An Historical and Archaeological Analysis of Fort San Marcos De Apalache, 1639-1821

FACILITATING TRADE ON THE FLORIDA FRONTIER: AN HISTORICAL AND

ARCHAEOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF FORT SAN MARCOS DE APALACHE,

1639-1821

Ericha Elizabeth Sappington

B.A., Boise State University, 2008

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

2018 The thesis of Ericha Elizabeth Sappington is approved:

______

Ramie A. Gougeon, Pd.D., Committee Member Date

______

Erin Stone, Ph.D., Committee Member Date

______

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

Accepted for the Department/Division:

______

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

Accepted for the University:

______

Jaromy Kuhl, Ph.D. Interim Dean, Graduate School Date

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank Dr. John Worth, Dr. Ramie Gougeon, and Dr. Erin Stone for their insight and patience in the thesis writing process and for their continuous support of the ongoing project. I would also like to thank Mark Boyd, Lucy Wenhold, and Doris Olds for their lifelong dedication to the study of a remote Spanish outpost in the borderlands of La Florida . Special thanks to Marie Prentice and Vincent “Chip” Birdsong for their invaluable assistance in the research process. I would also like to thank Caroline D. Carley, Robert L. Sappington, and

Taylor McKenzie for their support and encouragement throughout the thesis writing process.

Last but not least, I would also like to thank the long forgotten soldiers and residents of San

Marcos de Apalache, without whom this project would not have been possible.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... iii

LIST OF TABLES ...... vi

ABSTRACT ...... vii

CHAPTER I. OVERVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ...... 1 A. Theoretical Framework ...... 1 B. The Borderlands and Frontiers of Spanish Florida ...... 3 C. Colonialism in the Spanish Southeast ...... 4 D. Fort San Marcos de Apalache ...... 7

CHAPTER II. METHODOLOGY ...... 11 A. Introduction ...... 11 B. Documentary Research Methods ...... 11 C. Archaeological Research Methods ...... 13

CHAPTER III. HISTORICAL CONTEXT ...... 15 A. The Development of Spanish Florida ...... 15 B. The Port of San Marcos : A Frontier Outpost in the Periphery ...... 17 C. The First Spanish Occupation of Fort San Marcos de Apalache (1677-1704) ...... 20 D. The Second Spanish Occupation of Fort San Marcos de Apalache (1718-1764) ...... 23 E. The British Occupation of Fort San Marcos de Apalache (1764-1769)...... 28 F. The Third Spanish Occupation of Fort San Marcos de Apalache (1787-1821) ...... 29 G. American Occupation of Fort San Marcos de Apalache (1818- 1821) ...... 38 H. The Abandonment and Dismantling of Fort St. Marks...... 39 I. Confederate Occupation: Fort Ward ...... 41 J. Post-Civil War Era ...... 41

CHAPTER IV. ARCHAEOLOGY ...... 44 A. Introduction ...... 44 B. Dorris L. Olds, 1962 ...... 46 C. Hale G. Smith and John P. Marwitt, 1963 ...... 48 D. 1966 Excavation ...... 49 E. James S. Dunbar and Steve J. Dasovich, 1991 ...... 51

CHAPTER V. ANALYSIS ...... 53 A. Introduction ...... 53

B. Archaeological Data ...... 54 C. Imported Ceramics ...... 56 D. Native American Ceramics ...... 65 E. Ceramic Types Present in Overall Analysis ...... 69 F. Ethnic Groups and Movement of Their Ceramic Traditions and Types ...... 73 G. Comparative Sites in Colonial Spanish Florida ...... 86 H. Ceramics ...... 88 I. Non-Ceramic Materials ...... 90 J. Discussion ...... 98

CHAPTER VI. DISCUSSION AND INTERPRETATIONS ...... 112

REFERENCES ...... 118

APPENDICES ...... 129 A. Location, Description, and Total Artifact Counts for Material Categories from the St. Marks and Wakulla River Areas, Southeast Sector, Smith 1963 ...... 130 B. Description and Dimensions of Trenches Excavated, Anonymous 1966 ...... 135 C. Location, Description, and Total Count for Material Categories from the Northwest Sector, Anonymous 1966 ...... 138 D. Test Hole Numbers, Depths, Materials Recovered, and Counts from the Northwest Sector, Dunbar and Dasovich 1991 ...... 143 E. General Materials Present at Fort San Marcos de Apalache and at Select Comparative Colonial Sites in Florida ...... 151 F. Imported Ceramic Types in the Fort San Marcos de Apalache Assemblage and at Comparative Colonial Sites in Spanish Florida ...... 168 G. Artifact Types Present by Site Occupation Area ...... 172 H. Historic Native American Ceramics at Fort San Marcos de Apalache : Presence or Absence for the Southeast (1639-1787) and Northwest (1731-1821) Sectors ...... 178 I. Native American Ceramic Types Present at Fort San Marcos de Apalache and at Comparative Colonial Spanish Sites in Florida ...... 182 J. Artifact Types Present by Occupation Period of Fort San Marcos de Apalache ...... 185

LIST OF TABLES

1. Artifact Distribution for Surface Collection and Excavation Units by Level, Dorris Olds, 1962 ...... 46

2. Overall Material Categories and Counts, Dorris Olds, 1962 ...... 46

3. Artifact Categories and Counts, Hale G. Smith, 1963 ...... 48

4. Artifact Categories and Counts from the Northwest Sector, Anonymous Author, 1966 ...... 49

5. Artifact Categories and Counts Collected from the Northwest Sector, James S. Dunbar and Steve J. Dasovich, 1991 ...... 50

6. Imported Ceramics in the Fort San Marcos de Apalache Assemblage by Country of Origin, After Kathleen Deagan ...... 57

7. Imported Ceramics in the Fort San Marcos de Apalache Assemblage by Type, After Judy Bense ...... 57

8. General Imported Ceramic Percentages by Tradition Present at Fort San Marcos de Apalache and at Select Colonial Sites in Spanish Florida ...... 59

9. Imported and Historic Native Ceramics in the Fort San Marcos de Apalache Assemblage ...... 68

10. Ceramic Types Present in Both the Southeast (1639-1787) and Northwest Sectors (1731-1821)...... 69

11. Ceramic Types Present Only in the Southeast Sector (1639-1787) ...... 70

12. Ceramic Types Present Only in the Northwest Sector (1731-1821)...... 71

13. Imported and Historic Native Ceramic Tableware Percentages Across Southeastern Sites ...... 87

ABSTRACT

FACILITATING TRADE ON THE FLORIDA FRONTIER: AN HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF FORT SAN MARCOS DE APALACHE, 1639-1821

Ericha Elizabeth Sappington

The remote Spanish outpost of Fort San Marcos de Apalache served the frontier trade interests of Spain from the early 1600s to the early 1820s. Established first as a port for exports from the Apalachee Province, the fort remained the only long-term military outpost of colonial

Spanish Florida between the larger settlements of St. Augustine and Pensacola. This thesis examines the historical role of the fort and the archaeological assemblage collected through four separate archaeological projects. Utilizing both historical and archaeological information, this thesis examines the fort’s role in the Spanish frontier trade with Native American groups and the significance of the relationships that developed between the Spanish and the Native Americans in West Florida during the colonial era.

vii

CHAPTER I

OVERVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The main objective of this thesis is to provide a comprehensive overview of the history and archaeology of Fort San Marcos de Apalache , a remote Spanish outpost established between present-day Pensacola and St. Augustine during the colonial period. This thesis examines both historical and archaeological sources in order to address the establishment and development of the fort as a frontier outpost. It also examines the relationship between the Spanish and the

Native American groups of the Apalachee Province where Fort San Marcos was located and why these relationships were crucial in order for the Spanish to maintain a frontier foothold between the larger settlements of Pensacola and St. Augustine. The historical section focuses on the fort’s establishment and role in the larger setting of colonial Spanish Florida and the development of frontier trade relationships between the Spanish and the Native American groups of the West

Florida area, which included the Apalachee, Yamasee, and Creek. The fort’s history is combined with an archaeological analysis of the site’s material culture with a focus on ceramics and concludes with a discussion of their implications in the fort’s role in the history of Spanish

Florida.

Theoretical Framework

Cores and Peripheries

Sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein first developed the core-periphery concept as part of his World Systems Theory model. Wallerstein’s model explained the logistics of economic development on a global level through the development of cores and peripheries (Wallerstein

1974). According to World Systems Theory, an asymmetrical relationship of economic dependence exists between an established, dominating core country and the newer, peripheral

settlements dependent upon that core politically and economically. The core country serves as a center of economic development for all of its peripheries, thus those peripheries are dependent upon the core for their own economic development. In the core-periphery model, economic and political control leads to the creation of an unequal power dynamic in which the core country controls or influences the economic development of the submissive periphery. One of the characteristics of many peripheral settlements is that they have no alternative center to rely on, whereas the center has access to other peripheries to serve its economic needs. As the economic development of both the core and its peripheries progresses, the core becomes more developed as its economy grows on a global scale, receiving resources from multiple peripheries. The peripheries, under the control of the core, then serve as a supply source of raw materials for the core’s needs and function on the edge of a global, or world, system. The core’s control over its peripheries occurs either directly, through the establishment of an overseas administrative system responsible for instituting the economic values of the core, or indirectly, through the placement of local leaders within a larger economic system in the periphery. These leaders are expected to enforce the core’s values and economic needs within the peripheral regions they are responsible for (Wallerstein 1974; McGuire 1989:4-6; Stein 2002:904). The political, economic, or cultural values of the core then institute change within the new political, economic, or cultural structures established in the peripheral region. These regions are often referred to as either borderlands or frontiers (Lightfoot and Martinez 1995:476, 481).

Borderlands and frontier areas have many similar characteristics with each other. One important distinction between the two is that a territorial boundary exists on some level on either side of a borderland. A borderland has separate legal, political, and cultural systems that are upheld on both sides of a mutually recognized boundary between two established geographical

or politically controlled areas. A frontier is instead a region with no set borders and it is an area that can evolve into a borderland if an official border is established that defines its political or geographical limits. A frontier is often separated from, but its inhabitants are initially under, the influence of a dominant political core. As a periphery, a frontier is dependent upon its core for its own political, economic, and often cultural, guidelines (Lightfoot and Martinez 1995:473-478;

Cusick 2000:47-48). However, as a frontier expands, there is often an overlap of cultural, geographical, political, or economic boundaries. Different groups of peoples living on a frontier may interact and negotiate their own cultural, geographical, political, or economic boundaries and relationships independent of the influence of their core country (Lightfoot and Martinez

1995:473-478). These groups then may create their own social, cultural, or economic guidelines and break away from the control of the original core, eventually moving away from the core- periphery dynamic (Lightfoot and Martinez 1995:473-478; Parker 2006:80).

The Borderlands and Frontiers of Spanish Florida

Spanish Florida developed in the New World as a periphery of Spain, its core and home country. The territory of Spanish La Florida was established as a defensive frontier on the periphery of northern New Spain, a region that included parts of modern-day Central and South

America and the Caribbean. Spanish Florida was intended to serve a defensive role as a series of fortified settlements that would protect ships carrying products from the economically rich colonies of the New World back to Spain. Within the territory of Spanish Florida, two distinct regions developed both economically and politically during the early colonial era (Clune and

Stringfield 2009:72). These two regions were East Florida, with a capital at St. Augustine, and

West Florida, with its capital a series of Spanish-occupied settlements at modern-day Pensacola

Bay: Santa María de Galve, Isla de Santa Rosa, Punta de Sigüenza, and Presidio San Miguel de

Panzacola (Bense 1999:64-65, 217).

The land surrounding Spanish St. Augustine and Pensacola developed into two separate borderlands areas where cultural, social, political, and economic interaction took place between both European groups and between Europeans and Native Americans. At St. Augustine, borderlands developed between the Spanish colony there and the English colonies in South

Carolina by the mid-17th century. At Pensacola, borderlands developed between the series of

Spanish settlements there and at French Mobile by the early 18th century. The formal political designation of East and West Florida as separate regions occurred during the British Period in

Florida (1763-1781) when an official proclamation line was set (Clune and Stringfield 2009:97).

The proclamation line separated West Florida into the area between the Mississippi River and the

Apalachicola and Chattahoochee Rivers, and East Florida into the area from the Apalachicola and Chattahoochee Rivers to the Atlantic Ocean (Clune and Stringfield 2009:97).

Colonialism in the Spanish Southeast

A central theme in the studies of the core-periphery model discussed above is the power dynamic between European colonizers expanding into the peripheries, and the Native American groups already residing in those peripheries, who are undergoing the effects of colonization. On a larger scale, the process of colonization often involves the development of asymmetrical power relations in ways that become more variable on smaller geographical scales or in more localized regions outside the control of the colonial system. These relations may be an opposing dynamic of colonizer-colonized, foreign-indigenous, or European-Native. Anthropological studies of the mechanisms of colonialism have examined the effects of colonialism on Native Americans both within, and outside of, the colonizer-colonized model and have often addressed whether

Europeans were always the dominant side of this dynamic. There are multiple processes that take place when Native American groups reacted, either passively or aggressively, to the influence of colonialism and these reactions often affected the course of colonial development in peripheral areas. These processes, many of which involved the adaptation or adjustment of Native

American identities, included assimilation, acculturation, creolization, transculturation, and covert or overt resistance (Deagan 1990:299; Cusick 2000:46-47; Dornan 2002:219; Deagan

2013:262-273). The processes of assimilation, acculturation, creolization, transculturation, and resistance have been defined and examined in detail when they have occurred at the settlements of Spanish St. Augustine and Pensacola and the borderland regions surrounding them and other parts of the Southeast (Comaroff and Comaroff 1991:31; Jackson and Castillo 1995:19;

Lightfoot and Martinez 1995:474; Worth 1998:xix; Cusick 2000:46-47; Stein 2002:904-905;

Lightfoot 2005:237-238). Overall, these studies have shown that at these larger settlements, long-term, continuous contact between the Spanish and Native Americans resulted in the eventual integration of Native peoples into Spanish society through these cultural processes. The

Spanish residing in St. Augustine interacted with Native Americans and other ethnic groups in multiple ways, including intermarriage, a practice that continued for at least two hundred years while the Spanish occupied St. Augustine (Deagan 1990:299-300).

In eastern Spanish Florida, the Franciscan mission system implemented after the foundation of Spanish St. Augustine attempted first to utilize the cultural process of assimilation in its expansion into Native American territory (Deagan 1990:299). The process of assimilation, however, was not always a successful approach (Worth 2014:40). When assimilation was attempted, Native polities were allowed to maintain their identities and often utilized their knowledge and resources to reach their own militaristic, political, or economic goals through the

manipulation of the Spanish and their existing religious, social, or cultural institutions. These powerful leaders of Native American groups arranged to provide their own people as labor and provide food to the Spanish in exchange for trade goods, the promise of political and military

Spanish-Native alliances, and privileged or elite status in Spanish society (Dornan 2002:318;

Liebmann and Murphy 2010:9-10; Beck et al. 2010:39; Deagan 2010:45-46; Deagan 2015:56).

Native communities in both eastern and western Spanish Florida also relocated their communities of villages to other parts of Florida during the colonial era in order to maintain political and social relationships or trade ties with the Spanish. The Apalachee and Yamasee both utilized their ties with the Spanish to maintain access to desired trade goods through relocation of their settlements closer to, but separate from, Spanish settlements. These groups maintained

Spanish trade ties while still residing within reach of interaction and trade with the Native

American groups of the interior mission provinces. In the 18th century, members of these groups were able to serve as agents or middlemen between the Spanish and the Lower Creek residing in the Spanish-Creek borderlands of western Florida. The Yamasee of 18th century West Florida deliberately placed their villages where trade opportunities were readily available and where they could advance themselves socially through their status as Spanish-allied traders with Creek. The

West Florida Yamasee resisted Spanish influence by adhering to both Native and European trade rules and declined to become Spanish citizens in order to remain residents of the Spanish-Creek borderlands where they were able to reside as independent traders (Worth 2015:34-35).

The Middle Ground

While the processes of assimilation, acculturation, creolization, transculturation, and resistance occurred at the larger settlements of Spanish Florida, at Fort San Marcos de Apalache , there instead developed the existence of a “middle ground” area. The concept of the middle

ground was developed as a paradigm to apply to the development of relationships in frontier regions (White 1991). The middle ground was defined first by historian Richard White as a geographical place that both Europeans and Native peoples resided in but where neither held exclusive power over one another nor submitted completely to each other’s cultural or social influences. Therefore, both groups residing in the middle ground area were required to negotiate with each other in order to co-exist in the same physical and geographical space. Richard

White’s model explained cultural interaction as a process that took place in the middle ground, where a European-Native alliance formed and persisted due not to a devoted relationship between Native Americans and Europeans, but instead because these two groups created their own relationships of a social, cultural, political, and economic nature due to the recognition of a mutually beneficial outcome from the partnership. The middle ground as examined by White was a place where Euro-Americans could not afford to ignore the presence of Native Americans nor could they strictly control them, and so both sides were forced to make adjustments to their own behaviors and ideologies (White 1991:x; Deloria 2006:18-21). Through the process of negotiation, Native inhabitants of a middle ground area were active participants in the development of their relationships with Europeans and affected the course of colonial development within peripheral regions (Herman 1999:282; Deloria 2006:18, 21).

Fort San Marcos de Apalache

The frontier Spanish-Native relationships that were created at Fort San Marcos de

Apalache often adhered to the basic specifications of Richard White’s Middle Ground theory. At the fort, Native American and Spanish identities remained separate from each other as both groups adapted to a co-existence of a shared geographical space, the Apalachee Province, an area on the central frontier of Spanish Florida. Fort San Marcos de Apalache , established in 1639 as a

port and center of export for grain grown in the Apalachee Province, and later as a nexus of trade and interaction with the Creek Indians to the north, developed its own economic interests as it remained subordinate to the economic principals and laws of Spain during the First Spanish

Period in Florida (1513-1763), and to New Orleans and Pensacola during the late Second

Spanish Period in Florida (1781-1821). Spanish relationships with the native Apalachee residing in the province developed soon after its establishment, and the fort served as a point of contact with many of Florida’s Native American groups until 1821. The fort was constructed as a series of structures and each time a new fort was built, relations with Spanish-allied Native Americans played an important role in its placement and construction (Hann 1988).

The overall focus of this thesis is on the establishment and development of Fort San

Marcos de Apalache and its role in Spanish colonial history in the Southeast. This analysis examines the history of the fort and the material culture remains of the present-day archaeological site. It addresses how the fort was an outpost for Spanish-Native interactions on the Florida frontier while utilizing the theoretical framework of borderlands, frontiers, and the development of a middle ground, in order to illustrate the importance of Fort San Marcos de

Apalache within the greater context of Spanish Florida history.

In Chapter 2, I explain the methodology I used to develop the historical overview of Fort

San Marcos de Apalache . First, I introduce the historical documents, primary and secondary, utilized for the purposes of this thesis and explain their relevance to my historical study. Then, I explain how I performed my examination of cultural materials for the archaeological analysis.

Chapter 3 provides an overview of the history of Spanish Florida, the economic development of the Spanish southeast during the colonial era, and how that development influenced the establishment of Fort San Marcos de Apalache . I present my overview of the

history of Fort San Marcos de Apalache based on my analysis of primary and secondary documentary sources including letters, plans, and maps. I divide the history into six occupational periods of the fort: the first Spanish occupation (1639-1704), the second Spanish occupation

(1718-1764), the British occupation (1764-1769), the third Spanish occupation (1787-1821), the

American occupation (1818-1819 and 1819-1821), the Civil War occupation (1861-1865), and the post-Civil War period (1865-present). I conclude the historical section with the development of the fort into the modern-day Fort San Marcos de Apalache historic state park.

In Chapter 4, I focus on the archaeological history of Fort San Marcos de Apalache , beginning with an overview of previous archaeological work conducted on the site. I then provide an overview of the site’s material culture and present an introduction to the material subculture of ceramics. I conclude chapter 4 with a discussion on why the ceramic materials are relevant to my study of the fort and to this particular thesis.

Chapter 5 presents a general archaeological analysis based on prior archaeological fieldwork conducted at the site of Fort San Marcos de Apalache . I utilize four projects conducted between 1962 and 1991 in order to present an overall comparison of the material culture of the site. Chapter 5 is divided into two sections: first, a discussion of two survey and excavation projects (Olds 1962 and Smith 1963) conducted at the southeastern end of the St. Marks

Peninsula where a series of wooden forts were constructed and occupied between 1677 and

1718; and second, a discussion of two excavation projects (Anonymous 1966 and Dunbar and

Dasovich 1991) conducted at the location of the single stone fort, constructed and occupied between 1731 and 1821.

Finally, Chapter 6 provides a brief overview of the questions addressed in this thesis.

Chapter 6 concludes with a discussion about the results of my historical research and archaeological analysis and presents my initial observations based upon that analysis.

CHAPTER II

METHODOLOGY

Introduction

An examination of documentary sources and archaeological materials was conducted for this thesis in order to present an overall history of Fort San Marcos de Apalache and to illustrate its significance as an archaeological site in need of further study. Documentary and archaeological sources were utilized in this thesis to answer questions about frontier exchange systems, both European and Native, which developed in the middle ground area of central

Spanish Florida. These questions include (1) in what way did the Native American groups of

Florida provide supplies for the Spanish garrison’s use at Fort San Marcos de Apalache through trade partnerships, (2) what types of supplies were being imported to the fort from Spain and other countries to support the garrison’s needs, and (3) what does the archaeological analysis illustrate about frontier economics in Spanish Florida and the garrison’s utilization of goods provided through Native American sources, primarily ceramics.

Documentary Research Methods

This thesis project began with a review of historical sources on Fort San Marcos de

Apalache in order to determine what is known about the fort’s history. Primary and secondary sources were utilized including plans, maps, letters, and other historical accounts or translations of Spanish documents relating to the fort. First-hand research was also conducted at the State

Archives of Florida where archaeological site reports, photos, and field notebooks were examined and copies of reports were obtained from the Florida Master Site File.

Secondary sources whose authors had translated primary documents at the time of their work were also examined (Boyd 1936, 1937a, 1937b, 1941; Arnade 1955; Wenhold 1956, 1957;

Olds 1962; Din 2002, 2004). Additional primary documents were located in digital archives but were not transcribed or translated in full for this thesis.

Overview of Selected Documents

The documents that were selected as sources for the history of Fort San Marcos de

Apalache section of this thesis relate directly to the fort’s construction and its overall progression as a fortification. A wide range of military correspondence written by the fort’s commanders and

Florida’s Spanish governors pertaining to Fort San Marcos de Apalache was examined.

Particularly useful for the early history of the fort were the maps and correspondence of military and government officials located in the digital holdings of the Archivo General de Indias , the

Archivo General de Simancas ; the Archivo General Militar de Madrid and the Archivo Servicio

Geográfico del Ejército from the University of West Florida Anthropology Department documents library; the online archives of the Florida Memory Project run by the State Archives and Library of Florida in Tallahassee, Florida; the online archives of the University of North

Florida in Jacksonville, Florida; and the digital records of the Panton, Leslie and Company

Papers provided by the University Archives and West Florida History Center of the University of

West Florida John C. Pace Library (2011). A series of maps illustrating the fort’s construction, available online through the Archivo General Militar de Madrid , the Archivo General de Indias , the Archivo General Militar de Madrid , and the Archivo Servicio Geográfico del Ejército were also examined in this study, but they are not reproduced here in this thesis due to publication restrictions (Gelabert [1790s]; Gelabert 1795; Anonymous Author 1800; Perchét 1802).

Archaeological Research Methods

The archaeological materials utilized in this thesis were first made available in digital catalog form thorough the Bureau of Archaeological Research facility in Tallahassee, Florida

(Bureau of Archaeological Research 2013). From the digital catalog, a list of materials by category was developed and then compared to existing archaeological sources relating to colonial Spanish Florida in order to establish their basic typology (Olds 1962; Goggin 1968;

Deagan 1987; McEwan 2014). These sources were supplemented with the digital type collections available online through the Friends of Mission San Luis (2008) and the Florida

Museum of Natural History (2016) to identify ceramic typologies relevant to the Fort San

Marcos de Apalache material culture collection. Then, four detailed archaeological reports of the material culture of the fort were examined: Dorris Olds “History and Archaeology at Fort St.

Marks in Apalachee,” Hale G. Smith’s “Fort St. Marks Salvage Program, 1963” report, a

“Report on Excavations at Fort San Marcos de Apalache , 1966” with no ascribed author, and

James Dunbar and Steve Dasovich’s “Archaeological Testing of a Proposed Observation

Platform at Fort San Marcos de Apalache State Historic Site, 1991” report. These four documents were used to prepare a combined archaeological overview of the site’s material culture to present the information for a comparative analysis with contemporary sites. The items determined as the most diagnostic for a more detailed analysis were the subset of ceramics, the most abundant material at the site overall. The focus of the archaeological analysis in this thesis was on the European and Native American ceramics present at the site, their origins and date ranges if determined, and the implications of their presence or absence at Fort San Marcos when compared to similar Spanish colonial sites in the southeast: Santa María de Galve (1698-1719);

Presidio Isla de Santa Rosa, Punta de Sigüenza (1722-1755); Present-day Pensacola (1756-

1821); St. Augustine (1565-present); and Mission San Luís de Talimali (1633-1704).

CHAPTER III

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

There were two long-term Spanish occupation periods of Florida between 1513, when

Spanish explorer Juan Ponce de León named the territory La Florida and claimed it for Spain, and 1821, when the United States of America gained permanent possession of Spanish Florida.

Although a short-term settlement was founded on Pensacola Bay in 1559, continuous occupation of Spanish Florida did not begin until after the founding of St. Augustine in 1565. The First

Spanish Period in Florida began in 1565 and ended in 1763 when Spain relinquished the Florida territory to England at the end of the Seven Years War. The Second Spanish Period in Florida began formally in 1783, when the Treaty of Versailles returned British Florida to Spanish ownership and ended in 1821 when Florida became an American-occupied territory (Boyd

1936:15; Arnade 1961:149).

The Development of Spanish Florida

In the spring of 1513, Juan Ponce de León sighted the eastern coastline of present-day

Florida and named what was thought to be an island La Florida , after the time at which the land was sighted–between Easter, also known as Pasqua Florida, on March 27–and the Easter Octave that ended on April 3 rd . A series of Spanish exploratory expeditions followed Spain’s initial claim to the territory including those of Alonso Álvarez de Pineda (1519), Pánfilo de Narváez and Alvar Núnez Cabeza de Vaca (1528), Hernando de Soto (1539), Fray Luis Cáncer de

Barbastro (1549) and Tristán de Luna y Arellano (1559) (Thomas 1982:3; Milanich 2006:23, 38;

Clune and Stringfield 2009:12-13; Worth 2014:19). The Luna y Arellano settlement lasted two years and was abandoned in 1561 (Clune and Stringfield 2009:19). The next settlement attempt was made in 1565 when an expedition led by Pedro Menéndez de Áviles established Spanish St.

Augustine at present-day St. Augustine, Florida. The establishment of a series of small fortifications on the eastern coastlines of present-day Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina followed the founding of St. Augustine. These outposts formed the foundation for Spanish land claims to a large area of Native American occupied territory along Florida’s coasts (Childers

2004:24; Worth 2014:xi-xii).

The Spanish Mission System

After the settlement of St. Augustine, the Franciscan religious order established and then expanded a religion-based mission system throughout the Native American provinces of Spanish

Florida. This system was based upon the assimilation of existing chiefdoms into the new Spanish religious and political structures of Florida (Worth 1998:35). The expansion of Spanish Florida into the Native American territories where these chiefdoms were located led to the establishment of four Spanish administrative provinces in Florida: Guale, situated along the northern coastal region of present-day Georgia; Mocama, situated in the coastal region of southeast Georgia and northeast Florida; Timucua, which surrounded present-day Gainesville, Florida, and Apalachee, which surrounded present-day Tallahassee, Florida (Pearson Jr. 1974:262; Worth 2007:10, 196).

Both the Franciscan missions and the Spanish military outposts spread throughout Florida served these provinces and were based out of St. Augustine, the administrative capital of the entire

Florida territory and a peripheral settlement dependent upon Spain as its economic and political core (Worth 2007:183).

The settlement of St. Augustine was hindered by economic difficulties soon after its establishment. St. Augustine’s official system of economic support, a government subsidy or situado , was often inefficient. The settlement therefore relied heavily on provincial agricultural production to supplement the deficiencies of the situado . Agricultural products such as corn were

bought as surplus products from the mission provinces or grown in the farmlands surrounding St.

Augustine with the aid of Native American laborers acquired from the mission provinces through yearly labor drafts (Worth 1998:134). The difficulties in securing sufficient foodstuffs for the settlement of St. Augustine led Spanish officials there to attempt a search for an alternative supply of agricultural resources in the early 1600s. The focus of the search was on the westernmost mission province of Apalachee, which had been noted as a source of agricultural fertility as early as 1528 (Pearson Jr. 1974:268).

The Development of the Apalachee Province

The first recorded Spanish expeditions to the Apalachee Province were those of Pánfilo de Narváez in 1528 and Hernando de Soto in 1539-1540 (Clune and Stringfield 2009:12-13).

Both explorers noted the region’s agricultural potential due to a fertile clay soil that contrasted with the sandy soil of other parts of Spanish Florida, including the farmlands of St. Augustine.

Father Martín Prieto, the first Franciscan friar to visit the region in 1607, also noted the province’s agricultural potential (Pearson Jr. 1974:266). By 1633, the Franciscan missionization effort reached the western part of Apalachee, and in 1656, Mission San Luís de Talimali was successfully established as a new provincial capital in present-day Tallahassee, Florida (Worth

1998:35). San Luís de Talimali was the most populous of the Apalachee missions and served as the center of administrative, military, and religious affairs of the province until its abandonment in 1704 (Quesada 2006:59).

The Port of San Marcos: A Frontier Outpost in the Periphery

Native Americans and independent European merchants had utilized the coastal region of the Apalachee Province as a port prior to the arrival of Spanish explorers and missionaries into the province’s interior. Small trading vessels from Vera Cruz and Havana reportedly visited the

harbor of the St. Marks River mouth shortly after the establishment of St. Augustine. In 1637,

Florida governor Luis de Horruytiner sent an expedition to chart the St. Marks River and proposed that the Spanish Crown authorize the establishment of a fort there to protect trading vessels from storms and the threat of French corsairs (Bushnell 1994:125). In April of 1639,

Governor Damián de Vega, Castro, y Pardo, Horruytiner’s successor, traveled to Apalachee from

St. Augustine in two weeks and confirmed the existence of a direct sea route between the two ports. Prior to the Vega, Castro, y Pardo expedition, the Apalachee Province was normally visited from St. Augustine via the camino real , a winding path that ran east to west and crossed several mission village locations and a series of small creeks and rivers that could only be crossed by canoe (Worth 1998:159).

The establishment of a port at San Marcos at the confluence of the present-day St. Marks and Wakulla Rivers, approximately twenty miles south of present-day Tallahassee, occurred sometime in the year 1639 (Bushnell 1994:125). Following the port’s establishment, a military detachment was placed there under the direction of a deputy governor to monitor the shipment of agricultural supplies from Apalachee to St. Augustine. By the mid-1600s, the port of San Marcos had become the main export point for goods being sent from the Apalachee Province to other

Spanish ports including Havana, Cuba (Hann 1988:152). Shortly after its establishment,

Florida’s governors had begun to utilize the port for personal profit and authorized Spanish soldiers to act as trade agents to the interior of the Apalachee Province. The Spanish garrison also purchased deer hides from the Apalachee and established trade relationships with the Native

American groups of the interior under military orders, a practice not sanctioned by the Spanish government (Covington 1972:368; Waselkov 1989:118). Reports of these illegal activities led

Governor Vega, Castro, y Pardo to establish an additional garrison at Apalachee in the 1640s.

The garrison and its commander were sent to supervise the export of agricultural products, maintain order under the Spanish government’s jurisdiction through their supervision of the activities of visiting ships and their crews, enforce the payment of royal duties at the port to the

Spanish king, and to monitor the types of goods being exported from the province (Arnade

1955:176).

The soldiers Vega, Castro, y Pardo placed in Apalachee were officially withdrawn in

1651 (Bushnell 1994:129). This action was taken in part due to accusations of the Spanish government that Florida’s governors of benefiting from the illegal trade conducted at the port of

San Marcos in the name of royal service. It was also in response to the onerous labor demands of a privately owned wheat farm along the eastern margins of the province (Waselkov 1989:118).

Florida governor Diego de Rebolledo reinstated the Apalachee garrison in 1654, after he reported to the Spanish government that his soldiers, while trading with the Native American groups of the interior, had witnessed the arrival of a corsair ship at the port that was allowed to load up and depart with supplies without interference from the Apalachee Indians (Bushnell 1994:129).

During the Spanish garrison’s absence, the Apalachee had established themselves as participants in trade between other Native group of the interior and Havana. After the departure of the

Spanish garrison, the Apalachee reportedly took control of the port and opened an independent trade with Spain’s economic competitors, the British and the French. After the port was re- opened, Governor Rebolledo continued the practice of sanctioning soldiers to act as trade agents to the interior provinces in an attempt to reassert Spanish control of San Marcos and the

Apalachee Province. By the late 1650s, the annual exports of the Apalachee Province included large amounts of maize and beans, meat, and deerskins, which were shipped to Spain and other

Spanish-owned ports (Covington 1972:367).

The First Spanish Occupation of Fort San Marcos de Apalache (1677-1704)

In 1657, Florida governor Aranguiz y Cotes suggested the construction of a fort at the port of San Marcos in a proposal to the Council of the Indies (Wenhold 1956:303). Arunguiz y

Cotes offered to finance the fort’s construction in his proposal; however, the Council responded that since the governors of Florida had used military occupation of the province for personal economic gain, fortification of the port would not be authorized until an official investigation was conducted into the governor’s illegal trade practices and no fortification work was begun

(Wenhold 1956:303; Hann 1988:199-202).

Don Pablo de Hita Salazar, who was serving as governor and captain-general of St.

Augustine in 1675, received orders from the Spanish government to find a solution to the settlement’s agricultural problems (Reding 1925:173). He was to determine which Florida province was best suited for the settlement of Spanish families, so that Spain could expand the

Florida territory and establish a defensive front to counter the encroachment of the English out of

Charles Town, which was established in 1670 (Reding 1925:173). Hita Salazar recommended

Apalachee due to its fertile soil and strategic location between the expanding settlements of the

English to the north and the French to the west (Reding 1925:169). Hita Salazar, who acted without government sanction, ordered that construction begin on a fort at San Marcos in order to prepare for Spanish settlement expansion into the province (Hann 1988:202). The Spanish government intended to bring in farming families from the Canary Islands to serve as a defensive front against English and French settlers (Reding 1925:172). The Council of the Indies encouraged the settlement plan; however, an official effort was never made to accomplish it and the suggestion would be repeated again in the early 18th century (Hann 1988:293).

Governor Salazar failed to construct a fort at San Marcos due to a lack of funding from the Spanish government and the inability to obtain the cloth, beads, knives, bells, and other trade goods required as payment to the Native American laborers hired to construct the fort. The

Spanish government continually refused to fund the project or sanction its construction. Officials in Spain questioned the need for a fort at that remote location and requested an estimate of the total cost of the project. The Spanish government gave approval for Hita Salazar’s project in

1676 but refused to offer any official funding and documents indicate that Hita Salazar halted his work at the site that year (Olds 1962:67; Hann 1988:202).

A raid on the port of San Marcos by French and English buccaneers in 1677 resulted in the documented seizure of a frigate with a cargo of deer hides and whale ambergris owned by

Spanish soldiers who had prepared the products for illegal export (Milanich 2006:156). After the raid, between 1677 and 1678, Governor Salazar attempted a second construction effort of a fort at San Marcos without official sanction from the Spanish government. He garrisoned the wooden fort, which was made out of logs and coated in lime to give the structure the appearance of stone

(Quesada 2006:50). The fort was garrisoned with a detachment of thirteen soldiers (Boyd

1936:34). A series of Spanish plans dating to the 1670s, including one drafted by Hita Salazar in

1677, depicted a small quadrangular structure with four bastions facing the four cardinal directions (Olds 1962:11). The fort is illustrated in a second Salazar plan as a structure measuring approximately 66 ft. long with walls 16.5 ft. thick, a 71.5 ft. long parade ground, garrison quarters 11 ft. across, and a pinnacle height of 18 ft. The bastions are depicted as 22 ft. long and protected by an exterior ditch (Salazar 1680; Olds 1962:17). In 1679, the completed structure was officially designated as Fort San Marcos de Apalache (Bushnell 1994:147).

In 1682, Fort San Marcos de Apalache was attacked by French corsairs and burned after a fortnight of occupation and a failed attempt to ransom the Spanish garrison to the commander of the garrison at Mission San Luís de Talimali . In 1683, the Spanish government sanctioned the reconstruction of the fort due to concerns over France’s interest in colonizing the western edge of the Apalachee Province (Boyd 1936:4-5). Spain had learned of a French expedition led by

Robert Cavelier, Sieur de la Salle, which had been sent in 1682. The expedition had attempted to reach southern Louisiana to establish a settlement but had inadvertently landed in Matagorda

Bay, Texas. Spain was not aware the expedition had failed until 1689, and France’s interests in the Gulf Coast region prompted the Spanish government to reconsider the strength of its hold on the westernmost frontier of the Florida territory, the Apalachee Province (Weddle 2001:5-6).

Spanish engineer Don Juan de Siscara designed the third Fort San Marcos de Apalache as a small wooden structure, quadrangular in shape, with four corner bastions and a sixty foot square parade ground. The fort was placed on the same location as the previous two forts and garrisoned with twelve to sixteen soldiers (Boyd 1936:7). Trade networks were reestablished in the province and, by 1685, the Spanish in Apalachee had reestablished a productive export trade of agricultural products and other goods, including pigs, livestock, chickens, lard, deerskins, corn, ambergris, and pine tar (Milanich 2006:155-156). The successful operation of Spanish trade networks in Apalachee involved a complex relationship between the Apalachee, Spanish soldiers and friars, and other Spanish citizens residing in the province. Many of the Spanish soldiers and friars continued to act as middlemen between the Apalachee and the Native

American groups of the interior, as the expansion of trade networks continued both within, and outside of, Spanish Florida. Spanish economic interests in Apalachee included cattle raising, and from Spanish cattle ranches in Apalachee, crops and livestock were harvested and shipped from

Fort San Marcos de Apalache to both St. Augustine and Havana (Arnade 1961:122-123; Worth

2008:4-5).

English Destruction of the Apalachee Province

English colonel and South Carolina Governor James Moore led fifty English Carolinians and their Creek allies into Spanish Florida in January of 1704 and destroyed five Apalachee missions (Quesada 2006:59). Over a five-year period, a series of raids conducted by the English destroyed the Apalachee cattle ranches and the remaining Franciscan missions. The raids occurred initially as a result of Anglo-Spanish competition for control of the southeastern Native

American trade networks, mainly in deer hides. As the Spanish extended their trade networks out of Apalachee, the English had developed their trade networks further outside of Charles Town and had extended their alliances with the Upper Creek. With the destruction of the Apalachee missions, the English gained a dominant hold on the southeastern Anglo-Spanish borderlands between Florida and Carolina. The destruction of the province resulted in the abandonment of

Mission San Luís de Talimali and Fort San Marcos de Apalache , and a large number of Spanish- allied Apalachee relocated to the western Florida settlement of Santa María de Galve in

Pensacola and to French Mobile (Worth 2008:4-5).

The Second Spanish Occupation of Fort San Marcos de Apalache (1718-1764)

In 1716, following the 1715 Yamasee War that broke ties between the English and many of their Indian allies, a group of Spanish-allied Creek expressed a desire to officials in St.

Augustine to have a Spanish fort built in Lower Creek territory (Boyd 1936:8). This territory incorporated a large part of the former Apalachee Province, and the request came from a desire to have access to better Spanish trade goods. The Spanish government acknowledged that acceptance of the request would help Spain reestablish a hold over the trade networks with the

remaining Apalachee and Lower Creek in the province. The reestablishment of a Spanish outpost in Apalachee would also serve as a place from which to monitor rival French and British trade activities in the borderlands surrounding the province. The French had shown a renewed interest in the establishment of trading posts on the Apalachicola Bay west of Apalachee, as competition for trade relationships with the Native Americans had grown between France and England (Boyd

1936:9; Manucy 1959:223-226; Quesada 2006:50). The English maintained the advantage in the southeastern deerskin trade due to their access to larger amounts of supplies. Those supplies included the commodities of liquor and guns, items in high demand for both the Upper and

Lower Creek (Covington 1972:380-382).

Despite the increased availability of British trade goods, a number of Lower Creek had professed dissatisfaction with their British trading partners to Spanish officials in St. Augustine.

Those officials responded to Creek complaints by agreeing to reconstruct a Spanish outpost in

Apalachee to reestablish a Spanish-Creek trade partnership. Two Spanish expeditions were sent from St. Augustine to Apalachee and Apalachicola between 1716 and 1718 (Covington

1972:380). These expeditions were meant to determine if any of the local Creek, Yamasee, or

Apalachee leaders would be open to receiving Spanish assistance in relocating to the abandoned parts of the Apalachee Province. Both expeditions reported a large number of potential allies due to the dissatisfaction with the English trade goods (Olds 1962:29). Government officials in Spain and St. Augustine drafted an extensive resettlement plan for the Apalachee Province that would encourage the Apalachee, Yamasee, and Lower Creek to relocate their villages near Fort San

Marcos de Apalache to aid in the restoration of the province to its former agricultural productivity. Officials in St. Augustine then openly encouraged Spain’s remaining Apalachee and Lower Creek allies to settle near Fort San Marcos de Apalache . Ensign Diego Peña, the

leader of the 1716 and 1718 expeditions to Apalachee, had advocated to Florida governor Don

Juan de Ayala Escobar the reestablishment of the fort and the acquiescence to Creek requests that the Spanish establish a post there to encourage Lower Creek loyalty to the Spanish (Olds

1962:28-30). Governor Ayala Escobar agreed that the reestablishment of the fort would solidify

Lower Creek alliances and allow the Spanish to utilize their trade relationships with these groups to monitor the competitive British and French trade for the same alliances (Olds 1962:28-30).

The reconstruction of Fort San Marcos de Apalache began in 1718 due in part to both

Apalachee and Lower Creek requests and in response to the encroachment of French forces into

St. Johns Bay near Apalachicola. After the French attempted to establish an outpost in

Apalachicola, Captain Don Joseph Primo de Ribera was sent to reestablish Fort San Marcos de

Apalache with the assistance of a Christian Apalachee leader, Adrián, and a detachment of seventy Spanish soldiers including cavalry and artillerymen (Covington 1972:380-383). In April of 1718, Captain Primo de Ribera officially reported the wooden fort as complete (Worth

2015:8). The structure was built atop the earlier wooden forts and was another quadrangular fort with four regular bastions facing the four cardinal directions. It was approximately thirty-nine feet long on each side, and was built without an exterior fortification such as a palisade or ditch

(Boyd 1936:9-10; Olds 1962:30).

Spanish officials in St. Augustine had encouraged the relocation of both Apalachee and

Creek villages; however, by 1719 only one Yamasee mission town, San Antonio de la Tama, or

Tamasle, had been successfully established near Fort San Marcos de Apalache (Worth 2015:2-

8). Plans to construct a new Fort San Marcos de Apalache out of limestone blocks from a nearby quarry began between 1731 and 1732 (Sánchez 1731:1). Fort San Marcos de Apalache had become an important link between Spanish St. Augustine and the Presidio Isla de Santa Rosa,

Punta de Sigüenza in Pensacola, as well as a focal point for trade dealings with the Lower Creek residing between the two settlements (Olds 1962:42). Creek factions loyal to the Spanish provided officials in St. Augustine and the governors of Florida with reports of British activities in exchange for trade goods. The garrison at Fort San Marcos de Apalache received Lower Creek reports at the outpost and sent their information to officials in St. Augustine. The continued support of the outpost was contingent upon maintaining amicable relations with the Apalachee,

Yamasee, and Lower Creek who resided throughout the provinces of Spanish Florida. These

Native American allies also served as a supply source for Fort San Marcos de Apalache and kept the commanders of the fort apprised of British and French activities in the area (Hahn 2004:178-

180).

In order to maintain amicable trade relationships with the Native American groups of the

Apalachee Province, the Spanish commanders at Fort San Marcos de Apalache were instructed to keep resident and visiting groups supplied with Spanish goods, either through trade or as gifts.

Spain, France, and England continued to compete for control over the expansive Native

American trade networks of the Southeast, and securing them was an essential part of the larger economic operation of Spanish Florida. By the mid-18th century, Fort San Marcos de Apalache was frequented by the Apalachee, Yamasee, and Lower Creek who were able to capitalize on their access to Spanish trade goods in exchange for deer skins that were exported from Fort San

Marcos de Apalache to Spain (Wenhold 1957:252).

In 1745, Juan Isidoro de León was sent to Fort San Marcos de Apalache with orders to secure the outpost and encourage the support of Spain’s Native American allies. The post continued to serve an important role as a contact point with the Apalachee and Lower Creek who often informed the Spanish commanders there of the activities of the English and their Upper

Creek allies (Wenhold 1957:246). The structure was in a state of disrepair in the early 1740s,

Isidoro stated in his correspondence that “there is no place nor spot where it does not rain in”

(Wenhold 1957:257). The wooden walls of the fort had spaces between them measuring three to four inches. Through these spaces, Native Americans, from outside the fort’s walls, could monitor the fort’s interior spaces and the garrison’s activities. Captain Isidoro noted that there were footpaths through the stockade and parapet where Native American visitors entered at all hours to beg the garrison for liquor. A lack of supplies at the fort had led the Spanish commander to deny Native requests for liquor, pipes, tobacco, munitions, and other items in the fort’s stores.

Native American visitors accused Captain Isidoro of holding back on goods the English could readily provide and led Isidoro to attempt to alleviate the shortages by dispersing flour, which the

Native Americans openly discarded as useless. The distribution of liquor, the commodity of the highest demand, served to benefit the Spanish as, in exchange for receiving it, Native American visitors to the fort would report on English activities including military plans and the names of

British soldiers involved in the imprisonment and execution of Spanish soldiers from St.

Augustine (Wenhold 1957:249-258).

The successful distribution of gifts such as bread, pipes, and liquor, served to persuade perceived Native American loyalties to the Spanish Crown. In order to procure these goods,

Native American visitors often exchanged their labor to assist in the repairs of Fort San Marcos de Apalache . In 1745, Captain Isidoro utilized Native workers, including a local chief and his brother, to repair the fort’s wooden bastions. The bastions were in such a state of disrepair in

1745, that Isidoro remarked that should the fort come under attack, “once the enemy gets in below, we will have no defense apparatus except for grenades and carcasses” (Wenhold

1957:256).

The British Occupation of Fort San Marcos de Apalache (1764-1769)

In 1762, during the French and Indian War, or the Seven Years War, British forces captured Spanish-occupied Havana, an important port and shipbuilding center for Spain. When the war ended in 1763, the Treaty of Paris allowed the return of Havana to Spain, who in exchange ceded the Florida territory to Great Britain. Following the ratification of the treaty, a proclamation line was set that defined new boundaries within former Spanish Florida. The

British divided the territory into two colonies: East Florida, with set boundaries from the Atlantic

Ocean to the Apalachicola and Chattahoochee Rivers, and West Florida, with set boundaries from the Apalachicola and Chattahoochee Rivers to the Mississippi River (Clune and Stringfield

2009:96-97).

Great Britain’s new territorial boundaries placed Fort San Marcos de Apalache in new

East Florida. The British government initially declined to take possession of Fort San Marcos de

Apalache due to the poor condition of the port. In 1764 the British accepted possession of the fort and renamed the outpost Fort St. Marks. Under British occupation, the post continued to serve as a contact point for trade with the few Native American groups of the Apalachee

Province who remained allied to the British. English documents indicate that the fort served only a minor role in Anglo-Native affairs in the 1760s due to a lack of effort to encourage Native

American partnerships and the small size of the garrison. The first British garrison report, issued in 1766, listed a strength of only 56 men (Pampellone 1765:1; Boyd 1936:10-11). The garrison was reduced to 20 men in 1767 after British military officials in St. Augustine questioned the fort’s effectiveness as a defensive structure. A plan drafted in 1768 by the Spanish indicates the stone fort, begun in 1732, remained less than half-completed when it was handed over to British forces in 1764. The British garrison occupied the remains of the earlier wooden Fort San Marcos

de Apalache , a structure that had flooded in 1758, and had drowned forty Spanish soldiers that were living there as the stone fort underwent construction (Boyd 1936:10-14; Wenhold

1957:246-249). Fort St. Marks remained in poor condition under British occupation and received only intermittent supply shipments destined for the Native American trade. British forces abandoned the fort in 1769, citing a constant scarcity of supplies and food available to support the small garrison and maintain the outpost (Boyd and Latorre 1953:124).

On September 26 th , 1779, a Spanish expedition surveyed what remained of Fort St.

Marks. The expedition documented decayed stone walls and wooden ruins that the British forces had burned down when they departed. British forces had also knocked down the fort’s interior buildings, including the commander’s house, the blockhouse, the supply stores, the chapel, and had torn out and removed the windows and doors of the half-completed limestone structure

(Canto 1779:1).

The Third Spanish Occupation of Fort San Marcos de Apalache (1787-1821)

The political boundaries of the Southeast had shifted during the American Revolution

(1775-1783). The southern border of the new United States of America’s territory still belonged to Spain, but British loyalties had moved south during the Revolution and expanded their trading operations into the borderlands between the United States and Spanish Florida. When Spain officially returned to secure Florida in 1784 after the departure of British forces from East and

West Florida, they found that British merchants had expanded their trade networks throughout present-day Georgia, South Carolina, and Northern Florida, and were supplying their operations out of the Bahamas. At the conclusion of the Revolution, American frontiersmen had also expanded their trade networks south towards Spanish Florida and created new competition for the control of trade with Florida’s remaining Native American groups (Din 2004:311).

While the British had maintained control of Florida, British and Spanish merchants had begun establishing trading posts throughout the territory as early as 1771. During the early

Second Spanish Period in Florida, Spanish trading posts were established throughout West

Florida. British and Scottish merchants under Spanish authority at Pensacola, St. Marks,

Apalachicola, St. Johns, and Mobile maintained these posts (Brannon 1952:10; Williams

2010:30, 38). The Spanish government in Florida relied upon the most influential of the British trading firms, Panton, Leslie and Company, a group that had formed during the British Period in

Florida, for maintaining trade relations with the Lower Creek on Spain’s behalf. The company expanded in 1783 when Thomas Forbes, William Panton, John Leslie, William Alexander, and

Charles McLatchy extended their posts throughout the Southeast. Many of the firm’s members had gained influence in the Native American trade and the firm was able to place its posts near

Native American towns within Upper and Lower Creek, Yamasee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, and

Seminole territory. The Creek had expanded their territory significantly and by the late 18th century Creek villages were located west from the Wakulla River near Fort San Marcos de

Apalache to the Mississippi River and north to parts of present-day Tennessee (Brannon

1952:10; Williams 2010:30, 38).

In 1784, officials in Pensacola negotiated a treaty with a group of Lower Creek which granted the Spanish permission to re-occupy Fort San Marcos de Apalache (Boyd 1936:16). The fort was situated in Lower Creek territory and could not be re-established successfully without the permission of the Lower Creek. Lower Creek leaders had already requested that the Spanish reestablish a trading post in the area (McAlister 1959:249). The treaty allowed the Lower Creek to maintain their territorial claims in Florida they had retained during the British Period without

Spanish interference. The Spanish also agreed to protect the Panton, Leslie and Company store

on the Wakulla River near Fort San Marcos de Apalache (Olds 1962:78-79). Charles McLatchy of the Panton, Leslie and Company affiliates had established the post on the western side of the

Wakulla River, two miles from the fort, in 1783 (Boyd 1936:16).

Spanish officials in Pensacola hoped that their alliance with Panton, Leslie and Company would allow them to utilize their Lower Creek allies as a defensive force in the borderlands between Spanish Florida and the United States. The Spanish had neglected the Apalachee

Province throughout the British occupation of Florida except for the exploratory excursion in

1779 that had documented the fort’s ruinous condition after British forces departed. After the

British evacuation of Florida, the Spanish government was unable to provide sufficient trade goods to the southeastern trading posts or to win Upper and Lower Creek alliances away from the British and American traders in the region as these traders provided more goods at cheaper prices than the Spanish could provide. As part of the 1784 treaty, Spanish officials in Pensacola had granted Panton, Leslie and Company exclusive trading rights in West Florida in exchange for the signing of an oath of obedience to Spain (Olds 1962:78).

The Re-establishment of Fort San Marcos de Apalache

Bernardo de Gálvez, Captain-General of Cuba, Louisiana, and the newly defined East and West Floridas, gave official military sanction for the reestablishment of Fort San Marcos in

1785. The sanction was given, in part, due to the Lower Creek’s request for the reestablishment of a Spanish fort and trading post that had been made in 1784, and was also Spain’s strategic response to the increased presence of Bahamian-based British trade merchants and American traders in the southeastern American-Spanish borderlands. The re-establishment of the outpost would again allow Spain to monitor the activities of these traders and their relationships with the

Lower Creek (Boyd 1936:16).

In 1787, Fort San Marcos de Apalache was designated as an official post of Spanish West

Florida, an annexation of the Spanish Louisiana Province. Military and civil authority was given to the new governor of New Orleans, Bernardo de Gálvez. The military restructuring of Spanish

East and West Florida after the British Period gave the Spanish Regiment of Louisiana the responsibility of manning the small outposts of Fort San Marcos de Apalache and Mobile. The regiment was assigned to the West Florida garrison and subsequently stationed at Spanish

Pensacola. Although Fort San Marcos de Apalache had been officially reinstated on May 1 st ,

1785, the remote location of the outpost, the logistics of supplying and transporting troops there from Pensacola, and a difficulty in finding a commander who would agree to serve, a garrison was not designated for service there until May of 1787 (McAlister 1959:288, 291).

On May 9, 1787, Esteban Miró, Governor-General of Louisiana and West Florida, designated Luís Bertecaut, Captain of the Fixed Regiment, as the first commandant of the reinstated Fort San Marcos de Apalache . Bertecaut was instructed to assess the state of the previous fort and determine if the structure could be salvaged. If not, he was to direct the construction of a new fort at the same site and proceed to his duties as the post’s commander.

Bertecaut was instructed by Governor Miró to perform a series of duties: to prevent the export of provincial livestock to areas other than Pensacola or St. Augustine, to prevent Bahamians and other foreign merchants access to Spanish lands in search of trade, to utilize his power to prevent the Lower Creek and other Native American groups from traveling to the Bahamas to procure

British trade goods, to promote trade relations with the Lower Creek by rewarding those who demonstrated loyalty to the Spanish with gifts, and to encourage the Lower Creek to serve in the protection of the fort and the Spanish frontier (Din 2012:16-17).

Captain Bertecaut arrived at Fort San Marcos de Apalache on June 24, 1787, with a 52- man garrison, artisans, laborers, a baker, a storekeeper, a medical corpsman, and several other civilians. He reported to Governor Miró that the old fort was in a state of destitution and recommended that a new fort be constructed out of stone (Baker and Wheeler 2001:79).

Governor Miró emphasized in his return correspondence that the role of the garrison was to discourage Native American unrest, not to defend against a foreign maritime invasion from the

Gulf of Mexico, and that the garrison had nothing to fear except a shot from an Indian musket. In

1788, Governor Miró was forced to increase the garrison to 50 men due to the arrival of British loyalist and Indian agent William Augustus Bowles in the Apalachee Province. Bowles, who acted on behalf of the Miller, Bonnamy and Company out of Nassau, a rival firm of Panton,

Leslie and Company, had threatened to interfere with the arrival and dispersal of goods at Fort

San Marcos de Apalache and the adjacent Panton, Leslie and Company trading post (Boyd

1936:16; Din 2004:12).

The threats made by William Augustus Bowles in Apalachee led officials in Spain to re- evaluate of the state of Fort San Marcos de Apalache and the condition of its defenses. Officials in New Orleans dictated that an irregular design would be completed in place of the triangular shape the stone fort had been constructed in. A stone tower had been built south of the fort to serve as an observation point on the western bank of the St. Marks River but had been abandoned in the 1770s. Captain Diego Vegas, commandant at the fort in 1787, recommended to military officials in New Orleans that the tower’s stones should be used in the construction of the new fort. Governor Miró responded to Vegas that New Orleans had no fortification built of stone and questioned the necessity of a stone fort built in the middle of the wilderness. The governor and other New Orleans officials continually ignored Vegas’ formal requests for supplies and

additional troops for the outpost (Din 2004:314-315). On one occasion, Governor Miró remarked that the frontier fort “faced nothing more formidable than warriors, armed with muskets” (Din

2004:315).

In 1790, the stone fort remained in a half-completed state. Luis Bertecaut, who had returned as commander of the fort that year, drafted a plan that showed a pointed stone structure with an oven, well, washing places, moat, a gate to the single bastion with no parapet, a demolished kitchen, an artillery magazine in ruins, stone vaults, a ditch undergoing construction, a temporary wooden stockade, and a guard house lacking a ceiling and door (Bertecaut 1791;

Boyd 1936:17). The fort’s continuous state of destitution led Captain Francisco Montreuil, who served in 1793 as Bertecaut’s successor, to compare a year-long tenure at Fort San Marcos de

Apalache to having spent a hundred years in purgatory (Din 2004:314).

The fort’s religious needs were of low priority compared to its military ones, but documents indicate there were plans to construct a church there in 1792 and to hire laborers (No

Author 1792). From Pensacola, religious oversight fell to the parish of San Miguel (Coker and

Inglis 1980:79). The commandant of Fort San Marcos de Apalache requested a priest in 1791 and offered to supply the chapel’s construction materials if Bishop Cirilo could secure the cost of hiring laborers from the Spanish king. A single priest was dispatched to the outpost in 1793 only to return to Pensacola in 1794 and subsequently request to be retired (Coker and Inglis 1980:80).

By 1793, the garrison attached to Fort San Marcos de Apalache consisted of only twenty- five infantry soldiers and a few additional artillerymen. In October of 1794, Francisco de Paula

Gelabert, a Spanish engineer out of Pensacola, arrived in Apalachee to evaluate the state of the fort. Spanish officials in Pensacola had a renewed interest in Fort San Marcos de Apalache as

Georgia settlers had begun to arrive in the area and Bahamian merchants residing there gave new

support to William Augustus Bowles and his publicized plans to menace the Spanish outpost and the Panton, Leslie and Company trading store. Paula Gelabert compiled a new plan with instructions on how to complete the triangular stone fort. The engineer noted his complaints about the fort’s overall construction, which had it facing the land on the north side of the peninsula with its two smaller sides facing the Wakulla and St. Marks Rivers where the walls merged together. The fort’s northern curtain faced the outer stockade wall and moat and had small buildings placed up against it that included a hospital and living quarters for the fort’s civilian employees. Paula Gelabert recorded the highest point of the fort, the roof of the bombproof, as a total of ten feet. Although the original plan for construction of the stone fort began in 1731, as late as 1796 the plan had failed to be completed. Of the original layout plan, what had been completed consisted of only the one deficient bastion and the single curtain

(Casas 1796:1; Din 2004:321).

In 1795, the Treaty of San Lorenzo had designated the 31st Parallel as an official boundary line between Spanish Florida and the United States of America. Fort San Marcos de

Apalache remained the only military outpost on the frontier between St. Augustine and

Pensacola. In 1796, Spanish officials in Havana documented the state of the fort as a makeshift structure still in need of repairs and ordered that the engineering mistakes be corrected and completed to conform to a 1738 plan (Casas 1796:1). That same year Paula Gelabert noted the uselessness of the fort’s purpose, stating that the post “cannot serve as refuge for boats pursued by enemies on account of the difficulty of its entrance, unless they are very experienced, and if it is in order to keep other nations from having traffic with the Indians, there are various rivers on that coast through which they can enter without the least notice by the fort” (Gelabert 1796).

By 1797, the fort had a new wooden stockade but the original limestone walls had deteriorated and new construction plans had to be drafted. Plans were made to construct a new half-bastion on the northeast wall of the fort to the right of the one existing bastion on the northwest side. The garrison still consisted of less than the fifty soldiers officially authorized for the post by Pensacola. The repairs made to the stockade, hospital, guardhouse, jail, and stockade wall surrounding the bombproof in 1797 were the last significant repairs documented for the structure (Din 2004:322-327).

Spanish forces remained at Fort San Marcos de Apalache at the beginning of the 19th century despite its deteriorating condition. The fort continued to serve as a deterrent to illegal trade activities in the province and to monitor trade relations with the Lower Creek. In 1800, the fort was seized and occupied by William Augustus Bowles and his Creek forces. Bowles surrendered the fort a month later, and the Spanish regained control. In response to the seizure, new stonework began and the garrison was increased to over one hundred men (Olds 1962:123).

In 1802, as part of a survey of Spanish Florida, census takers from Pensacola documented one hundred and eighty-nine residents at the outpost including soldiers, officers, galley crews, convict laborers, and a Native American woman and her two children (Coker and Inglis

1980:81). That same year, Juan María Perchét drafted a plan showing the outline of the early

1800s structure (Perchét 1802).

In 1804, John Forbes, a member of the Panton, Leslie and Company firm, conducted a survey of West Florida on behalf of the company. His report, which was sent to officials in

Spain, recommended how they could regain their influence over trade with the Creek and other remaining groups in Florida by supporting the re-expansion of the firm’s trading post, which would reestablish a successful commerce. Forbes insisted the Spanish government support the

firm and provide them with goods superior to those of the Americans, who were able to undersell

Panton, Leslie and Company and had secured a dominant hold on the Native American trade in the Southeast. The Spanish had relinquished the Louisiana Territory with the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, and the boundaries of East and West Florida were further confined by the expansion of the United States. Forbes also recommended the Spanish government encourage immigration of the loyalists of the Bahamas and other European groups including the Germans, the Dutch, and the Swiss, to occupy the remaining frontier lands of Spanish Florida (Coker 1979:11-12). The

Spanish government officially reviewed Forbes’ plan; however, his recommendations were never implemented. Spain had lost what remained of its commercial monopoly on the Native American trade in the Southeast, and as Spanish Florida was not considered to be a prosperous economic territory of the New Americas, Spain no longer saw the need to support the territory (Fisher

1997:204).

Spanish authorities in Pensacola considered the abandonment of Fort San Marcos de

Apalache in 1808, but then retained the garrison (Boyd 1936:23). In 1814, Don Francisco Caso y

Luengo, the fort’s commander, proposed a plan for the strengthening of the outpost (Boyd

1936:21). Caso y Luengo recommended the addition of loyal Lower Creek forces to his garrison in order to promote aggressive raids against the southern American frontier after Creek factions further split their loyalties between Spanish Florida and the United States during the 1813-1814

Creek War. Spanish forces continued to occupy Fort San Marcos de Apalache ; however, Caso y

Luengo’s plan was never officially implemented (Boyd 1936:21-23; Olds 1962:124).

In 1818, American military general Andrew Jackson received a report that the Spanish garrison at Fort San Marcos de Apalache was supplying their Lower Creek allies with arms to be used against the United States. Jackson had also received rumors that cattle were being seized

from American ranches in the American-Spanish borderlands and sold to Spanish officers at Fort

San Marcos de Apalache . As part of his campaign in the First Seminole War in 1818, Jackson led American forces into Spanish Florida and seized Fort San Marcos de Apalache in April of that year (Olds 1962:113-118).

American Occupation of Fort San Marcos de Apalache (1818-1821)

Shortly after the American takeover of Fort San Marcos de Apalache , two Englishmen residing in the area as traders were captured by Andrew Jackson’s forces and charged with aiding Creek allies of the British and inciting the Creek into hostilities against American forces.

The governments of Spain and Great Britain initially objected to the seizure of two British citizens residing in Spanish territory; however, following an official investigation, both men,

Robert Christie Ambrister and Alexander Arbuthnot, were found guilty of their alleged crimes by

British officials and executed at the fort under American orders. Their executions and the initial political debate instigated by Jackson’s arrests signified the only significant military-related event to take place at Fort San Marcos de Apalache during the fort’s first American occupation

(Olds 1962:118-119).

Spanish Forces Return to Fort San Marcos de Apalache

By July of 1818, two infantry companies and one artillery battalion occupied the

American Fort St. Marks. In 1819, the American government ordered the fort be returned to

Spanish possession despite American forces having recently been sent to occupy it on a more permanent basis. The American garrison remained at the fort as they awaited the return of

Spanish troops to take possession. In January of 1819, a 31-man Spanish garrison was sent from

Pensacola to reoccupy the fort. On February 22, 1819, the Adams-Onis Treaty designated

Spain’s Florida territory a possession of the United States of America. The treaty was ratified in

1820 by the United States and in 1821 by Spain, and it signified the official end of Spanish possession of Florida (Olds 1962:123).

American Forces Return to Fort San Marcos de Apalache

Following the ratification of the Adams-Onis Treaty, American president James Monroe appointed General Andrew Jackson as Commissioner and Governor of East and West Florida, as the new American Florida had not yet become an official state (Olds 1962:125). Jackson wrote of his impressions of Fort St. Marks in a letter to the Secretary of War in 1821. He described a strong outpost with a deep ditch on all sides and walls of stone thirty feet high in the places where they had been completed. In May of 1821, Jackson made plans to take formal possession of Fort St. Marks and on May 22, gave the order to transport ordnance, stores, baggage, and other items from nearby Fort Gadsden to Fort St. Marks. The fort was still occupied by a small

Spanish garrison in 1821, as they awaited the official takeover of the fort by American forces.

Formal discussions between the Spanish and American governments over the details of the fort’s transfer were delayed by an argument over the wording of the Adams-Onis Treaty, and a debate over whether the fort’s armament belonged to Spain or America, as the treaty had failed to stipulate who the armament belonged to. In July of 1821, the matter was resolved and the

Spanish garrison of Fort San Marcos de Apalache departed for Pensacola. They arrived two days after the official transfer of Spanish Florida to the United States of America (Boyd 1936:25-26;

Olds 1962:122, 125-127).

The Abandonment and Dismantling of Fort St. Marks

American troops occupied Fort St. Marks until 1824 as a single company of infantry soldiers. In 1823, a treaty signed at American Fort Moultrie had stipulated the removal of the remaining Native American groups of central Florida to the Florida panhandle. The American

commander at Fort St. Marks advocated maintaining the garrison there in order to secure the new

American frontier until the removal was successful. American forces were ordered to abandon the fort in 1824, after which the Department of the Army and the American War Department no longer considered it an official military post. In 1826, American citizens residing near the fort expressed interest in establishing their own personal trading posts at the location of the fort. That same year, the American Congress designated $6,000 to build a lighthouse at St. Marks after a maritime community was established there. By 1830, commercial interests had developed in the area as a viable port and the first official suggestion of establishing a town at St. Marks was submitted by the Commissioner of the General Land Office (Boyd 1936:24-27).

In 1833, a survey by the General Land Office reported the remains of Fort St. Marks as consisting of a single deserted bulwark and a small number of decayed buildings “fast tumbling to ruins” that were “garrisoned” by a small number of rats, chickens, and pigs (Boyd 1936:28).

An act of the American Congress created the town site of St. Marks on June 30, 1834, and designated 3.16 acres for the establishment of the town (Olds 1962:175). The ruinous state of the fort was again noted in 1834 when the Tallahassee Railroad Company built a rail line through the area to service the new port community at St. Marks (Boyd 1936:28). The prevalence of Yellow

Fever in the St. Marks area and the need for a hospital to serve the port’s infected seamen was noted by a collector employed at the port in 1853 (Boyd 1936:28). That same year, requests began to build a mariner’s hospital at the port of St. Marks, which at the time was serving as a successful merchant port. The request for a hospital had been made a few years earlier after the collector of the port reported high rates of yellow fever in the area and suggested that a hospital be built there. The request was repeated the following year, at which time it was suggested that the stone remains of Fort San Marcos could be used for the basement and foundation of the

hospital. The Secretary-Treasurer of the United States repeated the same request to the War

Department a few years later, stating that what remained of the stone fort would be useless to the

United States government for any other purpose, and his request was granted. The construction of the foundation began with the removal of stones from Fort San Marcos ’ bombproof arches designated for the inner walls of the hospital foundation (Boyd 1936:28; Shenkel and Westbury

1965:2). In 1859, approximately $26,000 was appropriated by local government officials for building materials for the hospital’s construction in addition to the limestone blocks already salvaged from the ruins of Fort St. Marks (Boyd 1936:28).

Confederate Occupation: Fort Ward

The site of Spain’s Fort San Marcos de Apalache played a final role in the course of

Florida’s military history during the American Civil War (1861-1865) (Boyd 1936:28-32).

Confederate forces utilized the stone ruins of the fort in the construction of Fort Ward. The original stone walls of Fort San Marcos de Apalache were extended southward and five embrasures were constructed against the southern wall. Fort Ward’s main wooden magazine was constructed at the east end of the ruins and at the west end of the fort a second magazine was built. Fort Ward saw no major action during the Civil War but the St. Marks River and surrounding areas played a small role in the war during the Battle of Natural Bridge in 1865. On

May 13, 1865, the Confederacy surrendered Fort Ward to Union forces and the site was abandoned (Boyd 1936:28-32).

Post-Civil War Era

Between 1880 and 1882, the mariner’s hospital built that had been built with the stone blocks of Fort San Marcos was successfully transferred to the War Department but by that time the hospital had lost its roof and a majority of its remaining walls (Shenkel and Westbury

1965:6). In 1863, a military sketch had shown the hospital as a “shallow gabled structure with the ridge oriented in the North-South direction” with at least three stories. The hospital was abandoned after the beginning of the Civil War, but was put back into use at the end of the war in a minor medical capacity when a yellow fever outbreak occurred in the St. Marks community.

Shortly after 1865, the hospital was damaged in a hurricane and received an inspection by an agent of the U.S. Treasury Department in 1867, at which time it was noted as being in bad condition. The structure had settled almost two feet into the wet ground, had lost many of its doors, windows, and wall plaster, and the inspector noted that the path leading to the hospital was flooded. He recommended that the entire building be sold at public auction; however the

Treasury Department first made an attempt to transfer it to the War Department who refused to accept it (Shenkel and Westbury1965:3).

By 1882, the hospital was deemed unfit to provide medical services and the remaining structure consisted of only a small portion of the original hospital walls without a roof. Between

1891 and 1892, the remains of Fort Ward and the land surrounding it were platted and sold by the General Land Office into private ownership (Boyd 1936:28-38; United States Department of the Interior 1978; Baker and Wheeler 2001:80).

In 1963, the land on which the ruins sit was acquired by the state of Florida and the site was officially nominated for the National Register of Historic Places in 1978 (United States

Department of the Interior 1978). The Florida Legislature held a session that same year that designated the Florida Park Service the funds to build a state park around Fort San Marcos. A topographic survey was conducted in 1964 to assess the layout of the fort’s ruins and determine where to place a new museum. Florida State University then was given a grant to excavate the site of the hospital to record the ruins and collect artifacts while determining whether the new

museum could be constructed on the remaining foundation of the Mariner’s Hospital (Shenkel and Westbury 1965:1). The remains of Fort San Marcos as noted as having earthworks twenty feet high left from the Civil War era, limestone walls still standing, and located southwest of the hospital ruins, which were noted as “a 50 foot by 70 foot rectangle with a 20 foot by 20 foot extension on the north wall at the northeast corner” (Shenkel and Westbury1965:2). The land was later developed into the Fort San Marcos de Apalache Historic State Park that remains on the site in the present-day (Boyd 1936:28-38; Baker and Wheeler 2001:80).

CHAPTER IV

ARCHAEOLOGY

Introduction

The site of Fort San Marcos de Apalache has been of interest to archaeologists since C.B.

Moore conducted the first archaeological survey of the Wakulla County area near St. Marks, in what is now the St. Marks Wildlife Refuge Area, in 1900. In 1940, Gordon Willey conducted a second survey of Wakulla County and collected materials from a creek near the St. Marks area, whose exact location is now unknown. Willey noted the presence of a prehistoric Native

American mound that may have been the Spanish-built stone fort which was overgrown and covered with fill dirt in the 1940s (Willey 1949:296; Olds 1962:178). Charles H. Fairbanks and

Florida State University staff from Tallahassee, Florida, conducted the next series of surveys in the 1950s and 1960s (Fairbanks 1964). They located the remains of the partial stone bastion and wall constructed by the Spanish in the early 18th century, the stone foundation of the bombproof constructed in the early 19th century, and the earthworks constructed by Confederate forces that served as the magazine for Fort Ward during the Civil War (Smith 1963).

Hale G. Smith also conducted his earliest survey and the first test excavations at the site in the 1950s and 1960s. His survey included the grounds of the fort, the 1859 mariner’s hospital, and the St. Marks and Wakulla River areas bordering the site. The results of Smith’s 1962 field survey and test excavations were the basis of Dorris Olds’ “History and Archaeology at Fort

Saint Marks in Apalachee” master’s thesis from Florida State University that same year. In 1963,

Smith, along with John P. Marwitt, co-directed a Florida State University student team supported by a research grant from the National Park Service on a series of dives. The project was conducted after commercial dredging activities caused the bank of the St. Marks River to erode

at the site of the fort and exposed a large number of Spanish majolica sherds, Native American,

European, and American ceramics, and other archaeological materials (Smith 1963).

In 1965, the Fort St. Marks military cemetery was discovered on the land that is now the

Fort San Marcos de Apalache state historic site. That same year, nineteen burials from the cemetery were excavated and reinterred within the park. From 1966 to 1967, the first and only extensive archaeological excavation project to date was conducted at the location of the stone

Fort San Marcos de Apalache (Anonymous 1966). The project consisted of a series of thirty-nine trenches place from the eastern end of the fort’s singular bastion to the western wall of the fort at the Spanish bombproof. In the late 1960s, John M. Goggin conducted his extensive survey work in the greater St. Marks area. Goggin surveyed the fort and three contemporary historic sites within twenty miles of Fort San Marcos de Apalache : the Pine Tuft site, the Scott Miller site, and

Fort San Luís de Talimali . Goggin noted the Pine Tuft site and the Scott Miller site as mission period sites with a Spanish-Indian component that were likely two Spanish missions that had been destroyed in the 1702-1704 raids of the Apalachee Province. The materials collected from all four sites surveyed were incorporated into Goggin’s comprehensive Spanish majolica study published in 1968 (Goggin 1968:74-75).

Maritime archaeological expeditions continued in the St. Marks and Wakulla Rivers in the late 1970s and located wooden remains presumed to be a stockade that had initially been reported by Charles Fairbanks. In 1984 and 1985, the Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research conducted terrestrial excavations on the same features during low tide under the direction of

Henry Baker, determining that the structure was actually a 19th century dock (Meide 2001:64-

65). More recent excavations have also focused on maritime sites adjacent to Fort San Marcos de

Apalache (Dunbar and Dasovich 1991; Meide 2001; McKinnon 2003).

The results of Hale G. Smith’s survey and test excavations utilized in Dorris Olds’ 1962 master’s thesis (1962) and the report written by Smith (1963) himself provide a detailed overview of the site’s material culture assemblage in the area of the series of the wooden forts of

San Marcos de Apalache . For comparison purposes, the 1966 excavation and the 1991 survey conducted by Dunbar and Dasovich, which were located in the area of the stone Fort San Marcos de Apalache , were chosen for this analysis. The combined archaeological data from these four reports provides the information utilized in the following archaeological discussion.

Dorris L. Olds, 1962

Dorris L. Olds “History and Archaeology at Fort Saint Marks in Apalachee (1962)” included descriptions of artifacts collected from the surface and through the excavation of test units of the wooden Fort San Marcos de Apalache conducted by Hale G. Smith. The locations of his archaeological work included the bank of the St. Marks River, the riverbed at low tide, and the site of the 1859 mariner’s hospital, which is now underneath the Fort San Marcos de

Apalache Historic State Park Museum. Divers also collected items from below the exposed riverbank. Three excavation units were placed in three areas and excavated in five 4-inch levels:

Level 1 (0-10.16 cm), Level 2 (10.16-20.32 cm), Level 3 (20.32-30.48 cm), Level 4 (30.48-40.65 cm), and Level 5 (40.64-50.8 cm). The exact size of these units and their specific location were not documented except in a general description of the southeastern bank of the St. Marks River at the southern end of the peninsula where Fort San Marcos de Apalache is located. One unit was placed at the site of the 1859 mariner’s hospital, north of the Spanish forts, and excavated to a total depth of 10.16 cm. The other two units were both near the location of the first wooden fort constructed in the 1670s and were excavated to a total depth of 50.8 cm (Olds 1962) (Table 1-

Table 2).

TABLE 1 ARTIFACT DISTRIBUTION FOR SURFACE COLLECTION AND EXCAVATION UNITS BY LEVEL, OLDS 1962

Level Category Count Surface Ceramics 2,157 Surface Glass 209 Surface Metal 44 Surface Stone 19 Surface Shell 1 Total 2,430

Level 1 (0-10.16 cm) Ceramics 47 Level 1 (0-10.16 cm) Glass 45 Level 1 (0-10.16 cm) Metal 144 Level 1 (0-10.16 cm) Shell 2 Total 238

Level 2 (10.16-20.32 cm) Ceramics 114 Level 2 (10.16-20.32 cm) Glass 1 Level 2 (10.16-20.32 cm) Metal 82 Level 2 (10.16-20.32 cm) Wood 1 Total 198

Level 3 (20.32-30.48 cm) Ceramics 75 Level 3 (20.32-30.48 cm) Glass 44 Level 3 (20.32-30.48 cm) Metal 54 Total 173

Level 4 (30.48-40.64 cm) Ceramics 15 Level 4 (30.48-40.64 cm) Glass 1 Level 4 (30.48-40.64 cm) Metal 9 Total 25

Level 5 (40.64-50.8 cm) Ceramics 9 Level 5 (40.64-50.8 cm) Glass 1 Level 5 (40.64-50.8 cm) Metal 5 Total 15

TABLE 2 OVERALL MATERIAL CATEGORIES AND COUNTS, OLDS 1962

Category Native European or Imported Total Count Ceramics 1,218 1,365 2,583 Glass 0 300 300

Metal 0 329 329 Stone 6 13 19 Bone Undetermined Undetermined Undetermined Ethnobotanicals 0 0 0 Wood 0 1 1 Shell 1 2 3 Miscellaneous Undetermined Undetermined Undetermined Total 1,225 2,010 3,235

Hale G. Smith and John P. Marwitt, 1963

Hale G. Smith conducted a second series of excavations at Fort San Marcos de Apalache as part of an operation sponsored by the National Park Service. Fieldwork was conducted between September 28, 1963 and December 15, 1963 using methods associated with underwater archaeology including dredging and water screening. Smith, with the assistance of co-field director John P. Marwitt, conducted the survey as part of a research grant through the

Department of Anthropology at Florida State University after cultural materials were discovered during a dredging operation of the St. Marks River adjacent to Fort St. Marks. Smith directed the operation with the assistance of John P. Marwitt and a student team from Florida State

University. They utilized a combined methodology of diving, dredging, surface collection, and water screening to collect archaeological materials at the site. The entire project consisted of twenty-eight separate trips to the site, beginning with the placement of divers below the fort and across the channel from the fort, followed by extensive dredging of the river. Dredging began

200 yards downriver from the site where silt and bedrock was removed that had settled from the channel and washed in from downstream. Approximately a third of the total artifacts collected were from the spoil heaps of the dredge in a single day. The dredging continued for a month, between October and November of 1963 (Smith 1963:1-4).

On November 17, 1963, the dredging operation reached the area opposite the fort. Spoil was produced from this area and at the peninsula between the Wakulla and St. Marks Rivers at the site of the earliest fort. The exposed west bank yielded a large number of artifacts. A majority of the artifacts recovered from the entire project were from this area. A single structural feature was also uncovered; the series of posts were later determined to be the 19th century dock. A significant number of artifacts were also uncovered from the St. Marks River bank, particularly a large majority of the majolica pottery included in the project’s final artifact total (Appendix A).

Additional artifacts continued to be recovered from the west bank and the dredge spoil heaps from the western side of the fort until the project ended in December of 1963 (Smith

1963:1-4) (Table 3).

TABLE 3 ARTIFACT CATEGORIES AND COUNTS, SMITH 1963

Category Native European or Imported Total Count Ceramics 556 1,812 2,368 Glass 0 310 310 Metal 0 217 217 Stone 11 21 32 Bone 0 49 49 Ethnobotanicals 0 51 51 Wood 0 2 2 Total 567 2,462 3,029

1966 Excavation

In 1966, archaeological work was conducted at the site of the Spanish stone Fort San

Marcos de Apalache constructed in the early 1730s. A series of thirty-nine trenches were placed both within and around the Spanish-built stone structure. The stone fort area was excavated from

January 13, 1966 to February 4, 1967. The project field notes were misfiled in the Florida State

Archives under the wrong site number and an official excavation report has yet to be written at

the time of this thesis. By 2016, the notes were added to the correct site file. The author or authors of the field notes are not listed, but may be from a project led by archaeologist Henry A.

Baker, who was conducting fieldwork in the area in the late 1960s.

Thirty-nine trenches were excavated using the combined field methods of ground probing, front end loader machinery to remove fill, and shovels, trowels, and screens for each unit. Screen size and the location of the site’s datum are undocumented. The project began with the tracing and exposure of the foundations of the Spanish bombproof and the fort’s cut-stone walls from the north curtain wall and extending south, than east along a second wall, ending on the west edge of the curtain wall. There were three main excavation areas: (1) the east end of the north curtain; (2) three rooms inside the center of the fort along the north curtain; and (3) the

Spanish bombproof area to the eastern edge of the fort. The project resulted in the exposure of the fort’s stone bastion, north curtain, south curtain wall, three interior rooms, and the Spanish bombproof.

There were nine total levels excavated across the site: Level 1 (surface-15.24cm), Level 2

(15.24cm-30.48 cm), Level 3 (30.48 cm-45.72 cm), Level 4 (45.72 cm-60.96 cm), Level 5 (60.96 cm-76.2 cm), Level 6 (76.2 cm-1.1 m), Level 7 (1.1 m-1.4 m), Level 8 (1.4 m-1.7 m), and Level

9 (1.7 m-1.9 m). Level 6 was reached only in trench 17 and trench 27. Level 7, level 8, and level

9 were reached only in trench 17 (Appendix B). The project yielded a number of material types from each excavation area (Table 4) (Appendix C).

TABLE 4 ARTIFACT CATEGORIES AND COUNTS FROM THE NORTHWEST SECTOR, ANONYMOUS 1966

Category Native European or Total Count Imported Ceramics 262 149 411 Glass 0 103 103

Metal 0 268 268 Stone 15 6 21 Bone Undetermined Undetermined 454 Ethnobotanicals 0 0 0 Wood 0 0 0 Shell Undetermined Undetermined 15 Miscellaneous Undetermined Undetermined 208 Total 277 526 1,480

James S. Dunbar and Steve J. Dasovich, 1991

In 1991, a project was proposed to build a viewing platform adjacent to the stone bastion of Fort San Marcos de Apalache on the northwest corner. A one-day archaeological survey was conducted where the proposed platform was to have been built on April 15 th , 1991.

Archaeologists James S. Dunbar and Steve J. Dasovich performed the survey work and prepared the subsequent report for the Florida Department of Natural Resources (Dunbar and Dasovich

1991). The project was the first archaeological survey conducted on the eastern side of the stone

Fort San Marcos de Apalache in the Wakulla River. Dunbar and Dasovich excavated nineteen test holes on the Wakulla River bed in the area adjacent to the stone bastion (Appendix D). Four of the holes were excavated using a posthole digger and fifteen were dug with either a 3” or 4” diameter couple-jet dredge. Soil was removed from the holes using the dredge suction and deposited into nylon bags with 3/8” mesh. Artifacts and other materials from the nylon mesh bags were sorted by material type and counted on site. The artifacts were sorted by test hole location and bagged separately for lab analysis (Dunbar and Dasovich 1991:8-10). The test units yielded a variety of artifact material types (Table 5).

TABLE 5 ARTIFACT CATEGORIES AND COUNTS COLLECTED FROM THE NORTHWEST SECTOR, DUNBAR AND DASOVICH 1991

Category Native Imported Total Count Ceramics 111 151 262

Glass 0 168 168 Metal 0 30 30 Stone 2 Undetermined 12 Bone Undetermined Undetermined 72 Ethnobotanicals 0 0 0 Wood Undetermined Undetermined 2 Shell 0 0 0 Miscellaneous Undetermined Undetermined 45 Total 113 349 591

CHAPTER V

ANALYSIS

Introduction

The site of Fort San Marcos de Apalache incorporates two separate areas of colonial occupation: (1) the southeastern side of the St. Marks peninsula where a series of wooden forts was occupied by both Spanish (1677-1787) and British garrisons (1764-69) and (2) the northern side of the St. Marks peninsula, where the stone fort was occupied by Spanish (1787-1819 and

1819-21) and American garrisons (1818-19 and 1821-24). The material culture collection of the site of fort San Marcos includes items that reached Spanish Florida through a variety of sources.

In this chapter, I present the material culture recovered from the site of Fort San Marcos de

Apalache and the likely location or locations they originated from.

As discussed in greater detail in the previous chapter, supplies sent to the Spanish colony of St. Augustine were also transferred to Florida’s outlying fortifications including Fort San

Marcos . Colonists in St. Augustine often carried on illicit trade with nearby British settlements including Charleston, and by the mid-18th century, merchants in St. Augustine were able to obtain imported European goods through trade with licensed Spanish ships under the control of

Portuguese, Dutch, German, French and English merchants whose routes included stops in South

America and the Caribbean. These supplies may have made their way west to Fort San Marcos through local trade routes. Additional supplies were also sent to San Marcos in official shipments from Havana and St. Augustine as soon as the port was established in 1639. Havana later served as an official supply source for Fort San Marcos and regular trade occurred between the two ports on small ships. (Waselkov 1989:118).

Other items were acquired in Spanish Florida through local trade networks and from

Native American sources. The camino real , a dirt road connecting St. Augustine to the

Apalachee Province, was a common trade route that extended into other parts of Spanish Florida

(Worth 1998:156). The Apalachee Province served as a center of trade for the Creek and other

Native American groups who came into regular contact with British and French traders to the north of the province. These European merchants consistently traveled along the comino real and other local and regional water routes that developed between Havana, San Marcos , and the

Suwanee River port of San Martín (Boniface 1971:189-199).

As discussed in the historical section of this thesis, the Spanish government licensed the

British trading firm Panton, Leslie and Company control of trade with the Native Americans residing in Spanish Florida in 1784 (Olds 1962:79). In 1787, the region of Spanish West Florida incorporated Fort San Marcos as part of its annexation to the Louisiana Province (McAlister

1959:288). The fort was supplied from warehouses in Spanish Pensacola, the capital of West

Florida and the headquarters of the Panton, Leslie and Company trading firm. By 1795, the firm had established trading posts from modern-day St. Augustine to Memphis, Tennessee and a post that had been established near Fort San Marcos was moved inside the walls of the fort in 1799

(Panton and Leslie Company 1788:497; Coker 1979:2).

Archaeological Data

There are four separate archaeological projects that I chose to utilize in the following analysis. These four projects were chosen for this analysis due to the fact that they are the only projects to date that have been documented within, or adjacent to, the boundaries of Fort San

Marcos de Apalache in enough detail to use for the comparison purposes of this thesis. Two of the projects focused on the Southeast Sector, the area of the early wooden forts of San Marcos ,

and two focused on the Northwest Sector, the area of the stone fort (Olds 1962; Smith 1963;

Anonymous 1966; Dunbar and Dasovich 1991:11-20). A majority of the material culture used for this analysis comes from the southeastern side of the St. Marks peninsula, where the port and wooden forts of San Marcos were occupied for a one hundred and forty-eight year time period

(1639-1787) (Din 2004:11). The stone fort to the northwest, which underwent construction from

1731 to 1821, was abandoned in 1824. Spanish and American forces occupied this structure for only 37 years in total. Both site areas yielded material culture that included items found at similar Spanish colonial sites in Florida.

In the following discussion, the material culture of Fort San Marcos is compared to similar Spanish colonial sites in Florida in order to show trends in the site’s archaeological data.

The sites utilized for comparison are: Presidio Santa María de Galve (1698-1719), Presidio Isla de Santa Rosa (1722-1755), present-day downtown Pensacola (1755-1821), St. Augustine (1565- present), and Mission San Luís de Talimali (1656-1704). These sites were chosen for comparison for four reasons: (1) their Spanish occupation periods are contemporary with the Spanish occupation periods of Fort San Marcos (2) extensive archaeology has been conducted at each site and large-scale trends can be identified in their material culture and used for comparison purposes (3) all of these sites have a military component similar to that of Fort San Marcos and

(4) they represent general sample sets for Southeastern colonial Spanish sites.

Two of these sites, St. Augustine and Pensacola, have long-term Spanish occupation periods. Geographically, Pensacola consists of three separate sites: Santa María de Galve,

Presidio Isla de Santa Rosa, and San Miguel de Panzacola, located in present-day downtown

Pensacola. All of these sites are included as samples in this analysis. Although San Luís de

Talimali had a much shorter Spanish occupation period, less than 75 years, it was chosen for this

comparison due to its close geographical proximity to Fort San Marcos and its similar role as a frontier site in Spanish Florida. Three of the sites, Santa María, San Luís, and St. Augustine, overlap with the early Spanish occupation period (1639-1764) of Fort San Marcos . Present-day downtown Pensacola and St. Augustine overlap with the British and later Spanish occupation periods of Fort San Marcos (1795-1821).

I have first classified the artifacts from the Fort San Marcos assemblage according to their material categories. Within the material classifications I discuss what material types are present and which of the two occupation areas they are from within the site of Fort San Marcos .

Next, I compare each of these data sets to similar colonial Spanish sites in Florida. Finally, I discuss the material culture that is absent from each of the occupation periods of the site, whether those materials are found at my sample of comparative Spanish Florida colonial sites, and why some materials are absent from Fort San Marcos collections.

Material Categories

Ceramics

The predominant material type in the Fort San Marcos assemblage is ceramics, and they can be generally classified as either imported or Native in origin. Imported ceramics present at

Spanish colonial sites in the Southeast are those manufactured in countries in Europe, Central

America, the Caribbean, or Asia. They can be attributed to the general origin-types of (1)

Spanish-tradition origin (Spanish and Mexican produced tablewares); (2) English or Northern

European-tradition origin (English and possibly Dutch-produced tablewares and one German stoneware type; (3) French faience, and (4) Asian porcelain (Deagan 1987:104). Three categories of imported ceramics are present in the Fort San Marcos assemblage: storage jars, cookwares,

and tobacco pipes. Ceramics of Native American origin are present only in the form of tablewares or cookwares.

Storage Jars

Storage jars in the assemblage are all of Spanish styles and origins. There are three types of storage jars present: Spanish olive jars, early period (1490-1570); Spanish olive jars, middle period (1570-1800); and Spanish olive jars, late period (1800-1900). All of the 233 olive jar sherds in the assemblage are from the Southeast Sector (1639-1787) and the most predominant type is the middle period style that was produced during the site’s main occupation period, 1639-

1800. One hundred and ninety-six sherds are of the middle period style, 14 are of the early period style, and 23 are of the late period style (Olds 1962:192; Smith 1963:6).

Olive jars are commonly found at Spanish colonial sites in the Southeast dating from the

16 th to the 19 th centuries. Olive jars were manufactured in various styles from 1490 to 1800, and are found in large numbers on 16th and 17th century Spanish sites. These storage jars were utilized in the transport of liquids, olives, nuts, and other materials. Empty olive jars were also shipped to ports where they were filled with wine or other goods for further transport to the

Spanish colonies. Unglazed olive jars were often repurposed as household water jars and broken pieces utilized as construction materials or floor fill (Goggin 1968:28; Deagan 1978:31).

At Fort San Marcos , olive jars sherds number 234 and account for 7.1% of the 3,294 total kitchen ceramics. At Santa María de Galve (1698-1719), olive jar sherds number 2,023 and account for 17.2% of the 11,793 total kitchen ceramics. In contrast, early Spanish sites in St.

Augustine (1572-1600) and San Luís de Talimali (1656-1704) have a much higher percentage of olive jar sherds in their total kitchen ceramics count but in lower numbers. At St. Augustine, olive jar sherds number 1,269 but account for 73.4% out of 1,730 total kitchen ceramics. At San

Luís, olive jar sherds number 1,209 and account for 60.3% of 2,005 total kitchen ceramics (Olds

1962:256-257; Smith 1963:5-10; Anonymous 1966: 60-86; Deagan 1978:30; Dunbar and

Dasovich 1991:11-20; McEwan 1991:45-54; Bense 1999:121-206; Swann 2002:67-73; Roberts

2009:295-300) (Appendix E).

Tablewares/Cookwares

Imported tablewares and cookwares from the colonial period included in the Fort San

Marcos assemblage are of Spanish-tradition, English or Northern European, or Asian origin

(Olds 1962:256-257; Smith 1963:5-10; Anonymous 1966: 60-86; Dunbar and Dasovich 1991:11-

20) (Table 6).

TABLE 6 IMPORTED CERAMICS IN THE FORT SAN MARCOS DE APALACHE ASSEMBLAGE BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN (after Deagan 1987:104).

Type Count Percentage of Total Ceramics Spanish-Tradition 311 19.8% Origin English or Northern 1,227 77.9% European-Tradition Origin French Faience 0 0.0% Asian Porcelain 36 2.4%

Types of imported ceramics present in the assemblage are earthenwares, stonewares, and porcelains. Earthenwares account for 75.8% of the total ceramic types, stonewares 14.8% of the total ceramic types, and porcelains 9.4% of the total ceramic types (Olds 1962:256-257; Smith

1963:5-10; Anonymous 1966: 60-86; Dunbar and Dasovich 1991:11-20) (Table 7).

TABLE 7 IMPORTED CERAMICS IN THE FORT SAN MARCOS DE APALACHE ASSEMBLAGE BY TYPE (after Bense 1999:125).

Count % Ware % Total

EARTHENWARE Creamware 512 52.6% 39.8% Tin Glazed 40 4.1% 3.1% Lead Glazed 158 16.2% 12.3% Pearlware 52 5.3% 4.0% Unglazed 0 0.0% 0.0% Slipped and Glazed 35 3.6% 2.7% Indeterminate 11 1.1% 0.9% Whiteware 166 17.0% 13.0% Total 974

STONEWARES Salt Glazed 123 64.7% 9.6% Miscellaneous Types 67 35.3% 5.2% Miscellaneous Colors 0 0.0% 0.0% Total 190

PORCELAINS Oriental 36 29.8% 2.8% All Other Types 85 70.2% 6.6% Total 121

TOTAL IMPORTED 1,285 CERAMICS

This trend is different than is seen in downtown Pensacola (1756-1821) where stonewares account for the largest percentage of ceramic wares (61.7%), followed by porcelains (51.8%) and then earthenware (33.7%) (Bense 1999:125).

Spanish-Tradition Origin Tablewares/Cookwares

Only a small number of Spanish-tradition tableware and cookware types are present at both the area of the wooden forts and the stone fort: El Morro (late 1500s-1700); Rey Ware

(1725-1825); San Luís Polychrome (1650-1750); San Agustín Blue on White (1700-1750); and

Blue and Green Bacin (1750-1820). Mexican tablewares present in the Fort San Marcos assemblage can be attributed mainly to Puebla, Mexico City, and Guadalajara, Mexico. A

majority of the Spanish-tradition tablewares, 57 total sherds, are from Mexico and come from the

Southeast Sector (1639-1787).

Only 14 total sherds of Mexican tablewares are from the Northwest Sector (1731-1821).

Mexican tableware types present from both areas are El Morro, San Luís Polychrome, and San

Agustín Blue on White. Mexican tableware types from the area of the Southeast Sector only are

Fig Springs Polychrome (1540-1650); San Luís Blue on White (1550-1650); Mexican Red-

Painted (1570-1800); Abó Polychrome (1650-1750); Puebla Polychrome (1650-1725) and

Aranama Polychrome (1750-1800). Rey Ware, a type manufactured in both Mexico and Spain, is present in both site areas. Blue and Green Bacin, manufactured in Spain, is also present in both site areas. Only one type of Spanish-tradition origin tablewares, Columbia Plain (1550-1650), is only from the Northwest Sector. All of the Spanish-tradition sherds fit within the site’s known

Spanish occupation periods.

Spanish tablewares and cookwares account for approximately 19.8% of the overall ceramic types present at Fort San Marcos . All of these types of wares are typically represented in some number at Spanish colonial sites in Florida (Appendix F). This trend, a lower percentage of

Spanish tablewares and cookwares than ceramics of British origin, is also seen at later Spanish colonial Pensacola (1756-1821). At the earlier sites of Presidio Santa María de Galve (1698-

1719) and Presidio Isla de Santa Rosa (1722-1756), both in outlying areas of present-day

Pensacola, and at San Luís (1656-1704), this pattern is reversed. At these sites, Spanish-tradition ceramics are the most common type (Deagan 1978:30; McEwan 1991:45-54; Swann 2002:67-73;

Roberts 2009:295) (Table 8).

TABLE 8 GENERAL IMPORTED CERAMIC PERCENTAGES BY TRADITION PRESENT AT FORT SAN MARCOS DE APALACHE AND AT SELECT COLONIAL SITES IN SPANISH FLORIDA

San Marcos Santa Rosa Santa María Pensacola St. Augustine St. Augustine San Luís (1639-1821) (1722-1752) (1698-1722) (1756-1821) (1572-1600) (1650-1750) (1656-1704)

Spanish Tradition 19.8% 90.1% 96.5% 25.1% 40.1% 73.0% 7.5%

English Tradition 77.9% 3.1% 0.1% 37.4% 0.0% 23.4% 0.0%

Asian Porcelain 2.4% 0.5% 0.3% 1.6% 0.1% 1.5% 0.2%

French Faience 0.0% 1.6% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 2.1% 0.0%

Indeterminate Origin 0.0% 4.7% 2.3% 36.0% 7.7% 0.0% 0.0%

Total Imported Ceramics Count 3,294 639 13,816 8,871 1,730 10,102 2,005

English or Northern European-Tradition Origin Tablewares

English ceramics make up the largest number of the overall ceramic types present at Fort

San Marcos. One thousand and sixty-two sherds in the assemblage are of English or Northern

European ceramic types. Four English or Northern European-tradition origin tableware types:

Delft (1600-1800), Banded Yellow Ware or Cane Ware (1779-1900), Creamware (1762-1900), and Whiteware (1820+), are present at both the Southeast and Northwest sectors. Out of the total number, eight hundred and twenty-five English or Northern European-tradition origin sherds are from the Southeast Sector (1639-1787) and 237 sherds are from the Northwest Sector (1731-

1821). The most common type of English ceramics present overall is creamware (1762-1900) and it is found in both occupation areas. Five hundred and twelve sherds are of either the plain white creamware (1762-1900) or relief-molded borders type creamware (1762-1785) and are present in the Southeast Sector. Only two sherds are from the Northwest Sector. Plain whiteware

sherds (1820-present) are also present from both site areas (Appendix G). Seventy-six are from the area of the Southeast Sector and 87 are from the area of the Northwest sector (Olds

1962:256-257; Smith 1963:5-10; Anonymous 1966: 60-86; Dunbar and Dasovich 1991:11-20).

Three plain pearlware sherds (1780-1830) and six shell-edged pearlware sherds (1780-

1830) are present only in the Southeast Sector. Thirty-nine ginger beer bottle sherds of British manufacture (1835-1900) are also present in this area. One of these sherds can be dated to between 1833 and 1861 based on the maker’s mark of “Denby & Codner-Park Potters, near

Derby” and is one of the latest ceramic types present in the assemblage (Olds 1962:205). Six plain delft sherds (1640-1800) are present in the Southeast Sector. Three plain delft sherds and one sponged delft sherd (1600-1800) that may be of either English or Dutch manufacture is present in this area. Seven Jackfield-type stoneware (1745-1790) sherds and one banded yellowware (cane ware) sherd (1779-1900) are only from the Northwest Sector.

Thirty-three Rhenish/Westerwald sherds (1650-1755) of either English or German manufacture are present from the Southeast Sector (1639-1787). This style originated in

Germany but English potters copied many of the ornamental elements of the style from ca. 1785 to ca. 1810 (Noël Hume 1969:150, 276). Fifteen white salt-glazed stoneware sherds, two early- style slip decorated combed yellow sherds (1630-1795) sherds, a pink and white transfer-printed sherd (1793-1887), and a red and pink transfer-printed sherd (1818-1880) are present only in the

Southeast Sector.

English or Northern European-tradition tablewares make up the largest amount-77.9%-of the overall ceramic types present at Fort San Marcos . This pattern is different from Spanish colonial sites at Presido Isla de Santa Rosa, Santa María de Galve St. Augustine, and San Luis, where Spanish-tradition tablewares make up a majority of the material culture. At sites in

present-day downtown Pensacola (1755-1821), approximately 37.4% of tablewares are of

English origin and account for a slight majority over other tableware types (25.1% Spanish, 1.6%

Asian, and 36.0% indeterminate origin types) present in the overall collection of 35,051 total items (Bense 1999:121-183) (Table 8).

Asian Porcelain

Asian porcelain is found only in the Southeast Sector (1639-1821), where 36 sherds are present (Olds 1962:256-257). Chinese porcelain accounts for only 2.4% of the overall ceramic types present at Fort San Marcos. Asian porcelains are found in small numbers at similar Spanish colonial sites in Florida. At sites in St. Augustine, Presidio Isla de Santa Rosa, Santa María de

Galve, present-day Pensacola, and San Luís, Asian ceramics account for less than 3% of any of the total assemblages (Deagan 1978:30; McEwan 1991:45-54; Bense 1999:21-206; Swann

2002:67-73; Roberts 2009:295-300) (Table 8).

French Faience

There is a complete absence of French Faience at the site of Fort San Marcos . This is a common trend at early contexts in St. Augustine (1572-1600) and at San Luís (1656-1704), where a sample of sites shows no French Faience in those assemblages. At later sites in St.

Augustine (1650-1750), Presido Isla de Santa Rosa (1722-1756), and Santa María de Galve

(1698-1719), French faience typically makes up less than 3% of the overall ceramic assemblages

(Deagan 1978:30; Bense 1999:121-206; Swann 2002:67-73; Roberts 2009:295-300) (Table 8).

American Tablewares

A single sherd of American-manufactured Rockingham Ware comes from the Southeast

Sector. American ceramics were not widely manufactured in the Southeast during the American occupation periods of Fort San Marcos (1821-1824), or in the Southeast in general. Florida did

not become an American territory until 1825 and the absence of American-manufactured ceramics is easily accounted for. American ceramics are also completely absent from a number of Spanish sites in St. Augustine and in present-day downtown Pensacola (Deagan 1978:30;

Bense 1999:21-206;).

Imported Non-Tableware Ceramics

The remaining 5.9% of the ceramics present in the Fort San Marcos assemblage is made up of 424 ceramic pipe fragments all from the Southeast Sector (1639-1787). Three hundred and eighty-nine of these can be classified by bore diameter measurements and therefore can be generally dated. There are 52 of the 4/64” bore diameter type (1710-1800); two hundred and eleven of the 5/64” bore diameter type (1680-1800); one hundred and twenty-four of the 6/64” bore diameter type (1650-1800); and two of the 7/64” bore diameter type (1620-1710) (Olds

1962:213-215; Smith 1963:8; Noël Hume 1969:298).

Kaolin pipes of British manufacture are present at similar sites in present-day downtown

Pensacola (1756-1821) where they account for 1,214 of the ceramics by count and 11.2% of the total ceramic assemblage. They are also present in much smaller numbers at Presido Isla de

Santa Rosa (1722-1756) where they account for only 1.9% of the total ceramics count and at San

Luís where they account for only 0.02% of the total ceramics count (Olds 1962:256-257; Smith

1963:5-10; Anonymous 1966: 60-86; Deagan 1978:30; Dunbar and Dasovich 1991:11-20;

McEwan 1991:45-54; Bense 1999:121-206; Swann 2002:67-73; Roberts 2009:295-300). These pipes were commonly utilized as trade goods and gifts for the Native Americans in the Southeast

(Olds1962:212; Noël Hume 1969:296).

Native American Ceramics

In addition to utilizing ceramics imported from other countries the Spanish garrison at

Fort San Marcos , subjected to remote frontier living conditions, adopted the use of Native

American wares from local sources. The physical presence of Native American pottery corroborates historical documentation stating that Native groups visited the fort during its

Spanish occupation and also occupied the fort as short-term residents. These ceramics also likely filtered into the Apalachee Province from outlying areas through Native trade networks that expanded east, west, and north of Fort San Marcos , through groups who had contact with each other and with other European merchants and traders throughout the Southeast. The presence of

Native American ceramics at Fort San Marcos reflects the transitory nature of many groups during the colonial period, and this trend is seen at other colonial sites, including Pensacola and

St. Augustine, where the adoption of Native American vessels was common (Wenhold 1957:252;

Deagan 1978:30; Bense 1999:61-80).

Ceramic Typology by Time Period

There are four archaeological ceramic traditions represented in the Fort San Marcos assemblage that are present in the Apalachee Region: (1) Fort Walton Culture, (2) Leon

Jefferson Culture, (3) Creek Lamar, and (4) Atlantic Coastal Lamar.

Fort Walton Culture (1000-1700)

The earliest ceramics of the historic period represented in the Fort San Marcos material culture collection are those belonging to the Fort Walton culture, ca. 1000-1700 A.D. During the time of the Fort Walton culture, Mississippian populations adopted the material culture of the

Fort Walton groups and these later cultures are known to have inhabited the Apalachicola River

Valley, the Chattahoochee River Valley, and parts of northwest Florida (Milanich 1994:355-

380). It was during the 17 th century that the interaction of the Spanish with Native Americans residing in the Southeast increased with the expansion of the mission system and regional ceramic traditions began to spread through contact and migration (Scarry 1985:199). All of the ceramics in the Fort San Marcos material culture collection that is directly associated with the

Fort Walton culture are the Fort Walton incised type: Pensacola Three-Lined Incised.

Leon Jefferson Culture (1650-1725)

Traditional ceramic types of the Jefferson series in the Southeast are complicated stamped, incised, and plain, and the decorative techniques used are often affiliated with late stamped and incised wares found in Georgia, especially Lamar varieties (Smith 1949; Worth

1992:197-201). At many historic sites in Florida, the ceramic styles of the Leon-Jefferson cultural horizon had completely replaced the prehistoric ceramic types by many groups by 1650, including the Apalachee (Worth 2009:201-207). As new inter-regional interaction patterns appeared between the historic Creek, the Europeans, and the Apalachee, many ceramic practices spread more broadly across the Southeast and became less definitive in cultural affiliation

(Deagan 1972:27-33; Worth 2009; Pigott 2015).

Leon-Jefferson culture types represented in the Fort San Marcos collection are;

Ocmulgee Fields Incised var. Aucilla; Ocmulgee Fields var. shell-tempered; Chattahoochee

Roughened var. Chattahoochee; Jefferson Ware (plain and complicated stamped); Miller Plain;

Leon Check Stamped; Ocmulgee Fields Incised; grog-tempered (previously classified as clay tempered plain). One other types, Lamar Incised var. Ocmulgee Fields (previously classified as

Ocmulgee Fields Incised) may be either Leon-Jefferson or possibly Creek Lamar.

Creek Lamar

By 1650, stamping had been replaced in western Georgia and eastern Alabama, and western Georgia by the historic Creek ceramics that include the Ocmulgee Fields series and

Chattahoochee Brushed (both sand/grit and shell-tempered types (Knight 1994). The presence of roughened and incised pottery is predominant at archaeological sites and these techniques are attributed to the Creek in Georgia during the time period of the Leon-Jefferson cultural horizon within the Apalachee area, but became common to the region around Fort San Marcos after the

Yamasee War, when Creek and Yamasee communities began to visit and eventually relocate southward into northern Florida.

A majority of the ceramic types in the Fort San Marcos material culture collection are:

Chattahoochee Roughened var. Chattahoochee; Chattahoochee Roughened var. Wedowee;

Chattahoochee Brushed; Ocmulgee Fields var. Wedowee; Ocmulgee Fields Incised var. Aucilla;

Ocmulgee Fields var. shell-tempered; Lamar Incised var. Ocmulgee Fields; Lamar Incised;

Lamar Complicated Stamped; Lamar Plain; non-shell plain; and non-shell burnished types. Two types, Chattahoochee Roughened var. Wedowee and Lamar Incised var. Ocmulgee Fields, may be Creek Lamar but may also be affiliated with the Leon-Jefferson culture (Scarry 1985:221,

227; Pigott 2015:12, 111).

Atlantic Coastal Lamar

Ceramic traditions associated with the Atlantic Coastal Lamar, which are most likely associated with the Yamasee, who immigrated from this region, are the San Marcos types: San

Marcos Stamped and San Marcos Complicated Stamped (Worth 2009:192-207). These two types are most likely associated with the Yamasee culture, and more specifically to the Yamasee groups documented to have migrated directly from around St. Augustine in 1740.

Native American Ceramics at Fort San Marcos de Apalache

Native American ceramics account for 37.9% of the total ceramic assemblage at Fort San

Marcos . At the time of this analysis, the types and origin of these ceramics has only generally been completed (Olds 1962:256-257; Smith 1963:5-10; Anonymous 1966: 60-86; Dunbar and

Dasovich 1991:11-20). Approximately 84.5% of the historic Native American ceramics found at the site are non-colonowares. Colonowares, Native-made ceramics fashioned in European styles, account for 2.4% of the historic Native American ceramic types in the assemblage. The remaining 13.0% of ceramics of Native American origin are prehistoric types (Olds 1962:256-

257; Smith 1963:5-10; Anonymous 1966: 60-86; Dunbar and Dasovich 1991:11-20) (Table 14).

A majority of the historic types are likely of Apalachee, Creek or Yamasee origin (Olds

1962:256-257; Smith 1963:5-10; Anonymous 1966: 60-86; Dunbar and Dasovich 1991:11-20.

One thousand, seven hundred and seventy-four of the total ceramics attributed to Native

American origin were excavated from the Southeast Sector (1639-1787). Five hundred and thirty-five historic and prehistoric Native American ceramics were excavated from the Northwest

Sector (1731-1821). Of the total Native American ceramics count, 261 historic Native American ceramic sherds were excavated from a single room within the 1731 stone structure (Anonymous

1966:62-66). Historical documents note that Native American pottery was being made either nearby or possibly inside the fort’s interior rooms in the 1740s (Wenhold 1957:252).

Native American ceramics are expected to be present at Spanish colonial sites in Florida.

Historic period Native American ceramics, generally types found dating to post A.D. 1500, are typically tempered with shell, grit, or grog. Sand and limestone tempering as well as combinations of all tempers are also found. Native American ceramics types found at sites in the

Southeast may be decorated using brushed, check-stamped, complicated stamped, cord-marked,

cob-marked, incised, punctated, net-marked, fabric-marked, simple-stamped, slipped, painted, or red filmed methods (Archaeology Institute, the University of West Florida 2016: 57-59).

Ceramic Types Present in Overall Analysis

There are three thousand, nine hundred and two historic ceramic sherds in the Fort San

Marcos de Apalache assemblage utilized in this analysis. Of that total number, 78.42% of the sherds are identified as imported types and 21.58% of the sherds are attributed to Native

American manufacture or origin. Within the Native American types that may be dated to the historic period, seven hundred and ninety-nine sherds (94.89% of the total Native types) are non- colonoware types and forty-three sherds (5.11% of the total Native types) are colono ware types

(Table 9).

TABLE 9 IMPORTED AND HISTORIC NATIVE CERAMICS IN THE FORT SAN MARCOS DE APALACHE ASSEMBLAGE

Type Count Percentage of Total Ceramics Imported 3,060 78.42% Historic, Native 842 21.58% Non-Colonoware 799 Colono Ware 43 Total 3,902 100%

Ceramic Types Present in Geographical Areas Within the Site of Fort San Marcos

In the following discussion, the historic types of Native American ceramics at Fort San

Marcos have been categorized as either present or absent within the Southeast (1639-1787) or

Northwest (1731-1821) sectors of the overall site (Appendix H). There are eight hundred and forty-two total Native American ceramic sherds from the historic period included in this analysis.

Of that number, over half of the total sherds (69.48% overall) are from the Southeast Sector

(1639-1787) of the site. The remaining number of the total sherds (30.52% overall) is from the

Northwest Sector (1731-1821) of the site. Those that could not yet be identified by affiliation have been categorized as indeterminate within the historic period.

Types Present in Both the Southeast (1639-1787) and Northwest (1731-1821) Sectors

There are eight hundred and forty-seven ceramic sherds (that can be identified further by type) found in both the Southeast and Northwest sectors. These are types affiliated with the late prehistoric to early historic Apalachee (through c1650); including the Yamasee who lived in

Apalachee (c1675-1704) (Hann 1988:33-37, 264-283); the Creek (c1650-1823); the mission

Apalachee (c1650-1704); the post-diaspora Apalachee (1704-1763); the post-Yamasee War

Yamasee (1715-1763), including the immigrant Atlantic coastal Yamasee (c1740-1763) (Worth pers. comm. 2017). The remaining sherds that can be identified by type are of indeterminate cultural affiliation (Table 10).

TABLE 10 CERAMIC TYPES PRESENT IN BOTH THE SOUTHEAST (1639-1787) AND NORTHWEST SECTORS (1731-1821) (BY SHERD COUNT)

Affiliation Type Count Percentage of Total Count, Southeast and Northwest Sector Late Prehistoric Fort Walton Incised: 28 3.31% to Early Historic Pensacola Three-Lined Apalachee Incised (through 1650) Creek (c.1650- Chattahoochee Roughened, 516 60.92% 1823); Mission var. Chattahoochee: Lamar Apalachee Incised, var. Ocmulgee (c.1650-1704); Fields: Lamar Incised or Post Diaspora Langdon Incised: Lamar Apalachee Incised var. Ocmulgee (1704-1763); or Fields, Lamar: Ocmulgee Post Yamasee Fields Incised, var. Aucilla: War Yamasee Chattahoochee Roughened, (1715-1763) var. Wedowee; Jefferson Ware: Leon Check Stamped: Mission Red Filmed: Miller Plain: Shell-

Tempered Plain: Sand- Tempered Plain Immigrant San Marcos Complicated 41 4.84% Atlantic Coastal Stamped: San Marcos Yamasee Stamped (c.1740-1763) Historic: Indeterminate 262 30.93% Indeterminate Total 847 100%

Ceramic types present in both sectors are: Chattahoochee Roughened var.

Chattahoochee; Lamar Incised var. Ocmulgee Fields; Lamar Incised (Langdon Incised);

Ocmulgee Fields Incised var. Aucilla; Chattahoochee Roughened var. Wedowee; Jefferson

Ware; Leon Check Stamped; Mission Red Filmed; Miller Plain; Shell-Tempered Plain; Sand-

Tempered Plain; and Lamar Incised var. Ocmulgee Fields. All of the types present in both sectors of the site are found in greater overall numbers in the Southeast Sector (1639-1787).

Lamar Incised (Langdon Incised) and Ocmulgee Fields var. shell tempered types are found in small but equal numbers in both sectors (Appendix H).

The Southeast Sector (1639-1787)

There are two hundred and seventy-three ceramic sherds from the Southeast Sector that can be identified by type, which are present only in that area. Ninety-seven sherds can be categorized as types affiliated with the Creek (c1650-1823), Mission Apalachee (c1650-1704),

Post Diaspora Apalachee (1704-1763), Post-Yamasee War Yamasee (1715-1763), or Immigrant

Atlantic Coastal Yamasee (c1740-1763). The remaining one hundred and seventy-six sherds are types of indeterminate cultural affiliation (Table 11).

TABLE 11 CERAMIC TYPES PRESENT ONLY IN THE SOUTHEAST SECTOR (1629-1787)

Affiliation Type Count Percentage of Total Count, Southeast Sector Immigrant Atlantic San Marcos 27 9.89% Coastal Yamasee Stamped (c1740-1763) Creek (c.1650-1823); Lamar Incised var. 70 25.64% Mission Apalachee Ocmulgee Fields, (c.1650-1704); Post Lamar Diaspora Apalachee (1704-1763); or Post Yamasee War Yamasee (1715-1763) Historic: Indeterminate Indeterminate 176 64.47% Total 273 100%

Of the ceramic types that are attributed to a cultural affiliation, the seventy sherds that are

Lamar Incised var. Ocmulgee Fields, Lamar is the only type that is completely absent in the other sector, the Northwest Sector. San Marcos stamped, a type attributed to the Immigrant

Atlantic Coastal Yamasee (ca. 1740-1763) is a type found also in the region of northeast Florida.

This type is present only in the Southeast Sector (1639-1787) at Fort San Marcos .

The Northwest Sector (1731-1821)

There are no ceramic types present in the Fort San Marcos de Apalache assemblage that are found only in the Northwest Sector (1731-1821). All of the types found in the Northwest

Sector are also present in the Southeast Sector. There are, however, one hundred and eighty-three historic period Native American sherds found in the Northwest Sector that are types of indeterminate cultural affiliation which may be more accurately typed in a future analysis (Table

12).

TABLE 12 CERAMIC TYPES PRESENT ONLY IN THE NORTHWEST SECTOR (1731-1821)

Affiliation Type Count Percentage of Total Count, Northwest Sector Historic: Indeterminate Indeterminate 183 100% Total 183 100%

Historic: Indeterminate

A small number of ceramic types in the Fort San Marcos assemblage cannot be attributed to any of the above categories and can only be categorized by general temper types. These include sand tempered plain (previously classified as grit tempered plain, sand tempered plain, or sand tempered with mica); quartz tempered plain; and shell tempered plain (previously classified as Pensacola Plain). Almost all of these types are found at one or more sites utilized in this analysis. Temper types are sometimes useful in the study of certain cultural groups, such as the

Apalachee, as a means of tracing likely shifts in patterns of interaction and migration patterns as populations moved throughout a geographical area. At this time, the study of these patterns at

Fort San Marcos is beyond the scope of the current analysis but examples of this type of study for greater Spanish Florida may be found elsewhere (Melcher 2011; Pigott 2015). Further analysis of the types present at Fort San Marcos may provide more information with a more detailed study and could possibly then contribute to the larger study of ceramic typologies in the

Southeast.

Ethnic Groups and Movement of Their Ceramic Traditions and Types

During the time of the Fort Walton Period (1000-1700 A.D), Mississippian cultures of this study area manifested the material culture of the Fort Walton culture. It was during the 17th century that the interaction of the Spanish with Native Americans residing in the Southeast increased with the expansion of the mission system, and ceramic practices began to spread

through new patterns of cultural contact and migration (Scarry 1985:199). At Fort San Marcos , three main ethnic groups interacted with the Spanish garrison and with each other while in the area during the study period: the Apalachee, the Yamasee, and the Creek.

A small number of ceramics in the Native category are attributed to the prehistoric time period; however, a majority belongs to the historic period. The Native ceramics in the Fort San

Marcos de Apalache material culture collection reflect the mobile nature of many Native groups in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. During this time, many groups migrated throughout the Southeast due partly to the effects of European trade, warfare, and colonial encroachment on their home areas. This includes the raids by Colonel Moore and his Creek forces from 1702 to

1704 that resulted in the abandonment of the Apalachee Province and forced the Apalachee to relocate to French Mobile, English Carolina and its Creek frontier, and Spanish Pensacola and

St. Augustine. The presence of Native American groups at Fort San Marcos de Apalache was a regular occurrence and documents indicate that Native American pottery was being provided directly to the garrison in 1745. The Spaniards were known to readily adopt the use of Native vessels at other colonial sites, including St. Augustine as well as numerous other locations (e.g.

Smith 1948:318; Wenhold 1957:252; Clune and Stringfield 2009:55).

The Apalachee

When the Spanish first arrived in the Apalachee Province, the Apalachee residing there were likely the descendants of the late prehistoric groups that had inhabited that same area. The first Spanish expeditions to the Apalachee Province were those of Pánfilo de Narváez in 1528 and Hernando de Soto in 1539-1540. The Apalachee initially occupied a large part of the modern-day Florida panhandle between the Aucilla and Ochlocknee Rivers, in an area approximately thirty miles wide from west to east (Hann 1988). The province’s northern border

reached as far as the modern-day border between Georgia and Florida, and ended in the south on the Gulf of Mexico.

Prior to European contact, the Apalachee peoples were characterized by these Fort

Walton ceramic styles, as represented mainly by the Fort Walton Incised type, in the Fort San

Marcos area . The Apalachee persisted in using Fort Walton styles into the 17th century Leon

Jefferson time period, and in the Apalachee Province there is some overlap between these two styles. After ca. 1670, the Apalachee may also have been exposed to certain new ceramic practices by the local Yamasee residing in the Apalachee Province (John Worth pers. comm.

February 1st, 2018). Ceramic types potentially associated with the Apalachee include; Pensacola

Three-Lined Incised, Ocmulgee Fields Incised var. Aucilla, Jefferson Ware (plain and complicated stamped), Miller Plain, Leon Check Stamped, Ocmulgee Fields Incised, and grog- tempered. Two other types, Lamar Incised var. Ocmulgee Fields and Chattahoochee Roughened var. Wedowee may also be associated with Apalachee inhabitants during this period.

The Spanish missions in the Apalachee Province fell victim to a series of raids by the

English and those Creek loyal to the English between 1702 and 1704. The remaining Apalachee migrated either north to the British-Creek frontier in Georgia and South Carolina, West to

Spanish Pensacola and French Mobile, or East to Spanish St. Augustine (Hann 1988:1; McEwan

2000:57, 75-76). Between 1704 and 1718, many Apalachee also lived in the territory of the

Lower Creek. Following the end of the 1715 Yamasee War, other Apalachee and Yamasee groups intentionally relocated back near the former Fort San Marcos de Apalache . The

Apalachee that returned to Fort San Marcos may already have integrated with larger groups of

Yamasee or Creek people that they had been living with following the 1704 abandonment of the province. After the 1715 Yamasee War, documentary evidence suggests that it is unlikely that

many of the returning Apalachee remained long in the Apalache Province, probably moving westward with their kin near Pensacola (Worth 2008). Most of the brushed ceramic types at Fort

San Marcos probably post-date the Yamasee War. However, although brushing traditions had already been adopted by refugee Apalachee living during this period in nearby Pensacola, there is little documentary evidence for a sustained Apalachee presence in the Fort San Marcos area, and thus such ceramics are more likely to be associated with Yamasee or Creek residents near

Fort San Marcos than Apalachee during the 18th century (Worth et al. 2012:2-3; Worth 2015;

John Worth pers. comm. February 1st, 2018).

Eighteenth century Apalachee ceramics from the western Florida and eastern Alabama sites of Mission Escambe and Blakely Park and differ from 17th century ceramics at San Luís de

Talimali, the closest Apalachee mission site to Fort San Marcos de Apalache (Pigott 2015).

Although mission San Luís was abandoned in 1704, some traditional Apalachee pottery techniques likely persisted as parts of those groups returned to the Apalachee province in 1718 after integrating themselves with Yamasee and Creek peoples. By this time, however, the

Apalachee regularly incorporated Creek traits into their pottery, along with traditional Apalachee traits seen at Mission San Luís include Lamar incising and grog tempered complicated stamping.

Creek practices such as roughening and sand/grit tempering and the decrease in complicated stamping also influenced 18th century Apalachee pottery to the west. Consequently, even though roughening is a distinguishing characteristic of 18th century Creek and Creek-influenced ceramics, the Apalachee are known to have incorporated ceramic practices of the Creek and other groups they came into contact with, meaning 18th-century Apalachee pottery is similar in many ways to that of contemporaneous Creek groups (Pigott 2015:93-96).

Ceramics representative of the Apalachee are often difficult to distinguish as strictly

Apalachee. Apalachee ceramic practices in west Florida in the 18th century were influenced by outside factors such as social interaction, trade, and intermarriage. However, there are a few ceramic practices that can definitely be associated with the Apalachee, such as grog tempering

(including colono wares). This tempering is found seventeenth and eighteenth century sites in western Spanish Florida including those of Mission San Luís, Presidio Isla de Santa Rosa, and

Presidio Santa María de Galve. However, as Creek ceramic traditions combined with Apalachee ceramic traditions, the practice of grog tempering declined later in the eighteenth century. In addition, following the abandonment of the Apalachee Province in 1704, the Apalachee also seem to have picked up the practice of shell tempering from the Creek, and also from other

Indian groups west of the Spanish settlement at Pensacola (Pigott 2015). Shell-tempered plain is found in high frequencies on the sites of Lower Creek towns, including Apalachicola during the pre-Yamasee War era (Foster 2004:76; Clune and Stringfield 2009:55; Melcher 2011:101-106).

The Yamasee

The Yamassee people who originated in the Atlantic Coastal Region of present-day

Georgia eventually migrated west into the Apalachee province (Worth 2004:245-253). During the late 17th and early 18th centuries, they may have brought the San Marcos ceramic types (San

Marcos Stamped and San Marcos Complicated Stamped) to the Apalachee region. The Yamasee made at least one early migration into the area of Fort San Marcos where contact would have occurred with the Apalachee people already residing in the vicinity. Specifically, sometime before 1675, one migration resulted in the Yamasee settling at what became known as the Tama mission near Fort San Marcos (Hann 1988) . In addition, after 1683 some Yamasee relocated from the Atlantic coast and into Alabama and Georgia, where they likely merged their pottery

techniques with existing Creek styles after that period, mainly brushing (John Worth pers. comm.

February 1st, 2018; Worth 2004).

After the 1715 Yamasee War, small groups of Yamasee again began to move to the western interior, three years prior to the reoccupation of Fort San Marcos by Spanish forces following the 1704-1706 raids and abandonment of the region. That same year (1715), a number of Yamasee relocated from lower South Carolina to the Lower Creek territory between modern- day Alabama and Georgia, and an even larger groups to Spanish St. Augustine. Several groups later settled near Fort San Marcos after its re-establishment in 1718, in the town of Tamasle. In addition, as early as April of 1719, an Apalachee town was established near Fort San Marcos and mainly Apalachee residents occupied it. Two other towns were established in the area between

1718 and 1723, however they were occupied for only a short time (Worth 2015:1-16).

In 1726, a Spanish census documented Yamasee residing at two villages near Fort San

Marcos , San Antonio and San Juan. The town of Tamasle likely was the only town left in the vicinity of Fort San Marcos by the mid-1730s. By this time, the Apalachee who had been at the fort in 1726 had likely relocated to the Spanish settlement at Pensacola Bay or had integrated into the Yamasee population at Tamasle either by relocation or by marriage (Worth 2015:1-16).

The 18th-century Yamasee at Tamasle and the Spanish at Fort San Marcos often interacted, and the Spanish considered the Yamasee potential allies who could convince the

Lower Creek to relocate into Spanish Florida as well as serve as middlemen between the Lower

Creek and the Spanish. The Yamasee often traveled through Lower Creek territory and in the areas along the borderlands between the Lower Creek territory and Spanish Florida. The c1740 establishment of yet another western Yamasee settlement, this time located near Pensacola Bay, led to an increase in illegal trade between the mission Indians at Pensacola and the Creek–who

continued to trade with the English–and the Apalachee and Yamasee who also traded with the

English. In 1758, after a peace treaty was established between the Tallapoosa and the Abihkas (a group of Upper Creek), and the Spanish, interactions between the Creek and the Spanish increased and by 1759, two Creek towns were established in the northern borderlands of Spanish

West Florida. In 1763, following the British takeover of Florida, most of the West Florida

Yamassee migrated to Mexico with the Spanish inhabitants of Pensacola, but some remained behind during the subsequent British and Second Spanish Periods (Worth 2015:7-9, 21, 26; John

Worth pers. comm. February 1st, 2018). By the end of the Second Spanish Period in Florida, additional towns had joined the town of Tamasle that had relocated in the meantime to the upper

Apalachicola River. The town may have maintained its Yamasee identity, or its residents may have assimilated into the newer Creek and Seminole groups. The town of Tamasle remained there until after 1821 (Worth 2015:1-16).

The Creek

By the 18th century, the Creek Indians claimed a large area of the interior within the present-day southeastern United States (Hahn 2004). Geographical and political factors led

English colonists to separate the Creek into the Upper Creek, who resided in towns along the upper Alabama, Tallapoosa, and lower Coosa Rivers in central Alabama; and the Lower Creek, who resided in multiple towns along the middle Chatahoochee River and the Flint River drainage in west-central Georgia and east-central Alabama. These groups varied both temporally and linguistically (Foster 2004:65).

Regional Variations of Creek Ceramics

In the Chattahoochee River valley, the start of European exploration occurred during the

Abercrombie archaeological phase (1550-1650 A.D.), which followed the Stewart phase (1475-

1550 A.D.) (Foster 2004:79). In the Abercrombie phase, the traditional Lamar ceramics of the

Stewart phase began to change, including a decrease in grit tempering and an increase in shell tempering. This phase is characterized by Lamar-type ceramics with both shell and grit tempers, similar in decoration to certain types from central Alabama, from which some Muscogee- speaking towns migrated to the Lower Creek region by the mid-17th century (Worth 2000:268-

278). The Abercrombie phase was followed by the Blackmon phase (1650-1715 A.D.) that is characterized by the continuation of the Abercrombie ceramic types and an increase in shell tempering at sites where they are intermingled with Spanish artifacts.

The Blackmon phase was followed by the Lawson Field phase (1715-1830 A.D.), which is characterized by dramatic changes in the archaeological assemblages found at Lower Creek sites. This phase is represented by the post-Yamasee War (1715) groups of Lower Creek and includes the continuation of the Blackmon phase ceramic type Chattahoochee Roughened.

Unlike the Blackmon phase, the Lawson Field phase shows a significant decrease in shell tempering (Foster 2004:66-68). During the second half of the Lawson Field phase (1775-1830

A.D.), the minor presence of shell-tempered pottery expanded geographically but was still utilized mostly in the central Chattahoochee valley. It was during the Lawson Field phase that many of the Hitchiti-speaking groups in the north migrated down into Florida and later became the Miccosukee and Seminole (Foster 2004:79-80).

Late in the Blackmon Phase, many of the towns along the Chattahoochee River were abandoned in 1691 as a result of Spanish-English borderlands conflicts. Many of the inhabitants of these towns relocated east to the Ocmulgee River drainage in Georgia and remained there until 1715 when they relocated back to the Chattahoochee area (Foster 2004:66). This was also

the period that many of the Apalachee lived among the Creek after their homeland was devastated in 1704.

The Creek Lamar ceramic type Lamar Incised var. Ocmulgee is found in higher numbers in archaeological contexts around the central Chattahoochee River valley, and tends to decrease in frequency at sites when moving north to south. Lamar Incised ceramics made during the historic period are often distinguished between Lamar Incised var. Columbia and Lamar Incised var. Ocmulgee Fields. Lamar Incised types have sand or grit tempering and have been found in northern Florida, Alabama, and Georgia. The type recently denoted Langdon Incised is shell- tempered and is found across Northwest Florida during this era (Scarry 1985:221, 227; Foster

2004:73-75; Pigott 2015:12, 111).

Ancestral Creek peoples practiced Lamar complicated stamping, a surface treatment that lessened in use by the late 17th century. By the 18th century, complicated stamping had been replaced by the surface treatment of roughening, brushing, and cob-marking and ceramics with this type of treatment dominate many Creek assemblages dating to that time. Incising also remained a common surface decoration of 18th century Lamar types, and is also seen frequently at Apalachee settlements. These late varieties of Lamar ceramics were the most common type made by both historic Apalachee and Creek potters and area found at sites throughout the

Southeast dating to the 18th century. Eighteenth century Lamar types are typically characterized by surface brushing including that of corncobs or they may be cob-marked. They are also often characterized by incising along with sand and grit tempering.

During the 17the century, both Lamar check stamped and Lamar complicated stamped pottery is sand or grit tempered and has been found in northern Florida, Alabama, and southern

Georgia in different variations, and this Lamar-style stamping is also associated with Apalachee

mission communities, as part of the Leon-Jefferson ceramic assemblage, including both sand and grit tempered Lamar types and parallel grog-tempered types of the Jefferson series (Worth 1992).

In the mid-18 th century, the Apalachee at the Blakely Park settlement in eastern Alabama and at

Mission Escambe in western Florida continued these practices and these techniques spread either through Apalachee-Creek interaction or between Apalachee groups. Lamar Incised var.

Ocmulgee Fields also increased along with Lamar Complicated Stamped and non-shell burnished types. Lamar Incised var. Ocmulgee is found in higher numbers in archaeological contexts around the central Chattahoochee River Valley and tends to decrease in frequency at more southern sites. Lamar type ceramics were made in Alabama and central Georgia and these practices spread into northern Florida during the colonial era, though the processes for this are unclear (Knight 1994:183-185; Foster 2004:73-75; Pigott 2015:82-88, 110-113).

As at Fort San Marcos de Apalache , many Lower Creek sites lack defined stratigraphic contexts and therefore ceramic seriation is problematic. In general, archaeological sites are usually designated as Creek sites if Chattahoochee Roughened var . Chattahoochee is present, a pottery type that is considered the standard marker for Creek Indian sites as far west as

Oklahoma. Sand or grit tempering characterizes Chattahoochee Roughened, and either brushing

(Chattahoochee Roughened var. Chattahoochee) or cob-marked (Chattahoochee Roughened var .

Wedowee) are common characteristics. These types are found in northern Florida, Alabama, and

Georgia, but in recent years it has become apparent that Apalachee refugee communities also adopted these ceramic practices as did, potentially, the Yamasee (Pigott 2015). Creek Lamar ceramic types, therefore, cannot be assigned exclusively to any one of these groups, but represent instead the continuation of the Creek Lamar ceramic tradition by members of several ethnicities

(John Worth pers. comm. February 21st, 2018).

Colonowares

There are two types of colono wares in the Fort San Marcos assemblage: (1) Mission Red

Filmed and (2) Miller Plain. Mission Red Filmed is a general type found across colonial sites in the Southeast, including those utilized in this analysis: Fort San Marcos de Apalache (1639-

1821); Presidio Santa María de Galve (1698-1729); Presidio Isla de Santa Rosa, Punta de

Sigüenza (1722-1755); Pensacola (1755-1821); St. Augustine (1572-1600); and Mission San

Luís de Talimali (1656-1704). At Fort San Marcos , Mission Red Filmed is found in both the

Southeast (1639-1787) and Northwest (1731-1821) sectors. This type is found in greater numbers in the Southeast Sector (Appendix H). Miller Plain is found at Fort San Marcos but not at the other sites utilized in this comparison. This type is also found in greater numbers in the

Southeast Sector (Appendix H). It is highly likely that this is a type that has been reclassified in more current studies, and there are numerous detailed studies that address the classification issues of colono wares at sites in the Southeast (Melcher 2011; Worth et al. 2012; Worth and

Melcher 2015). Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, these types will only be referred to in general terms.

Various types of colono wares (Mission Red, Kasita, Miller Plain) are present in small numbers at Fort San Marcos de Apalache , Santa Rosa, Punta de Sigüenza (1722-1756), and

Mission San Luís de Talimali (1633-1704). At Fort San Marcos , colono ware varieties number only fifty-two sherds, or 2.4% of the total number of Native American ceramics (Olds 1962:256-

257; Smith 1963:5-10; Anonymous 1966: 60-86; Deagan 1978:30; Dunbar and Dasovich

1991:11; McEwan 1991:45-54; Bense 1999; Swann 2002:67-73; Roberts 2009:295-300).

Colono wares are typically considered examples of hybrid material culture, which may be defined minimally as “the production of material objects incorporating multiple elements of

multiple existing stylistic or technological traditions” (Card 2013:1). These objects were often created by Native American potters in ways that illustrated their membership in a certain community but their manufacture was also affected by internal changes in pottery styles. The production of colono ware as a result of the interaction of colonial, African, and Native

American populations can provide insight into more overarching patterns on the frontier indicating cultural interaction whether they were made as a result of the interaction of external cultures and forced economic practices or the cultural changes due to internal factors (Deagan

1990:308; Melcher 2011:5; Pigott 2015:5).

The frontier interactions that produced colono ware occurred on both economic and acculturative levels. Native American and African populations interacted with Europeans in cultural and social ways, sharing ideas about household etiquette and the preparation of foodstuffs, often through intermarriage or household employment (Deagan 1990:308). These interactions may have occurred on a personal level as a result of European individuals on the frontier seeking replacement tablewares through negotiation with other individuals, or on a larger scale when someone such as a fort’s quartermaster sought to replace supplies that were in short supply at frontier outposts. These wares could be the result of simple, and functional, accommodation, such as when traditional Native American wares were made in round forms that did not easily rest on a traditionally flat table in a European style. It is also possible that the production of these wares occurred through acculturation. This process would have allowed

Native American groups to assimilate to European foodstuffs while utilizing aspects of European culture that would promote their socio-economic status. However these wares came about, they represent the colonial interactions of Native American, African, and European peoples (Melcher

2011:122).

Colono Wares on the Southeastern Frontier

Colono ware may be defined simplistically as “low-fired earthenware in European form”

(Melcher 2011:xiii). The lack of a universal definition of ‘colono ware’ has complicated their classification, interpretation, and analysis. Colono wares have yet to be clearly defined across archaeological sites. Based on recent archaeological research, colono wares found on sites in

North America are often characterized as similar to Native American ceramics of the same time period (Cordell 2002; Melcher 2011; Cordell 2013; Deagan 2013).

In the Southeastern United States, Spanish colonial sites indicate that Native American groups created these wares based on similarities to more traditional ceramics of Native American origin. This does not imply that Native Americans were the only ones who made these wares, however, as other immigrants of African or European origin many have learned how to produce these wares from local Native groups. The traditions and techniques utilized by Native American groups in the Southeast indicate that at least at Spanish sites, Native American groups were at least primarily responsible for the production of colono wares. The presence of colono wares on archaeological sites can provide information about the interaction of multiple ethnic groups socially and economically on the Southeastern frontier of colonial America.

The origin of colono wares is often less clear than what these vessels were intended for, that is to fill a need within the colonial economy. Frontier outposts faced shortages in available goods on a consistent basis, and the manufacture of colono wares were one way to fill a void for

European tableware. It is likely that anyone, whether European, African, or Native American, who possessed or could gain the skill for creating these ceramics, would produce these copies of

European vessels to meet the demand.

Despite a known lack of available European vessels and the larger numbers of Native

American ceramics present on archaeological sites, these wares make up a low percentage of overall ceramic assemblages at these sites, when it appears that there should instead a larger amount of colono ware materials on colonial Spanish sites. This low frequency indicates that all colonists at a Spanish site were not necessarily reliant on colono wares to replace the deficiency of European tablewares (Melcher 2011:116-118).

The low frequency of colono wares on Spanish colonial sites may be related to the influence of the Spanish caste system on Spanish families and individuals residing on the southeastern frontier. Jennifer Melcher hypothesizes that “individuals who wished to avoid being seen as ‘going native,’ such as officers in the Spanish military, but who could not afford or obtain the more expensive Mexican imports, resorted to contracting locally for colono ware production,” a theory which is supported by the distribution of these wares at Pensacola’s late seventeenth and early eighteenth sites of Presidio Santa María de Galve and Presidio Isla de

Santa Rosa (Melcher 2011:118-119). An additional factor that indicates colono wares were related to class or status is in the presence of certain vessel forms, mainly tablewares. Colono wares are not found in larger vessel forms, such as olive jars, which may be because Native

American ceramic vessels were readily available in these forms and therefore there was no need for a new vessel form. Or, these large vessels may have been kept out of sight of visitors in areas where food was stored or prepared, rather than in visible areas where tablewares were utilized.

Therefore, vessels that were not seen by visitors would not need to appear Spanish in style

(Melcher 2011:118-120).

Comparative Sites in Colonial Spanish Florida

The failure of Spain’s mercantilist system to take hold in the Southeast led to the development of alternative methods of procuring material goods at Fort San Marcos de

Apalache . In addition to utilizing ceramics imported from European countries other than Spain, the Spanish garrison adapted to remote frontier conditions by adopting the use of Native

American wares from Apalachee, Yamasee, and Creek sources. The presence of Native pottery supports the historical documents stating that Native groups were constantly visiting the fort and also occupied the site as short-term residents (Wenhold 1957:252).

The continual presence of Native groups in the area of Fort San Marcos allowed the

Spanish garrison to adopt Native ceramic wares into their daily lives. This trend is seen elsewhere in contemporary sites in the Southeast, including at St. Augustine and Pensacola. In part, this adaptation was necessary due to Spain’s struggling economic system and the inadequacies of the Spanish Crown in supplying the post with sufficient Spanish goods. The

Spanish garrison at Fort San Marcos de Apalache therefore developed their own economic practices independent from the official rules of Spanish mercantilism and increased their access to supplies available more locally through the amicable procurement of Native ceramic vessels.

These ceramics also filtered in from outlying areas through trading networks to the east, west, and north of Fort San Marcos through the diverse Native groups who had contact with each other and with other Europeans. The presence of ceramics from Georgia and other outlying areas reflects the transitory nature of many Native groups in the eighteenth century due to the effects of European contact in their home areas, including the raids of Colonel Moore and his Creek forces that resulted in the abandonment of the Apalachee Province in 1704.

As discussed in the historical section of this thesis, although construction of the stone

Fort San Marcos de Apalache , located in the Northwest Sector, began in the early 1730s the

Spanish garrison did not inhabit it until much later. Historical documents indicate that the garrison and its Apalachee residents were living in the remains of the 1639 fort as late as the

1780s. However, a majority of the Apalachee had already left the province after the 1704 destruction and likely did not reside in the area during the later occupation of the stone fort. By

1802, a Spanish census listed only one Native American woman and her children still residing at the fort (Coker and Inglis 1980:81). By this time, the Spanish garrison likely no longer utilized a large number of Native American ceramics. All of these factors may help to explain the low

Native American ceramic sherd count in the Northwest Sector of the site. All of the ceramic types from that sector that can be identified by cultural affiliation–Yamasee, Apalachee, Creek, or Lower Creek–are types found only at earlier Spanish colonial sites throughout the Southeast.

These types are found only at Spanish colonial sites that all pre-date the 1763 takeover of

Spanish Florida by the British.

It is important to note that this is an initial comparison based on the more readily identified types; it is not an all-inclusive comparison. Further research on the material culture of

Fort San Marcos de Apalache would provide more information on these types and others. While this analysis focused primarily on types present at Fort San Marcos de Apalache, more extensive analyses currently exist on colono ware types in the Southeast and on ceramic types specific to the Apalachee and the West Florida area (Johnson 2012; Worth et al 2012; Pigott 2015; Worth and Melcher 2015).

Ceramics

At Fort San Marcos de Apalache , there is a higher percentage of imported ceramics

(78.42%) than Native American-made ceramics (21.58%). This majority is a trend seen also at the sites of Presidio Santa María de Galve (57.24%), Presidio Isla Santa Rosa, Punta de Sigüenza

(75.18%), and present-day Pensacola (92.26%). There is a higher percentage of Native American

ceramics than imported ceramics at only two of the sites used in this analysis: St. Augustine

(78.60%) and Mission San Luís de Talimali (96.18%) (Table 13).

TABLE 13 IMPORTED AND HISTORIC NATIVE CERAMIC TABLEWARE PERCENTAGES ACROSS SOUTHEASTERN SITES (Olds 1962:256-257; Smith 1963:5-10; Anonymous 1966:60-86; Deagan 1978:29; Dunbar and Dasovich 1991:11; McEwan 1991:45-54; Bense 1999; Roberts 2009:295-300).

Site Count Percentage of Total Ceramics Fort San Marcos de Apalache (1639-1821) Imported 3,060 78.42% Historic, Native 842 21.58% Total 3,902 100% Presidio Santa María de Galve (1698-1719) Imported 11,793 57.24% Historic, Native 8,808 42.76% Total 20,601 100% Presidio Isla de Santa Rosa, Punta de Sigünza (1722-1756) Imported 633 75.18% Historic, Native 209 24.82% Total 842 100% Pensacola (1756-1821) Imported 8,871 92.26% Historic, Native 744 7.74% Total 9,615 100% St. Augustine (1572-1600) Imported 461 21.40% Historic, Native 1,693 78.60% Total 2,154 100% Mission San Luís de Talimali (1656-1704) Imported 796 3.19% Historic, Native 24,162 96.81% Total 24,958 100%

The sixteenth century numbers for St. Augustine in the above discussion are likely affected by earlier Native American occupation of the site of St. Augustine prior to Spanish occupation. Therefore, the trends associated with those numbers are in need of further examination. When five sample sites in St. Augustine dated from 1565 to 1730 are used instead, 89

all of these sites yielded large numbers of historic Native American ceramics (25,552) and less

Native than imported ceramic numbers. For those ceramics that can be dated to specific time periods, Native American numbers vary from eight hundred and fifty six (1565-1580) to 5,342

(1580-1600) (Deagan 1990:300). These numbers are small percentages of the overall ceramic counts for these sites, and in fact make up less than 1.0% for any of the following dates: 1565-

1580 (.50%); 1580-1600 (.59%); 1600-1650 (.53%); 1650-1700 (.71%); and 1700-1730 (.68%)

(Deagan 1990:300). Therefore, the numbers for St. Augustine in the above table should not be considered a normal trend. At the time of this analysis, however, there are no imported ceramic percentages available for use as a comparison for these particular sites and further information is needed for a more accurate comparison to Fort San Marcos de Apalache .

Further examination is also need for a detailed comparison of the sites of Mission San

Luís and Fort San Marcos de Apalache . Spanish occupation of the mission ended in 1704 and therefore this site is only useful as a comparison to the early years of Fort San Marcos de

Apalache during the First Spanish Period. In addition, mainly religious personnel and

Christianized Native inhabitants occupied the site, whereas Fort San Marcos de Apalache was mainly military personnel and served mainly Native American visitors rather than a large number of residents.

As at Fort San Marcos de Apalache , the adoption of Native American wares is a practice seen at St. Augustine and Pensacola as well as at Mission San Luís de Talimali. The use of

Native American pottery that was not modified to fit European styles is commonly found on colonial sites in the Southeast. At St. Augustine, intermarriage between the Spanish and Native

American residents was common and in St. Augustine excavated prior to 1990, Native American pottery makes up over half of the pottery types found in residential contexts (Deagan 1990:305).

Certain Native American ceramic types at Fort San Marcos vary from the sites of Santa

María de Galve, Presidio Isla de Santa Rosa, St. Augustine, and San Luís (Appendix I). Other types were manufactured by transitory groups such as the Apalachee and Lower Creek and are therefore found at multiple Spanish colonial sites in Florida despite their difference in geographical locations (Olds 1962:256-257; Smith 1963:5-10; Anonymous 1966: 60-86; Deagan

1978:30; McEwan 1991:45-54; Bense 1999:121-206; Dunbar and Dasovich 1991:11-20; Swann

2002:67-73; Roberts 2009:295-300).

Non-Ceramic Materials

Non-ceramic materials in the Fort San Marcos assemblage are categorized in this analysis as metal, glass, lithic, and organic. These categories account for approximately 22.6% of the overall material assemblage in total: metal (7.5%), glass (12.4%), lithic (1.1%), and organics

(1.7%).

Metal

All of the identifiable metal items that can be chronologically placed in the assemblage are from the Southeast Sector. There are one hundred and fourteen wrought iron nails

(commonly found in use until 1800), four upholstery tack heads (ca. 1800), one plated brass ramrod thimble identified as Spanish (1700-1821), and 131 buttons. The buttons can be identified conclusively as to their source of origin: Spanish, civilian or military (early 1700s);

British Army (1780-1790); French Army (1802-1815); U.S. Army, Infantry (1812-1870); U.S.

Army, Artillery Corps (1814-1821); and civilian or military (1700s-1830) (Smith 1963:5-10).

There are a low number of metal items at Fort San Marcos overall, representing only

7.5% of the total assemblage. At the comparative sites utilized in this analysis, the lowest overall percentage of metal items is 1.0% at San Luís where the total artifact assemblage numbers

30,129. The highest overall percentage of metal items at these sites is 20.7% at present-day

Pensacola, where the total artifact assemblage numbers 35,051. At Santa María de Galve,

Presidio Isla de Santa Rosa, and St. Augustine (1572-1600), overall metal percentages range from 6.1% to 17.4% of the overall assemblages (Olds 1962:256-257; Smith 1963:5-10; Deagan

1978:30; Dunbar and Dasovich 1991:11-20; McEwan 1991:45-54; Bense 1999:121-183; Swann

2002:67-73; Roberts 2009:295) (Appendix E).

The absence of certain metal items in the Fort San Marcos assemblage may be explained in part by Spanish documents. Commander Juan Isidoro de León stated in 1745 that iron axes, adzes, iron bars, spades, shovels, and other metal tools were melted down to make nails for repairs to the wooden fort (Wenhold 1957:256, 262). The Spanish garrison occupied the wooden fort while the stone fort was undergoing construction and repairs to the wooden fort, which served as the garrison’s quarters, would have likely taken precedence over the construction of the new stone fort. Isidoro also stated that iron was scarce and that there were no regular shipments of supplies to replace the broken items that were being used in the manufacture of the nails.

There is a large number of military-issued metal buttons present at the site, which may explain why buttons made from materials such as ceramic (1700s-1800s) or glass (1840-1918) are absent as they were either not needed or never provided by the military for the garrison’s use.

Glass and ceramic buttons are rarely found at Spanish colonial sites in the Southeast or are found in small numbers (Bense 1999:194). Only two iron cut nails (1800-present) are present at Fort

San Marcos , a similar trend as is seen at Santa María de Galve, Presido Isla de Santa Rosa, St.

Augustine, and San Luís, where no cut nails are included in the general assemblages. Only one comparative site utilized in this analysis, downtown Pensacola, has a high number (899) of cut nails (Bense 1999:137-138) (Appendix E).

Glass

The identifiable glass types that are present in the assemblage are in the form of wine bottles and bottle fragments, glass beads, and window glass, and are from both the Southeast

(1639-1787) and Northwest (1731-1821) Sectors. Almost all of the items are bottle glass, which accounts for approximately 99.0% of the total glass materials. Fifty-seven whole or partial bottles can be identified as wine bottles of British origin and 130 pieces are unidentified bottle types. Four glass sherds are attributed to 18th century square-sectioned case bottles, likely used for wine or other liquors (Olds 1962:221). There is a single fragment attributed to a glass tumbler and seven sherds of modern jar glass. A majority of the glass bottle fragments, 687 shards, cannot be identified as to specific type. Other types of glass represented are four patent medicine bottle fragments, four glass beads, and a single piece of window glass.

Glass items account for 12.4% of the overall assemblage of Fort San Marcos . There are

891 total glass items present. This pattern varies at other Spanish colonial sites in Florida, where glass items account for various percentages. At sites in St. Augustine (1572-1600), glass items number only forty-eight (1.3%) of the total 3,739-item count. Sites in late Spanish period

Pensacola (1756-1821) have glass items numbering as many as 15,694 (49.0%) of the total

35,051 count assemblage. In the comparative samples used in this analysis, glass items account for between 1.3% of 3,739 total items at St. Augustine (1572-1600) at the smallest percentage, and 49.0% of 32,051 total items at Pensacola (1756-1821), the largest percentage (Bense

1999:121-206; Deagan 1978:30; Olds 1962:256-257) (Appendix E).

A large number of glass fragments in the Fort San Marcos assemblage may reflect other types of glass found at similar Spanish colonial sites in Florida. It is possible that these types have yet to be identified within the assemblage or are too fragmented to properly identify, and

may be represented in the six hundred and eighty-seven fragments that remain unidentified. The absence of certain glass types at Fort San Marcos that are found at other sites may also be explained by the fact that as a small military outpost with a low garrison population, Fort San

Marcos presumably would not have received large shipments of these items that the settlements at St. Augustine and Pensacola did with their much larger military and civilian populations. For example, case bottles, a type found in large numbers at sites such as Santa María de Galve (one thousand, five hundred and forty-one bottles or shards) and smaller numbers at the sites of

Presidio Isla de Santa Rosa (eighteen bottles or shards), and at San Luís (eight bottles or shards) are not present in the Fort San Marcos assemblage (McEwan 1991:45-54; Roberts 2009:295-

300) (Appendix E).

At Pensacola, a number of drinking glass types—tumblers, stemmed glass, and glass dish fragments—are present (Bense 1999:133-135). These types of glasses are almost completely absent from the Fort San Marcos assemblage, which contains only one tumbler shard and no stemmed glass shards to date (Olds 1962:256-257; Smith 1963:5-10; Anonymous 1966: 60-86;

Dunbar and Dasovich 1991:11-20) (Appendix E). One possible explanation for their absence is the small garrison size of Fort San Marcos , as there were few officers or commanders who would have been able to afford such items and a majority of the garrison consisted mainly of enlisted men who may not have been able to afford these items or would not have carried them due to their fragility. Excavations conducted at Santa María de Galve have recovered the largest amount of these types of glassware in areas resided in by Spanish officers. In the officer’s areas, the stemmed glassware amounts to nearly half of Santa María de Galve’s entire glass assemblage. A third of the drinking-glass fragments in the entire Santa María de Galve glass assemblage are also found in the officer’s areas (Bense 2004:53).

Lithics

The identifiable lithic materials in the Fort San Marcos assemblage are from both the

Southeast and Northeast Sectors and are of both European and Native American origin. Twenty- six gunflints and spalls and 42 pieces of lithic debitage are of either European or Native

American origin. Four projectile points, one drill, one chopper, and one scraper are of historic or prehistoric Native American origin (Olds 1962:251-254; Smith 1963:9).

Lithic materials account for 1.1% of the total artifact assemblage. A similar trend, a small percentage of lithic items in the total site assemblage, is also seen at the sites of Santa María de

Galve (1.4% of the total), Presidio Isla de Santa Rosa (3.4% of the total), present-day Pensacola

(1.3% of the total), St. Augustine (0.9% of the total) and San Luís (5.7% of the total) (Deagan

1978:30; McEwan 1991:45-54; Bense 1999:121-206; Swann 2002:67-73; Roberts 2009:295-

300) (Appendix E).

The military nature of Fort San Marcos accounts in part for the presence of gunflints, which are found at other colonial Spanish sites in Florida. In the fort San Marcos assemblage there is a total of twenty-six gunflints of British, French, or local origin (Olds 1962:240). Grey and brown gunflints of British and French manufacture are found at Santa María de Galve,

Presido Isla de Santa Rosa, present-day Pensacola, and San Luís (Bense 1999:176; Roberts

2009:145, 266, 297). The importation of French gunflints to Spanish Florida has been documented in shipments from Mobile to Pensacola throughout the 18th century (Olds 1962:240;

Roberts 1999:145). At the former site of the Spanish Santa María de Galve, one hundred, two thousand, and thirty-nine British gunflints dated approximately to the early 19th century, when

Spanish and British forces re-occupied the area, were uncovered in a single cache (Honerkamp and Harris 2005:95).

Native American items and lithic debitage are expected to be present at the site of San

Marcos due to its known occupation by Native American groups (Wenhold 1957:252-261).

Prehistoric and historic items of Native American manufacture including bifaces, projectile points, and lithic debitage of various materials; chert, coral, basalt, and flint, are found at the sites of Santa María de Galve, Presidio Isla de Santa Rosa, St. Augustine, and San Luís (Deagan

1978:30; McEwan 1991:45-54; Bense 1999:121-206; Swann 2002:67-73; Roberts 2009:295-

300) (Appendix E).

Organics

Organic items present in the Fort San Marcos assemblage are bone, shell, leather, and wood items. These materials are present in both sectors of the site. Organic items include fifty bone buttons and blanks, two wooden buttons, two shell buttons, seven leather fragments, a shell hairpin, and a wooden ship’s pulley wheel. The low number of organic materials, which account for only 1.6% of the overall assemblage, is typical of Spanish colonial sites in the Southeast.

Organic materials account for less than 1.5% of the overall assemblages at Santa María de Galve,

Presidio Isla de Santa Rosa, present-day Pensacola, St. Augustine, or San Luís (Deagan 1978:30;

McEwan 1991:45-54; Bense 1999:121-206; Swann 2002:67-73; Roberts 2009:295-300)

(Appendix E). The absence or low percentage of these materials at archaeological sites is explained in part by the poor preservation of organic materials in the Southeast’s humid environment. In addition, bone fragments and other organic items are accounted for differently at each of these sites due the use of different archaeological methods and that information is not available at all sites for a more comparative analysis.

Bricks and Construction Materials

The bricks and construction materials present in the Fort San Marcos assemblage, all of which are of either Spanish or British manufacture, are the single material type found only in the

Northwest Sector in the area of the 1731 fort. Handmade or molded bricks of early colonial

(1700-1781), late colonial (1781-1821), and First American (1820-1860) periods are absent at the site, as are pre- and post-Civil War mortar and pressed or augured brick of the Second

American (1860-1920) periods.

Although these materials are present at other colonial Spanish sites in Florida such as

Santa María de Galve and Presido Isla de Santa Rosa, where Spanish bricks also known as ladrillos have been found (Swann 2002:67-73; Bense 2004:57), their absence at Fort San Marcos can be explained in part by three factors: (1) Spanish documents indicate that the British removed parts of the limestone walls from the fort when they abandoned it in 1769 and transported the materials to Pensacola along with the troops and supplies (Canto 1779:1); (2)

Spanish documents indicate that the stone fort remained unfinished as late as 1787 and had never received a large amount of building materials from Pensacola (Din 2012:16-17); and (3) after

Fort San Marcos was abandoned by American forces in 1824, it remained unoccupied for thirty- seven years, during which time the limestone bricks would have deteriorated. Confederate forces salvaged many of the remaining limestone bricks and other construction materials to construct nearby Fort Ward in 1861 (Meide 2001:33). It is likely that these Confederate forces, with access to local materials, had no need to import later types of bricks or they may have been unable to import manufactured pressed or augured brick types or mortar for Fort Ward’s construction.

Discussion

When the material culture for the entire site is combined, certain imported artifact types can be attributed to the separate occupation periods of Fort San Marcos de Apalache in chronological order: First Spanish (1639-1704); Second Spanish (1718-1764); British (1764-

1769); Third Spanish (1787-1821); American (1821-1824); and Civil War (1861-1865) (Olds

1962:256-257; Smith 1963:5-10; Anonymous 1966: 60-86; Dunbar and Dasovich 1991:11-20).

When the site is separated into its two occupation components, the area of the 1639 port (the

Southeast Sector) and the area of the 1731 fort (the Northwest Sector), certain artifact types are present at only one or the other (Appendix J). The presence of these items has been addressed in the above section. In the following section, I will present an overview of materials expected to be present at a colonial site in Spanish Florida based on the artifact classification system of the

University of West Florida Archaeology Lab Manual (The Archaeology Institute, the University of West Florida 2016) and discuss whether these materials are present or absent at Fort San

Marcos de Apalache .

First Spanish Occupation (1639-1704)

The first Spanish occupation of Fort San Marcos began with the opening of the port in

1639; however, the first significant fort was not constructed there until 1679, was destroyed by the French in 1682, and then rebuilt (Olds 1962:11). A small Spanish garrison occupied the fort until its abandonment in 1704, an occupation period that occurred within the same time period as the Spanish occupation of Santa María de Gavle (1698-1722), Mission San Luís (1656-1704) and

St. Augustine (1565-1821).

Ceramics: Imported

Imported ceramic types that are present at Fort San Marcos de Apalache dating to the first Spanish occupation are: Olive Jar, Early (1490-1570); Olive Jar, Middle (1570-1800); El

Morro (Late 1500s-1770); Mexican Red-Painted (1570-1800); Columbia Plain (1550-1650); San

Luís Blue on White (1550-1650); San Luís Polychrome (1650-1750); Abó Polychrome (1650-

1750); Puebla Polychrome (1650-1725); San Agustín Blue on White (1700-1750); Aranama

Polychrome (1750-1800); Delft, plain (1640-1800); Delft, sponged (1600-1800); Early Slip-

Decorated, combed yellow (1630-1795); Stoneware, Ginger Beer Bottle (18th century); Chinese

Porcelain (1368-1790); and Kaolin pipes (1680-1780).

The material assemblages of the sites of Santa María de Gavle (1698-1722), Mission San

Luís (1656-1704) and St. Augustine (1565-1821) show the presence of imported ceramic items that are absent at Fort San Marcos. These items include storage jars, Spanish-tradition origin tablewares, and English or Northern European-tradition origin tablewares.

Storage jar types absent from the Fort San Marcos assemblage dating within the second

Spanish occupation period are Spanish jars (1492-1800) other than olive jars. These types of storage jars are found at Presido Isla de Santa Rosa and San Luís. Spanish-tradition origin tablewares and cookwares absent from the Fort San Marcos assemblage that are found at similar

Spanish colonial sites in Florida include types found at Presidio Santa María de Galve: Black

Lead-glazed Coarse Earthenware, Redware; Mexican Green-glazed, Guadalajara Polychrome,

Puebla Blue on White; Pensacola: Redware, Mexican Green-glazed, Guadalajara Polychrome,

Puebla Blue on White, Huejotzingo Blue on White; Presido Isla de Santa Rosa: Mexican Green- glazed, Guadalajara Polychrome, Puebla Blue on White and at San Luís: Guadalajara

Polychrome and Puebla Blue on White. English or Northern European-tradition origin types

found at Pensacola: Blue and White Delft, Elers-like stoneware, and Nottingham stoneware; and at Presidio Isla de Santa Rosa: Nottingham stoneware (Deagan 1987:27-28; McEwan 1991:53;

Bense 1999:127-130; Bense 2004:55, 61; Roberts 2009:297-300).

Non-Ceramic Artifact Types

Only a single glass item is present in the Fort San Marcos de Apalache assemblage dating to the first Spanish occupation, a square-sectioned case bottle (18th-century). Two types of metal items are present in the Fort San Marcos de Apalache assemblage dating to the first Spanish occupation: wrought iron nails (-1800) and buttons (1700s). There is a variety of lithic materials present dating to the first Spanish period, all of which are types of gunflints. A majority of these gunflints are either English or French in origin. There are two types of bricks dating to the first

Spanish occupation: handmade or molded brick, early colonial Spanish (1492-1763) and handmade or molded brick, early colonial English (1763-1781). There is one type of wood item, the wood back of a two-piece button (1700s). All other types of these materials are absent from the site of Fort San Marcos de Apalache (Appendix J).

Second Spanish Occupation (1718-1764)

The second Spanish occupation of Fort San Marcos occurred at the same time period as the occupation of Santa María de Galve (1698-1719), Presidio Isla de Santa Rosa (1722-1755),

St. Augustine (1565-1821), and present-day downtown Pensacola (1755-1821).

Ceramics: Imported

Imported ceramic types that are present at Fort San Marcos de Apalache dating to the second Spanish occupation are: Olive Jar, middle (1570-1800); El Morro (late 1500s-1770);

Reyware (1725-1825); Mexican Red-Painted (1570-1800); San Luís Polychrome (1650-1750);

Abó Polychrome (1650-1750); Puebla Polychrome (1650-1725); San Augustin Blue on White

100

(1700-1750); Aranama Polychrome (1650-1800); Blue and Green Basin (1750-1820); Delft, plain (1640-1800); Delft, sponged (1600-1800); Early Slip-decorated, combed yellow (1630-

1795); Creamware (1762-1900); Whiteware, transfer-printed dark blue (1802-1846); Whiteware, transfer-printed medium blue (1784-1859); Whiteware, transfer-printed purple/mulberry (1814-

1867); Stoneware, ginger beer bottle (18th century); Chinese Porcelain (1368-1790); and Kaolin pipes (1680-1780).

During this time period, imported ceramic items absent from the Fort San Marcos assemblage that are found at these sites include storage jars, Spanish-tradition origin tablewares, and English or Northern European-tradition origin tablewares.

Storage jar types absent from the Fort San Marcos assemblage dating within the second

Spanish occupation period are Spanish jars other than olive jars. These types of storage jars are found at Presido Isla de Santa Rosa and San Luís.

Spanish-tradition origin types absent from the Fort San Marcos assemblage dating within the second Spanish period are types found at Pensacola (Greyware, Redware, Guadalajara polychrome, Puebla blue on white, Huetjotzingo blue on white, and Catalonia blue on white);

Santa María de Galve (Redware, saintonge, Guadalajara Polychrome, Puebla Blue on White;

Santa Rosa (Redware, saintonge, Guadalajara polychrome, and Puebla blue on white); and at San

Luis (Guadalajara polychrome and Puebla blue on white). English or Northern European- tradition origin types absent at Fort San Marcos dating to the second Spanish period that are found at Pensacola (blue and white Delft, polychrome Delft, and powdered purple, blue, or green

Delft, Elers-like stoneware, basaltware, Nottingham stoneware, clouded creamware or Wheildon ware); and Presido Isla de Santa Rosa (Nottingham stoneware) (McEwan 1991:53; Bense

1999:127-130; Bense 2004:61; Roberts 2009:297-300).

101

Non-Ceramic Artifact Types

Four types of glass items are present in the Fort San Marcos de Apalache assemblage dating to the second Spanish occupation: square-section case bottles (18th century); English bottle necks (1750-1790); English bottle necks (1750-1800); and English bottle necks (1770-

1800). Two types of metal items, wrought iron nails (-1800), and buttons (1700s) are present in the Fort San Marcos de Apalache assemblage dating to the second Spanish occupation. There is a variety of lithic materials present dating to the first Spanish period, all of which are types of gunflints. A majority of these gunflints are either English or French in origin. There are two types of bricks dating to the second Spanish occupation: handmade or molded brick, early colonial Spanish (1492-1763) and handmade or molded brick, early colonial English (1763-

1781). There is one type of wood item, the wood back of a two-piece button (1700s) and one type of bone item, handmade bone buttons and blanks (1750-1830). All other types of these materials are absent from the site of Fort San Marcos de Apalache (Appendix J).

British Occupation (1764-1769)

British forces occupied two settlements, along with Fort San Marcos , during their control of Spanish Florida: present-day downtown Pensacola and St. Augustine. The British occupation of Florida, which lasted from 1763 to 1781, included ownership of Fort San Marcos as part of the political, economic, and militarily divided East and West Florida. British forces occupied

Fort San Marcos for a five-year period, from 1764 to 1769, during which time a small garrison served the fort while occupying the wooden fort that had been previously inhabited by Spanish forces. British goods were imported throughout Spanish Florida during the late 18th century along with British-distributed German stonewares and Asian porcelain (Bense 1999:217-218).

102

Ceramics: Imported

Imported ceramic types that are present at Fort San Marcos de Apalache dating to the

British occupation are: Olive Jar, middle (1570-1800); El Morro (Late 1550s-1770); Reyware

(1725-1825); Mexican Red-Painted (1570-1800); Aranama Polychrome (1750-1800); Blue and

Green Basin (1750-1820); Delft, plain (1640-1800); Delft, sponged (1600-1800); Early slip- decorated, combed yellow (1630-1795); Banded Yellowware or Cane Ware (1779-1900);

Creamware (1762-1900); Whiteware, transfer-printed dark blue (1802-1846); Whiteware, transfer-printed medium blue (1784-1859); Whiteware, transfer-printed purple/mulberry (1814-

1867); Stoneware, ginger beer bottle (18th century); Chinese Porcelain (1368-1790); and Kaolin pipes (1680-1780).

There are nine English or Northern European-tradition origin types that are absent from the Fort San Marcos assemblage dating to the British occupation that are found at Pensacola:

Blue and White Delft, Powdered purple, blue, or green Delft, hand-painted Creamware, transfer- printed creamware, clouded creamware or Whieldon ware, fruit and vegetable motif creamware,

Elers-like stoneware, Basaltware, Nottingham stoneware (Bense 1999:127-130).

Non-Ceramic Artifact Types

Five types of glass items are present in the Fort San Marcos de Apalache assemblage dating to the British occupation: square-section case bottles (18th century); English bottle necks

(1750-1790); English bottle necks (1750-1800); English bottle necks (1770-1800); and English bottle necks (ca. 1770-1800). Two types of metal items, wrought iron nails (-1800) and buttons

(1700s) are present in the Fort San Marcos de Apalache assemblage dating to the British occupation. There is a variety of lithic materials present dating to the British period, all of which are types of gunflints. A majority of these gunflints are either English or French in origin. There

103

is only one type of brick dating to the British occupation: and handmade or molded brick, early colonial English (1763-1781). There is one type of wood item, the wood back of a two-piece button (1700s) and one type of bone item, handmade bone buttons and blanks (1750-1830). All other types of these materials are absent from the site of Fort San Marcos de Apalache

(Appendix J).

Third Spanish Occupation (1787-1821)

Spanish forces occupied both St Augustine and present-day downtown Pensacola (1781-

1821) during the third Spanish occupation period of Fort San Marcos . When British East and

West Florida were returned to Spanish control in the late 18th century, control of Fort San

Marcos was transferred to control of the governor of West Florida and placed under the military oversight of Spanish Louisiana. During the third Spanish occupation period, supplies and troops were sent from Pensacola to re-establish the outpost. In 1799, the Panton, Leslie Company was operating a trading post inside the walls of Fort San Marcos and would have distributed mainly

British trade goods on behalf of the Spanish, who had given the firm license to trade these items in 1784 (Olds 1962:78).

Ceramics: Imported

Imported ceramic types that are present at Fort San Marcos de Apalache dating to the third Spanish occupation are: Olive Jar, middle (1570-1800); Olive Jar, late (1800-1900);

Reyware (1725-1825); Mexican Red-Painted (1570-1800); Aranama Polychrome (1650-1800);

Blue and Green Basin (1750-1820); Delft, plain (1640-1800); Delft, sponged (1600-1800); Early

Slip-decorated, combed yellow (1630-1795); Banded Yellowware or Cane Ware (1779-1900);

Creamware (1762-1900); Refined Earthenware, semi-porcelain (1793-1897); Pearlware, edge- decorated, shell-edged (1780-1830); Whiteware (1820-present); Whiteware, transfer-printed

104

black (1785-1864); Whiteware, transfer-printed red/pink (1818-1880); Salt-glazed Stoneware

(19th century); Stoneware, ginger beer bottle (18th century); and Chinese Porcelain (1368-1790).

Spanish ceramics continued to be manufactured during the time of the British occupation of Fort San Marcos . Storage jars (1492-1800) and tableware types found at sites in Pensacola from the third Spanish occupation period are absent from Fort San Marcos . Spanish-tradition origin tableware types absent from the Fort San Marcos assemblage that are present at similar

Spanish sites dating to the third Spanish occupation period are those found in Pensacola

(Greyware, Redware, Guadalajara Polychrome, Puebla blue on white, Huejotzingo blue on white, and Catalonia blue on white); Presido Santa María de Galve (Redware, Saintonge,

Guadalajara Polychrome, and Puebla blue on white); and at Presidio Isla de Santa Rosa

(Redware, Saintonge, Guadalajara Polychrome, and Puebla blue on white).

English or Northern European-tradition origin tablewares absent in the Fort San Marcos assemblage that are found at similar sites are those in Pensacola (blue and white Delft, polychrome Delft, powdered purple, blue, or green Delft, transfer-printed Creamware,

Annularware, mocha Creamware, Pearlware, transfer-printed Annularware, Ironstone, Elers-like stoneware, Basaltware, and Nottingham stoneware) and at Presido Isla de Santa Rosa

(Nottingham stoneware) (Bense 1999:127-130; Bense 2004:61; Roberts 2009:297-299).

Non-Ceramic Artifact Types

Six types of glass items are present in the Fort San Marcos de Apalache assemblage dating to the third Spanish occupation: square-section case bottles (18th century); English bottle necks (1750-1790); English bottle necks (1750-1800); English bottle necks (1770-1800); English bottle necks (ca. 1770-1800); and a British bottle (ca. 1820). There are three types of metal items present in the Fort San Marcos de Apalache assemblage dating to the third Spanish occupation:

105

wrought iron nails (-1800); upholstery tackheads (ca. 1800); and buttons (1700s-1815). There is a variety of lithic materials present dating to the third Spanish period, all of which are types of gunflints. A majority of these gunflints are either English or French in origin. There is one type of wood item, the wood back of a two-piece button (1700s) and one type of bone item, handmade bone buttons and blanks (1750-1830). All other types of these materials are absent from the site of Fort San Marcos de Apalache (Appendix J).

American Occupation (1821-1824)

American forces occupied the site of Fort San Marcos (Fort St. Marks) from 1818 to

1819 and from 1821 to 1824. The American garrison consisted of only one or two companies of

American troops during its brief American occupation. The fort was abandoned in 1824, and remained unoccupied until the early 1860s. American occupation period artifacts in the Fort San

Marcos assemblage are therefore minimal.

Ceramics: Imported

Imported ceramic types that are present at Fort San Marcos de Apalache dating to the

American occupation are: Olive Jar, late (1800-1900); Reyware (1725-1825); Blue and Green

Basin (1750-1820); Banded Yellowware or Cane Ware (1779-1900); Rockingham (1830-1900);

Creamware (1762-1900); Refined Earthenware, semi-porcelain (1793-1897); Pearlware (1780-

1830); Pearlware, edge-decorated, shell-edged (1780-1830); Pearlware, Annularware (1780-

1820+); Whiteware (1820-present); Whiteware, transfer-printed black (1785-1864); Salt-glazed

Stoneware (19th century); Stoneware, ginger beer bottle (19th century); and Chinese Porcelain

(1368-1790).

There are only a small number of ceramic and non-ceramic artifacts from Fort San

Marcos that can be conclusively identified as American in origin. These include a single ceramic

106

sherd of Rockingham Ware and American Army-issue metal buttons. Buttons belonging to both enlisted men and officers in the American infantry and artillery corps, dating to between 1808 and 1870, are present in the Fort San Marcos assemblage (Boyd 1936:25-28; Olds 1962:256-

257; Smith 1963:5-10; Anonymous 1966: 60-86; Dunbar and Dasovich 1991:11-20) (Appendix

J).

Present-day Pensacola and St. Augustine are the only two sites utilized in this analysis that have overlapping American occupation periods with that of Fort San Marcos . Ceramic types of Spanish, English, or Northern European origin Spanish tradition-origin ceramics absent from the Fort San Marcos assemblage dating to the American occupation period are found at

Pensacola (Greyware, Puebla blue on white, Catalonia blue on white, and transfer-printed

Pearlware). Although late period olive jars, Reyware, Blue and Green Basin, Banded

Yellowware or Cane Ware, Pearlware, Whiteware, Creamware, unidentified refined earthenware and salt-glazed stoneware types, and one British wine bottle that were manufactured as late as the 19 th and 20 th centuries during the fort’s American occupation are found in the assemblage, it is unlikely the American Army would have brought these items to Fort San Marcos and they are most likely leftover items from the earlier Spanish and British occupation periods (Bense

1999:127-130; Roberts 2009:299).

Non-Ceramic Artifact Types

Only one type of glass is present in the Fort San Marcos de Apalache assemblage dating to the American occupation: a British bottle (ca. 1820). One type of metal item, buttons (1800-

1860) is present. There is a variety of lithic materials present dating to the American period, all of which are types of gunflints. A majority of these gunflints are either English or French in origin. All other types of glass, metal, lithic, and brick and construction material types that may

107

date to the American occupation period are absent from the site of Fort San Marcos de Apalache

(Appendix J).

Civil War Occupation (1861-1865) and Post-Civil War Era (1865-present)

Fort San Marcos was abandoned in 1824 by American forces and only briefly occupied by Confederate forces between 1861 and 1865 when it was reconfigured into Fort Ward. Fort

Ward’s structures overlapped the location of the Spanish stone fort on the eastern side of the St.

Marks peninsula and that area has not been thoroughly excavated at the time of this analysis.

Further excavation may reveal a number of Civil War era artifacts at the site, which is currently within the boundaries of the Fort San Marcos de Apalache Historic state park.

Ceramics: Imported

Imported ceramic types that are present at Fort San Marcos de Apalache dating to the

Civil War and post-Civil War occupation are: Banded Yellowware or Cane Ware (1779-1900);

Rockingham (1830-1900); Creamware (1762-1900); Refined Earthenware, semi-porcelain

(1793-1897); Pearlware, Annularware (1780-1820+); Whiteware (1820-present); Whiteware, transfer-printed black (1785-1864); Salt-glazed Stoneware (19th century); Stoneware, ginger beer bottle (19th century); and Porcelain, Meito China, hand-painted (1908-present).

Ceramics of British or American manufacture that are absent from the dates to the Civil

War occupation period of Fort San Marcos are those found at Pensacola: turpentine pots,

Albany, Bristol Slip, and Ironstone). Pensacola is the only comparative site used in this analysis that has a Civil War-era component. However, the Civil War occupation of Pensacola occurred mainly in the outlying areas of Fort Pickens, Fort Barrancas, and Fort McRee, and not in downtown Pensacola where the previous colonial fort was located (Bears 1957:125-126).

Maritime sites in the St. Marks River have yielded more detailed information on the material

108

culture of the Civil War era at the time Fort Ward was occupied (Meide 2001); however, that era is largely beyond the scope of this thesis.

Non-Ceramic Artifact Types

There are two metal items in the Fort San Marcos assemblage that can be dated to the

Civil War or post-Civil War occupation periods: a U.S. Army enlisted infantry button (1859-

1870) and a U.S. Army infantry officer button (1821-1860). All other types of glass, metal, lithic, and brick and construction material types that may date to the Civil War or post-Civil War occupation period are absent from the site of Fort San Marcos de Apalache (Appendix J).

Materials Absent from all Occupation Periods

There is one type of ceramic, French faience that is completely absent from the Fort San

Marcos assemblage. For the sites utilized in this analysis, present-day downtown Pensacola,

Presidio Santa María de Galve, and Presidio Isla de Santa Rosa, all show the presence of French faience. Spanish Pensacola had a documented trade relationship with French Mobile during its

Spanish occupation periods, particularly in the 18th century, and received French goods as open contraband. Therefore the presence of French faience is expected there. Fort San Marcos had only brief contact with the French in 1682, and minimal documented trade with the French with the exception of large imports of French gunflints. Portable goods, such as English pipes, were in high demand for trade with the Native Americans living in the Apalachee Province and surrounding areas, and these items would have taken precedence as imports to Fort San Marcos

(Olds 1962:240; Bense 2004:61; Roberts 2009:145, 167-168).

There are three non-ceramic material categories that include items completely absent from any of the five occupation periods of Fort San Marcos : cut nails, a wide variety of glass materials, and brick materials. All of these items are either found at the comparative sites utilized

109

in this analysis, or are expected to be present based on comparison to the University of West

Florida Archaeology Lab Manual (2016).

Cut nails (1800-present) are completely absent in the Fort San Marcos assemblage for the third Spanish, American, Civil War, and post-Civil War occupation periods. Cut nails are found at Pensacola but are completely absent from the majority of the comparative assemblages used in this analysis, where occupation of those sites ended prior to the time when the distribution of cut nails became widespread (Bense 1999:138). Hand-wrought nails generally date from the seventeenth-nineteenth centuries. Cut nails were produced in some form as early as 1790, but the nail heads were not machine-made until around 1815 and their production became more widespread (Noël Hume 1969:252-253).

Glass types are difficult to compare for the occupation periods of Fort San Marcos .

Certain forms of glassware such as tumblers and cut glass can be identified and used for comparison but more detailed information such as manufacture types (seamed or seamless, applied string, hand finish, molded, lipped, flanged and other types) are difficult to use for intra- site comparison (Deagan 1978:127) . The glass types in the Fort San Marcos assemblage have not yet been conclusively identified other than as general types of British or English wine bottles and case bottles. Only one of the comparative sites used in this analysis, present-day downtown

Pensacola, contains a more detailed analysis of bottle types. At Pensacola, applied string finish type bottles account for almost three-fourths of the glass assemblage and date to the late 18th century. This type, along with the flanged bottle types found at Pensacola, is either completely absent or has yet to be identified, in the Fort San Marcos assemblage (Bense 1999:134).

The brick and construction materials in the Fort San Marcos assemblage are not used for comparative purposes in this analysis due to the general lack of count or description of them at

110

this site and at the other sites utilized in this analysis. A number of limestone bricks remain standing as part of the Fort San Marcos de Apalache Historic state park and are not available for further analysis at this time. Bricks and construction materials are difficult to use for a comparative analysis due to their variations in style and differences in archaeological collection methods for the sites used in this comparison. Many of the fort’s stone blocks were removed from the site in 1828 to be used in the construction of the St. Marks lighthouse and in the 1860s by Confederate forces to construct Fort Ward (Boyd 1936:27). One notably absent type of brick in the Fort San Marcos assemblage is ladrillos , Spanish bricks found at similar sites. The bricks of Fort San Marcos are made of locally obtained materials. The availability of these materials may have been why the importation of building materials from elsewhere would likely not have been a priority of the fort’s engineer (Sánchez 1731:1).

111

CHAPTER VI

DISCUSSION AND INTERPRETATIONS

The territory of Spanish La Florida began its development with economic ties on a world level (with Spain and Mexico), developed new economic ties on a regional level (with Havana and other parts of the United States), and, finally, developed a unique economy on a local level

(with Native American groups residing in the Southeast). The outpost of Fort San Marcos de

Apalache stood more or less consistently as a center of frontier Spanish-Native interaction throughout each of these developments. The fort also served a strategic role as an outpost between St. Augustine and Pensacola that the Spanish intended to use to discourage either

French or British forces from attempting to take control of the Spanish Florida frontier or from expanding upon their own alliances with the Native American groups residing in and around

Spanish Florida.

The main objective of this thesis was to provide a comprehensive overview of the history and archaeology of Fort San Marcos . Fort San Marcos served as a point of contact with Native

American groups and as a center of trade between the Spanish and their Native American allies in Florida. Through different times in the history of Fort San Marcos , the Spanish government intended to utilize Native American groups as sources of economic subsistence, frontier soldiers, and political allies. These alliances allowed the Native American residents of the western

Spanish Florida frontier to procure access to European goods and, acting as middlemen between the Spanish and other groups of the Southeastern borderlands, many groups were able to re-trade these items with other Native American groups outside the reach of Spanish Florida. These mutually beneficial trade relationships allowed the Spanish to develop a fort in the center of

112

Native American territory and maintain a foothold at Fort San Marcos for almost one hundred and fifty years.

Fort San Marcos , unlike the larger Spanish Florida sites of Pensacola and St. Augustine, remained a small frontier outpost for its entire occupation. Due to its location, individual and small group relationships were able to develop at the fort in a long-term culture contact setting.

The archaeological evidence so far suggests that both European and Native American sources supplied the garrison despite its remote location. When Fort San Marcos is compared archaeologically to the five colonial Florida sites utilized in the analysis section of this thesis, much of what has been found so far reflects similar patterns in the archaeological record of all these sites. Ceramics make up the largest material percentage (77.5%) at Fort San Marcos . At three of the sites used in this analysis–Santa Rosa (with 59.8%), St. Augustine (with 91.5%), and

San Luís (with 86.9%)–ceramics also account for 50% of the total assemblages. At all of these sites except St. Augustine and Mission San Luís, Native American ceramics make up the minority of overall ceramic types.

At three Pensacola sites–Presidio Santa María de Galve, Presidio Isla de Santa Rosa, and present-day downtown Pensacola–imported ceramic types outnumber Native American ceramics in the overall percentages. At Fort San Marcos , French faience and Asian porcelain, types found at other Spanish colonial sites in Florida are either non-existent or have yet to be identified. Low numbers of these types is common: at all of the sites utilized in this comparison, French faience and Asian porcelain make up less than 5% each of any overall assemblage. General material percentages in the categories of metal, glass, lithic, and organic are similar at Fort San Marcos and a majority of sites utilized in this analysis. Metal items account for less than 25% of the total assemblage at any site; glass items account for less than 20% of the total at all sites except

113

Pensacola (49%); lithic items account for less than 10% at any site; and organic items account for less than 2% of the total at any site.

Some archaeological findings initially appear unique to Fort San Marcos ; however, the historical research conducted for this thesis already answers some of the questions about these findings. For example, at Fort San Marcos , English tradition ceramic styles outnumber Spanish tradition styles, a trend seen only at later sites in downtown Pensacola. At Pensacola, this trend is explained in part by a long-term British occupation of the site. At Fort San Marcos , this trend is possibly explained, at least in part, by three factors: the Spanish government licensed the British trading firm Panton, Leslie and Company control of trade in 1784; the fort was supplied through

Spanish Pensacola after the early 1780s; and, that by 1799, a Panton, Leslie Company post was operating inside the walls of Fort San Marcos due to threats of an attack by frontier interloper

William Augustus Bowles.

The material assemblage of Fort San Marcos is associated with a fort whose residents at times included not only soldiers but also other ethnic groups. In the Second Spanish period, a number of African American laborers assisted in the construction of Fort San Marcos . The

Spanish government hired slaves, criminals, and other laborers to some extent and the study of their services and their role in the history of Fort San Marcos and how they were relied upon as a labor source has yet to be examined in detail. The detailed demographics of the Fort San Marcos garrison also remain somewhat unknown. During the Second Spanish Period in particular, West

Florida had become home to a large creole population as well as Scottish traders, British loyalists, French tradesmen, Canary Islanders, African Americans both free and enslaved, and immigrants from the newly formed United States.

114

Spanish occupation of Fort San Marcos created a middle ground between the Spanish garrison and the Native American groups in the area soon after the fort’s establishment. At its most basic anthropological definition, a middle ground is a place where negotiation replaces confrontation between two sides who reside in the same geographical area and who both contribute equally to this negotiation (White 1991: Sleeper-Smith 2006:3-4). Like the French in the Great Lakes region, the Spanish began their own frontier development by attempting to assimilate the local Native American groups into their existing Spanish culture (Deloria

2006:21). Over time, a Spanish-Indian alliance developed on the frontier of Spanish Florida where Fort San Marcos was located due not to what Phillip J. Deloria (2006:18), when describing the French-Indian alliance of the Great Lakes region, called “some mystical affinity” between the two groups. Instead, this alliance formed because these groups were forced to form cultural, social, economic, and political relationships in order to adapt to their own situation within a specific historical setting (Deloria 2006:18).

Examples of these relationships can be found throughout the history of Fort San Marcos .

In the early 1600s, Native American groups would come to the fort to trade deer hides in exchange for Spanish goods being illegally imported from Cuba (Covington 1972:368;

Waselkov 1989:118). In 1745, the post was responsible for distributing gifts such as liquor, bread, and pipes. In exchange for these goods, the Native Americans would provide services such as reporting on English activities in the area, providing physical labor in making repairs to the fort, and providing ceramic wares for the garrisons use (Wenhold 1957:249-258).

When the history of Fort San Marcos is combined with an introductory artifact analysis, in some ways the site is unique for Spanish Florida. As a small military post strategically placed on the confluence of two rivers, and in the heart of Spanish-Native frontier lands, the garrison of

115

Fort San Marcos existed as a microcosm of a larger colonial population. The garrison was stationed in an area where geographic, cultural, and economic borders were often ambiguous, and social interactions were not always dependent upon the rules set by the Spanish government for its peripheral colonies. The loyalties and actions of the garrison and its commanders did not always comply with the rules of Spanish officials even in the larger settlements of St. Augustine and Pensacola, particularly in the earlier years of the fort’s development when the post was utilized for trade with the Native American groups of the Southeast’s interior provinces. The inhabitants of the outpost; soldiers, civilian laborers, priests, and Native American residents left behind a material culture uniquely representative of life on the colonial Spanish Florida frontier.

When compared to contemporary sites in Spanish Florida, Fort San Marcos is unique in its history as the only outpost to be occupied long-term with a consistently small population. The role that the fort played in Spanish colonial history in Florida is representative of Spain’s attempts to hold a larger frontier territory than the country was ever able to support, either politically, militarily, or economically. The garrison of Fort San Marcos developed their own frontier economic practices and in addition to utilizing ceramics imported from countries other than Spain, adapted to the remote conditions of the outpost and adopted the use of Native

American wares from Apalachee, Yamasee, and Creek sources.

At Fort San Marcos , the styles of Native American ceramics present indicate that they were coming from a range of sources. A number of these ceramic types are also present at contemporary Spanish sites in Pensacola, St. Augustine, and Mission San Luís. These wares were likely obtained from the groups of visitors and short-term Native residents documented to have been at the site throughout its occupation. Archaeological research conducted during the course of this thesis has shown that these groups likely brought traditional ceramic methods with

116

them through contact with other Native American groups before residing at the Spanish fort.

Ceramic wares also may have filtered into the Apalache Province from outlying areas via extensive trade networks to the east, west, and north of Fort San Marcos , through the diverse groups who had contact with each other and with other Europeans. The presence of ceramic types from Georgia in particular reflects the transitory nature of many Native groups in the eighteenth century. It was the transitory nature of the Spanish Florida frontier that allowed the

Spanish to maintain Fort San Marcos throughout parts of three different centuries through the formation of cultural, social, economic, and political relationships with the Native American groups residing there. It was these relationships that left behind the material culture of Fort San

Marcos that should provide many avenues for further research based on the work conducted in this thesis.

117

REFERENCES

Anonymous Author 1800 Plano del fuerte de San Marcos de Apalache que se esta Construiendo cenla Provincìa de San Agustín de la Florída y la total reparacìon del fuerte Antiguo que estaua mui yn defense. AGM USA . Archivo General Militar de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. Documents Library, Department of Anthropology, University of West Florida, Pensacola, FL.

Anonymous Author 1966 Report on Excavations at Fort San Marcos de Apalache . Report on file at the State Archives of Florida, Tallahassee, Florida. Accessed September 9, 2016.

Archaeology Institute, the University of West Florida 2016 Archaeology Institute, the University of West Florida, Laboratory Procedures and Artifact Classification Manual. Janet R. Lloyd, editor. University of West Florida, Pensacola, Florida.

Archivo General Militar de Madrid [1790s] Plano del Fuerte q se construie en S n. Marcos de Apalache: en el qual se manifiesta la diferencia q ay del Projecto, à lo que està construído, y se propone el metodo de Veparar el herror que tiene enlo operado. Archivo General Militar de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. Documents Library, Department of Anthropology, University of West Florida, Pensacola, FL.

Arnade, Charles W. 1955 Florida in 1643: As Seen by Its Governor. The Florida Historical Quarterly 34(2):172- 176.

1961 Cattle Raising in Spanish Florida, 1513-1763. Agricultural History 35(3):116-124.

Baker, Henry A. and Ryan J. Wheeler 2001 The Spanish Dedication Tablets from San Marcos de Apalache. The Florida Historical Quarterly 80(1):78-89.

Bears, Edwin C. 1957 Civil War Operations in and around Pensacola. The Florida Historical Quarterly 36(2):125-126.

Beck Jr., Robin A, Christopher B. Rodning and David G. Moore 2010 Limiting Resistance: Juan Pardo and the Shrinking of Spanish La Florida, 1566-68. In Enduring Conquests: Rethinking the Archaeology of Resistance to Spanish Colonialism in the Americas , School for Advanced Research Advanced Seminar Series, Matthew Liebmann and Melissa S. Murphy, editors, pp. 19-39. School for Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe, NM.

118

Bense, Judith A. 1999 Archaeology of Colonial Pensacola . University Press of Florida. Gainesville, FL.

2004 Presidio Santa María de Galve (1698-1719): A Frontier Garrison in Spanish West Florida. Historical Archaeology 38(3):47-64).

Bertecaut, Don Luis de 1791 Plan, que demuestra el estado actual del Fuerte de San Marcos de Apalache, 1791. Florida Memory Project, State Archives and Library of Florida, Tallahassee, Florida. .

Boniface, Brian George 1971 A Historical Geography of Spanish Florida, Circa 1700. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.

Boyd, Mark F. 1936 The Fortifications at San Marcos de Apalache (St. Marks, Wakulla Co., Florida). The Florida Historical Society Quarterly 15(1):3-17, 19-34.

1937a The Expedition of Marcos Delgado from Apalache to the Upper Creek Country in 1686. The Florida Historical Quarterly 16(1):2-32.

1937b Events at Prospect Bluff on the Apalachicola River, 1808-1818. The Florida Historical Quarterly 16(2):55-96.

1941 From a Remote Frontier: Letters and Documents Pertaining to San Marcos de Apalache, 1763-1769, during the British Occupation of Florida. The Florida Historical Quarterly 19 (3):179-212.

Boyd, Mark F. and José Navarro Latorre 1953 Spanish Interest in British Florida, and in the Progress of the American Revolution: (I) Relations with the Spanish Faction of the Creek Indians. The Florida Historical Quarterly 32(2):92-130.

Brannon, Peter A. 1952 The Pensacola Indian Trade. The Florida Historical Quarterly 31(1):1-15.

Bureau of Archaeological Research 2013 Bureau of Archaeological Research Collections Artifact Catalog for 8WA26, Fort San Marcos de Apalache. Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee, FL.

Bushnell, Amy Turner 1994 Situado and Sabana: Spain’s Support System for the Presidio and Mission Provinces of Florida. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History No. 74, University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA.

119

Canto, Don Francisco Ruiz del 1779 Don Francisco Ruiz del Canto to the Governor of Havana, September 26, 1779. Official Correspondence Pertaining to Relations with the Uchiz Indians, Florida History Online, University of North Florida, Tallahasse, Florida. .

Card, Jeb. J. 2013 Introduction. In The Archaeology of Hybrid Material Culture , Jeb J. Card, editor, pp. 1- 23. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Occasional Paper No. 3, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, IL.

Casas y Arragori, Luis de las 1796 San Marcos de Apalache. Reparación del Fuerte, 1796. Archivo General de Simancas, Valladolid, Spain. .

Childers, Ronald Wayne 2004 The Presidio System in Spanish Florida 1565-1763. In Presidios of the North American Spanish Borderlands. Thematic issue, Historical Archaeology 38(3):24-32.

Clune Jr., John J. and Margo S. Stringfield 2009 Historic Pensacola . University Press of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

Coker, William S. 1979 The Financial History of Pensacola’s Spanish Presidios 1698-1763. Pensacola Historical Society 9(4):1-20.

Coker, William S. and G. Douglas Inglis 1980 The Spanish Censuses of Pensacola, 1784-1820: a Genealogical Guide to Spanish Pensacola . In The Spanish Borderlands Series Pensacola, Vol. 3., Pensacola. The Perdido Bay Press, Pensacola, FL.

Comaroff, Jean and John Comaroff 1991 Of Revelation and Revolution, Vol 1: Christianity, Colonialism, and Consciousness in South Africa. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Cordell, Ann S. 2002 Continuity and Change in Apalachee Pottery Manufacture. Historical Archaeology 36(1): 36-44, 46-5.

2013 Continuity and Change in Early Eighteenth-Century Apalachee Colonowares. In The Archaeology of Hybrid Material Culture , Jeb J. Card, editor, pp. 51-80. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Occasional Paper No. 39, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, IL.

Covington, James W. 1972 Apalachee Indians, 1704-1763. The Florida Historical Quarterly 50(4):366-384.

120

Cusick, James G. 2000 Creolization and the Borderlands. In Evidence of Creolization in the Consumer Goods of an Enslaved Bahamiam Family , Shannon Le Dawdy, editor. Thematic issue, Historical Archaeology 34(3):46-55.

Deagan, Kathleen 1978 The Material Assemblage of 16 th Century Spanish Florida. Historical Archaeology (12):25-50.

1987 Artifacts of the Spanish Colonies of Florida and the Caribbean, 1500 –1800, Vol. 1, Ceramics, Glassware, and Beads . Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

1990 Accommodation and Resistance: The Process and Impact of Spanish Colonization in the Southeast. In Columbian Consequences. Vol. 2 : Archaeological and Historical Perspectives on the Spanish Borderlands East , David Hurst Thomas, editor, pp. 297-314. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

2010 Native American Resistance to Spanish Presence in Hispaniola and La Florida, ca. 1492- 1650. In Enduring Conquests: Rethinking the Archaeology of Resistance to Spanish Colonialism in the Americas , School for Advanced Research Advanced Seminar Series, Matthew Liebmann and Melissa S. Murphy, editors, pp. 41-56. School for Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe, NM.

2013 Hybridity, Identity, and Archaeological Practice. In The Archaeology of Hybrid Material Culture , Jeb J. Card, editor, pp. 260-278. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Occasional Paper No. 39, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, IL.

2015 Transculturation and Spanish America Ethnogenesis: The Archaeological Legacy of the Quincentenary. In Studies in Culture Contact: Interaction, Culture Change, and Archaeology , James G. Cusick, editor, pp. 23-43. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University. Carbondale, IL.

Deloria, Philip J. 2006 What is the Middle Ground, Anyway? The William and Mary Quarterly 63(1):15-22.

Din, Gilbert C. 2002 War on the Gulf Coast: The Spanish Fight Against William Augustus Bowles . University Press of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

2004 William Augustus Bowles on the Georgia Frontier: A Reexamination of the Spanish Surrender of Fort San Marcos de Apalache in 1800. The Georgia Historical Quarterly 88(3):305-337.

Dornan, Jennifer L. 2002 Agency and Archaeology: Past, Present, and Future Directions. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 9(4):303-329. 121

Dunbar, James S. and Steve J. Dasovich 1991 Archaeological Testing of a Proposed Observation Platform at Fort San Marcos de Apalache State Historic Site. Report Prepared for Florida Department of Natural Resources Division of Recreation and Parks. Prepared by Bureau of Archaeological Research Division of Historical Resources, Florida Department of State, Tallahassee, FL.

Fairbanks, Charles H. 1964 Underwater Historic Sites on St. Marks River. The Florida Anthropologist 17:44-49.

Fisher, John R. 1997 The Economic Aspects of Spanish Imperialism in America, 1492-1810 . Liverpool University Press, Liverpool, England.

Foster, H. Thomas II 2004 Evidence of Historic Creek Indian Migration from a Regional and Direct Historic Analysis of Ceramic Types. Southeastern Archaeology 23(1):65-84.

Florida Museum of Natural History 2016 Florida Museum of Natural History Digital Type Collection . Available at . Accessed September 20 th , 2016.

Friends of Mission San Luis, Inc. 2008 Mission San Luis Collections: Archaeology. Mission San Luis de Apalachee, Tallahassee, Florida. . Accessed January 28, 2014.

Gelabert, Don Francisco de Paula 1795 Plano del Fuerte de S. Marcos de Apalache y sus inmediaciones. AGM USA 5-06. Archivo General Militar de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. Documents Library, Department of Anthropology, University of West Florida, Pensacola, FL.

1796 Letter written by Paula Gelabert, Nov. 15, 1796, Pensacola. Archivo General de Simancas, Secretaría de Estado y del Despacho de Guerra, Legajo 6883, No. 14.

[1790s] Bahia y entrada del Rio de S. Marcos de Apalache, en la Costa del Norte del Seno Mexicano. AGM USA 5-05. Archivo General Militar de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. Documents Library, Department of Anthropology, University of West Florida, Pensacola, FL.

Goggin, John M. 1968 Spanish Majolica in the New World: Types of the Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries . Yale University Publications in Anthropology No. 72, Department of Anthropology, Yale University, New Haven, CT.

122

Hahn, Steven C. 2004 The Invention of the Creek Nation, 1670-1763 . University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE.

Hann, John H. 1988 Apalachee: The Land Between the Rivers . University of Florida Press, Gainesville, FL.

Herman, Daniel J. 1999 Romance on the Middle Ground. Journal of the Early Republic 19(2):279-291.

Honerkamp, Nicholas and Norma Harris 2005 Unfired Brandon Gunflints from the Presidio Santa María de Galve, Pensacola, Florida. Historical Archaeology 39(4):95-111).

Jackson, Robert H. and Edward Castillo 1995 Indians, Franciscans, and Spanish Creolization: The Impact of the Mission System on California Indians. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, NM.

Johnson, Patrick Lee 2012 Apalachee Agency on the Gulf Coast Frontier. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of West Florida, Pensacola, FL.

Knight, Jr. Vernon James 1994 Ocmulgee Fields Culture and the Historical Development of Creek Ceramics. In Ocmulgee Archaeology, 1936-1986, David J. Hally, editor, pp. 181-189. The University of Georgia Press, Athens.

Liebmann, Matthew and Melissa S. Murphy, 2010 Rethinking the Archaeology of Rebels, Backsliders, and Idolaters. In Enduring Conquests: Rethinking the Archaeology of Resistance to Spanish Colonialism in the Americas , School for Advanced Research Advanced Seminar Series, Matthew Liebmann and Melissa S. Murphy, editors, pp. 1-18. School for Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe, NM.

Lightfoot, Kent 2005 Indians, Missionaries, and Merchants: The Legacy of Colonial Encounters on the California Frontiers. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Lightfoot, Kent G. and Antoinette Martinez 1995 Frontiers and Boundaries in Archaeological Perspective. Annual Review of Anthropology 24:471-492.

Manucy, Albert 1959 The Founding of Pensacola: Reasons and Reality. Pensacola Quadricentennial Issue . Thematic issue, The Florida Historical Quarterly 37(3/4):223-241.

123

McAlister, L.N. 1959 Pensacola during the Second Spanish Period. The Florida Historical Quarterly 37(3/4):281-327.

McEwan, Bonnie G. 1991 San Luis de Talimali: The Archaeology of Spanish-Indian Relations at a Florida Mission. Historical Archaeology 25(3):36-60.

2000 The Apalachee Indians of Northwest Florida. In Indians of the Greater Southeast: Historical Archaeology and Ethnohistory . Bonnie G. McEwan, editor, pp. 57-85. The University Press of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

[2014] The Historical Archaeology of Seventeenth-Century La Florida. Florida Historical Quarterly , pp. 1-24. Academia, . Accessed January 29, 2014.

McGuire, Randall H. 1989 The Greater Southwest as a Periphery of Mesoamerica. In Centre and Periphery: Comparative Studies in Archaeology , T.C. Champion, editor, pp. 40-61. One World Archaeology, Unwin Human Ltd., London, England.

McKinnon, Jennifer F. 2003 Maritime Cultural Landscapes: Investigations at the Spanish Landing (8WA247). Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL.

Meide, Charles T. 2001 The Archaeology of Economic Transition: the Excavation of the San Marcos Shipwreck, a Mid-Nineteenth Century Merchant Sailing Ship Lost at St. Marks, Florida. Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL.

Melcher, Jennifer Ann 2011 More Than Just Copies: Colono Ware as a Reflection of Multi-Ethnic Interaction on the 18 th -Century Spanish Frontier of West Florida. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of West Florida, Pensacola, FL.

Milanich, Jerald T. 2006 Laboring in the Fields of the Lord: Spanish Missions and Southeastern Indians. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Noël Hume, Ivor 1969 A Guide to the Artifacts of Colonial America. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA.

Olds, Dorris L. 1962 History and Archaeology at Fort St. Marks in Apalachee. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee.

124

Pampellone, James 1765 Letter from Lieutenant James Pampellone to Colonel James Grant, 1765. The Indian Frontier in British East Florida; Letters to Governor James Grant from British Soldiers and Indian Traders . University of North Florida, Jacksonville, Florida. .

Panton, Leslie and Company 1788 Panton, Leslie and Company Memorial to Marques del Campo, 1788. Microfilm Reel 1, pp. 497, Panton, Leslie and Company Author Index, University Archives and West Florida History Center, University of West Florida, Pensacola, Florida.

Parker, Bradley J. 2006 Toward an Understanding of Borderland Processes. American Antiquity 71(1): 77-100.

Pearson Jr., Fred Lamar 1974 Spanish-Indian Relations in Florida 1602-1675: Some Aspects of Selected Visitas. The Florida Historical Quarterly 52(3):261-273.

Perchét, Juan Maria 1802 Plano, del Fuerte de S n Marcos de Apalache, y sus imediaciones, en 35o. var s cast s de radio, des de el centro del fuerte; posicion de la torre vieja, y terrenos anegadizos, g e le circund n. AGM USA 8-17. Archivo General Militar de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. Documents Library, Department of Anthropology, University of West Florida, Pensacola, FL.

Pigott, Michelle 2015 The Apalachee After San Luis: Exploring Cultural Hybridization Through Ceramic Practice. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of West Florida, Pensacola, FL.

Quesada, Alejandro M. de 2006 A History of Florida Forts: Florida’s Lonely Outposts . The History Press, Charleston, SC.

Reding, Katherine 1925 Plans for the Colonization and Defense of Apalache, 1675. The Georgia Historical Quarterly 9(2):169-175.

Roberts, Amanda Dawn 2009 Secret Exchange: Alternative Economies of Presidios Santa María de Galve and Isla de Santa Rosa. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of West Florida, Pensacola, FL.

Salazar, Hita

125

1680 Planta de el fuerte que se podza hacer en el Puerto de San Marcos, 1680. Mapas y Planos –Archivo General de Indias, Seville, Spain. .

Sánchez, Moral 1731 Letter from the Governor of Florida, Archivo General de Indias, Worth Collection, Department of Anthropology, University of West Florida, Pensacola, FL.

Scarry, John F. 1985 A Proposed Revision of the Fort Walton Ceramic Typology: A Type-Variety System. The Florida Anthropologist 38(3):199-233.

Sleeper-Smith, Susan 2006 Introduction: Forum, the Middle Ground Revisited. The William and Mary Quarterly , 63(1):3-8).

Smith, Hale G. 1948 Two Historical Archaeological Periods in Florida Author. American Antiquity 13(4):313-319.

1963 Fort St. Marks Salvage Program, 1963. Florida State University Research Number HSM 149. Report prepared by the Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, for the National Park Service, Tallahassee.

Stein, Gil J. 2002 From Passive Periphery to Active Agents: Emerging Perspectives in the Archaeology of Interregional Interaction. American Anthropologist 104(3):903-916.

Swann, Brenda N. 2002 Material Culture at Presidio Santa María de Galve (1698-1722): Combining the Historical and Archaeological Records. Southeastern Archaeology 21(1):64-78.

Thomas, Alfred Barnaby 1982 Alonso de Posada Report, 1686: A Description of the Area of Present Southern United States in the Late Seventeenth Century. In The Spanish Borderlands Series , Vol. IV , translated and edited by Alfred Barnaby Thomas. The Perdido Bay Press, Pensacola, FL.

United States Department of the Interior 1978 National Register of Historic Places Inventory-Nomination Form: Fort San Marcos de Apalache, 1978. United States Department of the Interior . Accessed October 28, 2013.

University Archives and West Florida History Center 2011 Guide to the Panton, Leslie & Company Papers. University Archives and West Florida History Center, University of West Florida John C. Pace Library, Pensacola, FL < http://libguides.uwf.edu /ld.php?content_id=8253714>. Accessed January 13, 2016.

126

Wallerstein, Immanuel 1974 The Modern World System. Vol. 1. Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century . Reprint 2011. University of California Press. Berkeley.

Waselkov, Gregory A. 1989 Seventeenth-Century Trade in the Colonial Southeast. Southeastern Archaeology 8(2):117-133).

Weddle, Robert S. 2001 The Wreck of the Belle, the Ruin of La Salle . Centennial Series of the Association of Former Students No. 48, Texas A&M University Press, College Station, TX.

Wenhold, Lucy L. 1956 The First Fort of San Marcos de Apalache. The Florida Historical Quarterly 34(4):301- 314.

1957 The Trials of Captain Don Isidoro de Leon. The Florida Historical Quarterly 35(3):246- 265.

White, Richard 1991 The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650- 1815. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York.

Willey, Gordon R. 1949 Archaeology of the Florida Gulf Coast. Reprinted 1998 by University Press of Florida. Gainesville, FL.

Williams, Siska Marie 2010 Tracing the Trade: A Proposed Archeological Model for Panton, Leslie, and Company Trade Site Types in Second Spanish Florida. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of West Florida, Pensacola, FL.

Worth, John E. 1998 The Timucuan Chiefdoms of Spanish Florida, Vol. I: Assimilation . University Press of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

2007 The Struggle for the Georgia Coast: An 18 th -Century Spanish Retrospective on Guale and Mocama. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, AL.

2008 Rediscovering Pensacola’s Lost Spanish Missions. Paper presented at the 65 th Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Charlotte, North Carolina.

[2015] The Yamasee in West Florida. Unpublished manuscript.

Worth, John E., and Jennifer Melcher

127

2015 Revised Typology for Historic Period Native American Ceramics in Northwest Florida. Manuscript submitted to Southeastern Archaeology. Worth, John E., Norma J. Harris, Jennifer Melcher, and Danielle Dadiego 2012 Exploring Mission Life in 18th-Century West Florida: 2011 Excavations at San Joseph de Escambe. Paper presented at the 2012 Conference of the Society for Historical Archaeology, Baltimore, Maryland.

128

APPENDICES

129

APPENDIX A

LOCATION, DESCRIPTION, AND TOTAL ARTIFACT COUNTS FOR MATERIAL

CATEGORIES FROM THE ST. MARKS AND WAKULLA RIVER AREAS, SOUTHEAST

SECTOR, SMITH 1963

130

Category Location Description Total Count Metal St. Marks Iron, Scissor Sections; Iron, 25 River and Nails; Iron, Cotterpin Hinge; Western Bank Iron, Pony Shoe; Iron, of the St. Spanish Horse Shoe; Iron, Marks River on Chest Handle (20 th Century); the Southeast Iron, Miscellaneous Side of the St. Marks Lead, Musket Balls (16mm); 28 Peninsula Lead, Musket Balls (15mm); Lead, Flintlock Pad; Lead, Buckshot; Lead, Miscellaneous

Copper, Breast Strap Buckle; 8 Copper, U.S. Artillery Cross- Belt Fragment; Copper, Spoon Handle; Copper, Miscellaneous

Buttons: American, U.S. 198 Army Infantry (1816-1821); American, U.S. Army Infantry (1859-1870); American, U.S. Army Infantry (1812-1821); American, U.S. Army Infantry (1808-1824); American, U.S. Army Infantry (1808-1830); American, U.S. Army Artillery Corps (1814-1821); American, U.S. Army Artillery Corps (1812); Spanish, Army Infantry (1770-1780); British, Army Regiment of Foot (1780); French, Army Infantry, 4 th Lieutenant (1802-1815); Civilian, Miscellaneous Bone St. Marks Handmade Bone Buttons and 49 River and Blanks (1750-1830) Western Bank of the St. Marks River on the Southeast

131

Side of the St. Marks Peninsula Category Location Description Total Count Ceramics St. Marks Native, Historic: Shell- 391 River and Tempered Plain; Pensacola Western Bank Three-Line Incised; of the St. Chattahoochee Roughened, Marks River on var. Wedowee; Jefferson the Southeast Ware; San Marcos Stamped; Side of the St. Chattahoochee Roughened, Marks var. Chattahoochee; Incised; Peninsula Punctated; Plain; Quartz Tempered, Plain; Sand Tempered Plain; Limestone Tempered Plain

Native, Prehistoric: Deptford 165 Simple Stamped; Deptford Bold Check; Weeden Island Plain; Gulf Check Stamped; Fort Walton Plain; Fort Walton Incised

European: Fig Springs 1,252 Polychrome; San Luís Blue on White; Tallahassee Blue on White; Blue Green Bacin; El Morro; Rey Ware; Olive Jar, Early, Middle, and Late Variety; Green-Glazed Cookware; Earthenware; Combed Yellow Peasant Ware; Marbled Peasant Ware; Delft; Plain Cream Ware; Queen’s Ware; Painted Whiteware; Banded Whiteware; Staffordshire; Salt Glazed Stoneware; Lead Glazed Earthenware; Sponge Ware; Ginger Beer Bottle; European Porcelain; Feather Edge; Boneware China; Transfer Ware; Rhenish Ware; Unidentified; Porcelain Poker Chip

132

Fragment

Kaolin Pipe Stems (4/64); 136 Kaolin Pipe Stems (5/64); Kaolin Bowl Fragments; Briar; Green Glazed Pipe Bowl Category Location Description Total Count Glass St. Marks Spanish Bottle Necks; British 309 River and Bottle (1820); British Dark Western Bank Green Bottle Kickup and of the St. Necks; Silver-Painted Bottle Marks River on Necks; Silver Painted Bottle the Southeast Bases; Blue Bottle Bases; Side of the St. Clear Bottle Neck; Light Marks Green Bottle Base; Light Peninsula Green Bottle Fragments; Dark Green Bottle Fragments; Clear Bottle Fragments; Blue Bottle Fragments; Plate Glass Fragments; Cut Glass Fragments; Brown Glass Fragments; Violet Glass Fragments; Yellow Glass Fragments; Burned Glass Fragments

Bead, Striped Barrel 1 Stone St. Marks Black Gun Flints; Cream 21 River and Gun Flint; White Gun Flint Western Bank of the St. Flint, Archaic Projectile 11 Marks River on Point; Flint, Archaic Drill; the Southeast Flint, Archaic Chopper; Side of the St. Flint, Fort Walton Projectile Marks Point; Flint, Chopper and Peninsula Scraper Fragments Wood St. Marks Ship Pulley Wheel 1 River and Western Bank of the St. Marks River on the Southeast Side of the St. Marks

133

Peninsula Category Location Description Total Count Ethnobotanicals St. Marks Peach Pits 51 River and Western Bank of the St. Marks River on the Southeast Side of the St. Marks Peninsula

134

APPENDIX B

DESCRIPTION AND DIMENSIONS OF TRENCHES EXCAVATED, ANONYMOUS 1966

135

Trench Number Description Dimension Test Trench 1 N/A 1.5 m x 7.6 m Test Trench 2 Within Spanish moat, bisecting the moat 1.8 m x 9.1 m Test Trench 3 Southward extension of test trench 2, extends across curtain 1 m x 2.7 m; widened to 5.5 m x 2.7 m wall of the moat and into the Confederate earthworks Test Trench 4 Northward extension of Test Trench 2 N/A Test Trench 5 Northward extension of Test Trench 1, extends over the north 1.2 m x 2.4 m curtain wall; extended west to Test Trench 3 Test Trench 6 Westward extension of Test Trench 3, south of the north 1 m x 1.2 m curtain wall; extended to the junction with the western bastion where the north curtain ends Test Trench 7 Extension of Test Trench 3, located east-west along the north N/A curtain wall Test Trench 8 Along southern curtain wall, parallel to the north curtain wall; 7.6 m in length, no width noted ends at the northeast corner of the eastern bastion and extended south Trench 9 Begins at the edge of Trench 8; runs perpendicular to the north 2.3 m x 2.7 m curtain wall Trench 10 The north edge of the trench is 1.5 feet south of the south edge 3 m x 3 m of the curtain wall Trench 11 1.5 feet south of the north curtain wall 3 m. x 3 m Trench 12 South of Trench 10 3 m x 3 m Trench 13 Separate trench, south of the end of the north curtain wall 3 m x 3 m Trench 14 Separate trench, east of Trench 8, north of Trench 13, near the 2.4 m x 3 m end of the north curtain wall Trench 15 No data. 3 m x 3 m Trench 16 West of Trench 15; Trench 13, 15, and 16 connect 3 m x 3 m Trench 17 North of Spanish bombproof near the northeast corner of the 2.4 m x 3 m north curtain wall Trench 18 Between Trench 10 and Trench 11, along Trench 8 (the south N/A curtain wall, in the center of the excavation area. Trench 19 Between Trench 5 and Trench 10 on the west side of the N/A

136

excavation area Trench Number Description Dimension Trench 20 Adjacent to Trench 16, west wall borders Trench 16 3 m x 3 m Trench 21 Adjacent to Trench 11 in the center of the excavation area; 3 m x 3 m north wall borders Trench 8, the south curtain wall Trench 22 N/A 3 m x 3 m Trench 23 West of Trench 20 1.5 m x 3 m Trench 24 North of Trench 13 and West of Trench 8 1.1 m x 2 m Trench 25 Between Trench 14 and Trench 29 Not opened. Trench 26 South of Trench 11 3 m x 3 m Trench 27 South of Trench 21, east of Trench 26; Designated as part of 3 m x 3 m the palisade, which runs East-West in Trench 21, turns south in Trench 11, and runs North-South in Trench 26 Trench 28 West of Trench 24 1.4 m x 3 m Trench 29 Between Trench 25 and Trench 13, adjacent to the N/A Confederate Earth Works Trench 30 N/A N/A Trench 31 Adjacent to Trench 15 and Trench 22 N/A Trench 32 Between Trench 26 and Trench 23 1.8 m x 3 m Trench 33 East of Trench 32, between Trench 27 and Trenches 16-20 1.8 m x 3 m Trench 34 West of Trench 31, south of Trench 16 1.5 m x 3 m Trench 35 Between Trench 28 and Trench 33, location of the bomb proof 1.4 m x 2.6 m Trench 36 Between Trench 30 and Trench 35 N/A Trench 37 Located in earthworks in bomb proof N/A Trench 38 Located in earthworks in bomb proof N/A Trench 39 West of Trench 17, near the north east corner of the bomb N/A proof

137

APPENDIX C

LOCATION, DESCRIPTION, AND TOTAL COUNT FOR MATERIAL CATEGORIES

FROM THE NORTHWEST SECTOR, ANONYMOUS 1966

138

Category Location Description Total Count Metal Trench 17 Iron Nails; Iron Fragments; 63 Iron Slag; Button Bone Trench 17 Mammal Fragments; 97 Unidentified Fragments; Button Ceramics Trench 17 Native: Leon Check Stamped; 23 Jefferson Ware, Complicated Stamped; Chattahoochee Brushed; Punctated; Sand Tempered Plain; Plain; Incised:

European: Blue Transfer 34 Ware; Black Transfer Ware; Salt-Glazed Stoneware; Olive Jar; Green Glazed Interior; Basal Sherd; Lead Glazed Stoneware; Creamware Bowl Sherds; White China; Refined Stoneware; Faience; Plain White; Banded Ware; Blue and Orange on White; Creamware; Plain; White China Stoneware; White Semi-Porcelain; Salt Glazed Stoneware; Lead Glazed Earthenware; Plain White Semiporcelain; White Stoneware China

Kaolin Pipe Stem 1 Building Trench 17 Plaster; Spanish Tile,; Brick 46 Materials Glass Trench 17 Light Green; 51 Dark Green; Bluish-Green; Green; Clear; Brown; Miscellaneous Stone Trench 17 Flint Chip; Flint Fragments; 7 Geological Specimen; Shist Shell Trench 17 Snail 1 Total: 324 Ceramics Trench 6: Native: Leon Check Stamped; 194 Room 1 Chatahoochee Brushed; Undetermined; Aucilla Incised,

139

Jefferson Plain; Jefferson Ware, Complicated; Incised, Plain; Limestone Tempered Plain; Ocmulgee Fields Incised, Shell-Tempered; Alachua Cob-Marked; Jefferson complicated Stamped; Burnished Red Filmed Ware; Pensacola Plain; Mission Red Filmed; Miller Plain; Unidentified Plain

European: El Morro Ware; San 22 Luís Polychrome Majolica; Delftware; White China; Rey Ware; Lead Glazed Earthenware, Incised Exterior; Clay Pan Fragment; Spanish Cooking Ware, Unglazed; San Augustin Blue and White Majolica; Open Mouthed Jar Handle; El Morrow Ware; Olive Jar Fragments

Kaolin Pipe Stems 4 Category Location Description Total Count Metal Trench 6: Iron Nail Fragments; Iron, 83 Room 1 Miscellaneous; Iron, Slag Stone Trench 6: Flint Chip; Basalt Fragment; 6 Room 1 Chipped Flint Glass Trench 6: Dark Green; Light Green; 13 Room 1 Unidentified Patina; Clear; Green Bone Trench 6: Fish Vertebrae; Fish Bone; 211 Room 1 Deer Jawbone Fragments; Deer Tooth; Horse or Cow Tooth Fragment; Unidentified Mammal; Turtle; Bird; Ivory- Like

Building Trench 6: Stucco, Pink; Spanish Tile 3 Materials Room 1 Fragments Shell Trench 6: Whelk columella 1 Room 1 Total: 537

140

Ceramic Trench 5 Native: Complicated Stamped; 21 Chattahoochee Brushed; Plain; Residual Plain

European: Blue-Edged Ware; 38 El Morro Ware; Lead-Glazed Stoneware

Kaolin Pipe Stem Fragment 1 Category Location Description Total Count Metal Trench 5 Spoon, Unidentified; Iron Nail 15 Fragments; Iron Spikes, Small; Iron, Miscellaneous; Iron, Hardware, Pins With Eyelets Stone Trench 5 Dark Honey Gun Flint; Native 4 Flint, Worked Edge; Flint Chips Glass Trench 5 Clear-Blue; Green; Dark 15 Green Bone Trench 5 Mammal; Bird; Fish; Turtle 85 Building Trench 5 Brick 3 Materials Total: 701 Ceramics Spanish Native: Plain; Plain, Sand- 23 Bombproof: Tempered; Plain, Sand Room 2 Tempered, Incised; Mission Red Filmed; Incised; Brushed; Notched rim

European: Refined, White; 11 White, Plain; Olive jar; Banded Ware; Blue Transfer Ware; Salt-Glazed Stoneware; Lead-Glazed Staffordshire Ware Metal Spanish Iron, Nails; Iron, Slag; Iron, 107 Bombproof: Fragments; Iron, Grape Shot; Room 2 Iron, Gun Part; Iron, Shot; Iron, Miscellaneous; Iron, Horseshoe; Lead, Wedge; Lead, Circular Object; Lead, Shot; Lead, Musket Balls; Brass, Buckle; Knife; Unidentified

141

Glass Spanish Dark Green; Green; Green 24 Bombproof: Seal; Light Green; Clear Room 2 Category Location Description Total Count Building Spanish Red Brick Fragments; 207 Materials Bombproof: Plaster Fragments; Spanish Room 2 Tile Fragments; Mortar; Stucco; Tabby; Unidentified Brown Flooring Material Fragments Shell Spanish Oyster; Clam; Ransia; Cochle; 12 Bombproof: Unidentified Room 2 Bone Spanish Mammal; Unidentified 61 Bombproof: Room 2 Stone Spanish Black Gun Flint; Gray Gun 8 Bombproof: Flint; Honey-Colored Gun Room 2 Flint; Chert Fragments Miscellaneous Spanish Coral; Other 4 Bombproof: Room 2 Total: 457

142

APPENDIX D

TEST HOLE NUMBERS, DEPTHS, MATERIALS RECOVERED, AND COUNTS FROM

THE NORTHWEST SECTOR, DUNBAR AND DASOVICH 1991

143

Test Total Materials Recovered Count Total Count Number Depth Test 1 1.2 m Ceramics, Native: Lake Jackson Plain 17 Unidentified Incised 1 Ceramics, Imported: Marine Ware or Green Bacin 1 Whiteware 1 Brick Fragments 4 Dark Green Glass Fragments 6 Brown Glass Fragments 3 Aqua Glass Fragments 2 Clear Glass Fragments 9 Metal, Unidentified 2 46 Test 2 0.5 m Ceramics, Native: Lake Jackson Plain 3 Ceramics, Imported: Transfer Printed Ware 2 Whiteware 3 Dark Green Glass 5 Fragments 1 Brown Glass Fragment 1 Cement 1 16 Test 3 0.8 m Ceramics, Native: Lake Jackson Plain 16 Ceramics, Imported: Unidentified Majolica 1 Banded Ware 1 Transfer Printed Ware 1 Chert Flakes, White 2 Brick Fragments 4 Dark Green Glass Fragments 4 Clear Glass Fragments 9 Brown Glass Fragments 3 Miscellaneous Glass Fragment 1 Iron, Square Head Nail 1 Metal, Unidentified 4 Bone, Unidentified Species 6 Bone, Fish Vertebra 1 54 Test Total Materials Recovered Count Total Count Number Depth Test 4 0.4 m Ceramics, Native:

144

Lake Jackson Plain 1 Ceramics, Imported: Shell-Edged Pearlware 1 Brick Fragments 3 Dark Green Glass 3 Fragments 6 Clear Glass Fragments 1 Concrete Fragment 1 16 Test 5 0.9 m Ceramics, Native: Lake Jackson Plain 8 Chert Flake, Grey 1 Ceramics, Imported: Majolica, Unidentified 1 Shell-Edged Pearlware 1 Transfer Printed Ware 3 Whiteware 5 Columbia Plain (or Mexico City White Majolica) 1 Brick 8 Dark Green Glass Fragment 3 Aqua Glass Fragment 1 Brown Glass Fragment 1 Clear Glass Fragments 4 Bone, White Tail Deer 1 38 Test 6 1.3 m Ceramics, Imported: Majolica, Unidentified Type 1 Whiteware 1 Bone, White Tail Deer 1 3 Test 7 1.3 m Ceramics, Native: Lake Jackson Plain 1 Pensacola Plain 1 Ceramics, Imported: Transfer Printed Ware 3 Clear Glass Bottle Top Fragment 1 6 Test 8 1.3 m Ceramics, Native: Lake Jackson Plain 8 Pensacola Plain 1 Chert Flake, Gray 1 Ceramics, Imported: Majolica, Unidentifed 1 Whiteware 1 Dark Green Glass Fragment 4 Clear Glass Fragment 1

145

Lead, Sheeting 1 Bone, Fish Vertebrae 2 Fish Scales, Unidentified Species 2 Bone, Sheepshead Jaw 1 Bone, Mud Fish Jaw with Teeth 1 Bone, Alligator Scute 1 Bone, Cow Tooth Fragment 1 Bone, Unidentified 15 Bone, Turtle 1 Leather, Unidentified 7 49 Test Total Materials Recovered Count Total Count Number Depth Test 9 0.7 m Ceramics, Native: Lake Jackson Plain 4 Ceramics, Imported: Shell-Edge Pearlware 1 Transfer Printed Ware 1 Whiteware 2 Dark Green Glass Bottle Top Fragment 1 Dark Green Glass Fragment 1 Clear Glass Fragments 3 Metal, Unidentified 1 Bone, White Tail Deer, (Long Bone) 1 Bone, Cow Tooth Fragment 1 Bone, Unidentified 1 17 Test 10 0.9 m Ceramics, Imported: English Delft 1 Majolica, Unidentified 2 Whiteware 8 Brick 1 Dark Green Glass Bottle Top 1 Dark Green Glass Fragment 1 Glass Fragment, Unidentified 1 Clear Glass Fragment 1 Bone, White Tail Deer 2 Bone, Unidentified 2 Bone, Cow Tooth Fragment 1 Wood, Fragment with Tool Markings 1 22 Test Total Materials Recovered Count Total Count

146

Number Depth Test 11 0.5 m Ceramics, Native: Lake Jackson Plain 4 Chert Flake, Grey 1 Ceramics, Imported: Banded Ware 1 Whiteware 1 Glass Jar Fragments 7 Clear Glass Bowl Fragment, Ribbed 1 Aqua Glass Fragment 1 Dark Green Glass Fragment 1 Metal, Unidentified 1 Metal, .22 Cartridge Case 1 Bone, Alligator Scute 1 Bone, Unidentified Species 2 Charcoal 1 23 Test 12 0.5 m Ceramics, Native: Lake Jackson Plain 2 Weeden Island Plain 1 Ceramics, Imported: Transfer Printed Ware 1 Whiteware 1 Brick 2 Clear and Brown Glass Fragments 2 Metal, Square Head Nail 1 Shotgun Shell Casing 1 Bone, Alligator Scute 1 Fish Scale, Unidentified Species 1 13 Test 13 0.6 m Ceramics, Native: Lake Jackson Plain 1 Weeden Island Plain 1 Brick 1 Metal, Unidentified 7 Bone, Unidentified Species 2 12 Test 14 0.5 m Ceramics, Native: Mission Red Filmed 1 Chert Core with Cortex, Gray 1 Aqua Glass Fragments 4 Dark Green Glass Fragments 1 Painted Glass Fragment 1 Clear Glass Fragment 1

147

Brown Glass Fragment 2 Bone, Fish Vertebra 1 Bone, Unidentified Species 1 13 Test Total Materials Recovered Count Total Count Number Depth Test 15 1.4 m Ceramics, Native: Lake Jackson Plain 3 Chert Flake, Brown 1 Chert Flakes, Gray 2 Ceramics, Imported: Shell Edged Ware 1 Stoneware 1 Whiteware 10 English Brick, Glazed 1 Brick 2 Dark Green Glass Fragments 5 Light Green Glass Fragments 2 Clear Glass Fragments 5 Dark Green Patina Glass Fragments 2 Dark Green Kick-Up Bottle Base 1 Metal, Nail 1 Bone, Alligator Scute 1 Bone, Cow Tooth 1 39 Test 16 0.6 m Ceramics, Native: Lake Jackson Plain 1 Chert Flake, Gray 2 Ceramics, Imported: Marine Ware or Green Bacin 1 Whiteware 14 Dark Green Glass Bottle Top Fragment 1 Dark Green Glass Fragments 3 Clear Glass Fragments 5 Bone, White Tail Deer 1 Bone, Cow Tooth Fragment 1 Bone, Unidentified 3 32 Test Total Materials Recovered Count Total Count Number Depth Test 17 1.3 m Ceramics, Native: Lake Jackson Plain 7

148

Marsh Island Incised 1 Chert Flake, Blue 1 Ceramics, Imported: El Morro Ware 2 Mexico City Whiteware 2 Pearlware 1 Whiteware 7 Pipe Stem Fragment 1 Brick 1 Dark Green Glass Fragments 9 Aqua Glass Fragments 1 Patent Medicine Bottle Glass Fragments 4 Clear Glass Fragments 2 Bone, Fish Vertebra 1 Bone, White Tail Deer 1 Bone, Cow Tooth Fragment 1 Bone, Water Fowl Long Bone Fragments 3 45 Test 18 1.04 m Ceramics, Native: Lake Jackson Plain 13 Deptford Linear Check Stamped 1 Ceramics, Imported: Columbian Plain 1 Coarse Earthenware, Glazed 5 Jackfield 7 Transfer Printed Ware 8 Shell-Edged Pearlware 3 Cup Handle 1 Whiteware 30 Pearlware 2 Banded Ware, White and Yellow 1 Pipe Stem and Bowl Fragments 2 Dark Green Glass Fragments 2 Clear Patina Glass Fragments 6 Aqua Glass Fragments 3 Clear Glass Fragments 5 Light Green Glass Fragments 2

149

Dark Brown Glass Fragments 3 Brown Glass Fragments 1 Metal, Unidentified 6 Bone, White Tail Deer 10 Bone, Cow Tooth 1 Garfish Scale 1 Bone, Water Fowl Long Bone 1 115 Test Total Materials Recovered Count Total Count Number Depth Test 19 0.9 m Ceramics, Native: Deptford Linear Check Stamped 1 Pensacola Plain 1 Lake Jackson Plain 7 Stone, Archaic Scraper, Grey 1 Brick 4 Dark Green Glass Fragments 3 Light Green Glass Fragment 1 Aqua Glass Fragments 2 Clear Glass Fragments 2 Light Brown Glass Fragment 1 Metal, Unidentified 1 Fish Scale, Unidentified Species 1 25 Total 584 Artifact Count

150

APPENDIX E

GENERAL MATERIALS PRESENT AT FORT SAN MARCOS DE APALACHE AND AT

SELECT COMPARATIVE COLONIAL SITES IN FLORIDA

151

San Marcos Santa María Santa Rosa Pensacola St. Augustine San Luís (1639-1821) (1698-1722) (1722-1756) (1756-1821) (1572-1600) (1656-1704)

CERAMICS

Kitchen Group Tablewares 3,060 11,793 633 8,871 461 796 Olive jars, glazed 51 486 6 - 189 47 Olive jars, unglazed - 1,537 - - 1,080 1,162 Olive jars, unspecified 183 - - - - -

Total kitchen count 3,294 13,816 639 8,871 1,730 2,005 % of total ceramics 59.0% 61.0% 74.0% 92.3% 50.5% 7% % of total assemblage 45.7% 42.3% 44.2% 27.7% 46.3% 6.6%

Activities group Native ceramics 1,865 8,808 209 744 1,693 24,162

Total activities count 1,865 8,808 209 744 1,693 24,162 % of total ceramics 33.4% 39% 24.2% 7.7% 49.4% 9.2% % of total assemblage 25.9% 27.0% 14.5% 2.3% 45.3% 80.2%

Personal group Bead - 9 - - - 1

Total personal count - 9 - - - 1 % of total ceramics 0.0% 0.04% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.003% % of total assemblage 0.0% 0.03% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.003%

152

San Marcos Santa María Santa Rosa Pensacola St. Augustine San Luís (1639-1821) (1698-1722) (1722-1756) (1756-1821) (1572-1600) (1656-1704)

Tobacco pipe group 424 - 16 1,214 - 6

Total tobacco count 424 - 16 1,214 - 6 % of total ceramics 7.6% - 1.9% 11.2% 0.0% 0.02% % of total assemblage 5.9% - 1.1% 3.8% 0.0% 0.02%

TOTAL CERAMICS 5,583 22,633 864 10,829 3,423 26,173 % of total assemblage 77.5% 6.9% 59.8% 33.8% 91.5% 86.9%

METAL

Kitchen Group

Iron knife 1 1 - - - 1 Silver spoon ------Pewter spoon 2 - - - - - Pewter ------Other spoon 1 - - - - 1 Brass cup - - 1 - - - Other kitchenware - - - 27 - - Other tableware 1 - - 25 - -

Total kitchen count 6 1 1 52 0 2 % of total metal 1.1% 0.03% 0.04% 0.8% 0.0% 0.7% % of total assemblage 0.08% 0.003% 0.07% 0.2% 0.0% 0.006%

Architecture Group

Iron Nails, hand wrought 114 - - 185 140 100

153

San Marcos Santa María Santa Rosa Pensacola St. Augustine San Luís (1639-1821) (1698-1722) (1722-1756) (1756-1821) (1572-1600) (1656-1704)

Nails, cut 2 - - 899 - - Nails, indeterminate 166 - - 1,932 - 43 Spikes 7 87 5 150 40 9 Staples - - - - - 2 Tacks 4 - 2 32 16 2 Loop - - - - 1 - Wire - - 5 5 - - Strap - - 1 - - - Construction hardware - - 4 30 11 - Square bolt 1 - - - - - Bolt 1 - - - - - Square nut 1 - - - - - Square pin 1 - - - - - Door lock parts 1 - - 7 - - Iron sheet - 20 - - - - Iron handle - - 1 - - - Washer - - 1 - - - Ring - - 1 - - -

Copper Nails, cut - - - 3 - - Nails, indeterminate 9 - - 1 - - Sheet 1 12 - - - - Wire - - 9 - - -

Lead Lead sheet 2 5 - - - - Brass Ring 1 - 2 - - -

154

San Marcos Santa María Santa Rosa Pensacola St. Augustine San Luís (1639-1821) (1698-1722) (1722-1756) (1756-1821) (1572-1600) (1656-1704)

Screw 1 - - - - - Clamp 1 - - - - - Pin - - 5 - - - Strap - - 1 - - - Sheet - - 5 - - -

Indeterminate metal Hinge - 4 - - - - Latch - 1 - - - - Nails - 969 99 - - - Rings 2 - - - - - Hook 1 - - - - - Sheet 1 - - - - -

Total architecture count 317 1,098 141 3,244 208 156 % of total metal 58.8% 29.4% 56.0% 48.9% 91.6% 52.0% % of total assemblage 4.4% 3.4% 9.8% 86.8% 5.6% 0.5%

Arms Group

Lead Lead shot and sprue 1 2,298 20 1,643 - 9 Lead pellets 5 - - - - 16 Lead puddle - - - - - 3 Lead splatter - - - - - 9 Musket ball 30 - - - 1 -

Iron Gun parts 3 1 1 5 1 -

155

San Marcos Santa María Santa Rosa Pensacola St. Augustine San Luís (1639-1821) (1698-1722) (1722-1756) (1756-1821) (1572-1600) (1656-1704)

Iron Cannons - 3 - - - - Iron Cannonballs - 4 - - - - Iron screw - 1 - - - - Iron shot 2 1 - 6 - -

Brass Brass shot - 1 - - - -

Indeterminate Metal Grenade - 2 - - - - Indeterminate shot - - - - - 15 Sword hilt - 3 - - - - Indeterminate arms - - - 25 - - Shell casings 4 - - - - -

Total arms count 45 2,314 21 1,679 2 52 % of total metal 8.3% 62.0% 8.3% 25.3% 0.8% 17.3% % of total assemblage 0.6% 7.1% 1.5% 5.2% 0.05% 0.2%

Clothing Group

Iron Buttons - - - 7 - - Straight pin - - - - - 9 Sewing needle - - - - - 5

Brass Buttons 16 - - 115 - 2 Brass cloth seal - 1 - - - - Brass straight pin - - - - - 2

156

San Marcos Santa María Santa Rosa Pensacola St. Augustine San Luís (1639-1821) (1698-1722) (1722-1756) (1756-1821) (1572-1600) (1656-1704)

Aglet - - - - - 1

Pewter Buttons 21 - 2 68 - - Pewter stickpin - - - - - 1

Copper Buttons - - - 18 - - Plate 1 - - - - -

Gold Buttons - - 1 1 - -

Silver Sequins - - - - - 7

Lead Lead cloth seal - 7 - - - -

Indeterminate Buttons, other 113 16 - 6 - - Buckles 6 - 2 - - - Cross-Belt plate 1 14 - 52 8 - Brocade - 60 - - - - Hook and eyes - 4 2 34 - - Scissors 4 1 - 4 - - Thimbles - 1 - 4 - - Bale seals - - - 2 - -

157

San Marcos Santa María Santa Rosa Pensacola St. Augustine San Luís (1639-1821) (1698-1722) (1722-1756) (1756-1821) (1572-1600) (1656-1704)

Other needle - 1 - - - - Lacing tips - - - - 8 - Straight pins - 100 - 461 - - Other rivet - 3 - - - - Grommet - 1 - - - 1

Total clothing count 162 209 7 772 16 28 % of total metal 30.1% 5.6% 2.8% 11.6% 7.0% 9.3% % of total assemblage 2.2% 0.6% 0.5% 2.4% 0.4% 0.1%

Activities Group

Iron Chain - - - - - 1 Wire - 2 - - - 34 Slag - - - - - 7 Plate - 1 - - - - Ring - 6 - - - - Spring - 1 - - - - Wire - 15 - - - - Iron container - - 80 - - -

Brass Projectile point - - - - - 1 Nested counter weight - - - - - 1 Chain ------Plate - 1 - - - - Ring - 5 - - - - Strap - 4 - - - - Tubing - 6 - - - -

158

San Marcos Santa María Santa Rosa Pensacola St. Augustine San Luís (1639-1821) (1698-1722) (1722-1756) (1756-1821) (1572-1600) (1656-1704)

Washer - 2 - - - - Wire - 11 - - - - Sheet - 10 - - - -

Steel Plane 1 - - - - -

Lead Pipe - 1 - - - - Weight - 3 - - - - Tubing - 1 - - - - Wire - 6 - - - -

Copper Alloy Kaskaskia Point - - - - - 1

Miscellaneous hardware 2 12 - 718 - - Storage - 1 - 55 - - Military objects - - - 33 1 - Fishing gear 4 1 - 10 - - Construction tools - - - 9 - - Stable and barn 2 3 1 6 - - Toys - - - 5 - - Other - 1 - 4 - -

Total activities count 9 93 81 840 1 45 % of total metal 1.7% 2.5% 32.1% 12.7% 0.4% 15.0% % of total assemblage 0.1% 0.3% 5.6% 2.6% 0.03% 0.1%

Personal Group

159

San Marcos Santa María Santa Rosa Pensacola St. Augustine San Luís (1639-1821) (1698-1722) (1722-1756) (1756-1821) (1572-1600) (1656-1704)

Brass Bell - - - - - 5 Ring - - - - - 1 Hawksbell - - - - - 4 Candle stick and tools - 3 - - - -

Copper Tube bead - - - - - 5 Copper alloy medallion - - - - - 1 Coin - - - - - 1

Unspecified Coins - 10 - 21 - - Knife - 3 1 - - - Crucifix - 1 - - - - Other personal items - 1 - 32 - -

Total personal count 0 18 1 53 0 17 % of total metal 0.0% 3.3% 0.03% 0.8% 0.0% 5.7% % of total assemblage 0.0% 0.06% 0.07% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1%

Total metal count 539 3,733 252 6,640 227 300 % of total assemblage 7.5% 11.4% 17.4% 20.7% 6.1% 1.0%

GLASS

Kitchen Group

160

San Marcos Santa María Santa Rosa Pensacola St. Augustine San Luís (1639-1821) (1698-1722) (1722-1756) (1756-1821) (1572-1600) (1656-1704)

Case bottle - 1,541 18 - 42 8 Wine bottle 57 214 122 - - - Other bottle 130 924 68 7,186 - 11 Decanter - 1 - 12 - - Drinking glass - 19 - - - 1 Tumbler 1 5 - 24 - - Stemmed glass - 16 3 81 - - Stemmed or tumbler - - - 148 - - Modern jar 7 - - 9 - - Bowl fragments - - - 1 - - Dish fragments - - - 41 - - Bottle fragments 687 1,006 33 7,749 - 299 Other fragments - - - 58 - -

Total kitchen count 882 3,726 244 15,309 42 319 % of total glass 99.0% 63.9% 87.1% 97.5% 87.5% 16.6% % of total assemblage 12.2% 11.4% 16.9% 47.8% 1.1% 1.1%

Architecture Group Window glass 1 801 5 - - -

Total architecture count 1 801 5 - - -

% of total glass 0.1% 13.7% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% % of total assemblage 0.01% 2.5% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Clothing Group Beads 4 1,282 31 371 - 1,578

161

San Marcos Santa María Santa Rosa Pensacola St. Augustine San Luís (1639-1821) (1698-1722) (1722-1756) (1756-1821) (1572-1600) (1656-1704)

Total clothing count 4 1,282 31 371 - 1,578 % of total glass 0.4% 22.0% 11.1% 2.4% 0.0% 82.0% % of total assemblage 0.05% 3.9% 2.1% 1.2% 0.0% 5.2%

Personal Group Jewelry - - - 8 6 25 Mirror glass - - - - - 1 Marbles - - - 3 - - Button - - - 1 - - Cuff link - - - 1 - -

Total personal count - - - 13 6 26 % of total glass 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 12.5% 1.4% % of total assemblage 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.04% 0.2% 0.08%

Activities group

Chimney lamp - 18 - - - - Lace maker’s lamp - - - 1 - - Patent medicine bottle fragments 4 - - - - - Glass biface - - - - - 1

Total activities count 4 18 - 1 - 1 % of total glass 0.4% 0.3% 0.0% 0.006% 0.0% 0.05% % of total assemblage 0.05% 0.05% 0.0% 0.003% 0.0% 0.003%

Total glass count 891 5,827 280 15,694 48 1,924 % of total assemblage 12.4% 17.8% 19.4% 49.0% 1.3% 6.4%

162

San Marcos Santa María Santa Rosa Pensacola St. Augustine San Luís (1639-1821) (1698-1722) (1722-1756) (1756-1821) (1572-1600) (1656-1704)

LITHIC

Activities Group Gun flints and spalls 26 347 41 406 - 12 Quartz biface - - - - - 1 Chert biface - - - - - 27 Chert projectile point - - - - - 7 Coral biface - - - - - 1 Coral projectile point - - - - - 1 Projectile point 3 - - - - - Drill 1 - - - - - Chopper 1 - - - - - Scraper 1 - - - - - Fort Walton Point 1 - - - - - Groundstone, basalt - - 1 - - - Ground sandstone - - - - - 1 Sandstone abrader - - 1 - - - Flint scraper 1 - - - - - Hammerstone 1 - - - - - Lithic debitage 42 10 5 - 31 1,664 Basalt mano - - - - 2 - Metate/mano - 41 - - - - Strike-o-lite - - - - 1 -

Total activities 77 398 48 406 34 1,713 count % of total lithics 100.0% 87.3% 97.8% 97.4% 100.0% 99.2% % of total assemblage 1.1% 1.2% 3.3% 1.3% 0.9% 5.7%

163

San Marcos Santa María Santa Rosa Pensacola St. Augustine San Luís (1639-1821) (1698-1722) (1722-1756) (1756-1821) (1572-1600) (1656-1704)

Personal Group Graphite - - - 1 - - Slate board - - - 1 - - Jewelry - 10 - 1 - - Jet higa pendant - 4 - - - 7 Jet bead - - 1 - - - Quartz pendant - - - - - 2 Slate shingles - - - 8 - - Slate fragments - 42 - - - - Ballast - 2 - - - - Unidentified - - - - - 4

Total personal count - 58 1 11 - 13 % of total lithics 0.0% 75.3% 2.0% 2.6% 0.0% 0.8% % of total assemblage 0.0% 12.7% 0.1% 0.03% 0.0% 0.04%

Total lithics 77 456 49 417 34 1,726 % of total assemblage 1.1% 1.4% 3.4% 1.3% 0.9% 5.7%

ORGANIC

Bone Clothing Group Buttons and Button blanks 50 - - 314 - -

Total clothing count 50 - - 314 - - % of total organic 43.5% - - 73.2% - -

164

San Marcos Santa María Santa Rosa Pensacola St. Augustine San Luís (1639-1821) (1698-1722) (1722-1756) (1756-1821) (1572-1600) (1656-1704)

% of total assemblage 0.7% - - 1.0% - -

Personal Group Personal items - - - 36 - - Handles - - - 11 - - Beads - - - 5 - - Brush - - - 1 - - Comb - - - 34 - - Total personal count - - - 87 - - % of total organic - - - 20.3% - - % of total assemblage - - - 0.3% - -

Activities Group Dice - - - 1 - - Indeterminate - 4 - 16 - - Total activities count - 4 - 17 - - % of total organic - 12.9% - 4.0% - - % of total assemblage - 0.01% - 0.05% - -

Total bone count 50 4 - 418 - - % of total organic 43.5% 13% - 97.4% - - % of total assemblage 0.7% 0.01% - 1.3% - -

Shell Personal Group Buttons 2 - - 6 - - Other ------Hairpin 1 - - - - -

165

San Marcos Santa María Santa Rosa Pensacola St. Augustine San Luís (1639-1821) (1698-1722) (1722-1756) (1756-1821) (1572-1600) (1656-1704)

Total personal 3 - - 6 - - count % of total organic 2.6% - - 1.4% - - % of total assemblage 0.04% - - 0.02% - -

Total shell count 3 - - 6 - - % of total organic 2.6% - - 1.4% - - % of total assemblage 0.04% - - 0.02% - -

Leather Leather 7 - - 1 1 -

Total leather count 7 - - 1 1 - % of total organic 6.1% - - 0.2% 14.3% - % of total assemblage 0.1% - - 0.003% 0.03% -

Wood Wood buttons 2 - - 1 - - Barrels - - - - 3 - Burned timber - 3 - - - - Ship pulley wheel 1 - - - - - Other 2 - - 2 2 -

Total wood count 5 3 - 3 5 - % of total organic 4.3% 9.7% - 0.7% 71.4% - % of total assemblage 0.1% 0.01% - 0.01% 0.1% -

Cloth Yarn or thread - 8 - 1 6 -

166

San Marcos Santa María Santa Rosa Pensacola St. Augustine San Luís (1639-1821) (1698-1722) (1722-1756) (1756-1821) (1572-1600) (1656-1704)

Total cloth count - 8 - 1 6 - % of total organic 25.8% 0.2% 100.0% % of total assemblage 0.02% 0.003% 0.02%

Other Horsehair - - - - 1 - Ochre - 16 - - - - Total other count - 16 - - 1 - % of total organic - 51.6% - - 14.3% - % of total assemblage - 0.01% - - 0.01% -

Total organic 115 31 - 429 7 6 count % of total assemblage 1.6% 0.1% 0.0% 1.3% 0.2% 0.02%

Total artifact count used for analysis 7,205 32,680 1,445 32,051 3,739 30,129

167

APPENDIX F

IMPORTED CERAMIC TYPES IN THE FORT SAN MARCOS DE APALACHE

ASSEMBLAGE AND AT COMPARATIVE COLONIAL SITES IN SPANISH FLORIDA

168

Type San Marcos Santa María Santa Rosa San Miguel San Luís St. Augustine Spanish Tradition San Luís Blue on x x x x x x White San Luís x x x x x x Polychrome Abó Polychrome x x x x x x Puebla Blue on x x x x White Puebla Polychrome x x x x x x Mexican Red x x x x x Painted Aranama x x x x x Polychrome El Morro x x x x x Fig Springs x x x Polychrome San Agustín Blue on x x x x x White Reyware x x x x Columbia Plain x x Marineware x Blue and Green x x x Basin Yayal Blue on x White Santo Domingo x x Blue on White Santa Maria x x Stamped

169

Type San Marcos Santa María Santa Rosa San Miguel San Luís St. Augustine La Vega Blue on White x Isabela Polychrome x Ichtucknee x x x Caparra Blue x x Azte IV x Orange Micaceous x ware Fine Orange x Yucatan Colonial x Yunku Plain x Aucilla Polychrome x x x x Castillo Polychrome x x x Mount Royal x Polychrome Guadalajara x x x x x Polychrome Pensacola x Polychrome Seine Polychrome x Greyware x Huejotzingo x x x Catalonia Blue on x White Playa Polychrome x Redware x x x

English Tradition Delft x x x x x Creamware x x

170

Type San Marcos Santa María Santa Rosa San Miguel San Luís St. Augustine Banded Yelloware or Caneware x Pearlware x x Whiteware x Rockingham x x Jackfield x x x Astburyware x x Agateware x x Ironstone x Nottingham x x x Rhenish/Westerwald x x x x Albany Slip x Bristol Slip x Elers x x Jasperware x Whieldon Ware x Staffordshire x Slipware Scratch-Blue x

Asian Porcelain x x x x x

French Faience x x x x Brittany Blue on x White Faience Provence Blue on x White Faience Rouen Style Faience x Normandy Blue on x White Faience

171

APPENDIX G

ARTIFACT TYPES PRESENT BY SITE OCCUPATION AREA

172

Type Date Range Southeast Sector Northwest Sector (1639-1787) (1731-1821) Ceramics, Imported Olive Jar, Early 1490-1570 x Olive Jar, Middle 1570-1800 x Storage Jar 1492-1800 El Morro Late 1500s-1770 x x Black Lead-Glazed 1700-1770 Redware 16 th -18 th Century Mexican Green Glazed 1490-1600 Mexican Red-Painted 1570-1800 x Guadalajara Polychrome 1650-1800 Columbia Plain 1550-1650 x Isabella Polychrome 1490-1580 San Luís Blue on White 1550-1650 x San Luís Polychrome 1650-1750 x x Abó Polychrome 1650-1750 x Puebla Polychrome 1650-1725 x Puebla Blue on White 1700-1850 San Agustín Blue on White 1700-1750 x x Huejotzingo Blue on White 1700-1800 Fig Springs Polychrome 1540-1650 x Delft: Plain 1640-1800 x x Delft: Blue and White 1600-1800 Delft: Blue and White Chinoiserie 1600-1800 Delft: Sponged 1600-1800 x Early Slip-Decorated: Combed Yellow 1630-1795 x Banded Yellowware or Cane Ware 1779-1900 x Rockingham 1830-1900 x Creamware 1762-1900 x x Creamware: Relief-Molded Borders 1762-1785 x Stoneware: Ginger Beer Bottle 18 th Century x

173

Type Date Range Southeast Sector Northwest Sector (1639-1787) (1731-1821) Stoneware: Ginger Beer Bottle 19 th Century x Salt-Glazed Stoneware 19 th Century x Refined Earthenware: Semi-Porcelain 1793-1887 x Pearlware 1780-1830 x Pearlware: Edge-Decorated, Shell-Edged 1780-1830 x Pearlware: Annularware 1780-1820+ x Whiteware 1820-Present x x Whiteware: Transfer-Printed, Blue 1784-1859 x Whiteware: Transfer-Printed, Black 1818-1869 x Whiteware: Transfer-Printed, Red/Pink 1818-1880 x Chinese Porcelain 1368-1790

Ceramics, Native American Historic 1500 AD-Present x x

Glass Bottle, Square-Sectioned Case Bottle 18 th Century x Bottle Necks, English 1750-1790 x Bottle Necks, English 1750-1800 x Bottle Necks, English 1770-1800 x Bottle, British ca. 1820 x

Metal Ferrous Metal: Wrought Iron, Nails -1800 x Upholstery Tackheads ca. 1800 x Plated Ferrous Metal: Brass, Ramrod Thimble 1700-1820 x

Lithics Gunflints and Spalls, English Historic Period x x

174

Type Date Range Southeast Sector Northwest Sector (1639-1787) (1731-1821) Gunflints and Spalls, French Historic Period x x Gunflints and Spalls, White and Cream Historic Period x Gunflints and Spalls, Grey-Black Historic Period x Gunflints and Spalls, Grey-Honey Historic Period x

Bricks and Construction Materials Handmade or Molded Brick, Early Colonial, Spanish 1492-1763 x Handmade or Molded Brick, Early Colonial, English 1763-1781 x

Pipes Kaolin Pipes (5/64”) 1680-1780 x Kaolin Pipes (6/64”) 1680-1780 x Kaolin Pipes (7/64”) 1680-1710 x Kaolin Pipes, Undetermined Bore Diameter N/A x

175

Abó Polychrome 1650-1750 x Puebla Polychrome 1650-1725 x Puebla Blue on White 1700-1850 San Agustín Blue on White 1700-1750 x x Huejotzingo Blue on White 1700-1800 Fig Springs Polychrome 1540-1650 x Delft: Plain 1640-1800 x x Delft: Blue and White 1600-1800 Delft: Blue and White Chinoiserie 1600-1800 Delft: Sponged 1600-1800 x Early Slip-Decorated: Combed Yellow 1630-1795 x Banded Yellowware or Cane Ware 1779-1900 x Rockingham 1830-1900 x Creamware 1762-1900 x x Creamware: Relief-Molded Borders 1762-1785 x Stoneware: Ginger Beer Bottle 18 th Century x

Stoneware: Ginger Beer Bottle 19 th Century x Salt-Glazed Stoneware 19 th Century x Refined Earthenware: Semi-Porcelain 1793-1887 x Pearlware 1780-1830 x Pearlware: Edge-Decorated, Shell-Edged 1780-1830 x Pearlware: Annularware 1780-1820+ x Whiteware 1820-Present x x Whiteware: Transfer-Printed, Blue 1784-1859 x Whiteware: Transfer-Printed, Black 1818-1869 x Whiteware: Transfer-Printed, Red/Pink 1818-1880 x Chinese Porcelain 1368-1790

Ceramics, Native American Historic 1500 AD-Present x x

Glass

176

Bottle, Square-Sectioned Case Bottle 18 th Century x Bottle Necks, English 1750-1790 x Bottle Necks, English 1750-1800 x Bottle Necks, English 1770-1800 x Bottle, British ca. 1820 x

Metal Ferrous Metal: Wrought Iron, Nails -1800 x Upholstery Tackheads ca. 1800 x Plated Ferrous Metal: Brass, Ramrod Thimble 1700-1820 x

Lithics Gunflints and Spalls, English Historic Period x x Gunflints and Spalls, French Historic Period x x Gunflints and Spalls, White and Cream Historic Period x Gunflints and Spalls, Grey-Black Historic Period x Gunflints and Spalls, Grey-Honey Historic Period x

Bricks and Construction Materials Handmade or Molded Brick, Early Colonial, Spanish 1492-1763 x Handmade or Molded Brick, Early Colonial, English 1763-1781 x

Pipes Kaolin Pipes (5/64”) 1680-1780 x Kaolin Pipes (6/64”) 1680-1780 x Kaolin Pipes (7/64”) 1680-1710 x Kaolin Pipes, Undetermined Bore Diameter N/A x

177

APPENDIX H

HISTORIC NATIVE AMERICAN CERAMICS AT FORT SAN MARCOS DE APALACHE:

PRESENCE OR ABSENCE FOR THE SOUTHEAST (1639-1787) AND NORTHWEST (1731-

1821) SECTORS

178

Key: Creek (c.1650-1823) CI Late Prehistoric to Early Historic Apalachee (through 1650) AI Mission Apalachee (c.1650-1704) AII Post Diaspora Apalachee (1704-1763) AIII Post Yamasee War Yamasee (1715-1763) YI Immigrant Atlantic Coastal Yamasee (c1740-1763) YII Type Present in Count Present in Count Ethnic Source Southeast Sector Northwest Affiliation (1639-1787) Sector (1731- 1821) Chattahoochee x 98 x 15 CI, AII, AIII, Olds 1962; Roughened, var. YI Smith 1963; Chattahoochee Anonymous 1966 Lamar Incised, var. x 71 x 1 CI, AII, AIII, Olds 1962; Ocmulgee Fields YI Smith 1963; Anonymous 1966 Lamar Incised or x 1 x 1 CI, AII, AIII, Olds 1962; Langdon Incised; YI Anonymous Ocmulgee Fields 1966 var. Shell- Tempered Ocmulgee Fields x 15 x 4 CI, AII, AIII, Olds 1962 Incised, var. YI Anonymous Aucilla 1966 Jefferson Ware x 51 x 15 CI, AII, AIII, Olds 1962; YI Smith 1963; Anonymous 1966

179

Type Present in Count Present in Count Ethnic Source Southeast Sector Northwest Affiliation (1639-1787) Sector (1731- 1821) Miller Plain x 20 x 5 CI, AII, AIII, Olds 1962; YI Anonymous 1966 San Marcos x 27 YII Olds 1962; Stamped Smith 1963 Fort Walton x 23 AI Olds 1962 Incised Pensacola Three- x 5 AI Smith 1963 Line Incised Chattahoochee x 4 x 1 CI, AII, AIII, Smith 1963 Roughened, var. YI Anonymous Wedowee 1966 San Marcos x 14 YII Smith 1963 Complicated Stamped Lamar Incised var. x 70 CI, AII, AIII, Smith 1963 Ocmulgee Fields, YI Lamar Limestone- x 39 x 3 Indeterminate Smith 1963; Tempered Plain Anonymous 1966 Sand-Tempered x 95 x 22 Indeterminate Smith 1963; Plain Anonymous 1966

Grog Tempered, x 1 Indeterminate Smith 1963 Plain Quartz Tempered, x 36 Indeterminate Smith 1963 Plain

180

Type Present in Count Present in Count Ethnic Source Southeast Sector Northwest Affiliation (1639-1787) Sector (1731- 1821) Unidentified Plain x 142 Indeterminate Anonymous 1966 Incised x 17 Indeterminate Dunbar and Dasovich 1991; Anonymous 1966 Punctated x 2 Indeterminate Anonymous 1966 Indeterminate x 1 Indeterminate Anonymous Complicated 1966 Stamped Unidentified x 9 Indeterminate Anonymous 1966 Total 585 257

181

APPENDIX I

NATIVE AMERICAN CERAMIC TYPES PRESENT AT FORT SAN MARCOS DE

APALACHE AND AT COMPARATIVE COLONIAL SPANISH SITES IN FLORIDA

182

Type San Marcos Santa María Santa Rosa San Luís St. Augustine Chattahoochee Roughened, var. Chattahoochee x x Chattahoochee Roughened, var. Wedowee x Lamar Incised, var. x Ocmulgee Fields Lamar Incised or x Langdon Incised; Ocmulgee Fields var. Shell-Tempered Lamar Check x Stamped Lamar Complicated x x Stamped Lamar Plain x Ocmulgee Fields x Incised Ocmulgee Fields x Incised, var. Ocmulgee Ocmulgee Fields x Incised, var. Aucilla Jefferson Ware x x Leon Check Stamped x x Wakulla Check x Stamped San Marcos Stamped x x x St. Johns x

183

Type San Marcos Santa María Santa Rosa San Luís St. Augustine Fort Walton Incised x x Pensacola Three- x Lined Incised Doctor Lake Incised x McKee Island x Pt. Washington x Varieties Alachua Cob Marked x Chattahoochee x Brushed

Kasita Red x Mission Red Filmed x x x Miller Plain x Pensacola Mission x Red

Prehistoric Marsh Island x x Lake Jackson x

184

APPENDIX J

ARTIFACTS TYPES PRESENT BY OCCUPATION PERIOD OF FORT SAN MARCOS DE

APALACHE

185

Type First Spanish Second Spanish British Third Spanish American Civil War Post-Civil Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation War (1639-1704) (1718-1764) (1764-1769) (1787-1821) (1821-1824) (1861-1865) Occupation Ceramics, Imported Olive Jar, Early x (1490-1570) Olive Jar, Middle x x x x (1570-1800) Olive Jar, Late x x (1800-1900) Storage Jar (1492- 1800) Turpentine Pots (1865-Present) Greyware (1750- 1850) El Morro (Late x x x 1500s-1770) Reyware (1725- x x x x 1825) Black Lead-Glazed (1700-1770) Redware (16 th -18 th Century) Mexican Green Glazed (1490-1600) Saintonge (Late 1600s-) Luster Ware (1790- 1840)

186

Type First Spanish Second Spanish British Third Spanish American Civil War Post-Civil Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation War (1639-1704) (1718-1764) (1764-1769) (1787-1821) (1821-1824) (1861-1865) Occupation Mexican Red- x x x x Painted (1570- 1800) Guadalajara Polychrome (1650- 1800) Columbia Plain x (1550-1650) Isabella Polychrome (1490- 1580) Yayal Blue on White (1492-early 1600s) San Luís Blue on x White (1550-1650) San Luís x x Polychrome (1650- 1750) Abó Polychrome x x (1650-1750) Puebla Polychrome x x (1650-1725) Puebla Blue on White (1700-1850)

187

Type First Spanish Second Spanish British Third Spanish American Civil War Post-Civil Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation War (1639-1704) (1718-1764) (1764-1769) (1787-1821) (1821-1824) (1861-1865) Occupation San Agustín Blue x x on White (1700- 1750) Huejotzingo Blue on White (1700- 1800) Aranama x x x Polychrome (1750- 1800) Fig Springs x Polychrome (1540- 1650) San Elizario (Playa) Polychrome (1750- 1850) Blue and Green x x x x Basin (1750-1820) Triana Blue on White and Triana Polychrome (ca. 1760-1850) Catalonia Blue on White (ca. 1760- 1850) Delft: Plain (1640- x x x x 1800) Delft: Blue and White (1600-1800)

188

Type First Spanish Second Spanish British Third Spanish American Civil War Post-Civil Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation War (1639-1704) (1718-1764) (1764-1769) (1787-1821) (1821-1824) (1861-1865) Occupation Delft: Blue and White Chinoiserie (1600-1800) Delft: Polychrome (Flower Motifs) (1720-1750) Delft: Powdered Purple, Blue or Green (1750-1800) Delft: Sponged x x x x (1600-1800) Faience: Plain (1650-1800) Faience: Blue and White (1650-1800) Faience: Polychrome (1700- 1800) Faience: Rouen Style (1690-1800) Faience: Overall Bright Yellow (1725-1775)

189

Type First Spanish Second Spanish British Third Spanish American Civil War Post-Civil Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation War (1639-1704) (1718-1764) (1764-1769) (1787-1821) (1821-1824) (1861-1865) Occupation Early Slip- x x x x Decorated: Combed Yellow (1630- 1795) Early Slip- Decorated: Sgraffito (1650- 1710) Banded x x x x x Yellowware or Cane Ware (1779- 1900) Rockingham (1830- x x 1900) Albany (1865- Present) Creamware (1762- x x x x x x 1900) Creamware: Transfer-Printed (1765-1815) Creamware: Annularware (1785- 1815)

190

Type First Spanish Second Spanish British Third Spanish American Civil War Post-Civil Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation War (1639-1704) (1718-1764) (1764-1769) (1787-1821) (1821-1824) (1861-1865) Occupation Creamware: Annularware, Finger-Painted (1790-1820) Creamware: Annularware, Mocha (1795-1820) Clouded Creamware or Wheildon Ware (1750-1775) Refined Earthenware: Fruit and Vegetable Motif (1759-1775) Refined x x x x Earthenware: Semi- Porcelain, Transfer Printed, Pink and White: Maker’s Mark, “Longport Canova” (1793- 1887)

191

Type First Spanish Second Spanish British Third Spanish American Civil War Post-Civil Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation War (1639-1704) (1718-1764) (1764-1769) (1787-1821) (1821-1824) (1861-1865) Occupation Refined x Earthenware: Semi- Porcelain, Transfer- Printed, Scenic Magenta and White: Maker’s Mark, “T. MAYER” (1829- 1841) Refined Earthenware: Bristol Slip (1850- 1930) Refined Earthenware: Slip Glaze (1825-Early 1900s) Pearlware (1780- x 1830) Pearlware: Edge- x x Decorated, Shell- Edged (1780-1830) Pearlware: x x x Annularware (1780- 1820+)

192

Whiteware: Transfer-Printed, x x Dark Blue (1802- 1846) Whiteware: x x Transfer-Printed, Medium Blue (1784-1859) Whiteware, x x x Transfer-Printed, Black (1785-1864)

193

Type First Spanish Second Spanish British Third Spanish American Civil War Post-Civil Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation War (1639-1704) (1718-1764) (1764-1769) (1787-1821) (1821-1824) (1861-1865) Occupation Whiteware, Transfer-Printed, Brown (1818-1869) Whiteware, Transfer-Printed, Light Blue (1818- 1867) Whiteware, Transfer-Printed, Green (1818-1859) Whiteware, x Transfer-Printed, Red/Pink (1818- 1880) Whiteware, x x Transfer-Printed, Purple/Mulberry (1814-1867) Whiteware, Transfer-Printed, Lavender (1818- 1871) Ironstone (1813- Present) Stoneware: Elers- Like (1670-1810)

194

Type First Spanish Second Spanish British Third Spanish American Civil War Post-Civil Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation War (1639-1704) (1718-1764) (1764-1769) (1787-1821) (1821-1824) (1861-1865) Occupation Stoneware: Basaltware (1750- 1850) Stoneware: Nottingham (1700- 1810) Salt-Glazed x x x Stoneware (19 th Century) Stoneware: Ginger x x x x Beer Bottle (18 th Century) Stoneware: Ginger x x x Beer Bottle (19 th Century) Stoneware: Ginger Beer Bottle: x Maker’s Mark: “DENBY & CODNOR-PARK POTTERS, NEAR DERBY” (1833- 1861) Porcelain, Chinese: Ming Dynasty (1368-1644)

195

Type First Spanish Second Spanish British Third Spanish American Civil War Post-Civil Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation War (1639-1704) (1718-1764) (1764-1769) (1787-1821) (1821-1824) (1861-1865) Occupation Porcelain, Chinese: Kraak Porcelain (1550-1640) Porcelain, Chinese: Ching Dynasty (- 1790) Porcelain, Canton (1790-1830) Chinese Porcelain x x x x (1368-1790) Porcelain, Meito x China, Hand- Painted (1908- Present) English Porcelain (1745-1795) Brown Backed Batavian (1740- 1780)

Ceramics, Native American Historic (1500 AD- x x x x 1821)

Glass

196

Type First Spanish Second Spanish British Third Spanish American Civil War Post-Civil Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation War (1639-1704) (1718-1764) (1764-1769) (1787-1821) (1821-1824) (1861-1865) Occupation Seamless: Free Blown (Pre-1800) Seamless: Turn or Paste Mold (ca. 1870-1920) Seams: Two-Piece Mold (1750-1880) Seams: Three-Piece Mold (ca. 1820- 1920) Seams: Two, Three, Four Piece Vertical Mold with Separate Base Part (1850- mid-1920s) Seams: Optic (18 th Century-Present) “Hand” Finish: Straight (to mid- 1850s) “Hand” Finish: Applied String (to mid-1840s) “Hand” Finish: Lipped, Flanged (18 th and 19 th centuries)

197

Type First Spanish Second Spanish British Third Spanish American Civil War Post-Civil Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation War (1639-1704) (1718-1764) (1764-1769) (1787-1821) (1821-1824) (1861-1865) Occupation Bottle, Square- x x x x Sectioned Case Bottle (18 th century) Bottle Necks, x x x English (1750- 1790) Bottle Necks, x x x English (1750- 1800) Bottle Necks, x x x English (1770- 1800) Bottle, English (ca. x x 1770-1800) Bottle, British (ca. x x 1820) Machine Made (ca. 1893-Present) Snap Case (1857- 1903) Post Bottom: Two, Three or Four Piece Vertical Mold with Separate Base (ca. 1850s-1920s)

198

Type First Spanish Second Spanish British Third Spanish American Civil War Post-Civil Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation War (1639-1704) (1718-1764) (1764-1769) (1787-1821) (1821-1824) (1861-1865) Occupation Cup Bottom: Two, Three or Four Piece Vertical Mold with Separate Base (ca. 1850s-1920s) “Hand” Finish, Flanged (18 th and 19 th Centuries) “Hand” Finish, Folded (19 th Century) Tooled Finish: Applied Tooled (1858-1915) Tooled Finish: Applied Tooled (1858-1915) Tooled Finish: Improved Tooled (1870-1915) Molded Finish: Blown Back (1850s-1920) Molded Finish: Machine Made (1893-Present)

199

Type First Spanish Second Spanish British Third Spanish American Civil War Post-Civil Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation War (1639-1704) (1718-1764) (1764-1769) (1787-1821) (1821-1824) (1861-1865) Occupation Lightning Closure (1879-1915) Hutchinson Closure (1892-Present) Crown Cap (1892- Present) Aluminum Pull Tab (1962-Present) Pressed Glass (1820-Present)

Metal Ferrous Metal: x x x x Wrought Iron, Nails (-1800)

Ferrous Metal: Cut Nails (1800- Present) Upholstery x Tackheads (ca. 1800) Stainless Steel (1920s-Present) Aluminum (1855- Present)

200

Gunflints and Spalls, Dutch (Historic Period) Gunflints and x x x x x Spalls, English (Historic Period) Gunflints and x x x x x Spalls, French (Historic Period) Gunflints and x x x x x Spalls, White and Cream (Historic Period) Gunflints and x x x x x Spalls, Grey-Black (Historic Period) Gunflints and x x x x x Spalls, Grey-Honey (Historic Period)

Bricks and Construction Materials

201

Type First Spanish Second Spanish British Third Spanish American Civil War Post-Civil Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation War (1639-1704) (1718-1764) (1764-1769) (1787-1821) (1821-1824) (1861-1865) Occupation Handmade or Molded Brick, Early Colonial (1700-1781) Handmade or x x Molded Brick, Early Colonial, Spanish (1492- 1763) Handmade or x x x Molded Brick, Early Colonial, English (1763- 1781) Handmade or Molded Brick, First American (1820- 1860) Pressed or Augured, Second American (1860-1920) Pressed or Augured, Third American (Post-1920) Mortar (Pre-Civil War) Mortar (Post-Civil War)

202

Buttons Spanish, Civilian or x x Military, Cast Brass (Early 1700s) British Army, 60 th x x Reg’t. of Foot, Enlisted (1780- 1790) French Army, 4 th x Lt. Infantry (1802- 1815) U.S. Army, x Infantry, Enlisted (1816-1821) U.S. Army, x Infantry, Enlisted (1812-1821) U.S. Army, x Infantry, Officer (1808-1824) U.S. Army, x Infantry, Enlisted (1808-1830)

203

Type First Spanish Second Spanish British Third Spanish American Civil War Post-Civil Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation War (1639-1704) (1718-1764) (1764-1769) (1787-1821) (1821-1824) (1861-1865) Occupation U.S. Army, x Infantry, Enlisted (1812-1821) U.S. Army, x Artillery Corps, Enlisted (1814- 1821) U.S. Army, x Infantry, Enlisted (1814-1821) U.S. Army, x x Infantry, Officer (1821-1860) U.S. Army, Infantry, Enlisted x x (1859-1870) Civilian or Military, x Plain Brass (1800- 1830) Civilian or Military, x x x x Plain Cast Pewter (1700s) Wood Back of x x x x Two-Piece Button (1700s) Handmade Bone x x x Buttons and Blanks (1750-1830)

204

Type First Spanish Second Spanish British Third Spanish American Civil War Post-Civil Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation War (1639-1704) (1718-1764) (1764-1769) (1787-1821) (1821-1824) (1861-1865) Occupation Pipes Kaolin Pipes x x x (5/64”) (1680-1780) Kaolin Pipes x x x (6/64”) (1680-1780) Kaolin Pipes x x (7/64”) (1680-1710)

205

206

Type First Spanish Second Spanish British Third Spanish American Civil War Post-Civil Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation War (1639-1704) (1718-1764) (1764-1769) (1787-1821) (1821-1824) (1861-1865) Occupation Mexican Red- x x x x Painted (1570- 1800) Guadalajara Polychrome (1650- 1800) Columbia Plain x (1550-1650) Isabella Polychrome (1490- 1580) Yayal Blue on White (1492-early 1600s) San Luís Blue on x White (1550-1650) San Luís x x Polychrome (1650- 1750) Abó Polychrome x x (1650-1750) Puebla Polychrome x x (1650-1725) Puebla Blue on White (1700-1850)

207

Type First Spanish Second Spanish British Third Spanish American Civil War Post-Civil Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation War (1639-1704) (1718-1764) (1764-1769) (1787-1821) (1821-1824) (1861-1865) Occupation San Agustín Blue x x on White (1700- 1750) Huejotzingo Blue on White (1700- 1800) Aranama x x x Polychrome (1750- 1800) Fig Springs x Polychrome (1540- 1650) San Elizario (Playa) Polychrome (1750- 1850) Blue and Green x x x x Basin (1750-1820) Triana Blue on White and Triana Polychrome (ca. 1760-1850) Catalonia Blue on White (ca. 1760- 1850) Delft: Plain (1640- x x x x 1800) Delft: Blue and White (1600-1800)

208

Type First Spanish Second Spanish British Third Spanish American Civil War Post-Civil Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation War (1639-1704) (1718-1764) (1764-1769) (1787-1821) (1821-1824) (1861-1865) Occupation Delft: Blue and White Chinoiserie (1600-1800) Delft: Polychrome (Flower Motifs) (1720-1750) Delft: Powdered Purple, Blue or Green (1750-1800) Delft: Sponged x x x x (1600-1800) Faience: Plain (1650-1800) Faience: Blue and White (1650-1800) Faience: Polychrome (1700- 1800) Faience: Rouen Style (1690-1800) Faience: Overall Bright Yellow (1725-1775)

209

Type First Spanish Second Spanish British Third Spanish American Civil War Post-Civil Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation War (1639-1704) (1718-1764) (1764-1769) (1787-1821) (1821-1824) (1861-1865) Occupation Early Slip- x x x x Decorated: Combed Yellow (1630- 1795) Early Slip- Decorated: Sgraffito (1650- 1710) Banded x x x x x Yellowware or Cane Ware (1779- 1900) Rockingham (1830- x x 1900) Albany (1865- Present) Creamware (1762- x x x x x x 1900) Creamware: Transfer-Printed (1765-1815) Creamware: Annularware (1785- 1815)

210

Type First Spanish Second Spanish British Third Spanish American Civil War Post-Civil Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation War (1639-1704) (1718-1764) (1764-1769) (1787-1821) (1821-1824) (1861-1865) Occupation Creamware: Annularware, Finger-Painted (1790-1820) Creamware: Annularware, Mocha (1795-1820) Clouded Creamware or Wheildon Ware (1750-1775) Refined Earthenware: Fruit and Vegetable Motif (1759-1775) Refined x x x x Earthenware: Semi- Porcelain, Transfer Printed, Pink and White: Maker’s Mark, “Longport Canova” (1793- 1887)

211

Type First Spanish Second Spanish British Third Spanish American Civil War Post-Civil Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation War (1639-1704) (1718-1764) (1764-1769) (1787-1821) (1821-1824) (1861-1865) Occupation Refined x Earthenware: Semi- Porcelain, Transfer- Printed, Scenic Magenta and White: Maker’s Mark, “T. MAYER” (1829- 1841) Refined Earthenware: Bristol Slip (1850- 1930) Refined Earthenware: Slip Glaze (1825-Early 1900s) Pearlware (1780- x 1830) Pearlware: Edge- x x Decorated, Shell- Edged (1780-1830) Pearlware: x x x Annularware (1780- 1820+)

212

Whiteware: Transfer-Printed, x x Dark Blue (1802- 1846) Whiteware: x x Transfer-Printed, Medium Blue (1784-1859) Whiteware, x x x Transfer-Printed, Black (1785-1864)

213

Type First Spanish Second Spanish British Third Spanish American Civil War Post-Civil Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation War (1639-1704) (1718-1764) (1764-1769) (1787-1821) (1821-1824) (1861-1865) Occupation Whiteware, Transfer-Printed, Brown (1818-1869) Whiteware, Transfer-Printed, Light Blue (1818- 1867) Whiteware, Transfer-Printed, Green (1818-1859) Whiteware, x Transfer-Printed, Red/Pink (1818- 1880) Whiteware, x x Transfer-Printed, Purple/Mulberry (1814-1867) Whiteware, Transfer-Printed, Lavender (1818- 1871) Ironstone (1813- Present) Stoneware: Elers- Like (1670-1810)

214

Type First Spanish Second Spanish British Third Spanish American Civil War Post-Civil Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation War (1639-1704) (1718-1764) (1764-1769) (1787-1821) (1821-1824) (1861-1865) Occupation Stoneware: Basaltware (1750- 1850) Stoneware: Nottingham (1700- 1810) Salt-Glazed x x x Stoneware (19 th Century) Stoneware: Ginger x x x x Beer Bottle (18 th Century) Stoneware: Ginger x x x Beer Bottle (19 th Century) Stoneware: Ginger Beer Bottle: x Maker’s Mark: “DENBY & CODNOR-PARK POTTERS, NEAR DERBY” (1833- 1861) Porcelain, Chinese: Ming Dynasty (1368-1644)

215

Type First Spanish Second Spanish British Third Spanish American Civil War Post-Civil Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation War (1639-1704) (1718-1764) (1764-1769) (1787-1821) (1821-1824) (1861-1865) Occupation Porcelain, Chinese: Kraak Porcelain (1550-1640) Porcelain, Chinese: Ching Dynasty (- 1790) Porcelain, Canton (1790-1830) Chinese Porcelain x x x x (1368-1790) Porcelain, Meito x China, Hand- Painted (1908- Present) English Porcelain (1745-1795) Brown Backed Batavian (1740- 1780)

Ceramics, Native American Historic (1500 AD- x x x x 1821)

Glass

216

Type First Spanish Second Spanish British Third Spanish American Civil War Post-Civil Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation War (1639-1704) (1718-1764) (1764-1769) (1787-1821) (1821-1824) (1861-1865) Occupation Seamless: Free Blown (Pre-1800) Seamless: Turn or Paste Mold (ca. 1870-1920) Seams: Two-Piece Mold (1750-1880) Seams: Three-Piece Mold (ca. 1820- 1920) Seams: Two, Three, Four Piece Vertical Mold with Separate Base Part (1850- mid-1920s) Seams: Optic (18 th Century-Present) “Hand” Finish: Straight (to mid- 1850s) “Hand” Finish: Applied String (to mid-1840s) “Hand” Finish: Lipped, Flanged (18 th and 19 th centuries)

217

Type First Spanish Second Spanish British Third Spanish American Civil War Post-Civil Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation War (1639-1704) (1718-1764) (1764-1769) (1787-1821) (1821-1824) (1861-1865) Occupation Bottle, Square- x x x x Sectioned Case Bottle (18 th century) Bottle Necks, x x x English (1750- 1790) Bottle Necks, x x x English (1750- 1800) Bottle Necks, x x x English (1770- 1800) Bottle, English (ca. x x 1770-1800) Bottle, British (ca. x x 1820) Machine Made (ca. 1893-Present) Snap Case (1857- 1903) Post Bottom: Two, Three or Four Piece Vertical Mold with Separate Base (ca. 1850s-1920s)

218

Type First Spanish Second Spanish British Third Spanish American Civil War Post-Civil Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation War (1639-1704) (1718-1764) (1764-1769) (1787-1821) (1821-1824) (1861-1865) Occupation Cup Bottom: Two, Three or Four Piece Vertical Mold with Separate Base (ca. 1850s-1920s) “Hand” Finish, Flanged (18 th and 19 th Centuries) “Hand” Finish, Folded (19 th Century) Tooled Finish: Applied Tooled (1858-1915) Tooled Finish: Applied Tooled (1858-1915) Tooled Finish: Improved Tooled (1870-1915) Molded Finish: Blown Back (1850s-1920) Molded Finish: Machine Made (1893-Present)

219

Type First Spanish Second Spanish British Third Spanish American Civil War Post-Civil Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation War (1639-1704) (1718-1764) (1764-1769) (1787-1821) (1821-1824) (1861-1865) Occupation Lightning Closure (1879-1915) Hutchinson Closure (1892-Present) Crown Cap (1892- Present) Aluminum Pull Tab (1962-Present) Pressed Glass (1820-Present)

Metal Ferrous Metal: x x x x Wrought Iron, Nails (-1800)

Ferrous Metal: Cut Nails (1800- Present) Upholstery x Tackheads (ca. 1800) Stainless Steel (1920s-Present) Aluminum (1855- Present)

220

Bricks and Construction Materials

221

Type First Spanish Second Spanish British Third Spanish American Civil War Post-Civil Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation War (1639-1704) (1718-1764) (1764-1769) (1787-1821) (1821-1824) (1861-1865) Occupation Handmade or Molded Brick, Early Colonial (1700-1781) Handmade or x x Molded Brick, Early Colonial, Spanish (1492- 1763) Handmade or x x x Molded Brick, Early Colonial, English (1763- 1781) Handmade or Molded Brick, First American (1820- 1860) Pressed or Augured, Second American (1860-1920) Pressed or Augured, Third American (Post-1920) Mortar (Pre-Civil War) Mortar (Post-Civil War)

222

223

Type First Spanish Second Spanish British Third Spanish American Civil War Post-Civil Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation War (1639-1704) (1718-1764) (1764-1769) (1787-1821) (1821-1824) (1861-1865) Occupation U.S. Army, x Infantry, Enlisted (1812-1821) U.S. Army, x Artillery Corps, Enlisted (1814- 1821) U.S. Army, x Infantry, Enlisted (1814-1821) U.S. Army, x x Infantry, Officer (1821-1860) U.S. Army, Infantry, Enlisted x x (1859-1870) Civilian or Military, x Plain Brass (1800- 1830) Civilian or Military, x x x x Plain Cast Pewter (1700s) Wood Back of x x x x Two-Piece Button (1700s) Handmade Bone x x x Buttons and Blanks (1750-1830)

224

Type First Spanish Second Spanish British Third Spanish American Civil War Post-Civil Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation Occupation War (1639-1704) (1718-1764) (1764-1769) (1787-1821) (1821-1824) (1861-1865) Occupation Pipes Kaolin Pipes x x x (5/64”) (1680-1780) Kaolin Pipes x x x (6/64”) (1680-1780) Kaolin Pipes x x (7/64”) (1680-1710)

225