD ANALYSIS PROCEDURE FOR POARCH SITE COPPER ALLOY

Copper Personal copper Utilitarian copper Weaponry copper Element Avg. S.D. Count Avg. S.D. Count Avg. S.D. Count Avg. S.D. Count Fe 1.11 1.57 7.00 1.55 2.03 4.00 0.01 n/a 1.00 0.80 0.47 2.00 Ni 0.03 0.04 3.00 0.06 0.04 3.00 0.00 n/a 1.00 n/a n/a 0.00 Cu 89.52 14.20 7.00 84.81 17.63 4.00 88.99 n/a 1.00 99.20 0.47 2.00 Zn 3.08 4.13 3.00 3.18 4.10 2.00 8.83 n/a 1.00 n/a n/a 0.00 Sn 2.95 7.39 2.00 5.16 9.69 2.00 0.00 n/a 1.00 n/a n/a 0.00 Pb 3.09 4.12 5.00 4.90 4.78 4.00 2.08 n/a 1.00 n/a n/a 0.00 Ti 0.01 0.02 1.00 0.01 0.03 1.00 0.00 n/a 1.00 n/a n/a 0.00 Sb 0.20 0.34 2.00 0.35 0.41 2.00 0.00 n/a 1.00 n/a n/a 0.00

100

APPENDIX D

Statistical Comparison of All Site Assemblage Analyses

101

All Sites Comparison-Closeness Scoring

The Euclidean distance score was used to explore relationships between comprehensive site samples. The sites were divided into their compositional components and the distance score was determined for each category. They were then subdivided into their respective functional groups and again the distance score was determined. The cumulative compositional profile depicting the averages of each iron sample from each respective site is shown below (Table E1).

The following tables show how the distance scores compare to the control site samples, the

Martin site and the Emanuel Point Shipwreck sites. The analysis continues for each compositional category and typology.

102

TABLE D1 FULL COMPOSITIONAL PROFILE FOR ALL SITES IRON ARTIFACTS

Element (%) Site Fe Ni Cu Zn Sn Pb Zr Ti Co Cr Mn Mo Sb V Re Martin 99.27 0.00 0.15 0.10 0.07 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 EP (I & II) 98.92 0.07 0.41 0.01 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.18 0.04 0.00 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.05 D’Olive 97.69 0.01 0.56 1.24 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Etowah 99.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.30 0.09 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hightower Village 98.84 0.00 0.43 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 King 99.74 0.00 0.02 0.07 0.00 0.11 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Little Egypt 99.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Poarch 99.60 0.00 0.21 0.13 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TABLE D2 DISTANCE SCORE FROM THE MARTIN SITE IRON SAMPLE BASELINE

Site Distance score Closeness (%) Martin 0.00 1.00 Poarch 0.13 0.74 Etowah 0.17 0.71 EP (I&II) 0.24 0.67 King 0.25 0.67 Hightower Village 0.43 0.60 Little Egypt 0.46 0.60

103

TABLE D3 DISTANCE SCORE FROM THE EMANUEL POINT IRON SAMPLE BASELINE

Site Distance Score Closeness (%) EP (I&II) 0.00 1.00 Martin 0.24 0.67 Hightower Village 0.27 0.66 Etowah 0.39 0.62 Poarch 0.57 0.57 King 0.88 0.52 Little Egypt 1.19 0.48

TABLE D4 CLOSENESS SCORE FOR ALL SITES IRON

Site Martin (%) EP (%) Martin 1.00 0.67 EP 0.67 1.00 Etowah 0.71 0.62 Hightower Village 0.60 0.66 King 0.67 0.52 Little Egypt 0.60 0.48 Poarch 0.74 0.57

TABLE D5 FULL COMPOSITIONAL PROFILE FOR ALL SITES COPPER ALLOY AVERAGES

Element (%) Site Fe Ni Cu Zn Sn Pb Zr Ti Mn Mo Sb Ag Martin 0.91 0.10 93.05 3.14 0.49 1.15 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 EP (I & II) 0.43 0.10 97.09 0.01 0.06 1.52 0.02 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.47 Etowah 1.09 0.00 98.50 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.02 0.22 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hightower Village 0.73 0.01 98.07 0.00 0.00 1.03 0.05 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 King 0.50 0.00 99.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Little Egypt 0.18 0.00 90.86 6.45 0.00 2.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Poarch 0.47 0.03 98.45 0.00 0.00 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.00

104

TABLE D6 DISTANCE AND CLOSENESS SCORES FOR ALL SITES COPPER ALLOY (90%-100%) COMPARED TO THE MARTIN AND EMANUEL POINT BASELINES

Martin baseline EP baseline Site Distance Closeness Distance Closeness Score (%) Score (%) Martin 0.00 1.00 26.85 0.16 EP (I & II) 26.85 0.16 0.00 1.00 Etowah 41.48 0.13 4.88 0.31 Hightower Village 35.37 0.14 1.54 0.45 King 52.48 0.12 8.13 0.26 Little Egypt 18.36 0.19 81.56 0.10 Poarch 39.72 0.14 2.88 0.37

TABLE D7 FULL COMPOSITIONAL PROFILE FOR ALL SITES COPPER ALLOY (75%-90%)

Element (%) Site Fe Ni Cu Zn Sn Pb Zr Ti Co Mn Sb Martin 2.55 0.07 85.94 7.69 1.85 1.71 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.07 EP (I & II) 1.75 0.21 83.51 7.47 2.37 4.16 0.07 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.24 Etowah 1.86 0.00 76.85 16.02 0.03 4.97 0.02 0.14 0.00 0.01 0.00 Hightower Village 0.86 0.08 83.77 11.37 0.20 3.70 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 Little Egypt 1.05 0.00 87.51 8.94 0.00 2.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Poarch 0.74 0.05 86.25 8.72 0.47 3.79 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00

105

TABLE D8 CLOSENESS SCORES FOR ALL SITES COPPER ALLOY (75%-90%) COMPARED TO THE MARTIN AND EMANUEL POINT BASELINES

Martin baseline EP baseline Site Distance Closeness Distance Closeness Score (%) Score (%) Martin 0.00 1.00 12.90 0.22 EP (I & II) 12.90 0.22 0.00 1.00 Etowah 166.18 0.07 123.62 0.08 Hightower Village 27.79 0.16 21.13 0.18 Little Egypt 10.33 0.24 27.20 0.16 Poarch 10.66 0.23 13.95 0.21

106

TABLE D9 FULL COMPOSITIONAL PROFILE FOR ALL SITES UTILITARIAN IRON

Element (%) Site Fe Ni Cu Zn Sn Pb Zr Ti Co Cr Mn Mo Sb Re Martin 99.27 0.00 0.15 0.10 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 EP (I & II) 98.92 0.07 0.41 0.01 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.18 0.04 0.00 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.05 Etowah 99.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.31 0.09 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hightower Village 98.84 0.00 0.43 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 King 99.74 0.00 0.02 0.07 0.00 0.11 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Little Egypt 99.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 Poarch 99.60 0.00 0.21 0.13 0.00 1.01 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TABLE D10 CLOSENESS SCORING FOR ALL SITES UTILITARIAN IRON COMPARED TO BASELINE UTILITARIAN IRON

Martin baseline EP baseline Site Distance Closeness Distance Closeness Score (%) Score (%) Martin 0.00 1.00 0.24 0.67 EP 0.24 0.67 0.00 1.00 Etowah 0.17 0.71 0.39 0.62 Hightower Village 0.43 0.60 0.27 0.66 King 0.25 0.67 0.88 0.52 Little Egypt 0.46 0.60 1.20 0.48 Poarch 0.13 0.74 0.57 0.57

107

TABLE D11 FULL COMPOSITIONAL PROFILE OF ALL UTILITARIAN COPPER ALLOYS (75%-90%)

Element (%) Site Fe Ni Cu Zn Sn Pb Zr Ti Co Mo Sb Martin 2.31 0.00 88.89 4.62 2.80 1.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 EP 2.59 0.21 83.71 4.64 3.20 4.85 0.12 0.20 0.01 0.01 0.39 Little Egypt 1.05 0.00 87.51 8.94 0.00 2.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Poarch 0.01 0.00 88.99 8.83 0.00 2.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TABLE D12 CLOSENESS SCORING FOR UTILITARIAN COPPER ALLOY (75%-90%) COMPARED TO BASELINE UTILITARIAN COPPER ALLOY

Martin baseline EP baseline Site Distance Closeness Distance Closeness Score (%) Score (%) Martin 0.00 1.00 39.56 0.14 EP (I & II) 39.56 0.14 0.00 1.00

Little Egypt 31.27 0.15 51.36 0.12 Poarch 31.36 0.15 70.26 0.11

TABLE D13 FULL COMPOSITIONAL PROFILE FOR ALL SITES PERSONAL COPPER ALLOY (90%- 100%)

Element (%) Site Fe Ni Cu Zn Sn Pb Zr Ti Mn Mo Sb Ag Martin 0.91 0.10 93.05 3.14 0.49 1.15 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 EP 0.43 0.10 97.09 0.01 0.06 1.52 0.02 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.47 Etowah 1.09 0.00 98.54 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.02 0.22 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hightower Village 0.73 0.01 98.07 0.00 0.00 1.03 0.05 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 King 0.50 0.00 99.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Little Egypt 0.18 0.00 90.86 0.00 0.00 2.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Poarch 0.47 0.03 98.45 0.00 0.00 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.00

108

TABLE D14 CLOSENESS SCORING FOR PERSONAL COPPER ALLOY (90%-100%) COMPARED TO BASELINE PERSONAL COPPER ALLOY (90%-100%)

Martin baseline EP baseline Site Distance Closeness Distance Closeness Score (%) Score (%) Martin 0.00 1.00 26.86 0.16 EP 26.86 0.16 0.00 1.00 Etowah 41.49 0.13 4.88 0.31 Hightower Village 35.38 0.14 1.55 0.45 King 52.48 0.12 8.13 0.26 Little Egypt 18.37 0.19 81.57 0.10 Poarch 39.72 0.14 2.88 0.37

TABLE D15 FULL COMPOSITIONAL PROFILE ALL SITES PERSONAL COPPER ALLOY (75%-90%)

Element (%) Site Fe Ni Cu Zn Sn Pb Zr Ti Mn Sb De Soto 2.58 0.08 85.57 8.08 1.73 1.75 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.08 EP 0.48 0.20 83.21 11.70 1.12 3.11 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.03 Etowah 1.86 0.00 76.85 16.02 0.03 4.97 0.03 0.14 0.01 0.00 Hightower Village 0.86 0.08 83.77 11.37 0.20 3.73 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.00 Poarch 1.46 0.10 83.51 8.60 0.94 5.50 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00

TABLE D16 CLOSENESS SCORING PERSONAL COPPER ALLOY (75%-90%) COMPARED TO BASELINE PERSONAL COPPER ALLOY (75%-90%)

Martin baseline EP baseline Site Distance Closeness Distance Closeness Score (%) Score (%) Martin 0.00 1.00 25.32 0.17 EP 25.32 0.17 0.00 1.00 Etowah 152.72 0.08 65.52 0.10 Hightower Village 23.21 0.17 1.77 0.43 Poarch 20.44 0.18 16.40 0.20

109

TABLE D17 FULL COMPOSITIONAL PROFILE OF ALL WEAPONRY IRON

Element (%) Site Fe Ni Cu Zn Sn Pb Zr Ti Co Mn Sb Martin 98.32 0.00 1.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 EP 98.82 0.14 0.50 0.05 0.01 0.30 0.00 0.06 0.09 0.04 0.02 Leake 99.74 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 King 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Poarch 98.96 0.00 0.57 0.57 0.00 0.07 0.01 0.09 0.05 0.00 0.00

TABLE D18 CLOSENESS SCORING ALL SITES WEAPONRY IRON COMPARED TO BASELINE WEAPONRY IRON

Martin baseline EP baseline Site Distance Closeness Distance Closeness Score (%) Score (%) Martin 0.00 1.00 1.65 0.44 EP 1.65 0.44 0.00 1.00 Leake 4.14 0.33 1.08 0.49 King 5.47 0.30 1.76 0.43 Poarch 2.69 0.38 0.44 0.60

TABLE D19 FULL COMPOSITIONAL PROFILE ALL SITES WEAPONRY COPPER ALLOY (75%-90%)

Element (%) Site Fe Ni Cu Sn Pb Ti Mo Sb EP 0.78 0.00 98.71 0.01 0.05 0.48 0.00 0.00 Poarch 0.80 0.07 97.70 0.00 1.33 0.00 0.00 0.71

TABLE D20 CLOSENESS SCORING ALL WEAPONRY COPPER ALLOY (75%-90%)

Site Distance Score EP 1.00 Poarch 0.35

110