Florida State University Libraries
Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School
2004 Archaeological Examination of Electromagnetic Features: An Example from the French Dwelling Site: A Late Eighteenth Century Plantation Site in Natchez, Adams County, Mississippi Charles F. Lawson
Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES
ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXAMINATION OF ELECTROMAGNETIC
FEATURES: AN EXAMPLE FROM THE FRENCH DWELLING SITE.
A LATE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY PLANTATION SITE IN
NATCHEZ, ADAMS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI.
By
CHARLES F. LAWSON
A Thesis submitted to the Department of Anthropology in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Science
Degree Awarded: Spring Semester, 2004 The Members of the Committee approve the thesis of Charles F. Lawson defended on
March 23, 2004.
______Glen Doran Professor Directing Thesis
______Bruce Grindal Committee Member
______David Anderson Committee Member
Approved:
______Dean Falk, Chairperson, Anthropology Department
The office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members.
ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to thank Jill Halchin of the Southeast Archeological Center for generously allowing me to use not only her field research, but also her time throughout the production of this manuscript. Her attention to detail during artifact analysis and when reading drafts has allowed me to produce a better document. I would also like to thank John Cornelison who graciously provided me with a computerized spreadsheet for use in my statistical analysis. Over the past few years John has also taught me many of the computer and archeological skills I needed to complete this document. I would also like to thank the members of my committee for the time they spent reading the document and preparing comments.
iii TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables ...... vi
List of Figures...... viii
Abstract...... xi
1. Introduction...... 1
2. Natchez Cultural and Historic Background...... 5 Prehistoric Natchez...... 5 French Settlement 1699 to 1763 ...... 7 British Settlement 1763 to 1779 ...... 10 Spanish Administration 1779 to 1798 ...... 12 United States Territory 1798 to 1817 ...... 13 3. Previous Archaeological Investigations at 22AD557...... 15
4. 2001 Geophysical Survey ...... 19 Magnetometer ...... 21 Conductivity Meter...... 22 The Surveys ...... 23 5. Re-Examination of the 1977 Archaeological Survey ...... 28
6. 2001 Archaeological Survey and Excavations ...... 35 Surface Collection...... 35 Excavation Units...... 36 7. Material Culture...... 53 Ceramics ...... 60 Glass...... 72 Personal Items...... 78 Building Components ...... 78 Faunal Materials ...... 84 iv 8. Site Interpretation ...... 86 Artifact Distribution by Functional Group ...... 86 Robinson’s Index of Agreement for Intra-site Comparisons...... 92 Mean Ceramic Dating...... 103 Functional Interpretation of Features...... 104 9. Conclusions...... 110
References...... 116
Biographical Sketch...... 123
v LIST OF TABLES
1. Preliminary Artifact Categories...... 54
2. Historic Artifacts Collected by Function...... 55
3. Prehistoric Artifacts Collected by Function...... 56
4. Prehistoric Artifacts Collected at the French Dwelling Site...... 57
5. Ceramics recovered during the testing at 22AD557...... 64
6. Glass artifacts sorted by category classification and object...... 72
7. Personal Items Recovered During Testing at the French Dwelling Site...... 79
8. Building Components Recovered by Weight...... 83
9. Faunal Material Recovered by Type...... 85
10. Biomass Estimates Based on the Faunal Collection from 22AD557...... 85
11. Site Proveniences Chosen for Index of Agreement Analysis...... 95
12. The Artifact Categories Used to Produce the IA Matrix for the Site Features by Object Name...... 96
13. The Artifact Categories Used to Produce the IA Matrix for the Site Features by Functional Group...... 97
14. Index of Agreement Matrix Produced for Site Proveniences from 22AD557 by Object Name and Artifact Weight...... 98
15. Index of Agreement Matrix Produced for Site Proveniences from 22AD557 by Functional Group and Artifact Weight...... 99
vi 16. Mean Ceramic Dates for the French Dwelling Site...... 105
17. Artifact Categories by Percent of Weight from Each Feature...... 109
18. Possible and Known French Period Ceramics Compared to Later Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Ceramics Collected in 2001...... 113
vii LIST OF FIGURES
1. Location of the project area in Natchez, Mississippi...... 3
2. Broutin's map depicting Natchez in 1728...... 9
3. Location of Bonath's 1977 project grid and excavation units (blue) in relation to the 2001 project area (red) that is the subject of this thesis...... 16
4. The geophysical grid at the French Dwelling Site, displaying which areas were surveyed using the FM-36 gradiometer and the EM-38 conductivity meter...... 20
5. Four displays of the magnetic data recovered during the FM-36 survey ...... 26
6. Three displays of the conductivity data recovered during the EM-38 survey at the French Dwelling Site...... 27
7. The brick distribution collected during the 1977 survey...... 29
8. The tin enameled and other course earthenware distribution collected during the 1977 survey...... 30
9. The distribution of all of the historic artifacts collected during the 1977 survey...... 31
10. The distribution of historic refined earthenwares collected during the 1977 survey . 32
11. The 2001 project area...... 37
12. Area surface collected at the French Dwelling Site...... 38
13. Locations of the scraped areas and the placement of excavation units at 22AD557.. 39
14. Locations of the excavation units and scraped areas displayed with the interpreted conductivity anomalies ...... 40
viii 15. Test Units 1, 9, 11, and 12 after preliminary excavation. The top of Feature 1 is exposed...... 42
16. The base of Level 1, EU 1. Showing brick and rubble exposed in Feature 1...... 43
17. EUs 3, 5, and 10 after plowzone removal. The top of Feature 3 is exposed ...... 45
18. EU 5, Level 1. Showing the western edge of Feature 3 and some of the construction debris encountered during excavation...... 48
19. EU 5, Levels 3 and 4...... 49
20. South Profile of EU 5...... 50
21. EU 18, Level 3 plan view...... 51
22. EU 18, west wall profile ...... 52
23. Some of the Native American Artifacts Collected...... 58
24. Distribution of prehistoric artifacts at 22AD557 ...... 59
25. Tin enameled ceramics recovered at the French Dwelling Site...... 65
26. Creamware examples from the French Dwelling Site collection ...... 66
27. Surface Distribution of Creamware at 22AD557...... 67
28. Pearlware varieties from 22AD557 ...... 68
29. Surface Distribution of Pearlware at 22AD557...... 69
30. Undecorated porcelain ceramics recovered during the testing...... 70
31. Stoneware vessel fragments recovered during the testing...... 71
32. Historic domestic glass distribution at 22AD557...... 73
33. Chart showing the proportion of glass container fragments collected by color...... 74
34. Chart showing the proportion of glass container fragments collected by manufacture technique...... 75
35. Chart showing the proportion of glass container fragments collected by form...... 76
ix 36. Kaolin Pipe fragments recovered during the testing...... 80
37. French honey-colored gunflints and an unfired lead round ball recovered during the testing at the French Dwelling Site...... 81
38. Various personal items recovered during the testing at the French Dwelling Site..... 82
39. Examples of brick varieties collected at the French Dwelling Site ...... 83
40. Distribution of surface collected building components at 22AD557 ...... 87
41. Distribution of surface collected domestic materials at 22AD557...... 88
42. Distribution of building components displayed over a base map showing the locations of interpreted magnetic anomalies...... 90
43. Distribution of surface collected domestic materials displayed over a base map showing the locations of interpreted magnetic anomalies...... 91
44. Distribution of coarse earthenwares at 22AD557...... 114
x ABSTRACT
In this study the combined data from a geophysical survey, surface collection, and subsurface testing of the French Dwelling Site (22AD557) was presented to describe the archaeologically tested structural features at the site. The site is located in Natchez, Mississippi and contains evidence for both a prehistoric and early French Colonial component, but is dominated by a late eighteenth through early nineteenth century British/American homesite. Testing at the site was conducted in 2001 and included a geophysical survey using a gradiometer and conductivity meter; followed by surface collection and limited excavation of features. Only the largest five of over 50 geophysical anomalies were tested by way of exploratory excavation. Three of the five tested anomalies were identified as significant site features, all of which were associated with the eighteenth through nineteenth century occupation. An attempt was made to produce a model for untested geophysical anomalies based upon surface collected artifacts, but the homogeneity of the collection at the surface of the site precluded this. Instead, statistical analysis of the archaeologically tested features was undertaken in an attempt to determine age, function, and relationship of these features to one another at the site. This project represents the most in-depth study of the French Dwelling Site to date. All previous examinations of the site have focused on the possibility of an early French occupation, but this study incorporated all of the historic material from the site in order to fairly document both the limited evidence for French Colonial use of the site and the overwhelming evidence of the later British/American homesite. The results of the geophysical survey were used in conjunction with the artifact collection to illuminate the fact that no known features have been found at the French Dwelling Site that actually date to the French occupation of Natchez.
xi CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
In compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the Southeast Archeological Center (SEAC) performed archaeological testing on a number of previously recorded and new sites around Natchez, Mississippi (Figure 1). The Natchez Trace Parkway is going to be extended to enter the city of Natchez and these sites were positioned within the corridor of the new road. Included in this survey was a field located to the northeast of the Natchez High School and east of Highway 61. The field is owned by the Natchez National Parkway and has been proposed for lease to the City of Natchez for the construction of a recreation center. Previous archaeological investigations in the field identified two historic archaeological sites, but neither of them had been sufficiently surveyed nor tested to conclusively establish their boundaries, age, or resource potential. In 2001, shovel testing on a 20-meter interval was conducted over the extent of the field and the boundaries of the two sites were re-identified. The smaller of the two sites, 22AD899, was surface collected and found to contain mostly modern materials. Almost no artifacts were recovered from the shovel tests at 22AD899, and the few historic items collected from the surface were sparse, making the site difficult to define. The other site re-located, designated the French Dwelling Site (22AD557) in 1977, was found to have a significant amount of material culture dating from the early eighteenth through the early nineteenth centuries. The 2001 geophysical survey, surface collection and selective excavations of features at the core of the French Dwelling Site are the subject of this thesis. The French Dwelling Site was first identified in 1972 by Joseph Frank, a local collector. The next year, Jeffrey Brain and Vincas Steponaitis of the Lower Mississippi Survey (LMS) of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology of Harvard University conducted the first professional survey of the site through uncontrolled surface collection. Additional surface collections were made by the LMS in 1974 and 1977, but to date no reports have been produced on the LMS collections (SEAC Collections, Accession 1655). In 1977, Christopher Hamilton and Shawn Bonath, archaeologists with the Southeast Archeological Center, conducted a controlled surface collection and excavated seven 1-by-1-meter test units on the site (Hamilton 1977; Bonath 1977). Following the 1977 work, the site was determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. An additional uncontrolled surface collection was conducted
1 by SEAC archaeologist James R. Atkinson in 1988 (Atkinson 1992a). In 2001 Jill Halchin and a SEAC crew initiated a more expansive research design (Halchin 2001a) at the site. Several large features were partially excavated after being identified using remote sensing equipment, mechanical plow zone removal, controlled surface collection, and shovel testing. SEAC presently houses all of the materials and notes from every professional investigation at 22AD557. And although there will be a limited reexamination of the 1977 data set, the majority of the interpretation to be presented in this thesis will focus on the geophysical survey, excavations, and controlled surface collection undertaken by SEAC in 2001. This testing was the most successful, has the best provenience control, and recovered artifacts in direct association with identifiable features. All French Dwelling Site collections contain a mix of early eighteenth century French ceramic fragments and later eighteenth and early nineteenth century English and American ceramic types. The discovery of early French ceramics originally prompted interest in the site and its name (coined by Hamilton in 1977). Although it now appears unlikely, the site was believed to be a part of the French St. Catherine’s Concession, representing a portion of the first European settlement of the Natchez area (Bonath 1977). The Concession was established in 1721 and was occupied by the French until 1729, when much of the European population of Natchez were killed by the Natchez Indians in what is now referred to as the Natchez Massacre. A cursory examination of the artifacts recovered from the 2001 excavations (as well as those recovered during the controlled collection in 1977) suggests that the site was the residence of a family of moderate wealth in the early Natchez community. Specifically, the French Dwelling Site has a relatively large quantity of materials associated with an elite lifestyle including expensive ceramics and glassware. The majority of the materials recovered from the site date to a time period between 1766 and 1820, making it an ideal location to look for subsurface features and structural remains from this time period. It was during this period that the British established the first permanent European settlement at Natchez. Rule of the British and American settlers in the city was taken on by the Spanish between 1779 and 1798 after which it was transferred to the United States and became a part of the new Mississippi Territory. This time frame represents the birth of the city of Natchez and is often overshadowed by the later nineteenth century history of wealthy antebellum cotton plantations. However, at 22AD557 the significant archaeological evidence of a late eighteenth and early nineteenth century occupation has been overshadowed by the possibility of an earlier French occupation. The first goal of this thesis is the development of a predictive model for feature identification at 22AD557, and a site description identifying the functions and age of features identified at the site. The 2001 field investigations at the French Dwelling Site were undertaken in such a way that that the development of a model predicting the content and function of identified but untested features may be possible. If the model is successful it can be used to create a site description identifying any varying features within the late eighteenth century site, as well as the locations of any earlier French features, if they exist.
2 555 Washington
0 5
Kilometers 61 84 er 98 iv R Natchez Project Area
pi ip ss si is 84 M High School Mississippi 98
61
Adams St. C Natchez ath erin County e's C reek
61
Figure 1. Location of the project area in Natchez, Mississippi.
This modeling will be based upon three factors: the identification of geophysical anomalies, controlled artifact collection to identify concentrations of artifact categories across the surface of the site, and the excavation of selected anomalies. These three factors can be combined to form a model by comparing maps of subsurface geophysical disturbances to distribution maps of surface collected materials grouped by artifact functional categories. The functionality and temporal placement of the subsurface anomalies may then be revealed by the artifacts recovered from above them. The information gathered from limited excavation of select anomalies, and hence the known contents of the excavated features, at the site can be used to test whether the model is applicable to the site. Even if the model fails to predict the content and function of the untested geophysical anomalies its production will result in a description of the functionality and age of the known features at the site. The basic identification of subsurface features at the site was accomplished by a geophysical survey performed by Dr. R. Berle Clay of Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc. Dr. Clay used a fluxgate gradiometer and an EM-38 electromagnetic conductivity meter to perform two remote sensing surveys at the site during which a number of anomalies were identified (Clay 2001). Following the geophysical survey, over 3,500 artifacts were recovered during a surface collection at the site, which made use of a Global Positioning System (GPS) to record artifact proveniences. Five of the largest of the geophysical 3 anomalies were also examined through excavation and three significant archaeological features were identified. The second goal of this project is the evaluation of the possibility of an earlier French Colonial occupation of the site. 22AD557 is located along St. Catherine Creek in an area that was one of two primary occupational regions during the British and Spanish periods but was also the site of the first European settlement in Natchez by the French between 1721 and 1729. Following the Natchez Massacre, the area remained mostly unoccupied by Europeans until the onset of the British period in 1766. The French Dwelling Site was originally identified (and named) based upon the possibility that it contained evidence of the early French occupation. However, this determination was made on the basis of a few tin enameled French ceramics obtained through surface collections. All of the investigations of the French Dwelling Site prior to the work described in this thesis have focused on this possible French occupation, despite the fact that every one of them recovered significantly more material associated with the later occupation. The excavations conducted by SEAC in 2001 were the first to identify the remains of structures, and all of them date to the British, Spanish, or early U.S. territorial periods. More French ceramics were recovered but in relatively insignificant numbers considering the amount of materials of a later date. It is possible that the French ceramics are associated with the original French settlement or outlying farmstead, but they could also represent heirlooms owned by later residents of the site (one of the early landowners during the British and Spanish periods was a Frenchman). Also, many of the French ceramics normally considered to be representative of the early French occupation were still in production during the first years of British resettlement of Natchez. One goal of the present research is to evaluate whether an early French occupation is indeed present at 22AD557. To this end, the distribution of any materials that may date to an early French occupation will be examined in conjunction with data recovered by the geophysical survey with the expectation that evidence of features associated with an early French occupation, if present, may be identified.
4 CHAPTER 2
NATCHEZ CULTURAL AND HISTORIC BACKGROUND
Prehistoric Natchez
A number of Native American artifacts were recovered during the survey and testing at the French Dwelling Site. The collection was mostly comprised of untyped stone debitage, but included some stone tools and ceramics. The materials suggest a non- intensive or ephemeral use of the site from the late Archaic through the Historic Indian Periods. When Europeans on the DeSoto exploration first visited the Natchez area in 1540- 1541 they encountered groups of Native Americans who lived in villages, farmed and hunted for subsistence, and built large mounds at ceremonial sites. These Indians had a culture resulting from thousands of years of community interaction and response to their environment. Much of the information on prehistoric Indians in the Natchez area is based upon research conducted by James Ford (1936), George Quimby (1942), John Cotter (1951, 1952) and Robert Neitzel (1965, 1983), and the information gathered during the Lower Mississippi Survey (LMS), which focused on the Natchez Bluffs region in the 1970s and 80s (Brian 1978; Brown 1973, 1982, 1983; Steponaitis 1974, 1981). Brown (1985) produced a report on the historic contact period sites excavated by LMS which presented a culture history of the prehistoric Natchez area. It identified a series of eight cultural traditions made up of 17 individual phases stretching back 9000 years. Some of these can be grouped into the wider cultural periods of the Southeast, the Paleoindian, Archaic, and Woodland, followed by the Plaquemine (which is specific to the Natchez region), and Historic periods.
Paleoindian 10,000 to 8,000 BC
During the Paleoindian period people lived in small, mobile groups that relied on hunting and gathering for subsistence. The mobility of these groups necessitated that they carry little in the way of material culture and nearly all of the archaeological evidence of these early cultures comes from the analysis of their stone tools. This analysis has suggested that regionalization occurred early in Southern Mississippi, as tools tend to be
5 made of local materials rather than ones carried a long distance after 11,000 to 12,000 BP. One cultural tradition of the Paloeindian period, Plano (7000-6000 BCE), has been identified in the Natchez area based upon analysis of archaeological materials gathered by LMS in the 1970s and 80s (Brown 1985:7). No materials suggesting a Paleoindian occupation have ever been recovered from the French Dwelling site.
Archaic 6,000 to 1,000 BC
The Archaic period was generally marked by gradually increasing sedentism and an increased reliance on gathered plant foods with decreasing importance placed on hunting. During the Late Archaic, mound building and the use of storage pits suggest longer term occupations (MDAH n.d.; McGahey 2000). There was a relatively high occupation of the Natchez Bluffs region during this period, in comparison to the rest of southern Mississippi. This was probably due originally to the increased biodiversity and favorable topographic attributes of the Loess Hills region, and later to its agricultural fertility. Stone tools of the Archaic period were made mostly of local materials and there was an increased diversity in point types (Atkinson 1992a). One Gary type projectile point dating from 1500 BC to 100 AD (Justice 1987:189) made of local chert was recovered during the 2001 surface collection. Ceramic production began in the Late Archaic period but none of these ceramic types have been recovered from the French Dwelling Site.
Woodland 1000 BC to 900 AD
The Woodland period is marked by a dramatic increase in ceramic production associated with increased population, sedentism, agriculture, and village settlements. Four cultural traditions are represented in the Natchez area within the Woodland Period: Tchefuncte, Marksville, Deasonville, and Coles Creek (which also extends into the Mississippian period) (Brown 1985:7). During this period use of the bow and arrow was adopted and ceremonial sites with flat topped mounds were constructed near the Mississippi River. Occupation was mostly in non-mound villages located inland from the ceremonial centers (McGahey 2000).
Plaquemine 900 to 1650 AD
Two cultural traditions are associated with what corresponds to the Mississippian Period in other areas of the Southeast in the Natchez area: Coles Creek and Plaquemine (Brown 1985:7). Increased population and a dependence on horticulture for subsistence mark the Plaquemine culture. At around AD 1200 the Coles Creek ceremonial centers located along the river bluff began to shift to new locations a few miles inland. It is speculated that this relocation was based on either a need for security from river raiders or a desire for increased trade interaction with the interior or both (Atkinson 1992b). The Indians of the Plaquemine culture produced elaborately decorated ceramics and cultivated large expanses of land. Their society was based upon hierarchically organized
6 chiefdoms and they lived in large villages with mounds and in smaller settlements outside the ceremonial centers. At the time of French settlement there were nine Plaquemine villages including the Grand Village of the Natchez, which was located on St. Catherine Creek only a few miles from the French Dwelling Site. All of the identifiable ceramics collected in 2001 were Addis varieties that are associated with the Anna, Foster and Emerald phases of the Plaquemine tradition (1200-1650 AD). A collection of untyped ceramics recovered from the site are also typical of the Plaquimine ceramic traditions.
Historic Indian 1600 to 1730 AD
For the most part, the marker for the historic period on Native American sites in the Natchez area is the presence of European trade goods or locally made imitations. The Plaquemine culture Indians living in the Natchez area were given the name “Nathy” by the French explorer Henry Tonty, who was second in command to La Salle when he visited the area in 1682. Pierre LeMoyne Sieur d’Iberville referred to the Native Americans as the “Natché,” but eventually the spelling “Natchez” became the standard to describe both the Native Americans and the European settlement (Phelps 1966:10). Iberville first visited the Natchez area in 1700 and met with several Natchez chiefs. He accepted the peace pipe and agreed to build a fort and trading center in the Natchez territory. The War of Spanish Succession kept Iberville from fulfilling his promise, but eventually his brother, John Baptiste LeMoyne, Sieur de’Bienville built Le Fort Rosalie des Natchez in 1716 (Phelps 1966:13). The fort, its military personnel and clergy, and a handful of farmers represented the beginning of European settlement in Natchez. The French population in Natchez grew steadily under an economy based upon tobacco farming and mutual trade with the Natchez Indians. However, the Natchez eventually grew weary of the demands placed upon their territory by the ever-increasing French population and in 1729 the Indians carried out a surprise attack on the Europeans. During the attack, over 200 Europeans were killed and over 300 women, children, and slaves were taken prisoner (Sass 1989:3). The uprising successfully brought an end to the French settlement but reprisals from the French government in New Orleans and France destroyed the Natchez as a tribe within a few years.
French Settlement 1699 to 1763
The French began colonization of the Gulf Coast near the end of the seventeenth century. In an attempt to control the North American continent they concentrated their settlements in and around the lower Mississippi River valley, where they established the providence of Louisiana based upon the claims on the valley made by LaSalle in the 1680s. The first French settlement in the new providence was Fort Maurepas in the Bay of Biloxi, established in 1699 by Iberville in response to both the Spanish military occupation of Pensacola and pressure from increased English trading on Mississippi River (Groh 1999:32). Geographical and political pressures, including the discovery of a
7 better deep-water harbor and the advance of the English and Spanish from the east, eventually convinced Iberville to relocate Fort Maurepas to the vicinity of Mobile Bay in 1701. In 1711, after a series of relocations along the Mobile River, the colony settled into a location at the river’s mouth that was to eventually grow into the modern city of Mobile, Alabama (Elliott 1989:8). Before 1712 Louisiana was a military colony governed by naval officers. There had been no legal land grants other than town lots in the two settlements on the Mobile River. In 1712 colonial authorities in Paris determined that the colony was close to failure and the crown granted Antione Crozat a fifteen year monopoly on economic trade and permanent ownership of any land, factories or waters he developed. In return, Crozat was expected to deliver twenty colonists and two shiploads of supplies to the colony per year (Groh 1999:33). A governor was also installed and given the ability to make land grants to the population, which were to be developed or brought into cultivation within two years, or be forfeited (Elliot 1989:8). Around 1713, Crozat contracted with two brothers, Marc-Antoine and Auguste de la Loire des Ursins to establish a trading post at Natchez. The brothers were to take a large supply of merchandise and domestic items for trade with the Indians, and in return Crozat promised a garrison of eleven men to protect the post. Although the protection was never sent, the brothers eventually established the post in 1714 (Groh 1999, Elliot 1989:26). Before the Loire brothers’ arrival at the Grand Village of the Natchez, the only other European occupation of the area had been a man named La Vigne’s failed attempt to grow wheat sometime before 1713. Crozat failed to turn a profit or establish a firm economic base for the colony. In 1717 he was allowed to turn over his charter to the Company of the West (which in 1719 became known as the Company of the Indies) headed by John Law. Law’s vision for populating the colony was the granting of large tracts of land, or “concessions,” to companies who then sold shares in the concession. The shareholders would travel to the colony and develop the land. Concessions were also granted to wealthy financiers who sent shiploads of colonists and supplies to develop the areas in their stead (Elliot 1989:10). Most of the concessions were located along the Mississippi River or its tributaries and included the Saint Catherine’s Concession in Natchez in 1721. The concession at Natchez was strengthened by the existence of Fort Rosalie, built in 1716 with labor and materials supplied by the Natchez Indians as a term of a peace treaty ending the First Natchez War. The military garrison at the fort attracted additional settlers, and a trading post, church and houses were built nearby on the bluff overlooking the river. The first farm was established in 1718 and more settlers began to move into the area, many of them purchasing their land directly from the Indians. The Company of the Indies’ St. Catherine’s Concession was one of two large plantations located along the St. Catherine Creek. It was created in 1721 when the land comprising it was purchased from its owner, Hubert de St. Malo (either before or after his death). Hubert had begun developing the plantation in 1719 and had already constructed a large residence, planted the surrounding land in wheat, and built a mill on the creek for grinding grain, and a forge for gun and blacksmithing (Elliott 1989:31). The new settlers
8 joined Hubert’s existing workers and grew tobacco and wheat, as well as native staples such as corn, beans, and potatoes. Maps drawn during the period show the French farms, Natchez villages and concessions scattered in the countryside inland of the fort (Figure 2). The positioning of St. Catherine’s Concession on these early maps suggested that the French Dwelling Site could be within the concession.
Figure 2. Broutin's map depicting Natchez in 1728. The series of rectangular buildings labeled “Concession S. Reine” is St. Catherine’s Concession. Its positioning in relation to the Fort has led some researchers to believe it to be in the same location as the French Dwelling Site.
More and more settlers moved into Natchez and by 1727 the number of civilians in the settlement had risen to 874: 314 French, 522 Black slaves, and 38 Indian slaves 9 (Phelps 1966:53). The European population placed increasing demands upon the Natchez Indians for land and slowly encroached upon their ceremonial center on St. Catherine Creek. In addition to the pressures from the cramped lifestyle, English traders (via the Chickasaw) were provoking the Natchez into battle with the French. In 1729, Captain de Cheparre, commander of Fort Rosalie, ordered the Natchez to vacate the village of Pomme Blanche (White Apple) so that he could take the land for himself. This turned out to be the last insult the Natchez were willing to bear and on the morning of November 28, 1729, they revolted, killing nearly 300 French settlers and soldiers before noon. Only a handful of the men managed to escape. The Indians captured nearly 400 women and children, whom they intended to sell into slavery, and reportedly burned every French structure in the settlement (Audhuy 1989:34-35). The French, aided by the Choctaws, sent a retaliatory force to Natchez. They arrived at the settlement on February 8, 1730, and laid siege to the Natchez forts. Eventually, the Indians released their prisoners and fled into the countryside, but reinforcements from France sent by the Company of the Indies to hunt them down crushed the Natchez as a tribe within a year (Audhuy 1989:36). Fort Rosalie was rebuilt, but the French never re-established the civilian population at Natchez. Military garrisons continued to occupy the fort until 1763, when the British acquired title to the Natchez District through the Treaty of Paris (Elliott 1989).
British Settlement 1763 to 1779
The 1763 Treaty of Paris, which ended the Seven Years War, resulted in France’s loss of all of her territory in North America to England and Spain. Louisiana was divided at the Mississippi River with the western area going to Spain and all of the land to the east of the river to England. Natchez became a British settlement on the western border of West Florida, an English continental colony bounded on the west by the Mississippi River, on the south by the Gulf of Mexico, on the east by the Chattahoochee and Appalachicola Rivers, and on the north by the latitude running at 32 degrees 28 minutes (Haynes 1976:4; Elliott 1989:55). In 1766, the British military established a garrison at Fort Rosalie and renamed it Fort Panmure. The fort was used as a trading post along the Mississippi in hopes of redirecting some of the profits of the fur trade away from New Orleans, which was under Spanish control. The fort was also occupied as a British military presence in the newly created Natchez District, an area roughly corresponding today to five Mississippi counties along the river running north to south: Wilkinson, Adams, Jefferson, Claiborne, and Warren (Elliott 1989:55). The British government in the capitol of West Florida, Pensacola, began issuing land grants in the Natchez District, many large tracts were deeded to prominent Englishmen who never developed the land, but a number of smaller farms were established, particularly near Fort Panmure, upon which they relied for security. Despite objections from Governor Montford Brown and the local population in the Natchez District, in 1768 the London administration withdrew the garrison from Fort Panmure and turned it over to two civilians, John Bradley and Henry Fairchild, to operate
10 as a trading post. The fur trade was booming, but the fort had fallen into disrepair, and in January of 1771, a group of Choctaw attacked and plundered the storehouse. Local settlers rescued the trading post staff, and following a shootout with the Indians, managed to recover most of the goods stolen from the fort. Fearing reprisals from the Choctaw, the settlers abandoned their farms and the trading post and floated downriver to Bayou Sara (Elliott 1989:56-57). Eventually, some of the settlers returned to their farms, and others, often in large organized groups, began arriving from the American colonies. Settlement began to accelerate in the 1770s, mostly in the form of émigrés from the southern American colonies, but also from the north. Natchez was promoted as a haven for Tories before and during the American Revolution and loyalists were granted free land with limited taxation. This action enticed both loyalists and anyone else who already wished to move west (Haynes 1976). The 1770s marked the beginning of a shift in the settlement pattern of the Natchez area. From this point forward an increasing number of the settlers acquiring land in the Natchez District were Anglo-Americans arriving from the American colonies. This pattern continued into the Spanish administration of the Natchez District and resulted in an interesting experiment of Spanish governance of an Anglo-American and British community. In February of 1771, Edward Mease, a visitor to the Natchez District, remarked in his journal that most of the settlers in the Natchez area were clustered on both sides of St. Catherine Creek. He described a population of 64 people living in 15 households located about three miles inland from the abandoned fort (Elliott 1989:57). The field north of the high school containing the French Dwelling Site is just under three miles inland from the river. In 1779, war was declared between Spain and England and the provisional governor of Spanish Louisiana, Bernardo de Galvez, sent Captain Jan de la Villebeuve to capture the British holdings at Baton Rouge, Manchac, and Natchez (Groh 1999:42). The British troops at Fort Panmure did not even know that war had been declared and when the Spanish troops arrived after taking control of Manchac and Baton Rouge, Fort Panmure and Natchez were given up without a struggle. Panmure was briefly recaptured by a local British militia led by John Blommart in April of 1781, but his occupation of the fort was short lived and the Spanish regained control in June of the same year. Spain maintained a garrison at the fort and appointed a commandant in charge of military and civilian operations in Natchez. In May of 1781, Galvez successfully captured Pensacola and hence took control of all of England’s holdings in West Florida. In 1783, a second Treaty of Paris was signed that transferred possession of West Florida from England to Spain (Groh 1999:42- 43). However, although Spain recognized the northern boundary of West Florida as demarcated at 32 degrees and 28 minutes of latitude, as in the original Treaty of Paris; the Americans and English had recognized the border at the 31st parallel as a precaution if Spain would have gained control of West Florida at that time (Phelps 1966:39). The entire Natchez district lies north of the 31st parallel and although Spain controlled the district for almost twenty years, the Americans disputed the boundary throughout the entire Spanish administration.
11 Spanish Administration 1779 to 1798
Spain gained control of the Natchez District in 1779, but the population of the district continued to be dominated by Anglo-Americans and their slaves. For the most part, the only Spaniards present in the district were the military garrison and the judicial and legislative administration. The Spanish military administration in Natchez was led by Manuel Gayoso de Lemos, chief military aid to West Florida Governor Colonel Esteban Miro. Gayoso was a well-liked leader and initiated a number of physical improvements to the Natchez district and fostered an explosion of immigration into the district. Gayoso’s rule as Governor of the Natchez District began in 1789 and was an experiment in tolerance, both religious and political. Upon assuming control of the district, the Spanish governor of Louisiana had assured the protection of settler’s properties, and although promoting Catholicism, the Spanish Crown made no requirement that the Protestant population in Natchez convert or stop holding private religious ceremonies. Gayoso built upon this moderate policy by making use of local leadership to administer the district; by 1790 the courts were staffed with Anglo settlers and in 1793 their militia served the Spanish Crown with distinction during an uprising in New Orleans (Grant 1993). Gayoso actively encouraged immigration from the American colonies by issuing instructions to families describing how to get to the Natchez District and petition for land grants (Holmes 1970:17). The Spanish administration also presided over the first actual construction of a city at Natchez. Before 1788 nearly all of the inhabitants of the Natchez area lived on plantations along the inland tributaries of the Mississippi (including St. Catherine’s Creek, where the French Dwelling Site is located). A handful of structures were also present around the fort and below the bluff at the Mississippi River. The Spanish laid out and constructed a city plan above the bluff where present day downtown Natchez is located. A new Catholic Church was completed in 1791. Although the economic situation in Natchez was tenuous, and the conditions were as rough as would be expected on a western frontier town, the population became wealthier under Spanish rule. Visible signs of the precursors to the wealth of the Old South Planters began to appear with the construction of a number of mansion-like homes (James 1968). Perhaps of greatest use to historians and archaeologists was the fact that the Spanish administration kept somewhat detailed records of the numerous land grants they administered as well as other legal proceedings. Some of these records have survived. The earliest recorded ownership of the land including or near the French Dwelling Site is by Louis Vallaret, a Frenchman who was recorded as receiving a Spanish grant of 355 acres on April 9, 1794 (Boggess 1990:92). This was likely not when Vallaret took possession of the land, but rather when the Spanish endorsed his claim to property he already owned. On March 3, 1794, Spanish records recorded the sale of 350 acres on St. Catherine Creek by Vallaret to Esther Cobbun, wife of Richard King, a successful planter, business owner, and occasional governmental administrator in the city of
12 Natchez (Spanish Records, Book 28, p. 4, 1794). King’s downtown Natchez establishment, King’s Tavern, still stands today as a restaurant and Inn in Historic Natchez. King was born in 1760 in the New Jersey Province and moved to Natchez with his family as part of a colony of approximately 100 people in 1773 (Grant 1993:78, 102). A number of the families represented in this colony, including the Kings, were to become influential members of the Natchez settlement, especially during the Spanish administration. Vallaret came to Natchez in 1789 and entered into an agreement with the Kings allowing him to establish a brick kiln on their property. Vallaret was to pay $300, and share the responsibility of operating the kiln, the Kings in turn were to receive half of the bricks for sale or use (Grant 1993:113). This kiln would have been the first recorded brick kiln in operation in Natchez (Grant 1993:75), and if put into use could explain the large quantity of somewhat roughly made brick of varying quality located on the French Dwelling Site. In 1793 King sued Vallaret for not delivering any of the promised bricks and the Court ruled in his favor and ordered the eviction of Vallaret (Grant 1993:114). It is unknown what connection, if any, the 1794 land grant to Vallaret and sale of property by Vallaret to Cobbun has to do with the court case or business dealings between the two parties.
United States Territory 1798 to 1817
Disputes between Spain and the United States concerning the northern extent of the boundary of Spanish West Florida were finally settled in 1795 with the Treaty of San Lorenzo. The boundary was set at the 31st parallel and the Natchez District became a part of the United States. However, Spain was reluctant to give up possession of the district and the U.S. was slow to perform the official boundary survey, so Natchez did not physically change hands until March of 1798 (Boggess 1990:37). The following month the U.S. Congress created the Mississippi Territory, further enticing American settlement in the region. The new U.S. territory included the present day states of Mississippi and Alabama minus the Gulf Coast north to the 31st parallel, which continued to be held by Spain until 1810 when the West Florida rebellion gave the United States complete control of Spanish West Florida. The first census of the new territory, conducted between 1798 and 1800, reported 5,179 whites and 3,489 slaves (free blacks, although present, were not reported) (Boggess 1990:38). Settlement in the territory continued to rise rapidly and by 1810 had reached 31,306, with more than half of the residents being slaves and more than two thirds living in the area west of the Pearl River, including the Natchez District (Miller 1989:11-12). The remaining settlers were clustered on the eastern side of the territory separated from the Natchez district by large Indian reservations and a cultural divide. The Mississippi River settlements had developed a sophisticated plantation society heavily dependent on slave labor, while the eastern side of the territory was less economically powerful and relied on subsistence agriculture and family labor. These differences developed into an east/west territorial sectionalism which eventually resulted in the admittance of the State of Mississippi into the Union in 1817, separate
13 from Alabama, which did not did not obtain sufficient population for statehood until 1819. The property containing the French Dwelling Site continued to be owned by Richard and Esther King (no longer recorded as Cobbun) throughout half of the U.S. Territorial period, and may have still contained Vallaret’s residence. On March 26, 1804 the Kings officially recorded their ownership of the 335 acres with the U.S. government (Boggess 1990:92). A little more than a year later the Kings sold 330 of these acres to Joseph Pannel (Adams County Records, Deed Book D, p. 359). In 1809, Pannel and his wife Agnes sold their property to Abijah Hunt with 330 acres granted to Louis Vallaret (Adams County Records, Deed Book E, p. 131), who may have had residence on the property since 1789. The property was eventually passed by inheritance to Hunt’s sons Jeremiah and David in 1811, who sold the land to George Lloyd in 1815 (Boggess 1990:92). Lloyd was establishing ownership of a great deal of property around the French Dwelling Site, which eventually became known as the Somerset Plantation. These properties were further consolidated throughout the 1820’s by Stephen Minor and his executors (the land containing the French Dwelling Site was purchased in 1821) (Boggess 1990:90-95). The artifacts recovered during survey and excavations at the French Dwelling Site establish a terminus ante quem for occupation of the site at approximately 1820. It is probable that the 1821 sale of the property represented the end of residential occupation at the site, at which point any existing structures were torn down and the land was put into cotton production.
14 CHAPTER 3
PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS AT 22AD557
A number of archaeological studies have taken place at the French Dwelling Site since it was first identified in the early 1970s. The first professional investigations of the site took place in 1972 and 1974 when Jeffrey Brain and Vincas Steponaitis of the Lower Mississippi Survey (LMS) conducted an uncontrolled surface collection at the site. No report has been produced concerning the results of these investigations, and although the Southeast Archeological Center has obtained the artifacts collected and LMS site forms from the Peabody Museum, there is no other existing documentation concerning the collection or survey techniques. In any case, the collection is quite small (less than a shoebox) and contains a sample of blown olive-green glass vessel fragments, high fired brick fragments, a wrought nail, unidentified coarse earthenwares, stoneware, creamware, and pearlware fragments, and a small sample of unidentified white tin enameled ceramic fragments. None of the materials collected were unusual for the site and similar materials have been collected during more recent controlled surface collections and excavations. In 1977 the Southeast Archeological Center conducted an investigation at the French Dwelling Site because it was within the corridor of the planned extension of the Natchez Trace Parkway into Natchez. The parkway plans have hence been changed and the site is no longer threatened by the construction, which began in 2003. Work at the site was directed by Shawn Bonath, who prepared a short report covering the results of the project as an appendix to Hamilton’s 1977 report covering archaeological tests at multiple sites along the Parkway in 1976 and 1977 (Hamilton 1977). The project included controlled surface collection of an arbitrary grid established along a baseline running at 331 degrees east of north. The grid measured 75 meters northeast to southwest (grid north), and 100 meters northwest to southeast (grid east), its location in the field east of the Natchez High School was estimated based upon a large manhole standing just west of the 2001 project area (Figure 3). The grid was broken up into 300 five-by-five- meter square blocks and each block was surface collected as one provenience. Upon completion of the surface collecting, seven one-meter square test units were excavated, but not screened for artifact recovery.
15 e c a f r u S 7 d 7 i 9 r G 1 's n h o t ti a c n e ll Bo o C
1) 00 (2 e in Sewer Cap 2001 Surface Collection, L ff Excavation, and lu B Geophysical Survey Grid ek re C 's ne ri he at C t. 0 40 S
Meters
Excavation Unit 1977 Datum (2001) Excavation Unit 2001 E 655361, N3491741
Figure 3. Location of Bonath's 1977 project grid and excavation units (blue) in relation to the 2001 project area (red) that is the subject of this thesis.
The report produced from the 1977 investigations was never completed beyond draft form and is nearly devoid of information beyond the conclusion that a site is present in the field. The field notes taken during the testing were not significantly better. They make references to features identified in test units at nearly a meter deep, while the report states that nothing is present at the site below the plow zone. It is probable that these features were associated with the installation of the sewer line that crosses the southeast corner of the 1977 grid (southwest corner of the 2001 project area). Also, had it not been for one map in the Bonath report that displayed the location of the existing sewer cap, the estimated positioning of the 1977 grid would not have been discernable, as the notes recording the optical transit readings were both incomplete and tied to the St. Catherine’s Creek bluff line, which has shifted significantly in the last 26 years. In 1977 the site was investigated in hopes of identifying structures associated with the 1721 to 1729 French Concession, and to that extent the majority of the artifacts recovered, those that post-dated the French occupation, were excluded from detailed distribution analysis. Two distribution maps were produced for the 1977 report, one based upon the surface collected proveniences of brick and the other on tin enameled ceramics and other coarse earthenwares. These two artifact categories were chosen because the tin enameled and coarse earthenwares could have been in use during the 16 occupation of the Concession (although the coarse earthenware may have been a later addition to the site) and the brick distribution was hoped to display the general location of any demolished structures at the site. Refined earthenwares, mostly creamware and pearlware were the most prevalent artifacts recovered from the site, but their distributions were not plotted because they were not old enough to be associated with the Concession. From the brick distribution map produced, Bonath suggested that there may have been as many as two structures present in the southeastern section of the surface collected area. The ceramic distribution map displayed no correlation to the brick distribution map other than that the ceramics were also confined to the southeastern portion of the grid (Bonath 1977). There were a number of problems with the 1977 fieldwork. Some of the issues include inadequate field notes referring to the positioning of the grid and the excavation of the test units, the complete disregard of the refined earthenware component at the site, and the fact that a final draft of the report was never completed. Had a final report been produced, perhaps some of the other issues would have been rectified. However, much of the field data collected during the 1977 project still has research potential, particularly with reference to the geophysical survey that was conducted in 2001. A reanalysis of the 1977 data is presented in Chapter 5 of this report following a description of the geophysical survey in Chapter 4. In 1988 SEAC archaeologist Jim Atkinson initiated a final uncontrolled surface collection at the French Dwelling Site (Atkinson 1992a). A small collection of artifacts was recovered, including 14 untyped coarse earthenware sherds, two Faience fragments and 159 refined earthenware sherds. This collection again supported previous research at the site suggesting a major late eighteenth century component and a possible, but much less represented early eighteenth century French occupation. In his report, Atkinson referred to historic research done by Dawson Phelps (1945) in which Phelps proposed that a road visible on historic maps leading from Fort Rosalie to the St. Catherine’s Concession was present-day Liberty Road and that the concession was located where Liberty Road crosses St. Catherine Creek. If Phelps’ suggestion is correct than the true location of the Concession is nearly a mile south of the French Dwelling Site and thoroughly buried under road construction. Atkinson also located additional documentary support lending credence to Phelps’ speculation. By interpreting the writings of a number of contemporary French sources, Atkinson determined that the Concession was one league, or one and a half miles, north of the Grand Village of the Natchez. This would place it in the area of the present-day Liberty Road crossing (Atkinson 1992a) in support of Phelps’ hypothesis. All of the archaeological research conducted at the French Dwelling Site has suggested that the main component of the site is not French at all, but most likely dates to sometime within the British, Spanish, and American Territorial periods between 1763 and 1817. However, every survey conducted has recovered a small percentage of French tin enameled ceramics that could date to the original French occupation of Natchez. That the site is on the location of the actual St. Catherine’s Concession seems unlikely, as all historic documentation has pointed to a location nearly a mile south of the French Dwelling Site. However, there were a number of outlying farms in residence during the
17 operation of the Concession and it is possible the French materials that have been recovered at 22AD557 are related to one of these outlying homesteads.
18 CHAPTER 4
2001 GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY
Remote sensing has been defined as “the science of deriving information about an object from measurements made at a distance from the object” (Swain and Davis 1978:1). The use of remote sensing to examine sub-surface deposits has become an invaluable tool which gives archaeologists the ability to identify and to some extent interpret in situ archaeological features without ground disturbance (Bevan 1998; Scollar 1990). Because the excavation of an archaeological site is a non-repeatable experiment, remote sensing can also provide excavators with precise information concerning the location, materials, shape, and size of archaeological features, thus making archaeological excavation and data collection more efficient. In 2001 a remote-sensing survey of the French Dwelling Site was conducted prior to traditional archaeological investigations at the site. Analysis of the geophysical data collected during the survey utilized the contour mapping software package, Surfer, in an effort to delineate subsurface features through the analysis of anomalies detected through the measurement of certain physiological site characteristics. The instruments used to detect these characteristics included a Geonics Ltd. EM-38 earth conductivity meter and a FM-36 fluxgate gradiometer manufactured by Geoscan Research (Clay 2001). Prior shovel testing of the 46-acre field northeast of the Natchez High School provided SEAC archaeologists with a rough estimate of the core area of the French Dwelling Site. Near the core of the site was a large manhole cover and sewer line, so the area chosen for survey was positioned east of these features to minimize interference with the geophysical equipment. This area was staked out into twelve, 20-by-20-meter blocks using an optical transit and fiberglass tape measure. The grid was oriented to magnetic north with four 20-meter blocks on its long axis by three on the east/west axis (Figure 4). The grid nodes were staked with wooden pins (so as not to disrupt the readings from the magnetometer or EM-38) and labeled with grid coordinates approximately relative to the last four digits of the UTM coordinates collected from a GPS unit. Two permanent rebar datum points were driven into the ground south of the geophysical grid at UTM coordinates E 655361, N 3491731 and E 655401, N 3491731. The gridded area of the site was eventually to be disked, surface collected, and selectively scraped and excavated, but before any of these disruptive activities took place samples of the grid blocks were surveyed using a fluxgate gradiometer and EM-38 conductivity meter (Clay 2001).
19 N 1840
0 20
Meters N 1820
Magnetometer Survey
Magnetometer and EM-38 Survey
N 1800
N 1780
N 1760 E 5360 E 5380 E 5400 E 5420
Datum Datum UTM E 655361, N 3491741 UTM E 655401, N 3491741 Figure 4. The geophysical grid at the French Dwelling Site, displaying which areas were surveyed using the FM-36 gradiometer and the EM-38 conductivity meter.
20 Magnetometer
The fluxgate gradiometer used during this investigation is a type of magnetometer, which is an instrument that can be used to conduct magnetic surveys on archaeological sites. Magnetic surveys measure slight variations in the local magnetic field of an area caused by variation in subsurface magnetic susceptibility. The information recorded during a magnetic survey are subtle magnetic fluctuations, or variances, in the Earth’s normal magnetic field at a specified location. These fluctuations are related to varying amounts of naturally occurring iron in soil deposits or the induced magnetism of archaeological features such as fired clay. This induced magnetism, referred to as thermoremanence, is produced when some of the weakly magnetic compounds in raw clay are converted to magnetite during firing and the randomly oriented magnetic fields present in the clay are demagnetized at high temperature and then remagnetized and realigned by the Earth’s magnetic field when the clay cools. The net effect is a relatively strong magnetic signature of the fired feature with a permanent fixed magnetization aligned with the Earth’s geomagnetic field at the time of firing (Clark 1990:64-65). Magnetometers are useful in identifying features such as baked floors, hearths, burned structures, brick, and ceramic caches, as well as excavated features such as ditches or other depressions where the sediment that subsequently filled the feature was slightly more or less magnetic than the surrounding matrix (Kvamme 2001:357). They are also incredibly sensitive to iron artifacts, which can be a blessing on an undisturbed historic site with relatively low artifact concentration, or a curse on a site where large numbers of small iron artifacts or modern iron refuse mask the more subtle magnetic variations of other archaeological features. Magnetometers are sensitive instruments that measure the Earth’s magnetic field strength in nanoteslas (nT). The normal background magnetic field strength in North America is between 40 and 60 thousand nT and is generated by currents and convection in the Earth’s liquid metal mantle (Clark 1990:64). This is significant because archaeological magnetic anomalies are often represented by a shift in nT strength of less than 5 nT and recent work has located anomalies in variations as subtle as .001 nT (Becker 1995). In addition to the relatively weak field generated by archaeological features, diurnal variation of the Earth’s magnetic field changes constantly and can cause a variation of 40 to 100 nT in the background field throughout the course of any given day (Kavamme 2001:358). A variety of magnetometers and various survey techniques have been developed to overcome the sensitivity issues involved in magnetic prospecting. There are a number of different types of magnetometers available for use in archaeological survey. The first instrument shown to be practical in archaeological survey was the proton procession magnetometer (Clark 1990:66). They are capable of 0.1 nT resolution and measure the total magnetic field strength at each node of a survey area. Diurnal variation is controlled by the concurrent use of a second machine at a fixed base station. In this manner, the stationary machine measures the constantly changing magnetic field of the Earth, and this reading can be subtracted from the reading collected
21 from the roving machine at the same instant. Variations between the two readings are localized variations in the magnetic field, or anomalies. Survey using proton procession magnetometers is time consuming and as a tool they have been mostly replaced by gradiometers which can take faster readings and do not require a separate base station. Fluxgate gradiometers are the most common type of magnetometer in use on archaeological surveys today. Unlike proton procession magnetometers which measure the entire magnetic field as it is sensed from all directions, gradiometers only measure the component of the field parallel to its axis. They utilize two sensors, matched in sensitivity and separated vertically by approximately one half meter. In this arrangement, when simultaneous readings are taken and the output of one sensor is subtracted from the other, no signal is detected in a uniform field, and the nT value recorded is associated with localized disruptions in the Earth’s regular magnetic field (Clark 1990:70). The FM-36 fluxgate gradiometer manufactured by Geoscan Research used in the French Dwelling Site survey is an instrument specifically designed for archaeological work. It has a resolution of 0.1 nT, is fully computerized, and is capable of storing 16,000 field measurements (Kavamme 2001:358).
Conductivity Meter
Magnetometer surveys are often combined with either resistivity or conductivity surveys because the two technologies measure different geophysical conditions and the results can be contrasted and compared in order to form a better overall understanding of the site (Clay 2001). Both resistivity and conductivity instruments measure the same geophysical feature, the earth’s ability to transmit an electrical current. However, the two systems are dramatically different in the way in which they measure this attribute. Resistivity meters measure the speed in which an electrical current passes through the ground (in ohms per meter) by applying direct current via probes in contact with the ground surface. A conductivity unit, on the other hand, measures the inverse of resistivity and does not require direct contact with the soil. For this reason, conductivity surveys are often more attractive on archaeological projects where large areas are to be surveyed and dragging around the electrical cables associated with a resistivity survey is undesirable. Electromagnetic (EM) conductivity meters are made up of two spatially separated transmitting and receiving coils. The transmitting coil sends out an EM single which induces an electrical current in the soil beneath the unit. That induced current creates a magnetic field that can be detected and measured, in millisiemens per meter (mS/m), by the receiving coil on the other end of the unit (Kvamme 2001:362). The electrical and magnetic properties of the soil (or features within the soil) alter the original frequency of the EM transmission and these variations are what allow the EM unit to record anomalous subsurface features (Heimmer and DeVore 2000:60). Like magnetometers, earth conductivity meters are highly sensitive to buried metallic objects and large amounts of iron at a site can pose problems in data interpretation. However, unlike magnetometers which focus on detecting magnetic fields
22 associated with iron containing materials, conductivity meters are capable of detecting any material capable of conducting an electric current (Heimmer and DeVore 2000:61). This makes their use in association with magnetometers invaluable. Also, conductivity meters do not respond to remnant magnetism of features like fired hearths or bricks, which magnetometers readily record. In a situation where both a conductivity meter and a magnetometer record a strong anomaly in the same location, it is likely that that feature is ferrous, while if only the magnetometer records the anomaly it is probable that the feature is a non-ferrous target such as a fired clay floor (Clay 2001:3). EM surveys are most effective in clayey soils because the clay particles allow for easy transmission of the electric charge. They are least effective in sandy soil, under very dry or very wet conditions, and in locations containing metallic debris (Kvamme 2001:360). The conductivity meter operated by Dr. Berle Clay at the French Dwelling Site was a Geonics Ltd. EM-38 Earth Conductivity Meter. The unit operates at a frequency of 14.6 kHz and has a coil separation of one meter. It is capable of recording up to two readings per second and stores data in a non-integrated data logger (Kvamme 2001:362).
The Surveys
The data collecting unit during both the FM-36 and EM-38 surveys was the traditional 20-meter square, eleven squares were surveyed with the FM-36 and six of these squares were re-surveyed using the EM-38. It is important to know what, if any, types of modern intrusions are present in a geophysical project area before the survey takes place so that data generated by modern intrusions are not explained as archaeological manifestations. Two modern features of the French Dwelling Site were noted before the survey began: agricultural practices including plowing, and the cast iron manhole cover in the southwest corner of the surveyed area. The magnetic survey readily identified the manhole as well as a terra cotta sewer line leading to it across the southwest corner of the survey area. The conductivity survey did not register the manhole, but did identify evidence of plow scars or possibly fertilizer applications across the site. The magnetic data was collected with the FM-36 in a zigzag fashion (moving north one transect, then south the next), on a one meter transect interval. Eleven 20-meter blocks were surveyed, leaving the northeastern-most block untested (see Figure 4). The machine was set to collect eight nT readings every meter (based upon the ground speed of the operator) so that upon completion of one 20-meter block, a total of 3200 readings had been collected. Dr. Clay processed the magnetic data using a variety of proprietary software packages before producing the final interpretive graphics using the Surfer 7 contour mapping program. Figure 5 presents four displays of the magnetic data that was collected, processed, and interpreted by Dr. Clay (2001). Included in the displays are the unprocessed data, two versions of the processed data with one containing interpreted markings, and an abstracted view of the anomalies interpreted from the data. The maps display considerable variation in the low-level nT readings and appear somewhat “noisy,” or, in
23 other words, there is a lot of variation on the map. This likely suggests that the site has a number of ferrous items scattered around (this was later confirmed by the surface collecting). However, it was still possible for Dr. Clay to identify a number of well- defined anomalies that were suggestive of archaeological features. The clearest anomaly present in the magnetic data is a magnetic low (white on the maps) on the western edge of block N1780, E5360 (southwest corner) associated with a linear feature running northwest to southeast across the N1760, E5360 block. These features are the standing manhole and terra cotta sewer pipe leading away from it. Another linear feature can be easily seen running northwest to southeast across the project area beginning in the northwest corner of the N1820, E5360 block and traveling to the southeast corner of the N1800, E5400 block. This feature was interpreted as a probable road, and some of the associated circular anomalies located along its southern side as possible fence posts (Clay 2001:11). A series of circular anomalies forming a smile shape across the southern halves of blocks N1780, E5360 and N1780, E5380 were also suggested as possible fencing around small enclosures. The short and vague linear anomalies in the center of the project area could also be related to such enclosures. The final anomaly class are the large dipole signals lined up diagonally (northwest to southeast) across the center of the project area. Three of these anomalies are prominent (in blocks N1800, E5360; N1780, E5380; and N1780, E5400), and were interpreted as possible structure footprints (Clay 2001). Two of these anomalies were eventually confirmed as features through excavation. Many of the smaller nT variations may represent brick rubble, and evidence recovered during the EM-38 survey suggests the possibility of at least one thermal feature. The data collection with the EM-38 was carried out in six 20-meter squares covering an area where the magnetic survey had already taken place (see Figure 4). The decision to survey less area using the EM-38 was based upon time and budgetary constraints. The EM-38 survey was run after the magnetic data had been tentatively examined. The six centrally located blocks were chosen for the conductivity survey because they contained the highest concentration and widest representation of magnetic anomalies. The EM-38 readings were taken at 25-cm intervals along transects spaced at one meter and traversed in one direction only (not zigzag). The mS/m readings were recorded by manually triggering the machine four times per meter as the operator carried it over each transect line, creating 1600 measurements for each 20-meter square block. This raw data was processed using a variety of proprietary software packages and digital filters before the final interpretive graphics were produced using the Surfer 7 contour mapping program. Figure 6 presents three versions of the French Dwelling Site conductivity data collected, processed, and interpreted by Dr. Clay (2001). Included in the three displays are the processed data, the processed data with interpreted anomalies overlain, and the abstracted interpretive anomalies displayed without the background data. Once processed, the EM-38 data was considerably less noisy then the magnetic data collected from the same grids. A number of anomalies associated with ferrous metal were identified, based upon their strength of signal and the fact that they were also displayed in
24 the magnetic data. Excluding the iron items, one strong anomaly and two somewhat vague anomalous areas remain to be explained. When examining the processed data displayed in Figure 6 there are clear striations running diagonally across the survey area from northwest to southeast. These lines are undoubtedly plow scars from past cultivation, perhaps produced recently (Clay 2001). At least five of the conductivity anomalies were associated with iron; these five are marked in yellow in Figure 6. They were identified as likely ferrous items because they registered strongly in both the EM-38 and FM-36 survey data, this identification was confirmed in the field, they were large iron scraps and bolts that were removed before the subsequent surface collection of the site began. The three remaining anomalies, those marked in blue and red in Figure 6 were seen as the highest potential as archaeological features (Clay 2001). The red square in block N1780, E5380 marks an area of high conductivity surrounded by a halo of relatively low EM conductivity soil. There was no suggestion that this feature was a metallic signal and is located relatively close to two other areas of high EM soil (marked in blue). This anomaly falls directly between two small nT dipoles detected by the magnetic survey and was interpreted by Dr. Clay as representing some type of prepared surface or floor (not fired) flanked on either end by fired hearths or chimney bases (Clay 2001:11-12). The areas of high EM conductivity (blue anomalies) may represent peripheral activities around the possible structure in block N1780, E5380. These activities may have caused modification to the historic ground surface, or left behind debris detectable to the EM-38. Obviously, interpreting these anomalies on the basis of the geophysical surveys alone is problematical. For this reason they were used as guides for locating possible archaeological features which were further tested by way of a controlled surface collection and limited test excavation.
25 N 1840 N 1840
N 1820 N 1820
N 1800 N 1800
N 1780 N 1780
N 1760 N 1760 E 5360 E 5380 E 5400 E 5420 E 5360 E 5380 E 5400 E 5420 N 1840 N 1840
N 1820 N 1820
N 1800 N 1800
N 1780 N 1780
N 1760 N 1760 E 5360 E 5380 E 5400 E 5420 E 5360 E 5380 E 5400 E 5420
0 20 Meters
Figure 5. Four displays of the magnetic data recovered during the FM-36 survey. Clockwise from the upper left: the unprocessed magnetic data, processed magnetic data, processed data with Clay's interpretive features overlain, the abstracted anomalies sans the magnetic data (maps taken from the report prepared by Clay, 2001). 26 N 1820
N 1800 0 20
Meters
N 1780 E 5360 E 5380 E 5400 E 5420
N 1820 N 1820
N 1800 N 1800
N 1780 N 1780 E 5360 E 5380 E 5400 E 5420 E 5360 E 5380 E 5400 E 5420 Figure 6. Three displays of the conductivity data recovered during the EM-38 survey at the French Dwelling Site. Counterclockwise from the upper left: the processed and filtered data, the processed data with Dr. Clay’s interpretive features overlain, and the abstracted anomalies sans the conductivity data. Yellow features are ferrous metal, blue are high conductivity areas and the red feature is a possible fired surface.
27 CHAPTER 5
RE-EXAMINATION OF THE 1977 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY
A reexamination of the artifact data collected by Hamilton and Bonath in 1977 was done using modern computer software. It is now possible to quickly produce distribution maps of any artifact type or combination thereof when examining a surface collected site. Four new maps were produced using the 1977 data displayed with the results of the 2001 magnetometer survey. The distribution maps were produced using the contour mapping software package Surfer, and the drafting program AutoCad. The artifact distribution data was displayed in Surfer using the Kriging gridding method, which produces interpolated contours from a data set where the X and Y components are easting and northing coordinates and the Z component is the contour value. For the re- examination of the 1977 data, the Z value was the count of the examined artifact category at each provenience, and the easting and northing positional units were the five-meter interval grid coordinates recorded as artifact proveniences by Bonath. After the surfer maps were produced they were placed in an AutoCad map of the site which included the interpreted anomalies from the 2001 magnetometer survey. The placement of the 1977 grid onto the 2001 survey was based upon the common recording of the manhole cover, and Bonath’s field notes referring to the angle of the 1977 grid placement. Unfortunately, there is little other information concerning the placement of the 1977 grid available and whether or not this placement is perfectly accurate is unknown. Two of the maps reexamined the same data used to produce hand drawn maps for the 1977 report – brick distribution (Figure 7) and coarse earthenwares (Figure 8), another displayed all of the non-modern and non-prehistoric artifacts collected (Figure 9), and one displayed the distribution of historic refined earthenwares (Figure 10). Examination of the maps presented in Figures 7 through 10 immediately reveals that the artifact distributions appear to be contained to the south of the curving linear/road-like magnetic feature running southeast/northwest across the northeast corner of the 2001 grid. This supports the interpretation of this feature as a road or path that led to a living site situated to one side of it. The maps also suggest that at least one of the small magnetic anomalies may be associated with a test unit excavated in 1977.
28 Figure 7. The brick distribution collected during the 1977 survey. Darker contours represent higher brick counts. The red colored features represent the interpreted magnetic anomalies identified in 2001. Anomalies marked A and B are known brick concentrations, and C is a sewer line leading to the manhole.
29 Figure 8. The tin enameled and other course earthenware distribution collected during the 1977 survey. Darker contours represent higher ceramic counts. The red colored features represent the interpreted magnetic anomalies identified in 2001.
30 Figure 9. The distribution of all of the historic artifacts collected during the 1977 survey. Darker contours represent higher artifact counts. The red colored features represent the interpreted magnetic anomalies identified in 2001.
31 Figure 10. The distribution of historic refined earthenwares collected during the 1977 survey. Darker contours represent higher ceramic counts. The red colored features represent the interpreted magnetic anomalies identified in 2001.
32 Two of the magnetic anomalies, labeled A and B in Figure 7, are the remains of brick structures confirmed by excavation in 2001. Both of these anomalies are associated with concentrations of brick collected during the surface survey in 1977. Even higher concentrations of brick were found along the south edge of the surface collection grid, but it is possible that these bricks are associated with the sewer line running to the manhole cover (the linear anomaly marked C in Figure 7). If this is the case it may mean that there were structural components of the site that were destroyed during the construction of the sewer line, i.e. dug up and temporarily dumped to the side of the trench before being redeposited as near-surface backfill above the newly constructed utility. One additional high artifact density area was identified in the southern central portion of the 1977 collection grid (marked A in Figures 9 and 10). This concentration is associated with the distribution of creamware and pearlware at the site. It is located outside of the area tested in 2001 and it is therefore unknown if it would have produced a magnetic signal. However, a mid-range brick concentration is located immediately west of the refined earthenware concentration (marked B in Figure 9 and D in Figure 7). This could suggest a kitchen or similar structure from which broken ceramics may have been discarded outside a door on one side of the building, in this case to the east. In general, the 1977 investigation of the French Dwelling Site was sufficient to establish that significant archaeological resources were present and when viewed with the 2001 geophysical data these resources appear to fall within the expected confines of the site, however, little more than generalizations can be inferred from the artifact data. The greatest methodological problem encountered with the 1977 survey was the five meter sampling strategy, this spacing was simply too wide to accurately pinpoint functional components at a site with such a heavy artifact concentration (1069 artifacts were collected with a total weight of over 31 kilograms). Bonath was aware of this problem, and produced piece plots of every five-meter grid square. Unfortunately, numerous mistakes in the field identification of artifacts reduced the effectiveness of these plots to near zero, as all of the artifacts within a square were still bagged together as one provenience, and when properly analyzed, they no longer matched the field maps. Also, The surface collection that was conducted in 2001 identified a substantially higher concentration of materials than the one conducted in 1977. A photograph in the 1977 draft report shows the gridded surface of the site covered with cut vegetation, suggesting that surface visibility was reduced causing a reduction in artifact recovery (the 2001 collection was made after disking the project area). The second problem with the 1977 investigation was the inattention paid to the eighteenth and early nineteenth century component at the site. The only distribution maps prepared in 1977 were for brick and coarse earthenwares, despite the fact that only 6.5 percent of the total artifact collection was coarse earthenware while 54 percent of it was refined. Also, of the 6.5 percent that were coarse earthenware ceramics, only two percent were definitely of French production (a total of two sherds). The only reason the brick distribution was even considered was because it was believed that the early French structures would have had brick in their construction, although this was probably untrue since the first recorded production of brick in Natchez did not occur until 1789. The
33 focus on locating remnants of the early French concession, and even the name given to it by Hamilton: “French Dwelling Site” has masked what could have been reported as the discovery of a significant plantation homesite occupied during the British and Spanish administrations in Natchez.
34 CHAPTER 6
2001 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY AND EXCAVATIONS
In August and October of 2001, the Southeast Archeological Center of the National Park Service conducted a systematic survey and site evaluation of a 46-acre field in Natchez, Mississippi, belonging to the Natchez Trace Parkway. The property was obtained in the 1970s for the construction of the southern extent of the Parkway, but the planned route of the road has since changed and no longer includes the field. In 2000 Congress granted permission for the Parkway to lease property to the City of Natchez, and the field became an attractive location for new recreational facilities. Before the lease was finalized the archaeological survey was initiated in order to determine the significance of two known sites within the field whose research potential had not been adequately described. Shovel testing was conducted on a twenty meter-interval over the entire field and artifact recovery was rare except within the confines of the French Dwelling Site, 22AD557, whose boundaries were easily defined (Figure 11). The other site, 22AD899, was described from previous uncontrolled surface collections (Hamilton 1977) as an early historic occupation. Shovel testing within 22AD899 recovered few artifacts, and surface collection following disking tentatively identified the site boundaries visible in Figure 11. Most of the artifacts recovered were modern and the site appeared to have little potential for archaeological research (Halchin 2001b). 22AD557, on the other hand, appeared to have good potential and an area measuring approximately 80 by 60 meters in the heart of the site was gridded off for evaluation by way of geophysical survey, surface collection, and limited testing of features identified during the geophysical survey.
Surface Collection
After completing the geophysical surveys described in Chapter 5, the area including and surrounding the geophysical grids was disked in order to expose bare ground surface. After the field was disked and an opportune rainfall had occurred, the original grid was reestablished and a controlled surface collection was conducted over the disked field. The surface collection was carried out in one ten-meter block at a time. Five
35 people spaced equidistant across one side of the grid would walk a traverse to the other side, when an artifact was encountered it would be bagged and assigned a field specimen (FS) number, this number would be recorded on the bag and on a pin flag marking the object’s location on the ground. The locations of each of the flags were then recorded using a GPS system. Originally, the research design (Halchin 2001a) described piece plotting for every artifact using the GPS, however this plan was generated based on the artifact density encountered during the 1977 testing, which was quickly determined to be an extraordinary underestimate. Because of the time limits inherent in this compliance oriented project and the heavy artifact concentration on the site, when an artifact was located it was flagged and then every artifact within a one meter radius of that flag would be collected and placed into the same bag, given the same FS number, and recorded with the same position. Thereby, each recorded FS position represents a circular area of approximately 3.14 square meters. Thirty 10-meter grids were surface collected in this manner and a total of 805 proveniences were identified and recorded (Figure 12). A total of 2419 individually counted artifacts and 1078 additional bags of artifacts weighing in excess of 98 kilograms grams were recovered. The main focus of the surface collection was placed on the six 20-meter grid blocks that were geophysically surveyed with both the EM-38 and FM-36 remote sensing devices. Unfortunately, one 10-meter grid was not collected due to time constraints and its accessibility following several days of heavy rainfall.
Excavation Units
After completing the surface collection and geophysical surveys, a number of promising areas for archaeological features became apparent. To save time and effort necessary to remove the plow zone by hand, mechanical stripping of these areas was accomplished with a tractor and blade. Approximately six to ten inches of plow zone was removed before brick and darker soil was encountered in the areas of the projected geophysical features. The field crew then further cleared the scraped areas with shovels and located the edges of three distinct features (Features 1-3) containing either brick structural remains or organic stains, and a fourth (Feature 4), which had no distinct edges and a relatively low concentration of artifacts, but was detectable as a variation in soil compaction. Features 1-3 corresponded to distinct anomalies recorded during the magnetometer survey (Figure 13). Feature 4 was located in the same location as the strongest anomaly identified during the conductivity survey (Figure 14). Seventeen 1-by- 1-meter excavation units were established above and around Features 1-3 and a 50-by-50- centimeter unit was placed within Feature 4. Some of the excavation units were laid out within the scrapes, but due to flooding were never excavated (EUs 7, 8, and 14). Three additional units (a 1-by-1 meter and two 50-by-50 centimeter units, EUs 19, 20, and 21), were established outside of the scraped areas in an attempt to locate the source of the third substantial geophysical anomaly identified in grid N 1780, E 5400 during the magnetometer survey, but they were unsuccessful.
36 N
N e C w r S e t ek . C B a l th uf e f r L i i ne y n 's r e
a
d
n
u Shovel Tested o B Surface
e t Collection i S and Geo- physical Survey
22AD899
300 0 300 600
Meters
Location of geophysical survey, surface collection, and test excavations Extent of the French Dwelling Site (22AD557), based upon shovel testing Shovel tested area Location of 22AD899, based upon shovel testing Location of eroding bluff ledge of St. Catherine's Creek
Figure 11. The project area. This map shows the extent of the shovel testing that re- located the French Dwelling Site, as well as its position in relation to the Natchez High School and the eroding edge of St. Catherine’s Creek. It also shows the location of the geophysical and surface collecting surveys within the French Dwelling Site.
37 N 1840
0 20
Meters N 1820
N 1800
N 1780
N 1760 E 5360 E 5380 E 5400 E 5420
Datum Datum UTM E 655361, N 3491741 UTM E 655401, N 3491741 Figure 12. Area surface collected at the French Dwelling Site. Each 2-meter diameter circle represents a surface collection provenience, their central points are the provenience’s recorded position. Locations within the surveyed area not covered by a circle did not have artifacts present on the surface.
38 N 1840
0 20
Feature 2 Meters N 1820 14 8 7 6 2 Feature 1
11 12 1 9 Scraped 16 17
Excavation Unit
Feature 3 Interpreted Magnetometer N 1800 10 5 3 13 Anomalies
18
15 21
20 Feature 4 19
4
N 1780
N 1760 E 5360 E 5380 E 5400 E 5420
Datum Datum UTM E 655361, N 3491741 UTM E 655401, N 3491741 Figure 13. Locations of the scraped areas and the placement of excavation units at 22AD557. The site map is displayed above the interpreted magnetic anomalies (in red).
39 N 1840
0 20
Feature 2 Meters N 1820 14 8 7 Feature 1 6 2
11 12 1 9 Scraped 16 17
Excavation Unit
Interpreted Condutivity N 1800 10 Meter Anomalies 5 3 13
18 Feature 3
15 21
20
Feature 4 19
4
N 1780
N 1760 E 5360 E 5380 E 5400 E 5420
Datum Datum UTM E 655361, N 3491741 UTM E 655401, N 3491741 Figure 14. Locations of the excavation units and scraped areas displayed with the interpreted conductivity anomalies (in blue). EU 4 was positioned to gather information on the square shaped anomaly.
40 The testing at 22AD557 was not intended as site mitigation, but rather a phase two examination to determine if cultural features were present at the site. For this reason the majority of the test units (EUs 1-4, 6-14, 16, 17, and 19-21) were only excavated slightly below the base of the plow zone, at which time the physical features that caused the magnetometer anomalies were exposed. Features 1 and 3 had distinct edges and contained large concentrations of historic brick, but not articulated into walls or floors. They gave the appearance of demolished structures or brick dumps. Feature 2 was visible as a large organic pit within the subsoil, it was equivalent in dimension and artifact concentration to Features 1 and 3 but did not have the same large quantities of disarticulated brick. The one 50-by-50-centimeter unit opened above the less distinct Feature 4 identified no structural features, but did determine that the soil was significantly more compact in this area, as was predicted by the EM-38. Test units 5, 15, and 18 were excavated further below the plow zone in an attempt to gather information on the largest of the three brick features (Feature 3)
Feature 1
A total of six test units were opened above Feature 1: EUs 1, 9, 11, 12, 16, and 17. The test units were oriented northwest/southeast in order to follow the orientation of the mechanical scrape. Each unit measured 1-by-1-meter, except for EU 9, which was extended approximately 50 centimeters to the southwest in order to completely expose the southern corner of the feature. One level was excavated from each these units consisting of the remaining plowzone (after the mechanical scrape) and the fill directly below it. The level began at the ground surface as it existed after the mechanical scrape had occurred and ended when the bricks within Feature 1 were encountered. This resulted in approximately 30 centimeters of total overburden/plowzone removed before the top of Feature 1 was exposed (Figure 15). EUs 16 and 17 were opened one meter southwest of the four original excavation units in order to identify the extent of Feature 1. A shallow level was excavated below the mechanical scrape (about 5 centimeters for an approximate depth below surface of 15 to 20 centimeters) before the southern edge of Feature 1 was exposed as a dark stain containing brick fragments flanked to the southwest by yellow clay subsoil. Excavation in units 16 and 17 identified the total length of Feature 1 as 4.5 meters north-south and approximately 2 meters east-west. A second arbitrary 10-centimeter level was excavated in EU 1 in order to determine if the brick feature had any structural integrity (Figure 16). This level was referred to as Level 1 during field-testing and the previous level was identified as the plowzone. EU 1 was the only unit in which testing of Feature 1 continued below the first exploratory level, and only ten additional centimeters were removed. Upon completion of Level 1, there was no sign that the brick present in Feature 1 displayed any physical integrity, i.e. no evidence that the bricks were arranged as a wall, foundation, or floor. Following the removal of the upper fill of Feature 1, rain flooded the units and forced the abandonment of excavations in the feature.
41 Figure 15. Test Units 1, 9, 11, and 12 after preliminary excavation. The top of Feature 1 is exposed.
42 Figure 16. The base of Level 1, EU 1. Showing brick and rubble exposed in Feature 1.
43 Field observations of Feature 1 suggested that the bricks were redeposited and associated with other midden fill such as 18th century ceramics, glass, wrought nails, and faunal remains (including butchered bovine tibia). However, the materials present in Feature 1 may represent an above ground structure that was completely demolished in situ. The remaining structural debris may have been pushed into a pit that was originally beneath the building. Additional examination of the artifacts collected from in and around Feature 1 suggest that the brick deposit may have been more than a trash dump.
Feature 2
Other than the mechanical scrape that uncovered a dark stain containing scattered brick fragments, only limited excavation occurred in Feature 2. Five test units were established within the scrape above the stain (EUs 2, 6, 7, 8, and 14), but due to time constraints and poor weather, only two of them, Units 2 and 6, were excavated to any extent. This excavation included removal of the fill below the scrape to a depth of approximately 25 centimeters below the ground surface (five centimeters of which was in controlled excavation). At this point the dark stain that was Feature 2 was visible as separate from the yellow-brown clay subsoil. All of EU 6 and most of EU 2, excluding the eastern corner was within the feature. No conclusions were made concerning the nature of Feature 2 based upon field examination but a large collection of artifacts were recovered by the controlled excavation. Most of these materials were domestic refuse such as eighteenth century ceramics, glass vessel fragments, and faunal remains including pig, chicken, horse, and bovine bones. No large concentration of brick such as that identified in Feature 1 was encountered, but the magnetometer data collected for Feature 2 was similar to that of Feature 1, suggesting that more brick or some type of ferrous material may be present at an unexcavated depth in the feature.
Feature 3
Of the four features identified at the French Dwelling Site, Feature 3 was the only one that was investigated to its base, but this only occurred in two test units. Feature 3 was associated with the most pronounced magnetic anomaly recorded during the magnetometer survey and was located in an area where surface collection of artifacts had recovered the largest concentration of materials. The feature was readily apparent during the mechanical plowzone scraping and appeared as a dark organic stain containing a large number of brick fragments. Initially, three excavation units (EUs 3, 5, and 10) were established above the stain and enough fill was removed (Figure 17) to expose the upper undisturbed brick rubble in the feature. These excavations identified a roughly rectangular feature oriented north/south into which the brick and other midden material had been dumped. Following identification of Feature 3 in EUs 3, 5, and 10, three additional test units (13, 15, and 18) were established on and around the feature. The plow zone was removed from EU 13 and Feature 3 was readily apparent as a dark, rubble filled stain that
44 covered the western third of the test unit, the rest of the unit was in subsoil. Excavation in EU 13 thereby established the eastern extent of the feature. EUs 15 and 18 were positioned in order to determine its southern extent, Unit 15 was excavated first but found to have been placed too far to the south when subsoil was reached at approximately 20 centimeters below the ground surface. EU 15 was more successful and located the southern edge of the feature, indicating that it had a length of at least five meters north/south.
Figure 17. EUs 3, 5, and 10 after plowzone removal. The top of Feature 3 is exposed, note the pit-like stain surrounding the brick rubble.
Once a rough idea of the size of Feature 3 had been determined, additional excavation in EUs 5 and 18 commenced. Both of these units were dug until sterile soil was reached beneath the feature; these were the only two units on the site in which excavation proceeded more than one level beyond initial discovery of features. Level 1 of EU 5, which was the first level excavated beneath the plowzone, was a 10-centimeter arbitrary level which immediately exposed the edge of a pit. The northwest corner of the unit was subsoil but the rest of the unit was within the pit. Excavation of 45 Level 1 and the following levels was limited to the fill within the pit feature; the subsoil wall of the pit was left unexcavated. This resulted in an inward sloping west wall. After the removal of Level 1 a large concentration of mortar rubble was identified in the central northern part of the test unit and various concentrations of charcoal and brick were also found (Figure 18). Large quantities of construction debris including brick, mortar, and plaster continued to be encountered until the base of Level 3, below which more organic fill, faunal remains, and domestic materials such as ceramics, glass vessel fragments and personal items including a cufflink and straight pin were encountered (Figure 19). A total of seven arbitrary levels were excavated from EU 5 before the base of the pit was reached at 75 centimeters below the ground surface. Upon completion of the unit and examination of the south profile (Figure 20) it was apparent that the pit had at one time been an open feature that had had an opportunity to silt in. This was visible in sedimentation bands present in the lower 30 centimeters of the pit; it was from these levels that the majority of the domestic materials were recovered and the large concentrations of construction debris were not found. The upper 35 centimeters of the pit displayed no evidence of sedimentation, rather, the fill appeared to be the result of a single episode, and the quantity of disarticulated brick, mortar, charcoal, and plaster, suggested that filling episode was the demolition of a structure. Excavation in EU 18 also identified evidence of a pit dug into the clay subsoil, but did not have quite as much construction debris as was present in EU 5. Although like EU 5, most of the building materials were confined to the upper levels. Nine arbitrary 10- centimeter levels were excavated to a total depth of 90 centimeters below the ground surface and excavation ceased in the unit when the base of the pit had been reached. The wall of the pit was encountered in the extreme south of the unit and was first visible at the base of the third level. It was a steeper wall in this unit than in EU 5 and remained confined to the south of the unit until near the bottom of the feature (Levels 8 and 9) when it quickly sloped to the center of the excavation. Throughout the excavation of EU 18, there was evidence of a gradual filling of the pit over time, sedimentation bands were visible in both the plan views (Figure 21) of individual levels and in the profile exposed when the excavation was complete (Figure 22). This suggests that the pit remained open for some period of time. There was also a substantial quantity of artifacts recovered during the excavation, including a variety of domestic materials such as ceramics, glass drinking vessels and bottle fragments, clothing items, and faunal remains. The highest concentrations of domestic refuse, including some large plate fragments and a bottle, were collected from Levels 4 and below. This suggests that these levels were filled slowly while the pit was in use, probably as a pit cellar, and the upper levels filled in either after the site was no longer occupied, or during the destruction of the structure.
Feature 4
One 50-by-50-centimeter excavation unit (EU 4) was placed above the location the conductivity survey had identified as a possible living floor. This area had also been mechanically scraped, but unlike the other three features investigated, the scrape did not
46 uncover any visible signs of archaeological materials. Excavation in EU 4 included the removal of the plow zone level and then placement of a 30-centimeter deep shovel test into the base of the small unit. No evidence of an archaeological feature was encountered other than slightly more compact soil than was encountered elsewhere on the site. A handful of artifacts were recovered including pearlware fragments, glass vessel fragments, and a Native American stone biface. It is likely that the EM survey identified the compacted soil, but the reason for the soil compaction could not be determined from the available data.
Other Excavation Units
Three additional test units, EUs 19, 20, and 21, were established at the site in anticipation of a fourth magnetic anomaly aligned with Features 2, 1, and 3. These units were not placed within a mechanically scraped area and were established on the basis of the magnetic survey only (see Figure 13). A 1-by-1-meter test unit (EU 19) was placed at the estimated center of the magnetic anomaly and the plowzone (approximately 20 centimeters) was removed, the material was not screened as the units were intended only to determine if a feature was present. A small dark patch of soil was identified in the northwest corner of the unit, but nothing suggesting a feature similar to the other three previously identified at the site. Two additional 50-by-50-centimeter units were placed at one meter intervals in a line north of EU 19 (EUs 20 and 21), and the 20 centimeters of plowzone was removed from each. Nothing but yellow-brown clay subsoil was uncovered. If the fourth large magnetic anomaly does represent another site component, these three excavation units were unable to substantiate it. Additional examination of the materials recovered from the surface in the vicinity of the large magnetometer anomaly (see Chapter 8) also suggests that the anomaly is probably not a significant feature at the site.
47 Figure 18. EU 5, Level 1. Showing the western edge of Feature 3 and some of the construction debris encountered during excavation.
48 Figure 19. EU 5, Levels 3 and 4. Displaying the sudden change from a high concentration of construction materials to none.
49 Figure 20. South Profile of EU 5.
50 Figure 21. EU 18, Level 3 plan view. Note the wash bands across the south of the unit.
51 Figure 22. EU 18, west wall profile. Evidence of gradual filling is present and an obvious variation in color of fill is visible between the lower levels of the pit, which were filled in while the site was occupied, and the upper levels which represent post occupation.
52 CHAPTER 7
MATERIAL CULTURE
The database created in Microsoft Access for the archaeological testing at the French Dwelling Site in 2001 lists 4,135 individual artifacts and an additional 1224 bags of artifacts with a combined weight of 185,176.76 grams. This collection reflects some aspects of life during colonial and territorial Natchez in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. It also includes evidence of French colonization early in the eighteenth century and the Native American use of the area before the arrival of Europeans. It is representative of domestic life at an early rural plantation site occupied by a successful family. Five preliminary artifact categories were used to separate and analyze the materials recovered from the surface collection and subsurface testing. All of the materials were divided into one of the following groups: prehistoric, historic, modern or recent historic, natural (including such artifacts as unmodified stones), and unknown (including such artifacts as charcoal samples and nondescript fired clay fragments). This preliminary breakdown was made so that further artifact classifications would be representative of the time in which the artifacts were deposited. For example, a prehistoric vessel fragment and a piece of modern bottle glass would not be included in calculations used to describe percentages of domestic materials recovered from the colonial occupation. A cursory examination of the quantities of artifacts assigned to these five categories (Table 1) quickly shows that the vast majority of material on the site is related to the historic occupation. Each artifact in the database was also assigned to a specific category in relation to its function. The categories used are mandated by the National Park Service and are adapted from the revised version of Robert G. Chenhall’s system of classifying human- made objects (Chenhall 1988). Four inclusive categories were created: building components, domestic materials, tools and equipment, and unknown. The building components category included such items as nails, windowpane fragments, plaster, and mortar, but was dominated at the site by brick. Domestic materials included food processing items, food serving items, food byproducts, personal items, household tools, and furnishings. The tools and equipment category included armaments, woodworking materials, remnants of stone tool production (prehistoric items only) and various unidentified metal and glass items. The final category, unknown, was reserved for unidentified items or materials with unknown or multiple functions.
53 Table 1. Preliminary Artifact Categories. Period Weight (g) Percent of Collection Historic 177,261.66 95.73 Modern 3,215.00 1.74 Natural 356.10 0.19 Prehistoric 4,022.10 2.17 Unknown 321.80 0.17 Total 185,176.66 100.00
Two tables were created using the functional categories. Table 2 examines the historic artifacts recovered during the 2001 testing and Table 3 presents the prehistoric component. An additional functional group – byproducts – was included in Table 3 to account for the large amount of fire cracked rock collected at the project area. Artifact weight was used to present this information because some of the materials were cataloged by weight rather than count (mostly those within the building components category). Building components made up the vast majority of the historic materials recovered on the site, and most of this category was composed of brick. This was certainly expected considering the types of structural features exposed during the excavations. However, excluding building components, nearly all of the historic collection is represented by domestic materials, including significant quantities of container glass, ceramic vessel fragments, and faunal remains. In fact, even those materials assigned to the tools and equipment category, excluding one large wrought iron drill bit, could be identified within a domestic context. There was no evidence recovered to suggest that the French Dwelling Site was anything other than a domestic residence. Examination of Table 3 suggests that prehistoric use of the site was not as intensive as the historic. Relatively few Native American domestic materials were recovered, including a clay pipe fragment and a handful of ceramic sherds, and building components were limited to two small fragments of daub (which could actually be from any time period at the site). The majority of the prehistoric artifacts were chipped stone material, and by weight, most of these artifacts were completed tools, with only a fraction of the collection made up of debitage from tool production. Of the Native American materials recovered (Table 4 and Figure 23), seven out of ten recovered ceramic sherds were identified as Addis types dated between AD 1000 and AD 1729 (Steponaitis 1974:116), and one Gary type projectile point dating from the late Archaic to the Middle Woodland (1500 BC to AD 100) (Justice 1987:189). This small sample of diagnostic materials suggest that use of the site by Native Americans had been occurring for some time, from at least AD 100 (perhaps earlier) to probably immediately prior to French settlement of the area. Indeed, many of the early French settlement sites were chosen because farming land had already been cleared of trees by the Indians. Although the conductivity survey did identify one anomaly suggestive of a Native American structure (the possible living floor in block N1780, E5380), excavation above 54 Table 2. Historic Artifacts Collected by Function. Function Classification Weight (g) Percent of Collection Building Components Building Component 170,580.62 96.23
Domestic Materials Clothing Accessory 13.90 0.01 Container Glass 1,650.34 0.93 Food Byproduct, Faunal 1,266.46 0.71 Food Processing, Cookware 66.40 0.04 Food Service, Ceramic 2,904.00 1.64 Food Service, Glassware 184.30 0.10 Furniture 1.20 0.00 Personal Gear, Tobbaco Pipe 29.80 0.02 Textileworking 0.10 0.00 Subtotal 6,116.50 3.45
Tools & Equipment Armament 34.10 0.02 Armament Ammunition 11.20 0.01 Unidentified, Glass 6.80 0.00 Unidentified, Metal 390.40 0.22 Woodworking 56.10 0.03 Subtotal 498.60 0.28
Unknown Faunal, Non-Food 65.94 0.04 Total 177,261.66 100.00
55 Table 3. Prehistoric Artifacts Collected by Function. Percentage of Function Classification Weight (g) Collection Building Components Building Component 29.30 0.73
Domestic Materials Food Service, Ceramic 35.90 0.89 Personal Gear, Pipe 8.20 0.20 Subtotal 44.10 1.10
Tools and Equipment Point, Projectile 1.60 0.04 Paint, ochre 1.40 0.03 Worked Stone, Byproduct 393.10 9.77 Worked Stone, Tool 1,734.80 43.13 Subtotal 2,130.90 52.98
Byproduct Fire Cracked Rock 1,817.90 45.20
Total 4,022.20 100.00
56 Table 4. Prehistoric Artifacts Collected at the French Dwelling Site. Object Count Weight (g) Daub Fragment 2 29.3 Addis Plain Ceramic Fragment 7 18.7 Untyped Ceramic Fragment 3 17.2 Biface 16 270.6 Core 14 564 Flake 173 251.1 Hammerstone 2 737.6 Pipe, Tobacco 1 8.2 Projectile Point, Gary 1 1.6 Scraper 2 33.6 Shatter 49 142 Stone, Paint 1 1.4 Tool, Core 1 30.2 Tool, Flake 24 98.8 Fire Cracked Rock 361 1,817.9 Total 657 4022.2
57 Figure 23. Some of the Native American Artifacts Collected. Top row: points, middle: bifaces, bottom (left to right): pipe fragment, Addis ceramic, unidentified ceramic.
58 N 3491840
N 3491830
N 3491820
5 N 3491810
4 N 3491800
3 N 3491790
N 3491780 2
N 3491770 1
N 3491760
N 3491750
E 655370 E 655380 E 655390 E 655400 E 655410 E 655420 Figure 24. Distribution of prehistoric artifacts at 22AD557. The contour map is displayed along with the interpreted anomalies from the magnetometer survey. Artifact count was used to produce the distribution map because a number of heavy individual artifacts tended to skew the results, masking the importance of larger numbers of small items.
59 the geophysical anomaly (Feature 4) did not recover tangible evidence of a structure. However, additional excavation in the area would certainly be warranted. At present, the collection of Native American artifacts from 22AD557 represent obvious prehistoric use of the site, but the inability to identify any evidence of structures or centralized concentrations of the artifacts make interpretation of the prehistoric component difficult. Indeed, when a distribution map of the prehistoric artifacts is examined along with the interpreted anomalies from the magnetometer survey (Figure 24), it appears as though most of the prehistoric material is concentrated in the northeast corner of the project area. This area is beyond the possible road (as interpreted by Clay [2001]) and outside of the core of the site as it was predicted by the geophysical survey and shovel testing. It is probable that if a Native American settlement was present near the site it would be beyond the northwest corner of the project area, and much of this land has been lost to erosion into St. Catherine’s Creek. Historic artifacts, on the other hand, were prevalent on the site and a variety of them were collected during the 2001 project. Some of them are able to provide limited temporal information and others offer insight into daily activities at the site. The following sections will provide details concerning the types of artifacts recovered and what these objects can say about life at the French Dwelling Site.
Ceramics
Historic ceramics can be divided into three classes: earthenwares, stonewares, and porcelain. These categories are characterized by the raw materials and the firing temperatures used to produce the vessel. Earthenwares are low-fired, water-permeable ceramics. The majority of historic ceramics are earthenwares. Historic production of earthenwares dealt with the permeability of the ceramic by applying a metal-based glaze prior to firing. When the glaze was fired it would fuse to the clay body of the ceramic producing an impermeable seal. Several types of glazes were used to seal earthenware ceramics but the most common during the late eighteenth century was a transparent lead glaze (Deetz 1977:178). Some earlier ceramic types made use of tin oxide as the metallic base, which would produce a thick white glaze on the ceramic body. French Faience is an example of a tin-enameled earthenware recovered from the site. For analysis and cataloging purposes, earthenwares were divided into coarse or refined varieties, then separated by ware types and further divided based upon decorative applications. Coarse earthenware types collected included Faience Brune, unidentified tin enameled and redware ceramics, and French Charente and Saintonge varieties. Refined types included creamware, pearlware, and two small whiteware fragments. Stoneware and porcelain were also recovered during the surface collection and excavations. These ceramics are fired at a higher temperature than ordinary earthenwares resulting in a harder, vitrified ceramic body. Stoneware and porcelain do not require a glaze in order to be waterproof, but one is often applied for aesthetic reasons and to aid in
60 cleaning. A few untyped stoneware fragments were found, and a large sample of decorated and undecorated porcelain was recovered. Other than brick, ceramics were the most common artifact type encountered during the surface collection and subsurface testing at the French Dwelling Site. A total of 1736 ceramic fragments with a weight of over 2.8 kilograms were collected (Table 5).
Tin Enameled and Faience Varieties
Unidentified tin enameled and French Faience sherds were recovered during the surface collection and excavations (Figure 25). These early colonial period ceramic types are soft, wheel-thrown earthenwares coated with a lead glaze to which tin oxide is added, producing a thick opaque white glaze (Noël-Hume 1969:106;140). They are often decorated with hand painted motifs in a variety of colors. Four of the tin enameled sherds were identified as Faience Brune, dating between 1707 and 1800 (Blanchette 1981), none of the other 33 tin enameled vessel fragments collected were identifiable as to type. In addition to the Faience, two other early eighteenth century French ceramic types were identified in the collection from 22AD557, Saintonge and Charente. Both of these ceramic types are named for the region of their production in France. They are crudely constructed coarse earthenwares with thin lead glazes, green in the case of Saintonge and a mustard yellow for the Charante vessels. The recovery of tin enameled sherds and other eighteenth century French ceramic types at 22AD557 is what originally led to its designation as the “French Dwelling Site.” They are without question present at the site, however, their relative representation in comparison to the later refined earthenwares suggests that they are associated with a somewhat ephemeral and underrepresented French homesite.
Redware
The redware ceramics collected from the French Dwelling Site included both coarse and refined earthenwares having a red-orange to dark purplish-red paste (McConnell 1988:28). The red paste color is a result of ferrous compounds found in the clay used in the production of the vessel. Redware is mainly associated with utilitarian vessels but was also used in the production of toy figurines and roofing tiles. Both glazed and unglazed redware varieties are common on historic sites in the United States. Redwares were often locally produced from the mid-seventeenth century on, and are very similar to each other through time and space. The local patterns often mimicked English, French and other European styles and are therefore difficult to date (Miller 1992). Five refined redware fragments weighing a total of nine grams, and 171 coarse redware fragments (517.8 grams) were recovered during the surface collection and excavations. All but 31 of the coarse redware sherds were glazed, and some of the glazes had brown, orange, or olive colored tints. Due to the long date of manufacture for coarse redware, the ceramics collected could be representative of either a French or later British/American occupation at the site. The sheer quantity of late eighteenth century
61 refined earthenwares collected, however, suggest that most of the redware sherds probably also date to this period.
Creamware
The oldest refined earthenware variety, and the most common ceramic recovered at the French Dwelling Site, was creamware. Creamware vessel fragments are identified by an off-white to cream-colored paste which is sealed with a clear lead glaze. Creamware vessels were manufactured from Devonshire clay tempered with the addition of flint (Turnbaugh 1985:14). The production of creamware was perfected in the early 1760s in England by Wedgwood and was intended as competition for Chinese porcelains and stonewares. It became one of the most popular ceramic types and is regularly found on American sites occupied during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries (Noël-Hume 1969:125). Creamware was produced with a wide variety of decorative techniques including painted, molded, and edge decorated varieties (Miller 1992:3) and it remained popular and was mass produced until the 1770s, when it began to be replaced by pearlware. Creamware production continued in increasing limited quantities until 1820. A total of 686 creamware fragments, most of which were undecorated, were recovered during the testing. Decorated varieties included molded floral designs, engine turned linear decorations, and both underglaze and overglaze hand painted varieties (Figure 26). A distribution map was prepared for the creamware sherds recovered during the surface collection (Figure 27). The map suggests that creamware was recovered from many locations in the project area but a heavy concentration was identified between Features 1 and 3, which were described in the previous chapter. This concentration may or may not identify an important location, as it was associated with only two ceramic fragments, both of which happened to be somewhat larger than the average ceramic sherd recovered during the surface collection.
Pearlware
The second most common ceramic type recovered during the archaeological testing was pearlware. Originally known as “China Glaze,” pearlware was a British attempt to compete with Chinese export porcelain. The ceramic was developed from creamware by increasing the flint content in the paste and adding a small amount of cobalt to the glaze (Miller 1992). These additions imparted an overall lightening of the ware (an improvement considering the goal was a white porcelain imitation) and imparted a bluish tint to the lead glaze (a result of the cobalt). This tint is most noticeable in areas where the glaze pooled on the vessel prior to firing. Like creamware, a variety of decorative techniques were applied to pearlware including painted, sponged, transfer printed, dipped, molded and edge decorated decorations. Pearlware was very popular and rapidly replaced creamware, it was mass produced from 1780 to 1830, after which it was largely replaced by whiteware. The collection from the French Dwelling Site includes 664 pearlware fragments, most of which were undecorated. Some of the decorated types (Figure 28) included blue and green shell edged varieties, hand painted blue and
62 polychrome pieces, engine turned varieties, and a wide variety of transfer prints including a number of fragments of a Chinoiserie pattern, a style displaying a European interpretation of oriental designs (Samford 1997). A distribution map was created using the pearlware fragments collected during the surface collection at the French Dwelling Site (Figure 29). The map displays a number of locations with relatively high concentrations of pearlware in the central western portion of the surveyed area. This location corresponds with the positioning of Features 1, 2, and 3 and many of the smaller, untested geophysical anomalies identified during the remote sensing survey. Two large concentrations are present in the center of the project area that may be associated with activity that was centered within or around Feature 3.
Whiteware
Whiteware vessels can be recognized by their white-colored paste and clear hard glaze. As a ceramic type, whiteware was developed from pearlware when the cobalt in the glaze was removed to reduce the bluish tint. Whiteware became the ceramic of choice and began to force pearlware out of the market throughout the 1820s (Noël-Hume 1969:130). It is still common today. Mid-nineteenth century whiteware vessels showed a wide range of decorative motifs carried over from pearlware and creamware, including such styles as edge decorated, transfer printed, annular, hand-painted, sponged and spattered. Two small (0.3 and 1.3 grams respectively) whiteware sherds were recovered during the surface collection. One was a rim decorated with a gray hand-painted band and the other was plain. Considering the number of creamware and pearlware fragments recovered, these two whiteware sherds are considered foreign to the site and likely found their way into the field some time after the French Dwelling Site was abandoned.
Porcelain
Porcelain is a hard, fine-grained white ceramic that has been fired at temperatures in excess of 2500° F. The combination of high temperatures and special raw materials (fine grained white kaolin clay and a finely ground petunste, a feldspathic mineral) create a highly vitrified, self glazing ceramic. Porcelain produced by the Chinese has appeared in context on English colonial sites as early as 1650 (Noël Hume 1969:257). Due to costly and arduous production methods the market for porcelain was not widespread during the early and mid-nineteenth century, and it did not become popular in the United States until after 1875. The market increased after 1890 when American companies began producing relatively inexpensive items (McCorvie 1992:142), however, porcelain remained more expensive than refined earthenwares. Porcelain was well represented on the site and was recovered during test unit excavation and the surface collection. A total of 81 sherds weighing 109.6 grams were recovered, of these, 49 were undecorated (Figure 30) and 32 had either a molded scallop edge decoration, an overglaze painted motif, or both. The number of porcelain fragments recovered at the site suggests that the residents had at least a higher than average income, as porcelain represents the most expensive type of ceramic table service available during 22AD557’s occupation.
63 Table 5. Ceramics recovered during the testing at 22AD557. Variety Type Count Weight (g) Coarse Earthenwares Untyped Native American 17 67.6 Addis Plain (Native American) 7 18.7 Untyped 3 17.2 Charente 19 39.7 Saintonge 2 4.6 Faience Brune 4 8.6 Untyped Tin Enameled 33 49.1 Coarse Redware 171 517.8
Refined Earthenwares Untyped 45 60.1 Blue Shell Edged Creamware 3 8.2 Creamware 683 794.3 Blue Hand Painted Pearlware 44 51.8 Blue Shell Edged Pearlware 56 82.3 Green Shell Edged Pearlware 62 179.2 Mocha Pearlware 1 1.5 Pearlware 435 470.7 Polychrome Pearlware 23 25.7 Transfer Printed Pearlware 29 35.3 TP Pearlware, Chinoiserie Ruins Pattern 14 85.6 Refined Redware 3 9 Whiteware 2 2
Porcelains Chinese Export Porcelain 2 1.7 Porcelain 79 107.9
Coarse Stonewares Untyped 2 43.4 Brown Salt Glazed 7 76.4 Albany Slipped, Bristol Glazed 2 14.4 Buff Salt Glazed 7 56.8 Gray Salt Glazed 6 106.1 Red Salt Glazed 1 3.8
Refined Stonewares White Salt Glazed 1 0.4 Total 1736 2836.4
64 Figure 25. Tin enameled ceramics recovered at the French Dwelling Site. The two sherds at lower right are Faience Brune; the rest remain untyped.
65 Figure 26. Creamware examples from the French Dwelling Site collection. a) engine turned, b) hand painted teapot lid, c) undecorated plate rim, d-e) hand painted motifs, f) overglaze painted, g) mocha variety.
66 N 3491830
N 3491820
16 g N 3491810
14 g
N 3491800 12 g
10 g N 3491790 8 g
6 g N 3491780 4 g
N 3491770 2 g
0 g
N 3491760
N 3491750
E 655370 E 655380 E 655390 E 655400 E 655410 E 655420 Figure 27. Surface Distribution of Creamware at 22AD557.
67 Figure 28. Pearlware varieties from 22AD557. The large green shell edged and Chinoiserie transfer printed fragments (top) were recovered from within the wash layers of Feature 3. 68 N 3491830
N 3491820
9 g N 3491810 8 g
N 3491800 7 g
6 g
N 3491790 5 g
4 g N 3491780 3 g
2 g N 3491770 1 g
0 g N 3491760
N 3491750
E 655370 E 655380 E 655390 E 655400 E 655410 E 655420 Figure 29. Surface Distribution of Pearlware at 22AD557.
69 Figure 30. Undecorated porcelain ceramics recovered during the testing.
Stoneware
Stoneware is fired at higher temperatures than earthenware, creating a partially vitrified ceramic impermeable to liquids. It is a hard, durable ceramic that requires no glaze, although glazes are often added for aesthetic purposes and to ease in cleaning. Stoneware paste varies from cream to gray to brown and uneven firing can cause significant color variation within a single vessel. There are many common decoration techniques and designs associated with stoneware vessels, some of which, such as transfer printed and painted motifs, are common in earthenwares as well. Some finishing techniques, such as salt glazes and Albany slips are specific to stoneware alone. A salt glaze is produced when common table salt is introduced into the kiln when firing is at its highest temperature. The result is a thin hard glaze with an orange peel texture, the color of which is directly influenced by the paste color of the vessel. As a finishing technique, salt glazing was common between 1700 and 1900 (Miller 1992). Albany slip is a dark brown to greenish-black glaze usually applied to the interior surface of the vessel, its name is derived from Albany, New York, where the dark colored clay used to produce the slip is found. It was produced after 1843. Albany slipping is often found in association with an exterior Bristol glaze, a cream colored glassy glaze common on commercial stonewares in the late nineteenth century (Miller 1992). Two fragments of Albany Slipped, Bristol Glazed stoneware were recovered during the surface collection. Like the whiteware fragments recovered, these types do not appear to fit the time period established by the majority of the artifacts recovered, and may be later additions to the site. Two plain stoneware fragments and 22 salt glazed sherds with a variety of paste colors were also recovered during the testing (Figure 31). 70 Figure 31. Stoneware vessel fragments recovered during the testing.
71 Glass
A large collection of glass artifacts was recovered during the surface collection and subsurface testing of the French Dwelling Site in 2001. These artifacts were grouped into the following categories: container glass, which consisted of bottles, fragments of drinking vessels, and glass fragments that were identifiable as originally being a part of a container; indeterminate glass, which consisted of glass fragments of an unknown origin; and flat glass, a category made up of windowpane fragments (Table 6). A total of 746 container fragments weighing 1,857.1 grams were recovered. Two indeterminate glass fragments together weighing less than a gram, and 41 windowpane fragments with a total weight of 16.1 grams were recovered during the surface collection and subsurface testing. No other items manufactured from glass were encountered. A distribution map was produced from the weights of the glass artifacts recovered during the surface collection at the French Dwelling Site (Figure 32). This map excluded modern, machine molded, bottle glass and windowpane fragments that are better interpreted separately as building components. The resulting distribution of historic domestic refuse glass displays two significant concentrations at the site: one possibly associated with Feature 2 and the other with Feature 3. All of the container glass was sorted by material (4.02 percent of the container fragments by count were leaded glass), color (Figure 33), manufacturing technique (Figure 34), and where possible, form and function were considered (Figure 35), the latter being reserved for fragments of identifiable bottles, generic drinking vessels, goblets, and tumblers. To some extent, each of these categories imparts information concerning either the temporal placement of the site or the social status of the people who resided at it.
Table 6. Glass artifacts sorted by category classification and object. Classification Object Count Weight (g) Container Glass Bottle Fragment 84 514.8 Drinking Vessel Fragment 27 10.7 Goblet Fragment 3 23.3 Tumbler Fragment 41 150.3 Vessel Fragment 591 1,168.0 Total 746 1,867.1
Flat Glass Windowpane Fragment 41 16.3
Indeterminate Glass Fragment 2 0.7 Total 789 1,884.1
72 N 3491830
N 3491820
50 g N 3491810 45 g
40 g N 3491800 35 g
30 g
N 3491790 25 g
20 g
N 3491780 15 g
10 g
N 3491770 5 g
0 g
N 3491760
N 3491750
E 655370 E 655380 E 655390 E 655400 E 655410 E 655420 Figure 32. Historic domestic glass distribution at 22AD557.
73 400
350 300
250 200 Count 150
100 50
0 2 2 2 08 =8 = = =1 =1 N N d e N at n N=374 ght N ber N=6 lue N=2 low N n een reen N=71 m B i ee , Li A larize Yel m gr -gr G o - ack S Colorlessl ueN=17 B Bl ndeter opper I C
Figure 33. Chart showing the proportion of glass container fragments collected by color.
74 500
400
300
Count 200
100
0
39 491 =48 = =1 N N old Cut N=1 wn nate N=53 lo i Blown N B ee Blown N=2 own, C old l Fr M Indeterm Mold, Machine N=12 Mold B
Figure 34. Chart showing the proportion of glass container fragment collected by manufacture technique.
75 100
80
t 60
Coun 40
20
0 4
le N=8 el N=27 tt s o Goblet N=3 B Ves Tumbler N=41
rinking D
Figure 35. Chart showing the proportion of glass container fragments collected by form. A total of 591 unidentifiable vessel fragments, most probably bottle fragments, were excluded from the display.
Glass color is most often related to the presence of impurities in the form of metal oxides, usually iron, in the sand used to produce the glass. Before the last quarter of the nineteenth century there were few means for a glassmaker to control the impurities in a glass batch, and hence the metals present in the sand often dictated the color of the glass produced. Because of this, dating glass based solely upon color is difficult, as many colors could have been produced accidentally or purposefully at various times in the past (Jones and Sullivan 1985). There are some temporal markers for methods used to control the color of glass, and of specific importance to this project are those producing copper- green, colorless, and blue-green glass. Because these markers are somewhat unreliable, they are presented here only to corroborate more reliable ceramic dating. Copper-green glass was the most common glass color encountered during the archaeological testing. A total of 374 of the 746 container glass fragments collected were copper-green. This color is most common among old glasses produced when there was little or no attempt to control the color of the glass being manufactured, but it was also fashionable for a time. It was commonly used in the production of wine bottles and drinking vessels throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (McNally 1979:24- 28). Colorless glass has been a goal of glassmakers since the early days of the trade but is difficult to achieve because it requires the absence of metal impurities in the sand 76 used in production. For the most part, the manufacture of colorless glass for common use in bottling was not perfected until the late nineteenth century when the addition of soda lime to glass mixtures resulted in an economical method for the production of colorless glass (Jones 1971:14). This process was first applied in 1860 and is still in use today. However, colorless glass was produced throughout the eighteenth century in the form of thin tableware (McNally 1979:30), and most of the colorless glass from the 22AD557 collection would fall into this category. The collection from the French Dwelling Site includes 172 fragments of colorless glass vessel fragments, or approximately 23 percent of the collection by count. However, of these 172, 30 were leaded glass fragments. Leaded crystal has been and is now an expensive material and is an excellent marker of an elite household, especially when it is identified in significant quantities. Colorless leaded crystal has been produced since the late seventeenth century and at 22AD557 fragments of leaded glass wine goblets, tumblers and generic drinking vessels were recovered. Both the material used in the production of these vessels and the styles identified suggest an upper-class residence on the site. The third most common glass color encountered on the French Dwelling Site was Aqua, or blue-green, glass. This glass color was very common during the seventeenth through the first half of the nineteenth century (Deiss 1981:34). It was used for a wide range of products including medicinal bottles and tableware. A total of 108 blue-green colored vessel fragments, just over 14 percent of the collection by count, were recovered during the surface collection and excavations at the site. Two of the blue-green fragments appeared to be drinking vessel fragments, and all of those whose manufacturing technique could be determined were either blown or mold blown items. Other glass colors that made an appearance in the collection included green, amber, light black or gray, blue, yellow, and solarized. All together these colors represented just over 10 percent of the collection. Most of these colors, with the exception of amber and most solarized glass were in production at the end of the eighteenth century. Amber glass made its first regular appearance in the beer industry after the Civil War and is produced when a high iron content is present and the glass is melted in an oxidizing environment (Jones and Sullivan 1985). The addition of nickel to a glass mixture will also produce an amber color (Deiss 1981). Most amber glass dates to after the Civil War although the color was infrequently produced earlier. One example of why glass color is difficult to use as a chronological marker on archaeological sites was apparent at the French Dwelling Site. Two fragments of solarized glass were collected. Solarized glass is a type of colorless glass produced by the addition of manganese to the glass mixture. Although colorless at the time of production, solarized glass will take on a purplish tint after prolonged exposure to the sun’s ultraviolet rays. This type of glass was most commonly used from the last quarter of the nineteenth century until World War I, approximately 1880 to 1918, however it does occur earlier in eighteenth century French crizzled glasses (Jones 1971:14). Because the two solarized fragments collected happened to be somewhat large it was possible to determine that they were the earlier eighteenth century style, probably pieces of tableware, had they been smaller they would have been easily misidentified.
77 In general, the glass collection from the 22AD557 places the dominant component of the site in the late eighteenth to early nineteenth century, as was determined by the ceramic analysis. None of the glass fragments recovered from below the plowzone in the excavation units were of later nineteenth or twentieth century production, based upon color and manufacturing technique. It can be assumed that the relatively small collection of machine molded and amber colored glass found their way into the field after the French Dwelling Site had been abandoned.
Personal Items
A total of 37 artifacts classifiable as personal items were recovered during the testing at the French Dwelling Site (Table 7). These materials included tobacco pipe fragments (Figure 36), armament accessories including French honey colored gunflints, and a piece of unfired lead shot (Figure 37), a straight pin used for sewing, and clothing accessories such as buttons, a buckle fragment, and a cufflink (Figure 38). Fourteen of these items, including all four gunflints, the porcelain button, and nine of the pipe fragments, were recovered during the surface collection, while the rest of the materials were located in the test units, mostly from the EUs 5 and 18, which were completely excavated to sterile subsoil. The collection of personal items is relatively small, but can be used to support some of the general conclusions made about the site’s temporal placement and status of the site’s occupants. The style of the brass buttons recovered support the eighteenth century temporal placement of the site and the presence of a cufflink suggests some amount of wealth, as would be expected considering the lifestyle of the supposed occupants of the site, either Richard King himself or some relation to him.
Building Components
The vast majority (92.44 % by weight) of the artifacts recovered during the surface collection and the test excavations can be classified as building components. Similar high percentages of building components were recovered from both the surface collection (89.23 % building component) and the test excavations (96.09 % building component) suggesting that the two collections were directly comparable. The reason the surface collection building component percentage is slightly lower is based upon two significant differences in the collections. Primarily that the surface collection includes a couple of large, heavy pieces of modern iron scrap, and secondarily, that there was a significantly larger percentage of Native American stone tools (by weight and count) collected from the surface of the site than from within the excavation units. Neither of these factors bear upon the historic occupation of the site and when considered suggest
78 that the collections are even more similar that what is suggested by the direct percentage comparisons. The building components collected on the site included brick, plaster, windowpane, nails, a spike, drain tile, a bousillage-like plaster, mortar, some Native American daub and some modern asphalt and concrete fragments (Table 8). The vast majority of the building components were brick (79.64 percent), and three different types of brick were recovered at the site: a high fired hard type, a low fired and soft variety, and a high fired hard and glazed type (Figure 39). The majority of the brick collected was the high-fired variety (73.76 percent) followed by the high-fired glazed (22.74 percent) and the low-fired (3.4 percent). The glazed brick may not have been purposefully glazed, in fact, some of them were glazed on irregular broken surfaces, not just the exterior, suggesting they may have taken on this appearance during the firing process or when a structure burned. It is likely that all of these bricks were produced on site, possibly in the brick kiln established by Louis Vallaret in 1789. It is intuitively accepted that low-fired brick is generally older than higher fired varieties, however at the site low-fired brick was found associated with high-fired varieties in nearly every location and provenience, only in a lesser quantity. There was nothing to suggest that any structures were built entirely of low-fired or high-fired brick.
Table 7. Personal Items Recovered During Testing at the French Dwelling Site. Classification Object Material Count Weight (g) Clothing Accessory Buckle Iron 1 3.9 Button Bone 3 0.4 Button Brass 4 7.9 Button Porcelain 1 0.9 Cufflink Brass 1 0.8 Subtotal 10 13.9 Textile Working Straight Pin Brass 1 0.1 Personal Gear Tobacco Pipe, Bowl Clay 1 1 Tobacco Pipe, Bowl Kaolinite Clay 8 9.3 Tobacco Pipe, Stem Kaolinite Clay 12 19.5 Subtotal 21 29.8 Armament Shot Lead 1 11.2 Gunflint, French Flint 4 34.1 Subtotal 5 45.3 Total 37 89.1
79 Figure 36. Kaolin Pipe fragments recovered during the testing.
80 Figure 37. French honey-colored gunflints and an unfired lead round ball recovered during the testing at the French Dwelling Site.
81 Figure 38. Various personal items recovered during the testing at the French Dwelling Site. Top row: brass soldered buttons; middle: bone button fragment, porcelain button, and straight pin; bottom: brass cufflink and an iron buckle fragment.
82 Table 8. Building Components Recovered by Weight. Object Weight (g) Percent Brick 136,222.32 79.64 Plaster 24,554.60 14.36 Mortar 8,753.70 5.12 Bousillage 533.10 0.31 Nail 473.20 0.28 Concrete Fragment 338.80 0.20 Tile, Drain 97.70 0.06 Daub 29.30 0.02 Spike 27.40 0.02 Windowpane 16.30 0.01 Asphalt Fragment 4.50 0.00 Total 171,050.92 100.00
Figure 39. Examples of brick varieties collected at the French Dwelling Site. Left to right: glazed brick, high-fired brick, low-fired brick.
83 Faunal Materials
A collection of faunal materials directly associated with the historic occupation of 22AD557 was recovered during the investigation of the site. Most of this material was recovered from the lower levels of EUs 18 and 5, those levels that represented refuse materials deposited while the structures at the site were in use. Many of the larger bones displayed evidence of butchering and a portion of the collection was burned, these two facts as well as the refuse context the bone was recovered in suggest that all of the faunal material was deposited as the remains of meals. Table 9 displays the types of bone recovered at the site, and a cursory review of this table reveals a considerable dependence on domesticated animals, as a large amount of bovine, pig and to a lesser extent, chicken remains and eggshell were recovered. Additional evidence supporting the importance of domesticated animals in the diet at the French Dwelling Site can be seen when the biomass of each faunal type is calculated. Because animals differ in the amount of useable meat that can be obtained from them, it is important to determine how much a species can contribute to the diet of the people studied. This is done by calculating the biomass, or the amount of useable meat, each type of animal contributed to the diet at the archaeological site. The biomass can be represented as a percentage of the meat consumed for each type of animal studied. It is calculated with an algorithm* that varies based on the class of animal studied. Reitz and Scarry described this method in 1985 (Reitz and Scarry 1985:67) and the values used in the calculations were obtained from their work (Table 10). The results displayed in Table 10 suggest that by calculated biomass, domesticated species contributed over 38 percent of the weight of meat consumed at the French Dwelling site. This is significantly higher than the non-domesticated contribution of less than one and one half percent. Unfortunately, over 60 percent of the faunal collection’s biomass fell into either unclassifiable mammal or bird and it is unknown whether these animals were domesticates or not. However, most of these bones were unidentifiable because they were small fragments of large bones from large animals, and for the most part other than deer, wild turkey, and ducks; the only large species available for consumption in the Natchez area are domesticates. Since no duck or deer bones were identified in the collection whatsoever, and only a small collection of turkey, it is likely that most of the unidentified bones recovered are from domesticated species. However, it should also be noted that some of the unidentified bones might not have contributed to the diet, like the horse bones that were recovered but excluded from the biomass calculations because they were probably not consumed as food. It is clear that the residents of 22AD557 showed a preference for domesticated species as a meat source,
* The alorithmic equation is written as: Y=aXb or log Y=log a + b (log X) where Y = the estimated sample biomass in kilograms contributed by specimens for a taxon, X = the bone weight in kilograms of an archaeological sample, a = the Y intercept of the linear regression line, and b = the slope of the regression line. The values for a and b are constants developed by Reitz and Scarry that vary based upon taxon. The formula was modified for the purposes of this project to calculate values based upon grams. 84 suggesting that they were either of the means to purchase quality cuts of meat or they raised their own animals, little effort was spent trapping or hunting wild game.
Table 9. Faunal Material Recovered by Type. Class/Family Genus species Common Name Count Weight (g) Unidentified Mammalia Mammals 371 714.46 Bovidae Bos taurus Bovine 3 331.4 Suidae Sus scrofa Pig 15 91.6 Unidentified Vertebrata Vertebrates 271 75.5 Equidae Equus caballus Horse 5 65.94 Aves Birds 60 31.8 Meleagridinae Meleagris gallapavo Turkey 7 11.3 Phasianidae Gallus gallus Chicken 1 0.8 Sciuridae Sciurus niger Squirrel 2 0.7 Testudines Turtle 1 0.5 Unidentified Osteichthyes Bony Fish 3 0.5 Sciuridae Sciurus Squirrel 1 0.2 Total 740 1324.7
Table 10. Biomass Estimates Based on the Faunal Collection from 22AD557. Class/Family Genus species Bone Weight (g) Weight % Calculated Biomass (g) Biomass % Sciuridae Sciurus niger 0.70 0.06 19.08 0.11 Sciuridae Sciurus 0.20 0.02 6.18 0.04 Testudines 0.50 0.04 19.88 0.12 Osteichthyes 0.50 0.04 16.83 0.10 Meleagridinae Meleagris gallapavo 11.30 0.95 185.48 1.10 Total Non-domesticates 13.20 1.12 247.45 1.46
Unidentified Mammalia 714.46 60.38 9,740.47 57.66 Unidentified Aves 31.80 2.69 475.56 2.82 Total Unknown Origin 746.26 63.07 10,216.04 60.48
Suidae Sus scrofa 91.60 7.74 1,533.58 9.08 Bovidae Bos taurus 331.40 28.01 4,878.85 28.88 Phasianidae Gallus gallus 0.80 0.07 16.67 0.10 Total Domesticates 423.80 35.82 6,429.09 38.06
Grand Total 1183.26 100.00 16,892.58 100.00
85 CHAPTER 8
SITE INTERPRETATION
Examination of the archaeological collection recovered from the French Dwelling Site offers a valuable opportunity to discover information about the use of the site in the past. Spatial distributions of various functional groups of artifacts as well as concentrations of artifacts of different ages or concentrations related to certain domestic activities are commonly analyzed in archaeological research. The surface collection at 22AD557 boasts approximately 3500 artifacts, each of which were mapped to two meter diameter proveniences across the site. The quantity of artifacts, in conjunction with good provenience control, provides the ideal situation for the production of distribution maps that may shed light on the spatial use of the site in the past. In addition, because the geophysical site survey (particularly the more successful magnetic survey) has provided a map of subsurface anomalies, as well as a general impression about the types of features which may be present, the artifact distribution data can be compared directly to suspected areas of human disturbance or activity. Subsequent investigation of specific geophysical anomalies through test unit excavation identified structural features containing intact archaeological deposits. Analysis of the material culture found within these deposits was used to infer relationships between features and was compared to corresponding surface artifact distributions. From these comparisons, conclusions were drawn concerning the effectiveness of the surface collection in predicting the character of the subsurface features.
Artifact Distribution by Functional Group
Four functional groups were created for the historic artifacts collected during the investigation of 22AD557. As discussed in the preceding chapter, these groups included: building components, domestic materials, tools and equipment, and unknown. There were no representatives of the unknown category among the surface collected artifacts, and of the remaining three groups, only two, the building components and the domestic materials, contained enough surface collected artifacts to produce distribution maps of the site (Figures 40 and 41).
86 N 3491840
N 3491830
N 3491820
2000 g N 3491810
1600 g N 3491800
1200 g N 3491790
800 g N 3491780
400 g N 3491770
0 g N 3491760
N 3491750
E 655370 E 655380 E 655390 E 655400 E 655410 E 655420 Figure 40. Distribution of surface collected building components at 22AD557. This category includes nails, windowpane, plaster, and mortar fragments but was dominated by brick. The black border represents the extent of the surface collection.
87 N 3491830
N 3491820
60 g N 3491810
50 g
N 3491800 40 g
N 3491790 30 g
20 g N 3491780
10 g N 3491770
0 g
N 3491760
N 3491750
E 655370 E 655380 E 655390 E 655400 E 655410 E 655420 Figure 41. Distribution of surface collected domestic materials at 22AD557. This category included personal items, ceramics, and historic glass vessel fragments.
The two distribution maps above were created using the contour mapping software package Surfer. The data was displayed using the Kriging gridding method, which produces interpolated contours from a data set where the X and Y components represent easting and northing coordinates and the Z component is the contour value. In the case of the distribution maps produced for the French Dwelling project, the Z value
88 reflects the total weight of the examined artifact category at each provenience, and the easting and northing positional units represent the UTM coordinates recorded by the GPS. Of the two categories displayed in Figures 40 and 41, the building component distribution is the most appropriate for use in identifying areas within the site where previously existing structures may have existed, since these are the materials that would remain on the site following the demolition of a building. Figure 40 shows a number of areas within the site that contained a large concentration of building components (mostly brick). When these areas are encircled and displayed over a base map depicting the locations of interpreted magnetic anomalies (Figure 42), correlations become apparent between the predicted locations of structures based upon artifact recovery and the location of magnetic anomalies. The three encircled areas on Figure 42 represent locations where numerous adjacent surface collected proveniences contained large amounts of materials. Research has shown that mechanical plowing effects movement of large artifacts to a greater extent than smaller ones (Schiffer 1987:131), because of this areas with multiple adjacent proveniences containing larger quantities of materials were considered more reliable in predicting the location of subsurface features then a high contour value associated with a single provenience containing one heavy artifact. In Figure 42, two of the three areas of densely concentrated building components (Areas 1 and 2) correspond directly to strong magnetic anomalies, which were tested with excavation units and determined to be structural remains (Features 1 and 3). Although the magnetic data suggests that Feature 2 is similar to Features 1 and 3, neither the surface collection nor the excavation of Feature 2 identified a massive brick collection associated with the feature. A third area, Area 3, was identified as containing a high density of building components in Figure 42. This area did not register as a significant magnetic anomaly, and was thus not tested with further subsurface excavation. It is possible that Area 3 is actually associated with the artifact scatter from Feature 3, and the gap in the surface collection grid makes Areas 2 and 3 appear to be more separate than they actually are. It is also possible that the brick scatter from Area 3 represents a different part of the same structure that is represented in Feature 3. For example, Feature 3 could be the remains of a demolished chimney and the materials in Area 3 could be associated with a brick pier. Additional examination of the artifacts within the Areas 1, 2, and 3 (as discussed in the Robinsons Index of Agreement section below) show the collections to be quite similar, suggesting that Areas 2 and 3 may be associated with the same feature. Figure 41 shows a more widespread dispersal of domestic materials across the site than that of the building components. However, when the distribution map is overlaid on a base map showing the locations of interpreted magnetic anomalies (Figure 43), two general trends appear. First, although there were domestic materials recovered in the northeast portion of the survey area, the highest concentrations of artifacts are in the core of the site, southwest of the linear magnetic anomaly interpreted by Clay (2001) as a path or road possibly flanked by fence posts. This generalization fits with the artifact distribution maps generated from the 1977 survey data (see Figures 7 through 10). Second, there is a high concentration of domestic items immediately above Feature 2 and
89 adjacent to the strongest magnetic anomaly on the site, Feature 3. The concentration of artifacts next to Feature 3 falls within Area 2 from the building component distribution map (Figure 42).
N 3491840
N 3491830
N 3491820 Area 1
2000 g N 3491810
1600 g N 3491800 Area 3
1200 g N 3491790 Area 2 800 g N 3491780
400 g N 3491770
0 g N 3491760
N 3491750
E 655370 E 655380 E 655390 E 655400 E 655410 E 655420 Figure 42. Distribution of building components displayed over a base map showing the locations of interpreted magnetic anomalies. The three most significant artifact concentrations are encircled in green.
90 N 3491840
N 3491830
60 g N 3491820 Feature 2
Feature 1 50 g N 3491810
40 g Area 1 N 3491800 Area 3 Feature 3 30 g N 3491790 Area 2
Mag Feature 20 g
N 3491780 10 g
N 3491770 0 g
N 3491760
N 3491750
E 655370 E 655380 E 655390 E 655400 E 655410 E 655420 Figure 43. Distribution of surface collected domestic materials displayed over a base map showing the locations of interpreted magnetic anomalies. The three areas identified from the distribution of building components as probable locations of structures are circled in green.
91 Both the general confinement of materials within the road-like boundary of the site and the large amount of domestic material near Feature 3 were expected. However, the comparative lack of domestic materials from the surface collection near Feature 1 and within Area 3 was unexpected. If the concentrations of building components identified in Figures 40 and 42 represent the remains of structures than materials associated with the use of those structures should be present around the same locations. This was the case for Feature 3, which was flanked to the south and west by concentrations of domestic materials. A large concentration of materials south of Feature 1 were included in Area 1 but were not immediately adjacent to or above the feature, as were the artifacts associated with Features 2 and 3. It is possible that Feature 1 served a different function at the site than would be evidenced by domestic materials, or a pre- or post-depositional activity removed some of the domestic materials from the surface provenience of this feature. It is also possible that the image we get of Feature 1 from the magnetic survey is somewhat smaller than the structure actually was, i.e. only the remains of a demolished chimney or brick pier, and the high concentration of domestic materials in the south portion of Area 1 represent a location that was historically adjacent to the building in a location where domestic refuse would be deposited. There are also heavy concentrations of domestic materials near Feature 3 (to the west and southwest) but outside of the area defined by the building component scatter (Area 2). It is possible that these materials could be associated with some of the smaller magnetic anomalies south of Feature 3, which may be midden pits, or even with features that were not identifiable by the magnetometer. It is also possible that like Feature 1, Feature 3 may only represent a corner or end of the original structure and the materials adjacent to Area 2 may be representative of activities that took place in and around Feature 3’s structure. The following section presents a more detailed comparison of the surface collected artifacts and those recovered from the test unit excavations in an attempt to better define the nature of the confirmed site components and other areas of suspected activity suggested by the magnetometer data.
Robinson’s Index of Agreement for Intra-site Comparisons
Information compiled from the geophysical survey, surface collection, and subsequent excavations at the site resulted in the delineation of the following provenience areas for study: Areas 1, 2, and 3 as defined by the distribution of surface collected building components; Features 1, 2, 3 and 4; the surface collected materials from directly above Features 1, 2, 3, and 4; and the surface collected materials from directly above a large magnetic anomaly identified in the southeast corner of the project area (where test units 19, 20, and 21 were placed but found no evidence of a subsurface feature). Robinson’s Index of Agreement was the method chosen for comparison and analysis of the data obtained from the site proveniences.
92 The Robinson Index of Agreement (IA) is a seriation technique that measures the degree of relatedness between artifact percentage distributions for various pairs of archaeological data (Robinson 1951). The process can be used to compare different sites, different features within the same site, or any number of artifact proveniences from which similar materials have been collected. The procedure involves building a matrix based upon values generated using percentages of artifacts by type within a collection. The formula∗ generates a comparison value for each collection in relation to every other collection by comparing the sum of the percentage of each artifact category from each collection to the same category in the other collections. The values produced range from zero, indicating no similarity between the two collections, to 200, indicating comparatively identical collections. The IA values are displayed in a mirror-image tabular matrix in which the values can be referenced by scanning across rows and down columns. Because the key variable used in calculating the IA value is a percentage, collections of varying sizes and types can be directly compared, reducing concern for bias introduced by sample size. Robinson described the index of agreement procedure in 1951 as a seriation technique for determining chronological ordering of deposits at a site through change in ceramic type frequency over time. In his discussion of the statistical procedure, he compared collections of ceramics from different strata at the same site. When building his matrix, the goal was to produce IA values for comparisons between every possible pair of collections, then order them in a matrix by decreasing/increasing value so as to create a visual sequence of collections from most to least similar. This sequence was then used in conjunction with the percentage of individual ceramic types from each collection to produce a series of graphs displaying type frequencies over time. For the purpose of this study, the similarity index was used to determine the degree of relatedness between various proveniences at the site. The goal was not chronological seriation, but rather to determine the ability of the IA matrix to describe degrees of relatedness between pairs of features at the site. Collections from the same area (i.e., a feature and the overlying plowzone or surface materials) that were obtained using different strategies (i.e. surface collection verses excavation) were also analyzed in this manner. Rather than using only ceramic weights to generate the IA values, the weights of every artifact from each collection provenience was utilized. In this manner, the four features, three areas, the unnamed magnetic feature, and the surface collected materials from above the features were compared to each other and to the complete artifact collection from the entire site and to the complete surface collection. This was done to test each provenience’s relatedness to the site as a whole.
∗ The formula (Marquardt 1978:264) is written as: m IAjk = 200 - (Σ [Xji - Xki] ) Where IA equals the Index of Agreement between unit j and k, m equals i=1 the number of types represented, X is the value to be compared (i.e. the percent by weight of an artifact type in the collection), and i refers to a one to one comparison (i.e. the artifact type from unit j is compared to the value for that same type in unit k). The IA is calculated by subtracting the sum of the absolute values of percentage differences for each type from 200 (200% being the maximum possible disagreement). 93 Excavation in Feature 3 identified a pit in which the upper levels were filled with structural debris deposited in a single episode. The lower levels contained intact stratified deposits. In addition to comparing the whole of Feature 3 with the other site proveniences, the materials from the upper and lower levels were each compared to the rest of the site collections separately. Table 11 lists the site proveniences chosen for the IA analysis by sample name and the individual proveniences they consist of. When calculating the IA values, all of the historic artifacts were used from each provenience. Prehistoric materials, modern trash and unmodified stone were eliminated from the collection database before calculating the IA values. Each excavated collection that could be assigned to a feature was incorporated into the analysis. However, not all of the excavated plowzone proveniences were screened for artifacts, so some of the test units and levels had no data to contribute to this study. Once the artifact collections to be compared in the IA analysis were chosen the sorting criteria for the materials within each collection had to be identified. For the purpose of this study, the IA analysis was conducted using the entire artifact assemblage in two different manners: by sorting the materials based on the highest level of identification – object name and/or type (Table 12) – and by sorting based on functional group (Table 13). Each of these strategies posed advantages and disadvantages. Sorting the artifacts by object name was productive in that it generated a wide base of comparison within the collections, but had the disadvantage of being overly specific. Many artifacts with different object names or types, e.g. a creamware fragment versus a pearlware fragment, served nearly identical functions, but were treated statistically as though they were just as different as a nail and a bottle fragment. Replacing object name with functional group as the sorting criterion solved the artifact relationship problem, but effectively reduced the base of comparison from 61 types to only 16. By examining the IA matrices produced for both categories, and looking at similarities between the two charts, the statistical problems with both methods are reduced. The Robinson’s IA formula was used to generate comparison values between all of the provenience groups and the resulting values were then grouped and displayed in two matrices. The IA comparison values displayed in Table 14 were generated by comparing the collections on the basis of object name or type, and Table 15 represents the same comparisons by functional group. The matrix rows and columns were re- ordered so that the proveniences decreased in similarity from left to right and from top to bottom. Color-coding of the cells in the matrices was added facilitate feature comparisons across the site. Although the IA values are somewhat higher for most of the proveniences in the functional group matrix, the similar ordering of the provenience areas on both matrices suggests that many of the general relationships between the features at the site remained identifiable by both methods. This evidences the effectiveness of both comparison methods, as a flawed method would result in disagreement between the two matrices. The higher IA values in Table 15 can be explained as a result of the reduction in the number of artifact categories compared, which reduced sources of variability.
94 Table 11. Site Proveniences Chosen for Index of Agreement Analysis. IA Recovery Technique Provenience Inclusive Site Proveniences All surface collected material within Area 1 (defined by distribution Area 1 Surface Collection of surface collected building components) Area 2 All surface collected material within Area 2 Surface Collection Area 3 All surface collected material within Area 3 Surface Collection Feature 1 EU 1 and EU 9, Plowzone; EU 1, Level 1 Screened Excavation Feature 2 EU 2 and EU 6, Plowzone Screened Excavation EU 3, Plowzone; EU 5, Plowzone through Level 6; EU 15, Level 2; Feature 3 Screened Excavation EU 18, Level 2 through 9. Feature 4 EU 4 Screened Excavation All surface collected material from directly above, and within two SC Feature 1 Surface Collection meters of Feature 1, as defined by the magnetic survey. All surface collected material from directly above, and within two SC Feature 2 Surface Collection meters of Feature 2, as defined by the magnetic survey. All surface collected material from directly above, and within two SC Feature 3 Surface Collection meters of Feature 3, as defined by the magnetic survey. All surface collected material from directly above, and within two SC Feature 4 Surface Collection meters of Feature 4,. as defined by the magnetic survey. Feature 3, EU 3, Plowzone; EU 5, Plowzone through Level 3; EU 15, Level 2; Screened Excavation Upper Levels EU 18, Level 2 through 9. Feature 3, EU 5, Level 4 through 6; EU 18, Level 4 through 9 Screened Excavation Lower Levels All surface collected material from directly above, and within a two Mag Feature Surface Collection meters of magnetic anomaly in the N 1780, E5400 survey block. Surface All surface collected material Surface Collection Collection Complete Excavation, Surface All artifacts collected Collection Collection, Shovel Tests
95 Table 12. The Artifact Categories Used to Produce the IA Matrix for the Site Features by Object Name. Object Name/Type Total Weight (g) Object Name/Type Total Weight (g) Bit, Twist 56.10 Nail, Machine Cut 2.80 Bottle 514.80 Nonfood Bone, Equidae 65.94 Bousillage 533.10 Pan 66.40 Brick 128.00 Pin, Straight 0.10 Brick, High Fired 131,454.50 Pipe, Tobacco 29.80 Brick, Low Fired 4,639.82 Plaster 24,554.60 Buckle 3.90 Ring 1.70 Button 9.20 Shot 11.20 Charcoal 23.60 Spike 27.40 Clay, Fired 184.90 Tack 1.20 Egg, Aves 10.80 Tumbler 150.30 Food Bone, Aves 31.80 Vessel Fragment, Glass 1,141.64 Food Bone, Bovidae 331.40 Earthenware, Coarse 111.90 Food Bone, Mammalia 714.46 Earthenware, Coarse, Redware 517.80 Food Bone, Meleagridinae 11.30 Earthenware, Coarse, Tin Enameled 57.70 Food Bone, Osteichthyes 0.50 Earthenware, Refined 60.10 Food Bone, Phasianidae 0.80 Earthenware, Refined, Creamware 802.50 Food Bone, Sciuridae 0.90 Earthenware, Refined, Pearlware 932.10 Food Bone, Suidae 91.60 Earthenware, Refined, Redware 9.00 Food Bone, Testudines 0.50 Earthenware, Refined, Whiteware 2.00 Food Bone, Vertebrata 75.50 Porcelain 109.60 Glass Fragment 0.70 Stoneware, Coarse 38.90 Glass, Drinking 10.70 Stoneware, Coarse, Brown Paste 76.40 Goblet 23.30 Stoneware, Coarse, Buff Paste 71.20 Gunflint 34.10 Stoneware, Coarse, Gray Paste 106.10 Hardware 82.50 Stoneware, Coarse, Red Paste 3.80 Link, Cuff 0.80 Stoneware, Refined, Brown Paste 4.50 Metal Fragment 306.20 Stoneware, Refined, White Paste 0.40 Mortar 8,753.70 Windowpane 16.30 Nail 327.60 Wood Fragment 1.10 Nail, Hand Wrought 142.80
96 Table 13. The Artifact Categories Used to Produce the IA Matrix for the Site Features by Functional Group. Functional Group Total Weight (g) Armament T&E 34.10 Armament, Ammunition 11.20 Building Component 170,580.62 Clothing Accessory 13.90 Container Glass 1,657.14 Food Byproduct, Faunal 1,269.56 Food Processing, Cookware 66.40 Food Service, Ceramic 2,904.00 Food Service, Glassware 184.30 Furniture 1.20 Nonfood, Bone 65.94 Personal Gear, Pipe 29.80 T&E UID, Metal 390.40 Textileworking T&E 0.10 Unclassifiable Artifacts 209.60 Woodworking T&E 56.10
97 3 4 8.16 7.10 21.16 Feature Feature 74 19.94 16 4.86 23 4.05 18 8.91 05 8.48 20 1.54 39 7.25 2 3.91 3.74 1.58 2.62 4.39 4.89 Feature Feature Feature 3, 3, Feature Lower Levels SC SC Feature 2 Feature 3 Feature Feature Feature 3, Feature Upper Levels 1 Feature Feature Complete Collection Mag Mag Feature Surface Surface Collection SC SC Feature 4 Feature SC Feature 3 Feature SC Feature 1 Feature = High Correlation = Moderate Correlation Correlation = Low 0 5 0 - 196.53 196.22 195.64 196.00 197.19 194.27 180.51 153.98 139.44 114.17 109.98 114.07 87.35 2 3.74 4.86 2.62 1.54 4.05 4.89 7.25 8.91 8.16 21.16 7.10 8.48 19.94 14.73 43.72 - 23.91 24.16 21.58 21.20 23.23 24.39 28.39 30.18 58.91 69.25 68.38 73.05 48.74 92.09 - 43.72 87.35 88.03 85.37 84.90 87.26 88.39 90.98 90.44 122.87 106.71 144.32 154.36 91.21 - 92.09 14.7 114.17 116.28 113.12 113.08 115.92 113.65 116.35 114.86 156.98 120.51 - 189.96 110.90 144.32 68.38 139.44 139.58 137.30 136.71 138.45 140.61 143.58 145.10 145.83 - 120.51 118.51 123.54 106.71 69.25 114.07 112.31 112.37 112.49 111.98 115.42 116.47 119.19 114.83 123.54 110.90 109.13 - 91.21 48. 197.19 195.87 196.42 195.23 195.33 - 194.51 180.96 153.56 140.61 113.65 109.57 115.42 88.39 2 153.98 154.40 151.79 151.16 153.47 153.56 157.49 154.55 - 145.83 156.98 154.83 114.83 122.87 58.91 109.98 112.02 108.75 108.84 111.59 109.57 112.51 110.62 154.83 118.51 189.96 - 109.13 154.36 73. 196.00 198.82 196.80 196.63 - 195.33 193.51 180.08 153.47 138.45 115.92 111.59 111.98 87.26 23. 180.51 180.30 179.05 177.99 180.08 180.96 183.84 - 154.55 145.10 114.86 110.62 119.19 90.44 30. 195.64 196.12 198.21 - 196.63 195.23 191.10 177.99 151.16 136.71 113.08 108.84 112.49 84.90 21. 194.27 194.15 192.02 191.10 193.51 194.51 - 183.84 157.49 143.58 116.35 112.51 116.47 90.98 28. 196.22 196.51 - 198.21 196.80 196.42 192.02 179.05 151.79 137.30 113.12 108.75 112.37 85.37 2 196.53 - 196.51 196.12 198.82 195.87 194.15 180.30 154.40 139.58 116.28 112.02 112.31 88.03 24. Area 1Area Area 2 3 Area 175-20 75-125 50-75 25-50 0-25 150-17 125-15 Feature 2 Feature Feature 4 Feature Feature 3, above pit above 3, Feature Feature 3, in pit in 3, Feature Feature 1 Feature SC Feature 2 Feature SC SC Feature 4 Feature SC Complete Collection Feature 3 Feature SC Feature 3 Feature SC Mag Feature SC Feature 1 Feature SC Surface Collection Surface Area 3 Area 2 Area 1 Table 14. Index of Agreement Matrix Produced for Site Proveniences from 22AD557 by Object Name and Artifact and by Object Name 22AD557 from Site Proveniences for Produced Matrix Agreement of 14. Index Table Weight.
98 4 Feature Feature 2 Feature Feature SC SC Feature 2 Feature 1 Feature Feature 3, 3, Feature Lower Levels Mag Feature Surface Surface Collection Upper Upper Feature 3, Complete Collection SC SC Feature 4 Feature 3 Feature SC Feature 3 SC SC Feature 1 Feature = High Correlation = High = Moderate Correlation Correlation Low = - 196.77 197.40 196.89 196.37 196.68 197.91 196.93 195.27 196.37 188.86 185.60 155.62 114.56 104.69 52.07 52.07 50.59 51.26 50.49 50.35 50.36 53.42 53.35 48.88 55.46 63.21 57.10 60.72 106.43 85.87 - 196.77197.40 - 199.13196.89 199.41 - 199.13 199.22196.37 199.49 199.41 198.73196.68 197.58 199.22 - 198.98 197.27197.91 199.49 196.12 197.44 196.86196.93 198.73 195.08 197.58 196.47 195.53195.27 198.98 - 197.53 198.23 197.27 196.12 195.14 197.60196.37 195.79 194.40 197.44 196.86 198.11 194.85188.86 195.08 194.73 187.38 - 197.53 196.18 196.47 194.46 188.05185.60 195.53 198.48 183.96 196.59 195.79 187.28 184.42155.62 195.14 194.08 198.23 153.68 196.93 - 196.18 197.64 184.04 154.13114.56 194.73 187.14 197.60 112.47 194.45 194.63 153.75 113.07104.69 196.59 183.72 198.11 102.73 187.15 194.40 197.45 112.68 103.20 197.64 194.08 - 153.43 198.48 186.04 194.85 190.21 102.82 187.38 197.74 112.08 196.93 155.72 194.46 187.53 188.05 190.14 102.45 194.63 112.50 194.08 157.24 183.96 187.28 188.57 - 194.08 192.73 104.77 194.45 116.21 184.42 187.14 158.40 185.67 153.68 197.45 105.70 184.04 187.15 115.62 182.97 154.13 197.74 112.47 183.72 190.21 107.40 152.68 153.75 192.73 - 192.25 113.07 186.04 102.73 190.14 110.95 153.43 189.21 112.68 187.53 103.20 185.67 50.59 101.75 155.72 159.04 112.08 188.57 102.82 192.25 189.88 - 51.26 157.24 117.75 112.50 182.97 102.45 162.85 50.49 158.40 108.02 116.21 189.21 104.77 124.47 50.35 152.68 - 115.62 189.88 168.95 105.70 115.11 50.36 159.04 110.95 119.44 107.40 53.42 162.85 117.75 117.50 101.75 53.35 168.95 126.41 - 124.47 108.02 48.88 146.59 119.44 115.11 55.46 - 126.41 137.23 117.50 63.21 146.59 57.10 137.23 - 60.72 106.43 85.87 Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 175-200 150-175 125-150 75-125 50-75 25-50 0-25 Area 2 Area 3 Area 1 Feature SC 3 Feature SC 3 Feature 4 Feature SC Collection Complete pit above 3, Feature Collection Surface Mag Feature Feature 3, in pit 1 Feature 2 Feature SC 2 Feature 4 Feature Area 1 Area Table 15. Index of Agreement Matrix Produced for Site Proveniences from 22AD557 by Functional Group and by Functional Group 22AD557 from Site Proveniences for Produced Matrix Agreement of 15. Index Table Weight. Artifact
99 Surface Collection
The examination of Table 14 and Table 15 show that Areas 1, 2, and 3, whose parameters were generated by heavy concentrations of surface collected building components exhibit a dramatically high correlation with each other. In fact, the IA values from each of the Area comparisons to each other are so high (for both the functional group and object name comparisons) that the IA matrix ranks these collections as nearly identical. Comparisons of all the surface collected proveniences, and between the surface collections and Areas 1, 2, and 3 all produce similar high correlation results. The one exception to this are the artifacts collected from above Feature 2, which are relatively dissimilar to not only the other surface collected proveniences, but also to all other collections from the site. This is evident in Table 14 where all the surface collected proveniences except the one from above Feature 2 are clustered together in the upper left portion of the matrix. Tables 14 and 15 also suggest that the collection from above the unnamed magnetometer anomaly has only a moderately high correlation to the other surface collected proveniences. This, in addition to the fact that three exploratory test units into the anomaly found no evidence of a feature, suggests that the geophysical disturbance may have been caused by natural environmental factors or perhaps a small piece of highly magnetic material. Two conclusions can be drawn from the comparison of the surface collected proveniences at the site. First, Feature 2 is different from the other features identified at the site. This conclusion is supported by the findings of the excavation that exposed the feature because, unlike Features 1 and 3, very little construction debris was encountered in Feature 2. Second, the surface collection from the entire site is generally homogeneous. Most of the proveniences display a dramatic correlation with each other and even the outlying provenience, Feature 2, moderately correlates with the other surface collected proveniences. This suggests that the site is dominated by a single component and that the features within it are temporally related. It should be noted, however, that a general bias toward similarity is inherent in any surface collection (particularly of a plowed field) because some types of artifacts are better suited to weather taphonomic processes at the surface than others. Potentially dissimilar collections may become more similar as unstable materials such as faunal remains, carbonized materials, and metal items are eliminated by physical and biological agents near the surface, effectively increasing the relative percentages of items better suited to survive such an environment, like ceramics and glass fragments. This trend may be a factor in the IA relationships between surface collected and excavated proveniences at the site.
Features 2 and 4
The outlying position of Features 2 and 4 on both Table 14 and Table 15 necessitates explanation. Feature 4 it is very different from all other proveniences at the site, including the surface collection from directly above it. Interestingly, Feature 4 was the only feature identified by the EM survey but not by the magnetometer. Excavation of
100 the feature revealed only a compacted soil lens containing significantly fewer artifacts than the other excavated features. So while the surface collection conducted above Feature 4 suggests similarity between it and the other features, the IA calculations from the feature itself suggest the opposite. The surface collection data is misleading in this instance, likely due to its close proximity to the artifact scatter from Feature 3. Considering the lack of material evidence from the excavation of Feature 4, and the IA values suggesting that what was collected was dissimilar to the rest of the site, it is possible that Feature 4 not a cultural feature, but rather a natural variation in the soil at the site. Unlike Feature 4, excavation of Feature 2 confirmed its substantiality. It was expected Feature 2 would be somewhat different from Features 1 and 3 because of their resemblance to demolished structures whereas Feature 2 contained no construction debris. Unlike Feature 4, the functional group matrix suggests that the materials recovered from the excavation of Feature 2 moderately correlate to what was recovered from the surface collection above it. It also suggests that both the surface collection and the excavated collection have more or less the same relationship to the other proveniences at the site (a moderate to moderately low correlation). However, these generalizations are not supported by examination of the IA values from the object name matrix, suggesting that additional information can be gathered from Table 14. First, Feature 2 has a much lower correlation to all the other proveniences on the object name matrix and although it has a low correlation to its own surface collection, the IA value (48.74) is still higher than the feature’s relationship to any of the other surface collected proveniences (between 21.20 and 30.18). The collections most similar to that from Feature 2 were those recovered from the excavations of Features 1 and 3. Feature 2 had an IA value of 92.09 for its relationship with the materials from the lower levels of Feature 3; this was the highest value returned for the feature. It also had value of 69.25 for its relationship with Feature 1 and a 73.05 value for its relationship with Feature 3 in its entirety. All of these comparison values are moderately low, but in comparison to the even lower values recovered for Feature 2’s relationships to other proveniences at the site, they suggest that some similarity exists between Feature 2 and Features 1 and 3. The field interpretation of Feature 2 was that it represented a trash pit, a hypothesis that the IA calculations support. The materials deposited in Feature 2 were similar to those deposited in Features 1 and 3, and may have originally been utilized within the structures now represented by Features 1 and 3.
Features 1 and 3
The discussion now turns to Features 1 and 3. These were the most substantial features discovered during the testing at 22AD557. The limited excavations of them suggest that both were demolished structures. After removing the plowzone and exposing the upper undisturbed portions of the features they were both interpreted as pits with distinct edges that were heavily loaded with structural debris. Further excavation in Feature 3 discovered that below the construction debris the pit contained intact
101 stratigraphic cultural deposits. Feature 1 was not excavated below the construction debris layer. When the IA values from the functional group matrix are compared for Features 1 and 3, a moderately high correlation is found between the two features as a whole, but the highest correlation (IA = 168.95) is found between Feature 1 and the material recovered from the lower levels of Feature 3. Since the excavations in Feature 1 were limited to the exposure of the brick rubble in the near surface portion of the feature, it was expected that this material would be more similar to the upper levels excavated in Feature 3. This was not the case however, as the resulting IA value on the functional group matrix was 152.68 (Table 15). Results generated using the object names matrix more resembled the expected results than those of the functional group matrix. Both Features 1 and 3 were found to be moderately to moderately highly similar to the rest of the site as a whole. Feature 1 was more similar to the various surface collections at the site than to any of the proveniences containing materials from controlled excavation. This is reasonable, assuming that there is variation in functionality of the features at the site and considering that excavation in Feature 1 was limited to near surface levels. Feature 1 was most similar to the upper levels of Feature 3 (IA = 120.51) and to Feature 3 as a whole (IA = 118.51). Feature 1 had less in common with the material from the lower level of Feature 3 (IA = 106.71), as would be expected since this provenience represented a closed and intact portion of Feature 3, a correlate of which was not identified in Feature 1.
Summary
When considered as a whole, a number of conclusions can be drawn about the site based upon the Index of Agreement analysis of the features and surface collected proveniences. Unfortunately, the surface collection turned out to be a poor predictor of the materials to be found within the subsurface features. When artifact function was used as a sorting filter, the surface collections correlated highly with the materials from their associated features, however nearly every provenience on the functional group matrix displayed a strong correlation, making detailed analysis of the results difficult. What the functional matrix does suggest is that the vast majority of the materials at the site are functionally related. The similar functionality of the site features is something that can also be seen in the artifacts themselves. There were very few artifacts at the site that did not fall into the domestic material or building component categories. A total of 16 functional groups were used to sort the IA matrix, the majority of which served general domestic functions. Basically, four gunflints, a drill bit and a lead musketball made up the entire non- domestic historic assemblage, and the armaments could easily be viewed in a domestic context. The generally domestic artifact collection and the functionally similar IA results suggest that although multiple features are present at the site, they are all related to a domestic residence, and are probably not associated with other plantation activities, like animal husbandry, carpentry, or metalworking.
102 Most of the important conclusions from the IA matrices come from the object name and type matrix. First, nearly all of the surface collected proveniences were closely correlated to each other, almost to the point of being identical. Second, none of the surface collected proveniences correlated strongly with the subsurface features they were expected to be associated with. They did, however, correlate strongly with the entire collection from the site. This suggests that although at this site surface collecting is not useful for predicting materials within features, it can generate a fairly accurate representation of the site assemblage as a whole. Unfortunately, the inability of the surface collection to accurately describe the feature contents makes the production of a predictive model for the unexcavated portions of the site impossible. However, the results of the IA analysis for the features by artifact object name and type displayed enough variation in the feature assemblages, particularly Feature 2, to suggest that they are different from each other. What remains to be determined at 22AD557 is the source of the variation between the features at the site: temporal placement or function.
Mean Ceramic Dating
A temporal difference between the features appears unlikely, as indicated by the homogeneity of the artifact collection as a whole and the relative similarity eluded to by the IA analysis. However, to further clarify the temporal relationships within the site, mean ceramic dates were calculated for the site as a whole, for each of the features, and for the upper and lower portions of Feature 3 (Table 16). Accordingly, the dates were calculated using Stanley South’s basic formula* that produces mean ceramic dates based on the median period for manufacture of each ceramic type and the quantity of each ceramic type in the sample (South 1977; Carlson 1983). South’s research used ceramic counts as the defining characteristic in his study, but to facilitate a more thorough intrasite comparison at 22AD557 both ceramic counts and weights were used to produce alternate mean dates for each provenience. The dates were calculated using all of the dateable historic ceramics in the collection, excluding the porcelains, as South suggested, whose lengthy date of manufacture tend to skew the mean results. A mean ceramic date of 1794 to 1795 was calculated for the entire historic assemblage from the site. Individual dates were obtained for each of the excavated features and two additional dates were calculated for Feature 3, one for the upper levels and one for the materials recovered from the lower levels of the pit (Table 16). Each of these calculations returned dates similar to that of the collection as a whole. The late date (1805) suggested for Feature 4 should be considered unreliable, as it is based upon the recovery of a single dateable ceramic. Similarly, the weight based mean ceramic dates suggested for Feature 3 and the lower levels of Feature 3 (1804 and 1805 respectively) may be skewed because of the heavy weight of several large pearlware fragments
* The formula can be written as: ∑(XYcw) / ∑(Ycw) = Zcw, where Yc = the ceramic count or Yw = the ceramic weight, X = the median manufacture date, and Z = the mean ceramic date (by weight or count). 103 recovered from within the pit. The actual mean dates for Feature 3 are probably more in line with those associated with the ceramic counts. Excluding the unreliable dates associated with Feature 4 and 3, the mean ceramic dates from 22AD557 suggest that site was occupied during the last decade of the eighteenth century. The entire collection, Feature 1, and Feature 3 all give dates between 1791 and 1795, while Feature 2 suggests a slightly later date, between 1799 and 1801. A closer examination of the ceramic types included in the features shows a small collection of early ceramic types (Faience, tin enameled, and brown paste stoneware) that are more likely to have been associated with the original French occupation of Natchez between 1699 and 1729 than with the British re-occupation that began in the 1770s. If these materials are removed from the mean ceramic date calculations the complete collection mean date shifts to 1798 (count)/1800 (weight), Feature 1 shifts to 1796 (both count and weight), Feature 2 shifts to 1800/1802, and Feature 3 shifts to 1799/1805. It is likely that the mean date for the structures and features at the site is within the last few years of the eighteenth century and the earlier ceramics present at the site represent an artifact scatter not associated with any of the tested features, but rather with a French occupation in the 1720s. Some of these early materials then made their way into the later features via the late eighteenth century occupation. It can be noted that only one small tin enameled sherd was collected from Feature 2, which is assumed to be a trash pit dug during the late eighteenth century occupation. The paucity of early ceramics from Feature 2 reinforces the interpretation of the feature as a late eighteenth century trash pit that would have been dug, filled with contemporary materials, and then covered over. The ceramic dates also suggest that the structure associated with Feature 1 may have been built and occupied slightly earlier than that of Feature 3, mainly because of a larger relative quantity of creamware to pearlware in Feature 1 than in Feature 3. Three conclusions may be drawn from the mean ceramic dating. First, the distribution of ceramics on the surface of the site correlate temporally with the artifacts within the features. Second, there has not been a domestic use of the site since the brick structures were abandoned and demolished, probably no later than 1820. Finally, Features 1, 2, and 3 date to the same occupation, and were probably used contemporaneously.
Functional Interpretation of Features
Mean ceramic dating analysis has shown that the features at 22AD557 are temporally similar, while variation between the features is suggested by data derived from the IA matrices. A closer look individual artifacts from the excavations could determine possible reasons for this variation. Most of the collection from the site falls into one of two categories: building components (mostly brick) and domestic materials (dominated by ceramics and glassware). Further consideration of some of the functionally interpretable artifacts within the domestic materials category may be able to provide more detailed insight into the character of the features at the site.
104 ) w Date (Z Date 981). Mean Ceramic Mean ) c Date (ZDate Mean Ceramic Mean ) w Y X )( c (XY ) w Weight in grams (Y grams ) c . * Count (Y Sums 54 33 96812.5 59205.05 1793 1794 Sums 1399 1875.7 2511824 3364884.7 1795 1794 Median Date of Date Median Manufacture (X) Manufacture Date Manufacture Blue Shell Edged Pearlware Edged Shell Blue CreamwarePearlware Edged Shell Green 1780-1830Pearlware 1780-1830TP Pearlware Enameled Tin Untyped 1805 1805 1762-1820 1600-1802 1 1795-1840 1780-1830 1791 1701 3 1817.5 1.3 1805 0.8 1805 33 2 5415 2346.5 1 14 21.7 1444 0.6 59103 0.5 8.1 3402 38864.7 1817.5 25270 1020.6 908.75 14620.5 Blue HP Pearlware Blue HP Creamware Edged Blue Shell Pearlware Edged Blue Shell 1762-1820 StonewareGlazed Salt Brown Creamware 1780-1830 1690-1775 Brune 1780-1820Faience Pearlware Edged Shell Green 1791 PearlwareMocha 1780-1830 1805 1732.5Pearlware 1800Pearlware, Engine Turned PearlwarePolychrome Saintonge 1805 1762-1820 1707-1800 3 1780-1830TP Pearlware 1795-1890 56 Chinoiserie RuinsPearlware, TP 7 1820-1830 1795-1815 44 Enameled Tin Untyped 1753.5 Stoneware Glazed Salt White 1791 8.2 1805 1842.5 82.3 1780-1830Whiteware 76.4 62 1720-1805 51.8 1825 12127.5 1805 101080 5373 1600-1802 79200 1795-1840 148551.5 1600-1760 179.2 132363 14686.2 1805 1762.5 683 4 111910 1 1701 93240 2 1817.5 14 794.3 1680 323456 23 8.6 1820-2001 1223253 433 1.5 1422591.3 2.6 1 85.6 25.7 7014 1842.5 33 1910.5 468.1 29 3610 25550 41515 15080.1 2763.75 2 781565 0.4 156220 49.1 46388.5 844920.5 4693 35.3 1762.5 52707.5 56133 4.6 2 64157.75 83519.1 705 3360 2 7728 3821 3821 Complete Feature 1 Feature Collection Provenience Type Ceramic Dates of manufacture taken from South (1977), Noël-Hume (1969), Samford (1997), Brassard and Leclerc (2001), and Blanchette (1 Dates of manufacture taken from South (1977), Noël-Hume (1969), Samford * Table 16. Mean Ceramic Dates for the French Dwelling Site French the Dates for 16. Mean Ceramic Table
105 ) w Date (Z Date Mean Ceramic Mean ) c Date (ZDate Mean Ceramic Mean ) w Y X )( c (XY ) w Weight in grams (Y grams ) c Count (Y Sums 1 1.7 1805 3068.5 1805 1805 Sums 103 365.1 184751.5 658673.75 1794 1804 Sums 78 94.5 140337 170201.7 1799 1801 Median Date of Date Median Manufacture (X) Manufacture Date Manufacture Blue Shell Edged Pearlware Edged Shell Blue 1780-1830 1805 1 1.7 1805 3068.5 Blue HP Pearlware Blue HP Creamware Edged Blue Shell Pearlware Edged Blue Shell Creamware 1762-1820 BruneFaience 1780-1830Pearlware Edged Shell Green 1780-1820Pearlware 1791 StonewareGlazed Salt Brown 1780-1830 1805TP Pearlware 1800 1690-1775 Chinoiserie RuinsPearlware, TP Enameled Tin Untyped 1820-1830 1805 1762-1820 1707-1800 1732.5 2 1825 3 1753.5 1791 1600-1802 6 1780-1830 6.9 1795-1840 7 13.8 1 1701 1805 3582 1817.5 7 100.7 5415 4 1 47 12357.9 1.8 10800 12635 24909 1732.5 181763.5 89.6 73 1.5 12600 27 4 1 3118.5 84177 1753.5 7300 160473.6 2630.25 68 133225 0.8 2 48735 1817.5 6804 122740 1454 3402 Blue HP Pearlware HP Blue Pearlware Edged Shell Blue CreamwarePearlware Edged Shell Green 1780-1830Pearlware Pearlware 1780-1830Polychrome 1780-1820 Chinoiserie RuinsPearlware, TP 1805 EnameledTin Untyped 1820-1830 1805 1800 1795-1815 1762-1820 1825 1600-1802 2 1805 1780-1830 1791 4 1 1701 0.9 1805 8 5 3610 1 1 36 11.5 7220 1624.5 1 1800 14600 25 1.4 38.1 20987.5 9025 1800 0.6 64476 1805 36 68237.1 1701 2527 45125 1020.6 64980 Feature 4 Feature Feature 3 Feature Feature 2 Feature Provenience Type Ceramic Table 16 – Continued. Table
106 ) w Date (Z Date Mean Ceramic Mean ) c Date (ZDate Mean Ceramic Mean ) w Y X )( c (XY ) w Weight in grams (Y grams ) c Count (Y Sums 36 36.3 64473 65067Sums 1791 67 1792 328.8 120278.5 593607 1795 1805 Median Date of Date Median Manufacture (X) Date Manufacture Untyped Tin Enameled Tin Untyped Creamware Edged Shell Blue Creamware 1762-1820Pearlware HP Blue Pearlware 1600-1802TP Pearlware 1791 StonewareGlazed Salt Brown 1701 1690-1775 1780-1820 BruneFaience 1762-1820 Enameled Tin Untyped 1732.5Creamware Edged Shell Blue 1800 1Creamware 1795-1840 1780-1830 1791 2 1762-1820Pearlware HP Blue Pearlware Edged Blue Shell 1600-1802 3.5Pearlware Edged Shell Green 1817.5 1805 1791Pearlware 1 1707-1800 0.7 1780-1830 3 Chinoiserie RuinsPearlware, TP 1791 1701 1780-1830 15 1820-1830 1780-1820 3402 1753.5 1.8 1805 6269 1762-1820 1805 2.5 1 13 14.3 1825 1732.5 1800 1 1191 5400 2 26865 1791 12.7 0.8 3119 1 1780-1830 3.4 3 25611 4500 1817.5 23465 7 1.3 4 3 1791 1805 1.5 22924 13.8 32 100.7 1454 3402 1753.5 6089 4.5 73 12635 5415 75.3 2211 2630 181764 5400 7300 14 24909 57312 133225 134862 8100 55.3 25270 99817 Feature 3, Feature Feature 3, Feature Provenience Type Ceramic Upper Levels Upper Lower Levels Table 16 – Continued. 16 Table
107 Analysis of the features excluding construction materials reveals 70.78% of the materials by weight come from Feature 3, followed by 19.37% from Feature 2, 9.58% from Feature 1, and an insignificant .27% from Feature 4. These percentages are based mainly on varying amounts of excavation in the individual features rather than a significantly larger concentration of artifacts present in one feature over another. The equivalent of three 10 centimeter levels in one meter square units were dug and screened for materials in Feature 1, two levels in Feature 2, and 17 levels in Feature 3. Had the collections from these levels all been equally distributed, approximately 14% of the materials would be expected to come from Feature 1, 9% from Feature 2, and 77% from Feature 3. The actual distribution is close to the expected, but non-construction materials were slightly more concentrated in Feature 2 than elsewhere, again reinforcing the interpretation of this feature as a trash pit. The expected distribution of artifacts by weight can be applied to individual artifact functional categories, and a failure to conform to the expected percentages may suggest a use of an artifact type at one feature more often than at another. There was not a very wide range in the functions of the artifacts collected from the excavations in the three important features. However, a few things stand out as materials that may have had a use that could be interpreted beyond that of “domestic”. These include clothing items (buttons and a pin), food remains (bone), smoking pipes (kaolin pipe fragments) and, to a lesser extent, ceramic vessel fragments, glass bottle fragments, and drinking vessel fragments. Table 17 breaks down the percentages of each of these artifact categories by weight from each of the features at the site and compares the actual percentages of each artifact type to the expected percentage based upon the total recovery percentage of each feature. The columns in Table 17 entitled “Departure from Expected” refer to the difference between the actual percentage of an artifact type in a feature and what the expected percentage for each artifact type would be if everything collected at the site was originally deposited equally amongst the features. Any significant departure from the expected represents a significant presence or absence of the associated artifact category and thereby implies use or non-use of that category at that particular feature. A departure value of more than 10 % was considered significant for interpretation and those values were highlighted. Table 17 shows that the materials from Feature 1 were distributed nearly as would be expected, but Features 2 and 3 produced artifact types that were over or under represented in their collections. Feature 2 contained two types of artifacts that were significantly underrepresented: clothing items and to a lesser extent drinking vessels. These results might be expected for a trash pit as neither of these items would appear regularly in daily garbage. Bone, kaolin pipe fragments, and ceramic fragments, on the other hand, more accurately reflect daily historic refuse, all of which are represented slightly above the expected. However, glass container fragments would also be expected to be well represented in a trash feature but they were slightly below the average for the site.
108 Table 17. Artifact Categories by Percent of Weight from Each Feature. Departure Departure Departure Artifact Total Feature 1 Feature 1 from Feature 2 Feature 2 from Feature 3 Feature 3 from Category Weight (g) Weight % Expected Weight % Expected Weight % Expected (9.58%) (19.37%) (70.78%) Food Bone 1266.46 142.2 11.23% 1.65% 298.64 23.58% 4.21% 825.62 65.19% -5.59% Kaolin Pipe Fragments 18.7 1 5.35% -4.23% 4 21.39% 2.02% 13.7 73.26% 2.48% Ceramic Fragments 693.8 45.8 6.60% -2.98% 150.4 21.68% 2.31% 492.1 70.93% 0.15% Glass Container Fragments 513.44 23.9 4.65% -4.93% 60.5 11.78% -7.59% 427.24 83.21% 12.43% Drinking Vessels 75.3 1.7 2.26% -7.32% 6.7 8.90% -10.47% 66.6 88.45% 17.67% Clothing Items 9.2 0.4 4.35% -5.23% 0 0.00% -19.37% 8.7 94.57% 23.79%
Feature 3 may represent the remains of a residential structure, as suggested by the containment of nearly all of the clothing items from the site. It also contained a significant over-representation of glass drinking vessel and container fragments, and a low percentage of bone when compared to the expected distribution. An obvious contrast between Features 1 and 3 is illustrated by the prominence of food remains in the former and clothing items in the latter. Feature 1 contained comparatively more food remains per level excavated than Feature 3, especially near the surface. The preservation and comparative quantity of bone recovered from the near surface excavation in Feature 1, which was possibly impacted by surface plowing, suggests the possibility of an even greater deposition of food remains deeper in Feature 1 than initially appears. Feature 1 may have been a kitchen or otherwise associated with food production. The interpretation of Feature 3 as the 22AD557 residence and Feature 1 as a detached kitchen would agree with the magnetometer data suggesting Feature 3 was the largest structure at the site. The surface collection data also showed the largest scatter of building components, and the heaviest total artifact concentration in general, associated with Feature 3.
109 CHAPTER 9
CONCLUSIONS
This project has presented the data collected from a geophysical examination of the French Dwelling Site in conjunction with surface collected artifacts from the site and materials recovered from the excavation of features identified during the geophysical project. Several conclusions have been reached concerning the relationship between the known features at the site and the relationship between the features and the French Colonial and British Colonial/American components represented at the site. Only five out of more than fifty geophysical anomalies were tested beyond surface collection, and of these five, three were identified as significant cultural features. These three features were among the largest of the geophysical anomalies and are located in the core of the site as it was predicted by shovel testing and later confirmed by the geophysical surveys and surface collection. Two of the three tested features, Feature 1 and Feature 3, have been interpreted as former structures, most likely pit cellars containing the accretion of daily domestic refuse in their bases. At some point, the pits were filled in with brick rubble and construction debris deposited during the demolition of the structures that once stood above them. This interpretation was based upon the excavation of Feature 3, and is only speculated for Feature 1, where excavation did not continue below the structural debris. Feature 2 appears to have been a trash pit that was filled with refuse during the occupation of the structures associated with Features 1 and 3. Each of these features, along with the majority of the cultural material recovered from the rest of the site, date to the turn of the nineteenth century. Historical documentation suggests that the site may have been occupied residentially from 1794 to as late as 1821, a supposition supported by the manufacture dates of the diagnostic artifact categories. The goal of this thesis was three-fold. The first goal, to predict the nature of the untested geophysical anomalies based upon the distribution of artifacts at the surface, proved to be overly ambitious. The application of Robinson’s Index of Agreement to determine degrees of similarity between surface collected proveniences and the materials collected from the excavated features resulted in little correspondence between the surface items and the features directly below them. This revelation, in conjunction with the overwhelming homogeneity of the entire surface collection, suggests that classification of both the tested and untested features based on the surface collection data
110 would be inaccurate at this site. There are several possible reasons for the inability of the surface collection to predict underlying features. First, the field in which the French Dwelling Site is located has been continuously cultivated and plowed since the 1820s. Even if the plowing did not cause the artifacts to migrate spatially, it inevitably promoted the deterioration of certain types of artifacts (i.e. bone and other fragile materials) by moving them from a more stable, deeply buried environment to a more biologically and physically active environment near the surface (Schiffer 1987:47-49). The site has also been collected a number of times in the past, both during known archaeological surveys and by an unknown number of amateur collectors. Annual plowing would have repeatedly exposed the largest of the artifacts for collection (Schiffer 1987:131). These activities would have gradually decreased the relative frequencies of some artifact types and increased those of others, while the integrity of the collections buried in the features remained relatively unchanged. The actual establishment of the site may have also effected the relationship of the surface collected materials to the underlying features. Historic documentation for the site suggests that the property was purchased in 1821 for cotton production. The conspicuous absence of whiteware supports this date as a terminus ante quem for domestic occupation of the site. In order to put the land into cotton production, the structures on the property would have had to be torn down, at which point the structural materials would likely have been pushed into the pit cellars and buried, effectively sealing the daily site refuse below the structural debris. The subsequent plowing that brought the artifacts to the surface for collection never reached deep enough to produce evidence for the original use of the features. In fact, the distribution map produced from the surface collection of brick and other structural debris (materials that would have been accessible to the plow at the top of the filled features) did effectively predict the general locations of the two major structural features at the site. Although the comparative analysis of the surface collected artifacts did not result in a predictive model for unexcavated features, general conclusions about the site could be made. For example, the interpretation by Clay (2001) of the linear anomaly identified in the north and northeast portion of the project area during the magnetometer survey as a road is probably correct. The surface collected materials from both the 2001 survey and the 1977 SEAC survey were mainly distributed inside the curve of this feature. This road would have been a physical barrier during the occupation of the site (possibly fence lined) that would have kept people and their cultural refuse contained to some extent. Also, even though the surface collection was fairly homogeneous in its distribution, it was found to well represent each of the temporal periods identified at the site as well as the economic status of the late eighteenth century residents. The second goal of the project, to characterize each feature and subsequently classify the relationships between each feature based upon their artifact collections, was somewhat more successful. The Index of Agreement similarity matrix suggested that each of the four named features was different from the others. Feature 4, possibly not a feature at all, was vastly different from the others. The variation between Feature 2 (the trash pit) and Features 1 and 3 (structures) was expected based on field observations regarding feature morphology. The variation between Features 1 and 3, however, is perhaps more telling about the use of the site. Mean ceramic dating determined that both
111 features, as well as Feature 2, had a mean date very close to the turn of the nineteenth century, so a temporal difference between Features 1 and 3 was not the source of their variation. A closer examination of the frequencies of interpretable artifact categories in the three features suggests that the collection from Feature 2 was within the expected for a trashpit at the site. However, Features 1 and 3 reflected some variation in the types of domestic artifacts deposited in them. The materials suggested that Feature 1 was likely associated with a kitchen (based upon a greater than expected proportion of faunal remains and food items) while Feature 3 was probably the central residence at 22AD557 (based upon a greater than expected proportion of personal items). The third goal of the project was to determine whether any of the material culture could actually be related to an earlier (1721 to 1729) French Colonial utilization of the site. The importance of this final goal stems from the fact that every previous investigation at the site, its namesake, and its nomination to the National Register are all based on the French Colonial component. The fascination with the French component originally stemmed from the belief that the site could have been a part of the St. Catherine’s Concession, but subsequent historical research by Atkinson (1992a) building on the work of Phelps (1945) has suggested that this is not likely. Any French Colonial component would therefore be representative of an outlying farmstead, and probably very few artifacts would remain from such a site. Although there are relatively few confirmed early eighteenth century artifacts at the site (Table 18), some are present, specifically, tin enameled and other early French Colonial earthenwares. However, none of the features tested at the site date to this period or otherwise suggest a French occupation. Figure 44 displays the distribution of all of the coarse earthenwares collected during the surface collection of the site. This distribution represents every surface collected ceramic that could be associated with a French occupation. However, it is likely that most of the untyped coarse ceramics actually belong to the later British/American occupation (these are the Possible French Period ceramics listed in Table 18). The contours were produced using the weights of all the coarse earthenwares, both known and possible French Period, and then the known French period ceramics (the tin enameled, Saintonge, and Charante sherds) were re-displayed as a positional post map. While there are several heavy concentrations of coarse earthenwares around the site, none of them are directly associated with a geophysical anomaly, nor are they directly associated with a notable collection of ceramics of known French production. It does not appear that any of the geophysical anomalies at the site can be associated with an early French occupation. Two conclusions can be drawn regarding an early French occupation of 22AD557. First, there is not a French component at the site and the tin enameled ceramics are actually associated with the later eighteenth century component. This conclusion is possible, since tin enameled varieties were still available in the last decades of the eighteenth century, but probably unlikely considering the variety of decorative styles recovered during this and previous surveys. Alternately, the French artifacts could be associated with the Native American component at 22AD557, as there is valid archaeological evidence that the Natchez Indians utilized French trade ceramics (Neitzel 1965). If this were the case, though, one would also expect to recover indigenous Native American wares, which were nearly absent from the artifact assemblage.
112 Table 18. Possible and Known French Period Ceramics Compared to Later Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Ceramics Collected in 2001.
Percent by Period Ceramic Type Count Weight (g) Weight French Period Charente 19 39.7 1.39 Saintonge 2 4.6 0.16 Faience Brune 4 8.6 0.30 Untyped Tin Enameled 33 49.1 1.72 subtotal 58 102 3.57
Possible French Period Untyped Coarse Earthenware 3 17.2 0.60 Coarse Redware 171 517.8 18.15 subtotal 174 535 18.75
Later Eighteenth and Untyped Refined Earthenware 45 60.1 2.11 Ninetenth Century Creamware 686 802.5 28.12 Pearlware 664 932.1 32.66 Refined Redware 3 9 0.32 Whiteware 2 2 0.07 Porcelain 81 109.6 3.84 Refined Stoneware 1 0.4 0.01 subtotal 1482 1915.7 67.13
Unknown Coarse Stoneware 25 300.9 10.54 Total 1739 2853.6 100.00
113 N 3491840
N 3491830
N 3491820 12 g
N 3491810 10 g
N 3491800 8 g
6 g N 3491790
4 g N 3491780
2 g
N 3491770 0 g
N 3491760
N 3491750
E 655370 E 655380 E 655390 E 655400 E 655410 E 655420 Figure 44. Distribution of coarse earthenwares at 22AD557. Distribution is displayed over a base map of the interpreted magnetometer anomalies and with a post map showing the location of all the known French Period ceramics.
114 The second conclusion to be drawn concerning the French component is that it exists, but as of yet, no features have been found that are associated with it. This is probably the most reasonable conclusion. During the 1720s any residence of the site would have probably been a single family dwelling featuring lightly constructed wooden structures. Access to trade goods would have been limited, so the dearth of material culture would have been limited and reuse of items rather than disposal would have been likely. The site was probably not occupied for more than ten years, and following the Natchez Massacre the Indians probably took any remaining items and burned any standing structures (Audhuy 1989). In consideration of the scope of this project, the primary goal of interpreting the previously ignored late eighteenth century homesite at 22AD557 was accomplished. The examination of the geophysical data and the surface and subsurface archaeological collections from the late eighteenth/early nineteenth century features suggest that there is more information that can be learned from additional investigation of the site. The preliminary testing of 22AD557 resulted in the site being excluded from the proposed land lease to the Natchez High School and it is currently under the protection of the Natchez Trace Parkway. However, encroaching erosion of the St. Catherine Creek bank will eventually threaten the site and it is hoped that this study will encourage additional testing of both the known features and those presently unconfirmed.
115 REFERENCES
Adams County Office of Records 1794 Spanish Records, Book 28
1805 Adams County Records, Deed Book D
1809 Adams County Records, Deed Book E
Atkinson, James R. 1992a Archeological Investigations on the 3X Section of the Natchez Trace Parkway in Mississippi, Including those at the St. Catherine Creek and Perkins Sites. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee, Florida.
1992b Archeological Investigations at the Pilgrim Bayou Site, Natchez Trace Parkway, Adams County, Mississippi. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.
Audhuy, Letha Wood 1989 Natchez in French Louisiana and Chateaubriand’s Epic, The Natchez. In Natchez Before 1830, edited by Noel Polk, pp. 29-42. University Press of Mississippi, Jackson.
Becker, H. 1995 From Nanotesla to Picotesla – A New Window for Magnetic Prospecting in Archaeology. Archaeological Prospection 2:217-228.
1998 Geophysical Exploration for Archaeology: An Introduction to Geophysical Exploration. Midwest Archeological Center, Special Report No. 1, Lincoln, Nebraska.
Blanchette, Jean-François 1981 The Role of Artifacts in the Study of Foodways in New France, 1720-60. National Historic Parks and Sites Branch, Parks Canada.
116 Boggess, Elizabeth M. 1990 Archival and Documentary Research on Historic Resources of Section 3X, Natchez Trace Parkway. Two volumes. Prepared by Archaeologists Unlimited, Natchez, Mississippi, for the Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service.
Bonath, Shawn 1977 French Dwelling Site, MAD15, Adams County, Mississippi. Appendix to Hamilton 1977. Draft on file, Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee, Florida.
Brassard, Michel, and Myriam Leclerc 2001 Identifier la Céramique et la Verre Anciens au Québec. Gouvernement du Québec, Ministère de la Culture et des Communications, Québec.
Brown, Ian W. 1973 Settlement Pattern in the Bluff Area of the Lower Mississippi Valley. Unpublished Honors thesis, Department of Anthropology, Harvard College.
1982 An Archaeological Study of Culture Contact and Change in the Natchez Bluffs Region. In La Salle and His Legacy: Frenchmen and Indians in the Lower Mississippi Valley, edited by Patricia W. Galloway, pp. 176-193. University Press of Mississippi, Jackson.
1983 Plaquemine Culture Houses in the Natchez Bluffs Region, Mississippi: Excavations at the Lookout Site. Mississippi Archaeology 18(1):14-26.
1985 Natchez Indian Archaeology: Culture Change and Stability in the Lower Mississippi Valley. Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Archaeological Report No. 15.
Carlson, David L. 1983 Computer Analysis of Dated Ceramics: Estimating Dates and Occupational Ranges. Southeastern Archaeology 2:8-20. Allen Press, Lawrence, Kansas.
Chenhall, Robert G. 1988 The Revised Nomenclature for Museum Cataloging. American Association for State and Local History (AASLH) Press, Nashville, Tennessee.
117 Clay, R. Berle 2001 Geophysical Survey at the French Dwelling Site, 22AD557, Natchez, Mississippi. Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc. Lexington, Kentucky.
Clark, Anthony 1990 Seeing Beneath the Soil: Prospecting Methods in Archaeology. B.T. Batsford. London.
Cotter, John L. 1951 Stratigraphic and Area Tests at the Emerald and Anna Mound Sites. American Antiquity 17(1):18-32.
1952 The Gordon Site in Southern Mississippi. American Antiquity 18(2):110- 126.
Deetz, James 1977 In Small Things Forgotten: The Archaeology of Early American Life. Anchor Press, Garden City, New York.
Deiss, Ronald W. 1981 The Development and Application of a Chronology for American Glass. Midwestern Archaeological Research Center, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois.
Elliott, Jack D., Jr. 1989 Comprehensive Plan for Historic Preservation for the Period of European Colonization in Mississippi. Draft. Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson, Mississippi.
Ford, James A. 1936 Analysis of Indian Village Site Collections from Louisiana and Mississippi. State of Louisiana Department of Conservation, Anthropological Study No. 2, Baton Rouge.
Groh, Lou 1999 Natchez National Historical Park, Archeological Overview and Assessment. Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee.
Grant, Ethan Allen, Jr. 1993 They Stayed on: The British Settler Community at Natchez, 1765-1800. Ph.D. dissertation, Auburn University, UMI Dissertation Services, Ann Arbor, Michigan
118 Halchin, Jill Y. 2001a Research Design for archeological investigations in the field north of Natchez-Adams High School, Natchez Trace Parkway. SEAC Acc. 1409. Manuscript on file, Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee.
2001b Trip report on archeological investigations in the field north of Natchez- Adams High School, Natchez Trace Parkway, August 8-15 and October 2- 16, 2001. SEAC Acc. 1409. Manuscript on file, Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee.
Hamilton, Christopher E 1977 Archeological Tests on the Natchez Trace Parkway: 1976-1977. Draft on file, Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee, Florida.
Haynes, Robert V. 1976 The Natchez District and the American Revolution. University Press of Mississippi, Jackson, Mississippi.
Heimmer, Don H. and Stephen L. DeVore 2000 Near-Surface, High Resoultion Geophysical Methods for Cultural Resource Management and Archaeological Investigations. In Science and Technology in Historic Preservation, edited by Ray A. Williamson and Paul R. Nickens, pp. 53-73. Plenum Publishers, New York.
Holmes, Jack D. L. 1970 A Guide to Spanish Louisiana 1762-1806. Louisiana Collection Series, New Orleans.
James, D. Clatyon 1968 Antebellum Natchez. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge.
Jones, Olive 1971 Glass Bottle Push-Ups and Pontil Marks. Historical Archaeology, 5:62– 73.
Jones, Olive and Catherine Sullivan 1989 The Parks Canada Glass Glossary for the Description of Containers, Tableware, Flat Glass, and Closures. Minister of the Environment, Ottawa.
119 Justice, Noel D. 1987 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern United States. A Modern Survey and Reference. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
Kvamme, Kenneth L. 2001 Current Practices in Archeogeophysics: Magnetics, Resistivity, Conductivity, and Ground Penetrating Radar. In Earth Sciences and Archaeology, edited by Paul Goldberg, Vance T. Holliday, and C. Reid Ferring, pp. 353-384. Plenum Publishers, New York.
Marquardt, William H. 1978 Advances in Archaeological Seriation. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Volume I. Michael B. Schiffer, ed. Academic Press, New York.
McConnell, Kevin 1988 Redware America’s Folk Art Pottery. Schiffer Publishing LTD, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
McCorvie, Mary R. 1992 The Archaeology of the Old Landmark: Nineteenth Century Taverns Along the St. Louis-Vicennes Trace in Southern Illinois. Illinois: Center for American Archeology.
McGahey, Samuel O. 2000 Mississippi Projectile Point Guide. Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Archaeological Report No.31, Jackson.
McNally, Paul 1979 French Table Glass from the Fortress of Louisbourg, Nova Scotia. National Historic Parks and Sites Branch, Parks Canada, Ottawa.
Miller, George L. 1992 TPQ Bibliography. Manuscript on file, National Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee.
Miller, Mary W. 1989 Comprehensive Plan for Historic Preservation for the Territorial Period in Mississippi. Draft. Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson, Mississippi.
Mississippi Division of Archives and History (MDAH) n.d. Mississippi prehistory. Draft on file, Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee. 120 Neitzel, Robert S. 1965 Archaeology of the Fatherland Site: The Grand Village of the Natchez. American Museum of Natural History, Anthropological Papers No. 51.
1983 The Grand Village of the Natchez Revisiter: Excavations at the Fatherland Site, Adams County, Mississippi, 1972. Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Archaeological Report No. 12, Jackson.
Noël-Hume, Ivor H. 1969 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. Vintage Books, New York.
Phelps, Dawson A. 1966 Colonial Natchez: A French Colony, Colonial Natchez: A British Colony, Fort Rosalie and its Successors. Manuscript on file, Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee, Florida.
1945 Narritive of the Hostilities Committed by the Natchez Against the Concession of St. Catherine. Journal of Mississippi History 7:1-15.
Reitz, Elizabeth J. and C. Margaret Scarry 1985 Reconstructing Historic Subsistence with an Example from Sixteenth- Century Florida. Society for Historical Archaeology. Special Publication Series, Number 3.
Robinson, W.S. 1951 A Method for Chronologically Ordering Archaeological Deposits. American Antiquity 16:293-301.
Sass, Julie 1989 Chronology of Natchez. In Natchez before 1830, edited by Noel Polk, pp. 3-7. University Press of Mississippi, Jackson.
Samford, Patricia M 1997 Response to a Market: Dating English Underglaze Transfer-Printed Wares. Historical Archaeology 31(2):1-29.
Schiffer, Michael B. 1987 Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Scollar, Irwin 1990 Archaeological Prospecting and Remote Sensing. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Great Britain.
121 South, Stanley 1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
Steponaitis, Vincas P. 1974 The Late Pre-history of the Natchez Region: Excavations at the Emerald and Foster Sites, Adams County, Mississippi. Unpublished Honors thesis, Department of Anthropology, Harvard College.
1981 Plaquemine Ceramic Chronology in the Natchez Region. Mississippi Archaeology 16(2):2-16.
Swain, Philip H. and Shirley M. Davis 1978 Remote Sensing: The Quantitative Approach. McGraw Hill, New York.
Turnbaugh, Sarah P. 1985 Domestic Pottery of the Northeastern United States, 1625-1850. Academic Press, New York.
Quimby, George 1942 The Natchezan Culture Type. American Antiquity 7(3):255-275.
122 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Charles F. Lawson was born September 12, 1976 in Kettering Ohio. He attended high school in Waverly, Iowa. He graduated with honors and received a Bachelor of Science degree in Anthropology from Iowa State University in 1998. He has been a graduate student in Anthropology at Florida State University since 1998 and during that time has worked as a teaching assistant in the Anthropology Department and as an Archeological Technician at the National Park Service’s Southeast Archeological Center in Tallahassee Florida.
123