"LIKE NUGGETS FROM A GOLD MINEu

SEARCHING FOR BRICKS AND THEIR MAKERS

IN 'THE COUNTRY'

B~f'

Kmtm (1 COfwer~

;\ th¢...i, ...uhmineJ Ilt

SOIl(mla Slale UFU vcr,il y

11'1 partial fulfiUlT'Ietlt of the fCqlJln:mcntfi

for the dcgr~ of

MASTER OF ARTS

tn

Copyright 2011

by

Kristin O. Converse

ii

AUTHORlZAnON FOR REPRODUCnON OF MASTER'S THESISIPROJECT

1pM' pernlt"j(m I~ n:pnll.lm.:til.m of Ihi$ rhais in ib endrel)" \Ii' !tbout runt\er uuthorilAtlOO fn.)m me. on the condiHt)Jllhat the per",)f1 Of a,eocy rl;!'(lucMing reproduction the "'OS$. and 1:Jf't)vi~ proper ackruJwkd,rnem nf auth.:If'l'htp.

III “LIKE NUGGETS FROM A GOLD MINE” SEARCHING FOR BRICKS AND THEIR MAKERS IN „THE ‟

Thesis by Kristin O. Converse

ABSTRACT

Purpose of the Study:

The history of the Pacific has favored large, extractive and national industries such as the , mining, lumbering, fishing and farming over smaller pioneer enterprises. This multi-disciplinary study attempts to address that oversight by focusing on the early brickmakers in „the Oregon Country‟. Using a combination of archaeometry and historical research, this study attempts to make use of a humble and under- appreciated artifact – brick – to flesh out the forgotten details of the emergence of the brick industry, its role in the shifting local economy, as well as its producers and their economic strategies.

Procedure:

Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis was performed on 89 red, common bricks archaeologically recovered from Fort and 113 comparative samples in an attempt to „source‟ the brick. Documentary research was conducted, both to guide the comparative clay sampling, and to create a regional history of brickmaking. It was hoped that these methods would result in the identification of early centers of brick production and individual brickmakers, whose behaviors could be tested against Margaret Purser‟s economic boomsurfing model.

Findings:

INAA results showed that brick separated into four distinct geochemical groups; a doublet, or pair of similar bricks; and six outliers, indicating they came from at least eleven separate geographic locations. Group A was likely from Wilsonville, Oregon; and Group D from Astoria, Oregon. Group D had a northern provenance, and Group B appeared to be a foreign import, probably from . Historical research documented the existence of numerous brick producers contemporaneous with Fort Vancouver.

iv

Fort Vancouver'so proc:ut~nt ofbridt was mVfe "'OOlplex than Pfe'Vlously undemood. lbey ~t1y obtruDed brick from AJI)tooa. On:iOO; Wi15tl.wiUe. OreSt)ft; I k\.~wen· defined Iocatioo '0 the oorthetn WilIamttle Valley; _ weU U J'O"ibty impordna RId. common brick from England, Although the individuals who made the brick recove:red at Fort Va#l\:ou\er were lk)f identified. It W3.1J possible to billie industry as I whole apiut t~ bt'lOIDSurf(;r model. It 1ppC~ that brickma.kc~ In the On:,on Country wUitf!d boomsuffcr ~tr..ttgies in pwwit IJf tbeir livelihooeJ",

Chair. ______

MA Prop'am~ Cultural Rcsoortc§ Management Sonoma 5t* Univemty

v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am deeply indebted to:

Margie Purser, Sonoma State University Leah Minc, Michelle Jolly, Sonoma State University Oregon State University Radiation Center Tessa Langford, Fort Vancouver National Historic Site Heidi Pierson, Fort Vancouver National Historic Site David Brauner, Oregon State University Dennis Wylie, Oregon State Parks Bill Hidden, Hidden Farms Chuck Anderson, Columbia Brick Plant Clark Niewendorp, Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Oregon Historical Society Research Library Staff

for generously donating their time, expertise, patience, and bricks.

*****

I‟d also like to thank:

Alex Wolf Janet Converse Grant Converse Drew & Hailey Converse Paul Converse

for their love, support, clay collection, and editing …to name but a few of their contributions to this project.

*****

And finally, this work is dedicated to

Jesse Otero and Katie-dog

for bringing me daily joy and valiantly trying to keep me sane.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...... 1 If Bricks Could Talk… ...... 1 Purpose of this Study ...... 3 The Search for a Theoretical Framework ...... 4 The New Western Historians ...... 5 Purser‟s „Boomsurfer‟ Model ...... 10 Summary ...... 13 CHAPTER 2: A HISTORY OF „THE OREGON COUNTRY‟ ...... 15 Early Non-Native Peoples in the Oregon Country ...... 15 The Establishment of Fort Vancouver ...... 16 Ex-Trappers in the Willamette Valley ...... 22 Boosters and Merchants ...... 24 The Missionary Presence ...... 24 „Oregon Fever‟ and the „Land Rush‟ ...... 26 Gold Fever! ...... 27 Early Commercial Centers ...... 29 Transportation of Goods ...... 31 Overview of the Regional Economy ...... 33 Settlement in „Northern Oregon‟ ...... 36 Summary ...... 38 CHAPTER 3: USE AND MANUFACTURE OF BRICK ...... 40 Bricks as Ballast ...... 40 Building with Bricks ...... 41 Desirability of Brick ...... 44 Industry Trends ...... 45 Brick Availability Over Time ...... 47 Nineteenth Century Brick Making ...... 49 Clay Extraction ...... 50 Tempering ...... 52 Molding the Brick ...... 54 Drying the „Green‟ Brick ...... 56 Firing ...... 57 Evolution of Technology ...... 60 Summary ...... 61 CHAPTER 4: DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF BRICKS AND CLAY ...... 64 Bricks at Fort Vancouver ...... 64 Earliest Bricks in the Willamette Valley ...... 69 Mission Bottom ...... 69 Wheatland (Yamhill County) ...... 70 Salem and Vicinity (Marion County) ...... 70 Oregon City ...... 73 St. Paul and Surrounding (Marion County) ...... 75 French Prairie/Champoeg ...... 76 Aurora/Hubbard ...... 77 ...... 77

vii

The ...... 82 The West Willamette Valley (Yamhill & Polk Counties) ...... 83 The Southern Willamette Valley (Benton & Linn Counties) ...... 86 Along The ...... 89 Vancouver and North of the Columbia ...... 90 Summary ...... 93 CHAPTER 5: PREVIOUS RESEARCH ...... 97 General Brick Studies ...... 97 Geochemical Studies of Ceramics ...... 105 Basic Principles of INAA ...... 107 Geochemical Studies of Brick ...... 110 Archaeology of Brick in the ...... 114 Archaeology of Brick at Fort Vancouver ...... 116 Fort Vancouver National Historic Reserve‟s Current Typology ...... 125 Summary ...... 126 CHAPTER 6: TESTING METHODS AND RESULTS ...... 127 Fort Vancouver Brick Sample Selection...... 127 Comparative Brick Sample Selection ...... 128 Brick Sample Preparation Procedures ...... 130 Comparative Clay Sample Selection ...... 131 Clay Collection and Preparation Procedures ...... 133 Comparative Pottery Samples ...... 135 INAA Irradiation and Counting Protocols ...... 135 Data Analysis ...... 136 Mahalanobis Distances and Principal Component Analysis by Dr. Leah Minc ...... 150 Influence of Geologic Factors ...... 153 Locational Analysis ...... 162 Summary ...... 167 CHAPTER 7: INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS...... 169 Fort Vancouver Brick Producers ...... 169 Brickmaking as Boomsurfing? ...... 172 Other Information Gleaned From This Research ...... 176 Future Research ...... 178 In Conclusion ...... 179 REFERENCES CITED ...... 181 APPENDICES ...... 209 APPENDIX A: INAA Results – Fort Vancouver Brick Samples ...... 210 APPENDIX B: INAA Results – Clay Samples ...... 216 APPENDIX C: INAA Results – Comparative Specimens ...... 222 APPENDIX D: Probability of Membership in Group A ...... 225 APPENDIX E: Probability of Membership in Group B ...... 229 APPENDIX F: Probability of Membership in Group C ...... 233 APPENDIX G: Probability of Membership in Group D ...... 237

viii

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Fort Vancouver‟s location in „the Oregon Country.‟ ...... 3 Figure 2. Fort Vancouver in 1845...... 17 Figure 3. Early settlements in the Oregon Country...... 23 Figure 4. The Lot Whitcomb at near Oregon City, in the 1850s...... 32 Figure 5. The George Gay house in Wheatland, Oregon, as it appeared in 1930...... 43 Figure 6. A horse-driven pug mill on a cover of West Shore Magazine in 1890...... 53 Figure 7. Fort Vancouver‟s brick powder magazine...... 65 Figure 8. John Boon‟s brick store in Salem, Oregon...... 72 Figure 9. Brick kiln at Smockville (now Sherwood), Oregon, circa 1890...... 85 Figure 10. Kiln at the Hidden Brick Company in Vancouver, ...... 92 Figure 11. English and American brick recovered at Fort Vancouver...... 121 Figure 12. Archaeological locations of Fort Vancouver bricks...... 128 Figure 13. Clay samples were obtained from 50 locations in Oregon...... 133 Figure 14. Clay was sampled from 17 locations in Washington...... 134 Figure 15. Histogram of Neodymium...... 138 Figure 16. Histogram of lanthanum ...... 138 Figure 17. Bimodal histogram of sodium ...... 139 Figure 18. Bimodal histogram of barium ...... 139 Figure 19. Histogram of scandium...... 140 Figure 20. Bivariate plot of rubidium and sodium ...... 141 Figure 21. Bivariate plot of iron and scandium ...... 141 Figure 22. Bivariate plot of sodium and scandium ...... 143 Figure 23. Bivariate plot lanthanum and iron ...... 144 Figure 24. Dendrogram of Fort Vancouver brick samples ...... 146 Figure 25. Bivariate plot of PC1 and PC2 showing brick Group A membership...... 148 Figure 26. Bivariate plot of PC1 and PC2 showing brick Group B membership...... 149 Figure 27. Bivariate plot of PC1 and PC2 showing Groups C & D membership...... 149 Figure 28. The basins of the Willamette Lowland Trough...... 155 Figure 29. The geologic units of the three northern basins...... 156 Figure 30. Clay samples WP_96 and WP_71from Wilsonville and Jefferson...... 159 Figure 31. Group C sample sites in Washington and Oregon ...... 160 Figure 32. Group D clays were taken from units of Qa, Qff, and Tms...... 161 Figure 33. Astoria, Oregon in 1813...... 171 Figure 34. George Wolfer ...... 174

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Brickworkers noted in 1850 & 1860 census records...... 87 Table 2. Comparative Brick Samples Analyzed...... 129 Table 3. Geochemically Distinct Groups of Fort Vancouver Brick Samples...... 142 Table 4. Comparative samples that initially clustered with Group C...... 147 Table 5: Principle Component Analysis of Bricks and Clays...... 153 Table 6. Archaeological Provenience and Group Affiliation of Fort Vancouver Bricks 165

ix

1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

If Bricks Could Talk…

At the dawn of the twentieth century, T.T. Geer, former , returned to the old family homestead where he was born, accompanied by his elderly father. The home was long destroyed and its former location was unrecognizable on the land. In his memoir, he recalled

prowling around in the fern…looking for some broken bricks, for they are as sure to be found where an old residence has formerly stood as are broken dishes. Soon I found a brickbat…Upon seeing it, [my father] picked it up eagerly, and seemed as glad to see it and held it as fondly as if it had been a nugget from a gold mine. Further search discovered about forty whole bricks in the briars…I brought one of them home with me and have it now as an invaluable keepsake (Geer 1912:534).

More than 100 years later, archaeologists still search for old homesites using Geer‟s technique, but rarely do they have the Geers‟ enthusiasm for bricks! Ubiquitous at nineteenth and twentieth century Pacific Northwest archaeological sites, bricks are often viewed as more of a logistical nuisance than a useful artifact for analysis. At a glance, bricks appear all alike, yet upon examination, they can exhibit a frustrating degree of variation. Unbranded bricks in particular provide an unsatisfying ratio of information gained to curation space occupied, and many excavated bricks went unrecorded, uncollected, and even discarded. Yet bricks have a story to tell if we can coax it from them, and contain potential information regarding the development of industry, trade networks, construction techniques, resource utilization, and even attitudes and status

(Kelly and Kelly 1977; Metz and Russ 1991; Feister 1984; Peterson 1989).

Large quantities of bricks have been archaeologically recovered from Fort

Vancouver, the former site of a Hudson‟s Bay Company (HBC) outpost occupied from 1829 until 1860 and located on the Columbia River near what is now Vancouver,

Washington (see Figure 1). Both English bricks (identifiable by their unique size, coloring, and branding) and common red bricks (unbranded and presumed to be of local origin) are found at the fort, along with a brick type speculated to have originated from

Roman Britain and been transported as ship‟s ballast (Gurcke 1982:82). Records show that the HBC regularly imported bricks from their headquarters in England, although it took two years from the time they were requisitioned until they arrived at Vancouver.

So, imagine then, the disappointment felt in 1825, when the bricks aboard the William and Ann – which had traveled from , across the Atlantic Ocean, around Cape

Horn, up the Pacific coast, and more than 100 miles inland on the Columbia River – were found by Chief John McLoughlin to be “of a very inferior quality” (Hussey

1957:49). Perhaps because of dissatisfaction with the quality of distant imports, bricks were subsequently purchased from unknown suppliers in the Willamette Valley, roughly

50 miles away.

The distance that bricks were transported hints at their importance during the nineteenth century. Yet, although viewed as a necessity, brick was nonetheless a mundane item receiving infrequent mention in the documentary record.

Societal attitude toward the brick industry in the 19th century seems to have been one of general disinterest. It was a mundane, commonplace industry that only became newsworthy when it was established or when it was in trouble. Very little is known about the people who owned and operated the yards or about the effect of the industry on individuals (Peterson 1989:53-54).

Similarly, with the exception of Gurcke (1982; 1983; 1987) and Peterson (1989), scholars have been generally disinterested in the subject of brickmaking in the Pacific Northwest.

2

Figure 1. Fort Vancouver’s location in ‘the Oregon Country’ (Maps.com).

Purpose of this Study

This multi-disciplinary study attempts to address the aforementioned lack of information. By combining the geochemical analysis of brick artifacts from Fort

Vancouver with historical research, the goal of the project is to gain insight into the early development of the regional brickmaking industry. Specifically, it was hoped that instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA) could determine the geologic origins of

Fort Vancouver‟s unbranded common bricks. In tandem with documentary research, this would hopefully allow the identification of early centers of brick production; the recognition of individual brickmakers; the economic strategies they employed; and their role in the larger economy. Bricks from Fort Vancouver appeared ideal for researching the emergence of the industry for several reasons. With an insatiable need for bricks to

3 construct buildings, chimneys, fireplaces, and bake ovens, Fort Vancouver was a major center of brick consumption – and had the HBC‟s financial and transportation resources to obtain them from near and far. In addition, the HBC‟s occupation of Fort Vancouver predated the general settlement of the region and endured through its initial development, a time period which saw the dramatic shift from English monopoly to American capitalism. By examining the emergence of a specific commodity and industry during this formative time, a broader aim of this research is to contribute to a more complete and nuanced history of the region.

The Search for a Theoretical Framework

Should the early production centers and makers of bricks in the Northwest be identified, a theoretical framework would be needed to examine their economic behaviors. Don Hardesty has condemned Western historical archaeology as a “thing of shreds and patches”; accused it of lacking well-developed research strategies; and recommended turning to the New Western Historians for regional research frameworks

(Hardesty 1991:29). The so-called New Western Historians, particularly Limerick,

Worster, Robbins, and White, trained a critical eye on traditional history and opted to incorporate environmental issues, gender relations, the experiences of minorities, labor history, and more, into their historical research. This interdisciplinary approach attempts to place the area of study in a larger social, cultural, political, and economic context.

Hardesty believed that Limerick, Worster, Robbins, and White identified cultural themes of the American West that would likely be manifest in the material culture of the region and could be used as models for researching social and cultural change, as long as a regional emphasis was placed in larger context (Hardesty 1991:30). Dean Saitta is

4 another archaeologist who advocated turning to Western critical history for research development, believing that “New Western Historians…have demonstrated the embeddedness of Western life and culture in larger, global historical processes of conquest, ethnic conflict, population migration, economic exploitation, and political domination” (Saitta 2005:374). The works of the New Western Historians were therefore considered in hopes they would provide a relevant economic framework for the research at hand.

The New Western Historians

Limerick (1987; 2000), White (1983; 1991), Worster (1992), and Robbins (1983;

1994; 1997; 2001; 2005) overwhelmingly characterize the economy of the West as extractive, dependent, capital poor, and volatile. According to Limerick, “the history of the West is a study of a place undergoing conquest and never fully escaping its consequences” (Limerick 1987:26). This conquest was “a literal, territorial form of economic growth” and “a contest for property and profit” resulting in the exploitation of resources and assertion of cultural dominance that is ongoing to this day (Limerick

1987:27). In matters of economics, Limerick believes the West is characterized both by rapid cycles of boom and bust and a reliance on Federal intervention as well as its distance from eastern centers of power and “a dependence upon natural-resource extraction” (Limerick 1987:30). Speaking with regard to agriculture, Limerick notes,

“farmers will continue to feel at the mercy of outside forces – because, in fact, they are.

Western farmers in the late nineteenth century lived with a sense of being squeezed by history, in a vise built by dropping prices on one side and high costs on the other”

(Limerick 1987:131).

5

Donald Worster sees the West as defined primarily by two interests: „the

Cowboy‟, which includes ranchers, stockmen, and herdsmen and „Hydraulic Societies‟, the developers of major water management features for irrigation, flood control, and energy. The history of the West is the history of these groups‟ often disastrous ecological, economic, and social impacts. “The drive for the economic development of the West was often a ruthless assault on nature and it has left behind it much death, depletion, and ruin” (Worster 1992:13). Other impacts included the creation of economic giants at the expense and exploitation of others, for “the West has been ruled by concentrated power” (Worster 1992:15) and “the domination of nature has also led to the domination of some people by others” (Worster 1992:31).

Robbins‟ (1983; 1994; 1997; 2001; 2005) and White‟s (1983; 1991) research is more specific to the Pacific Northwest, but their refrains sound familiar. According to

Robbins, “the region‟s economy, both east and west of the mountains, has centered for the past 200 years on one or more of the region‟s extractive resources: furs, fishing, mining, farming, and lumbering” (Robbins 1983:5). Robbins further characterized these extractive industries as “extremely volatile, prone to cycles of boom and bust; they have produced their share of ruined and blighted communities; and not one has brought sustained prosperity to large numbers of its dependent populations” (Robbins

1994:102). Indeed, the Northwest‟s abundant natural resources were extractive in more ways than one – for the raw materials usually left the West and were shipped east.

Robbins borrowed a colorful illustration of the point: “Dorothy Johansen, long-time history professor at Reed College, once likened the region to a cow whose feeding end was in the Pacific Northwest but whose milking apparatus was located on Wall Street”

6

(Robbins 1983:5). Along with the movement of resources east, the profits also flowed east. “The American and Canadian Northwests suffered the consequences of economic colonialism: lack of regional autonomy in the control of natural resources and the appropriation of the wealth gleaned through the processing of those resources by capitalists outside the Northwest” (Robbins 2001:162).

Likewise, White noted, “the West possessed an extractive economy that depended on outside markets, outside capital, and, most often, skills and technologies imported from the outside” (White 1991:267). Western markets almost exclusively dealt in raw materials.

Anglo Americans transformed land, grass, plants, rock, and timber into resources. During the late nineteenth and most of the early twentieth centuries, western economic development consisted largely of identifying such resources, extracting them from nature, and transporting them elsewhere. Westerners did not usually participate in the final molding of resources into finished goods (White 1991:243).

White also trained an eye on agricultural economics, finding farms also were subject to outside markets and prone to volatility.

Ambitions…of the settlers in the Willamette Valley for large profits in the commercial market were doomed to frustration for much of the 19th century. Farmers producing staple crops increasingly operated in a world market over which they could exert little influence. A farmer could accurately plan what his family would need, but he could not predict what the price of wheat would be or what specialty crop would sell (White 1983:114).

Similarly, other small businesses were susceptible to outside markets: “on the Pacific

Coast, small manufacturers thrived because of the region‟s isolation…other manufacturers served local consumer markets…but most of these businesses could prosper only as long as freight rates remained high enough to banish eastern competition”

(White 1991:273).

7

White and his colleagues‟ characterizations of western economies do not seem to ring true for the experience of mid-nineteenth century brickmakers in Oregon and

Washington, who apparently served local markets, required little capital and minimal technology in the manufacture of their product, and whose small businesses grew along with regional settlement. The New Western Historians portray the West‟s economy as reliant upon outside markets, capital, and technology; its role limited to that of supplier of raw materials to the East; its profits as migrating east; and as subject to abrupt cycles of boom and bust. Large, extractive industries such as the fur trade, mining, lumbering, fishing and farming are emphasized, and smaller operations are largely ignored. Though he notes the existence of small businesses serving local markets, White implies that they rapidly succumbed to competition with eastern suppliers (White 1991:273). In general, the New Western Historians appear to overlook the early, transitional economy of the

West – focusing instead on the developed economy of the late-1800s.

In contrast, in „the Oregon Country‟ of the mid-1800s, “still newly settled and relatively distant from the influences of the cultural revolution, early settlers experienced a time lag of a few years during which they had few intermediaries, such as a developed market economy and industrial systems” (Boag 1992:45). Although linked to the rest of the world via months of marine or overland travel, the Pacific Northwest remained fairly isolated. The transcontinental telegraph was not completed until 1861 and didn‟t reach

Portland until 1864. The transcontinental railroad wasn‟t completed until 1869, and a railroad linking and Oregon didn‟t operate until 1887. Although the heyday of the fur trade was over, the wholesale exportation of natural resources had yet to occur.

8

The triumvirate of capital, technology, and markets at the heart of the New Western

Historians‟ economy had not yet reached pre-territorial Oregon.

Instead, an “agricultural economy with small industry oriented to provide for local needs” (Vaughan 1974:161) was in existence during a time when “more manufacturing was done in homes than in factories” (Wilkes 1974a:12). The industries to first emerge in the Oregon Country were those that performed tasks previously relegated to the homestead and that contributed to the settlers‟ subsistence and infrastructure. Sawmills, gristmills – and I would argue brickworks – were the first commercial ventures in new communities. These primary, local industries continued to meet the needs of the community over time, operating in tandem with the secondary, extractive commercial endeavors that later developed.

Thus, while the New Western Historians‟ critical and holistic approach to

Western history is a model for compiling diverse stories into a regional history, their economic model is unfortunately irrelevant to the events unfolding in the Oregon Country between 1829 and 1860 as the Hudson‟s Bay Company gradually lost their monopoly on the region. Others have noted similar limitations in the New Western Historian‟s approach, including Alison Wylie, who pointed out, “archaeologists are in a position to challenge the relatively limited vision of many new western historians – a vision which despite their quest for a more inclusive understanding of the West, frequently reinforces an entrenched preoccupation with later „westward movements‟ from the East Coast”

(Wylie 1993:10).

9

Purser’s ‘Boomsurfer’ Model

A smaller-scale, less-temporally entrenched economic framework is therefore needed with which to examine early brick enterprises. A likely candidate is Margaret

Purser‟s boomsurfer model. Purser coined the term „boomsurfer‟ to refer to “middle- level capitalists, skilled workers, and extended families [who] developed practices for surviving in one place from one rush to the next” (Purser 1995:232). But, she clarified,

„boomsurfer‟ is “intended to describe not so much a specific group of people, but rather a suite of strategies that people across the nineteenth century American west employed from time to time, to survive the brutal boom-bust economic swings of that particular place and time” (Purser 2009:4).

Flexibility and opportunism were key components in the boomsurfing strategy, which required that individuals act quickly to take advantage of perceived economic opportunities. Other strategies included diversification – the participation in multiple and varied money-making endeavors – and the pooling of finances, equipment, know-how, labor, and other resources by forming partnerships with multiple individuals. This diversity and multiplicity, it was hoped, would serve to capture an economic wave, or at least lessen the risk of being wiped out should any one business fail. In short, boomsurfers believed there was safety in participating in varied projects with multiple partners. Furthermore, these partnerships had the added benefit of forming and cementing ties that could be advantageous in future business dealings.

Business ventures nearly always involved the shared risks of a partnership with at least one, but rarely more than three other individuals…Kinship played a frequent part in these business connections… Although individual ventures and partnerships could be brief, the network of business relationships continued to rework ties between families (Hayes and Purser 1990:58).

10

Certain types of economic ventures were particularly conducive to these boomsurfing strategies. Boomsurfers eschewed making large investments of capital, devoting considerable knowledge, skill, and labor to their projects instead. In addition they preferred portable and inexpensive – which usually meant low-tech – equipment.

Minimal equipment and structural requirements kept their entry costs low, as did their tendency to lease or squat on land instead of buying, and their use of locally and seasonally available materials that were effectively free. These behaviors allowed boomsurfers to remain flexible and opportunistic: “investments in nonportable improvements were kept to a minimum, to allow a rapid and low cost response to changing conditions” (Hayes and Purser 1990:59). Engaging in seasonal or sporadic activities that allowed the concurrent operation of other financial endeavors was also characteristic of boomsurfing, as was their participation in “collateral or subsidiary industries and services that supported, and therefore profited from, the dominant economy of their area at the time” (Purser 2009:14).

Offhand, it would appear that Purser‟s boomsurfer model is a better yardstick than the New Western Historians‟ against which to measure the economic experience of early brickmakers in the Northwest. At its core, the boomsurfer model is about individuals employing economic strategies to take advantage of local conditions, rather than regional industries and national markets. Boomsurfing was also a behavior practiced across time and not limited by access to eastern markets, although Purser acknowledges that western markets were eventually forced into the “gradual replacement of locally assembled, processed, and maintained consumer goods with goods… more fully processed at distant production centers” (Purser 1999:129). Likewise, Purser recognizes that early western

11 settlers were faced with “materially limited times” (Purser 1999:127). Indeed, boomsurfing represented an alternate economic strategy in response to such limitations:

“In times and places of uncertainty, people will develop sets of material strategies that foster stability, often at the expense of conventional economic concepts like „profit‟”

(Purser 2009:4).

Given the characteristics outlined by Purser, then, it should be possible to test whether early brickmakers meet the boomsurfer criteria. Boomsurfing behavior should be identifiable by:

1) A high degree of flexibility and opportunism

2) Multiple and diverse economic activities occurring simultaneously, rather than

economic specialization

3) Partnerships and joint ventures, likely linked by kinship or social ties

4) Investments in time and labor, instead of substantive capital outlay

5) The use of inexpensive, portable, and low-tech equipment as opposed to

cutting-edge technological innovations

6) The tendency to lease or squat on land, as well as to utilize other effectively

free resources

7) Participating in seasonal or sporadic activities conducive to multiple ventures

8) Employment in collateral or support industries

This suite of strategies allowed boomsurfers to „surf‟ times of instability by capitalizing on their social ties as well as available resources and labor instead of technological innovation. Their industrial pursuits were attempts to both profit from the fluctuations in the local economy and to mitigate its negative effects. Thus their high-labor, low-capital,

12 low-technology ventures – often dismissed or underappreciated by students of history – represented “not failure, but alternative definitions for „success‟” (Purser 2003:4).

Summary

Using a combination of archaeometry and historical research, this study attempts to make use of a humble and under-appreciated artifact – brick – to flesh out the forgotten details of the emergence of the brick industry in the Pacific Northwest, its role in the shifting local economy, as well as its makers and their economic strategies. This research will also evaluate whether Purser‟s boomsurfing model is applicable to the local brick industry of the 1830s, 1840s, and 1850s. The ultimate goal is to contribute to a more complete regional history; what Dean Saitta calls a „vernacular history‟ or one which is

“local rather than national in orientation. They ultimately derive from the first-hand, everyday experiences of those „ordinary people‟ who were directly involved with history‟s events...They thus threaten the sacred and timeless nature of official history”

(Saitta 2005:373).

For too long, the official history of the Euro-American settlement of the Pacific

Northwest centered on the fur trade. More recent histories have addressed large extractive industries such as fisheries, timber, agriculture, and mining, but few pioneer enterprises have received scholarly attention. But before there were large, national industries, there were small, local businesses that bridged the divide between subsistence and commercial endeavors. These peripheral industries provided the everyday materials needed by an increasing populace and made important contributions to the region‟s development. It is out of respect for these often nameless craftspeople that this research

13 attempts to “flesh out working-class agency and history in a region long dominated by seamless, mythic narratives of territorial expansion and progress” (Saitta 2005:380).

Toward these goals, Chapter 2 reviews the nineteenth century European and

American settlement history of what today are the states of Washington and Oregon, providing social, economic, and political context for the actors under scrutiny. In order to increase our understanding of the craft, Chapter 3 explains the need for brick and examines the methods of brick manufacture most likely employed by nineteenth century brickmakers. Historical references to early brick production and use throughout the region are compiled in Chapter 4, both to guide sample collection for INAA and to create a regional history of brickmaking. To contextualize the current study, a comprehensive literature review of previous research by others is offered in Chapter 5. In Chapter 6, I discuss the methods employed in the present geochemical analysis of archaeologically recovered bricks from Fort Vancouver and present the INAA findings. Finally, Chapter 7 lays out my interpretation of the results, places them in theoretical context, and makes recommendations for future research.

14

CHAPTER 2: A HISTORY OF „THE OREGON COUNTRY‟

The bricks at the heart of this research were recovered from the English-owned

Hudson‟s Bay Company outpost of Fort Vancouver and are believed to date to 1825 –

1860. A review of the early European and American history of „the Oregon Country‟ is therefore offered to provide context for the people, places, and activities discussed later in this paper. The Oregon Country, as the Americans called it, was roughly defined as the land between the and the Pacific Ocean, from the Arctic Circle in the north to what is now the Oregon/California border in the south (McKay 1980:1). The

British referred to this contested geographical area as the Columbia Department. An equally important goal is to discover the towns and settlements that were contemporaneous with Fort Vancouver, and therefore possible suppliers of the brick found there. This in turn, will guide the clay sample collection that lies at the heart of sourcing via INAA.

Early Non-Native Peoples in the Oregon Country

European explorers and maritime traders plied the western coast of North

America throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, with Spain and Russia,

“the earliest pretenders to empire,” establishing outposts in California and Alaska

(Robbins 2005:20). Britain and the U.S. were also interested in the West‟s potential and launched scientific voyages of discovery, followed by trading ships that bartered with the coastal Native American groups. But it wasn‟t until 1792 that the treacherous Columbia

River bar was successfully navigated and an American ship, captained by Robert Gray, penetrated the inland Oregon Country. Overland exploration soon followed, with the

Lewis and Clark expedition famously reaching the Pacific in 1805. But these were brief

15 forays of limited duration; sustained settlement of the region by EuroAmericans can be said to originate with the commercial aspirations of the land-based fur trade.

With furs, particularly pelts, in high demand throughout European,

Chinese and American markets, in 1811 American sent two parties of men – one overland and one by sea – to establish a post at the mouth of the Columbia River near present-day Astoria. Following the belated news of the , the demoralized crew hastily sold the fort to the Northwest Fur

Company, a British venture based out of Canada. Rechristened Fort George, the post continued to operate with many of the same personnel. In 1821, the Northwest Fur

Company was subsumed by the London-based Hudson‟s Bay Company (HBC) by the order of the British government. HBC Governor George Simpson subsequently surveyed the region and determined that relocating to a new post further inland was warranted.

Faced with the high cost of sustaining isolated outposts, Simpson hoped the move would help to “render ourselves independent of Foreign aid in regard to the means of subsistence‟” (Gibson 1985:23).

The Establishment of Fort Vancouver

Thus, a site roughly one hundred miles upstream on the north bank of the

Columbia River and near the confluence of the was selected by the

HBC for both its shipping access and agricultural potential. The new post, christened

Fort Vancouver, was constructed during the winter of 1824-1825 and Fort George was vacated except for a caretaker. Fort Vancouver became the administrative headquarters and supply depot of the HBC‟s Columbia Department, overseeing 24 HBC outposts throughout the Oregon Country. Originally situated on a bluff one mile inland, Fort

16

Vancouver was relocated in 1829 to a plain adjacent to the river, where it remained until its abandonment by the HBC in 1860 (Ross 1976:17). It is this second site of Fort

Vancouver that has been preserved since 1948 under the management of the National

Park Service. None of the original fur-trade era buildings are extant, although replicas have been built on the grounds.

Figure 2. Fort Vancouver in 1845 (OHS 008519).

Fort Vancouver consisted of HBC dwellings, storehouses, shops, offices, and other buildings within a stockade, and it was surrounded by a village of lower-ranked employees and their families (Figure 2). The result was

a small, almost self-sufficient European community that included a hospital, school, several churches, thirty to fifty small houses where employees lived with their Indian wives and families, storehouses for furs, trading goods, and grain, and workshops where artisans and laborers engaged in blacksmithing, carpentry, barrel making, and other crafts (Schwantes 2000:42).

17

During the course of its operations from 1825-1860, Fort Vancouver sent out fur brigades in search of pelts and received, stored, and exported furs in exchange for scarce commodities. An 1840-1841 inventory of goods available for trade at the fort‟s store included

Indian awls, needles, scissors, thread, Canton beads, blankets of varying description, ball vest buttons, combs, yard goods, colored cock feathers, files, looking glasses, Indian guns, wire gun worms, powder horns, silk handkerchiefs, fishhooks, pocket knives, scalping knives, copper and brass kettles, finger rings, soap, axes, lanterns, frying pans, spoons, vinegar, molasses, carbonate of soda, and sundry other articles (Winther 1950:55).

In an attempt to follow the HBC‟s directive for self-sufficiency, Fort Vancouver established extensive agricultural and industrial enterprises to meet not only the fort‟s needs but to supply the Columbia Department‟s outposts. Agricultural endeavors included dairying, pig farming, raising livestock, and tending orchards and gardens.

Industries at the fort included sawmilling, shipbuilding, grain milling, fishing, carpentry, baking, coopering, tanning, and blacksmithing. The first flour mill was erected in 1828 (Dobbs 1932:14) and by 1834, the company sawmill was “cutting lumber enough during the year to supply not only the fort, but to load one or two vessels for the

Hawaiian Islands” (Bancroft and Victor 1886:9). These activities sprawled out from Fort

Vancouver for 30 miles along the Columbia River and 10 miles inland to the north. More discreet enterprises were also established on at the Columbia-Willamette

River confluence, in the Willamette Valley to the south, and in the at Fort

Nisqually and Cowlitz Farm. Although originally intended to supply the subsistence needs of the Columbia Department, these activities evolved into more commercial endeavors. In 1839, the HBC contracted with Russian fur traders operating out of Alaska and California, arranging to provide them with agricultural produce (Throckmorton

18

1961:9). “The Russian agreement was in part responsible for the formation of the Puget

Sound Agricultural Company…[for] agricultural production at Fort Vancouver was insufficient to meet the new export demand imposed by the Russian contract”

(Throckmorton 1961:9). Prior to the existence of the Puget Sound farms, McLoughlin had to purchase agricultural shortfalls from both the Willamette Valley and California.

“In 1840, for example, McLoughlin had to buy four thousand bushels of wheat in

California in order to satisfy all of his needs” (Gibson 1985:94).

Supplies that Fort Vancouver could not produce locally, as well as trade goods to exchange for furs, were requisitioned from London on ships that, ideally, arrived once or twice each year and returned laden with furs for foreign markets (Ross 1976:17).

Multiple ships, “armed with cannon, muskets, cutlasses” (Farnham 1843:190) and carrying “some five hundred tons of cargo each” (Gibson 1985:21) were employed in the importation of English goods and the exportation of Northwest furs. One generally departed England in the autumn, reaching Fort Vancouver in the spring; then departed

Fort Vancouver in the autumn, returning to England in the spring. Thus, “three ships were maintained: one going, one coming, and one standing in reserve at Fort Vancouver”

(Gibson 1985:21). Between runs to and from England, the ships were used to export other products to foreign markets including Hawaii, then referred to as the Sandwich

Islands, and Russian fur trade posts in Alaska and California.

One of these ships arrives at Fort Vancouver in the spring of each year…having discharged these supplies, it takes a cargo of lumber to the Sandwich Islands, or of flour and goods to the Russians at Sitka or Kamskatka; returns in August; receives the furs collected at Fort Vancouver and sails again for England (Farnham 1843:190).

19

The sailing route of these ships also required a stop in Hawaii both coming and going from England. As a result, in 1833 an HBC station was established at , further widening their sphere of trade. Fort Vancouver exchanged lumber, flour, salmon, and other products for Hawaiian items such as sandalwood, sugar, and coral.

At its peak, Fort Vancouver oversaw 24 outposts, six ships, and more than 600 employees. Although the fort was English-owned, the English were in the minority there; employees included French-Canadians, Scots, Irish, Hawaiians, Native Americans, and Métis – people of mixed European and Native American ancestry. More than 30 distinct Native American groups were represented among the ranks. In fact, Kanaka

Village, the employees‟ living quarters outside the stockade, was given its Hawaiian name due to the diversity of its residents. As Chief Factor of the fort, John McLoughlin presided over the HBC‟s immense undertaking for its first 20 years, turning “Fort

Vancouver into a welcoming international port of call for visitors, who included natural scientists, missionaries, and an occasional American empire-builder” (Robbins 2005:33).

According to Lieutenant , who visited Vancouver in 1841, “everything may be had within the fort: they have an extensive apothecary shop, a baker, blacksmiths‟ and coopers‟ shops, trade-offices for buying, others for selling, others again for keeping accounts and transacting business; shops for retail, where English manufactured articles may be purchased at as low a price, if not cheaper, than in the

United States, consisting of cotton and woolen goods, ready made clothing, shipchandlery, earthen and iron ware, and fancy articles; in short, every thing, and of every kind and description, including all sorts of groceries” (Wilkes 1974a:66).

20

Fort Vancouver was the largest settlement and the commercial hub of the Oregon

Country until the mid-to-late 1840s when increasing numbers of Americans settled to the south. Until the development of these settlements, Fort Vancouver and its facilities in the

Willamette Valley were extremely attractive to new immigrants. “Early settlers went there to beg, borrow, or purchase seed and livestock, to buy and sell, even to sharpen their tools” (Peterson del Mar 2003:83). As the profitability of the fur trade decreased, and American settlement increased, “the Hudson‟s Bay Company saw the advantage of stocking hardware, fire-brick, glass and other items not obtainable from any other source on the Pacific Coast. Much of their profit came from sales of these items to settlers in the

Willamette Valley” (Caywood 1947:17). The HBC‟s sales activities represented a departure from traditional fur-trade culture and “demonstrated a direct link between trader and settler society” (Bunting 1997:38). Their “successes drew settlers into the region…offered support for incoming emigrants who might have otherwise perished and provided the newcomers with imported goods at reasonable prices” (Bunting 1997:38).

Ironically, the growing number of American settlers had serious negative implications for the English organization. After jointly occupying the region for decades, the of 1846 drew the U.S.-British boundary at the 49th parallel, today‟s

Canadian border. Fort Vancouver was now on American soil, but retained trading and navigational rights. In a disquieting move, the Army took up residence directly adjacent to Fort Vancouver in 1849. The Hudson‟s Bay Company quickly transferred the role of Columbia Department Headquarters north to Fort Victoria on

British-held and gradually began abandoning the Columbia

Department outposts. The HBC vacated Fort Vancouver in 1860, “the land about it being

21 covered with squatters, English and American” (Bancroft 1888b:112). Following the

HBC‟s departure, the neighboring United States military took possession of the site and it became part of .

Ex-Trappers in the Willamette Valley

Across the Columbia River from Fort Vancouver, and extending 200 miles south, the Willamette Valley is nestled in the 60-70 miles between Oregon‟s Coast and Cascade

Ranges. Early explorers of the Willamette River that flows through the valley found its banks heavily forested until several prairies appeared 45 miles upriver beginning at

Champoeg. Three miles west, the British Northwest Fur Company established the

Willamette Trading Post, which became HBC property after their merger (McKay

1980:3). It was near this post that the first independent settlement in the Oregon Country formed (Figure 3).

The initial settlers in the Willamette Valley were former fur trade employees.

HBC policy dictated that retiring employees return to their place of origin, usually

Eastern Canada or the British Isles, rather than possibly competing with the HBC.

However, in 1829, Chief Factor John McLoughlin allowed three men and their

Indian wives to settle locally and provided them with agricultural necessities. Two

French Canadians chose sites in the Willamette Valley, and began raising wheat in an area later known as „French Prairie‟ (Chapman 1993:5). Later visitors explained the men and their families “secure their subsistence by cultivating the earth, and also furnish a number of hundreds of bushels of wheat, and other articles of food, for the Vancouver market” (Lee and Frost 1968:87). This lifestyle proved attractive to other HBC retirees and the population of French Prairie steadily grew. By 1835, 20 ex-fur trade families

22 lived in the region; by 1841, the number had grown to 61 (Corning 2004:86). French

Prairie amenities included a Willamette River ferry crossing established by the HBC in

1826, an HBC-operated flour mill and saw mill, and a small log church in what would become the town of St. Paul (McKay 1980:7). In 1841, the HBC also established a grain warehouse and store at Champoeg, “a small supply depot operated almost exclusively for trappers of the company and ex-trappers turned farmers” (Corning 2004:9).

Figure 3. Early settlements in the Oregon Country (adapted from Chapman 1993).

During the 1830s, another set of ex-fur trappers and their Native American wives settled along the Willamette River‟s western shore on the Tualatin Plains. They were

Americans who had followed the American fur trade overland to the far West. These former mountain men – the so-called „Rocky Mountain boys‟ – “established „Rocky

23

Mountain Retreat,‟ a small farming community near what would one day be Hillsboro”

(Peterson del Mar 2003:68).

Boosters and Merchants

Other early arrivals included several boosters and merchants who served to promote the region‟s potential. In 1834, Hall Jackson Kelley, an outspoken advocate of

American settlement, established himself on the peninsula between the Columbia and

Willamette Rivers now known as Kelley Point (Scott 1924a:201). Though he left after less than year, Kelley never stopped publicizing the Oregon Country, and his boosterism directly influenced Nathaniel Wyeth‟s and ‟s decisions to travel west.

Nathaniel Wyeth was a merchant who “aspired to run the Hudson‟s Bay

Company out of business” (Peterson del Mar 2003:68). Wyeth arrived overland with a party of 11 men in 1832, only to discover his trading ship had been lost at sea. After returning east for more supplies, in 1834 Wyeth established on Sauvie Island a short- lived trading post known as . Like Kelley, Wyeth soon left the Oregon

Country for good. However, both men served to heighten eastern interest in the region and they also left behind several members of their expeditions who chose to remain in the area.

The Missionary Presence

The 1830s also saw the arrival of missionaries to the region. Fueled by dramatic accounts of four Indians from the Oregon Country walking to in search of religious instruction, American mission organizations urged the settlement and conversion of the West (Lee and Frost 1968:110-111). Additionally persuaded by Hall

Jackson Kelley, Jason Lee answered the call, and arrived with four other Methodist

24 missionaries in 1834. They established a mission in the Willamette Valley near present- day Keizer and promptly plowed and planted their lands with livestock and seeds furnished by the HBC. By the fall of 1836, “forty-five acres of land were under cultivation and produced about seven hundred bushels of wheat and three hundred of potatoes” (Lee and Frost 1968:139). The area proved swampy, however, and in 1840 Lee relocated the main Willamette Mission to what is now Salem. Between 1840 and 1842 another 177 Methodists were recruited, allowing the establishment of missions at The

Dalles on the Columbia River; Clatsop Station at the mouth of the Columbia River;

Nisqually Station in what is now Tacoma, Washington; Umpqua in present-day

Roseburg, Oregon; and Willamette Falls, now Oregon City (Gibson 1985:153). Despite these attempts, the Methodists dramatically failed to win Native American converts.

Coupled with accusations of monetary mismanagement, this resulted in Lee‟s recall and the complete dismantling of the missions in 1844 (Gibson 1985:152). Many Methodist settlers chose to remain in their new home.

The Methodists were not the only religious force in the Oregon Country. A significant Catholic presence arose after French Canadian settlers successfully petitioned the Catholic Church to send priests to French Prairie. Father Blanchet and Father

Modeste Demers arrived in 1838 and established a church at St. Paul. They were followed in 1842 by Father Langlois and Father Bolduc who opened St. Joseph‟s

College, a school for boys. In 1844, Father Desmet, along with four priests, several lay brothers, and six sisters, arrived in St. Paul and established St. Francis Xavier Mission and a school for women and girls. After the arrival of more nuns, a second school for girls was founded in Oregon City in 1848 (McKay1980:12).

25

Additionally, the Presbyterians established missions in the Oregon Country, beginning with the arrival of the Whitman and the Spalding parties in 1836, who settled at Waiilatpu, near present day Walla, Walla, Washington, and at Lapwai, now Lewiston,

Idaho, respectively. In total, between the Methodists, Catholics and Presbyterians, at least nine missionary settlements existed in the Oregon Country, though most missionaries left the upper Columbia for the safety of the Willamette Valley after the

Whitman massacre of 1847 (Scott 1924a:216).

‘Oregon Fever’ and the ‘Land Rush’

American expansionists increasingly urged the settlement of the Oregon Country.

The late 1830s were a time of increasing „Oregon Fever‟, an “emotional phenomenon

[that] generally consisted of a firm conviction that the Oregon Country belonged to the

United States and should be settled by Americans. The many people who shared these sentiments began to organize to put their beliefs into effect” (Hussey 1967:124). The arrival of the „‟ via the in 1839 proved overland migration possible. The arrival, in 1842, of more than 100 settlers led by proved large parties could successfully negotiate the route (Winther 1950:99). The population of the

Oregon Country subsequently skyrocketed during the 1840s. The „Great Migration‟ of

1843 brought 800 new residents to Oregon; 1,400 people traveled in 1844, and in 1845, the journey was undertaken by 3,000 people (Chapman 1993:126). Whereas in 1841 there were 65 Americans living in the Willamette Valley; by 1845 it was home to more than

2,000 residents (Bowen 1978:13).

With increased population came an increased need for governance. An informal probate system was adopted by Willamette Valley settlers in 1841 in response to the

26 death of , but no formal governing body existed until the „wolf meetings‟ of

1843. Ostensibly convening to discuss predatory wildlife, the parties instead formed a provisional American government and adopted organic laws. The subterfuge was taken to assure that the British HBC would not prevent the Americans from organizing.

After the Joint Occupation Treaty expired in 1846, giving the United States possession of the land below the 49th parallel, immigration further intensified. Settlers‟

“motivations included zeal for adventure, hope for economic improvement, the lure of free land, a wish to be rid of slavery and its inherent problems, political and patriotic considerations, a frantic quest to escape natural disasters plaguing the Mississippi Valley, and a desire for better physical health” (Boag 1992:37). Oregon became a U.S. territory with the passage of the Oregon Territorial Act in 1848, and an official territorial government was formed. Soon after, the Oregon Donation Land Law of 1850 awarded

320 acres to single white males and 640 acres to married couples; settlers arriving post-

1850 would receive half as much land. Similarly, the allowed existing settlers to legitimize their claims to property they occupied. The claim system intensified the land rush to Oregon, with immigration peaking in 1852 (Robbins

2005:50). But by this time, another rush – the – had already had a significant impact upon Oregon.

Gold Fever!

The discovery of gold in California in 1848 had multiple and seemingly contradictory effects on the settlements of the Willamette Valley. Population growth was checked as nearly two-thirds of Oregon‟s men left for the mines and potential immigrants now veered toward California (Corning 2004:25). Services were reduced or eradicated

27 given the population drain. In St. Paul, “because so many people were leaving the

Willamette Valley to go to the gold fields, St. Joseph‟s College was closed and the operations of the Sisters of Notre Dame School were greatly curtailed. The farms and mills were being run by the elderly men, young boys, and women who remained”

(McKay 1980:27). The Jesuits closed St. Francis Xavier Mission and themselves headed for California in late 1849. The sisters lasted until 1852, when they closed their schools and went to California.

Yet the gold rush also fueled growth in multiple ways. New markets opened in

Oregon, for “the demand for flour and lumber seemed almost impossible to meet and their prices had soared” (McKay 1980:29). In response, ship traffic increased to meet transportation needs, decreasing Oregon‟s isolation. Whereas two ships entered the

Columbia River in 1847, 50 ships came upriver in 1849 (Robbins 2005:56). And, “as the several thousand Oregon miners returned…settlements increased in population, industry quickened and additional towns were founded” (Corning 2004:27). The injection of cash into the Oregon economy by returning miners allowed “the economy to bloom and the immigrants to improve their living conditions substantially” (Clark 1983:15). Modern estimates place the total value of the gold that reached Oregon at $5,000,000 (Johnson

1992:45). The lasting result of the California Gold Rush was to end “the depression in the

Willamette and settlers‟ dependence on the Hudson‟ Bay Company for markets” (Boag

1992:106). Subsequent mineral rushes during the 1850s in southern Oregon and in

British Columbia had similar, though lesser, effects.

28

Early Commercial Centers

Throughout the 1840s, Fort Vancouver, Oregon City, and Champoeg were the primary centers of trade in the Oregon Country. As previously elaborated, the HBC had extensive facilities at Fort Vancouver. Its presence at these other locations also led to the formation of noteworthy towns. In 1829, Fort Vancouver‟s Chief Factor John

McLoughlin established a personal land claim at what would become Oregon City.

Located on the Willamette River at Willamette Falls, it was a portage point for river travelers. Here the HBC erected a flour mill, sawmill, and several log cabins during the

1830s, and subsequently constructed an HBC trading station in 1840. An American competitor appeared when , “a Methodist mission settler of 1840, opened a mission store and, in competition with the Hudson‟s Bay Company, bought wheat from the settlers and salmon from the Indians and shipped these products to

Honolulu to be traded for sugar, molasses, and other needed commodities” (Corning

2004:11). Abernethy later built a mill nearby. Oregon City was also home to Captain

John Couch‟s trading company and F. W. Pettygrove‟s mercantile. As a result, Oregon

City was second in importance to Fort Vancouver and had 75 structures by the close of

1843 (Robbins 2005:44). In 1844 Oregon City became “the first incorporated town west of the Missouri River” (Corning 2004:39).

Starting in 1841, the HBC also operated a store at Champoeg (Hussey 1967:109;

Corning 2004:9). Before long, two more stores opened, one owned by partners Robert

Newell and John Davis Crawford (Hussey 1967:205-206) and the other by Edward

Dupuis (Speulda 1988:19). By 1844 had also established a granary at

Champoeg in competition with the HBC‟s warehouse (Hussey 1967:198). Aided by its

29 ideal location on the Willamette River near rich agricultural land, Champoeg quickly became a regional market center. The late historian Gunther Barth (1975) described

Champoeg as an archetypical „instant city‟ that rapidly changed from wilderness to bustling market town in less than a generation (Barth 1975:61). However, “as a marketplace where settlers bartered their produce for the necessities of life or sold them for money, Champoeg shared the fate of many similar marketplaces: it grew too quickly and died very quietly” (Barth 1975:63). Active in the 1840s and 1850s, Champoeg was destroyed by flood in 1861 and never rebuilt.

In addition to the towns of Champoeg and Oregon City, the population boom of the 1840s led to the founding of the towns of Linnton; Portland; Milwaukie; Multnomah

City; Linn City; (now part of Oregon City); Wheatland; St. Paul; Salem;

Cincinnati – later called Eola; Takenah – later renamed Albany; Orleans; and Marysville

– later called Corvallis, all along the Willamette River. Along the Columbia River, the towns of St. Helens, Milton, and Columbia City – now Vancouver – were established.

With the advent of steamboats in the 1850s, new ports gained in importance. In particular, Wheatland, Butteville, and Fairfield Landing became prosperous river towns.

However, when Portland‟s potential as a deepwater port was recognized, the shallower ports upriver on the Willamette began to pale in comparison. With a population of 831 in

1850, “by 1851 Portland had become Oregon‟s most important town, the place where ocean commerce and most of that coming down the Willamette River converged”

(Throckmorton 1961:125). Populations began to spread, not only occupying the northern

Willamette Valley, but also its southern reaches, including Eugene and Cottage Grove

(WPA 1942:A-44). By 1860, scattered throughout the Willamette Valley and too

30 numerous to mention, “were small mill and trade centers, each serving an area roughly 10 miles in diameter” (Vaughan 1974:53).

Transportation of Goods

The earliest traders, farmers, and missionaries relied primarily upon homemade rafts, Native American canoes, and Hudson‟s Bay Company bateaux for the transportation of people, food, and goods between developing settlements via the

Columbia and Willamette Rivers. Although both rivers had dangerous rapids and waterfalls that required portage, they linked communities more efficiently than overland travel, which was initially hard to come by and later slow and expensive (Vaughan

1974:55). For example, stage travel between Portland and Salem took an entire day and

“it cost as much to move goods a few miles in a wagon as it did to transport them across oceans (Peterson del Mar 2003:75). But as the population in the Oregon Country increased, so did the demand for transport. “Transportation by flatboat on the Willamette was first undertaken commercially in the summer of 1844. Aaron Cook, an

Englishman…built The Callapooiah, 35 tons burden” (Corning 2004:23). After her launch in August, The Callapooiah operated between several Columbia River and lower

Willamette River landings. Above Willamette Falls, Robert Newell commenced a boat service propelled by Native American oarsmen (Hussey 1967:202). Eventually, he owned three boats – The Mogul, Ben Franklin, and The Great Western, which “were in use as early as 1846, running between the falls and Champoeg, center of trade on the middle river” (Corning 2004:24). The upper Willamette was navigable for steamboats as far as Corvallis (roughly 100 miles from Portland) and, during high water as far as

Eugene, 180 river miles south of Portland.

31

With the advent of the California gold rush, river traffic increased. Regular trade routes were established between and Oregon in 1849, and by 1850, steamships were plying Oregon waters. Steamship Columbia established regular service between Oregon City and Astoria in 1850, and steam-powered Lot Whitcomb (Figure 4) also launched, providing service between Milwaukie and Astoria. By 1851 steamboats were being built at Canemah, just above the falls from Oregon City (Webber and Webber

1993:62-65). One of those earliest steamships, the Hoosier, began operating on the upper

Willamette in 1851 (Hussey 1967:204). Two steamboats, the Canemah and the Franklin were hauling freight from Canemah to Champoeg by 1854 (Mills 1947:54).

Figure 4. The Lot Whitcomb at Willamette Falls near Oregon City, in the 1850s (Salem Public Library photo 7963).

Throughout Fort Vancouver‟s existence, the rivers remained the major form of transportation for commercial products. “The few commodities that southern Willamette

Valley settlers had for sale were vended locally, herded to trade centers, or, in some few

32 cases, carried in wagons to the navigable Willamette River” (Boag 1992:113). By the time of the HBC‟s departure in 1860, Native American canoes had given way to the steamship era, and the vast prairies and forests along the waterways were replaced by a multitude of small settlements.

Overview of the Regional Economy

Initially, the English-based fur trade in the form of the Hudson‟s Bay Company had a monopoly on the region. Although they relaxed their policies and allowed individuals to settle nearby, the HBC retained its hold over the economy because no other supplier or market for goods existed in the region. Because the Oregon Country was initially so unpopulated and isolated, a mostly subsistence economy was necessarily practiced by the first non-fur trade settlers. Writing in 1845, early Willamette Valley settler noted,

the settlers are labouring under great disadvantages on account of not being able to obtain a sufficient amount of farming implements. The early settlers were supplied at the Company‟s store…At that time the supply was equal to the demand; but since the tide of emigration has turned so strongly to this region, the demand is much greater than the supply. This may be said of almost every kind of goods or merchandise (Palmer 1993:218).

During this period of initial settlement there existed “a dearth of markets for the area‟s producers and no realistic prospect that they would quickly appear” (Johnson 1992:44).

Thus, early immigration to Oregon “involved a conscious decision to leave behind, at least for a time, the growing national market system and the commercial prospects it entailed…What resulted was a self-selected fragment society of family farmers” (Johnson

1992:139).

33

The lure of free land and abundant natural resources drew primarily agriculturists over the Oregon Trail to the Willamette Valley. But as the settlements grew and evolved, so too did the economy. The HBC lost its economic grip on the region during the mid-to- late-1840s as entrepreneurs established competing stores and warehouses. By 1846

the residents of the middle and northern Willamette Valley had already developed a very limited market economy, though agriculture remained at or barely above the subsistence level. These settlers depended on the Hudson‟s Bay Company for some consumer goods and marketing outlets until the late 1840s…In response to the depressed economy, in 1845 the provisional government even made wheat legal tender, though valley residents had been paying debts in kind – wheat and shingles – for several years (Boag 1992:104).

Therefore, throughout the 1840s, “few settlers produced solely for cash exchange. Most raised crops and animals for household consumption and exchanged surpluses at local markets, with wheat being the most marketable crop throughout the settler period”

(Bunting 1997:91).

Previously sold to the HBC and traded locally, Willamette Valley wheat became a national commodity following the discovery of gold in California. Although the

California Gold Rush served to rapidly populate the West, creating markets, encouraging production, and injecting cash into the western economy, Oregon‟s economic development continued at a relatively slow pace during the 1850s. Historians attribute this to a combination of several factors, one of which was attitude. “Even after the gold rush created an instant outlet for agricultural goods, the behavior of Oregon farmers displayed, if not outright disinterest, a nonchalance and indifference toward the logic and opportunity of commercial agriculture that local merchants and outside observers found perplexing” (Johnson 1992:44). Instead, “settlers farmed according to the „Oregon fashion‟, which sought to take advantage of market exchange while minimizing market

34 risk” (Bunting 1997:92). This is not to say that some individuals did not profit handsomely from these new markets. For example,

in 1850 Vermonter Lot Whitcomb was feverishly building up the town of Milwaukie, erecting sawmills and flouring mills, warehouses, a store, opening a ferry across the Willamette; pouring out money he had made speculating in Chicago real estate and selling Oregon lumber in California when the price was ripest. Lot was a boomer (Clark 1981:241).

Another factor in Oregon‟s economic lag was the generous size of the land grants, which “along with the constraints of family labor and rudimentary technology, circumscribed the actual area under cultivation and limited the aggregate expansion of agricultural production” (Johnson 1992:46). The lack of an outside labor force also hindered agricultural production and manufacturing, as did the technological delay experienced by the West coast. “Contributing to the persistence of the political and material culture of the early settlers was the very timing of change in Oregon. Rail transportation and the transformative effects of regular links to national and world markets did not arrive until the middle 1880s” (Johnson 1992:270).

Thus it was that during the HBC‟s tenure at Fort Vancouver, from 1825 to 1860, the Oregon Country progressed from an economic monopoly, to a modified subsistence economy, to a formative market economy. When the HBC pulled up stakes in 1860, the regional economy was a motley hybrid, for “the older mixture of subsistence and market family farming in the Willamette Valley continued long after the 1850s” (Johnson

1992:270) and “exchange in kind remained common among settlers well into the second half of the nineteenth century” (Bunting 1997:94). Much like they had originally relied upon the HBC for supplies, Oregonians continued to rely upon imported goods.

Instead of importing agricultural implements, harness and leather, clothing, stoves, and other items, the Willamette Farmer urged Oregonians

35

to produce those goods for their own market…The Oregonian observed that residents „produce food in abundance, but produce too few of the other necessities of life‟ (Robbins 1997:105).

Settlement in ‘Northern Oregon’

Settlement to the north of Fort Vancouver in present-day Washington had a slower start than to the south. Reasons for this were primarily geopolitical: settlement by anyone unaffiliated with the HBC was firmly discouraged by the Chief Factor. “While he was generous in selling and loaning seeds and supplies to the incoming Americans,

McLoughlin was careful to point the newcomers south into the Willamette Valley at the end of their journey to protect the company‟s strategic interests north of the Columbia

River” (Robbins 2005:36). The HBC outpost of was founded in the early

1830s at what is now DuPont, Washington. Reportedly, the first civilian settlers were

Simon Plomondon (or Plamondeau) and Francois Faignant, Canadian veterans of the

HBC who moved to Cowlitz Prairie, near present-day Toledo, Washington, in either 1832 or 1833 (Scott 1924b:22; Gibson 1985:92). By 1839, Michel Cognoir and Joseph

Rocbrune, two more retirees, had joined them (Gibson 1985:92). Also in 1939,

Methodist missionaries David Leslie and W.H. Willson went “to establish a mission on

Puget Sound. At Nisqually, they erected buildings and held services” but they apparently did not remain long (Dobbs 1932:60). Rather, the initial trickle of settlers above the

Columbia River “were Canadians, employees, and colonists of the Hudson‟s Bay

Company” who turned to farming upon retirement from the fur trade (Johansen and Gates

1957:300).

The first attempt at organized settlement was led by the Puget Sound Agricultural

Company, a farm subsidiary of the HBC. Formed in 1838-39, the company recruited

36 families from the British Isles and Canada to perform agricultural labor (Bowen

1978:11). Twenty-one families responded to the opportunity, and

after their arrival in the summer of 1841, fourteen families were sent to farms near Fort Nisqually on Puget Sound, and seven to Cowlitz Farm in the Cowlitz Valley. Those at Nisqually soon became dissatisfied and within two years all fourteen families had moved to the Willamette Valley. Those at Cowlitz Farm appear to have remained (Throckmorton 1961:11).

The operations at Cowlitz Farm employed 24 men full-time and seasonally employed as many as 40 Native Americans at harvest time.

An American settlement didn‟t exist in the northern Oregon Country until 1845, when Michael Simmons and four other Americans settled near the current town of

Tumwater, where they made wooden shingles to sell to the HBC (Bancroft 1888a:458-9;

Bunting 1997:76). Nearly all the early residents “settled first near the lower tip of Puget

Sound where the towns of Tumwater and Olympia emerged, and then at Alki Point and

Elliott Bay” (Winther 1950:164). The earliest land claims and budding settlements developed at the Cowlitz Plains at Jackson Prairie; the Tumwater Ford Prairie near present-day Chehalis; and Chambers Prairie two miles from what is now Olympia

(Johansen and Gates 1957:300). Olympia, originally named Smithfield or Smither, was settled in 1846 and Fort Steilacoom was established in 1849.

The determination of the U.S.-British boundary at the 49th parallel in 1846, coupled with increased trade on Puget Sound in response to the California gold rush, served to attract settlers during the 1850s. That decade saw the emergence of towns around the eastern and southern shores of Puget Sound, including Steilacoom, Tacoma,

Alki, Seattle, and Port Townsend, as well as settlements on Baker Bay, Shoalwater Bay, and Gray Harbor (Scott 1924a:285). By the mid 1850s, Olympia was the “chief town” of

37

Washington, with an estimated “white population” of 250 (Scott 1924b:28). But

“Cowlitz Farms… was the only real nucleus of a settlement between Portland and

Olympia – though here and there, at long intervals were scattered habitations (Scott

1924b:90). In 1849, Marshal Joe Meek reported an unofficial census of 304 people on the north side of the Columbia. An official census of 1850 showed a population of 1,049; by 1853, when Congress created the Washington Territory, it “contained only about three thousand non-Indian residents” (Schwantes 1996:125). However, the gold rush of 1858 “brought a flood of miners to Washington, bolstering market sales and adding substantially to the settlement population” (Bunting 1997:77).

Summary From this review of the settlement history of Fort Vancouver and the Oregon

Country we have gathered key information that will be useful in our later examination of regional brick production. Several important points emerge: first, Fort Vancouver participated in extensive industrial and agricultural operations spread over a vast expanse of land. These industries were known to include shipbuilding, blacksmithing, coopering, tanning, as well as the operation of sawmills and flour mills. Therefore, given their multitude of talents and their attempt at self-sufficiency, it does not seem far-fetched that they may have produced their own bricks.

It is also notable that in its role as supply depot for the Columbia Department,

Fort Vancouver regularly sent ships to 24 HBC outposts in the larger region. The fort also engaged in trade with multiple entities, including the Russian Fur Traders based in

California and Alaska, parties in the Hawaiian Islands, as well as settlers to the north and south. In short, Fort Vancouver‟s reach was much greater than might be expected. The implication is that they could have obtained bricks from any of these sources.

38

Additionally, communities contemporaneous with Fort Vancouver and therefore possible producers of bricks were identified, and many of the major players in the social, political, and economic development of the states of Washington and Oregon were introduced. Early transportation methods were reviewed as was the evolution of the local economy. Armed with this research, we now turn our attention to nineteenth century brick use and manufacture in the Oregon Country.

39

CHAPTER 3: USE AND MANUFACTURE OF BRICK

In order to investigate the specifics of brick manufacture between 1825 and 1860 in the Oregon Country, it is helpful to understand generally why and how brick was used, as well as how it was made. This will also allow us to better understand bricks in the archaeological record. The following explains the perceived need for brick; patterns and trends in brick use and manufacture; and the methods of brickmaking utilized during the nineteenth century. Historical anecdotes from several early brickyards in the region are used to illustrate the process.

Bricks as Ballast

The first demonstrated use of brick on the west coast was as ballast on sailing ships. Sailing vessels required evenly distributed weight in their holds to remain upright.

If they were sailing with little or no cargo, added weight in the form of ballast was necessary to prevent capsize. The ballast was discarded when furs, lumber, supplies or other cargo was loaded on board. Ships initially used cobbles as ballast, but “the use of rounded stones…picked up from some beach, apparently lost favor around 1820, when quarried stone began to be used because its square corners helped prevent shifting in rough water” (Gurcke 1987:40). However, unlike stones which were discarded, bricks remained useful after reaching shore. Gurcke notes that as early as 1789 the Spanish buried ballast bricks at Nootka to use upon their return the following spring (Gurcke

1987:40). Captain Robert Gray also carried bricks aboard the Columbia in 1791, and likely left them in the form of chimneys on Vancouver Island (Gurcke 1987:40).

Bricks continued to be used as ballast throughout most of the nineteenth century.

Reportedly, “even in 1850 much coral and brick was brought to Oregon as ballast”

40

(Hussey 1976:123) and the increased export of local wheat and lumber that occurred during the 1850s and beyond meant “there would have been no shortage of bottoms to bring in brick” (Vaughan 1974:164). In this way, imported bricks may have been in competition with locally manufactured bricks. Though writing with regard to coal, historian Harvey Scott illustrates how products shipped as ballast undercut the local market.

These ships bring coal as ballast, and since they would be obliged to carry rock for ballast if they could not take coal, they can transport the coal at a merely nominal rate. If they can get for the coal enough, in addition to first cost, to pay for unloading it, they are able to save money (Scott 1924b:55).

This may explain why so many bricks recovered from early Northwest archaeological sites are imports. For although “especially true of those found at pre-1850 sites, bricks continued to be brought into this country until after the early twentieth century” (Gurcke

1987:148).

Building with Bricks

When early settlers arrived in the Oregon Country, a top priority was to quickly construct adequate shelter against the region‟s cold and rainy winters. Using local materials; rocks, sticks, clay, moss, along with hand-hewn timbers, immigrants built shelters and furnishings for themselves, and barns and fences for their animals,

“fashion[ing] these natural resources into traditional architectural styles” (Boag 1992:56).

According to architectural historian Philip Dole, the typical Oregon settler built three successive homes over a period of approximately six years. After the first crude shelter came a hand-hewn log house, and finally “a „real‟ house, made of sawn lumber” (Clark

1983:18).

41

In the early years of European and American occupation of the Oregon Country, brick use, if any, was limited primarily to fireplace and chimney construction. Because free-standing stoves were initially very scarce, it was necessary for most homes to have a fireplace for cooking and heating. Brick was a desirable material given its fireproof nature, but at first was hard to come by. As a result, the first hastily constructed cabins‟ fireplaces and chimneys were often made of rocks or sticks daubed with clay that baked hard with use (Hussey 1967:117; Schmidt 1969-1971:15; Boag 1992:57). But for safety‟s sake, and to replicate the familiar house forms they had left behind, immigrants desired building materials other than earth, rocks and timber. With few supplies available for purchase in the Oregon Country, tools, bricks, and other necessities had to be locally manufactured.

The increased immigration of the 1840s brought an influx of new skills and new enterprises, and “shortly afterwards brick and tile, produced from local clays and fired with cordwood came into increasing use” (Mason 1969:200). The increased availability of brick over time led to additional uses, including “house foundations, chimneys, fireplaces, cesspools, and water wells” (Fischer 1985:304). Some of these applications required substantial amounts of brick. For instance, the wells of early homes and businesses “were about 35 feet deep – the level at which water was perched most of the year…they uniformly were about 3 ½ feet in diameter and were lined with unmortared brick or rock” (McArthur 2004:103). Brick was also increasingly used as a principal building material. The first brick house in the valley, owned by George Gay (Figure 5), was built at Wheatland in 1842 (Vaughan and Ferriday 1974:165). The first brick store was erected at Oregon City in 1844, and the Catholic Church in St. Paul was constructed

42 out of bricks in 1846 (Gurcke 1987:42). These early efforts at brick construction are particularly noteworthy given the abundance of timber in the Northwest. Compared to lumber, brick was expensive and difficult to obtain. Even more daunting perhaps, was the fact that a medium-sized house for the time, measuring 17 feet by 34 feet, required approximately forty thousand bricks (Rilling 2001:105).

Figure 5. The George Gay house in Wheatland, Oregon, as it appeared in 1930 (OHS 015004).

The construction of brick buildings picked up pace in the 1850s. Built in 1853, the first brick-housed business in Portland “sparked a healthy rivalry among the city‟s entrepreneurs, each of whom strove to surpass the other with stylish commercial structures” (Bosker and Lencek 1985:183). As a result, more than 40 brick buildings were erected in Portland by 1860 (Brownell 1968). In 1856, William M. King built the new Territorial Prison in Portland (The Oregonian, 2 May 1926) which boasted of being

“the largest brick structure west of the Missouri River” (The Oregonian, 6 February 43

1944). Brick buildings had appeared in all the major towns by the end of the 1850s

(Darton 1909:5).

But it wasn‟t until the 1860s that industrial buildings began to be constructed of brick. Prior to that, “other than stacks and chimneys, little clay or stone masonry was used or needed for the early small mills and industrial buildings” (Vaughan and Ferriday

1974:167). This all changed when the giant Oregon City Woolen Mill was built of brick, quickly followed by the Oregon City Paper Mill. The rapid surge in large commercial projects, led to The Oregonian noting in 1864, “the past season has been one of unusual activity in the manufacturing of brick from clay and sand in Portland, which have met with extensive sale in the city, to say nothing of the demand outside” (The Oregonian, 27

August 1864).

Desirability of Brick

Brick was used in construction for a variety of reasons. Brick was obviously prized for its safety and durability, as evidenced by a letter sent to a Portland merchant.

While temporarily housed in a wooden building awaiting a move to a brick store, Henry

Corbett‟s partners cautioned him “not to risk too large a stock because of the fire hazard”

(Throckmorton 1961:132). Brick‟s apparent permanence may partly explain why brick was seen as a welcome sign of civilization. Numerous travelers tallied the brick buildings they saw in the Oregon Country in their journals and letters home, implying that the greater the presence of brick; the more civilized the town (c.f. Coffin 1848 in

Works Progress Administration [WPA] 1951:209; Smith 1848 in Geer 1912:148; Carey

1936:655). Other factors affecting the use of brick may have to do with the social

44 perception of brick as symbolic of wealth, pride, and status (Kelly and Kelly 1977;

Feister 1984; Peterson 1989; and Metz and Russ 1991).

Evidence of bricks‟ value is the fact that early in Oregon‟s history brick was accepted as payment and it also was reused. At the girl‟s school in St. Paul, “Sister

Loyola accepted 3,000 bricks (valued at $45) on the Pambrun girls‟ account” (McNamee

1959:210). Charles Stevens of Astoria accepted the promised manufacture of bricks as trade for room and board, noting “a Brick maker boarded with us last winter, and he wanted to put up a kiln of brick, and seeing no other way to get my pay…I set him at work” (Rockwood 1937:336). Brick was also valuable enough to recycle. “When buildings were demolished, the mortar was easy to clean off and the bricks were reused.

How much of this occurs is not known, but lateral cycling is a factor in the formation of the historical record” (Don Smith 1985 in Schiffer 1987:29). Brick salvage is believed to have occurred at Fort Vancouver, given the lack of whole bricks found and the presence of apparently reused brick in later structures (Hoffman and Ross 1973a:17, 49).

Industry Trends

At first, it was customary throughout the Oregon Country for bricks to be manufactured near construction sites, and even burned on location in temporary kilns.

“The manufacture of common, red-firing brick and tile in Oregon dates from the early

1800s when local clay pits supplied material for brick which was sun dried on the ground, fired on the premises, and laid up in a wall not far from the kiln” (Mason 1969:201).

Therefore “the early brickyards in the Northwest were often very small and had little or no complex equipment,” allowing them the flexibility “to move as demand warranted, in some cases from building site to building site” (Gurcke 1987:148). This was a centuries-

45 old building tradition, for “itinerant brickmakers were common in Europe throughout the

17th-18th centuries traveling from village to village and assisting in small scale production” (Woodforde 1976:53 in Peterson 1989:64). Elsewhere in the U.S., it was reported that when a limited amount of bricks was needed for such things as chimney stacks, “the homeowner himself might assist in the process of making the bricks needed, calling in an experienced brickmaker only for the more arcane process of building and firing the clamp” (Garvin 1994:26).

Later, small, permanent brickyards became common. In the latter half of the nineteenth century, the “pattern of numerous small brickyards persisted, each close to the point of consumption and utilizing existing deposits of ordinary quality clay to turn out common brick”(Vaughan and Ferriday 1974:400). These labor-intensive plants produced brick for local consumption. “Most plants are located near or in centers of population, and nearly all obtain their clay close to the kilns…There are definite limitations to the market radius for common brick and tile” (Mason 1969:203-4). But later still,

“improvements in transportation allowed the construction of larger, more efficient brick plants at centralized locations at the expense of less efficient smaller ones” (Ronald

Geitgey to Charles Norris, letter, 2 April 1991, Oregon Department of Geology and

Mineral Industries, Portland).

Ironically, this meant that as supply increased, the trend over time was actually a reduction in clay sources used to produce brick. In general, brick went from being a custom product made in a myriad of locations wherever and whenever needed, to being a commercial product manufactured in many, small, local brickyards. With changes in technology and transportation, these in turn gave way to a few, large brickyards serving a

46 large region. Similarly, although long a specialized craft, the knowledge and skill concentrated further into only the hands of a few, even as more brick were made. This can be seen by the number of commercial brickyards operating in Oregon over time.

Reportedly five brickyards existed in Oregon during1870 (Ries and Leighton 1909:195).

By 1895, the number of brickyards had increased to roughly 68 (Geijsbeek 1913:657). In

1910, “some sixty brick yards, big and little” continued producing brick (Geijsbeek

1913:650). This figure dropped to roughly 30 brick factories at the start of the Great

Depression (The Oregonian, 20 August 1992). Nineteen were operating in 1946 (Ronald

Geitgey to Charles Norris, letter, 2 April 1991, Oregon Department of Geology and

Mineral Industries, Portland); 17 in 1956 (Kelly, Strandberg, and Mueller 1956:4); three existed in the 1990s (The Oregonian, 20 August 1992); and only one brick company remains operational in Oregon today (Chuck Anderson, manager, personal communication 2008). Thus the knowledge required to make brick, once a common skill and a pioneering enterprise, has passed out of the modern consciousness.

Brick Availability Over Time

Brick was a scarce commodity in great demand early in the history of the Oregon

Country. Reportedly only two people in the region understood the manufacture of brick, according to early settler Elijah White, writing in 1846 (White 1846:17). A journal entry from 1852 confirmed the early lack of brick. “I talked with quite a number of persons who wanted brick flues built in their dwelling, but said there was no brick to be had in this country” (Conyers 1906:508). This same man spent the winter of 1852 laying brick in Hillsboro (Lockley 1928c:157).

47

But apparently by 1844, enough local brick had been produced to allow the shipment of 5,000 Willamette Valley bricks to Fort Vancouver (Hussey 1972:48-49) and in 1848 brick was exported outside the region. “A shipload of bricks was sent from

Oregon to one of the South Sea Islands by a Frenchman who paid $7 a thousand for them” (Himes 1911:145). Though increasing amounts of brick were available, local demand continued to exceed supply. In 1850, it was still being imported from the east coast, for an advertisement in May read, “New Goods! New Goods! Received per brig

Grecian, direct from New York…20,000 brick” ( 2 May 1850). That same year, the U.S. Army was compelled to requisition 50,000 bricks from Benicia,

California (Gurcke 1987:42) and the following year, 1851, saw brick arrive on board the

Ann Smith (The Oregonian, March 1851 in Speulda 1988:85).

However, local brickyard production dramatically increased by 1853, a year that saw the construction of five brick buildings in Portland alone (Maddux 1952:32). It was during the mid 1850s that “relatively large quantities of bricks became available in the

Willamette Valley” (Hoffman and Ross 1972: 63-64). Soon thereafter, it was reported,

“common bricks, which form the principal component of most buildings, are made in the vicinity of all the cities” (Darton 1909:5) and brickyards were scattered throughout western Oregon (Corning 1956:34). The increased availability of bricks resulted in a massive surge of brick construction and by 1860, brick buildings were fairly commonplace (Vaughan and Ferriday 1974:167). But while the brick industry was now firmly established and able to keep up with demand in Oregon, this was not yet true north of the Columbia River, where Washington‟s brick industry developed somewhat later.

48

We now turn from brick uses and trends to the process of making brick, particularly as performed in the mid to late nineteenth century.

Nineteenth Century Brick Making

Put simply, brick production consists of extracting clay from the ground; adding water and possibly temper to the clay; molding the mixture into bricks; drying the „green‟ bricks; and then firing them until hardened (Gurcke 1987:4). The main ingredient, clay, is readily available throughout the Northwest, where “clay is one of the most widely distributed of geologic products…usually…some search in any community [will] find clays which are suitable for the manufacture of ordinary brick and tile” (Oregon State

Bureau of Mines 1912:76). Specifically in Oregon, “clays suitable for red-firing brick and tile are abundant in northwestern Oregon, particularly the Willamette and Tualatin

Valley” (Mason 1969:203-4); while in Washington, “pits of common clay are widespread throughout the state, especially in King, Lewis, Whatcom, Skagit, Stevens, and Spokane

Counties” (Kauffman 1952:16).

The producers of brick in the nineteenth century Oregon Country varied from inexperienced individuals to seasoned brickyard crews. Requiring only clay, water, and fire, successful brickmaking was possible for enterprising settlers even with their limited tools and equipment. Yet, although it sounds easy when broken down to its basics, the ability to craft uniform, high quality bricks was a technical skill. Just as the product varied, so too did the methods. Brickmaking could be accomplished in a myriad of ways, as “there are hundreds, if not thousands of individual variations depending on such diverse aspects as weather, the nature of the raw materials, the experience of the brickmaker, the equipment, local customs, and even the business climate” (Gurcke

49

1987:4). The following is an outline of common brick production, as believed to have occurred in the Pacific Northwest during the 1800s. Examples from the experiences of several local brickmakers are incorporated, particularly Foster Hidden and Ernest Fischer.

The long-lived Hidden Brickyard operated in Vancouver, Washington from 1871 until

1992, changing its technology relatively little in that time. The Fischer Pottery commenced operations at Milwaukie, Oregon in the late 1870s, then opened a brickyard in 1895 that endured until 1923.

Clay Extraction

Surface mining, or “digging by hand in shallow pits seems to have been the common practice in…the United States during the nineteenth century” and “the rule in the Northwest” (Gurcke 1987:5-6). This required surficial clay deposits, plentiful throughout Oregon and Washington. Vancouver brickmaker Lowell Hidden described starting a brickyard: “The clay in this locality is located in shallow deposits on the surface, so when one wanted to make brick in those early days, he would select the clay as near the site on which the brick were to be used as possible and start the yard. A level drying ground was prepared with a kiln ground on one side and soak pits on the other”

(Hidden 1930:131). Extracting the clay first required the thorough removal of any topsoil or overburden so as to not contaminate the brick clay and produce defective bricks.

Portland brickmaker John Versteeg described his first attempt at making brick.

After working hard about four months, cutting cord wood, making the yard ready and making brick, we got the brick burnt...while the bricks were still warm they were all O.K. but then they cooled off, they crumbled to pieces on account of the small grains of lime which could not be seen in the dirt…Thus we were initiated (Versteeg 1836-1915).

50

The removal of topsoil and the mining of the clay were frequently done with pick and shovel, for “typically, the muscular power of animals, men, and boys was the only source of energy used in small brickyards…even into the twentieth century” (Garvin

1994:21). Larger brickyards were more likely to use draft animals to loosen and scrape up the clay beds (Garvin 1994:21; Gurcke 1987:5). Often teams were used to transport the clay from the pit to the yard. In Buena Vista, “horses pulling wagonloads of clay up from the river bank…became a common sight, as were the loads of cord wood brought down from the surrounding hills to fire the kilns” (Schmeer 1987:14).

Although it is reported brickyards in the region “have nearly unlimited reserves of clay, and nearly all of them obtain the clay from adjacent pits” (Kelly, Strandberg, and

Mueller 1956:5) it must be noted that not all extracted their own clay from on-site.

Apparently some brickmakers found it more expedient to collect clay excavated by others. As explained by Ernest Fischer, the son of early Milwaukie brickmaker Chris

Fischer, “clay for brick was readily available since most of it came free from basements, wells, road construction, and various other sources. This clay was hauled adjacent to the

[clay] pit” back at the brickyard (Fischer 1985:304). Similarly the Pacific Stoneware

Company of Portland acknowledged receiving clay “locally from basement excavations”

(Allen and Mason 1949:15)

In nineteenth century brickyards on the East Coast, the clay was typically allowed to weather for an extended period of time – months or even years – before being made into brick. “Traditionally, this was accomplished by digging the clay from the clay bank in the fall and allowing it to freeze and thaw, with repeated turnings, over the winter”

(Garvin 1994:19). Weathering was believed to improve the workability of the clay, wash

51 away impurities, and generally make better quality brick (Rilling 2001:104; Garvin

1994:19). It is unclear from historical accounts whether brickworks in the Northwest utilized weathering in their clay preparation.

Tempering

The word temper refers to both a material added to clay, such as sand or coal dust, and also the process of wetting and kneading clay to make it workable. In order to make the clay malleable enough to form into brick, water and sometimes temper were added to the clay and “distributed evenly throughout the entire clay mass” (Gurcke 1987:7). This process of tempering was “carried out in the most primitive brickyards by driving cattle or horses over the lumps of clay” (Garvin 1994:19). Another method was to shovel clay into a vat, soak heap, or soak pit, add water and allow the mixture to stand overnight so the clay would fully absorb the moisture. The soak pits used by the Hidden brickyard in

Vancouver “were about four feet deep and large enough to hold clay for 8000 brick – a day‟s run” (Hidden 1930:131). The following day, the clay would be shoveled into a tempering pit or brick mill.

According to Hidden, “the mill was an upright box about 3 ½ feet square in the center of which was a wooden shaft with knives for pugging the clay. The shaft was turned by a sweep on the end of which was hitched a horse” (Hidden 1930:131). Fischer recalled that “we boys would take turns riding the horse around the brick mill, so the operation of making bricks would progress smoothly” (Fischer 1985:304). Hidden‟s mill, in operation from 1871 until 1900 when a Potts soft-mud machine replaced it, apparently extruded clay that was then hand-molded; “a bar of plastic clay was squeezed from the mill by the pony as he traveled round and round” (Hidden 1930:131), while

52

Fischer‟s mill, operating after 1895, was more mechanized and “both mixed the clay and forced the filled brick molds out” (Fischer 1985:304). Figure 6 illustrates an early pug mill in Portland.

Figure 6. A horse-driven pug mill on a cover of West Shore Magazine in 1890 (OHS 83510).

Multiple sources indicate that Oregon and Washington clays used for brickmaking required little or no sand or other temper. In 1890, a local magazine noted, “Eastern brick makers use clay and sand in the proper proportions for the quality of product they desire to turn out. Here the surface soil is used without the admixture of any other substances” (West Shore Magazine, 4 October 1890). Later, a 1913 geological publication reiterated, “at Forest Grove, Hillsboro and North Plains, we find brick yards

53 making common brick and some drain tile. They are using the surface clays as they are found; very little stripping must be done, and the product is a good, sound brick”

(Geijsbeek 1913:650). However, Columbia Brickworks, the sole brick manufacturer operating in Oregon today, does at this time temper their clay with sand (Chuck

Anderson, manager, personal communication 2008).

Although not mentioned in the historical record, at least one modern brick company was known to blend their clay. “Blending is similar to tempering, except that it refers to the mixing of clays for the purpose of forming a more consistent product rather than to the addition of other materials” (Gurcke 1987:13). Monroe Brick and Tile

Company, which operated south of Corvallis, Oregon for more than 70 years, reported blended clay from their yard with nearby „hill clay‟ (Leah Minc, personal communication

2007). Both blending clays and adding tempers could have consequences for successfully identifying clay provenance.

Molding the Brick

Once tempered, the clay was molded into bricks. “In the United States, there are at the present time three methods of molding brick: soft-mud, stiff-mud, and dry-pressed

(Gurcke 1987:13). According to Hidden, “all the early yards here [Vancouver] and in the

Portland area” were soft mud yards (Hidden 1930:131) and therefore the soft-mud process is described in greatest detail here.

Soft-mud bricks can be made either by hand or by machine; the name refers to the fact that the clay has the highest water quantity and is therefore the most pliable of the methods. For hand-molded, soft-mud brick, a molder (also spelled moulder) would compress the tempered clay into a mold, basically “a rectangular wooden frame divided

54 into one or more brick-sized compartments. Molds usually had divisions for more than one brick [and up to] six bricks” (Garvin 1994:21). A straightedge was used to „strike‟ off the surplus clay from the mold. “With a „strike,‟ the molder removed clay in excess of the eleven pounds or so required for the brick” (Rilling 2001:225). Molds were usually lubricated with water or sand, but reportedly oil, lard, and soapy water were at times so used (Gurcke 1987:15). Brick from molds that were prepared by dipping in water are known as water-struck. Sand-struck bricks were the result of clay being placed in “a wooden mold that has been soaked in water and dusted with dry sand. The sand acts like flour in a cake pan, allowing the newly formed brick to be dumped out of the mold” (Van Arsdol 1986:146). Both methods “leave characteristic marks on the brick”

(McKee 1973:82).

At the Hidden Brickyard, where the brick was sand-struck,

the moulder stood in a hole dug beside a table on which a bar of plastic clay was squeezed from the mill by the pony as he traveled round and round. The moulder with his two hands would cut off a block of clay large enough for a brick. This he would throw into a sanded mold holding six brick. After filling the mould he would strike off the surplus clay and the mould would be taken away by the off-bearer who dumped them on the drying yard. I saw one man, Victor Coiteaux, mould 1,200,000 brick in one summer, ie 150 days (Hidden 1930:131).

Hidden employed a crew of five during the molding stage. Three soak pits and mills were manned by “one moulder, one temperer, two off-bearers and one pit man who usually had a horse and dump cart: a total of five men and two horses. This crew would place on the drying yard 8,000 brick” per day (Hidden 1930:131).

The other methods of molding brick are the stiff-mud process and pressed brick.

The stiff mud method of brickmaking used less water and therefore resulted in stiffer clay. The mill compressed the clay, which was extruded as a continuous bar and

55 subsequently cut with fine wires. It is the preferred modern method, and “the most common method of making bricks today” (Gurcke 1987:19). The third type – dry- pressed bricks – were made from clay prepared with only small amounts of water and subjected to mechanical compression. “Dry press machines differ in the great pressure

(500 psi or higher) they exert on the bricks” (Gurcke 1987:22). Pressing resulted in

“bricks of uniform appearance…Pressed bricks had sharper corners and were more regular than those molded by hand; in general they were also more dense‟

(McKee1973:89). Apparently a hybrid method also existed for a time. “Early in the nineteenth century a few bricks appear to have been pressed in hand-operated machines after they had been removed from hand moulds, before drying. This process was called

„repressing‟” (McKee 1973:89).

Drying the ‘Green’ Brick

Proper drying was a crucial step in brickmaking, because “too little drying will destroy the bricks when they are burned” and “too much drying…may desiccate the bricks so much that they fall apart when handled” (Gurcke 1987:24). After the molds were filled, they were usually taken to the yard and emptied onto a prepared surface.

“Most yards employed boys as „off-bearers‟ to carry or wheel the filled molds to a flat sanded yard, and to tip the newly formed bricks onto the ground to begin the drying process” (Garvin 1994:21). At the Fischer brickyard, “the filled brick molds…were loaded on wheelbarrows and eventually dumped on the smoothly surfaced earth for sun drying” (Fischer 1985:304). The green bricks were allowed to dry for a time and then turned, allowed to dry for a time and then stacked in low walls, called hacks, for further drying. Hidden described their drying process in the following manner:

56

“The brick were placed on the yard in rows and after a few hours of sun, they were turned up and bobbed, ie hit with a board to help smooth them up a bit. After drying a day or so, depending on the weather, they were hacked upon boards for further drying. It was not necessary to hack them during the fine weather of July and August and they were usually wheeled direct from the yard to the scove kiln” (Hidden 1930:131).

Because of the necessity of proper drying, brickmaking was a weather-dependent affair. In the Northwest, this meant that brickmaking was seasonal. The Hidden yard operated from March to November (Lockley 1928a:499). At the Fischers‟ plant, “making bricks was a summer project since they were sun dried. Often before the bricks were thoroughly dry, a sudden rain pelted them and the entire family plus neighbors worked frantically, stacking the bricks to save them from ruin” (Fischer 1985:304). Even if covered, the humidity associated with rain could delay the drying process and ruin the brick. While drying, the bricks were also susceptible to other dangers. “Our chicken yard was adjacent to the brick yard and…a chicken or two was always wandering loose.

Invariably they never failed to scamper over the soft bricks and leave their claw marks behind. Customers used to say they could always tell the Fischer bricks by the telltale chicken claw imprint” (Fischer 1985:304).

Firing

Prior to firing, the dried bricks were either stacked inside permanent kilns, or temporary kilns (called clamp or scove kilns) were created out of the dried bricks themselves.

The green bricks were carefully stacked by hand in a „clamp‟ or „scove kiln‟ – a large rectangular structure with corbelled arches running at intervals through its base…so that fires built in the arches would suffuse their heat through the entire mass, with the hot gases exiting through the top of the pile (Garvin 1994:23).

57

Stacking or building the clamp was an exacting process that might take up to several weeks to complete, for great care was taken in the placement of the bricks to assure an even burn. While various types of kilns existed, the stacking and burning of each was a

“skilled art” (Garvin 1994:25).

After the loading of the kiln was complete, it was partially sealed and fired at a

„slow burn‟ of 250 to 350 degrees, to drive the moisture out and prevent the bricks from cracking and exploding. “Once the foreman judged that adequate evaporation had taken place, the men sealed the kiln and raised it to a red heat (about 1800 degrees Fahrenheit), where they kept it for several days” (Rilling 2001:105). At the Hidden yard in

Vancouver, where they used temporary scove kilns, “ten to fourteen days were required for a good burn” (Hidden 1930:131). The Fischer brickyard had a permanent kiln; “our bricks were stacked and burned in a separate kiln where eight „fireholes‟ were fed continuously night and day with four-foot cordwood for an entire week”(Fischer

1985:304). Both Hidden and Fischer brickmakers used wood for fuel. Although they don‟t note the quantity required, other local brickyards reported using upwards of 20 cords of wood to burn one kiln of brick (Allen and Mason 1949:7), and Corvallis Brick and Tile burned 400 cords of wood in one season (Allen and Mason 1949:3). A brickworks on Scholls Ferry Road reportedly “used about 500 cords of wood each year to provide steam and heat for the operations. Most of this fuel had been gathered in nearby forests and woodlots and the growing scarcity of wood was one of the factors behind the conversion to modern power and heat sources” (Sebastian, date unknown). Constant stoking of the fires was required to maintain an even temperature and ensure a good quality product. Fischer remembered being charged with this responsibility as a kid; “to

58 keep the kiln fires burning required 24-hour supervision, so we boys would take turns at this task” (Fischer 1985:306). This chore was made less onerous by the fact that the boys could help themselves to snacks, as his father had “built a prune dryer atop the brick kiln where prunes, plums, apples and peaches were dried” and also tapped an underground vent, “built a smoke house over it, and it was used to smoke hams and bacon when the kiln was fired up” (Fischer 1985:305).

Determining when the bricks were properly fired required “a mixture of experience, judgement, and guesswork” (Rilling 2001:105). But once the bricks were judged done, the kiln was cooled over a period of several days. Gradual cooling was necessary to ensure the strength of the brick, and it also affected the color of the product

(Gurcke 1987:28). Once cool, “the entire pile was taken apart by hand and the bricks sorted for various uses. Despite the best skill of the brickmaker, the bricks near the fires would inevitably be more vitrified than those at the top of the kiln” (Garvin 1994:26).

Fischer recalled, “the brick adjacent to the fireholes became red hot and often fused together, forming grotesque figures. These bricks were useless and hauled to the dump, which is now a part of McLoughlin Boulevard” (Fischer 1985:306). Given the uneven temperatures caused by the direct fire method, other bricks would be underburned.

Sometimes called salmon bricks, they were characterized by being “light in color, soft, very susceptible to crumbling in damp conditions, and therefore unfit for use where exposed to the weather or moisture” (Garvin 1994:26). Given the variability inherent in clamp and scove kilns, “often more than a fourth of the bricks are lost during the course of a burn of this type” (Gurcke 1987:32). Properly fired bricks were estimated to shrink roughly 14 percent during the course of drying and firing (Rilling 2001:225).

59

Evolution of Technology

Although the early bricks of the Oregon Country were hand-molded , brick machines much like those used today were invented and available in the east by the mid- nineteenth century. However, “it is difficult to tell when bricks were first manufactured with machines in the Pacific Northwest. Patent records show that the brickmakers of the region did not try their hand at inventing machines until 1873” (Gurcke 1987:92).

Elsewhere in the country, “bricks with even smoother faces and sharper edges became available in the second decade of the nineteenth century with the introduction of re- pressing machines. These devices, at first usually hand-operated, forced a green brick into a metal mold under great pressuring, compressing the rough product into a perfect rectangular prism” (Garvin 1994:23). Re-pressed brick was “hand molded, but squeezed a second time to make a denser, more regular product with cleaner corners” in a hand- operated brick press (Rilling 2001:110).

Pressed brick on the other hand, was entirely machine made. Although not commonly made in the Oregon Country, imported pressed brick was occasionally available. “Pressed brick was included in a shipment of the barque Ann Smith operated by Couch and Co. and advertised in The Oregonian in March 1851. Thus pressed brick was available to the residents of the by 1851, through American merchants” (Speulda 1988:85).

The date that brick machines were introduced to the Oregon Country remains elusive, but, according to Gurcke, “we have a hint that by 1867 brick machines were at least known in the large cities of the region, and by 1890 they were well established in several small towns and probably in the rest of the Northwest as well” (Gurcke

60

1987:93). W. Foster Hidden remarked on the change in brick manufacturing technology in Oregon and Washington that occurred at the end of the nineteenth and into the twentieth century.

The Portland area for many years was supplied with soft-mud, hand-made brick, some of the yards employing six or more moulders; later this was changed to machine made, soft-mud brick. Now they have all passed out of existence and the [stiff mud] wire cut brick has taken its place (Hidden 1930:132).

Hidden continued to make soft-mud bricks, but upgraded to a Potts soft-mud machine in

1900. Mechanical innovations resulted in a more uniform brick, but not necessarily a better one in the early years.

Summary

This chapter has provided a general overview of brick use and manufacture during the nineteenth century, illustrated with anecdotes from several Pacific Northwest brickmakers. From their accounts we can extract several points relative to this research.

First, imported brick may have been in competition with locally manufactured brick, as it is known that many bricks recovered from early Northwest archaeological sites were imported, and brick was popular as ballast on early sailing ships. Secondly, the labor- intensive production of brick was a seasonal affair. Given the often cool, wet weather of the Oregon Country, brickmaking was restricted to the warmer, dryer months of summer.

Even the relatively large and stable Hidden brickyard operated only from March to

November.

Furthermore, early brickmaking operations were very flexible, given their small size and the fact they possessed little, if any, complex or permanent equipment. This allowed them “to move as demand warranted, in some cases from building site to

61 building site” (Gurcke 1987:148). Brickyards were also low tech, requiring no specialized equipment that could not be self-manufactured. At its most basic, tempering could be accomplished by the trampling of human feet, or the driving of livestock over clay, though more advanced operations constructed pug mills to which animals were hitched. These too, could be quickly constructed on-site. Wooden molds could be handmade; and brickmaking machines were not necessary for the production of high- quality brick. Even firing kilns could be created out of the bricks themselves. However, the low tech brickmaking operations were incredibly labor intensive. Extracting, tempering, and molding the clay were very physical activities, as were stacking the bricks to dry, forming them into clamps, and sorting and hauling the finished product – not to mention cutting the immense quantity of cordwood needed to fire the bricks.

Given then, the widespread availability of free clay and firewood, no need for permanent land or structures, and no need for specialized equipment; brickmaking was therefore an industry accessible to men of limited financial means. Although a labor- intensive and fuel-intensive process, brickmaking had relatively low start-up costs, making it an attractive financial endeavor (Rilling 2001:108). It did, however, require some knowledge and skill, as Judge Marquam apparently found out the hard way.

Constructing the eight-story Marquam Building in Portland in 1891, he,

refusing to pay the going price for brick, started his own brickyard in Marquam Gulch with unskilled Chinese labor. The brick was so poorly made that many decomposed at the construction site. Great cracks appeared in the walls soon after completion and other structural problems plagued the Marquam through its brief life. In 1912…the entire east wall collapsed...and [the] remaining structure [was] razed (Vaughan and Ferriday 1974:331).

62

This chapter provided insight into general brick use and the process of brick manufacture during the nineteenth century. However, in order to decide where to obtain clay samples for testing to determine where brick used at Fort Vancouver was made, it is necessary to focus on the specific locations and individuals who were manufacturing and using brick in the region. Unfortunately, beyond occasional advertisements, brickmakers left few primary records of their business matters. Therefore newspapers, city directories, maps, journals and diaries, government publications, census records, local history books, WPA interviews, probate inventories, and other historical documents were scoured for specific details regarding the brick industry of the Oregon Country. The results of this documentary research are laid forth in the following chapter.

63

CHAPTER 4: DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF BRICKS AND CLAY

The following is a compilation of historical references to brick manufacture and use in the Oregon Country during the nineteenth century. The goal of this chapter is twofold: 1) to assemble a regional history of the early brickmaking industry; and 2) to identify potential sources of the brick recovered at Fort Vancouver in order to subsequently test them via INAA. Although seemingly outside the scope of this work, references post-dating the HBC‟s occupation of Fort Vancouver were included due to the often nebulous dates of operation, and the possibility of previous, though undocumented, use of clay from the site. Similarly, other clay industries were included, particularly potteries, who, according to the Northwest Pottery Research Center, “were often expected to fire bricks as well as supply utilitarian…pottery” (Steele, Pugh, and Schmeer 2000:5).

Finally, references to brick use in early homes were also compiled, because, as we saw in the preceding chapter, bricks were often custom-made on home sites and any excess may have been sold.

Bricks at Fort Vancouver

The HBC built more than 40 buildings within the stockade walls, and countless outside, during its 31-year occupation of the Fort Vancouver site. Most buildings were constructed of readily obtained wood, but for safety reasons, bricks were used to construct the whole of the powder magazine (Figure 7), as well as fireplaces, chimneys, ovens, and forges. Even despite these precautions, “partially dried grain or hay was subject to spontaneous combustion [and]… in late summer of 1844 Fort Vancouver was nearly engulfed by flames” (Gibson 1985:73). What follows is a compilation of published references to brick architectural elements at the fort.

64

Figure 7. Fort Vancouver’s brick powder magazine (Ross 1976).

In November 1829, an HBC Clerk noted that a temporary „baker house‟ was under construction. Four years later, McLoughlin requisitioned 1,000 bricks (received in

1837) “for Bakers Oven,” which was presumably housed in a second, permanent bakery that was constructed between 1837 and 1839 (Hussey 1972:55). Before long, the expanding needs of the Fort required yet another bake house, built in the fall of 1844. On

September 17th, 1844, a barge arrived from Willamette Falls, aka Oregon City, carrying

“5000 bricks on board which have been made in the Willamette, and are the first which have come here yet” (Hussey 1972:48-49). The Willamette bricks were believed to have been used in the construction of this third bakery. An account of 1853 noted the bakery contained two brick ovens and was capable of baking for 300 men.

Though reportedly first built in 1832, a trapper received payment for “rebuilding the powder magazine” during the Outfit of 1834 (Hussey 1976:119). While the material

65 of the original powder magazine is unknown, a brick powder magazine was in existence by 1841 and was noted to be “the only brick building” at Fort Vancouver in a journal entry from July of that year (Hussey 1972:66). Archaeological excavations conducted in the 1970s indicated the powder magazine was in actuality made of both brick and stone

(Hussey 1976:120).

Brick chimneys were present in many of the buildings throughout the fort.

Evidence includes documentation that “during Outfit 1852 the Vancouver Depot was charged $131.62-1/2 „for building Chimney‟s [sic] in Fort‟ and another #3.00 was paid for „work on Chimneys‟” (Hussey 1976:132). Though their locations were unnoted, the blacksmith shop reportedly had four furnaces and at least one chimney for the forge

(Hussey 1976:206). The Old Office, also referred to as the Counting House, had a chimney and likely a fireplace (Hussey 1976:256) and the New Office was presumed to have a chimney given the presence of a stove (Hussey 1976:277). The Priests‟ quarters were also known to have had chimneys (Hussey 1976:330) and an 1860 photograph shows four brick chimneys extending above the bachelors‟ quarters. Additionally, excavations at the Harness Shop (formerly a bake house from 1836-1844), revealed

“fragments of locally made bricks apparently dating from about 1844 and later, associated with the over foundations, leading them to conclude that there may have been

„possible reuse of the oven foundation during the period of the Harness Shop‟” (Hoffman and Ross 1973a:53, quoted in Hussey 1976:385). From these accounts, it is obvious that

Fort Vancouver used considerable quantities of brick, supported by an 1826 inventory noting a stock of 9,000 bricks at the fort.

66

Scholars maintain that until the turn of the twentieth century, it was common for bricks to be manufactured on or near construction sites (Vaughan and Ferriday

1974:400). But it is unclear from HBC records and archaeological evidence whether any bricks were manufactured on-site at Fort Vancouver. Ross (1976) listed brick-making as an industrial activity at the fort but did not elaborate, and later he cryptically referred to adobe: “When imported bricks were unavailable, adobe bricks were manufactured by sun drying molded silt or clay and straw. Adobe bricks were neither historically noted nor archaeologically observed within Fort Vancouver, but they may have existed outside the fort in structures surrounding the pond” (Ross 1976:1135). Similarly, architectural historian Thomas Vaughan included brickmaking among the HBC industries without explanation: “Fort Vancouver had sawmills (one of which could gang-saw ten planks at a time), a brick works, a salmon-pickling plant, a dairy, and many kinds of shops for building wagons and even ships” (Vaughan and Ferriday 1974:38). Writing in 1930, a second-generation Vancouver brickmaker reported that the HBC “were the first to make brick in Vancouver, sometime before 1846” from clay obtained west of town (Hidden

1930:131). These three comments appear to be the only published references to brickmaking at Fort Vancouver; and although completely plausible, their seeming lack of historical evidence or source material is frustrating.

There are, however, multiple mentions of brick being made elsewhere at HBC outposts and subsidiaries. At least as early as 1853, “brick was also being made…at

Craigflower Farm, one of four farms developed by the Puget Sound Agricultural

Company (Peterson 1989:65). “In eastern Washington, a brickmaker at the Hudson‟s Bay

Company post of Fort Colville burned enough brick for two chimneys to be built at the

67

Tshimaka Mission near modern-day Spokane…during 1841” (Gurcke 1987:42). And, after two years of repeated requests by , in 1851, brickmaker George

Mason was sent by HBC officials to Fort Victoria on Vancouver Island (Bowsfield

1979:179). Once there, “George Mason worked for the Hudson‟s Bay Company for the five years of his indenture after which he established his own brickworks” (Peterson

1989:66). Several brickworks emerged on Vancouver Island during the 1850s, as “the export market, particularly Washington Territory, was opening up” (Peterson 1989:66) and as a result, “Victoria-made bricks were exported throughout the Pacific Northwest from Alaska to San Francisco” (Peterson 1989:191). Given this information, it would hardly be surprising if Fort Vancouver either produced their own brick or imported brick from other HBC outposts.

It is well-documented that Fort Vancouver imported brick from England. British suppliers included William Farmer, F.T. Rufford, and E. Stoneham, whose bricks arrived in the outfits of 1825, 1828, 1852, and 1853 (Ross 1976:135-140). More bricks arrived from London in 1834 on the Nereide; however, “apparently this shipment was not large enough because McLoughin urgently requested that 1,000 more bricks be sent” (Gurcke

1987:41). Excavations revealed the powder magazine to be made of English brick.

In addition to the possibility that bricks were made on-site and the certainty that they were imported from England, another potential source of brick would have been local brick-burners, either in the developing settlements of the Willamette Valley to the south, or the more sparsely occupied region north of the Columbia. Although records exist indicating that the HBC acquired bricks from the Willamette Valley on at least one occasion (Hussey 1972:48-49), the producer/s of the brick remain unknown. Therefore

68 the documentary record was examined for any mention of brickmakers and brick production sites that could potentially be the source of brick recovered at Fort Vancouver and possibly confirmed through INAA testing.

Earliest Bricks in the Willamette Valley

References to brick manufacturing in the Oregon Country pre-1844 – when Fort

Vancouver was known to have received a shipment of local bricks – are scarce.

However, brickmaking in the Willamette Valley was known to have begun sometime before 1841, the year Lieutenant Charles Wilkes noted in his journal that he “passed one or two brick-kilns” before reaching the “residence of George Gay, one of the most remote on this side of the river” (Wilkes 1974b:117). Exactly whose kilns they were remains unclear, but the communities at Mission Bottom, Wheatland, Salem, Oregon City, and St.

Paul were likely producing brick around this time. Additional historical research suggests that many local communities contemporaneous with Fort Vancouver had active brick or clay industries during the nineteenth century and could possibly have been suppliers to the HBC.

Mission Bottom

„Mission Bottom,‟ located on the Willamette River roughly 100 miles upriver from its confluence with the Columbia, was where the Methodists established the first

Willamette Mission in 1834. From archaeologically recovered evidence of brick made from local clays, the missionaries are believed to be the first producers of brick in the

Willamette Valley. The site‟s abandonment in 1841 suggests that brick manufacture occurred prior to that time (Sanders, Weber, and Brauner 1983:194). “Brick was used in construction of the mission buildings though it is thought at this time only for fireplace

69 repair...The missionaries were thus possibly the earliest producers of this commodity in the valley” (NRHP 1984b).

Wheatland (Yamhill County)

Directly across the Willamette River from the first Methodist Mission site is where historians agree that the first brick home in the Oregon Country was built. Owned by George Gay, it was constructed sometime around 1842 of bricks said to be made of local clay and burned in “one kiln built near what is now called Wheatland” (Moss

1878:13). This may have been what Lieutenant Wilkes noted seeing in 1841. However, there is some discrepancy regarding the identity of the brickmaker. Bancroft reported the bricks were made by “John McCaddon, who also made the first bricks in Salem”

(Bancroft 1888a:328). Sidney Moss, an early settler, reiterated “John McCaddon…made the brick...McCaddon was the first brickmaker and the first brick mason on the coast to my knowledge” (Moss 1878:13-14). Howard Corning named the brickmaker as John M.

Caddon (Corning 1956:34). But Dobbs asserted that George Holman, an English brick mason living at Fort Vancouver actually performed the task (Dobbs 1932:27). And, a historical marker near the site claimed “the Gay House was built of native clay, tramped bare footed, molded and burned on the place by Indians” (Friedman 1990:423).

Salem and Vicinity (Marion County)

Bancroft, Moss, and Corning all assert that the above-mentioned John McCaddon

(or John M. Caddon) also made bricks in Salem during the early 1840s, though Moss indicated, “I do not know whether those at Salem were made the first, or Gay‟s” (Moss

1878:13). Moss furthermore recalled that in the 1840s Salem had “small kilns. The bricks were used only for chimneys” (Moss 1878:13). Who the small kilns belonged to is

70 unknown, but it is known that the Methodists made brick in Salem after relocating from

Mission Bottom in 1841. The grandson of Lewis Hubbell Judson II, a missionary of

1840, recounted that Judson “had been in brick yards many times but had no real knowledge of the art of brick making; however, when brick was needed in constructing the mission buildings, he leveled a piece of ground northeast of the Lee house as a drying field and made and burned a kiln of brick” (Judson 1971:42). Judson also supervised the building of the mission mill, Jason Lee‟s house, and “fired the bricks used in Waller Hall on the campus” (Strozut, Jr. 1955:21).

Other known brickmakers in Salem included the David Presley family, who, after arriving in 1848, “made settlement upon a donation land claim, just west of the present

Oregon State Fair grounds the following year. Mr. Presley and his sons operated a brick yard for some time,” despite being “a blacksmith by trade” (Steeves 1927:142). John D.

Boon, an arrival of 1845, “married the sister of former mission member Lewis H.

Judson” (NRHP 1975a). Perhaps it was through this association with Judson that allowed

Boon early access to brick (Figure 8). For in North Salem, he built “the first brick building ever constructed in that part of the city” (Geer 1912:80). It was a “two- story…dry goods store. A small sign at the rear of the extant building reads „Est. 1853‟ but most believe it was built in 1860 or shortly after” (Marschner 2008:173). The

Harrison Brunk House, located just outside of Salem, was also built in 1860. Although of wood frame construction, it used substantial quantities of brick: “The foundation is nine brick piers, held together with mud mortar. The piers and the original three brick fireplaces used an unusually large amount of brickwork for this area. Evidence suggests that the bricks were either made on the site or nearby” (NRHP 1975b).

71

Figure 8. John Boon’s brick store in Salem, Oregon (NPS 75001590).

Following the Oregon State Penitentiary‟s relocation from Portland to Salem in

1866, inmates were employed making bricks used to construct the prison, the capitol, and other state buildings, in addition to being sold commercially (McAfee 1990:260;

Vaughan and Ferriday 1974:400; Johnson 1956:12). Also in the 1860s, the McCully business block made of brick was erected in downtown Salem (Steeves 1927:228). Later commercial operations included the Salem Tile and Mercantile Company (Geijsbeek

1913:654).

Several early clay industries existed just outside of Salem. After arriving from

Arkansas, Abbott Levi James Todd “worked in the pottery trade at Howell‟s Prairie, near

Salem, in late 1852” before moving away the following year (Steele 1996:5). West of

Salem, in Cincinnati, later called Eola, “the fiery kilns of [Solomon] H. Way turned out bricks and pottery” (Corning 2004:153). Way‟s enterprise was known to be in existence

72 at least by the early 1860s (Corning 1956:203). In 1870, John Richardson purchased

Way‟s holdings and continued a similar endeavor (Steele 1996:11). East of Salem, John

Shotwell Hunt, an Oregon arrival of 1847, “burned the first brick kiln in the Waldo hills, on his farm” (Steeves 1927:95). He and his son, G.W. Hunt, ran a brickyard there

(Lockley 1928a:136). Apparently King Hibbard was also producing brick for sale in the

Waldo Hills, for sometime between 1850 and 1855, T.T. Geer‟s father “drove to the King

Hibbard place and got a hundred brick which I had helped make the year before – brick that he gave me because they were burnt too hard to sell well” (Geer 1912:534). As a side note, King Hibbard‟s occupation is listed as farmer in the 1850 territorial census. To the southeast, William McKinney began construction of his brick home in Turner around

1860, employing “three men from Albany, Oregon. Mr. McAlexander was the brick- mason who molded and burned the brick on the north bank of the Santiam River”

(Steeves 1927:142).

Oregon City

Brickmaking was an established industry in Oregon City by 1845, according to settler Joel Palmer, who observed “four stores, two taverns, one hatter, one tannery…and a good brick yard in active operation” (Palmer 1993:76). A letter published in the

Milwaukie Western Star in 1850 also mentioned Oregon City‟s flourishing businesses, which included a “brick kiln and yard” (Carey 1936:650). Given his stated distance from

Oregon City, presumably it was a different brick maker who advertised his wares in the

Oregon Spectator between August 1853 and January 1854. Samuel N. Vance ran two alternating ads, one which stated, “Brick For Sale. The subscriber has for sale, $1000 worth of as good BRICK as has ever been burnt in Oregon. His brick-yard is situated

73 about two miles east of Oregon City. Brick, hard enough for any purpose, kept constantly on hand” (Oregon Spectator August 1853). The other ad read, “More Brick for Sale. Another good burn has just been made at my kiln. Better and harder burned brick are not to be found in Oregon. I will sell between 80,000 and 100,000 upon the most reasonable terms. I will sell them at the kiln or deliver them” (Oregon Spectator

September 1853). In nearby Canemah, J. P. Brooks apparently was simultaneously producing brick, for between October 1853 and January 1854, he advertised, “Brick –

75,000 Brick for sale, call on the subscriber at Canemah. J. P. Brooks” (Oregon

Spectator 20 October 1853). Multiple potters were also known to have produced wares near Oregon City. Stephen and John Harris, sons of an Ohio brickmaker, came to Oregon

City in 1851, and by 1857 were known to be manufacturing stoneware in Canemah

(Steele 1996:5) and potter James Crim was advertising his stoneware in 1855 (Steele

1996:4). In 1878 Charles H. Myers began pottery production with his son, Charles H.

Myers, Jr. in Oregon City (Steele 1996:11).

But bricks were first made somewhat earlier, given that Oregon City‟s first brick building was erected in1844 by George Abernethy, a merchant formerly of the Methodist

Mission (Corning 1956:34). Sidney Moss recollected, “I assisted in making the brick...We made the brick at the mouth of Bull Creek. Those were the first bricks made here; there were some made at Salem 2 years before that” (Moss 1878:13-14). Another early settler recalled that “the mason who built the store was McAdam, who also built the brick Catholic church at Saint Paul (Lyman 1900:104).

Other early homes in Oregon City utilized brick in their construction. Former

HBC employee Francis Ermatinger‟s house, built in 1845, had two brick fireplaces

74

(National Register of Historic Places [NRHP] 1977). Built in 1847, William Holmes‟

Rose Farm had fireplaces whose “hand-made bricks were made at the site or nearby”

(NRHP 1974c) and were “tediously put together with native clay mortar” (Dana

1957:51). During the construction of the Young Ladies‟ Academy at Oregon City in

1848, the nuns were kept busy carrying bricks to the mason working on the chimney

(McNamee 1959:206). The White-Kellog house, built in 1849, also had chimneys and fireplaces of handmade brick (NRHP 1989) as did the Captain John C. Ainsworth House constructed in 1851 (Dole 1990). And reportedly, the Harding House was constructed in

1864 by David P. Thompson, who “built the first part of the house of brick purchased from the nearby flourishing brickyard” (Alldredge 1957:55).

St. Paul and Surrounding French Prairie (Marion County)

The first brick church in the Oregon Country was located in the French Prairie community of St. Paul. Construction began in May 1846, and was completed in

November of the same year (McKay 1980:14). The bricks had apparently been made the year prior, for according to Father , “sixty thousand bricks had been burnt for the new church at St. Paul‟s” by October 1845 (Blanchet 1983:122).

Reportedly, clay for the brick was dug, molded and burned on the premises – “tradition holds that Indian women did most of the brick making” (Chiat 1997:416). In 1850, Hugh

Cosgrove purchased a homesite next to the Catholic Mission in St. Paul, where he reportedly “had a brick making plant on his farm” (McKay 1980:54). Other early brick usage in St. Paul included the building of a boiler platform at St. Paul‟s Mission Female

Seminary in 1846, although it failed in its duty and the plank floor caught fire (McNamee

1959:197). Perhaps the brick was obtained from the parent of a student, for it was

75 documented that “Sister Loyola accepted 3,000 bricks (valued at $45) on the Pambrun girls‟ account” (McNamee 1959:210).

French Prairie/Champoeg

Two early settlers were known to have brickyards on their properties near

Champoeg. William Case, a carpenter from Indiana, selected a claim three miles southeast of Champoeg in 1845 or 1846, where he “built a lumber mill and kiln on his property, and supplied lumber and bricks to other pioneers” (Clark 1983:40). Case, in fact, owned a small industrial complex; “the Case farm was the center of technical building skills for the region, possessing not only a sawmill, but also a brick kiln and iron smelter” (NRHP 1973). Case eventually built three successive homes, completing the final, grand house sometime between 1850 (Schmidt 1971:16) and 1860 (NRHP 1973).

Sources agree it took roughly five years to construct and the large quantity of brick needed was burned on site. “The brick used in the cellar, the foundation of the house and the four fireplaces were made on the place, as were the nails and much of the original hardware” (Oregon Historical Society [OHS] n.d.). However, it was reported that “Mr.

Case constantly delayed the construction of a new home because he was able to sell all the lumber and bricks he produced at his farm as soon as he made them” (NRHP 1973).

After coming to Oregon in 1840, Robert Newell settled at Champoeg sometime before 1843 (Hussey 1967:198). An enterprising man, he was first a trapper, then the director of the Oregon Printing Association which published Oregon‟s first newspaper,

Oregon Spectator, and also opened a general store with John Davis Crawford (Hussey

1967: 205-206). Reportedly, by 1860, “out in Newell‟s field near a slough of Mission

Creek was a brickyard” (Hussey 1967:215). This was the same Robert Newell who, in

76

1859, leased the state prison‟s property, inmates, and tools, intending to occupy them in making brick (Statesman Journal, 21 June 1859). The 1860 census furthermore lists a

„moulder‟ from Ireland residing in Champoeg (Table 1).

Aurora/Hubbard

The Aurora Colony, a Christian communal society, made bricks during the 1860s under the supervision of John Will, colonist foreman and brick mason. Supposedly, “the

Colony‟s first brickyard was at the Yost place” (Old Aurora Colony 2009) which architectural historian Philip Dole describes as located “in Clackamas County, across the

Pudding River” (Dole 1991:379). Also across the , near the intersection of

Miller Road and , a tile factory operated in the 1880s (Friedman 1990:459).

George J. Wolfer moved from the Aurora Colony to nearby Hubbard in the 1870s, where he reportedly established himself as a brickmaker (Will 1956:34). East in what is now called Yoder, the Yoder brothers, Jonathan S. and Will H., made bricks during the 1890s

(Lindholm 1981:342). Slightly southwest, near Gervais, brick was used extensively in the building of the Sam Brown House, completed in 1858. “The old kitchen walls were bricked in between the studding” and the large fireplaces were “built and faced with the common slush brick of that day” (Brown 1955:6-7). To the east, the busy river port of

Fairfield had numerous industries, including a brickyard, before its decline during the railroad era.

Portland

The earliest mention of brickmaking in Portland dates to 1848, where

on Nathan Crosby‟s land-claim, a mile below Pettygrove‟s dwelling in Portland, on the right bank of the Willamette, just below a high gravelly bluff, that is, in what is now the north part of East Portland... Two of the

77

Belknaps were making bricks at this place, assisted by [Reason] Read” (Bancroft 1888b:3).

The only brickmaker residing in Portland according to the 1850 census is John McThistal

(United States Bureau of the Census 1850).

Yet, Thomas Hartness, an immigrant from Ohio, has been credited with establishing Portland‟s first brickyard in 1850 at what is now NW Broadway and Hoyt

(Oregon Journal, 12 February 1972) and he was the only brickmaker listed in the 1867

Pacific Coast Business Directory (1867:514). But another must have been operating by

March of 1865, when John Versteeg “got work in a brickyard in Portland…on the ground now occupied by Lincoln High School” (Versteeg 1836-1915) which is more than a mile away from the former Hartness location. Later, brickyards were common in Portland.

One early brickyard was that of A.M. Eldredge, where E.J. Jefferey (aka Jeffrey and

Jeffery) was employed before starting his own with George Fagg (Evening Telegram, 23

December 1916). Jefferey‟s flourishing brickyard business lasted throughout the 1860s,

70s, and 80s. His first yard was variously reported as located at 14th and Morrison and

20th and B (now Washington), but his operations later moved to Twenty-third and Jay

Streets, and finally out on Sandy road (Corning 1947:55; Oregon Sunday Journal, 24

December 1916). Jefferey was the sole brick making entry in Samuel‟s Portland

Directory of 1873 (Samuel‟s Portland Directory 1873:348). The same year, Pacific

Pottery (later called Pacific Stoneware) began production in Portland. In 1883, the

Oregon Pottery Company of Buena Vista opened a Portland plant. Still later, Charles

Piggott operated a brickyard on Sandy Road (Vaughan and McMath 1967:89). In 1897,

Polk‟s Portland City Directory listed nine manufacturers: James Anderson at E. 7th and

Russell; Jensen Paving Company at 666 Worcester Blk.; Theodore Jensen at Sandy Road

78 near eastern limits, LE Kern at 135 1st; Portland Clay Company in Fulton; Portland

Consolidated Brick Company also at 135 1st; Emerinus Versteeg at 660 Union Avenue

N.; Marion Versteeg at St. Helen‟s Road and 25th; and A.N. Wills in Willsburg

(1897:712).

To the west of Portland, the Standard Brick and Tile Company existed at Sylvan soon after the turn of the century (Vaughan and Ferriday 1974:400; Geijsbeek 1913:651).

And, a “brick works of moderate size…in Johnson Gulch west of Portland use a sandy clay from the base of the loess” (Darton 1909:18). But apparently more were in operation, for Geijsbeek reported three brickyards operating in western Portland, “the

Standard Brick & Tile Co, the Friberg Bros. yard, and the Portland Brick & Tile Co…in the heights section. The first yard is located on the Canyon Road near Sylvan, the second yard on Barnes Road, and third is situated on Linnton Road” (Geijsbeek 1913:651).

Furthermore, Geijsbeek indicated,

some years ago there were several soft-mud yards in East Portland, but with the rapid growth of the city, most of these yards have been abandoned, the clay pits leveled and laid out in city lots, and only two yards are still in existence. These are the Versteeg-Kern Brick Co. in East Portland, and A.N. Willis in South Portland or Sellwood (Geijsbeek 1913:651).

Also to the east, near Damascus, Chevalier Richardson, one of the earliest documented potters in the Pacific Northwest, began operating a small pottery plant sometime before 1850 (Steele 1996:4). Several other potters, including Samuel Grove and Edward Pedigo also were known to produce clay wares at Damascus after 1850

(Steele 1996:4). On Hogan Road near Gresham, the Columbia Brickworks Company, the only remaining brickyard in Oregon today, has been in operation since the early 1900s

(Vaughan and Ferriday 1974:400; Geijsbeek 1913:652).

79

South of Portland on Willamette‟s west bank was the town of Multnomah City, now incorporated into Linn City, where reportedly, as of 1844, “a company from

Baltimore are now building a brickyard” (Oregon Historical Quarterly [OHQ] 1903:406).

The 1850 census lists John Zumalt as a brickmaker in Linn City. Across the Willamette

River, lies the town of Milwaukie, where Fischer Pottery began operations in the late

1870s. In 1895 they added a brick plant and brick yard, and began delivering “bricks as far away as Vancouver, Washington” (Fischer 1985:300). The clay used in Fischer bricks was hauled to their brickyard from various construction sites, while the pottery clay came from what is today Tryon State Creek across the river from Milwaukie. Three miles upriver from Milwaukie, in 1848, “was a German named Piper, attempting to make pottery” (Bancroft 1888b:3). Likely this was in actuality William Pfeiffer, a German who fired clay pottery opposite Oswego in the 1840s (Steele 1996:4). Also, “at Tualatin, a deposit of surface clay intermixed with gravel has been worked for the manufacture of common brick and drain tile” (Geijsbeek 1913:652). And, Southwest of Portland, “at

Beaverton, a surface clay has been worked by the Beaverton Clay Mfg Co. for the manufacture of common brick” (Geijsbeek 1913:652).

To the north, “near St. Johns…surface clays have been worked for several years”

(Geijsbeek 1913:651). And, interestingly, in 1859, inmates of the Oregon State

Penitentiary in Portland, were leased to Robert Newell and L.N. English. In 1862,

Governor Gibbs explained that it had been “the normal custom of the Lessee to work most of the convicts outside of the Penitentiary within the City limits, in mills, brick yards, and at grading streets, digging ditches, sewers, &c.” (Gibbs 1862:46; emphasis

80 mine). He recommended the leasing system be abolished and the inmates put to work in a state-run prison brickyard. This was established in Salem in 1866.

Other references to the early use of brick in Portland include the building of the first steam mill around 1850. When Joseph Bradley Varnum Butler arrived in Portland,

“there was no one to build the chimney nor smokestack and the gentlemen were wondering in Mr. Butler‟s store who they could get to do it. Mr. Butler said: „I can do that if you can tend my store,‟ so he had the honor of building the chimney on the first steam-mill in Portland” (Hines 1893:1002). Reportedly Butler had “learned the trades of brickmaker and brickmason” (Clark 1927:631) as a young man in New Hampshire.

Multiple sources indicate William Sargent Ladd, a prominent merchant, erected

Portland‟s first brick building in 1853 (Scott 1924b:272; WPA 1951:211; Corning

1956:34; Vaughan and Ferriday 1974:167). And it was claimed that Erwin Cummins “an expert bricklayer…helped build the first brick building in Portland" (The Hillsboro

Argus, 9 August 1965) after his arrival in 1852. But several other sources indicate the existence of an earlier brick building. Stephen Coffin, in his diary of 1848, noted,

“Portland now has two white houses and one brick and three wood-colored frame houses and a few cabins” (WPA 1951:209). A similar entry was attributed to Elizabeth Smith, writing in January 1848 (Geer 1912:148; Carey 1936:655). It therefore may be the case that Ladd commissioned the first commercial brick building. Either way, “W.S. Ladd &

Co., the enterprising merchants in this place,” a notice in The Oregonian dated May 28,

1853 proclaimed, “have commenced the erection of a fireproof brick building on their old site on Front Street.” Toward the end of June the paper reported, “Mr. Ladd has completed his new fireproof brick store on Front Street” (The Oregonian, 25 June 1853).

81

The Ladd Building set off a flurry of brick construction, for forty other commercial brick buildings were constructed over the following decade (Brownell 1968).

The Tualatin Plains

On the west bank of the Willamette River spreading west of Portland to the

Chehalem Mountains are what used to be known as the Tualatin Plains. There are numerous references to nineteenth century clayworks in this general region. At the turn of the twentieth century, brick yards existed at Forest Grove, Hillsboro and North Plains

(Geijsbeek 1913:651). A pottery, operated by John Schmitt, existed south of Cornelius in the early 1880s (Steele 1996:12). North of Forest Grove, at one time there was a brickyard at Wilkesboro near the intersection of Aerts and Wilkesboro Roads (Friedman

1990:153). Another “old brick and tile factory” once existed at Scholls‟ Ferry (Friedman

1990:386). According to a city directory, Wilsonville also had a brickyard as of 1886.

Two historic homes provide examples of early brick use in the Tualatin Plains area. The Alvin T. Smith home near Forest Grove was constructed over the course of several years during the 1850s. Smith reported purchasing 4,500 bricks from a Mr.

Philips for $45 and hiring a Mr. Young to perform the brickwork on the chimney and cellar (Smith 1855-1874). Archaeological excavations recovered more than 70 brick fragments at the home of Silas Jacob N. Beeks, an immigrant of 1847. “Only one type of brick is represented. It is a soft red molded hand-trimmed brick that resembles brick found at other local archaeological sites, but it cannot be specifically identified” (NRHP

1984a).

82

The West Willamette Valley (Yamhill & Polk Counties)

Just to the south of the Tualatin Plains, lies an area that we shall arbitrarily designate as the West Willamette Valley. Bounded by the Willamette River on the east, it extends west to the Coast Range. Multiple sources indicate the existence of clay industries in the region throughout the mid-to-late 1800s. One of the earliest potteries was established at Chehalem, near Newberg, in either 1846 or 1847 (Hines 1893; Steele

1996:4). Also, in Newberg, a tile factory was established by Jesse Edwards and Quincy

Hoskins around 1886 “on the east side of Dayton road, between Third and Fifth streets”

(YCHS 1976:65). Jesse Edwards and another partner also started the Pacific Face Brick

Company, which operated in Newberg until 1907 (Vaughan and Ferriday 1974:400).

This may be the same operation that Geijsbeek referred to as “the Newberg Face Brick

Co” (Geijsbeek 1913:653).

Located northwest of Newberg, the small town of Yamhill hosted a major tile factory. “In 1885 Phillip Withycomb…bought ten acres of land on the eastern edge of

North Yamhill. Here he constructed a drain tile factory. This was the first tile factory in

Oregon” (Yamhill County Historical Society [YCHS] 1976:95). West of North Yamhill,

“extensive development of clay beds has been done…by the Western Clay Co of

Portland” (Geijsbeek 1913:653) who shipped the clay to Portland. Also, “ small plant at

North Yamhill works the same clay” (Geijsbeek 1913:653).

To the south, in Lafayette, the Yamhill County courthouse was built during 1858

“by Rush Mendenhall, who burned the brick nearby” (Corning 2004:201). According to

Mendenhall‟s son, “when he started it the brickmakers raised the price of brick on him, so he bought five acres of land just outside the town limits, built some kilns and made his

83 own bricks” (Mendenhall 1939). Just a few miles away, in the 1880s “Jacob Seitters had a brick yard across Palmer Creek just south of Dayton” (YCHS 1976:20). A few miles west, McMinnville once had “a brick and tile factory” according to WPA researchers

(WPA 1951:491). While additional details are lacking, several early McMinnville residents were known to make brick, for George Duncan, age 25; Conrad G. Saylor, 62; and Asher Saylor, 21, were all listed in the 1880 census as brick makers (United States

Bureau of the Census 1880).

Furthermore, in 1881, W. T. Newby, the founder of McMinnville, was awarded

“the contract for burning 300,000 bricks” needed to construct Linfield College (Johasson

1938:53). During the early twentieth century it was reported “surface clay is used in

McMinnville by Jacob Seiters and at Donald by…the Donald Brick & Tile Co, working the surface clay by the stiff-mud process [and] the Goode-Venhoomissen Brick Co. is operating a soft-mud yard. Several smaller yards in this part of the Willamette Valley, at

Schools, Canby, New Era, Sherwood [Figure 9], Woodburn and other places, use surface clay in making common brick and drain tile” (Geijsbeek 1913:653). Southwest of

McMinnville near Ballston, the Lawn Arbor School, aka Ballston School, was built in

1855 with local brick and lumber (Friedman 1990:193).

Further east, is the town of Willamina. Originally settled in the 1850s, Willamina

“grew as a brick and tile factory, sawmill, and veneer plant town” (Friedman 1990:175).

“In 1903 it was just a big hole in the ground known as the clay pit where the gray-black clay was dug out, placed on a team-drawn wagon and transported to Newberg where it was made into bricks” (YCHS 1976:86) by the Pacific Face Brick Company (Geijsbeek

1913:653). They relocated to Willamina in 1907, renaming themselves the Willamina

84

Clay Products Company (Vaughan and Ferriday 1974:400). As well, clay from Butler, five miles west of Willamina was known to be “worked by Western Clay Company of

Portland and Pacific Stoneware Co., also of Portland” (Geijsbeek 1913:654).

Figure 9. Brick kiln at Smockville, now Sherwood, Oregon, circa 1890 (OHS 53001).

In the town of Dallas, to the south, Merchant William C. Brown was credited with owning the first brick building, constructed sometime after 1853 (Lang 1885:666).

Reportedly clays were also “found and worked to some extent” at the nearby towns of

Dallas, Falls City, Airlie, and Monmouth (Geijsbeek 1913:654). Joseph Bradley Varnum

Butler settled in Monmouth after his arrival in 1849 from Illinois where he had owned a brickyard. It is unknown for certain whether Butler operated a brickyard in Oregon, although he was identified as a brick maker by his son (Independence Enterprise-

Monmouth Herald, 10 October 1974) and was credited with having “laid the first brick chimney for steam in Oregon” (Fourt 1957:31). Later, “a brick and tile plant operated

85 north of Monmouth from 1900s until the late 1950s” (McArthur 2004:176). In neighboring Independence, beginning sometime in the late 1840s and operating through the 1850s, “Thomas McKinley opened (Independence‟s) first brick kiln and yard located where the Valsetz Depoe is today” (Newton 1971:8). Later, in the 1880s, J.R. Cooper operated a brickyard in the same town (Newton 1971:40).

The Southern Willamette Valley (Benton & Linn Counties)

Although the southern end of the Willamette Valley was settled slightly later than the north, relatively early brick references still abound. Brickmaker William Allphin moved to Oregon in 1847, settling in Linn County eight miles east of Albany. Although it is unknown whether he practiced his craft in his new home, back in Indianapolis,

Indiana, he was well-known for having “engaged in the manufacture of brick, furnishing the material for the walls for the statehouse in that city” (Bancroft 1888a:635). Also near

Albany, the Albany Brick & Tile Company was later known to operate.

Brick is known to have been manufactured early in the history of Marysville (now known as Corvallis). After the Oregon territorial government authorized a University in

1853, brick “were burned in a kiln on the site, but were disposed of when the 1855

Legislature reversed its earlier action” (Corning 1956:34). The John Fiechter house, constructed between 1855 and 1857, utilized a massive amount of brick. Supposedly the house was “built by hand from local materials” and “the hand-production and firing of the 2” x 4” x 8” brick was accomplished at the site” (NRHP 1985). It is known that at least one brickmaker was living in Corvallis at the time, for he is listed by occupation in the 1858 Benton County jury list (WPA 1942:A-62). Only a year later, Corvallis was reported to have “a well-developed industrial economy with… several brickyards” (Marschner 2008:51).

86

Table 1. Brickworkers noted in 1850 & 1860 census records.

Date Name Age County Town Occupation State 1850 Wright, Charles 25 Marion Brick Layer OR 1850 Sturges, O.P. 22 Clatsop Brick Maker OR 1850 McThistal, John 51 Washington Portland Brick Maker OR 1850 Culley, Thomas 32 Clackamas Brick Mason OR 1850 Howling, John S. 40 Clackamas Oregon City Brick Mason OR 1850 Ingles, Henry 36 Clackamas Oregon City Brick Mason OR 1850 Powell, Jackson 34 Clackamas Brick Mason OR 1850 Shelley, William 34 Clackamas Milwaukie Brick Mason OR 1850 Pollard, Zacharia 50 Marion Brick Mason OR 1850 Wright, Charles 27 Marion Brick Mason OR 1850 Arnot, James H. 29 Washington Portland Brick Mason OR 1850 Butler, J.B. 40 Washington Portland Brick Mason OR 1850 Green, James 25 Washington Portland Mason OR 1850 Swain, W.H. 25 Washington Portland Mason OR 1850 Zumalt, John 32 Washington Linn City Mason OR 1850 Nesbitt, Henry W. 19 Yamhill Mason OR 1850 Moffet, James 33 Clackamas Oregon City Moulder* OR 1850 Hand, William 24 Clark Brick Mason WA 1850 Prachet, Francis Clark Brick Mason WA 1850 Rumpis, George Clark Brick Mason WA 1850 Silverthorn, John S. Clark Brick Mason WA 1850 Lourie, Joseph 24 Lewis Brick Maker WA 1850 Elliott, William H. 22 Lewis Brick Maker WA 1860 Hine, George W. 50 Clackamas Oregon City Brick Burner OR 1860 Payne, Henry 33 Clackamas Oregon City Brick Burner OR 1860 Walling, Juman 30 Yamhill Brick Maker OR 1860 Elliott, Samuel 31 Washington Brick Mason OR 1860 Phillips, Daniel 37 Washington Bricklayer OR 1860 Shuck, Harvey 30 Washington Brickmaker OR 1860 West, Y 28 Washington Brickmaker OR 1860 Hurley, R.H. 30 Clackamas Oregon City Moulder* OR 1860 Smith, Lewis 23 Clackamas Oregon City Moulder* OR 1860 Drake, B.F. 30 Clackamas Oregon City Moulder* OR 1860 Carr, James A. 25 Chehalis Brick Maker WA 1860 Shain, E.R. 32 Jefferson Master Mason WA 1860 Thorndyke, C.U. 26 Kitsap Mason WA 1860 Fowler, William 25 Kitsap Moulder* WA 1860 Parsons, George 39 Kitsap Moulder* WA 1860 Noyes, P.J. 26 Kitsap Moulder* WA 1860 Stephenson, S. 56 Kitsap Mason WA 1860 Headley, J.C. 41 Klickitat Brick Mason WA 1860 Hopkinson, Francis 45 Pacific Brick Mason WA

*It is unclear whether moulders performed clay, metal, or wood work.

87

There are also several references to the manufacturing of brick in the outlying region. In nearby Hoskins/Kings Valley, William Pittman built a home for James

Watson around 1851. “Most of the materials for the house came from the site: white fir for the interior work; red fir for the exterior; clay for the bricks; and the „mud‟ for the mortar” (Vaughan and Ferriday 1974:100). Soon after, in 1856, Fort Hoskins was erected by the U.S. military, using brick “said to have been obtained from a yard in the community of King‟s Valley to the northeast” (NRHP 1974b). A contract for 50,000 bricks to build Philomath College was awarded to Lewis Wilson in 1866, who built a kiln and burned bricks on the site (WPA 1942:A-26). Afterwards, “for years there was a large hole in front of the main building where the clay was dug for making the brick” (Springer

1929:6). To the south of Corvallis, in the community of Monroe, at least one brick and tile factory existed at the turn of the century (Friedman 1990:420, Geijsbeek 1913:655).

To the southwest, potter Barnett Ramsey was established near Spicer in Linn

County before moving to Peoria (Gunderson 1960). The community of Peoria, well- known for Ramsey‟s ceramics of the 1850s, also claimed numerous early brick-yards “at a number of small farms workings throughout the region” (Haskins 1942). A kiln and clay pit operated a mile south of Peoria and another, likely operated by H. A. McCartney, was located at the intersection of the Shedd-Peoria market road and Harrisburg-Corvallis road. Still another was located north of Peoria, in Burlington. A Mr. Pac‟npaw operated a fourth kiln, located to the east of the Edwin Smith home, digging the clay from a nearby hillside. Also, two miles west of Shedd was a clay pit of unknown use. It was also reported that the nearby town of Halsey had two kilns during its early days; one at the

88 back of the old schoolhouse, and another at the southwest corner of town (McCormick ca.

1960s).

Along The Columbia River

Brickmaking along the Columbia River was also investigated, as it was speculated that transportation of bricks via the river to Fort Vancouver was feasible until one reached , east of the Dalles, where portage was necessary. At the mouth of the Columbia, nearly 100 river miles from Vancouver, brick was claimed to have been originally “made at Astoria in 1849, the first being used for chimneys and mortared together with lime made from clam shells,” but by whom goes unmentioned (Corning

1956:34). Also in Astoria, in 1865, a boarder in Charles Stevens‟ home began making bricks in lieu of rent.

A Brick maker boarded with us last winter, and he wanted to put up a kiln of brick, and seeing no other way to get my pay, so I set him at work on my place...People here have had to depend on Portland for all their brick, and… they have cost, delivered here, about eighteen dollars pr. Thousand, consequently but few have been use. I believe I could sell a hundred thousand today if we had them burnt, at from twelve to fifteen dollars. Our prospects we think are very good (Rockwood 1937:336).

By 1883, clay was being mined on the Lewis and Clark River near Astoria and shipped to the Oregon Pottery Company‟s Portland plant for manufacture into sewer pipe (Schmeer

1987:20).

Nearby in Warrenton, a hollow clay tile factory existed early in the twentieth century (Vaughan and Ferriday 1974:401). By 1859, thirty miles downriver from

Vancouver, “two brick kilns were also in operation on Scappoose Bay near present-day

Warren” (Marschner 2008:91). And at The Dalles, 90 miles upriver from Vancouver, supposedly numerous brickyards existed over the years. The first was established in

89

1867 to provide bricks for a house. “George Snipes set up the kilns and made the bricks on his own place… In reality this was the first known „brickyard‟ at The Dalles, which made bricks in a big way for that large house. While Mr. Snipes never engaged in the brick business, yet the bricks for many early chimneys in Dalles‟ homes came from his place” (McNeal 1964-1965). Another brickyard was operated by Caleb Brooks, from

1868 until 1885, when it was sold to James B. Taylor (OHQ 1962:365). Another early

Dalles brickyard was the Christman Springs Brickyard, which “got the sticky clay soil from Clay Hill at the head of Lewis Street and along 14th” (McNeal 1964-1965). The

John Blakeney brickyard was operating by 1883, when the courthouse was erected with its bricks. Other early brickyards included “The Junior High School brickyard…on about

14 and I streets. They hauled clay from Clay Hill and many other locations to those kilns… and the Max Blank brickyard…located on east 8 street at the head of 4th street grade” which provided bricks for St. Mary‟s Academy in 1882 (McNeal 1964-1965).

Southeast of the Dalles, in Moro, D. M. Radley opened a brick yard in 1896, that was later taken over by B.F. Hoover, who molded “over 7,000 pressed brick each day”

(Sherman County Journal, 8 March 1984).

Vancouver and North of the Columbia

Given that the rate of settlement was slower in the areas to the north of the

Columbia River, it is unsurprising that the brick industry appears to have started somewhat later in the Vancouver area than in Oregon. Aside from brick possibly being made at Fort Vancouver, the earliest known brickmaking seems to have occurred on the

Cowlitz Prairie. “On the Cowlitz Prairie farm of Simon Plomondon, shingle makers

Samuel Hancock and Antonio B. Rabberson changed professions for a while and took out

90 a contract to burn a kiln of bricks in July 1847” (Gurcke 1987:42). Joseph Lourie and

William H. Elliott were the only two brickmakers listed as residing in Washington according to the 1850 census (United States Bureau of the Census 1850), and no brickmakers appeared in Washington‟s 1860 census. While in Oregon local brick production apparently skyrocketed, during the 1850s Washington bricks were still scarce.

“Around 1854 Jack Quinnup and Bill Cooper built a brick kiln just east of Grand Mound, and four years lateer Marion F. Guess burned a single kiln of bricks in Steilacoom,

Washington, but „could not compete with the imported article‟ (Gurcke 1987:42).

In 1858, reportedly “the first brick building in Washington was erected by

Richards & Hyatt, a mercantile firm in what is now Bellingham” of bricks made in

Philadelphia (Gurcke 1987:42). One of the earliest brick buildings in Vancouver was a brewery at 6th and Columbia built in 1864 by a Mr. Armstrong, who “made the brick from plentiful clay deposits he had found in Vancouver” (Van Arsdol 1986:146). This was likely Abner Enyart Armstrong, listed in the Oregon Pioneer Index as a brick mason and farmer who settled on Sauvie‟s Island after arriving overland in 1852. Armstrong hired Lowell M. Hidden to help with the brewery construction.

The Hidden Brick Company was born when later, “in 1871 Mother Joseph approached Hidden and asked him to make the brick for the academy she planned to build. Armstrong had left town, but Hidden knew how to make brick. He…established a brickyard at 15th and Main” (Van Arsdol 1986:146). During the twenty years that

Lowell Hidden ran the brickyard, he estimated making more than 40 million bricks

(Lockley 1928b:24). For the next 120 years, until it ceased operating in the 1990s, the

Hidden Brick Company supplied much of Vancouver with brick (Figure 10). According

91 to architectural historian Vaughan, “We know that [Hidden] brick was floated to Sauvie

Island for use in construction of the Bybee-Howell house. When the house was restored

110 years later, brick from the Hidden works was again used” (Vaughan and Ferriday

1974:400). This statement seems suspect given that the Bybee-Howell House is believed to have been constructed in 1856 (NRHP 1974a) and reportedly the Hidden brickyard didn‟t begin production until 1871. However, another source also noted that the Hidden

Brick Company was known to ship their brick some distance away. “In the early days this pioneer firm made shipments by scow to Astoria, Oregon” (Lockley, 1928b:499).

Figure 10. Kiln at the Hidden Brick Company in Vancouver, Washington.

92

Regarding other brickmakers in the region, Lowell Hidden‟s son Foster claimed that the HBC

were the first to make brick in Vancouver, some time before 1846. Their yard was located on the low land west of the city, not far from the present railroad passenger station. Frank DuPuis told me that he often saw the old pits as he went that way to the old Petran place to play. This was a soft mud yard, as were all the early yards here and in the Portland area (Hidden 1930:131).

In addition, Hidden recalled the existence of several other early brickyards in Clark

County, near Image, Ridgefield, Salmon Creek, and Fargher Lake. One of these may have belonged to Gabriel Zimmerman, who purchased land on what is now 119th Street in Vancouver in 1872. Reportedly Zimmerman was a brickmaker, but also raised hay and cattle (The Columbian, 21 February 1989). An observer writing in 1909 also indicated that “many bricks for use in Portland are made at Russells Landing, on the north bank of Columbia River, 5 miles above Vancouver, where 20 feet of gray brick loam overlies 6 feet thick of purer blue clay” (Darton 1909:18).

Summary

In order to identify the possible sources of brick used at Fort Vancouver, early histories, diaries, biographies, census records, newspapers, city directories, industry records, and other historical documents were scrutinized for reference to brickmaking.

The locations and names of people both producing and constructing with brick were collected to create a regional history of brick and also to guide the collection of comparative clay samples. In summary, the documents suggest that many contemporaneous communities were producing brick and could have been local suppliers to Fort Vancouver. Brick clays existed near the surface throughout Washington and

Oregon and required little preparation to make acceptable bricks. The cordwood needed

93 to fire them was also easily obtained throughout the region. As a result, brick production was ubiquitous; occurring in nearly every early settlement and at many early home sites.

The historical research also indicates a wide spectrum of brick producers existed in the region during the mid-nineteenth century. Some individuals produced brick out of sheer necessity for their own consumption. An excellent example of this would be Lewis

Hubbell Judson II, the Methodist missionary making bricks in Salem. There also appear to have existed roving professionals who made bricks on location for others. John

McCaddon, who reportedly made brick for the Gay house at Wheatland, falls in this category. In addition, there were opportunistic brick merchants, like William Case and

George Snipes, of Champoeg and The Dalles, respectively, who made brick for personal use but gladly sold it when the opportunity arose. Still others appeared to be what the

Northwest Pottery Research Center termed „farmers with kilns,‟ agriculturalists who had kilns on their farm complexes and burned brick part-time to sell. These included men like John Shotwell Hunt and King Hibbard, known brickmakers identified as farmers in the census. Finally, there were commercial operators, who made brick as an occupation.

For instance, Samuel N. Vance near Oregon City apparently was in the business, for he advertised “Brick For Sale…kept constantly on hand,” as was Thomas Hartness, who purchased a listing in the Portland city directory. The simultaneous existence of brick producers operating at different scales is contrary to expectation. According to Peterson,

“household production would generally be the first category to appear in a colony”

(Peterson 1989:64) followed successively by estate production, small rural brickyards, and the nucleated brickyard complex.

94

The multiplicity of occupations observed during the course of this research also was noteworthy. Many early brickmakers identified in the historical record performed a variety of work. Though known to have burned brick, Abner Armstrong considered himself a brick mason and farmer, according to the Oregon Pioneer Index. Reportedly

David Presley operated a brick yard despite being a blacksmith by trade. Joseph Bradley

Varnum Butler was known to both make and lay brick in addition to owning and operating multiple stores, warehouses, and a flour mill. Though primarily a farmer, Hugh

Cosgrove “had a brick making plant on his farm” (McKay 1980:54). And shingle makers

Samuel Hancock and Antonio B. Rabberson took out a contract to burn a kiln of bricks.

Earning a living by practicing multiple professions appears to have been a common economic strategy or even an economic necessity during the early days of the Oregon

Country.

Another unexpected pattern uncovered in the course of historical research was the transportation of clay. Conventional wisdom has held that brickyards were established on clay deposits that were mined on-site. However, multiple mentions of clay traveling significant distances were found. Reportedly The Western Clay Company of Portland obtained their clays from west of North Yamhill. Willamina clay was transported by wagon to Newberg. Astoria clay was shipped upriver to Portland. The clay used in

Fischer bricks came from basements all over town. In short, by the late 1800s there was a possible disconnect between the centers of production and the geologic sources of the raw materials. This has potentially serious implications for geochemical research.

95

In part, the following chapter will address issues in geochemical research.

Chapter five consists of a review of previous archaeological studies of brick, as well as instrumental neutron activation analysis and provenance studies. This will help to place the current study in academic context, reveal the strengths and weaknesses of INAA, and aid in the current research design.

96

CHAPTER 5: PREVIOUS RESEARCH

Before embarking on an analysis of brick recovered from Fort Vancouver, it is important to first review the pertinent literature. This chapter summarizes previous research conducted with regards to brick and also examines why instrumental neutron activation analysis is an appropriate research tool for the present study. Bricks have often been treated with casual disregard by archaeologists; relegated to simple counts or weights appended to excavation reports. But a more comprehensive treatment of brick can be found in the work of several researchers, as follows.

General Brick Studies

The seminal brick studies of the 1960s were conducted by several icons of historical archaeology, including Stanley South, Ivor Noel Hume, and J. C. Harrington.

South (1964) investigated whether brick size could be used as a dating tool, comparing thirteenth through twentieth century English, Dutch, and American bricks found on sites in North Carolina and Virginia. He concluded it was “generally an invalid tool for dating due to its relatively standardized form throughout the centuries” (South 1964:73).

Similarly, in Florida, William Lazarus (1965) compared Spanish, British, and American bricks, but with different results, noting “experience gained in this study indicates that good identification of bricks as to manufacture, site of manufacture and relative time of manufacture is feasible” (Gurcke 1987:130). At Fort Toulouse in Alabama, David Chase

(1968) attempted to date a brick feature using both Lazarus‟ and South‟s methods, but found his brick measurements didn‟t exactly match theirs and the closest matches returned clearly inaccurate dates.

97

In Virginia, Ivor Noel Hume (1969) distinguished between two types of bricks identifiable by certain visual characteristics. What he called „English bricks‟ found at mid-eighteenth century sites were notable for their cherry color, their tight grain, the fact they were highly fired and extremely hard, as well as their smaller dimensions (Noel

Hume 1969:82). „Dutch or Flemish bricks,‟ according to Noel Hume were also smaller, but their body was a yellow or buff color and they were found at seventeenth century sites. These may be what Becker (1977) called „Swedish‟ bricks; yellow bricks commonly found at Swedish and Dutch colonial sites in the eastern seaboard. Becker was unable to determine whether these yellow bricks were imported from Europe or were products of an early brick industry along the Delaware River. Becker recommended that future studies incorporate trace element analysis to determine the bricks‟ possible sources.

J. C. Harrington was perhaps the first to examine the provenance of bricks using more advanced technological means. In his research at Roanoke Island, Virginia, he fired and examined local clays and compared them to Raleigh Settlement bricks and tile using

“optical and X-Ray methods” (Harrington 1967:14). He determined that the Fort Raleigh bricks were made from local materials, but the tile was not. Several other early historical archaeologists were proponents of incorporating brick studies into archaeological investigations. Writing in 1966, Lenik noted “old bricks have a definite and highly effective value in the interpretation of a historic site,” believing them especially useful for tracking changes to brick buildings over time (Lenik 1966:12). A decade later, Kelly and

Kelly (1977) reiterated bricks‟ useful data potential in the field of historical archaeology.

They postulated that information on economic networks; social status; remodeling of

98 buildings; and cultural patterns in the use of space can all be obtained from bricks. As well, they could assist in dating structures and be used as horizon markers for an obsolete industrial practice. However, the Kellys focused exclusively on bricks whose provenance was known from its brand. British archaeologist L.S. Harley (1974) created a typology based upon the physical characteristics of bricks, including their method of manufacture; shape and size; surface treatment; weight; color; texture; hardness; as well as where they were found. Harley‟s typology was adapted and adopted by others, including historical brick expert Karl Gurcke (1987:97)

Several researchers heeded the call for more thorough brick studies. Louise Heite

(1969) studied 14 brick buildings of known age in Richmond, Virginia in an attempt to detect change over time in brickwork patterns and found several trends useful for dating brick structures. Holschlag, Rodeffer, and Cann (1978) investigated the brick used to build the Jail in the town of Ninety Six, South Carolina. Although they did not find remains of quarrying or tempering activities, they nonetheless concluded the brick was made of local materials, given the physical presence of inclusions and sand in the brick similar to those found locally, and given the bricks‟ red color, which they attributed to the presence of ferric oxide in local soils. In addition, the researchers fired experimental bricks “using the procedures proposed for manufacturing the archeological specimens to assess the legitimacy of these interpretations” (Holschlag et al. 1978:125). In 1985,

Schulz and Lortie published the results of their excavation of a Chinese shrimp boiler firebox in Marin County, California. They were able to identify the likely source and date of the bricks‟ manufacture from an impressed brand and linked details of the firebox construction to the adaptation of traditional Chinese shrimping techniques to American

99 economic conditions (Schulz and Lortie 1985). Costello‟s (1985;1997) examinations of a late eighteenth century kiln at Mission San Antonio found that “the manufacturing of adobes, bricks, and tiles ranked just below the basic industries of agriculture, stock raising, and weaving crafts in…mission life… In spite of this, contemporary historic documents are nearly void of technological details on brickmaking activities.” (Costello

1997:195-196) Using an ethnoarchaeological approach for insight, she compared

Mission San Antonio brick technology to both „old world‟ Roman brick and „new world‟ enterprises in Guatemala that continue to use colonial methods. Costello also made small test bricks from local clays, attempting to replicate the color of historic bricks to determine the temperature range of the kiln.

Several archaeologists focused on entire brickmaking sites. Edward Heite (1970,

1973) excavated several temporary brick clamps in Virginia after realizing that although

“brickmaking was the first step in house construction during the Colonial period…and was an important part of the Colonial economy, it is generally little understood” (Heite

1973:48). Heite found that while brick clamps were ubiquitous on eighteenth and nineteenth century building sites, they were difficult to recognize in the archaeological record and often misidentified. Heite outlined characteristics that differentiate clamp sites from burned house sites and called for their proper identification and excavation, believing them capable of revealing information about individuals and construction practices. In an Iowa case study, Finney and Snow (1991) also detailed the archaeological evidence left by mid-eighteenth century scove kilns and brick clamps.

Though written records failed to mention the presence of a brickyard, archaeological survey revealed its existence and certain characteristics allowed for its identification and

100 dating. Wingfield, Richmond and McKelway (1997) excavated a mid-nineteenth century brick clamp in that produced hand-made, sand-struck brick. They also noted diagnostic attributes of a brick clamp site, including the presence of vitrified wasters, discarded on-site rather than transported off. Artifact concentrations also identified

O‟Neill‟s (2001) project area as the site of a late-eighteenth century brick clamp in

Delaware. The defining characteristics included a large ovoid of heat-altered earth and the differential recovery of types of brick fragments across the site.

Smith and Watrin (1986) used the dimensions of the Zimmerle brick kiln in

Marshall County, Tennessee to estimate the size of the construction project that used the fired bricks. Their conclusions were based upon comparison with two kilns excavated at the Hermitage near Nashville, which had provided bricks for the construction of the

Hermitage mansion (Smith, Brigance, Brietburg, Cox, and Martin 1977). Also noteworthy was the fact that archaeomagnetic dates were successfully obtained from the

Hermitage kilns. Metz and Russ (1991) conducted a comparative analysis of seventeenth and eighteenth century brick kilns in Virginia. They noted that although the brick clamps were very similar in general design, differences in the kiln floor/ground surface interface, as well as differences in size were common. “The data seem to indicate a strong correlation between kiln size and the size of the structure to be built….this hypothesis can only be tested through detailed recording of additional kiln sites” (Metz and Russ

1991:103). They also noted there were status implications in the selection of brick for home construction, as lumber was plentiful and inexpensive, while brick was not. Russ and McDaniel (1991) excavated and documented a late eighteenth century brick kiln on

101 the Washington and Lee University campus, finding that a range of items may have been produced there, including clay marbles.

Several researchers examined the partially standing ruins of brick kilns. In Smith

County, Tennessee, Smith (1990) documented the Hackett Farm kiln, circa 1900, which provided a rare example of a temporary kiln‟s structure and insight into its construction.

Using documentary and archaeological evidence, Mounier (1999) reconstructed the brick manufacturing process at the Atlantic Brick Company at Mays Landing, New Jersey.

Mounier found that brickmaking had become so standardized by the time of its operations in the early twentieth century that it was possible to interpret the brickyard from the existing ruins, rendering excavation unnecessary. Using the research approach of landscape archaeology, Wayne (1992) examined brickmaking‟s impact on the South

Carolina lowcountry, finding that the industry‟s practices resulted in permanent alterations of the river shoreline as well as the creation of wetlands.

A seemingly unique endeavor is found in Belgium. In the Rupel area, the demise of an extensive brick industry in the 1960s led to the formation of several organizations dedicated to preserving the region‟s industrial heritage. The recognition that brickmaking

“was a technique, even a complete industry that passed on from generation to generation merely by oral information and experience” compelled them to collect oral histories from former brickyard employees (Denissen 1992:6). The workers were able to elucidate details regarding the manufacturing process, the transition from hand to mechanical production, labor conditions, and the daily life of a laborer. Dinessen urged additional historical and archaeological studies to abandon their narrow focus and turn to comparative studies and generalizations. “At many excavations one writes down that

102 bricks were found, what kind of clay was used, and which were the measurements of the bricks. A good job but hardly of any interest if all these data are never brought together to try to find more general information” (Denissen 1992:6).

Only a few studies have attempted to link brickmaking with economic factors. In a notable study from Great Britain, Darvill and McWhirr (1984) examined bricks from the Roman period to create models of production and distribution in this 'heavy sector' of the Roman economy. They challenged the prevailing assumption that because bricks and tiles were heavy and therefore costly to transport they were made at their place of use, finding instead a complex industry characterized by multiple modes of production. They concluded that a variety of consumer demands were met by a variety of industry responses, including modes identified as nucleated industries, rural workshops, and itinerant production. The realization that “the site‟s bricks are important artifacts,” led the West Point Foundry Archaeology Project in New York to extensively utilize bricks in its analysis of the foundry (Scarlett, Rahn, and Scott 2006:30). Bricks helped archaeologists to understand the construction and evolution of the foundry complex, the interconnectedness of the clay and iron industries, the connections between New York

City‟s urban growth and the brick industry upriver; as well as larger issues of social and economic change in the region. In the West, Diehl and Diehl (2001) excavated the

Tucson Pressed Brick Company, which operated from the late nineteenth century to the mid-twentieth century in Arizona. They found that financial fluctuations in, and the ultimate demise of, Tucson's brick industry were tied not only to economic conditions but also to the community‟s fluctuating opinion of its Spanish and Mexican architectural heritage. In passing, they mention successfully applying seriation and petrography to

103 differentiate between types and batches of brick, noting, “These analyses strongly suggest that even bricks that lack maker's marks may be identified based on stylistic and petrographic attributes” (Diehl and Diehl 2001:443).

However, the frustration commonly felt by researchers attempting to analyze brick exclusively using visual means is captured in Hockensmith‟s (1997) study of 170 common bricks from Frankfurt, Kentucky.

While there are considerable minor differences between individual bricks, there is only limited size variation in the assemblage as a whole. For example when looking for possible size clustering (length, width, and thickness), the combinations are overwhelming. An attempt to obtain this information was abandoned after making a partial list and coming up with 53 different sizes (Hockensmith 1997:165).

Given these difficulties, other methods of analysis have been applied to brick. As mentioned earlier, the first study known to geochemically examine the origin of bricks was undertaken by J. C. Harrington (1966, 1967) at Roanoke Island, Virginia. Using x- ray spectrographic testing on bricks and clay recovered from the site of Fort Raleigh,

Harrington concluded “the material used for the bricks and the local earth are identical”

(Harrington 1966:302). Since then, historical archaeologists have increasingly turned to geochemical studies for insight into ceramic artifacts, including brick. “The application of techniques from the physical sciences to products of the clay and silicate industries allows the investigation of ceramic technologies, provenance, sources of raw materials, and trade or exchange patterns” (Pavia 2006:201). And, although outside the scope of this paper, attempts to date bricks using thermo-luminescence have met with some success (Bailiff 2007; Casas, Linford, and Shaw 2007; Viellevigne 2007; Hill, Lanos,

Denti, and Dufresne 2008; Guibert, Bailiff, Blain, Gueli, and Martini 2009; University of

Manchester 2009).

104

Geochemical Studies of Ceramics

Before examining this body of research, it is important to understand some basic principles of the geochemical or trace element analysis of ceramics. Because the main ingredients in fired ceramics, including bricks, are clay and water, the chemical composition of a ceramic is heavily dependent upon that of the clay used. Clays are derived from the weathering and decomposition of rocks, themselves made up of minerals. Although classified as primary or secondary – primary clays are formed in situ from the weathering of bedrock; secondary clays are transported and deposited by rivers or lakes – clay‟s chemistry inevitably reflects the geology of the region. Primary clays chemically resemble the parent bedrock; secondary clays are chemically a combination of sediments within the surrounding drainage basin, since “the clay which forms on the tops and slopes of hills and ridges gradually works down into the adjacent valleys...The rocks of adjacent hills are frequently of different kinds, and when these decompose they may each furnish a part of the material for a sedimentary clay” (Shedd 1910:158). Clays, then, “are essentially composed of the two commonest oxides in the earth‟s crust, silica and aluminia… When combined with water these oxides form what are generally described as hydrous aluminium silicates… Other oxides introduced by the presence of various minerals determine their chemical compositions” (Henderson 2000:112-113). It is these „other oxides‟ that give each clay deposit their unique elemental composition; trace elements, whose concentrations are below 1,000 parts per million and “whose presence in the clay is effectively accidental… provide the primary basis for provenance analysis” (Neff 1992:11). Because clay‟s chemistry is determined by the geology of the region, ceramics made from the clay also carry this chemical signature. “Therefore a

105 brick reflects the original clay body and whatever additives were used… the composition of a brick can be used to help identify its origin” (Gurke 1987:127).

The field of archaeology has long been interested in determining provenance – the geographical origin of an artifact – in order to shed light on issues of resource selection and utilization, craft production and specialization, settlement patterns, political boundaries, trade networks, and inter-cultural contact. Given this inclination, the geochemical properties of archaeological ceramics are an intense area of study. (See for instance, Tite, Freestone, Meeks, and Bimson 1982; Fillieres, Harbottle, and Sayre 1983;

Attas, Fossey, and Yaffe 1987; Neff, Bishop, and Sayre 1988; Neff, Bishop, and Sayre

1989; Stoltman 1989; Arnold, Neff, and Bishop 1991; Stoltman, Burton, and Hass 1992;

Pillay, Punyadeera, Jacobson, and Eriksen 2000; Bishop and Blackman 2002; Neff,

Cogswell, and Ross, Jr. 2003).

The basic premise behind pottery or ceramic provenancing (sourcing) is straightforward. Theoretically every vessel carries a chemical composition pattern or „fingerprint‟ identical with the clay from which it was made. Hence it should be a simple matter either to source a vessel or pot to a specific clay bed or…establish compositional groups such that outliers or overlapping specimens from different sites can be determined (Pillay et al. 2000:54).

Several different methods of multi-element analysis of archaeological materials exist, including instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA), inductively coupled plasma emission (ICP), and x-ray fluorescence (XRF). Of particular relevance to this thesis is the process known as instrumental neutron activation analysis or INAA. INAA is a bulk analytical technique that detects and measures the major, minor, and trace elements that comprise a material. It has many scientific applications, and has been performed on archaeological ceramics since the 1950s. (For the pioneering study, see

106

Sayre and Dodson 1957). Because INAA provides an extremely high-resolution chemical analysis, it has become an established and powerful technique to provenance archaeological ceramics as well as lithics, metals, ceramics, glass, and organic materials

(Minc 2008).

Basic Principles of INAA

To determine an archaeological sample‟s elemental composition utilizing INAA, the sample is first irradiated in a nuclear reactor. In the reactor, the sample is bombarded with neutrons, which collide with and are captured by the nuclei of elements present in the sample, creating a series of radioactive isotopes. The resultant radioactive nuclei decay by emitting alpha, beta, and/or gamma particles in order to return to a more stable state. This decay can be monitored by a high purity germanium detector that counts the quantity and measures the energy intensity of the particles emitted by nuclei. The particles from various elements can be differentiated because each element‟s rate of decay, or half-life, is unique and well-known, and because each element‟s radioactive decay has a characteristic energy signal. Due to the vast range of half-lives between elements, the sample customarily undergoes multiple counts in the detector. It is necessary to count elements with a short half-life soon after irradiation, however a later count is useful for elements with a longer half-life, as they can be more accurately measured after the others have decayed away. The elemental concentrations of the archaeological sample are calculated from the resultant data.

INAA is especially popular with ceramics researchers due to its “high sensitivity, precision and accuracy for many trace elements…small sample size…the fact that it is a fully instrumental technique capable of measuring 30-35 elements, simultaneously…and

107 the fact that it is easily adapted to automation” (Neff 1992: 12). Other advantages include “(1) ease of sample and standard preparation; (2) determination of the concentrations of multiple elements in a bulk sample; (3) many elemental determinations with high analytical precision; and (4) good inter-laboratory comparability” (Speakman and Glascock 2007:180).

Several researchers have tested the limits and applicability of INAA to archaeological ceramic studies. Bishop and Blackman (2002) investigated the scales at which INAA could be successfully applied to achieve spatial resolution of raw material sources and pottery recipes. At the site level, they were able to determine that ceramic wasters came from a single batch of clay. At the intraregional level, they were able to differentiate between ceramics produced in villages less than 8km apart and even within those villages. A case study at the regional level identified four parallel ceramic traditions in adjacent regions and their change over time. They concluded that INAA can be used at varying scales, even down to the scale of an event (Bishop and Blackman

2002:609). Particular attention has been given to determining the degree to which natural and cultural factors contribute to the elemental variability of ceramics. Questions as to the effects of firing (Kilikoglou, Maniatis, and Grimanis 1988; Cogswell, Neff, and

Glascock 1996; Schwedt and Mommsen 2007), the effects of adding temper, water, or levigating the clay (Neff, Bishop, and Sayre 1989; Arnold, Neff, and Bishop 1991; Neff,

Cogswell, and Ross 2003) and the effects of post-depositional processes (Hedges and

McLellan 1976; Picon 1976; Picon 1991; Franklin and Hancock 1980; Segebade and

Lutz 1980; Tubb, Parker and Nickless 1980; Lemoine, Meille, Poupet, Barrandon, and

Borderie 1981; Rottländer 1981, 1989; Buxeda 1999; Buxeda, Kilikoglou, and Day 2001;

108

Schwedt, Mommsen, and Zacharias 2004; Schwedt, Mommsen, Zacharias and Buxeda

2005) on ceramics have all been subjected to intense scrutiny. Hein, Day, Quinn, and

Kilikoglou (2004) also investigated the chemical and mineralogical homogeneity of raw clays. As a result of these and other studies, protocols have been developed in the processing of INAA samples to compensate for the sometimes confounding effects of mixing, tempering, and post-depositional processes.

All-in-all, INAA has withstood the test of time as an excellent tool for the determination of provenance.

Since the mid-1970s [INAA] has been the preferred analytical technique for addressing archaeological questions pertaining to the procurement and use of raw materials and trade or exchange of finished goods. No other technique offers a comparable level of great sensitivity and high precision combined with the east of sample preparation (Bishop and Blackman 2002:603).

Despite the fact INAA has been routinely used on ancient ceramics since Sayre and Dodson‟s pioneering efforts in 1957, relatively few attempts have been made to use it to provenance ceramics from the historical period. Notable exceptions include the Utah

Pottery Project and the Santa Clara University – Smithsonian Project. In their work with the Utah Pottery Project, Scarlett, Speakman, and Glascock (2007) demonstrated the efficacy of combining archaeological, archaeometric, and documentary evidence to research Utah‟s Mormon potters. More than 100 sherds from eight nineteenth century

Mormon pottery sites underwent INAA. Based upon their concentrations of 32 elements,

“pottery from each manufacturing locale formed a statistically viable group” (Scarlett et al. 2007:90). They found that “although the products of a single shop might vary widely in color and texture…immigrant technologies produced highly homogeneous fabric chemistry” (Scarlett et al. 2007:90). Using the chemical signatures of these potteries, the

109

Utah Pottery Project was able to gain insight into the economic production, exchange and consumption of ceramics in early Mormon communities. The Santa Clara University –

Smithsonian Project‟s ongoing work in Spanish and Mexican California (Skowronek,

Blackman, Bishop, Ginn, and Heras 2001; Skowronek, Bishop, Blackman, Ginn, and

Heras 2003; Skowronek, Reyes, Ginn, Greenwalt, Blackman, and Bishop 2006;

Skowronek, Blackman, Bishop, Imwalle, and Reyes 2007) examined the production, supply, and exchange of ceramics between 27 different sites spanning from San Diego to

San Francisco. They found, “on the basis of INAA, not only can we identify local production and exchange, but we can also propose the long-distance supply of the region with ceramics” (Skowronek et al. 2007:23). Other research using INAA to investigate historical ceramics includes the study of colonial ceramics in Ecuador (Jamieson and

Hancock 2004), and an analysis of colonial majolica in New Spain (Fournier and

Blackman 2008).

Geochemical Studies of Brick

While underutilized in historical archaeology in general, it is even rarer to find

INAA used to provenance historical bricks, although its success with ceramics indicates that it is a highly suitable method for this purpose. The few exceptions are of extreme interest to this research. One such exception is the New Netherland/New York (NNNY) archiving project, which used INAA and inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry

(ICP-MS) to chemically analyze 1,000 bricks. The resultant compositional profiles allowed unbranded bricks to be provenanced by matching them with the profiles of their branded counterparts. The study also determined that bricks made from clay mined at various depths from the same deposit remained geochemically uniform; however bricks

110 made by neighboring brickyards were chemically distinct. “The Hudson River bricks examined showed homogeneity with depth and variability with distance along the river‟s length, circumstances that are ideal for compositional applications” (Gilbert, Harbottle,

DeNoyelles 1993:51). One goal of the NNNY project is the creation of a compositional database to archive and make available to researchers chemical data obtained from archaeological ceramics and clays. They urged the creation of similar archives in different areas to form a compositional analysis network and allow for inter-regional studies.

Similarly, an INAA and scanning electron microscopy – energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (SEM-EDS) analysis was conducted on bricks from a chapel in St. Mary‟s

City, Maryland (Armitage, Minc, Hill, and Hurry 2006). Conventional wisdom held that the bricks were of local manufacture given the sheer quantity of bricks used in the chapel‟s construction. However, the bricks‟ unique coloration and vitrified inclusions aroused speculation that they were imports. Samples of brick were obtained from the chapel and other nearby structures; while clay samples were taken from several suspected brickmaking locations. Test results determined the chapel bricks did not match local clays, were unlike the other local bricks sampled, and were also unlike English comparative bricks. Although the provenance of the Chapel bricks was not established, the study linked contemporaneous bricks from other buildings to local clays and eliminated several theories as to the Chapel‟s construction (Armitage, Minc, Hill, and

Hurry 2006:625).

Brick and tile ranging in age from first century to mid-eighteenth century A.D. used to build the English city of York were examined by Ian Betts via thin section

111 analysis and INAA. Comparative materials included clay samples collected in York, and ceramics from Northern England. Betts concluded that throughout time, the majority of ceramic building material used in York was manufactured from York clays. However, over time, changing preferences for local clay sources for different products were observable. Betts also determined that during the Roman-era, brick and tile traveled surprisingly lengthy distances between Roman military sites (Betts 1991:53).

In Pavia‟s (2006) studies of brick from Rathfarham Castle in Dublin, the notion that the majority of brick in Ireland was imported from Britain as ships‟ ballast was successfully refuted. Castle brick and local clays were analyzed using petrographic microscopy, X-ray diffractometry (XRD), and scanning electron microscopy with an energy dispersive X-ray diffraction attachment (SEM-EDX). Pavia determined that the brick was hand-molded from local clays and was able to further identify manufacturing and firing technologies used in its production (Pavia 2006:201).

Other research utilizing geochemical analyses include brick studies from Fort

Orange in central New York (Sopko and McEvoy 1991) and the John Jay Homestead in southern New York state (Sopko and Feister 1994). Brick from the John Jay Homestead and Fort Orange were subjected to XRF along with brick samples from northern New

York. “By comparing the amounts [of iron, rubidium, strontium, yttrium, and zirconium] in each, the authors were able to demonstrate the similarities and differences between the clays from different parts of the state” (Sopko and Feister 1994:21). It was also determined that the John Jay Homestead brickyard experienced three separate periods of brickmaking corresponding to construction phases at the homestead. The study also discovered that each brickmaker received better-than-average wages, perhaps reflecting

112 the landowners‟ affluence and willingness to pay extra for a high quality product.

Furthermore Sopko and Feister believed that the differences in remuneration between phases may reflect “the development of brickmaking as a full time craft” (Sopko and

Feister 1994:33).

In her study of the British fort at , New York, Feister (1984) used geochemical analyses of brick and tile to determine evidence of status differentiation between the officers and enlisted men. While previous typological studies found the material culture of the two groups to be nearly identical, Feister discovered that although the officers and soldiers‟ barracks appeared identical on the outside, the flooring and fireplaces inside were of differing quality. The building materials found in the officers‟ quarters were more expensive and had been transported from some distance away, while the materials in soldier‟s quarters were cheaper and made of local clay.

Bricks from the Agia Sophia in Istanbul, Turkey were analyzed via INAA and other methods to determine their provenance and technological details so that restoration efforts might best match the originals (Moropolou, Cakmak, Polikreti 2002). The geochemistry of the bricks was shown to differ from local clays, instead more closely matching brick from Rhodes. All-in-all, the bricks evidenced a surprisingly advanced level of technology, being very lightweight, highly porous, and yet possessing extreme tensile strength.

To determine the elemental variation found in a single brick, Scheid, Becker,

Ducking, Hampel, Kratz, Watzke, Weis, and Zauner (2009) divided bricks into pieces and analyzed them via INAA, SRF, and ICP-MS. Bricks originating from the same production batch were also compared, as were bricks from different producers. Scheid

113 and colleagues found that bricks were homogenous, that is, fragments from the same brick resembled one another. All three methods (INAA, SRF, and ICP-MS) were capable of differentiating between fragments from the same brick, bricks from the same production batch, and bricks from different producers.

Archaeology of Brick in the Pacific Northwest

Brick studies of any kind from the Pacific Northwest are relatively hard to come by, and geochemical analyses of Northwest brick are almost unheard of. Of particular interest to this research are studies conducted on bricks from San Juan Island, Vancouver

Island, the townsite of Champoeg, and the first site of the Willamette Mission, in addition to previous analyses of Fort Vancouver brick.

In his Master‟s Thesis, Karl Gurcke (1983) geochemically analyzed bricks from

San Juan Island using x-ray fluorescence (XRF). Though the technique appeared viable, no provenance was established given the lack of comparative material. As Gurcke noted,

“a complete analysis would have involved collecting and testing clay samples from all the known historic brickyards in the Northwest, in addition to examining the bricks recovered archaeologically. Unfortunately this could not be attempted because of time and money constraints” (Gurcke 1983:249-250). However, he concluded, “trace element analysis…has the potential for identifying the origins of unbranded bricks but this aspect needs more study” (Gurcke 1983:261).

Peterson (1989) investigated brickmaking on Vancouver Island, analyzing artifacts and documents for patterns in the location and spatial organization of the industry. During the period of the Hudson‟s Bay Company monopoly on the island until the mid-1800s, brickmaking took place at or near where the bricks were needed, and any

114 excess bricks were sold. Post-HBC, but pre-1890, brickyards were clustered together, were operated by partnerships or families, and sometimes were contracted to provide both labor and materials for construction projects. By 1890, the industrialization of brickmaking was complete; brickmakers were corporate entities, and brickyards existed at isolated locations. But Peterson found that the modes of production did not follow the usual progression from simple (household production, estate brickworks) to more complex modes (small rural brickyards, nucleated brickyard complex). “In the case of southeastern Vancouver Island, estate production appeared before household production,

[as] the Hudson‟s Bay Company…can be classified as an estate” (Peterson 1989:65). In general she found that the “development and organization of the industry in the study area paralleled the growth of the region. From simple estate production to nucleated complex, brickmaking rose and fell mirroring the economic state of the area” (Peterson

1989:iii).

Archaeological excavations at the former townsite of Champoeg, Oregon, which existed from 1830 until 1861, recovered 111.5 pounds of brick fragments, but only three nearly-intact bricks (Speulda 1988:84). The majority of brick was hand molded, using both water-struck and sand-struck techniques, and displayed a wide range of color and density, which was attributed to the probable single firing of a field kiln (Speulda

1988:85). Two fragments of “machine molded or pressed brick were collected at

Champoeg… [which] may represent early examples of machine pressed brick, but more likely „repressed,‟ as McKee (1973:89) describes” (Speulda 1988:85).

Excavations at the Willamette Mission site in Oregon, inhabited by Methodist missionaries from 1834-1841, revealed 15.1 pounds of brick fragments but no complete

115 bricks, interpreted as reflecting “abandonment or postabandonment scavenging activities”

(Sanders, Weber, and Brauner 1983:186). All the recovered brick was water-struck and their tops coated with sand, perhaps from being dumped onto a sandy surface or dusted with sand prior to removing the mold. The bricks were smaller than those usually found at nineteenth century sites, though comparable in size to a single brick found at the

Etienne Lucier homesite in French Prairie and comparable in manufacturing technique to a single brick found at the George Gay homesite in Wheatland. The Mission brick was presumed local based upon its size as well as variations in color and hardness, likely the result of firing in a field kiln and “the use of brick from all areas of a kiln” (Sanders et al.

1983:191). However, no direct evidence of brickmaking was found at the mission site, leading to the conclusion that the bricks were likely made elsewhere in the Willamette

Valley. This was supported by a trace element analysis via XRF by Karl Gurcke, which indicated different sources for the brick clay and daub. The daub was presumed local; the brick assumed to be from some distance away, though it was noted, “sediment samples from various areas of the mission site should undergo trace element analysis in order to gain a clearer understanding of trace element variation in the locality” (Sanders et al.

1983:192).

Archaeology of Brick at Fort Vancouver

Archaeological investigations have been occurring at the second site of Fort

Vancouver and its environs for more than 60 years, since archaeologist Louis Caywood relocated the fort in 1947. Though not always collected, bricks were commonly found during excavation, suggesting their widespread use. Brick was clearly viewed as an indispensable item at Fort Vancouver, enough so to regularly requisition them from

116

England on the Hudson‟s Bay Company supply ships. From photographs, primary documents, and archaeological investigations, bricks were known to have been used in the construction of the powder magazine, fireplaces, chimneys, bake ovens, and forges.

However, given the amount of excavation, bricks have received relatively little attention in the archaeological reports.

The earliest mention of archaeologically recovered brick is found in Caywood,

(1947) who noted brick among the fill around the stockade. “Broken brick was used along the stockade wall for helping to hold the posts upright. Although no identification has been made, it is thought that this brick probably was made locally” (Caywood

1947:19). Caywood continued to find mostly broken brick, particularly as fill for the later stockade walls, a well, and the root house (Caywood 1955). Based upon differences in size and color, Caywood eventually differentiated between two types of bricks;

English and local. Those designated as English bricks he described as having a yellow slip over a paste ranging “from a yellow…through various shades of muddy red to almost a black. The size of these bricks varied, but averaged about two and one-half inches by four inches by nine inches” (Caywood 1955:58). Also notable was a frog, or depression, on the surface of the English bricks. The non-English brick were slightly smaller, redder and “undoubtedly manufactured locally” (Caywood 1955:58).

East Wall excavations conducted by Larrabee (1966) revealed the presence of four types of brick, based upon texture (soft, very soft, medium soft, and hard), color

(red, pink/orange, varied), height, width, and length (Larrabee 1966:10). Larrabee‟s type four was believed to correspond to Caywood‟s second type; and Larrabee‟s type three to

117

Caywood‟s „rectangular tile no. 3‟. It was noted, “some samples of each were saved, but not cataloged” (Larrabee 1966:10).

Reporting in 1972 on their excavations of the Third Bakery and Wash House,

Hoffman and Ross noted finding 1,458 brick fragments but no whole bricks. The brick fragments were “grouped into nine descriptive classes on the basis of composition and relative hardness… Only one class of brick (Class #6) exhibited manufactured manufacturing marks consisting of the impressed letter „W‟ (or „M‟) and „N‟”(Hoffman and Ross 1972:58). Hoffman and Ross noted that English brick dimensions were required by law to be 9 x 4 ½ x 2 ½ inches. Based upon the fact one brick type‟ dimensions matched those of the English statute, they presumed that what they termed

„class 6 brick‟ was “quite probably English brick which was transported as ballast in

Hudson‟s Bay Company ships.” (Hoffman and Ross 1972:63).

Class #6 comprised 31.3% of the brick recovered (Hoffman and Ross 1972:59).

The remaining 68.7% of the bricks were “predominantly of a red or orange color.

Caywood felt that this type of brick was „undoubtably manufactured locally‟ (1955:58).

If Caywood had any historic evidence for this statement, it has not been published”

(Hoffman and Ross 1972: 63). Based upon their review of historical literature, Hoffman and Ross concluded that with the exception of Hidden (1930), “there are no other published references to a Hudson‟s Bay Company brickyard associated with Fort

Vancouver, and the only locality where bricks appeared to have been made locally was in the Willamette Valley” (Hoffman and Ross 1972:63). In addition,

attempts to identify the specific sources of the red orange brick recovered from Fort Vancouver have been unsuccessful. However, one hypothetical source which bears further historic attention is the private brickyard, or brickyards, located within the Willamette Valley which supplied bricks for

118

George Gay‟s house and possibly the Abernethy, Clark & Co. store (Hoffman and Ross 1972:65).

During their investigation of the Chief Factor‟s House & Kitchen, Hoffman and

Ross (1973b) recovered 7,303 brick fragments. Of those, “5,083 were from imported bricks, 2198 from locally manufactured bricks, and 22 were not classifiable as to manufacturing locality” (Hoffman and Ross 1973b:133). All were molded, but eight varieties were distinguished based upon attributes such as texture, inclusions, and porosity. They identified two types of imported brick – Variety #1001 and Variety

#1002. “Variety #1001 probably represents the firebrick ordered for the Fort‟s second bakery, while Variety #1002 is a „common‟ construction brick which apparently was utilized as interior facing brick for fireplaces and chimneys” (Hoffman and Ross

1973b:135). The other six varieties were believed to be local.

The most frequent variety of local brick was Variety #1004 which was probably used in the construction of the chimney….This variety is smaller in width than the local brick found in the Bakery-Wash House area, and probably represents a second or post-1844 shipment from the Willamette Valley. One fragment of Variety #1003 which corresponds to the variety most frequently found in the Bakery-Wash House area, had the following impressed mark: „…lfont‟ or „…lpont‟ (Hoffman and Ross 1973b:135).

While excavating the Fort Vancouver Harness Shop, Hoffman and Ross (1973a) found 5,215 brick fragments, 4,271 of which were from imported bricks, and 937 from locally manufactured bricks. Many were from a “large concentration of brick fragments” at the Harness Shop‟s western end that Caywood had previously identified as a “brick platform that was probably used as a base for a large kitchen stove (Caywood 1955:16 in

Hoffman & Ross 1973a:15). However Hoffman and Ross had their doubts: “we are not certain that a stove base is represented. Rather, the brick and possible hearth combination may be remains of a collapsed chimney that was disrupted by post-HBC activity. Some

119 of this activity probably included salvage of reusable brick” (Hoffman and Ross

1973a:17). The reuse of brick was surmised in part from the fact that “virtually no whole brick were found in the feature” (Hoffman and Ross 1973a:17). Hoffman and Ross also speculate that the HBC regularly re-used brick, noting that when the third Bakery was built in 1844 from bricks received from the Willamette Valley, “the second Bakery‟s oven was presumably dismantled and the bricks reused in other structures. Evidence of this reuse is exhibited in the third Bakery where the same (or at least identical) imported fire brick was used in the construction or repair of its ovens” (Hoffman and Ross

1973a:49). Validating their interpretation is the fact that no record exists of a fire brick shipment after 1836 (Hoffman and Ross 1973a:49). The imported brick found at the

Harness Shop matched the Class #6 brick reported at the Bakery-Wash House, and was presumably of English origin. Five categories of local brick were established, including non-porous gravel textured brick; non-porous clay textured brick (lt red); porous clay textured brick (lt red); porous silt-sand textured brick (reddish-orange); and porous sand textured brick (buff) (Hoffman and Ross 1973a:49).

Hoffman and Ross‟ (1975) later excavations at the Indian Trade Store resulted in the recovery of 4,092 brick fragments, of which 2,747were deemed to be imported, 1,327 local and 18 unknown. They distinguished between several varieties of brick based upon texture, inclusions, and porosity and noted, “Variety #1014 is similar to Variety #1001 and may represent a variation produced by low-temperature firing” (Hoffman and Ross

1975:143).

At the time of the OAS Sale Shop excavation (Steele, Ross, and Hibbs 1975), 55 brick fragments were recovered, representing six varieties of brick. Two were imports –

120 varieties #1001 and #1002 – the remainder local. It was noted that they could be distinguished by size: “American manufactured bricks were smaller than British bricks, and those made in the Willamette Valley measured ca. 8 x 4 x 2. The most common variety at Fort Vancouver was Variety #1004 – a general construction soft brick” (Steele,

Ross, and Hibbs 1975:129).

Figure 11. English (a) and American (b) brick recovered at Fort Vancouver (Ross 1976).

Ross (1976) stated that the HBC obtained bricks from Great Britain and America, as well as manufactured them locally. English suppliers included William Farmer, F.T.

Rufford, and E. Stoneham. American bricks came from the Willamette Valley in the

Oregon Territory. Ross distinguished between American bricks and British brick by size and color (Figure 11): Ross‟ English bricks were roughly 8 ½ x 4 x 2 ½ inches, which generally corresponded to the English standard established by King George III in 1776;

121

American bricks were smaller and their color ranged from orange to dark red (Ross

1976:1066). Ross asserted that when imported bricks were unavailable, the HBC manufactured sun-dried or adobe bricks, but did not give a source for this information and acknowledged adobe bricks were neither historically noted nor archaeologically observed (Ross 1976).

Excavations at Kanaka Village/Vancouver Barracks by Thomas and Hibbs in

1984 revealed building footings made of both local and imported brick. “Material used for footing construction was Type IIA-1, French Prairie brick. An exception was a section of stone masonry in the southern part of the medial footing. This section was…essentially a rubble construction held with mortar and included Type 1A British brick fragments” (Thomas and Hibbs 1984:653). From this they surmised that during the later U.S. Army‟s occupation of Fort Vancouver, they had salvaged “Hudson‟s Bay

Company building material. Since the bricks were fragmented, it is likely that they were salvaged from a structure and not purchased from the Hudson‟s Bay Company stores.

The French Prairie bricks, on the other hand, were whole and showed no evidence of previous use” (Thomas and Hibbs 1984:653).

But by far the most comprehensive analysis of brick from Fort Vancouver came from the 1975 excavations at Kanaka Village, the HBC employee‟s housing located just outside the stockade. At the time of the excavations, 295 bricks and fragments were recovered, but remained unanalyzed until 1982. Because numerous brick features had been left in situ, they were therefore not examined nor addressed in Karl Gurcke‟s report.

Gurcke (1982) identified seven brick types based upon color, composition, surface

122 features, and size. Of the seven types, those that date to the HBC‟s occupation – Type 01,

Type 04, and Type 05 – will be discussed here.

Sixty-nine bricks were designated as Type 01 – English, given their dimensions, porosity, inclusions, and frogs. Evidence for their English origin included the fact that they roughly corresponded to the English statute dimensions and they contained „breeze‟, the primarily British practice of tempering the clay with street sweepings. Gurcke concluded that “although the case for proving Type 01 bricks English is not complete, the circumstantial evidence is quite strong” (Gurcke 1982:82).

Twenty-three fragments, designated as Type 04, demonstrated a “great deal of uniformity in terms of color, size, and composition and… date from 1844 – 1853. I would conclude that this type was manufactured by a single brick maker who had a certain amount of sophistication in his craft” (Gurcke 1982:76). Their unusual size and uniformity led Gurcke to further speculate “the only bricks that come near to matching this type in size are the so-called „Roman‟ bricks... the interesting possibility arises that this type may indeed be Roman in origin and was shipped over from England as ballast”

(Gurcke 1982:82).

Type 05 bricks were the most numerous, with 158 fragments recovered. All were hand-made, sand-struck, unbranded, common red brick without trademarks, frogs or surface features other than the strike. However, they varied considerably in color, size, and composition, and their texture ranged from fine- to medium-grain. Despite this, Type

05 bricks were categorized together because

they exhibit the variety one might expect in a frontier industry. It is also reasonable to expect that those bricks found in strata that date after 1853 are local or at least only imported from the Willamette Valley because of the large quantities then available…Earlier common bricks could have

123

been imported, but since they are so similar to later ones, this does not seem a viable possibility (Gurcke 1982:82).

Ultimately, given that they were recovered from multiple stratum, Gurcke suspected

“there were two or more producers for this type of brick”, but could only conclude “at least one brick company was producing this type of brick, essentially unchanged from at least 1853 to 1862 and after” (Gurcke 1982:78).

In Bricks and Brickmaking, published in 1987, Gurcke elaborated on his previous analysis of Fort Vancouver brick. He was now convinced of Type 01‟s origin: “these bricks are properly called „London stock‟ and were manufactured in the vicinity of

London out of town refuse” (Gurcke 1987:138). He also had data suggesting that Type

05 brick split into two categories. “It is intriguing to note the two separate size peaks for the common sand-struck bricks (Type 05). This might indicate several manufacturers supplying the village with this type of brick, or perhaps it only reflects seasonal variations in the thickness of the molds due to ordinary wear” (Gurcke 1987: 140).

Hibbs (1987) reported 670 fragments of red brick and 209 fragments of „yellow brick‟ were found at Fort Vancouver‟s New Office, though no whole bricks or mortar were recovered (Hibbs 1987:40). Despite its fragmentary nature, two types of brick could be distinguished: British Stock Brick, characterized as yellowish and semi- vitrified; and Local Brick, “a soft salmon-colored brick thought to have been made in the vicinity of French Prairie, south of Oregon City, and used in the construction of the ca.

1844 Bakery” (Hibbs 1987:40). Hibbs postulated that British Stock Brick was used throughout the 1830s and then likely recycled and re-used for later construction projects, whereas local brick was probably acquired and used during the 1840s and 1850s (Hibbs

124

1987:40). The high rate of fragmentation was attributed to post-depositional crushing given the presence of a compressed road.

Fort Vancouver National Historic Reserve’s Current Typology

Based upon the above research, staff developed a brick typology for Fort Vancouver, differentiating between bricks based upon their presumed origin. Bricks are classified as English, American, or unknown, as determined by size, color, inclusions, and surface modifications. When possible, Fort Vancouver‟s bricks are further divided into „Type 01 English Brick‟, „Type 04 English (?) Brick‟, and „Type 05

American Brick‟, mimicking Gurcke‟s (1982; 1987) typology.

„Type 01 English Bricks‟ are

generally a pale yellow to pale brown with an interior that ranges from a reddish brown to gray and purple-black in color. Larger inclusions of coal, shell, and small pebbles are present as „breeze‟ to enhance the firing of the brick. Most of the English bricks contain a shallow divot, or „frog‟… the dimensions of complete specimens are roughly 8 ½ to 9 in. x 4 in. x 2 ½ in. (Wilson, Cromwell, Gembala, Langford, and Semrau 2003:23).

It was Caywood (1955:58) who originally suggested that Type 01 bricks were of English origin; subsequent researchers concurred. Type 01 corresponds with Larrabee‟s „type four‟ (1966); Hoffman and Ross‟ „class 6‟ (1972); and Steele, Ross and Hibbs‟ „variety

1001‟ (1975). Based upon size, Ross (1976:1066) also referred to them as English; based upon their distinctive surface color and the apparent addition of “breeze” to the bricks,

Gurcke concurred.

„Type 05 American Bricks‟ are soft-mud, sand-struck bricks that lack surface features, except for the strike. They “range in color from a light red to a reddish gray and conform to standard American brick sizes (roughly 8 in. x 4 in. x 2 in.). They generally

125 have a fine to medium grain texture with a moderate amount of inclusions” (Wilson et al.

2003:23). By far the most commonly excavated brick in the Hudson Bay Company-era deposits, Type 05 corresponds to Hoffman and Ross‟ „class 1‟ (1972) and Steele, Ross and Hibbs‟ „variety 1004‟ (1975).

Relatively rare and unusual, „Type 04 English (?) Bricks‟ have

a very consistent reddish-yellow color, [and are] fine grained with a few small inclusions with very faint striations on one face associated with the strike. These bricks are thinner than standard American and English bricks, with specimens approximately 1 ¾ in. in thickness and about 4 ½ in width. Gurcke hypothesizes that these could be bricks scavenged from a Roman ruin in England and transported to the site as ship‟s ballast (Wilson et al. 2003:24).

Summary

Though commonly found in archaeological excavations across the Fort

Vancouver site, brick remains an enigmatic artifact. Despite researchers‟ agreement that both imported and local bricks were used by the HBC, and the development of brick typologies dependent upon brick‟s place of origin, the distinctions between types are based upon often unreliable physical characteristics. Although multiple sources for bricks in the Fort Vancouver collection have been suggested, their provenance has not been definitively established. This chapter has demonstrated that trace element analysis – in particular, instrumental neutron activation analysis – is a well-documented and effective method that can aid in this endeavor. The following chapter will elaborate upon the specific methods and procedures employed during the course of my analysis and present the results of geochemical testing performed on archaeologically recovered brick from Fort Vancouver.

126

CHAPTER 6: TESTING METHODS AND RESULTS

Fort Vancouver Brick Sample Selection

Samples of Fort Vancouver brick were selected based upon multiple criteria including artifact type, location, depth, level, and size. The National Park Service collections database (ANCS) was queried for „Type 05 - American Brick‟, their designation for common, red, unbranded brick. Ultimately, bricks definitively associated with the Hudson‟s Bay Company-era and representing as many archaeological contexts and locations within the original stockade as possible were chosen (Figure 12). It was hoped this would capture local bricks used at Fort Vancouver including those reportedly shipped from the Willamette Valley in 1844. The final step was to select the largest and most complete specimens to reduce the chance of duplicate samples being taken from the same, albeit fragmented brick. Sample selection was somewhat constrained by the scarcity of brick from certain locations and the mandate to leave exemplary specimens untouched, given that INAA requires the partial destruction of the artifact. In all, 66 red, unbranded, common bricks and fragments were chosen for sampling as part of this current thesis research. The results were combined with data from 23 Fort Vancouver brick specimens I previously tested in the fall of 2007, bringing the total number of Fort

Vancouver brick samples used in this analysis to 89.

127

Figure 12. Archaeological locations of Fort Vancouver bricks sampled in this study.

Comparative Brick Sample Selection

In addition, bricks from various other sources were sampled to provide comparative data to aid in establishing the provenance of Fort Vancouver brick. One brick was obtained from the Hidden Brickyard in Vancouver, Washington, made from clay dug on-site (Robert Hidden, personal communication 2008) and one brick was collected from the Columbia Brick Company in Gresham, Oregon, made of clay from their yard (Chuck Anderson, manager, personal communication 2008). The opportunity to include samples of historical brick from across the Willamette Valley also presented itself after David Brauner of Oregon State University and Dennis Wylie of Oregon State

Parks heard about my project. They generously allowed me access to their archaeological collections, where I obtained brick from the St. Paul Catholic Church and

St. Joseph‟s College for Boys, both in St. Paul, Oregon; an early HBC granary established on French Prairie, Oregon; the Newell; Despard; Bellique (formerly the

128

Willamette Post site); and LaFrambois homesteads, all located near what is now

Champoeg State Park, Oregon; Willamette Mission near Salem, Oregon; the George Gay

House near Wheatland, Oregon; and Forts Yamhill and Hoskins, two military posts on the western edges of the Willamette Valley in Oregon (Table 2). These bricks were all from sites contemporaneous with the HBC occupation of Fort Vancouver, and were purported to be made from clay dug on or near their respective locations (Bancroft and

Victor 1886:328; Brauner, personal communication 2008; Gurcke 1987:42).

Table 2. Comparative Brick Samples Analyzed.

Sample ID Site Location London 1 Compter Prison London, England London 2 Blossom’s Inn London, England VanSweringen Van Sweringen Site The Netherlands via MD HIDD 01 Hidden Brickyard Vancouver, WA OR 301 Columbia Brickyard Gresham, OR WV 201 St. Paul Catholic Church St. Paul, Oregon WV 202 Ft. Hoskins Fort Hoskins, OR WV 203 HBC Granary French Prairie, OR WV 204 St. Joseph's College for Boys St. Paul, OR WV 205 Newell House Firebox Champoeg, OR WV 206 Ft. Yamhill Kitchen , OR WV 207 Ft. Yamhill Kitchen Fort Yamhill, OR WV 208 Willamette Mission Mission Bottom, OR WV 209 Willamette Mission Mission Bottom, OR WV 210 Willamette Post/Bellique Farmstead French Prairie, OR WV 211 Despard Homestead French Prairie, OR WV 212 LaFramboise Homestead French Prairie, OR WV 213 George Gay House Wheatland, OR

In addition to aiding in the identification of Willamette Valley brick characteristics, by adding these early Willamette Valley brick samples I wondered if I might stumble upon a maker of Fort Vancouver‟s imported brick. It did not seem inconceivable that excess bricks might be produced during the course of one of these

129 early construction projects, and then sold or traded locally upon project completion.

Given that Fort Vancouver was a large consumer of brick with significant purchasing power, and given that many settlers were known to pay for supplies and implements in labor and in kind (Gibson 1985:140), I thought perhaps some excess bricks from early

Willamette Valley homesteads might have found their way north for use at the fort.

Trace element data from two English bricks and one brick believed to be of Dutch manufacture were provided by Leah Minc of Oregon State University for comparison.

The English bricks were recovered from two London buildings – Compter Prison and

Blossom‟s Inn – both constructed during the eighteenth century. The English bricks evidenced „Spanishing‟ – a technique of adding „breeze‟ or debris to the clay before firing (Armitage, Minc, Hill, and Hurry 2006). The Dutch brick was recovered from the

Van Sweringen site in St. Mary‟s City, Maryland, which dates to the 1670s. Thus

Washington, Oregon, English, and possibly Dutch bricks were incorporated into this analysis.

Brick Sample Preparation Procedures

Each brick was assigned a unique sample number, photographed, and a corner removed using a Dremel cutting tool. The outer surface of the brick sample was then abraded with a rotary file to remove any surface contamination. The sample was rinsed with de-ionized water, placed on labeled weighing paper, and dried at 113˚ F (45˚ C) for a minimum of 24 hours. The brick fragments were then pulverized in a mortar and pestle and poured into small glass vials, where Munsell color designations were determined from the powder. The powdered brick was again oven-dried for a minimum of 24 hours, after which ca. 250 mg of each powdered brick sample was measured into a high-purity

130 polyethylene vial. Each vial was labeled and heat sealed, then encapsulated and heat sealed inside a larger vial. In addition, 200 mg of standard reference materials and check standards – NBS-SRM-1633a (coal fly ash); NBS-SRM-1633b (also coal fly ash); and

NORC (New Ohio Red Clay) – were prepared in vials and evenly distributed among the samples. These vials were placed in a sample rack and irradiated for 7 hours in OSU‟s reactor. The samples were analyzed for 25 major, minor, and trace elements through 2 counts of the resultant gamma activity.

Comparative Clay Sample Selection

Clay sampling locations were chosen for their proximity to areas of known affiliation with the Hudson‟s Bay Company, temporal overlap with the HBC, or a documented link to brickmaking. Included were Hudson‟s Bay Company outposts, Fort

Vancouver‟s previous locations, settlements contemporaneous with HBC‟s occupation of

Fort Vancouver, and settlements in which brickmakers resided.

HBC records and Fort Vancouver archaeological reports provided information about outposts and areas of industrial activity, including Ft. George, Ft. William, Fort

Nisqually, and Cowlitz Farm. Histories of the early Oregon territory, most notably

William Bowen‟s 1978 book, “The Willamette Valley: Migration and Settlement on the

Oregon Frontier” (Bowen 1978) and Hubert Howe Bancroft‟s writings, (Bancroft and

Victor 1886, Bancroft 1888a, Bancroft 1888b) were consulted for the locations of early settlements contemporaneous with Hudson‟s Bay Company occupation of Fort

Vancouver. A document entitled “Rival Townsites in the Portland Region 1825 – 1850” obtained from the Oregon Historical Society provided a useful map of early Portland-area settlements. Blaine Schmeer‟s book “Pottery on the Willamette” provided the names of

131 towns known for their pottery production (Schmeer 1987). Oregon census records from

1850 (the year of Oregon‟s first census) and 1860 were scoured for communities with individuals whose profession was noted as brickmaker. In addition, indexes to early newspaper were searched for brick advertisements, and Vancouver and Portland City

Directories were examined for any listings of brick manufacturers.

As well, W. Foster Hidden, in a 1930 Washington Historical Quarterly article, offered the only known reference to the Hudson‟s Bay Company‟s manufacture of its own brick, describing their clay pits as near the Vancouver railroad station and on the way to “the old Petran Place” (Hidden 1930). This led to a review of Government Land

Office maps to obtain the location of the Petran claim and search for possible brickyard or clay mentions. Hidden also indicated that as many as 9 or 10 brickyards had operated in Vancouver at various times and mentioned four outside the metropolitan area in the communities of Image, Ridgefield, Salmon Creek, and Fargher Lake.

Given the numerous references to HBC trade with the Russian Fur Company found during the course of my research, I also decided to include clay samples obtained from the area around Fort Ross in California and Kodiak Island, Alaska. Kodiak seemed particularly promising, given that there were “brickyards on Kodiak, Woody Island and

Long Island," (Chaffin, Kreiger, and Rostad 1983:36) from which “most the bricks were shipped to Sitka and other settlements where they were used to construct ovens, chimneys and building foundations" (Chaffin, Kreiger, and Rostad 1983:144). It seemed possible, given that the HBC was supplying the Russians with food, that bricks could have been imported from the Russian colonies.

132

Clay Collection and Preparation Procedures

The clay samples were obtained using opportunistic means. The target areas were searched for accessible clay exposures, including road cuts, incised riverbanks, open utility trenches, and excavations for house foundations. Simple field soil identification tests were performed to verify the visual determination as clay, which included crushing and moistening the soil, then feeling for characteristic smoothness, stickiness, and plasticity. Samples were collected in plastic ziploc bags, assigned unique identification numbers, labeled, and recorded. The collection locations were marked on a map and logged using a GPS device.

Figure 13. Clay samples were obtained from 50 locations in Oregon (created in Google maps).

133

Figure 14. Clay was sampled from 17 locations in Washington (created in Google maps). . Once in the laboratory, the clay was pulverized in a mortar and pestle, and any obvious organic materials and rocks removed. De-ionized water was added until the clay reached the proper handling stage. The clay was hand-formed into small tiles and each tile stamped with the assigned identification number that designated its location. The clay tiles were allowed to air-dry for several days, then dried in a low-temperature oven for several more days before being weighed, Munsell identifications taken, and then kiln- fired at 800˚ C for 1 hour. After firing, the tiles were again weighed and Munsells taken.

They were pulverized with a mortar and pestle; the resultant powder was placed in glass vials and oven-dried for 24 hours. After drying, 250 mg of each sample was measured into a polyethylene vial and irradiated using protocols described above for the brick samples.

134

Comparative Pottery Samples

Trace element data from 24 pottery sherds representing four mid-nineteenth century northwest commercial potteries (Peterson 2008) were also included as comparatives in the analysis. The sherds were recovered from the excavation of a waster dump at the Richardson/Grove site in Damascus, Oregon; the excavation of a waster dump at Edward Pedigo‟s site, also in Damascus, Oregon; the excavation of a burned kiln and waster dump at the John and Steven Harris site in Canemah, Oregon; and a surface collection conducted at Samuel Grove‟s site at Eden Valley in eastern Washington.

Given the documentary evidence and the presence of excellent clays nearby, the pottery was thought to be produced from clays indigenous to each site (Peterson 2008:55, 73).

As part of Ella M. Peterson‟s thesis research, Dr. Minc conducted INAA on the sherds, and both researchers granted me permission to use the resultant data.

INAA Irradiation and Counting Protocols

The brick samples were analyzed for a suite of 25 major, minor, and trace elements, through the sequence of neutron irradiation and multiple counts of resultant gamma activity. To quantify elements with long half-lives, the samples were subjected to a 7-hour irradiation in the rotating rack of the Oregon State University TRIGA reactor, a location which experiences a nominal thermal neutron flux of 2 × 1012 n · cm-2 s-1. Two separate counts of gamma activity were made, the first count of 5,000 seconds (live-time) began five days after the end of irradiation, while the second count for 10,000 seconds followed a four-week decay. These two counts provided data on As, La, Lu, K, Na, Sm,

U, Yb, and Ba, Ce, Co, Cr, Cs, Eu, Fe, Hf, Nd, Rb, Sb, Sc, Ta, Tb, Th, Zn, and Zr, respectively. Sensitivity – the smallest detectable amount of each element – depends

135 upon the element and the matrix (Minc 2008). Generally, sensitivity ranges from 10 parts per billion to 10 parts per million for trace elements in geological material (Pollard and

Heron 1996:59).

Elemental concentrations were determined via the direct comparison method, an approach common in the United States (Minc 2008). Standard reference materials

(SRMs) – material with well-known elemental compositions – are irradiated with the samples. Because the INAA conditions are identical for both the samples and the standards, the unknown elemental concentrations of the samples can be calculated given the particle counts of the known standards. In this case, three replicates of the standard reference material NIST1633a (coal fly ash) were included as standards. All data reductions were based on consensus values for the standard reference materials as reported in Glascock (2006, Table 36). NIST1633b and New Ohio Red Clay were also included as check standards to verify accuracy and precision of results.

Data Analysis

The resultant data, provided in appendices A, B, and C, were subsequently analyzed to determine brick provenance. The guiding hypothesis was that if the brick samples from the Fort Vancouver collection were from multiple clay sources, they would display variation in their geochemical composition indicative of their origin. Brick samples made of clay from a common location would cluster together and their chemical signatures would most closely match the comparative most like their origin. Due to the potential range of variation between ceramics from the same clay source, multivariate statistics are used to define statistically viable groups of samples and match their chemistry to a specific clay source (Minc 2008:1681). The elemental concentrations of

136 the Fort Vancouver brick samples were compared both to each other and to the comparative clay, brick, and pottery samples utilizing the exploratory data analysis program JMP. A variety of analytical tools within the software were employed to interpret the data, including histograms, dendrograms, and bivariate scatter plots.

The analysis focused first on just the brick samples. A preliminary analytical strategy was to plot the elements based upon their chemical grouping in the periodic table and examine them for differences, similarities, and clustering of samples. Histograms were created for the concentrations of rare earth elements, the alkali metals and alkaline earth metals, and the transition metals reported in the INAA results.

Rare earth elements. The Fort Vancouver brick samples were relatively similar in their concentrations of seven of the eight rare earth elements measured – cerium, europium, lutetium, neodymium, samarium, terbium, and ytterbium. With regard to these elements, the samples clustered together in uni-modal histograms and did not meaningfully separate out. (See for instance, Figure 15, the histogram of neodymium below). However, lanthanum served to effectively differentiate a small group of samples from the rest. Fifteen brick samples appreciably lower in lanthanum clustered together, and the mean lanthanum concentration for what will hereafter be called Group A was 23

± 1 parts per million (ppm) while the mean lanthanum concentration for the main group of undifferentiated samples was 36 ± 3 ppm. (See the histogram of lanthanum below,

Figure 16.) Several outliers were also present: two brick samples (FOVA_09 and

FV130) had extremely low levels of the rare earth elements, while one sample

(FOVA_04) evidenced extremely high concentrations of the rare earth elements.

137

30 25 20 15

Count 10 5

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 NEODYMIUM - PARTS PER MILLION

Figure 15. Histogram of Neodymium. No subdivisions in the data are apparent.

35

25 20

Count

10 5

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 LANTHANUM - PARTS PER MILLION (GROUP 1 IS DARKENED) Figure 16. Histogram of lanthanum, showing a subgroup (darkened) in the brick samples.

Alkali metals and alkaline earth metals. Concentrations of cesium and rubidium were distributed fairly evenly among the brick samples and no groups were readily distinguished based upon these elements. However, sodium was dramatically bi-modal and extremely effective at dividing the samples. What will hereafter be called Group B was strikingly differentiated by its lower sodium content. (See Figure 17, histogram of sodium). The mean sodium concentration for Group B was 4,533 ± 581 ppm while the mean sodium concentration for the main group of undifferentiated samples was 14,213 ±

1712 ppm. Group B was also lower in barium; the mean barium concentration for Group

B was 410 ± 45 parts per million (ppm) while the mean barium concentration for the

138 conglomerate was 702 ± 100 ppm. (See Figure 18, histogram of barium). A number of outliers were present: FOVA_09 and FV155 were both low in cesium; while FOVA_09,

FV111, FV112, FV114, FV130, FV137, FV154, and FV155 were low in rubidium; and

FOVA_13 was high in rubidium.

25 20 15

Count 10 5

0 10000 20000 SODIUM - PARTS PER MILLION (GROUP 2 IS DARKENED) Figure 17. Bimodal histogram of sodium, showing the presence of another subgroup (Group B).

Figure 18. Bimodal histogram of barium evidencing the presence of Group B (darkened).

First Series Transition Metals. Although the brick samples varied considerably in their concentrations of the transition metals chromium, iron, and cobalt, no clear breaks emerged. However, the scandium histogram was clearly multi-modal and suggested the presence of several subgroups (Figure 19). The previously identified Group A evidenced

139 high scandium levels (a mean of 22 ± 3 ppm) and Group B evidenced low scandium levels (a mean of 12 ± 1 ppm); but the remainder of samples were not clearly differentiated.

10 8 6

Count 4 2

9 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 SCANDIUM - PARTS PER MILLION

Figure 19. Histogram of scandium, showing several subdivisions of the brick sample data.

Bivariate plots. The initial approach of examining single element histograms therefore identified a minimum of two chemically distinct groups of bricks and suggested several more. The next step was to create multivariate plots of the elements and take a more refined look at the undifferentiated samples for subgroupings. Density ellipses, representing the 95% confidence interval for the group based upon the group centroid and within-group variance, were applied to the resultant groups. Bivariate scatterplots of the rare earth elements immediately confirmed the existence of Group A. The alkali and alkali earth metals scatterplots further substantiated the distinctiveness of Group B. (For instance, see Figure 20, a bivariate plot of rubidium and sodium below.) And bivariate plots of selected transition metals suggested that the remaining undifferentiated brick samples could be teased apart into Group C and Group D. Most significant was their iron content: Group C had a mean of 57,978 ± 3,087 ppm, while Group D had a mean of

45,385 ± 2,717 ppm. Dramatic in their combined effect were iron and scandium, whose

140 linear relationship clearly separated Group C, which had higher iron and higher scandium concentrations, from Group D, which was lower in both scandium and iron (Figure 21).

Group B

100

Rubidium

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 Sodium

Figure 20. Bivariate plot of rubidium and sodium, evidencing the clustering of brick Group B. The density ellipse indicates 95% confidence limits.

70000

65000

60000 Group C

55000

Iron

50000

45000 Group D 40000 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Scandium

Figure 21. Bivariate plot of iron and scandium, evidencing a division between brick Groups C and D. The density ellipses indicate 95% confidence limits.

141

Table 3. Geochemically Distinct Groups of Fort Vancouver Brick Samples. Qty Group A Group B Group C Group D Doublet Outliers 1 FOVA_12 FOVA_01 FOVA_11 FOVA_10 FOVA_09 FOVA_03 2 FV107 FOVA_02 FOVA_17 FOVA_14 FV130 FOVA_13 3 FV111 FOVA_05 FOVA_18 FOVA_15 FV132 4 FV112 FOVA_06 FOVA_19 FOVA_20 FOVA_04 5 FV121 FOVA_07 FOVA_21 FOVA_22 FV114 6 FV137 FOVA_08 FV101 FV115 FOVA_16 7 FV139 FOVA_23 FV102 FV118 8 FV140 FV103 FV106 FV120 9 FV144 FV104 FV113 FV122 10 FV148 FV105 FV117 FV127 11 FV151 FV108 FV124 FV129 12 FV152 FV109 FV126 FV149 13 FV154 FV110 FV131 FV167 14 FV155 FV116 FV135 15 FV162 FV119 FV141 16 FV163 FV123 FV142 17 FV125 FV143 18 FV128 FV146 19 FV133 FV147 20 FV134 FV150 21 FV136 FV153 22 FV138 FV156 23 FV145 FV157 24 FV161 FV158 25 FV159 26 FV160 27 FV164 28 FV165

Resultant Groups. As a result of these elemental differences, four separate groups of Fort Vancouver brick samples were identified. Group membership is summarized in

Table 3 above. The 16 members of Group A were characterized in part by low lanthanum, high scandium, high iron, and high chromium. Group B was comprised of 24 members, characterized in part by low scandium, low barium, low sodium, and high chromium concentrations. Group C‟s 28 members were primarily differentiated from

Group D‟s 13 members by higher concentrations of iron. There were also several samples

142 that did not group with the others. Although unlike any other samples, FOVA 09 and

FV130 were similar to one another and held together across multiple analyses, thus comprising their own doublet. FOVA 03, FOVA 13, FV 132, FOVA 04, FOVA 16, and

FV114 were outliers; that is to say they were relatively unlike the established groups, but were also unlike one another and did not cluster together to comprise their own group.

The preparation of several additional bivariate plots also confirmed this separation into multiple distinctive groups. Sodium and scandium were effective at distinguishing the group memberships, as were lanthanum and iron (Figures 22 and 23). Density ellipses representing a 95% confidence interval were applied to the groups and again provide evidence of clear group separation based upon the brick samples‟ geochemical composition.

Figure 22. Bivariate plot of sodium and scandium, evidencing the division between Groups A, B, C, and D, as well as the presence of a doublet.

143

Figure 23. Bivariate plot of lanthanum and iron – further evidence of the division between Groups A, B, C, and D, and the presence of a doublet.

Dendrogram. Cluster analysis based on all elements, using Euclidian distance, and minimum variance clustering algorithm was performed. Cluster analysis is a multivariate analysis technique “of grouping rows together that share similar values across a number of variables” (JMP 2009). The result of the analysis is a dendrogram, or

„hierarchical sequence portrayed as a tree” (JMP 2009). This is a very effective visual representation of the clustering or grouping structure of the data, for it shows which samples cluster together and when they enter the cluster set. The sooner a sample clusters with another, the more alike they are – and the dendrogram allows you to see which samples are most alike, and which groups are more tightly clustered and therefore whose members are most alike. Although an excellent visual representation of group composition and relative similarity, cluster analysis must be used with caution, as its tendency is to ultimately find commonalities between items and cluster them together, even if they are dissimilar (Minc, personal communication 2011). Furthermore there is

144 no statistical proof or test involved in cluster analysis (Minc, personal communication

2011), although results can be confirmed through other means, such as the application of the Mahalanobis distance statistic (see below).

That said, the dendrogram below (Figure 24) visually represents the hierarchical clustering of the Fort Vancouver brick samples. The samples cluster into groups whose elemental concentrations are most similar to each other. The dendrogram clearly illustrates the existence of several compositional groups – Groups A, B, C, D, and the doublet consisting of FOVA09 and FV130 – as well as showing which samples are most alike and when they enter the cluster. The further to the left the samples join together, the more similar they are. Outliers are samples that clustered with a group significantly later than the other members (ie farther to the right), and were determined to be too dissimilar for inclusion in the group.

Groups and Comparatives. The final, and most eagerly awaited step of the analytical process, was to incorporate the comparative samples and hopefully find geochemical matches indicative of shared parent material. When the comparative brick, clay, and pottery samples were added to the hierarchical cluster analysis, several of the comparative samples clustered with the established Fort Vancouver brick groups.

The bricks comprising Group A were most similar to clay samples obtained from

Albany, Jefferson, and Wilsonville, Oregon, but also clustered with comparative samples from Kalama and Fargher Lake, Washington. None of the comparative samples clustered with Group B. However, five members of Group B were „Spanished‟ bricks recovered from Fort Vancouver and well-documented to be of English origin. They were INAA tested during my preliminary investigations in 2007 and the results included in this

145

Dendrogram

FOVA_01 FOVA_06 FOVA_07 FOVA_02 FOVA_23 FV103 FOVA_08 FV104 FV105 FV138 GROUP B FV109 FV110 FV123 FV136 FV161 FV108 FV125 FV133 FV134 FV116 FV128 FV145 FV119 FOVA_05 FOVA_04 FOVA_03 FOVA_10 FOVA_22 FOVA_16 FV118 FV127 FV129 FOVA_14 FV122 GROUP D FOVA_20 FV115 FOVA_15 FV120 FV149 FV167 FOVA_13 FOVA_11 FV142 FV102 FV147 FV146 FV150 FV126 FV153 FV164 FOVA_17 FOVA_19 FOVA_21 FV124 FV141 FV165 GROUP C FV156 FV101 FV157 FV160 FV131 FOVA_18 FV113 FV106 FV159 FV117 FV135 FV143 FV158 FV132 FOVA_09 FV130 DOUBLET FOVA_12 FV107 FV111 FV121 FV151 FV154 FV162 FV140 FV163 FV112 GROUP A FV137 FV139 FV148 FV152 FV144 FV155 FV114

Figure 24. Dendrogram of Fort Vancouver brick samples showing hierarchical clustering.

146 current research project. It is extremely interesting to note that 18 red, common brick samples from Fort Vancouver clustered with the five distinctively voided and mottled

English specimens. Group C included the largest number of comparatives, and they were all over the proverbial map. Two bricks and 19 clay samples ranging in provenience from Ridgefield, WA in the north, to Gervais and Champoeg, Oregon in the south (see

Table 4 below) clustered with Group C‟s Fort Vancouver brick samples. The members of Group D clustered with seven comparative samples, including brick and clay from

Gresham, Oregon; clay obtained from Astoria, St. Helens, Hillsboro, and Johns Landing,

Oregon; and clay from Vancouver Lake in Vancouver, Washington.

Table 4. Comparative samples that initially clustered with Group C.

Sample ID Provenience HIDD_01 Vancouver, WA brick (Hidden) WP_019 Kelly Pt., OR clay WP_022 St. Johns, OR clay WP_023 Linnton, OR clay WP_029 Vancouver, WA clay WP_059 Dayton, OR clay WP_060 Newberg, OR clay WP_065 Farmington, OR clay WP_066 Tualatin, OR clay WP_068 Oregon City, OR clay WP_069 Milwaukie, OR clay WP_077 Ridgefield, WA clay WP_080 Image, WA clay WP_081 Camas, WA clay WP_083 Vancouver, WA clay WP_086 Vancouver, WA clay WP_093 Champoeg, OR clay WP_094 Champoeg, OR clay WP_095 Butteville, OR clay WP_098 Gervais, OR clay WV_205 Champoeg, OR brick (Newell)

147

Plots of Principal Components. To further refine which comparative samples were most like the established Fort Vancouver brick groups, principal component analysis was utilized. In principal component analysis, multiple variables are combined into single factors. A small number of linear combinations or principal components of variables are derived that attempt to capture as much of the variability in the originals as possible (JMP 2009). Bivariate plots were created based upon the first two principal components established by the statistical software. Ellipses representing the 95% confidence intervals for each of the four Fort Vancouver brick groups were then projected onto the plot (Figures 25 – 28). If comparative samples fell within the ellipse, this indicated their general geochemical similarity to the brick group and the possibility they could share a common clay source. Comparative samples that fell outside the brick group ellipses were excluded from further consideration, given their poor statistical odds of being possible sources.

Figure 25. Bivariate plot of PC1 and PC2 showing three comparative samples within the 95% confidence interval for Fort Vancouver brick Group A membership.

148

.

Figure 26. Bivariate plot of PC1 and PC2 showing no comparative samples within the 95% confidence interval for Fort Vancouver brick Group B membership.

Figure 27. Bivariate plot of PC1 and PC2 showing multiple comparative samples within the 95% confidence interval for Fort Vancouver brick Group C & Group D membership.

As can be seen from the four plots above, only three comparatives joined with

Group A; five joined with Group C, and seven comparatives with Group D. No comparative clays, bricks, or pottery joined with Group B, suggesting Group B bricks are

149 not made from local clays. Although the possible sources were greatly narrowed for

Groups A, C, and D, each group still clustered with multiple clays spanning a broad geographic range. Therefore, a more robust statistical analysis was necessary to narrow the range of potential sources.

Mahalanobis Distances and Principal Component Analysis by Dr. Leah Minc

Calculation of the Mahalanobis distance statistic requires that (at a minimum) the number of cases exceeds the number of variables. However, the statistic is poorly constrained and unreliable with these minimum sample sizes, therefore it is generally recommended that a much greater ratio of cases to variables (at least 4:1) be used. Given the small group sample sizes in this data set (N=14-28), it was necessary to employ principal components analysis (PCA), to “reduce the dimensionality of the data”, i.e., to distill the information contained in a large number of elements into a few number of principal components (composite variable) that reflect strong inter-element correlations.

For example, the rare earth elements (REE) typically strongly covary; it is therefore possible (and often desirable) to reduce these elements to a single REE dimension using

PCA.

PCA was based on intercorrelations among all available elements, using cases representing bricks and clays (N=178), but excluding comparative earthenware ceramics

(N=24). Element concentrations were first transformed to log(10) values to bring distributions into better conformity with assumptions of normality required by PCA.

The first four PCs had eigenvalues greater than 1 and jointly accounted for 80% of variance in inter-element correlations; these PCs were retained for the calculation of multivariate distances. The first PC correlates positively with the REE, as well as the

150 alkali metals cesium and rubidium, and the actinides thorium and uranium (See Table 5).

In contrast, the second PC represents variation in the transition metals (cobalt, iron, scandium, and zinc) and europium, while the third PC covaries positively with chromium, but negatively with barium and sodium. The fourth PC, while significant, displays only a low positive correlation with arsenic.

These four new dimensions were used to evaluate the homogeneity of the preliminary gropus (A, B, C, and D). Using an iterative approach referred to as „jack- knifing‟ or „leave-one-out‟, one sample at a time was removed from the preliminary group. The group centroid was then calculated based on sample scores for the first four

PCs and the distance from the centroid (and thus the probability of belonging to that group) was determined for the jack-knifed sample. Samples with less than a 5% probability of group membership were removed from the preliminary group, and a further round of distance calculations was initiated by removing a different sample. Group refinement continued until group membership stabilized; remaining members were labeled as “core members”, whereas other cases (bricks and clay) were tested against each of the refined core groups and the probability of group membership in each core group was calculated.

Group A: Initially this preliminary group had 16 members. One sample (FV155) had a very high distance from the group centroid and was removed as an outlier, while a second (FV112) was just below the threshold and was retained, for a final core group size of 15. A single clay showed a significant probability of membership (23%) in Group A; this was WP096 from Wilsonville, OR. Clays in the Wilsonville area may be affected by nearby Columbia River basalts to the north and west, and thus appear to match the

151 generally mafic profile of Group A (low in REE, Cs, Rb, Th; higher in Co Fe, and Sc). It is worrisome, however, that only a single clay joins with this group, especially given that a number of other clays were sampled in the vicinity (e.g., Farmville and Butteville).

Group B: This preliminary group initially contained 24 cases, of which one

(FOVA_08) was removed as a group outlier, leaving a core group of 23 samples. No local clays showed any affiliation with this group, supporting the interpretation that it was imported into the region.

Group C: The largest of the composition groups, preliminary Group C included

28 members. Of these, two were removed from the core group, but retained as noncore members based on low probabilities of membership (FV124, FV164), while a third

(FOVA_18) was designated a group outlier. A number of local clays showed various degrees of similarity to this group. Clays with the highest probability of group membership include St. Johns, OR (WP_022, 54% probability) and Milwaukie, OR

(WP_069), 40% probability). But other northern Willamette Valley clays from

Vancouver (HIDD_01) and Champoeg (WP_093, WP_094) also showed significant probabilities of belonging to this group. Based on the distribution of sites, a northern

Willamette Valley provenance seems probable.

Group D: This preliminary group originally contained 14 brick samples, of which one was removed (FOVA_16) as an extreme outlier. As with the previous group, a number of clay samples revealed significant probabilities of membership in Group D.

Of these, the sample with the highest probability (50%) was Astoria, OR (WP_050), suggesting that an investigation into possible brick-making at early might be productive. However, other clays from along the Willamette River also fell into this

152 group, ranging from Corvallis, OR (WP_016) to St. Paul, OR (WP_092), to Vancouver

(WP_026, WP_030). Given the compositional similarities between Groups C and D, it is possible that they both represent valley clays that were broadly distributed and widely available.

Table 5: Principle Component Analysis of Bricks and Clays Prin1 Prin2 Prin3 Prin4 Eigenvalue 9.544 4.492 2.165 1.406 % Variance 43.383 20.420 9.839 6.391 Cumulative % 43.383 63.803 73.641 80.033 Total Structure Coefficients: As 0.244 -0.338 0.369 0.464 Ba 0.185 0.464 -0.745 0.016 La 0.951 -0.035 -0.111 -0.137 Lu 0.898 0.068 0.132 -0.158 Sm 0.882 0.253 0.125 -0.309 Na -0.429 0.469 -0.606 -0.212 U 0.742 -0.249 -0.311 0.289 Yb 0.878 0.196 0.137 -0.159 Ce 0.955 0.008 0.003 0.001 Cs 0.806 -0.210 -0.007 0.341 Cr -0.225 0.005 0.780 0.088 Co 0.064 0.779 0.282 0.221 Eu 0.600 0.687 0.154 -0.256 Hf 0.637 -0.512 0.152 -0.094 Fe -0.013 0.869 0.061 0.331 Nd 0.849 0.193 0.102 -0.147 Rb 0.746 -0.361 -0.288 0.182 Sc -0.052 0.897 0.088 0.296 Ta 0.714 0.083 -0.138 0.381 Tb 0.700 0.343 0.219 -0.389 Th 0.875 -0.299 -0.193 0.201 Zn 0.168 0.668 -0.035 0.248

Influence of Geologic Factors

As stated earlier, the geology of a region determines the chemistry of its clays.

Armed with an understanding of the chemistry of the Fort Vancouver brick groups and

153 their comparatives, the geology of the region will be examined in an attempt to discover what geologic factors hold the groups together.

Early settlement of the Oregon Country primarily occurred in what is known as the Willamette Lowland Trough, a flat region defined by the Coastal Range to the west, the Cascade Mountains to the east, the uplands where the two mountain ranges converge near Woodland, Washington in the north, and where they re-converge again near Eugene,

Oregon to the south. This lowland “encompasses 3,700 square miles and includes the

Willamette Valley, Oregon and most of Clark County, Washington” where Fort

Vancouver was located (Woodward, Gannett, and Vaccaro 1998:B1). Within the trough are four basins – the Portland Basin, the Tualatin Basin, the northern Willamette Valley, and the southern Willamette Valley (Figure 28).

The geology of the region is complex, with many geological forces at work. But in general, the Coast Range to the west is characterized by marine sedimentary rocks of

Tertiary origin, though interspersed with Tertiary volcanics including Columbia River

Basalts in the northern Coast Range (Walker and MacLeod 1998). Overall, the Cascade

Range to the east is characterized by volcanic sediments and rocks of both Tertiary and

Quaternary origin, though it includes a few isolated terraces of Tertiary marine sedimentary rock (Walker and MacLeod 1998). These two mountain ranges have a profound effect on the lowland basins that lie between them.

154

Figure 28. The basins of the Willamette Lowland Trough (created with Google maps).

Each of the four basins is separated by outcrops of basalt. “Subbasin subsidence and faulting has created uplands of Columbia River Basalt… that separate the northern

Willamette Valley from the Southern Willamette Valley. Faulting and Pliocene-

Pleistocene basalts form uplands near Oregon City that separate the Portland Basin from the northern Willamette Valley [Figure 29]” (O‟Connor, Sarna-Wojcicki, Wozniak,

Polette, and Fleck 2001). Each of the four basins has filled with as much as 1500 feet of sediment from several sources.

Underlying the Tualatin, southern Willamette Valley and northern Willamette

Valley basin floors are Pleistocene sands and gravels derived from the Coast and Cascade

Ranges and likely the result of increased weathering during a glacial advance 28,000 –

22,000 years ago. They are followed by extensive Missoula Flood sediments, the result of an estimated 60 – 90 late-Pleistocene floods from Glacial Lake Missoula. “A 155 constriction downstream from Portland hydraulically impounded flow to as high as 150 meters above sea level, resulting in water backflooding into the southern Portland and

Tualatin basins from which it spilled southward into the southern Willamette Valley”

(O‟Connor et al 2001:24). As a result, “subparallel sheets of silt, clay, and sand cover the valley floor and margins to an altitude of 120 meters above sea level” (O‟Connor

2001:24).

Figure 29. The geologic units of the northern basins (USGS 2009).

Overlaying Missoula Flood deposits in some areas are sediments from the surrounding uplands, believed to be the result of another period of glacial weathering

12,000 years ago. These Pleistocene sands and gravels were “deposited in broad fan- shaped swaths where each of the major tributaries exited the Cascade

156

Range. In addition, terraces of similar deposits were formed along the Willamette River between Albany and Salem and along Butte Creek in the northern Willamette Valley”

(O‟Connor et al 2001:18). Finally, Holocene floodplain deposits of the Willamette River and tributaries continue to accumulate to this day, although dams and other devices have largely curbed the rivers‟ meandering and shifting (O‟Connor et al 2001:27).

Overall, the Portland Basin is dominated by volcanic materials, including the

“intermediate to mafic lava flows, volcaniclastic rocks and igneous intrusions” (Lasmanis

1991) collectively known as the Columbia River Basalt Group. Exposures of Columbia

River Basalt lie at the edges of the Portland Basin, both upstream and downstream from

Vancouver, Washington. But within the basin itself, the basalt units are overlain with more than 1,000 feet of sediment. Miocene and Pliocene sediments of the ancestral

Columbia River, known as the Troutdale Formation, include gravel from the Columbia

Basin and the Okanogan Highlands, as well as later volcanic glass sands from

Washington‟s Simcoe volcanoes. Another period of volcanism, this time from the Boring

Lava cones, followed. Between 15,300 and 12,700 years ago, the repeated glacial Lake

Missoula flooding deposited sediments scoured from Eastern Washington and Idaho throughout the Portland Basin (Lasmanis 1991). Quaternary alluvium continues to be deposited in the low-lying areas along the Columbia River and is defined as “river and stream deposits of silt, sand, and organic-rich clay with subordinate gravel of mixed lithologies; largely confined to Columbia and Willamette river channels and valley bottoms of tributary streams” (Beeson 1991).

Brickmakers in the Willamette Lowland Trench could potentially have used clay derived from any of the rocks and sediments mentioned above. Clay obtained from the

157 surrounding hills or uplands would geochemically reflect the parent bedrock. To over- generalize, it would likely be of marine origin in the Coastal range and likely of volcanic origin in the Cascades. Clay obtained from the basin and valley floors would likely either be: 1) Missoula Flood deposits and therefore geochemically indicative of a Columbia

Basin provenance to the east; 2) a product of surrounding upland weathering and therefore geochemically a combination of the bedrock units in its watershed; or 3) recent floodplain deposits of the Columbia or Willamette Rivers, which would reflect a mix of the above, but could be dominated locally by one. Another less likely possibility is that of Mt. Mazama clays, which formed from deposits of airborne volcanic minerals and tuff.

These are more prevalent to the south around Eugene, but have been reported as far north as Woodburn (James and Baitis 2003).

An examination of geologic maps of the region provides some insight into the compositional groups established during this project. Based upon the Mahalanobis distance statistic, a single clay sample from Wilsonville, Oregon (WP_96) matched the

Group A brick samples, and another four samples consistently joined with the Group A members in cluster analyses, although their multivariate probabilities of belonging to that composition group are quite low. All of these samples are characterized in part by high levels of iron and scandium and classified as mafic. Although these five sampling locations range from Kalama, Washington in the north to Jefferson, Oregon in the south – a distance of 100 miles – they clearly share some geochemical similarities. Geologic maps indicate that the Fargher Lake clay sample was from Tertiary-volcanic units, while the Wilsonville and Jefferson, Oregon samples were taken from Willamette floodplain and alluvial deposits. But closer examination reveals that the two collection sites in

158

Oregon were directly adjacent to Willamette tributaries originating in nearby volcanic highlands (Figure 30). Runoff and sediment deposition from the surrounding volcanic units could account for their mafic clay profiles. Their geological context clearly underscores their chemical similarities; however, of these possible locations, Wilsonville, is the best match for the source of Group A bricks.

Figure 30. Clay samples WP_96 and WP_71 from Wilsonville and Jefferson. Note the volcanic uplands nearby – units Tvr & Tcr in pink (O’Connor et al 2001).

A similar examination of Group C comparative matches was also illuminating.

One brick (HIDD_01, from the Hidden Brickyard in Vancouver, Washington) had a significant, high probability of belonging to Group C, along with four clay sources

(WP_22, WP_69, WP_93, and WP_94). Several other clay sources showed much lower, but still significant probabilities of belonging to Group C, including WP_23, WP_59,

WP_60, WP_65, WP_77, WP_80, and WP_98. These eleven samples range in provenience from Ridgefield, Washington in the north, to Gervais and Champoeg,

Oregon in the south. This group was also characterized by relatively high levels of the transitional metals, particularly iron and scandium, although less so than Group A.

159

Twelve comparative samples spread over a 50-mile wide radius at first seemed incongruous, but a review of geologic maps identified seven of the samples as located within known Missoula Flood deposits (Walker and MacLeod 1991; Schuster 2005). An additional four were from alluvial or fluvial deposits that could easily have contained re- deposited Missoula Flood sediments. As discussed above, relatively homogenous

Missoula Flood sediments were deposited throughout the four basins of the Willamette

Lowland Trough. This is a persuasive explanation for how a large number of dispersed samples could be geochemically similar. One sample matching the Group C profile remained perplexing, however. According to the geologic maps, sample WP23 from

Linnton, Oregon belonged to the Columbia River Basalt group. It is unclear how it fits with the others.

Figure 31. Group C sample sites in Washington and Oregon in units of Missoula Flood clay (O’Connor et al 2001 and Schuster 2005).

The geologic commonality between Group D comparative matches remains uncertain. Group D was characterized by lower traces of the transition metals, particularly iron and scandium, than the other groups. The Astoria, Oregon clay sample 160

(WP_50) that most closely matched Group D‟s chemical profile was taken from a unit of

Tertiary marine sedimentary rock (Tms). This area is characterized as “fine-to medium- grained marine siltstone and sandstone that commonly contains tuff beds” (Walker and

MacLeod 1998), but the sampling location along the Columbia River could also be influenced by sediments upstream.

Figure 32. Group D clays from units of Qa, Qff. Note tertiary marine (Tm, blue) in the highlands near Willamette Mission samples WP 18 and WV 209 (Schuster 2005 and O’Connor et al 2001).

Samples with lower probabilities of group membership include a brick and clay from the Willamette Mission area (WV209 and WP_18) and clay from Vancouver,

Washington (WP_26 and WP_30), all from units of Quaternary alluvium, as well as clays from St. Paul (WP_92) and Corvallis (WP_16) represending Missoula Flood deposits

(Figure 32). Outcrops of Tertiary marine are near Corvallis and Willamette Mission, but not the Vancouver samples. From these geologic descriptions it is not immediately obvious why these seven samples cluster together. However, as described above, there are multiple situations that could create geologically similar clays distant from one another. It may be that these samples lie at interfaces of units that combine to create

161 geochemically similar clay deposits. Alternatively, this compositional group may represent a mixture of different clay strata, with the bricks showing affiliations to both marine-derived „hill clays‟ and alluvial „valley clay‟.

Locational Analysis

The Fort Vancouver brick samples‟ archaeological contexts were examined to see if the composition groups would pattern on the site. It was hoped that relative dates for the brick composition groups might be obtained by their association with different features. According to Hoffman and Ross, by late 1844 or early 1845, what had been a bakery constructed sometime between 1835 and 1839, was converted to the Harness

Shop (1973:2). Of five bricks analyzed from the Harness Shop, a significant percentage

(60%), were categorized as Group B/Imported brick. The recovery of Group B bricks from this building constructed in the 1830s before the Willamette Valley brick shipment arrived, therefore could lend credence to the possibility that Group B bricks may indeed be English imports. However, the remaining 2 bricks (40%) were from

Wilsonville/Group A and may represent bricks from the recorded Willamette Valley shipment in 1844.

Similarly, it was hoped that the bricks from the Chief Factor‟s House, built in the winter of 1837-1838 would aid in the relative dating of the brick groups. However, the

Chief Factor‟s House contained bricks from all brick groups plus several outliers, so that seven different sources were represented in the brick recovered there! Of the 17 bricks sampled, one (6%) was from Group A; four (24%) were from Group B; three (18%) were from Group C; five (29%) were from Group D; and four were Outliers and included both members of the Doublet.

162

The other buildings‟ estimated dates of construction dates overlapped with the

Willamette Valley brick shipment and therefore weren‟t particularly helpful. The Fur

Store was constructed sometime before December 1844; the Indian Trade Shop was built in late 1844; and the Jail was built sometime before September 30, 1844 (Hussey 1976:3).

Although only two bricks were sampled from the Jail, it is interesting that they both clustered with the northern Willamette Valley/Group C. Hussey reported the Jail began to appear in the documentary record on September 30, 1844, two weeks after the

Willamette Valley brick shipment arrived (1976:282). It is possible the Jail was constructed between September 17 and September 30 of Willamette Valley bricks.

The third Bakery was reportedly built in October 1844 with bricks from the

Willamette Valley shipment. However, the seven bricks analyzed from the bakery were from four different sources: one brick was from Group A (14%), two from Group B

(29%), one from Group C (14%), and three from Group D (43%). Only 28% of the brick analyzed was potentially from the documented Willamette Valley shipment

(Wilsonville/Group A and northern Willamette Valley/Group C). The remaining 72% were imported or from Astoria – exactly the reverse of what was expected.

In general, the brick recovered from each location appeared to be of fairly mixed origin. The samples from the South Stockade represented four sources: of the 18 bricks, six (33%) were from Group A; one (6%) was from Group B; 10 (56%) were from Group

C; and one (6%) was from Group D. The 11 bricks sampled from the Bachelors‟

Quarters Privy were from four different sources. Three (27%) were from Group A; four

(36%) were from Group B, three (27%) were from Group C, and one (9%) was an outlier.

Three sources were represented among the Kanaka Village bricks: of 11 samples, five

163

(45%) were from Group B; four (36%) were from Group C; and two (18%) were from

Group D. The five bricks sampled from the Indian Trade Shop were all from different sources, and included one from Group A, one from Group B, one from Group C, one from Group D, as well as one Outlier. Five brick samples from the Harness shop revealed two sources: two bricks (40%) were identified as belonging to Group A, and three (60%) from Group B. Bricks from an additional seven other archaeological contexts were also tested, including the East Stockade, the West Stockade, the Fur Store, the Parade Ground, the Pond, and the Southeast Bastion, but their sample sizes were too small to be informative.

If examined by brick composition groups, we can see that bricks from some sources are more widespread across Fort Vancouver than others. The most ubiquitous of the bunch was the northern Willamette Valley/Group C brick, found in 11 of the 14 contexts sampled across the fort site. The imported/Group B brick came from nine different contexts, the Wilsonville/Group A brick was found in seven different archaeological contexts at the fort, and Astoria/Group D brick was found in six contexts.

Outliers representing seven different unknown sources of brick were present in four separate contexts: the Bachelor‟s Quarters‟ Privy (a single source), the Indian Trade

Shop (a single source); the Chief Factor‟s House/Kitchen (four sources); and the Pond

(two sources).

Overall there is a lack of clear spatial association, and thus an inability to infer any temporal information. It is impossible to know whether the Chief Factor‟s

House/Kitchen was actually built with brick from seven different sources, or whether

Fort Vancouver actually used Northern Willamette Valley brick in 11 locations around

164 the site. There are several possible reasons for the fact that a single archaeological context contains bricks from multiple sources, as well as the fact that bricks from these multiple sources are widely distributed across the site. 1) The pre-1844 and post-1844 delineation between English brick and local brick may be false. Fort Vancouver may have actually obtained and utilized bricks from multiple sources across time. 2) The intermixture of brick compositional groups may be a result of intensive reuse and lateral recycling of brick during construction and repairs to the fort. 3) Conversely, it may be a result of the site formation process, particularly the U.S. Army‟s actions upon taking over the site in 1860. Indeed the fact that bricks were recovered from a privy, a pond, and several stockade trenches suggests discard. In all likelihood, some combination of the three factors occurred.

Table 6. Archaeological Provenience and Group Affiliation of Fort Vancouver Bricks

ID Fort Vancouver Provenience Group Affiliation FV137 Bachelors' Quarters Privy Group A Core FV139 Bachelors' Quarters Privy Group A Core FV140 Bachelors' Quarters Privy Group A Core FV133 Bachelors' Quarters Privy Group B Core FV134 Bachelors' Quarters Privy Group B Core FV136 Bachelors' Quarters Privy Group B Core FV138 Bachelors' Quarters Privy Group B Core FV135 Bachelors' Quarters Privy Group C Core FV141 Bachelors' Quarters Privy Group C Core FV131 Bachelors' Quarters Privy Group C Core FV132 Bachelors' Quarters Privy Outlier FV121 Bakery Group A Core FV119 Bakery Group B Core FV123 Bakery Group B Core FV117 Bakery Group C Core FV118 Bakery Group D Core FV120 Bakery Group D Core FV122 Bakery Group D Core FOVA_12 Chief Factor's House/Kitchen Group A Core FOVA_02 Chief Factor's House/Kitchen Group B Core FOVA_06 Chief Factor's House/Kitchen Group B Core FV125 Chief Factor's House/Kitchen Group B Core FV128 Chief Factor's House/Kitchen Group B Core FOVA_11 Chief Factor's House/Kitchen Group C Core

165

FV126 Chief Factor's House/Kitchen Group C Core FV124 Chief Factor's House/Kitchen Group C Noncore FOVA_10 Chief Factor's House/Kitchen Group D Core FOVA_14 Chief Factor's House/Kitchen Group D Core FOVA_15 Chief Factor's House/Kitchen Group D Core FV127 Chief Factor's House/Kitchen Group D Core FV129 Chief Factor's House/Kitchen Group D Core FOVA_09 Chief Factor's House/Kitchen Doublet FOVA_04 Chief Factor's House/Kitchen Outlier FOVA_13 Chief Factor's House/Kitchen Outlier FV130 Chief Factor's House/Kitchen Doublet FV145 East Stockade Group B Core FV156 East Stockade Group C Core FV103 Fur Store Group B Core FV104 Fur Store Group B Core FV105 Fur Store Group B Core FV106 Fur Store Group C Core FV107 Harness Shop Group A Core FV111 Harness Shop Group A Core FV108 Harness Shop Group B Core FV109 Harness Shop Group B Core FV110 Harness Shop Group B Core FV112 Indian Trade Shop Group A Core FV116 Indian Trade Shop Group B Core FV113 Indian Trade Shop Group C Core FV115 Indian Trade Shop Group D Core FV114 Indian Trade Shop Outlier FV101 Jail Group C Core FV102 Jail Group C Core FOVA_01 Kanaka Village Group B Core FOVA_05 Kanaka Village Group B Core FOVA_07 Kanaka Village Group B Core FOVA_23 Kanaka Village Group B Core FOVA_08 Kanaka Village Group B Outlier FOVA_17 Kanaka Village Group C Core FOVA_19 Kanaka Village Group C Core FOVA_21 Kanaka Village Group C Core FOVA_18 Kanaka Village Group C Outlier FOVA_20 Kanaka Village Group D Core FOVA_22 Kanaka Village Group D Core FV167 Parade Ground Group D Core FOVA_03 Pond Outlier FOVA_16 Pond Outlier FV157 SE Bastion Group C Core FV151 South Stockade Group A Core FV152 South Stockade Group A Core FV162 South Stockade Group A Core FV163 South Stockade Group A Core FV161 South Stockade Group B Core FV158 South Stockade Group C Core FV159 South Stockade Group C Core FV160 South Stockade Group C Core FV165 South Stockade Group C Core

166

FV164 South Stockade Group C Noncore FV144 South Stockade Group A Core FV148 South Stockade Group A Core FV143 South Stockade Group C Core FV150 South Stockade Group C Core FV146 South Stockade Group C Core FV147 South Stockade Group C Core FV142 South Stockade Group C Core FV149 South Stockade Group D Core FV154 West Stockade Group A Core FV155 West Stockade Group A Outlier FV153 West Stockade Group C Core

Summary

All-in-all, 89 Fort Vancouver bricks and 113 comparative samples from the four states of Oregon, Washington, Alaska, and California, as well as Dutch and English brick underwent INAA and subsequent statistical analysis in an attempt to „source‟ the Fort

Vancouver brick. Several surprising findings emerged from the data analysis. First of all, the Fort Vancouver brick subjected to INAA appears to come from a minimum of eleven different points of origin. The four groups A, B, C, and D are each geochemically distinct, as are the doublet and six outliers, indicating at least eleven different sources.

Secondly, no comparatives clustered with Group B. However, one English brick consistently fell nearby, and five „Spanished‟ brick recovered from Fort Vancouver were members of the group. It thus appears that Group B bricks are foreign imports to the region – possibly from England – as they are geochemically dissimilar from regional clays.

It was also slightly surprising only one historical brick sample (only WV209, from the Willamette Mission area) and no pottery samples ultimately grouped together with Fort Vancouver brick, despite being from some very likely locations. This fact initially raised the question of whether the brick-making or pottery-making process

167 somehow altered the chemical signature enough to render their origins unrecognizable.

However, this concern was laid to rest based upon several findings: 1) the Corvallis samples clustered on top of one another; 2) the Gresham brick and the Gresham clay clustered together; 3) the Hidden brick and the clay retrieved from the Hidden brickyard also clustered together; and 4) the historical brick recovered from the Newell homestead clustered with the clays from Champoeg.

Another finding worth mentioning was that comparative clays from Kodiak,

Alaska and Fort Ross, California did not cluster with any Fort Vancouver brick.

Therefore the bricks sampled do not appear to have been obtained from the HBC‟s

Russian counterparts.

Instead, it appears that Group A may be from the Wilsonville, Oregon area;

Group C may have a different northern Willamette Valley, Oregon provenance; and

Group D may originate from the mouth of the Columbia River near Astoria, Oregon. The implications of these three locations as potential sources of Fort Vancouver brick will be discussed in the following chapter.

168

CHAPTER 7: INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS

The goal of this investigation was, in part, to determine the source of common brick recovered from the Fort Vancouver National Historic Site via INAA. It was hoped that geochemical analysis in combination with historical research would aid in the identification of early brick producers in the region and allow for insight into the economic strategies of a developing industry.

Toward this end, INAA was performed on 66 archaeologically recovered bricks from Fort Vancouver‟s collection, 20 archaeologically recovered bricks from historic-era sites throughout the Willamette Valley, as well as a modern brick manufactured in

Vancouver, Washington and another made in Gresham, Oregon. Based upon documentary research, clay was collected from 70 locations believed to have produced brick across northwestern Oregon and southwestern Washington, as well as Kodiak,

Alaska, and Fort Ross, California. The clay was subsequently worked into tiles, fired, and subjected to INAA. The resultant elemental data from the bricks and clay were compared to INAA data previously obtained from two London bricks and one „Dutch‟ brick (Armitage, Minc, Hill, and Hurry 2006); fired clay from five early pottery sites in

Oregon and Washington (Peterson 2008); and 23 bricks from the Fort Vancouver collection tested by the author in 2007. In total, 89 Fort Vancouver bricks and 113 comparative samples were analyzed during the course of this project.

Fort Vancouver Brick Producers

INAA results indicate the red common brick samples archaeologically recovered from Fort Vancouver bricks separate into four distinct geochemical populations, in addition to one doublet and six outliers. Therefore, what conventional analysis identified

169 as a single type of brick, in actuality came from at least eleven different sources. It also was determined that bricks recovered from the same archaeological location, rather than representing a single type, were instead of very mixed origin. Therefore, one takeaway message from this research is that during Fort Vancouver‟s existence, brick was obtained from multiple and distant locations – indicating the HBC‟s procurement of brick was more complex than previously suspected.

Given the groups‟ elemental relationships with the comparative samples, it appears that Group A may be from the Wilsonville area; Group C may have a different northern Willamette Valley provenance; Group D may originate from the mouth of the

Columbia River near Astoria; and Group B likely is an import into the region, possibly from England. Wilsonville and Astoria may, therefore, have been centers of brick production during the mid-nineteenth century. From the documentary research, it is known that brick was historically made in both locations, but regrettably, no individual brickmakers operating during the timeframe under investigation were identified.

According to a city directory, a brickyard existed in Wilsonville by 1886, but no earlier mention of brickmaking was found. However, it is worth noting that the clay sample tested was taken from the approximate location of the historic Boone‟s ferry crossing. Alphonso Boone, an immigrant of 1846, and his extended family established a homesite and ferry landing on 1,000 acres of land at present day Charbonneau, between

Oregon City and Butteville (Marschner 2008:74). Whether anyone occupied the area prior to the Boones‟ arrival, or whether the Boones burned brick is thus far unknown.

Information on early brickmaking in Astoria is also lacking. It was reported that bricks were made in 1849 (Corning 1956:34) but the maker was not identified. It may

170 have been O.P. Sturges, age 22, a brickmaker recorded in the 1850 census as residing in

Clatsop County, with no town listed. However, the likelihood that Astoria was a source of Fort Vancouver brick begs the question of whether brick may have been made by

Pacific Fur Company, Northwest Fur Company, or HBC employees during their respective occupations of Fort George and later salvaged and transported upriver.

Reportedly, the HBC buildings were located at 15th and Exchange Streets in Astoria; the clay sample tested was obtained from Tongue Point to the west. It is known that during the time period under observation, few individuals resided at the former site of Fort

George (Figure 33). As of 1844, reportedly J.M. Shively, Colonel John McClure, A.E.

Wilson and HBC employee “were the only white men in Astoria”

(Cleveland 1903:132), though Robert Shortess and a Mr. Smith soon followed.

Intriguingly, it was noted that Shively “lived at Lime Kiln Hall on the ridge near the eastern limit of his claim” (Cleveland 1903:133).

Figure 33. Astoria, Oregon in 1813 (OHS 21681).

171

Unfortunately the geological sources ascribed to groups B and C were too broad to be useful in this analysis, given that many contemporaneous communities were producing brick and could have supplied Fort Vancouver. However, because Group B clustered with the „Spanished‟ brick recovered from Fort Vancouver, which is well- documented to be of English origin, it raises the question of whether red, common brick can be presumed to be local or even American. Instead, it would appear that some red, common bricks may have been imported from Britain, or at least from somewhere geochemically more like England than all our other comparative samples. This serves as a reminder to use caution when interpreting brick based upon visual characteristics. As mentioned above, the groups‟ geological variation served to signal the complexity of brick use at the fort, and hinted that bricks were scarce and difficult to obtain during the time of its operation.

Brickmaking as Boomsurfing?

My hope of being able to identify, possibly down to individuals, the brickmakers responsible for crafting the brick found at Fort Vancouver did not come to fruition. Only one historic-era brick, collected from the Newell homestead, clustered with a composition group, but its probability of membership was not significant. Information was limited with regard to brickmaking in Wilsonville and Astoria. The overall level of resolution as to the geologic source of brick groups B and C was too coarse to allow specific identification. Nor was there enough information gathered in the course of historical research on any one brickmaker to test whether they were individually a boomsurfer. However, armed with archaeometric and documentary evidence, we can

172 examine whether conditions in the mid-nineteenth century brickmaking industry were conducive to boomsurfing.

Early brickmaking in the Oregon Country exhibited a high degree of flexibility and opportunism. It has been established that early brickmaking operations were very flexible, as they required little to no permanent equipment, thus allowing them the mobility to follow demand. In addition, we encountered several opportunistic brick merchants including William Case and George Snipes, who, in the face of high demand, were willing to sell bricks made for their own use.

Brickmakers were observed to engage in multiple and diverse economic activities simultaneously. Many early brick producers identified in the historical record performed a variety of work. Farmer Hugh Cosgrove also ran a brick making plant. David Presley was both blacksmith and brickmaker. Joseph Bradley Varnum Butler owned and operated stores, warehouses, and a mill in addition to burning bricks. George J. Wolfer was described as a “pioneer merchant, brick maker and well driller [Figure 34]” (Will

1956:34). But John Shotwell Hunt may have taken the cake, for he is described as a merchant, brickyard operator, gunsmith, millwright, blacksmith; wagonmaker, mail carrier, teacher, and hotelier (Lockley 1928a:136; Lockley 1924:4&11; Steeves 1927:95).

Although, Lewis Hubbell Judson II, gave him a run for his money as a jack-of-all-trades, for he was a carpenter, millwright, Salem City Engineer, Marion County Surveyor, and an early Oregon circuit rider (Strozut, Jr. 1955:21) who constructed houses, made furniture, built and operated sawmills, burned brick, surveyed claims and commercial fished (Judson 1971: 40). In fact, none of the brickmakers identified via the documentary record are listed as such on the 1850 census; most considered themselves farmers and

173 apparently burnt brick as a side venture. Ransom, George, and Jonas Belknap were listed as farmers in the 1850 census, as were Hugh Cosgrove, King Hibbard, John Shotwell

Hunt, and Robert Newell; while Lewis Judson‟s occupation was listed as that of carpenter.

Figure 34. George Wolfer: Merchant, brickmaker, well-driller – and possible boomsurfer (Old Aurora Colony 2009).

The brickmakers also engaged in partnerships and joint ventures, often linked by kinship or social ties. For instance, it was noted that John Shotwell Hunt and his son,

G.W. Hunt together “not only established the first store in the Waldo Hills, but they also ran the first brickyard there” (Lockley 1928a:136). Together, the Belknaps made brick in

Portland, and David Presley and his sons operated a brick yard in Salem.

Brickyards were operated using inexpensive, portable, and low tech equipment.

The production of bricks required no specialized equipment that could not be self-

174 manufactured. At its most basic, tempering could be accomplished by trampling or pug mills could be easily constructed. Wooden molds were handmade, and bricks themselves could be produced by hand without machinery. Even kilns could be constructed out of the unfired bricks themselves. Thus brickmaking required minimal investment in materials and equipment.

Instead, brickmaking represented a significant investment in time and labor, rather than capital. Brickmaking was a labor intensive process: clay extraction, tempering, and molding were physically exerting activities, as were stacking the bricks to dry, forming them into clamps, and sorting and hauling the finished product – not to mention cutting the immense quantity of cordwood needed to fire the bricks. All that was needed was muscle, know-how, and the natural resources literally at their feet.

Brickmaking utilized effectively free resources. Initially, land on the frontier was free for the taking; and the Donation Land Claim Act of 1850 formalized the de facto

„free land‟ policy and legitimized the claims of earlier settlers. Although the land tenure of historical brickmakers is unknown, the earliest certainly had free access to land. In addition, clay was widespread, near the surface, and could be used as-found, while firewood was also free and plentiful. Without need of permanent structures or specialized equipment, brickmaking was therefore an industry accessible to men of limited financial means. Although a labor-intensive and fuel-intensive process, brickmaking had relatively low start-up costs, making it an attractive financial endeavor

(Rilling 2001:108).

Furthermore, brickmaking tended to be a seasonal activity. Given the often cool, wet weather of the Oregon Country, brickmaking was restricted to the warmer, dryer

175 months of summer. Even the relatively large, stable, and enduring Hidden brickyard operated only from March to November each year. This seasonality lent itself well to participation in multiple ventures.

Finally, brickmaking was a collateral/support industry. For the most part, bricks were made to meet local demand, rather than capitalize on outside markets. Bricks supported settler culture as well as local business and industry needs. They were a perceived necessity of nineteenth century construction; therefore the demand for brick swelled along with the population of the Oregon County. Fluctuations in brick supply and demand occurred independently of foreign markets.

The brick industry taken as a whole therefore met the boomsurfing criteria outlined by Purser (Hayes and Purser 1990; Purser 1995; 1999; 2003; 2009). Although we cannot thoroughly test any one individual‟s behavior, brickmakers were seen to exhibit boomsurfing behaviors. The brick industry appeared very conducive to the practice of boomsurfing and likely included boomsurfers among its ranks.

Other Information Gleaned From This Research

The evidence further suggests that brickmaking simultaneously occurred on multiple scales during the mid- nineteenth century. Producers operated on a continuum; ranging from individuals and households making brick; to roving brickmakers; to opportunistic sellers; to „farmers with kilns;‟ as well as commercial operators. Anecdotes abound of family, friends, neighbors, debtors, missionaries, Native Americans, even nuns and school children pitching in to make brick. Conversely, commercial brickyards were also in existence, as noted by early visitors to the Oregon Country. The numerous and widespread origins of Fort Vancouver brick, as determined by INAA, also support the

176 existence of multiple brickmaking operations at differing scales in the Oregon Country prior to 1860. This coexistence of multi-scalar producers is in contrast to the expected progression from household production, to estate production, to small rural brickyards, and finally to nucleated brickyard complexes (Peterson 1989:63).

Reasons for this may include the fact that the HBC presence at Fort Vancouver predated general settlement of the region, and therefore represented an instant market for settler surpluses, as happened with wheat and shingles. Rather than a gradually increasing demand for brick that rose over time with settlement, new arrivals to the

Oregon Country found a pre-existing demand and short supply of brick. This, along with the transitional and hybrid nature of the economy of the time (also due to the HBC‟s existence) may have allowed a deviation from the normal pattern.

Another surprising finding was the considerable distance that brick and clay were transported. Conventional wisdom has held that throughout the nineteenth century, brick was usually made directly on the construction site (for example, Vaughan and Ferriday

1974:400). But The Western Clay Company of Portland obtained their clays from 40 miles to the west. Willamina clay was transported 30 miles by wagon to Newberg.

Astoria clay was shipped 100 miles upriver to Portland, and Hidden brick was shipped from Vancouver to Astoria. Fischer bricks used clay from multiple construction sites.

Outside the region, mention was made of the Russian Fur Traders shipping both bricks as well as barrels of clay from Fort Ross to Sitka (Khlebnikov 1990:135 in Allan 2001).

The dates and extent of this behavior are unknown, but it undermines the often automatic presumption that brick was made close to the point of use throughout the nineteenth century.

177

Similarly, several factors that may complicate the sourcing process were revealed during this research. Behaviors such as tempering the clay with sand (practiced by the

Columbia Brickplant in Gresham); blending clays (practiced by the Monroe brickyard); and the use of non-local clays as outlined above, could all potentially thwart efforts to accurately identify provenance. Again, the timing and prevalence of these practices is unknown, but their very existence requires caution when interpreting geochemical results.

Finally, it is worth remembering when researching brick in the Northwest, that imported brick may have been arriving to the region throughout the nineteenth century, due to its popularity as ballast. As ballast, it could have been imported cheaply and possibly competed with locally manufactured brick. Again, this begs caution when analyzing bricks recovered from early archaeological sites.

Future Research

Continued research is needed both with regard to Fort Vancouver brick and local brick production. Given the possibility that Fort Vancouver brick was produced in the

Astoria and Wilsonville areas, more in-depth documentary research focused on those communities might be fruitful. Additional INAA sampling of clays from those areas to confirm and refine the source of the bricks would also be advisable. Given the fact that the HBC procured bricks from many and far-reaching sources, it would also be exciting to cast an even broader net and include additional clay samples from regional, national, and international sources. Adding more raw clays obtained from other early areas of settlement in Southwest Washington and would increase the analytical accuracy of the sample and refine the matching of brick with potential sources. It would be worthwhile to include clay samples from the outposts of the HBC‟s Columbia

178

Department not included here, other Russian Fur Trade outposts, as well as the Hawaiian

Islands. It might also be illuminating to analyze bricks or clay from San Francisco and

Benicia, California; Vancouver Island, ; as well as New York and other major eastern ports. Furthermore, it would be beneficial to test raw clays from England to positively establish whether any red common brick was of English origin, as suggested by Group B‟s match with the „Spanished‟ London brick.

Ideally, petrographic analysis of the sampled brick would complement INAA and provide supplementary evidence for provenance. It would also be interesting to explore whether less invasive bulk chemistry techniques, such as XRF, could be employed to determine brick provenance.

One final suggestion for potential research would be to utilize Steele, Pugh, and

Schmeer‟s (2000) criteria and attempt to distinguish between the differing scales of brick producers. Although referring to pottery production, Steele and his colleagues identified several characteristics with regard to markets, advertising, capital base, methods, and products to differentiate between „farmers with kilns‟ and commercial producers of brick

(Steele et al 2000:3). Testing its application to brickmaking would be a fascinating exercise.

In Conclusion

This multi-disciplinary study combined the geochemical analysis of brick artifacts from Fort Vancouver with historical research. Red common brick archaeologically recovered from Fort Vancouver was tested using INAA to determine its provenance.

From the geochemical results it was definitively established that multiple loci of brick production existed in the Oregon Country during the fort‟s tenure. It was also established

179 that the HBC procured bricks from a wide variety of sources, local and otherwise, to meet their needs. The INAA portion of the study has served to start a Northwest brick and clay database that future researchers can contribute to and draw upon in other provenance studies.

In conjunction with documentary research, this allowed for the identification of several likely centers of early brick production and the identification of many individuals who participated in early brickmaking. A regional overview of historical brick production was compiled from a wide variety of documents, adding some forgotten details to our collective knowledge of this early pioneering industry. Although Purser‟s model of economic „boomsurfing‟ could not be applied to any one individual, characteristics of boomsurfing were observed across the population of early brick producers. It thus appeared that Purser‟s boomsurfing model could potentially be a useful and applicable tool in further study of the local brick industry of the mid 1800s.

Ultimately, it was the goal of this study to broaden the story and flesh out forgotten details of the early brick industry in the Pacific Northwest, as well as remind

21st century readers of the important role that this and other pioneering industries played in the development of the region. While this research answered some questions, it also begged many, many new ones. If nothing else, I hope I conveyed that brick is a far more dynamic and complex artifact than generally assumed – and perhaps piqued further interest in brick research. After all, we now have ways of making bricks talk.

180

REFERENCES CITED

Allan, James McGhie III 2001 Forge and Falseworks : An Archaeological Investigation of the Russian American Company's Industrial Complex at Colony Ross. PhD Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. Electronic document, http://www.fortrossstatepark.org/forgeandfalseworks.htm, accessed October, 4, 2009.

Alldredge, Elden 1957 The Harding House. In Oregon Historic Landmarks: Willamette Valley. Oregon Society, Daughters of the American Revolution. Metropolitan Printing Company, Portland, Oregon.

Allen, John E. and Ralph S. Mason 1949 Brick and Tile Industry in Oregon. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Short Paper 19. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Portland, Oregon.

Armitage, Ruth Ann, Leah Minc, David V. Hill, and Silas D. Hurry 2006 Characterization of Bricks and Tiles from the 17th Century Brick Chapel, St. Mary‟s City, Maryland. Journal of Archaeological Science 33(5):615– 627.

Arnold, Dean E., Hector Neff, and Ronald L. Bishop 1991 Compositional Analysis and “Sources” of Pottery: An Ethnoarchaeological Approach. American Anthropologist 93:70–90.

Attas, Michael, John M. Fossey, Leo Yaffe 1987 An Archaeometric Study of Early Bronze Age Pottery Production and Exchange in Argolis and Korinthia (Corinthia), Greece. Journal of Field Archaeology 14:77–90.

Bailiff, I. K. 2007 Methodological Developments in the Luminescence Dating of Brick from English Late-medieval and Post-medieval Buildings. Archaeometry 49(4):827–851.

Bancroft, Hubert Howe 1888a The Works of Hubert Howe Bancroft: Volume I: 1834- 1848. Arno Press & McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.

1888b The Works of Hubert Howe Bancroft: History of Oregon Volume II: 1848-1888. Arno Press & McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.

181

Bancroft, Hubert Howe, and 1886 History of Oregon, Volume I: 1834 – 1848. The History Company, San Francisco.

Barth, Gunther 1975 Instant Cities: Urbanization and the Rise of San Francisco and Denver. Oxford University Press, New York.

Becker, M. J. 1977 “Swedish” Colonial Yellow Bricks: Notes on their Uses and Possible Origins in 17th Century America. Historical Archaeology 11:112–118.

Beeson, M. H. 1989 Geologic Map of the Lake Oswego Quadrangle, Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon 1:24,000. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Portland, Oregon.

Betts, Ian M. 1991 Thin-section and Neutron Activation Analysis of Brick and Tile from York and Surrounding Sites. In Recent Developments in Ceramic Petrology, edited by A. Middleton and I. Freestone, British Museum Occasional Paper No. 81, London.

Bishop, Ronald L. and M. James Blackman 2002 Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis of Archaeological Ceramics: Scale and Interpretation. Accounts of Chemical Research 35:603–610.

Blanchet, Francis Norbert 1983 Historical sketches of the Catholic Church in Oregon. Ye Galleon Press, Fairfield, Washington.

Boag, Peter G. 1992 Environment and Experience: Settlement Culture in Nineteenth-Century Oregon. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Bosker, Gideon and Lena Lencek 1985 Frozen Music: A History of Portland Architecture. Western Imprints: The Press of the Oregon Historical Society, Portland, Oregon.

Bowen, William A. 1978 The Willamette Valley Migration and Settlement on the Oregon Frontier. University of Washington Press, Seattle.

Bowsfield, Hartwell (editor) 1979 The Fort Victoria Letters 1846 – 1851. Hudson‟s Bay Record Society, , Manitoba, Canada.

182

Brown, Elizabeth Esson 1955 History of the Sam Brown House. In Marion County History Vol. I, edited by Chester C. Kaiser. Marion County Historical Society, Salem, Oregon.

Brownell, Jean Bauer 1968 Notes on Portland's First Brick Buildings. Manuscript on file, Oregon Historical Society Research Library (Mss 208), Portland, Oregon.

Bunting, Robert 1997 The Pacific Raincoast: Environment and Culture in an American Eden, 1778-1900. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence.

Buxeda i Garrigós, J. 1999 Alteration and Contamination of Archaeological Ceramics: The Perturbation Problem. Journal of Archaeological Science 26:295–313.

Buxeda i Garrigós, J., Kilikoglou, V., and Day, P. M. 2001 Chemical and Mineralogical Alteration of Ceramics from a Late Bronze Age Kiln at Commos, Crete: The Effect on the Formation of a Reference Group. Archaeometry 43:349–72.

Carey, Charles H. 1936 A General History of Oregon Prior to 1861, Volume II. Metropolitan Press, Portland, Oregon.

Casas, Lluis, Paul Linford, and John Shaw 2007 Archaeomagnetic Dating of Dogmersfield Park Brick Kiln (Southern England). Journal of Archaeological Science 34(2):205–213.

Caywood, Louis R. 1947 Exploratory Excavations at Fort Vancouver. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Copies available from Fort Vancouver National Historic Site, Vancouver, Washington.

1955 Final Report: Fort Vancouver Excavations. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Copies available from Fort Vancouver National Historic Site, Vancouver, Washington.

Chaffin, Yule, Trisha Kreiger, and Mike Rostad 1983 Alaska's Konyag Country. Chaffin Inc., Anchorage, Alaska.

183

Chapman, Judith Sanders 1993 French Prairie Ceramics: The Harriet D. Munnick Archaeological Collection Circa 1820 – 1860: A Catalog and Northwest Comparative Guide. Department of Anthropology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.

Chase, David 1968 Fort Toulouse, First Investigations, 1966. The Conference on Historic Site Archaeology Papers 1967 2(1):33–49. Columbia, South Carolina.

Chiat, Marilyn J. 1997 America's Religious Architecture: Sacred Places for Every Community. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Clark, Malcolm, Jr. 1981 Eden Seekers: The Settlement of Oregon 1818 – 1862. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.

Clark, Rosalind, for the City of Albany 1983 Oregon Style: Architecture from 1840 to the 1950s. Professional Book Center, Inc. Portland, Oregon.

Clark, R.C. 1927 History of the Willamette Valley Oregon, Volume III. The S.J. Clarke Publishing Company, Chicago.

Cleveland, Alfred A. 1903 Social and Economic History of Astoria. Oregon Historical Quarterly 4:130–143.

The Columbian [Vancouver, Washington] 1989 Six Area Farms Get Centennial Honors. 21 February. Vancouver, Washington

Cogswell, James W., Hector Neff, and Michael D. Glascock 1996 The Effect of Firing Temperature on the Elemental Characterization of Pottery. Journal of Archaeological Science 23:283–7.

Conyers, Enoch W. 1906 Diary of E. W. Conyers, a Pioneer of 1852. Transactions of the Oregon Pioneer Association’s 33rd Reunion, 1905, pp. 423–512. Portland, Oregon.

Corning, Howard McKinley 1947 Ghost Towns on the Willamette in the Riverboat Period. Oregon Historical Quarterly 48(2):55–67.

184

Corning, Howard McKinley 1956 Dictionary of Oregon History. Binford & Mort Publishing, Portland, Oregon.

2004 Willamette Landings. Oregon Historical Society Press, Portland, Oregon.

Costello, Julia G. 1985 The Brick and Tile Kiln. In Excavations at Mission San Antonio, 1976 – 1978, edited by Robert L. Hoover and Julia G. Costello. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

1997 Brick and Tile Making in Spanish California with Related Old and New World Examples. In Ceramics and Civilization, Volume VII: The Prehistory and History of Ceramic Kilns, edited by Prudence M. Rice. The American Ceramic Society, Westerville, Ohio.

Cronon, William 1991 Nature’s Metropolis: Chicago and the Great West. W. W. Norton and Company, New York.

Dana, Marshall 1957 Rose Farm, 1847 – Oregon City. In Oregon Historic Landmarks: Willamette Valley. Oregon Society, Daughters of the American Revolution. Metropolitan Printing Company, Portland.

Darton, N.H. 1909 Structural Materials in Parts of Oregon and Washington. ODOGAMI Bulletin 387. Oregon Department of Geologic and Mineral Industries, Portland, Oregon.

Darvill, Tim and Alan McWhirr 1984 Brick and Tile Production in Roman Britain: Models of Economic Organization. World Archaeology 15(3):239–261.

Denissen, S. 1992 History of Brickmaking: Still a Rich Field for Archaeological and Historical Research. Acta Archaeologica Lovaniensia 31:3–7

Diehl, Michael W. and Allison C. Diehl 2001 Economics, Ideology and the Brick Industry in Tucson. Journal of the Southwest 43(3):423–446.

Dobbs, Caroline C. 1932 Men of Champoeg: A Record of the Lives of the Pioneers Who Founded the Oregon Government. Metropolitan Press, Portland, Oregon.

185

Dole, Philip 1990 Architecture of the Captain John C. Ainsworth House. Manuscript on file, Oregon Historical Society Research Library (Vertical File: Architecture – Historic house – Ainsworth house), Portland, Oregon.

1991 Aurora Colony Architecture: Building in a Nineteenth Century Cooperative Society. Oregon Historical Quarterly 92(4)379.

The Evening Telegram [Portland, Oregon] 1916 E.J. Jeffery is dead, aged 81. 23 December. Portland, Oregon.

Farnham, Thomas Jefferson 1843 Travels in the Great Western Prairies, the Anahuac and Rocky Mountains, and in the Oregon Territory. Wiley and Putnam, New York.

Feister, Louis M. 1984 Building Materials Indicative of Status Differentiation at the Crown Point Barracks. Historical Archaeology 18:103–107.

Fillieres, Dominique, Garman Harbottle, and Eward V. Sayre 1983 Neutron Activation Study of Figurines, Pottery and Workshop Materials from the Athenian Agora, Greece. Journal of Field Archaeology 10(1):55– 69.

Finney, Fred A. and Susan R. Snow 1991 Small-Scale, Soft-Mud Brickmaking Facilities in the Mid-Nineteenth Century: An Archaeological Example from Iowa. Journal of the Iowa Archeological Society 38:66–72.

Fischer, Ernest E. 1985 The Fischer Pottery: Bricks to Thundermugs. Oregon Historical Quarterly 86(3):298–306.

Fournier, Patricia and M. James Blackman 2008 Production, Exchange and Consumption of Glazed Wares in New Spain: Formation of a Database of Elemental Composition through INAA. Foundation for the Advancement of MesoAmerican Studies Report. Electronic document, http://www.famsi.org/reports/06014/index.html accessed October 12, 2009.

Fourt, Ellen O. 1957 Joseph Bradley Varnum Butler Home Monmouth. In Oregon Historic Landmarks: Willamette Valley. Oregon Society, Daughters of the American Revolution. Metropolitan Printing Company, Portland, Oregon.

186

Franklin, U. M., and R. Hancock 1980 The Influence of Post-burial Conditions on Trace Element Composition of Ancient Sherds. Revue d’Archéométrie III:111–19.

Friedman, Ralph 1990 In Search of Western Oregon. The Caxton Printers, Ltd., Caldwell, Idaho.

Garvin, James L. 1994 Small-Scale Brickmaking in New Hampshire. The Journal of the Society for Industrial Archaeology 20(1/2):19–31.

Geer, T. T. 1912 Fifty Years in Oregon: Experiences, Observations, and Commentaries Upon Men, Measures, and Customs in Pioneer Days and Later Times. The Neadle Publishing Company, New York.

Geijsbeek, Samuel 1913 The Clay Deposits of Oregon. Transactions of the American Ceramic Society XV:644–658.

Gibbs, Addison C. 1862 Appendix, Special Message of Governor Addison Gibbs. Local Laws Oregon, p. 46. Electronic document, http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/governors/gibbs/special.html, accessed March 29, 2009.

Gibson, James R. 1985 Farming the Frontier: The Agricultural Opening of the Oregon Country 1786 – 1846. University of Washington Press, Seattle.

Gilbert, Allan S., Garman Harbottle, and Daniel DeNoyelles 1993 A Ceramic Chemistry Archive for New Netherland/New York. Historical Archaeology 27(3):17–56.

Glascock, Michael D. 2006 Tables for Neutron Activation Analysis (6th edition). Research Reactor Center, University of Missouri, Columbia.

Gordon, Robert B. and Patrick M. Malone 1994 The Texture of Industry: An Archaeological View of the Industrialization of . Oxford University Press, New York.

Guibert, P., I. Bailiff, S. Blain, A. Gueli, and M. Martini 2009 Luminescence Dating of Architectural Ceramics from an Early Medieval Abbey: The St Philbert Intercomparison (Loire Atlantique, France). Radiation Measurements 44(5/6):488–493.

187

Gundersen, Doris 1960 Kiln Now Leveled Pottery Industry Once Centered In Spicer District. Albany Democrat Herald 11 January. Albany, Oregon.

Gurcke, Karl 1982 Kanaka Village Bricks. In Kanaka Village/Vancouver Barracks 1975, edited by David Chance. University of Washington Reports in Highway Archaeology, No. 7. Office of Public Archeology, University of Washington, Seattle.

1983 Bricks and Brickmaking: Archaeological and Historical Perspectives. Master‟s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Idaho, Moscow.

1987 Bricks and Brickmaking: A Handbook for Historical Archaeology. University of Idaho Press, Moscow.

Hardesty, Donald L. 1991 Toward an Historical Archaeology of the Intermountain West. Historical Archaeology 2: 29–35.

Harley, L.S. 1974 A Typology of Brick with Numerical Coding of Brick Characteristics. Journal of the British Archaeological Association, 3(38):63–87

Harrington, Jean Carl 1966 Early Brickmaking, Roanoke Island, North Carolina, 1585. The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 25(4):301–302.

1967 The Manufacture and Use of Bricks at the Raleigh Settlement on Roanoke Island. The North Carolina Historical Review 44(1):1–17.

Haskins, Leslie L. 1942 Three Early Oregon Potteries of Barnet Ramsay. Oregon Historical Quarterly 43(3):175–193.

Hayes, John F., and Margaret Purser 1990 Evaluations of Three Archaeological Sites, Granite Chief Land Exchange, Sierra County, California. Anthropological Studies Center, Sonoma State University Academic Foundation, Inc. Copies available from Anthropological Studies Center, Rohnert Park, California.

Hedges, R. E. M., and M. McLellan 1976 On the Cation Exchange Capacity of Fired Clays and its Effect on the Chemical and Radiometric Analysis of Pottery. Archaeometry 18:203–7.

188

Hein, A., P. M. Day, P.S. Quinn, and V. Kilikoglou 2004 Geochemical Diversity of Neogene Clay Deposits in Crete and its Implications on Provenance Studies of Minoan Pottery. Archaeometry 46(3):357–384.

Heite, Edward F. 1970 Colonial Brick Technology. The Conference on Historic Site Archaeology Papers 1968 3(1):43–49

1973 Several Virginia Brick Clamps: A Summary of Brickmaking. The Archaeological Society of Virginia Quarterly Bulletin 28(10):48–55.

Heite, Louise 1969 A Survey of Richmond Brickwork, 1790–1856. Quarterly Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Virginia 23:153–157.

Henderson, Julian 2000 The Science and Archaeology of Materials: An Investigation of Inorganic Materials. Routledge, London.

Hibbs, Charles H., Jr. 1987 OAS Volunteer Archaeological Excavations at the H.B.C. New Office Site, Fort Vancouver National Historic Site –1986 Field Season. Charles Hibbs and Associates, Inc. Copies available from Fort Vancouver National Historic Site, Vancouver, Washington.

Hidden, W. Foster 1930 The History of Brick Making in and Around Vancouver. Washington Historical Quarterly 21(2):131–132.

Hill, M. , P. Lanos, M. Denti, and P. Dufresne 2008 Archaeomagnetic Investigation of Bricks from the VIIIth–VIIth Century BC Greek-indigenous Site of Incoronata (Metaponto, Italy). Physics & Chemistry of the Earth - Parts A/B/C 33(6/7):523–533.

The Hillsboro Argus [Hillsboro, Oregon] 1965 County Farms Win State „Century‟ Titles. August 9. Hillsboro, Oregon

Himes, George H. 1891 – 1905 Early Records of Oregon. Unknown newspaper. Article on file, Oregon Historical Society Research Library (Scrapbook 110:25), Portland, Oregon.

1911 First Things in Oregon and the Oregon Country Brought to Mind. Unknown newspaper 20 February. Article on file, Oregon Historical Society Research Library (Scrapbook 54:145), Portland, Oregon.

189

Hines, H.K. 1893 An Illustrated History of the State of Oregon. Lewis Publishing Company, Chicago.

Hockensmith, Charles D. 1997 A Study of Frankfurt Bricks and Brickmaking, Franklin County, Kentucky. Tennessee Anthropologist 22(2):121–176.

Hoffman, J.J., and Lester A. Ross 1972 Fort Vancouver Excavation – I. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Copies available from Fort Vancouver National Historic Site, Vancouver, Washington.

1973a Fort Vancouver Excavations – III: 1845 Harness Shop. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Copies available from Fort Vancouver National Historic Site, Vancouver, Washington.

1973b Fort Vancouver Excavations – IV: Chief Factor’s House and Kitchen. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Copies available from Fort Vancouver National Historic Site, Vancouver, Washington.

1975 Fort Vancouver Excavations – IX: Indian Trade Store. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Copies available from Fort Vancouver National Historic Site, Vancouver, Washington.

Holschlag, Stephanie, Michael J. Rodeffer, and Marvin L. Cann 1978 Ninety Six: The Jail. Star Fort Historical Commission, Ninety Six, South Carolina.

Horner, John B. 1921 Oregon: Her History, Her Great Men, Her Literature. The J.K. Gill Company, Portland, Oregon.

Hussey, John A. 1957 History of Fort Vancouver and its Physical Structure. Washington State Historical Society and U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Copies available from Fort Vancouver National Historic Site, Vancouver, Washington.

1967 Champoeg: A Place of Transition. Oregon Historical Society, Oregon State Highway Commission, and National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Portland. Copies available from Fort Vancouver National Historic Site, Vancouver, Washington.

190

Hussey, John A. 1972 Fort Vancouver, Historic Structures Report Vol. 1. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Copies available from Fort Vancouver National Historic Site, Vancouver, Washington.

1976 Historic Structures Report: Fort Vancouver National Historic Site, Volume II. U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Copies available from Fort Vancouver National Historic Site, Vancouver, Washington.

Independence Enterprise–Monmouth Herald [Independence and Monmouth, Oregon] 1974 Celebration Stirs Pioneer Memories. 10 October. Independence and Monmouth, Oregon.

JMP 8.0.2 2009 Statistics and Graphics Guide. Electronic document, mk:@MSITStore:C:\Program%20Files\SAS\JMP\8\Support%20Files%20 English\Help\JMP.chm::/sggcover.htm#74499, accessed April 20, 2011.

James, Michael and Karin Baitis 2003 Geologic Interpretation of Floodplain Deposits of the Southwestern Willamette Valley, T17SR4W With Some Implications for Restoration Management Practices Eugene, Oregon. James Geoenvironmental Service. Submitted to the Eugene District Bureau of Land Management.

Jamieson, R.W., and R.G.V. Hancock 2004 Neutron Activation Analysis of Colonial Ceramics from Southern Highland Ecuador. Archaeometry 46(4):569–583.

Johansen, Dorothy O., and Charles M. Gates 1957 Empire of the Columbia: A History of the Pacific Northwest. Harper and Row, New York.

Johasson, Jonas A. 1938 Bricks Without Straw: The Story of Linfield College. The Caxton Printers, Ltd., Caldwell, Idaho.

Johnson, David Alan 1992 Founding the Far West: California, Oregon and Nevada 1840 – 1890. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Johnson, Sgt. J. R. 1956 The Penitentiary, Our First Institution. In Marion County History Vol. II, edited by Mirpah Blair. Marion County Historical Society, Salem, Oregon.

191

Judson, Louis 1971 Reflections on the Jason Lee Mission and the Opening of Civilization in the Oregon Country. Wynkoop-Blair Printing Service, Salem, Oregon.

Kauffman, A.J., Jr. 1952 Industrial Minerals of the Pacific Northwest. Bureau of Mines Information Circular 7641. United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines.

Kelly, Hal J., Karle G. Strandberg, and James I. Mueller. 1956 Ceramic Industry Development and Raw-Material Resources of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana. Bureau of Mines Information Circular 7752. United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines.

Kelly, Roger E., and Marsha C.S. Kelly 1977 Brick Bats for Archaeologists: Values of Pressed Brick Brands. Historical Archaeology 11:84–89.

Kilikoglou, V., Y. Maniatis, and A.P Grimanis 1988 The Effect of Purification and Firing of Clays on Trace Element Provenance Studies, Archaeometry 30:37–46.

Lang, H.O. 1885 History of the Willamette Valley, Being a Description of the Valley and its Resources, with an Account of its Discovery and Settlement by White Men, and its Subsequent History. Himes and Lang, Portland, Oregon.

Larrabee, Edward McMillan 1966 Excavations Along the East Wall, Fort Vancouver National Historic Site, July 12 – 16, 1966. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Copies available from Fort Vancouver National Historic Site, Vancouver, Washington.

Lasmanis, Raymond 1991 The Geology of Washington. Rocks and Minerals 66 (4):262-277.

Lazarus, William C. 1965 A Study of Dated Bricks in the Vicinity of Pensacola, Fla. The Florida Anthropologist 18(3):69–84.

Lee, Daniel and Joseph Frost 1968 Ten Years in Oregon. Ye Galleon Press, Fairfield, Washington.

Lemoine, C., E. Meille, P. Poupet, J. N. Barrandon, and B. Borderie 1981 Étude des quelques altérations de composition chimique de céramiques en milieu marin et terrestre, Revue d’Archéométrie, Suppl. S, 349–60.

192

Lenik, Edward J. 1966 Old Bricks Useful Clues in Historical Archaeology. Archaeological Society Bulletin 5:10–13.

Limerick, Patricia Nelson 1987 The Legacy of Conquest: The Unbroken Past of the American West. W.W. Norton and Company, New York.

2000 Something in the Soil: Legacies and Reckonings in the New West. W.W. Norton and Company, New York.

Lindholm, Ellen (editor) 1981 “there are so many things to do.” Oregon Historical Quarterly 82(4):342.

Lockley, Fred 1924 “To Oregon by Ox-Team in ‟47: the story of the coming of the Hunt family to the Oregon country and the experiences of G.W. Hunt in the gold diggings of California in 1849.” Manuscript on file, Oregon Historical Society Research Library (MSS 1508), Portland, Oregon.

1928a Oregon’s Yesterdays. The Knickerbocker Press, New York.

1928b The History of the Columbia River Valley from the Dalles to the Sea, Volume II. The S.J. Clarke Publishing Company, Chicago.

1928c The History of the Columbia River Valley from the Dalles to the Sea, Volume III. The S.J. Clarke Publishing Company, Chicago.

Lyman, H. 1900 Reminiscences of F. X. Matthieu. Oregon Historical Quarterly 1(1):73– 104.

Madin, Ian P. 1994 Geologic Map of the Damascus Quadrangle, Clackamas and Multnomah Counties, Oregon 1:24,000. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Portland, Oregon.

Maddux, Percy 1952 City on the Willamette: The Story of Portland, Oregon. Binfords and Mort, Portland, Oregon.

Marschner, Janice 2008 Oregon 1859: A Snapshot in Time. Timber Press, Portland, Oregon.

193

Mason, Ralph S. 1969 Clay. In Mineral and Water Resources of Oregon. ODOGAMI Bulletin 64:210–214. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Portland, Oregon.

McAfee, Ward M. 1990 The Formation of Prison-Management Philosophy in Oregon 1843–1915. Oregon Historical Quarterly 91(3):260

McArthur, Scott 2004 Monmouth Oregon: The Saga of a Small American Town. Scott McArthur, Monmouth, Oregon.

McCormick, Robert 1960s Peoria Had Several Brick Kilns as Well as Pottery in Early Days. Manuscript on file, Oregon Historical Society Research Library (Vertical File: Oregon - Industries – Pottery), Portland, Oregon.

McKay, Harvey J. 1980 St. Paul, Oregon 1830 – 1890. Binford and Mort, Portland, Oregon.

McKee, H. J. 1973 Introduction to Early American Masonry: Stone, Brick, Mortar and Plaster. The Preservation Press, Washington D.C.

McNamee, Sister Mary Dominica, S.N.D de N. 1959 Willamette Interlude. Pacific Books, Palo Alto, California.

McNeal, William H. 1964 Early Brick and Stone Buildings of The Dalles. Manuscript on file, Oregon Historical Society Research Library (MSS 436), Portland, Oregon. Mendenhall, Bert 1939 Interview with Sara B. Wrenn of the Federal Writer‟s Project on May 16. Electronic document, http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~ormultno/Stories/wpa/mendenhall.ht m, accessed July 3, 2009.

Metz, J. D. and K. C. Russ 1991 Understanding Traditional Brickmaking in Virginia. Quarterly Bulletin of the Archeological Society of Virginia 46:96–106.

Mills, Randall V. 1947 Sternwheelers up Columbia -- A Century of Steamboating in the Oregon Country. University of Nebraska, Lincoln.

194

Minc, Leah 2008 Neutron Activation Analysis. In Encyclopedia of Archaeology, edited by Deborah M. Pearsall. Elsevier Major Reference Works, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Moropoulou, Antonia, Ahmet Cakmak, and Kyriaki Polikreti 2002 Provenance and Technology Investigation of Agia Sophia Bricks, Istanbul, Turkey. Journal of the American Ceramic Society 85(2):366–372.

Moss, Sidney W. 1878 Pictures of Pioneer Times at Oregon City. Manuscript on file, Oregon Historical Society Research Library (Mss 1067), Portland, Oregon.

Mounier, R. Alan 1999 Historical Archaeological Sketch of the Atlantic Brick Manufacturing Company Works at Mays Landing, Atlantic County, New Jersey. Bulletin of The Archaeological Society of New Jersey 54:69–83.

Neff, Hector 1992 Chemical Characterization of Ceramic Pastes in Archaeology. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin.

Neff, Hector, Ronald L. Bishop, and Edward V. Sayre 1988 A Simulation Approach to the Problem of Tempering in Compositional Studies of Archaeological Ceramics. Journal of Archaeological Science 15:159–172.

1989 More Observations on the Problem of Tempering in Compositional Studies of Archaeological Ceramics. Journal of Archaeological Science 16:57–69.

Neff, Hector, James W. Cogswell, and Louis M. Ross, Jr. 2003 Supplementing Bulk Chemistry in Archaeological Ceramic Provenance Investigations. In Patterns and Process: A Festschrift in Honor of Dr. Edward V. Sayre, edited by Lambertus van Zelst. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Newton, Sidney W. 1971 Early History of Independence Oregon. Sidney W. Newton, Independence, Oregon.

Noel Hume, Ivor 1969 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. Random House, New York.

195

O‟Connor, Jim E., Andrei Sarna-Wojcicki, Karl C. Wozniak, Danial J. Polette, and Robert J. Fleck 2001 Origin, Extent, and Thickness of Quaternary Geologic Units in the Willamette Valley, Oregon 1:250,000. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1620. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.

Old Aurora Colony 2009 Tools and Trades: The Aurora Colony at Work. Electronic document, http://www.auroracolony.org/old/aurora/colony/lifestyle/tools_trades, accessed September 15, 2009.

O‟Neill, Patrick L. 2001 "...near where stood an old house.” A Late 18th Century Delaware Brick Clamp. Paper presented at the 2001 Annual Meeting of the Society for Historical Archaeology, Long Beach, California. Electronic document, http://www.deldot.gov/archaeology/professional_papers/pdf/brick_clamp. pdf, accessed October 26, 2009.

Oregon Historical Quarterly [OHQ] 1903 Documents. Oregon Historical Quarterly 4(4):406.

1962 News Notes. Oregon Historical Quarterly 63(4):365.

Oregon Historical Society [OHS] n.d. William M. Case Family Biography. Manuscript on file, Oregon Historical Society Research Library (Vertical File: Genealogy - Case family - William M.), Portland, Oregon.

The Oregon Journal [Portland, Oregon] 1972 “Pioneers Will Honor OSU Coed” February 12, 1972.

Oregon Spectator [Oregon City, Oregon] 1850 “Advertisement reading, „New Goods! New Goods! Received per brig Grecian.‟” 2 May, Oregon City, Oregon.

1853 “Advertisement placed by Samuel N. Vance, „Brick For Sale.‟” 26 August, Oregon City, Oregon.

Oregon Spectator [Oregon City, Oregon] 1853 “Advertisement placed by Samuel N. Vance, „More Brick for Sale.‟” September, Oregon City, Oregon.

1853 “Advertisement placed by J. P. Brooks, „Brick – 75,000 Brick for sale.‟” 20 October, Oregon City, Oregon.

196

Oregon State Bureau of Mines 1912 The Economic Geological Resources of Oregon. Extension Series 5 No. 2. Oregon Agricultural College, Corvallis, Oregon.

National Register of Historic Places [NRHP] 1973 William Case House NRHP Nomination. Manuscript on file, Oregon State Historic Preservation Office, Salem, Oregon.

1974a Bybee-Howell House NRHP Nomination. Manuscript on file, Oregon State Historic Preservation Office, Salem, Oregon.

1974b Fort Hoskins Site NRHP Nomination. Manuscript on file, Oregon State Historic Preservation Office, Salem, Oregon.

1974c William Holmes House NRHP Nomination. Manuscript on file, Oregon State Historic Preservation Office, Salem, Oregon.

1975a John D.Boon House NRHP Nomination. Manuscript on file, Oregon State Historic Preservation Office, Salem, Oregon.

1975b Harrison Brunk House NRHP Nomination. Manuscript on file, Oregon State Historic Preservation Office, Salem, Oregon.

1977 Francis Ermatinger House NRHP Nomination. Manuscript on file, Oregon State Historic Preservation Office, Salem, Oregon.

1984a Silas Jacob N. Beeks House NRHP Nomination. Manuscript on file, Oregon State Historic Preservation Office, Salem, Oregon.

1984b Willamette Station Site, Methodist Mission NRHP Nomination. Manuscript on file, Oregon State Historic Preservation Office, Salem, Oregon.

1985 John Fiechter House NRHP Nomination. Manuscript on file, Oregon State Historic Preservation Office, Salem, Oregon.

1989 White-Kellog House NRHP Nomination. Manuscript on file, Oregon SHPO, Salem, Oregon.

The Oregon Sunday Journal [Portland, Oregon] 1916 Pioneer Portland Contractor Called by Death Yesterday. 24 December. Portland, Oregon.

197

The Oregonian [Portland, Oregon] 1853 “W.S. Ladd & Co., the enterprising merchants in this place, have commenced the erection of a fireproof brick building on their old site on Front Street.” 28 May:2. Portland, Oregon.

1853 Mr. Ladd has completed his new fireproof brick store on Front Street. 25 June:2. Portland, Oregon.

1864 The Brick Trade. 27 August. Portland, Oregon.

1926 Territorial Prison Site Now Occupied by Iron Works; Penitentiary Funds Scarce. 2 May. Portland, Oregon.

1944 Iron Fireman Blaze Razes Last Signs of Early Prison. 6 February. Portland, Oregon.

1992 Proud Town Turns Klunker into Klinkers: Brick – and a brick plant – make a comeback as the historic Monroe factory reopens after a decade. 20 August. Portland, Oregon.

Pacific Coast Business Directory 1867 “Brick Makers.” Portland, Oregon.

Palmer, Joel 1993 Journal of Travels: Over the Oregon Trail in 1845. Oregon Historical Society Press, Portland, Oregon.

Pavia, S. 2006 The Determination of Brick Provenance and Technology Using Analytical Techniques from the Physical Sciences. Archaeometry 48,(2):01–218.

Peterson, Ella M. 2008 Recognizing Individual Potters in Historic Oregon Sites: A Visual and Chemical Analysis of Early Oregon Redware. Master‟s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Oregon State University, Corvallis.

Peterson, Joan Teresa 1989 Brickmaking on Southeastern Vancouver Island: An Historical Archaeological Investigation. Master‟s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Victoria, British Columbia.

Peterson del Mar, David 2003 Oregon’s Promise: An Interpretive History. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon.

198

Picon, M. 1976 Remarques préliminaires sur deux types d‟altération de la composition chimique des céramiques au cours du temps, Figlina 1:159–66.

1991 Quelques observations complémentaires sur les altérations de composition des céramiques au cours du temps: cas de quelques alcalins et alcalino- terreux, Revue d’Archéométrie 15:117–22.

Pillay, A.E., C. Punyadeera, L. Jacobson and J. Eriksen 2000 Analysis of Ancient Pottery and Ceramic Objects Using X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry. X-Ray Spectrometry 29:53–62.

Polk‟s Portland City Directory 1897 “Brick Manufacturers.” Portland, Oregon.

Pollard, A. Mark and Carl Heron 1996 Archaeological Chemistry. The Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Pomeroy, Earl 1991 The Pacific Slope: A History of California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Utah, and Nevada. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

Purser, Margaret 1995 The Archaeology of the Post-Colonial Pacific Rim. Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers 79:228–234. University of California, Berkeley.

1999 Ex Occidente Lux? An Archaeology of Later Capitalism in the Nineteenth Century West. In Historical Archaeologies of Capitalism, edited by Mark P. Leone and Parker B. Potter, Jr. Plenum Press, New York.

2003 Later Capitalism and the People Without Archaeology: Expanding the Frame on Industrialization. Paper presented at the Plenary Session of the Annual Meeting of the Society for Historical Archaeology, Providence, Rhode Island.

2009 Boomtimes and Boomsurfers: Toward a Material Culture of Western Expansion. Manuscript on file, Anthropology Department, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California.

Ries, Heinrich and Leighton, Henry 1909 Clay Working Industries of the United States. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

199

Rilling, Donna J. 2001 Making Houses, Crafting Capitalism: Builders in Philadelphia, 1790- 1850. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Robbins, William G. 1983 Introduction. In Regionalism and the Pacific Northwest, edited by William G. Robbins, Robert J. Frank, and Richard E. Ross. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis.

1994 Colony and Empire: the Capitalist Transformation of the American West. University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.

1997 Landscapes of Promise: The Oregon Story 1800-1940. University of Washington Press, Seattle.

2001 The Great Northwest: The Search for Regional Identity. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis.

2005 Oregon: This Storied Land. Oregon Historical Society Press, Portland, Oregon.

Rockwood, E. Ruth 1937 Letters of Charles Stevens. Oregon Historical Quarterly 38(3):336

Ross, Lester. A. 1976 Fort Vancouver 1829 – 1860. A Historical Archaeological Investigation of the Goods Imported and Manufactured by the Hudson’s Bay Company. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Copies available from Fort Vancouver National Historic Site, Vancouver, Washington.

Rottländer, R. C. A. 1981 Über die Veränderungen von Elementkonzentrationen in keramischen Scherben während der Bodenlagerung (Teil I), Sprechsaal 114:742–5.

1989 Verwitterungserscheinungen an Keramik, Archaeologica Venatoria, Tübingen.

Russ, Kurt C. and John M. McDaniel 1991 Archaeological Residues of Domestic Brickmaking: an Example from the Liberty Hall Academy Site Complex. Quarterly Bulletin of the Archeological Society of Virginia 46(2):86–95.

Saitta, Dean J. 2005 Labor and Class in the American West. In North American Archaeology, edited by Timothy R. Pauketat and Diana DePaolo Loren. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, Massachusetts.

200

Samuel‟s Portland Directory 1873 “Brickmakers.” Portland, Oregon.

Sanders, Judith A., Mary K. Weber, and David R. Brauner 1983 Willamette Mission Archaeological Project: Phase III Assessment. Department of Anthropology, Oregon State University, Corvallis.

Sayre, E.V., and R.W. Dodson 1957 Neutron Activation Study of Mediterranean Potsherds. American Journal of Archaeology 61:35–41. . Scarlett, Timothy James, Jeremy Rahn and Daniel Scott 2006 Bricks and an Evolving Industrial Landscape: The West Point Foundry and New York‟s Hudson River Valley. Northeast Historical Archaeology 35:29–46.

Scarlett, Timothy James, Robert J. Speakman, and Michael D. Glascock 2007 Pottery in the Mormon Economy: an Historical and Archaeometric Study. Historical Archaeology 41(4):70–95.

Scheid, Nicole, Stefan Becker, Marc Ducking, Gabriele Hampel, Jens Volker Kratz, Peter Watzke, Peter Weis, and Stephan Zauner 2009 Forensic Investigation of Brick Stones Using Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis (INAA), Laser Ablation–Inductively Coupled Plasma–Mass Spectrometry (LA–ICP–MS) and X-Ray Fluorescence Analysis (XRF). Applied Radiation and Isotopes 67:2128–2132.

Schiffer, Michael B. 1987 Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Schmeer, Blaine A. 1987 Pottery on the Willamette: A History of the Oregon Pottery Company, 1866 – 1896. Halcyon Publications, Canby, Oregon.

Schmidt, Dale C. 1969-1971 The Case House. In Marion County History Vol. 10, edited by Chester C. Kaiser and Helen Pearce. Marion County Historical Society, Salem, Oregon.

Schulz, Peter D. and Frank Lortie 1985 Archaeological Notes on a California Chinese Shrimp Boiler. Historical Archaeology 19:86–95.

201

Schuster, J. Eric 2005 Geologic Map of Washington State 1:500,000. Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources, Olympia, Washington.

Schwantes, Carlos Arnaldo 1996 The Pacific Northwest: An Interpretive History. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

2000 Columbia River: Gateway To The West. University Of Idaho Press, Moscow.

Schwedt, A. and Mommsen, H. 2007 On The Influence of Drying and Firing of Clay on the Formation of Trace Element Concentration Profiles Within Pottery. In Archaeometry 49(3):495–509.

Schwedt, A., Mommsen, H., and Zacharias, N. 2004 Post-depositional Elemental Alterations in Pottery: Neutron Activation Analyses of Surface and Core Samples. Archaeometry 46:85–101.

Schwedt, A., Mommsen, H., Zacharias, N., and Buxeda i Garrigós, J. 2006 Analcime Crystallization and Compositional Profiles – Comparing Approaches to Detect Post-depositional Alterations in Archaeological Pottery. Archaeometry 48:237–251.

Scott, Harvey W., compiled by Leslie M. Scott 1924a History of the Oregon Country, Volume I. The Riverside Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

1924b History of the Oregon Country, Volume II. The Riverside Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Segebade, C., and Lutz, G. J. 1980 Photon Activation Analysis of Ancient Roman Pottery. In Proceedings of the 16th International Symposium on Archaeometry and Archaeological Prospection, edited by E. A. Slater and I. O. Tate. National Museum of Antiquities of , Edinburgh.

Shedd, Solon 1910 The Clays of the State of Washington: Their Geology, Mineralogy, and Technology. State College of Washington, Pullman.

Sherman County Journal [Moro, Oregon] 1984. “History of brickyard in Moro.” 8 March. Moro, Oregon.

202

Skowronek, Russell K., Ronald L. Bishop, M. James Blackman, Sarah Ginn, and Manuel García Heras 2003 Chemical Characterization of Earthenware on the Frontier. Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 16:209–219. Chico, California.

Skowronek, Russell K., Ronald L. Bishop, M. James Blackman, Sarah Ginn, and Manuel Garcia Heras 2001 Chemical Characterization of Earthenware on the Alta California Frontier. Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Nuclear and Related Techniques 3. Havana, Cuba.

Skowronek, Russell K., M. James Blackman, Ronald L. Bishop, Michael Imwalle, and Ruben Reyes 2007 Ceramic Production, Supply, And Exchange In Spanish And Mexican Era California: A Progress Report On The Santa Clara University– Smithsonian Project. Southwestern Mission Research Center Revista Spring/Summer 2009:21–29.

Skowronek, Russell K., Ruben Reyes, Sarah Ginn, Kelly Greenwalt, M. James Blackman, and Ronald L. Bishop 2006 From Science to Humanism: Finding the Pots in the Sherds. San Diego, Alta California and the Borderlands. Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference, California Mission Studies Association, San Diego, edited by Rose Marie Beebe and Robert Senkewicz. California Mission Studies Association, Santa Clara.

Smith, Alvin T. 1820-1887 Original diaries of Alvin Thompson Smith. Manuscript on file, Oregon Historical Society Research Library (Mss 08), Portland, Oregon.

Smith, S., F. W. Brigance, E. Brietburg, S. D. Cox, and M. Martin 1977 Hermitage Brick Kiln Investigations. In Results of the 1976 Season of the Hermitage Archeological Project. Manuscript on file, Ladies Hermitage Association and the Tennessee American Revolution Bicentennial Commission, Nashville, Tennessee.

Smith, Samuel D. 1990 Buttons and Bricks; Some Artifactual Information from Smith County, Tennessee. Tennessee Anthropologist 15(2):96–114.

Smith, Samuel D and Charlotte A. Watrin 1986 Zimmerle Brick Kiln. Tennessee Anthropologist 11(2):132–144.

203

Sopko, Joseph S. and Lois M. Feister 1994 Archeological Excavations of the Brick Lot at John Jay Homestead State Historic Site. New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, Bureau of Historic Sites, Waterford, New York.

Sopko, Joseph S. and Joseph E. McEvoy 1991 X-ray Fluorescence Analysis of 17th and 18th Century Brick Samples from New York State. New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation, Bureau of Historic Sites, Waterford, New York.

South, Stanley 1964 Some Notes on Bricks. Florida Anthropologist 17(2):67–74.

Speakman, Ronald J., and Michael D. Glasock 2007 Acknowledging Fifty Years of Neutron Activation Analysis in Archaeology. Archaeometry 49(2):179–183.

Speulda, Lou Ann 1988 Champoeg: A Frontier Community in Oregon, 1830 – 1861. Department of Anthropology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.

Springer, C. G. 1929 A History of Philomath College. Master‟s thesis, University of Oregon, Eugene.

The Statesman Journal [Salem, Oregon] 1859 “Robert Newell leased the Oregon state prison‟s property, inmates, and tools.” 21 June. Salem, Oregon.

Steele, Harvey 1996 Mechanization in the Oregon Pottery Industry 1850 – 1890. Paper presented at the 49th Annual Northwest Anthropology Conference, Moscow, Idaho.

Steele, Harvey, Richard Pugh, and Blaine Schmeer 2000 Farmers with Kilns: Ante-bellum Potters in Oregon, 1848 – 1850. Paper presented at the 53rd Annual Northwest Anthropological Conference, Spokane, Washington.

Steele, Harvey W., Lester A. Ross, and Charles H. Hibbs, Jr. 1975 Fort Vancouver Excavations – XII: OAS Sale Shop Excavation. Oregon Archaeological Society in cooperation with United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Copies available from Fort Vancouver National Historic Site, Vancouver, Washington.

204

Steeves, Sarah Hunt 1927 Book of Remembrance of Marion County, Oregon, Pioneers 1840 – 1860. The Berncliff Press, Portland, Oregon.

Stoltman, J.B. 1989 A Quantitative Approach to the Petrographic Analysis of Ceramic Thin Sections. American Antiquity 54(1):147–160.

Stoltman, J.B., J.H. Burton, and J. Haas 1992 Chemical and Petrographic Characterizations of Ceramic Pastes: Two Perspectives on a Single Data Set. In Chemical Characterization of Ceramic Pastes in Archaeology, edited by Hector Neff. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin.

Strozut, Jr., George G. 1955 Remembrances of Lewis Judson. In Marion County History Vol. I, edited by Chester C. Kaiser. Marion County Historical Society, Salem, Oregon.

Thomas, Bryn and Charles Hibbs, Jr. 1984 Report of Investigations of Excavations at Kanaka Village/Vancouver Barracks, Washington, 1980/1981. Archaeological and Historical Services, Eastern Washington University. Submitted to Washington State Department of Transportation. Copies available from Fort Vancouver Historic Site, Vancouver, Washington.

Throckmorton, Arthur L. 1961 Oregon Argonauts: Merchant Adventurers on the Western Frontier. Oregon Historical Society, Portland, Oregon.

Tite, M.S., I.C. Freestone, N.D. Meeks, and M. Bimson 1982 The Use of Scanning Electron Microscopy in the Technological Examination of Ancient Ceramics. In Archaeological Ceramics, edited by J.S. Olin and A.D. Franklin. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.

Tubb, A., A. J. Parker, and G. Nickless 1980 The Analysis of Romano-British Pottery by Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry. Archaeometry 22:153–71.

United States Bureau of the Census 1850 Oregon Territorial Manuscript Census, All Counties. Electronic document, http://www.upa.pdx.edu/IMS/currentprojects/TAHv3/Content/Data/OR_1 850_Census_All.xls, accessed April 10, 2011.

205

United States Bureau of the Census 1860 Oregon State Manuscript Census, All Counties. Electronic document, http://www.upa.pdx.edu/IMS/currentprojects/TAHv3/Content/Data/OR_1 860_Census_All.xls, accessed April 10, 2011.

United States Geologic Survey 2009 Northern Oregon Basins Map. Electronic document, http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/pacnw/resaq.html, accessed April 23, 2011.

University of Manchester. 2009 Dating Fired-clay Ceramics. Current Archaeology 5.

Van Arsdol, Ted 1986 Vancouver on the Columbia: An Illustrated History. Windsor Publications Inc., Northridge, California.

Vaughan, Thomas and Virginia Guest Ferriday (editors) 1974a Space, Style and Structure: Building in Northwest America, Volume I. Oregon Historical Society, Portland, Oregon.

1974b Space, Style and Structure: Building in Northwest America, Volume II. Oregon Historical Society, Portland, Oregon.

Vaughan, Thomas and George A. McMath 1967 A Century of Portland Architecture. Oregon Historical Society, Portland, Oregon.

Versteeg, John 1836–1915 Memories of Life in the Netherlands and Emigration to America. Manuscript on file, Oregon Historical Society Research Library (Vertical File: Biography – Versteeg, John), Portland, Oregon.

Vieillevigne, Emmanuelle 2007 Luminescence Chronology of the Medieval Citadel of Termez, Uzbekistan: TL Dating of Brick Masonries. Journal of Archaeological Science 34(9).

Walker, George H. and Norman S. MacLeod 1991 Geologic Map of Oregon 1:500,000. U.S. Department of the Interior, U. S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.

Wayne, Lucy Bowles 1992 Burning Brick: A Study of a Lowcountry Industry. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.

206

Webber, Bert, and Margie Webber 1993 Oregon City (By Way of the Barlow Road) At the End of the National Historic Oregon Trail. Webb Research Group, Medford, Oregon.

West Shore Magazine 1890 Brick Making Near Portland. 4 October 1890. Portland, Oregon.

White, Elijah 1846 A Concise View of Oregon Territory, Its Colonial and Indian Relations; Compiled from Official Letters and Reports Together with the Organic Laws of the Colony. T. Barnard, Washington D. C.

White, Richard 1983 The Altered Landscape: Social Change and the Land in the Pacific Northwest. In Regionalism and the Pacific Northwest, edited by William G. Robbins, Robert J. Frank, and Richard E. Ross. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis.

1991 It’s Your Misfortune and None of My Own, A New History of the American West. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Wilkes, Charles 1974a Life in Oregon Country Before the Emigration, Volume 1. The Oregon Book Society, Ashland, Oregon.

1974b Life in Oregon Country Before the Emigration, Volume 2. The Oregon Book Society, Ashland, Oregon.

Will, Clark Moor 1956 A History of Hubbard. In Marion County History Vol. II, edited by Mirpah Blair. Marion County Historical Society, Salem, Oregon.

Wilson, Douglas, Robert Cromwell, Danielle Gembala, Theresa Langford, and Debra Semrau 2003 Archaeology Lab Manual. Fort Vancouver National Historic Site. Copies available from Fort Vancouver National Historic Site, Vancouver, Washington.

Wingfield, Derek M., Michael D. Richmond and Henry S. McKelway 1997 Archaeological Remains of a Mid-Nineteenth Century Brick Clamp: A First Look at Brick Clamps in Kentucky. Ohio Valley Historical Archaeology: Journal of the Symposium on Ohio Valley Urban and Historic Archaeology 12:68–88.

207

Winther, Oscar Osburn 1950 The Old Oregon Country: A History of Frontier Trade, Transportation, and Travel. Indiana University, Bloomington.

Woodforde, John 1976 Bricks to Build a House. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.

Woodward, Dennis G., Marshall W. Gannett, and John J. Vaccaro 1998 Hydrogeologic Framework of the Willamette Lowland Aquifer System, Oregon and Washington. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1424-B. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.

Works Progress Administration 1942 Inventory of the County Archives of Oregon: Benton County. The Oregon Historical Records Survey, Portland, Oregon.

Works Progress Administration, Oregon Writer‟s Project 1951 Oregon: End of the Trail. Binfords and Mort, Portland, Oregon.

Worster, Donald 1992 Under Western Skies: Nature and History in the American West. Oxford University Press, New York.

Wylie, Alison 1993 Invented Lands/Discovered Pasts: The Westward Expansion of Myth and History. Historical Archaeology 27(4):1–19

Yamhill County Historical Society 1976 Old Yamhill: The History of its Towns and Cities. Yamhill County Historical Society, Lafayette, Oregon.

208

APPENDICES

209

APPENDIX A INAA Results – Fort Vancouver Brick Samples

INAA ID Batch As Ba La Lu Sm Na FOVA_01 RC1786-5 12.25 359.63 35.44 0.54 6.54 5426.89 FOVA_02 RC1786-5 23.33 403.75 35.25 0.47 6.89 3968.62 FOVA_03 RC1786-5 7.10 686.62 38.09 0.49 6.66 12220.12 FOVA_04 RC1786-5 8.57 390.60 69.81 0.69 14.70 1070.16 FOVA_05 RC1786-5 11.35 409.49 34.18 0.59 6.53 5143.39 FOVA_06 RC1786-5 14.25 367.13 33.13 0.51 6.58 3969.72 FOVA_07 RC1786-5 8.97 391.44 36.49 0.63 7.26 5769.01 FOVA_08 RC1786-5 4.74 483.80 37.40 0.59 7.40 5662.43 FOVA_09 RC1786-5 5.24 530.31 13.77 0.20 3.22 20920.13 FOVA_10 RC1786-5 4.14 715.06 39.60 0.40 6.25 14304.74 FOVA_11 RC1786-5 5.56 722.07 35.62 0.50 6.88 12978.33 FOVA_12 RC1786-5 4.04 589.32 23.46 0.37 5.22 16724.82 FOVA_13 RC1786-5 11.26 470.20 39.54 0.48 7.48 16828.10 FOVA_14 RC1786-5 7.41 764.64 39.18 0.54 7.08 13748.83 FOVA_15 RC1786-5 8.81 793.89 41.08 0.55 7.34 14209.63 FOVA_16 RC1786-5 0.64 805.13 37.60 0.49 7.04 14742.41 FOVA_17 RC1786-5 5.87 872.86 34.98 0.49 6.86 15794.38 FOVA_18 RC1786-5 3.28 695.88 34.94 0.43 6.32 14843.85 FOVA_19 RC1786-5 7.55 810.29 33.87 0.51 6.96 15636.50 FOVA_20 RC1786-5 5.51 772.47 41.71 0.47 7.17 13861.29 FOVA_21 RC1786-5 5.41 730.42 34.71 0.44 6.68 15948.24 FOVA_22 RC1786-5 7.97 798.32 39.57 0.43 6.85 14156.37 FOVA_23 RC1786-5 13.45 416.75 35.99 0.55 7.11 4578.29 FV101 RC1849-1 13.38 617.66 34.67 0.45 6.81 12375.45 FV102 RC1849-1 6.44 763.83 33.52 0.49 7.02 12923.78 FV103 RC1849-1 11.50 379.39 33.54 0.48 6.82 4129.12 FV104 RC1849-1 14.01 355.89 38.36 0.50 7.63 5402.48 FV105 RC1849-1 13.78 437.21 37.99 0.51 7.60 4954.65 FV106 RC1849-1 6.50 644.75 33.35 0.47 6.91 12407.40 FV107 RC1849-1 4.52 612.06 23.93 0.36 5.49 16287.44 FV108 RC1849-1 16.77 400.03 37.87 0.49 7.20 4397.33 FV109 RC1849-1 12.43 410.13 35.35 0.49 6.90 4244.37 FV110 RC1849-1 13.14 439.04 36.25 0.50 7.27 4466.53 FV111 RC1849-1 5.38 511.19 23.92 0.36 5.86 14771.31 FV112 RC1849-1 9.08 536.22 24.29 0.40 6.30 15040.02 FV113 RC1849-1 4.88 810.93 35.21 0.43 6.67 13004.77 FV114 RC1849-1 115.53 570.61 25.32 0.39 6.26 15545.38 FV115 RC1849-1 9.38 852.90 40.60 0.51 7.17 13893.11 FV116 RC1849-1 13.75 404.99 35.91 0.49 7.05 3347.90 FV117 RC1849-1 6.82 706.83 34.24 0.45 6.95 12183.53 FV118 RC1849-1 6.18 797.01 39.92 0.49 7.03 14082.37 FV119 RC1849-1 14.08 412.84 39.46 0.52 7.80 4504.53 FV120 RC1849-1 7.27 927.54 40.85 0.44 6.97 13915.21 FV121 RC1849-1 2.76 551.09 22.66 0.34 5.35 18057.17 FV122 RC1849-1 8.52 768.70 38.65 0.46 6.91 14231.41 FV123 RC1849-1 13.21 530.81 35.40 0.53 7.12 4399.05 FV124 RC1849-1 4.58 865.60 33.59 0.44 6.68 15080.06 FV125 RC1849-1 13.89 448.05 38.60 0.50 7.40 4570.93 FV126 RC1849-2 7.44 651.33 32.09 0.51 6.72 11914.19

210

INAA ID Batch As Ba La Lu Sm Na FV127 RC1849-2 8.07 774.99 38.69 0.43 6.99 13621.34 FV128 RC1849-2 12.34 390.31 36.60 0.50 7.19 4287.25 FV129 RC1849-2 8.47 821.28 38.77 0.37 6.91 13507.16 FV130 RC1849-2 5.77 571.09 14.25 0.22 3.50 20572.06 FV131 RC1849-2 6.30 733.19 33.75 0.38 6.46 12103.69 FV132 RC1849-2 4.99 684.27 32.95 0.40 6.58 12400.05 FV133 RC1849-2 13.26 495.25 36.26 0.52 7.02 4332.83 FV134 RC1849-2 13.68 361.76 36.90 0.47 6.99 4352.55 FV135 RC1849-2 4.87 728.95 35.39 0.41 6.53 13416.67 FV136 RC1849-2 11.85 417.08 36.87 0.50 7.04 4207.35 FV137 RC1849-2 4.11 633.35 25.02 0.35 6.24 15093.26 FV138 RC1849-2 12.62 389.49 36.60 0.51 7.24 4241.83 FV139 RC1849-2 5.98 625.40 23.45 0.35 5.73 15536.10 FV140 RC1849-2 7.27 657.97 22.02 0.34 5.25 14539.08 FV141 RC1849-2 7.82 876.96 32.59 0.42 5.83 12743.72 FV142 RC1849-2 4.53 766.32 35.10 0.43 6.73 12534.46 FV143 RC1849-2 6.07 715.70 35.42 0.39 6.72 12451.00 FV144 RC1849-2 3.32 610.61 23.20 0.38 5.75 17952.50 FV145 RC1849-2 12.64 388.14 37.45 0.49 7.13 4189.04 FV146 RC1849-2 7.50 651.11 31.70 0.42 6.35 12180.36 FV147 RC1849-2 7.17 692.38 35.41 0.46 7.11 11700.11 FV148 RC1849-2 3.48 635.61 23.87 0.36 5.60 17186.58 FV149 RC1849-2 6.77 728.49 38.24 0.49 6.83 13681.83 FV150 RC1849-2 5.48 688.94 33.24 0.41 6.59 12464.98 FV151 RC1849-3 5.09 570.80 22.67 0.33 5.43 17271.88 FV152 RC1849-3 5.11 631.15 23.50 0.40 5.89 15215.85 FV153 RC1849-3 6.23 650.72 35.21 0.44 6.68 15503.27 FV154 RC1849-3 9.83 520.72 21.86 0.31 5.09 17158.26 FV155 RC1849-3 0.74 862.28 24.52 0.29 6.30 20272.29 FV156 RC1849-3 4.61 772.26 34.11 0.46 6.95 14620.16 FV157 RC1849-3 6.55 695.38 34.91 0.45 6.64 12302.84 FV158 RC1849-3 11.68 734.02 34.62 0.39 6.55 14139.91 FV159 RC1849-3 7.34 689.29 34.52 0.48 7.09 11963.85 FV160 RC1849-3 5.84 690.80 32.94 0.39 6.41 12102.01 FV161 RC1849-3 12.95 349.81 38.07 0.49 7.37 4255.24 FV162 RC1849-3 3.28 607.48 22.04 0.34 5.22 16492.92 FV163 RC1849-3 5.01 574.56 20.75 0.36 5.13 16586.18 FV164 RC1849-3 2.13 640.81 34.95 0.47 6.67 12548.18 FV165 RC1849-3 9.53 854.67 33.48 0.44 6.37 12705.53 FV167 RC1847-4 9.49 735.41 38.54 0.48 7.20 13586.85

211

INAA ID U Yb Ce Cs Cr Co Eu Hf FOVA_01 2.88 2.88 71.27 4.98 110.87 16.88 1.09 13.63 FOVA_02 2.23 3.16 73.75 4.89 96.62 19.36 1.29 10.36 FOVA_03 3.00 2.78 83.45 5.53 66.64 21.49 1.43 8.59 FOVA_04 3.19 4.03 144.19 6.78 85.78 23.92 2.85 6.14 FOVA_05 2.77 2.91 67.06 3.61 90.16 15.08 1.17 13.99 FOVA_06 2.71 2.89 74.61 4.46 91.14 19.75 1.32 10.51 FOVA_07 3.11 3.35 72.31 4.48 101.39 16.32 1.31 14.51 FOVA_08 2.92 3.29 76.20 4.37 105.48 16.86 1.42 14.94 FOVA_09 1.10 1.50 30.47 1.17 81.89 15.92 0.96 3.91 FOVA_10 3.60 2.83 71.43 4.88 60.90 14.02 1.42 8.04 FOVA_11 2.92 2.77 71.19 4.38 74.35 26.59 1.55 7.81 FOVA_12 1.61 2.56 47.58 2.47 99.94 28.30 1.49 6.54 FOVA_13 4.26 2.80 79.20 6.27 81.79 15.79 1.41 7.28 FOVA_14 3.19 3.19 75.39 4.23 57.56 16.85 1.56 9.15 FOVA_15 3.22 2.83 78.81 4.55 57.80 16.94 1.57 9.00 FOVA_16 3.73 3.01 73.72 4.48 67.65 19.04 1.61 7.70 FOVA_17 2.66 2.96 67.71 4.14 55.92 20.95 1.53 7.73 FOVA_18 3.19 2.68 66.92 3.51 54.94 20.49 1.49 6.62 FOVA_19 2.46 2.94 64.91 4.42 62.02 20.73 1.60 7.72 FOVA_20 3.67 3.18 79.34 4.53 58.17 18.24 1.54 9.14 FOVA_21 2.22 2.62 66.64 3.35 65.54 22.79 1.59 7.00 FOVA_22 3.99 2.94 71.35 4.83 61.36 13.99 1.47 8.14 FOVA_23 2.47 3.41 73.00 4.48 95.63 15.91 1.24 12.24 FV101 2.62 2.64 71.67 4.14 70.61 23.56 1.62 7.27 FV102 2.72 2.93 70.37 3.75 75.37 25.61 1.63 7.48 FV103 2.37 2.97 64.91 4.84 92.73 17.54 1.34 9.76 FV104 2.48 3.00 78.93 5.31 105.87 18.26 1.46 11.14 FV105 2.73 3.14 81.19 5.85 109.00 17.56 1.39 11.80 FV106 2.86 2.95 70.06 3.97 75.16 25.28 1.67 7.33 FV107 1.83 2.43 53.02 2.68 97.91 27.18 1.57 5.71 FV108 2.99 3.02 78.33 5.84 104.55 15.45 1.35 11.51 FV109 2.78 3.11 77.66 5.44 107.33 15.53 1.50 11.81 FV110 2.66 3.13 76.39 5.10 101.03 15.40 1.44 12.17 FV111 1.37 2.56 52.76 2.26 99.47 29.18 1.60 5.99 FV112 1.46 2.78 53.42 2.31 98.71 30.27 1.82 6.13 FV113 2.57 2.60 71.32 3.99 68.53 24.67 1.53 7.72 FV114 1.78 2.83 55.88 2.59 100.75 28.18 1.70 6.65 FV115 3.60 3.11 82.28 4.22 59.58 22.05 1.53 8.35 FV116 2.53 3.49 78.73 5.86 104.09 16.29 1.48 11.80 FV117 2.60 2.83 73.64 4.15 71.98 25.92 1.67 7.55 FV118 3.59 2.55 74.01 4.66 62.63 15.16 1.65 7.76 FV119 2.75 3.68 82.50 5.81 108.70 16.99 1.55 11.99 FV120 3.65 3.19 78.01 4.44 58.96 13.76 1.54 7.82 FV121 1.50 2.30 48.39 2.33 96.34 33.11 1.45 6.08 FV122 3.15 3.17 72.02 4.21 60.73 16.16 1.49 8.11 FV123 2.68 3.42 78.77 4.82 110.89 16.58 1.43 12.07 FV124 2.06 2.70 64.87 3.27 62.17 23.54 1.63 7.12 FV125 3.00 3.37 79.66 5.71 105.93 16.04 1.44 11.96 FV126 2.32 2.81 70.33 4.29 76.85 26.13 1.79 6.92

212

INAA ID U Yb Ce Cs Cr Co Eu Hf FV127 3.20 2.76 76.07 4.16 60.15 16.54 1.58 8.58 FV128 2.62 3.26 78.35 5.76 108.78 15.57 1.38 11.53 FV129 2.98 2.79 77.94 4.52 56.25 20.34 1.63 8.63 FV130 1.11 1.90 29.08 1.59 123.30 13.84 1.01 4.10 FV131 2.55 2.46 71.45 3.77 72.92 23.26 1.70 7.15 FV132 2.37 2.65 70.02 4.17 80.90 26.09 1.75 7.27 FV133 3.20 3.36 76.41 4.96 103.87 16.39 1.40 11.91 FV134 2.87 3.05 81.76 5.69 108.20 22.79 1.41 12.66 FV135 2.89 2.91 69.12 4.02 78.53 25.41 1.59 7.54 FV136 2.75 3.35 78.92 5.69 108.28 17.66 1.46 12.63 FV137 1.68 2.67 54.30 2.33 100.91 29.12 1.74 5.78 FV138 2.73 2.97 76.76 5.20 107.23 16.08 1.42 11.58 FV139 1.71 2.58 51.07 2.53 99.11 27.51 1.65 5.69 FV140 1.17 2.48 46.38 2.72 96.31 25.28 1.42 5.80 FV141 2.48 2.94 66.61 4.01 73.36 21.11 1.50 7.88 FV142 2.79 2.81 73.78 4.49 72.69 25.94 1.74 7.51 FV143 2.92 2.81 72.74 4.17 74.91 24.53 1.68 7.27 FV144 1.87 2.92 50.16 2.06 104.15 32.94 1.69 5.83 FV145 2.76 3.35 76.56 5.81 109.54 17.81 1.41 11.48 FV146 2.95 2.59 67.49 3.38 74.74 27.08 1.65 7.17 FV147 2.84 3.29 75.87 4.23 76.56 27.05 1.71 7.47 FV148 1.58 2.35 49.38 2.66 103.12 29.17 1.59 5.75 FV149 3.47 3.36 80.53 4.02 59.09 18.55 1.55 8.69 FV150 3.25 2.85 70.81 3.90 77.80 24.48 1.66 7.54 FV151 1.24 2.17 48.76 2.78 95.51 29.97 1.61 5.62 FV152 1.47 2.51 50.00 2.40 94.70 27.85 1.69 5.93 FV153 2.72 2.81 73.05 3.56 71.02 20.05 1.46 8.47 FV154 1.71 2.45 46.43 2.22 97.59 29.75 1.51 5.67 FV155 1.01 2.11 49.68 1.28 197.15 31.77 1.86 5.28 FV156 2.67 2.83 68.04 4.27 58.10 20.63 1.63 6.91 FV157 3.09 2.81 70.77 4.17 76.37 24.71 1.56 7.67 FV158 2.96 2.85 70.73 4.03 76.95 28.15 1.64 7.42 FV159 3.06 3.04 73.14 4.47 75.68 24.72 1.68 7.07 FV160 2.91 2.61 69.45 4.31 76.71 23.70 1.60 7.28 FV161 3.03 3.23 80.22 5.65 105.99 18.04 1.52 11.95 FV162 1.63 2.27 48.94 2.75 108.14 28.01 1.60 6.93 FV163 1.56 2.13 42.47 2.48 99.31 26.78 1.56 5.44 FV164 3.06 2.70 69.79 3.76 78.54 24.93 1.53 7.97 FV165 2.45 2.84 67.77 4.10 71.44 24.30 1.56 7.39 FV167 3.27 3.58 78.25 4.67 59.92 16.59 1.59 8.63

213

INAA ID Fe Nd Rb Sc Ta Tb Th Zn FOVA_01 33086.23 27.76 92.93 10.05 0.93 0.92 9.65 96.86 FOVA_02 39001.41 27.93 98.96 10.45 0.82 1.00 8.60 50.84 FOVA_03 49744.93 34.47 128.86 17.12 1.32 0.82 11.35 94.33 FOVA_04 39738.88 72.76 99.69 12.40 0.99 1.62 8.91 79.05 FOVA_05 34296.05 22.14 86.89 9.92 0.83 1.03 9.67 225.97 FOVA_06 45228.91 31.81 84.98 10.56 0.88 0.88 8.79 123.13 FOVA_07 35728.94 37.59 90.43 10.84 0.98 1.10 10.16 128.75 FOVA_08 37197.30 32.47 87.28 11.53 1.01 1.19 10.69 51.60 FOVA_09 35501.36 8.72 35.68 13.62 0.31 0.57 3.63 58.91 FOVA_10 43563.58 31.52 109.31 15.31 0.92 0.95 10.23 113.19 FOVA_11 57934.36 29.43 92.56 19.26 1.12 1.12 9.63 112.83 FOVA_12 62657.95 23.85 41.65 21.74 0.69 0.72 5.20 89.95 FOVA_13 40146.65 34.52 165.79 14.24 1.21 1.06 12.43 89.37 FOVA_14 43143.32 27.50 87.94 14.18 1.18 0.85 10.34 80.02 FOVA_15 47228.12 34.92 88.34 15.36 1.21 0.83 10.76 112.11 FOVA_16 51221.50 27.87 97.44 18.00 1.05 1.05 10.15 116.89 FOVA_17 56548.99 23.74 80.09 18.61 1.36 0.97 9.14 109.43 FOVA_18 52463.34 30.63 82.59 17.84 0.87 0.82 8.81 81.54 FOVA_19 55385.72 29.54 106.03 18.28 1.34 1.06 8.65 111.63 FOVA_20 45824.04 28.51 92.26 15.14 1.08 0.87 10.66 97.56 FOVA_21 60598.55 31.61 89.24 19.80 1.07 0.82 9.09 114.82 FOVA_22 43682.84 36.52 100.19 15.28 1.11 0.94 10.29 113.21 FOVA_23 34736.07 34.10 87.57 11.11 0.90 0.99 10.13 71.38 FV101 56208.41 30.28 84.87 18.77 1.21 0.96 9.33 119.48 FV102 58585.87 33.18 85.40 19.61 1.16 0.98 8.78 104.40 FV103 40763.25 34.09 83.84 11.38 0.89 0.97 9.23 82.87 FV104 38169.02 28.76 97.51 13.01 1.24 0.99 11.59 78.39 FV105 38463.76 32.94 101.46 13.06 1.07 0.98 11.09 74.84 FV106 59053.96 26.50 93.04 20.06 1.28 0.85 8.80 106.81 FV107 63381.99 30.20 49.73 22.34 0.61 0.83 5.12 94.29 FV108 36187.19 39.07 107.30 12.22 0.91 0.93 11.29 74.93 FV109 37144.62 30.35 104.66 12.62 1.02 1.01 10.69 95.29 FV110 36619.09 27.61 95.46 12.02 0.98 1.00 10.41 84.11 FV111 64246.02 19.13 38.33 23.30 1.01 0.75 5.49 102.22 FV112 64898.34 32.26 38.38 23.34 0.89 0.98 5.15 93.03 FV113 53881.57 23.11 90.09 17.74 1.19 0.59 8.95 87.37 FV114 65087.31 26.43 17.62 23.81 0.65 0.91 5.36 100.96 FV115 47357.47 26.59 108.45 14.88 1.19 0.95 10.71 97.89 FV116 37779.39 37.16 109.90 12.75 1.16 1.11 10.73 75.71 FV117 58261.35 31.18 83.22 19.60 1.22 0.73 9.65 119.14 FV118 44117.61 27.98 108.08 15.59 1.10 1.07 9.95 85.67 FV119 38729.46 30.36 110.10 13.24 1.18 1.04 11.59 86.67 FV120 43614.75 22.68 74.26 15.06 0.99 0.86 10.08 99.27 FV121 62605.29 12.80 44.60 21.50 0.76 0.75 4.85 118.15 FV122 43493.14 25.66 90.66 14.46 1.05 0.81 10.09 88.97 FV123 39202.68 31.08 111.69 13.09 1.05 1.05 11.04 83.40 FV124 61742.11 30.52 81.12 20.02 1.08 1.09 8.57 122.71 FV125 38026.71 36.92 109.74 12.77 1.20 0.89 11.56 81.87 FV126 66027.92 28.75 87.95 22.23 1.08 1.04 9.51 131.63

214

INAA ID Fe Nd Rb Sc Ta Tb Th Zn FV127 44546.54 30.41 83.13 14.75 1.17 0.97 10.29 83.35 FV128 37757.67 31.49 109.40 12.91 1.28 1.20 11.16 74.79 FV129 46045.41 34.69 97.28 14.95 1.07 1.14 11.05 90.79 FV130 40191.99 12.69 28.16 14.17 0.35 0.59 3.30 78.43 FV131 56161.97 18.38 70.04 18.56 1.06 1.03 9.16 114.41 FV132 61982.21 26.88 93.24 20.55 2.60 0.77 9.44 114.47 FV133 36821.04 25.48 88.49 12.20 1.14 0.83 10.64 94.98 FV134 39385.70 30.14 86.73 13.15 1.12 0.95 11.35 93.12 FV135 54405.66 29.75 83.66 18.04 1.15 0.76 9.31 97.51 FV136 38942.71 26.12 106.52 13.05 1.00 0.90 10.98 65.50 FV137 65911.45 21.67 34.79 23.68 0.91 0.97 5.46 109.15 FV138 37239.00 31.52 100.76 12.65 1.03 1.07 10.47 67.08 FV139 65015.39 18.13 48.12 22.95 0.78 0.95 5.85 92.33 FV140 61187.25 21.85 46.85 22.11 0.81 0.73 4.77 134.69 FV141 57486.84 25.68 79.94 18.68 1.16 0.83 9.30 143.85 FV142 59304.05 29.01 88.75 19.69 1.12 1.05 9.36 119.18 FV143 56878.84 24.41 83.84 19.13 1.22 0.79 9.42 111.74 FV144 66224.39 20.31 54.46 22.75 0.86 1.15 5.24 111.51 FV145 37315.29 25.36 127.44 13.01 1.09 1.13 10.58 66.78 FV146 61285.81 28.10 82.28 20.81 1.11 1.07 9.02 100.37 FV147 59987.36 26.73 87.21 20.08 1.25 1.15 9.47 107.89 FV148 65650.94 25.08 55.96 22.47 0.95 0.98 5.00 91.95 FV149 46777.50 41.13 85.20 15.25 1.17 0.96 10.67 90.28 FV150 59969.45 29.49 94.74 19.73 1.04 1.20 9.15 107.70 FV151 64170.45 12.83 42.84 21.98 0.85 0.64 5.11 121.11 FV152 66204.90 28.23 51.33 23.00 0.81 0.92 4.84 122.19 FV153 57178.64 34.07 83.68 19.42 1.12 1.12 10.13 103.83 FV154 63870.59 18.00 33.27 21.95 0.84 0.72 4.93 115.90 FV155 63176.62 34.79 15.86 22.95 0.70 0.94 3.38 108.71 FV156 56814.30 29.41 81.20 18.86 1.01 0.82 8.67 150.08 FV157 56625.60 25.32 90.79 19.08 1.05 0.92 9.36 127.04 FV158 51337.38 30.65 74.70 16.93 1.18 0.92 8.72 103.40 FV159 60581.73 28.04 89.09 20.44 1.05 0.80 9.34 111.82 FV160 60193.59 33.69 87.92 19.93 1.08 0.94 9.30 132.67 FV161 39078.27 32.48 113.38 12.73 0.94 0.97 11.41 83.53 FV162 65859.15 20.32 44.11 22.90 0.84 0.72 5.27 117.62 FV163 60756.18 20.52 75.81 20.83 0.77 0.86 4.69 115.59 FV164 58868.16 38.23 65.45 19.59 1.10 1.03 9.04 91.17 FV165 55616.68 28.75 94.65 18.39 0.92 0.91 8.89 130.69 FV167 45653.66 32.39 88.16 15.50 1.16 0.91 10.90 88.09

215

APPENDIX B INAA Results – Clay Samples

INAA ID Batch As Ba La Lu Sm Na WP_003 RC1847-4 13.61 780.66 44.82 0.83 12.81 5258.92 WP_005 RC1847-4 17.91 661.45 33.44 0.44 5.32 4250.28 WP_008 RC1847-4 8.62 548.56 21.83 0.30 3.42 5215.18 WP_009 RC1847-4 13.53 505.39 26.35 0.40 4.26 3183.37 WP_010 RC1847-4 17.52 477.09 20.15 0.28 3.39 7122.41 WP_011 RC1847-4 9.51 700.87 43.11 0.70 10.06 5904.47 WP_012 RC1847-4 10.47 707.05 36.98 0.46 7.41 10455.80 WP_013 RC1847-4 10.21 653.52 33.67 0.38 6.18 8219.21 WP_014 RC1847-4 5.69 621.47 41.99 0.43 6.84 10359.67 WP_015 RC1847-4 10.86 755.96 45.73 0.55 8.82 11498.84 WP_016 RC1847-4 9.48 720.41 40.25 0.50 7.69 11351.83 WP_017 RC1847-4 14.30 569.99 26.22 0.42 4.84 2795.35 WP_018 RC1847-4 6.99 699.73 39.19 0.46 7.79 15020.61 WP_019 RC1847-4 4.51 661.08 30.35 0.32 5.84 18758.62 WP_022 RC1847-4 7.16 755.92 36.84 0.40 6.78 14534.17 WP_023 RC1847-4 7.21 620.90 33.86 0.44 6.41 15158.54 WP_024 RC1847-4 11.42 627.98 34.57 0.42 7.04 13125.61 WP_025 RC1847-4 6.31 811.56 35.59 0.35 5.32 9644.58 WP_026 RC1847-4 5.28 744.93 37.55 0.45 6.97 16927.34 WP_027 RC1847-4 8.41 760.02 39.34 0.53 7.34 14722.08 WP_029 RC1849-5 3.12 777.36 29.18 0.42 6.53 15763.00 WP_030 RC1849-5 12.61 908.01 42.41 0.45 7.47 12400.73 WP_031 RC1849-5 8.08 588.17 16.02 0.26 2.72 12727.51 WP_034 RC1849-6 40.14 812.35 27.56 0.41 5.54 13245.15 WP_036 RC1849-6 14.33 728.39 22.64 0.36 5.27 16574.27 WP_049 RC1849-6 7.32 562.81 39.89 0.42 7.41 5187.52 WP_050 RC1849-5 7.62 793.08 38.20 0.40 7.26 13766.94 WP_052 RC1849-5 7.95 476.28 34.96 0.38 6.34 1933.28 WP_053 RC1849-6 6.57 459.84 31.75 0.39 5.43 3424.70 WP_054 RC1849-5 13.42 520.50 32.78 0.37 5.88 5744.20 WP_055 RC1849-5 10.34 850.92 47.38 0.54 9.31 11149.45 WP_056 RC1849-5 16.22 726.08 29.27 0.36 5.39 9445.12 WP_057 RC1849-5 10.09 730.50 38.53 0.44 6.73 9405.44 WP_058 RC1849-5 8.79 835.35 38.92 0.41 6.86 12110.04 WP_059 RC1849-5 6.76 889.73 38.83 0.47 6.86 14809.05 WP_060 RC1849-5 5.93 706.66 38.74 0.46 7.42 13288.17 WP_061 RC1849-5 11.00 824.20 39.92 0.48 6.81 12481.01 WP_062 RC1849-6 8.08 732.57 37.52 0.46 6.89 9887.85 WP_063 RC1849-5 5.23 801.41 35.03 0.40 5.57 14944.26 WP_065 RC1849-6 5.38 724.16 39.52 0.47 6.81 14758.51 WP_066 RC1849-6 16.49 656.53 35.25 0.46 6.51 15671.75 WP_067 RC1849-6 5.02 492.77 26.15 0.60 7.21 6172.93 WP_068 RC1849-5 4.33 621.98 29.71 0.35 6.00 14061.39 WP_069 RC1849-5 6.09 808.93 35.00 0.38 5.97 13803.31 WP_070 RC1849-6 6.55 523.00 19.82 0.38 5.43 19847.09 WP_071 RC1849-6 4.34 401.61 17.58 0.28 4.74 22174.81 WP_072 RC1849-5 7.04 605.33 17.39 0.29 4.33 21019.96 WP_073 RC1849-5 5.73 546.14 11.93 0.18 2.18 18111.35 WP_074 RC1849-5 10.83 573.38 16.56 0.21 2.44 12582.22

216

INAA ID Batch As Ba La Lu Sm Na WP_075 RC1849-5 5.99 412.71 14.64 0.29 2.79 11935.84 WP_076 RC1849-5 15.12 355.13 22.95 0.23 3.98 16524.14 WP_077 RC1849-5 9.85 768.38 37.41 0.48 7.08 12225.22 WP_078 RC1849-6 5.82 366.70 21.09 0.31 4.45 12559.40 WP_079 RC1849-5 2.78 538.94 21.39 0.29 3.65 16167.58 WP_080 RC1849-6 10.59 664.43 36.58 0.41 6.82 14927.89 WP_081 RC1849-6 5.38 737.93 32.74 0.47 6.90 15915.53 WP_082 RC1849-6 12.19 716.33 39.02 0.51 7.85 13803.64 WP_083 RC1849-6 4.58 737.35 36.54 0.43 7.42 14822.77 WP_086 RC1849-5 4.59 616.91 30.37 0.37 5.88 17564.42 WP_087 RC1849-5 2.43 715.04 37.92 0.40 6.42 16632.86 WP_090 RC1849-6 7.24 662.84 33.75 0.47 7.00 10214.03 WP_091 RC1849-6 8.92 757.58 43.36 0.53 7.77 12983.18 WP_092 RC1849-6 8.57 729.87 40.61 0.51 7.06 12679.76 WP_093 RC1849-6 14.94 659.07 36.09 0.47 7.14 13374.16 WP_094 RC1849-6 8.58 646.78 36.12 0.42 6.40 13392.96 WP_095 RC1849-6 7.11 715.91 34.25 0.46 7.09 15836.66 WP_096 RC1849-6 6.28 514.21 20.62 0.35 5.15 20833.83 WP_097 RC1849-6 5.74 435.80 29.31 0.57 9.54 7619.90 WP_098 RC1849-6 8.70 686.57 38.34 0.48 7.65 13889.17 WP_099 RC1849-6 7.40 682.83 40.63 0.57 8.21 14912.42

217

INAA ID U Yb Ce Cs Cr Co Eu Hf WP_003 3.48 5.76 100.49 5.67 50.53 20.02 3.19 9.46 WP_005 4.07 2.80 73.90 6.27 107.53 28.30 1.12 7.46 WP_008 2.46 1.83 48.95 3.56 75.04 28.04 0.83 7.46 WP_009 3.62 2.44 66.85 6.12 99.56 17.37 0.91 8.79 WP_010 3.09 1.80 45.98 3.62 88.63 11.09 0.91 7.60 WP_011 3.40 4.55 80.85 3.35 133.31 67.87 2.67 9.63 WP_012 3.00 3.52 84.09 5.43 68.64 24.73 1.69 7.62 WP_013 3.18 2.88 93.34 6.22 72.88 26.90 1.24 6.34 WP_014 3.51 3.10 85.88 2.90 90.88 17.39 1.36 11.17 WP_015 3.59 4.05 97.20 6.02 61.73 26.70 1.74 9.03 WP_016 3.01 3.49 84.91 5.02 62.33 25.96 1.61 8.27 WP_017 3.36 2.80 62.02 6.78 118.85 27.72 1.23 7.58 WP_018 2.49 3.60 79.86 5.03 62.14 17.52 1.68 8.37 WP_019 3.03 2.29 65.56 4.04 72.84 17.94 1.55 6.26 WP_022 2.85 3.23 73.11 3.90 54.08 23.02 1.57 7.52 WP_023 3.30 3.35 83.45 4.27 57.93 28.80 1.51 9.09 WP_024 9.52 3.17 71.32 6.43 75.64 23.36 1.76 5.31 WP_025 3.75 2.36 69.51 3.55 64.40 11.50 1.07 10.99 WP_026 4.11 2.72 73.27 5.45 75.27 18.18 1.57 7.50 WP_027 5.69 3.32 83.89 7.13 78.76 23.39 1.75 6.88 WP_029 1.74 2.66 64.34 2.71 55.64 31.99 1.95 6.76 WP_030 3.08 3.34 80.82 5.97 56.28 17.78 1.56 8.06 WP_031 2.27 1.32 42.05 2.39 113.28 24.34 0.67 5.69 WP_034 2.70 2.71 59.81 10.93 123.11 24.46 1.42 5.23 WP_036 2.84 2.44 49.27 5.70 135.54 19.28 1.26 4.25 WP_049 2.08 2.99 80.12 4.24 396.95 54.58 2.01 6.01 WP_050 4.04 2.64 101.73 3.28 84.02 19.95 1.55 9.85 WP_052 3.20 2.59 83.66 4.04 91.03 13.96 1.26 9.64 WP_053 3.14 2.49 72.74 3.83 72.51 17.35 1.10 9.56 WP_054 3.32 2.84 143.12 7.95 158.49 37.88 2.97 5.43 WP_055 3.21 3.71 92.79 5.38 63.20 23.87 2.00 7.58 WP_056 3.32 2.06 51.96 4.18 107.67 10.40 1.30 8.89 WP_057 3.54 3.13 87.75 7.00 73.58 21.40 1.46 7.71 WP_058 3.12 2.93 91.24 5.16 64.98 31.64 1.62 7.70 WP_059 2.69 3.19 75.01 3.58 56.90 22.36 1.51 8.77 WP_060 2.81 3.00 76.56 4.08 61.11 20.05 1.80 8.31 WP_061 3.00 3.02 83.11 5.06 58.97 22.81 1.60 9.55 WP_062 3.16 3.32 93.58 6.64 71.80 22.72 1.51 8.27 WP_063 2.90 2.63 75.28 4.21 51.23 21.19 1.30 8.92 WP_065 2.92 2.77 76.12 3.57 73.46 23.55 1.46 10.86 WP_066 2.50 2.88 71.15 2.93 65.86 18.96 1.48 9.39 WP_067 2.56 3.79 67.36 3.35 62.43 43.53 2.06 7.82 WP_068 2.34 2.23 63.14 3.19 79.52 23.90 1.62 6.55 WP_069 2.29 2.58 71.89 4.29 74.68 23.29 1.42 7.47 WP_070 1.15 2.47 42.41 2.32 134.49 29.51 1.59 5.02 WP_071 1.08 2.13 37.25 1.84 83.41 21.79 1.45 4.60 WP_072 1.63 2.22 37.56 2.09 138.12 19.14 1.16 3.72 WP_073 1.53 1.27 25.23 1.97 97.89 13.59 0.62 3.72 WP_074 2.64 1.48 37.92 5.31 36.46 16.61 0.71 6.03

218

INAA ID U Yb Ce Cs Cr Co Eu Na WP_075 2.58 2.06 29.30 2.01 65.24 10.80 0.64 9.02 WP_076 2.01 1.65 52.35 1.81 108.89 32.41 1.22 5.85 WP_077 3.16 3.53 82.26 4.17 57.72 26.27 1.65 8.91 WP_078 1.75 2.12 55.03 2.70 46.29 29.37 1.27 7.03 WP_079 1.81 1.62 43.81 2.10 37.08 6.64 1.02 6.88 WP_080 2.42 3.11 71.95 3.56 83.70 19.39 1.47 7.76 WP_081 2.58 3.64 64.53 3.10 55.35 22.67 1.74 7.60 WP_082 2.97 3.55 83.34 4.76 54.09 20.64 1.72 7.87 WP_083 2.17 3.11 75.84 3.31 59.26 22.82 1.79 7.40 WP_086 2.65 2.43 62.68 3.52 67.82 16.54 1.53 6.48 WP_087 3.17 2.93 75.47 2.37 82.79 15.63 1.46 11.46 WP_090 3.10 3.52 82.35 3.67 131.51 65.17 1.89 7.74 WP_091 3.14 3.43 88.63 5.14 61.13 27.01 1.57 9.22 WP_092 3.36 3.46 83.98 4.98 63.57 22.31 1.55 9.12 WP_093 2.78 3.11 78.02 4.15 91.04 25.86 1.68 8.91 WP_094 2.75 3.03 77.17 3.90 78.79 24.11 1.39 9.14 WP_095 2.46 3.30 67.98 3.62 61.85 19.68 1.58 7.50 WP_096 1.30 2.44 42.87 2.45 88.82 25.14 1.54 5.91 WP_097 2.42 4.41 86.04 8.29 84.15 37.73 2.74 7.75 WP_098 2.88 3.42 77.06 4.23 63.35 20.69 1.76 9.10 WP_099 2.56 3.52 78.31 4.40 57.58 20.06 1.71 8.15

219

INAA ID Fe Nd Rb Sc Ta Tb Th Zn WP_003 116184.60 52.06 104.29 52.35 2.02 1.91 10.25 192.14 WP_005 78969.23 28.54 95.96 18.88 1.63 0.66 12.07 103.30 WP_008 63923.57 18.02 75.92 20.63 1.24 0.34 7.29 105.74 WP_009 57396.28 20.02 109.97 17.44 1.46 0.59 11.79 83.76 WP_010 56800.22 17.32 47.72 23.86 0.95 0.29 7.25 110.54 WP_011 126865.00 48.75 56.47 35.90 1.28 1.17 10.14 185.66 WP_012 60428.02 37.58 104.14 19.59 1.31 0.84 11.41 109.64 WP_013 52488.02 24.98 119.14 18.27 1.36 1.02 11.90 121.75 WP_014 48297.17 33.50 66.08 14.24 1.12 0.94 12.35 42.65 WP_015 45535.07 40.97 126.74 14.08 1.49 1.07 11.74 80.77 WP_016 49737.31 31.58 104.64 14.09 1.28 1.05 10.60 77.89 WP_017 64315.63 22.74 91.29 20.22 1.22 0.78 10.80 103.50 WP_018 46578.50 33.54 94.04 16.62 1.14 0.92 11.37 70.81 WP_019 45107.08 25.88 72.37 15.84 0.94 1.04 8.54 72.78 WP_022 55173.44 22.25 94.76 17.91 1.14 0.98 9.38 121.21 WP_023 55266.20 31.77 110.07 18.48 1.10 0.77 10.32 76.60 WP_024 61837.64 28.36 96.35 21.02 1.02 1.37 9.92 161.65 WP_025 45309.85 29.76 94.03 12.54 1.19 0.61 13.62 64.29 WP_026 45593.60 30.68 80.19 16.18 1.08 1.10 10.34 105.90 WP_027 54008.34 35.57 81.56 18.15 1.15 0.94 12.83 133.67 WP_029 81411.66 33.60 58.22 28.39 1.03 0.98 6.69 187.43 WP_030 46312.39 38.19 111.93 15.26 1.23 1.21 11.19 105.75 WP_031 31978.47 11.16 57.83 9.61 0.86 0.35 6.85 52.32 WP_034 56354.36 27.02 91.10 21.54 0.81 0.74 7.20 150.53 WP_036 55163.34 20.84 95.86 19.92 0.84 0.92 7.68 139.02 WP_049 96283.41 36.31 54.03 33.83 2.99 1.01 8.91 92.19 WP_050 44244.41 41.67 78.93 15.98 1.47 1.04 13.20 83.22 WP_052 43958.88 28.70 57.17 13.39 1.20 0.74 10.93 43.11 WP_053 41964.90 24.27 69.92 15.49 1.59 0.74 11.08 56.50 WP_054 60127.00 71.15 111.76 31.25 1.41 2.18 19.35 166.06 WP_055 62510.08 37.67 92.03 20.46 1.47 1.14 13.08 117.42 WP_056 61313.33 22.38 71.96 21.66 0.95 0.61 8.86 102.57 WP_057 54726.00 39.94 113.19 19.12 1.26 0.84 12.30 127.64 WP_058 51087.49 34.62 104.66 16.49 1.35 0.90 11.51 140.89 WP_059 46232.79 26.17 81.96 14.91 1.15 0.93 10.02 114.84 WP_060 45949.34 34.58 86.32 16.25 1.09 1.14 9.83 191.01 WP_061 55773.47 32.09 99.89 18.16 1.46 1.10 11.07 140.84 WP_062 52873.72 30.46 153.09 18.34 1.54 0.94 12.60 135.81 WP_063 42457.05 21.99 86.90 12.70 1.32 0.81 9.78 99.98 WP_065 52664.92 33.14 87.78 15.87 1.30 0.99 10.23 121.45 WP_066 53171.97 27.61 61.98 15.70 1.18 0.80 8.69 106.71 WP_067 125819.00 31.38 55.74 41.49 1.02 0.99 7.44 183.30 WP_068 54426.44 27.43 61.09 19.09 1.07 0.74 7.31 102.75 WP_069 50996.87 30.32 92.71 17.41 1.05 0.96 8.69 112.46 WP_070 64499.73 25.02 25.77 24.06 0.70 0.94 3.58 106.13 WP_071 51087.14 20.81 19.37 21.09 0.72 0.71 3.38 96.67 WP_072 43030.26 14.19 29.65 16.76 0.51 0.74 4.00 75.32 WP_073 38689.85 12.67 56.80 12.92 0.50 0.38 3.58 65.71 WP_074 47122.20 14.44 71.94 16.40 0.91 0.24 6.84 98.78

220

INAA ID Fe Nd Rb Sc Ta Tb Th Zn WP_075 33521.91 13.29 46.31 12.58 1.31 0.39 6.49 63.38 WP_076 59575.21 16.17 50.91 21.31 0.97 0.74 5.64 78.51 WP_077 60399.28 36.47 84.24 20.88 1.06 0.96 10.59 100.93 WP_078 64910.21 21.55 42.20 19.88 1.16 0.77 6.44 114.71 WP_079 49883.92 17.63 62.67 10.31 0.82 0.60 6.49 39.88 WP_080 50951.02 25.16 90.93 17.65 1.20 0.90 9.83 94.30 WP_081 64912.93 30.81 53.97 23.82 0.89 0.90 7.79 161.28 WP_082 57216.30 34.75 105.36 19.83 1.26 1.23 11.40 111.68 WP_083 62192.82 36.20 79.97 21.08 0.96 1.00 8.43 128.23 WP_086 38445.81 24.63 62.40 16.38 0.85 0.94 8.20 182.71 WP_087 40920.60 28.22 60.58 13.35 1.09 0.85 9.26 98.59 WP_090 112433.20 31.90 39.30 32.49 1.33 1.11 8.18 204.55 WP_091 52551.82 37.28 107.63 17.36 1.36 1.19 11.54 113.61 WP_092 49742.79 34.87 107.23 16.28 1.44 1.02 11.13 125.86 WP_093 61825.25 32.14 76.24 21.38 1.07 0.94 9.77 127.47 WP_094 56148.44 24.99 86.78 18.64 1.30 0.78 9.71 115.68 WP_095 51766.45 27.30 70.96 17.42 1.16 1.08 9.04 86.68 WP_096 57349.76 27.61 37.36 20.54 0.81 0.87 4.50 130.57 WP_097 75346.95 38.70 33.51 37.12 1.22 1.58 6.64 194.58 WP_098 55138.22 32.42 81.70 18.94 1.13 0.98 10.35 104.01 WP_099 52869.49 39.14 95.70 18.44 1.18 1.10 10.69 95.17

221

APPENDIX C INAA Results – Comparative Specimens

INAA ID Batch Type As Ba La Lu Sm HIDD_01 RC1786-5 Brick 7.68 779.37 36.25 0.51 7.23 OR301 RC1847-4 Brick 4.71 598.70 44.39 0.42 7.19 STPA_01 RC1786-5 Brick 2.71 810.64 44.21 0.58 8.19 WV201 RC1849-3 Brick 6.61 734.08 44.55 0.57 8.71 WV202 RC1849-3 Brick 8.70 756.16 43.15 0.51 8.00 WV203 RC1849-3 Brick 8.88 794.88 42.44 0.55 8.57 WV204 RC1849-3 Brick 5.61 684.85 44.04 0.57 8.71 WV205 RC1849-3 Brick 9.14 659.21 33.45 0.45 6.86 WV206 RC1849-3 Brick 7.09 827.55 43.77 0.57 7.99 WV207 RC1849-3 Brick 7.05 818.99 46.34 0.58 8.91 WV208 RC1849-3 Brick 6.36 694.08 39.06 0.44 7.68 WV209 RC1849-3 Brick 4.86 656.35 39.19 0.55 7.42 WV210 RC1849-3 Brick 7.64 708.74 44.09 0.57 8.65 WV211 RC1847-4 Brick 8.10 650.55 42.53 0.50 8.42 WV212 RC1847-4 Brick 7.73 661.42 43.54 0.54 8.75 WV213 RC1847-4 Brick 7.75 698.02 39.58 0.49 8.05 London_1 R961-02-2IC Brick 36.31 393.71 46.36 0.47 9.27 London_2 R961-03-4IC Brick 7.19 455.73 35.82 0.50 8.23 VanSweringen RC1697-4 Brick 15.94 692.32 39.62 0.46 7.72 EVA_001 RC1825-2 Pottery 1.00 547.48 34.84 0.45 5.91 EVA_002 RC1825-2 Pottery 1.77 647.87 38.23 0.47 6.35 EVA_003 RC1825-2 Pottery 4.84 615.03 46.45 0.49 8.08 EVA_004 RC1825-2 Pottery 1.26 431.49 36.56 0.49 6.11 EVA_005 RC1825-2 Pottery 1.40 542.50 37.36 0.53 6.04 EVA_006 RC1825-2 Pottery 2.54 473.41 34.36 0.43 5.70 HRC_001 RC1825-2 Pottery 5.39 564.50 38.56 0.40 6.64 HRC_002 RC1825-2 Pottery 6.97 676.96 36.66 0.45 6.30 HRC_003 RC1825-2 Pottery 8.40 725.96 38.47 0.45 7.42 HRC_004 RC1825-2 Pottery 0.56 787.78 49.35 0.49 7.46 HRC_005 RC1825-2 Pottery 1.70 623.56 44.46 0.49 7.99 HRC_006 RC1825-2 Pottery 0.61 594.17 47.01 0.54 7.59 PDG_001 RC1825-2 Pottery 4.51 441.25 32.56 0.31 5.91 PDG_002 RC1825-2 Pottery 4.75 489.66 32.22 0.36 6.02 PDG_003 RC1825-2 Pottery 4.41 413.05 29.51 0.28 4.23 PDG_004 RC1825-2 Pottery 5.23 537.09 29.96 0.30 5.26 PDG_005 RC1825-2 Pottery 4.63 637.75 29.27 0.33 5.32 PDG_006 RC1825-2 Pottery 6.20 659.47 28.84 0.30 4.49 SDG_001 RC1825-2 Pottery 4.17 485.82 28.11 0.29 4.51 SDG_002 RC1825-2 Pottery 4.38 552.47 25.42 0.26 3.92 SDG_003 RC1825-2 Pottery 4.12 550.16 27.62 0.33 4.78 SDG_004 RC1825-2 Pottery 2.43 604.55 31.69 0.33 5.01 SDG_005 RC1825-2 Pottery 4.20 394.37 28.38 0.32 5.09 SDG_006 RC1825-2 Pottery 4.59 494.87 29.85 0.32 5.42

222

INAA ID Na U Yb Ce Cs Cr Co Eu HIDD_01 14424.51 2.63 3.01 70.46 4.11 48.12 23.08 1.65 OR301 8827.42 3.96 2.99 92.47 3.33 105.88 22.41 1.41 STPA_01 11285.82 3.60 3.74 89.37 6.27 64.50 24.23 1.69 WV201 10457.60 3.69 3.83 89.71 5.45 61.32 24.28 1.95 WV202 9610.96 3.44 3.45 84.82 6.94 79.04 21.76 1.84 WV203 10311.55 3.12 3.81 87.74 5.75 62.18 22.57 1.89 WV204 10597.29 3.37 4.06 86.80 5.59 64.90 21.75 1.83 WV205 12910.46 2.89 3.53 66.06 3.83 67.16 16.95 1.62 WV206 9788.81 3.43 3.76 87.91 6.90 62.96 22.24 1.81 WV207 11852.85 3.85 3.92 89.56 6.35 62.44 26.19 1.97 WV208 10264.38 3.40 3.67 84.69 5.94 62.85 29.38 1.63 WV209 9901.96 3.98 3.32 84.53 5.98 63.84 19.84 1.64 WV210 10478.23 3.46 4.05 88.50 5.17 65.49 25.42 1.89 WV211 10201.99 3.05 3.83 88.53 5.56 68.27 21.47 1.89 WV212 10587.85 2.99 3.67 90.30 5.18 66.55 25.33 1.96 WV213 10506.92 3.34 3.57 88.87 5.91 67.89 30.67 1.77 London_1 2857.47 2.81 3.77 80.49 6.30 107.32 63.84 1.45 London_2 3086.06 2.66 3.43 167.72 4.95 106.60 52.74 1.57 VanSweringen 6471.00 2.96 3.82 80.08 9.94 101.31 17.61 1.50 EVA_001 14548.00 3.60 3.21 67.36 4.93 47.97 14.32 1.24 EVA_002 12163.00 4.00 3.09 71.05 5.14 47.73 13.92 1.40 EVA_003 7893.00 5.40 3.52 108.10 5.12 65.04 17.28 1.59 EVA_004 7447.00 4.21 3.18 69.30 5.02 48.43 15.05 1.24 EVA_005 9000.00 4.63 3.32 65.30 5.06 43.92 14.41 1.24 EVA_006 13937.00 4.08 3.06 66.47 5.06 40.31 12.36 1.27 HRC_001 5599.00 3.88 2.70 80.60 5.67 88.03 17.21 1.61 HRC_002 6173.00 3.71 3.14 73.92 4.83 80.40 15.71 1.23 HRC_003 8052.00 4.04 2.85 79.99 4.86 77.29 16.45 1.58 HRC_004 1387.00 5.48 3.13 98.11 7.13 92.06 10.47 1.48 HRC_005 5986.00 4.01 3.44 83.53 5.91 92.47 15.83 1.59 HRC_006 1626.00 5.43 3.60 92.79 6.92 82.13 11.32 1.52 PDG_001 8748.00 2.69 2.30 71.94 3.06 95.92 15.02 1.32 PDG_002 8725.00 3.34 2.26 64.70 3.21 102.46 14.91 1.46 PDG_003 6827.00 3.26 1.76 58.17 2.83 108.63 15.26 0.96 PDG_004 8923.00 2.78 2.05 60.39 2.80 100.07 16.53 1.23 PDG_005 8902.00 3.20 2.12 60.42 2.55 101.75 12.92 1.21 PDG_006 7633.00 3.08 2.21 61.04 2.71 117.65 18.35 0.95 SDG_001 8288.00 3.33 1.82 56.82 2.21 110.37 15.53 1.00 SDG_002 7518.00 2.94 1.51 51.47 2.44 102.91 13.97 0.93 SDG_003 8093.00 2.77 2.06 60.13 2.74 106.69 12.06 1.09 SDG_004 9804.00 2.94 1.88 62.83 2.34 110.30 16.67 1.14 SDG_005 6793.00 3.04 1.94 63.42 2.00 114.16 14.21 1.16 SDG_006 6743.00 2.58 2.00 59.64 2.62 118.01 12.15 1.16

223

INAA ID Hf Fe Nd Rb Sc Ta Tb Th Zn HIDD_01 7.94 55671.54 30.09 89.40 18.63 1.12 1.03 9.60 101.51 OR301 11.57 48837.77 33.59 61.29 14.60 1.38 0.77 13.19 58.84 STPA_01 8.40 54298.53 38.42 123.60 18.24 1.37 1.02 11.89 111.04 WV201 8.37 50586.43 45.91 109.84 17.45 1.33 1.35 12.04 102.14 WV202 7.26 48145.51 39.49 134.78 17.05 1.48 0.89 12.65 95.14 WV203 8.85 53464.75 43.46 114.66 18.05 1.26 1.26 11.46 110.90 WV204 8.72 51872.64 39.79 118.36 17.82 1.16 1.13 11.64 111.69 WV205 7.65 53232.86 28.69 82.17 18.65 1.10 1.04 9.32 81.19 WV206 8.40 52352.63 31.68 132.78 17.57 1.51 1.02 12.34 103.84 WV207 8.37 50615.71 36.92 123.65 17.49 1.48 1.18 11.92 97.23 WV208 7.56 52800.64 33.36 82.62 17.31 1.38 1.00 12.37 85.27 WV209 8.21 54068.48 38.03 105.43 17.63 1.38 1.03 12.74 72.92 WV210 8.86 53076.09 45.81 127.30 18.02 1.42 1.11 11.55 103.55 WV211 9.01 53431.08 38.37 105.61 18.42 1.36 1.13 11.91 104.46 WV212 8.82 55207.80 38.30 106.80 18.59 1.42 1.10 12.03 99.38 WV213 7.65 56276.05 34.06 94.84 17.97 1.32 0.87 12.05 91.64 London_1 6.34 44199.74 65.71 59.91 13.25 0.89 0.76 8.63 170.34 London_2 10.90 43245.23 39.07 91.86 11.52 0.89 1.01 9.89 36.05 VanSweringen 8.05 34180.18 31.65 120.66 12.61 1.14 1.05 12.99 83.78 EVA_001 10.01 23766.00 32.39 69.60 15.90 1.38 0.90 12.61 117.24 EVA_002 10.82 26038.00 35.70 87.13 17.53 1.72 1.31 13.74 158.15 EVA_003 10.32 30644.00 37.95 93.03 15.78 2.05 0.94 15.18 152.82 EVA_004 10.25 20615.00 29.53 75.03 16.69 1.69 0.81 13.65 170.84 EVA_005 9.91 19089.00 24.38 70.96 15.40 1.60 1.01 12.35 148.92 EVA_006 9.65 22634.00 29.19 82.34 14.82 1.59 0.79 11.27 155.95 HRC_001 11.16 45337.00 36.84 59.62 22.72 1.84 0.87 13.23 113.02 HRC_002 10.95 43882.00 25.83 56.01 21.54 1.55 0.81 13.37 141.19 HRC_003 10.28 48524.00 34.94 77.87 23.49 1.65 1.04 13.87 248.54 HRC_004 14.49 25168.00 28.07 92.46 20.82 2.16 0.92 18.51 116.51 HRC_005 11.14 44967.00 38.74 82.08 22.40 1.78 0.96 14.18 110.58 HRC_006 14.82 28448.00 37.36 72.65 21.68 2.09 0.94 18.14 140.76 PDG_001 8.22 49261.00 35.38 36.25 18.37 1.22 0.70 9.62 67.52 PDG_002 8.78 53262.00 24.17 37.67 19.38 1.15 0.76 10.69 79.43 PDG_003 9.26 52534.00 23.64 46.54 18.55 1.47 0.49 11.07 64.25 PDG_004 9.20 58393.00 26.63 52.98 17.89 1.21 0.63 10.39 71.72 PDG_005 8.81 48945.00 28.48 36.19 18.33 1.17 0.88 9.88 67.94 PDG_006 10.17 63105.00 18.98 48.33 16.87 1.34 0.44 10.29 78.55 SDG_001 9.43 45828.00 24.69 44.43 17.72 1.26 0.29 9.85 44.17 SDG_002 8.25 42309.00 18.87 41.77 17.19 1.30 0.37 9.45 65.94 SDG_003 9.82 42259.00 26.28 48.48 16.06 1.19 0.62 9.55 69.49 SDG_004 10.73 38007.00 26.39 36.19 15.50 1.28 0.72 9.77 62.61 SDG_005 9.36 40391.00 22.77 23.09 19.16 1.37 0.55 9.62 75.28 SDG_006 9.55 38512.00 21.45 40.44 19.46 1.24 0.95 9.80 57.53

224

APPENDIX D Probability of Membership in Group A

INAA ID Dist F-Stat Prob(A) FOVA_12 11.75 2.109 0.257 FV107 4.307 0.773 0.509 FV111 2.321 0.417 0.756 FV112 26.65 4.783 0.043 FV121 23.249 4.173 0.062 FV137 4.095 0.735 0.532 FV139 3.285 0.59 0.628 FV140 1.902 0.341 0.814 FV144 6.772 1.215 0.483 FV148 3.565 0.64 0.594 FV151 5.671 1.018 0.398 FV152 2.15 0.386 0.78 FV154 9.171 1.646 0.368 FV162 1.749 0.314 0.835 FV163 2.779 0.499 0.694 FOVA_01 926.298 170.5794 0 FOVA_02 807.5785 148.717 0 FOVA_05 713.9151 131.4687 0 FOVA_06 668.9211 123.183 0 FOVA_07 825.7843 152.0697 0 FOVA_08 807.2725 148.6607 0 FOVA_23 854.5957 157.3753 0 FV103 643.7517 118.548 0 FV104 848.8859 156.3239 0 FV105 909.5382 167.4931 0 FV108 1013.623 186.6604 0 FV109 860.1142 158.3916 0 FV110 844.7962 155.5708 0 FV116 946.3352 174.2693 0 FV119 953.1502 175.5243 0 FV123 860.0479 158.3794 0 FV125 1043.612 192.183 0 FV128 945.4406 174.1046 0 FV133 931.7229 171.5785 0 FV134 857.2098 157.8567 0 FV136 910.3202 167.6371 0 FV138 866.4675 159.5615 0 FV145 930.7171 171.3932 0 FV161 912.8889 168.1101 0 FOVA_11 485.356 89.3792 0 FOVA_17 581.4296 107.0713 0 FOVA_18 401.9935 74.0278 0 FOVA_19 570.711 105.0974 0 FOVA_21 360.9342 66.4667 0 FV101 508.8126 93.6987 0 FV102 417.7663 76.9324 0 FV106 473.7813 87.2477 0 FV113 530.9911 97.783 0 FV117 513.5644 94.5738 0

225

INAA ID Dist F-Stat Prob(A) FV124 300.5827 55.3529 0 FV126 373.0826 68.7038 0 FV131 329.8675 60.7457 0 FV135 456.8771 84.1347 0 FV141 516.3452 95.0859 0 FV142 450.1631 82.8983 0 FV143 505.8113 93.1461 0 FV146 354.3806 65.2598 0 FV147 474.1612 87.3176 0 FV150 408.2903 75.1874 0 FV153 441.9216 81.3806 0 FV156 453.4806 83.5093 0 FV157 491.677 90.5432 0 FV158 471.3521 86.8003 0 FV159 511.6481 94.2209 0 FV160 454.3069 83.6614 0 FV164 295.0736 54.3383 0 FV165 448.8551 82.6575 0 FOVA_10 743.767 136.966 0 FOVA_14 789.2754 145.3465 0 FOVA_15 863.8159 159.0732 0 FOVA_16 507.5707 93.4701 0 FOVA_20 810.5896 149.2715 0 FOVA_22 902.4945 166.196 0 FV115 887.295 163.397 0 FV118 761.9527 140.3149 0 FV120 769.3401 141.6754 0 FV122 728.1804 134.0957 0 FV127 716.3043 131.9087 0 FV129 715.6961 131.7967 0 FV149 741.8449 136.6121 0 FV167 809.6911 149.1061 0 FOVA_03 941.8662 173.4464 0 FOVA_04 862.2849 158.7913 0 FOVA_09 592.9982 109.2017 0 FOVA_13 1097.018 202.0178 0 FV114 52.6369 9.6932 0.0038 FV130 496.3383 91.4016 0 FV132 666.527 122.7421 0 HIDD_01 568.2713 104.6482 0 OR301 724.2061 133.3639 0 STPA_01 968.4639 178.3444 0 WP_000 1321.71 243.3953 0 WP_005 1273.881 234.5875 0 WP_008 539.8644 99.417 0 WP_009 1217.818 224.2633 0 WP_010 507.865 93.5242 0 WP_011 646.6363 119.0792 0 WP_012 845.4111 155.684 0 WP_013 963.959 177.5148 0 WP_014 658.9445 121.3458 0 WP_015 1162.373 214.0531 0

226

INAA ID Dist F-Stat Prob(A) WP_016 794.0303 146.2221 0 WP_017 831.3541 153.0953 0 WP_018 670.3805 123.4518 0 WP_019 326.9542 60.2092 0 WP_022 573.6829 105.6447 0 WP_023 696.4556 128.2535 0 WP_024 979.2436 180.3295 0 WP_025 1145.805 211.0021 0 WP_026 661.9498 121.8992 0 WP_027 1051.611 193.656 0 WP_029 181.4041 33.4059 0.0001 WP_030 1010.413 186.0694 0 WP_031 391.8987 72.1688 0 WP_034 648.5425 119.4303 0 WP_036 312.8657 57.6148 0 WP_049 494.3311 91.0319 0 WP_050 836.1613 153.9806 0 WP_052 857.5999 157.9286 0 WP_053 839.7299 154.6378 0 WP_054 917.144 168.8937 0 WP_055 966.4687 177.9769 0 WP_056 562.8686 103.6533 0 WP_057 1109.912 204.3923 0 WP_058 909.4492 167.4767 0 WP_059 611.4348 112.5968 0 WP_060 529.3675 97.484 0 WP_061 943.8098 173.8043 0 WP_062 1197.767 220.5709 0 WP_063 773.1744 142.3814 0 WP_065 596.3579 109.8204 0 WP_066 459.1862 84.5599 0 WP_067 342.8884 63.1435 0 WP_068 174.7692 32.184 0.0001 WP_069 434.3686 79.9897 0 WP_070 136.131 25.0688 0.0002 WP_071 231.3674 42.6067 0 WP_072 160.4489 29.5469 0.0001 WP_073 286.1228 52.69 0 WP_074 755.8695 139.1947 0 WP_075 517.341 95.2693 0 WP_076 52.5554 9.6782 0.0038 WP_077 664.6607 122.3985 0 WP_078 76.1919 14.0309 0.001 WP_079 526.8633 97.0228 0 WP_080 483.3117 89.0027 0 WP_081 248.9782 45.8498 0 WP_082 804.3037 148.114 0 WP_083 293.2161 53.9963 0 WP_086 251.601 46.3328 0 WP_087 428.0153 78.8198 0 WP_090 473.0662 87.116 0 WP_091 906.4605 166.9263 0

227

INAA ID Dist F-Stat Prob(A) WP_092 948.3203 174.6349 0 WP_093 492.749 90.7406 0 WP_094 592.3744 109.0868 0 WP_095 389.8235 71.7867 0 WP_096 12.0123 2.2121 0.2304 WP_097 282.2851 51.9833 0 WP_098 578.519 106.5353 0 WP_099 613.1238 112.9079 0 WV201 898.9389 165.5412 0 WV202 1111.736 204.7281 0 WV203 892.1243 164.2863 0 WV204 834.7306 153.7172 0 WV205 472.4292 86.9987 0 WV206 1174.947 216.3685 0 WV207 1080.704 199.0136 0 WV208 813.0833 149.7307 0 WV209 968.0249 178.2635 0 WV210 946.2838 174.2598 0 WV211 833.5594 153.5015 0 WV212 812.4768 149.619 0 WV213 846.41 155.8679 0 EVA_001 834.5623 153.6861 0 EVA_002 1050.543 193.4593 0 EVA_003 1492.768 274.896 0 EVA_004 1032.647 190.1639 0 EVA_005 1061.095 195.4025 0 EVA_006 1075.291 198.0167 0 HRC_001 916.2751 168.7337 0 HRC_002 928.6211 171.0072 0 HRC_003 1071.075 197.2404 0 HRC_004 1663.584 306.352 0 HRC_005 942.9609 173.648 0 HRC_006 1450.588 267.1284 0 London_1 643.5481 118.5105 0 London_2 694.7428 127.9381 0 PDG_001 298.8883 55.0408 0 PDG_002 314.739 57.9597 0 PDG_003 503.1497 92.6559 0 PDG_004 357.11 65.7624 0 PDG_005 308.2397 56.7629 0 PDG_006 502.2056 92.4821 0 SDG_001 479.8097 88.3578 0 SDG_002 433.4778 79.8257 0 SDG_003 432.1516 79.5815 0 SDG_004 343.5554 63.2663 0 SDG_005 276.5444 50.9261 0 SDG_006 354.3718 65.2582 0 VanSweringen 1154.078 212.5256 0 FV155 500.6848 92.202 0

228

APPENDIX E Probability of Membership in Group B

INAA ID Dist F-Stat Prob(B) FOVA_01 12.653 2.593 0.142 FOVA_02 10.418 2.135 0.216 FOVA_05 10.822 2.218 0.200 FOVA_06 13.400 2.747 0.123 FOVA_07 14.767 3.027 0.096 FOVA_23 7.328 1.502 0.389 FV103 8.970 1.839 0.285 FV104 0.955 0.196 0.928 FV105 0.647 0.133 0.962 FV108 4.086 0.838 0.515 FV109 0.144 0.030 0.996 FV110 1.099 0.225 0.910 FV116 3.492 0.716 0.560 FV119 4.579 0.939 0.571 FV123 3.663 0.751 0.538 FV125 5.948 1.219 0.499 FV128 1.018 0.209 0.920 FV133 11.394 2.335 0.180 FV134 10.167 2.084 0.227 FV136 0.439 0.090 0.979 FV138 1.311 0.269 0.881 FV145 0.820 0.168 0.944 FV161 1.931 0.396 0.790 FOVA_11 201.004 41.590 0.000 FOVA_17 280.613 58.063 0.000 FOVA_18 268.208 55.496 0.000 FOVA_19 229.816 47.552 0.000 FOVA_21 265.726 54.982 0.000 FV101 155.004 32.072 0.000 FV102 212.682 44.007 0.000 FV106 189.390 39.187 0.000 FV113 238.099 49.266 0.000 FV117 205.284 42.476 0.000 FV124 325.108 67.269 0.000 FV126 224.108 46.371 0.000 FV131 223.691 46.285 0.000 FV135 202.996 42.003 0.000 FV141 242.349 50.145 0.000 FV142 240.747 49.814 0.000 FV143 214.362 44.354 0.000 FV146 202.679 41.937 0.000 FV147 190.867 39.493 0.000 FV150 202.491 41.898 0.000 FV153 182.593 37.781 0.000 FV156 289.211 59.842 0.000 FV157 192.288 39.787 0.000 FV158 172.808 35.756 0.000 FV159 192.085 39.745 0.000 FV160 215.224 44.533 0.000

229

INAA ID Dist F-Stat Prob(B) FV164 226.570 46.880 0.000 FV165 218.364 45.182 0.000 FOVA_10 227.698 47.114 0.000 FOVA_14 175.587 36.331 0.000 FOVA_15 192.883 39.910 0.000 FOVA_16 379.459 78.515 0.000 FOVA_20 206.341 42.695 0.000 FOVA_22 211.222 43.705 0.000 FV115 201.584 41.710 0.000 FV118 208.952 43.235 0.000 FV120 244.241 50.537 0.000 FV122 184.225 38.119 0.000 FV127 179.329 37.106 0.000 FV129 194.758 40.298 0.000 FV149 174.088 36.021 0.000 FV167 156.490 32.380 0.000 FOVA_03 160.669 33.245 0.000 FOVA_04 266.302 55.101 0.000 FOVA_09 629.306 130.212 0.000 FOVA_13 93.708 19.389 0.000 FV114 324.178 67.077 0.000 FV130 550.199 113.843 0.000 FV132 244.529 50.596 0.000 HIDD_01 241.029 49.872 0.000 OR301 58.156 12.033 0.000 STPA_01 245.199 50.735 0.000 WP_000 542.932 112.340 0.000 WP_005 213.644 44.206 0.000 WP_008 444.286 91.928 0.000 WP_009 234.579 48.537 0.000 WP_010 460.042 95.189 0.000 WP_011 636.398 131.679 0.000 WP_012 164.702 34.079 0.000 WP_013 168.505 34.866 0.000 WP_014 73.214 15.149 0.000 WP_015 142.096 29.401 0.000 WP_016 130.474 26.997 0.000 WP_017 155.075 32.087 0.000 WP_018 157.720 32.634 0.000 WP_019 224.418 46.435 0.000 WP_022 249.042 51.530 0.000 WP_023 166.515 34.454 0.000 WP_024 227.272 47.025 0.000 WP_025 283.934 58.750 0.000 WP_026 196.602 40.680 0.000 WP_027 201.080 41.606 0.000 WP_029 557.323 115.317 0.000 WP_030 191.782 39.682 0.000 WP_031 544.369 112.637 0.000 WP_034 224.430 46.437 0.000 WP_036 250.352 51.801 0.000 WP_049 490.893 101.572 0.000

230

INAA ID Dist F-Stat Prob(B) WP_050 145.262 30.057 0.000 WP_052 20.051 4.149 0.034 WP_053 71.829 14.862 0.000 WP_054 285.400 59.053 0.000 WP_055 230.509 47.695 0.000 WP_056 194.011 40.143 0.000 WP_057 165.224 34.187 0.000 WP_058 219.026 45.319 0.000 WP_059 233.795 48.375 0.000 WP_060 217.729 45.051 0.000 WP_061 203.453 42.097 0.000 WP_062 178.480 36.930 0.000 WP_063 267.346 55.317 0.000 WP_065 173.852 35.972 0.000 WP_066 138.465 28.650 0.000 WP_067 520.470 107.692 0.000 WP_068 246.602 51.025 0.000 WP_069 214.046 44.289 0.000 WP_070 578.592 119.718 0.000 WP_071 551.066 114.023 0.000 WP_072 416.186 86.114 0.000 WP_073 769.799 159.281 0.000 WP_074 958.732 198.374 0.000 WP_075 487.358 100.841 0.000 WP_076 321.637 66.551 0.000 WP_077 194.887 40.325 0.000 WP_078 285.828 59.141 0.000 WP_079 499.996 103.456 0.000 WP_080 138.132 28.581 0.000 WP_081 348.643 72.139 0.000 WP_082 191.556 39.635 0.000 WP_083 308.811 63.897 0.000 WP_086 245.342 50.764 0.000 WP_087 206.329 42.692 0.000 WP_090 553.575 114.542 0.000 WP_091 176.412 36.502 0.000 WP_092 166.774 34.508 0.000 WP_093 155.202 32.113 0.000 WP_094 157.915 32.675 0.000 WP_095 201.496 41.692 0.000 WP_096 410.410 84.919 0.000 WP_097 545.306 112.831 0.000 WP_098 169.697 35.113 0.000 WP_099 191.419 39.607 0.000 WV201 192.738 39.880 0.000 WV202 141.005 29.176 0.000 WV203 180.756 37.401 0.000 WV204 173.775 35.956 0.000 WV205 147.092 30.435 0.000 WV206 188.067 38.913 0.000 WV207 206.987 42.828 0.000 WV208 158.607 32.818 0.000

231

INAA ID Dist F-Stat Prob(B) WV209 147.081 30.433 0.000 WV210 169.245 35.019 0.000 WV211 139.050 28.771 0.000 WV212 158.179 32.729 0.000 WV213 158.243 32.743 0.000 EVA_001 269.324 55.727 0.000 EVA_002 261.868 54.184 0.000 EVA_003 153.447 31.750 0.000 EVA_004 170.586 35.296 0.000 EVA_005 237.481 49.138 0.000 EVA_006 258.401 53.467 0.000 HRC_001 83.488 17.275 0.000 HRC_002 116.889 24.186 0.000 HRC_003 175.829 36.381 0.000 HRC_004 146.625 30.339 0.000 HRC_005 117.644 24.342 0.000 HRC_006 100.563 20.808 0.000 London_1 142.449 29.475 0.000 London_2 44.156 9.136 0.001 PDG_001 90.994 18.828 0.000 PDG_002 103.241 21.362 0.000 PDG_003 192.286 39.787 0.000 PDG_004 142.539 29.493 0.000 PDG_005 132.791 27.476 0.000 PDG_006 233.751 48.366 0.000 SDG_001 230.190 47.629 0.000 SDG_002 319.475 66.104 0.000 SDG_003 128.720 26.634 0.000 SDG_004 135.420 28.020 0.000 SDG_005 110.205 22.803 0.000 SDG_006 79.671 16.485 0.000 VanSweringen 38.811 8.031 0.002 FOVA_12 365.468 75.620 0.000 FV107 368.314 76.209 0.000 FV111 373.007 77.180 0.000 FV112 387.568 80.193 0.000 FV121 445.864 92.255 0.000 FV137 441.061 91.261 0.000 FV139 363.016 75.113 0.000 FV140 385.948 79.858 0.000 FV144 454.667 94.077 0.000 FV148 397.539 82.256 0.000 FV151 431.310 89.244 0.000 FV152 419.500 86.800 0.000 FV154 392.398 81.192 0.000 FV155 1009.516 208.882 0.000 FV162 396.524 82.046 0.000 FV163 373.047 77.188 0.000 FOVA_08 33.943 7.023 0.004

232

APPENDIX F Probability of Membership in Group C

INAA ID Dist F-Stat Prob(C) FOVA_11 2.356 0.492 0.721 FOVA_17 10.620 2.216 0.196 FOVA_19 6.519 1.360 0.440 FOVA_21 7.746 1.616 0.346 FV101 7.069 1.475 0.395 FV102 2.248 0.469 0.738 FV106 0.951 0.199 0.927 FV113 10.661 2.225 0.194 FV117 2.412 0.503 0.713 FV126 12.735 2.658 0.129 FV131 11.685 2.439 0.159 FV135 1.965 0.410 0.782 FV141 7.004 1.462 0.400 FV142 3.349 0.699 0.574 FV143 2.189 0.457 0.747 FV146 4.623 0.965 0.584 FV147 5.395 1.126 0.459 FV150 2.266 0.473 0.735 FV153 16.155 3.371 0.066 FV156 7.662 1.599 0.352 FV157 0.817 0.171 0.943 FV158 2.841 0.593 0.647 FV159 2.182 0.455 0.748 FV160 1.526 0.319 0.848 FV165 0.438 0.091 0.979 FOVA_10 53.803 11.317 0.000 FOVA_03 48.171 10.132 0.001 FOVA_04 502.044 105.598 0.000 FOVA_09 1198.682 252.127 0.000 FOVA_13 134.420 28.273 0.000 FOVA_14 73.610 15.483 0.000 FOVA_15 46.113 9.699 0.001 FOVA_16 46.627 9.807 0.001 FOVA_20 50.619 10.647 0.001 FOVA_22 55.455 11.664 0.000 FV114 216.471 45.532 0.000 FV115 42.590 8.958 0.001 FV118 54.406 11.444 0.000 FV120 47.366 9.963 0.001 FV122 54.669 11.499 0.000 FV127 52.912 11.129 0.000 FV129 36.897 7.761 0.002 FV130 1065.027 224.014 0.000 FV132 28.798 6.057 0.007 FV149 51.434 10.819 0.000 FV167 58.032 12.206 0.000 HIDD_01 9.265 1.949 0.251 OR301 108.022 22.721 0.000

233

INAA ID Dist F-Stat Prob(C) STPA_01 74.960 15.767 0.000 WP_000 414.157 87.112 0.000 WP_005 181.069 38.086 0.000 WP_008 243.215 51.157 0.000 WP_009 247.330 52.023 0.000 WP_010 313.256 65.889 0.000 WP_011 280.075 58.910 0.000 WP_012 35.107 7.384 0.003 WP_013 56.471 11.878 0.000 WP_014 177.045 37.239 0.000 WP_015 126.968 26.706 0.000 WP_016 52.749 11.095 0.000 WP_017 131.146 27.585 0.000 WP_018 60.528 12.731 0.000 WP_019 59.438 12.502 0.000 WP_022 4.174 0.878 0.536 WP_023 16.725 3.518 0.056 WP_024 68.591 14.427 0.000 WP_025 172.266 36.234 0.000 WP_026 24.309 5.113 0.014 WP_027 65.534 13.784 0.000 WP_029 147.216 30.965 0.000 WP_030 66.875 14.066 0.000 WP_031 589.248 123.940 0.000 WP_034 81.342 17.109 0.000 WP_036 62.470 13.140 0.000 WP_049 202.586 42.611 0.000 WP_050 54.593 11.483 0.000 WP_052 337.587 71.007 0.000 WP_053 200.591 42.192 0.000 WP_054 166.805 35.085 0.000 WP_055 81.429 17.127 0.000 WP_056 78.664 16.546 0.000 WP_057 71.761 15.094 0.000 WP_058 40.338 8.485 0.001 WP_059 19.066 4.010 0.036 WP_060 16.630 3.498 0.057 WP_061 44.182 9.293 0.001 WP_062 86.054 18.100 0.000 WP_063 43.591 9.169 0.001 WP_065 16.108 3.388 0.063 WP_066 22.929 4.823 0.018 WP_067 180.962 38.063 0.000 WP_068 43.601 9.171 0.001 WP_069 4.797 1.009 0.403 WP_070 502.514 105.697 0.000 WP_071 673.980 141.763 0.000 WP_072 601.077 126.428 0.000 WP_073 952.543 200.355 0.000 WP_074 453.005 95.284 0.000 WP_075 558.569 117.488 0.000 WP_076 306.730 64.517 0.000

234

INAA ID Dist F-Stat Prob(C) WP_077 14.908 3.136 0.080 WP_078 133.419 28.063 0.000 WP_079 496.881 104.512 0.000 WP_080 18.663 3.926 0.039 WP_081 32.321 6.798 0.004 WP_082 36.091 7.591 0.002 WP_083 22.522 4.737 0.019 WP_086 48.426 10.186 0.001 WP_087 116.925 24.594 0.000 WP_090 235.311 49.494 0.000 WP_091 54.070 11.373 0.000 WP_092 51.235 10.777 0.000 WP_093 9.791 2.060 0.225 WP_094 10.189 2.143 0.208 WP_095 22.757 4.787 0.018 WP_096 295.136 62.078 0.000 WP_097 159.241 33.494 0.000 WP_098 17.278 3.634 0.050 WP_099 39.912 8.395 0.001 WV201 90.727 19.083 0.000 WV202 83.943 17.656 0.000 WV203 73.909 15.546 0.000 WV204 74.229 15.613 0.000 WV205 25.342 5.330 0.012 WV206 95.738 20.137 0.000 WV207 101.855 21.424 0.000 WV208 33.607 7.069 0.003 WV209 71.340 15.006 0.000 WV210 84.113 17.692 0.000 WV211 62.592 13.166 0.000 WV212 59.065 12.424 0.000 WV213 38.791 8.159 0.002 EVA_001 152.194 32.012 0.000 EVA_002 119.215 25.075 0.000 EVA_003 184.754 38.861 0.000 EVA_004 157.354 33.097 0.000 EVA_005 180.519 37.970 0.000 EVA_006 148.202 31.172 0.000 HRC_001 65.600 13.798 0.000 HRC_002 60.091 12.639 0.000 HRC_003 70.863 14.905 0.000 HRC_004 303.606 63.859 0.000 HRC_005 84.663 17.808 0.000 HRC_006 265.153 55.771 0.000 London_1 143.632 30.211 0.000 London_2 323.939 68.136 0.000 PDG_001 131.041 27.563 0.000 PDG_002 87.340 18.371 0.000 PDG_003 196.084 41.244 0.000 PDG_004 95.352 20.056 0.000 PDG_005 120.179 25.278 0.000 PDG_006 127.594 26.838 0.000

235

INAA ID Dist F-Stat Prob(C) SDG_001 252.851 53.184 0.000 SDG_002 262.036 55.116 0.000 SDG_003 201.663 42.417 0.000 SDG_004 196.932 41.422 0.000 SDG_005 244.569 51.442 0.000 SDG_006 260.313 54.753 0.000 VanSweringen 199.487 41.959 0.000 FOVA_12 248.394 52.246 0.000 FV107 210.269 44.227 0.000 FV111 226.855 47.716 0.000 FV112 220.211 46.318 0.000 FV121 297.210 62.514 0.000 FV137 220.073 46.289 0.000 FV139 193.092 40.614 0.000 FV140 228.346 48.029 0.000 FV144 221.314 46.550 0.000 FV148 194.285 40.865 0.000 FV151 271.136 57.030 0.000 FV152 207.472 43.639 0.000 FV154 264.291 55.590 0.000 FV155 864.627 181.863 0.000 FV162 218.169 45.889 0.000 FV163 226.770 47.698 0.000 FOVA_01 441.955 92.959 0.000 FOVA_02 453.740 95.438 0.000 FOVA_05 285.519 60.055 0.000 FOVA_06 253.075 53.231 0.000 FOVA_07 343.921 72.339 0.000 FOVA_08 436.383 91.787 0.000 FOVA_23 435.655 91.634 0.000 FV103 321.370 67.596 0.000 FV104 306.096 64.383 0.000 FV105 306.331 64.433 0.000 FV108 386.324 81.258 0.000 FV109 310.782 65.369 0.000 FV110 337.206 70.927 0.000 FV116 361.565 76.050 0.000 FV119 305.622 64.283 0.000 FV123 269.305 56.645 0.000 FV125 303.504 63.838 0.000 FV128 347.699 73.134 0.000 FV133 265.372 55.818 0.000 FV134 278.979 58.679 0.000 FV136 344.393 72.438 0.000 FV138 382.166 80.384 0.000 FV145 358.448 75.395 0.000 FV161 344.631 72.489 0.000 FOVA_18 26.128 5.496 0.010 FV124 19.263 4.052 0.034 FV164 21.465 4.515 0.023

236

APPENDIX G Probability of Membership in Group D

INAA ID Dist F-Stat Prob(D) FOVA_10 4.047 0.679 0.559 FOVA_14 10.887 1.827 0.335 FOVA_15 2.931 0.492 0.689 FOVA_20 1.976 0.332 0.813 FOVA_22 8.579 1.44 0.445 FV115 9.042 1.518 0.420 FV118 2.42 0.406 0.755 FV120 6.75 1.133 0.443 FV122 14.121 2.37 0.229 FV127 3.154 0.529 0.662 FV129 7.681 1.289 0.497 FV149 8.939 1.5 0.425 FV167 5.359 0.899 0.566 FOVA_03 37.0159 6.4447 0.021 FOVA_04 550.4738 95.8414 0.000 FOVA_09 2607.766 454.0307 0.000 FOVA_13 102.9186 17.9189 0.001 FV114 1999.272 348.0876 0.000 FV130 2737.427 476.6055 0.000 FV132 334.2698 58.1988 0.000 HIDD_01 81.3339 14.1608 0.002 OR301 83.623 14.5594 0.002 STPA_01 62.3073 10.8481 0.005 WP_000 571.2529 99.4592 0.000 WP_005 837.7041 145.8503 0.000 WP_008 1778 309.5626 0.000 WP_009 1086.012 189.0825 0.000 WP_010 1935.971 337.0664 0.000 WP_011 1354.968 235.9095 0.000 WP_012 109.7442 19.1072 0.001 WP_013 238.9224 41.5981 0.000 WP_014 75.895 13.2139 0.003 WP_015 69.0228 12.0174 0.003 WP_016 14.4783 2.5208 0.197 WP_017 1059.791 184.5172 0.000 WP_018 11.0119 1.9173 0.305 WP_019 163.7962 28.5181 0.000 WP_022 116.7345 20.3243 0.001 WP_023 63.0179 10.9719 0.004 WP_024 196.0176 34.1281 0.000 WP_025 177.8693 30.9683 0.000 WP_026 17.9571 3.1265 0.130 WP_027 60.1683 10.4757 0.005 WP_029 1180.131 205.4693 0.000 WP_030 14.1027 2.4554 0.206 WP_031 1835.072 319.4991 0.000 WP_034 928.9764 161.7414 0.000 WP_036 918.6811 159.949 0.000

237

INAA ID Dist F-Stat Prob(D) WP_049 2083.25 362.7088 0.000 WP_050 7.3024 1.2714 0.499 WP_052 510.1663 88.8236 0.000 WP_053 421.563 73.3971 0.000 WP_054 649.6862 113.115 0.000 WP_055 84.2373 14.6663 0.002 WP_056 590.6759 102.8409 0.000 WP_057 107.025 18.6338 0.001 WP_058 92.0003 16.0179 0.001 WP_059 33.3402 5.8048 0.029 WP_060 81.8206 14.2455 0.002 WP_061 55.6199 9.6838 0.006 WP_062 81.3396 14.1618 0.002 WP_063 30.2492 5.2666 0.038 WP_065 48.9006 8.5139 0.009 WP_066 164.566 28.6521 0.000 WP_067 1552.377 270.2799 0.000 WP_068 541.7605 94.3244 0.000 WP_069 181.8219 31.6565 0.000 WP_070 2752.914 479.3019 0.000 WP_071 2676.019 465.914 0.000 WP_072 2123.511 369.7185 0.000 WP_073 2823.86 491.6542 0.000 WP_074 1839.107 320.2016 0.000 WP_075 1318.82 229.616 0.000 WP_076 2228.654 388.0246 0.000 WP_077 93.3523 16.2533 0.001 WP_078 1222.553 212.8553 0.000 WP_079 380.1786 66.1918 0.000 WP_080 150.4727 26.1984 0.000 WP_081 481.1356 83.7691 0.000 WP_082 42.5647 7.4108 0.014 WP_083 313.9174 54.6553 0.000 WP_086 259.7454 45.2235 0.000 WP_087 60.0304 10.4517 0.005 WP_090 1756.667 305.8482 0.000 WP_091 28.9354 5.0379 0.042 WP_092 19.5395 3.402 0.109 WP_093 321.2324 55.9289 0.000 WP_094 211.0506 36.7454 0.000 WP_095 113.7283 19.8009 0.001 WP_096 1734.653 302.0154 0.000 WP_097 1219.123 212.2581 0.000 WP_098 65.3698 11.3813 0.004 WP_099 49.5312 8.6237 0.009 WV201 71.3397 12.4208 0.003 WV202 37.4045 6.5124 0.021 WV203 48.9833 8.5283 0.009 WV204 48.5043 8.445 0.010 WV205 87.573 15.2471 0.002 WV206 37.1389 6.4661 0.021 WV207 63.7937 11.1069 0.004

238

INAA ID Dist F-Stat Prob(D) WV208 41.0358 7.1446 0.016 WV209 16.3959 2.8546 0.156 WV210 49.8116 8.6726 0.009 WV211 39.2587 6.8352 0.018 WV212 50.4223 8.7789 0.009 WV213 65.3803 11.3832 0.004 EVA_001 83.2956 14.5024 0.002 EVA_002 106.0895 18.4709 0.001 EVA_003 154.116 26.8327 0.000 EVA_004 84.6751 14.7425 0.002 EVA_005 132.3972 23.0513 0.001 EVA_006 90.5112 15.7586 0.002 HRC_001 156.9638 27.3285 0.000 HRC_002 158.8294 27.6533 0.000 HRC_003 109.1533 19.0044 0.001 HRC_004 377.0209 65.642 0.000 HRC_005 30.2207 5.2616 0.038 HRC_006 272.4044 47.4275 0.000 London_1 854.3508 148.7486 0.000 London_2 385.507 67.1195 0.000 PDG_001 410.9429 71.5481 0.000 PDG_002 406.8973 70.8437 0.000 PDG_003 898.6526 156.4618 0.000 PDG_004 520.7428 90.665 0.000 PDG_005 337.4357 58.75 0.000 PDG_006 846.4949 147.3808 0.000 SDG_001 827.591 144.0895 0.000 SDG_002 1002.666 174.5712 0.000 SDG_003 425.3155 74.0505 0.000 SDG_004 306.7841 53.4133 0.000 SDG_005 810.0943 141.0432 0.000 SDG_006 495.7401 86.3119 0.000 VanSweringen 207.4893 36.1254 0.000 FOVA_12 1463.861 254.8687 0.000 FV107 1338.174 232.9856 0.000 FV111 1683.097 293.0393 0.000 FV112 1553.695 270.5094 0.000 FV121 1829.158 318.4694 0.000 FV137 1574.007 274.0459 0.000 FV139 1418.269 246.9307 0.000 FV140 1706.136 297.0505 0.000 FV144 1523.585 265.2669 0.000 FV148 1389.938 241.9982 0.000 FV151 1953.458 340.1109 0.000 FV152 1507.27 262.4265 0.000 FV154 2012.904 350.461 0.000 FV155 3408.255 593.4015 0.000 FV162 1614.639 281.1202 0.000 FV163 1537.521 267.6934 0.000 FOVA_01 562.349 97.909 0.000 FOVA_02 592.8083 103.2122 0.000 FOVA_05 338.9817 59.0191 0.000

239

INAA ID Dist F-Stat Prob(D) FOVA_06 489.0285 85.1434 0.000 FOVA_07 320.8267 55.8582 0.000 FOVA_08 302.9274 52.7418 0.000 FOVA_23 432.3147 75.2691 0.000 FV103 438.7501 76.3895 0.000 FV104 438.2127 76.296 0.000 FV105 389.6324 67.8378 0.000 FV108 495.1054 86.2014 0.000 FV109 408.8264 71.1796 0.000 FV110 385.0368 67.0377 0.000 FV116 465.524 81.0511 0.000 FV119 386.7935 67.3435 0.000 FV123 313.6142 54.6025 0.000 FV125 390.0059 67.9028 0.000 FV128 439.2639 76.479 0.000 FV133 365.592 63.6522 0.000 FV134 516.815 89.9812 0.000 FV136 449.6652 78.2899 0.000 FV138 453.8003 79.0099 0.000 FV145 470.3018 81.8829 0.000 FV161 468.5206 81.5728 0.000 FOVA_11 166.5744 29.0018 0.000 FOVA_17 116.815 20.3383 0.001 FOVA_18 113.868 19.8252 0.001 FOVA_19 100.2495 17.4542 0.001 FOVA_21 269.4302 46.9097 0.000 FV101 251.8706 43.8525 0.000 FV102 215.1278 37.4553 0.000 FV106 242.1753 42.1645 0.000 FV113 161.0298 28.0364 0.000 FV117 238.7497 41.568 0.000 FV124 338.4805 58.9319 0.000 FV126 403.5863 70.2673 0.000 FV131 316.1898 55.0509 0.000 FV135 180.8103 31.4804 0.000 FV141 256.0343 44.5774 0.000 FV142 214.9747 37.4286 0.000 FV143 233.977 40.7371 0.000 FV146 350.3771 61.0032 0.000 FV147 216.8688 37.7584 0.000 FV150 213.7415 37.2139 0.000 FV153 125.7204 21.8888 0.001 FV156 203.3686 35.4079 0.000 FV157 211.6234 36.8452 0.000 FV158 227.5471 39.6176 0.000 FV159 227.9176 39.6821 0.000 FV160 279.2268 48.6154 0.000 FV164 219.3807 38.1957 0.000 FV165 233.2037 40.6024 0.000 FOVA_16 168.0119 29.2521 0.000

240