Citation
Frontier process in eighteenth century colonial Georgia : an archeological approach

Material Information

Title:
Frontier process in eighteenth century colonial Georgia : an archeological approach
Creator:
Honerkamp, Nicholas, 1950-
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xiii, 320 leaves : ill. ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Anthropology ( jstor )
Archaeology ( jstor )
Barrels ( jstor )
Bones ( jstor )
Cattle ( jstor )
Decorative ceramics ( jstor )
Excavations ( jstor )
Historical archaeology ( jstor )
Stoneware ( jstor )
Towns ( jstor )
Anthropology thesis Ph. D ( lcsh )
Antiquities -- Saint Simons Island (Ga.) ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Anthropology -- UF ( lcsh )
Georgia -- Saint Simons Island ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1980.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 296-308).
Additional Physical Form:
Also available online.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Nicholas Honerkamp.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of dissertation author]. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
023443539 ( ALEPH )
07333734 ( OCLC )
Classification:
F292.G5 H6 1980a ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text








FRONTIER PROCESS
IN EIGHTEENTH CENTURY COLONIAL GEORGIA:
AN ARCHEOLOGICAL APPROACH





BY

NICHOLAS HONERKAMP


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY





UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1980













ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


A great many people contributed to this study. Some

offered suggestions and encouragement; others, their labor

and expertise. In the case of the National Park Service,

funds were provided to carry out the research. Individuals

will be mentioned here with the understanding that their

contributions can never be acknowledged to the extent that

they deserve.

The members of my doctoral committee, Charles H.

Fairbanks, Kathleen A. Deagan, Prudence M. Rice, Jerald T.

Milanich, and John K. Mahon, have been extremely generous

with their advice and criticism during the course of the

project. Besides their impact on the present study, two

members in particular have had a profound influence on my

development as an archeologist. Ten years ago Dr. Fairbanks

stimulated my interest in anthropology through his lectures

on North American prehistory. After attending a Fairbanks-

led archeological field school, that interest changed into an

overwhelming ambition to persue archeology on a full-time

basis. Dr. Deagan helped me realize the importance of a

systematic, scientific approach to the study of human

behavior. I am indeed fortunate to have worked closely with

both of these scholars.






I was also fortunate to have been associated with the

members of the three field crews that participated in this

project. The field people are:

Wendy Bolles Charles Chambers Julie Emrich

Bruce Ferguson Kevin Galleger Jane Gray

Wayde Hanna Joan Hebb Patricia McKay

Roberta Owens Martha Pinello Tricia Sokol

Diane Sylvia Patricia Welsh Dan Yannette

Drew Yaros

Among the many volunteers that contributed to the project

were John Battle, Anita Fulton, Julia Furgeson, Lisa

Laudadia, Susan Loftin, Vincent Pinoso, Robin Smith, Mrs. R.

Welsh, and Clint Wills. Chad Braley assisted with production

of the artifact photographs used in Chapter V.

At the Florida State Museum, the following persons

provided invaluable instruction and assistance during the

faunal analysis: Elizabeth Wing, Elizabeth Reitz, Sylvia

Scudder, Erica Simons, Arlene Fradkin, and Tom Chase. In

addition, Dr. Reitz has contributed much to my knowledge of

colonial resource utilization and is primarily responsible

for stimulating my interest in this subject. Many of the

ideas presented in this study concerning colonial patterns of

faunal use stem from suggestions she has made in her own work

or in our collaborative efforts.

The National Park Service has been extremely supportive

of this project in every way. Deserving special praise for

their cooperation and assistance are Chief Richard Faust,

iii







Archeologist George Fischer, and Laboratory Director James

Stoutamire of the Southeast Archeological Center in

Tallahassee. At Fort Frederica, the entire staff supported

and sometimes actively participated in the project. Former

Supervisor Janet Wolf and Assistant Supervisor George Berndt

were particularly helpful in seeing that the field work was

successfully carried out.

Finally, I would like to thank my wife Robin L. Smith

for her editorial contributions and especially for her

constant encouragement and criticisms. Her personal and

professional support was invaluable during all phases of the

project, and will continue to be essential to me in the

future.







TABLE OF CONTENTS



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . .


LIST OF TABLES . . . . .


LIST OF FIGURES


ABSTRACT . . . . . ..

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Location and Setting .
Previous Research . .
Project Background . .


II. METHODOLOGICAL AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK


Competing Paradigms in Historical
Archeology . . . . . .
Old Particularism . . . . .
New Particularism . . . . .
Pattern Recognition . . . .
Eclectic Approach . ....
Theoretical-Methodological Position

III. RESEARCH DESIGN . . . .. .


Concepts and Definitions

IV. DOCUMENTARY BACKGROUND .

Historical Context: Geo
Historical Context: Fre


rgia
derica


General Temporal-Demographic Parameters
Spatial Parameters * . . *.. .
The Hawkins-Davison Site . . . .
The Hird Site . . . . . ..
The Dobree Site . . . . ..

V. METHODS AND MATERIALS . . . ..

Excavation Procedures . . . . .
Horizontal Control . . . . ..
Stratigraphy . . . . . ..
Analytical Methods and Results . .
Faunal Analysis . . . . . ..


. . 018

.22
. . 20

. . . 30
* * 31
3h
* . 314^

* 3 314

* . . 41


# . 41
. 45
. . 51
. 55
* 57
. . 59

. . 60

S. 65

S . 66
. . 78
. . 79
. . 80
* . 142


. . vii


viii


* *


* .


* *








VI. SITE FORM AND CONTENT . . . . . 158

Dobree Site Features . . . . . .. 158
Hird Site Features . . . . . . 210
Hawkins-Davison Site Features . . . . 214
Summary . . . . . . . . . 214

VII. EVALUATION OF THE EVIDENCE . . . . 216

Cultural Affiliation . . . . . . 217
Temporal Parameters . . . . . . 220
Site Form and Function . . . . . 225
Refuse Disposal and Artifact Distribution . 262
Subsistence and Diet . . . . . 274

VIII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . 289

REFERENCES CITED . . . . . . . . . 296

APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF CERAMICS, DOBREE SITE . . 309

APPENDIX B. SUMMARY OF GLASS, PIPE, AND NAIL
ARTIFACTS, DOBREE SITE . . . . 311

APPENDIX C. SUMMARY OF NONCERAMIC ARTIFACTS,
DOBREE SITE . . . . . . . 314

APPENDIX D. SUMMARY OF FAUNAL DATA, DOBREE SITE . 317

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH . . . . . . . . 320






LIST OF TABLES


Table 4-1.

Table 5-1.
Table 5-2.

Table 5-3.

Table 5-4.

Table 5-5.

Table 5-6.

Table 5-7.
Table 5-8.

Table 5-9.

Table 5-10.

Table 5-11.

Table 5-12.

Table 6-1.

Table 6-2.

Table 7-1.

Table 7-2.
Table 7-3.
Table 7-4.
Table 7-5.

Table 7-6.

Table 7-7.

Table 7-8.

Table 7-9.


Summary of Street and Lot Dimensions,
Frederica . . . . . . . . . 56
Artifact Class Frequencies, Dobree Site . 88
Identifiable Ceramics from Three Sites,
Frederica, Georgia . . . . . . 90
Product-Moment Coefficients for Three
Ceramic Categories . . . . . . 101
Product-Moment Coefficients for Three Nail
Types, Dobree Site . . . . . . 101
Summary of Furniture Hardware Class
Artifacts, Dobree Site . . . . . 120
Summary of Artifacts in Gun Parts Class,
Dobree Site . . . . . . . . 122
Artifact Class Frequencies, Hird Site . .. 143
Allometric Constants Used in Biomass
Calculations . . . . . . . 148
Species List for the Dobree Site, Lot 31
South, Frederica . . . . . . . 151
Summary of Six Faunal Categories, Dobree
Site, Frederica . . . . . . . 155
Summary of Six Faunal Catergories, Hawkins-
Davison Site, Frederica . . . . . 156
Summary of Six Faunal Categories, Hird
Site, Frederica . . . . . . . 157
Artifact Class Frequencies, Features, Dobree
Site . . . . . . . . . . 162
Frequency Percentages for Four Artifact
Classes, Wells, Dobree Site . . . . 184
Comparison of Total Bone and Artifact Mater-
ials, Hird and Dobree Sites . . . . 232
Soil pH Values, Dobree Site . . . . 234
Emperical Artifact Profile, Dobree Site . 242
Emperical Artifact Profile, Hird Site . . 243
Summary of Three Group Categories, Frederica
And Carolina Sites . . . . . . 244
Product-Moment Coefficients For Six Artifact
Categories, Dobree Site . . . . . 251
Product-Moment Coefficients for Slag,
Clinkers, and Coal, Dobree Site . . . 253
Summary of Three Species From Three Sites,
Frederica, Georgia . . . . . . 282
Ages of Three Species by Element Fusion, Hird
Site, Frederica . . . . . . . 284


vii





LIST OF FIGURES


Figure 1-1.
Figure 1-2.

Figure 1-3.

Figure 1-4.
Figure 4-1.
Figure 5-1.
Figure 5-2.
Figure 5-3.
Figure 5-4.
Figure 5-5.
Figure 5-6.

Figure 5-7.

Figure 5-8.
Figure 5-9.

Figure 5-10.

Figure 5-11.
Figure 5-12.
Figure 5-13.
Figure 5-14.

Figure 5-15.
Figure 5-16.
Figure 5-17.
Figure 5-18.

Figure 5-19.
Figure 5-20.
Figure 6-1.
Figure 6-2.

Figure 6-3.

Figure 6-4.

Figure 6-5.

Figure 6-6.
Figure 6-7.

Figure 6-8.

Figure 6-9.
Figure 6-10.


The Barrier Islands of Coastal Georgia
Vicinity Map, St. Simons Island,
Georgia . . . . . . . .
Layout of The Fort And Town of Frederica,
circa 1740 . . * * * *. . .
Composite Excavation Map, Frederica . .
1796 Miller Map of Frederica . ....
Excavation Plan, Hawkins-Davison Site .
Excavation Plan, Hird Site . . . .
Excavation Plan, Dobree Site . . .
Actual Area Excavated, Dobree Site . .
Field Work In Progress, Dobree Site . .
Distribution of Postcreamware Ceramics,
Plowzone, Dobree Site . . . ...
Distribution of Identifiable Colonial
Ceramics, Plowzone, Dobree Site . . .
Ceramic Artifacts, Dobree Site . . .
Tableware Ceramic Vessels, Dobree
Site . . . . . . . . .
Cross Section Drawings of Ceramic
Vessels, Dobree Site . . . . .
Wine Bottles, Dobree Site . . . .
Glass Tableware Items, Dobree Site . .
Tableware Artifacts, Dobree Site . .
Architecture and Furniture Group
Artifacts, Dobree Site . . . .
Arms Artifacts, Dobree Site . . . .
Clothing Artifacts, Dobree Site . . .
Personal Group Artifacts, Dobree Site .
Activities Group Artifacts, Dobree
Site . . . . . . . . .
Snaffle Bit, Dobree Site . . . .
Military Artifacts, Dobree Site . . .
Composite Map of Dobree Site Features .
Top of Feature 1 Barrel Well, Dobree
Site . . . . . . . . .
Initial Excavation of Feature 1 Barrel
Well, Dobree Site . . . . . .
Profile of Feature 1 (Barrel Well),
Square 31, Dobree Site . . . . .
Profile of Feature 2 Well Pit, Dobree
S i t e . . . . . . . .* .
Feature 2 Pit and Shaft, Dobree Site .
Closeup of Feature 2 Pit and Shaft,
Dobree Site . . . . . .
Profile of Feature 3 Barrel Well,
Dobree Site . . . . . .* . .
Feature 3 Pit and Shaft, Dobree Site .
Frequency or Weight Percentages for Nine
Artifact Groups, Features, Dobree
Site . . . . . . . . .


viii


* 5

. 7

* 11
* 13
* 55
* 68
. 70
. 72
. 74
. 77

* 93


95
99

104

106
109
111
114

119
124
128
131

134
136
141
160


166

166

169

173
176

176

179
179


183







Figure 6-11.

Figure 6-12.

Figure 6-13.

Figure 6-14.

Figure 6-15.

Figure 6-16.

Figure 6-17.

Figure 6-18.

Figure 6-19.
Figure 7-1.

Figure 7-2.

Figure 7-3.

Figure 7-4.

Figure 7-5.

Figure 7-6.

Figure 7-7.

Figure 7-8.


Profile of Feature 5 Trash Pit, Dobree
S i t e . . . . . . . .* .
Profile of Feature 10 Storage/Trash
Pit, Dobree Site . . . .. .
Composite Map of Dobree Site
Postholes . . . .. . .. .
Distribution of Construction Materials,
Plowzone, Dobree Site . . . ...
Tabby Plaster From Wattle and Daub
Structure, Dobree Site . . . . .
Edge of Feature 29 Pallisade Wall Trench,
Dobree Site . . . . . . . .
Profile of Feature 29 Pallisade Wall
Trench, Dobree Site . . . . . .
Profile of Feature 29 and Underlying
Postholes, Dobree Site . . . . .
Compostie Map of Hird Site Features . .
Distribution of Slag Waste, Plowzone,
Dobree Site . . . . . . .
Contours of Mean Ceramic Dates for
Plowzone Ceramics, Dobree Site . .
Distribution of Oriental Porcelain
Fragments, Plowzone, Dobree Site . .
Distribution of Wine Bottle Fragments,
Plowzone, Dobree Site . . . . .
Distribution of Faunal Materials,
Plowzone, Dobree Site . . . ...
Distribution of White Clay Pipe
Fragments, Plowzone, Dobree Site . .
Distribution of Wrought and Square
Nails, Plowzone, Dobree Site . . .
Distribution of Window Glass Fragments,
Plowzone, Dobree Site . . . . .


187

187

192

195

197

202

202

205
213

249

256

259

265

267

269

271

273












Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy





FRONTIER PROCESS
IN EIGHTEENTH CENTURY COLONIAL GEORGIA:
AN ARCHEOLOGICAL APPROACH


By

Nicholas Honerkamp

December 1980


Chairman: Charles H. Fairbanks

Major Department: Anthropology


Frontier regions offer unique opportunities for

anthropologists to study the adaptive responses of intrusive

colonizing societies to new social and natural conditions.

The process of colonization is reflected archeologically

through the patterning of settlement structure and function.

The purpose of this study is to examine the archeological

correlates of a British colonial frontier adaptation in

Georgia and to interpret this evidence through reference to

documented 18th century sociocultural, political, and

demographic factors.

Analysis of archeological materials from three sites at

Fort Frederica, Georgia (1736-1750), and contemporaneous

X







British colonial sites in the southeastern United States is

used to address hypotheses concerning frontier adaptations.

Using Stanley South's "pattern recognition" methodological

approach to organize the data, interpretation of the evidence

from Frederica was accomplished through the application of a

frontier model proposed by Kenneth E. Lewis. Questions

concerning cultural affiliation, temporal parameters, and

site structure and function were examined at the town and lot

level. Additionally, the nearly complete excavation of one

of the sites allowed an empirical test of South's Brunswick

Pattern of Refuse Disposal to be made. Zooarcheological data

from Frederica were also presented for comparison with a

traditional model of resource utilization designated as the

British Barnyard Complex.

Results of the analysis demonstrated the applicability

of Lewis' model to the Frederica data. Due to the need for

defense against a competing state power, the settlement

pattern at Frederica more closely resembled the concentrated,

evenly-spaced row pattern of European market towns than the

dispersed, random arrangement found at frontier towns such as

Camden, South Carolina. At the lot level, clustering of

subsurface features, maximum utilization of lot elements,

differential bone deposition, and demarcation of lot

boundaries is believed to have resulted from the same

demographic and sociopolitical factors that shaped the

settlement pattern of the town as a whole. Quantitative and

qualitative evidence of site function was also found to






reflect frontier constraints and conditions. As with Camden,

the occurrence of domestic and craft activity by-products at

the Frederica sites indicates the multifunctional nature of

frontier occupations. Comparison of artifact profiles from

sites at Frederica, Camden, and Brunswick Town, South

Carolina, revealed patterning of frequency relationships that

were explicable in terms of intersite functional differences.

Graphic presentation of artifact distributions at one of

the sites at Frederica indicates a departure from the

Brunswick Pattern described by South. Instead of disposal of

refuse adjacent to a post-supported structure, there is

evidence of bimodall trash disposal behavior" by the site's

occupants. The first behavioral mode involves dispersed

surface disposal of trash, while the second is associated

with purposeful concentration of trash, particularly food

bone, in subsurface features. An orientation toward trash

disposal in areas adjacent to the house was not associated

with either mode. It is suggested that, instead of

systematic British colonial refuse disposal behavior cited by

South, the limited size of the samples used to define the

Brunswick Pattern may be responsible for its occurrence.

Little correspondence was seen between the traditional

model of British colonial resource utilization and the

zooarcheological evidence from Frederica. The British

Barnyard Complex, characterized by an overwhelming emphasis

on the use of swine, sheep, and less importantly, dairy

cattle, was not replicated at Frederica. Substantial

xii






adjustments to New World conditions are indicated by an

increased reliance placed on wild terrestrial fauna and a

shift from swine to cattle, as measured through comparison of

biomass values derived from archeological bone. Similar

results from contemporaneous British and Spanish colonial

sites in St. Augustine, Florida, indicate that the

traditional colonial foodways model is in need of major

revision.


xiii















CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND


The British colonial settlement of Frederica was

established on St. Simons Island, Georgia, in 1736. Planned

as a major military-civilian fortified outpost, Frederica's

existence owed more to the bellicose machinations of Britain

and Spain than to anything else. Significantly, earthworks

for the walls of a fort were among the first things con-

structed by the 40 English families who founded the town.

Subsequent events during the settlement's short history serve

to underscore the interdependence between military and civil

segments of the community. When the regiment left in 1748,

Frederica's civilian population quickly relocated to other

settled communities or frontier areas. By the early 1750s

only a dozen or so families remained out of the more than

1000 inhabitants who had lived there a few years earlier.

Although it existed as a community for little more than

15 years, a great deal of historical and archeological

information dealing with various aspects of 18th century

British colonial life at Frederica is potentially available.

Since 1945, when it was established as a national monument,

Fort Frederica has been the focus of considerable archeo-

logical and documentary research. As part of the U.S.

National Park system, most of this research has been directed




2


toward recovering information useful for on-site reconstruc-

tion and interpretation of British colonial lifeways at the

fort and associated town. In recent years this traditional

National Park Service goal has been augmented by research

aimed at addressing problems of anthropological significance,

such as defining socio-economic indicators in the documentary

and archeological records, examining the extent of wild

versus domestic animal utilization, and revealing the

presence of craft activities and delimiting areas where they

were practiced. It should be emphasized that these questions

are complementary to those aimed at site reconstruction, but

they involve different methodological emphases and different

field and analysis techniques.

The archeological research reported here has been sup-

ported by a National Park Service grant for $19,381.00 to the

Department of Anthropology, University of Florida (Contract

No. CX500080754). This project consisted of excavation of a

domestic town lot at Frederica (believed to be Lot 31, South

Ward), analysis of the documentary and archeological data

pertaining to the site, and synthesis of these data and

information derived from previous excavations. Principal

Investigator for the project was University of Florida

Distinguished Service Professor in Anthropology Charles H.

Fairbanks. The author supervised field and preliminary

laboratory work and was responsible for analysis of artifacts

and faunal materials.







Field work was carried out at Lot 31 South in three 10

week periods in the spring and fall of 1978 and in the winter

of 1979. Excavation crews consisted of undergraduates from

the University of Florida and Florida State University, who

were enrolled in the University of Florida Archeological

Field School course, as well as volunteers. There were three

full-time excavators in the spring, five in the fall, and

eight during the winter session, for a total of 160 crew

weeks. Numerous part-time volunteers also contributed to the

project. The author was assisted part-time by two under-

graduate students in cataloging artifacts for a nine week

period following the field work.


Location and Setting

Located approximately 10 kilometers east of Brunswick,

Georgia, Fort Frederica National Monument is situated on a

bluff overlooking the Intracoastal Waterway on the western

edge of St. Simons Island (Figures 1-1 and 1-2). St. Simons

is part of a barrier island chain extending along the

southern Atlantic coast from Amelia Island, Florida, to Cape

Fear, North Carolina (Figure 1-1). As is true of most of the

barrier islands, St. Simons is characterized by diverse

habitats, notably the beach-dune configuration facing the

ocean, the maritime forests on the island interior, and the

tidal marsh lying between the island and the mainland. This

diversity of habitats contrasts sharply with the essentially

homogenous environment of the pine forests on the coastal

plain. Detailed descriptions of geology and ecology of the




















Figure 1-1.


The Barrier Islands of Coastal Georgia.

















25 km


OSSABAW
ISLAND


ST.
CATHERINES
ISLAND


ISLAND


GEORGIA


ISLAND


JEKYLL
ISLAND


OCEAN


FLORIDA


ISLAND


ATLANTIC



















Figure 1-2.


Vicinity Map, St. Simons Island, Georgia.






4b--











. _-- --- F red er i ca. _~ -:_ \."\

















{C Marsh GA
1km -N- F-
I dla and Map Location
Iskylan ,____Land Map______ Location___
,o ,, ,:i ... -,








coastal region are provided by Johnson et al. (1974). The

low upland ridge upon which Frederica lies is part of an

ancient marine terrace known as the Princess Ann Formation.

Soils at Frederica conform to the somewhat excessively

drained, fine sand characteristics of the Cainhoy soil phase

that is associated with ridgetops of relict marine terraces

on the Georgia coast (Rigdon and Green 1980).

According to Robin Smith (1978:8-11), the geological

characteristics of areas similar to the one in which Fred-

erica is located have had important implications in human

settlement patterning. Smith has convincingly demonstrated a

pattern of prehistoric and historic settlement activities

which focus on the fine sand bluffs adjacent to the salt

marshes of the coast. The high, well-drained soils of these

areas comprised an important scarce resource supportive of

human life, and as a consequence a succession of indigenous

and immigrant populations has used this land in various ways.

The 18th century British occupation at Frederica is seen as

conforming to this general barrier island marsh-bluff set-

tlement orientation.

As can be seen in Figure 1-2, the fort and town are

located at a sharp bend of the Frederica River. The military

advantages accruing from this position in the context of 18th

century martial technologies have been fully discussed by

others and need no reiteration here (Cate 1943; Ivers 1974;

Manucy 1962). Ironically, some of the factors contributing

to the selection of Frederica's location as a site for a







frontier settlement have also been responsible for the

destruction of part of the archeological record. The depth

of the Frederica River at this bend allowed colonial period

ships of considerable draught to closely approach the fort

for offloading of people, material, and supplies. Over the

years the swift movement of the current at this deep water

point has eroded the east shore of the river, resulting in

the loss of a significant portion of the fort area, including

the entire battery spurwork shown in Figure 1-3. Addition-

ally, the soil characteristics of the upland bluff area that

successfully supported both aboriginal and colonial popula-

tions also attracted more modern occupants. Alterations to

the landscape associated with postcolonial occupations

include plow cultivation and construction of roads and

dwellings, both of which have adversely affected archeolo-

gical resources. The present preservation policy of the

National Park Service has substantially reduced further

degradation of these resources.


Previous Research

Although a good deal of dirt has been moved at Frederica

in the interest of archeology, most of the excavations have

been devoted to delineating the layout of the town and to

exposing military construction features and domestic archi-

tecture (Deagan 1975). In the town itself, all of the

domestic sites facing Broad Street and the northern section

of Cross Street have been excavated (Figure 1-4). Several

interpretive reports have emerged from this work, including


















Figure 1-3.





Sites:


Layout of the Fort and Town of Frederica,
circa 1740.




1 Hird Site, 12 North

2 Hawkins-Davison Site, 1 and 2 South

3 Dobree Site, 31 South










Marsh North Ward
/ I Barracks



(^ "'"^ ^ T______
]Ilfl IIH~ll






\D I I I lZI I


South Wa rd


Frederica
River
50m--
I



















Figure 1-4.


Composite Excavation Map, Frederica.


Excavated areas are shown in black.
















NORTH
WARD


^y v^^/ a e -r -I
BROAD ST.



AE -VA





CROSS ST. \
SOUTH WARD 1

TOWN
WALLS

30 METERS







Manucy's synthesis of the archeology and history of the

military and civilian portions of the settlement (1960,

1962), Fairbanks' study of the architecture and associated

artifacts from the Hawkins-Davison site (1952, 1956), and

Reese's popularization of Manucy's studies (Reese 1969).

Despite the considerable accumulation of artifactual and

housing data resulting from these projects, analysis of arti-

facts which would allow testing of research hypotheses of a

processual nature has been lacking. More recent work has

been oriented toward addressing problems of anthropological

significance. Deagan's (1972) report on the analysis of the

Hawkins-Davison material was concerned with such questions as

delineating the material correlates of social status, live-

lihood, and behavior. Her study represents the first fully

analyzed site report made at Frederica. The present author's

excavation and analysis of a site in the North Ward (Lot 12)

was primarily descriptive, although it did identify some

methodological questions of concern to archeologists working

at colonial sites and indicated hypotheses for future testing

at Frederica (1975). A popularized interpretive summary of

this project was also produced (Honerkamp 1977a).

In 1975 Kathleen Deagan reviewed and assessed the arche-

ological research carried out at Frederica in a report pre-

pared for the National Park Service. In this document, which

now functions as a master plan for archeology at Frederica,

Deagan has

1) outlined the results of all excavations carried out
from 1945 through 1975;







2) summarized the types of information obtained (and
ignored) through the archeological field work;

3) assessed the research potential of the extant
artifact collections and of the unexcavated sites;
and
4) identified problem areas and research emphases for
which Frederica is best suited.

Specific recommendations included sampling sites that did not

face the main streets of the town (especially back lot

features), delineation of dietary, occupational, and social

status elements from the archeological assemblages, and defi-

nition of the extent of military involvement in the domestic

sector of town life (Deagan 1975:25-26). The research prior-

ities defined in her report were explicitly incorporated in

the grant proposal for the 1978-1979 archeological excavation

of Lot 31 South (Fairbanks and Honerkamp 1978).


Project Background

Based on Deagan's recommendations, the Fairbanks and

Honerkamp proposal listed a number of rather ambitious

research objectives that were designed to meet the needs of

the Park Service as well as to address problems of particular

interest to the authors. These objectives were to be

achieved through the complete excavation of a single 90 by 60

feet (27.4 by 18.3 meters) colonial lot. Complete excavation

of the site was considered necessary in order to delineate

the site's boundaries, to identify back lot elements, and to

locate and define areas associated with craft and domestic

activities. In addition, total excavation would ensure the

retrieval of an unambiguous representative sample of a single







colonial occupation which could be used as a basis for

deriving hypotheses dealing with various aspects of 18th

century life at Frederica. Since the site was assumed to

have been occupied by known, historically documented

colonists, it was through the documentary records that

spatial, temporal, and social variables affecting the

archeological record could be accounted for, and it was

against this baseline of historical documentation that

hypotheses could be formulated and tested.

The original major research interest of the author was

to formulate hypotheses concerning specific socioeconomic

differences and similarities between the occupants of the

Dobree, Hird, and Hawkins-Davison sites which could be tested

through comparison of various classes of artifacts, including

faunal remains. A preliminary attempt along these lines was

made by the author using only faunal materials; documentary

evidence was used to control for temporal and social vari-

ables associated with the three sites (Honerkamp 1980).

However, archeological and documentary analysis carried out

after the Dobree Site field work revealed evidence neces-

sitating major revisions to the research goals. These are

discussed fully in subsequent chapters.













CHAPTER II
METHODOLOGICAL AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK


With the publication of Method and Theory in Historical

Archeology (South 1977a), historical archeology has reached a

watershed in the development of the methods upon which it is

based. Although the controversy associated with South's

"pattern recognition" approach as a viable research orienta-

tion is sometimes acrimonious, it has at the same time pro-

duced fertile ground for nurturing theoretical and method-

ological constructs, and it has been found to be essential

for stimulating the author's own consideration of an

important and often neglected question in archeology: why

are we interested in digging into the clutter of past

cultures? It is with the hope of somehow attempting to

answer this and other questions that the present study was

undertaken.

The purpose of this chapter is to clarify the theore-

tical biases inherited from the author's mentors, teachers,

and colleagues so that the reader can judge for him- or

herself the costs and benefits of such biases to the results

of the research. Following an overview of what is considered

to be the primary theoretical orientations in historical

archeology and the research implications inherent in them, my

own views on the strengths and weaknesses of each will be







presented. Finally, several broadly-stated problems derived

from the theoretical discussion will be identified as the

focus of the more specific research hypotheses presented in

Chapter VII.


Competing Paradigms in Historical Archeology

Although historical archeologists are fond of pointing

out the great strides that have been made in the theories,

methods, and techniques associated with their field, there is

nevertheless much disagreement among the practitioners of

this "science" concerning specific aspects of these advances.

Indeed, there is even disagreement on the categorization of

historical archeology as a "science" at all, with or without

the capital 's' (Binford 1972; Cleland and Fitting 1968;

Dollar 1968; Flannery 1973; Fontana 1968; South 1977a, 1977b;

Walker 1967, 1974). Historical archeology is still methodo-

logically and theoretically unstable, much as it has been

since its inception. However, in recent years there has been

a gradual emergence of two main paradigms that are usually

characterized as being diametrically opposed to one another.

Evidence that some methodological-theoretical battle lines

have in fact been drawn is seen in the tendency of many

archeologists to attach identifying (and slightly deni-

grating) labels to the orientations of their less enlightened

contemporaries in order to distinguish them from their own

sensible approaches. This is certainly not new in arche-

ology, but it seems to be more conspicuous now than it has

been in the past.






The first approach, discernible in most of Stanley

South's work, is referred to as the "pattern recognition"

orientation. It is based on the quantification and com-

parison of artifact types, groups, and classes among and

between historic sites to define inter- and intrasite

relationships of artifacts (i.e. "patterns") that are thought

to have temporal, functional and/or behavioral significance

(South 1977a, 1978). Implicitly South's methodology seems to

stem from an anthropological perspective, but the guiding

paradigm upon which it is based has never been clearly

stated. The other approach has been labelled "historical-

istic" by Schuyler (1978:1), or "particularistic" by South

(1977a:8). Whatever the name might be, it refers to a

philosophical approach that is usually associated with

methodologies that are quite distinct from that employed by

South and his adherents. South has also identified an

offshoot of the particularistic school that seems to be

proanthropology as well as interested in explanation: the

"world viewers" (South 1979). Since the present author views

South's orientation to be in part a reaction against the

initial particularistic approach, it is this earlier

theoretical orientation that will be examined first. As part

of my own small contri-bution to the archeological literature

devoted to the labelling of the theoretical approaches of

other archeologists, the two versions of the particularistic

school have been identified in this study as the "old" and

"new" particularism.







Old Particularism

Much of the early work in historical archeology centered

on elite-occupant sites that were usually impressively large

and ornate, historically famous or infamous (often as a

result of bellicose events occurring there), or possessing

some other "historically interesting" quality such as being

the oldest or only example of a style of architecture

(Fairbanks 1977). Not coincidentally, these types of sites

were attractive to the historically-oriented and -trained

researchers in the field, as well as to the agencies willing

to fund historic site research. The combination of a narrow

historicalist theoretical position among even the anthropo-

logically trained archeologists, along with the social and

economic context in which they worked, resulted in an

emphasis on a preservation-restoration approach which,

according to Schuyler (1978:1), "reduced archeology to a

supplemental technique in the service of architecture, narrow

specific historical questions, and the National Park

Service." Speaking as the herald for "pattern recognition,"

South characterizes particularistic archeology as emphasizing

...individualistic analysis and synthesis.
The paradigm (idea set) is idiographic (intensive
study of an individual case) and particularistic
(often characterized by an antinomothetic stance
against the search for general laws)...((particular-
istic archeologists)) are often implicitly scientific...
while at the same time disdaining the use of the
hypothetical-deductive method....The particularistic
approach has been accompanied by an antiscientific,
antianthropology phenomenon. (South 1977a:8)

For reasons discussed below, this orientation will be refer-

red to as "Old Particularism."







Inherent in this approach, as both South and Schuyler

point out, is an antipathy toward processual goals in

archeology and a rejection of anthropology as it is applied

to the study of historical archeology. The most prominent

proponents of this view have been Ivor Noel Hume (1969a) and

Ian Walker (1967, 1974), both British archeologists with

training in history and the humanities, and Clyde Dollar

(1968), a historian by training. Cleland and Fitting

(1968:124-126) and Schuyler (1978:201) believe that these

authors share a narrow view of what constitutes a science,

and by extension archeology, which certainly is not shared by

all historians or archeologists. Walker's assertion that

"...historical archeology by definition relies on historical

interpretation for explanation" (1974:168) is even less

likely to be supported by historical archeologists.

Anthropological questions, whether or not they dovetail with

the research concerns of historians, will continue to be of

central importance to many historic site researchers. Yet,

as Harrington has recently observed (1979:75-76), a great

many site reports--particularly contract reports--are devoid

of any hint of historical or anthropological interpretation.

Perhaps as a consequence of the early emphasis on site-

specific reconstruction and restoration, a number of archeo-

logists avoid asking any but the most facile questions about

their data, and as a consequence end up producing intensive

intrasite artifact-architecture studies which at best are

descriptive catalogs and at worst are excercises in







psuedoscience (South 1977a:326). Meanwhile, historians

conspicuously ignore the field of historical archeology

altogether (Harrington 1955; Schuyler 1977; Wilderson 1975),

despite the fact that the research concerns of some

historians and archeologists are becoming indistinguishable

(Bloch 1968; Carson 1978; White 1969).

At the risk of stating the obvious, systematic artifact

studies and architectural reconstructions have always been

and will continue to be important components of historical

archeology. Without the further refinement of our method-

ological tools that is afforded bv careful artifact studies,

not to mention the funding support found in reconstruction

oriented projects, advances in historic site research would

not be possible. While recognizing its achievements and

contributions, however, we should also realize that the

limited scope and aims of particularistic archeology preclude

it from achieving truly anthropological goals.

This approach has been labelled as "Old Particularism"

not only because it represents the initial theoretical

orientation embraced by early historical archeologists, but

also in order to differentiate it from the "world view"

orientation that is particularistic but stems from an anthro-

pological framework. This latter approach will be referred

to as the "New Particularism."


New Particularism

The "world view" orientation in historical archeology is

a relatively recent phenomenon, and if the papers presented







at the 1980 meetings of the Society for Historical Archeology

in Albuquerque, New Mexico, are any indication, it is a

popular one as well. The best known work in this area has

been that of James Deetz (1974, 1977) and Henry Glassie

(1968, 1975). Both of these researchers take an approach to

the study of material culture that emphasizes structural

analysis and mentalistic interpretation of data. In his book

In Small Things Forgotten Deetz is concerned with the

systematic relationships of various aspects of material

culture in the 17th through the 18th centuries in New England

(1977). He traces the evolution of the form and function of

ceramics, architecture, mortuary art, eating utensils,

butchering practices, and furniture, among other things, and

identifies major shifts in their use in England and the

American Colonies. He attributes the presence of the

cultural traditions and horizons that he defines to ideolo-

gical forces, particularly a shift from a "medieval" to a

"Georgian world view" that ultimately resulted from the

intellectual ferment of the Renaissance. This cognitive

model of material culture stems from Deetz's long-term

interest in mentalistic processes and their potential for

investigation by archeologists. For instance, the goal of

discovering "mental templates" of the people who made and

used artifacts was emphasized in his 1967 book, Invitation to

Archeology. Since that time Deetz apparently has recognized

the futility of this approach in prehistoric archeology and

has concentrated on adapting it to the field of historical








archeology, with its greatly expanded data base. In Small

Things Forgotten is a convincing demonstration of the

potential that the cognitive approach has for constructing

models of cultural change. It is explicitly anthropological

in outlook, it synthesizes and interprets written historical

and archeological data, and it incorporates sound

methodological principles from such sources as Willey and

Phillips (1958) and Binford (1962a) in the interpretation of

the data.

Similarly, Glassie has applied a structural approach to

the study of architecture in a temporally and spatially

circumscribed area in Virginia (1975). His imaginative and

exhaustive analysis of vernacular architectural forms was

designed to explain diachronic change and continuity in folk

housing as a function of the unconscious mental structures of

the people that built the houses. According to Glassie,

studying artifacts is the best way to discover how the minds

of people operated over long periods of time; conversely, he

thinks that this is an unnecessarily complicated and hence

futile way for discovering the principles governing human

behavior (1975:vii). It is precisely this attitude that

makes the world view approach descriptive rather than

explanatory in nature. Discovering how minds operated,

reconstructing mind sets, and elucidating aspects of a

Georgian world view does not explain the behavior resulting

from the mental structures, mind sets, and world views. This

concern with description and reconstruction is in my view the







principal element connecting the old and new particularism.

Whereas the old particularism was largely theoretical and

rejected anthropological questions as a basis for doing

historical archeology, the new version recognizes the

essential importance of theory in archeology, and it is to

anthropology that many of its practitioners turn for their

theoretical constructs. Both approaches attempt to

reconstruct something from the archeological and documentary

data. In the former, it is the site that is reconstructed,

while in the latter, it is the world view which created the

site that is sought. The underlying factors that might

account for the content, form, and function of the site (or

the mind set) are not proposed or investigated. It is this

failure to go beyond description that links both approaches

to a particularistic paradigm.

The most vocal critic of the new particularism has been

Stanley South. He is disturbed by the explanatory short-

comings that are associated with mind-set reconstructions and

by the practical problems that must be faced in recon-

structing world views from artifacts:

If cognitive models or world views are the goal
of the archeological research then a good way to
begin would be to study the modal personality of
living people and abstract their "world view" and
define their "mind set." Theoretically then, we
should be able to read in the different litera-
ture highly sophisticated models based on ethno-
graphic data for the Irish world view, the Black
world view, the Scottish mind set...on and on ad
infinitem. However, I see no mass of predictable
ethnographic or ethno-archeological literature on
such world views...To suggest that such models can
be abstracted from the archeological data base when
such has yet to be demonstrated from living human







populations, appears to me to be expecting a little
((too)) much from the material data base of archeology...
(South 1979:2)

South's criticisms seem to be relevant. If well trained

ethnographers, who are supposedly adept at recognizing emic

and etic distinctions, cannot discern the world views of

those they study, it would appear highly unlikely that

archeologists would be able to successfully glean mind sets

from studying the artifacts of extinct cultures.

South views the present popularity of the cognitive

approach with dismay since it distracts many archeologists

from the goal of understanding cultural process. However,

the appeal of the new particularism is not difficult to

understand. In addition to the attractive theoretical and

methodological characteristics that have already been

discussed, there are other factors involved. Both Deetz and

Glassie have presented eloquent and compelling reasons for

doing archeology that seem to have struck a responsive chord

in many of us. Echoing Ascher (1974), both strongly reject

the elite-only emphasis of the Old Particularism in favor of

what Charles Fairbanks has called the "archeology of the

proletariat" (1978). Not only does this shift from the elite

sites to the sites of the "common people" tremendously

increase the number of sites to be dug, it also provides

moral imperatives for digging them up. When Henry Glassie

tells us that the written record is "...superficial and

elitist--a tale of viciousness, a myth for the contemporary

power structure," it is clearly the duty of archeologists,







particularly cognitive archeologists, to provide a humanistic

counterpoint to the biased documentary data base (1977:29).

In a world of shrinking research dollars and increasing

skepticism toward the value of all social research, Glassie

and Deetz have given historical archeologists an almost holy

mission to accomplish and at the same time provided a

forceful argument against critics of the social sciences.

Small wonder that the New Particularism is attractive to so

many archeologists.


Pattern Recognition

South's approach, detailed in Method and Theory in

Historical Archeology (1977a) and operationalized in

different ways by a number of authors in Research Strategies

in Historical Archeology (South 1977c), is based on

quantitative analysis of artifacts, especially the derivation

of frequency variations of artifact types, groups, and

classes. Once this is accomplished, "patterns" can be

recognized for intrasite, intersite, and temporal contexts.

These patterns of artifact association (i.e., regular

frequency variations in artifact types-classes-groups) are

believed to have resulted from the patterned behavior of the

site occupants. The basic regularity of the replicated

patterns is then used as a reference by which variability in

the archeological record can be measured. Using this method,

South has defined a number of distinct patterns at British

colonial sites. These include the Brunswick Pattern of

Refuse Disposal, which measures the spatial distribution of








artifact classes and groups by comparing frequency

distributions around dwellings; the Carolina and Frontier

patterns, which are believed to monitor site function through

comparison of the frequency relationships between artifact

groups; and the Kitchen Pattern, which also monitors site

function as indicated through comparison of artifact classes

within the Kitchen artifact group (South 1977a, 1978). Using

artifact assemblages from several domestic, military, and

craft-oriented British colonial sites, the range of

variability that can be expected for the frequency

percentages of the artifact classes and groups are presented,

along with the hypothesized function of each site. By

establishing the normal variation that can be expected for

each type of site, South hopes eventually to be able to

determine the function of any British colonial site,

including those for which no documentary information is

available. The uniqueness of South's method lies in the

insistence on complete quantification of artifact assemblages

and a classification scheme that allows direct intersite

comparisons to be made. By contrast Deetz's methods seem

highly impressionistic (Schuyler 1977:113).

In the opinion of the present author, South's method is

believed to possess the potential to revolutionize the field

of historical archeology, similar to the way in which Ameri-

can prehistoric archeology was affected in the 1960s by Lewis

Binford. South works with historic site data in a singular

and original way. In so doing he gives primacy to the







archeological rather than the documentary record, and by

necessity this results in anthropological rather than narrow

historical interpretations. But, as is common with any

revolutionary paradigm, there are problems associated with

South's approach that must be resolved before it will gain

overwhelming acceptance. The most serious one is that South

has not provided a convincing explanation as to why the

patterns that are defined occur. This lack of an explanatory

component is probably why Schuyler refers to pattern

recognition as "a form of structural-functionalism"

(1980:200). Like Levi-Strauss, Glassie, and Deetz, South has

done an exemplary job of description without accounting for

the underlying causes of the phenomena described. Until this

drawback is overcome, the revolutionary potential of South's

methodology cannot be realized.

On a technical level, there are also questions

concerning the adequacy of the samples used by South in

delineating artifact patterns. Since most of his excavations

were oriented toward locating architectural features in order

to meet the requirements of the sponsoring agencies involved

in each project, almost all of his artifact samples were

recovered inside or directly adjacent to structural remains.

In view of the reliance placed by South on Michael B.

Schiffer's "behavioral archeology" concepts (Schiffer 1972,

1976, 1977), it is surprising that ruin-associated artifacts

are assumed to be representative of the entire site,

especially considering Fairbanks' (1977) and South's own







(1977a) observations concerning differential refuse disposal

practices at colonial sites. This assumption may be valid,

but this certainly needs to be demonstrated before it is

accepted. If it is not valid, then neither are the patterns.

Other less serious criticisms of South's pattern recognition

are mentioned in reviews of Method and Theory in Historical

Archeology (Chance 1977; Honerkamp 1977b).


Eclectic Approach

Another approach used by historical archeologists with

distressing tenacity is to avoid thinking about theory at all

and simply excavate sites as carefully as possible. The

adherents of this approach argue that commitment to specific

research strategies will invariably result in the collection

of limited types and amounts of data which have relevance

only to the specific research strategies employed. This

position, which is in itself a research strategy with its own

set of unspecified data limitations, is common in

anthropology and archeology and has been referred to by

Harris as "eclecticism" (1979:x,287-314). Archeologists

employing this supposedly "open-minded" approach are really

only excavation technicians, and their meticulous site

reports usually lack interpretation as well as usefulness to

other archeologists or historians. This in itself

illustrates the truthfulness of Glassie's observation that

"the scholar who believes that he works without theory, works

with bad theory" (1977:9).




31


Theoretical-Methodological Position

The manner in which archeological research is conducted

relates directly to the theoretical-methodological position

that the archeologist holds, including the archeologist who

rejects theory (Cleland and Fitting 1968; Glassie 1977;

Watson et al. 1971). Although the approaches outlined above

are by no means exhaustive of those held by historical

archeologists, they are thought to be representative of a

majority of the archeologists actively engaged in historic

site research. My own orientation is based on the foregoing

consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of each

approach, especially as they can be applied to the study of

the archeological record at Fort Frederica. This study

applies the structural-functionalist method to interpretation

of data within a positivist, materialist theoretical

framework. Neither an in-depth description of the material

remains recovered at Frederica, nor a historical-

archeological chronicle, nor an interpretation of the world

view of the site's occupants will be attempted, for reasons

discussed above. At the same time, the author is not unaware

of the needs of the sponsor concerning traditional site

interpretation goals. Accordingly, the material remains used

to derive archeological evidence of past activities and

behavior are described in more detail than is customary in

pattern recognition studies, and reconstructed or complete

artifacts are identified and illustrated. In this sense, the

present study is particularistic. No attempt will be made to




32


describe a nontestable mind set at Frederica because, even if

this could be accomplished, it would not explain the

archeological record. However, the level of analysis

reported in this paper should be sufficiently detailed to

allow a cognitive study to be made by some future New

Particularist. Although the pattern recognition approach is

seen to be similarly incomplete without reference to the

underlying causal factors that could account for the

patterns, it is felt to be a necessary methodological step in

attempting a coherent explanation of the British colonial

cultural system by allowing intersite comparisons of data to

be made.

Probably the best illustration of the potential that the

application of the pattern recognition method has in

historical archeology is found in Kenneth Lewis' study of the

frontier model in archeology (1976, 1977). Lewis

demonstrates the usefulness of South's method when it is

combined with processual archeology. He first outlines the

general characteristics of a frontier model on the basis of

past geographical studies. He then makes several predictive

statements (hypotheses) concerning the process of frontier

change and tests these against the data recovered from

eighteenth century Camden, a frontier community in South

Carolina. From this he is able to draw several conclusions

concerning the adaptations of colonizing societies to

frontier conditions. The utility of this approach for the

study of the frontier town of Frederica is obvious.







In summary, the theoretical position taken here is one

that derives in part from the pattern recognition approach of

Stanley South. Methodologically, the "structural-functional"

orientation with its reliance on artifact quantification will

be followed, but the shortcomings of this approach are

recognized. In relation to the study of archeological

evidence, a positivistic stance is taken which rejects the

ideational basis of the world view approach in favor of a

materialist explanation of culture (Harris 1977, 1979). The

systematic nature of the archeological record is assumed, as

is the ability of the archeologist to discern, through the

formulation and testing of appropriate research hypotheses,

the systematic cultural and natural processes that account

for the archeological record. Before this is attempted,

however, the data base must be defined. The data base at

Frederica is believed to reflect a British colonizing

adaptation to specific frontier conditions. The goal of the

present study will be to identify and explain components of

this frontier adaptation. The following chapters are devoted

to the definition of the historical-archeological data base.











CHAPTER III
RESEARCH DESIGN

Any study of the structure, function, and nature of the

frontier process must necessarily be regional in scope (Lewis

1976:157). The frontier system at Frederica will be investi-

gated through the use of documentary information pertaining

to the region and town during the 18th century, and through

combined documentary and archeological data from the three

sites excavated: the Hawkins-Davison Site (Cate 1956; Deagan

1972; Fairbanks 1956), the Hird Site (Honerkamp 1975, 1977a),

and the Dobree Site. As this last site is reported here for

the first time, it will be examined in more detail than

either of the other two.


Concepts and Definitions

Since the frontier phenomenon is identified as the focus

of investigation, it must necessarily be delimited. Using

the work of geographers such as Casagrande et al. (1964),

Kristof (1959), Weigert et al. (1957), and Hudson (1969),

Lewis defines the frontier as a region in which the dispersal

of settlement into a new territory takes place. It also

includes the zone separating settled and unsettled areas of a

territory which lies within effective control of the state

(Lewis 1977:145). The frontier appears with the first

permanent settlement and ceases to exist with the leveling







off of settlement growth and the stabilization of settlement

patterning. The frontier is directly dependent on the trade

and communications network that is established with the

already settled origin area. Frontier settlements

...reflect distribution of personnel and materials
in the most efficient way to permit the integra-
tion of activities in a sparsely settled area.
The limits of the exchange network at any given
time effectively mark the boundaries of the area
of colonization. (Lewis 1977:154)

The five conditions characterizing the frontier model are:

1) prolonged contact/continuity maintained between the
colonists and the parent society;

2) loss of complexity due to attenuation of networks
with the homeland;

3) settlement pattern more geographically dispersed
than the homeland unless temporarily impeded by
restrictive conditions;

4) dispersed frontier towns serving as the nucleus for
social/political/economic/religious activities and
as a terminus for the transportation network link-
ing the area of colonization with the homeland; and

5) temporal and spatial change, i.e., the pattern of
temporal growth is replicated spatially, with set-
tlements closest to the moving frontier represent-
ing the earliest stages of frontier development. As
the frontier expands, early settlements experience
marked changes in population density and settlement
pattern, and eventually become integrated at the
national level.

As with Lewis' study, two broad questions concerning the

cultural and temporal characteristics for the three sites at

Frederica will be investigated. Once these parameters are

established, it will be possible to test hypotheses

concerning the form and spatial extent of the occupations at

Frederica, the functions of the sites in question, the

distribution of archeological materials having behavioral







significance (especially with reference to South's recent

work), and resource utilization in an 18th century frontier

environment. Unlike Lewis' study, which was based on a large

stratified unaligned random sample from the entire town of

Camden, the sample from Frederica consists of three

intensively excavated sites. Since only a small proportion

of the total archeological variability at Frederica has been

sampled, inferences concerning the frontier process as an

intersite phenomenon must be made with caution. A brief

summary of the research questions addressed in this study is

given below. These questions will be presented in greater

detail in Chapter VII.

The cultural-ethnic affiliation of the sites can be

determined through reference to documentary and archeological

evidence. As will be seen in the next chapter, documentary

information indicates that the cultural affiliation of

Frederica as a whole, and the three sites in particular, was

primarily British. This assumption is tested in Chapter VII

with respect to the ceramic assemblages at each site.

Briefly stated, the economic ties between Frederica and

Britain, and by extension the cultural affiliation of the

town, should be reflected in the ceramic artifacts associated

with most sites in the town. The ceramic assemblages from

each site should therefore be characterized by (1) a

predominance of ceramics manufactured in Britain, (2) a

variety of British ceramic types that mirrors the diversity

of types found at other British sites, and (3) based on







findings from other British colonial sites, the occurence of

a predictable amount of re-exported foreign-made ceramic

types such as Oriental porcelain and Westerwald stoneware.

The temporal period of the town occupation is

established in Chapter IV as extending from 1736 to circa

1750 for most sites in the town. However, the chronological

position of the Hird, Hawkins-Davison, and Dobree sites

cannot be determined satisfactorily from the documentary

evidence alone. Temporally sensitive artifacts--ceramics and

white clay pipes--are used to estimate the occupation dates

for the sites. A lack of congruence between the mean

occupation dates derived from the documentary, ceramic, and

pipestem materials is used to interpret the site occupation

sequences as well as the behavioral characteristics of the

occupants.

Site form and function are investigated with reference

to the frontier model. Settlement patterning at the town

level is expected to reflect specific demographic, political,

and economic factors that were present in the South Carolina

and Georgia frontier areas. This should be evinced by

distinctive settlement patterns for Camden and Frederica.

For instance, at Camden a combination of abundant land, low

population density, and the absence of a need for concerted

defense against a state-level power would result in a more

dispersed and uneven town structure than at Frederica. Both

documentary and archeological data from each town are used to

contrast the settlement patterns. Adaptive pressures







affecting the town structure should also be reflected in the

structure of the town's components, which in the case of

Frederica would be the freeholder lots. Some implications of

this hypothesis are (1) there should be evidence of cluster-

ing of features within the lots (depending on the intensity

of occupation at each site), (2) evidence indicating attempts

at maximizing the trash disposal function of certain areas of

the lot through reuse of subsurface features should be

present, (3) efficient use of subsurface features for the

disposal of faunal remains possessing objectionable odors

should be seen at the sites, and (4) there should be evidence

of an emphasis on demarcation of lot boundaries.

The question of site function is investigated by compar-

isons of domestic and nondomestic activity by-products at

each site. Quantification of the artifact assemblages in

terms of South's (1977a:92-102) type-ware-class-group

classification is carried out in order to define site

function as it is reflected by the empirical artifact

profiles associated with each site (see Chapter V). Fred-

erica, as a planned frontier community, should show archeo-

logical evidence of domestic activities as well as craft,

marketing, small-scale manufacturing, and tavern socializing

activities. Due to the emphasis placed on crafts and trades

by the organizers and sponsors of the colonization effort at

Frederica, nondomestic activities should be more in evidence

at Frederica than at Camden. Besides the comparison of

quantitative artifact profiles, it is also possible to use







the results of qualitative or presence-absence analysis to

determine site function. This is done for the artifact

assemblages from all three sites at Frederica, with

particular attention given to the by-products of a small-

scale manufacturing operation (a forge) that were recovered

from the Dobree Site.

The nearly complete excavation of the Dobree Site has

resulted in a data base that is well suited for testing

hypotheses concerning British colonial refuse disposal

behavior. South has defined a pattern of artifact

distributions at British colonial sites which he has

designated as the Brunswick Pattern of Refuse Disposal. This

pattern monitors secondary and primary deposition of refuse

as it occurs in and around colonial structures (South

1977a:48). However, portions of the sites used by South to

derive the Brunswick Pattern constitute a highly limited

sample in that they are all oriented around structural

foundations and their directly adjacent areas. Virtually no

testing of peripheral site areas is evident in South's work

(1977a:50-76). At the Dobree Site graphic representation of

the frequency distributions of several artifact classes and

groups is used to test the applicability of the Brunswick

Pattern at Frederica.

Finally, a subsistence model based on traditional

English foodways is defined in Chapter VII and compared with

the zooarcheological evidence from Frederica. A traditional

pattern of meat consumption in early Georgia that mirrors the







European pattern is expected to contrast sharply with a

pattern of resource utilization that reflects adaptive

responses to frontier conditions.

Of central importance in testing the hypotheses

mentioned above is the definition of the temporal and spatial

aspects of the particular sites investigated, as well as the

general historical context of the town and region. This is

undertaken in the following chapter through the combined use

of documentary and archeological resources.











CHAPTER IV
DOCUMENTARY BACKGROUND


In this chapter the historical context of Frederica as a

frontier settlement, and of the Hawkins-Davison, Hird, and

Dobree sites as components of such a settlement, will be

developed. The concern here will be with clarifying some of

the characteristics of the frontier adaptation in the region

and relating them to Frederica and the three sites

investigated. On a more specific level, an attempt will be

made to establish temporal and spatial control for the town

and sites. For regional and local background information of

a more general nature, any of the numerous publications

dealing with Georgia and Frederica history and archeology

should be consulted (Cate 1943, 1956; Coleman 1976; Davis

1976; Fairbanks 1956; Honerkamp 1975, 1977a; Ivers 1974;

Manucy 1962; Reese 1963, 1969; Saye 1943).


Historical Context: Georgia

Georgia was established in 1733 as the last British

proprietary colony in America and as the last to be founded

by settlers coming directly from Europe. By that time South

Carolina had developed sufficiently in economic importance

through its plantation exports and British-Indian trade that

expansion west and south from the settled coastal areas was

officially recognized as necessary for the consolidation and

41







security of the planting and trading enterprises (Brown

1963:2; Coleman 1972:169-170). In 1730 the royal Govenor of

South Carolina submitted a detailed plan for expanding the

Carolina frontier which was enthusiastically endorsed by the

Board of Trade. The Board added the stipulation that two

settlements be located on the Altamaha River on land that had

long been claimed by both Britain and Spain. By combining an

economic-military expansionist policy with a philanthropic

movement in England aimed at making productive colonists of

the mother country's many poor and insolvent subjects, the

founding of Georgia seemingly accomplished three objectives

at once. First, it protected the economically valuable

Carolina colony by providing a military buffer against

Spanish or French incursions and by reducing the threat of

slave rebellions on the Carolina plantations. Second, it

expanded the frontier trade and plantation networks that were

so essential to the mercantilistic economy envisioned for the

colonies by the Board of Trade. Third, it helped relieve the

mother country of a substantial domestic burden, the

unemployed and poor of London and other cities (Reese 1963:8-

9; Coleman 1976:9-13). Thus it was the "unfortunate poor,"

many of whom were supported by the Trust charity, who

accompanied James Oglethorpe to the new colony in 1733.

The frontier town of Savannah, located near the mouth of

the Savannah River, became the nexus of social, political,

and economic life in early Georgia. The settlement was

positioned on a major river linking the piedmont with the







coast. Within a few years after its founding, a number of

small military and domestic settlements extending along the

Savannah River and southern coast were established. The main

military settlement was Fort Frederica while the most

important trading town was Augusta. Savannah soon became the

center of a land and water transportation network that

developed into the hinterland, although until the 1760s

Charleston remained the principal entrepot from which English

merchandise was transshipped to Georgia (Davis 1976:52-54).

Initially the system of land distribution in Georgia was

explicitly designed to ensure a dispersed settlement pattern.

In the interests of military security, a man-land ratio of

one male to every fifty acres was established for land

grants. "Gentlemen" were allowed up to 500 acres on the

condition that they bring 10 male servants to the colony at

their own expense. Once land was granted, its inheritance

and sale were severely restricted. Large individual

landholdings were prohibited under this arrangement in the

belief that the colony would instead be populated by numerous

small-plot farmers who would make up a strong standing

militia; slaves were prohibited for the same reasons. As

Reese (1963), Coleman (1976), and others have emphasized,

this slave-free agrarian system of land division discouraged

the establishment of productive plantations with their high

capital and labor investments. The flexibility associated

with the private, large scale, economically oriented

companies that had successfully established colonial







settlements elsewhere in America was precluded under

Georgia's philanthropic charter. Until the land and labor

restrictions were removed by the royal administration in

1750, Georgia's frontier settlements remained unstable in

terms of population, economy, and settlement patterning.

Once a reliable economy based on rice, indigo, and marine

stores became established, frontier towns such as Savannah

began to stabilize and take on increasingly complex

communication, transportation, and commercial functions. By

1773, 25 ocean-going vessels were owned by Georgians (Wright

1873:175) and many were offloading at Savannah, which had

largely replaced Charleston as the major sea port linking the

colony with Britain.

From the documentary information reviewed thus far, it

can be seen that the conditions proposed by Lewis as being

necessary for the development of a frontier are fully

satisfied (1977:160-164). Briefly stated, these are:

1) Georgia, located on the periphery of a prev-
iously settled area, was physically occupied
by an intrusive colonizing society (Great Britain).

2) The intrusive European society possessed a highly
developed state level of organization. The
presence of a concomitant legitimizing force
necessary to maintain the logistical support of the
colonization effort is also apparent. Frederica,
as a fortified frontier settlement and as the staging
point for a major military campaign against Spain in
1740, exemplifies this state level legitimization of
force (Ivers 1974).

3) In the second quarter of the 18th century, external
sociocultural barriers to expansion consisted only
of a competing state level society in St. Augustine,
Florida. Decimated by internecine warfare, slave
raids, and European diseases, the coastal Guale
Indians had been removed to Spanish missions in







Florida by 1686. By the 1730s only sporadic con-
tact with remnant inland Creek groups occurred in
the Frederica area (Gannon 1965; Ivers 1974).
These groups posed little if any competition for
resources.

4) Georgia was amenable to subsistence and commercial
exploitation. This was conclusively demonstrated
with the removal of land and labor restrictions by
the royal administration. Natural barriers pre-
venting access to different parts of the frontier
were absent, as indicated by the maintenance of
trade and communication routes during the politi-
cally and economically unstable proprietary period.


Historical Context: Frederica

Shortly after Savannah was established, a string of

military outposts was built along the coast as far south as

Fort George Island, Florida. The center of this defensive

network was the fortified settlement of Frederica. Founded

in 1736, the town originally was occupied by 40 civilian

families, but by 1738 a military regiment was permanently

stationed there. Eighty-four house lots were laid out within

the walls of the town and a corresponding number of 50-acre

farming plots were located in the surrounding countryside;

every freeholder received one of each. The town was divided

into a North and South Ward by the main east-west street

(Broad Street) extending from the town entrance to the fort

(Figure 1-3 and Figure 1-4). Besides the 600-man Regiment,

Frederica's inhabitants included various craftsmen and

skilled workers, but as was true of the rest of Georgia's

population at the time, farmers, husbandmen, and laborers

were in short supply (Coleman 1976:20-22; Coulter and Saye

1949).







The military orientation of the town is clearly

discernible in the settlement structure. Unlike Camden,

which was an unplanned frontier town founded for and

supported by economic considerations, Frederica was designed

as a compact, defensible settlement containing a high density

population capable of bearing arms. The tightly regulated

settlement pattern, based on military necessity, accounts for

the circumscribed layout of the town as compared to Camden.

Frederica's row pattern of lots more closely resembles the

contiguous arrangement of structures in an English market

town than the uneven dispersal of structures at Camden (Lewis

1977:179).

The town's main economic activities are of importance in

establishing some of the major characteristics of the

frontier adaptation. This topic has been of interest to

historians as well as archeologists at Frederica. Although

the settlers were expected to become self-sufficient through

subsistence farming and by practicing their crafts and

trades, their initial material needs were supplied by the

Trust. Upon arriving at Frederica the head of each household

was supplied with a year's provision of food, clothing,

tools, and kitchenware. By 1738, when the charity period was

to end, most of the settlers were unable to support

themselves and had to depend on weekly "advances" of food

(Manucy 1962:54,100). This continued for a number of years,

for only sporadic success at farming was ever achieved by








Frederica's inhabitants and craft activities were apparently

not frequently practiced (see discussion below).

The Trustees gave specific instructions concerning the

construction of dwellings, which were to be built in the

Georgian style and to measure at least 16 by 20 feet (Candler

1904-37:XXXIV,288). At Frederica the documentary and

archeological evidence gives a fairly clear picture of the

types of houses built by the colonists. A contemporary

visitor to the town mentioned "...some houses built entirely

of Brick, some of Brick and Wood, some few of Tappy-Work, but

most of the meaner sort of Wood only" (Jones 1878:122).

Archeological excavations support this description. Most of

the inhabitants built "common freeholder" houses which Manucy

describes as timber framed clapboard huts (1960:20).

Architectural variability as a function of socioeconomic

status seems to be evident at Frederica. Timber frame

structures were the most economical and easiest to build, and

by far made up the majority of residences. Tabby and brick

houses, which were more secure but entailed much higher costs

in labor and materials than their wooden counterparts, were

selected by the wealthier colonists (Manucy 1960:20-23).

There is also some indication of a correlation between lot

location and type of house, with the brick and tabby examples

more commonly located near the fort or facing Broad Street.

Archeological evidence of wooden houses has yet to be

recorded and remains a high research priority.







Most authors emphasize the overall importance of the

Regiment in the town economy. The civilian sector quickly

became oriented toward and dependent on the military payroll,

either by providing goods or services through the full time

practice of crafts and trades, or by engaging in the tavern

trade and practicing crafts on a part time basis, if at all.

This "artificial prosperity," as Davis calls it (1976:61), is

indicated by contemporary descriptions of the civilians

engaged in "selling to the Camp" and "keeping public Houses"

(Reese 1973:8,74). Except for early attempts by a small

minority of the town's more industrious residents, farming

was never an important activity on either a subsistence or

cash crop level. A 1745 letter from John Terry to the

Trustees of the colony is informative concerning the role of

farming and other occupations in the community at that time.

In his letter he complains about the

...badness of the Land in Regard to the Expces.
attending the Clearing of it So, that the few &
very few inhabitants that are here do Not go on
planting And Neither Are they able to go Upon
Such an Expensive Undertakins, All they Do is to
build houses on their town Lott, wch. turns to a
very good Accot. to them By Letting or Selling of
them to the officers, And hiring of them for Stores
to Merchts. Believe me My Lords & Gentlemen, these
Are the Improuvemts. Made or makg.
(Candler 1915:401-402)

This letter echoes the sentiments expressed five years

earlier by George Whitfield when he remarked that "Frederica

is wholly kept up by the Soldiery & that too I fear by their

Intemperance. Very few as I could hear of intended planting

any Corn..." (Phillips 1947:104). Clearly the economic







endeavors of Frederica's inhabitants were limited to a narrow

range of activities that focused on servicing and supplying

the regiment. Thus a loss of complexity resulting not only

from attenuation of networks with the homeland but also from

a highly restricted economy is indicated by the documentary

data.


General Temporal-Demographic Parameters

Through numerous documentary references a terminus post

quem of February 1736 has been established for the colonial

occupation at Frederica. Determination of an end date for

the settlement is more difficult due to the erratic

fluctuations in population that characterized Frederica's

history. Most authors emphasize a severe reduction in the

domestic population as a result of and immediately following

the departure of the Regiment in 1749 (Cate 1956:204; Jones

1878:124-125; Reese 1969:69-71). Indirect evidence of the

town's dissolution is seen by Reese in the closing of the

town storehouse in 1751 due to a lack of customers (1969:70).

In 1758 a fire "...wasted nearly all of the town which time

had spared," presumably because no one was around to put it

out (Stevens 1847:446). Contemporary accounts, including one

by Royal Governor John Reynolds in 1755, give the impression

of a town "in Ruins," and sporadic attempts to revive

Frederica for military or economic purposes during the last

half of the 18th century were unsuccessful (Jones 1878:126-

136). Small military detachments were stationed there

through the American Revolution and half-hearted efforts at







repairing the military structures were occasionally made.

William Bartram, viewing Frederica in 1774, mentioned that

what had once been "a very considerable Town" was "now almost

in ruins" (Bartram 1943:145), while in 1839 Fanny Kemble

portrayed the town as a collection of rose-covered ruins with

only two standing houses (1961:131). Small numbers of

families continued to live and farm in the Frederica area

into the middle of the twentieth century (Cate 1926:37,

1956:204; Lovell 1932:272-273).

The foregoing evidence indicates that the bulk of

Frederica's population was absent by 1750, scarcely 15 years

after its establishment. However, a review of other

documents suggests that the occupation span of many of the

nonmilitary residents was considerably less than 15 years.

The list of Georgia settlers compiled by the Earl of Egmont,

first President of the Trustees for Establishing the Colony

of Georgia in America, reveals that, of the 63 colonial

households or individuals who were assigned lots at

Frederica, 24 were either "Dead, Quitted, or Run Away" after

five years in the colony; for many, only two years of

frontier life was enough (Coulter and Saye 1949). This

figure is derived from an extremely limited sample, i.e.,

only those settlers for whom Egmont had some information, and

would undoubtedly be higher if a systematic study were made

of all of Frederica's documented inhabitants. Underscoring

the findings from Egmont's List are the frequent complaints

and sometimes dismal descriptions of frontier life that were







voiced by many of Georgia's inhabitants (see Candler 1904-

37:I,256-345, XXII,17, XX,183-184; Reese 1973:47,106,294-

295,297).

The present author feels there is a need for increased

internal criticism of secondary documentary references

dealing with this and other aspects of Frederica's past.

Frederica is commonly characterized as a thriving community

of artisans and craftsmen that prospered by serving the

Regiment until 1749 (Cate 1956:204; Coleman 1976:141; Reese

1969:47). The town population supposedly reached its peak of

over 1000 soldiers and civilians in the early 1740s, a figure

that should be considered controversial in view of highly

contradictory contemporary estimates (Candler 1904-

37:VIII,488, XXIV,140-141; Reese 1973:111). Adverse

descriptions of Frederica's conditions cannot simply be

dismissed as the machinations of "Clamorous Malcontents." At

the same time that Frederica was said to be in its economic

heyday, the rest of Georgia was apparently experiencing hard

times, as summarized by Coleman:

From 1737 through 1747 there was decline in the
colony. This period saw the closing of the
Trustees store ((in Savannah)), the objections
of the malcontents, and the Spanish War. Immi-
gration slowed, people left, and population
actually declined. Charitable contributions to
the Trustees declined to almost nothing, and
the colony was kept going only by Parlimentary
grants totaling some 88,000 during the decade.
The year 1740 was undoubtedly the low point
economically in the colony's history. It was
during this decade that the inadequacy of many
of the charity colonists for a frontier area
became clear. (Coleman 1976:142)







What seems to be generally ignored or underestimated in

historical studies of Frederica is that the settlement was

characterized by an extremely high turnover rate for the

inhabitants. The emphasis that some historians have given to

the number and diversity of crafts and skills represented at

Frederica is the result of a synchronic interpretation of a

diachronic phenomenon of population replacement. In other

words, the historical interpretation was derived from a

listing of all craft specialists over a span of time, rather

than from those present at any one time. Reese's contention

that a list of the names of Frederica's settlers "could be

extended to include practically every trade that a pioneer,

frontier community needed" may be correct (1969:47), but the

accompanying assumption that all these essential craftsmen

were living in Frederica at the same time cannot be supported

by the documentary evidence.

The effects that this high rate of population

replacement might have on the archeological record vary.

Most sites at Frederica can be assumed to have been abandoned

prior to 1750. Some site assemblages can be expected to

reflect single residence occupations of short duration or

multicomponent occupations of various durations. These

should contrast in discernible ways with a small number of

sites with long duration (eight to ten years or more) single

components. Intrusive 19th and 20th century components

should also be present at a small number of the colonial

sites.







Spatial Parameters

Rarely has the utility of integrated archeological and

documentary research been better demonstrated than at

Frederica. Fairbanks' excavation of the Hawkins-Davison

house was based on documentary information provided by the

late Margaret Davis Cate, a coastal Georgia historian who

devoted much of her life to the historical research of

Frederica. The identification and discovery of the Hawkins-

Davison common wall on the lot line between Lot 1 and Lot 2

of the South Ward allowed the archeologists to relate the

colonial lot layout to Frederica's present topography (Cate

1956; Fairbanks 1956).

Of considerable interest to many researchers at

Frederica has been the spatial configuration of the town.

Beginning with Cate's and Fairbanks' early research, every

excavation undertaken or sponsored by the National Park

Service has incorporated into its research design some

emphasis on the spatial delineation of the town lot locations

and boundaries. Lot sizes have been reliably established

through the use of information obtained from 18th century

documents and maps (Auspourger 1736; Miller 1796; Moore

1840:82; Stacy 1784) combined with archeological verification

(Fairbanks 1956:225). Estimates of the size of the various

colonial streets and alleys, which are particularly important

for determining the locations of lots that do not face Broad

Street, are more problematic. The 1796 Miller map (Figure 4-

1) shows specific street-alley widths that contrast with


































C)


Q)



C"

0




ca











r1
1i--














.H




44-
(U

tO
















V

~" I *


aS f



,1
I,


4

N;

.N
'\ -


4 I


-6 "


i


I t. 0- 4M









.-re's contempor-ry account and the dimensions listed -n t-e

1736 Auspourger mrap. Fairb:nks fou-d no direct evidence of

'r-ad Street during his excavations and attempts by Shiner

(1958a) an4 Moore (1958) to determine the width of Cross

Street were also unsucc-ssful. Using the archeolo<{ical

-:vidence of foundations uncovered at the Hawkins-Davison and

Lot 1 North sites, Fairbanks concluded that Broad Street was

75 feet wile (22.9 mete-s), .s shown in t'-e Ausoourzer man.

However, the alley to the south of the Hawki-s-Davison site

was found to be slightly mor- than 14 feet wide ('.4 metes)

w'.I -h is in accordance with t'-e Mi ler mao. A su=marv of the


i.-formation on stee and lot dimensi -ns shows some

concordance, as indicated nda in Table 4-1.


Table 4-1.


Summary of Street


and Lot Di.ensions, Frederica.


'usoourgr (e 73r

road Sr.et 75 feet



H ~ 1 ^' 0 0 feetC
To.. o6eX Oeel

S> t r qQ e teet

1f

g4


S o'nd U" t

%!/1i n-e oee' or-

I'J ^(i f p ^ ^ ~ ^1 ^^p -4


,, 4


Miller '1796

3 feet

?2 feet




1 4 17 f

*0 X 90 ? pt


q1 f~ Y~ !*? y~t *,'


vDr pOr


Fai banks'
Excavation (1Q56

75 feet






I14 feet-

70 t Q ,


rpp i r> ? 1


L' ) A


$ 0 (-


4- 4-


I~\ ;n
1 '3


~r 1r~r<~ ~r AT -, ~N i~ r 4- V


-1 M; e nu m(=> P V t 3 i'







other or with the field calculations of street dimensions,

locational information on lot and street placement remains a

high priority for any excavation at Frederica. Lots not

adjacent to Broad Street are of particular concern since

possible errors made in measuring their locations may be

compounded with increasing distance from the Hawkins-Davison

base line. Variations induced by the surveying techniques

used in 1736 could also contribute to inaccurate determin-

ations. Despite these drawbacks it is assumed that the

approximate location of any lot can be found using the

documentary-archeological evidence outlined above.


The Hawkins-Davison Site

The documentary record pertaining to this site has been

presented fully by Cate (1956), Deagan (1972), and Fairbanks

(1956). A brief synopsis of their work will be given in

order to indicate some of the temporal, spatial, and social

parameters associated with the site. Thomas Hawkins has been

positively identified as the owner of Lot 1 South. He, his

wife, and two servants arrived at Frederica in 1736 and

apparently left the settlement in 1743, although an ambiguous

reference given by John Terry in 1745 suggests a later date

of departure (Candler 1904-37:1,462, XXIV,402). Despite

coming to Georgia "at the Trustees' expense," Hawkins seems

to have held a relatively high socio-economic status among

the town's inhabitants. He was employed as the Regiment

surgeon, town apothecary-doctor, and Bailiff for Frederica.

He lived in one of the most impressive residences in the







town, a three story home built of bricks. Hawkins owned a

large "plantation" on a nearby island and possessed a number

of cattle (Candler 1904-37:V,500). A petition for his

property in 1767 and 1768 suggests that his house was not

reoccupied after his departure but this is unlikely given its

expensive construction.

Like Thomas Hawkins, Samuel Davison came to Frederica in

1736 on the charity of the Trust. The family, consisting of

Davison, his wife and their three children resided at Lot 2

South in an expensive brick and tabby house which shared a

wall (on the lot line) with the Hawkins house. Trained as a

chairman, Davison held positions as Constable, Searcher of

Ships, and Overseer of the Trustee's Servants, although his

main livelihood was in running a tavern in his home. He made

a vigorous attempt at farming, at least during his first few

years in the colony. By virtue of his expensive housing and

contemporary comments on his industrious nature, Davison can

also be assumed to have held a high socioeconomic status

relative to other civilians in the town. In a 1741 letter he

was listed as having "20 head of Cattle, servants, 2 or 3

carts, 8 horses..." (Candler 1904-37:V,501), but the family

left for South Carolina in that year. Documentary evidence

of a later occupation on his property has not been found, but

it is unlikely that one of the best houses in Frederica would

have remained unused for long in the 1740s.







The Hird Site

Documentary background on the Hird Site has been

presented by Honerkamp (1975, 1977a). Thomas Hird, his wife,

and three children came to Georgia in 1736 at Trust expense.

According to the list compiled by the Earl of Egmont, Hird

was a dyer who resided at Lot 12 North. As shown by the

Miller Map, this would indicate a lot position in the

northeast section of the town (see Figure 4-I). According to

the documents, Hird may have engaged in dyeing, brewing, and

livestock raising, but there is definite evidence that he

served as town Constable, lay preacher, and farmer exemplar.

He also made frequent business trips to Savannah and

Charleston. His socioeconomic position in the town,

especially with respect to Hawkins and Davison, is difficult

to determine. Although Honerkamp has interpreted the

documentary-archeological information as indicating a

slightly higher socioeconomic level for Hird (1980), this

interpretation is open to question. Contemporary accounts

concerning Hird's industrious nature and material

improvements, when combined with evidence of his considerable

occupational endeavors, support the assumption of a

relatively high status position in the town. His long term

occupation at Frederica (12 years) can also be interpreted as

supporting this contention, especially in view of the high

turnover of other inhabitants who were unable to make a

living in the town. Hird occupied his lot until his death in







1748, and the rest of the family departed soon after that

date.


The Dobree Site

Symptomatic of the difficulties encountered in using a

direct interpretation level of research is the documentary

background on the Dobree Site. Using the lot numbers shown

on the Miller Map, (Figure 4-1) and the information on lot

ownership available in Coulter and Saye (1949:40), this site

was originally thought to have been occupied by Robert

Patterson, a accountant in the town store. However, after

excavation of the site was nearly half finished, another

reference found in Egmont's List indicated that Lot 21 South

was occupied by Elisha Dobree, an accountant who worked as a

clerk in the town store (Coulter and Saye 1949:71).

Underscoring the confusion, a review of Margaret Davis Cate's

research notes revealed contradictory listings for the lot

number. In some cases Cate originally had "31-S" listed for

Patterson's lot, but she later crossed this number out and

replaced it with "21-S" on several reference cards (Cate

1961). Using Cate's notes, Reese later attributed a

description made by Dobree of his own house and lot to

Patterson (1969:back cover). Finally, the Assistant

Superintendent at Fort Frederica, George Berndt, informed the

archeologists that the lot numbering for the rows containing

Lots 21 through 31 in both Wards was reversed on the Miller

Map (Figure 4-1). He cited as evidence the out-of-synch

numbering of these two rows, and more conclusively, a grant







made in 1763 to Pickering Robinson in which town lot 25 in

Frederica is described as being on a corner lot on the north

side of Broad Street (Bryant 1972:30). Lot 25 in either Ward

can only be on a corner if the lot numbers are reversed

according to Berndt's interpretation. Since the Miller Map

was drawn nearly one half century after the town was

abandoned, a numbering error would not be surprising. The

easternmost lot on the third row of the south ward is

therefore considered to be Lot 31.

Unfortunately the new documentary evidence concerning

the lot designation has not cleared up the question of the

lot ownership and occupancy. Since both Patterson and Dobree

could not have owned the same lot at the same time, one of

Egmont's entries must be in error. Dobree is known to have

been in Frederica from at least 1736 to 1738 and to have sold

his lot to David Provost sometime prior to 1743 (Candler

1904-37:I,424, XXI,283). In that year John Provost, David's

heir, assigned a town lot in Frederica to Captain George

Dunbar of Oglethorpe's Regiment. The lot was identified as

Dobree's former property, but the lot number was not

mentioned (Candler 1904-37:V,705). Dunbar died in Jamaica in

1763 while still a Captain in the Regiment; the extent of his

involvement on his Frederica lot is unknown. In 1759 William

Mackintosh requested a grant for Lot 21 South in Frederica

(Candler 1904-37:VIII,143). Presumably, if Dunbar was still

in possession of Dobree's lot at this date, Mackintosh would

not have requested it, so he must have been trying to obtain







the "real" Lot 21 belonging to Robert Patterson. This

contention is supported by a similar request made in 1759 by

Thomas Goldsmith for Patterson's Frederica lot, which was

specified by name and not by number (Candler 1904-37:VII,32-

33). By 1763 Goldsmith owned this lot and Patterson was said

to be deceased (1904-37:IX,53). Patterson, who arrived with

a wife and three sons in 1736, is known to have been in

Frederica as late as 1741. By this time his entire family

had died and he was supposedly running a "bawdy house" (Cate

1961; Coulter and Saye 1949:40,100). An oblique reference to

Patterson made by John Terry in 1745 does not definitely

indicate the presence of Patterson at Frederica (Candler

1904-37:XXIV,402).

On the basis of the admittedly incomplete documentary

information reviewed above, it is suggested that the Lot 31

South site belonged to the Dobree-Provost-Dunbar series of

owners from 1736 to sometime prior to 1763. It is believed

that the lot designation by the Earl of Egmont for the Dobree

Lot was an error resulting from the inadvertent replacement

of a "3" with a "2" or from incorrect information recorded by

Egmont. Dobree is the only known occupant of the site--

Provost or Dunbar may have resided there, but this cannot be

definitely established from the documents.

Elisha Dobree was a controversial figure in early

Georgia. He came to Savannah in 1734, where he was assigned

a lot in the town (Coulter and Saye 1949:71). His arrival in

Georgia was immediately precipitated by his flight from South







Carolina in order to escape his creditors (Candler 1904-

37:XX,72). Although trained as a merchant-bookkeeper, he

wrote a number of letters to the Trustees describing his

efforts at clearing land, farming, and preparing naval stores

for export to the mother country. Notable among his many

letters written in 1735 is one in which he mentioned the

possibility of bringing slaves to Georgia (Candler 1904-

37:XXI,612-613). This is one of the earliest references of

dissatisfaction with the Trustees policies among the

"Malcontents" (Wood 1979). In reply he received a strongly

worded letter from the Trustees which emphasized the reasons

for the laws prohibiting slavery and the consequences of

disobedience to local authority. This letter also

encouraged Dobree's farming attempts and almost in the same

sentence reprimanded him for "...hiring so many Lots ((in

Savannah)). Because it destroys poor Men, unites Lots, and

drives away Inhabitants..." (Candler 1904-37:XXIV,133). Two

months later he was discharged from his job as clerk in the

town store in Savannah and he wrote a despairing letter

concerning his "greatly reduced circumstances" (Candler 1904-

37:XXIV,377-380; McPherson 1962:97). In 1736 he gave a

description of his house and lot at Frederica where he was

again a clerk in the town store: "...a small house with a

brick chimney, built on his town lot which is fenced and has

palisades and clapboards, well dunged and now every way fit

for propogation of fine plants..." (Candler 1904-37:XXI,345).

Apparently Dobree possessed one of the small clapboard huts







so common to the nonaffluent segment of the colonial

population at Frederica (Manucy 1960:20). A single servant

may have resided with him in his new home (there are at least

five servants listed for Dobree by Egmont). His wife,

however, refused his repeated requests that she join him,

saying that he was a "whimsical man, and not able to

maintain" her and their three children (Egmont 1923:377).

Dobree started complaining about the harshness of his new

home almost immediately and probably left Frederica sometime

after 1738 when the last reference to his employment at the

store was made (Candler 1904-37:V,70).

Although not extensive, the documentary records contain

evidence that Dobree had a difficult time as a colonist. His

short, inauspicious stays in Carolina, Savannah, and

Frederica indirectly indicate a lack of success in exploiting

the natural and social environments in each location.

Certainly his wife's opinion of his abilities as a family

provider and his own admission of economic hardship are not

inconsistent with an inference of low socio-economic status

at Frederica, at least in comparison to the occupants of the

Hawkins-Davison and Hird sites. Questions relating to the

identification of the Dobree occupation and how it contrasts

with other colonial occupations are developed in Chapter VII.












CHAPTER V
METHODS AND MATERIALS


This chapter reviews the methods and results of

excavation and analysis for the three sites investigated. An

attempt is made to describe the research frame used in this

study in terms of (1) the ways in which the research frame

was investigated in the field and during analysis, and

(2) the archeological data obtained from application of the

excavation and analysis methods and techniques. A

distinction is maintained throughout this chapter in the

discussion of faunal and nonfaunal methods and materials.

This contrast arises from the specialized analytical

procedures used in zooarcheological studies and the nature of

the fauanal material itself, which is recognized as

representing specialized by-products of human behavior which

is distinct from the behaviors accounting for the presence of

ceramic, glass, and metal artifacts in the archeological

record (South 1977a:97; Wing and Brown 1979:1-10).

Excavation and analysis procedures employed at the Hird,

Hawkins-Davison, and Dobree sites were fairly consistent

despite the extended intervening periods between projects.

One reason for the continuity achieved in the excavations is

the close professional association among the researchers

involved in the archeology of Frederica. Also contributing

65







to the possibility of making valid intersite comparisons is

the quality of the field work performed by Fairbanks in 1952,

which resulted in the systematic recovery of both architec-

tural and nonarchitectural data at the Hawkins-Davison site.

His approach was in many respects ahead of its time in

comparison to contemporary historic site projects, and his

work served as a standard that was rarely equalled in later

excavations at Frederica.


Excavation Procedures

The procedures used in excavating the three sites

reported here reflect the specific research goals of the

archeologists. The orientation at the Hawkins-Davison Site

was toward discovering and excavating architectural features

that could be used as a locational datum and as evidence of

British colonial housing. In addition, anthropological

questions were investigated. In order to determine the

extent to which differences in the crafts performed by the

residents of the site would be reflected in the archeological

assemblage, Fairbanks sifted all excavated dirt using one

half inch screen, retained all artifacts found, and recorded

provenience information while excavating. Ten foot square

units were excavated in and around the house; lot lines were

determined by trenching. An area of 209 square meters (2249

square feet) was uncovered at the site, including the west

trench shown in Figure 5-1. Horizontal and vertical control

was attained through reference to a permanent datum station

that was established at the site.






























I-3
Oq


CD








I











C-S
(D
X






0
I
< <













C-1





0




CD
I I- .
0 3: -0





uu)


(n
O-
wi- -
I-

2
0 jr
LL


I'


II

-I







At the Hird Site the research focus was on the

definition of activity loci in the back lot or "toft" area of

the site, and on the recovery of artifacts and features

indicative of craft activities, food storage and preparation

practices, and trash disposal behavior. Rather than attempt

to locate and expose foundations, the back lot area was

sampled through intensive excavation of eight ten by five

foot units and eight ten by ten units (Figure 5-2). A total

area of 111.5 square meters (1200 square feet) was excavated.

The field strategy at the Dobree Site was to excavate

the entire 90 by 60 foot lot using three by three meter

squares. Complete excavation of the hypothesized lot was

expected to reveal archeological correlates of street and lot

edges, house construction, craft activity loci, and lot

structure and function. The large, detailed body of

archeological data generated from this approach was expected

to be useful for testing hypotheses concerning the patterning

of artifact associations on intrasite, local intersite, and

regional intersite levels. Sixty-three excavation units were

dug at the site, although not all of them were within the lot

lines. Due to the presence of numerous features on the north

end of the site and to the lack of a clearly defined fence

line marking the actual lot boundary, several excavation

units were placed to the north and west of the lot, as

indicated in Figure 5-3. The actual area uncovered during

the excavation, which totaled 465 square meters (5005 square

feet), is illustrated in Figure 5-4.







r -----------------------------------------------------



SIF3




I4 5



6









8 9 10 II




13 14













15 16
I -I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I

I I
13 14!I
I I
I I


-N-


10Ofeet


3 meters
3 meters


Excavation Plan, Hird Site.


Figure 5-2.

















Figure 5-3.


Excavation Plan, Dobree Site.




















57


60

61
-- - - -- - - -


V


meters































4-)


V)


.C

0







cz1







4)
0







Ct4
ho





L.j
(U











.r-
CO4









* 1







A permanent datum was established at the Hird and Dobree

sites to facilitate use of a transit, chain, and stadia rod

for horizontal and vertical control. Excavated dirt was

screened through one-fourth inch square mesh fitted to

gasoline-powered shaker screens (Figure 5-5), with the

exception of Square 13 at the Hird Site where three-eighths

by one inch diamond mesh was used. Water screening was

employed whenever necessary, for instance when excavating

features containing wet soil or high bone densities. One-

eighth inch screen was used for excavating part of a barrel

well at the Dobree Site, but this technique resulted in

greatly increased excavation time and labor without a

corresponding increase in artifact recovery (most of the

small bone recovered with this screen size could not be

identified). Other features at the site were therefore

screened with the one-fourth inch mesh.

Besides the extent of the sample frames, the most

important difference between the field strategies employed at

the Hird and Dobree sites consisted of the way in which some

artifact classes were collected and recorded. Brick, tabby,

and shell were noted only on a presence-absence basis at the

Hird Site, while at the Dobree Site these artifact categories

were quantified for nearly half of the excavation units in an

attempt to define the location of a domestic structure. In

view of the extreme limitations that presence-absence

approach to artifact collection imposes on the interpretation

of the archeological record (Taylor 1948), and the





























C)
4-)
-H


*i-i
CO/


co

0



Ul)
0
b) I
.io


0

Ul)


ot
..H bO
0

4U)







,a)


bo
.,-i





Q)




0
UI








* A


;I **~~ *~


^ Y I / .. ',.' ,: ,'
Ii J i
,* ~ ~ ., .. ' ,; / *,'
** ", .er 1 '': ** v i
"I, I i

S ** '
I 4 K


V


1~


,.,


I o


1. I.,-


l ". I-







demonstrable research utility of quantification of

construction-related artifacts at historic sites (Lewis 1977,

Kaplan and Coe 1976), brick and tabby quantification was felt

to be justified despite the time and effort devoted to it.

The quantification technique used at the Dobree site

consisted of measuring the volume of all construction

materials recovered while screening and recording the total

volume recovered for each provenience in the field notes.

Volume measurements to the nearest liter were taken by

depositing the brick and tabby .in plastic buckets with liters

marked on the sides.


Horizontal Control

The discovery in 1952 of the Hawkins-Davison common wall

on the boundary line between Lots 1 and 2 South has provided

a convenient and accurate datum for subsequent archeology at

Frederica. The hypothesized outlines of the Hird and Dobree

sites were determined by measuring the appropriate distances

from the common wall, using colonially reckoned cardinal

directions as determined from the layout of Broad Street

(this street extends in a direction that is 99 degrees east

of magnetic north). At the point where a straight line from

the Hawkins-Davison wall forms a right-angle intersection

with the center of Broad Street, the distance measured to the

southwest corner of the Hird Lot was 450 feet east (137.1

meters) and 142 feet north (43.2 meters). This latter

distance was erroneously reported as 190.75 feet north in the

1975 Hird Site study (Honerkamp 1975:70). Widths of 75 feet







for Broad Street, 30 feet for Cross Street, and 14.5 feet for

the east-west alley are assumed, as are lot dimensions of 60

by 90 feet (see Table 4-1). The northwest corner of the

Dobree Site was found using the same assumptions for street

widths. In addition, the east-west street lying between the

lot and Broad Street is assumed to be 22 feet wide. From the

Hawkins-Davison wall-Broad Street intersection to the

northwest corner of the lot the distances used were 510 feet

east (155.4 meters) and 245 feet south (74.6 meters).


Stratigraphy

As is probably true of most sites at Frederica, both the

Hird and Dobree sites were found to have been extensively

disturbed by 19th and 20th century plowing. At both sites

the dark gray A soil horizon was equivalent to the plowzone;

this zone was excavated in two arbitrarily defined levels.

Zone 1-A was 0.15 to 0.20 meter thick as measured from the

ground surface after the removal of sod in each square. Zone

1-B included all soil down to the light brown to tan sterile

sand which made up the B soil horizon. This lower level of

the plowzone was usually 0.10 to 0.15 meter in thickness.

Man-made features, which were discernible only when they

extended below the plow zone into sterile sand, were

excavated separately. The Hawkins-Davison Site apparently

was not plowed during recent times. Fairbanks found a zone

of sandy humus covering the colonial remains that was 0.20 to

0.30 meter thick (0.7-1.0 foot).







Natural disturbance processes were also present at the

site. Animal burrows and root stains were commonly

encountered, as were numerous burrowing insects, especially

beetle larvae. At the Dobree Site a count was made of the

number of grubs encountered in a 15 centimeter level of the

plowzone; 24 were seen in one three meter square. Since the

life cycles of most of the grubs identified in the sample are

less than one year in the larval stage, more than 200 years

of concentrated "grub activity" would be sufficient to

obliterate most of the evidence of stratification of cultural

or natural zones. As Wood and Johnson point out, one of the

most common consequences of insect action is the blurring of

natural or cultural boundaries in the soil (1978:322). The

lack of stratigraphic information noted by Fairbanks at the

Hawkins-Davison Site, and the difficulty that the present

author experienced in defining the outlines of features at

the Hird and Dobree sites are certainly characteristic of

faunalturbation activities, and it is suspected that similar

processes will have affected all archeological sites at

Frederica.


Analytical Methods and Results

As indicated in Chapters II and III, the methodological

approach taken in this study is based on South's pattern

recognition method. This has had far greater influence on

the ways in which the artifacts have been analyzed than on

the ways in which they were excavated. The earlier work done

by Deagan (1972) and the author (1975) was not based on







South's approach, and as a consequence there are differences

in the analytical techniques used and the results obtained

from the application of these distinct techniques. For

instance, Deagan did not completely quantify all artifact

classes from the Hawkins-Davison Site, so that only the

ceramic and glass from this site are useful for testing some

of the hypotheses presented in the next chapter.


Artifact Analysis

The first step in the analysis of the archeological

materials was artifact identification. Ivor Noel Hume's A

Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America (1974) was the primary

reference used by Deagan and the author in the identification

of ceramic types. The work by Miller and Stone (1970) was

also frequently used. The primary sources consulted in the

identification of glass artifacts were Brown (1971) and Noel

Hume (1969b, 1974). References for metal and flint artifacts

include Stone (1974), Hanson and Hsu (1975), and Hamilton

(1976). The archeological type collections at the Department

of Anthropology, University of Florida also facilitated

identification of ceramic and nonceramic material. Floral

materials were identified by Dr. David W. Hall of the

Vascular Plant Herbarium, Botany Department, University of

Florida.


Data Management

How to handle the sheer quantity of artifacts identified

from the Dobree Site was a major problem during the analysis.






82
It was quickly realized that the hand-tabulated quantifica-

tion techniques used by the author for the Hird Site material

was inadequate for organizing and analyzing the data base

resulting from the nearly complete excavation of the Dobree

Lot. It became obvious that the most efficient means of

working with the extensive Dobree data base would be through

the application of computer data handling capabilities. Of

the several computer packages available for this purpose from

the Northeast Regional Data Center (NERDC) at the University

of Florida, the Statistical Analysis System (SAS) was

considered to be the most suitable package for meeting the

particular organizational and analytical-needs of the author.

This choice was based on the highly versatile and powerful

capabilities SAS has for information storage and retrieval,

data modification, file handling, and statistical analysis.

In addition the system is relatively easy to learn and comes

with an understandable though terse user's manual (Helwig and

Council 1979). The package is limited to IBM hardware, which

at NERDC consists of an IBM-360/370 computer.

The input data used to create a SAS data set for the

Dobree ceramics consisted of 343 cases, with each case

containing information for three identifying variables and

frequency values for 20 ceramic types and six ceramic wares.

The identifying variables used were the original field

specimen number, the excavation unit number, and the

provenience designation. Nonceramic artifacts were also

coded into SAS data sets using the same identifying







variables. Through reference to one or a combination of the

identifying variables it was possible to combine, divide, or

alter the ceramic and nonceramic SAS data sets in any way

that was useful for analytical purposes. Although the

conversion from analysis forms to SAS data sets was time

consuming, it ultimately spared the author many frustrating

hours of hand tabulation. Conversion to SAS data sets also

allowed application of statistical techniques that would have

been extremely difficult, if not impossible, to perform by

hand, such as computing the correlation coefficients for

several ceramic types based on frequency of occurrence for all

63 squares at the Dobree Site. The SAS data sets created for

the artifacts and faunal materials from the plowzone and

features are presented in summary form in Appendix A through

Appendix D. Original analysis forms are on file at the

National Park Service Southeast Archeological Center,

Tallahassee (artifactual) and the Florida State Museum,

Gainesville (faunal).

Of obvious utility for establishing temporal parameters

for almost any historic site is the mean ceramic date formula

(South 1972). Mean ceramic dates for the excavation units,

features, and the sites themselves were found for the Dobree

and Hird sites. The Hawkins-Davison ceramic analysis did not

allow application of the formula. The dates derived for the

Dobree ceramic data for both the plowzone and features were

calculated through the use of a SAS subroutine devised by the

author.







Another computer program used in the analysis of the

Dobree Site artifacts was the Synagraphic Mapping System, or

SYMAP. This computer graphics program produces maps on which

spatial data are graphically displayed through variable

darkness and texture. It is especially useful for providing

a method of interpolating data values for locations in a

mapped area based on the values of the closest known data

points in that area. The construction of artifact density

isopleth maps composed of contour lines connecting all

locations having the same density values is one example of

SYMAP's interpolation capabilities. Although the user's

manual for this package is obscurely written (Dougenik and

Sheehan 1975), the program was easy to use once the basic

mechanics for obtaining output were finally mastered. SYMAP

contour maps delineating relative densities of several

classes of artifacts from the Dobree Site were used to

address questions of site structure and function.


Classification Format: Dobree Site

The specific analytical tools used in this study were

chosen for their applicability in addressing the research

questions of interest to the author. The type-ware-class-

group classification scheme, which is an integral part of the

pattern recognition approach (South 1977a:92-102), has been

followed. The artifacts were divided into the same classes

and groups that South used to construct empirical artifact

profiles for deriving the Carolina-Architecture artifact

patterns. As already mentioned, analysis of the







Hawkins-Davison nonceramic material was on a presence-absence

basis which did not allow direct group-class comparisons with

the totally quantified Hird and Dobree assemblages.

The artifact classification for the Dobree and Hird

sites conformed closely to the format proposed by South in

order to allow intersite comparisons to be made of the

empirical artifact profiles that were constructed for each

site. In doing so, however, a number of decisions concerning

the structuring of the data base associated with the sites

had to be made, especially with respect to the inclusion of

various categories of artifacts in the pattern recognition

format. Since this study is concerned with aspects of the

British colonial occupation at Frederica, artifacts that were

known to have been deposited later were excluded from the

analysis. For instance, wire nails and ironstone pottery

were certainly not discarded at the Dobree or Hird sites

during colonial times.

The reasoning behind the decision to exclude artifacts

of the "wrong" temporal period from the analysis is explained

as follows. South's approach attempts to delineate patterns

in artifact relationships and distributions as they apply to

the British colonial system at historic sites. It is

reasonable to assume that inclusion of noncolonial artifacts

in the analysis would tend to obscure evidence of colonial

activities or behavior. It is therefore desirable to

eliminate from consideration those aspects of the data base

which are associated with a later noncolonial system. It is







also possible to further delimit the data base by excluding

colonial materials which must have been deposited after the

primary occupation at Frederica (1736-early 1750s). This

approach has been followed in the present analysis.

Unfortunately South does not delineate the data base

used in his studies in a manner that would allow other

researchers to replicate his classification format, and it is

this lack of explicit data definition that is considered to

be a major drawback in the pattern recognition approach.

Although it is true that studies of historic artifacts over

the last 20 years have rendered further detailed analysis of

some classes superfluous (i.e., ceramics, wine bottles,

pipes), it is equally true that other classes have been

neglected and need to be described so that other

archeologists will know what is or is not being included in

them.

A brief review of the type-ware-class-group classifi-

cation procedure as it was applied to the Dobree and Hird

artifact assemblages will serve to point out the adjustments

made to South's original format as a result of unique aspects

of the data base at Frederica.

Since the Dobree site material is reported here for the

first time, descriptions of some of the artifact types used

in the class categories are more detailed than is usual for

most pattern recognition studies. This serves a dual purpose

by: 1) allowing researchers with differing orientations to

incorporate the data reported here, and 2) making explicit




Full Text
.


Figure 6-1. Composite Map of Dobree Site Features.
Feature Type
Wells
Trash Pits
Postholes
Miscellaneous
Pallisade Trench
Feature #
1,2,3
4,5,6,7,9,10,
12,13,16,17,18,
19,20,21,22,24
14,15,23,25,
26,27
8,11,28,30
29


256
7 8 -
ORMMMM
OfltOMM
1 74 5* 6*
MM
0MIM
OOOOGOOOOOCOOCOOOOO'
CCCOCCOOCOCOOOOOOOl
OOCOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOl
I 7 42. -000C 1742.6001
cc caccoococooooooi
ococacaooaccooQ£H
noanennQQOCCQQiiiMiMMMMMMtMMMM8
CCCCC4< MttMMtMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMt
MMMMIMtMMMMM
Mi
MfllMMMiMM*l
immmiiHHHi
1 745.5MM1 743
MMMMMMI
000000000
iooooooococ
oocooooocoo
100 1 7 42*20000
lOOOOOOOOOCOC
ocoooooooo
oooooooooo
ccocoooooo
oooooooooo
oooooooooo
oooooooooo
0000000004
00000000*4
1 744. 6 MMMMM
MM MM
ooocoooooooooo
#60000000000 00 0 000
IOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOQM
10000 000OOO GOOQOQOOQGOO<*
00000000000 00000<0 0000044
74 3. 6000 17 42. 30000 1 7 4 3.600001 739. 2 4444 1 7 39. !! 73B.64444
ooooooooooooo oooooooooo oa>4 4 4 444
MMOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOGOOp- 4 44 4444 4
DOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 0000000 OOO QA 44444444444444444
MOOOOOOOOtlMM^^MMMMMOQA
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO004
ooooooooloooo OOP 00000 000*4 44444444444
OOOOOOOQpOOOOOOOQQOQ04Tt
. J94M1 7 46. 6< MOOMMMMMMMMMMMMM]OOOOOOOCClOOOOOOOOOOOOOOt
IMHMMMMMUMflIlMaiMfQQOOOOOCpOCOGOOaOQOOOQQpCO
W MMMMWWilMMMMiOOOOCBOOOOQOOOOC
<< M !< _ MMtMfiVBVil
IMMiBIIIHMHMi MM
IMCMMa
tOOOOMl
1 743.
1 748.01
It 748. 7||
II 74
Ml
Ml
IMMMUMMOTMM
MUIIM MMMM
QetMOdfMMMM
1 746. 0HI
OHNUNIi
S. 5<<< MM1 MMMM Gooooo
0000(^000000000
OOOOOOl
0OOOOOOOOO'
74 l. 300 001
MOOOOOOOOOOOJ
000 0000001
ooooooooo
cooooo
00000( O'
44444444444
w
444 4 444 444
0000000'
10001 742.9
lOOOOOOOOO
OOCOOOOOOMi
4*30 0 0 0 0 000 0 0i
-N-
M MM M M MMM O000000O 0 0 f MMCTMMCMiKjQOOOOOOOOOOOOt 4*30000000000
1 H 74 3 6000 01 74 l. 80000 1 7 39. 84(0 01 741.8 0000
0000OO00000050000OOO000O0OOO00oV 40O0OOOOOoOOo
occcoccooooaoooooocoooooooooooo(>*t*c>oooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooocooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooocooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
0000000000000ccooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
1742.000001743.000001741.60000
ocoooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooococooccooocoooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooo
oooooooooo
oooooooooo
I 74 3. 20000
oooooooooo
oooooooooo
oooooooooo
oooooooooo
0000000044
0000009*44
00000y<>444
1 740. 54444
0000(444444
0000444444
0000144444 4
000014 4 44
oooooooooo
ocoooooooo
oooooooooo
1742.00000
oooooooooo
ccocoooooo
oooooooooo
ocoooooooo
ooooooooococooooooooooooooocoooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooodooooooooooooooooooo
OOOOOOOOOO1742.900000000000OCOCOGCCOOOOO
OOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooo
ooooooocoaocooooooooooooooooooooocoooooo
ooooooooooooooooooooooooocoooooooooooooo
aoooooooooaooooooooooooaoooooooooooooooo
oooooooooo
oooooooooo
oooooooooo
1742. lOOOO
oooooooooo
oooooooooo
oooooooooo
oooooooooo
444444444
444444444
44444444 4
1739.94444
44 4444444
444444444 4
444444444
4 44 4444444
MMIMMD
<<<<<<<< 1 744. *<800
COO
MMMfOOO
MfCCOG
MD000
5- 6
8
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
1
1
4
I
I
1
2
1
I
1
4
I
1
I
I
3
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
4
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
5
I
I
I
t
I
l
I
8
1
I
I
1
7
!
1
I
1
I
I
I
8
I
I
1
4
I
I
I
9
I
I
I
1


1
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
l
I
OOBREE LOT, EXCAVATED SQUARES
AN CERAMIC OATES FOR PLOW ZONE C B* AM 1C S
SOLUTE
(
VALUE RANGE APPLYING TC EACH LEVEL
MAXIMUM* INCLUOED IN HIGHEST LEVEL ONLY
SOUTH varo. FREDERICA
MINI MUM
MA X( MOM
1 734.40
1737.46
l737.46
l 740. 52
1 740. 52 1 743. 58 1 746.64
174 3. 58 1 74 6. 64 17 49.70
OATA VALUE EXTREMES ARE
PERCENTAGE CF TOTAL
20.00
ABSOLUTE VALUE RANGE
20.00 20.00
APPLY 1NG TO
2 0. 00
EACH LEVO
20.00
FREQUENCY
LEVEL
SYMBCL S
FREQ.
OlSTRieuTlON OF OATA POINT
1 2 3
I2=3=3aiiaasssss
44444444
4 444
VALUES IN EACH LEVEL
4 5
asassxasassassaasasaaaaaassa
000000000 MMMM1
000000000 MMMM< <
CCCO GCOO MM < < MM
4444 COOOOOOOO MMMM<
000000000 MMMM< IMIMHI
=i23==3===s:=xiE2=X323aa3=333aaaaaaaa
10 23 14 10
4444444 4




128


24
archeology, with its greatly expanded data base. In. Small
Things Forgotten is a convincing demonstration of the
potential that the cognitive approach has for constructing
models of cultural change. It is explicitly anthropological
in outlook, it synthesizes and interprets written historical
and archeological data, and it incorporates sound
methodological principles from such sources as Willey and
Phillips (1958) and Binford (1962a) in the interpretation of
the data.
Similarly, Glassie has applied a structural approach to
the study of architecture in a temporally and spatially
circumscribed area in Virginia (1975). His imaginative and
exhaustive analysis of vernacular architectural forms was
designed to explain diachronic change and continuity in folk
housing as a function of the unconscious mental structures of
the people that built the houses. According to Glassie,
studying artifacts is the best way to discover how the minds
of people operated over long periods of time; conversely, he
thinks that this is an unnecessarily complicated and hence
futile way for discovering the principles governing human
behavior ( 1975 s vii). It is precisely this attitude that
makes the world view approach descriptive rather than
explanatory in nature. Discovering how minds operated,
reconstructing mind sets, and elucidating aspects of a
Georgian world view does not explain the behavior resulting
from the mental structures, mind sets, and world views. This
concern with description and reconstruction is in my view the


Figure 7-3* Distribution of Oriental Porcelain Fragments,
Plowzone, Dobree Site.




British colonial sites in the southeastern United States is
used to address hypotheses concerning frontier adaptations.
Using Stanley Souths "pattern recognition" methodological
approach to organize the data, interpretation of the evidence
from Frederica was accomplished through the application of a
frontier model proposed by Kenneth E. Lewis. Questions
concerning cultural affiliation, temporal parameters, and
site structure and function were examined at the town and lot
level. Additionally, the nearly complete excavation of one
of the sites allowed an empirical test of South's Brunswick
Pattern of Refuse Disposal to be made. Zooarcheological data
from Frederica were also presented for comparison with a
traditional model of resource utilization designated as the
British Barnyard Complex.
Results of the analysis demonstrated the applicability
of Lewis' model to the Frederica data. Due to the need for
defense against a competing state power, the settlement
pattern at Frederica more closely resembled the concentrated,
evenly-spaced row pattern of European market towns than the
dispersed, random arrangement found at frontier towns such as
Camden, South Carolina. At the lot level, clustering of
subsurface features, maximum utilization of lot elements,
differential bone deposition, and demarcation of lot
boundaries is believed to have resulted from the same
demographic and sociopolitical factors that shaped the
settlement pattern of the town as a whole. Quantitative and
qualitative evidence of site function was also found to
xi


Figure 6-13- Composite Map of Dobree Site Postholes.
postholes
f eatures
tabby block


48
Most authors emphasize the overall importance of the
Regiment in the town economy. The civilian sector quickly
became oriented toward and dependent on the military payroll,
either by providing goods or services through the full time
practice of crafts and trades, or by engaging in the tavern
trade and practicing crafts on a part time basis, if at all.
This "artificial prosperity," as Davis calls it (1976:61), is
indicated by contemporary descriptions of the civilians
engaged in "selling to the Camp" and "keeping publick Houses"
(Reese 1973:8,74). Except for early attempts by a small
minority of the towns more industrious residents, farming
was never an important activity on either a subsistence or
cash crop level. A 1745 letter from John Terry to the
Trustees of the colony is informative concerning the role of
farming and other occupations in the community at that time.
In his letter he complains about the
...badness of the Land in Regard to the Expces.
attending the Clearing of it So, that the few &
very few inhabitants that are here do Not go on
planting And Neither Are they able to go Upon
Such an Expensive Undertakins, All they Do is to
build houses on their town Lott, wch. turns to a
very good Accot. to them By Letting or Selling of
them to the officers, And hiring of them for Stores
to Merchts. Believe me My Lords & Gentlemen, these
Are the Improuvemts. Made or makg.
(Candler 1915:401-402)
This letter echoes the sentiments expressed five years
earlier by George Whitfield when he remarked that "Frederica
is wholly kept up by the Soldiery & that too I fear by their
Intemperance. Very few as I could hear of intended planting
any Corn..." (Phillips 1947:104). Clearly the economic


152
Table 5-9 (continued)
Species
Ct
MNI
# %
Weight
gms
Biomass,kg
# %
Unidentified bird
81
24.8
0.44
0.2
cf Branta canadensis
Canada goose
1
0. 1
0.002
0.0009
Anatidae
ducks
3
0.8
0.01
0.004
Anas sp
surface feeding ducks
3
3
2.3
1.9
0.03
0.01
Aytha sp
diving ducks
1
1
0.8
0.8
0.01
0.004
Aix sponsa
wood duck
2
1
0.8
0.4
0.008
0.003
cf Gallus gallus
domestic chicken
1
0.2
0.004
0.001
Gallus gallus
domestic chicken
18
6
4.7
10.3
0. 18
0.08
Unidentified reptile
1
0.2
0.01
0.004
Alligator mississippiensis
American alligator
1
1
0.8
9.7
0. 12
0.05
Unidentified turtle
35
14.4
0.33
0. 1
Kinosternon sp
mud turtle
1
1
0.8
1 .4
0.03
0.01
Terrapene Carolina
box turtle
1
1
0.8
2.3
0.05
0.02
Malaclemys terrapin
diamondback terrapin
8
4
3.1
3.3
0.10
0.04
cf Chrysemys scripta
yellow-bellied turtle
1
0.5
0.01
0.004
Chrysemys scripta
1
1
0.8
1.5
0.04
0.01
yellow bellied turtle


249
- e-
?.ieS597 MINUTES FOO mao
DO0REE LOT. EXCAVATED S0U49ES
OISTRinullCN OF AS TE SLAG (IN GRAMS): PLOW ZONE
SOUTH aro, FPEOCRICA
ABSOLUTE VALUE RANGE APPLYING TO EACH LEVEL
(MAXIMUM* INCLUUEO IN HIGHEST LEVEL ONLY)
AIM MU W
MAXI MUM
0.0
i ese.62
I 698.62
3397.24
339 7.2A
5 095.Ht
SO 75. 86
679 4.Afl
6794. 40
049?. I 0
OATA VALUE EXTREMES ARE
0493.10 PERCENTAGE Of TOTAL AMSCLUTE VALUE RANGE APOLYING TC EACH LEVEL
2C.C0 20.00 20.00 20.03 20.00
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION CF DATA P?|NT VALUES IN EACH LEVEL
LEVEL 123*5
afiiiiatai.isiatsiaBaaasais.tsisaiatfssa.saaiaait
conuonccc
......... uonoooquo aoooooowo imiuau
Sym-icls cccc ccoc coo# 9000 r wmm
cnoooucoo ooooooooo BNinm
cccoccu'oc iinihii iniinii
FREQ. 3 7 f- s | |








239
similarities between the group percentages in the two
profiles, and the extent to which they conform to a model"
profile proposed by South (1977a) will be examined in an
effort to establish the overall functions of each site.
According to South, the Carolina Artifact Pattern is a
measure of the uniformity of the archeological record as it
reflects a British cultural system in colonial America. It
is assumed that material by-products of a "basic set of
behavioral modes, attitudes, and associated artifacts" will
be consistently revealed in the frequency relationships
between artifact groups recovered at British colonial sites
(South 1977a:86). The ranges suggested by South are
considered to be a baseline from which unique, unusual, or
specific behavior can be distinguished: specialized
behavioral activities will be revealed as deviations from the
"normal" variation represented by the group range. Of
crucial importance in constructing the artifact profiles is
the complete quantification of the artifact assemblages in a
format that is comparable with other sites and in a manner
that is replicable by other archeologists. This accounts for
the emphasis that has been given to artifact analysis in the
present study.
All eight of the artifact groups used in constructing
the profiles contain artifact classes that are associated
with domestic activities. However, it is the Kitchen,
Furniture, Clothing, and Personal groups that would be the
most functionally integrated at domestic sites since they




64
so common to the nonaffluent segment of the colonial
population at Frederica (Manucy 1960:20). A single servant
may have resided with him in his new home (there are at least
five servants listed for Dobree by Egmont). His wife,
however, refused his repeated requests that she join him,
saying that he was a whimsical man, and not able to
maintain her and their three children (Egmont 1923:377).
Dobree started complaining about the harshness of his new
home almost immediately and probably left Frederica sometime
after 1738 when the last reference to his employment at the
store was made (Candler 1904-37:V,70).
Although not extensive, the documentary records contain
evidence that Dobree had a difficult time as a colonist. His
short, inauspicious stays in Carolina, Savannah, and
Frederica indirectly indicate a lack of success in exploiting
the natural and social environments in each location.
Certainly his wife's opinion of his abilities as a family
provider and his own admission of economic hardship are not
inconsistent with an inference of low socio-economic status
at Frederica, at least in comparison to the occupants of the
Hawkins-Davison and Hird sites. Questions relating to the
identification of the Dobree occupation and how it contrasts
with other colonial occupations are developed in Chapter VII.




meters


189
and, as will be shown later, the location of this feature are
not inconsistent with a storage pit function.
A distinction is made between the larger (at least one
meter in diameter) and smaller trash pits at this site. The
10 smaller features are considered to be "informal pits that
were dug quickly and easily for immediate disposal of a
specific, limited collection of trash. The odorous qualities
of the horse mandible (Equus cabellus) found in Feature 12
could certainly have provided the impetus needed for digging
such a feature. Larger amounts of accumulated bone and trash
would have required larger "formal" trash pits, such as those
over one meter diameter, that would have involved
considerably more labor to excavate than the informal pits.
The formal trash pits are not only larger in diameter than
the informal pits, they are also deeper, averaging 0.35 meter
below the plowzone versus 0.30 meter for the smaller pits.
The most notable characteristic of the trash pits, as
seen in Figure 6-10, is the large amount of bone that was
deposited in them (40.0% of the total feature bone weight),
relative to other artifacts (22$ of total feature artifacts).
It is clear that the primary function of these pits was to
contain trash, particularly trash associated with
disagreeable smells.
Only Features 4, 5, and 10 contained a sufficient
quantity of datable ceramics to allow application of the mean
ceramic date formula. Features 4 and 5, both located on the
extreme western edge of the excavation, yielded dates of


209
Plowzone: 1743.4
Feature 29: 1742.3
All other features: 1749.3
That temporal distinctions exist between the features and the
plowzone is clearly apparent, as is the essential
correspondance between the plowzone and feature ceramics
temporal characteristics.
Using the information presented in Tables 5-1 and 6-1 ,
it is also possible to test the plowzone, features, and
trench artifact associations by constructing bone-artifact
ratios. Following the reasoning above, these ratios should
be more similar for the trench and plowzone that for any
other combination. Using bone weight rather that
frequencies, the following ratios were found:
Plowzone:
0.39
Feature 29:
0.66
All other features:
2.65
These results again illustrate the systematic relationship
that exists between the plowzone, trench, and features at the
Dobree site.
Through several lines of evidence it has been possible
to demonstrate similarity between the artifact assemblages
recovered from the plowzone and the pallisade wall trench and
to contrast the characteristics of these assemblages with
those of the features. These similarities and differences
reflect the depositional processes associated with each type
of provenience.


9
frontier settlement have also been responsible for the
destruction of part of the archeological record. The depth
of the Frederica River at this bend allowed colonial period
ships of considerable draught to closely approach the fort
for offloading of people, material, and supplies. Over the
years the swift movement of the current at this deep water
point has eroded the east shore of the river, resulting in
the loss of a significant portion of the fort area, including
the entire battery spurwork shown in Figure 1-3. Addition
ally, the soil characteristics of the upland bluff area that
successfully supported both aboriginal and colonial popula
tions also attracted more modern occupants. Alterations to
the landscape associated with postcolonial occupations
include plow cultivation and construction of roads and
dwellings, both of which have adversely affected archeolo
gical resources. The present preservation policy of the
National Park Service has substantially reduced further
degradation of these resources.
Previous Research
Although a good deal of dirt has been moved at Frederica
in the interest of archeology, most of the excavations have
been devoted to delineating the layout of the town and to
exposing military construction features and domestic archi
tecture (Deagan 1975). In the town itself, all of the
domestic sites facing Broad Street and the northern section
of Cross Street have been excavated (Figure 1-4). Several
interpretive reports have emerged from this work, including


#




106
cm












155
Table 5-10. Summary of Six Faunal Categories, Dobree
Site, Frederica.
Biomass of Taxa for Which MNI Was Determined
MNI Biomass
Taxa
#
%
kg
%
Domestic Animals
46
36.2
108.8
87.4
Wild Terrestrial
27
21.2
8.1
6.5
Wild Birds
5
3.9
0.05
0.04
Aquatic Reptiles
8
6.2
0.3
0.2
Fish and Sharks
37
29. 1
3.1
2.5
Commensals
4
3.1
3.8
3.1
Totals
127
124.3
Biomass
of Taxa for Which
MNI Was Not Determined
Taxa
Biomass
kg %
Mammals
81.35
95.3
Birds
0.45
0.5
Reptiles
0.42
0.4
Amphibians
0.002
0.002
Fish
3.11
3.6
Total
85.33


8
coastal region are provided by Johnson et al. (1974). The
low upland ridge upon which Frederica lies is part of an
ancient marine terrace known as the Princess Ann Formation.
Soils at Frederica conform to the somewhat excessively
drained, fine sand characteristics of the Cainhoy soil phase
that is associated with ridgetops of relict marine terraces
on the Georgia coast (Rigdon and Green 1980).
According to Robin Smith (1978:8-11), the geological
characteristics of areas similar to the one in which Fred
erica is located have had important implications in human
settlement patterning. Smith has convincingly demonstrated a
pattern of prehistoric and historic settlement activities
which focus on the fine sand bluffs adjacent to the salt
marshes of the coast. The high, well-drained soils of these
areas comprised an important scarce resource supportive of
human life, and as a consequence a succession of indigenous
and immigrant populations has used this land in various ways.
The 18th century British occupation at Frederica is seen as
conforming to this general barrier island marsh-bluff set
tlement orientation.
As can be seen in Figure 1-2, the fort and town are
located at a sharp bend of the Frederica River. The military
advantages accruing from this position in the context of 18th
century martial technologies have been fully discussed by
others and need no reiteration here (Cate 1943; Ivers 1974;
Manucy 1962). Ironically, some of the factors contributing
to the selection of Frederica's location as a site for a


Figure 6-
Figure 6-
Top of Feature 1 Barrel Well, Dobree
Site.
Initial excavation of Feature 1 Barrel
Well, Dobree Site.


199
have been a convenient storage facility if lined with wood
and secured with a wooden top. A mean ceramic date of 1740.5
indicates the approximate time that the pit, and indirectly,
the house, were in use. The mean ceramic date of the
plowzone ceramics in the vicinity of the house also supports
this contention (see Chapter VII).
Miscellaneous Features
The features included under this category consist of
three shallow trash-filled depressions and a possible fire
pit (Figure 6-1). Feature 28 was a small, poorly visible
disturbance that contained two upright cattle long bones (Bos
taurus) and nothing else. Next to it, and underlying Feature
29, was the Feature 8 pit. This feature had a circular
central area containing charcoal and ash. The pit had
straight sides and a flat bottom, and other than 14 square
nails and 1.2 grams of bone, no artifacts. Although similar
in shape to a trash pit, the lack of artifacts and the
presence of a remnant wood fire in a circular area in the
center indicate a function for this feature that is distinct
from that of the trash pits: it was dug to contain a fire.
Such a pit would most likely have been created for cooking,
to provide heat, or to provide smoke, but in the absence of
charred bone, recognizable charcoal or other positive
evidence of its ultimate use, an informed choice between the
three alternatives is not possible. None of these
miscellaneous features contained sufficient ceramic artifacts
to derive a mean ceramic date.


58
town, a three story home built of bricks. Hawkins owned a
large "plantation" on a nearby island and possessed a number
of cattle (Candler 1 904-37:V,500). A petition for his
property in 1767 and 1768 suggests that his house was not
reoccupied after his departure but this is unlikely given its
expensive construction.
Like Thomas Hawkins, Samuel Davison came to Frederica in
1736 on the charity of the Trust. The family, consisting of
Davison, his wife and their three children resided at Lot 2
South in an expensive brick and tabby house which shared a
wall (on the lot line) with the Hawkins house. Trained as a
chairman, Davison held positions as Constable, Searcher of
Ships, and Overseer of the Trustees Servants, although his
main livelihood was in running a tavern in his home. He made
a vigorous attempt at farming, at least during his first few
years in the colony. By virtue of his expensive housing and
contemporary comments on his industrious nature, Davison can
also be assumed to have held a high socioeconomic status
relative to other civilians in the town. In a 1741 letter he
was listed as having "20 head of Cattle, servants, 2 or 3
carts, 8 horses..." (Candler 1904-37:V,501), but the family
left for South Carolina in that year. Documentary evidence
of a later occupation on his property has not been found, but
it is unlikely that one of the best houses in Frederica would
have remained unused for long in the 1740s.








167
well became easier to make. The Figure 6-3 photograph, taken
after excavating 0.08 meter of the top of the well, indicates
the increased visibility that became apparent with increasing
depth.
Feature 1 was excavated by first taking down the east
half of the entire well in order to reveal an unambiguous
profile of the shaft and pit (Figure 6-4). Although the
bottom of the pit was not reached due to the presence of
ground water, the bottom of the shaft was located through the
discovery of the bottom half of the lowest barrel.
Preservation of the staves is attributed to their position in
the anaerobic, water-logged environment below the water
table. Except for this lowest portion, only the presence of
regularly spaced iron barrel hoops and the dark gray fill in
the shaft marked the position of the barrels.
The walls of the pit were vertical on the north while
sloping slightly inward on all others. The pit was 2.15
meters north-south by 1.80 meters east-west as measured at
the top of the feature just below the 0.20 meter thick
plowzone. Ground water was encountered at approximately 1.65
meters below the ground surface. Excavation of the pit had
to be halted after removing 0.15 meter of mud at this depth
due to the danger of creating a sump that would cause the
collapse of one or more of the surrounding walls in the
square. The highly mottled appearance of the pit fill is
probably a result of the mixing of the dark topsoil with the
lighter sterile sands that occured during backfilling of the


Figure 7-2. Contours of Mean Ceramic Dates for Plowzone
Ceramics, Dobree Site.


Figure 5-4. Actual Area Excavated, Dobree Site.


238
However, differences probably exist concerning the type and
extent of fences used by Fredericas inhabitants. It is
likely that the presence or absence of fences is correlated
with socioeconomic status (as is the case with architecture
and wells), intensity of settlement in different Ward areas
(i.e., Broad Street lots versus the outer row lots), or
temporal aspects of settlement patterning (change through
time in occupation density at the site). It is also possible
that fences played an important technological role at
Frederica (Leone 1973; Heps 1969). Although the presence of
fences at the town has been demonstrated, much future
research will be needed before a clear picture can be gained
of where and under what conditions they occur.
Site Function
The question of site function can be expressed in terms
of the presence of domestic or nondomestic activity by
products at each site. In view of the documented background
on the bulk of Fredericas inhabitants, it is expected that
most sites will reflect the presence of combined domestic and
craft activities. As at Camden, structures used only as
dwellings should be rare at Frederica.
One way in which aspects of site function can be
determined is through quantification and comparison of
artifact classes and groups. By summarizing the artifact
group information given in the last two chapters it is
possible to construct "empirical artifact profiles" which can
be used for intersite comparisons. Differences and


**


148
Table 5-8. Allometric Constants Used in Biomass
Calculations.
Taxa
N
Slope (b)
Y-intercept (log a)
r
Mammal
97
0.90
1.12
0.94
Bird
307
0.91
1.04
0.97
Turtle
26
0.67
0.51
0.55
Snake
26
1 .01
1.17
0.97
Chondrichthyes
17
0.86
1.68
0.85
Osteichthyes
393
0.81
0.90
0.80
Non-Perciformes
119
0.79
0.85
0.88
Siluriformes
36
0.95
1.15
0.87
Pleuronectif ormes
21
0.89
1 .09
0.95
Percif ormes
274
0.83
0.93
0.76
Sparidae
22
0.92
0.96
0.98
Sciaenidae
99
0.74
0.81
0.73






Figure 5-13. Tableware Artifacts, Dobree Site
Top row:
Middle:
Pewter spoon handle; brass spoon handle
both are engraved.
Iron knife fragment.
Bottom row: Iron knife fragments.


Figure 6-8. Profile of Feature 3 Barrel Well, Dobree
Site.
Figure 6-9. Feature 3 Pit and Shaft, Dobree Site.






35
off of settlement growth and the stabilization of settlement
patterning. The frontier is directly dependent on the trade
and communications network that is established with the
already settled origin area. Frontier settlements
...reflect distribution of personnel and materials
in the most efficient way to permit the integra
tion of activities in a sparsely settled area.
The limits of the exchange network at any given
time effectively mark the boundaries of the area
of colonization. (Lewis 1977:154)
The five conditions characterizing the frontier model are:
1) prolonged contact/continuity maintained between the
colonists and the parent society;
2) loss of complexity due to attenuation of networks
with the homeland;
3) settlement pattern more geographically dispersed
than the homeland unless temporarily impeded by
restrictive conditions;
4) dispersed frontier towns serving as the nucleus for
social/political/econoraic/religious activities and
as a terminus for the transportation network link
ing the area of colonization with the homeland; and
5) temporal and spatial change, i.e., the pattern of
temporal growth is replicated spatially, with set
tlements closest to the moving frontier represent
ing the earliest stages of frontier development. As
the frontier expands, early settlements experience
marked changes in population density and settlement
pattern, and eventually become integrated at the
national level.
As with Lewis' study, two broad questions concerning the
cultural and temporal characteristics for the three sites at
Frederica will be investigated. Once these parameters are
established, it will be possible to test hypotheses
concerning the form and spatial extent of the occupations at
Frederica, the functions of the sites in question, the
distribution of archeological materials having behavioral


310
SUMMARY OF PLOaZCKE
CERAM 1CS
. OGEREE
SITE
p
M
c
p
p
B
u
*
L
S
s
A
1
M
p
a
G
R
N
M
0
0
L
L
L
L
i
E
P
L
L
s
s
a
0
H
R
c
a
l
L
L
A
A
s 7
r
J
r
T
0
E
I
I
r
A
c
L
1
E
0
A
u
T
S
u
Y
N
T
Q Y
R
D
0
0
G
0
P
p
8
G
E

0
p
N

Y
c
T
c
p
P
P
E
N P
5
e

e
L
L
D
L
U
A
R
s
s
s
I
N
S
H
I
s
c
0
0
P
u e
Q
L
L
L
A
E
E
A
R
r
T
G
G
G
s
s
G
s
N
G
R
R
R
0
M
F
F
F
Z
0
C
N
Y
E
H
S
S
s
H
G
S
G
G
s
c
C
C
T
. a
2 71
730
a i
4 l 7
2204
1 73
1 234
3 02
300
2 04
1106 1341
78
297
2 18
6 1 105
1 C
£ 4
126
690
18 1
159
2 8 £
i i
2
5
i
2
23
1
9
3
i
1
1 9
0
0
2
0
0
3

0
0
4
0
0
10
2 1
4
4
t
4
12
2
6
3
2
2
e
13
2
1
2
1
0
0
2
2
3
0
2
30
2 l
2
2
c
1
6
0
c
0
2
0
5
5
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
3
2
1
56
4 1
2
1 1
3
10
7 1
12
1 4
11
7
6
6 7
20
0
5
2
7
3
1
5
1
10
2
4
2
5 1
2
1 6
0
12
03
4
20
7
5
7
6 4
22
0
0
1
4
4
1
3
4
10
1
3

6 t
4
3
1
f
76
12
1 1
4
4
4
24
19
0
2
1
2
4
0
1
7
11
0
1
10
7 l
3
9
1
1
29
5
1 3
8
1
5
1
6
1
8
0
2
5
0
0
3
8
0
4
6
e i
2
7
1
5
30
0
l 4
5
1
3
1 1
20
2
1
0
0
2
0
0
3
7
2
0
7
9 1
7
7
2
10
21
0
1 9
9
3
3
2 0
28
1
2
0
0
2
0
1
1
9
0
4
6
l 0 l
4
0
2
5
41
0
20
10
0
1
1 2
19
2
1 0

0
0
0
0
l
1 8
6
4
4
1 1 1
3
1 7
6
6
1 06
26
43
0
30
4
6 4
50
0
19
m
6
5
1
16
2
25
6
5
2
1 2 1
7
1 0
1
a
1 1 0
20
25
5
7
5
5 1
37
0
6
0
6
7
0
5
4
25
1
2
0
l 2 l
e
1 0
2
4
43
1 3
16
6
4
5
2 5
20
0
3
1
y
5
2
2
14
10
0
4
1
1 4 1
2
6
0
i
25
4
l 5
0
6
5
8
22
2
8
0
2
1
1
2
l 1
0
2
2
9
1 5 1
6
0
1
1 1
46
1
31
7
9
4
3 4
35
£
1 2
0
0
0
0
1
2
23
1 4
0
5
1 6 1
7
1 1
1
1 3
45
2
20
12
1 0
1
23
36
2
1 4
7
1
2
3
0
3
25
20
1 4
0
1 7 1
a
1 0
1
9
36
1
ia
13
3
2
1 0
28
0
2

c
0
1
0
0
1 1
7
3
1
l a 1
5
3
3
3
42
0
23
3
1 4
2
1 5
1 0
i
10
13
1
0
0
0
0
13
5
2
6
1 9 l
2
1 2
2
1 1
16
0
1 4
5
3
1
1 1
0
1
3
7
0
0
0
1
0
5
3
0
e
20 l
2
1 3
2
0
1 1
1
6
9
1
2
1 2
3
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
1
1
i
2 1 1
2
12
l
9
90
16
36
7
9
1 0
2 1
31
0
9
2
£
8
0
K
e
9
3
2
c
22 1
5
10
0
4
66
1 5
16
5
3
1 0
33
35
2
1 1
0
2
8
0
1
i
10
1
2
0
23 1
3
22
0
7
61
5
24
a
1 3
5
20
51
7
1 I
2
2
t
1
1
7
21
3
4
3
24 1

1 9
1
e
e7
1
32
10
1 7
3
1 2
29
4
1 4
2
1
a
1
0
0
27
3
4
2
25 1
9
1 3
1
6
52
0
39
9
13
1
2 3
23
£
1 6
5
0
3
1
1
0
15
3
5
2
2 1
3
e
c
a
20
0
20
5
4
2
1 2
1 4
4
3
1
2
0
3
2
0
0
23
2
6
6
2 7 1
4
7
0
1 2
25
0
25
12
4
4
1 4
1 3
2
7
l 5
0
0
2
0
0
15
3
4
2
28 t
4
6
l
3
20
0
0
7
j
1
5
9
1
4
1 5
0
0
2
0
1
3
0
4
3
29 1
3
1 4
2
4
53
6
21
1
6
a
28
39
0
9
0
4
4
0
1
0
12
2
2
4
30 l
3
26
1
9
50
2
1 5
5
2
1 3
1 6
47
0
l 5
2
1
3
0
2
0
1 1
2
3
0
2 1 1
6
3 0
0
1 0
65
1
27
12
9
1 1
23
£4
4
1 3
2
0
3
0
1
7
18
3
1
1
3 2 1
6
24
4
5
4 7
0
3 1
6
8
7
6
35
1
1 0
2
1
2
1
0
3
16
3
6
3
33 l
7
22
1
5
23
0
7
3
1 0
l
7
16
2
4
0
1
1
1
0
1
5
2
0
3
2 4 1
e
6
0
0
5
0
1 1
2
0
0
3
1 0
0
1
4
0
1
2
2
0
15
0
2
0
15 1
5
5
0
3
21
1
1 0
2
2
1
20
1 3
0
4
1 0
0
1
3
0
1
10
4
1
1
36 I
9
4
0
1 3
32
0
1 0
2
5
0
1 3
14
1
0
1 7
0
0
3
1
0
1 4
4
3
0
2 7 1
4
20
0
9
2 7
0
1 9
4
2
a
5
20
0
4
0
0
3
0
1
4
1 1
0
1
0
J8 1
2
2 1
2
1 2
36
1
29
6
4
1 0
1 4
56
2
7
0
0
2
0
0
3
13
1
2
1
39 1
4
22
0
1 7
39
0
20
15
4
2
1 1
25
1
5
1
0
1
1
c
0
14
1
4
2
40 1
4
1 7
0
9
1 3
0
1 5
0
1 6
0
1 4
1 3
0
4
1
0
0
0
0
0
10
1
4
1
4 1 l
3
1 0
3
1
1 1
0
1 5
2
19
0
9
1 6
1
5
i e
0
0
0
0
l
1 0
1
3
3
4 2 1
4
9
2
l
1 3
1
1 1
3
1 0
1
0
26
1
1
5
0
0
0
c
0
5
0
1
0
4 3 1
3
a
l
3
42
0
2 7
3
3
2
5
19
0
2
0
1
0
0
2
5
4
2
0
0
4 4 1
2
1 5
0
a
66
1
45
16
9
3
2 7
4 7
1
3
2
1
0
0
c
2
1 1
2
4
16
45 1
5
3 1
l 3
1 0
59
0
60
1 5
3
2
4 1
30
3
4
0
1
1
0
1
4
32
5
4
4
46 l
7
20
4
1 3
37
0
49
1 3
20
2
59
24
T
3
2
0
1
0
0
3
29
9
3
2
4 7 1
4
1 3
1
7
1 4
0
1 0
5
1 5
3
1 2
15

7
2
0
0
0
c
0
10
4
3
1
4 a 1
4
5
0
6
1 0
0
1 1
2
1 0
1
6
1 1
0
0
5
0
1
0
0
0
4
1
0
1
49 l
3
6
0
3
42
5
1 9
1 1
4
2
1 5
1 6
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
4
7
0
2
18
0 1
O
1 3
1
2
4 l
1
4 0
1 5
8
5
36
29
3
0
5
0
1
0
0
1
19
6
2
9
5 1 1
5
25
e
6
25
0
5 4
4
1 7
1 4
22
1 5
T
2
2
0
1
0
0
0
22
10
9
0
5 2 l
7
a
2
a
1 7
0
1 5
l
2
0
9
1 5
0
0
2
0
0
0
c
0
4
3
0
1
5 3 1
6
3
0
7
1 6
4
1 6
1
0
0
7
1 9
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
5
1
1
0
54 l
4
4
0
4
4
0
7
0
2
0
2
2
c
0
2
1
0
1
c
0
1
0
0
0
55 1
5
6
0
6
7
1
2
0
4
1
0
8
0
1
0
0
2
2
G
1
3
2
0
0
56 l
4
5
0
5
9
1
l
1
1
0
7
9
0
1
0
0
l
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
5 7 1
6
2
0
6
3
0
3
0
0
0
0
4
0
1
t
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
0
5 0 1
2
1 0
0
1
1 3
1
e
1
1
0
1
5
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
59 1
5
9
0
1
5
2
T
3
0
3
6
1 1
1
0
3
0
0
0
1
0
4
0
0
0
e o i
2
7
0
J
1 4
2
3
7
2
1
1 5
9
1
3
2
l
0
1
0
5
0
0
0
( 1 1
6
1 7
0
1 2
34
0
i e
12
l
0
1 1
1 6
Q
4
8
0
0
1
0
0
3
0
0
0
e 2 i
4
2
0
l
5
1
1 3
1
2
4
2
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
4
2
5
0
0
1 6
6 1 1
i
9
1
1 4
1 3
1
23
4
0
0
1 6
5
0
0
0
0
I
1
c
c
3
1
0
2
SUMMARY OF
FEA TUPE
CERAMICS.
OCBREE
S I TE
p
M
c
p
P
0 0
a
L
s
s
A
I
M
R
8
G
R
N
M
e
C
L
L
_
L l_
I
E P
L
L
s
s
0
0
H
P
R
0
0
I
L
L
A
A
r
F
U Y
T
0 E
I
I
I
A
c
L
1
E
c
4
U
T
s
u
Y
N
T
P
r
P
C 0

G 0
P
P
0
G
E
a
D
p
N

Y
c
T
c
F
P
P
E
R
p
e
e e
E
L L

L
U
A
R
s
S
s
I
N
S
H
I
s
C
a
0
P
Q
e
Q
L L
L
A E
E
A
R
T
T
G
G
G
s
s
G
S
N
G
R
R
R
C
V
-
-
F F
F
Z 0
C
N
Y
E
M
S
S
s
H
G
S
G
G
S
C
c
C
T
0
72 108 14
9 C
433 1 4
180
47
58
3 e
1 73
303
33
71
35
1 6
22
7
20
7
193
25
30
5
F l
i
4
31 1
7
53
0
23
9
1 3
i
i e
02
0
9
5
0
3
0
0
0
2 3
2
0
F l 0
i
5
1 0 5
2 4
20
0
1 9
9
9
i
11
27
5
3
0
0
2
0
0
0
2 9
7
c
0
F l 1
i
1
0 0
0
0
0
0
1
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<3
0
F 1 2
i
2
5 0
1
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
a
0
F 1 3
i
i
1 0
0
1
0
1
1
0
c
i
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
F l 4
i
1
1 0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
i
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
F 1 5
i
1
0 0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
t
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
F 16
i
1
0 0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
F l 7
i
1
0 0
0
l
0
0
0
1
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
F 1 8
i
1
0 0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
F l *
i
1
0 0
1
2
0
1
0
0
c
0
l
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
F 2
i
4
1 0
0
140
0
1 0
0
3
1 5
2
5
0
3
0
c
0
0
0
1
1
3
0
c
F 20
i
1
1 0
1
0
1
1
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
1
0
F 2 3
i
l
0 0
1
2
0
2
0
0
c
c
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
F 2 4
i
2
0 0
0
7
0
3
3
1
0
0
3
1
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
F 25
i
1
0 0
0
0
0
1
0
0
c
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
F 2 6
i
1
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
1
0
c
0
F 2 7
i
1
0 0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
F 29
i
2 1
45 7
4 3
143 12
78
16
2 1
1 2
11 1
84
6
25
1 1
1
a
1 4
3
4
4
46
s
1 4
4
F 3
i
0
4 0
1
25
0
38
0
6
4
10
45
2 1
9
4
0
2
2
0
1
C T
1
3
1
F 20
i
1
1 c
C
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
F 4
i
2
4 1
1
25
1
3
0
0
2
e
1 £
0
1 9
0
1
1
2
1
1
1 2
0
0
0
F *
i
4
1 0
3
6
0
0
0
0
0
4
1 1 4
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 3
0
1 0
0
0
0
F 6
i
2
0 0
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
F 7
i
l
0 0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
F <5
i
3
3 0
1
5
0
0
0
1
c
l
1
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0


293
conditions. The multifunctional dimensions of all three
sites were indicated by the occurrence of domestic as well as
craft activity by-products. Comparison of quantitatively
derived artifact profiles yielded small but systematic
differences between the Frederica sites and a series of sites
excavated by South that were explicable in terms of
functional differences between the sites.
An examination of how the size of the archeological
research frame affects our perceptions and conclusions has
been made through reference to South's Brunswick Pattern of
Refuse Disposal. The complete excavation of a colonial lot
containing a post-supported structure has allowed a close
inspection of the relationship between feature and midden
deposits of artifacts and an architectural structure to which
they may be related. In contrast, Souths research involved
limited testing of areas immediately adjacent to structures.
The present study did not reveal the clear-cut patterns of
refuse disposal at building entranceways described by the
Brunswick Pattern. Instead, the results of the Dobree Site
excavation indicate that the artifact distributions are the
result of "bimodal trash disposal behavior" by the sites
occupants. The first mode is characterized by dispersed
surface disposal of trash that shows little orientation to
the structure, while the second mode involves concentration
of trash--especially faunal remainsin subsurface features,
again without reference to the location of the house. It is
not possible to predict a pattern of bimodal trash disposal


97
The low-fired, soft, cream to buff colored paste is covered
with a relatively thick, evenly applied shiny lead glaze
which is dark brown or black in color (Figure 5-8). The
sherds exhibit extremely thin cross sections, all of which
are 0.3 centimeters or less in thickness. Although vessel
form could not be determined for this ware as a result of the
small size of the recovered fragments, the uniformly thin
vessel walls and the carefully applied glaze indicate that
this type probably functioned as a tableware. Other ceramics
classified under the "miscellaneous" category include a very
few eroded examples of utilitarian lead glazed earthenware,
slip decorated earthenware, and unglazed earthenware.
Examples of this latter ceramic category exhibited a uniform
hard bodied, light orange-buff paste with small inclusions of
mica or some other siliceous material. None of the fragments
exceeded 0.6 centimeter in thickness. Plain flattened rims
were noted, as were throwing marks on the interior of the
sherds. Similar paste characteristics were found for an
unglazed pipkin handle that was recovered from the plowzone
(Figure 5-8), but direct evidence for the use of the unglazed
earthenware as a cooking ware was not found. The lack of a
glaze on all the recovered fragments suggest some kind of
utilitarian function for the ware, but the specific function
is unknown.
Evidence that postdepositional disturbances at the
Dobree Site are responsible for much of the eroded and
fragmented attributes of the miscellaneous earthenwares is


284
Table 7-9. Ages of Three Species by Element Fusion,
Hird Site,
Frederica.
Age Bracket at
Time of Death3
Cow
Pig
Deer
I Infant
0
5
(19%)
3
(57)
II Juvenile/Infant
13 (50%)
7
(27%)
9
(1670
III Juvenile/Adult
7 (277)
12
(46%)
39
(71?)
IV Adult
6 (23%)
2
(87)
4
(7?)
Totals
26
26
55
Based on frequency of identifiable elements for which evi
dence of fusion, semifusion, or lack of fusion was present.
Age brackets for each species are defined as follows:
Cow: Infant less than 1.5 years
Juvenile/Infant Less than 3 to 4 years
Juvenile/Adult At least 1.5 years
Adult 3*5 years or older
Pig: Infant Less than 2 years
Juvenile/Infant Less than 3.5 years
Juvenile/Adit 1 to 2 years or older
Adult 3 years or older
Deer: Infant Less than 1 year
Juvenile/Infant Less than 2 to 3 years
Juvenile/Adult More than 1 year
Adult 3 years or older


179










154
Table 5-9 (continued)
Species
Ct
MNI
# %
Weight
gms
Biomass,kg
# %
Mugil sp
13
5 3.9
1.2
0.03 0.01
mullet
Totals
7282
128
15989.5
209.73




2
toward recovering information useful for on-site reconstruc
tion and interpretation of British colonial lifeways at the
fort and associated town. In recent years this traditional
National Park Service goal has been augmented by research
aimed at addressing problems of anthropological significance,
such as defining socio-economic indicators in the documentary
and archeological records, examining the extent of wild
versus domestic animal utilization, and revealing the
presence of craft activities and delimiting areas where they
were practiced. It should be emphasized that these questions
are complementary to those aimed at site reconstruction, but
they involve different methodological emphases and different
field and analysis techniques.
The archeological research reported here has been sup
ported by a National Park Service grant for $19,381.00 to the
Department of Anthropology, University of Florida (Contract
No. CX500080754). This project consisted of excavation of a
domestic town lot at Frederica (believed to be Lot 31, South
Ward), analysis of the documentary and archeological data
pertaining to the site, and synthesis of these data and
information derived from previous excavations. Principal
Investigator for the project was University of Florida
Distinguished Service Professor in Anthropology Charles H.
Fairbanks. The author supervised field and preliminary
laboratory work and was responsible for analysis of artifacts
and faunal materials.


10 FEET
*1 r-i-' 1
3 METERS
lot line
I I
I I
I I
EXCAVATION
,PARTY WALL
H
D 1
oo




225
are attributed to the reoccupation of the site that was
proposed above.
The foregoing discussion substantiates archeologically
the temporal parameters for the town and the sites that were
derived from the documentary record. In addition, by
examining chronologically sensitive artifacts, it has been
possible to address questions concerning the structure of the
archeological record and its relationship to some of the
local and possibly regional factors that affect it.
Site Form and Function
Questions concerning variation in the form and function
of the sites at Frederica are addressed next. As Lewis
points out, form is closely associated with function. For
instance
... Camden would have occupied a status comparable
in many ways to certain other types of urban settle
ments in early industrial Europe. Its location on the
periphery of the European world system, however, would
have caused it to assume characteristics unlike those
of settlements in the metropolitan area. Its role as a
frontier town would require it to maintain certain func
tions while adapting to frontier conditions by restrict
ing its socially integrating institutions and, con
sequently aspects of its form as well. (Lewis 1977:171)
It is possible to contrast the formal-functional
characteristics attributed to Frederica with those of Camden
and European settlements. Instead of developing as a high-
density population center that assumed successive urban
functions, as would an English market town, Camden was
established primarily "to coordinate social, economic, and
political activities (Lewis 1977:172). These differences










50
repairing the military structures were occasionally made.
William Bartram, viewing Frederica in 1774, mentioned that
what had once been "a very considerable Town" was "now almost
in ruins" (Bartram 1943:145), while in 1839 Fanny Kemble
portrayed the town as a collection of rose-covered ruins with
only two standing houses (1961:131)* Small numbers of
families continued to live and farm in the Frederica area
into the middle of the twentieth century (Cate 1926:37,
1956:204; Lovell 1932:272-273).
The foregoing evidence indicates that the bulk of
Frederica's population was absent by 1750, scarcely 15 years
after its establishment. However, a review of other
documents suggests that the occupation span of many of the
nonmilitary residents was considerably less than 15 years.
The list of Georgia settlers compiled by the Earl of Egmont,
first President of the Trustees for Establishing the Colony
of Georgia in America, reveals that, of the 63 colonial
households or individuals who were assigned lots at
Frederica, 24 were either "Dead, Quitted, or Run Away" after
five years in the colony; for many, only two years of
frontier life was enough (Coulter and Saye 1949). This
figure is derived from an extremely limited sample, i.e.,
only those settlers for whom Egmont had some information, and
would undoubtedly be higher if a systematic study were made
of all of Frederica's documented inhabitants. Underscoring
the findings from Egmont's List are the frequent complaints
and sometimes dismal descriptions of frontier life that were


257
occupation of the site occurred possibly during and certainly
after the commercial one.
The unusually high percentage (10.5%) of Oriental
porcelain at the Dobree Site is also seen as indicative of a
domestic occupation. As shown in Figure 7-3, porcelain
ceramics were found primarily within the Lot 31 area, in the
general vicinity of the house. This precludes the
possibility that deposition of this ware was by the occupants
of the adjacent lot to the west. The almost exclusive
tableware function of porcelain indicates that it was
associated with the domestic occupation of the site. Since
the primary domestic occupation is believed to have occurred
in the middle to late 1740s, it is suggested that the
relatively high frequency of porcelain at this site is
attributed to differences in the economic-transportation-
communication networks linking Frederica with Britain before
and after 1745. It is assumed that these networks would be
more subject to disruption and attenuation from military
exigencies during the initial period of Frederica's
settlement, particularly with respect to supplies of luxery
goods such as porcelain. After 1745, stabelization and
consolidation of supply routes would have been possible due
to the cessation of British-Spanish hostilities.
It is also possible that the planned aspects of
Frederica's society also may be reflected in the
archeological record. The two earlier sites were occupied
during that period of Frederica's history when most of the






62
the "real" Lot 21 belonging to Robert Patterson. This
contention is supported by a similar request made in 1759 by
Thomas Goldsmith for Patterson's Frederica lot, which was
specified by name and not by number (Candler 1904-37:VII,32-
33). By 1763 Goldsmith owned this lot and Patterson was said
to be deceased ( 1 904-37:IX,53) Patterson, who arrived with
a wife and three sons in 1736, is known to have been in
Frederica as late as 1741. By this time his entire family
had died and he was supposedly running a "bawdy house" (Cate
1961 ; Coulter and Saye 1949:40,100). An oblique reference to
Patterson made by John Terry in 1745 does not definitely
indicate the presence of Patterson at Frederica (Candler
1904-37:XXIV,402).
On the basis of the admittedly incomplete documentary
information reviewed above, it is suggested that the Lot 31
South site belonged to the Dobree-Provost-Dunbar series of
owners from 1736 to sometime prior to 1763. It is believed
that the lot designation by the Earl of Egmont for the Dobree
Lot was an error resulting from the inadvertent replacement
of a "3" with a "2" or from incorrect information recorded by
Egmont. Dobree is the only known occupant of the site--
Provost or Dunbar may have resided there, but this cannot be
definitely established from the documents.
Elisha Dobree was a controversial figure in early
Georgia. He came to Savannah in 1734, where he was assigned
a lot in the town (Coulter and Saye 1949:71). His arrival in
Georgia was immediately precipitated by his flight from South


REFERENCES CITED
Anderson, Jay Allen
1971 A 'Solid Sufficiency': An Ethnography of Yeoman
Foodways in Stuart England. Ph.D. dissertation, University
of Pennsylvania.
Ascher, Robert
1974 -pin Can Archeology. Historical Archeology 8:5-16.
Auspourger, Samuel
1736 A Plan of Frederica A Town in the Plantation of Georgia
in the Province of Carolina as layd out by Mr. Oglethorpe
1736. Photostat, Fort Frederica National Monument, St.
Simons Island, Georgia.
Bartram, William
1943 Travels in Georgia and Florida, 1773-1774. Transactions
of the American Philosophical Society 33(2):121-242.
Bennett, R. S.
1960 Life on the English Manor: A Study of Peasant Condi
tions, 1150-1400. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bidwell, Percy W., and John I. Falconer
1925 History of Agriculture in the Northern United States,
16201860. Contributions to American Economic History
No. 5. Washington D.C.: Carnegie Institution.
Binford, Lewis R.
1962a Archeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity 29:
217-225.
1962b A New Method of Calculating Dates from Kaolin Pipe-
stem Samples. Southeastern Archeological Conference,
Newsletter 9(1):19 21.
1972 'Evolution and Horizon as Revealed in Ceramic Analysis
in Historical Archeology'--A Step Toward the Development
of Archeological Science. The Conference on Historic Site
Archeology Papers 1972 6:117-125.
Bloch, Marc
1968 Feudal Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
296


Figure 5-19. Snaffle Bit, Dobree Site.
Length:
18.2 cm.
uo


285
respectively, were included in the juvenile/infant or infant
categories (i.e., under three to four years of age at time of
death). The high percentage of "young elements for cattle
is clearly not consistent with the British Barnyard Complex
orientation toward long-lived dairy cattle. On the other
hand, 23% of the cattle elements were from animals at least
40 months old, so that the presence of dairying activity
cannot be entirely dismissed.
A comparison of the age bracket percentages between the
three species is also informative. The relatively low
percentage of young deer (21%) as compared to the cattle
(50/6) and swine (46/6) indicates that when husbandry practices
were absent--as with deer--choice and selection were less
important than opportunity. Even if it is assumed that the
pig lived a completely feral existence on St. Simons Island
during the colonial period, it has been the experience of the
author that young wild hogs are considerably easier to catch
than old ones, with or without the use of firearms. The same
cannot be said for deer. This differential degree in
procurement success for the young versus old animals in swine
and deer may account for the differences noted in the age
groups shown in Table 7-9.
The evidence reviewed above indicates that instead of a
static model of human behavior emphasizing "cultural
conservatism" or "continuity in European and colonial diets,"
the behavior of historic human populations in Georgia can be
better explained in terms of adaptation to a new environment.




317
APPENDIX D
SUMMARY OF FAUNAL DATA, DOBREE SITE
Variable
Description
FEANUM
SPECNUM
COUNT
GWEIGHT
SKLTOOTH
FOOTPAT
FORLIMB
VERTEBRA
STRNSCAP
INOMSACR
HINDLIMB
RIBS
T_SHELL
FISH1
FISH2
Feature number
Species number: (1)Unidentified bone
(2)Mammal (3)Procyon lotor (4)Didelphis
marsupialis (5)SylvTlagus sp. (6)Sylvilagus
cf. palustris (7)Canis sp. (8)Felis sp.
(9)Equus cabellus (10)Artiodactyl Cl 1)Bos
taurus (12)Sus scrofa (13)cf. Odocoileus
virginianus (14)Odocoileus virginianus
(15)Capra or Ovis sp. (16)0vis aries
(17)Unidentified bird (18)cf. Branta
canadensis (19)Anatidae (20)Anas sp.
(21)Aytha sp. (22)Aix sponsa (23)cf. Gallus
gallus (24)Gallus gallus (25)Unidentified
reptile (26)Alligator mississipiensis
(27)Unidentified turtle (28)Kinosternum sp.
(29)Terrapene Carolina (30)Malaclemys
terrapin (31)cf Crysemys scripta
(32)Crysemys scripta (33)cf. Gopherus
polyphemus (34)Gopherus polyphemus
(35)Colubridae (36)Bana or Bufo sp.
(37)Carcharinus sp. (38)Uidentified fish
(39)Siluriformes (40)Arridae (41)Arius
felis (42)Bagre marinus (43)Archosargus
probatocephalus (44)Schianidae (45)cf.
Pogonius cromis (46)Pogonius cromis
(47)Scfanops ocellata (48)Mugil sp.
(49)Menippe mercenarius
Bone frequency
Bone weight (grams)
Skull and tooth fragments
Foot, patella, and calcaneum fragments
Forelimb fragments
Vertebral fragments
Sternum and scapula fragments
Innominate and sacrum fragments
Hindlimb fragments
Rib fragments
Turtle carapace fragments
Anterior fish skull fragments
Posterior fish skull fragments




139
are clearly the waste product of some form of leather working
activity.
Another artifact counted in this class is the complete
iron sailmaker's needle shown in Figure 5-18. This unusual
item, which is certainly evidence of a specialized activity,
was recovered in a trash pit (Feature 16).
The class labelled Military Objects is made up almost
entirely of artillery ammunition. Five iron hollow shot
fragments and one solid grape shot were found in the
plowzone. The partial hollow shot shown in Figure 5-20 was
the only artifact of this class present in the features; it
was associated with the fill of the Feature 3 well shaft.
Although not particularly numerous, fragments of bombs are
found at most of the colonial sites at Frederica. Their
presence at domestic sites in the town may be attributed to
the explosion of the powder magazine in 1743, which would
have deposited bomb fragments in a widely dispersed pattern
over the town. The presence of the bomb fragment in Feature
3 is assumed to be a result of inclusion during the filling
of the well.
A brass military insignia in an anchor and rope design
is the only other item to be classified as a military object
(Figure 5-20). It was found in the plow zone.
Classification Format: Hird Site
Archeological data from the Hird Site were reanalyzed by
the author in order to derive a sample comparable with the
Dobree sample described above. The original analysis cards


96
would reasonably be expected to show more concordance in
trash disposal behavior than is indicated by the ceramic
distributions.
Due largely to plowing, a considerable portion of
earthenware fragments were damaged to the degree that
identification at the type level could not be made. This was
especially true of the tin-enamelled earthenwares with their
poorly adhering glazes. Although almost all of the eroded
sherds can probably be attributed to the primary occupation
span at Frederica, it is not possible to include these sherds
in such calculations as mean ceramic dates since the glaze
decorations used to determine the specific delftware types
(i.e., mimosa pattern, plain white, decorated delft) are
absent. However, it is possible to include these partially
identified, colonial period ceramics in the pattern
recognition classification scheme. Accordingly, a
"miscellaneous earthenware" ceramic category was defined for
the Hird and Dobree ceramic collections and incorporated into
the Ceramics class. Included in this category were all
eroded or fragmented sherds that possessed paste
characteristics similar to those of the positively identified
types found in closed contexts at the sites. Also included
were a small number of intact lead glazed earthenware sherds
that have not been previously described in the ceramic
literature but were found in closed-context proveniences at
the Dobree Site. This ceramic type is a refined earthenware
and was referred to as "lusterware" on the analysis forms.


26
populations, appears to me to be expecting a little
((too)) much from the material data base of archeology...
(South 1979:2)
Souths criticisms seem to be relevant. If well trained
ethnographers, who are supposedly adept at recognizing emic
and etic distinctions, cannot discern the world views of
those they study, it would appear highly unlikely that
archeologists would be able to successfully glean mind sets
from studying the artifacts of extinct cultures.
South views the present popularity of the cognitive
approach with dismay since it distracts many archeologists
from the goal of understanding cultural process. However,
the appeal of the new particularism is not difficult to
understand. In addition to the attractive theoretical and
methodological characteristics that have already been
discussed, there are other factors involved. Both Deetz and
Glassie have presented eloquent and compelling reasons for
doing archeology that seem to have struck a responsive chord
in many of us. Echoing Ascher (1974), both strongly reject
the elite-only emphasis of the Old Particularism in favor of
what Charles Fairbanks has called the "archeology of the
proletariat" (1978). Not only does this shift from the elite
sites to the sites of the "common people" tremendously
increase the number of sites to be dug, it also provides
moral imperatives for digging them up. When Henry Glassie
tells us that the written record is "...superficial and
elitist--a tale of viciousness, a myth for the contemporary
power structure," it is clearly the duty of archeologists,






Table 6-1 (continued)
Activities Group
Wells
Trash
Pits
Post-
holes
Mise.
Fea 29
Totals
31 .
Construction tools
2
0
0
0
0
2
32.
Farm tools
0
0
0
0
0
0
33.
Toys
0
0
0
0
0
0
34.
Fishing gear
0
0
0
0
0
0
35.
Stub-stemmed pipes
0
0
0
0
0
0
36.
Colono Ware
0
0
0
0
0
0
37.
Storage items
27
1 1
0
0
0
38
36.
Ethnobotanical
40
7
0
0
5
52
39.
Stable and barn
0
0
0
1
0
1
40.
Miscellaneous hardware
0
10
0
0
4
14
41 .
Other
133
20
2
4
41
208
42.
Military items
1
0
0
0
0
1
Totals
201
48
2
5
50
316
Numbering of artifact classes follows the numbering system
used by South (1977:95-96).
Bone frequencies are derived by using a ratio of 2.06 grams/fragment.




299
Deetz, James F.
1967 Invitation to Archeology. Garden City, New York:
Natural History Press.
1974 A Cognitive Historical Model for American Material
Culture: 1620-1835. In Reconstructing Complex Societies.
Charlotte Moore, ed. pp. 21-24.
1977 In Small Things Forgotten. Garden City, New York:
Anchor Books.
Dollar, Clyde D.
1968 Some Thoughts on Theory and Method in Historical Arche
ology. The Conference on Historic Site Archeology Papers
1967 2(2):3-30.
Dougenik, James A. and David E. Sheehan
1975 SYMAP User's Reference Manual. Cambridge: Harvard
University Laboratory for Computer Graphics and Spatial
Analysis.
Egmont, John Percival
1923 Manuscripts of the Earl of Egmont Diary, Vol. 2, 1734
38. London: His Majesty's Stationary Office.
Fairbanks, Charles H.
1952 The Excavation of the Hawkins-Davison Houses, Fort
Frederica National Monument, St. Simons Island, Georgia.
Manuscript, Fort Frederica National Monument, St. Simons
Island, Georgia.
1953 Report of Excavations at Fort Frederica National Monu
ment, 1953* Manuscript, Fort Frederica National Monument,
St. Simons Island, Georgia.
1956 The Excavation of the Hawkins-Davison Houses. Georgia
Historical Quarterly 40:213-229.
1977 Backyard Archeology as Research Strategy. The Confer
ence on Historic Site Archeology Papers 1976 1 1 (2): 1 33-139
1978 Personal communication, January 14, 1978.
1980 Personal communication, November 5, 1980.
Fairbanks, Charles H. and Nicholas Honerkamp
1978 Research Proposal for the Patterson Lot Excavation,
Fort Frederica National Monument, St. Simons Island,
Georgia. Manuscript, National Park Service Southeast
Archeological Center, Tallahassee.










** .37.
444444
4 i
iH
44470444
4*4.44444.*.
4444444
44444 4444
4 4 yT
"Z
4444444
44*444444
'T7..

4444444
4 4 4 44 4 4 4*i
.

4444444
444444444
..

444 e3* 4
82 4 44 4 4 4*.
.51 .

4444444
44444444L
. .

4444444
4 4 4 44 4 4 4V
r . .

MM*
OCCOGeCQCCO
cccccQftecooc'
oooooriraooaaoo
2 0000CC7CC 2 C f C0CC0
ooooocqteceec ccoeo
4_>ococor.oc£ onoooncococececcaccc
QQUOQCCCQtOCaC oocouooc^Cgsqcnc toocauoatfeococoaccoctet te eco c4occW
nunto??QaeaoeoaaeeeoceQeeoec0famicedoac
t 9 *fncc/ ?o oeoouo a: o /aoaaaaa; i aooaaafi^^MaVDoof 7 3
ycoda peoneoeoceooacoponaceaoaeao^fMM
4 4 4 4[)ouuloaoaoaaoeaBoeoeQoecaaceaeacoacoBOec
44 4 4 44 444444 44444444444444 4 4 D O flU (lOC O OO Ct O O O C t < O CT C C frOO C C C O*
444444 444444444 44444 OO O OC 10 OO O O O O I* II O O CffO C C 00 C G O O C C C C C O OO OC Ol
44444444444444444 MJ O O C 0< | CO 3 Q O O O 11 I O O
4444444444444444444 ./COOP C 0(3000 O O O O O fl
4 4 4 4 4
* 4 4 4
4444444*
144444444
.4444444
OOOO 4 44 4 4
CUOC 4
00004 444
oooc>
\4 4444448044444441 iOVOOOOOUI 7 30 00 00i2 821BOt
4444444444 44 4 4 4 4 400000000
4 4 44 4 4 44 4444/lCCOQCCOOOOOOOOl
V44 4444 4444 4>tC O C 00 O C CO O O G C O C C O
V 4fccococccccccoocccoooaoo
. 4 4 4 4 4 4yfijuoooooooooooooooooooooncJococ
^ 4 4 4 4 4 yfl 00 00000 0063
MOOI _
11 9 1 *00000 1 134***44 44 95 44444
JDOfOOCQOO
DOIO 00000
3OOOPoo00OO00UPOOOOPoo
JQOCQQOOQOQQ^ 4 4 4 ****
0000113TTTTT444
ocoooonoooooooooooooooa
OC4~>QCCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOd
10544>C0001J200C0000121C
4444 w3cccccoccQQogpao>
4 4 4 4 4 4 4\Q000G' ^
4444444444444
444444444444
4444444444444444444444
444444444444444444444 44 44 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
492*4444444704444 VT. 4 8
000044 4 44444444444444444444444444 4 4 4 4 4 4^.
O O O* 4444444444444444 4 44 44 4 44444444 4 4 4yl .
(J/*44 44444444444444444444 4444444 4 4_^ 44444444444444444444444444444 4VT.
QOCOOOOOOf)
L 4 4 4 44 444 4 4 4444444 *
£_4 444444 4444 44444 444 44444444444444444 44
J44444 44444444 44444444 444
.26. ..... ..16 <
O.0*3034 MINUTES FCP map
CO0REF LOT. EXCAVATED SO UAPE 3
OISTQinUTION OF HITE CLAY PIPE F P A G ME NT S J PLCM70NE
SOUTH CAPO. FPEOEOICA
A0SOLUTE VALUE B ANGE APPLYING TO FACH LEVEL
(MAXIMUM* INCLUOEO IN HIGHEST LEVEL ONLY)
MINIMUM
MAXI MUM
5.00
60.4 0
60 .4 0
1 1 5 .8 0
115.0
171.20
171.20
2 26.60
226.60
282.00
DATA VALUE EXTPEMES APF
FBCENTACE OE TOTAL ARSOLUTC VALUE B 4 NGE APPLYING TO EACH LEVEL
OEOUENCY OISIBI0UTION OF DATA PCINT VALUES IN EACH LEVEL
LEVEL 12345
444444 oooooocoo eoocoooae
444444 OOOOOOCOO OQOOOOOQ
4444 oooo opoo eooa oooo
444444 ccnoooccn oeoeoeoae
444444 nooooocco ooao
l 7


125
characterized the weapons dispensed by the Hudson's
Bay Company and by the North-West Fur Company of Mon
treal. Something akin to this motif occurs on a
Florentine pistol of 1695, on a French musket of c.
1700, on a few English examples of the first decades
of the century, and on a German specimen of about 1740.
These are all isolated examples, however, and there is
no knowing which, if any, of them provided the inspira
tion for gun side plates of the later Indian trade. The
earliest of them (perhaps dating in the third quarter
of the eighteenth century) were engraved; but the vast
majority were cast with the heads and scales in relief....
These cast plates are not likely to date before 1785,
and all but a handful belong to the first half of the
nineteenth century. (Noel Hume 1974:217-218)
Although this would seem to indicate a post-1800
deposition for the dragon plates, the weight of the evidence
at the Dobree Site calls for an alternative explanation. In
view of the complete lack of positive temporal markers for
the third quarter of the 18th century, particularly the
absence of the creamware-pearlware ceramic series in the
features, it is suggested that the dating of this type of
sideplate is in need of revision. At least at Frederica,
another "handful" of plates, both cast and engraved, have
been found to predate the 19th century by perhaps 50 years.
Only further research will determine if these sideplates are
indeed isolated examples at Frederica or are common at other
contemporaneous sites. If these artifacts are restricted to
Frederica during this time period, an essential question for
future researchers will be to determine whether they are the
product of local or nonlocal craftsmen.
Clothing Group
With two exceptions, the artifact classes making up this
group are the same as those used by South and are


311
APPENDIX B
SUMMARY OF GLASS, PIPE, AND NAIL ARTIFACTS, DOBREE SITE
Variable
Description
SQNUM
PROV
WINEBOTL
CASEBOTL
VIAL
TABLGLAS
GOBLET
WINDOW
MODERN
OTHER
STEM4
STEM5
STEM6
UIDSTEM
PLANBOWL
DECBOWL
WROUGHT
CUT
SQUARE
ROUND
Square number (1 63)
Provenience (Feature 1 Feature 30)
Dark green bottle glass (round sectioned)
Dark green bottle glass (square sectioned)
Pharmaceutical bottle glass
Tumbler, engraved, and clear round sectioned
bottle glass
Clear goblet glass
Window glass
Postcolonial glass
Unidentified glass
White clay pipestem,
White clay pipestem,
White clay pipestem,
White clay pipestem,
Plain bowl fragment,
4/64
5/64
6/64
inch
inch
inch
unknown bore
white clav pipe
bore
bore
bore
Decorated bowl fragment, white clay pipe
Wrought iron nail
Cut iron nail
Square sectioned iron nail
Round sectioned iron nail


229
differences in the degree to which the features are
clustered will be related to the intensity of occupa
tion at each site.
2) Since trash disposal would be limited primarily to
each occupants lot due to the towns compact settle
ment pattern, there should be evidence of maximiza
tion of the trash disposal potential of each lot.
Most subsurface features would eventually have been
filled with secondary trash regardless of the initial
function of the feature.
3) Intrasite disposal of organic remains, particularly
of bones capable of generating objectionable odors,
will be oriented toward subsurface features.
More bone is expected to be deposited in features
than on the surface of the lot. Conversely, arti
facts lacking odiferous qualities would be deposited
in a more casual manner at the lot. Higher artifact
frequencies are therefore expected on the surface
of a lot than in the features.
4) The concentrated settlement pattern and contiguous
arrangement of the town lots would have necessitated
careful demarkation of lot boundaries. Evidence of
this presumed emphasis on the delineation and main
tenance of lot perimeters should be archeologically
discernable.
Clustering of features within the two lots sampled by
the author is illustrated in Figure 6-1 and Figure 6-13- At
the Hird site the middle of the presumed lot consists of a
series of trash pits, privies, and other pits that are
intrusive into one another. At the Dobree Site, the
arrangement of pits and well features is much more dispersed;
the only intrusive features are the pallisade wall trench,
which is believed to have been constructed after the main
occupation, and a posthole (Feature 27) located in a large
circular pit that contained few artifacts (Feature 24). The
differences apparent in the locations of features at these
sites is believed to be related to the intensity and duration
of occupation at each. At the Dobree Site, evidence derived


Figure 7-1. Distribution of Slag Waste, Plowzone,
Dobree Site.


198
Although not specifically mentioned by Manucy (1960),
wattle and daub houses are not unknown from early Georgia.
In his discussion of the basic freeholder-yoeman house,
Nichols (1957:27) describes a variation of the wattle-and-
daub construction method:
There were some houses ((in Georgia)) which the Mora
vians built in their own fashion, like those erected in
North Carolina and Pennsylvania. These were of hewn
log uprights with the space between filled in with
cylinders of clay formed around sticks set horizontally
As the interces were plastered but not the framing,
the effect was that of half-timber... The colonists
were well aware of the distinction between these
Moravian-style houses and the framed, weather-
boarded houses of the English.
Nichols also indicates that wattle-and-daub houses were used
by non-Moravians in 18th and 19th century Georgia, as his
discussion of contemporaneous historian George Whites
observations shows:
Wattle-and-daub was used in these framed houses
as well as in huts. As late as 1830, the home of
Thomas Bosomworth and his Indian wife Mary Musgrove,
was still standing on St. Catherines Island, and
White describes it as being wattled with hickory
twigs, and plastered within and without with mortar,
made of lime and sand, surrounded with spacious
piazzas. ( 1957 : 27)
Except for the spacious piazzas, this description agrees
remarkably well with the physical evidence of the structure
found at Lot 31. The presence of the unique rectangular pit
(Feature 10) directly adjacent to the building is also
considered to be significant. The unusual shape and the
location next to the post structure are explicable if the
storage function suggested earlier for Feature 10 is
accepted. A pit or root cellar adjacent to the house would














CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The British colonial settlement of Frederica was
established on St. Simons Island, Georgia, in 1736. Planned
as a major military-civilian fortified outpost, Frederica's
existence owed more to the bellicose machinations of Britain
and Spain than to anything else. Significantly, earthworks
for the walls of a fort were among the first things con
structed by the 40 English families who founded the town.
Subsequent events during the settlement's short history serve
to underscore the interdependence between military and civil
segments of the community. When the regiment left in 1748,
Frederica's civilian population quickly relocated to other
settled communities or frontier areas. By the early 1750s
only a dozen or so families remained out of the more than
1000 inhabitants who had lived there a few years earlier.
Although it existed as a community for little more than
15 years, a great deal of historical and archeological
information dealing with various aspects of 18th century
British colonial life at Frederica is potentially available.
Since 1945, when it was established as a national monument,
Fort Frederica has been the focus of considerable archeo
logical and documentary research. As part of the U.S.
National Park system, most of this research has been directed
1


O
Kitchen Bone Architecture
Furni ture
Arms Clothing Personal Pipe Activities
oo
UJ






Figure 6 14. Distribution of Construction Materials,
Plowzone, Dobree Site.








262
indirectly associated with the need for defense: gunflint
and lead ball production. The undocumented, short-lived
forge operation that was present along with a domestic
occupation at the Dobree Site serves to point out the effects
that economic and political factors had on frontier
adaptations at Frederica.
Refuse Disposal and Artifact Distribution
Stanley South has long been concerned with the locations
of artifacts relative to structures at British colonial
sites. Using the experience gained from a decade of
excavations at ruins in Brunswick, South Carolina, South has
defined a pattern of refuse discard which he has designated
as the Brunswick Pattern. The formal statement of this
pattern is as follows:
On British-American sites of the eighteenth century
a concentrated refuse deposit will be found at the
points of entrance and exit in dwellings, shops,
and military fortifications. (South 1977a:48)
South demonstrates this pattern at three sites in Brunswick
by illustrating the frequency distributions of several
classes of artifacts that are present in and around building
foundations. Although sometimes difficult to interpret
visually, a series of conformant maps presented by South
showing artifact frequency symbolism around the structural
foundations present at the three sites seems to support the
Brunswick Pattern generalization. However, at all three
sites there has been very little excavation of areas that are
not adjacent to the foundations, and the differences in sizes






Figure 5-18.
Activities Group Artifacts, Dobree Site
Row 1 :
Three-sided file, iron.
Row 2:
Auger or gouge, iron.
Row 3 :
Lead wizzer; iron mouth harp.
Row 4 :
Ferrier's tool, iron.
Row 5:
Iron strike-a-light.
Row 6 :
Iron sailmakers needle.




Dobree
Figure 6-
Figure 6-
Top of Feature 1 Barrel Well,
Site.
Initial excavation of Feature 1 Barre
Well, Dobree Site.




290
generally been recognized as a necessary though perhaps
unglamorous source of information on a significant aspect of
Fredericas past.
Besides an anthropological orientation, other
characteristics of the present study set it off from the
previous research at Frederica. Systematic excavation,
quantitative methods, intensive zooarcheological analysis of
faunal remains, and an explicitly comparative approach are
the most obvious contrasts. The use of Lewis' frontier model
to relate the archeological evidence from the three sites
investigated to cultural proccesses associated with a British
colonial adaptation to frontier conditions in Georgia also
represents a major departure from the research strategies
employed in earlier projects. Instead of an uncritical
particularistic approach that attempts to confirm or
supplement the written record concerning the presence of
specific site inhabitants, functions, materials, or houses at
a site, a more flexible approach has been taken in which
regional patterns of behavior are seen as accounting for
differences and similarities in the archeological record.
Matching the initials on a spoon handle with the owner's name
is left to Ivor Noel Hume and other particularly gifted and
fortunate archeologists.
The methodological-theoretical approach used by the
author has had important effects on the structure and nature
of this research. The organizing framework of the pattern
recognition method, with its emphasis on complete






i
1cm
CO-
1 i,nch
f




267
141 *S***
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLU.L
LLL 7* 6LLLL
LLi.LLLJ.LJLL
L LLL LLL LLL
L LLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
96 1 m 36 3* 7 368* 0* 203*2
1S0*3****
ILLLLLH LA
*Llllllc.
>...*LLLLA****
4*4444 ^)LLU
Tp*>
44^*^* L ^ClTu
4 6000V 44 4444. * /lllL
45834^72
44444 4444 44 QCOi
4 4 44 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4444
4 4 44 4444444 44
3492*4* 25 7#5*134*0**150*7 **t02*A*****209* 6*
*A_L LLL LLL LLLLLLLLLL
m LLU nil m H 1.1. LLL
-LLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLL
SO* 3LLLLLL60* ALLLL
f-L LLL LLL LLL LLLLLLL
LLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LL65* 3LLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLSO* 4
LLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLU.LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LL6 0* 6LLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLU.
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LL16* 6LLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLL LLLLLLL LLL LLLLLLL LLL LLL LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LL14 *9LLLLLLL3*6LLLLLL77 3LLLLLLL 0*1LLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL1
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLL LLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLL0* 1 LLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLL3*4LLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLL9* 7LLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLL 2* ALLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LL48* 1LLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
OOB8CE LOT* EXCAVATED SQUARES
distribution of eowe (in grams : r.ov zone
SOUTH VARO FREDERICA
ABSOLUTE VALUE RANGE APPLYING TO EACH LEVEL
(MAX I MUR* INCLUDED IN HIGHEST LEVEL ONLY)
FI N! MUM
MAXIMiM
eELOM
110*00
110*00
41 0* 70
41 0* 70
71 1.40
71 1 40
101 2* 10
10 12* 10
1312*60
DATA VALUE EXTREMES ARE
0*10 1613*50 PER C£N T A GE OF TOTAL ABSOLUTE VALUE RANGE APPLYING TC EACH LEVEL
20*00 20*00 20*00 20*00
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF DATA POINT VALUES IN EACH LEVEL
LLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLL
LLLL LLLL
LLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLL
c s m m c *
4444444 OOOOOOOOO 888888888
4444444 OOOOOOOOO MM*
44 4444 QOOC 0000 88
4444444 OOOOOOOOO 00888000<
444*444 OOOOOOOOO 888888888 88
ssa:ts*ascrii
cistaiiais
26
31 2* 60
613*50
20*00
5
FR6Q
1




Figure 6-16. Edge of Feature 29 Pallisade Wall Trench,
Dobree Site.
Figure 6-17. Profile of Feature 29 Pallisade Wall Trench,
Dobree Site.


135
found. The lower waterlogged portions of the wells were
especially conducive to floral preservation. Feature 1
contained 20 peach pit fragments (Prunus prsica), a possible
watermelon seed (cf. Citrullus lanatus), 2 possible laurel
cherry pits (cf. Prunus caroliniana), a single persimmon seed
(Diospyros virginiana), 3 fragmentary squash-pumpkin seeds
(Curcurbita sp.) and 2 hickory nut fragments (Carya sp.).
Approximately two liters of oak twigs, pine bark, acorns, and
charcoal were also found. Eleven peach pit fragments were
recovered from the Feature 2 well. Four other features
contained organic remains. Feature 29 had 4 burned peach
pits along with a tpelo seed (Nyssa biflora) that was not
included in the Ethnobotanical class. included in the class
(Nyssa biflora). Three hickory nut fragments were associated
with Feature 18, and Feature 7 contained a squash-pumpkin
seed. The nine ethnobotanical specimens recovered from the
plowzone are fragments of peach pits that had been charred.
Carbonization of the pits is believed to be responsible for
their preservation.
A single Stable and Barn class artifact was found in the
trash-filled depression defined as Feature 11. This
artifact, shown in Figure 5-18, is an iron ferriers tool
used to clean the frog of a horses hoof (Charles Fairbanks:
personal communication). Plowzone artifacts in this class
include a brass harness ring and an iron snaffle bit with a
brass side boss (Figure 5-19). A similar bit from Virginia
which differs only by the presence of a snaffle loop and an


61
made in 1763 to Pickering Robinson in which town lot 25 in
Frederica is described as being on a corner lot on the north
side of Broad Street (Bryant 1972:30). Lot 25 in either Ward
can only be on a corner if the lot numbers are reversed
according to Berndts interpretation. Since the Miller Map
was drawn nearly one half century after the town was
abandoned, a numbering error would not be surprising. The
easternmost lot on the third row of the south ward is
therefore considered to be Lot 31.
Unfortunately the new documentary evidence concerning
the lot designation has not cleared up the question of the
lot ownership and occupancy. Since both Patterson and Dobree
could not have owned the same lot at the same time, one of
Egmonts entries must be in error. Dobree is known to have
been in Frederica from at least 1736 to 1738 and to have sold
his lot to David Provost sometime prior to 1743 (Candler
1904-37:1,424, XXI,283). In that year John Provost, Davids
heir, assigned a town lot in Frederica to Captain George
Dunbar of Oglethorpes Regiment. The lot was identified as
Dobrees former property, but the lot number was not
mentioned (Candler 1904-37:V,705). Dunbar died in Jamaica in
1763 while still a Captain in the Regiment; the extent of his
involvement on his Frederica lot is unknown. In 1759 William
Mackintosh requested a grant for Lot 21 South in Frederica
(Candler 1904-37:VIII,143). Presumably, if Dunbar was still
in possession of Dobrees lot at this date, Mackintosh would
not have requested it, so he must have been trying to obtain


114




131
<3 -CC
r* _
o -
£
- o
=_
- ^
-


Figure 5-9. Tableware Ceramic Vessels, Dobree Site.
Left: White salt glazed stoneware cup, height 7.0 cm.
Right: Partial Oriental porcelain cup or bowl.


217
Cultural Affiliation
From the historical background reviewed in Chapter IV it
can logically be assumed that Frederica participated fully in
the world-wide economic system developed by Britain in the
18th century. In order to test this assumption through
reference to archeological data, it is necessary to examine
archeological materials that would reflect the economic ties
between Frederica and the mother country. Miller and Stone
have characterized ceramic artifacts as being "particularly
sensitive" indicators of economic-transportation linkages,
and by extension, cultural affiliation (1970:98-99).
Extensive ceramic assemblages recovered from the three sites
investigated are useful in determining the cultural
affiliation of the sites.
As with Lewis Camden study (1977), documentary sources
have identified the colonizing society at Frederica as being
primarily British. However, the sample frame in the present
study is not the town as a whole but rather three sites that
are assumed to correspond to three domestic British
components of the military-civilian settlement. In an effort
to control the ethnicity variable (which is essential if
other hypotheses are to be adequately tested), it is
necessary to substantiate the proposed British affiliation of
the three sites. This can be accomplished through testing
three interlocking hypotheses dealing with the ceramic
assemblages associated with each site. Following the
propositions made by Lewis (1977:68), they are:




93



i


oooooooooo
oooooooooo
oooooooooo
0003000000
oooooooooo
>0000000*4
44**444*4A
*
I
1
I
I
?
I
I
I
I
. 0 ft.......
OI09********05*00*....01..Oft*
I
I
I
1
2
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
3
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
4
I
I
I
I

1
1
I
1
3
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
1
6
I
1
I
I
I
1
7
I
I
I
I

:
i
!
0
I
I
I
I
Oft*020 3*
J*u
1 I
I I
1 **0 3 ..00..... I
I I
9 9
1 I
I I
I I
1 1
I 00 !
I I
i I
1 I
1 1
I I
I I
! I
X (a*** 32 I

I I
I 1
I I
t
I
SYMAP
I
l
OOSffee LOT EXCAVATeO SQUARES
(DISTRIBUTION OF POS TCRE AMWARE CERAMICS: PLOW ZONE
SOUTH ARO. FQEOeRICA
OAT A VILUi EXTREMES ARE 3*0 66*00
ABSOLUTE VALUE RANGE
APPLYING
TC EACH LEVB.
( A
XI MU* INCLUDED IN
HIGHEST LEVEL
ONLY )
M INXNUH
0.0
i 1. 20
22. AO
33.00
44.
00
AX I PUP
1 1 .23
22. AO
33.00
4 A. 80
5ft.
00
PERCENTAGE
CF TOTAL
AbSOLUTE V
ALUE CANGE APPLYING
TO EACH
LEVEL
0 00
20.00
20.00
2 0. 00
20.
00
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF OAT A PQ JNT VALJES IN E AOi L E VEL
LEVEL 12 3*6

SYN-JCLS

it*sssaa33iaa:sa:aa:
COCOOOLOO
OOOOOOCOO
CCCG 0000
OOOOOOCOO
COOOOOOOO
09HMMI
ocaa
Ml
caaaassaaaaassaaazaaaaaaaaam
57
0
1
FREO


251
Table 7-6. Product-Moment Coefficients for Six
Artifact Categories, Dobree Site.
CORRELATION
COEFFICIENTS / :
PR0B R
UNDER HO
:RH0=0 /
N = 63,
I_MSKT
IJDTHER
IJJIDWT
SLAGGRAM
WROUGHT
SQUARE
I_MSKT
1.00000
0.14646
0.45717
0.51746
0.41537
0.22503
0.0000
0.2521
0.0002
0.0001
0.0007
0.0762
63
63
63
50
63
63
I_0THER
0.14646
1.00000
0.33719
0.12773
0.68082
0.48087
0.2521
0.0000
0.0069
0.3767
0.0001
0.0001
63
63
63
50
63
63
I_UIDWT
0.45717
0.33719
1.00000
0.69527
0.55558
0.61484
0.0002
0.0069
0.0000
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
63
63
63
50
63
63
SLAGGRAM
0.51746
0.12773
0.69527
1.00000
0.31505
0.23281
0.0001
0.3767
0.0001
0.0000
0.0258
0. 1037
50
50
50
50
50
50
WROUGHT
0.41537
0.68082
0.55558
0.31505
1.00000
0.52930
0.0007
0.0001
0.0001
0.0258
0.0000
0.0001
63
63
63
50
63
63
SQUARE
0.22503
0.48087
0.61484
0.23281
0.52930
1 .00000
0.0762
0.0001
0.0001
0.1037
0.0001
0.0000
63
63
63
50
63
62





FRONTIER PROCESS
IN EIGHTEENTH CENTURY COLONIAL GEORGIA:
AN ARCHEOLOGICAL APPROACH
BY
NICHOLAS HONERKAMP
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1980

Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2014
https://archive.org/details/frontierprocessiOOhone

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
A great many people contributed to this study. Some
offered suggestions and encouragement; others, their labor
and expertise. In the case of the National Park Service,
funds were provided to carry out the research. Individuals
will be mentioned here with the understanding that their
contributions can never be acknowledged to the extent that
they deserve.
The members of my doctoral committee, Charles H.
Fairbanks, Kathleen A. Deagan, Prudence M. Rice, Jerald T.
Milanich, and John K. Mahon, have been extremely generous
with their advice and criticism during the course of the
project. Besides their impact on the present study, two
members in particular have had a profound influence on my
development as an archeologist. Ten years ago Dr. Fairbanks
stimulated my interest in anthropology through his lectures
on North American prehistory. After attending a Fairbanks-
led archeological field school, that interest changed into an
overwhelming ambition to persue archeology on a full-time
basis. Dr. Deagan helped me realize the importance of a
systematic, scientific approach to the study of human
behavior. I am indeed fortunate to have worked closely with
both of these scholars.


I was also fortunate to have been associated with the
members of the three field crews that participated in this
project. The field people are:
Wendy Bolles
Charles Chambers
Julie Emrich
Bruce Ferguson Kevin Galleger
Jane Gray
Wayde Hanna
Joan Hebb
Patricia McKay
Roberta Owens
Martha Pinello
Tricia Sokol
Diane Sylvia
Patricia Welsh
Dan Yannette
Drew Yaros
Among the many volunteers that contributed to the project
were John Battle, Anita Fulton, Julia Furgeson, Lisa
Laudadia, Susan Loftin, Vincent Pinoso, Robin Smith, Mrs. R.
Welsh, and Clint Wills. Chad Braley assisted with production
of the artifact photographs used in Chapter V.
At the Florida State Museum, the following persons
provided invaluable instruction and assistance during the
faunal analysis: Elizabeth Wing, Elizabeth Reitz, Sylvia
Scudder, Erica Simons, Arlene Fradkin, and Tom Chase. In
addition, Dr. Reitz has contributed much to my knowledge of
colonial resource utilization and is primarily responsible
for stimulating my interest in this subject. Many of the
ideas presented in this study concerning colonial patterns of
faunal use stem from suggestions she has made in her own work
or in our collaborative efforts.
The National Park Service has been extremely supportive
of this project in every way. Deserving special praise for
their cooperation and assistance are Chief Richard Faust,


Archeologist George Fischer, and Laboratory Director James
Stoutamire of the Southeast Archeological Center in
Tallahassee. At Fort Frederica, the entire staff supported
and sometimes actively participated in the project. Former
Supervisor Janet Wolf and Assistant Supervisor George Berndt
were particularly helpfull in seeing that the field work was
successfully carried out.
Finally, I would like to thank my wife Robin L. Smith
for her editorial contributions and especially for her
constant encouragement and criticisms. Her personal and
professional support was invaluable during all phases of the
project, and will continue to be essential to me in the
future.


TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
LIST OF TABLES vii
LIST OF FIGURES viii
ABSTRACT x
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1
Location and Setting 3
Previous Research 9
Project Background 15
II. METHODOLOGICAL AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 17
Competing Paradigms in Historical
Archeology 18
Old Particularism 20
New Particularism 22
Pattern Recognition 27
Eclectic Approach 30
Theoretical-Methodological Position 31
III. RESEARCH DESIGN 34
Concepts and Definitions 34
IV. DOCUMENTARY BACKGROUND 41
Historical Context: Georgia 41
Historical Context: Frederica ^5
General Temporal-Demographic Parameters ... 51
Spatial Parameters 55
The Hawkins-Davison Site 57
The Hird Site 59
The Dobree Site 60
V. METHODS AND MATERIALS 65
Excavation Procedures 66
Horizontal Control 78
Stratigraphy 79
Analytical Methods and Results 80
Faunal Analysis 142
v


158
VI. SITE FORM AND CONTENT
Dobree Site Features 158
Hird Site Features 210
Hawkins-Davison Site Features 214
Summary 214
VII. EVALUATION OF THE EVIDENCE 216
Cultural Affiliation 217
Temporal Parameters 220
Site Form and Function 225
Refuse Disposal and Artifact Distribution . 262
Subsistence and Diet 274
VIII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 289
REFERENCES CITED 296
APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF CERAMICS, DOBREE SITE .... 309
APPENDIX B. SUMMARY OF GLASS, PIPE, AND NAIL
ARTIFACTS, DOBREE SITE 311
APPENDIX C. SUMMARY OF NONCERAMIC ARTIFACTS,
DOBREE SITE 314
APPENDIX D. SUMMARY OF FAUNAL DATA, DOBREE SITE . 317
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 320
vi


LIST OF TABLES
Table 4-1. Summary of Street and Lot Dimensions,
Frederica 56
Table 5-1. Artifact Class Frequencies, Dobree Site ... 88
Table 5-2. Identifiable Ceramics from Three Sites,
Frederica, Georgia 90
Table 5-3. Product-Moment Coefficients for Three
Ceramic Categories 101
Table 5-4. Product-Moment Coefficients for Three Nail
Types, Dobree Site 101
Table 5-5. Summary of Furniture Hardware Class
Artifacts, Dobree Site 120
Table 5-6. Summary of Artifacts in Gun Parts Class,
Dobree Site 122
Table 5-7. Artifact Class Frequencies, Hird Site .... 143
Table 5-8. Allometric Constants Used in Biomass
Calculations 148
Table 5-9. Species List for the Dobree Site, Lot 31
South, Frederica 151
Table 5-10. Summary of Six Faunal Categories, Dobree
Site, Frederica 155
Table 5-11. Summary of Six Faunal Catergories, Hawkins-
Davison Site, Frederica 156
Table 5-12. Summary of Six Faunal Categories, Hird
Site, Frederica 157
Table 6-1. Artifact Class Frequencies, Features, Dobree
Site 162
Table 6-2. Frequency Percentages for Four Artifact
Classes, Wells, Dobree Site 184
Table 7-1. Comparison of Total Bone and Artifact Mater
ials, Hird and Dobree Sites 232
Table 7-2. Soil pH Values, Dobree Site 234
Table 7-3- Emperical Artifact Profile, Dobree Site . 242
Table 7-4. Emperical Artifact Profile, Hird Site .... 243
Table 7-5. Summary of Three Group Categories, Frederica
And Carolina Sites 244
Table 7-6. Product-Moment Coefficients For Six Artifact
Categories, Dobree Site 251
Table 7-7. Product-Moment Coefficients for Slag,
Clinkers, and Coal, Dobree Site 253
Table 7-8. Summary of Three Species From Three Sites,
Frederica, Georgia 282
Table 7-9. Ages of Three Species by Element Fusion, Hird
Site, Frederica 284
vii


LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1. The Barrier Islands of Coastal Georgia .
Figure 1-2. Vicinity Map, St. Simons Island,
Georgia 7
Figure 1-3. Layout of The Fort And Town of Frederica,
c i rca 17^0 11
Figure 1-4. Composite Excavation Map, Frederica .... 13
Figure 4-1. 1796 Miller Map of Frederica 55
Figure 5-1. Excavation Plan, Hawkins-Davison Site ... 68
Figure 5-2. Excavation Plan, Hird Site 70
Figure 5-3. Excavation Plan, Dobree Site 72
Figure 5-4. Actual Area Excavated, Dobree Site .... 74
Figure 5-5. Field Work In Progress, Dobree Site .... 77
Figure 5-6. Distribution of Postcreamware Ceramics,
Plowzone, Dobree Site 93
Figure 5-7. Distribution of Identifiable Colonial
Ceramics, Plowzone, Dobree Site 95
Figure 5-8. Ceramic Artifacts, Dobree Site 99
Figure 5-9. Tableware Ceramic Vessels, Dobree
Site 104
Figure 5-10. Cross Section Drawings of Ceramic
Vessels, Dobree Site 106
Figure 5-11. Wine Bottles, Dobree Site 109
Figure 5-12. Glass Tableware Items, Dobree Site ... 111
Figure 5-13. Tableware Artifacts, Dobree Site .... 114
Figure 5-14. Architecture and Furniture Group
Artifacts, Dobree Site 119
Figure 5-15. Arms Artifacts, Dobree Site 124
Figure 516. Clothing Artifacts, Dobree Site 128
Figure 5-17. Personal Group Artifacts, Dobree Site . 131
Figure 5-18. Activities Group Artifacts, Dobree
Site 134
Figure 5-19. Snaffle Bit, Dobree Site 136
Figure 5-20. Military Artifacts, Dobree Site 141
Figure 6-1. Composite Map of Dobree Site Features . 160
Figure 6-2. Top of Feature 1 Barrel Well, Dobree
Site 166
Figure 6-3. Initial Excavation of Feature 1 Barrel
Well, Dobree Site 166
Figure 6-4. Profile of Feature 1 (Barrel Well),
Square 31 Dobree Site 169
Figure 6-5. Profile of Feature 2 Well Pit, Dobree
Site 173
Figure 6-6. Feature 2 Pit and Shaft, Dobree Site . 176
Figure 6-7. Closeup of Feature 2 Pit and Shaft,
Dobree Site 176
Figure 6-8. Profile of Feature 3 Barrel Well,
Dobree Site 179
Figure 6-9. Feature 3 Pit and Shaft, Dobree Site . 179
Figure 6-10. Frequency or Weight Percentages for Nine
Artifact Groups, Features, Dobree
Site 183
vi i i


Figure 6-11. Profile of Feature 5 Trash Pit, Dobree
Site 187
Figure 6-12. Profile of Feature 10 Storage/Trash
Pit, Dobree Site 187
Figure 6-13 Composite Map of Dobree Site
Postholes 192
Figure 6-14. Distribution of Construction Materials,
Plowzone, Dobree Site 195
Figure 6-15. Tabby Plaster From Wattle and Daub
Structure, Dobree Site 197
Figure 6-16. Edge of Feature 29 Pallisade Wall Trench,
Dobree Site 202
Figure 6-17. Profile of Feature 29 Pallisade Wall
Trench, Dobree Site 202
Figure 6-18. Profile of Feature 29 and Underlying
Postholes, Dobree Site 205
Figure 6-19. Compostie Map of Hird Site Features . 213
Figure 7-1. Distribution of Slag Waste, Plowzone,
Dobree Site 249
Figure 7-2. Contours of Mean Ceramic Dates for
Plowzone Ceramics, Dobree Site 256
Figure 7-3* Distribution of Oriental Porcelain
Fragments, Plowzone, Dobree Site .... 259
Figure 7-4. Distribution of Wine Bottle Fragments,
Plowzone, Dobree Site 265
Figure 7-5. Distribution of Faunal Materials,
Plowzone, Dobree Site 267
Figure 7-6. Distribution of White Clay Pipe
Fragments, Plowzone, Dobree Site .... 269
Figure 7-7. Distribution of Wrought and Square
Nails, Plowzone, Dobree Site 271
Figure 7-8. Distribution of Window Glass Fragments,
Plowzone, Dobree Site 273
IX


Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
FRONTIER PROCESS
IN EIGHTEENTH CENTURY COLONIAL GEORGIA:
AN ARCHEOLOGICAL APPROACH
By
Nicholas Honerkamp
December 1980
Chairman: Charles H. Fairbanks
Major Department: Anthropology
Frontier regions offer unique opportunities for
anthropologists to study the adaptive responses of intrusive
colonizing societies to new social and natural conditions.
The process of colonization is reflected archeologically
through the patterning of settlement structure and function.
The purpose of this study is to examine the archeological
correlates of a British colonial frontier adaptation in
Georgia and to interpret this evidence through reference to
documented 18th century sociocultural, political, and
demographic factors.
Analysis of archeological materials from three sites at
Fort Frederica, Georgia (1736-1750), and contemporaneous
x


British colonial sites in the southeastern United States is
used to address hypotheses concerning frontier adaptations.
Using Stanley Souths "pattern recognition" methodological
approach to organize the data, interpretation of the evidence
from Frederica was accomplished through the application of a
frontier model proposed by Kenneth E. Lewis. Questions
concerning cultural affiliation, temporal parameters, and
site structure and function were examined at the town and lot
level. Additionally, the nearly complete excavation of one
of the sites allowed an empirical test of South's Brunswick
Pattern of Refuse Disposal to be made. Zooarcheological data
from Frederica were also presented for comparison with a
traditional model of resource utilization designated as the
British Barnyard Complex.
Results of the analysis demonstrated the applicability
of Lewis' model to the Frederica data. Due to the need for
defense against a competing state power, the settlement
pattern at Frederica more closely resembled the concentrated,
evenly-spaced row pattern of European market towns than the
dispersed, random arrangement found at frontier towns such as
Camden, South Carolina. At the lot level, clustering of
subsurface features, maximum utilization of lot elements,
differential bone deposition, and demarcation of lot
boundaries is believed to have resulted from the same
demographic and sociopolitical factors that shaped the
settlement pattern of the town as a whole. Quantitative and
qualitative evidence of site function was also found to
xi


reflect frontier constraints and conditions. As with Camden,
the occurrence of domestic and craft activity by-products at
the Frederica sites indicates the multifunctional nature of
frontier occupations. Comparison of artifact profiles from
sites at Frederica, Camden, and Brunswick Town, South
Carolina, revealed patterning of frequency relationships that
were explicable in terms of intersite functional differences.
Graphic presentation of artifact distributions at one of
the sites at Frederica indicates a departure from the
Brunswick Pattern described by South. Instead of disposal of
refuse adjacent to a post-supported structure, there is
evidence of "bimodal trash disposal behavior" by the site's
occupants. The first behavioral mode involves dispersed
surface disposal of trash, while the second is associated
with purposeful concentration of trash, particularly food
bone, in subsurface features. An orientation toward trash
disposal in areas adjacent to the house was not associated
with either mode. It is suggested that, instead of
systematic British colonial refuse disposal behavior cited by
South, the limited size of the samples used to define the
Brunswick Pattern may be responsible for its occurrence.
Little correspondence was seen between the traditional
model of British colonial resource utilization and the
zooarcheological evidence from Frederica. The British
Barnyard Complex, characterized by an overwhelming emphasis
on the use of swine, sheep, and less importantly, dairy
cattle, was not replicated at Frederica. Substantial
xii


adjustments to New World conditions are indicated by an
increased reliance placed on wild terrestrial fauna and a
shift from swine to cattle, as measured through comparison of
biomass values derived from archeological bone. Similar
results from contemporaneous British and Spanish colonial
sites in St. Augustine, Florida, indicate that the
traditional colonial foodways model is in need of major
revision.
xi i i


CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The British colonial settlement of Frederica was
established on St. Simons Island, Georgia, in 1736. Planned
as a major military-civilian fortified outpost, Frederica's
existence owed more to the bellicose machinations of Britain
and Spain than to anything else. Significantly, earthworks
for the walls of a fort were among the first things con
structed by the 40 English families who founded the town.
Subsequent events during the settlement's short history serve
to underscore the interdependence between military and civil
segments of the community. When the regiment left in 1748,
Frederica's civilian population quickly relocated to other
settled communities or frontier areas. By the early 1750s
only a dozen or so families remained out of the more than
1000 inhabitants who had lived there a few years earlier.
Although it existed as a community for little more than
15 years, a great deal of historical and archeological
information dealing with various aspects of 18th century
British colonial life at Frederica is potentially available.
Since 1945, when it was established as a national monument,
Fort Frederica has been the focus of considerable archeo
logical and documentary research. As part of the U.S.
National Park system, most of this research has been directed
1


2
toward recovering information useful for on-site reconstruc
tion and interpretation of British colonial lifeways at the
fort and associated town. In recent years this traditional
National Park Service goal has been augmented by research
aimed at addressing problems of anthropological significance,
such as defining socio-economic indicators in the documentary
and archeological records, examining the extent of wild
versus domestic animal utilization, and revealing the
presence of craft activities and delimiting areas where they
were practiced. It should be emphasized that these questions
are complementary to those aimed at site reconstruction, but
they involve different methodological emphases and different
field and analysis techniques.
The archeological research reported here has been sup
ported by a National Park Service grant for $19,381.00 to the
Department of Anthropology, University of Florida (Contract
No. CX500080754). This project consisted of excavation of a
domestic town lot at Frederica (believed to be Lot 31, South
Ward), analysis of the documentary and archeological data
pertaining to the site, and synthesis of these data and
information derived from previous excavations. Principal
Investigator for the project was University of Florida
Distinguished Service Professor in Anthropology Charles H.
Fairbanks. The author supervised field and preliminary
laboratory work and was responsible for analysis of artifacts
and faunal materials.


3
Field work was carried out at Lot 31 South in three 10
week periods in the spring and fall of 1978 and in the winter
of 1979. Excavation crews consisted of undergraduates from
the University of Florida and Florida State University, who
were enrolled in the University of Florida Archeological
Field School course, as well as volunteers. There were three
full-time excavators in the spring, five in the fall, and
eight during the winter session, for a total of 160 crew
weeks. Numerous part-time volunteers also contributed to the
project. The author was assisted part-time by two under
graduate students in cataloging artifacts for a nine week
period following the field work.
Location and Setting
Located approximately 10 kilometers east of Brunswick,
Georgia, Fort Frederica National Monument is situated on a
bluff overlooking the Intracoastal Waterway on the western
edge of St. Simons Island (Figures 1-1 and 1-2). St. Simons
is part of a barrier island chain extending along the
southern Atlantic coast from Amelia Island, Florida, to Cape
Fear, North Carolina (Figure 1-1). As is true of most of the
barrier islands, St. Simons is characterized by diverse
habitats, notably the beach-dune configuration facing the
ocean, the maritime forests on the island interior, and the
tidal marsh lying between the island and the mainland. This
diversity of habitats contrasts sharply with the essentially
homogenous environment of the pine forests on the coastal
plain. Detailed descriptions of geology and ecology of the


Figure 1-1. The Barrier Islands of Coastal Georgia.


5


Figure 1-
Vicinity Map,
St.
Simons Island,
Georgia.




8
coastal region are provided by Johnson et al. (1974). The
low upland ridge upon which Frederica lies is part of an
ancient marine terrace known as the Princess Ann Formation.
Soils at Frederica conform to the somewhat excessively
drained, fine sand characteristics of the Cainhoy soil phase
that is associated with ridgetops of relict marine terraces
on the Georgia coast (Rigdon and Green 1980).
According to Robin Smith (1978:8-11), the geological
characteristics of areas similar to the one in which Fred
erica is located have had important implications in human
settlement patterning. Smith has convincingly demonstrated a
pattern of prehistoric and historic settlement activities
which focus on the fine sand bluffs adjacent to the salt
marshes of the coast. The high, well-drained soils of these
areas comprised an important scarce resource supportive of
human life, and as a consequence a succession of indigenous
and immigrant populations has used this land in various ways.
The 18th century British occupation at Frederica is seen as
conforming to this general barrier island marsh-bluff set
tlement orientation.
As can be seen in Figure 1-2, the fort and town are
located at a sharp bend of the Frederica River. The military
advantages accruing from this position in the context of 18th
century martial technologies have been fully discussed by
others and need no reiteration here (Cate 1943; Ivers 1974;
Manucy 1962). Ironically, some of the factors contributing
to the selection of Frederica's location as a site for a


9
frontier settlement have also been responsible for the
destruction of part of the archeological record. The depth
of the Frederica River at this bend allowed colonial period
ships of considerable draught to closely approach the fort
for offloading of people, material, and supplies. Over the
years the swift movement of the current at this deep water
point has eroded the east shore of the river, resulting in
the loss of a significant portion of the fort area, including
the entire battery spurwork shown in Figure 1-3. Addition
ally, the soil characteristics of the upland bluff area that
successfully supported both aboriginal and colonial popula
tions also attracted more modern occupants. Alterations to
the landscape associated with postcolonial occupations
include plow cultivation and construction of roads and
dwellings, both of which have adversely affected archeolo
gical resources. The present preservation policy of the
National Park Service has substantially reduced further
degradation of these resources.
Previous Research
Although a good deal of dirt has been moved at Frederica
in the interest of archeology, most of the excavations have
been devoted to delineating the layout of the town and to
exposing military construction features and domestic archi
tecture (Deagan 1975). In the town itself, all of the
domestic sites facing Broad Street and the northern section
of Cross Street have been excavated (Figure 1-4). Several
interpretive reports have emerged from this work, including


Figure 1-3.
Sites:
Layout of the Fort and Town of Frederica,
circa 1740.
1 Hird Site, 12 North
2 Hawkins-Davison Site, 1 and 2 South
3 Dobree Site, 31 South




Figure 1-4. Composite Excavation Map, Frederica.
Excavated areas are shown in black.


13


14
Manucy's synthesis of the archeology and history of the
military and civilian portions of the settlement (1960,
1962), Fairbanks' study of the architecture and associated
artifacts from the Hawkins-Davison site (1952, 1956), and
Reese's popularization of Manucys studies (Reese 1969).
Despite the considerable accumulation of artifactual and
housing data resulting from these projects, analysis of arti
facts which would allow testing of research hypotheses of a
processual nature has been lacking. More recent work has
been oriented toward addressing problems of anthropological
significance. Deagan's (1972) report on the analysis of the
Hawkins-Davison material was concerned with such questions as
delineating the material correlates of social status, live
lihood, and behavior. Her study represents the first fully
analyzed site report made at Frederica. The present author's
excavation and analysis of a site in the North Ward (Lot 12)
was primarily descriptive, although it did identify some
methodological questions of concern to archeologists working
at colonial sites and indicated hypotheses for future testing
at Frederica (1975). A popularized interpretive summary of
this project was also produced (Honerkamp 1977a).
In 1975 Kathleen Deagan reviewed and assessed the arche
ological research carried out at Frederica in a report pre
pared for the National Park Service. In this document, which
now functions as a master plan for archeology at Frederica,
Deagan has
1) outlined the results of all excavations carried out
from 1945 through 1975;


15
2) summarized the types of information obtained (and
ignored) through the archeological field work;
3) assessed the research potential of the extant
artifact collections and of the unexcavated sites;
and
4) identified problem areas and research emphases for
which Frederica is best suited.
Specific recommendations included sampling sites that did not
face the main streets of the town (especially back lot
features), delineation of dietary, occupational, and social
status elements from the archeological assemblages, and defi
nition of the extent of military involvement in the domestic
sector of town life (Deagan 1975:25-26). The research prior
ities defined in her report were explicitly incorporated in
the grant proposal for the 1978-1979 archeological excavation
of Lot 31 South (Fairbanks and Honerkamp 1978).
Project Background
Based on Deagan's recommendations, the Fairbanks and
Honerkamp proposal listed a number of rather ambitious
research objectives that were designed to meet the needs of
the Park Service as well as to address problems of particular
interest to the authors. These objectives were to be
achieved through the complete excavation of a single 90 by 60
feet (27.4 by 18.3 meters) colonial lot. Complete excavation
of the site was considered necessary in order to delineate
the sites boundaries, to identify back lot elements, and to
locate and define areas associated with craft and domestic
activities. In addition, total excavation would ensure the
retrieval of an unambiguous representative sample of a single


16
colonial occupation which could be used as a basis for
deriving hypotheses dealing with various aspects of 18th
century life at Frederica. Since the site was assumed to
have been occupied by known, historically documented
colonists, it was through the documentary records that
spatial, temporal, and social variables affecting: the
archeological record could be accounted for, and it was
against this baseline of historical documentation that
hypotheses could be formulated and tested.
The original major research interest of the author was
to formulate hypotheses concerning specific socioeconomic
differences and similarities between the occupants of the
Dobree, Hird, and Hawkins-Davison sites which could be tested
through comparison of various classes of artifacts, including
faunal remains. A preliminary attempt along these lines was
made by the author using only faunal materials; documentary
evidence was used to control for temporal and social vari
ables associated with the three sites (Honerkamp 1980).
However, archeological and documentary analysis carried out
after the Dobree Site field work revealed evidence neces
sitating major revisions to the research goals. These are
discussed fully in subsequent chapters.


CHAPTER II
METHODOLOGICAL AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
With the publication of Method and Theory in Historical
Archeology (South 1977a), historical archeology has reached a
watershed in the development of the methods upon which it is
based. Although the controversy associated with Souths
"pattern recognition" approach as a viable research orienta
tion is sometimes acrimonious, it has at the same time pro
duced fertile ground for nurturing theoretical and method
ological constructs, and it has been found to be essential
for stimulating the author's own consideration of an
important and often neglected question in archeology: why
are we interested in digging into the clutter of past
cultures? It is with the hope of somehow attempting to
answer this and other questions that the present study was
undertaken.
The purpose of this chapter is to clarify the theore
tical biases inherited from the authors mentors, teachers,
and colleagues so that the reader can judge for him- or
herself the costs and benefits of such biases to the results
of the research. Following an overview of what is considered
to be the primary theoretical orientations in historical
archeology and the research implications inherent in them, my
own views on the strengths and weaknesses of each will be
17


18
presented. Finally, several broadly-stated problems derived
from the theoretical discussion will be identified as the
focus of the more specific research hypotheses presented in
Chapter VII.
Competing Paradigms in Historical Archeology
Although historical archeologists are fond of pointing
out the great strides that have been made in the theories,
methods, and techniques associated with their field, there is
nevertheless much disagreement among the practitioners of
this "science" concerning specific aspects of these advances.
Indeed, there is even disagreement on the categorization of
historical archeology as a "science" at all, with or without
the capital 's' (Binford 1972; Cleland and Fitting 1968;
Dollar 1968; Flannery 1973; Fontana 1968; South 1977a, 1977b;
Walker 1967, 1974). Historical archeology is still methodo
logically and theoretically unstable, much as it has been
since its inception. However, in recent years there has been
a gradual emergence of two main paradigms that are usually
characterized as being diametrically opposed to one another.
Evidence that some methodological-theoretical battle lines
have in fact been drawn is seen in the tendency of many
archeologists to attach identifying (and slightly deni
grating) labels to the orientations of their less enlightened
contemporaries in order to distinguish them from their own
sensible approaches. This is certainly not new in arche
ology, but it seems to be more conspicuous now than it has
been in the past.


19
The first approach, discernible in most of Stanley
South's work, is referred to as the "pattern recognition"
orientation. It is based on the quantification and com
parison of artifact types, groups, and classes among and
between historic sites to define inter- and intrasite
relationships of artifacts (i.e. "patterns") that are thought
to have temporal, functional and/or behavioral significance
(South 1977a, 1978). Implicitly South's methodology seems to
stem from an anthropological perspective, but the guiding
paradigm upon which it is based has never been clearly
stated. The other approach has been labelled "historical-
istic" by Schuyler (1978:1), or "particularistic" by South
(1977a:8). Whatever the name might be, it refers to a
philosophical approach that is usually associated with
methodologies that are quite distinct from that employed by
South and his adherents. South has also identified an
offshoot of the particularistic school that seems to be
proanthropology as well as interested in explanation: the
"world viewers" (South 1979). Since the present author views
South's orietation to be in part a reaction against the
initial particularistic approach, it is this earlier
theoretical orientation that will be examined first. As part
of my own small contri-bution to the archeological literature
devoted to the labelling of the theoretical approaches of
other archeologists, the two versions of the particularistic
school have been identified in this study as the "old" and
"new" particularism.


20
Old Particularism
Much of the early work in historical archeology centered
on elite-occupant sites that were usually impressively large
and ornate, historically famous or infamous (often as a
result of bellicose events occurring there), or possessing
some other "historically interesting" quality such as being
the oldest or only example of a style of architecture
(Fairbanks 1977). Not coincidentally, these types of sites
were attractive to the historically-oriented and -trained
researchers in the field, as well as to the agencies willing
to fund historic site research. The combination of a narrow
historicalist theoretical postition among even the anthropo
logically trained archeologists, along with the social and
economic context in which they worked, resulted in an
emphasis on a preservation-restoration approach which,
according to Schuyler (1978:1), "reduced archeology to a
supplemental technique in the service of architecture, narrow
specific historical questions, and the National Park
Service." Speaking as the herald for "pattern recognition,"
South characterizes particularistic archeology as emphasizing
...individualistic analysis and synthesis.
The paradigm (idea set) is idiographic (intensive
study of an individual case) and particularistic
(often characterized by an antinomothetic stance
against the search for general laws)...((particular
istic archeologists)) are often implicitly scientific...
while at the same time disdaining the use of the
hypothetical-deductive method.... The particularistic
approach has been accompanied by an antiscientific,
antianthropology phenomenon. (South 1977a:8)
For reasons discussed below, this orientation will be refer
red to as "Old Particularism."


21
Inherent in this approach, as both South and Schuyler
point out, is an antipathy toward processual goals in
archeology and a rejection of anthropology as it is applied
to the study of historical archeology. The most prominent
proponents of this view have been Ivor Noel Hume (1969a) and
Ian Walker (1967, 1974), both British archeologists with
training in history and the humanities, and Clyde Dollar
(1968), a historian by training. Cleland and Fitting
(1968:124-126) and Schuyler (1978:201) believe that these
authors share a narrow view of what constitutes a science,
and by extension archeology, which certainly is not shared by
all historians or archeologists. Walker's assertion that
"...historical archeology by definition relies on historical
interpretation for explanation" (1974:168) is even less
likely to be supported by historical archeologists.
Anthropological questions, whether or not they dovetail with
the research concerns of historians, will continue to be of
central importance to many historic site researchers. Yet,
as Harrington has recently observed (1979:75-76), a great
many site reportsparticularly contract reports--are devoid
of any hint of historical or anthropological interpretation.
Perhaps as a consequence of the early emphasis on site-
specific reconstruction and restoration, a number of archeo
logists avoid asking any but the most facile questions about
their data, and as a consequence end up producing intensive
intrasite artifact-architecture studies which at best are
descriptive catalogs and at worst are excercises in


22
psuedoscience (South 1977a:326). Meanwhile, historians
conspicuously ignore the field of historical archeology
altogether (Harrington 1955; Schuyler 1977; Wilderson 1975),
despite the fact that the research concerns of some
historians and archeologists are becoming indistinguishable
(Bloch 1968; Carson 1978; White 1969).
At the risk of stating the obvious, systematic artifact
studies and architectural reconstructions have always been
and will continue to be important components of historical
archeology. Without the further refinement of our method
ological tools that is afforded bv careful artifact studies,
not to mention the funding support found in reconstruction
oriented projects, advances in historic site research would
not be possible. While recognizing its achievements and
contributions, however, we should also realize that the
limited scope and aims of particularistic archeology preclude
it from achieving truly anthropological goals.
This approach has been labelled as "Old Particularism"
not only because it represents the initial theoretical
orientation embraced by early historical archeologists, but
also in order to differentiate it from the "world view"
orientation that is particularistic but stems from an anthro
pological framework. This latter approach will be referred
to as the "New Particularism."
New Particularism
The "world view" orientation in historical archeology is
a relatively recent phenomenon, and if the papers presented


23
at the 1980 meetings of the Society for Historical Archeology
in Albuquerque, New Mexico, are any indication, it is a
popular one as well. The best known work in this area has
been that of James Deetz (1974, 1977) and Henry Glassie
(1968, 1975). Both of these researchers take an approach to
the study of material culture that emphasizes structural
analysis and mentalistic interpretation of data. In his book
In Small Things Forgotten Deetz is concerned with the
systematic relationships of various aspects of material
culture in the 17th through the 18th centuries in New England
(1977). He traces the evolution of the form and function of
ceramics, architecture, mortuary art, eating utensils,
butchering practices, and furniture, among other things, and
identifies major shifts in their use in England and the
American Colonies. He attributes the presence of the
cultural traditions and horizons that he defines to ideolo
gical forces, particularly a shift from a "medieval" to a
"Georgian world view" that ultimately resulted from the
intellectual ferment of the Renaissance. This cognitive
model of material culture stems from Deetz's long-term
interest in mentalistic processes and their potential for
investigation by archeologists. For instance, the goal of
discovering "mental templates" of the people who made and
used artifacts was emphasized in his 1967 book, Invitation to
Archeology. Since that time Deetz apparently has recognized
the futility of this approach in prehistoric archeology and
has concentrated on adapting it to the field of historical


24
archeology, with its greatly expanded data base. In. Small
Things Forgotten is a convincing demonstration of the
potential that the cognitive approach has for constructing
models of cultural change. It is explicitly anthropological
in outlook, it synthesizes and interprets written historical
and archeological data, and it incorporates sound
methodological principles from such sources as Willey and
Phillips (1958) and Binford (1962a) in the interpretation of
the data.
Similarly, Glassie has applied a structural approach to
the study of architecture in a temporally and spatially
circumscribed area in Virginia (1975). His imaginative and
exhaustive analysis of vernacular architectural forms was
designed to explain diachronic change and continuity in folk
housing as a function of the unconscious mental structures of
the people that built the houses. According to Glassie,
studying artifacts is the best way to discover how the minds
of people operated over long periods of time; conversely, he
thinks that this is an unnecessarily complicated and hence
futile way for discovering the principles governing human
behavior ( 1975 s vii). It is precisely this attitude that
makes the world view approach descriptive rather than
explanatory in nature. Discovering how minds operated,
reconstructing mind sets, and elucidating aspects of a
Georgian world view does not explain the behavior resulting
from the mental structures, mind sets, and world views. This
concern with description and reconstruction is in my view the


25
principal element connecting the old and new particularism.
Whereas the old particularism was largely atheoretical and
rejected anthropological questions as a basis for doing
historical archeology, the new version recognizes the
essential importance of theory in archeology, and it is to
anthropology that many of its practitioners turn for their
theoretical constructs. Both approaches attempt to
reconstruct something from the archeological and documentary
data. In the former, it is the site that is reconstructed,
while in the latter, it is the world view which created the
site that is sought. The underlying factors that might
account for the content, form, and function of the site (or
the mind set) are not proposed or investigated. It is this
failure to go beyond description that links both approaches
to a particularistic paradigm.
The most vocal critic of the new particularism has been
Stanley South. He is disturbed by the explanatory short
comings that are associated with mind-set reconstructions and
by the practical problems that must be faced in recon
structing world views from artifacts:
If cognitive models or world views are the goal
of the archeological research then a good way to
begin would be to study the modal personality of
living people and abstract their "world view" and
define their "mind set." Theoretically then, we
should be able to read in the different litera
ture highly sophisticated models based on ethno
graphic data for the Irish world view, the Black
world view, the Scottish mind set...on and on ad
infinitem. However, I see no mass of predictable
ethnographic or ethno-archeological literature on
such world views...To suggest that such models can
be abstracted from the archeological data base when
such has yet to be demonstrated from living human


26
populations, appears to me to be expecting a little
((too)) much from the material data base of archeology...
(South 1979:2)
Souths criticisms seem to be relevant. If well trained
ethnographers, who are supposedly adept at recognizing emic
and etic distinctions, cannot discern the world views of
those they study, it would appear highly unlikely that
archeologists would be able to successfully glean mind sets
from studying the artifacts of extinct cultures.
South views the present popularity of the cognitive
approach with dismay since it distracts many archeologists
from the goal of understanding cultural process. However,
the appeal of the new particularism is not difficult to
understand. In addition to the attractive theoretical and
methodological characteristics that have already been
discussed, there are other factors involved. Both Deetz and
Glassie have presented eloquent and compelling reasons for
doing archeology that seem to have struck a responsive chord
in many of us. Echoing Ascher (1974), both strongly reject
the elite-only emphasis of the Old Particularism in favor of
what Charles Fairbanks has called the "archeology of the
proletariat" (1978). Not only does this shift from the elite
sites to the sites of the "common people" tremendously
increase the number of sites to be dug, it also provides
moral imperatives for digging them up. When Henry Glassie
tells us that the written record is "...superficial and
elitist--a tale of viciousness, a myth for the contemporary
power structure," it is clearly the duty of archeologists,


27
particularly cognitive archeologists, to provide a humanistic
counterpoint to the biased documentary data base (1977:29).
In a world of shrinking research dollars and increasing
skepticism toward the value of all social research, Glassie
and Deetz have given historical archeologists an almost holy
mission to accomplish and at the same time provided a
forceful arguement against critics of the social sciences.
Small wonder that the New Particularism is attractive to so
many archeologists.
Pattern Recognition
... .
Souths approach, detailed in Method and Theory in
Historical Archeology (1977a) and operationalized in
different ways by a number of authors in Research Strategies
in Historical Archeology (South 1977c), is based on
quantitative analysis of artifacts, especially the derivation
of frequency variations of artifact types, groups, and
classes. Once this is accomplished, patterns can be
recognized for intrasite, intersite, and temporal contexts.
These patterns of artifact association (i.e., regular
frequency variations in artifact types-classes-groups) are
believed to have resulted from the patterned behavior of the
site occupants. The basic regularity of the replicated
patterns is then used as a reference by which variability in
the archeological record can be measured. Using this method,
South has defined a number of distinct patterns at British
colonial sites. These include the Brunswick Pattern of
Refuse Disposal, which measures the spatial distribution of


28
artifact classes and groups by comparing frequency
distributions around dwellings; the Carolina and Frontier
patterns, which are believed to monitor site function through
comparison of the frequency relationships between artifact
groups; and the Kitchen Pattern, which also monitors site
function as indicated through comparison of artifact classes
within the Kitchen artifact group (South 1977a, 1978). Using
artifact assemblages from several domestic, military, and
craft-oriented British colonial sites, the range of
variability that can be expected for the frequency
percentages of the artifact classes and groups are presented,
along with the hypothesized function of each site. By
establishing the normal variation that can be expected for
each type of site, South hopes eventually to be able to
determine the function of any British colonial site,
including those for which no documentary information is
available. The uniqueness of South's method lies in the
insistence on complete quantification of artifact assemblages
and a classification scheme that allows direct intersite
comparisons to be made. By contrast Deetz's methods seem
highly impressionistic (Schuyler 1977:113).
In the opinion of the present author, South's method is
believed to possess the potential to revolutionize the field
of historical archeology, similar to the way in which Ameri
can prehistoric archeology was affected in the 1960s by Lewis
Binford. South works with historic site data in a singular
and original way. In so doing he gives primacy to the


29
archeological rather than the documentary record, and by
necessity this results in anthropological rather than narrow
historical interpretations. But, as is common with any
revolutionary paradigm, there are problems associated with
Souths approach that must be resolved before it will gain
overwhelming acceptance. The most serious one is that South
has not provided a convincing explanation as to why the
patterns that are defined occur. This lack of an explanatory
component is probably why Schuyler refers to pattern
recognition as "a form of structural-functionalism
(1980:200). Like Lvi-Strauss, Glassie, and Deetz, South has
done an exemplary job of description without accounting for
the underlying causes of the phenomena described. Until this
drawback is overcome, the revolutionary potential of Souths
methodology cannot be realized.
On a technical level, there are also questions
concerning the adequacy of the samples used by South in
delineating artifact patterns. Since most of his excavations
were oriented toward locating architectural features in order
to meet the requirements of the sponsoring agencies involved
in each project, almost all of his artifact samples were
recovered inside or directly adjacent to structural remains.
In view of the reliance placed by South on Michael B.
Schiffer's behavioral archeology" concepts (Schiffer 1972,
1976, 1977), it is surprising that ruin-associated artifacts
are assumed to be representative of the entire site,
especially considering Fairbanks' (1977) and Souths own


30
(1977a) observations concerning differential refuse disposal
practices at colonial sites. This assumption may be valid,
but this certainly needs to be demonstrated before it is
accepted. If it is not valid, then neither are the patterns.
Other less serious criticisms of Souths pattern recognition
are mentioned in reviews of Method and Theory in Historical
Archeology (Chance 1977; Honerkamp 1977b).
Eclectic Approach
Another approach used by historical archeologists with
distressing tenacity is to avoid thinking about theory at all
and simply excavate sites as carefully as possible. The
adherents of this approach argue that commitment to specific
research strategies will invariably result in the collection
of limited types and amounts of data which have relevance
only to the specific research strategies employed. This
position, which is in itself a research strategy with its own
set of unspecified data limitations, is common in
anthropology and archeology and has been referred to by
Harris as eclecticism" ( 1 979 : x, 287-3 1 4 ) Archeologists
employing this supposedly "open-minded" approach are really
only excavation technicians, and their meticulous site
reports usually lack interpretation as well as usefulness to
other archeologists or historians. This in itself
illustrates the truthfulness of Glassies observation that
"the scholar who believes that he works without theory, works
with bad theory" (1977:9).


31
Theoretical-Methodological Position
The manner in which archeological research is conducted
relates directly to the theoretical-methodological position
that the archeologist holds, including the archeologist who
rejects theory (Cleland and Fitting 1968; Glassie 1977;
Watson et aJL. 1971). Although the approaches outlined above
are by no means exhaustive of those held by historical
archeologists, they are thought to be representative of a
majority of the archeologists actively engaged in historic
site research. My own orientation is based on the foregoing
consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of each
approach, especially as they can be applied to the study of
the archeological record at Fort Frederica. This study
applies the structural-functionalist method to interpretation
of data within a positivist, materialist theoretical
framework. Neither an in-depth description of the material
remains recovered at Frederica, nor a historical-
archeological chronicle, nor an interpretation of the world
view of the sites occupants will be attempted, for reasons
discussed above. At the same time, the author is not unaware
of the needs of the sponsor concerning traditional site
interpretation goals. Accordingly, the material remains used
to derive archeological evidence of past activities and
behavior are described in more detail than is customary in
pattern recognition studies, and reconstructed or complete
artifacts are identified and illustrated. In this sense, the
present study is particularistic. No attempt will be made to


32
describe a nontestable mind set at Frederica because, even if
this could be accomplished, it would not explain the
archeological record. However, the level of analysis
reported in this paper should be sufficiently detailed to
allow a cognitive study to be made by some future New
Particularist. Although the pattern recognition approach is
seen to be similarly incomplete without reference to the
underlying causal factors that could account for the
patterns, it is felt to be a necessary methodological step in
attempting a coherent explanation of the British colonial
cultural system by allowing intersite comparisons of data to
be made.
Probably the best illustration of the potential that the
application of the pattern recognition method has in
historical archeology is found in Kenneth Lewis' study of the
frontier model in archeology (1976, 1977). Lewis
demonstrates the usefulness of South's method when it is
combined with processual archeology. He first outlines the
general characteristics of a frontier model on the basis of
past geographical studies. He then makes several predictive
statements (hypotheses) concerning the process of frontier
change and tests these against the data recovered from
eighteenth century Camden, a frontier community in South
Carolina. From this he is able to draw several conclusions
concerning the adaptations of colonizing societies to
frontier conditions. The utility of this approach for the
study of the frontier town of Frederica is obvious.


33
In summary, the theoretical position taken here is one
that derives in part from the pattern recognition approach of
Stanley South. Methodologically, the "structural-functional
orientation with its reliance on artifact quantification will
be followed, but the shortcomings of this approach are
recognized. In relation to the study of archeological
evidence, a positivistic stance is taken which rejects the
ideational basis of the world view approach in favor of a
materialist explanation of culture (Harris 1977, 1979). The
systematic nature of the archeological record is assumed, as
is the ability of the archeologist to discern, through the
formulation and testing of appropriate research hypotheses,
the systematic cultural and natural processes that account
for the archeological record. Before this is attempted,
however, the data base must be defined. The data base at
Frederica is believed to reflect a British colonizing
adaptation to specific frontier conditions. The goal of the
present study will be to identify and explain components of
this frontier adaptation. The following chapters are devoted
to the definition of the historical-archeological data base.


CHAPTER III
RESEARCH DESIGN
Any study of the structure, function, and nature of the
frontier process must necessarily be regional in scope (Lewis
1976:157). The frontier system at Frederica will be investi
gated through the use of documentary information pertaining
to the region and town during the 18th century, and through
combined documentary and archeological data from the three
sites excavated: the Hawkins-Davison Site (Cate 1956; Deagan
1972; Fairbanks 1956), the Hird Site (Honerkamp 1975, 1977a),
and the Dobree Site. As this last site is reported here for
the first time, it will be examined in more detail than
either of the other two.
Concepts and Definitions
Since the frontier phenomenon is identified as the focus
of investigation, it must necessarily be delimited. Using
the work of geographers such as Casagrande et al. (1964),
Kristof ( 1959), Weigert et al. ( 1957), and Hudson ( 1969),
Lewis defines the frontier as a region in which the dispersal
of settlement into a new territory takes place. It also
includes the zone separating settled and unsettled areas of a
territory which lies within effective control of the state
(Lewis 1977:145). The frontier appears with the first
permanent settlement and ceases to exist with the leveling
34


35
off of settlement growth and the stabilization of settlement
patterning. The frontier is directly dependent on the trade
and communications network that is established with the
already settled origin area. Frontier settlements
...reflect distribution of personnel and materials
in the most efficient way to permit the integra
tion of activities in a sparsely settled area.
The limits of the exchange network at any given
time effectively mark the boundaries of the area
of colonization. (Lewis 1977:154)
The five conditions characterizing the frontier model are:
1) prolonged contact/continuity maintained between the
colonists and the parent society;
2) loss of complexity due to attenuation of networks
with the homeland;
3) settlement pattern more geographically dispersed
than the homeland unless temporarily impeded by
restrictive conditions;
4) dispersed frontier towns serving as the nucleus for
social/political/econoraic/religious activities and
as a terminus for the transportation network link
ing the area of colonization with the homeland; and
5) temporal and spatial change, i.e., the pattern of
temporal growth is replicated spatially, with set
tlements closest to the moving frontier represent
ing the earliest stages of frontier development. As
the frontier expands, early settlements experience
marked changes in population density and settlement
pattern, and eventually become integrated at the
national level.
As with Lewis' study, two broad questions concerning the
cultural and temporal characteristics for the three sites at
Frederica will be investigated. Once these parameters are
established, it will be possible to test hypotheses
concerning the form and spatial extent of the occupations at
Frederica, the functions of the sites in question, the
distribution of archeological materials having behavioral


36
significance (especially with reference to Souths recent
work), and resource utilization in an 18th century frontier
environment. Unlike Lewis' study, which was based on a large
stratified unaligned random sample from the entire town of
Camden, the sample from Frederica consists of three
intensively excavated sites. Since only a small proportion
of the total archeological variability at Frederica has been
sampled, inferences concerning the frontier process as an
intersite phenomenon must be made with caution. A brief
summary of the research questions addressed in this study is
given below. These questions will be presented in greater
detail in Chapter VII.
The cultural-ethnic affiliation of the sites can be
determined through reference to documentary and archeological
evidence. As will be seen in the next chapter, documentary
information indicates that the cultural affiliation of
Frederica as a whole, and the three sites in particular, was
primarily British. This assumption is tested in Chapter VII
with respect to the ceramic assemblages at each site.
Briefly stated, the economic ties between Frederica and
Britain, and by extension the cultural affiliation of the
town, should be reflected in the ceramic artifacts associated
with most sites in the town. The ceramic assemblages from
each site should therefore be characterized by (1) a
predominance of ceramics manufactured in Britain, (2) a
variety of British ceramic types that mirrors the diversity
of types found at other British sites, and (3) based on


37
findings from other British colonial sites, the occurence of
a predictable amount of re-exported foreign-made ceramic
types such as Oriental porcelain and Westerwald stoneware.
The temporal period of the town occupation is
established in Chapter IV as extending from 1736 to circa
1750 for most sites in the town. However, the chronological
position of the Hird, Hawkins-Davison, and Dobree sites
cannot be determined satisfactorily from the documentary
evidence alone. Temporally sensitive artifacts--ceramics and
white clay pipes--are used to estimate the occupation dates
for the sites. A lack of congruence between the mean
occupation dates derived from the documentary, ceramic, and
pipestem materials is used to interpret the site occupation
sequences as well as the behavioral characteristics of the
occupants.
Site form and function are investigated with reference
to the frontier model. Settlement patterning at the town
level is expected to reflect specific demographic, political,
and economic factors that were present in the South Carolina
and Georgia frontier areas. This should be evinced by
distinctive settlement patterns for Camden and Frederica.
For instance, at Camden a combination of abundant land, low
population density, and the absence of a need for concerted
defense against a state-level power would result in a more
dispersed and uneven town structure than at Frederica. Both
documentary and archeological data from each town are used to
contrast the settlement patterns. Adaptive pressures


38
affecting the town structure should also be reflected in the
structure of the town's components, which in the case of
Frederica would be the freeholder lots. Some implications of
this hypothesis are (1) there should be evidence of cluster
ing of features within the lots (depending on the intensity
of occupation at each site), (2) evidence indicating attempts
at maximizing the trash disposal function of certain areas of
the lot through reuse of subsurface features should be
present, (3) efficient use of subsurface features for the
disposal of faunal remains possessing objectionable odors
should be seen at the sites, and (4) there should be evidence
of an emphasis on demarcation of lot boundaries.
The question of site function is investigated by compar
isons of domestic and nondomestic activity by-products at
each site. Quantification of the artifact assemblages in
terms of South's (1977a:92-102) type-ware-class-group
classification is carried out in order to define site
function as it is reflected by the empirical artifact
profiles associated with each site (see Chapter V). Fred
erica, as a planned frontier community, should show archeo
logical evidence of domestic activities as well as craft,
marketing, small-scale manufacturing, and tavern socializing
activities. Due to the emphasis placed on crafts and trades
by the organizers and sponsors of the colonization effort at
Frederica, nondomestic activities should be more in evidence
at Frederica than at Camden. Besides the comparison of
quantitative artifact profiles, it is also possible to use


39
the results of qualitative or presence-absence analysis to
determine site function. This is done for the artifact
assemblages from all three sites at Frederica, with
particular attention given to the by-products of a small-
scale manufacturing operation (a forge) that were recovered
from the Dobree Site.
The nearly complete excavation of the Dobree Site has
resulted in a data base that is well suited for testing
hypotheses concerning British colonial refuse disposal
behavior. South has defined a pattern of artifact
distributions at British colonial sites which he has
designated as the Brunswick Pattern of Refuse Disposal. This
pattern monitors secondary and primary deposition of refuse
as it occurs in and around colonial structures (South
1977a:48). However, portions of the sites used by South to
derive the Brunswick Pattern constitute a highly limited
sample in that they are all oriented around structural
foundations and their directly adjacent areas. Virtually no
testing of peripheral site areas is evident in South's work
(1977a:50-76). At the Dobree Site graphic representation of
the frequency distributions of several artifact classes and
groups is used to test the applicability of the Brunswick
Pattern at Frederica.
Finally, a subsistence model based on traditional
English foodways is defined in Chapter VII and compared with
the zooarcheological evidence from Frederica. A traditional
pattern of meat consumption in early Georgia that mirrors the


40
European pattern is expected to contrast sharply with a
pattern of resource utilization that reflects adaptive
responses to frontier conditions.
Of central importance in testing the hypotheses
mentioned above is the definition of the temporal and spatial
aspects of the particular sites investigated, as well as the
general historical context of the town and region. This is
undertaken in the following chapter through the combined use
of documentary and archeological resources.


CHAPTER IV
DOCUMENTARY BACKGROUND
In this chapter the historical context of Frederica as a
frontier settlement, and of the Hawkins-Davison, Hird, and
Dobree sites as components of such a settlement, will be
developed. The concern here will be with clarifying some of
the characteristics of the frontier adaptation in the region
and relating them to Frederica and the three sites
investigated. On a more specific level, an attempt will be
made to establish temporal and spatial control for the town
and sites. For regional and local background information of
a more general nature, any of the numerous publications
dealing with Georgia and Frederica history and archeology
should be consulted (Cate 1943, 1956; Coleman 1976; Davis
1976; Fairbanks 1956; Honerkamp 1975, 1977a; Ivers 1974;
Manucy 1962; Reese 1963, 1969; Saye 1943).
Historical Context: Georgia
Georgia was established in 1733 as the last British
proprietary colony in America and as the last to be founded
by settlers coming directly from Europe. By that time South
Carolina had developed sufficiently in economic importance
through its plantation exports and British-Indian trade that
expansion west and south from the settled coastal areas was
officially recognized as necessary for the consolidation and
41


42
security of the planting and trading enterprises (Brown
1963:2; Coleman 1972:169-170). In 1730 the royal Govenor of
South Carolina submitted a detailed plan for expanding the
Carolina frontier which was enthusiastically endorsed by the
Board of Trade. The Board added the stipulation that two
settlements be located on the Altamaha River on land that had
long been claimed by both Britain and Spain. By combining an
economic-military expansionist policy with a philanthropic
movement in England aimed at making productive colonists of
the mother countrys many poor and insolvent subjects, the
founding of Georgia seemingly accomplished three objectives
at once. First, it protected the economically valuable
Carolina colony by providing a military buffer against
Spanish or French incursions and by reducing the threat of
slave rebellions on the Carolina plantations. Second, it
expanded the frontier trade and plantation networks that were
so essential to the mercantilistic economy envisioned for the
colonies by the Board of Trade. Third, it helped relieve the
mother country of a substantial domestic burden, the
unemployed and poor of London and other cities (Reese 1963:8-
9; Coleman 1976:9-13). Thus it was the unfortunate poor,
many of whom were supported by the Trust charity, who
accompanied James Oglethorpe to the new colony in 1733.
The frontier town of Savannah, located near the mouth of
the Savannah River, became the nexus of social, political,
and economic life in early Georgia. The settlement was
positioned on a major river linking the piedmont with the


43
coast. Within a few years after its founding, a number of
small military and domestic settlements extending along the
Savannah River and southern coast were established. The main
military settlement was Fort Frederica while the most
important trading town was Augusta. Savannah soon became the
center of a land and water transportation network that
developed into the hinterland, although until the 1760s
Charleston remained the principal entrepot from which English
merchandise was transshipped to Georgia (Davis 1976:52-54).
Initially the system of land distribution in Georgia was
explicitly designed to ensure a dispersed settlement pattern.
In the interests of military security, a man-land ratio of
one male to every fifty acres was established for land
grants. "Gentlemen were allowed up to 500 acres on the
condition that they bring 10 male servants to the colony at
their own expense. Once land was granted, its inheritance
and sale were severely restricted. Large individual
landholdings were prohibited under this arrangement in the
belief that the colony would instead be populated by numerous
small-plot farmers who would make up a strong standing
militia; slaves were prohibited for the same reasons. As
Reese (1963), Coleman (1976), and others have emphasized,
this slave-free agrarian system of land division discouraged
the establishment of productive plantations with their high
capital and labor investments. The flexibility associated
with the private, large scale, economically oriented
companies that had successfully established colonial


44
settlements elsewhere in America was precluded under
Georgias philanthropic charter. Until the land and labor
restrictions were removed by the royal administration in
1750, Georgia's frontier settlements remained unstable in
terms of population, economy, and settlement patterning.
Once a reliable economy based on rice, indigo, and marine
stores became established, frontier towns such as Savannah
began to stabilize and take on increasingly complex
communication, transportation, and commercial functions. By
1773, 25 ocean-going vessels were owned by Georgians (Wright
1873:175) and many were offloading at Savannah, which had
largely replaced Charleston as the major sea port linking the
colony with Britain.
From the documentary information reviewed thus far, it
can be seen that the conditions proposed by Lewis as being
necessary for the development of a frontier are fully
satisfied (1977:160-164). Briefly stated, these are:
1) Georgia, located on the periphery of a prev
iously settled area, was physically occupied
by an intrusive colonizing society (Great Britain).
2) The intrusive European society possessed a highly
developed state level of organization. The
presence of a concomitant legitimizing force
necessary to maintain the logistical support of the
colonization effort is also apparent. Frederica,
as a fortified frontier settlement and as the staging
point for a major military campaign against Spain in
1740, exemplifies this state level legitimization of
force (Ivers 1974) .
3) In the second quarter of the 18th century, external
sociocultural barriers to expansion consisted only
of a competing state level society in St. Augustine,
Florida. Decimated by internecine warfare, slave
raids, and European diseases, the coastal Guale
Indians had been removed to Spanish missions in


45
Florida by 1686. By the 1730s only sporadic con
tact with remnant inland Creek groups occured in
the Frederica area (Gannon 1965; Ivers 1974).
These groups posed little if any competition for
resources.
4) Georgia was amenable to subsistence and commercial
exploitation. This was conclusively demonstrated
with the removal of land and labor restrictions by
the royal administration. Natural barriers pre
venting access to different parts of the frontier
were absent, as indicated by the maintenance of
trade and communication routes during the politi
cally and economically unstable proprietary period.
Historical Context: Frederica
Shortly after Savannah was established, a string of
military outposts was built along the coast as far south as
Fort George Island, Florida. The center of this defensive
network was the fortified settlement of Frederica. Founded
in 1736, the town originally was occupied by 40 civilian
families, but by 1738 a military regiment was permanently
stationed there. Eighty-four house lots were laid out within
the walls of the town and a corresponding number of 50-acre
farming plots were located in the surrounding countryside;
every freeholder received one of each. The town was divided
into a North and South Ward by the main east-west street
(Broad Street) extending from the town entrance to the fort
(Figure 1-3 and Figure 1-4). Besides the 600-man Regiment,
Frederica's inhabitants included various craftsmen and
skilled workers, but as was true of the rest of Georgia's
population at the time, farmers, husbandmen, and laborers
were in short supply (Coleman 1976:20-22; Coulter and Save
1949).


46
The military orientation of the town is clearly
discernible in the settlement structure. Unlike Camden,
which was an unplanned frontier town founded for and
supported by economic considerations, Frederica was designed
as a compact, defensible settlement containing a high density
population capable of bearing arms. The tightly regulated
settlement pattern, based on military necessity, accounts for
the circumscribed layout of the town as compared to Camden.
Frederica's row pattern of lots more closely resembles the
contiguous arrangement of structures in an English market
town than the uneven dispersal of structures at Camden (Lewis
1977:179).
The town's main economic activities are of importance in
establishing some of the major characteristics of the
frontier adaptation. This topic has been of interest to
historians as well as archeologists at Frederica. Although
the settlers were expected to become self-sufficient through
subsistence farming and by practicing their crafts and
trades, their initial material needs were supplied by the
Trust. Upon arriving at Frederica the head of each household
was supplied with a year's provision of food, clothing,
tools, and kitchenware. By 1738, when the charity period was
to end, most of the settlers were unable to support
themselves and had to depend on weekly "advances" of food
(Manucy 1962:54,100). This continued for a number of years,
for only sporadic success at farming was ever achieved by


47
Fredericas inhabitants and craft activities were apparently
not frequently practiced (see discussion below).
The Trustees gave specific instructions concerning the
construction of dwellings, which were to be built in the
Georgian style and to measure at least 16 by 20 feet (Candler
1904-37:XXXIV,288). At Frederica the documentary and
archeological evidence gives a fairly clear picture of the
types of houses built by the colonists. A contemporary
visitor to the town mentioned "...some houses built entirely
of Brick, some of Brick and Wood, some few of Tappy-Work, but
most of the meaner sort of Wood only" (Jones 1878:122).
Archeological excavations support this description. Most of
the inhabitants built "common freeholder" houses which Manucy
describes as timber framed clapboard huts (1960:20).
Architectural variability as a function of socioeconomic
status seems to be evident at Frederica. Timber frame
structures were the most economical and easiest to build, and
by far made up the majority of residences. Tabby and brick
houses, which were more secure but entailed much higher costs
in labor and materials than their wooden counterparts, were
selected by the wealthier colonists (Manucy 1960:20-23).
There is also some indication of a correlation between lot
location and type of house, with the brick and tabby examples
more commonly located near the fort or facing Broad Street.
Archeological evidence of wooden houses has yet to be
recorded and remains a high research priority.


48
Most authors emphasize the overall importance of the
Regiment in the town economy. The civilian sector quickly
became oriented toward and dependent on the military payroll,
either by providing goods or services through the full time
practice of crafts and trades, or by engaging in the tavern
trade and practicing crafts on a part time basis, if at all.
This "artificial prosperity," as Davis calls it (1976:61), is
indicated by contemporary descriptions of the civilians
engaged in "selling to the Camp" and "keeping publick Houses"
(Reese 1973:8,74). Except for early attempts by a small
minority of the towns more industrious residents, farming
was never an important activity on either a subsistence or
cash crop level. A 1745 letter from John Terry to the
Trustees of the colony is informative concerning the role of
farming and other occupations in the community at that time.
In his letter he complains about the
...badness of the Land in Regard to the Expces.
attending the Clearing of it So, that the few &
very few inhabitants that are here do Not go on
planting And Neither Are they able to go Upon
Such an Expensive Undertakins, All they Do is to
build houses on their town Lott, wch. turns to a
very good Accot. to them By Letting or Selling of
them to the officers, And hiring of them for Stores
to Merchts. Believe me My Lords & Gentlemen, these
Are the Improuvemts. Made or makg.
(Candler 1915:401-402)
This letter echoes the sentiments expressed five years
earlier by George Whitfield when he remarked that "Frederica
is wholly kept up by the Soldiery & that too I fear by their
Intemperance. Very few as I could hear of intended planting
any Corn..." (Phillips 1947:104). Clearly the economic


49
endeavors of Fredericas inhabitants were limited to a narrow
range of activities that focussed on servicing and supplying
the regiment. Thus a loss of complexity resulting not only
from attenuation of networks with the homeland but also from
a highly restricted economy is indicated by the documentary
data.
General Temporal-Demographic Parameters
Through numerous documentary references a terminus post
quern of February 1736 has been established for the colonial
occupation at Frederica. Determination of an end date for
the settlement is more difficult due to the erratic
fluctuations in population that characterized Fredericas
history. Most authors emphasize a severe reduction in the
domestic population as a result of and immediately following
the departure of the Regiment in 1749 (Cate 1956:204; Jones
1878:124-125; Reese 1969:69-71). Indirect evidence of the
town's dissolution is seen by Reese in the closing of the
town storehouse in 1751 due to a lack of customers (1969:70).
In 1758 a fire ...wasted nearly all of the town which time
had spared, presumably because no one was around to put it
out (Stevens 1847:446). Contemporary accounts, including one
by Royal Governor John Reynolds in 1755, give the impression
of a town "in Ruins, and sporadic attempts to revive
Frederica for military or economic purposes during the last
half of the 18th century were unsuccessful (Jones 1878:126-
136). Small military detachments were stationed there
through the American Revolution and half-hearted efforts at


50
repairing the military structures were occasionally made.
William Bartram, viewing Frederica in 1774, mentioned that
what had once been "a very considerable Town" was "now almost
in ruins" (Bartram 1943:145), while in 1839 Fanny Kemble
portrayed the town as a collection of rose-covered ruins with
only two standing houses (1961:131)* Small numbers of
families continued to live and farm in the Frederica area
into the middle of the twentieth century (Cate 1926:37,
1956:204; Lovell 1932:272-273).
The foregoing evidence indicates that the bulk of
Frederica's population was absent by 1750, scarcely 15 years
after its establishment. However, a review of other
documents suggests that the occupation span of many of the
nonmilitary residents was considerably less than 15 years.
The list of Georgia settlers compiled by the Earl of Egmont,
first President of the Trustees for Establishing the Colony
of Georgia in America, reveals that, of the 63 colonial
households or individuals who were assigned lots at
Frederica, 24 were either "Dead, Quitted, or Run Away" after
five years in the colony; for many, only two years of
frontier life was enough (Coulter and Saye 1949). This
figure is derived from an extremely limited sample, i.e.,
only those settlers for whom Egmont had some information, and
would undoubtedly be higher if a systematic study were made
of all of Frederica's documented inhabitants. Underscoring
the findings from Egmont's List are the frequent complaints
and sometimes dismal descriptions of frontier life that were


51
voiced by many of Georgia's inhabitants (see Candler 1904
37:1,256-345, XXII,17, XX,183-184; Reese 1973:47,106,294-
295,297) .
The present author feels there is a need for increased
internal criticism of secondary documentary references
dealing with this and other aspects of Frederica's past.
Frederica is commonly characterized as a thriving community
of artisans and craftsmen that prospered by serving the
Regiment until 1749 (Cate 1956:204; Coleman 1976:141; Reese
1969:47). The town population supposedly reached its peak of
over 1000 soldiers and civilians in the early 1740s, a figure
that should be considered controversial in view of highly
contradictory contemporary estimates (Candler 1904-
37:VIII,488, XXIV,140-141; Reese 1973:111). Adverse
descriptions of Frederica's conditions cannot simply be
dismissed as the machinations of "Clamorous Malcontents." At
the same time that Frederica was said to be in its economic
heyday, the rest of Georgia was apparently experiencing hard
times, as summarized by Coleman:
From 1737 through 1747 there was decline in the
colony. This period saw the closing of the
Trustees store ((in Savannah)), the objections
of the malcontents, and the Spanish War. Immi
gration slowed, people left, and population
actually declined. Charitable contributions to
the Trustees declined to almost nothing, and
the colony was kept going only by Parlimentary
grants totaling some L88,000 during the decade.
The year 1740 was undoubtedly the low point
economically in the colony's history. It was
during this decade that the inadequacy of many
of the charity colonists for a frontier area
became clear. (Coleman 1976:142)
\


52
What seems to be generally ignored or underestimated in
historical studies of Frederica is that the settlement was
characterized by an extremely high turnover rate for the
inhabitants. The emphasis that some historians have given to
the number and diversity of crafts and skills represented at
Frederica is the result of a synchronic interpretation of a
diachronic phenomenon of population replacement. In other
words, the historical interpretation was derived from a
listing of all craft specialists over a span of time, rather
than from those present at any one time. Reeses contention
that a list of the names of Frederica's settlers "could be
extended to include practically every trade that a pioneer,
frontier community needed" may be correct (1969:47), but the
accompanying assumption that all these essential craftsmen
were living in Frederica at the same time cannot be supported
by the documentary evidence.
The effects that this high rate of population
replacement might have on the archeological record vary.
Most sites at Frederica can be assumed to have been abandoned
prior to 1750. Some site assemblages can be expected to
reflect single residence occupations of short duration or
multicomponent occupations of various durations. These
should contrast in discernible ways with a small number of
sites with long duration (eight to ten years or more) single
components. Intrusive 19th and 20th century components
should also be present at a small number of the colonial
sites.


53
Spatial Parameters
Rarely has the utility of integrated archeological and
documentary research been better demonstrated than at
Frederica. Fairbanks' excavation of the Hawkins-Davison
house was based on documentary information provided by the
late Margaret Davis Cate, a coastal Georgia historian who
devoted much of her life to the historical research of
Frederica. The identification and discovery of the Hawkins-
Davison common wall on the lot line between Lot 1 and Lot 2
of the South Ward allowed the archeologists to relate the
colonial lot layout to Frederica's present topography (Cate
1956; Fairbanks 1956).
Of considerable interest to many researchers at
Frederica has been the spatial configuration of the town.
Begining with Cate's and Fairbanks' early research, every
excavation undertaken or sponsored by the National Park
Service has incorporated into its research design some
emphasis on the spatial delineation of the town lot locations
and boundaries. Lot sizes have been reliably established
through the use of information obtained from 18th century
documents and maps (Auspourger 1736; Miller 1796; Moore
1840:82; Stacy 1784) combined with archeological verification
(Fairbanks 1956:225). Estimates of the size of the various
colonial streets and alleys, which are particularly important
for determining the locations of lots that do not face Broad
Street, are more problematic. The 1796 Miller map (Figure 4-
1) shows specific street-alley widths that contrast with


Figure 4-1. 1796 Miller Map of Frederica.


55


56
Moore's contemporary account and the dimensions listed on the
1736 Auspourger map. Fairbanks found no direct evidence of
Broad Street during his excavations and attempts by Shiner
(1958a) and Moore (1958) to determine the width of Cross
Street were also unsuccessful. Using the archeological
evidence of foundations uncovered at the Hawkins-Davison and
Lot 1 North sites, Fairbanks concluded that Broad Street was
75 feet wide (22.9 meters), as shown in the Auspourger map.
However, the alley to the south of the Hawkins-Davison site
was found to be slightly more than 14 feet wide (4.4 meters)
which is in accordance with the Miller map. A summary of the
information on street and lot dimensions shows some
concordance, as indicated in Table 4-1.
Table 4-1. Summary of Street and Lot Dimensions, Frederica.
Fairbanks
Auspourger
(1736)
Miller
(1796)
Excavation (1956)
Broad Street
75
feet
82
f eet
75 feet
Cross Street
30
f eet
32
f eet
-
East-West Streets
22
f eet
23
f eet
-
Alleys
16
f eet
14,17
f eet
14 feet
Town Lots 60
X
90 feet
60 X 90 feet
60 X 90 feet
Thus, the location of any lot at Frederica theoretically can
be found by measuring the appropriate distances from the
Hawkins-Davison common wall. Since direct archeological
evidence of Frederica's streets has yet to be uncovered and
documentary sources are not in complete agreement with each


57
other or with the field calculations of street dimensions,
locational information on lot and street placement remains a
high priority for any excavation at Frederica. Lots not
adjacent to Broad Street are of particular concern since
possible errors made in measuring their locations may be
compounded with increasing distance from the Hawkins-Davison
base line. Variations induced by the surveying techniques
used in 1736 could also contribute to inaccurate determin
ations. Despite these drawbacks it is assumed that the
approximate location of any lot can be found using the
documentary-archeological evidence outlined above.
The Hawkins-Davison Site
The documentary record pertaining to this site has been
presented fully by Cate (1956), Deagan (1972), and Fairbanks
(1956). A brief synopsis of their work will be given in
order to indicate some of the temporal, spatial, and social
parameters associated with the site. Thomas Hawkins has been
positively identified as the owner of Lot 1 South. He, his
wife, and two servants arrived at Frederica in 1736 and
apparently left the settlement in 1743, although an ambiguous
reference given by John Terry in 1745 suggests a later date
of departure (Candler 1904-37:1,462, XXIV,402). Despite
coming to Georgia "at the Trustees' expense," Hawkins seems
to have held a relatively high socio-economic status among
the town's inhabitants. He was employed as the Regiment
surgeon, town apothecary-doctor, and Bailiff for Frederica.
He lived in one of the most impressive residences in the


58
town, a three story home built of bricks. Hawkins owned a
large "plantation" on a nearby island and possessed a number
of cattle (Candler 1 904-37:V,500). A petition for his
property in 1767 and 1768 suggests that his house was not
reoccupied after his departure but this is unlikely given its
expensive construction.
Like Thomas Hawkins, Samuel Davison came to Frederica in
1736 on the charity of the Trust. The family, consisting of
Davison, his wife and their three children resided at Lot 2
South in an expensive brick and tabby house which shared a
wall (on the lot line) with the Hawkins house. Trained as a
chairman, Davison held positions as Constable, Searcher of
Ships, and Overseer of the Trustees Servants, although his
main livelihood was in running a tavern in his home. He made
a vigorous attempt at farming, at least during his first few
years in the colony. By virtue of his expensive housing and
contemporary comments on his industrious nature, Davison can
also be assumed to have held a high socioeconomic status
relative to other civilians in the town. In a 1741 letter he
was listed as having "20 head of Cattle, servants, 2 or 3
carts, 8 horses..." (Candler 1904-37:V,501), but the family
left for South Carolina in that year. Documentary evidence
of a later occupation on his property has not been found, but
it is unlikely that one of the best houses in Frederica would
have remained unused for long in the 1740s.


59
The Hird Site
Documentary background on the Hird Site has been
presented by Honerkamp (1975, 1977a). Thomas Hird, his wife,
and three children came to Georgia in 1736 at Trust expense.
According to the list compiled by the Earl of Egmont, Hird
was a dyer who resided at Lot 12 North. As shown by the
Miller Map, this would indicate a lot position in the
northeast section of the town (see Figure -1). According to
the documents, Hird may have engaged in dyeing, brewing, and
livestock raising, but there is definite evidence that he
served as town Constable, lay preacher, and farmer exemplar.
He also made frequent business trips to Savannah and
Charleston. His socioeconomic position in the town,
especially with respect to Hawkins and Davison, is difficult
to determine. Although Honerkamp has interpreted the
documentary-archeological information as indicating a
slightly higher socioeconomic level for Hird (1980), this
interpretation is open to question. Contemporary accounts
concerning Hirds industrious nature and material
improvements, when combined with evidence of his considerable
occupational endeavors, support the assumption of a
relatively high status position in the town. His long term
occupation at Frederica (12 years) can also be interpreted as
supporting this contention, especially in view of the high
turnover of other inhabitants who were unable to make a
living in the town. Hird occupied his lot until his death in


60
1748, and the rest of the family departed soon after that
date.
The Dobree Site
Symptomatic of the difficulties encountered in using a
direct interpretation level of research is the documentary
background on the Dobree Site. Using the lot numbers shown
on the Miller Map, (Figure 4-1) and the information on lot
ownership available in Coulter and Saye (1949:40), this site
was originally thought to have been occupied by Robert
Patterson, a accountant in the town store. However, after
excavation of the site was nearly half finished, another
reference found in Egmont's List indicated that Lot 21 South
was occupied by Elisha Dobree, an accountant who worked as a
clerk in the town store (Coulter and Saye 1949:71).
Underscoring the confusion, a review of Margaret Davis Cate's
research notes revealed contradictory listings for the lot
number. In some cases Cate originally had 31 S" listed for
Patterson's lot, but she later crossed this number out and
replaced it with M21-S" on several reference cards (Cate
1961). Using Cate's notes, Reese later attributed a
description made by Dobree of his own house and lot to
Patterson (1969:back cover). Finally, the Assistant
Superintendant at Fort Frederica, George Berndt, informed the
archeologists that the lot numbering for the rows containing
Lots 21 through 31 in both Wards was reversed on the Miller
Map (Figure 4-1). He cited as evidence the out-of-synch
numbering of these two rows, and more conclusively, a grant


61
made in 1763 to Pickering Robinson in which town lot 25 in
Frederica is described as being on a corner lot on the north
side of Broad Street (Bryant 1972:30). Lot 25 in either Ward
can only be on a corner if the lot numbers are reversed
according to Berndts interpretation. Since the Miller Map
was drawn nearly one half century after the town was
abandoned, a numbering error would not be surprising. The
easternmost lot on the third row of the south ward is
therefore considered to be Lot 31.
Unfortunately the new documentary evidence concerning
the lot designation has not cleared up the question of the
lot ownership and occupancy. Since both Patterson and Dobree
could not have owned the same lot at the same time, one of
Egmonts entries must be in error. Dobree is known to have
been in Frederica from at least 1736 to 1738 and to have sold
his lot to David Provost sometime prior to 1743 (Candler
1904-37:1,424, XXI,283). In that year John Provost, Davids
heir, assigned a town lot in Frederica to Captain George
Dunbar of Oglethorpes Regiment. The lot was identified as
Dobrees former property, but the lot number was not
mentioned (Candler 1904-37:V,705). Dunbar died in Jamaica in
1763 while still a Captain in the Regiment; the extent of his
involvement on his Frederica lot is unknown. In 1759 William
Mackintosh requested a grant for Lot 21 South in Frederica
(Candler 1904-37:VIII,143). Presumably, if Dunbar was still
in possession of Dobrees lot at this date, Mackintosh would
not have requested it, so he must have been trying to obtain


62
the "real" Lot 21 belonging to Robert Patterson. This
contention is supported by a similar request made in 1759 by
Thomas Goldsmith for Patterson's Frederica lot, which was
specified by name and not by number (Candler 1904-37:VII,32-
33). By 1763 Goldsmith owned this lot and Patterson was said
to be deceased ( 1 904-37:IX,53) Patterson, who arrived with
a wife and three sons in 1736, is known to have been in
Frederica as late as 1741. By this time his entire family
had died and he was supposedly running a "bawdy house" (Cate
1961 ; Coulter and Saye 1949:40,100). An oblique reference to
Patterson made by John Terry in 1745 does not definitely
indicate the presence of Patterson at Frederica (Candler
1904-37:XXIV,402).
On the basis of the admittedly incomplete documentary
information reviewed above, it is suggested that the Lot 31
South site belonged to the Dobree-Provost-Dunbar series of
owners from 1736 to sometime prior to 1763. It is believed
that the lot designation by the Earl of Egmont for the Dobree
Lot was an error resulting from the inadvertent replacement
of a "3" with a "2" or from incorrect information recorded by
Egmont. Dobree is the only known occupant of the site--
Provost or Dunbar may have resided there, but this cannot be
definitely established from the documents.
Elisha Dobree was a controversial figure in early
Georgia. He came to Savannah in 1734, where he was assigned
a lot in the town (Coulter and Saye 1949:71). His arrival in
Georgia was immediately precipitated by his flight from South


63
Carolina in order to escape his creditors (Candler 1904
37:XX,72). Although trained as a merchant-bookkeeper, he
wrote a number of letters to the Trustees describing his
efforts at clearing land, farming, and preparing naval stores
for export to the mother country. Notable among his many
letters written in 1735 is one in which he mentioned the
possibility of bringing slaves to Georgia (Candler 1904
37:XXI,612-613) This is one of the earliest references of
dissatisfaction with the Trustees policies among the
"Malcontents" (Wood 1979). In reply he received a strongly
worded letter from the Trustees which emphasized the reasons
for the laws prohibiting slavery and the consequences of
disobedience to local authority. This letter also
encouraged Dobree's farming attempts and almost in the same
sentence reprimanded him for "...hiring so many Lots ((in
Savannah)). Because it destroys poor Men, unites Lots, and
drives away Inhabitants..." (Candler 1904-37:XXIV,133) Two
months later he was discharged from his job as clerk in the
town store in Savannah and he wrote a despairing letter
concerning his "greatly reduced circumstances" (Candler 1904
37:XXIV,377-380; McPherson 1962:97). In 1736 he gave a
description of his house and lot at Frederica where he was
again a clerk in the town store: "...a small house with a
brick chimney, built on his town lot which is fenced and has
palisades and clapboards, well dunged and now every way fit
for propogation of fine plants..." (Candler 1904-37:XXI,345).
Apparently Dobree possessed one of the small clapboard huts


64
so common to the nonaffluent segment of the colonial
population at Frederica (Manucy 1960:20). A single servant
may have resided with him in his new home (there are at least
five servants listed for Dobree by Egmont). His wife,
however, refused his repeated requests that she join him,
saying that he was a whimsical man, and not able to
maintain her and their three children (Egmont 1923:377).
Dobree started complaining about the harshness of his new
home almost immediately and probably left Frederica sometime
after 1738 when the last reference to his employment at the
store was made (Candler 1904-37:V,70).
Although not extensive, the documentary records contain
evidence that Dobree had a difficult time as a colonist. His
short, inauspicious stays in Carolina, Savannah, and
Frederica indirectly indicate a lack of success in exploiting
the natural and social environments in each location.
Certainly his wife's opinion of his abilities as a family
provider and his own admission of economic hardship are not
inconsistent with an inference of low socio-economic status
at Frederica, at least in comparison to the occupants of the
Hawkins-Davison and Hird sites. Questions relating to the
identification of the Dobree occupation and how it contrasts
with other colonial occupations are developed in Chapter VII.


CHAPTER V
METHODS AND MATERIALS
This chapter reviews the methods and results of
excavation and analysis for the three sites investigated. An
attempt is made to describe the research frame used in this
study in terms of (1) the ways in which the research frame
was investigated in the field and during analysis, and
(2) the archeological data obtained from application of the
excavation and analysis methods and techniques. A
distinction is maintained throughout this chapter in the
discussion of faunal and nonfaunal methods and materials.
This contrast arises from the specialized analytical
procedures used in zooarcheological studies and the nature of
the fauanal material itself, which is recognized as
representing specialized by-products of human behavior which
is distinct from the behaviors accounting for the presence of
ceramic, glass, and metal artifacts in the archeological
record (South 1977a:97; Wing and Brown 1979:1-10).
Excavation and analysis procedures employed at the Hird,
Hawkins-Davison, and Dobree sites were fairly consistent
despite the extended intervening periods between projects.
One reason for the continuity achieved in the excavations is
the close professional association among the researchers
involved in the archeology of Frederica. Also contributing
65


66
to the possibility of making valid intersite comparisons is
the quality of the field work performed by Fairbanks in 1952,
which resulted in the systematic recovery of both architec
tural and nonarchitectural data at the Hawkins-Davison site.
His approach was in many respects ahead of its time in
comparison to contemporary historic site projects, and his
work served as a standard that was rarely equalled in later
excavations at Frederica.
Excavation Procedures
The procedures used in excavating the three sites
reported here reflect the specific research goals of the
archeologists. The orientation at the Hawkins-Davison Site
was toward discovering and excavating architectural features
that could be used as a locational datum and as evidence of
British colonial housing. In addition, anthropological
questions were investigated. In order to determine the
extent to which differences in the crafts performed by the
residents of the site would be reflected in the archeological
assemblage, Fairbanks sifted all excavated dirt using one
half inch screen, retained all artifacts found, and recorded
provenience information while excavating. Ten foot square
units were excavated in and around the house; lot lines were
determined by trenching. An area of 209 square meters (2249
square feet) was uncovered at the site, including the west
trench shown in Figure 5-1. Horizontal and vertical control
was attained through reference to a permanent datum station
that was established at the site.


Figure 5-1. Excavation Plan, Hawkins-Davison Site
H Hawkins
D Davison


10 FEET
*1 r-i-' 1
3 METERS
lot line
I I
I I
I I
EXCAVATION
,PARTY WALL
H
D 1
oo


69
At the Hird Site the research focus was on the
definition of activity loci in the back lot or toft area of
the site, and on the recovery of artifacts and features
indicative of craft activities, food storage and preparation
practices, and trash disposal behavior. Rather than attempt
to locate and expose foundations, the back lot area was
sampled through intensive excavation of eight ten by five
foot units and eight ten by ten units (Figure 5-2). A total
area of 111.5 square meters (1200 square feet) was excavated.
The field strategy at the Dobree Site was to excavate
the entire 90 by 60 foot lot using three by three meter
squares. Complete excavation of the hypothesized lot was
expected to reveal archeological correlates of street and lot
edges, house construction, craft activity loci, and lot
structure and function. The large, detailed body of
archeological data generated from this approach was expected
to be useful for testing hypotheses concerning the patterning
of artifact associations on intrasite, local intersite, and
regional intersite levels. Sixty-three excavation units were
dug at the site, although not all of them were within the lot
lines. Due to the presence of numerous features on the north
end of the site and to the lack of a clearly defined fence
line marking the actual lot boundary, several excavation
units were placed to the north and west of the lot, as
indicated in Figure 5-3- The actual area uncovered during
the excavation, which totaled 465 square meters (5005 square
feet), is illustrated in Figure 5-4.


70
Figure 5-2. Excavation Plan, Hird Site.


Figure 5-3* Excavation Plan, Dobree Site.


72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22-
i
i
-23-
-24-
i
i
ID
CM

i
-26-
-27-
-28
i
i
t
29
l
1
31
32
33
34
35
i
1
37
i
i
38
39
40
41
42
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
1
44
45
46
47
48
i
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
49
50
51
52
i
i
i
i
i
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
53
54
55
5¡6
i
i
57
58
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
59
60
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
61
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
2-
-63-
i
i
i
i
' l
-N-
meters


Figure 5-4. Actual Area Excavated, Dobree Site.


meters


75
A permanent datum was established at the Hird and Dobree
sites to facilitate use of a transit, chain, and stadia rod
for horizontal and vertical control. Excavated dirt was
screened through one-fourth inch square mesh fitted to
gasoline-powered shaker screens (Figure 5-5), with the
exception of Square 13 at the Hird Site where three-eighths
by one inch diamond mesh was used. Water screening was
employed whenever necessary, for instance when excavating
features containing wet soil or high bone densities. One-
eighth inch screen was used for excavating part of a barrel
well at the Dobree Site, but this technique resulted in
greatly increased excavation time and labor without a
corresponding increase in artifact recovery (most of the
small bone recovered with this screen size could not be
identified). Other features at the site were therefore
screened with the one-fourth inch mesh.
Besides the extent of the sample frames, the most
important difference between the field strategies employed at
the Hird and Dobree sites consisted of the way in which some
artifact classes were collected and recorded. Brick, tabby,
and shell were noted only on a presence-absence basis at the
Hird Site, while at the Dobree Site these artifact categories
were quantified for nearly half of the excavation units in an
attempt to define the location of a domestic structure. In
view of the extreme limitations that presence-absence
approach to artifact collection imposes on the interpretation
of the archeological record (Taylor 1948), and the


Figure 5-5. Field Work In Progress, Dobree Site.
Shovelers are facing the gasoline-powered shaker screen.


77


78
demonstrable research utility of quantification of
construction-related artifacts at historic sites (Lewis 1977,
Kaplan and Coe 1976), brick and tabby quantification was felt
to be justified despite the time and effort devoted to it.
The quantification technique used at the Dobree site
consisted of measuring the volume of all construction
materials recovered while screening and recording the total
volume recovered for each provenience in the field notes.
Volume measurements to the nearest liter were taken by
depositing the brick and tabby .in plastic buckets with liters
marked on the sides.
Horizontal Control
The discovery in 1952 of the Hawkins-Davison common wall
on the boundary line between Lots 1 and 2 South has provided
a convenient and accurate datum for subsequent archeology at
Frederica. The hypothesized outlines of the Hird and Dobree
sites were determined by measuring the appropriate distances
from the common wall, using colonially reckoned cardinal
directions as determined from the layout of Broad Street
(this street extends in a direction that is 99 degrees east
of magnetic north). At the point where a straight line from
the Hawkins-Davison wall forms a right-angle intersection
with the center of Broad Street, the distance measured to the
southwest corner of the Hird Lot was 450 feet east (137.1
meters) and 142 feet north (43.2 meters). This latter
distance was erroneously reported as 190.75 feet north in the
1975 Hird Site study (Honerkamp 1975:70). Widths of 75 feet


79
for Broad Street, 30 feet for Cross Street, and 14.5 feet for
the east-west alley are assumed, as are lot dimensions of 60
by 90 feet (see Table 4-1). The northwest corner of the
Dobree Site was found using the same assumptions for street
widths. In addition, the east-west street lying between the
lot and Broad Street is assumed to be 22 feet wide. From the
Hawkins-Davison wall-Broad Street intersection to the
northwest corner of the lot the distances used were 510 feet
east (155.4 meters) and 245 feet south (74.6 meters).
Stratigraphy
As is probably true of most sites at Frederica, both the
Hird and Dobree sites were found to have been extensively
disturbed by 19th and 20th century plowing. At both sites
the dark gray A soil horizon was equivalent to the plowzone;
this zone was excavated in two arbitrarily defined levels.
Zone 1-A was 0.15 to 0.20 meter thick as measured from the
ground surface after the removal of sod in each square. Zone
1-B included all soil down to the light brown to tan sterile
sand which made up the B soil horizon. This lower level of
the plowzone was usually 0.10 to 0.15 meter in thickness.
Man-made features, which were discernible only when they
extended below the plow zone into sterile sand, were
excavated separately. The Hawkins-Davison Site apparently
was not plowed during recent times. Fairbanks found a zone
of sandy humus covering the colonial remains that was 0.20 to
0.30 meter thick (0.7-1.0 foot).


80
Natural disturbance processes were also present at the
site. Animal burrows and root stains were commonly
encountered, as were numerous burrowing insects, especially
beetle larvae. At the Dobree Site a count was made of the
number of grubs encountered in a 15 centimeter level of the
plowzone; 24 were seen in one three meter square. Since the
life cycles of most of the grubs identified in the sample are
less than one year in the larval stage, more than 200 years
of concentrated "grub activity" would be sufficient to
obliterate most of the evidence of stratification of cultural
or natural zones. As Wood and Johnson point out, one of the
most common consequences of insect action is the blurring of
natural or cultural boundaries in the soil (1978:322). The
lack of stratigraphic information noted by Fairbanks at the
Hawkins-Davison Site, and the difficulty that the present
author experienced in defining the outlines of features at
the Hird and Dobree sites are certainly characteristic of
faunalturbation activities, and it is suspected that similar
processes will have affected all archeological sites at
Frederica.
Analytical Methods and Results
As indicated in Chapters II and III, the methodological
approach taken in this study is based on Souths pattern
recognition method. This has had far greater influence on
the ways in which the artifacts have been analyzed than on
the ways in which they were excavated. The earlier work done
by Deagan (1972) and the author (1975) was not based on


81
South's approach, and as a consequence there are differences
in the analytical techniques used and the results obtained
from the application of these distinct techniques. For
instance, Deagan did not completely quantify all artifact
classes from the Hawkins-Davison Site, so that only the
ceramic and glass from this site are useful for testing some
of the hypotheses presented in the next chapter.
Artifact Analysis
The first step in the analysis of the archeological
materials was artifact identification. Ivor Noel Hume's A
Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America (1974) was the primary
reference used by Deagan and the author in the identification
of ceramic types. The work by Miller and Stone (1970) was
also frequently used. The primary sources consulted in the
identification of glass artifacts were Brown (1971) and Noel
Hume (1969b, 1974). References for metal and flint artifacts
include Stone (1974), Hanson and Hsu (1975), and Hamilton
(1976). The archeological type collections at the Department
of Anthropology, University of Florida also facilitated
identification of ceramic and nonceramic material. Floral
materials were identified by Dr. David W. Hall of the
Vascular Plant Herbarium, Botany Department, University of
Florida.
Data Management
How to handle the sheer quantity of artifacts identified
from the Dobree Site was a major problem during the analysis.


82
It was quickly realized that the hand-tabulated quantifica
tion techniques used by the author for the Hird Site material
was inadequate for organizing and analyzing the data base
resulting from the nearly complete excavation of the Dobree
Lot. It became obvious that the most efficient means of
working with the extensive Dobree data base would be through
the application of computer data handling capabilities. Of
the several computer packages available for this purpose from
the Northeast Regional Data Center (NERDC) at the University
of Florida, the Statistical Analysis System (SAS) was
considered to be the most suitable package for meeting the
particular organizational and analytical needs of the author.
This choice was based on the highly versatile and powerful
capabilities SAS has for information storage and retrieval,
data modification, file handling, and statistical analysis.
In addition the system is relatively easy to learn and comes
with an understandable though terse users manual (Helwig and
Council 1979). The package is limited to IBM hardware, which
at NERDC consists of an IBM-360/370 computer.
The input data used to create a SAS data set for the
Dobree ceramics consisted of 3^3 cases, with each case
containing information for three identifying variables and
frequency values for 20 ceramic types and six ceramic wares.
The identifying variables used were the original field
specimen number, the excavation unit number, and the
provenience designation. Nonceramic artifacts were also
coded into SAS data sets using the same identifying


83
variables. Through reference to one or a combination of the
identifying variables it was possible to combine, divide, or
alter the ceramic and nonceramic SAS data sets in any way
that was useful for analytical purposes. Although the
conversion from analysis forms to SAS data sets was time
consuming, it ultimately spared the author many frustrating
hours of hand tabulation. Conversion to SAS data sets also
allowed application of statistical techniques that would have
been extremely difficult, if not impossible, to perform by
hand, such as computing the correlation coefficients for
several ceramic types based on freqency of occurrance for all
63 squares at the Dobree Site. The SAS data sets created for
the artifacts and faunal materials from the plowzone and
features are presented in summary form in Appendix A through
Appendix D. Original analysis forms are on file at the
National Park Service Southeast Archeological Center,
Tallahassee (artifactual) and the Florida State Museum,
Gainesville (faunal).
Of obvious utility for establishing temporal parameters
for almost any historic site is the mean ceramic date formula
(South 1972). Mean ceramic dates for the excavation units,
features, and the sites themselves were found for the Dobree
and Hird sites. The Hawkins-Davison ceramic analysis did not
allow application of the formula. The dates derived for the
Dobree ceramic data for both the plowzone and features were
calculated through the use of a SAS subroutine devised by the
author.


84
Another computer program used in the analysis of the
Dobree Site artifacts was the Synagraphic Mapping System, or
SYMAP. This computer graphics program produces maps on which
spatial data are graphically displayed through variable
darkness and texture. It is especially useful for providing
a method of interpolating data values for locations in a
mapped area based on the values of the closest known data
points in that area. The construction of artifact density
isopleth maps composed of contour lines connecting all
locations having the same density values is one example of
SYMAP's interpolation capabilities. Although the users
manual for this package is obscurely written (Dougenik and
Sheehan 1975), the program was easy to use once the basic
mechanics for obtaining output were finally mastered. SYMAP
contour maps delineating relative densities of several
classes of artifacts from the Dobree Site were used to
address questions of site structure and function.
Classification Format: Dobree Site
The specific analytical tools used in this study were
chosen for their applicability in addressing the research
questions of interest to the author. The type-ware-class-
group classification scheme, which is an integral part of the
pattern recognition approach (South 1977a:92-102), has been
followed. The artifacts were divided into the same classes
and groups that South used to construct empirical artifact
profiles for deriving the Carolina-Architecture artifact
patterns. As already mentioned, analysis of the


85
Hawkins-Davison nonceramic material was on a presence-absence
basis which did not allow direct group-class comparisons with
the totally quantified Hird and Dobree assemblages.
The artifact classification for the Dobree and Hird
sites conformed closely to the format proposed by South in
order to allow intersite comparisons to be made of the
empirical artifact profiles that were constructed for each
site. In doing so, however, a number of decisions concerning
the structuring of the data base associated with the sites
had to be made, especially with respect to the inclusion of
various categories of artifacts in the pattern recognition
format. Since this study is concerned with aspects of the
British colonial occupation at Frederica, artifacts that were
known to have been deposited later were excluded from the
analysis. For instance, wire nails and ironstone pottery
were certainly not discarded at the Dobree or Hird sites
during colonial times.
The reasoning behind the decision to exclude artifacts
of the "wrong temporal period from the analysis is explained
as follows. Souths approach attempts to delineate patterns
in artifact relationships and distributions as they apply to
the British colonial system at historic sites. It is
reasonable to assume that inclusion of noncolonial artifacts
in the analysis would tend to obscure evidence of colonial
activities or behavior. It is therefore desirable to
eliminate from consideration those aspects of the data base
which are associated with a later noncolonial system. It is


86
also possible to further delimit the data base by excluding
colonial materials which must have been deposited after the
primary occupation at Frederica (1736-early 1750s). This
approach has been followed in the present analysis.
Unfortunately South does not delineate the data base
used in his studies in a manner that would allow other
researchers to replicate his classification format, and it is
this lack of explicit data definition that is considered to
be a major drawback in the pattern recognition approach.
Although it is true that studies of historic artifacts over
the last 20 years have rendered further detailed analysis of
some classes superfluous (i.e., ceramics, wine bottles,
pipes), it is equally true that other classes have been
neglected and need to be described so that other
archeologists will know what is or is not being included in
them.
A brief review of the type-ware-class-group classifi
cation procedure as it was applied to the Dobree and Hird
artifact assemblages will serve to point out the adjustments
made to Souths original format as a result of unique aspects
of the data base at Frederica.
Since the Dobree site material is reported here for the
first time, descriptions of some of the artifact types used
in the class categories are more detailed than is usual for
most pattern recognition studies. This serves a dual purpose
by: 1) allowing researchers with differing orientations to
incorporate the data reported here, and 2) making explicit


87
the reasoning behind decisions made during the analysis
concerning the inclusion of particular artifacts in
particular groups and classes, thereby eliminating the
shortcoming in South's approach mentioned above. Table 5-1
summarizes the artifact class frequencies for the plowzone
and feature material from the Dobree Site and should be
consulted during the following discussion.
Kitchen Group
As mentioned above, the types and wares included in the
Ceramics class vary from those suggested by South. In the
present study it was assumed that all creamware, which has a
beginning manufacturing date of 1762 (Noel Hume 1974:125), or
postcreamware ceramics types were deposited after the primary
occupation of Frederica. This is indicated not only by the
documented occupation spans of the town in general and the
Hird and Dobree Sites in particular, but also by the
extremely small percentages of "late" pottery recovered at
both sites, 1.0$ and 2.3$, respectively. By contrast, Deagan
identified 15.5$ of the ceramics from the Hawkins-Davison
Site as being creamware or later (Table 5-2). The plowzone
distributions of the early versus late ceramics at the Dobree
Site also support the argument for a noncontinuous occupation
at the site. The SYMAP contour maps of the ceramic
frequencies shown in Figure 5-6 and Figure 5-7 illustrate the
the distinct, exclusive disposal locations for the early and
late groups. If the occupation of the site had been
continuous through the third quarter of the 18th century, it


Table 5-1.
Artifact Class Frequencies, Dobree Site.
Kitchen Groupa
Plowzone
Features
Totals
1 .
Ceramics
10150
1993
12143
2.
Wine bottle
4919
864
5783
3.
Case bottle
3202
604
3806
4.
Tumbler
290
89
379
5.
Pharmaceutical
478
375
853
6.
Glassware
66
63
129
7.
Tableware
8
3
1 1
8.
Kitchenware
2
0
2
Totals
19115
3991
23106
Bone Groupb
9-
A. Bone weight (gm)
13863.3
15982.5
29845.8
9-
B. Bone frequency
6729
7758
14487
Architectural Group
10.
Window glass
3968
367
9335
1 1 .
Nails
5902
1930
7832
12.
Spikes
42
10
52
13.
Construction hardware
3
4
7
14.
Door lock parts
4
1
5
Total
9919
2312
12231
Furniture Group
15.
Furniture hardware
26
8
34
Arms
Group
1 6.
MusketbalIs/shot/sprue
103
41
144
17.
Gunflints, gunspalls
73
17
90
18.
Gun parts
78
1 4
92
Totals
254
72
326
Clothing Group
19. Buckles
20. Thimbles
21. Buttons
22. Scissors
23. Pins
24. Hook and eye fasteners
25. Bale seals
26-A. Glass beads
26-B. Miscellaneous clothing
96
15
1 11
1
1
2
58
16
74
4
2
6
0
20
20
4
1
5
0
0
0
3
2
5
3
7
10
69
64
233
Totals


89
Table 5-1 (continued)
Plowzone Features Totals
Personal Group
27.
Coins
9
2
11
28.
Keys
4
0
4
29.
Personal items
7
1
8
Totals
20
3
23
Tobacco Pipe Group
30.
White clay bowl and
stem fragments
4675
1203
5878
Activities Group
31. Construction tools
5
2
7
32.
Farm tools
0
0
0
33.
Toys
3
0
3
34.
Fishing gear
4
0
4
35.
Stub-stemmed pipes
0
0
0
36.
Colono Ware
0
0
0
37.
Storage items
70
38
108
38.
Ethnobotanical
9
52
61
39.
Stable and barn
3
1
4
40.
Miscellaneous hardware
13
14
27
41.
Other
881
208
1089
42.
Military items
6
1
7
Totals
995
316
1311
Numbering of artifact classes follows the numbering system
used by South (1977:95-96).
Bone frequencies derived by using a ratio of 2.06 grams per
f ragment.


90
Table 5-2. Identifiable Ceramics From Three Sites,
Frederica, Georgia.
Sites
Hawkins-
Types: Pre-Creamware Hird Davison Dobree
Decorated delftware
478
?a
933
Mimosa pattern delftware
7
540 ?
0
Plain white delftware
336
7
507
French faience
0
5
1
Spanish olive jar
0
3
0
Utilitarian lead glazed
earthenware, buff/tan paste
1073
326
2637
Utilitarian lead glazed
earthenware, red paste
165
6
187
Slip decorated earthenware
542
150
1843
Astbury refined earthenware
85
24
446
Refined agateware
88
5
240
Jackfield earthenware
0
1
0
"Clouded" wares
1
4
3
Pipkins, lead glazed or unglazed
4
2
2
"Miscellaneous" earthenware
449
29
1276
White salt glazed stoneware
358
?
1724
Molded white salt glazed
stoneware
18
220 ?
1 11
Dipped white salt glazed
stoneware
87
7
368
Rhenish salt glazed stoneware
64
100
253
Brown salt glazed stoneware
1 15
7
77
Gray salt glazed stoneware
54
126 ?
127
Crouchware
421
7
42
Nottingham stoneware
42
12
84
Shaw slipped stoneware
5
0
0
Scratch blue salt glazed
stoneware
0
1
4
Scratch brown salt glazed
stoneware
0
1
0
Oriental porcelain
255
74
1278
English porcelain
1
18
0
TOTALS
4648
1647
12143
Types: Creamware and Later
Early creamware
7
7
12
Late creamware
7 ?
34 ?
5
Plain pearlware
1
103
58
Transfer printed pearlware
6
68
28
Annular pearlware
0
3
16


91
Table 5-2 (continued)
Sites
Types: Creamware and Later
Hawkins-
Hird Davison Dobree
Edged pearlware
Underglaze blue painted
pearlware
Underglaze polychrome stenciled
pearlware
Whiteware
Ironstone
Alkaline glazed stoneware
Agate doorknobs
Late 19th/20th century
ceramics
0
0
0
7
13
0
0
13
? 24
30 ? 7
? 3
0 106
63 11
0 1
2 0
0 17
TOTALS
47
303 288
SITE TOTALS
4695
1950 12431
aA question mark indicates that the frequency of the type is
unknown; combined frequencies are known and are indicated
to the left of the question marks.


Figure 5-6. Distribution of Postcreamware Ceramics,
Plowzone, Dobree Site.


93



i


oooooooooo
oooooooooo
oooooooooo
0003000000
oooooooooo
>0000000*4
44**444*4A
*
I
1
I
I
?
I
I
I
I
. 0 ft.......
OI09********05*00*....01..Oft*
I
I
I
1
2
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
3
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
4
I
I
I
I

1
1
I
1
3
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
1
6
I
1
I
I
I
1
7
I
I
I
I

:
i
!
0
I
I
I
I
Oft*020 3*
J*u
1 I
I I
1 **0 3 ..00..... I
I I
9 9
1 I
I I
I I
1 1
I 00 !
I I
i I
1 I
1 1
I I
I I
! I
X (a*** 32 I

I I
I 1
I I
t
I
SYMAP
I
l
OOSffee LOT EXCAVATeO SQUARES
(DISTRIBUTION OF POS TCRE AMWARE CERAMICS: PLOW ZONE
SOUTH ARO. FQEOeRICA
OAT A VILUi EXTREMES ARE 3*0 66*00
ABSOLUTE VALUE RANGE
APPLYING
TC EACH LEVB.
( A
XI MU* INCLUDED IN
HIGHEST LEVEL
ONLY )
M INXNUH
0.0
i 1. 20
22. AO
33.00
44.
00
AX I PUP
1 1 .23
22. AO
33.00
4 A. 80
5ft.
00
PERCENTAGE
CF TOTAL
AbSOLUTE V
ALUE CANGE APPLYING
TO EACH
LEVEL
0 00
20.00
20.00
2 0. 00
20.
00
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF OAT A PQ JNT VALJES IN E AOi L E VEL
LEVEL 12 3*6

SYN-JCLS

it*sssaa33iaa:sa:aa:
COCOOOLOO
OOOOOOCOO
CCCG 0000
OOOOOOCOO
COOOOOOOO
09HMMI
ocaa
Ml
caaaassaaaaassaaazaaaaaaaaam
57
0
1
FREO


Figure 5-7. Distribution of Identifiable Colonial
Ceramics, Plowzone, Dobree Site.


95
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
L LLLLLLLLL
LLL66LU*

O OOOCOOCCQCOO QOOOOOC*
GOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOf
cccoccccoocooooouooof
30 27 1000000026 70000 1 864*-
ccoooooooooooooy
CCOOOOOOOOCT
9CMMI 30000000
IfMIMl ^JOOOOOO <
pooooo
poooo
000<
1000 M 86
1000
00
IOOO'
(OOOOO
10000000

.y
o* * *>*
Ou *1
IQchA** Q'
iQOQfr vOOGOOQ'
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLL 36LLLL L
LLLLLLLUL
*M.LLLLLLL
LLLLLUL
.-LLLLLLL
A
I7I

4 444444 44 4
4444444444444444
4444444 44 4 44 4 44 44 4 44 4
I060C7^^4444 44 4 44 44 4 4444 44
00 000000000^4 444444444444444444 4
oooooooooooooo
25100000002700000k44|ft84444444|80444
lOOOOOOGOOOOOOQOOO|44 4 44 44444444444444
1000000 0000000000044 444 444 44 444444444
000000000000000009444444444444
ooocoooocooa
10 000000000 ocodooooo* 44 4 4444
iooooooooccCCC0C3C03oooooooooooooooooqooooo|4
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooiooooq
28800000002 330000000269 00 00 C002780000000235C
ooooooocoocccccccccooooooooooooocococcoopoooq
000000000000000000000000000oocooocooooooqh^TTT
ccooooooooooooooooooooooooooo000000ooooc
coooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooocooo
ooooooooooooooooooooocooooooooooooooa
COOQOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOCOCOOOOOOO0000QQ<44 4 4-4
OCCOCOOOCO000000000000(44 4 4 4 44*
4421644444
444 4444444
444444 4444
444444
44 44
4444 444444
44444
4 4 4 4 4
A.LLLLL
***jllllll
LLLLL
4 73LLLLL
LULLL
LLL
.4LLLLL
uLLLLL
4 4 4 ^.LLL
4***0. LLLL
44VLU.L
1254444444 12*444444 4 1 08 4 4 44
^5000000 029 70000000 2 IS*****
¡ooocooooooo OOOOO''
VooCOCOOOOOOOOO'
KIPOOOOOOO 000'
300000000
^OQO0000(
00
4444444 4
12^44444 42 184444444 i 63*4444
>4444 444
>44 4-44'
>444444 4OO000000
44 44 4 4j6oo000000000l
yoaoooooooooooooooo
boooooooooqqqqgooooooooo
DOOOO 00 O O QHIIID OC O OOOOO O O 44 4
^26100 00 00(33 1588800002910006*** l 30*
pOOOO00 0008888888pOOOOOOOOC*
30QQC0QQQQ8844^CCCQQQOQOQO 44
***# ^444444 4>qq000000ooOdoooooooooooa44
ppooo0000000000000000
44 4 44 4 44VpOO C00OOOOOOOOOOOOC 4
poOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO4
CCCOOC00000000004
4 4 4 2 29UJOOOOO02 J 7oor* 4
4444444T>OOOOOOO*444
>rmTT44444
>1 1 1 4
1 28. 44 4 4
I JU4 4 4 4 4
44 4 444 444444
4^4 44 4 44 4
4^4 4 4 44 4
LLU
Lllll
LLLLLLL
73LLLLL
Lll.ll.lll.
# 4LLLLLLL
4LLLL LLL
. 4 LLLLLLL
-N-
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLL44LLUL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
4 4444
8L4J4 4 4
txLLLLLU 4*
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
4 4 00 44444
LTL4444^XL
LLLLLLLLLL
-44444<; LLLLLLLLLL
LLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLL L LLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLL
yLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLX.LLLH Ll LLL
L LL30LL LLLL LLS3LLLLLLLL 4 8LL LLL LLL34LLLLL
LLLLLL LLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
L LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
t-L LLLL LLLLL LLLLL LLL LLLLLLL LLLL L1_L LLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLL52LLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLL1.LLL
LLLS1LLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
4 4 92 44444
-1
0088*2 LOT, EXCAVATED SOU AA ES
(DISTRIBUTION OF IDENTIFICO COLONIAL CERAMICS! PLOVZONE
ABSOLUTE VALUE RANGE *P*H. T INC
(MAXIMUM* INCLUOEO IN
TO EACH LEVEL
N I GF£ ST LEVEL ONLT)
SOUTH IA BO FDfOiBICA
MINIMUM 0ELOM 75.00 149.60 224*20
MAXIMUM 75*00 149.60 22*.20 298.80
298*80 373*40
373.40 446*00
OATA VALUE EXTREMES ARE
30*00 446.00
PERCENTAGE of total ABSOLUTE VALUE RANGE APPLYING TO EACH LEVEL
20*00 20.CO 20*00 20*00 29*00
FREGUE NCT
LEVEL
SYMBOL S
O I STR I BUT ION OF OATA POINT V AL UE S
L 1 2
EACH LEVEL
LLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLL
LLLL LLLL
LLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLL
=33=SaSX4
1 2
m a
. 000000000 888888888
QOCOOOCOC 888888888
* 0000 OCOO 8888 8888
000300000 888888888
.4***44 000000000 888888888
= ssaaaaaasaaaaaaaaaaaaaaai
19 15 2
1


96
would reasonably be expected to show more concordance in
trash disposal behavior than is indicated by the ceramic
distributions.
Due largely to plowing, a considerable portion of
earthenware fragments were damaged to the degree that
identification at the type level could not be made. This was
especially true of the tin-enamelled earthenwares with their
poorly adhering glazes. Although almost all of the eroded
sherds can probably be attributed to the primary occupation
span at Frederica, it is not possible to include these sherds
in such calculations as mean ceramic dates since the glaze
decorations used to determine the specific delftware types
(i.e., mimosa pattern, plain white, decorated delft) are
absent. However, it is possible to include these partially
identified, colonial period ceramics in the pattern
recognition classification scheme. Accordingly, a
"miscellaneous earthenware" ceramic category was defined for
the Hird and Dobree ceramic collections and incorporated into
the Ceramics class. Included in this category were all
eroded or fragmented sherds that possessed paste
characteristics similar to those of the positively identified
types found in closed contexts at the sites. Also included
were a small number of intact lead glazed earthenware sherds
that have not been previously described in the ceramic
literature but were found in closed-context proveniences at
the Dobree Site. This ceramic type is a refined earthenware
and was referred to as "lusterware" on the analysis forms.


97
The low-fired, soft, cream to buff colored paste is covered
with a relatively thick, evenly applied shiny lead glaze
which is dark brown or black in color (Figure 5-8). The
sherds exhibit extremely thin cross sections, all of which
are 0.3 centimeters or less in thickness. Although vessel
form could not be determined for this ware as a result of the
small size of the recovered fragments, the uniformly thin
vessel walls and the carefully applied glaze indicate that
this type probably functioned as a tableware. Other ceramics
classified under the "miscellaneous" category include a very
few eroded examples of utilitarian lead glazed earthenware,
slip decorated earthenware, and unglazed earthenware.
Examples of this latter ceramic category exhibited a uniform
hard bodied, light orange-buff paste with small inclusions of
mica or some other siliceous material. None of the fragments
exceeded 0.6 centimeter in thickness. Plain flattened rims
were noted, as were throwing marks on the interior of the
sherds. Similar paste characteristics were found for an
unglazed pipkin handle that was recovered from the plowzone
(Figure 5-8), but direct evidence for the use of the unglazed
earthenware as a cooking ware was not found. The lack of a
glaze on all the recovered fragments suggest some kind of
utilitarian function for the ware, but the specific function
is unknown.
Evidence that postdepositional disturbances at the
Dobree Site are responsible for much of the eroded and
fragmented attributes of the miscellaneous earthenwares is


Figure 5-8. Ceramic Artifacts, Dobree Site.
Top row: Unglazed.earthenware pipkin handle; two
unglazed earthenware rims.
Bottom row: Molded white salt glazed stoneware;
refined brown lead glazed earthenware
refined dark brown lead glazed earth
enware .


i
1cm
CO-
1 i,nch
f


100
seen in the differing ratios for this type that were found
for the features and plowzone. The ratios were calculated by
subtracting the total miscellaneous ceramics from the entire
ceramics total (excluding aboriginal and late types) and
dividing the miscellaneous total by the resulting ceramics
total. The feature ratio, which would be expected to reflect
the effects of normal ceramic use-breakage-discard practices,
is .09. In contrast, the plowzone ceramics, which are
believed to reflect the effects of postdepositional processes
(trampling by colonial-period livestock and humans, plowing,
modern sod planting activities), have a ratio of .12.
It is possible to test the assumption that the
miscellaneous earthenware ceramics are associated with the
main occupation period at the site by comparing the product-
moment coefficients computed for this ceramic category
(designated as a SAS variable called MISCERTH), the
positively identified precreamware types (grouped into a
single variable called COLONIAL), and the creamware or later
types (variable LATEPOT). Table 5-3 gives the correlation
results for the plowzone ceramics from the 63 excavated
squares. As expected, the coefficient for the COLONIAL and
MISCERTH correlation indicates a much stronger positive
relationship than for either of these two variables with
LATEPOT. The slightly negative relationship that exists
between the COLONIAL and LATEPOT variables is attributed to
the distinct, noncontiguous disposal locations of these two
groups of ceramics, as shown in Figures 5-6 and 5-7.


101
Table 5-3 Product-Moment Coefficients for Three
Ceramic Categories, Dobree Site.
CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB R UNDER H0:RH0=0 / N = 63
COLONIAL
MISCERTH
LATEPOT
COLONIAL
1.00000
0.0000
0.69961
0.0001
-0.20578
0.1057
MISCERTH
0.69961
0.0001
1.00000
0.0000
-0.071 18
0.5793
LATEPOT
-0.20578
0.1057
-0.07118
0.5793
1.00000
0.0000
Table 5-^. Product-Moment Coefficients for Three
Nail Types, Dobree Site.
CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB R UNDER H0:RHO=0 / N = 63
WROUGHT
SQUARE
NEWNAIL
WROUGHT
1.00000
0.0000
0.52765
0.0001
0.05319
0.6788
SQUARE
0.52765
0.0001
1.00000
0.0000
0.11512
0.3690
NEWNAIL
0.05319
0.6788
0.11512
0.3690
1.00000
0.0000


102
Not considered in the analyisis were 129 of the 133
ceramic fragments classified as "Miscellaneous Stoneware"
since the appropriate temporal and ethnic affiliations for
these nondiagnostic sherds could not be determined. The four
sherds of miscellaneous stoneware that were included in the
analysis are all scratch blue white salt glazed stoneware, a
type for which temporal and ethnic associations have been
established (Noel Hume 197^:117).
Only one ceramic vessel could be completely recon
structed from the Dobree ceramic assemblage. The white salt
glazed stoneware cup shown in Figure 5-9 was found in the
shaft fill dirt of the Feature 3 well. Cross sections of the
mended and partial ceramic vessels for which vessel shape
could be determined are shown in Figure 5-10.
Although the fragments of wine and case bottles used for
the Wine Bottle and Case Bottle classes are very nearly
identical in terms of color, evidence of bottle shape
provides a useful guide for recognizing the bottle type and
class. All round sectioned, olive-green fragments, except
for obvious shoulder fragments from case bottles, were
incuded in the Wine Bottle class. Case Bottle fragments were
defined as square sectioned fragments of olive-green glass.
Blown-molded glass, which began to be manufactured in the
last quarter of the 18th century (Lorraine 1968), was
excluded from the Kitchen group since it postdates the
Frederica occupation. This later dark green glass was
recognized by the presence of mold marks or a pebbled texture


Figure 5-9. Tableware Ceramic Vessels, Dobree Site.
Left: White salt glazed stoneware cup, height 7.0 cm.
Right: Partial Oriental porcelain cup or bowl.


104


Figure 5-10. Cross Section Drawings of Ceramic Vessels,
Dobree Site.
Row 1s White salt glazed stoneware lids.
Row 2: Porcelain bowl; white salt glazed stoneware
bowl.
Row 3: White salt glazed stoneware cup and bowl.
Bottom right: Astbury bowl.


106
cm


107
on the glass surface, the latter a result of contact with the
cool surface of the mold (Brown 1971:103)*
Only one complete wine bottle and one reconstructed,
nearly complete wine bottle were recovered from the site;
both were found in wells (Features 1 and 3, respectively).
As shown in Figure 5-11, both bottles are similar in shape to
those illustrated by Noel Hume for the early 1750s (1974:66).
The fragmented nature of the artifacts recovered from
the Dobree Site made distinctions between some classes of
glass artifacts difficult. This was especially true for the
Tumbler and Glassware classes, for which small body sherds of
lead glass tumblers and goblets were virtually
indistinguishable. All such fragments, as well as any
fragments of wheel engraved lead glass are included in the
Tableware class while only positively identified tumbler
fragments were counted in the Tumbler class. One
reconstructed tumbler, found in Feature 3, is show in Figure
5-12 with three partial goblets from the same provenience.
The most elaborate goblet has a raised, folded base with a
partial inverted baluster below a large annulated knop and a
waisted bowl. The thick bowl base contains a small tear
while the baluster contains a very large one. Noel Hume
recovered similar waisted-bowl goblets in a Williamsburg
tavern refuse deposit that was discarded between 1750-1760,
but he believes a more accurate manufacturing range to be in
the 1715-1740 period ( 1969b:17). The two trumpet goblets
also contain large tears in the stems, while the smaller


Figure 5-11.
The example on
Height 20.2 cm
Wine Bottles, Dobree Site.
the left is from Feature 1.


109


Figure
5-12. Glass Tableware Items, Dobree Site.
Tumbler on left is 9*3cm in height.


111


1 12
example posseses a folded base. Goblets with these
characteristics are dated to the second quarter and middle of
the 18th century (Noel Hume 1969b:18, 1974:192).
Artifacts classified under the Pharmaceutical Bottle
class, Tableware class, and Kitchenware class are similar to
those used by South. The three Tableware items from the
features (trash pits) consist of an iron fork fragment and
parts of two pewter spoons. The spoon handle shown in Figure
5-13 has the letters "B+" engraved above an asterisk design.
The initials are obviously hand engraved and probably refer
to the name of the spoon's owner rather than its maker, who
would have used a stamped mark. The letter or letters next
to the "B" may be the result of two attempts to engrave a
crossed "I," which was the equivalent of the letter "J" in
the colonial period (Noel Hume 1974:274).
Eight Tableware artifacts are from the plowzone: four
partial knives and a fork fragment, all of iron; a brass
handle fragment from a knife and one from a spoon; and part
of a pewter spoon handle (Figure 5-13). The only Kitchenware
artifacts identified were two iron pot handles from the
plowzone.
Bone Group
A major criticism made here of South's methodology is
the manner in which he treats faunal materials. Even as he
recognizes the unique characteristics of archeological bone,
South uses raw fragment counts in the construction of bone-
artifact ratios, thereby ignoring the intrinsic differences


Figure 5-13. Tableware Artifacts, Dobree Site
Top row:
Middle:
Pewter spoon handle; brass spoon handle
both are engraved.
Iron knife fragment.
Bottom row: Iron knife fragments.


114


in the pre- and postdepositional breakage rates that bones
and artifacts possess. In the present study the bone-
artifact ratios were created using bone weight and fragment
counts. Bone weight is thought to be a more accurate measure
for this purpose since it is less susceptible to upward bias
as a result of breakage during excavation, transport, and
analysis (see section on Faunal Analysis below). Fragment
counts can increase significantly due to postdeposition
breakage factors while bone weights would tend to decrease in
small amounts from these same factors.
South does not report the weights of the faunal material
he has collected, so in order to derive comparable ratios it
was necessary to determine fragment counts for the plowzone
and feature bone at the Hird and Dobree sites. At the Hird
site fragment counts were made for every taxon, but at the
Dobree site only weight was recorded for unidentified bone
found in closed contexts and plowzone bone was recorded by
weight only. It was possible to arrive at a projected
fragment count for this site by extrapolating the weight to
fragment ratio constructed for the rest of the bone
categories analyzed from the features. A ratio of 2.06 grams
per fragment was found, which is considered to be an
extremely conservative estimate since it is based on the
relatively well protected, closed context bone which would be
subject to much less fragmentation than the plowzone bone.
Total bone fragment and weight values for the Dobree site are
presented in Table 5-1.


116
Architecture Group
No adjustments were needed in the Window Glass artifact
class. However, in addition to the late ceramics and glass
noted above, wire and cut nails were excluded from the
classification format. According to Nelson (1963) and
Fontana (1965), cut nails were not produced until the last
quarter of the 18th century, while wire nails were introduced
in the 1850s. Since these later nails could not have been
deposited during the colonial period, they were not included
in the Dobree Site analysis. The round cross sections and
circular heads of wire nails were readily identified, while
wrought nails were recognized by their distinctive heads or,
lacking that, by the shape of the shank. Wrought nails are
tapered from head to point on all four sides while cut nails
taper on two sides only. A fourth category defined for this
artifact class was "Square Nails." As their name suggests,
these were square in cross section but could not definitely
be identified as wrought or cut due to their oxidized
condition. However, they are believed to be composed largely
of wrought nail fragments. This assumption was tested
through comparison of the product-moment coefficients for the
three main nail categories (Table 5-4). Wrought nails
(variable WROUGHT) showed a weak positive correlation with
square nails (SQUARE) and a random association with the later
cut and wire nails (NEWNAIL), indicating similar behavior
involved in the disposal of the suspected early nail types.
Although wrought nails continued to be made and used through


117
the 19th century (Noel Hume 1974:252), those found at the
Dobree and Hird sites are assumed to have been deposited
during the primary colonial occupation (1736 to the mid-
1750s). Supporting evidence for this assertion is seen in
the nearly identical ratios of wrought and square nails
derived from the closed context colonial features and the
plowzone at the Dobree Site, .61 and .59, respectively. The
similarity in wrought-square nail ratios in the two
proveniences indicates that oxidation and breakage of wrought
nails remained constant through time, given systematic
identification methods for the entire nail assemblage.
Plowing is considered to have had little effect on nail
breakage or the subsequent nail ratios.
Only wrought iron spikes were included in the Spikes
class. Due to their size, spikes had less ambiguous physical
characteristics than from which a wrought or nonwrought
determination could be made than did the oxidized nails. A
Square Spike category was therefore not necessary.
Artifacts considered under the Construction Hardware
class consist of two wrought staple nails found in the wells
(Features 2 and 3), a door hinge fragment from a trash pit
(Feature 18), and part of a lead window came recovered from
Feature 29; the plowzone contained two door pintal fragments
and a wrought staple nail. The only artifact from a closed
context that could be included in the Door Lock Parts class
is a lock tumbler (Figure 5-14) from Feature 11, a trash-
filled depression. In the plowzone one lock bolt, two door


Figure 5-14. Architecture and Furniture Group
Artifacts, Dobree Site.
Top: Iron door lock tumbler.
Middle: Brass drawer pull; brass mounting post
brass drawer handle.
Bottom:
Iron drawer handle


119


120
latches, and one case lock part were recovered. Except for
the window came, all of these objects are of iron.
Furniture Group
The Furniture Hardware class making up this group is
comprised of a diverse assortment of artifacts, as summarized
in the following table:
Table 5-5. Summary of Furniture Hardware Class Artifacts,
Dobree Site.
Brass Items Plowzone
Tacks 5
Drawer handles 4
Drawer handle mounting post 1
Furniture screwplate 1
Furniture screws 1
Phinials 2
Features
3
2
0
0
1
0
Iron Items
Hinges 2 2
Drawer handles 4 0
Screws 4 0
Keyhole surround 1_ 0
Totals 26 8
Several of these Furniture class brass and iron artifacts are
illustrated in Figure 5-14. The complete brass drawer handle
and mounting post shown in this figure are nearly identical
to examples from Williamsburg which Noel Hume dates from
1720-40 (1971:36, 1974:224).
Arms Group
The Musketball-Shot-Sprue class is self explanatory.
The totals for this class shown in Table 5-1 include only one
sprue fragment. The gunflint class consists of 48 whole or


121
partial spall gunflints and 42 blade gunflints or fragmets.
There is a perfect correlation between flint color and
manufacturing technique in the gunflint sample: all spall
gunflints are of gray flint while all blade gunflints are
made of honey-colored flint (Figure 5-15). Gun parts, mainly
lock fragments and furniture are broken down by provenience
in Table 5-6.
Unfortunately, the dating of gun parts is not as refined
as that of ceramics or other artifact classes. All that can
be said of the present collection is that most of the gun
parts conform to styles that are not inconsistent with a
colonial occupation at the site. Sideplates represent a
possible exception to this generalization. Of the 14 brass
sideplates recovered, 6 were in the dragonesque design shown
in Figure 5-15. Five of the six plates have engraved designs
on flat brass strips while the sixth is cast on a plate that
is convex in cross section. This last artifact was recovered
from a closed-context provenience, the top portion of the
Feature 1 well pit.
According to Hamilton, this style of sideplate was the
"standard cast brass serpent sideplate which was used on the
Northwest and Hudson's Bay trade guns from about 1775 to the
close of the muzzle loading era around 1885" (1976:14). Noel
Hume's discussion of colonial firearms raises intriguing
questions concerning the presence of this sideplate at
Frederica:
The best known of all decorative devices used on Early
American muskets was the dragonesque side plate that


122
Table 5-6. Summary of Artifacts in Gun Parts Class, Dobree
Site.
Brass Items
Sideplates
Triggerguards
Escutcheon
Buttplate
Ramrod cap
Plowzone
13
7
2
1
0
Features
1
4
1
0
1
Iron Items
Lock springs
Tumblers
Sears
Vise jaws
Vise screws
Breech plugs
Triggers
Trigger guards
Bridles
Cock
Frizzen
23 3
6 0
5 0
4 0
3 0
0 2
4 1
2 0
2 0
1 0
1 0
Lead Items
Gunflint sheaths
3 1
78 14
Totals


Figure 5-15. Arms Artifacts, Dobree Site.
Row 1: Gray spall gunflint; gray spall gunflint;
honey-colored blade gunflint.
Row 2: Engraved brass sideplates, dragon motif.
Row 3: Cast brass sideplate, dragon motif.
Row 4: Iron breech screw; iron tumbler; iron bridel
Row 5:
Iron cock; iron mainspring; iron clamp screw




125
characterized the weapons dispensed by the Hudson's
Bay Company and by the North-West Fur Company of Mon
treal. Something akin to this motif occurs on a
Florentine pistol of 1695, on a French musket of c.
1700, on a few English examples of the first decades
of the century, and on a German specimen of about 1740.
These are all isolated examples, however, and there is
no knowing which, if any, of them provided the inspira
tion for gun side plates of the later Indian trade. The
earliest of them (perhaps dating in the third quarter
of the eighteenth century) were engraved; but the vast
majority were cast with the heads and scales in relief....
These cast plates are not likely to date before 1785,
and all but a handful belong to the first half of the
nineteenth century. (Noel Hume 1974:217-218)
Although this would seem to indicate a post-1800
deposition for the dragon plates, the weight of the evidence
at the Dobree Site calls for an alternative explanation. In
view of the complete lack of positive temporal markers for
the third quarter of the 18th century, particularly the
absence of the creamware-pearlware ceramic series in the
features, it is suggested that the dating of this type of
sideplate is in need of revision. At least at Frederica,
another "handful" of plates, both cast and engraved, have
been found to predate the 19th century by perhaps 50 years.
Only further research will determine if these sideplates are
indeed isolated examples at Frederica or are common at other
contemporaneous sites. If these artifacts are restricted to
Frederica during this time period, an essential question for
future researchers will be to determine whether they are the
product of local or nonlocal craftsmen.
Clothing Group
With two exceptions, the artifact classes making up this
group are the same as those used by South and are


126
self-explanatory. The exceptions consisted of the modifica
tion of one artifact class and the creation of a new one. In
the present format the Glass Bead class has been expanded to
include a shell bead since both types are assumed to have had
similar decorative functions (see Figure 5-16). A
Miscellaneous Clothing class was added to the Clothing group
(Class 26-B in Table 5-1) in order that artifacts unique to
Frederica, but logically included in an artifact group, be
considered in the analyisis. This class consists of two
sequins and three decorative braid fragments from Feature 3
and five small brass clothing studs or rings, two of which
were found in the wells.
Personal Group
Coins, keys and personal items make up the three classes
for this group. Of the 12 coins found, 9 are George II
young-head half pennies. After conservation and
stabilization, the following dates could be read on these
coins: one at 1737, three at 1738, and five at 1739. The
presence of all of these artifacts is believed to have
resulted from loss. Two half pennies were found in the
Feature 1 and Feature 2 wells but the rest were associated
with the plow zone; no definite "artifact trap" locations
could be discerned at the site. Three silver Spanish coins
were also found in the plow zone. As evinced by their
locations, the Spanish coins appear to have been subject to
similar loss processes as their British counterparts. Two
were recovered from squares that also contained British


Figure 5-16. Clothing Artifacts, Dobree Site.
Row 1s Glass beads; shell bead on extreme right.
Row 2: Decorated brass buttons.
Row 3: Brass buckles.
Row 4 :
Brass buckle; iron buckle; brass buckle
f ragment.


128


129
coins; the third was found in a square that was adjacent to
two other units that contained half pennies.
Six of the coins were found either in or immediately
adjacent to the three wells uncovered at the site. This
indicates that activities were performed at these locations
which resulted in the loss of small pocket valuables.
Laundering activities would be expected to result in the loss
of coins (falling from pockets) near a source of water (the
wells) .
Personal Items, the last class in the group, were not
numerous at the site. Artifacts in this class consisted only
of a single lead pencil from Feature 1 and five more from the
plowzone, along with a single white clay wig curler and a
small ivory handle (Figure 5-17).
Tobacco Pipe Group
This group consists exclusively of fragments of white
clay tobacco pipes. Both stem and bowl fragments are
included in the frequencies given in Table 5-1. Makers
marks noted include TD (27 examples), and WM" (2
examples), and 1 each of IW" and RE. A total of 23 bowl
fragments bearing the decoration of the British royal arms
were also noted.
Actitvities Group
As South has pointed out, the Activities group would be
expected to display considerable internal variability between
artifact classes due to the wide range of activities


Figure 5-17. Personal Group Artifacts, Dobree Site.
Top row: British half-pennies.
Middle row: Spanish reale fragments and milled
half-reale.
Bottom row: Lead pencil; wig curler fragment.


131
<3 -CC
r* _
o -
£
- o
=_
- ^
-


132
represented by the classes ( 1977a:99-100) In the present
study, Souths classes have been adopted with little
modification in order to allow comparison with the South
Carolina sites. The following discussion does not include
farm tools, stub-stemmed pipes, or Colono-Afro pottery since
examples of these classes were not found at Frederica.
Construction tools from the features consist only of a
carpenter plane bit and a three-sided file (Features 1 and 3,
respectively). The plowzone contained a three-sided file,
the base of an auger or gouge, part of a chisel and an axe
shim. All artifacts in this class are of iron (Figure 518).
Toys were limited to the plowzone. An iron mouth harp,
one clay marble, a lead wizzer, and a possible bone whistle
compose the artifacts in this class (Figure 5-18). Fishing
gear consists only of three lead weights. Two are
musketballs with a central hole and the third is a flat
fragment of lead rolled into a tube. The Storage Items class
refers primarily to iron barrel bands found at the site. In
addition, 3 of the 38 items listed for the features refer to
the three wooden barrels located at the bottoms of the wells
(see Chapter VI).
Ethnobotanical artifacts consist only of fragments of
nuts and seeds from edible plants. Oak leaves, pine bark,
and other extraneous plant matter were not included. As
might be expected, recovery of the artifacts in this class
was highly dependent on the preservation characteristics of
the soils in each of the proveniences in which they were


Figure 5-18.
Activities Group Artifacts, Dobree Site
Row 1 :
Three-sided file, iron.
Row 2:
Auger or gouge, iron.
Row 3 :
Lead wizzer; iron mouth harp.
Row 4 :
Ferrier's tool, iron.
Row 5:
Iron strike-a-light.
Row 6 :
Iron sailmakers needle.


tf£ L


135
found. The lower waterlogged portions of the wells were
especially conducive to floral preservation. Feature 1
contained 20 peach pit fragments (Prunus prsica), a possible
watermelon seed (cf. Citrullus lanatus), 2 possible laurel
cherry pits (cf. Prunus caroliniana), a single persimmon seed
(Diospyros virginiana), 3 fragmentary squash-pumpkin seeds
(Curcurbita sp.) and 2 hickory nut fragments (Carya sp.).
Approximately two liters of oak twigs, pine bark, acorns, and
charcoal were also found. Eleven peach pit fragments were
recovered from the Feature 2 well. Four other features
contained organic remains. Feature 29 had 4 burned peach
pits along with a tpelo seed (Nyssa biflora) that was not
included in the Ethnobotanical class. included in the class
(Nyssa biflora). Three hickory nut fragments were associated
with Feature 18, and Feature 7 contained a squash-pumpkin
seed. The nine ethnobotanical specimens recovered from the
plowzone are fragments of peach pits that had been charred.
Carbonization of the pits is believed to be responsible for
their preservation.
A single Stable and Barn class artifact was found in the
trash-filled depression defined as Feature 11. This
artifact, shown in Figure 5-18, is an iron ferriers tool
used to clean the frog of a horses hoof (Charles Fairbanks:
personal communication). Plowzone artifacts in this class
include a brass harness ring and an iron snaffle bit with a
brass side boss (Figure 5-19). A similar bit from Virginia
which differs only by the presence of a snaffle loop and an


Figure 5-19. Snaffle Bit, Dobree Site.
Length:
18.2 cm.
uo


137
oval rather than square boss is attributed by Noel Hume to
the third quarter of the 18th century (1974:241).
The Miscellaneous Hardware class covers a variety of
artifact types such as iron cotter pins, rivets, bolts, and
washers. Several kinds of tools are also included: three
case knives from the features and four from the plowzone, an
iron strike-a-light from the plowzone, and 10 gray flint
strike-a-lights in the form of nodules with highly battered
edges, also found in the plowzone (Figure 5-18). Additional
artifacts counted in this class are six miscellaneous iron
strap fragments. They are similar in appearance to barrel
bands but are much thicker and heavier. Although several had
cut marks indicating a possible metal working association,
which would have warranted inclusion in the Other class, this
could not be definitely established.
The Other class of artifacts is comprised of a number of
artifact types not considered by South, due either to their
absence at the sites he excavated or to differences in
interpretation between South and the present author
concerning artifact function. Since this class consists of
artifacts that are thought to reflect specialized
manufacturing activities (bone button blanks, kiln wasters
and furniture, silversmithing debris), it was decided to
include flint debitage, which is believed to be an example of
a specialized activity by-product: the shaping or
modification of gunflints. Only those debitage fragments
that are similar in appearance to the gray and honey-colored


138
gunflints recovered at Frederica have been counted. A total
of 1008 fragments was recovered, with the plowzone accounting
for 828. Only 4% (49 fragments) were honey-colored. This
indicates that local flint knapping was performed primarily
on gray flint for the production or modification of spall
gunflints. As Stephen White has suggested (1975:71), gray
flint nodules left from ships ballast probably provided the
raw material for gunflint production at Frederica. Ballast
flint was common enough at Frederica to be used as a flooring
material and as an aggregate in the masonry walls of one of
the forts storehouses (Manucy 1962:59-63). Blade gunflints
were apparently modified but not produced at the site.
Another type of artifact included in this same class was
lead waste. The characteristics of this type of artifact
include flattened, globular drops or pools with one side (the
bottom) exhibiting sand impressions while the top is very
smooth. These lead "blobs" are believed to be a by-product
of the manufacture of musketballs and shot. The sand
impressions noted on the bottom of almost all the lead waste
fragments indicates that this manufacturing activity took
place outdoors or over a sand-covered floor. The features
contained 20 of these lead fragments and the plowzone 53.
A third type of previously undefined artifact that is
included in the manufacturing class for Frederica is scrap
leather, represented by seven small cut strips and fragments
that were recovered from the lower portion of the combined
Feature 1 well pit and shaft. Although not numerous, they


139
are clearly the waste product of some form of leather working
activity.
Another artifact counted in this class is the complete
iron sailmaker's needle shown in Figure 5-18. This unusual
item, which is certainly evidence of a specialized activity,
was recovered in a trash pit (Feature 16).
The class labelled Military Objects is made up almost
entirely of artillery ammunition. Five iron hollow shot
fragments and one solid grape shot were found in the
plowzone. The partial hollow shot shown in Figure 5-20 was
the only artifact of this class present in the features; it
was associated with the fill of the Feature 3 well shaft.
Although not particularly numerous, fragments of bombs are
found at most of the colonial sites at Frederica. Their
presence at domestic sites in the town may be attributed to
the explosion of the powder magazine in 1743, which would
have deposited bomb fragments in a widely dispersed pattern
over the town. The presence of the bomb fragment in Feature
3 is assumed to be a result of inclusion during the filling
of the well.
A brass military insignia in an anchor and rope design
is the only other item to be classified as a military object
(Figure 5-20). It was found in the plow zone.
Classification Format: Hird Site
Archeological data from the Hird Site were reanalyzed by
the author in order to derive a sample comparable with the
Dobree sample described above. The original analysis cards


Figure 5-20. Military Artifacts, Dobree Site.
Top: Iron hollow shot.
Bottom: Brass insignia.


141
IkmTT
TT
1 i^ch
... .1
-t


142
were used in conjunction with the final report on the Hird
Site (Honerkamp 1975) in order to classify the artifacts
using criteria identical to those used at the Dobree Site.
Although the artifacts themselves were not reanalyzed, the
previous study was sufficiently detailed to allow
reclassification and quantification. Table 5-2 lists the
ceramic data from the site while Table 5-7 contains a summary
of artifact class frequencies for the features and plowzone.
Faunal Analysis
Instead of simply using the faunal material to construct
bone-artifact ratios, as South does, a more intensive
analysis was made that allowed between-site comparisons along
with testing of a model of British colonial resource
utilization.
Under the direction of Dr. Elizabeth Wing, analysis of
the Hird and Hawkins-Davison faunal material was carried out
by Dr. Elizabeth Reitz; the Dobree material was examined by
the author. Similar methodologies were used by both
researchers. After being identified, all the bone was
weighed and counted, and MNI (minimum number of individuals)
and biomass were calculated whenever possible. Comparability
of the assemblages was enhanced by the use of the same
comparative skeletal collections at the Florida State Museum,
University of Florida.
Although fragment counts were made for all but the
"Unidentified Bone" taxon, this information was not used for
deriving conclusions concerning animal utilization at


143
Table 5-7. Artifact Class Frequencies, Hird Site.
Kitchen Group
Plowzone
Features
Totals
1 .
Ceramics
3809
839
4648
2.
Wine bottle
2379
336
2715
3.
Case bottle
373
96
469
4.
Tumbler
13
3
16
5.
Pharmaceutical
164
92
256
6.
Glassware
175
48
223
7.
Tableware
6
7
13
8.
Kitchenware
7
2
9
Totals
6926
1423
8349
Architectural Group
10.
Window glass
143
23
166
11 .
Nails
1987
975
2962
12.
Spikes
42
17
59
13.
Construction hardware
1
2
3
Totals
2173
1017
3190
Furniture Group
15. Furniture hardware
7
3
10
Arms
T6T
Group
Musketballs, shot, sprue
40
56
96
17.
Gunflints, gunspalls
33
18
51
18.
Gun parts
4
0
4
Totals
77
74
151
Clothing Group
19. Buckles
14
4
18
20. Thimbles
2
3
5
21. Buttons
26
10
36
23. Pins
0
4
4
24. Hook and eye fasteners
1
0
1
25. Bale seals
0
1
1
26. Glass beads
7
22
29
50 44 94
Totals


144
Table 5-7 (continued)
Plowzone Features
Totals
Personal Group
27.
Coins
0
2
2
28.
Keys
1
3
4
29.
Personal items
3
1
4
Totals
4
6
10
Tobacco Pipe Group
30.
White clay bowl and stems
1220
400
1620
Activities Group
33.
Toys
1
1
2
34.
Fishing gear
2
2
4
37.
Storage items
55
55
1 10
38.
Ethnobotanical
23
6
29
39.
Stable and barn
1
0
1
40.
Miscellaneous hardware
5
7
12
41 .
Other
42
18
60
42.
Military items
2
1
3
Totals
131
92
223
Numbering of artifact classes follows the numbering system
used by South (1977:95-96).


145
Frederica. To assume that the number of bones of a species
recovered archeologically is indicative of the degree to
which the species was utilized by the occupants of the site
is to ignore the effects that such factors as butchering and
disposal practices, soil acidity, and excavation recovery
techniques, to name only a few, have on fragment counts. The
same objections apply to South's treatment of faunal
materials whereby bone frequencies are manipulated in the
same way as artifact frequencies for classes such as nails,
glass, and ceramics.
Determination of MNI was based on element pairing,
relative age as indicated by dental wear/eruption and bone
fusion, and element size. The material was analyzed in terms
of all discrete proveniences, that is, each feature was
treated as a separate analytical unit on the basis of
evidence of short-term deposition. As Grayson (1973) has
pointed out, this approach yields results which lie between
the extremes produced by lumping all proveniences into one
analytical unit or splitting the units up on the basis of
arbitrarily defined excavation components such as vertical
levels or horizontal excavation squares. Since short-term
deposition could not be assumed for the plow zone material,
it was treated as a single analytical unit at the Hird Site.
Only closed context (feature) bone was identified for the
Dobree Site. By necessity the faunal materials from the
Hawkins-Davison Site were lumped together since the
provenience information that would have allowed separation of


146
the Hawkins from the Davison bone was not retained during the
20 years that have elapsed between excavation and analysis of
this site. The minimum distinction method used on the
Hawkins-Davison bone probably contributed to the relatively
small MNI derived for this site.
Estimating the live and edible meat weight from
archeological bone presents a number of difficulties for the
zooarcheologist. Whites method (1953) has been expanded
upon by a number of researchers, but all the calculations
that have been presented involve the use of a skeletal to
live weight ratio to obtain a useable meat estimate which is
multiplied by the MNI for each species. Several drawbacks
are apparent with this technique, the most serious of which
stems from the assumption made when multiplying the useable
meat estimate by the MNI: that one recovered element of an
animal is equivalent to the entire animal being used and
discarded at the site. More conservative and presumably
realistic estimates can be obtained when MNI is replaced with
archeological bone weight (Wing 1976), but other problems
remain, such as determining the average live weight of the
species (which is not constant through time or space) or
estimating what portion of the animal is or is not useable."
Alternatively, it is possible to calculate the biomass
represented by the archeological bone without reference to
MNI through the use of the bone weight in an allometric
equation that yields a corresponding biomass value. Detailed
discussions of the concepts involved in the use of this


147
technique are given by Casteel (1978), Prange et al. (1979),
Reitz (1979), and Wing and Brown (1979). The principle
behind the technique is that as the body weight of an animal
increases, the amount of skeletal weight increases
logarithmically. This relationship is described by the
equation
Y = aXb
where X is the archeological bone weight in kilograms, Y is
the biomass in kilograms, b is the slope of the log-log plot,
and a is the Y-intercept of the log-log regression line
(Prang et al. 1979:104). The a and b constants presented in
Table 5-8 have been obtained from calculations based on
measurements taken on specimens in the Florida State Museum
collections. It is expected that as more samples are
included in future calculations, these constants will be
continually refined.
The major advantage of the biomass technique is that it
yields a calculated meat weight that is based on the
archeological bone actually recovered for each species rather
than the presumed total live weight of the species. No
assumptions are needed concerning the original weight of the
animal or how much of it may or may not have been consumed.
It is therefore a more conservative and presumably more
accurate estimator than Whites method using a skeletal to
live weight ratio that is multiplied by the MNI of the
species represented.


148
Table 5-8. Allometric Constants Used in Biomass
Calculations.
Taxa
N
Slope (b)
Y-intercept (log a)
r
Mammal
97
0.90
1.12
0.94
Bird
307
0.91
1.04
0.97
Turtle
26
0.67
0.51
0.55
Snake
26
1 .01
1.17
0.97
Chondrichthyes
17
0.86
1.68
0.85
Osteichthyes
393
0.81
0.90
0.80
Non-Perciformes
119
0.79
0.85
0.88
Siluriformes
36
0.95
1.15
0.87
Pleuronectif ormes
21
0.89
1 .09
0.95
Percif ormes
274
0.83
0.93
0.76
Sparidae
22
0.92
0.96
0.98
Sciaenidae
99
0.74
0.81
0.73


149
The estimation of biomass is not without its own set of
limitations. The main one is that it does not take into
account the part of the body that is being weighed, for
instance, 10 grams of caudal fragments produce the same
biomass value as 10 grams of a femur. In effect, the animal
is assumed to have the form of "a sausage with a bone running
through the middle" (Elizabeth Wing: personal communication).
Despite this problem, there seems to be a great deal more
validity in using biomass calculations to infer relative
degrees of species utilization than Whites method with its
potential for inflated live-useable meat weights, or simple
fragment counts which often only reflect how heavy-handed the
archeologist was in collecting transporting, or storing the
samples.
Raw data derived from the Dobree Site faunal analysis is
presented in Appendix D. Table 5-9 is a species list and
summary of taxa bone weight, MNI, and biomass information.
Similar summaries are given by Reitz for the Hird and
Hawkins-Davison sites (1979:276-281), but the biomass totals
have been recalculated using refined a and b constants in the
present study. Tables 5-10 through 5-12 present summaries,
in terms of MNI and biomass, for six faunal categories at the
three sites.
The next chapter is devoted to the description and
analysis of the form, content, and structure of the arche
ological features encountered at the sites. Once this is
accomplished, it will be possible to address the research


150
hypotheses referred to in Chapter III in terms of the
artifacts, features, and contextual information that make up
the archeological evidence at Frederica.


151
Table 5-9. Species List
Frederica.
for '
the
Dobree
Site,
Lot 31
South,
Species
Ct
MNI
# %
Weight
gms
Biomass,kg
# %'
Unidentified bone
963.8
Unidentified mammal
4831
5943.3
79.75
38.0
Procyon lotor
racoon
39
7
5.5
36. 1
0.76
0.3
Didelphis marsupialis
opossum
10
2
1.6
7.9
0.17
0.08
Sylvilagus sp
rabbit
1
1
0.8
0.5
0.01
0.004
Sylvilagus cf palustris
marsh rabbit
1
1
0.8
0.4
0.01
0.004
Canis sp
dog
2
1
0.8
0.5
0.01
0.004
Felis sp
cat
40
1
0.8
10.8
0.22
0.1
Eauus cabellas
domestic horse
4
2
1.6
235.4
3,63
1 .7
Artiodactyl
even-toed ungulates
28
77.0
1 .56
0.7
Bos taurus
domestic cow
248
21
16.4
7220.2
97.57
46.5
Sus scrofa
domestic/feral pig
151
17
13.3
630.6
10.74
5.1
cf Odocoileus virginianus
white-tailed deer
2
2.0
0.04
0.01
Odocoileus virginianus
white-tailed deer
87
15
11.7
405.5
7.23
3.4
CaDra or Ovis sp
2
1
0.8
1 1
0.03
0.01
goat or sheep


152
Table 5-9 (continued)
Species
Ct
MNI
# %
Weight
gms
Biomass,kg
# %
Unidentified bird
81
24.8
0.44
0.2
cf Branta canadensis
Canada goose
1
0. 1
0.002
0.0009
Anatidae
ducks
3
0.8
0.01
0.004
Anas sp
surface feeding ducks
3
3
2.3
1.9
0.03
0.01
Aytha sp
diving ducks
1
1
0.8
0.8
0.01
0.004
Aix sponsa
wood duck
2
1
0.8
0.4
0.008
0.003
cf Gallus gallus
domestic chicken
1
0.2
0.004
0.001
Gallus gallus
domestic chicken
18
6
4.7
10.3
0. 18
0.08
Unidentified reptile
1
0.2
0.01
0.004
Alligator mississippiensis
American alligator
1
1
0.8
9.7
0. 12
0.05
Unidentified turtle
35
14.4
0.33
0. 1
Kinosternon sp
mud turtle
1
1
0.8
1 .4
0.03
0.01
Terrapene Carolina
box turtle
1
1
0.8
2.3
0.05
0.02
Malaclemys terrapin
diamondback terrapin
8
4
3.1
3.3
0.10
0.04
cf Chrysemys scripta
yellow-bellied turtle
1
0.5
0.01
0.004
Chrysemys scripta
1
1
0.8
1.5
0.04
0.01
yellow bellied turtle


153
Table 5-9 (continued)
Species Ct
cf Gopherus polyphemus 2
gopher tortoise
Gopherus polyphemus 1
gopher tortoise
Colubridae 2
Colubrids (snakes)
Rana/Buf o 9
frog or toad
Carcharinus sp 2
requiem shark
Unidentified fish 1347
Siluriformes 61
catfishes
Ariidae 26
sea catfishes
Arius felis 91
sea catfish
Bagre marinus 34
gafftopsail catfish
Archosargus probatocephalus 1
sheepshead
Scianidae 12
drums
cf Pogonias cromis 1
black drum
Pogonias cromis 22
black drum
Scianops ocellata 49
red drum
MNI Weight
# % gms
Biomass,kg
# %
2.8
0.07
0.03
1
0.8
0.3
0.01
0.004
0.5
0.006
0.002
0.3
0.002
0.0004
2
1.6
0.4
0.06
0.02
165.8
2.63
1 .2
4.6
0.08
0.03
3.7
0.07
0.03
10
7.8
34.5
0.60
0.2
5
3.9
11.5
0.20
0.09
1
0.8
0.6
0.01
0.004
10.3
0.30
0. 1
0.9
0.03
0.01
6
4.7
41.3
0.72
0.3
8
6.2
87.8
1 .51
0.7


154
Table 5-9 (continued)
Species
Ct
MNI
# %
Weight
gms
Biomass,kg
# %
Mugil sp
13
5 3.9
1.2
0.03 0.01
mullet
Totals
7282
128
15989.5
209.73


155
Table 5-10. Summary of Six Faunal Categories, Dobree
Site, Frederica.
Biomass of Taxa for Which MNI Was Determined
MNI Biomass
Taxa
#
%
kg
%
Domestic Animals
46
36.2
108.8
87.4
Wild Terrestrial
27
21.2
8.1
6.5
Wild Birds
5
3.9
0.05
0.04
Aquatic Reptiles
8
6.2
0.3
0.2
Fish and Sharks
37
29. 1
3.1
2.5
Commensals
4
3.1
3.8
3.1
Totals
127
124.3
Biomass
of Taxa for Which
MNI Was Not Determined
Taxa
Biomass
kg %
Mammals
81.35
95.3
Birds
0.45
0.5
Reptiles
0.42
0.4
Amphibians
0.002
0.002
Fish
3.11
3.6
Total
85.33


156
Table 5-11. Summary of Six Faunal Categories, Hawkins-
Davison Site, Frederica.
Biomass of Taxa for Which MNI Was Determined
MNI Biomass
Taxa
#
%
kg
%
Domestic Animals
19
42.4
77.5
82.4
Wild Terrestrial
1 1
24.4
14.8
15.7
Wild Birds
7
15.6
0.9
1 .0
Aquatic Reptiles
2
4.4
0. 1
0.1
Fish and Sharks
5
11.1
0.7
0.7
Commensals
1
2.2
0.01
0.01
Totals
45
94.0
Biomass of Taxa
for Which
MNI Was Not Determined
Biomass
Taxa
kg
%
Mammals
0.62
20.1
Birds
0.56
18.2
Reptiles
0.01
on

o
Fish and Sharks
CO

61 .4
Total
3.08


157
Table 5-12. Summary of Six Faunal Categories, Hird
Site, Frederica.
Biomass of Taxa for Which MNI Was Determined
MNI Biomass
Taxa
#
%
kg
%
Domestic Animals
47
20.0
189.2
77.9
Wild Terrestrial
40
17.0
40.7
16.7
Wild Birds
49
20.9
2.0
0.8
Aquatic Reptiles
7
3.0
0.6
0.2
Fish and Sharks
87
37.0
10.4
4.3
Commensals
5
2.1
0. 1
0.004
Totals
235
243.0
Biomass of
Taxa
Taxa for Which MNI Was Not Determined
Biomass
kg %
Mammals
180.71
90.9
Birds
1.31
0.7
Reptiles
0.46
0.2
Amphibians
0.01
0.005
Fish
16.21
8.2
Total
198.70


CHAPTER VI
SITE FORM AND CONTENT
Dobree Site Features
This section describes the archeological features
excavated at the Dobree Site in terms of their form and
content. Since this site has not been reported previously,
the feature discussion will be in more detail than that for
the other sites.
A total of 30 man-made disturbances were identified at
the Dobree Site and designated as features (Figure 6-1).
Feature designations were made on the basis of the form and
presumed function of the disturbance and/or the type or
quantity of associated artifacts. For instance, some
postholes were designated as features if they contained large
amounts of 18th century refuse believed to have been
purposefully deposited as fill, while other postholes lacking
such material did not receive feature designations. The
relatively small quantities of artifacts associated with the
nonfeature postholes are thought to have been inadvertently
included in the fill for each posthole during backfilling, or
to have fallen in by chance after the posts had been removed
or had disintegrated (Noel Hume 1969:135-137). The
difference in artifact deposition associated with feature
versus nonfeature postholes is discussed later in this
158


Figure 6-1. Composite Map of Dobree Site Features.
Feature Type
Wells
Trash Pits
Postholes
Miscellaneous
Pallisade Trench
Feature #
1,2,3
4,5,6,7,9,10,
12,13,16,17,18,
19,20,21,22,24
14,15,23,25,
26,27
8,11,28,30
29


160
meters


161
chapter. For now, suffice it to say that the arbitrary
divisions made for the inclusion of a disturbance under the
"feature" category seem to be justified using the criteria
listed above. For convenience of discussion, the features
have been divided into four categories: wells, trash pits,
postholes, miscellaneous features and the Feature 29 trench.
A breakdown of the artifact classes according to type of
feature is presented in Table 6-1.
Wells
Three barrel wells, designated as Features 1 through 3,
were excavated at the Dobree Site. In the following
discussion the term "well pit" refers to the large hole that
was initially dug into the water table while "well shaft"
refers to the barrel casing that was placed in the well pit.
Identification and separation of shaft versus pit fill was
made whenever possible through color distinctions in the
respective fill soils.
As with most other features, the archeological
visibility (Deetz 1977:94) of Feature 1 was very poor when it
was first uncovered. The photograph shown in Figure 6-2,
taken just after the plowzone in Square 31 had been
excavated, illustrates the initial lack of distinctive form
or soil color on which the separation of the pit and shaft
could be made (the well pit is composed of light mottled sand
while the shaft area is the even dark soil between the bricks
and the light sand). As the excavation of the well
progressed, provenience distinctions within and around the


Table 6-1. Artifact Class Frequencies, Features, Dobree Site.
Trash
Post-
Wells
Pits
holes
Mise.
Fea 29
Totals
Kitchen Group
1 .
Ceramics
709
540
17
6
721
1993
2.
Wine bottle
326
140
2
8
388
864
3.
Case bottle
98
134
0
0
372
604
4.
Tumbler
53
8
0
0
28
89
5.
Pharmaceutical
253
69
1
0
52
375
6.
Glassware
35
2
0
0
26
63
7.
Tableware
0
3
0
0
0
3
8.
Kitchenware
0
0
0
0
0
0
Totals
1 474
896
20
14
1587
3991
Bone Group3
9-A. Bone weight (gm)
6005.3
7670.4
26.4
497.6
1782.8
15982.
9-B. Bone frequency
2195
3723
12
241
865
7758
Architectural Group
10. Window glass
180
92
0
0
95
367
11. Nails
872
519
28
16
495
1930
12. Spikes
9
1
0
0
0
10
13* Construction hardware
2
0
0
0
1
4
14. Door lock parts
0
0
0
1
0
1
Totals
1063
612
28
17
591
2312
Furniture Group
15. Furniture hardware
3
4
1
0
1
8
162


Table 6-1 (continued)
Arms
Group
Wells
Trash
Pits
1 6.
Musketballs, shot, sprue
28
8
17.
Gunflints, gunspalls
1 1
2
18.
Gun parts
7
1
Totals
46
1 1
Clothing Group
19. Buckles
12
2
20. Thimbles
0
0
21. Buttons
9
4
22. Scissors
1
1
23. Pins
19
1
24. Hook and eye fasteners
0
1
25. Bale seals
0
0
26-A. Glass, shell beads
2
0
26-B. Miscellaneous clothing
7
0
Totals
48
9
Personal Group
27. Coins
2
0
28. Keys
0
0
29. Personal items
1
0
Totals
3
0
Tobacco Pipe Group
30. White clay bowl and stems
480
218
Post-
holes
Mise.
Fea 29
Totals
0
0
5
41
3
17
2
0
4
1 4
3
0
12
72
0
0
1
15
0
0
1
1
1
0
2
16
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
20
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
7
1
0
4
64
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
1
4
1
2
429
1203
CTv
OO


Table 6-1 (continued)
Activities Group
Wells
Trash
Pits
Post-
holes
Mise.
Fea 29
Totals
31 .
Construction tools
2
0
0
0
0
2
32.
Farm tools
0
0
0
0
0
0
33.
Toys
0
0
0
0
0
0
34.
Fishing gear
0
0
0
0
0
0
35.
Stub-stemmed pipes
0
0
0
0
0
0
36.
Colono Ware
0
0
0
0
0
0
37.
Storage items
27
1 1
0
0
0
38
36.
Ethnobotanical
40
7
0
0
5
52
39.
Stable and barn
0
0
0
1
0
1
40.
Miscellaneous hardware
0
10
0
0
4
14
41 .
Other
133
20
2
4
41
208
42.
Military items
1
0
0
0
0
1
Totals
201
48
2
5
50
316
Numbering of artifact classes follows the numbering system
used by South (1977:95-96).
Bone frequencies are derived by using a ratio of 2.06 grams/fragment.


Dobree
Figure 6-
Figure 6-
Top of Feature 1 Barrel Well,
Site.
Initial excavation of Feature 1 Barre
Well, Dobree Site.

Figure 6-
Figure 6-
Top of Feature 1 Barrel Well, Dobree
Site.
Initial excavation of Feature 1 Barrel
Well, Dobree Site.

166


167
well became easier to make. The Figure 6-3 photograph, taken
after excavating 0.08 meter of the top of the well, indicates
the increased visibility that became apparent with increasing
depth.
Feature 1 was excavated by first taking down the east
half of the entire well in order to reveal an unambiguous
profile of the shaft and pit (Figure 6-4). Although the
bottom of the pit was not reached due to the presence of
ground water, the bottom of the shaft was located through the
discovery of the bottom half of the lowest barrel.
Preservation of the staves is attributed to their position in
the anaerobic, water-logged environment below the water
table. Except for this lowest portion, only the presence of
regularly spaced iron barrel hoops and the dark gray fill in
the shaft marked the position of the barrels.
The walls of the pit were vertical on the north while
sloping slightly inward on all others. The pit was 2.15
meters north-south by 1.80 meters east-west as measured at
the top of the feature just below the 0.20 meter thick
plowzone. Ground water was encountered at approximately 1.65
meters below the ground surface. Excavation of the pit had
to be halted after removing 0.15 meter of mud at this depth
due to the danger of creating a sump that would cause the
collapse of one or more of the surrounding walls in the
square. The highly mottled appearance of the pit fill is
probably a result of the mixing of the dark topsoil with the
lighter sterile sands that occured during backfilling of the


Figure 6-4. Profile of Feature 1 (Barrel Well), Square 31, Dobree Site.
Legend:
A Sod layer
B Plow zone, dark gray-brown sand
C Light gray to light yellow-tan sterile sand
D Pit fill, mottled gray, tan-yellow, and light brown sand
E Well fill, dark gray-tan sand (robber pit?)
F Shaft fill, dark gray sand
G Barrel staves
H Iron barrel hoop fragments
I Brick rubble
J Wine bottle
K Edge of well pit, extrapolated below water table


A
WATER TABLE
NOV 78
5 0 cm


170
pit, while the contrasting dark soil in the shaft is thought
to be composed primarily of dark topsoil sand. Also
accounting for the darker color of the shaft fill is its high
organic content. Large amounts of bone, leaves, twigs, and
other organic debris were recovered from the shaft but not
the pit (see Chapter V). The large quantities of artifacts
deposited indicate that this well was in use and filled
during a period of habitation at the Dobree Site that was
characterized by the generation of considerable amounts and
types of domestic refuse.
Abandoned wells functioned as convenient depositories
for refuse at many British colonial sites. Filling the well
shaft served not only to eliminate accumulated trash but also
to remove the potential hazard that an open shaft posed to
livestock as well as humans (Noel Hume 1969a:144). A
possible terminus post quern of 1740 can be established for
the backfilling of the shaft by the presence of a sherd of
refined agateware, which has a beginning manufacturing date
of sometime in the mid-l8th century according to Noel Hume
( 1974:132) and of 1740 according to South ( 1977a:211) The
construction of the well pit could not be more closely dated
due to the broad manufacturing ranges of the ceramic types
recovered from it. The mean ceramic date, calculated from
181 ceramic fragments, was 1749.2.
Feature 1 contained the only complete wine bottle found
at the site. The upright position of the bottle (Figure 6-4)
and the presence of a wooden stopper in the mouth suggest


171
that this item may have been stored in the well but not
retrieved when the shaft was filled. It is therefore an
example of an _in situ-de facto artifact (South 1977a:297)
since it has a direct archeological context relationship with
locational aspects of storage behavior in the systematic
context, in this case the storage of a presumedly alcoholic
beverage. The presence of whole pins, buttons, and buckles
in the well fill is also seen as resulting from loss. These
items probably were accidentally included in the refuse
material used to fill the well shaft. All other artifacts
found in the well are considered to be examples of displaced
refuse, with the possible exception of the fragments of oak
and pine material which may have fallen into the well while
it was in use. The variety of ceramic, glass, and metal
artifacts that comprised the displaced refuse is considered
to be indicative of a domestic occupation, and hypotheses
relating to this question are tested in the next chapter.
Directly to the west of Feature 1 was another barrel
well, designated as Feature 2 (Figure 6-1). The east edge of
this feature had been uncovered during the excavation of
Feature 1 in Square 31 and a profile photograph of a portion
of the well pit was made. As seen in Figure 6-5, the pit
walls were nearly vertical. Placement of the barrel shaft
was slightly south of the pit center. Although the top of
this feature was discerned as soon as the 0.22 meter plow
zone had been removed, a distinction between the pit and
shaft could not be made until 0.27 meter of the entire well


Figure 6-5. Profile of Feature 2 Well Pit, Dobree
Site.


173


174
had been excavated. The pit measured approximately 1.55
meters north-south and 1.45 meters east-west at this depth.
Due to its considerable depth and the presence of ground
water (1.64 meters below surface) that had been heavily
recharged by recent winter rains, it was not possible to
reach the bottom of this feature. Excavation continued
another 0.4 meter below the water table before being
abandoned, but shaft versus pit provenience distinctions
could not be made in the final muddy 40 centimeters. No
artifacts were detected below this depth using a 1.5 meter
steel probe, although the presence of several barrel staves
was indicated. By extending an arm three quarters of a meter
into the mud, the author was able to confirm the presence of
the wood staves but was unable to retrieve any. Barrel hoops
were entirely absent from the shaft of Feature 2. The
barrels used to create the shaft casing probably were of all
wood construction.
The shape of the well pit changed noticeably as the
excavation progressed. Figure 6-6 illustrates the squared
appearance of the south and west walls (0.83 meter below
surface). Also apparent in this photograph is the outline of
the disintegrated barrel casing. A close-up view, shown in
Figure 6-7, reveals the outline of the disintegrated barrel
along with water-sorted sand in the shaft fill. Unlike
Feature 1, almost all of the artifacts found in the second
well came from the 0.27 meter top portion directly below the
plow zone. The mottled fill soil from the pit and shaft are


Figure 6-
Figure 6-
Feature 2 Pit and Shaft, Dobree Site.
Closeup of Feature 2 Pit and Shaft, Dobree
Site.


176
T*'


177
quite similar in appearance and are probably of similar
origin: mixed sterile subsoils and topsoils. The water-
sorted nature of the shaft backfill and the absence of refuse
indicate that this well took longer to fill than Feature 1.
Several fragments of refined agateware associated with the
well pit establish a possible terminus post quern of 1744 for
the construction of Feature 2. A mean ceramic date of 1747.9
was calculated for the well using 37 identifiable sherds.
Feature 3 differed from the other two wells by having a
square pit in which the barrel shaft was centrally located.
The profile shot shown in Figure 6-8 and the overhead view in
Figure 6-9, both taken after the shaft had been reamed out,
provide graphic evidence of the square corners and straight
walls of this feature. The pit measured 2.0 meters north-
south by 2.0 meters east-west. Besides its shape, the manner
in which the pit was backfilled is also distinctive. The
barrel shaft was enclosed by a dark layer of fill that formed
a circular outline within the square pit (Figure 6-9). After
abandonment of the well, the shaft was backfilled with dark
humic sand and a considerable number of nearly complete glass
and ceramic artifacts (Figures 5-9 through 5-12).
Excavation of Feature 3 was similar to that of the other
wells. The top portion of the feature, immediately below the
0.26 meter thick plow zone, had to be removed as a combined
shaft-pit unit until a distinction could be made between the
fill material in each provenience. This top portion was 0.11
meter thick. The feature was profiled until water was


Figure 6-8. Profile of Feature 3 Barrel Well, Dobree
Site.
Figure 6-9. Feature 3 Pit and Shaft, Dobree Site.


179


180
reached at 1.28 meters below ground surface. Thereafter, the
north and south halves of the well were taken down
simultaneously. A well point connected to a gasoline-powered
diaphram pump was used to remove the ground water down to
2.07 meters below ground surface, where excavation was halted
due to excess ground water.
The shaft fill changed markedly at 1.45 meters below the
surface. At this point a thin, flat fragment of unidentified
wood was found lying horizontally in the shaft. Below this
wood the fill consisted of light gray sand with some light
tan mottling, rather than the dark gray artifact-bearing soil
in the upper portion of the shaft. Use of the probe failed
to detect the presence of artifacts in the unexcavated bottom
of the well, although barrel staves were located but not
recovered. The abrupt change in the lower shaft fill, which
was similar in appearance to the mottled light gray-tan sand
in the surrounding pit, may have resulted from part of the
barrel casing rotting away and the surrounding walls
collapsing inward. No artifacts were found in this lower
0.57 meter portion of the shaft fill.
Artifacts recovered from Feature 3 initially were
interpreted as indicating that it was filled in later than,
or at least as late as, the other two wells. Besides finding
four sherds of refined agateware in the shaft, the top 0.11
meter shaft-pit portion of the well contained a small sherd
of scratch blue white salt glazed stoneware, for which South
gives a beginning manufacturing date of 1744 (1977a:210).


181
However, it should be noted that the sherd was recovered in a
mixed provenience level just below the plow zone and may be
intrusive. Thus a conclusive terminus post quern of 1744
cannot be definitely established for the filling of the well
despite the discovery of this ceramic type. A mid-1740s or
later filling date is also indicated by the presence of two
fragments of molded white salt glazed stoneware that were
part of a panelled teapot (Figure 5-8). When mended into a
single fragment, a distinctive animal-and-shield relief
design was apparent. Almost identical designs are
illustrated by Mountford (1971:plates 96,99) for an eight
panelled teapot and a panelled cast bowl, both in white salt
glaze stoneware. A date of circa 1745 is attributed to both
vessels. Even when the relatively "late molded and scratch
blue stoneware sherds are included in the mean ceramic date
calculation, the resulting date of 1746.7 (from a total of
143 sherds) is slightly earlier than the dates for the other
two wells.
Taken together, the three wells accounted for 42.7% of
the feature-associated artifacts and 37.6% by weight of the
feature bone recovered at the site. When plotted by
percentage frequencies per group (Figure 6-10), it is
apparent that the filling of the wells constitutes a major
method of trash disposal at 18th century Frederica. It is
suspected that this is true of other, contemporaneous British
colonial sites. A comparison of the artifacts listed in the
appendices for these three features indicates considerable


Figure 6-10.
Frequency or Weight Percentages for
Nine Artifact Groups, Features, Dobree
Site.
Wells
Trash Pits
Feature 29


O
Kitchen Bone Architecture
Furni ture
Arms Clothing Personal Pipe Activities
oo
UJ


184
diversity in the types and amounts of material deposited in
them. Since wells were filled relatively quickly, they often
provide tightly dated archeological time capsules of the
material culture of a site, but only for a highly
circumscribed period during the sites occupation. The
temptation to treat a single wells contents as an ill-
defined representative sample of the craft activities,
socioeconomic status, or extent of wild versus domestic
animal utilization is one that should be resisted until a
larger or more diverse sample is attained. The individual
assemblages in the three wells are representative only of the
wells themselves, not of the site in general, particularly at
the type level. At the class level the differences are not
as extreme but are still apparent. An example of this
diversity is provided by a comparison of the frequency
percentages of the ceramics, wine bottle, nails, and clay
pipe classes shown in the following table:
Table 6-2. Frequency Percentages for Four Artifact Classes,
Wells, Dobree Site.
Ceramics
Wine Bottle
Nails
Pipe
Totals
Feature
1
278
190
416
274
1158
(24.0%)
(16.4%)
(35.9$)
(23.7$)
(100$)
Feature
2
183
69
175
160
587
(31.2$)
(11.7%)
(29.8$)
(27.2%)
(100$)
Feature
3
190
67
281
46
584
(32.5%)
(11.4%)
(48.1$)
(7.9$)
(100$)
An important characteristic shared by all three features
is temporal position. Mean ceramic dates ranging from late


185
1746 to early 1749 have been calculated and this close
temporal contiguity is believed to be indicative of the late
1740s occupation at the site that is responsible for the
construction, use, and filling of the three wells.
Trash Pits
Sixteen features were designated as trash pits on the
basis of their shape and/or contents. All these pits were
mapped horizontally (Figure 6-1), and the larger ones were
profiled or cross-sectioned and mapped before excavating the
entire feature. Except for Feature 10, all the trash pits
were oval or circular in shape, and all appear from
stratigraphic evidence to have been filled quickly. As shown
in Figure 6-11, the Feature 5 profile displays distinct
lenses of soil that may be associated with a gradual filling
process, but the nearly bell-shaped profile of this feature
would seem to preclude this interpretation. Long term
deposition in subsurface pits characteristically results in
lensing of the fill material along with gently sloping walls
and rounded rather than sharp edges at the lip of the
feature. All of these attributes are a result of progressive
weathering and erosion of the top and walls of the open pit
(Cornwall 1958:57-60). Besides exhibiting sharply defined
edges, features that are filled relatively quickly often
contain homogeneous soil that in profile does not reveal
erosion lensing. Although the true tops of the features at
the Dobree site have been obliterated by plowing, the nearly
vertical walls of Feature 5 can only be associated with a


Figure 6-11. Profile of Feature 5 Trash Pit,
Dobree Site.
Figure 6-12. Profile of Feature 10 Storage/Trash
Pit, Dobree Site.


a g
fe ?
*' ir


188
rapidly filled pit. The presence of lensing is attributed to
distinct soils being used to fill the pit, as might be
produced from alternate shovelsful of dirt from different
areas around the feature.
The fill materials contained in the rest of the trash
pits were all homogeneous within each pit, indicating
relatively rapid depositional periods associated with each.
The circular trash pits ranged in size from 0.51 meter
(Feature 21) to 1.15 meters (Feature 24) in diameter; five
were one meter or more in diameter (Features 4,5,9,18,24).
Depth below the plowzone varied between 0.07 meter (Feature
20) and 0.56 meter (Feature 5). None of the ten smaller
features extended more than 0.40 meter below the plowzone.
It is possible that some of the pits--particularly those
containing small amounts of trashwere used for purposes
other than as garbage disposal locations, but evidence of
multiple use has not been identified.
Feature 10 is the only trash pit uncovered that is not
circular or oval in shape. It extended 0.48 meter below the
plowzone and possessed nearly vertical walls and a slightly
convex bottom (Figure 6-12). From the extensive amounts and
types of artifacts associated with it, the feature apparently
functioned as a trash dump location. However, the distinct
rectangular shape of this feature indicates a prior function
as well. No analogous features from Frederica or other
colonial sites are known to the author, but the shape, size,


189
and, as will be shown later, the location of this feature are
not inconsistent with a storage pit function.
A distinction is made between the larger (at least one
meter in diameter) and smaller trash pits at this site. The
10 smaller features are considered to be "informal pits that
were dug quickly and easily for immediate disposal of a
specific, limited collection of trash. The odorous qualities
of the horse mandible (Equus cabellus) found in Feature 12
could certainly have provided the impetus needed for digging
such a feature. Larger amounts of accumulated bone and trash
would have required larger "formal" trash pits, such as those
over one meter diameter, that would have involved
considerably more labor to excavate than the informal pits.
The formal trash pits are not only larger in diameter than
the informal pits, they are also deeper, averaging 0.35 meter
below the plowzone versus 0.30 meter for the smaller pits.
The most notable characteristic of the trash pits, as
seen in Figure 6-10, is the large amount of bone that was
deposited in them (40.0% of the total feature bone weight),
relative to other artifacts (22$ of total feature artifacts).
It is clear that the primary function of these pits was to
contain trash, particularly trash associated with
disagreeable smells.
Only Features 4, 5, and 10 contained a sufficient
quantity of datable ceramics to allow application of the mean
ceramic date formula. Features 4 and 5, both located on the
extreme western edge of the excavation, yielded dates of


190
17^9.3 and 1760, respectively. The late date for Feature 5
is attributed to the abundance of white salt glazed stoneware
(114 sherds) in the pit. Feature 10 had a date of 1740.5.
The significance of these dates will be discussed later in
this and the next chapter.
Postholes
Six trash-filled postholes were designated as features
(Figure 6-1). They are distinct from non-feature postholes
only in the amounts of colonial trash contained in the fill
of each, particularly construction materials. Brick and
tabby rubble was three times as plentiful (by volume) in the
feature postholes as in the nonfeature postholes. All the
feature postholes were found in an area of the site
containing a heavy concentration of nonfeature postholes that
are believed to have been asssociated with a colonial
structure. Figure 6-13 is a composite map showing all
colonial postholes in which a clustering of postholes south
of Feature 29 in the northeast area of the site is revealed.
A rectangular post-supported building, with its northeast
corner directly adjacent to Feature 10, appears to have been
present in this area. The dimensions of this building are
approximately 7.3 meters by 4.6 meters (23.9 by 15.1 feet),
which corresponds closely to the "at least 20 by 16 feet"
building dimensions specified by the Trustees (Candler 1904
37:XXXIV,288). An additional room is represented by a
cluster of 12 postholes to the east of the main structure.


Figure 6-13- Composite Map of Dobree Site Postholes.
postholes
f eatures
tabby block


o
metars
kO
I\)


193
Besides the postholes, other direct evidence of a
building in this area consists of numerous fragments of
plaster tabby that bear wattle impressions. Except for a
large block found in Feature 29 (Figure 6-13), this daubed
plaster tabby was the only kind recovered from the site.
Unfortunately, quantification of construction materials was
not carried out in the northeast section of the site. A
contour map produced from the plowzone samples of brick and
tabby reflects the presence of construction material that is
associated with the three wells (Figure 6-14). Most of this
material is from brick rubble used to fill the well shafts,
although some brickbats included in the sample were probably
originally used to brace the barrels near the top of Feature
1 (see Wells discussion above). Also apparent in this map is
a moderate amount of construction material extending from the
wells to the posthole structure which is a result of the
SYMAP interpolation of values for squares around the
structure. It should be noted, however, that the
construction rubble contour map does not reflect the
extremely heavy concentrations of plaster tabby that were
observed but not quantified during excavation of the area in
which the structure is located. It should also be added that
large fragments of wattle-impressed plaster tabby were
recovered from subsurface features in this area exclusively.
The example shown in Figure 6-15 was found in the Feature 25
posthole that is associated with the structure.


Figure 6 14. Distribution of Construction Materials,
Plowzone, Dobree Site.


195
synap
i - 2- 3
6-
-I
OOBREE LCT EXCAVATED SQUARES
DISTRIBUTION of 0RICK AND T A88Y QU6SLE (IN LITERS: PtOi ZONE
SOUTH VARO. FREDERICA
ABSOLUTE VALUE RAKGE APPLYING TO EACH LEVEL
(MAXIMUM* INCLUOEO IN HIGHEST LEVEL ONLY
NOTE: 9RICK AN) TABBY MATERIAL FROM SUB-PLOW ZCNE
FEATURES IS NOT ItCLUOED*
MINI MU M
MAXI MUM
0 .0
4*00
4*00
9. 00
8* 00
I 2.90
1 00
I 6.00
ABOVE
16. 00 2 0*^)0
20*99
OATA VALUE EXTREMES ARE
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL ABSOLUTE VALUE CANGE APPLYING to each LEVEL
FREQUENCY CISTRIBuTION OF OATA POINT VALUES In EACH LEVEL
LE VF L I 2 3 A 5
ssasxsaasaasaasassaaaasaaaasaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
OOOOCOOOL) OAABAAAAA BBBBBBB
OOOOOOOOO 9BBBBBBBB ABBBBBBBB
SYMBOLS * CCCO OCOO OB MB OBBB ABBB fOA
********* OOOOOOOOO AAABABABA BABBAABA
* OOOOOOOOO AABAAABAA ABBBBBBBB
xxxxxaasxsxxaassxxxxxxxxaxxsxxxxxxxxxxxxxsxxxxxaxaa
FPEQ* 20 o 2 9 9


Figure 6-15. Tabby Plaster From Wattle and Daub Structure, Dobree Site.


197


198
Although not specifically mentioned by Manucy (1960),
wattle and daub houses are not unknown from early Georgia.
In his discussion of the basic freeholder-yoeman house,
Nichols (1957:27) describes a variation of the wattle-and-
daub construction method:
There were some houses ((in Georgia)) which the Mora
vians built in their own fashion, like those erected in
North Carolina and Pennsylvania. These were of hewn
log uprights with the space between filled in with
cylinders of clay formed around sticks set horizontally
As the interces were plastered but not the framing,
the effect was that of half-timber... The colonists
were well aware of the distinction between these
Moravian-style houses and the framed, weather-
boarded houses of the English.
Nichols also indicates that wattle-and-daub houses were used
by non-Moravians in 18th and 19th century Georgia, as his
discussion of contemporaneous historian George Whites
observations shows:
Wattle-and-daub was used in these framed houses
as well as in huts. As late as 1830, the home of
Thomas Bosomworth and his Indian wife Mary Musgrove,
was still standing on St. Catherines Island, and
White describes it as being wattled with hickory
twigs, and plastered within and without with mortar,
made of lime and sand, surrounded with spacious
piazzas. ( 1957 : 27)
Except for the spacious piazzas, this description agrees
remarkably well with the physical evidence of the structure
found at Lot 31. The presence of the unique rectangular pit
(Feature 10) directly adjacent to the building is also
considered to be significant. The unusual shape and the
location next to the post structure are explicable if the
storage function suggested earlier for Feature 10 is
accepted. A pit or root cellar adjacent to the house would


199
have been a convenient storage facility if lined with wood
and secured with a wooden top. A mean ceramic date of 1740.5
indicates the approximate time that the pit, and indirectly,
the house, were in use. The mean ceramic date of the
plowzone ceramics in the vicinity of the house also supports
this contention (see Chapter VII).
Miscellaneous Features
The features included under this category consist of
three shallow trash-filled depressions and a possible fire
pit (Figure 6-1). Feature 28 was a small, poorly visible
disturbance that contained two upright cattle long bones (Bos
taurus) and nothing else. Next to it, and underlying Feature
29, was the Feature 8 pit. This feature had a circular
central area containing charcoal and ash. The pit had
straight sides and a flat bottom, and other than 14 square
nails and 1.2 grams of bone, no artifacts. Although similar
in shape to a trash pit, the lack of artifacts and the
presence of a remnant wood fire in a circular area in the
center indicate a function for this feature that is distinct
from that of the trash pits: it was dug to contain a fire.
Such a pit would most likely have been created for cooking,
to provide heat, or to provide smoke, but in the absence of
charred bone, recognizable charcoal or other positive
evidence of its ultimate use, an informed choice between the
three alternatives is not possible. None of these
miscellaneous features contained sufficient ceramic artifacts
to derive a mean ceramic date.


200
Feature 29 Trench
This feature proved to be the most enigmatic of any-
found by the author at Frederica. It extended east-west
across 10 of the three-meter excavation units (Figure 6-1)
and beyond. Profiles on the west wall of Square 4 and the
east wall of Square 20 indicate that neither end of the
trench had been excavated. This feature was poorly visible
in most squares (Figure 6-16), especially in the east end of
the site where root disturbances from several large live oak
trees were prevalent. The form of Feature 29, indicated in
the profile photograph shown in Figure 6-17 and in the
overhead shot in Figure 6 16 is quite similar to the
pallisade wall trench excavated by Lewis at Camden (1976:43-
48, especially Figure 18 and Figure 19). The alignment of
the trench is slightly askew to the site grid. Large numbers
of artifacts were found in the trench fill (Figure 6-10), and
a mean ceramic date of 1742.3 was derived from 368 colonial
period sherds. This excludes four sherds of creamware or
later that were recorded for this feature: one creamware,
two transferprint pearlware, and one plain pearlware-
whiteware body sherd. Unfortunately, none of these sherds
were discovered in. situ and they may be intrusive into the
top of the feature as a result of the extensive soil-altering
processes discussed in the last chapter. If the sherds are
used as a terminus post quern for the construction and filling
of this feature, then a date of 1795 or later must be
assumed. Even if these four sherds are considered as


Figure 6-16. Edge of Feature 29 Pallisade Wall Trench,
Dobree Site.
Figure 6-17. Profile of Feature 29 Pallisade Wall Trench,
Dobree Site.


202


203
intrusive, it is suggested that the trench dates after the
primary occupation of the site, as discussed below.
Various interpretations as to the function of this
feature were proposed during the excavation. Eventually this
30 meter-plus trench was recognized as a pallisade footing
trench. This interpretation was supported by the presence of
a line of postholes in the trench that was noted after the
composite map shown in Figure 6-13 was drawn. However,
careful inspection of this map reveals that the orientation
of the trench--as opposed to the postholes in the trench--is
slighly different. The postholes are oriented to the site
grid while the trench extends in a line that is approximately
three degrees south of the east-west grid line. This
indicates that the trench and the postholes may not be
directly associated. Further evidence of a lack of direct
association between the postholes and trench is illustrated
in Figure 6 18. This profile reveals separate fill
characteristics in the trench and the posthole underlying the
trench bottom. Of primary significance is the lens of dark
humic soil apparent at the bottom of the trench. This thin
layer is believed to be composed of humic soils from the
surface that fell into the trench before it was backfilled;
similar soil is present in the bottom of the posthole. If
the posthole had been dug at the same time as the trench, a
slumping of the humus into to posthole would be expected,
rather than the straight extension shown in the profile. If
a post had been present in the posthole, the lens extending


Figure 6 18. Profile of Feature 29 and Underlying Postholes,
Dobree Site.


205


206
straight across the trench bottom would again be expected to
have shown discontinuity at the posthole. What is indicated
by this profile is that Feature 29 has cut across and was
therefore constructed after the posthole. The same
stratigraphic relationship was noted for most of the other
postholes located in the trench. In addition to the
postholes, four other features were also cut by this Feature,
indicating that they were already present when it was dug.
None of the features or postholes were intrusive into the
trench. It is therefore suggested that Feature 29 dates
after the line of postholes and the features shown at the top
of Figure 6-13*
Although the line of postholes under Feature 29 predates
the trench, their depth below the plowzone indicates that
they probably were associated with an earlier footing trench
that was destroyed by the later one. This explains the
presence of a "double bottom" in Feature 29 that was noted in
some squares during excavation. The heavy amounts of trash
recovered from this provenience have apparently resulted from
the redeposition of the material included in the hypothetical
earlier trench and/or from surface refuse that was included
in the trench backfill. In either case, the artifacts
associated with Feature 29 would be expected to reflect the
effects of redeposition. This assumption is tested by
comparison of ratios of the "miscellaneous" (i.e. eroded)
earthenware to nonmiscellaneous ceramics in Feature 29, the
plowzone, and the other features. Ratios of 0.18, 0.12, and


207
0.05 were found, respectively, which is in full accordance
with the expectation of highly fragmented ceramics in the
open contexts versus reduced fragmentation in the closed
context features.
The presence of the two post pallisades in the same
location at this site raises numerous questions. Although
similar in form to the military pallisade wall trenches
reported by Lewis at Camden (1976) and Manucy at Frederica
(1962), the possibility exists that Feature 29 may have been
a domestic pallisade-fence marking the street and lot
boundary. Documentary references to the fencing in of
property at Frederica are not uncommon. Indeed, Elisha
Dobree's own description of his Frederica homestead includes
mention of his town lot which "is fenced and has palisades
and clapboards..."(Candler 1904-37:XXI,345). The position of
the trench agrees fairly closely with the documented position
of the street-lot boundary: it is approximately 4.5 meters
farther north than anticipated, as indicated by a comparison
of maps shown in Figure 5-3 and Figure 6 13. Archeological
data also tends to confirm the presence of a street next to
the trench. The contour maps already presented for brick and
ceramic distributions generally show reductions in artifact
frequencies in the first and second rows of the excavated
squares.
Arguing against a domestic interpretation is the extent
of the trench which greatly exceeds the 60 feet width of
Frederica's lots, and equally important, the fact that the


208
trench has no parallel or right angle counterparts that would
have marked the bondaries of the other three sides of the
lot. A military association is therefore suspected for this
feature.
Sporadic attempts at repair and reoccupation of
Frederica by British, and later Federal, troops are
documented (Candler 1904-37:X,515, XIV,413; Jones 1878:126-
136), and it is suggested that the presence of Feature 29 at
the site is attributable to an undocumented attempt to
refurbish the town's defenses through construction of a
pallisade within the old town walls. The location of this
pallisade along the edge of a former street would have
provided a cleared area, immediately inside and adjacent to
the pallisade walls, which would have facilitated
unobstructed movement of personnel along the edge of the
pallisaded area.
Another indication of the association between the
Feature 29 artifacts and the plowzone material is seen in the
mean ceramic date calculated for the plowzone, feature and
Feature 29 ceramics. The date for the trench would be
expected to reflect the date calculated for the plowzone if
ceramics were discarded at about the same time for both.
Expressed another way, if temporal differences in the
plowzone deposition and deposition in the features exist, the
trench should be more closely associated with the plowzone
dates. This is born out by the following dates calculated
for the precreamware ceramics:


209
Plowzone: 1743.4
Feature 29: 1742.3
All other features: 1749.3
That temporal distinctions exist between the features and the
plowzone is clearly apparent, as is the essential
correspondance between the plowzone and feature ceramics
temporal characteristics.
Using the information presented in Tables 5-1 and 6-1 ,
it is also possible to test the plowzone, features, and
trench artifact associations by constructing bone-artifact
ratios. Following the reasoning above, these ratios should
be more similar for the trench and plowzone that for any
other combination. Using bone weight rather that
frequencies, the following ratios were found:
Plowzone:
0.39
Feature 29:
0.66
All other features:
2.65
These results again illustrate the systematic relationship
that exists between the plowzone, trench, and features at the
Dobree site.
Through several lines of evidence it has been possible
to demonstrate similarity between the artifact assemblages
recovered from the plowzone and the pallisade wall trench and
to contrast the characteristics of these assemblages with
those of the features. These similarities and differences
reflect the depositional processes associated with each type
of provenience.


210
In summary, Feature 29 is believed to be a military
pallisade wall trench that was constructed after the primary
occupation of the site. Stratigraphic evidence was found
indicating that this feature was located directly over an
earlier trench and post line that conformed more closely to
the towns alignment that did the later trench. Artifacts
associated with the trench fill were found to possess
temporal and physical relationships similar to the plowzone
artifact assemblage. Redeposition in Feature 29 of (1) the
assemblage from the earlier trench, (2) the plowzone
artifacts, or (3) a combination of both accounts for the
similarities between this feature and the plowzone materials.
From documentary and archeological evidence the trench
appears to have been located on the south edge of a road that
was in use during the colonial occupation at Frederica.
Hird Site Features
A total of 10 major features was uncovered at the Hird
Site, as shown in Figure 6-19. Detailed descriptions of each
are presented in the Hird Lot Site report (Honerkamp 1975:74-
87). They are renumbered in the present study. All of the
ceramic artifacts found in the features possess beginning
manufacturing dates that antedate creamware and no "out of
place artifacts, such as wire nails or molded glass, were
associated with the closed contexts. Mean ceramic dates for
features containing sufficient numbers of identifiable sherds
were all within the mean occupation range at Frederica; a


211
mean ceramic date of 1738.9 was calculated for the combined
feature ceramics.
The variety of features found at this site, and the
extensive artifact and bone assemblages associated with them,
are believed to constitute an adequate sample of the colonial
occupation for comparison with the Dobree Site. The features
consist of four trash pits, a small dog burial, two privy
pits, an unused well or privy construction pit, a storage
pit, and a possible root cellar. Figure 6-19 illustrates the
clustering of features in the approximate center of the site.
Notable for its large size is the central Feature 3 trash
pit, which contained 70$ of the bone and 62$ of the artifacts
found in all the features. This shallow pit (0.23 meter
below the plow zone) was dug at an earlier date than Features
5 through 7, all of which cut into the trash pit. The dog
burial predates Feature 3.
The double barrel storage pit (Feature 9) is unique at
Frederica and at other contemporaneous British sites. The
shallow bottom of this pit, at 0.84 meter below the plow
zone, precludes its use as a well. However, the bottoms of
the barrels were apparently placed in water as indicated by a
0.06 meter layer of water sorted sand. It therefore has been
interpreted as being a storage pit that was later filled with
trash.
Feature 10 is a straight sided, flat bottomed pit that
contained several decomposed timber beams on the bottom and
two fragments of plaster tabby with wood lath impressions


OMDOO-OCT>U1-CrUO|\)
Figure 619- Composite Map of Hird Site Features.
Features
1
Description
Trash pit
Trash pit
Trash pit
Dog burial
Privy pit
Unused construction pit for well/privy
Privy pit
Trash pit
Barrel storage pit
Possible root cellar


213
-N-
I
I0 FEET
3 METERS


214
parallel to the south edge at the top. It extended 0.76
meter below the plow zone. The presence of wood framing was
probably an attempt to keep the pit dry. The large size of
this feature and its location at the south end of the lot
indicate its association with a structure of some kind. It
is interpreted as a root cellar that was probably part of a
dwelling structure at the site.
Hawkins-Davison Site Features
The excavation of this site is reported by Fairbanks
(1952, 1956) and Deagan (1972). The primary features
uncovered consist of the entire house foundations and six
associated closed context wells, four of which were excavated
in whole or in part. At least 5 separate rooms, representing
various stages in the development and construction of the
Hawkins-Davison duplex, were identified. Fairbanks also
located evidence of the lot boundaries at the site. The
large size of the excavated area and the multiple features
uncovered are believed to compose a representative sample of
the artifacts and bone deposited during the Hawkins-Davison
occupation.
Summary
This chapter has reviewed the sample frame used in this
study in terms of form and content of the sites investigated.
The three artifact assemblages recovered from the sample
frame are considered to be comparable for the following
reasons:


215
1) The samples are large;
2) The samples are diverse; i.e. the "single feature
bias" has been eliminated through excavation of
numerous features at each site;
3) Closed context features contributed significant
amounts of the artifacts and bone from each sample.
Using the data base reviewed above, it is now possible to
investigate questions relating to the frontier adaptation at
Frederica.


CHAPTER VII
EVALUATION OF THE EVIDENCE
This chapter presents hypotheses dealing with aspects of
the British colonial adaptation to the natural and social
environments at Frederica. Both artifactual and faunal
evidence will be examined with reference to the hypotheses
and associated test implications. Lewis frontier model is
seen as a conceptual framework that can be used to show the
relationships that exist between elements of the hypotheses.
As a simplified analogue of reality, the frontier model
cannot be tested in a formal sense. However, the
applicability and usefulness of the model for interpreting
frontier sites can be demonstrated through the use of the
model in an explanatory capacity at sites such as Frederica.
Although Frederica is not completely comparable with Camden
due to social, demographic, political, and economic
differences, these differences can be taken into account when
applying the model.
From the information presented in the last two chapters
it is possible to address several general questions
concerning the cultural, temporal, formal, and functional
parameters of the Hird, Hawkins-Davison, and Dobree Sites.
The cultural affiliation of the sites is the first question
to be addressed.
216


217
Cultural Affiliation
From the historical background reviewed in Chapter IV it
can logically be assumed that Frederica participated fully in
the world-wide economic system developed by Britain in the
18th century. In order to test this assumption through
reference to archeological data, it is necessary to examine
archeological materials that would reflect the economic ties
between Frederica and the mother country. Miller and Stone
have characterized ceramic artifacts as being "particularly
sensitive" indicators of economic-transportation linkages,
and by extension, cultural affiliation (1970:98-99).
Extensive ceramic assemblages recovered from the three sites
investigated are useful in determining the cultural
affiliation of the sites.
As with Lewis Camden study (1977), documentary sources
have identified the colonizing society at Frederica as being
primarily British. However, the sample frame in the present
study is not the town as a whole but rather three sites that
are assumed to correspond to three domestic British
components of the military-civilian settlement. In an effort
to control the ethnicity variable (which is essential if
other hypotheses are to be adequately tested), it is
necessary to substantiate the proposed British affiliation of
the three sites. This can be accomplished through testing
three interlocking hypotheses dealing with the ceramic
assemblages associated with each site. Following the
propositions made by Lewis (1977:68), they are:


218
1) As components of a British colonial frontier town,
the Hird, Hawkins-Davison, and Dobree sites should
be characterized by a predominance of ceramics manu
factured in the country of origin or its colonial
possessions.
2) Reliance on the British ceramic industry and on
British trade and transportation networks would be
reflected not only in ceramic frequencies but also
in the number of ceramic types recovered from all
three sites. In view of the overwhelmingly dominant
position of the British ceramic industry during the
18th century, it is expected that the variety
of British ceramic types present at the Frederica
sites would mirror the diversity of types found at
other British sites.
3) The occurence of re-exported ceramic types at British
colonial sites is a reflection of the commercial
trade and transportation networks developed by the
mother country in the 18th century. Lewis has indi
cated that the percentage occurance of re-exported
foreign-made ceramics at British sites in North Amer
ica falls within predictable ranges (1976:79,
1977:168). The two most commonly exported wares,
Westerwald stoneware and oriental porcelain, should
therefore fall within the predicted ranges (1 to 5%
and 7 to 30^, respectively) for the three sites at
Frederica.
The ceramic data presented in Table 5-2 can be used to
substantiate the proposed British affiliation of the three
sites. Of the precreamware types present at the sites,
British ceramics account for the vast majority: 93.1%
(Hird), Q9% (Hawkins-Davison), and 87.4% (Dobree). The
presence of 9 ceramic fragments representing Britainss two
main competing European powers out of a total of 18,438
sherds recovered certainly does not indicate any significant
trade networks or the presence of a Spanish or French
occupation at Frederica.
A total of 22 colonial period types of British-made
ceramics were identified for the three sites, substantially


219
less than the 32 types mentioned by Lewis for Camden
(1977:168). However, the sample used for Frederica does not
include creamware or later types, as the Camden sample does.
Ivor Noel Hume (1974), James Deetz (1977), and others have
described the florescence in the English pottery industry
that took place in the 1760s. Considerable numbers of types
and quantities of mass-produced ceramics became widely
available at a lower cost than previously. The contrast
between Camden and Frederica reflects the temporal
differences between the two settlements in terms of the
development of the British ceramic industry.
Re-exported ceramics are present at all three sites, as
represented by 1607 Oriental porcelain fragments and 417
fragments of Rhenish stoneware. For the sites as a whole,
this accounts for 8.7% and 2.3% respectively. Both
percentages fall within the ranges suggested by Lewis, which
is seen as supporting the third hypothesis. However, there
is considerable diversity between sites in the percentages of
these wares:
Oriental Porcelain
Rhenish Stoneware
Hird
5.5%
1 .4$
Hawkins-Davison
n.5%
6. 1 %
Dobree
10.5 %

C\J
As Deetz has pointed out, the presence of artifacts at a site
is dependent upon four factors: availability, need, function


220
and social status (1977:50-61). Any or all of these factors
may be responsible for intersite differences in artifacts.
It is suggested that the availability factor is primarily
responsible for the contrasts in ceramics noted above.
Hypotheses relating to this question are tested in a later
section.
Temporal Parameters
The second general question refers to the chronological
position of the three sites. Although the documented
terminus post quern for the entire town has been established
as 1736, occupation end dates varied from site to site. Most
sites at Frederica are believed to have been occupied from
1736 until the middle to late 1740s, while a small number
were inhabited past 1750. The documented mean occupation
date for the settlement is set at 1742 (see Chapter IV).
Analysis of temporally sensitive ceramic and pipe
artifacts is useful in determining the temporal parameters of
the sites in question. Post-1760 deposition of ceramic
artifacts at the Hawkins-Davison site is indicated by the 303
sherds recovered that have beginning manufacturing dates of
1762 (creamware) or later. This accounts for 15-5% of the
total ceramic assemblage from this site, whereas the Hird and
Dobree sites contained only 1.0% and 2.3% Since the
Hawkins-Davison site is known to have contained a substantial
brick house, reoccupation of this site after the primary
inhabitants had left would not be surprising. However, the
reoccupation that may have taken place at this site was


221
apparently not of substantial duration or intensity and at
least some of the biases that it would have introduced into
the limited sample can be identified and controlled.
A more accurate estimate of the mean date of occupation
of British colonial sites can be attained using Souths
formula. Mean ceramic dates of 1738.8 for the Hird Site and
17^3.8 for the Dobree Site were found using the total
precreamware assemblages from each site (2648 and 6635
sherds, respectively). These dates fall within the
documented colonial occupation span for Frederica and both
are close to the median historic date of 1742. These dates
also agree with the temporal characteristics associated with
the identified nonceramic artifacts discussed in Chapter V.
Contrasting dates are derived from the tobacco pipe
data. Using the Binford (1962) and the Heighton-Deagan
formulae, the following dates were calculated from the
pipestem fragments:
Hird Site
Dobree Site
Binford formula
1741.7
1766.0
Heighton-Deagan formula
1743.8
1768.3
Samples: 4/64
164
2517
5/64
947
1159
6/64
38
42
The pipestem dates for the Hird Site are still within the
documented occupation ranges for Frederica and the site. The
slightly later dates, as compared with the mean ceramic date,
probably result from the differences in ability of the author
to control the ceramic but not the pipestem samples:


222
noncolonial ceramics were readily identified and excluded
from the mean ceramic date calculations but corresponding
"late pipestems that were deposited at the site after the
Hird occupation could not be identified and removed. It
should be noted, however, that the pipestem dates are closer
to the documented occupation midpoint (late 1741-early 1742)
than the mean ceramic date. This suggests an alternative
interpretation for the ceramic and pipestem data. The
earlier ceramic date may be attributed to factors at the site
that resulted in a higher rate of ceramic use and subseqent
discard during the first half of the occupation. The most
important factor in the generation of domestic refuse would
be occupation density. Documentary evidence reviewed for the
Hird Site indicates that at least five persons were living at
Lot 12-North during the initial occupation of the site. It
is unlikely that the family unit remained stable over the
entire occupation of the site. One of Hird's daughters is
reported to have married and presumably left the Hird
household after she arrived in Georgia, and Thomas Hird is
known to have developed another homestead sometime after 1743
on an island between Savannah and Frederica. Eleven years
after his death, Hirds "plantation was still substantial
enough to be the object of a petition by his daughter and
son-in-law (Candler 1904-37:VIII,202). Thus, factors are
present in the early part of the Hird occupation that would
have produced a higher rate of transformation of artifacts
from systemic contexts to archeological contexts (Schiffer


223
1977:15-18) relative to the late occupation period. This
interpretation obviously hinges upon a crucial factor: that
the site excavated was actually occupied by Hird. Evidence
used in identifying Lot 12 North with the Hird occupation is
presented below.
Much later pipestem dates have been generated for the
Dobree Site. The discrepancy between the ceramic and pipe
dates can be attributed to (1) a breakdown of the pipestem
formula's production of reliable estimates, and (2)
deposition of "late" pipestems without corresponding
deposition of significant numbers of late ceramics. Although
the HeightonDeagan and Binford formulae are known to break
down during the last three decades of the 18th century,
comparison of ceramic and pipe dates derived from
contemporaneous sites indicates that pipestem dating is an
appropriate method for determining occupation estimates for
sites earlier than 1770. The alternative arguement for the
presence of a higher proportion of "late" pipestems without a
corresponding percentage of postcreamware ceramic types seems
more plausible. This apparent discrepancy in pipe and
ceramic deposition indicates that the Dobree Site possessed
multiple occupations: one or more early occupations in which
ceramics and pipestems were deposited together (i.e., in the
features) and at least one late occupation in which only
pipestems were deposited. However, evidence from the closed
context features suggests another explanation. It can
logically be expected that the dates derived for ceramics and


224
are recovered from the same features will exhibit similar
temporal ranges. Excluding Feature 29, a mean ceramic date
of 1749.3 was found for the features, while the pipestem
dates were 1765.8 (Binford) and 1768.1 (Heighton-Deagan).
These results indicate that the pipestems used at the Dobree
Site in the late 1740s possessed a range of bore diameters
that does not correspond to an appropriate normal frequency
distribution as predicted by the Binford and Heighton-Deagan
formulae. It is suggested that the reasons accounting for
the small bore bias are related to the specific
characteristics of the economic-communication-transportation
networks present in colonial Georgia during the latter 1740s.
These characteristics are thought to contrast sharply with
those associated with the logistics system established during
Frederica's earlier years. This point will be developed more
fully later. Other town sites with late occupations are
expected to share similar ceramic-pipestern temporal
relationships to those found at the Dobree Site. These late
sites should contrast with other earlier sites in terms of
differences between the ceramic and pipe dates if the model
proposed here is accurate.
The pipestem data from the Hawkins-Davison Site (Deagan
1972:54) was used by the present author to derive dates of
1744.1 (Heighton-Deagan) and 1742.1 (Binford). Both dates
are after the initial occupation of the house but are still
within the documented range for Frederica. These late dates


225
are attributed to the reoccupation of the site that was
proposed above.
The foregoing discussion substantiates archeologically
the temporal parameters for the town and the sites that were
derived from the documentary record. In addition, by
examining chronologically sensitive artifacts, it has been
possible to address questions concerning the structure of the
archeological record and its relationship to some of the
local and possibly regional factors that affect it.
Site Form and Function
Questions concerning variation in the form and function
of the sites at Frederica are addressed next. As Lewis
points out, form is closely associated with function. For
instance
... Camden would have occupied a status comparable
in many ways to certain other types of urban settle
ments in early industrial Europe. Its location on the
periphery of the European world system, however, would
have caused it to assume characteristics unlike those
of settlements in the metropolitan area. Its role as a
frontier town would require it to maintain certain func
tions while adapting to frontier conditions by restrict
ing its socially integrating institutions and, con
sequently aspects of its form as well. (Lewis 1977:171)
It is possible to contrast the formal-functional
characteristics attributed to Frederica with those of Camden
and European settlements. Instead of developing as a high-
density population center that assumed successive urban
functions, as would an English market town, Camden was
established primarily "to coordinate social, economic, and
political activities (Lewis 1977:172). These differences


226
would be reflected differentially in the spatial arrangements
of each. Camden would be expected to have a less compact
settlement pattern than its urban English complement as a
result of a combination of abundant land, a relatively low-
density supporting population, and the absence of a need for
concerted defense or cooperative subsistence ventures.
Although meeting the definition of a frontier town, due to
political factors Frederica would be expected to mirror the
form of a European town more closely than a dispersed
frontier town. Because Fredericas intended purpose was as
the first line of defense from a competing state-level
power, adaptive pressures would result in a more concentrated
settlement pattern than Camdens. A relatively high, if
fluctuating, population density as compared with Camden's
would also tend to produce a settlement similar to a
concentrated European town.
A second hypothesis concerns settlement patterning at
the lot rather than town level. As components of a larger
entity, the town lots should reflect the formal
characteristics that are discernible for the town as a whole.
The reasoning behind this assumption is that the same
demographic and political pressures that affected the town
settlement pattern would also have affected the structure of
the individual units within the town. In other words, the
compact, clustered settlement pattern of the town should be
manifest on the most basic unit of space, that of the
freeholder lot. The patterning of features within each lot


227
should therefore be more clustered at Frederica than at the
nondefensive frontier town of Camden.
The function of the frontier town of Frederica involves
additional testable hypotheses. Another unique
characteristic of this settlement is that it was a planned
communityor as planned as any frontier town in 18th century
Georgia could be. In an effort to induce a measure of self-
sufficiency, the Trustees endeavored to include as many
different craftsmen as possible in the towns roster.
Whereas sites at a metropolitan town should reflect primarily
domestic functions, the components at a frontier site would
be more likely to reflect domestic and craft, marketing,
small-scale manufacturing, and tavern socializing activities.
As with Camden, structures used only as dwellings probably
were in the minority at Frederica. In view of the emphasis
that was placed on crafts and trades at Frederica as opposed
to Camden, the centralizing functions (Lewis 1977:173) of
the former should be much more in evidence than for the
latter.
Frederica Settlement Patterning
Although the present study has been oriented toward the
component level of the town rather than the town as a whole,
it is possible to address the first hypothesis through
reference to documentary evidence and previous archeological
research. This hypothesis predicts a concentrated settlement
pattern at Frederica similar to the "row pattern" in English
towns, consisting of long, narrow lots in a contiguous,


228
evenly spaced arrangement. The outer boundaries of the town
are readily discernable as the ditch and pallisaded walls
surrounding the town lots. Contemporaneous maps, including
the Miller Map shown in Figure 4-1, illustrate a close,
nonrandom arrangement of long, narrow lots. Archeological
excavation carried out on both sides of Broad Street (Shiner
1958a) confirms the row pattern. The 84 contiguous lots
located within the defensive walls of the town are in a much
more compact arrangement than the uneven dispersal of
structures and associated toft areas at Camden.
Additionally, lot and house locations in the British colonial
town of Brunswick, North Carolina, are clearly more dispersed
and uneven that at Frederica (South 1977a:46,49). Thus the
formal town structure at Frederica is seen as conforming to a
pattern that is characteristic of a contemporaneous English
settlement rather than a colonial frontier town. The need
for a consolidated defense against a competing state power is
the primary factor responsible for the occurance of this
pattern at Frederica.
Structure of Lot Elements
The second hypothesis predicts that the sociopolitical
and demographic factors affecting the structural arrangement
of the town as a whole should have similar effects at the lot
level. Several test implications can be derived from this
hypothesis, as follows:
1) There should be evidence of clustering of features
within lots, reflecting the localized, concentrated
use of highly circumscribed town lots. Intersite


229
differences in the degree to which the features are
clustered will be related to the intensity of occupa
tion at each site.
2) Since trash disposal would be limited primarily to
each occupants lot due to the towns compact settle
ment pattern, there should be evidence of maximiza
tion of the trash disposal potential of each lot.
Most subsurface features would eventually have been
filled with secondary trash regardless of the initial
function of the feature.
3) Intrasite disposal of organic remains, particularly
of bones capable of generating objectionable odors,
will be oriented toward subsurface features.
More bone is expected to be deposited in features
than on the surface of the lot. Conversely, arti
facts lacking odiferous qualities would be deposited
in a more casual manner at the lot. Higher artifact
frequencies are therefore expected on the surface
of a lot than in the features.
4) The concentrated settlement pattern and contiguous
arrangement of the town lots would have necessitated
careful demarkation of lot boundaries. Evidence of
this presumed emphasis on the delineation and main
tenance of lot perimeters should be archeologically
discernable.
Clustering of features within the two lots sampled by
the author is illustrated in Figure 6-1 and Figure 6-13- At
the Hird site the middle of the presumed lot consists of a
series of trash pits, privies, and other pits that are
intrusive into one another. At the Dobree Site, the
arrangement of pits and well features is much more dispersed;
the only intrusive features are the pallisade wall trench,
which is believed to have been constructed after the main
occupation, and a posthole (Feature 27) located in a large
circular pit that contained few artifacts (Feature 24). The
differences apparent in the locations of features at these
sites is believed to be related to the intensity and duration
of occupation at each. At the Dobree Site, evidence derived


230
from chronologically sensitive artifacts indicates highly
variable dates for plowzone versus feature deposition:
1743.4 and 1749.3, respectively (exclusive of Feature 29).
The late dates generated for the pipestem material
underscores the temporal variability associated with this
site. The contrast in dates for the open and closed
proveniences at the Dobree Site indicates a multi-occupation
sequence. At the Hird Site there was close agreement between
the plowzone mean ceramic date (1738.8) and the closed
context date (1738.9). In addition, the pipestem dates were
much closer to the ceramic dates than was the case at the
Dobree Site. The differences observed between the temporal
characteristics of the two sites are believed to be related
to the distinct occupation sequences at each site. The
Dobree Site data are consistent with a multiple occupation
sequence while the Hird temporal evidence indicates a single
occupation.
The intensity of occupation at each site can also be
archeologically gauged for comparative purposes. At the Hird
Site, which is expected to have been more intensively
occupied than the Dobree Site, an index of the occupation
intensity was found by dividing the total number of
classified artifacts by the total number of square meters
excavated. As expected, the resulting figure of 122.4
artifacts/square meter is higher than the Dobree Site figure
of 92.8 artifacts/square meter. For faunal materials the
contrast in indices is even greater. Expressed in grams, the


231
amount of bone is 337.6 grams/square meter for the Hird Site
versus 92.8 grams/square meter for the Dobree Site.
(Occupation indices for the Hawkins-Davison Site were not
derived since Fairbanks was not able to completely excavate
all the wells he encountered (1956:216).) It is proposed that
the differences in occupation intensity that are demonstrated
by these indices are directly related to the differences in
the degree of clustering of features that is present at both
s i tes.
The test implication concerning maximization of the
trash disposal potential at each site refers to the secondary
use of subsurface features such as wells, privies, and
storage pits as trash containers. Features that were
originally constructed for purposes other than holding trash
but that were later used for that purpose have been
identified at both sites. At the Dobree Site special
function features that were not defined as trash pits include
the three wells (Features 1, 2, and 3), a storage pit
(Feature 10), a fire pit (Feature 8), a pallisade wall trench
(Feature 29), and six postholes (Features 15, 23, 25, 26, and
27). As was indicated in the last two chapters (see
especially Figure 6-10), all of these features, with the
exception of Feature 8, contained heavy concentrations of
secondary trash. At the Hird Site two privies (Features 5
and 7), a storage pit (Feature 9), and a root cellar (Feature
10) are all considered to have originally functioned as
special purpose features that were eventually converted to


232
trash containers. Of all 10 features defined for the site,
only Feature 6 (an unused well or privy pit) and Feature 4 (a
dog burial) were not utilized for trash disposal. At both
sites a strong behavioral tendency toward "recycling" subsur
face features seems to be present, including those features
which would have presented little danger to people or live
stock. This indicates an actual need for subsurface trash
elimination that was a consequence of the concentrated row
pattern of town lots. A contributing factor in the reuse of
colonial features is discussed next.
The third implication can be addressed through compar
ison of percentages of total site bone and artifacts for the
closed context features and the plowzone. The expectation of
greater deposition of bone in the features is met at both
sites as seen in the following table.
Table 7-1. Comparison of Total Bone and Artifact Materials,
Hird and Dobree Sites.
Provenience
Site Plowzone Features
Hird Bone (grams) 16136.1 21514.5
(42.9%) (57.1%)
Hird Artifacts 10588 3059
(77.6%) (22.4%)
Dobree Bone (grams) 13863-3 15982.5
(46.4%) (53-6%)
Dobree Artifacts 35173 7969
(81.5%) (18.5%)


233
The artifact totals for both sites are exclusive of the
Ethnobotanical class in this table. The higher percentages
of bone weight in the features indicate a tendency to dispose
of bone in a subsurface context. Nonfaunal trash, which
would possess less of the objectionable olfactory qualities
associated with food bone, was more likely to be thrown away
without recourse to burying.
The most obvious alternative explanation for the
observed bone percentage differences between the plowzone and
features would be differential preservation, particularly as
a result of variations in soil pH levels. Soil samples taken
at the Dobree Site and analyzed by the University of Florida
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Soil Sciences
Laboratory, indicate that soil acidity was consistent
throughout the site regardless of provenience. Table 7-2
contains the pH values for 23 samples from 8 separate
features, 5 plowzone samples, and 11 samples from Zone 2.
Even when four "wet" samples are excluded, the mean pH values
are 7.2 for the features, 7.4 for the plowzone, and 7.2 for
the sterile B horizon (Zone 2). Twelve samples from the Hird
features and 19 from the plowzone, analyzed by the same
laboratory in 1975, ranged from 7.8 to 8.5. According to
Heizer and Graham (1967:126), soils with a pH level below 7.0
are acid and below the 6.3 level there is no preservation of
bone material. Soil acidity is therefore not considered to
have been a significant factor in promoting differential bone
preservation on either an intersite or intrasite level.


Table 7-2. Soil pH Values, Dobree Site.
Provenience
Square #
2
F eature
1
31
7.1
Feature
1
31
7.1
Feature
1a
31
6.9
Feature
1 a
31
7.1
Feature
1a
31
6.3
Feature
2
30
7.5
Feature
2
30
7.8
Feature
3a
30
7.2
Feature
3
50
7.3
Feature
3
50
6.8
Feature
3
50
6.8
Feature
4
11
7.4
Feature
5
29
7.1
Feature
5
29
7.1
Feature
5
29
7.1
Feature
5
29
7.1
Feature
8
1 1
7.5
Feature
19
16
7.6
Feature
29
16
6.8
Feature
29
17
7.3
Feature
29
17
7.2
Feature
29
6
6.9
Feature
29
19
6.6
Plowzone
6
7.1
Plowzone
19
6.1
Root Disturbance
(Plowzone)
34
8.0
Root Disturbance
(Plowzone)
34
8.0
Root Di
sturbance
(Plowzone)
24
7.8
Zone 2
Sterile
34
8.0
Zone 2
Sterile
36
7.1
Zone 2
Sterile
16
7.7
Zone 2
Sterile
17
7.4
Zone 2
Sterile
17
7.4
Zone 2
Sterile
17
7.2
Zone 2
Sterile
31
6.6
Zone 2
Sterile
29
6.8
Zone 2
Sterile
6
7.3
Zone 2
Sterile
19
6.6
g
Sample taken below ground water level.


235
Physical degradation of bone may also account for the
differences in bone quantity noted for the plowed and
nonplowed proveniences but this proposition is difficult to
test without resorting to a long-term experimental archeology
research program. A more immediate and practical test of
hypotheses concerning differential preservation and bone
disposal practices would be to compare the results reported
here with those from undisturbed contemporary English or
British colonial sites possessing similar spatial constraints
(i.e., narrow contiguous lots). It is predicted that in the
absence of such constraints, the need to maximize the
disposal potential of a limited area will be reduced. This
will result in fewer trash pits dug and relatively less bone
deposited in them as other, more informal methods of disposal
are used. It eventually should be possible to define the
parameters of garbage formation processes at archeological
sites in such a way as to be able to make predictive
statements concerning adaptive human behavior in waste
elimination. Insights into this topic have already been
demonstrated to have practical implictions for modern
industrial societies (Rathje 1977, 1979), and a cross-
cultural research methodology for addressing questions of
this nature has recently been proposed (McNett 1979).
The fourth implication concerns the demarcation of lot
boundaries in the colonial town. The presumed emphasis on
definition of areal holdings would be a result of a situation
in which a dense population was present in a confined,


236
strictly limited area. The delineation of lot and street
boundaries was of high research priority during the Dobree
Project and accounts in part for the extensive area excavated
at Lot 31 South.
Documentary references to fences at Frederica are fairly
common, prompting Manucy (1960) to include fences at almost
every lot in his reconstructed town model. Firm
archeological evidence of lot demarcation was uncovered by
Fairbanks (1956) at Lots 1 and 2 South. On the west side of
the Hawkins lot he found a line of root disturbances which
were interpreted as marking the location of a hedge of
pomegranates that was mentioned in a contemporary account of
the site (Candler 1904-37:XXII,Part 11,453)- Test trenches
also located incomplete sections of a row of postholes on the
west and south edge of the Davison lot; a possible posthole
line noted on the east side was disturbed by a series of
wells and trash pits. The intrusive nature of these features
over the postholes suggests that the importance of fences
(and lot boundaries) changed though time at Frederica. On
the north end of the site was a narrow ditch running parallel
to Broad Street that was "clearly some sort of front fence"
(Fairbanks 1956:223). Other fences, or possible fences, were
located archeologically during the Broad Street excavations,
including a brick wall on the boundary of Lot 3 South (Shiner
1958) .
No evidence of a fence line was uncovered at the Hird
Site. The relatively small amount of area opened during the


237
excavation, the absence of a fence line, the destruction of
evidence indicating lot boundaries, or some combination of
factors may account for the lack of locational results at
this site. At the Dobree Site there was evidence of a
postcolonial pallisade fence on the north end of the site
which was intrusive over an earlier post line oriented to the
colonial town grid. This earlier posthole line may be
associated with the colonial occupation at Frederica,
although this can not be conclusively demonstrated with
archeological materials. The location of this suspected
fence line on what is thought to be the street end of a lot
and its alignment with the colonial grid support the
contention that the earlier post line was a sort of fence, or
possibly two fences, that fronted Lot 30 and Lot 31.
Evidence of a south, east, or west fence was not found
despite the large area opened up at this site.
Since the postholes were encountered in seven of the
excavation units, they extend over 60 feet and must therefore
represent two separate fences or a single fence encompassing
all of one lot and at least part of another. Elisha Dobree
was known to have attempted to "unite lots" at Savannah
(Candler 1904-37:XXIV,133) and the fence line encountered at
Lot 31 South may be an example of a similar attempt, by
Dobree or some other colonist, at Frederica.
Based on an admittedly limited sample, the documented
use of fences to set off property boundaries during the
colonial period has been established archeologically.


238
However, differences probably exist concerning the type and
extent of fences used by Fredericas inhabitants. It is
likely that the presence or absence of fences is correlated
with socioeconomic status (as is the case with architecture
and wells), intensity of settlement in different Ward areas
(i.e., Broad Street lots versus the outer row lots), or
temporal aspects of settlement patterning (change through
time in occupation density at the site). It is also possible
that fences played an important technological role at
Frederica (Leone 1973; Heps 1969). Although the presence of
fences at the town has been demonstrated, much future
research will be needed before a clear picture can be gained
of where and under what conditions they occur.
Site Function
The question of site function can be expressed in terms
of the presence of domestic or nondomestic activity by
products at each site. In view of the documented background
on the bulk of Fredericas inhabitants, it is expected that
most sites will reflect the presence of combined domestic and
craft activities. As at Camden, structures used only as
dwellings should be rare at Frederica.
One way in which aspects of site function can be
determined is through quantification and comparison of
artifact classes and groups. By summarizing the artifact
group information given in the last two chapters it is
possible to construct "empirical artifact profiles" which can
be used for intersite comparisons. Differences and


239
similarities between the group percentages in the two
profiles, and the extent to which they conform to a model"
profile proposed by South (1977a) will be examined in an
effort to establish the overall functions of each site.
According to South, the Carolina Artifact Pattern is a
measure of the uniformity of the archeological record as it
reflects a British cultural system in colonial America. It
is assumed that material by-products of a "basic set of
behavioral modes, attitudes, and associated artifacts" will
be consistently revealed in the frequency relationships
between artifact groups recovered at British colonial sites
(South 1977a:86). The ranges suggested by South are
considered to be a baseline from which unique, unusual, or
specific behavior can be distinguished: specialized
behavioral activities will be revealed as deviations from the
"normal" variation represented by the group range. Of
crucial importance in constructing the artifact profiles is
the complete quantification of the artifact assemblages in a
format that is comparable with other sites and in a manner
that is replicable by other archeologists. This accounts for
the emphasis that has been given to artifact analysis in the
present study.
All eight of the artifact groups used in constructing
the profiles contain artifact classes that are associated
with domestic activities. However, it is the Kitchen,
Furniture, Clothing, and Personal groups that would be the
most functionally integrated at domestic sites since they


240
represent the material by-products of basic domestic
activities. These include subsistence items used in the
storage, preparation, and consumption of food (Kitchen
group), the use or repair of clothing (Clothing group), the
use of domestic furniture items (Furniture group), and the
use of personal belongings (Personal group). Arms might be
expected to vary according to the degree to which defense
against competing state-level societies was integrated into
civilian life during the colonial period, especially at
Frederica where civilians formed part of standing militia
during 1736 to 1745. The Tobacco Pipe group is characterized
by extreme variability at British colonial sites since it
directly measures individual smoking habits. These personal
habits, or lack of them, have produced highly variable
percentages for this group regardless of site type (South
1977a:104,106). The Activities group would be expected to
display considerable variability between classes at both
domestic and commercial sites. However, the overall
percentage for this group in the artifact profile should be
higher at nondomestic or combination domestic/nondomestic
sites than at strictly domestic sites due to relatively
greater amounts and ranges of craft activity by-products.
Sites possessing a primary functional context in the domestic
sphere would be expected to exhibit higher percentages in the
artifact groups associated primarily with domestic
activities. It is suggested that the Architecture group is a
more sensitive indicator of such factors as type of building


241
materials used, length of occupation and amount of
remodeling, and building size, than it is of site function.
The empirical artifact profiles for the Dobree and Hird
Sites are presented in Table 7-3 and Table 7-4. With respect
to other 18th century British-American sites, the Frederica
assemblages fall within the range of the Carolina Artifact
Pattern proposed by South (1977a), with four exceptions from
the Dobree Site and two exceptions for the Hird Site. In the
case of the Dobree domestic groups, the Clothing, Furniture,
and Personal groups are less than the minimum values in the
Carolina ranges. For the Activities group, the value is 0.3$
greater than the upper limit of the Carolina Artifact
Pattern. Although the rest of the groups fall within the
suggested ranges, their position within each range is of
interest for interpreting site function. The value for the
Kitchen group is at the extreme lower end of the Carolina
range, while the Architecture and Tobacco Pipe groups
approach the maximum values of the ranges; the arms group is
about average. By contrast, the Hird assemblage has average
values for the Kitchen and Activities groups, high values for
the arms group, and a low Architecture value compared to
Souths sites. As with the Dobree Site, the Furniture,
Clothing, and Personal groups were either near or just below
the minimum values proposed by South.
These differences can be summarized and contrasted by
combining group percentages according to functional
categories (domestic, miscellaneous, and activities). Values


242
Table 7-3. Empirical Artifact Profile, Dobree Site.
Artifact Group
Frequency,
Dobree Site
% >
Dobree Site
% >
Model3
Kitchen
23106
53.5
51 .8-69.2
Architecture
12231
28.4
19.7-31.4
Furniture
34
0.08
0.1- 0.6
Arms
326
0.8
0.1- 1.2
Clothing
233
0.5
0.6- 5.4
Personal
23
0.05
0.1- 0.5
Tobacco Pipe
5878
13.6

CO
1
CO

Activities
1311
3.0
0.9- 2.7
Totals
43142
100.0
aRange proposed for Carolina Artifact Pattern (South 1977a:107).


243
Table 7-4. Empirical Artifact Profile, Hird Site.
Artifact Group
Frequency,
Hird Site
%,
Hird Site
^ a
Modela
Kitchen
8349
61.2
51.8-69.2
Architecture
3190
23.4
19.7-31.4
Furniture
10
0.07
0

1
0

cr>
Arms
151
1 1
0.1- 1.2
Clothing
94
0.7
0.6- 5.4
Personal
10
0.07
LO

O
1

O
Tobacco Pipe
11620
11.9
1.8-13.9
Activities
223
1.6
0.9- 2.7
Totals
13647
100.1
aRange proposed for Carolina Artifact Pattern (South 1977a:107).


244
for the Carolina Pattern were found by determining the
midpoints of the ranges suggested by South.
Table 7-5. Summary of Three Group Categories, Frederica
and Carolina Sites.
Group Category
Dobree
Hird
Carolin
Pattern
Domestic: Kitchen
53.5
61.2
60.5
Furniture
0.08
0.07
0.4
Clothing
0.5
0.7
3.0
Personal
0.05
0.07
0.3
54.13
62.04
7472
Miscellaneous:
Architecture
28.4
23.4
25.5
Arms
0.8
1 1
0.6
Tobacco Pipe
13.6
11.9
33.9
3774
33.9
Activities: Activities
3.0
1.6
1.8
3.0
T77
1.8
Totals
99.93?
99.95?
99.9?
aSeven sites reported by South (1977a).
Although Lewis states that adherence to the Carolina
Pattern does not, in itself, prescribe a specific function
to the settlement" or site (1977:192), it is the opinion of
the present author that site function is monitored by the
Carolina Artifact Pattern. A review of the original sites
used by South in defining the Pattern reveals that three
contained known or suspected domestic occupations, two are
military sites, and one is a site on which a "specialized
activity" (tailoring) occurred. The corresponding artifact
frequencies from these three types of sites are 44.4%, 9.8%,
and 45.8% (South 1977a:126-129). However, the frequencies


245
for the Clothing and Arms groups from the tailor shop site
were "adjusted" by South (1977a:104) to "bring them in line"
with the frequencies from the other four sites--frequencies
that are for the most part a reflection of domestic British
colonial occupations. It is therefore proposed that the
Carolina Artifact Pattern primarily reflects domestic
function at a site or settlement. It logically follows that,
in comparing a site to South's model, the greater the
divergence from the basic Carolina Pattern, the more
nondomestic activities were practiced at the site. This
should be especially evident when group categories are used
in the comparison. Following this reasoning, the frequencies
shown in Table 7-5 indicate an extradomestic function for the
Dobree Site that contrasts sharply with the primarily
domestic function of the Hird Site.
The contrast between the Arms group at the two sites is
believed to reflect the degree to which civilian defense
practices were integrated into colonial activities through
time. The larger value from the Dobree Site is related to
the primary occupation span at the site during the militarily
unstable 1736-1745 period. At the Dobree Site there seems to
have been more than one occupation, with at least one of the
main ones occurring in the late 1740s. The lack of a need
for concerted defense in the town during this late period is
reflected by a lower contribution of Arms artifacts into the
archeological record in comparison to the Hird Site. As
expected, however, both sites show a much higher percentage


246
for this group than the 0.2$ reported by Lewis for Camden
(1977:191).
A qualitative evaluation of the archeological evidence
can also be employed in addressing the site function
question. The presence at a domestic site of artifacts
associated with small-scale manufacturing or craft activities
can be cited as evidence of extradomestic functions for the
site. At Frederica, evidence of this type was recovered at
all three sites reported in the present study. At the
Hawkins-Davison Site, Deagan identified a large quantity of
delftware drug jars which she attributed to Hawkins
documented in-house apothecary and surgical activities.
Similarly, the presence of high frequencies of coarse salt
glazed stoneware mugs and wine bottle and goblet fragments on
the Davison side of the house were seen as confirmation of
the tavern trade recorded for Davison (Deagan 1972:12,22-31).
Using the frequencies mentioned by Fairbanks (1956:225) and
Deagan (1972:52), a ratio of 9.1/1 glass per sherd fragments
was derived for the Davison side of the site, compared to a
0.27/1 glass/sherd ratio for the Hawkins assemblage.
Although these figures are based on incomplete samples, they
do seem to support the documented trade activity carried on
by the site's occupants.
At the Hird Lot, craft-related artifacts are included in
Class 41 under the Activities group (Table 5-7). These
consist of flint debitage and lead waste fragments as well as
artifacts interpreted as dyer's equipment. These latter


247
items consist of a large, conical flat-based marver made of
fossiliferous limestone, a partial wine bottle, and a partial
crouchware pot, all of which were found with a small amount
of a bright red powder adhering to them. Although this
substance could not be identified, it is believed to be an
ingredient used in a dye formula. Numerous lead glazed
earthenware creampan fragments found at the site may also
have been used in a small-scale dying operation (Honerkamp
1975:96).
The presence of this set of craft materials at this site
is the only indirect archeological evidence of the identity
of the sites occupants. The frustration that the present
author and previous researchers at Frederica have experienced
in attempting to relate archeological assemblages to specific
documented occupants illustrates one of the problems involved
in following a particularistic research strategy.
Flint, leather, and lead waste material found at the
Dobree Site have already been described. An additional type
of nondomestic artifact recorded from the Dobree lot was iron
slag. Over 66.5 kilograms of slag were recovered from a
highly localized area of the plowzone as shown in the Figure
7-1 contour map. More than seven kilograms were recovered
from closed contexts. According to Victor Rolando, an expert
on iron forges and furnaces in the northeastern U. S., the
slag from Frederica has the appearance of a waste product
associated with a forge rather than a high temperature blast
furnace; he suggested a blacksmith forge as the source of the


Figure 7-1. Distribution of Slag Waste, Plowzone,
Dobree Site.


249
- e-
?.ieS597 MINUTES FOO mao
DO0REE LOT. EXCAVATED S0U49ES
OISTRinullCN OF AS TE SLAG (IN GRAMS): PLOW ZONE
SOUTH aro, FPEOCRICA
ABSOLUTE VALUE RANGE APPLYING TO EACH LEVEL
(MAXIMUM* INCLUUEO IN HIGHEST LEVEL ONLY)
AIM MU W
MAXI MUM
0.0
i ese.62
I 698.62
3397.24
339 7.2A
5 095.Ht
SO 75. 86
679 4.Afl
6794. 40
049?. I 0
OATA VALUE EXTREMES ARE
0493.10 PERCENTAGE Of TOTAL AMSCLUTE VALUE RANGE APOLYING TC EACH LEVEL
2C.C0 20.00 20.00 20.03 20.00
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION CF DATA P?|NT VALUES IN EACH LEVEL
LEVEL 123*5
afiiiiatai.isiatsiaBaaasais.tsisaiatfssa.saaiaait
conuonccc
......... uonoooquo aoooooowo imiuau
Sym-icls cccc ccoc coo# 9000 r wmm
cnoooucoo ooooooooo BNinm
cccoccu'oc iinihii iniinii
FREQ. 3 7 f- s | |


250
slag (personal communication). This view was also expressed
by Dr. David E. Clark of the Materials Science Department of
the University of Florida.
None of the slag from the Dobree Site was included in
the Activities class since to have done so would have totally
obscured all relationships among the other artifact classes.
It was expected that a considerable number of identifiable
broken tools, spoiled products, and possibly finished
products (in the case of nails) would be associated with a
forge operation (Noel Hume 1969a:180-182) and that these
would be reflected in the Activities and Architecture groups.
However, as already noted, neither the iron artifacts making
up the various Activities classes nor the square and wrought
nails included in the Nails class were unusually abundant.
An attempt was made to identify a statistically significant
association between the known forge by-product (slag) and
suspected by-products (iron musket parts, miscellaneous iron
tools, wrought and square nails, and unidentified iron
fragments). As seen in Table 7-6, the product-moment
coefficients computed for the plowzone slag and the five
other suspected by-product categories indicate a fairly
strong positive correlation with unidentified iron and, to a
lesser extent, with iron musket parts. The miscellaneous
strips, chunks, and fragments of iron in the unidentified
category may represent raw material as well as waste
products. Also correlated with the slag is the occurance of
coal and clinkers. A total of 2192 coal fragments and 833

r


251
Table 7-6. Product-Moment Coefficients for Six
Artifact Categories, Dobree Site.
CORRELATION
COEFFICIENTS / :
PR0B R
UNDER HO
:RH0=0 /
N = 63,
I_MSKT
IJDTHER
IJJIDWT
SLAGGRAM
WROUGHT
SQUARE
I_MSKT
1.00000
0.14646
0.45717
0.51746
0.41537
0.22503
0.0000
0.2521
0.0002
0.0001
0.0007
0.0762
63
63
63
50
63
63
I_0THER
0.14646
1.00000
0.33719
0.12773
0.68082
0.48087
0.2521
0.0000
0.0069
0.3767
0.0001
0.0001
63
63
63
50
63
63
I_UIDWT
0.45717
0.33719
1.00000
0.69527
0.55558
0.61484
0.0002
0.0069
0.0000
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
63
63
63
50
63
63
SLAGGRAM
0.51746
0.12773
0.69527
1.00000
0.31505
0.23281
0.0001
0.3767
0.0001
0.0000
0.0258
0. 1037
50
50
50
50
50
50
WROUGHT
0.41537
0.68082
0.55558
0.31505
1.00000
0.52930
0.0007
0.0001
0.0001
0.0258
0.0000
0.0001
63
63
63
50
63
63
SQUARE
0.22503
0.48087
0.61484
0.23281
0.52930
1 .00000
0.0762
0.0001
0.0001
0.1037
0.0001
0.0000
63
63
63
50
63
62


252
clinkers were recovered with 293 and 109 found in closed
contexts, respectively. A strong positive correlation is
indicated by a product-moment coefficient of 0.91 for the
coal and 0.82 for the clinkers (Table 7-7). It is suggested
that the slag found at the Dobree Site represents a primary
deposit of forge waste products. The concentration of this
material almost entirely in the immediate vicinity of the
posthole structure indicates that manufacturing activities
took place within or directly adjacent to the structure. The
absence of other features that can be positively identified
with the forge operation is not surprising given the nature
of the site disturbances and the modest equipment used in
blacksmithing. Noel Humes summary of the archeological
characteristics of colonial blacksmith shops illustrates the
similarities that the Dobree Site forge shares with similar
contemporaneous forge operations:
The shop itself did not have to be large and could
be accomodated in a building measuring no more than
14' x 20... The fire ((in the hearth)) rested on an
iron grid through which the ashes fell into an arched
waste tunnel below. From an archeological point
of view, it is significant that the fire was small
and did not come into contact with the ground. There
is therefore no reason to expect that the remains of
a blacksmiths shop will be identifiable by a massive
scorching of the ground or by the distorted and
vitrified bricks that one associates with a pottery kiln
or glass furnace. On the contrary, the hearth and chim
ney would suffer little, and when abandoned, most of the
bricks could be salvaged and reused elsewhere, leaving
nothing behind but a bracket-shaped mark on the ground
(Noel Hume 1969a: 179-180) .
This description also indicates that the function of the
rectangular pit (Feature 10) found next to the post structure
is associated with the forge operation. The use of this


253
Table 7-7. Product-Moment Coefficients for Slag,
Clinkers, and Coal, Dobree Site.
CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB R UNDER H0:RHO=0 / N = 50
SLAGGRAM
CLINKER
COAL
SLAGGRAM
1.00000
0.0000
0.82980
0.0001
0.91774
0.0001
CLINKER
0.82980
0.0001
1.00000
0.0000
0.94834
0.0001
COAL
0.91774
0.0001
0.94834
0.0001
1.00000
0.0000


254
feature as a waste pit or a pit for storing blacksmithing raw
materials would account for the heavy concentration of ash
noted in the pit, its unusal form, and its location in the
forge area. The large square posthole (Feature 27) within a
circular pit (Feature 24) may have resulted from the use of a
wooden anvil base anchored into the ground.
It is difficult to date with accuracy the period in
which the forge was in operation. The only closed context
feature which contained a significant amount of slag as well
as a sufficient number of dateable ceramics for determining a
mean ceramic date was Feature 10, which yielded a date of
1740.5. Mean ceramic dates for the precreamware ceramics
recovered from the plowzone can also be used to indirectly
date the forge. A contour map of the dates derived for each
excavation unit having a minimum of 30 dateable sherds is
presented in Figure 7-2. A close correspondence is seen
between slag concentrations and relatively early mean ceramic
dates. The plowzone dates found for part of the structure,
in which the main concentration of slag occurs, range from
1738.5 to 1743.6. The smaller concentration of slag to the
south of the building is also located in an area of early
dates. In contrast, areas of the site in which lateM
features but little slag are found generally exhibit late
plowzone mean ceramic dates. It is therefore suggested that
the forge was in operation during the first few years of
Fredericas existence. Temporal and artifactual evidence
from the features and plowzone also indicate that a domestic


Figure 7-2. Contours of Mean Ceramic Dates for Plowzone
Ceramics, Dobree Site.


256
7 8 -
ORMMMM
OfltOMM
1 74 5* 6*
MM
0MIM
OOOOGOOOOOCOOCOOOOO'
CCCOCCOOCOCOOOOOOOl
OOCOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOl
I 7 42. -000C 1742.6001
cc caccoococooooooi
ococacaooaccooQ£H
noanennQQOCCQQiiiMiMMMMMMtMMMM8
CCCCC4< MttMMtMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMt
MMMMIMtMMMMM
Mi
MfllMMMiMM*l
immmiiHHHi
1 745.5MM1 743
MMMMMMI
000000000
iooooooococ
oocooooocoo
100 1 7 42*20000
lOOOOOOOOOCOC
ocoooooooo
oooooooooo
ccocoooooo
oooooooooo
oooooooooo
oooooooooo
0000000004
00000000*4
1 744. 6 MMMMM
MM MM
ooocoooooooooo
#60000000000 00 0 000
IOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOQM
10000 000OOO GOOQOQOOQGOO<*
00000000000 00000<0 0000044
74 3. 6000 17 42. 30000 1 7 4 3.600001 739. 2 4444 1 7 39. !! 73B.64444
ooooooooooooo oooooooooo oa>4 4 4 444
MMOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOGOOp- 4 44 4444 4
DOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 0000000 OOO QA 44444444444444444
MOOOOOOOOtlMM^^MMMMMOQA
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO004
ooooooooloooo OOP 00000 000*4 44444444444
OOOOOOOQpOOOOOOOQQOQ04Tt
. J94M1 7 46. 6< MOOMMMMMMMMMMMMM]OOOOOOOCClOOOOOOOOOOOOOOt
IMHMMMMMUMflIlMaiMfQQOOOOOCpOCOGOOaOQOOOQQpCO
W MMMMWWilMMMMiOOOOCBOOOOQOOOOC
<< M !< _ MMtMfiVBVil
IMMiBIIIHMHMi MM
IMCMMa
tOOOOMl
1 743.
1 748.01
It 748. 7||
II 74
Ml
Ml
IMMMUMMOTMM
MUIIM MMMM
QetMOdfMMMM
1 746. 0HI
OHNUNIi
S. 5<<< MM1 MMMM Gooooo
0000(^000000000
OOOOOOl
0OOOOOOOOO'
74 l. 300 001
MOOOOOOOOOOOJ
000 0000001
ooooooooo
cooooo
00000( O'
44444444444
w
444 4 444 444
0000000'
10001 742.9
lOOOOOOOOO
OOCOOOOOOMi
4*30 0 0 0 0 000 0 0i
-N-
M MM M M MMM O000000O 0 0 f MMCTMMCMiKjQOOOOOOOOOOOOt 4*30000000000
1 H 74 3 6000 01 74 l. 80000 1 7 39. 84(0 01 741.8 0000
0000OO00000050000OOO000O0OOO00oV 40O0OOOOOoOOo
occcoccooooaoooooocoooooooooooo(>*t*c>oooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooocooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooocooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
0000000000000ccooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
1742.000001743.000001741.60000
ocoooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooococooccooocoooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooo
oooooooooo
oooooooooo
I 74 3. 20000
oooooooooo
oooooooooo
oooooooooo
oooooooooo
0000000044
0000009*44
00000y<>444
1 740. 54444
0000(444444
0000444444
0000144444 4
000014 4 44
oooooooooo
ocoooooooo
oooooooooo
1742.00000
oooooooooo
ccocoooooo
oooooooooo
ocoooooooo
ooooooooococooooooooooooooocoooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooodooooooooooooooooooo
OOOOOOOOOO1742.900000000000OCOCOGCCOOOOO
OOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooo
ooooooocoaocooooooooooooooooooooocoooooo
ooooooooooooooooooooooooocoooooooooooooo
aoooooooooaooooooooooooaoooooooooooooooo
oooooooooo
oooooooooo
oooooooooo
1742. lOOOO
oooooooooo
oooooooooo
oooooooooo
oooooooooo
444444444
444444444
44444444 4
1739.94444
44 4444444
444444444 4
444444444
4 44 4444444
MMIMMD
<<<<<<<< 1 744. *<800
COO
MMMfOOO
MfCCOG
MD000
5- 6
8
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
1
1
4
I
I
1
2
1
I
1
4
I
1
I
I
3
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
4
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
5
I
I
I
t
I
l
I
8
1
I
I
1
7
!
1
I
1
I
I
I
8
I
I
1
4
I
I
I
9
I
I
I
1


1
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
l
I
OOBREE LOT, EXCAVATED SQUARES
AN CERAMIC OATES FOR PLOW ZONE C B* AM 1C S
SOLUTE
(
VALUE RANGE APPLYING TC EACH LEVEL
MAXIMUM* INCLUOED IN HIGHEST LEVEL ONLY
SOUTH varo. FREDERICA
MINI MUM
MA X( MOM
1 734.40
1737.46
l737.46
l 740. 52
1 740. 52 1 743. 58 1 746.64
174 3. 58 1 74 6. 64 17 49.70
OATA VALUE EXTREMES ARE
PERCENTAGE CF TOTAL
20.00
ABSOLUTE VALUE RANGE
20.00 20.00
APPLY 1NG TO
2 0. 00
EACH LEVO
20.00
FREQUENCY
LEVEL
SYMBCL S
FREQ.
OlSTRieuTlON OF OATA POINT
1 2 3
I2=3=3aiiaasssss
44444444
4 444
VALUES IN EACH LEVEL
4 5
asassxasassassaasasaaaaaassa
000000000 MMMM1
000000000 MMMM< <
CCCO GCOO MM < < MM
4444 COOOOOOOO MMMM<
000000000 MMMM< IMIMHI
=i23==3===s:=xiE2=X323aa3=333aaaaaaaa
10 23 14 10
4444444 4


257
occupation of the site occurred possibly during and certainly
after the commercial one.
The unusually high percentage (10.5%) of Oriental
porcelain at the Dobree Site is also seen as indicative of a
domestic occupation. As shown in Figure 7-3, porcelain
ceramics were found primarily within the Lot 31 area, in the
general vicinity of the house. This precludes the
possibility that deposition of this ware was by the occupants
of the adjacent lot to the west. The almost exclusive
tableware function of porcelain indicates that it was
associated with the domestic occupation of the site. Since
the primary domestic occupation is believed to have occurred
in the middle to late 1740s, it is suggested that the
relatively high frequency of porcelain at this site is
attributed to differences in the economic-transportation-
communication networks linking Frederica with Britain before
and after 1745. It is assumed that these networks would be
more subject to disruption and attenuation from military
exigencies during the initial period of Frederica's
settlement, particularly with respect to supplies of luxery
goods such as porcelain. After 1745, stabelization and
consolidation of supply routes would have been possible due
to the cessation of British-Spanish hostilities.
It is also possible that the planned aspects of
Frederica's society also may be reflected in the
archeological record. The two earlier sites were occupied
during that period of Frederica's history when most of the


Figure 7-3* Distribution of Oriental Porcelain Fragments,
Plowzone, Dobree Site.


*033
T
Baaaaaaaax s
inmrb iHnme

Ml IMC MIG
IS Ml IISIO
l C2 12
t X SS BSCStBSSCC SSBCSESBS =8 a B
000000000 '
000030DDD 44444444.4
0000 0000 4444 4444
000000000 444444444
0000O000D 444444444
STORK AS
5 C 2 1 T3A3T
T9A3T M3*3 NT SamvA iNIOd 1*G JO NO 1103l 31S10 A3N3n03bJ
T3A31 MOf3 Oi ONUldd 30NVa 3mA BiniOSBt 1*101 JO 3*>*lN3333a 00*e>S
3WV S3K3H1V3 3fnA VIVO
vO*6S 0**1* O0*S£ 02**2
o **i* oe*sc 02 **2 o v *21
0> 2 1 wflU*
00*1 KOKINIM
voiaoaj *ohvs Minot
CATNO T3A3-1 IS 3*401 M
13A31 H3*3 01
nt asonooN] nom i vvh )
ONllUcJ* 3DN*e 30TVA amiosi*
3N02KOOC :SD1NV03O NTV130M03 JO VOIIOSIHISIO
SBbVOOS 031 VA v 0* 3 10T 3MS00
-N'
44 44
44 4
44444444444
44 4444 44444
444444 44 44 44 4444444-44
444444444444444444444
444444444444444444444
444444444444444444444
444444914444444491444
444444444444444444444
44 44 44 44 4 44 4 444 444444
44444444444444444444
444444444444444444444
4444 4 4 44 44 4 4 44 4 4 44 444
44 44 44 44 4 44 4 444 44 4444
444444444444444444444
444444C144444444*1444
444444444444444444444
444444444444444444444
4444444444444444444+
444444444444444444 4JQ 0000 33OJ
444444 44 444 4 4 4 4jfcOO 0000 00
4 4 44 4 44 4 4 4*00000000000
44 44 44 4 44 4C00000000000
444 *144 44 4^0002 00000000'?
4 444444 4400000000000000000
444444444<000003000033033D
44444444444l>CP0OOOO030000
44 4 4 44444444 44 44 40 0330330
44 44 44444 444 44 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4J J 4
444444444 44 44 44 4 44 4444
4 444 4444 4 444 44 44 44 44 4 4
21 V44 4 444*1 444444449 144
44444444 4444
44444444444444444444
444 4 444 4 4 44 4 4
652


260
material needs of the colonists were supplied by the town
store, either through the Trustee's philanthropy or through
sale. The regimented characteristics of Frederica's economy
resulting from this single outlet of material goods may
account in part for the similarity of the archeological
assemblages from the Dobree versus the Hird and Hawkins-
Davison sites. Of course, socioeconomic status, ceramic
need, and site function could also account for the
differences noted. The relative importance of these factors
can be tested through future research at Frederica. If
availability is the most important factor, there should be
consistent contrasts in the ceramic assemblages between early
and late sites that are similar to those described in this
study. It is also predicted that the variability in ceramic
assemblages from Frederica will be greater between late sites
than between early sites due to the relative differences in
availability of ceramics during the late (post-1745) and
early periods.
In summary, both quantitative and qualitative evidence
have been used to determine site function at Frederica. At
the three sites examined, the occurrance of domestic as well
as craft and manufacturing activities was qualitatively
inferred from the presence of data sets associated with both
types of activities. Quantitative analysis of artifact
assemblages also indicated the multifunctional dimensions of
the sites: through comparison of the Hird and Dobree
artifact profiles, it was possible to isolate evidence of


261
nondomestic activity as reflected in the by-products of
small-scale production activities.
As predicted, artifacts associated with the identifiable
architectural features at the Hawkins-Davison and Dobree
sites indicate that the colonial domestic-craft activities
were carried out in, and directly adjacent to, the dwellings.
The virtual absence of artifacts other than slag
associated with the forge may indicate a short life span for
this manufacturing operation at the Dobree Site. This is in
accord with the general documentary and archeological picture
at Frederica: few of the towns craftsmen and tradesmen
actually practiced their callings on a full time basis. The
rapid turnover in the town's population, discussed in Chapter
IV, and the lack of identifiable craft activity by-products
noted during extensive excavations of the town (Moore 1958;
Shiner 1958a) support the contention that the practice of
most manufacturing and craft endeavors at Frederica could not
be economically supported under the military-frontier
conditions that existed from 1736 to 1745.
An attentuation of complexity at the settlement,
compared to an English market town, resulted from the limited
economic options that could be pursued by the colonists. The
archeological manifestations of the loss of complexity at
Frederica are illustrated by the Activities artifact group.
Although the percentages for this group are higher at
Frederica than at Camden, the activities represented by the
majority of the artifacts included in this group are


262
indirectly associated with the need for defense: gunflint
and lead ball production. The undocumented, short-lived
forge operation that was present along with a domestic
occupation at the Dobree Site serves to point out the effects
that economic and political factors had on frontier
adaptations at Frederica.
Refuse Disposal and Artifact Distribution
Stanley South has long been concerned with the locations
of artifacts relative to structures at British colonial
sites. Using the experience gained from a decade of
excavations at ruins in Brunswick, South Carolina, South has
defined a pattern of refuse discard which he has designated
as the Brunswick Pattern. The formal statement of this
pattern is as follows:
On British-American sites of the eighteenth century
a concentrated refuse deposit will be found at the
points of entrance and exit in dwellings, shops,
and military fortifications. (South 1977a:48)
South demonstrates this pattern at three sites in Brunswick
by illustrating the frequency distributions of several
classes of artifacts that are present in and around building
foundations. Although sometimes difficult to interpret
visually, a series of conformant maps presented by South
showing artifact frequency symbolism around the structural
foundations present at the three sites seems to support the
Brunswick Pattern generalization. However, at all three
sites there has been very little excavation of areas that are
not adjacent to the foundations, and the differences in sizes


263
of the excavation units have not been taken into account. In
addition, feature artifacts are added to artifacts recovered
from disturbed and undisturbed middens, so that what actually
is demonstrated by Souths maps is the location of features
as revealed by their artifact frequencies. It should be
obvious from the information presented in the two preceding
chapters of this study that if South had sampled back lot
areas of his sites, the resulting artifact distribution maps
would have shown considerable variation from those
illustrated in Method and Theory in Historical Archeology.
The ceramic frequency contour map presented in this study
(Figure 5-6) is in sharp contrast with Souths Brunswick maps
in terms of correspondence between ceramic distributions and
structure location. Especially noteable is the lack of
distinction in primary and secondary distributions of
artifacts in and around houses. Had the feature material
been added along with the plowzone artifacts, the contrasts
would have been even more pronounced. Additional maps of the
same artifact classes used by South (wine bottle, bone,
pipestem, nails, window glass) are presented in Figure 7-4
through Figure 7-8. In each case, the distributions seem to
vary independently of each other with one exception:
relatively high numbers of nails, wine bottle fragments,
window glass fragments, and to a lesser extent pipestems,
were deposited together in Square 28. This unit is directly
adjacent to the east extension of the post structure. The
mean ceramic date for this square is 1741 (see Figure 7-2),


Figure 7-4. Distribution of Wine Bottle Fragments,
Plowzone, Dobree Site.


265
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLL13LLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLL L
COOOOCOOOOOORA^
accoccooooor**^
QOCCOOOOCW-*^
'II 82C0000CC* I 8
CQOOOCi
LLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LL LLLLLLLLLLLLLL
37L LLL LL L L 20L LLLLLLL2 C.LLLL L
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL.
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL.
LLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLL.,
LLLLLLLL
LLLLLL LL L .
LLLLLLLL
ISLLLLL ..*70.....
LLLLLLLL .
LLLLLLLL
LL.LLLL
LLLLLL
78*.81........3!.*<
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLL36LLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLL L1.LLL
LLu
:LLLLLC
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLL LLL LLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLLC
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLC
L LL20L LLLLL LL30LL.
LLLLLL LLLLLLLLLL!,
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
88 . a
LLLLLL
Lllllll
LLLLLLL
433LLLLL
lLLLLLL
LLLLLLL
LLLLLL
LLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLL18LLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LU_L LLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLL38LLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLL3 7 LLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLL29LLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
COBREE SITE
DISTRIBUTION OF ! NE bottle FRAGMENTS: PLOWZONE
ABSOLUTE VALUE RANGE APPLYING TO EACH
(MAXIMUM* INCLUOEO IN MIGHtST
LEVEL
LEVEL ONLY |
SOUTH VA&O FREDERICA
DATA VALUE EXTREMES ARE
INIMU
MAX 1 MUM
8EL0
40.00
40.00 8 7 j 30
87.80 135.60
135.60
193.40
183.40 231.23
231.20 279.03
PERCENTAGE
OF TOTAL
ABSOLUTE VALUE RANGE
*PLTlNG TO EACH LEVEL
20.00 20.00
20.00
20.03 23.03
FREQUENCY
level
DISTRIBUTION OF DATA point VALUES IN EACH
L 1 2 3
LEVEL
4 5
SYMBOLS
LLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLL
L LLL LLLL
LLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLL
.........
.... ....
.........
000000000
000000000
0000 0000
oooooococ
000000000
ofttotMt iniMin
OOMMM1 IfMHIII
ommm 80BB ll Ita
9M9MMI IHMailf
FREQ
1 7
27 9
8
ssssssssssssrssaaaa*
1 1


Figure 7-
Distribution of Faunal Materials,
Dobree Site.
Plowzone,


267
141 *S***
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLU.L
LLL 7* 6LLLL
LLi.LLLJ.LJLL
L LLL LLL LLL
L LLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
96 1 m 36 3* 7 368* 0* 203*2
1S0*3****
ILLLLLH LA
*Llllllc.
>...*LLLLA****
4*4444 ^)LLU
Tp*>
44^*^* L ^ClTu
4 6000V 44 4444. * /lllL
45834^72
44444 4444 44 QCOi
4 4 44 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4444
4 4 44 4444444 44
3492*4* 25 7#5*134*0**150*7 **t02*A*****209* 6*
*A_L LLL LLL LLLLLLLLLL
m LLU nil m H 1.1. LLL
-LLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLL
SO* 3LLLLLL60* ALLLL
f-L LLL LLL LLL LLLLLLL
LLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LL65* 3LLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLSO* 4
LLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLU.LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LL6 0* 6LLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLU.
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LL16* 6LLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLL LLLLLLL LLL LLLLLLL LLL LLL LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LL14 *9LLLLLLL3*6LLLLLL77 3LLLLLLL 0*1LLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL1
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLL LLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLL0* 1 LLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLL3*4LLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLL9* 7LLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLL 2* ALLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LL48* 1LLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
OOB8CE LOT* EXCAVATED SQUARES
distribution of eowe (in grams : r.ov zone
SOUTH VARO FREDERICA
ABSOLUTE VALUE RANGE APPLYING TO EACH LEVEL
(MAX I MUR* INCLUDED IN HIGHEST LEVEL ONLY)
FI N! MUM
MAXIMiM
eELOM
110*00
110*00
41 0* 70
41 0* 70
71 1.40
71 1 40
101 2* 10
10 12* 10
1312*60
DATA VALUE EXTREMES ARE
0*10 1613*50 PER C£N T A GE OF TOTAL ABSOLUTE VALUE RANGE APPLYING TC EACH LEVEL
20*00 20*00 20*00 20*00
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF DATA POINT VALUES IN EACH LEVEL
LLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLL
LLLL LLLL
LLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLL
c s m m c *
4444444 OOOOOOOOO 888888888
4444444 OOOOOOOOO MM*
44 4444 QOOC 0000 88
4444444 OOOOOOOOO 00888000<
444*444 OOOOOOOOO 888888888 88
ssa:ts*ascrii
cistaiiais
26
31 2* 60
613*50
20*00
5
FR6Q
1


Figure 7-6. Distribution of White Clay Pipe Fragments,
Plowzone, Dobree Site.


** .37.
444444
4 i
iH
44470444
4*4.44444.*.
4444444
44444 4444
4 4 yT
"Z
4444444
44*444444
'T7..

4444444
4 4 4 44 4 4 4*i
.

4444444
444444444
..

444 e3* 4
82 4 44 4 4 4*.
.51 .

4444444
44444444L
. .

4444444
4 4 4 44 4 4 4V
r . .

MM*
OCCOGeCQCCO
cccccQftecooc'
oooooriraooaaoo
2 0000CC7CC 2 C f C0CC0
ooooocqteceec ccoeo
4_>ococor.oc£ onoooncococececcaccc
QQUOQCCCQtOCaC oocouooc^Cgsqcnc toocauoatfeococoaccoctet te eco c4occW
nunto??QaeaoeoaaeeeoceQeeoec0famicedoac
t 9 *fncc/ ?o oeoouo a: o /aoaaaaa; i aooaaafi^^MaVDoof 7 3
ycoda peoneoeoceooacoponaceaoaeao^fMM
4 4 4 4[)ouuloaoaoaaoeaBoeoeQoecaaceaeacoacoBOec
44 4 4 44 444444 44444444444444 4 4 D O flU (lOC O OO Ct O O O C t < O CT C C frOO C C C O*
444444 444444444 44444 OO O OC 10 OO O O O O I* II O O CffO C C 00 C G O O C C C C C O OO OC Ol
44444444444444444 MJ O O C 0< | CO 3 Q O O O 11 I O O
4444444444444444444 ./COOP C 0(3000 O O O O O fl
4 4 4 4 4
* 4 4 4
4444444*
144444444
.4444444
OOOO 4 44 4 4
CUOC 4
00004 444
oooc>
\4 4444448044444441 iOVOOOOOUI 7 30 00 00i2 821BOt
4444444444 44 4 4 4 4 400000000
4 4 44 4 4 44 4444/lCCOQCCOOOOOOOOl
V44 4444 4444 4>tC O C 00 O C CO O O G C O C C O
V 4fccococccccccoocccoooaoo
. 4 4 4 4 4 4yfijuoooooooooooooooooooooncJococ
^ 4 4 4 4 4 yfl 00 00000 0063
MOOI _
11 9 1 *00000 1 134***44 44 95 44444
JDOfOOCQOO
DOIO 00000
3OOOPoo00OO00UPOOOOPoo
JQOCQQOOQOQQ^ 4 4 4 ****
0000113TTTTT444
ocoooonoooooooooooooooa
OC4~>QCCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOd
10544>C0001J200C0000121C
4444 w3cccccoccQQogpao>
4 4 4 4 4 4 4\Q000G' ^
4444444444444
444444444444
4444444444444444444444
444444444444444444444 44 44 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
492*4444444704444 VT. 4 8
000044 4 44444444444444444444444444 4 4 4 4 4 4^.
O O O* 4444444444444444 4 44 44 4 44444444 4 4 4yl .
(J/*44 44444444444444444444 4444444 4 4_^ 44444444444444444444444444444 4VT.
QOCOOOOOOf)
L 4 4 4 44 444 4 4 4444444 *
£_4 444444 4444 44444 444 44444444444444444 44
J44444 44444444 44444444 444
.26. ..... ..16 <
O.0*3034 MINUTES FCP map
CO0REF LOT. EXCAVATED SO UAPE 3
OISTQinUTION OF HITE CLAY PIPE F P A G ME NT S J PLCM70NE
SOUTH CAPO. FPEOEOICA
A0SOLUTE VALUE B ANGE APPLYING TO FACH LEVEL
(MAXIMUM* INCLUOEO IN HIGHEST LEVEL ONLY)
MINIMUM
MAXI MUM
5.00
60.4 0
60 .4 0
1 1 5 .8 0
115.0
171.20
171.20
2 26.60
226.60
282.00
DATA VALUE EXTPEMES APF
FBCENTACE OE TOTAL ARSOLUTC VALUE B 4 NGE APPLYING TO EACH LEVEL
OEOUENCY OISIBI0UTION OF DATA PCINT VALUES IN EACH LEVEL
LEVEL 12345
444444 oooooocoo eoocoooae
444444 OOOOOOCOO OQOOOOOQ
4444 oooo opoo eooa oooo
444444 ccnoooccn oeoeoeoae
444444 nooooocco ooao
l 7


Figure 7-7. Distribution of Wrought and Square Nails,
Plowzone, Dobree Site.

#

271
ooooooooooocooooof***^
ooooooooooooooooaf
oooocooooooooooooW
001 2 OOOOOOOC1 2 40>4 44^86 4-44*
aoogoooooooooflflfl^
TTlM'llM *!!




*


7944-444^4
*0 ooo aoooo
yfjQOOO OOP OOP
JLAJfc*JLl>< 00 000 0OOQ
fOO POPO OOP on OOOOOOOOOQOOOOOQI
*<*11300000000000000000000000000001
_ SODOCOOCOCOOOOOCCOOOOOOOOOOO OOOO'
o o c o c o oo o oao oaoo o oo oo o o o oo o oo oo a
OOl26000000017 7*00000 0162000000016
OOOOOOOOO OOPOClRf ooooooooooooo
ooooooaoooaoooooooooacooooooo
ooooooaoPOPOOOQOOOOOOOQQOOOOI
o oooooooooooooocooqa*T57>oooo
oo oooo q&c* r*p o
ooooooA^
aoo
OOl 1 + 8301
OOOQ*****
OOOOOV-4444
ooooooa*
oooooooa*
aooooooo
ooooooooo
30000
0000^106
oooo
Boooi
3000000*
OOOOOR4
t I
I 1
( ...10..... ...10.....
I I
9 9
I I
I I
I I
I I
* .
I ...41..... I
I I
I I
I 1
i 1
I 1
I 1
I (
I ...11..... ... 09..... I

I I
I !
I (
I I
1 1
I 1
SYMAP
OOBRCE LOT. EXCAVA TE O SQUARES
DISTRIBUTION OF BROUGHT ANO SQUARE NAILS2 R_020NE
SOUTH AOO. FRED CM 1C A
ABSOLUTE VALUE 9 A NGC APPLYING TO EACH LEVEL
(MAXIMUM* INCLUDED IN HIGHEST LC VEL ONLY)
MINIMUM 4.00 59.60 119.60 171.40
MAXIMUM 59.80 119.60 171.40 227.20
227.20
283.00
CATA VALUE EXTREMES ARE
4.0
0
283.00
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL ABSOLUTE VALUE
RANGE APPLY ING TO EACH LEVO.
20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF DATA POINT VALUES IN EACH LEVS.
LEVEL 12345
>>auaaaaaaaaaaaaa aa a aamw
OOOOOOCGO f II HI < IUUIIII
OOOOOOOOO IMMMII BMUBUB
SYMBOLS -* OOOO OOOO Mil IIH IBM
OOOOOOOOO MBM9M9 IHIMI
OOOOOOOOO MUMMI HMMMI
aaaaaaaaaa*aa a aaa a aaaaa a a a aa a a a aaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaa
FREQ. 26 19 11 7 4


Figure 7-8. Distribution of Window Glass Fragments,
Plowzone, Dobree Site.

.

273
O.
Iftatx****Jl
1 ? tfl********
3* c.
2ft********18...15........2ft*
1 O. ....... O T ....* O A ....... 00
5THAP
0O9ACE SITE* EXCAVATeO SQUARES
0ISTXISUT1CM OF UNOOl Si. AS S PLOAZONE
SOUTH SAFO* FREDERICA
ABSOLUTE VALUE RANGE APPLYING
(MAXIMUM* INCLUDED IN
TO EACH LEVEL
HIGHEST LEVEL ONLY )
MINI MOM
MAX 1MOM
0.0 12<560
129*60 259.20
259.20 388.80 518.40
38 8. 80 518.40 648.00
OATA VALUE EXTREMES ARE
648.00 PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL ABSOLUTE VALUE RANGE APPLYING TO EACH LEVEL
20.00 20.00 20. 00 20. 00 20. 00
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF DATA POINT VALUES IN EACH LEVEL
LEVCL 123*5
sia*ss:iiaita:itsaii3iaiiiiiaiiitaiii
OOOOOOOOO SIMNtoa
COCOCOCOO NNOOIM
SYMBOLS * *** 0000 0000 ASM AMA IAAA AAA
OOOOOOOOO AAAAAAAAA 1AAAAAAAA
OOOOOOOOO AAAAAA AO A AAAAAAAAA
,,,***aas*==*5*sas3aaasastrsa=aasa9a
55 a 2 l 1
FREQ


which suggests that they are associated with the nondomestic
occupation at the site.
Since the distribution contours presented in the
foregoing figures are based on total site artifact
frequencies, it could be argued that a Brunswick Pattern of
artifacts in and around the structure would be present if the
sample frame was reduced down to the area around the site
building. However, inspection of the frequency values
printed for each square in the SYMAP output indicates again
no overall correspondence to South's pattern and it is
certainly not possible to locate doorways, as South does, by
the correspondence in disposal areas for the various artifact
classes.
The evidence presented here concerning refuse disposal
and artifact distribution at the Dobree Site does not conform
to South's Brunswick Pattern of Refuse Disposal. The
nondomestic function of the Dobree Site structure may account
for the observed differences, in which case South's Brunswick
Pattern, like the Carolina Pattern, may reflect aspects of
domestic behavior. Excavation of additional structures,
along with samples of the associated back lot areas, is
needed before the universal applicability of the Brunswick
Pattern at British colonial sites can be accepted.
Subsistence and Diet
All of the questions investigated in the previous
sections have ultimately been related to various aspects of
British colonial adaptations to the social and natural


275
conditions of the Georgia frontier. The results of previous
research on frontier process have been consciously
incorporated into the present study as a source for
generating testable hypotheses and for comparative purposes.
Unfortunately, a comparable body of knowledge on frontier
subsistence and diet is not available. Hence, rather than
compare the faunal collections in terms of the specific
nature of the adaptations at each site, the approach used in
this section will be to test a subsistence model against the
zooarcheological evidence from each site. Explanations
accounting for the particular differences and similarities in
the three faunal collections are of less interest at this
level of research than are explanations accounting for the
differences and similarities between the expected model
results and the observed archeological evidence.
For the following reasons, it is believed that the
samples reported here represent an important source of
zooarcheological information from which patterns of faunal
resource utilization during the British colonial period in
the Southeast can be derived:
1) Temporal parameters are well controlled. At Freder
ica, the three sites were all within the 1736-55
period.
2) The sites are located within the same frontier set
tlement, with potentially equal access by the occu
pants to the natural resources of the surrounding
evironments.
3) The occupants of the sites were all derived from the
same British tradition.
4) The diversity of the faunal samples, in terms of
species recovered and in terms of the range of


276
contexts from which the samples were taken, is
high. The "single feature bias" that character
izes many historic faunal studies is absent.
Before presenting the subsistence model, a short summary of
the previous research on colonial foodways will be given in
order to clarify the reasoning used in choosing the
particular research strategy employed in this section.
Previous Research
With some notable exceptions, many historical site
faunal studies can be characterized as little more than
descriptive afterthoughts, tacked on to the end of site
reports in hidden appendices, conspicuous only by their lack
of integration. Many deserve this "poor stepchild" status,
as evinced by the cursory, unfocussed approaches used even on
large, well preserved faunal assemblages. This is in
contrast to the increasingly important emphasis that
zooarcheological studies have recieved at prehistoric sites
the same sites that historical archeologists are pleased to
use as examples or the relatively impoverished nature of the
prehistoric data base when compared to that of their own.
The irony of this scenario would be amusing were it not for
the less-than-flattering implications it entails.
Rather than attribute the relative dearth of substantive
studies to the unpleasant possibility that Ian C. Walker's
(1967, 1974) worst fears concerning the competence of
historical archeologists in this country have been realized,
it is suggested that this neglect has resulted from two
related deficiencies in method and theory: (1) the


277
heterogeneous methods and techniques used in faunal analysis
by different researchers has produced a plethora of
noncomparable results, thereby discouraging attempts at
intersite comparisons, and (2) when a model of resource use
at colonial sites has been adopted at all, it tends to stress
the overall importance of domestic food sources and the
protection from the environment that these sources conferred
on historic European populations.
These problems can be seen as related in that few
attempts will be made at formulating unifying questions
toward which zooarcheological research can be oriented while
the prospect of comparative studies, so essential in the
methodological tool kits of athropological archeologists, is
lacking. As long as the theory upon which it is based
remains undeveloped, faunal analysis will continue in diverse
and unconnected ways, ad infini turn. To a certain extent,
prehistoric archeology also suffers from this malaise.
Fortunately, this circular reasoning has been avoided in
several imaginative studies, for instance Joanne Bowens
research at Mott Farm (1975), Steve Cumbaas use of faunal
materials to illustrate acculturative processes at Spanish
colonial sites (1975), and the work done by Charles E.
Cleland (1970) and Gary Shapiro (1978a,1978b) at
Michilimackinac. Of central concern to these authors are the
implications associated with the use of wild versus domestic
animal resources in the foodways of historic New World
populations, and how these foodways compare with their Old


278
World counterparts. Drawing on this and other research, the
present author and colleague Elizabeth Reitz have attempted
to test a number of hypotheses concerning resource use at
colonial sites: Reitz has made an intersite comparison of
British and Spanish subsistence patterns in the southeastern
United States (1979), Honerkamp has tried to relate relative
differences in status between three British colonial
households to differences in associated faunal assemblages
(1980), and together we are preparing an in-depth study of
resource utilization at the Hird Site ( 1980) Some of the
concepts defined in this last paper are useful for the
purposes of the present study (see below).
Subsistence Models
As indicated earlier, uncritical acceptance of the idea
of domestic food sources buffering historic European
populations from all but minor adaptations to New World
conditions has been prevalent in historical archeology for
some time. If this hypothesis is to be tested, it must be
made more explicit. Jay Allen Anderson's synthesis of
British foodways, consisting of a compilation of primary
materials dealing with rural and urban food habits in 17th
century England, can be used to define what is referred to by
Reitz and Honerkamp as the "British Barnyard Complex."
According to Anderson (1971), the English yoeman
practiced a mixed farming strategy that included maintaining
a wide variety of domestic livestock, with wild animals
constituting a small but important part of the diet. The


279
most important source of meat was swine, followed by sheep;
cattle were typically slaugtered only after their usefulness
as dairy producers had been diminished by age, hence they
were not a major source of meat. Rabbits and a variety of
fowl were raised for meat, and wild hare and birds were
snared or shot. Due to severe hunting restrictions, venison
was a rarity for those in the middle or lower classes. Fish
were an important component of the urban and rural diets,
with over 100 varieties consumed either salted or fresh.
If the traditional pattern of animal use described above
was transferred to the New World as a complete complex,
several patterns could be expected to be observed in the
faunal record. The British faunal pattern would include
mostly swine remains, followed by sheep and a few aged
cattle. Goats might also appear in limited numbers. There
would be a few domestic rabbits, wild hare, and an occasional
deer. A wide variety of domestic fowl should be recovered,
as well as a large number of wild fowl of various species.
Fish would be common in the assemblages, with marine species
being most abundant.
Although Anderson deals with basically rural food
habits, he indicates that those few people who live in market
towns and cities in the 17th century kept barnyard animals on
their lots, which also included a garden and an orchard
(1971:20). He states that "the majority of these part-time
farmers were craftsmen who because their skills were long and
difficult to learn gradually became specialists" (Anderson


280
1971:5); in fact, Anderson equates the urban artisans,
craftsmen, and tradesmen as the urban counterparts of the
rural husbandman and yeomen (1971:15). Since many of the
Frederica colonists had a similar background (Coulter and
Saye 1949), this description probably fits the majority of
the population at Fort Frederica during the main British
occupation.
Comparison With the Model
An examination of the faunal evidence indicates that
part of the model for colonial resource utilization is in
error. The percent biomass of nondomestic animals from the
three sites (Tables 5-10 through 5-12) ranges from a low at
the Dobree Site of 9.7$ to 17.5$ and 21.9$ at the Hawkins-
Davison and Hird Sites, respectively (excluding commensals
such as rats, snakes, and toads). This does not support the
notion of a static, unchanging pattern of meat consumption in
early Georgia that mirrored the European pattern. On the
contrary, a major adaptation to frontier conditions is
implied by these percentages. It is suggested that the
differences between the sites reflect temporal factors: part
of the occupation at the Dobree Site was during the late
1740s, by which time the availability of wild resources may
well have been dwindling, while the other two sites were
occupied during the early part of Fredericas history. Reitz
(1979) has also offered the suggestion that socioeconomic
factors may account for differences in domestic and wild
animal use. She has observed a positive correlation between


281
wild resource utilization at Spanish St. Augustine and high
socieconomic status in 17th and 18th century occupations.
Future research at closely dated sites at Frederica should
clarify the temporal and social aspects of the domestic
versus wild animal utilization question.
A breakdown of the three major biomass contributors at
the sites is presented in Table 7-8. There is a clear
division between the Dobree biomass and the Hird and Hawkins-
Davison biomass for both cattle (Bos taurus) and deer
(Odocoileus virginianus). No such clear-cut distinction can
be made for swine (Sus scrofa). Since much of the Dobree
faunal assemblage was recovered from late (post-1745)
features, the similarity in the swine percentages at the
three sites suggests that the availability of this resource
remained constant through time. The low swine figures at all
three sites clearly indicate a major modification of the
British Barnyard Complex. This shift away from swine to
cattle as a source of meat seems to be a feature of the
southeastern United States that is characteristic of Spanish
as well as British colonial sites (Reitz 1979).
Since the model emphasizes the use of cattle as a source
of dairy products rather than meat, an attempt was made to
determine the age structure of the the cattle represented in
the Hird assemblage. The age of specimens can be determined
by observation of various elements in terms of the presence
or absence of epiphysial fusion. The rate of fusion of major
elements for most of the larger mammals is known (Gilbert


282
Table 7-8. Summary of Three Species From Three Sites,
Frederica, Georgia.
MNI Biomass
Si tea
Spec ies
#
%
kg
%
Dobree
Cattle
21
16.5
97.5
78.4
Hawkins-Davison
Cattle
5
11.1
61.4
65.3
Hird
Cattle
15
6.3
163.3
67.2
Dobree
Swine
17
13.3
10.7
8.6
Hawkins-Davison
Swine
6
13.3
10.1
10.7
Hird
Swine
14
5.9
24.0
9.8
Dobree
Deer
15
11.8
7.2
5.8
Hawkins-Davison
Deer
8
17.7
14.3
15.2
Hird
Deer
18
7.6
35.8
14.7
0
Values for the
Hawkins-Davison
and
Hird sites
are from
Reitz
and Honerkamp (1980).


283
1977; Schmidt 1972; Silver 1963). These data can be charted
for archeological materials and the approximate age of the
animal at death can be determined. In some cases it is also
possible to discuss the use made of each species; the
presence of very old cattle or sheep may indicate dairy or
wool industries. Age determinations were made for the three
major biomass contributors at the site: cattle, swine and
deer. Due to differential rates of element fusion, the four
age categories calculated in Table 7-9 overlap within each
species and are not exactly equivalent between species.
However, in every case a conservative estimate has been made
for the element age by placing each element in the oldest age
category possible. Although this method of summarizing age
data has several drawbacks, it is believed to provide at
least a rough estimate of the age structures of the species
in question.
Twenty-six cattle elements, 26 swine elements, and 55
deer elements found in the Hird features could be used to
make the age determinations in Table 7-9. The nature of
these "availability" samples--restrieted to appropriate
epiphysial elementsobviously precludes any absolute claim
for representativeness for the populations from which the
samples were derived. It is interesting to note, however,
that even with a classification procedure that was designed
to overestimate the age of elements, 21$ of the deer
(Odocoileus virginianus) elements and 50$ and 46$ of the
cattle (Bos taurus) and swine (Sus scrofa) elements,


284
Table 7-9. Ages of Three Species by Element Fusion,
Hird Site,
Frederica.
Age Bracket at
Time of Death3
Cow
Pig
Deer
I Infant
0
5
(19%)
3
(57)
II Juvenile/Infant
13 (50%)
7
(27%)
9
(1670
III Juvenile/Adult
7 (277)
12
(46%)
39
(71?)
IV Adult
6 (23%)
2
(87)
4
(7?)
Totals
26
26
55
Based on frequency of identifiable elements for which evi
dence of fusion, semifusion, or lack of fusion was present.
Age brackets for each species are defined as follows:
Cow: Infant less than 1.5 years
Juvenile/Infant Less than 3 to 4 years
Juvenile/Adult At least 1.5 years
Adult 3*5 years or older
Pig: Infant Less than 2 years
Juvenile/Infant Less than 3.5 years
Juvenile/Adit 1 to 2 years or older
Adult 3 years or older
Deer: Infant Less than 1 year
Juvenile/Infant Less than 2 to 3 years
Juvenile/Adult More than 1 year
Adult 3 years or older


285
respectively, were included in the juvenile/infant or infant
categories (i.e., under three to four years of age at time of
death). The high percentage of "young elements for cattle
is clearly not consistent with the British Barnyard Complex
orientation toward long-lived dairy cattle. On the other
hand, 23% of the cattle elements were from animals at least
40 months old, so that the presence of dairying activity
cannot be entirely dismissed.
A comparison of the age bracket percentages between the
three species is also informative. The relatively low
percentage of young deer (21%) as compared to the cattle
(50/6) and swine (46/6) indicates that when husbandry practices
were absent--as with deer--choice and selection were less
important than opportunity. Even if it is assumed that the
pig lived a completely feral existence on St. Simons Island
during the colonial period, it has been the experience of the
author that young wild hogs are considerably easier to catch
than old ones, with or without the use of firearms. The same
cannot be said for deer. This differential degree in
procurement success for the young versus old animals in swine
and deer may account for the differences noted in the age
groups shown in Table 7-9.
The evidence reviewed above indicates that instead of a
static model of human behavior emphasizing "cultural
conservatism" or "continuity in European and colonial diets,"
the behavior of historic human populations in Georgia can be
better explained in terms of adaptation to a new environment.


286
The British Barnyard Complex was substantially modified by
Fredericas residents. Instead of sheep, pigs, and a few
aged cattle, the faunal assemblages contained young cattle in
addition to deer and pigs, with only five caprine individuals
identified from the three sites. The animal called
goat/sheep (Capra/Ovis sp.) was probably a rare example of an
animal not common at Frederica or in Georgia (Bonner 1964).
The British tendendy to include a wide range of wild birds in
the diet was continued at the Hird Site (MNI=48), but the use
of fish was substantially reduced at all three sites.
Additionally, the lack of netted species such as mullet
(Mugil sp.) indicates that net technology was not transferred
to the new environment, apparently because fish no longer
constituted an important dietary resource in the presence of
the cattle herd. The dairy industry was not significant as
part of the adaptive strategy at Frederica.
Of particular interest to the present author is the
heavy reliance on cattle and concomitant limited use of pig
that is indicated at the three sites. Many researchers have
emphasized the efficiency of pigs as "calorie convertors" in
woodland environments (Bennett 1960; Bidwell and Falconer
1925; Ross 1980). According to most historical studies, the
use of pig supposedly far outpaced that of cattle by the 19th
century in the southern United States (Genovese 1974; Gray
1933; Hiliard 1972; Martin 1942). However, in the 17th and
18th centuries the reverse has been found to be true, not
only at Frederica but also at British and Spanish sites in


287
St. Augustine (Reitz 1979, 1980). A major historical study
of colonial agriculture in Georgia also supports this
contention (Bonner 1964). Thus, the structure of the
Frederica faunal assemblages conforms to a regional pattern
of animal utilization that cross-cuts temporal and cultural
parameters. Hypotheses addressing the reasons for this
apparent diversion from the expected pattern of colonial meat
consumption need to be formulated and tested. In so doing,
historical archeologists will be in a position to make
important contributions to current debates in cultural
anthropology (Harris and Ross 1978; Ross 1980) as well as
develop our own models of resource utilization. The results
reported here raise questions about traditional historical
view of meat consumption in the antebellum South. The
historians model emphasizing pork as the primary meat
component in 19th century plantation diets needs to be
demonstrated archeologically before it can be used as an a
priori assumption in the interpretation of slave, planter,
and overseer sites. For the sites of the 17th and 181h
centuries there is even less justification for adopting the
historical model, and attempts to do so often raise more
questions than they answer (Miller 1978).
Instead of focussing only on a single difference between
cattle and swine (i.e., calorie conversion in a woodland
environment), it is necessary to consider other factors that
could affect the suitability of each animal as a source of
meat. For instance, Charles H. Fairbanks has suggested that


288
the highly dispersed grazing and foraging lands in early
Georgia would have encouraged utilization of cattle since
they are much easier to round up in a free range situation
than swine (1980). Differential resistance to diseases and
climatic variation could also have contributed to the shift
to cattle (Hoornbeck 1980). It is obvious that much more
research on pig and cattle ecology during the colonial period
will be needed before accurate models of colonial resource
utilization can be offered.


CHAPTER VIII
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Over the last 30 years considerable archeological and
historical research has been carried out at Frederica. Most
of this research has been oriented toward the goal of
"reconstruction of past lifeways" in a traditional National
Park Service interpretive framework. Implicit in this
approach has been a research emphasis on Fredericas "Big
House" areas: excavation of the substantial brick and tabby
structures that front the two main streets in the town. Due
to a combination of ineffective excavation procedures
(trenching) and a Big House bias, sites containing evidence
of more modest structures lacking extant brick or tabby
foundations have been virtually ignored by previous
researchers. In the interest of obtaining a more balanced
picture of Fredericas past, the present study has been
concerned with exploring an archeologically neglected and
historically unknown type of site from an anthropological
perspective. The Dobree Site was chosen for excavation due
to its location away from the central streets of the town,
the documentary indication of the presence of a wooden house,
and the presumed low socioeconomic position of the sites
occupants. Although the "archeology of the proletariat" has
not been a traditional goal at Frederica, it has nevertheless
289


290
generally been recognized as a necessary though perhaps
unglamorous source of information on a significant aspect of
Fredericas past.
Besides an anthropological orientation, other
characteristics of the present study set it off from the
previous research at Frederica. Systematic excavation,
quantitative methods, intensive zooarcheological analysis of
faunal remains, and an explicitly comparative approach are
the most obvious contrasts. The use of Lewis' frontier model
to relate the archeological evidence from the three sites
investigated to cultural proccesses associated with a British
colonial adaptation to frontier conditions in Georgia also
represents a major departure from the research strategies
employed in earlier projects. Instead of an uncritical
particularistic approach that attempts to confirm or
supplement the written record concerning the presence of
specific site inhabitants, functions, materials, or houses at
a site, a more flexible approach has been taken in which
regional patterns of behavior are seen as accounting for
differences and similarities in the archeological record.
Matching the initials on a spoon handle with the owner's name
is left to Ivor Noel Hume and other particularly gifted and
fortunate archeologists.
The methodological-theoretical approach used by the
author has had important effects on the structure and nature
of this research. The organizing framework of the pattern
recognition method, with its emphasis on complete


291
quantification of archeological data, together with a cul
tural materialist theoretical position, has found application
in the use of Lewis frontier model of sociocultural
adaptation for the explanation of archeological variability.
The model itself is a reasonable analogue of a complex and
dynamic adaptive process in a frontier setting. It
incorporates concepts from geography, history, and
anthropology in the definition of its characteristics,
including (1) prolonged contact between the colony and the
parent society, (2) loss of complexity, (3) dispersed
settlement patterning (except where impeded by special
constraints), (4) dispersed frontier town as the nucleus for
centralizing activities, and (5) temporal growth replicated
spatially. Frederica was found to meet all the requirements
of a frontier town; thus, the frontier model was considered
to be an appropriate tool for interpreting the archeological
record.
Some of the results obtained from the systematic,
quantified excavation strategy applied at the Dobree Site
were unanticipated. While the site's cultural affiliation
was confirmed as British colonial, as were the Hird and
Hawkins-Davison sites, an examination of temporal parameters
revealed that the three sites contrasted considerably in
number, duration, and sequence of occupations. In addition
to a circa 1740-42 occupation, a definite late 1740s
component was identified at the Dobree Site using
chronologically sensitive artifacts. The Hird Site appears


292
to have had a single continuous occupation until about 1748-
49. Evidence of a post-1760 occupation was revealed for the
Hawkins-Davison Site but the primary occupation was during
the period from 1736 to 1742. At the Dobree Site, the
remains of a post-supported structure were recorded, as was
evidence of a short-term blacksmith or ironmonger operation
adjacent to the house. The other two sites were also found
to contain evidence of nondomestic activity sets.
Comparison of the form and content of the archeological
evidence from Frederica to different aspects of the frontier
model revealed a close correspondence between the predictions
derived from the model and the data recovered. The
settlement pattern of the town reflects military exigencies
and the effects of high population density, as indicated by a
concentrated, evenly-spaced row arrangement of narrow lots.
This pattern at Frederica more closely resembles a European
market town than the dispersed pattern found at Camden. The
different adaptive pressures at these sites were also
expressed at the lot level through the patterning of sub
surface features. Clustering of features within lots,
maximum utilization of lot elements, differential bone
deposition, and demarcation of property boundaries were all
found to occur as a result of sociopolitical and demographic
factors affecting the structural arrangement of the town as a
whole.
Quantitative and qualitative evidence of site function
was also found to reflect frontier constraints and


293
conditions. The multifunctional dimensions of all three
sites were indicated by the occurrence of domestic as well as
craft activity by-products. Comparison of quantitatively
derived artifact profiles yielded small but systematic
differences between the Frederica sites and a series of sites
excavated by South that were explicable in terms of
functional differences between the sites.
An examination of how the size of the archeological
research frame affects our perceptions and conclusions has
been made through reference to South's Brunswick Pattern of
Refuse Disposal. The complete excavation of a colonial lot
containing a post-supported structure has allowed a close
inspection of the relationship between feature and midden
deposits of artifacts and an architectural structure to which
they may be related. In contrast, Souths research involved
limited testing of areas immediately adjacent to structures.
The present study did not reveal the clear-cut patterns of
refuse disposal at building entranceways described by the
Brunswick Pattern. Instead, the results of the Dobree Site
excavation indicate that the artifact distributions are the
result of "bimodal trash disposal behavior" by the sites
occupants. The first mode is characterized by dispersed
surface disposal of trash that shows little orientation to
the structure, while the second mode involves concentration
of trash--especially faunal remainsin subsurface features,
again without reference to the location of the house. It is
not possible to predict a pattern of bimodal trash disposal


294
due to the limited sample used to define it, but these
findings do suggest that the Brunswick Pattern may simply be
an artifact of the sampling frame used by South rather than
the result of systematic refuse disposal behavior at British
colonial sites. On a higher level, this observation has
implications for the application of the frontier model to the
interpretation of archeological sites, in that our perception
of a frontier settlement on the edge of a cultural area will
be dependent on whether the settlement is studied in
isolation or in its regional context.
Finally, a static model of resource utilization which
has traditionally been used to interpret faunal remains at
historic sites was evaluated against the zooarcheological
data recovered at Frederica. The British Barnyard Complex
model posits a "transplanted Englishman" interpretation of
colonial adaptations in the New World whereby domestic food
sources buffered historic European populations from any
large-scale environmental adjustments. Using Jay Allen
Andersons historical study of English foodways, a
traditional British pattern was defined in which heavy use of
swine and sheep and, secondarily, dairy cattle was
emphasized. At Frederica, biomass estimates from the three
sites indicate a fairly heavy reliance on wild animal species
that is clearly inconsistent with the British Barnyard model.
A breakdown of the biomass figures according to species
indicates a nearly 6.5 to 1 ratio of cattle to swine biomass
at the sites, which is again in contrast to the pattern


295
predicted by the model. Evidence derived from the aging of
bone elements recovered from the Hird Site indicates that old
cattle were rarely slaughtered; the use of cattle as sources
of meat rather than dairy products is therefore implied.
Lack of fit between the traditional British model and the
empirical evidence at Frederica suggests that a major
revision of our perception of historic period subsistence
adaptation is in order.
The research reported here illustrates the utility of
the frontier model in the examination and the interpretation
of archeological evidence for adaptive processes at British
colonial sites. The success of this approach stems from its
concern with basic, material aspects of culture and the
systematic study of their archeological manifestations. It
is hoped that the results reported here will engender further
refinements of the frontier model of human adaptation in the
colonial period.


REFERENCES CITED
Anderson, Jay Allen
1971 A 'Solid Sufficiency': An Ethnography of Yeoman
Foodways in Stuart England. Ph.D. dissertation, University
of Pennsylvania.
Ascher, Robert
1974 -pin Can Archeology. Historical Archeology 8:5-16.
Auspourger, Samuel
1736 A Plan of Frederica A Town in the Plantation of Georgia
in the Province of Carolina as layd out by Mr. Oglethorpe
1736. Photostat, Fort Frederica National Monument, St.
Simons Island, Georgia.
Bartram, William
1943 Travels in Georgia and Florida, 1773-1774. Transactions
of the American Philosophical Society 33(2):121-242.
Bennett, R. S.
1960 Life on the English Manor: A Study of Peasant Condi
tions, 1150-1400. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bidwell, Percy W., and John I. Falconer
1925 History of Agriculture in the Northern United States,
16201860. Contributions to American Economic History
No. 5. Washington D.C.: Carnegie Institution.
Binford, Lewis R.
1962a Archeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity 29:
217-225.
1962b A New Method of Calculating Dates from Kaolin Pipe-
stem Samples. Southeastern Archeological Conference,
Newsletter 9(1):19 21.
1972 'Evolution and Horizon as Revealed in Ceramic Analysis
in Historical Archeology'--A Step Toward the Development
of Archeological Science. The Conference on Historic Site
Archeology Papers 1972 6:117-125.
Bloch, Marc
1968 Feudal Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
296


297
Bonner, James C.
1964 A History of Georgia Agriculture, 1732-1860. Athens:
University of Georgia Press.
Bowen, Joanne
1975 Probate Inventories: An Evaluation from the Perspec
tive of Zooarcheology and Agricultural History at Mott
Farm Historical Archeology 9:11-25.
Brown, Margaret Kimball
1971 Glass from Fort Michilimackinac: A Classification for
Eighteenth Century Glass. The Michigan Archeologist
17(3-4).
Brown, Richard M.
1963 The South Carolina Regulators. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Bryant, Pat, ed.
1972 English Crown Grants for Islands in Georgia, 1755-75.
Atlanta: State Printer.
Candler, Allen D., ed.
1904-1937 The Colonial Records of the State of Georgia. 39
vols. Atlanta: State Printer. Unpublished volumes (20,27-
39) on microfilm, P.K. Yonge Library of Florida History,
University of Florida.
Carson, Cary
1978 Doing History With Material Culture. In_ Material Cul
ture and the Study of American Life. Ian M. G. Quimby,
ed. pp. 41-64. New York: W. W. Norton.
Cassagrande, Joseph B., Stephen I. Thompson, and Phillip
D. Young
1964 Colonization as a Research Frontier. Ini Process
and Pattern in Culture, Essays In Honor of Julian
H. Steward. Robert A. Manners ed. pp. 281-325.
Chicago: Aldine Press.
Casteel, Richard W.
1978 Faunal Assemblages and the "Weigemethode" or Weight
Method. Journal of Field Archeology 5:72-77.
Cate, Margaret Davis
1926 Our Todays and Yesterdays. Brunswick: Glover Brothers.
1943 Fort Frederica and the Battle of Bloody Marsh. Georgia
Historical Quarterly 40:111-174.
1956 The Original Houses of Frederica, Georgia: The Hawkins
Davison Houses. Georgia Historical Quarterly 40( 3):203-212


298
1961 Notes on Robert Patterson. Margaret Davis Cate Collec
tion (microfilm), Fort Frederica National Monument, St.
Simons Island, Georgia.
Chance, David H.
1977 Review of Method and Theory in Historical Archeology,
by Stanley South. Historical Archeology 11:126-128.
Cleland, Charles E.
1970 Comparison of the Faunal Remains from French and
British Refuse Pits at Fort Michilimackinac: A Study
in Changing Subsistence Patterns. Canadian Historic
Sites Occasional Papers in Archeology and History 3:8-23.
Cleland, Charles E. and James E. Fitting
1968 The Crisis of Identity: Theory in Historic Sites Arche
ology. The Conference on Historic Site Archeology Papers
1967 2(2):124-138.
Coleman, Kenneth
1972 The Southern Frontier: Georgias Founding and the
Expansion of South Carolina. Georgia Historical Quarterly
56:163-174.
1976 Colonial Georgia: A History. New York: Charles Scribner
and Sons.
Cornwall, I. W.
1958 Soils for the Archeologist. London: Phoenix House Ltd.
Coulter, E. Merton and Albert B. Saye
1949 A List of the Early Settlers of Georgia. Athens:
University of Georgia Press.
Cumbaa, Stephen L.
1975 Patterns of Resource Use and Cross-Cultural Dietary
Change in the Spanish Colonial Period. Ph.D. dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, University of Florida.
Davis, Harold E.
1976 The Fledgling Province: Social and Cultural Life in
Colonial Georgia, 1733-1776. Chapel Hill: The University
of North Carolina Press.
Deagan, Kathleen A.
1972 Pipe Stems and Drug Jars: The Colonial Middle Class
in 18th Century Georgia. Manuscript, National Park Service
Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee.
1975 Thirty Years of Archeology at Frederica, Georgia, 1945-
1975: An Archeological Assessment. Manuscript, National
Park Service Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee.


299
Deetz, James F.
1967 Invitation to Archeology. Garden City, New York:
Natural History Press.
1974 A Cognitive Historical Model for American Material
Culture: 1620-1835. In Reconstructing Complex Societies.
Charlotte Moore, ed. pp. 21-24.
1977 In Small Things Forgotten. Garden City, New York:
Anchor Books.
Dollar, Clyde D.
1968 Some Thoughts on Theory and Method in Historical Arche
ology. The Conference on Historic Site Archeology Papers
1967 2(2):3-30.
Dougenik, James A. and David E. Sheehan
1975 SYMAP User's Reference Manual. Cambridge: Harvard
University Laboratory for Computer Graphics and Spatial
Analysis.
Egmont, John Percival
1923 Manuscripts of the Earl of Egmont Diary, Vol. 2, 1734
38. London: His Majesty's Stationary Office.
Fairbanks, Charles H.
1952 The Excavation of the Hawkins-Davison Houses, Fort
Frederica National Monument, St. Simons Island, Georgia.
Manuscript, Fort Frederica National Monument, St. Simons
Island, Georgia.
1953 Report of Excavations at Fort Frederica National Monu
ment, 1953* Manuscript, Fort Frederica National Monument,
St. Simons Island, Georgia.
1956 The Excavation of the Hawkins-Davison Houses. Georgia
Historical Quarterly 40:213-229.
1977 Backyard Archeology as Research Strategy. The Confer
ence on Historic Site Archeology Papers 1976 1 1 (2): 1 33-139
1978 Personal communication, January 14, 1978.
1980 Personal communication, November 5, 1980.
Fairbanks, Charles H. and Nicholas Honerkamp
1978 Research Proposal for the Patterson Lot Excavation,
Fort Frederica National Monument, St. Simons Island,
Georgia. Manuscript, National Park Service Southeast
Archeological Center, Tallahassee.


300
Flannery, Kent V.
1973Archeology With a Capital S. In Research and Theory
in Current Archeology. Charles L. Redman, ed. pp. 47-53.
New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Fontana, Bernard L.
1965 The Tale of a Nail: On the Ethnological Interpreta
tion of Historic Artifacts. The Florida Anthropologist
8:85-96.
1968 A Reply to 'Some Thoughts on Theory and Method in His
torical Archeology.' The Conference on Historic Site
Archeology Papers 1967 2(2):75-78.
Gannon, Michael
1965 The Cross in the Sand. Gainesville: University of
Florida Press.
Genovese, Eugene D.
1974 Roll Jordon Roll: The World the Slaves Made. New
York: Pantheon Books.
Gilbert, Allan S., and Paul Steinfield
1977 Faunal Remains from Dinka Tepe, Northwestern Iran.
Journal of Field Archaeology 4( 3): 329 351 .
Glassie, Henry
1968 Pattern in the Material Folk Culture of the Eastern
United States. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press.
1975 Folk Housing in Middle Virginia. Knoxville: Univer
sity of Tennessee Press.
1977 Archeology and Folklore: Common Anxieties, Common
Hopes. In Historical Archeology and the Importance of
Material Things. Leland Ferguson, ed. pp. 23-35. Soci
ety for Historical Archeology, Special Publications Series
No. 2.
Gould, R.A.
1971 The Archeologist as Ethnographer: A Case From the West
ern Desert of Australia. World Archeology 3(2):143-177.
Gray, Lewis
1933 History of Agriculture in the Southern United States
to i860. Washington D.C.: Carnegie Institution.
Grayson, Donald K.
1973 On the Methodolgy of Faunal Analysis. American Anti
quity 38:432-438.


301
Hamilton, T.M.
1976Firearms on the Frontier: Guns at Fort Michilimackinac,
1715-1781. Reports in Mackinac History and Archeology,
No. 5.
Hanson, Lee and Dick Ping Hsu
1975 Casemates and Cannonballs. Publications in Archeology
No. 14. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior.
Harrington, J.C.
1955 Archeology as Auxiliary to American History. American
Anthropologist 55:1121-1130.
1979 The Importance of Interpretation in Historical Arche
ology. North American Archeologist 1(1):7584.
Harris, Marvin
1977 Cannibals and Kings: The Origins of Culture. New York:
Random House.
1979 Cultural Materialism: The Struggle for a Science of
Culture. New York: Random House.
Harris, Marvin and Eric Ross
1978 How Beef Became King. Psychology Today 12(5) :88 9^4.
Heighton, Robert F. and Kathleen A. Deagan
1972 A New Formula for Dating Kaolin Clay Pipestems. Con
ference on Historic Site Archeology Papers 6:220-229.
Heizer, Robert F. and John A. Graham
1967 A Guide to Field Methods in Archeology. Palo Alto:
National Press.
Helwig, Jane T. and Kathryn A. Council, eds.
1979 SAS Users Guide, 1979 Edition. Raleigh: SAS Insti
tute.
Hilliard, Sam B.
1972 Hogmeat and Hoecake: Food Supply in the Old South,
1840-1860. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University
Press.
Honerkamp, Nicholas
1975 The Material Cultre of Fort Frederica: The Thomas
Hird Lot. M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Uni
versity of Florida.
1977a Colonial Life on the Georgia Coast. St. Simons Island:
Fort Frederica Association.
1977b Review of Method and Theory in Historical Archeology, by
Stanley South. Florida Journal of AnthrODology 2(2):3334.


302
1980 Social Status as Reflected by Faunal Remains from an
18th Century British Colonial Site. Conference on Historic
Site Archeology Papers 1979, Stanley South ed. In press.
Hoornbeck, Billie M.
1980 Personal communication, January 10, 1980.
Hudson, John C.
1969 A Locational Theory for Rural Settlement. Annals of
the Association of American Geograhers 59:365-381.
Ivers, Larry E.
1974 British Drums on the Southern Frontier: The Military
Colonization of Georgia 1735-1749. Chapel Hill: University
of North Carolina Press.
Johnson, Sydney J., Hilburn 0. Hillestad, Sheryl F. Shanholtzer,
and G. Frederick Shanholtzer
1974 An Ecological Survey of the Coastal Region of Georgia.
National Park Service Scientific Monograph Series, No. 3.
Jones, Charles C.
1878 The Dead Towns of Georgia. Printed as Volume 2 of the
Collections of the Georgia Historical Society. Savannah:
Morning News Steam Printing.
Kaplan, Reid W. and Michael D. Coe
1977 Picture of the Past: Artifact Density and Computer
Graphics. Historical Archeology 10:54-67.
Kemble, Francis Anne
1961 Journal of a Residence on a Georgia Plantation in 1838-
1839. Originally published 1863- New York: Alfred A.
Knopf.
Kristof, Ladis K. D.
1959 The Nature of Frontiers and Boundaries. Annals of the
Association of American Geographers 49:269-282.
Leone, Mark P.
1973 Archeology as the Science of Technology: Morman
Town Plans and Fences. In. Research and Theory in Current
Archeology. Charles Redman, ed. pp. 125-150. New York:
John Wiley and Sons.
Lewis, Kenneth E.
1976 Camden: A Frontier Town. Institute of Archeology and
Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Anthropological
Studies 2.
1977 Sampling the Archeological Frontier: Regional Models
and Component Analysis. I_n Research Strategies in Histor
ical Archeology, Stanley South, ed. pp. 151-201. New York:
Academic Press.


303
Lorraine, Dessaraae
1968 An Archeologists Guide to Nineteenth Century American
Glass. Historical Archeology 2:35-44.
Lovell, Caroline C.
1932 The Golden Isles of Georgia. Boston: Little, Brown
and Company.
McNett, Charles W., Jr.
1979 The Cross-Cultural Method in Archeology. In. Advances
in Archeological Method and Theory, Vol. 2. Michael B.
Schiffer, ed. pp. 39-76. New York: Academic Press.
McPherson, Robert G.
1962 Journal of the Earl of Egmont. Athens: University of
Georgia Press.
Manucy, Albert C.
1960 Specifications for a Scale Model of the Town of Fred
erica in Georgia About 1742. Manuscript, Fort Frederica
National Monument, St. Simons Island, Georgia.
1962 The Fort at Frederica. Florida State University Notes
in Anthropology, Vol. 5.
Martin, E.
1942 The Standard of Living in i860. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Miller, Henry M.
1978 Pettus and Utopia: A Comparison of the Faunal Remains
from Two Late Seventeenth Century Virginia Households.
Conference on Historic Site Archeology Papers 1978
13:158-179.
Miller, J. Jefferson III and Lyle M. Stone
1970 Eighteenth Century Ceramics from Fort Michilimackinac.
Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Miller, Joshua
1796 Plan of the Town of Frederica on the Island of St.
Simon. Photostat, Fort Frederica National Monument, St.
Simons Island, Georgia.
Moore, Francis
1840 A voyage to Georgia, Begun in the Year 1735. In.
Collections of the Georgia Historical Society, pp. 79-
152. Boston: Freeman and Bolles.
Moore, Jackson
1958 Excavations on Cross Street. Manuscript, Fort Freder
ica National Monument, St. Simons Island, Georgia.


304
Mountford, Arnold R.
1971 The Illustrated Guide to Staffordshire Salt Glazed
Stoneware. New York: Praeger Publishers.
Nelson, Lee H.
1963 Nail Chronology as an Aid to Dating Old Buildings.
History News 19:25-27.
Nichols, Frederick D.
1957 The Early Architecture of Georgia. Chapel Hill: Uni
versity of North Carolina Press.
Noel Hume, Ivor
1969a Historical Archeology. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
1969b Glass in Colonial Williamsburg's Archeological Coll
ections. Colonial Williamsburg Archeological Series No. 1.
1971 Williamsburg Cabinetmakers: The Archeological Evi
dence. Colonial Williamsburg Archeological Series No. 6.
1974 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. New York:
Alfred A. Knopf.
Phillips Collection
1947 Egmont Manuscripts: Letters from Georgia 1739-1744.
Manuscript on microfilm, P.K. Yonge Library of Florida
History, University of Florida.
Prange, Henry D., John F. Anderson, and Herman Rahn
1979 Scaling of Skeletal Body Mass in Birds and Mammals.
American Naturalist 113:103-122.
Rathje, William L.
1977 In Praise of Archeology: Le Project du Garbage.
In Historical Archeology and the Importance of Material
Things. Leland Ferguson, ed. pp. 36-42. Society for
Historical Archeology, Special Publication Series No. 2.
1979 Modern Material Studies. In Advances in Archeological
Method and Theory, Vol. 2. Michael B. Schiffer, ed. pp.
1-37. New York: Academic Press.
Reese, Trevor R.
1963 Colonial Georgia: A Study in British Imperial Policy in
the Eighteenth Century. Athens: University of Georgia Press.
1969 Frederica: Colonial Fort and Town. St. Simons Island:
Fort Frederica Association.
1973 The Clamorous Malcontents: Criticisms and Defenses of
the Colony of Georgia, 1741-143. Savannah: Beehive Press.


305
Reitz, Elizabeth J.
1979 Spanish and British Subsistence Strategies at St.
Augustine, Florida and Frederica, Georgia Between 1565 and
1783. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
University of Florida.
1980 Faunal Analysis of Materials from the Eighteenth
Century Occupation at the Francisco Ponce de Leon Site
(SA36-4), St. Augustine, Florida. In. Forgotten Places
and Things: Archeological Perspectives on American
History, A. E. Ward, ed. In press. Albuquerque: Center
for Anthropological Studies.
Reitz, Elizabeth J. and Nicholas Honerkamp
1980 The British Barnyard Complex in Colonial Georgia.
Manuscript, Department of Anthropology, University of
Florida.
Reps, John W.
1969 Town Planning in Frontier America. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Rigdon, Thomas A. and Alfred J. Green
1980 Soil Survey Report for Camden and Glynn Counties. Manu
script, U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation
Service.
Ross, Eric B.
1980 Patterns of Diet and Forces of Production: An Economic
and Ecological History of the Ascendency of Beef in the U.S
Diet. rn Beyond the Myths of Culture: Essays in Cultural
Materialism. Eric B. Ross, ed. In press.
Saye, Albert B.
1943 New Viewpoints in Georgia History. Athens: University
of Georgia Press.
Schiffer, Michael B.
1972 Archeological Context and Systematic Context. American
Antiquity 37:156-165.
1976 Behavioral Archeology. New York: Academic Press.
1977 Toward a Unified Science of the Cultural Past. In
Research Strategies in Historical Archeology. Stanley
South, ed. pp. 13-40. New York: Academic Press.
Schmidt, Elizabeth
1972 Atlas of Animal Bones for Prehistorians, Archeologists
and Quaternary Geologists. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.


306
Schuyler, Robert L.
1977 The Written Word, the Spoken Word, Observed Behavior and
Preserved Behavior: The Various Contexts Available to the
Archeologist. Conference on Historic Site Archeology Papers
1975 10(2):99-120.
1980 Review of Research Strategies in Historical Archeology,
Stanley South ed. American Anthropologist 82:200-202.
Schuyler, Robert L., ed.
1978 Historical Archeology: A Guide to Substantive and
Theoretical Contributions. New York: Academic Press.
Shapiro, Gary
1978a Appendix 5. Early British Subsistence Strategy at
Michilimackinac: An Analysis of Faunal Remains from
the 1977 Excavation Season. I_n Excavations at Fort Michi
limackinac 1977: House 1 of the South Southeast Row House,
by D. P. Heldman, pp. 161-177. Mackinac Island, Michigan:
Mackinac Island State Park Commission.
1978b Early British Subsistence Strategy at Michilimackinac:
A Case Study in Systematic Particularism. Masters thesis,
Department of Anthropology, University of Georgia.
Shiner, Joel
1958a The Colonial Houses of Broad Street. Manuscript, Fort
Frederica National Monument, St. Simons Island, Georgia.
1958b The Excavation of Fort Frederica. Manuscript, Fort
Frederica National Monument, St. Simons Island, Georgia.
Silver, I. A.
1963 The Ageing of Domestic Animals,
ology, edited by D. Brothwell and E.
New York: Praeger.
In Science in Arche-
Higgs, pp. 250-268.
Smith, Robin L.
1978 An Archeological Survey of Kings Bay, Camden County,
Georgia. Manuscript, Department of Anthropology, Univer
sity of Florida.
South, Stanley
1972 Evolution and Horizon as Revealed in Ceramic Analysis
in Historical Archeology. Conference on Historic Site
Archeology Papers 1972 6:71-116.
1977a Method and Theory in Historical Archeology.
Academic Press.
New York:
1977b Research Strategies in Historical Archeology: The
Scientific Paradigm. In Research Strategies in Historical
Archeology. Stanley South, ed. pp. 1-12. New York:
Academic Press.


307
1978 Pattern Recognition in Historical Archeology. American
Antiquity 43:223-230.
1979 Cognitive Explanation, Rich Little and Other
Impressionistic Entertainment. Paper Presented at The
Canadian Archaeological Association, Vancouver, B.C.
South, Stanley, ed.
1977b Research Strategies in Historical Archeology. New
York: Academic Press.
Stacy, James
1784 Plat Map of Lots 22 and 23, Frederica, Surveyed for
John Myers Sr. Box 17, Plats Folder, Hinesville Probate
Court.
Stevens, William Bacon
1847 History of Georgia, Volume I. New York: E.O. Jenkins.
Stone, Lyle M.
1974 Fort Michilimackinac, 1715-1781. Publications of the
Museum, Michigan State University.
Taylor, Walter W.
1948 A Study of Archeology. Memoir No. 69, American
Anthropologist 50(2):1256.
Walker, Ian C.
1967 Historic ArcheologyMethods and Principles. Histor
ical Archeology 1:23-34.
1974 Binford, Science and History: the Probabilistic
Variability of Explicated Epistemology and Nomothetic
Paradigms in Historical Archeology. The Conference on
Historic Site Archeology Papers 1972 7(3):159201.
Watson, Patty Jo, Steven A. LeBlanc, and Charles L. Redman
1971 Explanation in Archeology: An Explicitly Scientific
Approach. New York: Columbia University Press.
Weigert, Hans W., Henry Brodie, Edward W. Doherty, John R.
Fernstrom, Eric Fischer and Dudley Kirk
1957 Principles of Political Geography. New York: Appleton
Press.
White, Lynn Jr.
1969 Medieval Technology and Social Change. New York:
Oxford University Press.
White, Stephen W.
1975 On the Origin of Gunspalls. Historical Archeology
9:65-73.


308
White, Theodore
1953 A Method for Calculating the Dietary Percentages of
Various Food Animals Used by Aboriginal Peoples. American
Antiquity 18:396-398.
Wilderson, Paul W.
1975 Archeology and the American Historian: An Interdisi-
plinary Challenge. American Quarterly 27(2):115-132.
Willey, Gordon R. and Phillip Phillips
1958 Method and Theory in American Archeology. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Wing, Elizabeth S.
1976 Ways of Going from a Sliver of Bone to a Calorie.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for
American Archeology, St. Louis.
Wing, Elizabeth S. and Antoinette B. Brown
1979 Paleonutrition: Method and Theory in Prehistoric
Foodways. New York: Academic Press.
Wood, Betty
1979 A Note on the Georgia Malcontents. Georgia Historical
Quarterly 63:264-278.
Wood, W. Raymond and Donald Lee Johnson
1978 A Survey of Disturbance Processes in Archeological
Site Formation. Ini Advances in Archeological Method and
Theory, Vol. 1. Michael B. Schiffer, ed. pp. 315-381.
New York: Academic Press.
Wright, Sir James
1873 Report of Sir James Wright On the Condition of the
Province of Georgia, On 20th Sept. 1773. In Collections
of the Georgia Historical Society, Vol. 3, pp. 158-179.
Savannah: Morning News Press.


309
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF CERAMICS, DOBREE SITE
Variable
Description
SQNUM
PROV
BLUDELF
POLYDELF
WITDELF
LEDGLAZ
REDLED
SIPDEC
SLIPLAN
ASTBURY
AGATE
MISCEARTH
WSGS
MOLDSGS
DIPSGS
RHENISH
BROWNSG
GRAYSGS
CROUCHSG
NOTTING
MISCSGS
BLUPORC
POLYPORC
PLANPORC
LATEPOT
Square number (1 63)
Provenience (Feature 1 Feature 30)
Blue on white delftware
Polychrome painted delftware
Plain white delftware
Lead glazed earthenware
Red bodied lead glazed earthenware
Decorated slipware
Undecorated slipware
Astbury refined earthenware
Refined Agateware
Miscellaneous earthenware
White salt glazed stoneware
Molded salt glazed stoneware
Slip dipped salt glazed stoneware
Rhenish salt glazed stoneware
Brown salt glazed stoneware
Gray salt glazed stoneware
Crouchware salt glazed stoneware
Nottingham stoneware
Miscellaneous salt glazed stoneware
Blue on white Oriental porcelain
Overglaze enamelled Oriental porcelain
Plain white Oriental porcelain
Creamware and later ceramics


310
SUMMARY OF PLOaZCKE
CERAM 1CS
. OGEREE
SITE
p
M
c
p
p
B
u
*
L
S
s
A
1
M
p
a
G
R
N
M
0
0
L
L
L
L
i
E
P
L
L
s
s
a
0
H
R
c
a
l
L
L
A
A
s 7
r
J
r
T
0
E
I
I
r
A
c
L
1
E
0
A
u
T
S
u
Y
N
T
Q Y
R
D
0
0
G
0
P
p
8
G
E

0
p
N

Y
c
T
c
p
P
P
E
N P
5
e

e
L
L
D
L
U
A
R
s
s
s
I
N
S
H
I
s
c
0
0
P
u e
Q
L
L
L
A
E
E
A
R
r
T
G
G
G
s
s
G
s
N
G
R
R
R
0
M
F
F
F
Z
0
C
N
Y
E
H
S
S
s
H
G
S
G
G
s
c
C
C
T
. a
2 71
730
a i
4 l 7
2204
1 73
1 234
3 02
300
2 04
1106 1341
78
297
2 18
6 1 105
1 C
£ 4
126
690
18 1
159
2 8 £
i i
2
5
i
2
23
1
9
3
i
1
1 9
0
0
2
0
0
3

0
0
4
0
0
10
2 1
4
4
t
4
12
2
6
3
2
2
e
13
2
1
2
1
0
0
2
2
3
0
2
30
2 l
2
2
c
1
6
0
c
0
2
0
5
5
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
3
2
1
56
4 1
2
1 1
3
10
7 1
12
1 4
11
7
6
6 7
20
0
5
2
7
3
1
5
1
10
2
4
2
5 1
2
1 6
0
12
03
4
20
7
5
7
6 4
22
0
0
1
4
4
1
3
4
10
1
3

6 t
4
3
1
f
76
12
1 1
4
4
4
24
19
0
2
1
2
4
0
1
7
11
0
1
10
7 l
3
9
1
1
29
5
1 3
8
1
5
1
6
1
8
0
2
5
0
0
3
8
0
4
6
e i
2
7
1
5
30
0
l 4
5
1
3
1 1
20
2
1
0
0
2
0
0
3
7
2
0
7
9 1
7
7
2
10
21
0
1 9
9
3
3
2 0
28
1
2
0
0
2
0
1
1
9
0
4
6
l 0 l
4
0
2
5
41
0
20
10
0
1
1 2
19
2
1 0

0
0
0
0
l
1 8
6
4
4
1 1 1
3
1 7
6
6
1 06
26
43
0
30
4
6 4
50
0
19
m
6
5
1
16
2
25
6
5
2
1 2 1
7
1 0
1
a
1 1 0
20
25
5
7
5
5 1
37
0
6
0
6
7
0
5
4
25
1
2
0
l 2 l
e
1 0
2
4
43
1 3
16
6
4
5
2 5
20
0
3
1
y
5
2
2
14
10
0
4
1
1 4 1
2
6
0
i
25
4
l 5
0
6
5
8
22
2
8
0
2
1
1
2
l 1
0
2
2
9
1 5 1
6
0
1
1 1
46
1
31
7
9
4
3 4
35
£
1 2
0
0
0
0
1
2
23
1 4
0
5
1 6 1
7
1 1
1
1 3
45
2
20
12
1 0
1
23
36
2
1 4
7
1
2
3
0
3
25
20
1 4
0
1 7 1
a
1 0
1
9
36
1
ia
13
3
2
1 0
28
0
2

c
0
1
0
0
1 1
7
3
1
l a 1
5
3
3
3
42
0
23
3
1 4
2
1 5
1 0
i
10
13
1
0
0
0
0
13
5
2
6
1 9 l
2
1 2
2
1 1
16
0
1 4
5
3
1
1 1
0
1
3
7
0
0
0
1
0
5
3
0
e
20 l
2
1 3
2
0
1 1
1
6
9
1
2
1 2
3
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
1
1
i
2 1 1
2
12
l
9
90
16
36
7
9
1 0
2 1
31
0
9
2
£
8
0
K
e
9
3
2
c
22 1
5
10
0
4
66
1 5
16
5
3
1 0
33
35
2
1 1
0
2
8
0
1
i
10
1
2
0
23 1
3
22
0
7
61
5
24
a
1 3
5
20
51
7
1 I
2
2
t
1
1
7
21
3
4
3
24 1

1 9
1
e
e7
1
32
10
1 7
3
1 2
29
4
1 4
2
1
a
1
0
0
27
3
4
2
25 1
9
1 3
1
6
52
0
39
9
13
1
2 3
23
£
1 6
5
0
3
1
1
0
15
3
5
2
2 1
3
e
c
a
20
0
20
5
4
2
1 2
1 4
4
3
1
2
0
3
2
0
0
23
2
6
6
2 7 1
4
7
0
1 2
25
0
25
12
4
4
1 4
1 3
2
7
l 5
0
0
2
0
0
15
3
4
2
28 t
4
6
l
3
20
0
0
7
j
1
5
9
1
4
1 5
0
0
2
0
1
3
0
4
3
29 1
3
1 4
2
4
53
6
21
1
6
a
28
39
0
9
0
4
4
0
1
0
12
2
2
4
30 l
3
26
1
9
50
2
1 5
5
2
1 3
1 6
47
0
l 5
2
1
3
0
2
0
1 1
2
3
0
2 1 1
6
3 0
0
1 0
65
1
27
12
9
1 1
23
£4
4
1 3
2
0
3
0
1
7
18
3
1
1
3 2 1
6
24
4
5
4 7
0
3 1
6
8
7
6
35
1
1 0
2
1
2
1
0
3
16
3
6
3
33 l
7
22
1
5
23
0
7
3
1 0
l
7
16
2
4
0
1
1
1
0
1
5
2
0
3
2 4 1
e
6
0
0
5
0
1 1
2
0
0
3
1 0
0
1
4
0
1
2
2
0
15
0
2
0
15 1
5
5
0
3
21
1
1 0
2
2
1
20
1 3
0
4
1 0
0
1
3
0
1
10
4
1
1
36 I
9
4
0
1 3
32
0
1 0
2
5
0
1 3
14
1
0
1 7
0
0
3
1
0
1 4
4
3
0
2 7 1
4
20
0
9
2 7
0
1 9
4
2
a
5
20
0
4
0
0
3
0
1
4
1 1
0
1
0
J8 1
2
2 1
2
1 2
36
1
29
6
4
1 0
1 4
56
2
7
0
0
2
0
0
3
13
1
2
1
39 1
4
22
0
1 7
39
0
20
15
4
2
1 1
25
1
5
1
0
1
1
c
0
14
1
4
2
40 1
4
1 7
0
9
1 3
0
1 5
0
1 6
0
1 4
1 3
0
4
1
0
0
0
0
0
10
1
4
1
4 1 l
3
1 0
3
1
1 1
0
1 5
2
19
0
9
1 6
1
5
i e
0
0
0
0
l
1 0
1
3
3
4 2 1
4
9
2
l
1 3
1
1 1
3
1 0
1
0
26
1
1
5
0
0
0
c
0
5
0
1
0
4 3 1
3
a
l
3
42
0
2 7
3
3
2
5
19
0
2
0
1
0
0
2
5
4
2
0
0
4 4 1
2
1 5
0
a
66
1
45
16
9
3
2 7
4 7
1
3
2
1
0
0
c
2
1 1
2
4
16
45 1
5
3 1
l 3
1 0
59
0
60
1 5
3
2
4 1
30
3
4
0
1
1
0
1
4
32
5
4
4
46 l
7
20
4
1 3
37
0
49
1 3
20
2
59
24
T
3
2
0
1
0
0
3
29
9
3
2
4 7 1
4
1 3
1
7
1 4
0
1 0
5
1 5
3
1 2
15

7
2
0
0
0
c
0
10
4
3
1
4 a 1
4
5
0
6
1 0
0
1 1
2
1 0
1
6
1 1
0
0
5
0
1
0
0
0
4
1
0
1
49 l
3
6
0
3
42
5
1 9
1 1
4
2
1 5
1 6
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
4
7
0
2
18
0 1
O
1 3
1
2
4 l
1
4 0
1 5
8
5
36
29
3
0
5
0
1
0
0
1
19
6
2
9
5 1 1
5
25
e
6
25
0
5 4
4
1 7
1 4
22
1 5
T
2
2
0
1
0
0
0
22
10
9
0
5 2 l
7
a
2
a
1 7
0
1 5
l
2
0
9
1 5
0
0
2
0
0
0
c
0
4
3
0
1
5 3 1
6
3
0
7
1 6
4
1 6
1
0
0
7
1 9
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
5
1
1
0
54 l
4
4
0
4
4
0
7
0
2
0
2
2
c
0
2
1
0
1
c
0
1
0
0
0
55 1
5
6
0
6
7
1
2
0
4
1
0
8
0
1
0
0
2
2
G
1
3
2
0
0
56 l
4
5
0
5
9
1
l
1
1
0
7
9
0
1
0
0
l
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
5 7 1
6
2
0
6
3
0
3
0
0
0
0
4
0
1
t
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
0
5 0 1
2
1 0
0
1
1 3
1
e
1
1
0
1
5
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
59 1
5
9
0
1
5
2
T
3
0
3
6
1 1
1
0
3
0
0
0
1
0
4
0
0
0
e o i
2
7
0
J
1 4
2
3
7
2
1
1 5
9
1
3
2
l
0
1
0
5
0
0
0
( 1 1
6
1 7
0
1 2
34
0
i e
12
l
0
1 1
1 6
Q
4
8
0
0
1
0
0
3
0
0
0
e 2 i
4
2
0
l
5
1
1 3
1
2
4
2
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
4
2
5
0
0
1 6
6 1 1
i
9
1
1 4
1 3
1
23
4
0
0
1 6
5
0
0
0
0
I
1
c
c
3
1
0
2
SUMMARY OF
FEA TUPE
CERAMICS.
OCBREE
S I TE
p
M
c
p
P
0 0
a
L
s
s
A
I
M
R
8
G
R
N
M
e
C
L
L
_
L l_
I
E P
L
L
s
s
0
0
H
P
R
0
0
I
L
L
A
A
r
F
U Y
T
0 E
I
I
I
A
c
L
1
E
c
4
U
T
s
u
Y
N
T
P
r
P
C 0

G 0
P
P
0
G
E
a
D
p
N

Y
c
T
c
F
P
P
E
R
p
e
e e
E
L L

L
U
A
R
s
S
s
I
N
S
H
I
s
C
a
0
P
Q
e
Q
L L
L
A E
E
A
R
T
T
G
G
G
s
s
G
S
N
G
R
R
R
C
V
-
-
F F
F
Z 0
C
N
Y
E
M
S
S
s
H
G
S
G
G
S
C
c
C
T
0
72 108 14
9 C
433 1 4
180
47
58
3 e
1 73
303
33
71
35
1 6
22
7
20
7
193
25
30
5
F l
i
4
31 1
7
53
0
23
9
1 3
i
i e
02
0
9
5
0
3
0
0
0
2 3
2
0
F l 0
i
5
1 0 5
2 4
20
0
1 9
9
9
i
11
27
5
3
0
0
2
0
0
0
2 9
7
c
0
F l 1
i
1
0 0
0
0
0
0
1
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<3
0
F 1 2
i
2
5 0
1
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
a
0
F 1 3
i
i
1 0
0
1
0
1
1
0
c
i
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
F l 4
i
1
1 0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
i
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
F 1 5
i
1
0 0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
t
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
F 16
i
1
0 0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
F l 7
i
1
0 0
0
l
0
0
0
1
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
F 1 8
i
1
0 0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
F l *
i
1
0 0
1
2
0
1
0
0
c
0
l
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
F 2
i
4
1 0
0
140
0
1 0
0
3
1 5
2
5
0
3
0
c
0
0
0
1
1
3
0
c
F 20
i
1
1 0
1
0
1
1
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
1
0
F 2 3
i
l
0 0
1
2
0
2
0
0
c
c
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
F 2 4
i
2
0 0
0
7
0
3
3
1
0
0
3
1
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
F 25
i
1
0 0
0
0
0
1
0
0
c
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
F 2 6
i
1
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
1
0
c
0
F 2 7
i
1
0 0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
F 29
i
2 1
45 7
4 3
143 12
78
16
2 1
1 2
11 1
84
6
25
1 1
1
a
1 4
3
4
4
46
s
1 4
4
F 3
i
0
4 0
1
25
0
38
0
6
4
10
45
2 1
9
4
0
2
2
0
1
C T
1
3
1
F 20
i
1
1 c
C
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
F 4
i
2
4 1
1
25
1
3
0
0
2
e
1 £
0
1 9
0
1
1
2
1
1
1 2
0
0
0
F *
i
4
1 0
3
6
0
0
0
0
0
4
1 1 4
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 3
0
1 0
0
0
0
F 6
i
2
0 0
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
F 7
i
l
0 0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
F <5
i
3
3 0
1
5
0
0
0
1
c
l
1
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0


311
APPENDIX B
SUMMARY OF GLASS, PIPE, AND NAIL ARTIFACTS, DOBREE SITE
Variable
Description
SQNUM
PROV
WINEBOTL
CASEBOTL
VIAL
TABLGLAS
GOBLET
WINDOW
MODERN
OTHER
STEM4
STEM5
STEM6
UIDSTEM
PLANBOWL
DECBOWL
WROUGHT
CUT
SQUARE
ROUND
Square number (1 63)
Provenience (Feature 1 Feature 30)
Dark green bottle glass (round sectioned)
Dark green bottle glass (square sectioned)
Pharmaceutical bottle glass
Tumbler, engraved, and clear round sectioned
bottle glass
Clear goblet glass
Window glass
Postcolonial glass
Unidentified glass
White clay pipestem,
White clay pipestem,
White clay pipestem,
White clay pipestem,
Plain bowl fragment,
4/64
5/64
6/64
inch
inch
inch
unknown bore
white clav pipe
bore
bore
bore
Decorated bowl fragment, white clay pipe
Wrought iron nail
Cut iron nail
Square sectioned iron nail
Round sectioned iron nail


312
SUMMARY OF GLASS. PIPE. ANO NAIL AR II FACT S. PL042CNE. 008REE SITE

C
r
p
i
A
A
u
L C
4
N
s
8
G

M
I
A E
R
e
s
r
F
E
E
L
0
1
O
0
s
S
S
0
N C
C
Q
R
Q
Y
R
9
8
V
G
9
N
0
T
T
r
T
S
8 E
U
U
0
N
P
E
0
0
I
L
L
0
E
H
E
E
E
T
0 0
G
c
A
U
u
e
a
T
r
A
A
E
0
R
E
M
M
M
E
4
F
u
ft
N
__
L
L
L
s
T

N
R
4
5
6
M
L L
f
7
E
0
0
2ei
4919
32 02
478
66
290
3968
43 1
10 72
2 0 52
9 78
33
194
1293 125
2207
101
3695
265
1
i
2
45
95
9
2
2
5
C
28
c
5
0
0
8 0
10
2
24
6
2
i
5
47
24
2
1
2
6
C
1 2
11
5
0
4
12 1
Y
30
39
3
3
i
2
13
1 9
1
0
2
4
66
13
16
4
0
1
1 6 0
2
4
1 7
2
4
i
4
162
6e
7
0
7
16
1 S
19
13
29
1
1
1 5 0
52
0
68
4
c
i
4
1 1 8
68
7
5
3
31
25
54
10
29
0
0
13 1
36
1
88
3
i
i
c
1 82
13 7
1 7
0
4
22
C
9
1 4
26
0
3
27 0
1 1
1
75
7
7
i
4
1 46
53
19
0
1
15
6
20
14
1 0
0
Y
25 0
2
0
3e
a
e
i
2
75
6 4
4
0
6
ie
2 9
24
27
5
0
3
1 7 1
7
3
34
7
9
i
6
5 1
35
14
J
2
2 1
e
1 4
7 7
1 3
1
5
30 4
17
1
47
2
l 0
i
5
75
46
1 3
1 2
4
9
i
18
1 15
26
0
14
49 2
11
4
47
1
1 1
i
3
2 79
220
1 8
0
6
25
3
64
26
28
0
3
23 3
35
1
59
0
1 2
i
5
1 87
1 8 1
14
l
2
26
1
40
20
35
0
3
2 1 3
1 7
2
47
3
l 2
i
4
l 56
1 02
7
1
0
. 18
0
27
14
1 6
0
2
l 7 2
5
0
30
6
1 4
i
3
80
70
7
0
3
15
i
37
32
1 8
0
4
14 1
9
0
42
7
1 5
i
7
1 21
122
26
0
1 1
35
2
l 8
79
36
1
C
63 6
28
3
48
3
1 6
i
7
72
6 7
12
3
6
26
0
8
l 05
29
0
7
59 7
54
1
54
1 7
l 7
i
1 1
66
2e
1 8
0
5
1 0
£
3
132
23
0
10
46 3
70
l
72
a
1 8
i
5
49
34
8
2
9
7
2
26
146
26
1
22
49 2
7
0
70
3
1 9
i
2
SO
1 2
1 1
6
0
6
1
1 2
34
6
0
6
26 1
0
0
16
2
20
i
2
60
1
3
0
1
0
6
1 1
15
4
0
2
e o
3
0
8
1
2 1
i
2
1 44
122
6
0
8
19
3
2 1
20
22
0
4
3 8
13
0
66
1
22
i
5
101
67
13
0
8
4e
4
0
1 7
26
1
4
27 5
25
0
46
1
23
i
2
1 26
55
7
0
5
59
0
1 3
4 1
34
0
Y
29 3
15
0
66
2
2 4
i
5
1 4 1
S 2
1 5
4
5
22
5
20
91
39
0
5
36 2
1 14
3
33
0
25
i
9
53
5 4
1 2
0
7
31
0
6
1 9 t
40
1
e
36 6
ei
0
1 06
1
26
i
4
25
1 2
6
1
2
8
1 0
0
75
1 7
1
y
E 1
78
11
4 3
7
2 7
i
t
60
22
8
0
3
1 7
c
2
eo
12
0
4
24 3
1 25
3
54
2
25
i
5
1 59
6 3
to
0
6
4 26
4
20
c Y
20
1
Y
39 5
46
1
160
1 1
29
i
5
77
c c
5
0
6
38
0
l 3
i 0
1 2
0
3
12 3
40
0
86
1
30
i
4
1 3 1
7 4
19
l
0
164
2
20
30
50
0
3
51 5
55
0
122
5
31
i
6
164
55
1 2
0
1 8
294
3
29
52
49
0
6
77 7
3 1
1
131
1 7
32
i
C
68
35
1 3
0
1 2
54
4
7
35
24
20
3
30 l
47
0
120
4
3 3
t
9
107
9 4
4
3
7
24 1
1 0
38
40
21
1
4
26 3
55
2
132
2
34
i
4
24
1 9
4
1
0
18
1
0
66
14
2
3
7 0
44
2
43
1
35
i
5
48
4 6
3
0
4
5 1
4
0
43
1 2
0
1
12 2
1 32
0
68
4
36
i
9
55
2 7
7
3
4
19
1 7
0
20
1 1
0
1
13 3
78
0
4 7
0
3 7
i
c
S 3
7 2
9
3
1
328
2
1 5
7
8
0
2
9 0
21
1
9 1
2
38
i
3
27
8
2
1
0
39
1
2
6
3
0
1
5 1
2
0
33
1
29
i
5
56
56
7
1
3 1
81
l 5
1 4
35
1 9
0
2
20 5
204
0
79
8
40
i
9
37
3e
4
0
1 2
24
I
6
29
1 6
0
3
1 7 1
85
a
159
7
4 t
i
3
20
30
9
l
2
25

1
27
1 4
0
4
9 2
1 03
0
1 5 4
0
4 2
i
c
26
4 6
3
1
0
40
C
5
9
6
0
1
18 0
39
0
68
0
4 3
i
4
l 05
6 9
1 0
0
4
648
1
1 06
e
8
0
2
1 1 2
44
3
131
0
4 4
i
2
79
4 3
1 4
J
0
221
0
i a
9
1 2
0
2
6 1
28
0
7e
0
4
i
6
89
1 34
1 0
0
9
1 09
0
35
l 6
1 3
0
2
32 3
1 08
0
154
6
46
i
7
1 22
109
6
2
8
1 4 7
c
28
1 2
6
0
6
45 3
57
1
99
35
4 7
i
2
l 5
3 0
0
0
1
32
9
3
1 6
3
0
0
1 3 1
3
0
95
9
48
i
4
70
1 2
J
0
2
3
1
1 8
4
4
0
0
7 l
0
1
1 6
1
4 9
i
2
78
23
5
0
1
123
i
18
7
a
0
2
1 0 1
6
3
39
0
SO
i
i
£ 1
7 C
1 0
0
1
l 1 5
4
4 8
1 4
1 9
0
2
27 1
49
0
62
1
S l
i
5
5 1
3 7
6
0
6
1 1 4
1
8
1 0
1 8
0
0
29 0
1 5
0
23
30
S 2
i
c
65
2 0
l
0
1
1
1 4
3
i
5
0
0
3 0
6
0
44
0
S 3
i
5
J0
1 9
2
0
0
1 7
1 2
C
6
1 0
0
2
9 2
1 1
1
30
0
54
i
3
20
6
0
1
5
a
1 4

c
3
1
2
4 0
Y
0
3
0
C C
i
4
JO
2
1
0
3
4
2 6
0
I
4
0
0
2 1
I
0
4
2
56
i
4
36
26
0
0
4
0
2 4
c
2
2
0
0
1 0
7
0
6
0
5 7
i
J
33
8
0
0
l
0
4
5
4
4
0
0
1 1
0
0
4
0
58
i
3
36
1
0
0
0
4
c
7
5
0
0
0
4 0
0
1
l 7
7
59
i
4
18
2
4
0
1
6
4
2
2
2
0
1
4 2
3
0
7
0
e 0
i
2
38
1 6
4
0
2
1 7
0
1 1
8
5
0
1
1 9 2
C
0
1 C
0
6 1
i
7
28
1 2
3
0
1 5
c
2 S
24
1 7
5
0
1
1 2 1
1 4
0
2 7
0
62
i
2
J 7
4
2
0
0
2
1 £
1 5
1
4
1
1
5 0
0
4
1 1
1 4
£ 2
i
3
4. 4
6
"1
7
9
1 5
1 C
1 9
5
1
0
1
3 0
0
1
c
1 0


n -n ti n -n ti ti
-n
n'n-n'n-n-n-n-n'n-n-nTiTi'nTi-n-n-nT.
TI
w)
O X -4 rh U1 £> u
o.
C
O
^i^OinLurvj^-O iO£liNOif'6UMM
o
£
o
1 rn -c -< -1|
>
n
M
ro
o
1 nm L Til
-<
i- fo u ro
Ib
Ul
n
£>
CD
n
(J
*-
CL
n
x>
O
m
o
u
S)
a
r-iOmmz^
iuuLfU*J<
N
m
o
g - o o ro o en ~ rviuofuuM
en
O
*>
o
r

< j
o
>
O
ru
-si
M

G
rsOirai^n
en
l/l O (l ** o O
ro
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
rvj
t>
en

(J
o
cd
i n
O
o
-O
r > <

OOOOfU-G
o
ro
o
OG OO OOOOOOQOUlO
o
u
en
M
T)
ro
ro
o
en > r o r ai > -i
I
C
0
0
0
0
0
rh
O
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
u

Cu
ro

CD
srarinii
s>
o o o O o o
(D
no
o
o o o ~ ooinoooooo o o
o
-0
2
O
U
t>
viT
vO
O
tOOZ-
2
o o a u o
en
o
QOQOOUrU-* UIOOOUIO
U

>
o o o o o o o
o
o
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
o
G
z smoG j
r
u m i -< o
>
0
e
0
0
0
0
0
o
O
o
0
0
0
0
0
e
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
-
CD
E
H
ro

O

o
ID
o
o
t m a
ti
0
e
2
0
0
0
5
u
o
*-oroQOroU*-*-~.-roo*-ro.
ro
Ul
>
n

-t
o
ro
+
rr
(Jixm-Iin
en
'*00H**'/0
o
u
o
00u000f'j00*000**0
o
Si
*

o o o o o o
ro
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
u
o i m -iw
-n
m
ro
-
jm-iwo-c
>
o o o o o
IB
Ul
o
0
0
z
0
0
0
9
c
0
0
0
0
0
J
0
0
o
o
x>
-i
C
E
H -
OJ
£>
r*acuz>rxi
m
WOO--UO
CD
O
o
1
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
2
0
0
en
en
o o o o ro*~ o
fu

U
r ioainmo
o
mm
OOQOOO^OOOhOOOhG
-
O
o
o
*-
-si
OD
M > U1
si
u- i n
Si
1J
1J
- t n c n r* *
E
(SOOO^M/J
m
OMflOOU'rt(W/0(nCJl(dO*-(ll
CD
*
o
m
m
O O O O O O O
O
o
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
o
o
-en
en
*
fO
(j
*-
ro
m i) > c ni/i
-si U
o
i
u- *
CD
*/T
m
orou
CD
o
o
OOOOMIROMUOOMitOQ
U
ro
O
o o o o o o o
O
-
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
O
O
ozcon
LO
LO


314
SUMMARY
Variable
SQNUM
PROV
GRAYDEB
GRAYGUN
GOLDEB
GOLDGUN
UIDFLINT
MSKTBALL
L_BLOB
L_OTHER
L_UID
BRASBUCK
B_BUTTON
B_MSKT
B_OTHER
B_UID
IRONBUCK
I_STRAP
I_MSKT
I_OTHER
I_UIDWT
BONEGRAM
BRICKLIT
SHELLIT
SLAGGRAM
CLINKER
COAL
FLORAL
MISC
APPENDIX C
OF NONCERAMIC ARTIFACTS, DOBREE SITE
Description
Square number (1 63)
Provenience (Feature 1 Feature 30)
Gray flint debitage
Gray gunflint
Honey colored flint debitage
Honey colored gunflint
Unidentified flint
Lead musketball, shot
Lead blob
Miscellaneous lead artifacts
Unidentified lead fragments
Brass buckles
Brass buttons
Brass musket parts
Miscellaneous brass artifacts
Uidentified brass fragments
Iron buckles
Iron barrel hoop fragments
Iron musket parts
Miscellaneous iron artifacts
Unidentified iron fragment weight (grams)
Bone weight (grams)
Brick and tabby volume (liters)
Shell volume (liters)
Slag weight (grams)
Clinker fragments
Coal fragments
Edible plant remains
Miscellaneous artifacts


SUNMAFy CF NCNCffiMIC AH IfAC 1 St PL0M20NE. OOBREE SIIE
315
uoa UO -O-O-Oo-O flOONNnmOOOOoO fti. OON-O-OO-OfyOOONmOON-OOOOOOOOOO-OOO
*
0000-00OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOKOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
O'o-iro-wo^oi/iooo^N-^ono- *k o** in oj o **> 04 n** ko o o oo
^ 04

c\ iD O oj
40 m
OJ
04K
U-J-Z *UJ £T
*0^000 O4moioo mm
K
183
129
38
9
0
0
*n
t
e
e 1
01
0
0



oj n 0

8
6
3
2
0
8
1 9
mo
04 ID 04 O
O
0 0
ommK o *ok
O O O
(7*
04
m n 04
0000
^ * m

C7
* m
0 0
cMmKOo m m m wo*momojK* m kca k
04 04

mm ok
mm
*k
*
n
n
K

K

*
*c K *
->*>
K O
04
K

K 04 *
m a* 0 04
* cmo mo m
0 i 1
CM 04 *
OK
K O
04 04
04
O
K K
m
14/ rn
0 0
in r uj _i
o-omosoONOONtf^o
OK O if)

t 00 0

n
O
*o^o 0 0
K
# n
oms<\j-
* 04
O



0
0
9
l
m 0
# 04
(IOO0OOCO0OOOO0OD
0000
0
O
OOOOO
00
OOOOOOO
OO
OOOO
0 0
0 0
OC¡WNqOO(\OK^(MI0O
0
04 O n 04
CM
CM
OOOO
m cm cm
n 04
m

-*-
04
0
04 04
Off U X,J *
OOZUiOEAZ
<*iOK ^ocMnint*)oi > n ***
o-NNNoin?cOf nNomono^fy
o* o k o k inn o co m o o oj 04 rifonw-- r>M 04 oi eg rn 04 m - 04 cm cm mm 04
K04 cm mm^c^oj^ooo^K^mooo^ioinocM *ooommocuo4mmu* mo *u)muommoi4/o*omc
**mKm m*oj*m**m ^(/m 'i4i4m<*jf**m04*inK04<*04ajaj*^^ mmoj 04ocj*muj<>('4w>
o o m ooKKtj> o^rj-oj- (MKirHin^ftn-ditfuuwmvinooo- **
04
o-ociNooo'oo-o*-')voootoooooiiNOf n(,)ooowtoino(voocymn-N--ooooooooooi'Joo
- lU^llUZ o
-
- im - a < a
-COZD3U
CE 0 0
o o oooo ooooo*mo40oo o *m* ooom mom mot^m ooooojoooooooooooooooo
m
OO-OoOO-OOOOOOO-^NOOOOOOWOOOOO-O-fN-OO-m'OinOlMOOOOOOOOOO-OOOOOOO
K 04
m OOOOO- OOOCXMOOOOOO 0400000000 0000400w0000<->0000000<-i000000wcj
ooKoooo-OBMnofloimntotoN k* kcmokocy iawnoho- ino-oooo ooooooo o
cc 10 m £ tu a:
CD IX t/i K
o raD^i-oz
q:<(/)qd*j¥
-j io-o
0--00-0000--0-000---0000n0--0o0--f00-0**-----n--000jo0-o0000-0o00
m
*0 ooooooo 0000 0 noooooio- moo oooooojooooooo 000 0000000000000
04
mo 000000010 i*i o 04 o o oj oj o o o 0400J 00 (Mnnooo(\i(n <41
i\ooo-o(MtMoo(v--o-ninoi** o 04 oj m ojmomojojm 04 o w(moo--oo-o^oo^ ooowo

ojoomoimoimomo4 oj* *0J0404 m o **oim mo4CMu *m^*o- *moo oj coojooo
j 10 k x uj a
.J ICO .JO
ivnkc< j j
0000 OOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOfllOOo omoo ooooo 00000 ooooo O O <-> O
moo oooooo oooo* m ooom mooojocMooj o m **o oo o*c\4oor\jc\joooooooo cc
1
cMo',,H'400moooo4Koj04o ocmidcm 00 o m m moo om*ojm *mm ommo o oo^m 00
o
D-QilJ-Zw
£0OOOftjOonoO'0OOUO-O-O<0Mi>- O O O O Ooo O O O OJKOjmooOm OOOr^OOOOfMOO
K Csj (M
oujoo:z
o c J C 'JJ x
o a < > o o
cioQuaj
^0u-(\)0000-n--00--(\j0 0----0-00on0-0000(\jf'j0---0-0"'00-0 0 00 00 0 00-uc
m
moo* ooo -nowwmoow- 00000 o ooo oomoooomorniMoomoooooooo 0000
<7
U O OJ 04 o (VJOOOOO Oj 0000 OJ O *000 o o 000000400 O O OJ O O o 000000 00
m
in<\ic>*a>inm* o*<\jtn^*mo*K^omK m *oj * <\j oj * oj 04 04 Km oj rg 04
IU. CX LU o I
oojr'(\jm<7u-5*r\jrmm^*mommmoj(\j*m\ocD*f''mlf)LnKNmmmf',*oinmog*.om*mojrnuf\j*m mgjryjmojm
o
iw a uj 1
VIOZDI
i>jm*moi^o (vin tfiiO^OOO 04r*mKt^ rgii^uJHjMjoo ojm*mKcr ojm*m*00 oj m
01 oj tv <\jf\M\jmir)*'r",,,,,>^***^******inujinuJu"ii^uj<£>oo^
121


316
UMMA PY
OF NONCERAMIC
ARTIFACTS.
FEATURES
> > 1
OOBREE
SITE
u
M
0
B
1
B
B
s
G
G
G
I
s
L
R
e
F
1
I
1
0
R
s
L
c
R
R
G
0
o
K
u
A
B
B
0
I
N
I
M
A
L
F
7
F
A
A
c
L
F
T
c
L
S
U
5
B
N
s
5

E
c
E
G
1
L
o
r
R
Y
Y
u
0
L
B
B
T
B
T
M
T
e
T
T
I
G
K
L
G
N
c
0
M
a
p
E
C
0
0
c
1
A
L
H
u
U
T
S
H
0
u
P
s
H
0
R
L
L
P
K
o
p
1
c
E
0
e
i.
E
L
N
L
C
e
I
c
C
K
E
I
c
A
K
E

A
1
1
A
E
A
A
s
V
B
N
0
N
T
L
B
R
D
K
N
T
F
0
K
P
T
R
1
*
T
T
M
R
L
L
c
0
99
1 74
9
6
e
31
41
20
7
12
1 5
1 0
7
28
1 7
9
35
6
44
4263.2
15972.7
215
79
7095.1
1 09
293
52
te
F 1
1
23
4 3
2
2
2
1 2
26
6
2
4
7
2
3
1 8
e
2
20
1
1 0
1391.2
3422.5
25
5
14.1
0
1
29
6
FI 0
1
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
2
0
1
3
0
1
154.0
479.4
75
4
2e7. 7
0
0
0
0
F 1 1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
26.0
0.5
0
0
9 .0
0
1
0
0
F 1 2
l
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
c
0
0
0
1
<5.0
1105.8
0
2
0 .0
0
0
0
0
F 1 3
1
1
0
c
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
t
2
299.7
19.7
6
0
78. 1
1
0
0
0
F 1 4
1
1
0
c
0
c
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 .2
1 6 .0
2
2
15.4
0
0
0
0
FI 5
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
G
0
0
0
31.3
o.c
3
0
84.2
0
0
0
0
F 1 e
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
11 .8
4.5
1
0
48.2
0
1
0
0
f t 7
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
c
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
6.5
150.3
3
4
0 .0
0
0
0
0
F l 0
l
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
12.6
90.4
0
0
0.0
0
0
3
0
F 19
1
l
1
0
0
c
1
1
0
0
1
0
c
0
0
0
0
l
0
0
31 .0
7 .5
0
0
192 .0
8
1 7
0
1
F 2
l
6
73
4
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
4
1
1
0
0
4
2
1
7
2 CO. 4
1369.0
0
0
4.8
0
0
11
2
F 20
1
1
0
c
0
0
0
3
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
21 .5
160.1
0
0
0.0
0
0
0
2
F2 1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
32.1
0 .0
0
1
0 .0
0
0
0
0
F 2 2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13.4
46.2
1 5
0
0.0
0
0
0
0
F 2 2
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
G
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0.0
10.1
7
0
23.0
0
0
0
0
F 24
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
13.0
95.7
1 0
1
1 85 .0
0
2
0
0
F 25
1
1
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1.0
4.3
6
0
1.0
0
0
0
0
F 26
I
1
0
a
0
c
c
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 .0
1 2 .2
0
0
0 .0
0
0
0
0
F2 7
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.0
0.2
1
0
0.0
0
0
0
0
F 2 8
1
1
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
407.3
0
0
0.0
0
0
0
0
F 29
1
24
36
2
1
1
e
5
4
1
3
1
2
3
3
7
l
0
1
4
1300.1
1776.8
42
0
6128.7
1 00
271
5
1
F 3
l
7
2
1
1
1
0
2
4
2
1
1
0
0
3
3
1
2
0
4
226. 1
1209.6
1 1
1 4
12.4
0
0
0
6
F 30
1
1
4
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8 .6
73 .e
C
0
0.5
0
0
0
0
F 4
1
2
7
0
0
1
0
0
5
0
0
l
2
0
0
0
0
3
0
2
161.0
3102.5
3
36
0.0
0
0
1
0
F 5
1
4
3
c
0
0
0
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
6
120.3
1272.7
4
1 0
0.0
0
0
2
0
F 6
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15.1
44.4
0
0
0 .0
0
0
0
0
F 7
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.3
3e.2
0
0
0.0
0
0
1
0
F e
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
1 .2
0
0
0.0
0
0
0
0
F9
1
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
119.0
i 051 .e
1
0
11.0
0
0
0
0


317
APPENDIX D
SUMMARY OF FAUNAL DATA, DOBREE SITE
Variable
Description
FEANUM
SPECNUM
COUNT
GWEIGHT
SKLTOOTH
FOOTPAT
FORLIMB
VERTEBRA
STRNSCAP
INOMSACR
HINDLIMB
RIBS
T_SHELL
FISH1
FISH2
Feature number
Species number: (1)Unidentified bone
(2)Mammal (3)Procyon lotor (4)Didelphis
marsupialis (5)SylvTlagus sp. (6)Sylvilagus
cf. palustris (7)Canis sp. (8)Felis sp.
(9)Equus cabellus (10)Artiodactyl Cl 1)Bos
taurus (12)Sus scrofa (13)cf. Odocoileus
virginianus (14)Odocoileus virginianus
(15)Capra or Ovis sp. (16)0vis aries
(17)Unidentified bird (18)cf. Branta
canadensis (19)Anatidae (20)Anas sp.
(21)Aytha sp. (22)Aix sponsa (23)cf. Gallus
gallus (24)Gallus gallus (25)Unidentified
reptile (26)Alligator mississipiensis
(27)Unidentified turtle (28)Kinosternum sp.
(29)Terrapene Carolina (30)Malaclemys
terrapin (31)cf Crysemys scripta
(32)Crysemys scripta (33)cf. Gopherus
polyphemus (34)Gopherus polyphemus
(35)Colubridae (36)Bana or Bufo sp.
(37)Carcharinus sp. (38)Uidentified fish
(39)Siluriformes (40)Arridae (41)Arius
felis (42)Bagre marinus (43)Archosargus
probatocephalus (44)Schianidae (45)cf.
Pogonius cromis (46)Pogonius cromis
(47)Scfanops ocellata (48)Mugil sp.
(49)Menippe mercenarius
Bone frequency
Bone weight (grams)
Skull and tooth fragments
Foot, patella, and calcaneum fragments
Forelimb fragments
Vertebral fragments
Sternum and scapula fragments
Innominate and sacrum fragments
Hindlimb fragments
Rib fragments
Turtle carapace fragments
Anterior fish skull fragments
Posterior fish skull fragments

**

o
a
s
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 O
1 1
12
13
14
15
1 6
1 7
I 8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
25
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
3S
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
5 1
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
6 l
318
SUMMARY OF FAUNAL OATA 8Y SPECIES-FEATURES. DOBREE SITE
S V S 1 H
S
G
K
F
F
E
T
N
I
T
F
P
V
L
0
0
R
R
0
N
E
E
T
r
C
E
T
0
R
T
N
M
0
3
F
F
A
C
Y
R
O
I
0
T
L
E
S
S
L
R
H
1
I
N
N
P
E
u
G
0
P
I
0
C
A
I
I
e
S
S
U
U
E
0
N
H
T
A
M
R
A
C
M
8
L
H
H
N
M
T
T
H
T
8
A
P
R
B
S
L
1
2


0
551
7282
15982*5
202
1 13
107
1 78
24
29
73
5 1
48
110
74
o
1
1
87

963*8












2
1
90
4831
5933*2












3
1
13
39
36* 1
10
13
1 0
1

4
1





4
1
4
1 0
7*9
2

1
6


1





5
1
1
1
0* 5
i











6
l
l
1
0*4


1









7
1
1
2
0*5
2











8
1
1
40
10* 8
5
3
4
14
2
4
6
2




9
1
2
4
235*4
3





1





10
1
14
28
77*0
2
13

7
2
2

2




1 1
1
50
248
7220* 2
29
39
53
42
7
11
21
46




12
1
42
15 1
630*6
96
14
13
4
4
5
14
1




13
1
2
2
2.0
1
1










14
1
30
87
405*5
29
23
I 4
3
4
1
17





15
1
2
2
1*1

1




1





16
1
1
3
15*4

2




1




o
1 7
1
29
81
24*8












1 8
1
1
1
0*1


I









19
1
2
3
0*8




1

2





20
1
3
3
1*9


2

!







21
1
1
1
0*8


1









22
1
1
2
0*4

1




1





23
1
1
1
0*2








1



24
1
8
18
1 0*3

3
6

3
1
5





25
1
1
1
0*2












26
1
1
1
9.7
1











27
1
1 3
35
14*4








34



28
1
l
1
1*4








1



29
1
1
1
2*3








1



30
1
4
8
3*3






1

7



3 1
1
1
1
0*5






1





32
1
1
1
1* 5








1



33
1
2
2
2*8








2



34
1
1
1
0*3








1



35
1
3
3
0*5












36
1
2
9
0*3












37
1
2
2
0*4



2








38
1
45
1347
165.7












39
1
1 1
61
4*6
1


59





1


40
1
9
26
3*7
14


3






9

4 l
l
1 1
9 l
34.5
7


5





34
45

42
1
7
34
11 *5
1


2





20
1 1

43
1
1
1
0*6



1








44
1
10
1 1
10 *3
I


7





3


45
1
1
1
0*9










1

46
1
8
22
41*3



3





15
4

47
l
1 9
49
87.8
1


12





32
4

48
1
8
13
1.2



7

1



5

9
49
1
1
1
3*1


1








1

2
165
1543
3425.4
40
13
32
26
6
4
25
5

2 1
4
2

2
16
9 20
1369* 0
3
l
4
l
3
1
1
2
10
1

3

2
51
478
1210*9
21
5
7
27
4
4
1 5
i 5
7
6
1
4

2
34
91 3
3102.5
39
13
22
21
3
4
6
l 5
6
1 1
i 4
5

2
46
947
1272.7
1 1
1 1
6
63
2
1
1
6
2
55
4 7
6
O
2
1 1
48
44.4

1




.

1

i
7

2
1 1
83
38.2
9
4
1
2

2

l
1

8

2
2
3
1.2






.




9

2
9
1 03
1051.8
l
l 2
9
5

5
5
i



10

2
25
20 1
4 79.4
3
1
3
2
1
3
3

l


1 1

2
2
1
0.5

e




.






319
SUMMARY
OF FAUNAL DATA
BY SPECIES
-FEATURES.
OOBREE
SITE
S
y
s
1
H
S
a
K F
F
6
T
H
1
T
F
P
M
L 0
0
R
R
0
N
e
E
T
P
C
E
T 0
P
T
N
M
0
5
F
F
A
C
Y
R
0
I
0 T
L
e
S
S
L
R
H
I
I
0
N
N
P
E
u
G
0 P
I
B
c
A
I
I
6
S
S
3
U
U
E
Q
N
H
T A
P
A
C
M
8
L
H
H
S
M
M
__
T
T
H T
0
A
'"P
P
0
S
L
1
2
62
12
.
2
18
286
1 105.8
5 1
1
1 1
4

4
3
2
14
2
63
1 3

2
4
13
1 9. 7
1








l
64
l 4

2
4
7
16.0
. .

1







65
16

2
5
5
4.5
1
1








66
1 7

2
7
26
150. 3
2 1
1
1






1
67
i a

2
5
74
90.4
1









68
19
.
2
2
8
7.5
. .









69
20

2
8
1 15
160. 1
2
1
5


1
l

1
1
70
22

2
4
10
46. 2
3 1









71
23

2
4
5
1 0. 1
. .
1








72
24

2
1 2
46
9 5.7
1 3
1



1
1
5


73
25

2
1
5
4. 1
. .









74
26

2
2
1
12. 2
. .
1








75
28
.
2
1
2
407.3
. .
2








76
29

2
96
1 36 3
1782.8
66 30
7
1 1
1
3
8
2
5

2
77
30

2
6
76
7 3. 8
2 1 1
7
2

4
1




78
1
1
3
24

234.9
. .









79
1
2
3
24
88 1
91 8. 1
. .









80
l
3
3
8
9
13.7
4
5








8 1
1
4
3
2
4
1.5
2

2







82
1
10
3
2
4
14. 4
.

1
1
2





e3
1
1 1
3
15
59
1838.7
6 8
20
9
1
2
0
5



84
1
12
3
12
36
174. 1
23 1
2
1
I

8




85
1
1 3
3
1
1
0. 1
1









86
1
14
3
10
14
100. 1
2 1
3
l
2

5




87
1
15
3
1
1
0.6
. .




1




88
1
16
1
3
15.4
2




1




es
1
17
3
1 1
23
7.5
. .

*







90
1
1 8
3
1
1
0. 1

1







91
1
24
3
3
4
4.0
.
1

1

2




92
1
35
3
2
2
0.4
. .









93
1
36
3
2
9
0. 3
. .









94
l
38
3
1 8
452
47.0
. .









95
1
39
3
2
2
0. 3
. .

2







96
1
40
3
2
2
0. 3
1








l
97
1
41
3
4
4
1.4
1

I






2
98
1
43
3
1
1
0.6
. .

l







99
1
44
3
6
6
4.8
1

4





1

100
1
45
*1
1
1
0.9
. .








1
10 1
1
46
3
4
16
36. 4
. .

2





14

102
1
47
3
8
8
9.8
. .

2





6

103
2
1
3
3

130.2
. .









104
2
2
3
3
870
980. 0
. .









105
2
1 1
3
1
10
21 6. a
3
2

2
1

2



106
2
12
3
1
3
2 5. 2
. .
2



1




107
2
1 4
3
l
1
5.4
.


1






108
2
15
3
1
1
0.5
1









109
2
17
3
1
2
0. 9
. .









110
2
27
3
1
13
1.6
. .






1 3


111
2
30
2
1
5
0.7
. .






5


112
2
38
3
1
13
3.5
. .









113
2
46
3
1
l
3.0
. .

1







1 1 4
2
47
3
1
1
1.2
. .







1

115
3
1
3
7

60.5
.









116
3
2
t
8
302
415.0
e .









1 17
3
3
3
1
1
0. 5
I









1 1 8
3
5
3
l
1
0.5
1 .








1 19
3
8
3
1
40
10.8
5 3
4
14
2
4
6
2



120
3
10
3
3
3
8. 0
1

l



l



121
3
1 1
3
4
33
61 6. 6
8 1
l
6
1

4
12



122
3
1 2
3
4
8
38. 0
5 .

2


1






BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Nicholas Honerkamp was born in Cincinnatti, Ohio, on
February 13, 1950. He has had the good fortune to live in
Florida most of his life, where he met and married his wife,
Robin L. Smith. His interest in anthropology and archeology
was first provoked by his mother, Marjory W. Power, who is a
professional archeologist. He graduated from the University
of Florida with a B.A. in anthropology in 1972 and obtained
an M.A. from that institution in 1975. He has participated
in historic and prehistoric archeological projects in
Florida, Georgia, Indiana and Vermont. His principal fields
of interest include historical archeology, archeological
theory, and curation of archeological materials. His outside
interests include competative running (10,000 meters and
above), salt and fresh water fishing, martial arts, and the
Fender electric bass. He was a founding member of the Mildew
Brothers, an ahead-of-its-time bluegrass group of the mid-
1970s.
320


I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
V
/
Hjlc Cl'^
Charles H. Fairbanks, Chair
Distinguished Service Professor
of Anthropology
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
/v caJIja^ Cf
Hnl oon A Doacran 'Z
CT'O
Kathleen A. Deagan
Associate Professor of Anthropology
I certify that I have read this study and that in ray
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
fc
Prudence M. Rice
Assistant Professor of
LL
Anthropology
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fullv^erttequate, in scope arid quality,
as a dissertation for t>he degree of Doctor x>f Ph/I^bsophy.
aid T.
ociate
Milanich
Prof essor
Anthropology


I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
John K. Mahon
Professor of History
This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of
the Department of Anthropology in the College of Liberal Art
and Sciences and to the Graduate Council, and was accepted
as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy.
December 1980
Dean, Graduate School





219
less than the 32 types mentioned by Lewis for Camden
(1977:168). However, the sample used for Frederica does not
include creamware or later types, as the Camden sample does.
Ivor Noel Hume (1974), James Deetz (1977), and others have
described the florescence in the English pottery industry
that took place in the 1760s. Considerable numbers of types
and quantities of mass-produced ceramics became widely
available at a lower cost than previously. The contrast
between Camden and Frederica reflects the temporal
differences between the two settlements in terms of the
development of the British ceramic industry.
Re-exported ceramics are present at all three sites, as
represented by 1607 Oriental porcelain fragments and 417
fragments of Rhenish stoneware. For the sites as a whole,
this accounts for 8.7% and 2.3% respectively. Both
percentages fall within the ranges suggested by Lewis, which
is seen as supporting the third hypothesis. However, there
is considerable diversity between sites in the percentages of
these wares:
Oriental Porcelain
Rhenish Stoneware
Hird
5.5%
1 .4$
Hawkins-Davison
n.5%
6. 1 %
Dobree
10.5 %

C\J
As Deetz has pointed out, the presence of artifacts at a site
is dependent upon four factors: availability, need, function


A
WATER TABLE
NOV 78
5 0 cm








295
predicted by the model. Evidence derived from the aging of
bone elements recovered from the Hird Site indicates that old
cattle were rarely slaughtered; the use of cattle as sources
of meat rather than dairy products is therefore implied.
Lack of fit between the traditional British model and the
empirical evidence at Frederica suggests that a major
revision of our perception of historic period subsistence
adaptation is in order.
The research reported here illustrates the utility of
the frontier model in the examination and the interpretation
of archeological evidence for adaptive processes at British
colonial sites. The success of this approach stems from its
concern with basic, material aspects of culture and the
systematic study of their archeological manifestations. It
is hoped that the results reported here will engender further
refinements of the frontier model of human adaptation in the
colonial period.


72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22-
i
i
-23-
-24-
i
i
ID
CM

i
-26-
-27-
-28
i
i
t
29
l
1
31
32
33
34
35
i
1
37
i
i
38
39
40
41
42
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
1
44
45
46
47
48
i
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
49
50
51
52
i
i
i
i
i
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
53
54
55
5¡6
i
i
57
58
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
59
60
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
61
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
2-
-63-
i
i
i
i
' l
-N-
meters


44
settlements elsewhere in America was precluded under
Georgias philanthropic charter. Until the land and labor
restrictions were removed by the royal administration in
1750, Georgia's frontier settlements remained unstable in
terms of population, economy, and settlement patterning.
Once a reliable economy based on rice, indigo, and marine
stores became established, frontier towns such as Savannah
began to stabilize and take on increasingly complex
communication, transportation, and commercial functions. By
1773, 25 ocean-going vessels were owned by Georgians (Wright
1873:175) and many were offloading at Savannah, which had
largely replaced Charleston as the major sea port linking the
colony with Britain.
From the documentary information reviewed thus far, it
can be seen that the conditions proposed by Lewis as being
necessary for the development of a frontier are fully
satisfied (1977:160-164). Briefly stated, these are:
1) Georgia, located on the periphery of a prev
iously settled area, was physically occupied
by an intrusive colonizing society (Great Britain).
2) The intrusive European society possessed a highly
developed state level of organization. The
presence of a concomitant legitimizing force
necessary to maintain the logistical support of the
colonization effort is also apparent. Frederica,
as a fortified frontier settlement and as the staging
point for a major military campaign against Spain in
1740, exemplifies this state level legitimization of
force (Ivers 1974) .
3) In the second quarter of the 18th century, external
sociocultural barriers to expansion consisted only
of a competing state level society in St. Augustine,
Florida. Decimated by internecine warfare, slave
raids, and European diseases, the coastal Guale
Indians had been removed to Spanish missions in








FRONTIER PROCESS
IN EIGHTEENTH CENTURY COLONIAL GEORGIA:
AN ARCHEOLOGICAL APPROACH
BY
NICHOLAS HONERKAMP
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1980


144
Table 5-7 (continued)
Plowzone Features
Totals
Personal Group
27.
Coins
0
2
2
28.
Keys
1
3
4
29.
Personal items
3
1
4
Totals
4
6
10
Tobacco Pipe Group
30.
White clay bowl and stems
1220
400
1620
Activities Group
33.
Toys
1
1
2
34.
Fishing gear
2
2
4
37.
Storage items
55
55
1 10
38.
Ethnobotanical
23
6
29
39.
Stable and barn
1
0
1
40.
Miscellaneous hardware
5
7
12
41 .
Other
42
18
60
42.
Military items
2
1
3
Totals
131
92
223
Numbering of artifact classes follows the numbering system
used by South (1977:95-96).








38
affecting the town structure should also be reflected in the
structure of the town's components, which in the case of
Frederica would be the freeholder lots. Some implications of
this hypothesis are (1) there should be evidence of cluster
ing of features within the lots (depending on the intensity
of occupation at each site), (2) evidence indicating attempts
at maximizing the trash disposal function of certain areas of
the lot through reuse of subsurface features should be
present, (3) efficient use of subsurface features for the
disposal of faunal remains possessing objectionable odors
should be seen at the sites, and (4) there should be evidence
of an emphasis on demarcation of lot boundaries.
The question of site function is investigated by compar
isons of domestic and nondomestic activity by-products at
each site. Quantification of the artifact assemblages in
terms of South's (1977a:92-102) type-ware-class-group
classification is carried out in order to define site
function as it is reflected by the empirical artifact
profiles associated with each site (see Chapter V). Fred
erica, as a planned frontier community, should show archeo
logical evidence of domestic activities as well as craft,
marketing, small-scale manufacturing, and tavern socializing
activities. Due to the emphasis placed on crafts and trades
by the organizers and sponsors of the colonization effort at
Frederica, nondomestic activities should be more in evidence
at Frederica than at Camden. Besides the comparison of
quantitative artifact profiles, it is also possible to use






206
straight across the trench bottom would again be expected to
have shown discontinuity at the posthole. What is indicated
by this profile is that Feature 29 has cut across and was
therefore constructed after the posthole. The same
stratigraphic relationship was noted for most of the other
postholes located in the trench. In addition to the
postholes, four other features were also cut by this Feature,
indicating that they were already present when it was dug.
None of the features or postholes were intrusive into the
trench. It is therefore suggested that Feature 29 dates
after the line of postholes and the features shown at the top
of Figure 6-13*
Although the line of postholes under Feature 29 predates
the trench, their depth below the plowzone indicates that
they probably were associated with an earlier footing trench
that was destroyed by the later one. This explains the
presence of a "double bottom" in Feature 29 that was noted in
some squares during excavation. The heavy amounts of trash
recovered from this provenience have apparently resulted from
the redeposition of the material included in the hypothetical
earlier trench and/or from surface refuse that was included
in the trench backfill. In either case, the artifacts
associated with Feature 29 would be expected to reflect the
effects of redeposition. This assumption is tested by
comparison of ratios of the "miscellaneous" (i.e. eroded)
earthenware to nonmiscellaneous ceramics in Feature 29, the
plowzone, and the other features. Ratios of 0.18, 0.12, and


Figure 5-1. Excavation Plan, Hawkins-Davison Site
H Hawkins
D Davison


260
material needs of the colonists were supplied by the town
store, either through the Trustee's philanthropy or through
sale. The regimented characteristics of Frederica's economy
resulting from this single outlet of material goods may
account in part for the similarity of the archeological
assemblages from the Dobree versus the Hird and Hawkins-
Davison sites. Of course, socioeconomic status, ceramic
need, and site function could also account for the
differences noted. The relative importance of these factors
can be tested through future research at Frederica. If
availability is the most important factor, there should be
consistent contrasts in the ceramic assemblages between early
and late sites that are similar to those described in this
study. It is also predicted that the variability in ceramic
assemblages from Frederica will be greater between late sites
than between early sites due to the relative differences in
availability of ceramics during the late (post-1745) and
early periods.
In summary, both quantitative and qualitative evidence
have been used to determine site function at Frederica. At
the three sites examined, the occurrance of domestic as well
as craft and manufacturing activities was qualitatively
inferred from the presence of data sets associated with both
types of activities. Quantitative analysis of artifact
assemblages also indicated the multifunctional dimensions of
the sites: through comparison of the Hird and Dobree
artifact profiles, it was possible to isolate evidence of


181
However, it should be noted that the sherd was recovered in a
mixed provenience level just below the plow zone and may be
intrusive. Thus a conclusive terminus post quern of 1744
cannot be definitely established for the filling of the well
despite the discovery of this ceramic type. A mid-1740s or
later filling date is also indicated by the presence of two
fragments of molded white salt glazed stoneware that were
part of a panelled teapot (Figure 5-8). When mended into a
single fragment, a distinctive animal-and-shield relief
design was apparent. Almost identical designs are
illustrated by Mountford (1971:plates 96,99) for an eight
panelled teapot and a panelled cast bowl, both in white salt
glaze stoneware. A date of circa 1745 is attributed to both
vessels. Even when the relatively "late molded and scratch
blue stoneware sherds are included in the mean ceramic date
calculation, the resulting date of 1746.7 (from a total of
143 sherds) is slightly earlier than the dates for the other
two wells.
Taken together, the three wells accounted for 42.7% of
the feature-associated artifacts and 37.6% by weight of the
feature bone recovered at the site. When plotted by
percentage frequencies per group (Figure 6-10), it is
apparent that the filling of the wells constitutes a major
method of trash disposal at 18th century Frederica. It is
suspected that this is true of other, contemporaneous British
colonial sites. A comparison of the artifacts listed in the
appendices for these three features indicates considerable






Table 6-1 (continued)
Arms
Group
Wells
Trash
Pits
1 6.
Musketballs, shot, sprue
28
8
17.
Gunflints, gunspalls
1 1
2
18.
Gun parts
7
1
Totals
46
1 1
Clothing Group
19. Buckles
12
2
20. Thimbles
0
0
21. Buttons
9
4
22. Scissors
1
1
23. Pins
19
1
24. Hook and eye fasteners
0
1
25. Bale seals
0
0
26-A. Glass, shell beads
2
0
26-B. Miscellaneous clothing
7
0
Totals
48
9
Personal Group
27. Coins
2
0
28. Keys
0
0
29. Personal items
1
0
Totals
3
0
Tobacco Pipe Group
30. White clay bowl and stems
480
218
Post-
holes
Mise.
Fea 29
Totals
0
0
5
41
3
17
2
0
4
1 4
3
0
12
72
0
0
1
15
0
0
1
1
1
0
2
16
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
20
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
7
1
0
4
64
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
1
4
1
2
429
1203
CTv
OO








70
Figure 5-2. Excavation Plan, Hird Site.


Figure 6-
Figure 6-
Feature 2 Pit and Shaft, Dobree Site.
Closeup of Feature 2 Pit and Shaft, Dobree
Site.






190
17^9.3 and 1760, respectively. The late date for Feature 5
is attributed to the abundance of white salt glazed stoneware
(114 sherds) in the pit. Feature 10 had a date of 1740.5.
The significance of these dates will be discussed later in
this and the next chapter.
Postholes
Six trash-filled postholes were designated as features
(Figure 6-1). They are distinct from non-feature postholes
only in the amounts of colonial trash contained in the fill
of each, particularly construction materials. Brick and
tabby rubble was three times as plentiful (by volume) in the
feature postholes as in the nonfeature postholes. All the
feature postholes were found in an area of the site
containing a heavy concentration of nonfeature postholes that
are believed to have been asssociated with a colonial
structure. Figure 6-13 is a composite map showing all
colonial postholes in which a clustering of postholes south
of Feature 29 in the northeast area of the site is revealed.
A rectangular post-supported building, with its northeast
corner directly adjacent to Feature 10, appears to have been
present in this area. The dimensions of this building are
approximately 7.3 meters by 4.6 meters (23.9 by 15.1 feet),
which corresponds closely to the "at least 20 by 16 feet"
building dimensions specified by the Trustees (Candler 1904
37:XXXIV,288). An additional room is represented by a
cluster of 12 postholes to the east of the main structure.


Table 6-1. Artifact Class Frequencies, Features, Dobree Site.
Trash
Post-
Wells
Pits
holes
Mise.
Fea 29
Totals
Kitchen Group
1 .
Ceramics
709
540
17
6
721
1993
2.
Wine bottle
326
140
2
8
388
864
3.
Case bottle
98
134
0
0
372
604
4.
Tumbler
53
8
0
0
28
89
5.
Pharmaceutical
253
69
1
0
52
375
6.
Glassware
35
2
0
0
26
63
7.
Tableware
0
3
0
0
0
3
8.
Kitchenware
0
0
0
0
0
0
Totals
1 474
896
20
14
1587
3991
Bone Group3
9-A. Bone weight (gm)
6005.3
7670.4
26.4
497.6
1782.8
15982.
9-B. Bone frequency
2195
3723
12
241
865
7758
Architectural Group
10. Window glass
180
92
0
0
95
367
11. Nails
872
519
28
16
495
1930
12. Spikes
9
1
0
0
0
10
13* Construction hardware
2
0
0
0
1
4
14. Door lock parts
0
0
0
1
0
1
Totals
1063
612
28
17
591
2312
Furniture Group
15. Furniture hardware
3
4
1
0
1
8
162


15
2) summarized the types of information obtained (and
ignored) through the archeological field work;
3) assessed the research potential of the extant
artifact collections and of the unexcavated sites;
and
4) identified problem areas and research emphases for
which Frederica is best suited.
Specific recommendations included sampling sites that did not
face the main streets of the town (especially back lot
features), delineation of dietary, occupational, and social
status elements from the archeological assemblages, and defi
nition of the extent of military involvement in the domestic
sector of town life (Deagan 1975:25-26). The research prior
ities defined in her report were explicitly incorporated in
the grant proposal for the 1978-1979 archeological excavation
of Lot 31 South (Fairbanks and Honerkamp 1978).
Project Background
Based on Deagan's recommendations, the Fairbanks and
Honerkamp proposal listed a number of rather ambitious
research objectives that were designed to meet the needs of
the Park Service as well as to address problems of particular
interest to the authors. These objectives were to be
achieved through the complete excavation of a single 90 by 60
feet (27.4 by 18.3 meters) colonial lot. Complete excavation
of the site was considered necessary in order to delineate
the sites boundaries, to identify back lot elements, and to
locate and define areas associated with craft and domestic
activities. In addition, total excavation would ensure the
retrieval of an unambiguous representative sample of a single




55




81
South's approach, and as a consequence there are differences
in the analytical techniques used and the results obtained
from the application of these distinct techniques. For
instance, Deagan did not completely quantify all artifact
classes from the Hawkins-Davison Site, so that only the
ceramic and glass from this site are useful for testing some
of the hypotheses presented in the next chapter.
Artifact Analysis
The first step in the analysis of the archeological
materials was artifact identification. Ivor Noel Hume's A
Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America (1974) was the primary
reference used by Deagan and the author in the identification
of ceramic types. The work by Miller and Stone (1970) was
also frequently used. The primary sources consulted in the
identification of glass artifacts were Brown (1971) and Noel
Hume (1969b, 1974). References for metal and flint artifacts
include Stone (1974), Hanson and Hsu (1975), and Hamilton
(1976). The archeological type collections at the Department
of Anthropology, University of Florida also facilitated
identification of ceramic and nonceramic material. Floral
materials were identified by Dr. David W. Hall of the
Vascular Plant Herbarium, Botany Department, University of
Florida.
Data Management
How to handle the sheer quantity of artifacts identified
from the Dobree Site was a major problem during the analysis.


277
heterogeneous methods and techniques used in faunal analysis
by different researchers has produced a plethora of
noncomparable results, thereby discouraging attempts at
intersite comparisons, and (2) when a model of resource use
at colonial sites has been adopted at all, it tends to stress
the overall importance of domestic food sources and the
protection from the environment that these sources conferred
on historic European populations.
These problems can be seen as related in that few
attempts will be made at formulating unifying questions
toward which zooarcheological research can be oriented while
the prospect of comparative studies, so essential in the
methodological tool kits of athropological archeologists, is
lacking. As long as the theory upon which it is based
remains undeveloped, faunal analysis will continue in diverse
and unconnected ways, ad infini turn. To a certain extent,
prehistoric archeology also suffers from this malaise.
Fortunately, this circular reasoning has been avoided in
several imaginative studies, for instance Joanne Bowens
research at Mott Farm (1975), Steve Cumbaas use of faunal
materials to illustrate acculturative processes at Spanish
colonial sites (1975), and the work done by Charles E.
Cleland (1970) and Gary Shapiro (1978a,1978b) at
Michilimackinac. Of central concern to these authors are the
implications associated with the use of wild versus domestic
animal resources in the foodways of historic New World
populations, and how these foodways compare with their Old


288
the highly dispersed grazing and foraging lands in early
Georgia would have encouraged utilization of cattle since
they are much easier to round up in a free range situation
than swine (1980). Differential resistance to diseases and
climatic variation could also have contributed to the shift
to cattle (Hoornbeck 1980). It is obvious that much more
research on pig and cattle ecology during the colonial period
will be needed before accurate models of colonial resource
utilization can be offered.


273
O.
Iftatx****Jl
1 ? tfl********
3* c.
2ft********18...15........2ft*
1 O. ....... O T ....* O A ....... 00
5THAP
0O9ACE SITE* EXCAVATeO SQUARES
0ISTXISUT1CM OF UNOOl Si. AS S PLOAZONE
SOUTH SAFO* FREDERICA
ABSOLUTE VALUE RANGE APPLYING
(MAXIMUM* INCLUDED IN
TO EACH LEVEL
HIGHEST LEVEL ONLY )
MINI MOM
MAX 1MOM
0.0 12<560
129*60 259.20
259.20 388.80 518.40
38 8. 80 518.40 648.00
OATA VALUE EXTREMES ARE
648.00 PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL ABSOLUTE VALUE RANGE APPLYING TO EACH LEVEL
20.00 20.00 20. 00 20. 00 20. 00
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF DATA POINT VALUES IN EACH LEVEL
LEVCL 123*5
sia*ss:iiaita:itsaii3iaiiiiiaiiitaiii
OOOOOOOOO SIMNtoa
COCOCOCOO NNOOIM
SYMBOLS * *** 0000 0000 ASM AMA IAAA AAA
OOOOOOOOO AAAAAAAAA 1AAAAAAAA
OOOOOOOOO AAAAAA AO A AAAAAAAAA
,,,***aas*==*5*sas3aaasastrsa=aasa9a
55 a 2 l 1
FREQ


221
apparently not of substantial duration or intensity and at
least some of the biases that it would have introduced into
the limited sample can be identified and controlled.
A more accurate estimate of the mean date of occupation
of British colonial sites can be attained using Souths
formula. Mean ceramic dates of 1738.8 for the Hird Site and
17^3.8 for the Dobree Site were found using the total
precreamware assemblages from each site (2648 and 6635
sherds, respectively). These dates fall within the
documented colonial occupation span for Frederica and both
are close to the median historic date of 1742. These dates
also agree with the temporal characteristics associated with
the identified nonceramic artifacts discussed in Chapter V.
Contrasting dates are derived from the tobacco pipe
data. Using the Binford (1962) and the Heighton-Deagan
formulae, the following dates were calculated from the
pipestem fragments:
Hird Site
Dobree Site
Binford formula
1741.7
1766.0
Heighton-Deagan formula
1743.8
1768.3
Samples: 4/64
164
2517
5/64
947
1159
6/64
38
42
The pipestem dates for the Hird Site are still within the
documented occupation ranges for Frederica and the site. The
slightly later dates, as compared with the mean ceramic date,
probably result from the differences in ability of the author
to control the ceramic but not the pipestem samples:


305
Reitz, Elizabeth J.
1979 Spanish and British Subsistence Strategies at St.
Augustine, Florida and Frederica, Georgia Between 1565 and
1783. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
University of Florida.
1980 Faunal Analysis of Materials from the Eighteenth
Century Occupation at the Francisco Ponce de Leon Site
(SA36-4), St. Augustine, Florida. In. Forgotten Places
and Things: Archeological Perspectives on American
History, A. E. Ward, ed. In press. Albuquerque: Center
for Anthropological Studies.
Reitz, Elizabeth J. and Nicholas Honerkamp
1980 The British Barnyard Complex in Colonial Georgia.
Manuscript, Department of Anthropology, University of
Florida.
Reps, John W.
1969 Town Planning in Frontier America. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Rigdon, Thomas A. and Alfred J. Green
1980 Soil Survey Report for Camden and Glynn Counties. Manu
script, U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation
Service.
Ross, Eric B.
1980 Patterns of Diet and Forces of Production: An Economic
and Ecological History of the Ascendency of Beef in the U.S
Diet. rn Beyond the Myths of Culture: Essays in Cultural
Materialism. Eric B. Ross, ed. In press.
Saye, Albert B.
1943 New Viewpoints in Georgia History. Athens: University
of Georgia Press.
Schiffer, Michael B.
1972 Archeological Context and Systematic Context. American
Antiquity 37:156-165.
1976 Behavioral Archeology. New York: Academic Press.
1977 Toward a Unified Science of the Cultural Past. In
Research Strategies in Historical Archeology. Stanley
South, ed. pp. 13-40. New York: Academic Press.
Schmidt, Elizabeth
1972 Atlas of Animal Bones for Prehistorians, Archeologists
and Quaternary Geologists. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.






242
Table 7-3. Empirical Artifact Profile, Dobree Site.
Artifact Group
Frequency,
Dobree Site
% >
Dobree Site
% >
Model3
Kitchen
23106
53.5
51 .8-69.2
Architecture
12231
28.4
19.7-31.4
Furniture
34
0.08
0.1- 0.6
Arms
326
0.8
0.1- 1.2
Clothing
233
0.5
0.6- 5.4
Personal
23
0.05
0.1- 0.5
Tobacco Pipe
5878
13.6

CO
1
CO

Activities
1311
3.0
0.9- 2.7
Totals
43142
100.0
aRange proposed for Carolina Artifact Pattern (South 1977a:107).




233
The artifact totals for both sites are exclusive of the
Ethnobotanical class in this table. The higher percentages
of bone weight in the features indicate a tendency to dispose
of bone in a subsurface context. Nonfaunal trash, which
would possess less of the objectionable olfactory qualities
associated with food bone, was more likely to be thrown away
without recourse to burying.
The most obvious alternative explanation for the
observed bone percentage differences between the plowzone and
features would be differential preservation, particularly as
a result of variations in soil pH levels. Soil samples taken
at the Dobree Site and analyzed by the University of Florida
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Soil Sciences
Laboratory, indicate that soil acidity was consistent
throughout the site regardless of provenience. Table 7-2
contains the pH values for 23 samples from 8 separate
features, 5 plowzone samples, and 11 samples from Zone 2.
Even when four "wet" samples are excluded, the mean pH values
are 7.2 for the features, 7.4 for the plowzone, and 7.2 for
the sterile B horizon (Zone 2). Twelve samples from the Hird
features and 19 from the plowzone, analyzed by the same
laboratory in 1975, ranged from 7.8 to 8.5. According to
Heizer and Graham (1967:126), soils with a pH level below 7.0
are acid and below the 6.3 level there is no preservation of
bone material. Soil acidity is therefore not considered to
have been a significant factor in promoting differential bone
preservation on either an intersite or intrasite level.


197




39
the results of qualitative or presence-absence analysis to
determine site function. This is done for the artifact
assemblages from all three sites at Frederica, with
particular attention given to the by-products of a small-
scale manufacturing operation (a forge) that were recovered
from the Dobree Site.
The nearly complete excavation of the Dobree Site has
resulted in a data base that is well suited for testing
hypotheses concerning British colonial refuse disposal
behavior. South has defined a pattern of artifact
distributions at British colonial sites which he has
designated as the Brunswick Pattern of Refuse Disposal. This
pattern monitors secondary and primary deposition of refuse
as it occurs in and around colonial structures (South
1977a:48). However, portions of the sites used by South to
derive the Brunswick Pattern constitute a highly limited
sample in that they are all oriented around structural
foundations and their directly adjacent areas. Virtually no
testing of peripheral site areas is evident in South's work
(1977a:50-76). At the Dobree Site graphic representation of
the frequency distributions of several artifact classes and
groups is used to test the applicability of the Brunswick
Pattern at Frederica.
Finally, a subsistence model based on traditional
English foodways is defined in Chapter VII and compared with
the zooarcheological evidence from Frederica. A traditional
pattern of meat consumption in early Georgia that mirrors the






223
1977:15-18) relative to the late occupation period. This
interpretation obviously hinges upon a crucial factor: that
the site excavated was actually occupied by Hird. Evidence
used in identifying Lot 12 North with the Hird occupation is
presented below.
Much later pipestem dates have been generated for the
Dobree Site. The discrepancy between the ceramic and pipe
dates can be attributed to (1) a breakdown of the pipestem
formula's production of reliable estimates, and (2)
deposition of "late" pipestems without corresponding
deposition of significant numbers of late ceramics. Although
the HeightonDeagan and Binford formulae are known to break
down during the last three decades of the 18th century,
comparison of ceramic and pipe dates derived from
contemporaneous sites indicates that pipestem dating is an
appropriate method for determining occupation estimates for
sites earlier than 1770. The alternative arguement for the
presence of a higher proportion of "late" pipestems without a
corresponding percentage of postcreamware ceramic types seems
more plausible. This apparent discrepancy in pipe and
ceramic deposition indicates that the Dobree Site possessed
multiple occupations: one or more early occupations in which
ceramics and pipestems were deposited together (i.e., in the
features) and at least one late occupation in which only
pipestems were deposited. However, evidence from the closed
context features suggests another explanation. It can
logically be expected that the dates derived for ceramics and


107
on the glass surface, the latter a result of contact with the
cool surface of the mold (Brown 1971:103)*
Only one complete wine bottle and one reconstructed,
nearly complete wine bottle were recovered from the site;
both were found in wells (Features 1 and 3, respectively).
As shown in Figure 5-11, both bottles are similar in shape to
those illustrated by Noel Hume for the early 1750s (1974:66).
The fragmented nature of the artifacts recovered from
the Dobree Site made distinctions between some classes of
glass artifacts difficult. This was especially true for the
Tumbler and Glassware classes, for which small body sherds of
lead glass tumblers and goblets were virtually
indistinguishable. All such fragments, as well as any
fragments of wheel engraved lead glass are included in the
Tableware class while only positively identified tumbler
fragments were counted in the Tumbler class. One
reconstructed tumbler, found in Feature 3, is show in Figure
5-12 with three partial goblets from the same provenience.
The most elaborate goblet has a raised, folded base with a
partial inverted baluster below a large annulated knop and a
waisted bowl. The thick bowl base contains a small tear
while the baluster contains a very large one. Noel Hume
recovered similar waisted-bowl goblets in a Williamsburg
tavern refuse deposit that was discarded between 1750-1760,
but he believes a more accurate manufacturing range to be in
the 1715-1740 period ( 1969b:17). The two trumpet goblets
also contain large tears in the stems, while the smaller




176
T*'












304
Mountford, Arnold R.
1971 The Illustrated Guide to Staffordshire Salt Glazed
Stoneware. New York: Praeger Publishers.
Nelson, Lee H.
1963 Nail Chronology as an Aid to Dating Old Buildings.
History News 19:25-27.
Nichols, Frederick D.
1957 The Early Architecture of Georgia. Chapel Hill: Uni
versity of North Carolina Press.
Noel Hume, Ivor
1969a Historical Archeology. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
1969b Glass in Colonial Williamsburg's Archeological Coll
ections. Colonial Williamsburg Archeological Series No. 1.
1971 Williamsburg Cabinetmakers: The Archeological Evi
dence. Colonial Williamsburg Archeological Series No. 6.
1974 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. New York:
Alfred A. Knopf.
Phillips Collection
1947 Egmont Manuscripts: Letters from Georgia 1739-1744.
Manuscript on microfilm, P.K. Yonge Library of Florida
History, University of Florida.
Prange, Henry D., John F. Anderson, and Herman Rahn
1979 Scaling of Skeletal Body Mass in Birds and Mammals.
American Naturalist 113:103-122.
Rathje, William L.
1977 In Praise of Archeology: Le Project du Garbage.
In Historical Archeology and the Importance of Material
Things. Leland Ferguson, ed. pp. 36-42. Society for
Historical Archeology, Special Publication Series No. 2.
1979 Modern Material Studies. In Advances in Archeological
Method and Theory, Vol. 2. Michael B. Schiffer, ed. pp.
1-37. New York: Academic Press.
Reese, Trevor R.
1963 Colonial Georgia: A Study in British Imperial Policy in
the Eighteenth Century. Athens: University of Georgia Press.
1969 Frederica: Colonial Fort and Town. St. Simons Island:
Fort Frederica Association.
1973 The Clamorous Malcontents: Criticisms and Defenses of
the Colony of Georgia, 1741-143. Savannah: Beehive Press.






195
synap
i - 2- 3
6-
-I
OOBREE LCT EXCAVATED SQUARES
DISTRIBUTION of 0RICK AND T A88Y QU6SLE (IN LITERS: PtOi ZONE
SOUTH VARO. FREDERICA
ABSOLUTE VALUE RAKGE APPLYING TO EACH LEVEL
(MAXIMUM* INCLUOEO IN HIGHEST LEVEL ONLY
NOTE: 9RICK AN) TABBY MATERIAL FROM SUB-PLOW ZCNE
FEATURES IS NOT ItCLUOED*
MINI MU M
MAXI MUM
0 .0
4*00
4*00
9. 00
8* 00
I 2.90
1 00
I 6.00
ABOVE
16. 00 2 0*^)0
20*99
OATA VALUE EXTREMES ARE
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL ABSOLUTE VALUE CANGE APPLYING to each LEVEL
FREQUENCY CISTRIBuTION OF OATA POINT VALUES In EACH LEVEL
LE VF L I 2 3 A 5
ssasxsaasaasaasassaaaasaaaasaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
OOOOCOOOL) OAABAAAAA BBBBBBB
OOOOOOOOO 9BBBBBBBB ABBBBBBBB
SYMBOLS * CCCO OCOO OB MB OBBB ABBB fOA
********* OOOOOOOOO AAABABABA BABBAABA
* OOOOOOOOO AABAAABAA ABBBBBBBB
xxxxxaasxsxxaassxxxxxxxxaxxsxxxxxxxxxxxxxsxxxxxaxaa
FPEQ* 20 o 2 9 9










57
other or with the field calculations of street dimensions,
locational information on lot and street placement remains a
high priority for any excavation at Frederica. Lots not
adjacent to Broad Street are of particular concern since
possible errors made in measuring their locations may be
compounded with increasing distance from the Hawkins-Davison
base line. Variations induced by the surveying techniques
used in 1736 could also contribute to inaccurate determin
ations. Despite these drawbacks it is assumed that the
approximate location of any lot can be found using the
documentary-archeological evidence outlined above.
The Hawkins-Davison Site
The documentary record pertaining to this site has been
presented fully by Cate (1956), Deagan (1972), and Fairbanks
(1956). A brief synopsis of their work will be given in
order to indicate some of the temporal, spatial, and social
parameters associated with the site. Thomas Hawkins has been
positively identified as the owner of Lot 1 South. He, his
wife, and two servants arrived at Frederica in 1736 and
apparently left the settlement in 1743, although an ambiguous
reference given by John Terry in 1745 suggests a later date
of departure (Candler 1904-37:1,462, XXIV,402). Despite
coming to Georgia "at the Trustees' expense," Hawkins seems
to have held a relatively high socio-economic status among
the town's inhabitants. He was employed as the Regiment
surgeon, town apothecary-doctor, and Bailiff for Frederica.
He lived in one of the most impressive residences in the


280
1971:5); in fact, Anderson equates the urban artisans,
craftsmen, and tradesmen as the urban counterparts of the
rural husbandman and yeomen (1971:15). Since many of the
Frederica colonists had a similar background (Coulter and
Saye 1949), this description probably fits the majority of
the population at Fort Frederica during the main British
occupation.
Comparison With the Model
An examination of the faunal evidence indicates that
part of the model for colonial resource utilization is in
error. The percent biomass of nondomestic animals from the
three sites (Tables 5-10 through 5-12) ranges from a low at
the Dobree Site of 9.7$ to 17.5$ and 21.9$ at the Hawkins-
Davison and Hird Sites, respectively (excluding commensals
such as rats, snakes, and toads). This does not support the
notion of a static, unchanging pattern of meat consumption in
early Georgia that mirrored the European pattern. On the
contrary, a major adaptation to frontier conditions is
implied by these percentages. It is suggested that the
differences between the sites reflect temporal factors: part
of the occupation at the Dobree Site was during the late
1740s, by which time the availability of wild resources may
well have been dwindling, while the other two sites were
occupied during the early part of Fredericas history. Reitz
(1979) has also offered the suggestion that socioeconomic
factors may account for differences in domestic and wild
animal use. She has observed a positive correlation between






109


156
Table 5-11. Summary of Six Faunal Categories, Hawkins-
Davison Site, Frederica.
Biomass of Taxa for Which MNI Was Determined
MNI Biomass
Taxa
#
%
kg
%
Domestic Animals
19
42.4
77.5
82.4
Wild Terrestrial
1 1
24.4
14.8
15.7
Wild Birds
7
15.6
0.9
1 .0
Aquatic Reptiles
2
4.4
0. 1
0.1
Fish and Sharks
5
11.1
0.7
0.7
Commensals
1
2.2
0.01
0.01
Totals
45
94.0
Biomass of Taxa
for Which
MNI Was Not Determined
Biomass
Taxa
kg
%
Mammals
0.62
20.1
Birds
0.56
18.2
Reptiles
0.01
on

o
Fish and Sharks
CO

61 .4
Total
3.08


SUNMAFy CF NCNCffiMIC AH IfAC 1 St PL0M20NE. OOBREE SIIE
315
uoa UO -O-O-Oo-O flOONNnmOOOOoO fti. OON-O-OO-OfyOOONmOON-OOOOOOOOOO-OOO
*
0000-00OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOKOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
O'o-iro-wo^oi/iooo^N-^ono- *k o** in oj o **> 04 n** ko o o oo
^ 04

c\ iD O oj
40 m
OJ
04K
U-J-Z *UJ £T
*0^000 O4moioo mm
K
183
129
38
9
0
0
*n
t
e
e 1
01
0
0



oj n 0

8
6
3
2
0
8
1 9
mo
04 ID 04 O
O
0 0
ommK o *ok
O O O
(7*
04
m n 04
0000
^ * m

C7
* m
0 0
cMmKOo m m m wo*momojK* m kca k
04 04

mm ok
mm
*k
*
n
n
K

K

*
*c K *
->*>
K O
04
K

K 04 *
m a* 0 04
* cmo mo m
0 i 1
CM 04 *
OK
K O
04 04
04
O
K K
m
14/ rn
0 0
in r uj _i
o-omosoONOONtf^o
OK O if)

t 00 0

n
O
*o^o 0 0
K
# n
oms<\j-
* 04
O



0
0
9
l
m 0
# 04
(IOO0OOCO0OOOO0OD
0000
0
O
OOOOO
00
OOOOOOO
OO
OOOO
0 0
0 0
OC¡WNqOO(\OK^(MI0O
0
04 O n 04
CM
CM
OOOO
m cm cm
n 04
m

-*-
04
0
04 04
Off U X,J *
OOZUiOEAZ
<*iOK ^ocMnint*)oi > n ***
o-NNNoin?cOf nNomono^fy
o* o k o k inn o co m o o oj 04 rifonw-- r>M 04 oi eg rn 04 m - 04 cm cm mm 04
K04 cm mm^c^oj^ooo^K^mooo^ioinocM *ooommocuo4mmu* mo *u)muommoi4/o*omc
**mKm m*oj*m**m ^(/m 'i4i4m<*jf**m04*inK04<*04ajaj*^^ mmoj 04ocj*muj<>('4w>
o o m ooKKtj> o^rj-oj- (MKirHin^ftn-ditfuuwmvinooo- **
04
o-ociNooo'oo-o*-')voootoooooiiNOf n(,)ooowtoino(voocymn-N--ooooooooooi'Joo
- lU^llUZ o
-
- im - a < a
-COZD3U
CE 0 0
o o oooo ooooo*mo40oo o *m* ooom mom mot^m ooooojoooooooooooooooo
m
OO-OoOO-OOOOOOO-^NOOOOOOWOOOOO-O-fN-OO-m'OinOlMOOOOOOOOOO-OOOOOOO
K 04
m OOOOO- OOOCXMOOOOOO 0400000000 0000400w0000<->0000000<-i000000wcj
ooKoooo-OBMnofloimntotoN k* kcmokocy iawnoho- ino-oooo ooooooo o
cc 10 m £ tu a:
CD IX t/i K
o raD^i-oz
q:<(/)qd*j¥
-j io-o
0--00-0000--0-000---0000n0--0o0--f00-0**-----n--000jo0-o0000-0o00
m
*0 ooooooo 0000 0 noooooio- moo oooooojooooooo 000 0000000000000
04
mo 000000010 i*i o 04 o o oj oj o o o 0400J 00 (Mnnooo(\i(n <41
i\ooo-o(MtMoo(v--o-ninoi** o 04 oj m ojmomojojm 04 o w(moo--oo-o^oo^ ooowo

ojoomoimoimomo4 oj* *0J0404 m o **oim mo4CMu *m^*o- *moo oj coojooo
j 10 k x uj a
.J ICO .JO
ivnkc< j j
0000 OOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOfllOOo omoo ooooo 00000 ooooo O O <-> O
moo oooooo oooo* m ooom mooojocMooj o m **o oo o*c\4oor\jc\joooooooo cc
1
cMo',,H'400moooo4Koj04o ocmidcm 00 o m m moo om*ojm *mm ommo o oo^m 00
o
D-QilJ-Zw
£0OOOftjOonoO'0OOUO-O-O<0Mi>- O O O O Ooo O O O OJKOjmooOm OOOr^OOOOfMOO
K Csj (M
oujoo:z
o c J C 'JJ x
o a < > o o
cioQuaj
^0u-(\)0000-n--00--(\j0 0----0-00on0-0000(\jf'j0---0-0"'00-0 0 00 00 0 00-uc
m
moo* ooo -nowwmoow- 00000 o ooo oomoooomorniMoomoooooooo 0000
<7
U O OJ 04 o (VJOOOOO Oj 0000 OJ O *000 o o 000000400 O O OJ O O o 000000 00
m
in<\ic>*a>inm* o*<\jtn^*mo*K^omK m *oj * <\j oj * oj 04 04 Km oj rg 04
IU. CX LU o I
oojr'(\jm<7u-5*r\jrmm^*mommmoj(\j*m\ocD*f''mlf)LnKNmmmf',*oinmog*.om*mojrnuf\j*m mgjryjmojm
o
iw a uj 1
VIOZDI
i>jm*moi^o (vin tfiiO^OOO 04r*mKt^ rgii^uJHjMjoo ojm*mKcr ojm*m*00 oj m
01 oj tv <\jf\M\jmir)*'r",,,,,>^***^******inujinuJu"ii^uj<£>oo^
121


Figure 6-15. Tabby Plaster From Wattle and Daub Structure, Dobree Site.








129
coins; the third was found in a square that was adjacent to
two other units that contained half pennies.
Six of the coins were found either in or immediately
adjacent to the three wells uncovered at the site. This
indicates that activities were performed at these locations
which resulted in the loss of small pocket valuables.
Laundering activities would be expected to result in the loss
of coins (falling from pockets) near a source of water (the
wells) .
Personal Items, the last class in the group, were not
numerous at the site. Artifacts in this class consisted only
of a single lead pencil from Feature 1 and five more from the
plowzone, along with a single white clay wig curler and a
small ivory handle (Figure 5-17).
Tobacco Pipe Group
This group consists exclusively of fragments of white
clay tobacco pipes. Both stem and bowl fragments are
included in the frequencies given in Table 5-1. Makers
marks noted include TD (27 examples), and WM" (2
examples), and 1 each of IW" and RE. A total of 23 bowl
fragments bearing the decoration of the British royal arms
were also noted.
Actitvities Group
As South has pointed out, the Activities group would be
expected to display considerable internal variability between
artifact classes due to the wide range of activities


232
trash containers. Of all 10 features defined for the site,
only Feature 6 (an unused well or privy pit) and Feature 4 (a
dog burial) were not utilized for trash disposal. At both
sites a strong behavioral tendency toward "recycling" subsur
face features seems to be present, including those features
which would have presented little danger to people or live
stock. This indicates an actual need for subsurface trash
elimination that was a consequence of the concentrated row
pattern of town lots. A contributing factor in the reuse of
colonial features is discussed next.
The third implication can be addressed through compar
ison of percentages of total site bone and artifacts for the
closed context features and the plowzone. The expectation of
greater deposition of bone in the features is met at both
sites as seen in the following table.
Table 7-1. Comparison of Total Bone and Artifact Materials,
Hird and Dobree Sites.
Provenience
Site Plowzone Features
Hird Bone (grams) 16136.1 21514.5
(42.9%) (57.1%)
Hird Artifacts 10588 3059
(77.6%) (22.4%)
Dobree Bone (grams) 13863-3 15982.5
(46.4%) (53-6%)
Dobree Artifacts 35173 7969
(81.5%) (18.5%)




adjustments to New World conditions are indicated by an
increased reliance placed on wild terrestrial fauna and a
shift from swine to cattle, as measured through comparison of
biomass values derived from archeological bone. Similar
results from contemporaneous British and Spanish colonial
sites in St. Augustine, Florida, indicate that the
traditional colonial foodways model is in need of major
revision.
xi i i




215
1) The samples are large;
2) The samples are diverse; i.e. the "single feature
bias" has been eliminated through excavation of
numerous features at each site;
3) Closed context features contributed significant
amounts of the artifacts and bone from each sample.
Using the data base reviewed above, it is now possible to
investigate questions relating to the frontier adaptation at
Frederica.




208
trench has no parallel or right angle counterparts that would
have marked the bondaries of the other three sides of the
lot. A military association is therefore suspected for this
feature.
Sporadic attempts at repair and reoccupation of
Frederica by British, and later Federal, troops are
documented (Candler 1904-37:X,515, XIV,413; Jones 1878:126-
136), and it is suggested that the presence of Feature 29 at
the site is attributable to an undocumented attempt to
refurbish the town's defenses through construction of a
pallisade within the old town walls. The location of this
pallisade along the edge of a former street would have
provided a cleared area, immediately inside and adjacent to
the pallisade walls, which would have facilitated
unobstructed movement of personnel along the edge of the
pallisaded area.
Another indication of the association between the
Feature 29 artifacts and the plowzone material is seen in the
mean ceramic date calculated for the plowzone, feature and
Feature 29 ceramics. The date for the trench would be
expected to reflect the date calculated for the plowzone if
ceramics were discarded at about the same time for both.
Expressed another way, if temporal differences in the
plowzone deposition and deposition in the features exist, the
trench should be more closely associated with the plowzone
dates. This is born out by the following dates calculated
for the precreamware ceramics:






307
1978 Pattern Recognition in Historical Archeology. American
Antiquity 43:223-230.
1979 Cognitive Explanation, Rich Little and Other
Impressionistic Entertainment. Paper Presented at The
Canadian Archaeological Association, Vancouver, B.C.
South, Stanley, ed.
1977b Research Strategies in Historical Archeology. New
York: Academic Press.
Stacy, James
1784 Plat Map of Lots 22 and 23, Frederica, Surveyed for
John Myers Sr. Box 17, Plats Folder, Hinesville Probate
Court.
Stevens, William Bacon
1847 History of Georgia, Volume I. New York: E.O. Jenkins.
Stone, Lyle M.
1974 Fort Michilimackinac, 1715-1781. Publications of the
Museum, Michigan State University.
Taylor, Walter W.
1948 A Study of Archeology. Memoir No. 69, American
Anthropologist 50(2):1256.
Walker, Ian C.
1967 Historic ArcheologyMethods and Principles. Histor
ical Archeology 1:23-34.
1974 Binford, Science and History: the Probabilistic
Variability of Explicated Epistemology and Nomothetic
Paradigms in Historical Archeology. The Conference on
Historic Site Archeology Papers 1972 7(3):159201.
Watson, Patty Jo, Steven A. LeBlanc, and Charles L. Redman
1971 Explanation in Archeology: An Explicitly Scientific
Approach. New York: Columbia University Press.
Weigert, Hans W., Henry Brodie, Edward W. Doherty, John R.
Fernstrom, Eric Fischer and Dudley Kirk
1957 Principles of Political Geography. New York: Appleton
Press.
White, Lynn Jr.
1969 Medieval Technology and Social Change. New York:
Oxford University Press.
White, Stephen W.
1975 On the Origin of Gunspalls. Historical Archeology
9:65-73.








121
partial spall gunflints and 42 blade gunflints or fragmets.
There is a perfect correlation between flint color and
manufacturing technique in the gunflint sample: all spall
gunflints are of gray flint while all blade gunflints are
made of honey-colored flint (Figure 5-15). Gun parts, mainly
lock fragments and furniture are broken down by provenience
in Table 5-6.
Unfortunately, the dating of gun parts is not as refined
as that of ceramics or other artifact classes. All that can
be said of the present collection is that most of the gun
parts conform to styles that are not inconsistent with a
colonial occupation at the site. Sideplates represent a
possible exception to this generalization. Of the 14 brass
sideplates recovered, 6 were in the dragonesque design shown
in Figure 5-15. Five of the six plates have engraved designs
on flat brass strips while the sixth is cast on a plate that
is convex in cross section. This last artifact was recovered
from a closed-context provenience, the top portion of the
Feature 1 well pit.
According to Hamilton, this style of sideplate was the
"standard cast brass serpent sideplate which was used on the
Northwest and Hudson's Bay trade guns from about 1775 to the
close of the muzzle loading era around 1885" (1976:14). Noel
Hume's discussion of colonial firearms raises intriguing
questions concerning the presence of this sideplate at
Frederica:
The best known of all decorative devices used on Early
American muskets was the dragonesque side plate that


180
reached at 1.28 meters below ground surface. Thereafter, the
north and south halves of the well were taken down
simultaneously. A well point connected to a gasoline-powered
diaphram pump was used to remove the ground water down to
2.07 meters below ground surface, where excavation was halted
due to excess ground water.
The shaft fill changed markedly at 1.45 meters below the
surface. At this point a thin, flat fragment of unidentified
wood was found lying horizontally in the shaft. Below this
wood the fill consisted of light gray sand with some light
tan mottling, rather than the dark gray artifact-bearing soil
in the upper portion of the shaft. Use of the probe failed
to detect the presence of artifacts in the unexcavated bottom
of the well, although barrel staves were located but not
recovered. The abrupt change in the lower shaft fill, which
was similar in appearance to the mottled light gray-tan sand
in the surrounding pit, may have resulted from part of the
barrel casing rotting away and the surrounding walls
collapsing inward. No artifacts were found in this lower
0.57 meter portion of the shaft fill.
Artifacts recovered from Feature 3 initially were
interpreted as indicating that it was filled in later than,
or at least as late as, the other two wells. Besides finding
four sherds of refined agateware in the shaft, the top 0.11
meter shaft-pit portion of the well contained a small sherd
of scratch blue white salt glazed stoneware, for which South
gives a beginning manufacturing date of 1744 (1977a:210).


















312
SUMMARY OF GLASS. PIPE. ANO NAIL AR II FACT S. PL042CNE. 008REE SITE

C
r
p
i
A
A
u
L C
4
N
s
8
G

M
I
A E
R
e
s
r
F
E
E
L
0
1
O
0
s
S
S
0
N C
C
Q
R
Q
Y
R
9
8
V
G
9
N
0
T
T
r
T
S
8 E
U
U
0
N
P
E
0
0
I
L
L
0
E
H
E
E
E
T
0 0
G
c
A
U
u
e
a
T
r
A
A
E
0
R
E
M
M
M
E
4
F
u
ft
N
__
L
L
L
s
T

N
R
4
5
6
M
L L
f
7
E
0
0
2ei
4919
32 02
478
66
290
3968
43 1
10 72
2 0 52
9 78
33
194
1293 125
2207
101
3695
265
1
i
2
45
95
9
2
2
5
C
28
c
5
0
0
8 0
10
2
24
6
2
i
5
47
24
2
1
2
6
C
1 2
11
5
0
4
12 1
Y
30
39
3
3
i
2
13
1 9
1
0
2
4
66
13
16
4
0
1
1 6 0
2
4
1 7
2
4
i
4
162
6e
7
0
7
16
1 S
19
13
29
1
1
1 5 0
52
0
68
4
c
i
4
1 1 8
68
7
5
3
31
25
54
10
29
0
0
13 1
36
1
88
3
i
i
c
1 82
13 7
1 7
0
4
22
C
9
1 4
26
0
3
27 0
1 1
1
75
7
7
i
4
1 46
53
19
0
1
15
6
20
14
1 0
0
Y
25 0
2
0
3e
a
e
i
2
75
6 4
4
0
6
ie
2 9
24
27
5
0
3
1 7 1
7
3
34
7
9
i
6
5 1
35
14
J
2
2 1
e
1 4
7 7
1 3
1
5
30 4
17
1
47
2
l 0
i
5
75
46
1 3
1 2
4
9
i
18
1 15
26
0
14
49 2
11
4
47
1
1 1
i
3
2 79
220
1 8
0
6
25
3
64
26
28
0
3
23 3
35
1
59
0
1 2
i
5
1 87
1 8 1
14
l
2
26
1
40
20
35
0
3
2 1 3
1 7
2
47
3
l 2
i
4
l 56
1 02
7
1
0
. 18
0
27
14
1 6
0
2
l 7 2
5
0
30
6
1 4
i
3
80
70
7
0
3
15
i
37
32
1 8
0
4
14 1
9
0
42
7
1 5
i
7
1 21
122
26
0
1 1
35
2
l 8
79
36
1
C
63 6
28
3
48
3
1 6
i
7
72
6 7
12
3
6
26
0
8
l 05
29
0
7
59 7
54
1
54
1 7
l 7
i
1 1
66
2e
1 8
0
5
1 0
£
3
132
23
0
10
46 3
70
l
72
a
1 8
i
5
49
34
8
2
9
7
2
26
146
26
1
22
49 2
7
0
70
3
1 9
i
2
SO
1 2
1 1
6
0
6
1
1 2
34
6
0
6
26 1
0
0
16
2
20
i
2
60
1
3
0
1
0
6
1 1
15
4
0
2
e o
3
0
8
1
2 1
i
2
1 44
122
6
0
8
19
3
2 1
20
22
0
4
3 8
13
0
66
1
22
i
5
101
67
13
0
8
4e
4
0
1 7
26
1
4
27 5
25
0
46
1
23
i
2
1 26
55
7
0
5
59
0
1 3
4 1
34
0
Y
29 3
15
0
66
2
2 4
i
5
1 4 1
S 2
1 5
4
5
22
5
20
91
39
0
5
36 2
1 14
3
33
0
25
i
9
53
5 4
1 2
0
7
31
0
6
1 9 t
40
1
e
36 6
ei
0
1 06
1
26
i
4
25
1 2
6
1
2
8
1 0
0
75
1 7
1
y
E 1
78
11
4 3
7
2 7
i
t
60
22
8
0
3
1 7
c
2
eo
12
0
4
24 3
1 25
3
54
2
25
i
5
1 59
6 3
to
0
6
4 26
4
20
c Y
20
1
Y
39 5
46
1
160
1 1
29
i
5
77
c c
5
0
6
38
0
l 3
i 0
1 2
0
3
12 3
40
0
86
1
30
i
4
1 3 1
7 4
19
l
0
164
2
20
30
50
0
3
51 5
55
0
122
5
31
i
6
164
55
1 2
0
1 8
294
3
29
52
49
0
6
77 7
3 1
1
131
1 7
32
i
C
68
35
1 3
0
1 2
54
4
7
35
24
20
3
30 l
47
0
120
4
3 3
t
9
107
9 4
4
3
7
24 1
1 0
38
40
21
1
4
26 3
55
2
132
2
34
i
4
24
1 9
4
1
0
18
1
0
66
14
2
3
7 0
44
2
43
1
35
i
5
48
4 6
3
0
4
5 1
4
0
43
1 2
0
1
12 2
1 32
0
68
4
36
i
9
55
2 7
7
3
4
19
1 7
0
20
1 1
0
1
13 3
78
0
4 7
0
3 7
i
c
S 3
7 2
9
3
1
328
2
1 5
7
8
0
2
9 0
21
1
9 1
2
38
i
3
27
8
2
1
0
39
1
2
6
3
0
1
5 1
2
0
33
1
29
i
5
56
56
7
1
3 1
81
l 5
1 4
35
1 9
0
2
20 5
204
0
79
8
40
i
9
37
3e
4
0
1 2
24
I
6
29
1 6
0
3
1 7 1
85
a
159
7
4 t
i
3
20
30
9
l
2
25

1
27
1 4
0
4
9 2
1 03
0
1 5 4
0
4 2
i
c
26
4 6
3
1
0
40
C
5
9
6
0
1
18 0
39
0
68
0
4 3
i
4
l 05
6 9
1 0
0
4
648
1
1 06
e
8
0
2
1 1 2
44
3
131
0
4 4
i
2
79
4 3
1 4
J
0
221
0
i a
9
1 2
0
2
6 1
28
0
7e
0
4
i
6
89
1 34
1 0
0
9
1 09
0
35
l 6
1 3
0
2
32 3
1 08
0
154
6
46
i
7
1 22
109
6
2
8
1 4 7
c
28
1 2
6
0
6
45 3
57
1
99
35
4 7
i
2
l 5
3 0
0
0
1
32
9
3
1 6
3
0
0
1 3 1
3
0
95
9
48
i
4
70
1 2
J
0
2
3
1
1 8
4
4
0
0
7 l
0
1
1 6
1
4 9
i
2
78
23
5
0
1
123
i
18
7
a
0
2
1 0 1
6
3
39
0
SO
i
i
£ 1
7 C
1 0
0
1
l 1 5
4
4 8
1 4
1 9
0
2
27 1
49
0
62
1
S l
i
5
5 1
3 7
6
0
6
1 1 4
1
8
1 0
1 8
0
0
29 0
1 5
0
23
30
S 2
i
c
65
2 0
l
0
1
1
1 4
3
i
5
0
0
3 0
6
0
44
0
S 3
i
5
J0
1 9
2
0
0
1 7
1 2
C
6
1 0
0
2
9 2
1 1
1
30
0
54
i
3
20
6
0
1
5
a
1 4

c
3
1
2
4 0
Y
0
3
0
C C
i
4
JO
2
1
0
3
4
2 6
0
I
4
0
0
2 1
I
0
4
2
56
i
4
36
26
0
0
4
0
2 4
c
2
2
0
0
1 0
7
0
6
0
5 7
i
J
33
8
0
0
l
0
4
5
4
4
0
0
1 1
0
0
4
0
58
i
3
36
1
0
0
0
4
c
7
5
0
0
0
4 0
0
1
l 7
7
59
i
4
18
2
4
0
1
6
4
2
2
2
0
1
4 2
3
0
7
0
e 0
i
2
38
1 6
4
0
2
1 7
0
1 1
8
5
0
1
1 9 2
C
0
1 C
0
6 1
i
7
28
1 2
3
0
1 5
c
2 S
24
1 7
5
0
1
1 2 1
1 4
0
2 7
0
62
i
2
J 7
4
2
0
0
2
1 £
1 5
1
4
1
1
5 0
0
4
1 1
1 4
£ 2
i
3
4. 4
6
"1
7
9
1 5
1 C
1 9
5
1
0
1
3 0
0
1
c
1 0




CHAPTER VI
SITE FORM AND CONTENT
Dobree Site Features
This section describes the archeological features
excavated at the Dobree Site in terms of their form and
content. Since this site has not been reported previously,
the feature discussion will be in more detail than that for
the other sites.
A total of 30 man-made disturbances were identified at
the Dobree Site and designated as features (Figure 6-1).
Feature designations were made on the basis of the form and
presumed function of the disturbance and/or the type or
quantity of associated artifacts. For instance, some
postholes were designated as features if they contained large
amounts of 18th century refuse believed to have been
purposefully deposited as fill, while other postholes lacking
such material did not receive feature designations. The
relatively small quantities of artifacts associated with the
nonfeature postholes are thought to have been inadvertently
included in the fill for each posthole during backfilling, or
to have fallen in by chance after the posts had been removed
or had disintegrated (Noel Hume 1969:135-137). The
difference in artifact deposition associated with feature
versus nonfeature postholes is discussed later in this
158


210
In summary, Feature 29 is believed to be a military
pallisade wall trench that was constructed after the primary
occupation of the site. Stratigraphic evidence was found
indicating that this feature was located directly over an
earlier trench and post line that conformed more closely to
the towns alignment that did the later trench. Artifacts
associated with the trench fill were found to possess
temporal and physical relationships similar to the plowzone
artifact assemblage. Redeposition in Feature 29 of (1) the
assemblage from the earlier trench, (2) the plowzone
artifacts, or (3) a combination of both accounts for the
similarities between this feature and the plowzone materials.
From documentary and archeological evidence the trench
appears to have been located on the south edge of a road that
was in use during the colonial occupation at Frederica.
Hird Site Features
A total of 10 major features was uncovered at the Hird
Site, as shown in Figure 6-19. Detailed descriptions of each
are presented in the Hird Lot Site report (Honerkamp 1975:74-
87). They are renumbered in the present study. All of the
ceramic artifacts found in the features possess beginning
manufacturing dates that antedate creamware and no "out of
place artifacts, such as wire nails or molded glass, were
associated with the closed contexts. Mean ceramic dates for
features containing sufficient numbers of identifiable sherds
were all within the mean occupation range at Frederica; a














Archeologist George Fischer, and Laboratory Director James
Stoutamire of the Southeast Archeological Center in
Tallahassee. At Fort Frederica, the entire staff supported
and sometimes actively participated in the project. Former
Supervisor Janet Wolf and Assistant Supervisor George Berndt
were particularly helpfull in seeing that the field work was
successfully carried out.
Finally, I would like to thank my wife Robin L. Smith
for her editorial contributions and especially for her
constant encouragement and criticisms. Her personal and
professional support was invaluable during all phases of the
project, and will continue to be essential to me in the
future.






150
hypotheses referred to in Chapter III in terms of the
artifacts, features, and contextual information that make up
the archeological evidence at Frederica.




I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
John K. Mahon
Professor of History
This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of
the Department of Anthropology in the College of Liberal Art
and Sciences and to the Graduate Council, and was accepted
as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy.
December 1980
Dean, Graduate School


49
endeavors of Fredericas inhabitants were limited to a narrow
range of activities that focussed on servicing and supplying
the regiment. Thus a loss of complexity resulting not only
from attenuation of networks with the homeland but also from
a highly restricted economy is indicated by the documentary
data.
General Temporal-Demographic Parameters
Through numerous documentary references a terminus post
quern of February 1736 has been established for the colonial
occupation at Frederica. Determination of an end date for
the settlement is more difficult due to the erratic
fluctuations in population that characterized Fredericas
history. Most authors emphasize a severe reduction in the
domestic population as a result of and immediately following
the departure of the Regiment in 1749 (Cate 1956:204; Jones
1878:124-125; Reese 1969:69-71). Indirect evidence of the
town's dissolution is seen by Reese in the closing of the
town storehouse in 1751 due to a lack of customers (1969:70).
In 1758 a fire ...wasted nearly all of the town which time
had spared, presumably because no one was around to put it
out (Stevens 1847:446). Contemporary accounts, including one
by Royal Governor John Reynolds in 1755, give the impression
of a town "in Ruins, and sporadic attempts to revive
Frederica for military or economic purposes during the last
half of the 18th century were unsuccessful (Jones 1878:126-
136). Small military detachments were stationed there
through the American Revolution and half-hearted efforts at




207
0.05 were found, respectively, which is in full accordance
with the expectation of highly fragmented ceramics in the
open contexts versus reduced fragmentation in the closed
context features.
The presence of the two post pallisades in the same
location at this site raises numerous questions. Although
similar in form to the military pallisade wall trenches
reported by Lewis at Camden (1976) and Manucy at Frederica
(1962), the possibility exists that Feature 29 may have been
a domestic pallisade-fence marking the street and lot
boundary. Documentary references to the fencing in of
property at Frederica are not uncommon. Indeed, Elisha
Dobree's own description of his Frederica homestead includes
mention of his town lot which "is fenced and has palisades
and clapboards..."(Candler 1904-37:XXI,345). The position of
the trench agrees fairly closely with the documented position
of the street-lot boundary: it is approximately 4.5 meters
farther north than anticipated, as indicated by a comparison
of maps shown in Figure 5-3 and Figure 6 13. Archeological
data also tends to confirm the presence of a street next to
the trench. The contour maps already presented for brick and
ceramic distributions generally show reductions in artifact
frequencies in the first and second rows of the excavated
squares.
Arguing against a domestic interpretation is the extent
of the trench which greatly exceeds the 60 feet width of
Frederica's lots, and equally important, the fact that the


141
IkmTT
TT
1 i^ch
... .1
-t




297
Bonner, James C.
1964 A History of Georgia Agriculture, 1732-1860. Athens:
University of Georgia Press.
Bowen, Joanne
1975 Probate Inventories: An Evaluation from the Perspec
tive of Zooarcheology and Agricultural History at Mott
Farm Historical Archeology 9:11-25.
Brown, Margaret Kimball
1971 Glass from Fort Michilimackinac: A Classification for
Eighteenth Century Glass. The Michigan Archeologist
17(3-4).
Brown, Richard M.
1963 The South Carolina Regulators. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Bryant, Pat, ed.
1972 English Crown Grants for Islands in Georgia, 1755-75.
Atlanta: State Printer.
Candler, Allen D., ed.
1904-1937 The Colonial Records of the State of Georgia. 39
vols. Atlanta: State Printer. Unpublished volumes (20,27-
39) on microfilm, P.K. Yonge Library of Florida History,
University of Florida.
Carson, Cary
1978 Doing History With Material Culture. In_ Material Cul
ture and the Study of American Life. Ian M. G. Quimby,
ed. pp. 41-64. New York: W. W. Norton.
Cassagrande, Joseph B., Stephen I. Thompson, and Phillip
D. Young
1964 Colonization as a Research Frontier. Ini Process
and Pattern in Culture, Essays In Honor of Julian
H. Steward. Robert A. Manners ed. pp. 281-325.
Chicago: Aldine Press.
Casteel, Richard W.
1978 Faunal Assemblages and the "Weigemethode" or Weight
Method. Journal of Field Archeology 5:72-77.
Cate, Margaret Davis
1926 Our Todays and Yesterdays. Brunswick: Glover Brothers.
1943 Fort Frederica and the Battle of Bloody Marsh. Georgia
Historical Quarterly 40:111-174.
1956 The Original Houses of Frederica, Georgia: The Hawkins
Davison Houses. Georgia Historical Quarterly 40( 3):203-212


122
Table 5-6. Summary of Artifacts in Gun Parts Class, Dobree
Site.
Brass Items
Sideplates
Triggerguards
Escutcheon
Buttplate
Ramrod cap
Plowzone
13
7
2
1
0
Features
1
4
1
0
1
Iron Items
Lock springs
Tumblers
Sears
Vise jaws
Vise screws
Breech plugs
Triggers
Trigger guards
Bridles
Cock
Frizzen
23 3
6 0
5 0
4 0
3 0
0 2
4 1
2 0
2 0
1 0
1 0
Lead Items
Gunflint sheaths
3 1
78 14
Totals




158
VI. SITE FORM AND CONTENT
Dobree Site Features 158
Hird Site Features 210
Hawkins-Davison Site Features 214
Summary 214
VII. EVALUATION OF THE EVIDENCE 216
Cultural Affiliation 217
Temporal Parameters 220
Site Form and Function 225
Refuse Disposal and Artifact Distribution . 262
Subsistence and Diet 274
VIII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 289
REFERENCES CITED 296
APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF CERAMICS, DOBREE SITE .... 309
APPENDIX B. SUMMARY OF GLASS, PIPE, AND NAIL
ARTIFACTS, DOBREE SITE 311
APPENDIX C. SUMMARY OF NONCERAMIC ARTIFACTS,
DOBREE SITE 314
APPENDIX D. SUMMARY OF FAUNAL DATA, DOBREE SITE . 317
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 320
vi






117
the 19th century (Noel Hume 1974:252), those found at the
Dobree and Hird sites are assumed to have been deposited
during the primary colonial occupation (1736 to the mid-
1750s). Supporting evidence for this assertion is seen in
the nearly identical ratios of wrought and square nails
derived from the closed context colonial features and the
plowzone at the Dobree Site, .61 and .59, respectively. The
similarity in wrought-square nail ratios in the two
proveniences indicates that oxidation and breakage of wrought
nails remained constant through time, given systematic
identification methods for the entire nail assemblage.
Plowing is considered to have had little effect on nail
breakage or the subsequent nail ratios.
Only wrought iron spikes were included in the Spikes
class. Due to their size, spikes had less ambiguous physical
characteristics than from which a wrought or nonwrought
determination could be made than did the oxidized nails. A
Square Spike category was therefore not necessary.
Artifacts considered under the Construction Hardware
class consist of two wrought staple nails found in the wells
(Features 2 and 3), a door hinge fragment from a trash pit
(Feature 18), and part of a lead window came recovered from
Feature 29; the plowzone contained two door pintal fragments
and a wrought staple nail. The only artifact from a closed
context that could be included in the Door Lock Parts class
is a lock tumbler (Figure 5-14) from Feature 11, a trash-
filled depression. In the plowzone one lock bolt, two door




r



31
Theoretical-Methodological Position
The manner in which archeological research is conducted
relates directly to the theoretical-methodological position
that the archeologist holds, including the archeologist who
rejects theory (Cleland and Fitting 1968; Glassie 1977;
Watson et aJL. 1971). Although the approaches outlined above
are by no means exhaustive of those held by historical
archeologists, they are thought to be representative of a
majority of the archeologists actively engaged in historic
site research. My own orientation is based on the foregoing
consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of each
approach, especially as they can be applied to the study of
the archeological record at Fort Frederica. This study
applies the structural-functionalist method to interpretation
of data within a positivist, materialist theoretical
framework. Neither an in-depth description of the material
remains recovered at Frederica, nor a historical-
archeological chronicle, nor an interpretation of the world
view of the sites occupants will be attempted, for reasons
discussed above. At the same time, the author is not unaware
of the needs of the sponsor concerning traditional site
interpretation goals. Accordingly, the material remains used
to derive archeological evidence of past activities and
behavior are described in more detail than is customary in
pattern recognition studies, and reconstructed or complete
artifacts are identified and illustrated. In this sense, the
present study is particularistic. No attempt will be made to


Figure 6-10.
Frequency or Weight Percentages for
Nine Artifact Groups, Features, Dobree
Site.
Wells
Trash Pits
Feature 29






294
due to the limited sample used to define it, but these
findings do suggest that the Brunswick Pattern may simply be
an artifact of the sampling frame used by South rather than
the result of systematic refuse disposal behavior at British
colonial sites. On a higher level, this observation has
implications for the application of the frontier model to the
interpretation of archeological sites, in that our perception
of a frontier settlement on the edge of a cultural area will
be dependent on whether the settlement is studied in
isolation or in its regional context.
Finally, a static model of resource utilization which
has traditionally been used to interpret faunal remains at
historic sites was evaluated against the zooarcheological
data recovered at Frederica. The British Barnyard Complex
model posits a "transplanted Englishman" interpretation of
colonial adaptations in the New World whereby domestic food
sources buffered historic European populations from any
large-scale environmental adjustments. Using Jay Allen
Andersons historical study of English foodways, a
traditional British pattern was defined in which heavy use of
swine and sheep and, secondarily, dairy cattle was
emphasized. At Frederica, biomass estimates from the three
sites indicate a fairly heavy reliance on wild animal species
that is clearly inconsistent with the British Barnyard model.
A breakdown of the biomass figures according to species
indicates a nearly 6.5 to 1 ratio of cattle to swine biomass
at the sites, which is again in contrast to the pattern


Figure 5-7. Distribution of Identifiable Colonial
Ceramics, Plowzone, Dobree Site.




ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
A great many people contributed to this study. Some
offered suggestions and encouragement; others, their labor
and expertise. In the case of the National Park Service,
funds were provided to carry out the research. Individuals
will be mentioned here with the understanding that their
contributions can never be acknowledged to the extent that
they deserve.
The members of my doctoral committee, Charles H.
Fairbanks, Kathleen A. Deagan, Prudence M. Rice, Jerald T.
Milanich, and John K. Mahon, have been extremely generous
with their advice and criticism during the course of the
project. Besides their impact on the present study, two
members in particular have had a profound influence on my
development as an archeologist. Ten years ago Dr. Fairbanks
stimulated my interest in anthropology through his lectures
on North American prehistory. After attending a Fairbanks-
led archeological field school, that interest changed into an
overwhelming ambition to persue archeology on a full-time
basis. Dr. Deagan helped me realize the importance of a
systematic, scientific approach to the study of human
behavior. I am indeed fortunate to have worked closely with
both of these scholars.






302
1980 Social Status as Reflected by Faunal Remains from an
18th Century British Colonial Site. Conference on Historic
Site Archeology Papers 1979, Stanley South ed. In press.
Hoornbeck, Billie M.
1980 Personal communication, January 10, 1980.
Hudson, John C.
1969 A Locational Theory for Rural Settlement. Annals of
the Association of American Geograhers 59:365-381.
Ivers, Larry E.
1974 British Drums on the Southern Frontier: The Military
Colonization of Georgia 1735-1749. Chapel Hill: University
of North Carolina Press.
Johnson, Sydney J., Hilburn 0. Hillestad, Sheryl F. Shanholtzer,
and G. Frederick Shanholtzer
1974 An Ecological Survey of the Coastal Region of Georgia.
National Park Service Scientific Monograph Series, No. 3.
Jones, Charles C.
1878 The Dead Towns of Georgia. Printed as Volume 2 of the
Collections of the Georgia Historical Society. Savannah:
Morning News Steam Printing.
Kaplan, Reid W. and Michael D. Coe
1977 Picture of the Past: Artifact Density and Computer
Graphics. Historical Archeology 10:54-67.
Kemble, Francis Anne
1961 Journal of a Residence on a Georgia Plantation in 1838-
1839. Originally published 1863- New York: Alfred A.
Knopf.
Kristof, Ladis K. D.
1959 The Nature of Frontiers and Boundaries. Annals of the
Association of American Geographers 49:269-282.
Leone, Mark P.
1973 Archeology as the Science of Technology: Morman
Town Plans and Fences. In. Research and Theory in Current
Archeology. Charles Redman, ed. pp. 125-150. New York:
John Wiley and Sons.
Lewis, Kenneth E.
1976 Camden: A Frontier Town. Institute of Archeology and
Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Anthropological
Studies 2.
1977 Sampling the Archeological Frontier: Regional Models
and Component Analysis. I_n Research Strategies in Histor
ical Archeology, Stanley South, ed. pp. 151-201. New York:
Academic Press.


84
Another computer program used in the analysis of the
Dobree Site artifacts was the Synagraphic Mapping System, or
SYMAP. This computer graphics program produces maps on which
spatial data are graphically displayed through variable
darkness and texture. It is especially useful for providing
a method of interpolating data values for locations in a
mapped area based on the values of the closest known data
points in that area. The construction of artifact density
isopleth maps composed of contour lines connecting all
locations having the same density values is one example of
SYMAP's interpolation capabilities. Although the users
manual for this package is obscurely written (Dougenik and
Sheehan 1975), the program was easy to use once the basic
mechanics for obtaining output were finally mastered. SYMAP
contour maps delineating relative densities of several
classes of artifacts from the Dobree Site were used to
address questions of site structure and function.
Classification Format: Dobree Site
The specific analytical tools used in this study were
chosen for their applicability in addressing the research
questions of interest to the author. The type-ware-class-
group classification scheme, which is an integral part of the
pattern recognition approach (South 1977a:92-102), has been
followed. The artifacts were divided into the same classes
and groups that South used to construct empirical artifact
profiles for deriving the Carolina-Architecture artifact
patterns. As already mentioned, analysis of the




37
findings from other British colonial sites, the occurence of
a predictable amount of re-exported foreign-made ceramic
types such as Oriental porcelain and Westerwald stoneware.
The temporal period of the town occupation is
established in Chapter IV as extending from 1736 to circa
1750 for most sites in the town. However, the chronological
position of the Hird, Hawkins-Davison, and Dobree sites
cannot be determined satisfactorily from the documentary
evidence alone. Temporally sensitive artifacts--ceramics and
white clay pipes--are used to estimate the occupation dates
for the sites. A lack of congruence between the mean
occupation dates derived from the documentary, ceramic, and
pipestem materials is used to interpret the site occupation
sequences as well as the behavioral characteristics of the
occupants.
Site form and function are investigated with reference
to the frontier model. Settlement patterning at the town
level is expected to reflect specific demographic, political,
and economic factors that were present in the South Carolina
and Georgia frontier areas. This should be evinced by
distinctive settlement patterns for Camden and Frederica.
For instance, at Camden a combination of abundant land, low
population density, and the absence of a need for concerted
defense against a state-level power would result in a more
dispersed and uneven town structure than at Frederica. Both
documentary and archeological data from each town are used to
contrast the settlement patterns. Adaptive pressures






100
seen in the differing ratios for this type that were found
for the features and plowzone. The ratios were calculated by
subtracting the total miscellaneous ceramics from the entire
ceramics total (excluding aboriginal and late types) and
dividing the miscellaneous total by the resulting ceramics
total. The feature ratio, which would be expected to reflect
the effects of normal ceramic use-breakage-discard practices,
is .09. In contrast, the plowzone ceramics, which are
believed to reflect the effects of postdepositional processes
(trampling by colonial-period livestock and humans, plowing,
modern sod planting activities), have a ratio of .12.
It is possible to test the assumption that the
miscellaneous earthenware ceramics are associated with the
main occupation period at the site by comparing the product-
moment coefficients computed for this ceramic category
(designated as a SAS variable called MISCERTH), the
positively identified precreamware types (grouped into a
single variable called COLONIAL), and the creamware or later
types (variable LATEPOT). Table 5-3 gives the correlation
results for the plowzone ceramics from the 63 excavated
squares. As expected, the coefficient for the COLONIAL and
MISCERTH correlation indicates a much stronger positive
relationship than for either of these two variables with
LATEPOT. The slightly negative relationship that exists
between the COLONIAL and LATEPOT variables is attributed to
the distinct, noncontiguous disposal locations of these two
groups of ceramics, as shown in Figures 5-6 and 5-7.


276
contexts from which the samples were taken, is
high. The "single feature bias" that character
izes many historic faunal studies is absent.
Before presenting the subsistence model, a short summary of
the previous research on colonial foodways will be given in
order to clarify the reasoning used in choosing the
particular research strategy employed in this section.
Previous Research
With some notable exceptions, many historical site
faunal studies can be characterized as little more than
descriptive afterthoughts, tacked on to the end of site
reports in hidden appendices, conspicuous only by their lack
of integration. Many deserve this "poor stepchild" status,
as evinced by the cursory, unfocussed approaches used even on
large, well preserved faunal assemblages. This is in
contrast to the increasingly important emphasis that
zooarcheological studies have recieved at prehistoric sites
the same sites that historical archeologists are pleased to
use as examples or the relatively impoverished nature of the
prehistoric data base when compared to that of their own.
The irony of this scenario would be amusing were it not for
the less-than-flattering implications it entails.
Rather than attribute the relative dearth of substantive
studies to the unpleasant possibility that Ian C. Walker's
(1967, 1974) worst fears concerning the competence of
historical archeologists in this country have been realized,
it is suggested that this neglect has resulted from two
related deficiencies in method and theory: (1) the


89
Table 5-1 (continued)
Plowzone Features Totals
Personal Group
27.
Coins
9
2
11
28.
Keys
4
0
4
29.
Personal items
7
1
8
Totals
20
3
23
Tobacco Pipe Group
30.
White clay bowl and
stem fragments
4675
1203
5878
Activities Group
31. Construction tools
5
2
7
32.
Farm tools
0
0
0
33.
Toys
3
0
3
34.
Fishing gear
4
0
4
35.
Stub-stemmed pipes
0
0
0
36.
Colono Ware
0
0
0
37.
Storage items
70
38
108
38.
Ethnobotanical
9
52
61
39.
Stable and barn
3
1
4
40.
Miscellaneous hardware
13
14
27
41.
Other
881
208
1089
42.
Military items
6
1
7
Totals
995
316
1311
Numbering of artifact classes follows the numbering system
used by South (1977:95-96).
Bone frequencies derived by using a ratio of 2.06 grams per
f ragment.


OMDOO-OCT>U1-CrUO|\)
Figure 619- Composite Map of Hird Site Features.
Features
1
Description
Trash pit
Trash pit
Trash pit
Dog burial
Privy pit
Unused construction pit for well/privy
Privy pit
Trash pit
Barrel storage pit
Possible root cellar


Figure
5-12. Glass Tableware Items, Dobree Site.
Tumbler on left is 9*3cm in height.


146
the Hawkins from the Davison bone was not retained during the
20 years that have elapsed between excavation and analysis of
this site. The minimum distinction method used on the
Hawkins-Davison bone probably contributed to the relatively
small MNI derived for this site.
Estimating the live and edible meat weight from
archeological bone presents a number of difficulties for the
zooarcheologist. Whites method (1953) has been expanded
upon by a number of researchers, but all the calculations
that have been presented involve the use of a skeletal to
live weight ratio to obtain a useable meat estimate which is
multiplied by the MNI for each species. Several drawbacks
are apparent with this technique, the most serious of which
stems from the assumption made when multiplying the useable
meat estimate by the MNI: that one recovered element of an
animal is equivalent to the entire animal being used and
discarded at the site. More conservative and presumably
realistic estimates can be obtained when MNI is replaced with
archeological bone weight (Wing 1976), but other problems
remain, such as determining the average live weight of the
species (which is not constant through time or space) or
estimating what portion of the animal is or is not useable."
Alternatively, it is possible to calculate the biomass
represented by the archeological bone without reference to
MNI through the use of the bone weight in an allometric
equation that yields a corresponding biomass value. Detailed
discussions of the concepts involved in the use of this




16
colonial occupation which could be used as a basis for
deriving hypotheses dealing with various aspects of 18th
century life at Frederica. Since the site was assumed to
have been occupied by known, historically documented
colonists, it was through the documentary records that
spatial, temporal, and social variables affecting: the
archeological record could be accounted for, and it was
against this baseline of historical documentation that
hypotheses could be formulated and tested.
The original major research interest of the author was
to formulate hypotheses concerning specific socioeconomic
differences and similarities between the occupants of the
Dobree, Hird, and Hawkins-Davison sites which could be tested
through comparison of various classes of artifacts, including
faunal remains. A preliminary attempt along these lines was
made by the author using only faunal materials; documentary
evidence was used to control for temporal and social vari
ables associated with the three sites (Honerkamp 1980).
However, archeological and documentary analysis carried out
after the Dobree Site field work revealed evidence neces
sitating major revisions to the research goals. These are
discussed fully in subsequent chapters.


319
SUMMARY
OF FAUNAL DATA
BY SPECIES
-FEATURES.
OOBREE
SITE
S
y
s
1
H
S
a
K F
F
6
T
H
1
T
F
P
M
L 0
0
R
R
0
N
e
E
T
P
C
E
T 0
P
T
N
M
0
5
F
F
A
C
Y
R
0
I
0 T
L
e
S
S
L
R
H
I
I
0
N
N
P
E
u
G
0 P
I
B
c
A
I
I
6
S
S
3
U
U
E
Q
N
H
T A
P
A
C
M
8
L
H
H
S
M
M
__
T
T
H T
0
A
'"P
P
0
S
L
1
2
62
12
.
2
18
286
1 105.8
5 1
1
1 1
4

4
3
2
14
2
63
1 3

2
4
13
1 9. 7
1








l
64
l 4

2
4
7
16.0
. .

1







65
16

2
5
5
4.5
1
1








66
1 7

2
7
26
150. 3
2 1
1
1






1
67
i a

2
5
74
90.4
1









68
19
.
2
2
8
7.5
. .









69
20

2
8
1 15
160. 1
2
1
5


1
l

1
1
70
22

2
4
10
46. 2
3 1









71
23

2
4
5
1 0. 1
. .
1








72
24

2
1 2
46
9 5.7
1 3
1



1
1
5


73
25

2
1
5
4. 1
. .









74
26

2
2
1
12. 2
. .
1








75
28
.
2
1
2
407.3
. .
2








76
29

2
96
1 36 3
1782.8
66 30
7
1 1
1
3
8
2
5

2
77
30

2
6
76
7 3. 8
2 1 1
7
2

4
1




78
1
1
3
24

234.9
. .









79
1
2
3
24
88 1
91 8. 1
. .









80
l
3
3
8
9
13.7
4
5








8 1
1
4
3
2
4
1.5
2

2







82
1
10
3
2
4
14. 4
.

1
1
2





e3
1
1 1
3
15
59
1838.7
6 8
20
9
1
2
0
5



84
1
12
3
12
36
174. 1
23 1
2
1
I

8




85
1
1 3
3
1
1
0. 1
1









86
1
14
3
10
14
100. 1
2 1
3
l
2

5




87
1
15
3
1
1
0.6
. .




1




88
1
16
1
3
15.4
2




1




es
1
17
3
1 1
23
7.5
. .

*







90
1
1 8
3
1
1
0. 1

1







91
1
24
3
3
4
4.0
.
1

1

2




92
1
35
3
2
2
0.4
. .









93
1
36
3
2
9
0. 3
. .









94
l
38
3
1 8
452
47.0
. .









95
1
39
3
2
2
0. 3
. .

2







96
1
40
3
2
2
0. 3
1








l
97
1
41
3
4
4
1.4
1

I






2
98
1
43
3
1
1
0.6
. .

l







99
1
44
3
6
6
4.8
1

4





1

100
1
45
*1
1
1
0.9
. .








1
10 1
1
46
3
4
16
36. 4
. .

2





14

102
1
47
3
8
8
9.8
. .

2





6

103
2
1
3
3

130.2
. .









104
2
2
3
3
870
980. 0
. .









105
2
1 1
3
1
10
21 6. a
3
2

2
1

2



106
2
12
3
1
3
2 5. 2
. .
2



1




107
2
1 4
3
l
1
5.4
.


1






108
2
15
3
1
1
0.5
1









109
2
17
3
1
2
0. 9
. .









110
2
27
3
1
13
1.6
. .






1 3


111
2
30
2
1
5
0.7
. .






5


112
2
38
3
1
13
3.5
. .









113
2
46
3
1
l
3.0
. .

1







1 1 4
2
47
3
1
1
1.2
. .







1

115
3
1
3
7

60.5
.









116
3
2
t
8
302
415.0
e .









1 17
3
3
3
1
1
0. 5
I









1 1 8
3
5
3
l
1
0.5
1 .








1 19
3
8
3
1
40
10.8
5 3
4
14
2
4
6
2



120
3
10
3
3
3
8. 0
1

l



l



121
3
1 1
3
4
33
61 6. 6
8 1
l
6
1

4
12



122
3
1 2
3
4
8
38. 0
5 .

2


1














52
What seems to be generally ignored or underestimated in
historical studies of Frederica is that the settlement was
characterized by an extremely high turnover rate for the
inhabitants. The emphasis that some historians have given to
the number and diversity of crafts and skills represented at
Frederica is the result of a synchronic interpretation of a
diachronic phenomenon of population replacement. In other
words, the historical interpretation was derived from a
listing of all craft specialists over a span of time, rather
than from those present at any one time. Reeses contention
that a list of the names of Frederica's settlers "could be
extended to include practically every trade that a pioneer,
frontier community needed" may be correct (1969:47), but the
accompanying assumption that all these essential craftsmen
were living in Frederica at the same time cannot be supported
by the documentary evidence.
The effects that this high rate of population
replacement might have on the archeological record vary.
Most sites at Frederica can be assumed to have been abandoned
prior to 1750. Some site assemblages can be expected to
reflect single residence occupations of short duration or
multicomponent occupations of various durations. These
should contrast in discernible ways with a small number of
sites with long duration (eight to ten years or more) single
components. Intrusive 19th and 20th century components
should also be present at a small number of the colonial
sites.


142
were used in conjunction with the final report on the Hird
Site (Honerkamp 1975) in order to classify the artifacts
using criteria identical to those used at the Dobree Site.
Although the artifacts themselves were not reanalyzed, the
previous study was sufficiently detailed to allow
reclassification and quantification. Table 5-2 lists the
ceramic data from the site while Table 5-7 contains a summary
of artifact class frequencies for the features and plowzone.
Faunal Analysis
Instead of simply using the faunal material to construct
bone-artifact ratios, as South does, a more intensive
analysis was made that allowed between-site comparisons along
with testing of a model of British colonial resource
utilization.
Under the direction of Dr. Elizabeth Wing, analysis of
the Hird and Hawkins-Davison faunal material was carried out
by Dr. Elizabeth Reitz; the Dobree material was examined by
the author. Similar methodologies were used by both
researchers. After being identified, all the bone was
weighed and counted, and MNI (minimum number of individuals)
and biomass were calculated whenever possible. Comparability
of the assemblages was enhanced by the use of the same
comparative skeletal collections at the Florida State Museum,
University of Florida.
Although fragment counts were made for all but the
"Unidentified Bone" taxon, this information was not used for
deriving conclusions concerning animal utilization at


82
It was quickly realized that the hand-tabulated quantifica
tion techniques used by the author for the Hird Site material
was inadequate for organizing and analyzing the data base
resulting from the nearly complete excavation of the Dobree
Lot. It became obvious that the most efficient means of
working with the extensive Dobree data base would be through
the application of computer data handling capabilities. Of
the several computer packages available for this purpose from
the Northeast Regional Data Center (NERDC) at the University
of Florida, the Statistical Analysis System (SAS) was
considered to be the most suitable package for meeting the
particular organizational and analytical needs of the author.
This choice was based on the highly versatile and powerful
capabilities SAS has for information storage and retrieval,
data modification, file handling, and statistical analysis.
In addition the system is relatively easy to learn and comes
with an understandable though terse users manual (Helwig and
Council 1979). The package is limited to IBM hardware, which
at NERDC consists of an IBM-360/370 computer.
The input data used to create a SAS data set for the
Dobree ceramics consisted of 3^3 cases, with each case
containing information for three identifying variables and
frequency values for 20 ceramic types and six ceramic wares.
The identifying variables used were the original field
specimen number, the excavation unit number, and the
provenience designation. Nonceramic artifacts were also
coded into SAS data sets using the same identifying


Figure 4-1. 1796 Miller Map of Frederica.


40
European pattern is expected to contrast sharply with a
pattern of resource utilization that reflects adaptive
responses to frontier conditions.
Of central importance in testing the hypotheses
mentioned above is the definition of the temporal and spatial
aspects of the particular sites investigated, as well as the
general historical context of the town and region. This is
undertaken in the following chapter through the combined use
of documentary and archeological resources.










46
The military orientation of the town is clearly
discernible in the settlement structure. Unlike Camden,
which was an unplanned frontier town founded for and
supported by economic considerations, Frederica was designed
as a compact, defensible settlement containing a high density
population capable of bearing arms. The tightly regulated
settlement pattern, based on military necessity, accounts for
the circumscribed layout of the town as compared to Camden.
Frederica's row pattern of lots more closely resembles the
contiguous arrangement of structures in an English market
town than the uneven dispersal of structures at Camden (Lewis
1977:179).
The town's main economic activities are of importance in
establishing some of the major characteristics of the
frontier adaptation. This topic has been of interest to
historians as well as archeologists at Frederica. Although
the settlers were expected to become self-sufficient through
subsistence farming and by practicing their crafts and
trades, their initial material needs were supplied by the
Trust. Upon arriving at Frederica the head of each household
was supplied with a year's provision of food, clothing,
tools, and kitchenware. By 1738, when the charity period was
to end, most of the settlers were unable to support
themselves and had to depend on weekly "advances" of food
(Manucy 1962:54,100). This continued for a number of years,
for only sporadic success at farming was ever achieved by




27
particularly cognitive archeologists, to provide a humanistic
counterpoint to the biased documentary data base (1977:29).
In a world of shrinking research dollars and increasing
skepticism toward the value of all social research, Glassie
and Deetz have given historical archeologists an almost holy
mission to accomplish and at the same time provided a
forceful arguement against critics of the social sciences.
Small wonder that the New Particularism is attractive to so
many archeologists.
Pattern Recognition
... .
Souths approach, detailed in Method and Theory in
Historical Archeology (1977a) and operationalized in
different ways by a number of authors in Research Strategies
in Historical Archeology (South 1977c), is based on
quantitative analysis of artifacts, especially the derivation
of frequency variations of artifact types, groups, and
classes. Once this is accomplished, patterns can be
recognized for intrasite, intersite, and temporal contexts.
These patterns of artifact association (i.e., regular
frequency variations in artifact types-classes-groups) are
believed to have resulted from the patterned behavior of the
site occupants. The basic regularity of the replicated
patterns is then used as a reference by which variability in
the archeological record can be measured. Using this method,
South has defined a number of distinct patterns at British
colonial sites. These include the Brunswick Pattern of
Refuse Disposal, which measures the spatial distribution of


247
items consist of a large, conical flat-based marver made of
fossiliferous limestone, a partial wine bottle, and a partial
crouchware pot, all of which were found with a small amount
of a bright red powder adhering to them. Although this
substance could not be identified, it is believed to be an
ingredient used in a dye formula. Numerous lead glazed
earthenware creampan fragments found at the site may also
have been used in a small-scale dying operation (Honerkamp
1975:96).
The presence of this set of craft materials at this site
is the only indirect archeological evidence of the identity
of the sites occupants. The frustration that the present
author and previous researchers at Frederica have experienced
in attempting to relate archeological assemblages to specific
documented occupants illustrates one of the problems involved
in following a particularistic research strategy.
Flint, leather, and lead waste material found at the
Dobree Site have already been described. An additional type
of nondomestic artifact recorded from the Dobree lot was iron
slag. Over 66.5 kilograms of slag were recovered from a
highly localized area of the plowzone as shown in the Figure
7-1 contour map. More than seven kilograms were recovered
from closed contexts. According to Victor Rolando, an expert
on iron forges and furnaces in the northeastern U. S., the
slag from Frederica has the appearance of a waste product
associated with a forge rather than a high temperature blast
furnace; he suggested a blacksmith forge as the source of the










250
slag (personal communication). This view was also expressed
by Dr. David E. Clark of the Materials Science Department of
the University of Florida.
None of the slag from the Dobree Site was included in
the Activities class since to have done so would have totally
obscured all relationships among the other artifact classes.
It was expected that a considerable number of identifiable
broken tools, spoiled products, and possibly finished
products (in the case of nails) would be associated with a
forge operation (Noel Hume 1969a:180-182) and that these
would be reflected in the Activities and Architecture groups.
However, as already noted, neither the iron artifacts making
up the various Activities classes nor the square and wrought
nails included in the Nails class were unusually abundant.
An attempt was made to identify a statistically significant
association between the known forge by-product (slag) and
suspected by-products (iron musket parts, miscellaneous iron
tools, wrought and square nails, and unidentified iron
fragments). As seen in Table 7-6, the product-moment
coefficients computed for the plowzone slag and the five
other suspected by-product categories indicate a fairly
strong positive correlation with unidentified iron and, to a
lesser extent, with iron musket parts. The miscellaneous
strips, chunks, and fragments of iron in the unidentified
category may represent raw material as well as waste
products. Also correlated with the slag is the occurance of
coal and clinkers. A total of 2192 coal fragments and 833


306
Schuyler, Robert L.
1977 The Written Word, the Spoken Word, Observed Behavior and
Preserved Behavior: The Various Contexts Available to the
Archeologist. Conference on Historic Site Archeology Papers
1975 10(2):99-120.
1980 Review of Research Strategies in Historical Archeology,
Stanley South ed. American Anthropologist 82:200-202.
Schuyler, Robert L., ed.
1978 Historical Archeology: A Guide to Substantive and
Theoretical Contributions. New York: Academic Press.
Shapiro, Gary
1978a Appendix 5. Early British Subsistence Strategy at
Michilimackinac: An Analysis of Faunal Remains from
the 1977 Excavation Season. I_n Excavations at Fort Michi
limackinac 1977: House 1 of the South Southeast Row House,
by D. P. Heldman, pp. 161-177. Mackinac Island, Michigan:
Mackinac Island State Park Commission.
1978b Early British Subsistence Strategy at Michilimackinac:
A Case Study in Systematic Particularism. Masters thesis,
Department of Anthropology, University of Georgia.
Shiner, Joel
1958a The Colonial Houses of Broad Street. Manuscript, Fort
Frederica National Monument, St. Simons Island, Georgia.
1958b The Excavation of Fort Frederica. Manuscript, Fort
Frederica National Monument, St. Simons Island, Georgia.
Silver, I. A.
1963 The Ageing of Domestic Animals,
ology, edited by D. Brothwell and E.
New York: Praeger.
In Science in Arche-
Higgs, pp. 250-268.
Smith, Robin L.
1978 An Archeological Survey of Kings Bay, Camden County,
Georgia. Manuscript, Department of Anthropology, Univer
sity of Florida.
South, Stanley
1972 Evolution and Horizon as Revealed in Ceramic Analysis
in Historical Archeology. Conference on Historic Site
Archeology Papers 1972 6:71-116.
1977a Method and Theory in Historical Archeology.
Academic Press.
New York:
1977b Research Strategies in Historical Archeology: The
Scientific Paradigm. In Research Strategies in Historical
Archeology. Stanley South, ed. pp. 1-12. New York:
Academic Press.




253
Table 7-7. Product-Moment Coefficients for Slag,
Clinkers, and Coal, Dobree Site.
CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB R UNDER H0:RHO=0 / N = 50
SLAGGRAM
CLINKER
COAL
SLAGGRAM
1.00000
0.0000
0.82980
0.0001
0.91774
0.0001
CLINKER
0.82980
0.0001
1.00000
0.0000
0.94834
0.0001
COAL
0.91774
0.0001
0.94834
0.0001
1.00000
0.0000




244
for the Carolina Pattern were found by determining the
midpoints of the ranges suggested by South.
Table 7-5. Summary of Three Group Categories, Frederica
and Carolina Sites.
Group Category
Dobree
Hird
Carolin
Pattern
Domestic: Kitchen
53.5
61.2
60.5
Furniture
0.08
0.07
0.4
Clothing
0.5
0.7
3.0
Personal
0.05
0.07
0.3
54.13
62.04
7472
Miscellaneous:
Architecture
28.4
23.4
25.5
Arms
0.8
1 1
0.6
Tobacco Pipe
13.6
11.9
33.9
3774
33.9
Activities: Activities
3.0
1.6
1.8
3.0
T77
1.8
Totals
99.93?
99.95?
99.9?
aSeven sites reported by South (1977a).
Although Lewis states that adherence to the Carolina
Pattern does not, in itself, prescribe a specific function
to the settlement" or site (1977:192), it is the opinion of
the present author that site function is monitored by the
Carolina Artifact Pattern. A review of the original sites
used by South in defining the Pattern reveals that three
contained known or suspected domestic occupations, two are
military sites, and one is a site on which a "specialized
activity" (tailoring) occurred. The corresponding artifact
frequencies from these three types of sites are 44.4%, 9.8%,
and 45.8% (South 1977a:126-129). However, the frequencies


Figure 5-15. Arms Artifacts, Dobree Site.
Row 1: Gray spall gunflint; gray spall gunflint;
honey-colored blade gunflint.
Row 2: Engraved brass sideplates, dragon motif.
Row 3: Cast brass sideplate, dragon motif.
Row 4: Iron breech screw; iron tumbler; iron bridel
Row 5:
Iron cock; iron mainspring; iron clamp screw


Figure 6-11. Profile of Feature 5 Trash Pit, Dobree
Site 187
Figure 6-12. Profile of Feature 10 Storage/Trash
Pit, Dobree Site 187
Figure 6-13 Composite Map of Dobree Site
Postholes 192
Figure 6-14. Distribution of Construction Materials,
Plowzone, Dobree Site 195
Figure 6-15. Tabby Plaster From Wattle and Daub
Structure, Dobree Site 197
Figure 6-16. Edge of Feature 29 Pallisade Wall Trench,
Dobree Site 202
Figure 6-17. Profile of Feature 29 Pallisade Wall
Trench, Dobree Site 202
Figure 6-18. Profile of Feature 29 and Underlying
Postholes, Dobree Site 205
Figure 6-19. Compostie Map of Hird Site Features . 213
Figure 7-1. Distribution of Slag Waste, Plowzone,
Dobree Site 249
Figure 7-2. Contours of Mean Ceramic Dates for
Plowzone Ceramics, Dobree Site 256
Figure 7-3* Distribution of Oriental Porcelain
Fragments, Plowzone, Dobree Site .... 259
Figure 7-4. Distribution of Wine Bottle Fragments,
Plowzone, Dobree Site 265
Figure 7-5. Distribution of Faunal Materials,
Plowzone, Dobree Site 267
Figure 7-6. Distribution of White Clay Pipe
Fragments, Plowzone, Dobree Site .... 269
Figure 7-7. Distribution of Wrought and Square
Nails, Plowzone, Dobree Site 271
Figure 7-8. Distribution of Window Glass Fragments,
Plowzone, Dobree Site 273
IX










79
for Broad Street, 30 feet for Cross Street, and 14.5 feet for
the east-west alley are assumed, as are lot dimensions of 60
by 90 feet (see Table 4-1). The northwest corner of the
Dobree Site was found using the same assumptions for street
widths. In addition, the east-west street lying between the
lot and Broad Street is assumed to be 22 feet wide. From the
Hawkins-Davison wall-Broad Street intersection to the
northwest corner of the lot the distances used were 510 feet
east (155.4 meters) and 245 feet south (74.6 meters).
Stratigraphy
As is probably true of most sites at Frederica, both the
Hird and Dobree sites were found to have been extensively
disturbed by 19th and 20th century plowing. At both sites
the dark gray A soil horizon was equivalent to the plowzone;
this zone was excavated in two arbitrarily defined levels.
Zone 1-A was 0.15 to 0.20 meter thick as measured from the
ground surface after the removal of sod in each square. Zone
1-B included all soil down to the light brown to tan sterile
sand which made up the B soil horizon. This lower level of
the plowzone was usually 0.10 to 0.15 meter in thickness.
Man-made features, which were discernible only when they
extended below the plow zone into sterile sand, were
excavated separately. The Hawkins-Davison Site apparently
was not plowed during recent times. Fairbanks found a zone
of sandy humus covering the colonial remains that was 0.20 to
0.30 meter thick (0.7-1.0 foot).




263
of the excavation units have not been taken into account. In
addition, feature artifacts are added to artifacts recovered
from disturbed and undisturbed middens, so that what actually
is demonstrated by Souths maps is the location of features
as revealed by their artifact frequencies. It should be
obvious from the information presented in the two preceding
chapters of this study that if South had sampled back lot
areas of his sites, the resulting artifact distribution maps
would have shown considerable variation from those
illustrated in Method and Theory in Historical Archeology.
The ceramic frequency contour map presented in this study
(Figure 5-6) is in sharp contrast with Souths Brunswick maps
in terms of correspondence between ceramic distributions and
structure location. Especially noteable is the lack of
distinction in primary and secondary distributions of
artifacts in and around houses. Had the feature material
been added along with the plowzone artifacts, the contrasts
would have been even more pronounced. Additional maps of the
same artifact classes used by South (wine bottle, bone,
pipestem, nails, window glass) are presented in Figure 7-4
through Figure 7-8. In each case, the distributions seem to
vary independently of each other with one exception:
relatively high numbers of nails, wine bottle fragments,
window glass fragments, and to a lesser extent pipestems,
were deposited together in Square 28. This unit is directly
adjacent to the east extension of the post structure. The
mean ceramic date for this square is 1741 (see Figure 7-2),










160
meters














Figure 7-4. Distribution of Wine Bottle Fragments,
Plowzone, Dobree Site.








161
chapter. For now, suffice it to say that the arbitrary
divisions made for the inclusion of a disturbance under the
"feature" category seem to be justified using the criteria
listed above. For convenience of discussion, the features
have been divided into four categories: wells, trash pits,
postholes, miscellaneous features and the Feature 29 trench.
A breakdown of the artifact classes according to type of
feature is presented in Table 6-1.
Wells
Three barrel wells, designated as Features 1 through 3,
were excavated at the Dobree Site. In the following
discussion the term "well pit" refers to the large hole that
was initially dug into the water table while "well shaft"
refers to the barrel casing that was placed in the well pit.
Identification and separation of shaft versus pit fill was
made whenever possible through color distinctions in the
respective fill soils.
As with most other features, the archeological
visibility (Deetz 1977:94) of Feature 1 was very poor when it
was first uncovered. The photograph shown in Figure 6-2,
taken just after the plowzone in Square 31 had been
excavated, illustrates the initial lack of distinctive form
or soil color on which the separation of the pit and shaft
could be made (the well pit is composed of light mottled sand
while the shaft area is the even dark soil between the bricks
and the light sand). As the excavation of the well
progressed, provenience distinctions within and around the


303
Lorraine, Dessaraae
1968 An Archeologists Guide to Nineteenth Century American
Glass. Historical Archeology 2:35-44.
Lovell, Caroline C.
1932 The Golden Isles of Georgia. Boston: Little, Brown
and Company.
McNett, Charles W., Jr.
1979 The Cross-Cultural Method in Archeology. In. Advances
in Archeological Method and Theory, Vol. 2. Michael B.
Schiffer, ed. pp. 39-76. New York: Academic Press.
McPherson, Robert G.
1962 Journal of the Earl of Egmont. Athens: University of
Georgia Press.
Manucy, Albert C.
1960 Specifications for a Scale Model of the Town of Fred
erica in Georgia About 1742. Manuscript, Fort Frederica
National Monument, St. Simons Island, Georgia.
1962 The Fort at Frederica. Florida State University Notes
in Anthropology, Vol. 5.
Martin, E.
1942 The Standard of Living in i860. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Miller, Henry M.
1978 Pettus and Utopia: A Comparison of the Faunal Remains
from Two Late Seventeenth Century Virginia Households.
Conference on Historic Site Archeology Papers 1978
13:158-179.
Miller, J. Jefferson III and Lyle M. Stone
1970 Eighteenth Century Ceramics from Fort Michilimackinac.
Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Miller, Joshua
1796 Plan of the Town of Frederica on the Island of St.
Simon. Photostat, Fort Frederica National Monument, St.
Simons Island, Georgia.
Moore, Francis
1840 A voyage to Georgia, Begun in the Year 1735. In.
Collections of the Georgia Historical Society, pp. 79-
152. Boston: Freeman and Bolles.
Moore, Jackson
1958 Excavations on Cross Street. Manuscript, Fort Freder
ica National Monument, St. Simons Island, Georgia.


33
In summary, the theoretical position taken here is one
that derives in part from the pattern recognition approach of
Stanley South. Methodologically, the "structural-functional
orientation with its reliance on artifact quantification will
be followed, but the shortcomings of this approach are
recognized. In relation to the study of archeological
evidence, a positivistic stance is taken which rejects the
ideational basis of the world view approach in favor of a
materialist explanation of culture (Harris 1977, 1979). The
systematic nature of the archeological record is assumed, as
is the ability of the archeologist to discern, through the
formulation and testing of appropriate research hypotheses,
the systematic cultural and natural processes that account
for the archeological record. Before this is attempted,
however, the data base must be defined. The data base at
Frederica is believed to reflect a British colonizing
adaptation to specific frontier conditions. The goal of the
present study will be to identify and explain components of
this frontier adaptation. The following chapters are devoted
to the definition of the historical-archeological data base.




228
evenly spaced arrangement. The outer boundaries of the town
are readily discernable as the ditch and pallisaded walls
surrounding the town lots. Contemporaneous maps, including
the Miller Map shown in Figure 4-1, illustrate a close,
nonrandom arrangement of long, narrow lots. Archeological
excavation carried out on both sides of Broad Street (Shiner
1958a) confirms the row pattern. The 84 contiguous lots
located within the defensive walls of the town are in a much
more compact arrangement than the uneven dispersal of
structures and associated toft areas at Camden.
Additionally, lot and house locations in the British colonial
town of Brunswick, North Carolina, are clearly more dispersed
and uneven that at Frederica (South 1977a:46,49). Thus the
formal town structure at Frederica is seen as conforming to a
pattern that is characteristic of a contemporaneous English
settlement rather than a colonial frontier town. The need
for a consolidated defense against a competing state power is
the primary factor responsible for the occurance of this
pattern at Frederica.
Structure of Lot Elements
The second hypothesis predicts that the sociopolitical
and demographic factors affecting the structural arrangement
of the town as a whole should have similar effects at the lot
level. Several test implications can be derived from this
hypothesis, as follows:
1) There should be evidence of clustering of features
within lots, reflecting the localized, concentrated
use of highly circumscribed town lots. Intersite


25
principal element connecting the old and new particularism.
Whereas the old particularism was largely atheoretical and
rejected anthropological questions as a basis for doing
historical archeology, the new version recognizes the
essential importance of theory in archeology, and it is to
anthropology that many of its practitioners turn for their
theoretical constructs. Both approaches attempt to
reconstruct something from the archeological and documentary
data. In the former, it is the site that is reconstructed,
while in the latter, it is the world view which created the
site that is sought. The underlying factors that might
account for the content, form, and function of the site (or
the mind set) are not proposed or investigated. It is this
failure to go beyond description that links both approaches
to a particularistic paradigm.
The most vocal critic of the new particularism has been
Stanley South. He is disturbed by the explanatory short
comings that are associated with mind-set reconstructions and
by the practical problems that must be faced in recon
structing world views from artifacts:
If cognitive models or world views are the goal
of the archeological research then a good way to
begin would be to study the modal personality of
living people and abstract their "world view" and
define their "mind set." Theoretically then, we
should be able to read in the different litera
ture highly sophisticated models based on ethno
graphic data for the Irish world view, the Black
world view, the Scottish mind set...on and on ad
infinitem. However, I see no mass of predictable
ethnographic or ethno-archeological literature on
such world views...To suggest that such models can
be abstracted from the archeological data base when
such has yet to be demonstrated from living human


261
nondomestic activity as reflected in the by-products of
small-scale production activities.
As predicted, artifacts associated with the identifiable
architectural features at the Hawkins-Davison and Dobree
sites indicate that the colonial domestic-craft activities
were carried out in, and directly adjacent to, the dwellings.
The virtual absence of artifacts other than slag
associated with the forge may indicate a short life span for
this manufacturing operation at the Dobree Site. This is in
accord with the general documentary and archeological picture
at Frederica: few of the towns craftsmen and tradesmen
actually practiced their callings on a full time basis. The
rapid turnover in the town's population, discussed in Chapter
IV, and the lack of identifiable craft activity by-products
noted during extensive excavations of the town (Moore 1958;
Shiner 1958a) support the contention that the practice of
most manufacturing and craft endeavors at Frederica could not
be economically supported under the military-frontier
conditions that existed from 1736 to 1745.
An attentuation of complexity at the settlement,
compared to an English market town, resulted from the limited
economic options that could be pursued by the colonists. The
archeological manifestations of the loss of complexity at
Frederica are illustrated by the Activities artifact group.
Although the percentages for this group are higher at
Frederica than at Camden, the activities represented by the
majority of the artifacts included in this group are




213
-N-
I
I0 FEET
3 METERS






19
The first approach, discernible in most of Stanley
South's work, is referred to as the "pattern recognition"
orientation. It is based on the quantification and com
parison of artifact types, groups, and classes among and
between historic sites to define inter- and intrasite
relationships of artifacts (i.e. "patterns") that are thought
to have temporal, functional and/or behavioral significance
(South 1977a, 1978). Implicitly South's methodology seems to
stem from an anthropological perspective, but the guiding
paradigm upon which it is based has never been clearly
stated. The other approach has been labelled "historical-
istic" by Schuyler (1978:1), or "particularistic" by South
(1977a:8). Whatever the name might be, it refers to a
philosophical approach that is usually associated with
methodologies that are quite distinct from that employed by
South and his adherents. South has also identified an
offshoot of the particularistic school that seems to be
proanthropology as well as interested in explanation: the
"world viewers" (South 1979). Since the present author views
South's orietation to be in part a reaction against the
initial particularistic approach, it is this earlier
theoretical orientation that will be examined first. As part
of my own small contri-bution to the archeological literature
devoted to the labelling of the theoretical approaches of
other archeologists, the two versions of the particularistic
school have been identified in this study as the "old" and
"new" particularism.




91
Table 5-2 (continued)
Sites
Types: Creamware and Later
Hawkins-
Hird Davison Dobree
Edged pearlware
Underglaze blue painted
pearlware
Underglaze polychrome stenciled
pearlware
Whiteware
Ironstone
Alkaline glazed stoneware
Agate doorknobs
Late 19th/20th century
ceramics
0
0
0
7
13
0
0
13
? 24
30 ? 7
? 3
0 106
63 11
0 1
2 0
0 17
TOTALS
47
303 288
SITE TOTALS
4695
1950 12431
aA question mark indicates that the frequency of the type is
unknown; combined frequencies are known and are indicated
to the left of the question marks.




60
1748, and the rest of the family departed soon after that
date.
The Dobree Site
Symptomatic of the difficulties encountered in using a
direct interpretation level of research is the documentary
background on the Dobree Site. Using the lot numbers shown
on the Miller Map, (Figure 4-1) and the information on lot
ownership available in Coulter and Saye (1949:40), this site
was originally thought to have been occupied by Robert
Patterson, a accountant in the town store. However, after
excavation of the site was nearly half finished, another
reference found in Egmont's List indicated that Lot 21 South
was occupied by Elisha Dobree, an accountant who worked as a
clerk in the town store (Coulter and Saye 1949:71).
Underscoring the confusion, a review of Margaret Davis Cate's
research notes revealed contradictory listings for the lot
number. In some cases Cate originally had 31 S" listed for
Patterson's lot, but she later crossed this number out and
replaced it with M21-S" on several reference cards (Cate
1961). Using Cate's notes, Reese later attributed a
description made by Dobree of his own house and lot to
Patterson (1969:back cover). Finally, the Assistant
Superintendant at Fort Frederica, George Berndt, informed the
archeologists that the lot numbering for the rows containing
Lots 21 through 31 in both Wards was reversed on the Miller
Map (Figure 4-1). He cited as evidence the out-of-synch
numbering of these two rows, and more conclusively, a grant


Table 7-2. Soil pH Values, Dobree Site.
Provenience
Square #
2
F eature
1
31
7.1
Feature
1
31
7.1
Feature
1a
31
6.9
Feature
1 a
31
7.1
Feature
1a
31
6.3
Feature
2
30
7.5
Feature
2
30
7.8
Feature
3a
30
7.2
Feature
3
50
7.3
Feature
3
50
6.8
Feature
3
50
6.8
Feature
4
11
7.4
Feature
5
29
7.1
Feature
5
29
7.1
Feature
5
29
7.1
Feature
5
29
7.1
Feature
8
1 1
7.5
Feature
19
16
7.6
Feature
29
16
6.8
Feature
29
17
7.3
Feature
29
17
7.2
Feature
29
6
6.9
Feature
29
19
6.6
Plowzone
6
7.1
Plowzone
19
6.1
Root Disturbance
(Plowzone)
34
8.0
Root Disturbance
(Plowzone)
34
8.0
Root Di
sturbance
(Plowzone)
24
7.8
Zone 2
Sterile
34
8.0
Zone 2
Sterile
36
7.1
Zone 2
Sterile
16
7.7
Zone 2
Sterile
17
7.4
Zone 2
Sterile
17
7.4
Zone 2
Sterile
17
7.2
Zone 2
Sterile
31
6.6
Zone 2
Sterile
29
6.8
Zone 2
Sterile
6
7.3
Zone 2
Sterile
19
6.6
g
Sample taken below ground water level.


282
Table 7-8. Summary of Three Species From Three Sites,
Frederica, Georgia.
MNI Biomass
Si tea
Spec ies
#
%
kg
%
Dobree
Cattle
21
16.5
97.5
78.4
Hawkins-Davison
Cattle
5
11.1
61.4
65.3
Hird
Cattle
15
6.3
163.3
67.2
Dobree
Swine
17
13.3
10.7
8.6
Hawkins-Davison
Swine
6
13.3
10.1
10.7
Hird
Swine
14
5.9
24.0
9.8
Dobree
Deer
15
11.8
7.2
5.8
Hawkins-Davison
Deer
8
17.7
14.3
15.2
Hird
Deer
18
7.6
35.8
14.7
0
Values for the
Hawkins-Davison
and
Hird sites
are from
Reitz
and Honerkamp (1980).


22
psuedoscience (South 1977a:326). Meanwhile, historians
conspicuously ignore the field of historical archeology
altogether (Harrington 1955; Schuyler 1977; Wilderson 1975),
despite the fact that the research concerns of some
historians and archeologists are becoming indistinguishable
(Bloch 1968; Carson 1978; White 1969).
At the risk of stating the obvious, systematic artifact
studies and architectural reconstructions have always been
and will continue to be important components of historical
archeology. Without the further refinement of our method
ological tools that is afforded bv careful artifact studies,
not to mention the funding support found in reconstruction
oriented projects, advances in historic site research would
not be possible. While recognizing its achievements and
contributions, however, we should also realize that the
limited scope and aims of particularistic archeology preclude
it from achieving truly anthropological goals.
This approach has been labelled as "Old Particularism"
not only because it represents the initial theoretical
orientation embraced by early historical archeologists, but
also in order to differentiate it from the "world view"
orientation that is particularistic but stems from an anthro
pological framework. This latter approach will be referred
to as the "New Particularism."
New Particularism
The "world view" orientation in historical archeology is
a relatively recent phenomenon, and if the papers presented








188
rapidly filled pit. The presence of lensing is attributed to
distinct soils being used to fill the pit, as might be
produced from alternate shovelsful of dirt from different
areas around the feature.
The fill materials contained in the rest of the trash
pits were all homogeneous within each pit, indicating
relatively rapid depositional periods associated with each.
The circular trash pits ranged in size from 0.51 meter
(Feature 21) to 1.15 meters (Feature 24) in diameter; five
were one meter or more in diameter (Features 4,5,9,18,24).
Depth below the plowzone varied between 0.07 meter (Feature
20) and 0.56 meter (Feature 5). None of the ten smaller
features extended more than 0.40 meter below the plowzone.
It is possible that some of the pits--particularly those
containing small amounts of trashwere used for purposes
other than as garbage disposal locations, but evidence of
multiple use has not been identified.
Feature 10 is the only trash pit uncovered that is not
circular or oval in shape. It extended 0.48 meter below the
plowzone and possessed nearly vertical walls and a slightly
convex bottom (Figure 6-12). From the extensive amounts and
types of artifacts associated with it, the feature apparently
functioned as a trash dump location. However, the distinct
rectangular shape of this feature indicates a prior function
as well. No analogous features from Frederica or other
colonial sites are known to the author, but the shape, size,






tf£ L


220
and social status (1977:50-61). Any or all of these factors
may be responsible for intersite differences in artifacts.
It is suggested that the availability factor is primarily
responsible for the contrasts in ceramics noted above.
Hypotheses relating to this question are tested in a later
section.
Temporal Parameters
The second general question refers to the chronological
position of the three sites. Although the documented
terminus post quern for the entire town has been established
as 1736, occupation end dates varied from site to site. Most
sites at Frederica are believed to have been occupied from
1736 until the middle to late 1740s, while a small number
were inhabited past 1750. The documented mean occupation
date for the settlement is set at 1742 (see Chapter IV).
Analysis of temporally sensitive ceramic and pipe
artifacts is useful in determining the temporal parameters of
the sites in question. Post-1760 deposition of ceramic
artifacts at the Hawkins-Davison site is indicated by the 303
sherds recovered that have beginning manufacturing dates of
1762 (creamware) or later. This accounts for 15-5% of the
total ceramic assemblage from this site, whereas the Hird and
Dobree sites contained only 1.0% and 2.3% Since the
Hawkins-Davison site is known to have contained a substantial
brick house, reoccupation of this site after the primary
inhabitants had left would not be surprising. However, the
reoccupation that may have taken place at this site was


36
significance (especially with reference to Souths recent
work), and resource utilization in an 18th century frontier
environment. Unlike Lewis' study, which was based on a large
stratified unaligned random sample from the entire town of
Camden, the sample from Frederica consists of three
intensively excavated sites. Since only a small proportion
of the total archeological variability at Frederica has been
sampled, inferences concerning the frontier process as an
intersite phenomenon must be made with caution. A brief
summary of the research questions addressed in this study is
given below. These questions will be presented in greater
detail in Chapter VII.
The cultural-ethnic affiliation of the sites can be
determined through reference to documentary and archeological
evidence. As will be seen in the next chapter, documentary
information indicates that the cultural affiliation of
Frederica as a whole, and the three sites in particular, was
primarily British. This assumption is tested in Chapter VII
with respect to the ceramic assemblages at each site.
Briefly stated, the economic ties between Frederica and
Britain, and by extension the cultural affiliation of the
town, should be reflected in the ceramic artifacts associated
with most sites in the town. The ceramic assemblages from
each site should therefore be characterized by (1) a
predominance of ceramics manufactured in Britain, (2) a
variety of British ceramic types that mirrors the diversity
of types found at other British sites, and (3) based on


LIST OF TABLES
Table 4-1. Summary of Street and Lot Dimensions,
Frederica 56
Table 5-1. Artifact Class Frequencies, Dobree Site ... 88
Table 5-2. Identifiable Ceramics from Three Sites,
Frederica, Georgia 90
Table 5-3. Product-Moment Coefficients for Three
Ceramic Categories 101
Table 5-4. Product-Moment Coefficients for Three Nail
Types, Dobree Site 101
Table 5-5. Summary of Furniture Hardware Class
Artifacts, Dobree Site 120
Table 5-6. Summary of Artifacts in Gun Parts Class,
Dobree Site 122
Table 5-7. Artifact Class Frequencies, Hird Site .... 143
Table 5-8. Allometric Constants Used in Biomass
Calculations 148
Table 5-9. Species List for the Dobree Site, Lot 31
South, Frederica 151
Table 5-10. Summary of Six Faunal Categories, Dobree
Site, Frederica 155
Table 5-11. Summary of Six Faunal Catergories, Hawkins-
Davison Site, Frederica 156
Table 5-12. Summary of Six Faunal Categories, Hird
Site, Frederica 157
Table 6-1. Artifact Class Frequencies, Features, Dobree
Site 162
Table 6-2. Frequency Percentages for Four Artifact
Classes, Wells, Dobree Site 184
Table 7-1. Comparison of Total Bone and Artifact Mater
ials, Hird and Dobree Sites 232
Table 7-2. Soil pH Values, Dobree Site 234
Table 7-3- Emperical Artifact Profile, Dobree Site . 242
Table 7-4. Emperical Artifact Profile, Hird Site .... 243
Table 7-5. Summary of Three Group Categories, Frederica
And Carolina Sites 244
Table 7-6. Product-Moment Coefficients For Six Artifact
Categories, Dobree Site 251
Table 7-7. Product-Moment Coefficients for Slag,
Clinkers, and Coal, Dobree Site 253
Table 7-8. Summary of Three Species From Three Sites,
Frederica, Georgia 282
Table 7-9. Ages of Three Species by Element Fusion, Hird
Site, Frederica 284
vii




n -n ti n -n ti ti
-n
n'n-n'n-n-n-n-n'n-n-nTiTi'nTi-n-n-nT.
TI
w)
O X -4 rh U1 £> u
o.
C
O
^i^OinLurvj^-O iO£liNOif'6UMM
o
£
o
1 rn -c -< -1|
>
n
M
ro
o
1 nm L Til
-<
i- fo u ro
Ib
Ul
n
£>
CD
n
(J
*-
CL
n
x>
O
m
o
u
S)
a
r-iOmmz^
iuuLfU*J<
N
m
o
g - o o ro o en ~ rviuofuuM
en
O
*>
o
r

< j
o
>
O
ru
-si
M

G
rsOirai^n
en
l/l O (l ** o O
ro
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
rvj
t>
en

(J
o
cd
i n
O
o
-O
r > <

OOOOfU-G
o
ro
o
OG OO OOOOOOQOUlO
o
u
en
M
T)
ro
ro
o
en > r o r ai > -i
I
C
0
0
0
0
0
rh
O
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
u

Cu
ro

CD
srarinii
s>
o o o O o o
(D
no
o
o o o ~ ooinoooooo o o
o
-0
2
O
U
t>
viT
vO
O
tOOZ-
2
o o a u o
en
o
QOQOOUrU-* UIOOOUIO
U

>
o o o o o o o
o
o
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
o
G
z smoG j
r
u m i -< o
>
0
e
0
0
0
0
0
o
O
o
0
0
0
0
0
e
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
-
CD
E
H
ro

O

o
ID
o
o
t m a
ti
0
e
2
0
0
0
5
u
o
*-oroQOroU*-*-~.-roo*-ro.
ro
Ul
>
n

-t
o
ro
+
rr
(Jixm-Iin
en
'*00H**'/0
o
u
o
00u000f'j00*000**0
o
Si
*

o o o o o o
ro
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
u
o i m -iw
-n
m
ro
-
jm-iwo-c
>
o o o o o
IB
Ul
o
0
0
z
0
0
0
9
c
0
0
0
0
0
J
0
0
o
o
x>
-i
C
E
H -
OJ
£>
r*acuz>rxi
m
WOO--UO
CD
O
o
1
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
2
0
0
en
en
o o o o ro*~ o
fu

U
r ioainmo
o
mm
OOQOOO^OOOhOOOhG
-
O
o
o
*-
-si
OD
M > U1
si
u- i n
Si
1J
1J
- t n c n r* *
E
(SOOO^M/J
m
OMflOOU'rt(W/0(nCJl(dO*-(ll
CD
*
o
m
m
O O O O O O O
O
o
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
o
o
-en
en
*
fO
(j
*-
ro
m i) > c ni/i
-si U
o
i
u- *
CD
*/T
m
orou
CD
o
o
OOOOMIROMUOOMitOQ
U
ro
O
o o o o o o o
O
-
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
O
O
ozcon
LO
LO


I was also fortunate to have been associated with the
members of the three field crews that participated in this
project. The field people are:
Wendy Bolles
Charles Chambers
Julie Emrich
Bruce Ferguson Kevin Galleger
Jane Gray
Wayde Hanna
Joan Hebb
Patricia McKay
Roberta Owens
Martha Pinello
Tricia Sokol
Diane Sylvia
Patricia Welsh
Dan Yannette
Drew Yaros
Among the many volunteers that contributed to the project
were John Battle, Anita Fulton, Julia Furgeson, Lisa
Laudadia, Susan Loftin, Vincent Pinoso, Robin Smith, Mrs. R.
Welsh, and Clint Wills. Chad Braley assisted with production
of the artifact photographs used in Chapter V.
At the Florida State Museum, the following persons
provided invaluable instruction and assistance during the
faunal analysis: Elizabeth Wing, Elizabeth Reitz, Sylvia
Scudder, Erica Simons, Arlene Fradkin, and Tom Chase. In
addition, Dr. Reitz has contributed much to my knowledge of
colonial resource utilization and is primarily responsible
for stimulating my interest in this subject. Many of the
ideas presented in this study concerning colonial patterns of
faunal use stem from suggestions she has made in her own work
or in our collaborative efforts.
The National Park Service has been extremely supportive
of this project in every way. Deserving special praise for
their cooperation and assistance are Chief Richard Faust,
















Figure 5-14. Architecture and Furniture Group
Artifacts, Dobree Site.
Top: Iron door lock tumbler.
Middle: Brass drawer pull; brass mounting post
brass drawer handle.
Bottom:
Iron drawer handle


287
St. Augustine (Reitz 1979, 1980). A major historical study
of colonial agriculture in Georgia also supports this
contention (Bonner 1964). Thus, the structure of the
Frederica faunal assemblages conforms to a regional pattern
of animal utilization that cross-cuts temporal and cultural
parameters. Hypotheses addressing the reasons for this
apparent diversion from the expected pattern of colonial meat
consumption need to be formulated and tested. In so doing,
historical archeologists will be in a position to make
important contributions to current debates in cultural
anthropology (Harris and Ross 1978; Ross 1980) as well as
develop our own models of resource utilization. The results
reported here raise questions about traditional historical
view of meat consumption in the antebellum South. The
historians model emphasizing pork as the primary meat
component in 19th century plantation diets needs to be
demonstrated archeologically before it can be used as an a
priori assumption in the interpretation of slave, planter,
and overseer sites. For the sites of the 17th and 181h
centuries there is even less justification for adopting the
historical model, and attempts to do so often raise more
questions than they answer (Miller 1978).
Instead of focussing only on a single difference between
cattle and swine (i.e., calorie conversion in a woodland
environment), it is necessary to consider other factors that
could affect the suitability of each animal as a source of
meat. For instance, Charles H. Fairbanks has suggested that


86
also possible to further delimit the data base by excluding
colonial materials which must have been deposited after the
primary occupation at Frederica (1736-early 1750s). This
approach has been followed in the present analysis.
Unfortunately South does not delineate the data base
used in his studies in a manner that would allow other
researchers to replicate his classification format, and it is
this lack of explicit data definition that is considered to
be a major drawback in the pattern recognition approach.
Although it is true that studies of historic artifacts over
the last 20 years have rendered further detailed analysis of
some classes superfluous (i.e., ceramics, wine bottles,
pipes), it is equally true that other classes have been
neglected and need to be described so that other
archeologists will know what is or is not being included in
them.
A brief review of the type-ware-class-group classifi
cation procedure as it was applied to the Dobree and Hird
artifact assemblages will serve to point out the adjustments
made to Souths original format as a result of unique aspects
of the data base at Frederica.
Since the Dobree site material is reported here for the
first time, descriptions of some of the artifact types used
in the class categories are more detailed than is usual for
most pattern recognition studies. This serves a dual purpose
by: 1) allowing researchers with differing orientations to
incorporate the data reported here, and 2) making explicit


205




Figure 1-3.
Sites:
Layout of the Fort and Town of Frederica,
circa 1740.
1 Hird Site, 12 North
2 Hawkins-Davison Site, 1 and 2 South
3 Dobree Site, 31 South


53
Spatial Parameters
Rarely has the utility of integrated archeological and
documentary research been better demonstrated than at
Frederica. Fairbanks' excavation of the Hawkins-Davison
house was based on documentary information provided by the
late Margaret Davis Cate, a coastal Georgia historian who
devoted much of her life to the historical research of
Frederica. The identification and discovery of the Hawkins-
Davison common wall on the lot line between Lot 1 and Lot 2
of the South Ward allowed the archeologists to relate the
colonial lot layout to Frederica's present topography (Cate
1956; Fairbanks 1956).
Of considerable interest to many researchers at
Frederica has been the spatial configuration of the town.
Begining with Cate's and Fairbanks' early research, every
excavation undertaken or sponsored by the National Park
Service has incorporated into its research design some
emphasis on the spatial delineation of the town lot locations
and boundaries. Lot sizes have been reliably established
through the use of information obtained from 18th century
documents and maps (Auspourger 1736; Miller 1796; Moore
1840:82; Stacy 1784) combined with archeological verification
(Fairbanks 1956:225). Estimates of the size of the various
colonial streets and alleys, which are particularly important
for determining the locations of lots that do not face Broad
Street, are more problematic. The 1796 Miller map (Figure 4-
1) shows specific street-alley widths that contrast with




241
materials used, length of occupation and amount of
remodeling, and building size, than it is of site function.
The empirical artifact profiles for the Dobree and Hird
Sites are presented in Table 7-3 and Table 7-4. With respect
to other 18th century British-American sites, the Frederica
assemblages fall within the range of the Carolina Artifact
Pattern proposed by South (1977a), with four exceptions from
the Dobree Site and two exceptions for the Hird Site. In the
case of the Dobree domestic groups, the Clothing, Furniture,
and Personal groups are less than the minimum values in the
Carolina ranges. For the Activities group, the value is 0.3$
greater than the upper limit of the Carolina Artifact
Pattern. Although the rest of the groups fall within the
suggested ranges, their position within each range is of
interest for interpreting site function. The value for the
Kitchen group is at the extreme lower end of the Carolina
range, while the Architecture and Tobacco Pipe groups
approach the maximum values of the ranges; the arms group is
about average. By contrast, the Hird assemblage has average
values for the Kitchen and Activities groups, high values for
the arms group, and a low Architecture value compared to
Souths sites. As with the Dobree Site, the Furniture,
Clothing, and Personal groups were either near or just below
the minimum values proposed by South.
These differences can be summarized and contrasted by
combining group percentages according to functional
categories (domestic, miscellaneous, and activities). Values










309
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF CERAMICS, DOBREE SITE
Variable
Description
SQNUM
PROV
BLUDELF
POLYDELF
WITDELF
LEDGLAZ
REDLED
SIPDEC
SLIPLAN
ASTBURY
AGATE
MISCEARTH
WSGS
MOLDSGS
DIPSGS
RHENISH
BROWNSG
GRAYSGS
CROUCHSG
NOTTING
MISCSGS
BLUPORC
POLYPORC
PLANPORC
LATEPOT
Square number (1 63)
Provenience (Feature 1 Feature 30)
Blue on white delftware
Polychrome painted delftware
Plain white delftware
Lead glazed earthenware
Red bodied lead glazed earthenware
Decorated slipware
Undecorated slipware
Astbury refined earthenware
Refined Agateware
Miscellaneous earthenware
White salt glazed stoneware
Molded salt glazed stoneware
Slip dipped salt glazed stoneware
Rhenish salt glazed stoneware
Brown salt glazed stoneware
Gray salt glazed stoneware
Crouchware salt glazed stoneware
Nottingham stoneware
Miscellaneous salt glazed stoneware
Blue on white Oriental porcelain
Overglaze enamelled Oriental porcelain
Plain white Oriental porcelain
Creamware and later ceramics


171
that this item may have been stored in the well but not
retrieved when the shaft was filled. It is therefore an
example of an _in situ-de facto artifact (South 1977a:297)
since it has a direct archeological context relationship with
locational aspects of storage behavior in the systematic
context, in this case the storage of a presumedly alcoholic
beverage. The presence of whole pins, buttons, and buckles
in the well fill is also seen as resulting from loss. These
items probably were accidentally included in the refuse
material used to fill the well shaft. All other artifacts
found in the well are considered to be examples of displaced
refuse, with the possible exception of the fragments of oak
and pine material which may have fallen into the well while
it was in use. The variety of ceramic, glass, and metal
artifacts that comprised the displaced refuse is considered
to be indicative of a domestic occupation, and hypotheses
relating to this question are tested in the next chapter.
Directly to the west of Feature 1 was another barrel
well, designated as Feature 2 (Figure 6-1). The east edge of
this feature had been uncovered during the excavation of
Feature 1 in Square 31 and a profile photograph of a portion
of the well pit was made. As seen in Figure 6-5, the pit
walls were nearly vertical. Placement of the barrel shaft
was slightly south of the pit center. Although the top of
this feature was discerned as soon as the 0.22 meter plow
zone had been removed, a distinction between the pit and
shaft could not be made until 0.27 meter of the entire well


211
mean ceramic date of 1738.9 was calculated for the combined
feature ceramics.
The variety of features found at this site, and the
extensive artifact and bone assemblages associated with them,
are believed to constitute an adequate sample of the colonial
occupation for comparison with the Dobree Site. The features
consist of four trash pits, a small dog burial, two privy
pits, an unused well or privy construction pit, a storage
pit, and a possible root cellar. Figure 6-19 illustrates the
clustering of features in the approximate center of the site.
Notable for its large size is the central Feature 3 trash
pit, which contained 70$ of the bone and 62$ of the artifacts
found in all the features. This shallow pit (0.23 meter
below the plow zone) was dug at an earlier date than Features
5 through 7, all of which cut into the trash pit. The dog
burial predates Feature 3.
The double barrel storage pit (Feature 9) is unique at
Frederica and at other contemporaneous British sites. The
shallow bottom of this pit, at 0.84 meter below the plow
zone, precludes its use as a well. However, the bottoms of
the barrels were apparently placed in water as indicated by a
0.06 meter layer of water sorted sand. It therefore has been
interpreted as being a storage pit that was later filled with
trash.
Feature 10 is a straight sided, flat bottomed pit that
contained several decomposed timber beams on the bottom and
two fragments of plaster tabby with wood lath impressions






28
artifact classes and groups by comparing frequency
distributions around dwellings; the Carolina and Frontier
patterns, which are believed to monitor site function through
comparison of the frequency relationships between artifact
groups; and the Kitchen Pattern, which also monitors site
function as indicated through comparison of artifact classes
within the Kitchen artifact group (South 1977a, 1978). Using
artifact assemblages from several domestic, military, and
craft-oriented British colonial sites, the range of
variability that can be expected for the frequency
percentages of the artifact classes and groups are presented,
along with the hypothesized function of each site. By
establishing the normal variation that can be expected for
each type of site, South hopes eventually to be able to
determine the function of any British colonial site,
including those for which no documentary information is
available. The uniqueness of South's method lies in the
insistence on complete quantification of artifact assemblages
and a classification scheme that allows direct intersite
comparisons to be made. By contrast Deetz's methods seem
highly impressionistic (Schuyler 1977:113).
In the opinion of the present author, South's method is
believed to possess the potential to revolutionize the field
of historical archeology, similar to the way in which Ameri
can prehistoric archeology was affected in the 1960s by Lewis
Binford. South works with historic site data in a singular
and original way. In so doing he gives primacy to the


CHAPTER III
RESEARCH DESIGN
Any study of the structure, function, and nature of the
frontier process must necessarily be regional in scope (Lewis
1976:157). The frontier system at Frederica will be investi
gated through the use of documentary information pertaining
to the region and town during the 18th century, and through
combined documentary and archeological data from the three
sites excavated: the Hawkins-Davison Site (Cate 1956; Deagan
1972; Fairbanks 1956), the Hird Site (Honerkamp 1975, 1977a),
and the Dobree Site. As this last site is reported here for
the first time, it will be examined in more detail than
either of the other two.
Concepts and Definitions
Since the frontier phenomenon is identified as the focus
of investigation, it must necessarily be delimited. Using
the work of geographers such as Casagrande et al. (1964),
Kristof ( 1959), Weigert et al. ( 1957), and Hudson ( 1969),
Lewis defines the frontier as a region in which the dispersal
of settlement into a new territory takes place. It also
includes the zone separating settled and unsettled areas of a
territory which lies within effective control of the state
(Lewis 1977:145). The frontier appears with the first
permanent settlement and ceases to exist with the leveling
34


218
1) As components of a British colonial frontier town,
the Hird, Hawkins-Davison, and Dobree sites should
be characterized by a predominance of ceramics manu
factured in the country of origin or its colonial
possessions.
2) Reliance on the British ceramic industry and on
British trade and transportation networks would be
reflected not only in ceramic frequencies but also
in the number of ceramic types recovered from all
three sites. In view of the overwhelmingly dominant
position of the British ceramic industry during the
18th century, it is expected that the variety
of British ceramic types present at the Frederica
sites would mirror the diversity of types found at
other British sites.
3) The occurence of re-exported ceramic types at British
colonial sites is a reflection of the commercial
trade and transportation networks developed by the
mother country in the 18th century. Lewis has indi
cated that the percentage occurance of re-exported
foreign-made ceramics at British sites in North Amer
ica falls within predictable ranges (1976:79,
1977:168). The two most commonly exported wares,
Westerwald stoneware and oriental porcelain, should
therefore fall within the predicted ranges (1 to 5%
and 7 to 30^, respectively) for the three sites at
Frederica.
The ceramic data presented in Table 5-2 can be used to
substantiate the proposed British affiliation of the three
sites. Of the precreamware types present at the sites,
British ceramics account for the vast majority: 93.1%
(Hird), Q9% (Hawkins-Davison), and 87.4% (Dobree). The
presence of 9 ceramic fragments representing Britainss two
main competing European powers out of a total of 18,438
sherds recovered certainly does not indicate any significant
trade networks or the presence of a Spanish or French
occupation at Frederica.
A total of 22 colonial period types of British-made
ceramics were identified for the three sites, substantially


Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2014
https://archive.org/details/frontierprocessiOOhone


Table 5-1.
Artifact Class Frequencies, Dobree Site.
Kitchen Groupa
Plowzone
Features
Totals
1 .
Ceramics
10150
1993
12143
2.
Wine bottle
4919
864
5783
3.
Case bottle
3202
604
3806
4.
Tumbler
290
89
379
5.
Pharmaceutical
478
375
853
6.
Glassware
66
63
129
7.
Tableware
8
3
1 1
8.
Kitchenware
2
0
2
Totals
19115
3991
23106
Bone Groupb
9-
A. Bone weight (gm)
13863.3
15982.5
29845.8
9-
B. Bone frequency
6729
7758
14487
Architectural Group
10.
Window glass
3968
367
9335
1 1 .
Nails
5902
1930
7832
12.
Spikes
42
10
52
13.
Construction hardware
3
4
7
14.
Door lock parts
4
1
5
Total
9919
2312
12231
Furniture Group
15.
Furniture hardware
26
8
34
Arms
Group
1 6.
MusketbalIs/shot/sprue
103
41
144
17.
Gunflints, gunspalls
73
17
90
18.
Gun parts
78
1 4
92
Totals
254
72
326
Clothing Group
19. Buckles
20. Thimbles
21. Buttons
22. Scissors
23. Pins
24. Hook and eye fasteners
25. Bale seals
26-A. Glass beads
26-B. Miscellaneous clothing
96
15
1 11
1
1
2
58
16
74
4
2
6
0
20
20
4
1
5
0
0
0
3
2
5
3
7
10
69
64
233
Totals


151
Table 5-9. Species List
Frederica.
for '
the
Dobree
Site,
Lot 31
South,
Species
Ct
MNI
# %
Weight
gms
Biomass,kg
# %'
Unidentified bone
963.8
Unidentified mammal
4831
5943.3
79.75
38.0
Procyon lotor
racoon
39
7
5.5
36. 1
0.76
0.3
Didelphis marsupialis
opossum
10
2
1.6
7.9
0.17
0.08
Sylvilagus sp
rabbit
1
1
0.8
0.5
0.01
0.004
Sylvilagus cf palustris
marsh rabbit
1
1
0.8
0.4
0.01
0.004
Canis sp
dog
2
1
0.8
0.5
0.01
0.004
Felis sp
cat
40
1
0.8
10.8
0.22
0.1
Eauus cabellas
domestic horse
4
2
1.6
235.4
3,63
1 .7
Artiodactyl
even-toed ungulates
28
77.0
1 .56
0.7
Bos taurus
domestic cow
248
21
16.4
7220.2
97.57
46.5
Sus scrofa
domestic/feral pig
151
17
13.3
630.6
10.74
5.1
cf Odocoileus virginianus
white-tailed deer
2
2.0
0.04
0.01
Odocoileus virginianus
white-tailed deer
87
15
11.7
405.5
7.23
3.4
CaDra or Ovis sp
2
1
0.8
1 1
0.03
0.01
goat or sheep




42
security of the planting and trading enterprises (Brown
1963:2; Coleman 1972:169-170). In 1730 the royal Govenor of
South Carolina submitted a detailed plan for expanding the
Carolina frontier which was enthusiastically endorsed by the
Board of Trade. The Board added the stipulation that two
settlements be located on the Altamaha River on land that had
long been claimed by both Britain and Spain. By combining an
economic-military expansionist policy with a philanthropic
movement in England aimed at making productive colonists of
the mother countrys many poor and insolvent subjects, the
founding of Georgia seemingly accomplished three objectives
at once. First, it protected the economically valuable
Carolina colony by providing a military buffer against
Spanish or French incursions and by reducing the threat of
slave rebellions on the Carolina plantations. Second, it
expanded the frontier trade and plantation networks that were
so essential to the mercantilistic economy envisioned for the
colonies by the Board of Trade. Third, it helped relieve the
mother country of a substantial domestic burden, the
unemployed and poor of London and other cities (Reese 1963:8-
9; Coleman 1976:9-13). Thus it was the unfortunate poor,
many of whom were supported by the Trust charity, who
accompanied James Oglethorpe to the new colony in 1733.
The frontier town of Savannah, located near the mouth of
the Savannah River, became the nexus of social, political,
and economic life in early Georgia. The settlement was
positioned on a major river linking the piedmont with the








Figure 5-17. Personal Group Artifacts, Dobree Site.
Top row: British half-pennies.
Middle row: Spanish reale fragments and milled
half-reale.
Bottom row: Lead pencil; wig curler fragment.










23
at the 1980 meetings of the Society for Historical Archeology
in Albuquerque, New Mexico, are any indication, it is a
popular one as well. The best known work in this area has
been that of James Deetz (1974, 1977) and Henry Glassie
(1968, 1975). Both of these researchers take an approach to
the study of material culture that emphasizes structural
analysis and mentalistic interpretation of data. In his book
In Small Things Forgotten Deetz is concerned with the
systematic relationships of various aspects of material
culture in the 17th through the 18th centuries in New England
(1977). He traces the evolution of the form and function of
ceramics, architecture, mortuary art, eating utensils,
butchering practices, and furniture, among other things, and
identifies major shifts in their use in England and the
American Colonies. He attributes the presence of the
cultural traditions and horizons that he defines to ideolo
gical forces, particularly a shift from a "medieval" to a
"Georgian world view" that ultimately resulted from the
intellectual ferment of the Renaissance. This cognitive
model of material culture stems from Deetz's long-term
interest in mentalistic processes and their potential for
investigation by archeologists. For instance, the goal of
discovering "mental templates" of the people who made and
used artifacts was emphasized in his 1967 book, Invitation to
Archeology. Since that time Deetz apparently has recognized
the futility of this approach in prehistoric archeology and
has concentrated on adapting it to the field of historical


177
quite similar in appearance and are probably of similar
origin: mixed sterile subsoils and topsoils. The water-
sorted nature of the shaft backfill and the absence of refuse
indicate that this well took longer to fill than Feature 1.
Several fragments of refined agateware associated with the
well pit establish a possible terminus post quern of 1744 for
the construction of Feature 2. A mean ceramic date of 1747.9
was calculated for the well using 37 identifiable sherds.
Feature 3 differed from the other two wells by having a
square pit in which the barrel shaft was centrally located.
The profile shot shown in Figure 6-8 and the overhead view in
Figure 6-9, both taken after the shaft had been reamed out,
provide graphic evidence of the square corners and straight
walls of this feature. The pit measured 2.0 meters north-
south by 2.0 meters east-west. Besides its shape, the manner
in which the pit was backfilled is also distinctive. The
barrel shaft was enclosed by a dark layer of fill that formed
a circular outline within the square pit (Figure 6-9). After
abandonment of the well, the shaft was backfilled with dark
humic sand and a considerable number of nearly complete glass
and ceramic artifacts (Figures 5-9 through 5-12).
Excavation of Feature 3 was similar to that of the other
wells. The top portion of the feature, immediately below the
0.26 meter thick plow zone, had to be removed as a combined
shaft-pit unit until a distinction could be made between the
fill material in each provenience. This top portion was 0.11
meter thick. The feature was profiled until water was






236
strictly limited area. The delineation of lot and street
boundaries was of high research priority during the Dobree
Project and accounts in part for the extensive area excavated
at Lot 31 South.
Documentary references to fences at Frederica are fairly
common, prompting Manucy (1960) to include fences at almost
every lot in his reconstructed town model. Firm
archeological evidence of lot demarcation was uncovered by
Fairbanks (1956) at Lots 1 and 2 South. On the west side of
the Hawkins lot he found a line of root disturbances which
were interpreted as marking the location of a hedge of
pomegranates that was mentioned in a contemporary account of
the site (Candler 1904-37:XXII,Part 11,453)- Test trenches
also located incomplete sections of a row of postholes on the
west and south edge of the Davison lot; a possible posthole
line noted on the east side was disturbed by a series of
wells and trash pits. The intrusive nature of these features
over the postholes suggests that the importance of fences
(and lot boundaries) changed though time at Frederica. On
the north end of the site was a narrow ditch running parallel
to Broad Street that was "clearly some sort of front fence"
(Fairbanks 1956:223). Other fences, or possible fences, were
located archeologically during the Broad Street excavations,
including a brick wall on the boundary of Lot 3 South (Shiner
1958) .
No evidence of a fence line was uncovered at the Hird
Site. The relatively small amount of area opened during the






185
1746 to early 1749 have been calculated and this close
temporal contiguity is believed to be indicative of the late
1740s occupation at the site that is responsible for the
construction, use, and filling of the three wells.
Trash Pits
Sixteen features were designated as trash pits on the
basis of their shape and/or contents. All these pits were
mapped horizontally (Figure 6-1), and the larger ones were
profiled or cross-sectioned and mapped before excavating the
entire feature. Except for Feature 10, all the trash pits
were oval or circular in shape, and all appear from
stratigraphic evidence to have been filled quickly. As shown
in Figure 6-11, the Feature 5 profile displays distinct
lenses of soil that may be associated with a gradual filling
process, but the nearly bell-shaped profile of this feature
would seem to preclude this interpretation. Long term
deposition in subsurface pits characteristically results in
lensing of the fill material along with gently sloping walls
and rounded rather than sharp edges at the lip of the
feature. All of these attributes are a result of progressive
weathering and erosion of the top and walls of the open pit
(Cornwall 1958:57-60). Besides exhibiting sharply defined
edges, features that are filled relatively quickly often
contain homogeneous soil that in profile does not reveal
erosion lensing. Although the true tops of the features at
the Dobree site have been obliterated by plowing, the nearly
vertical walls of Feature 5 can only be associated with a












170
pit, while the contrasting dark soil in the shaft is thought
to be composed primarily of dark topsoil sand. Also
accounting for the darker color of the shaft fill is its high
organic content. Large amounts of bone, leaves, twigs, and
other organic debris were recovered from the shaft but not
the pit (see Chapter V). The large quantities of artifacts
deposited indicate that this well was in use and filled
during a period of habitation at the Dobree Site that was
characterized by the generation of considerable amounts and
types of domestic refuse.
Abandoned wells functioned as convenient depositories
for refuse at many British colonial sites. Filling the well
shaft served not only to eliminate accumulated trash but also
to remove the potential hazard that an open shaft posed to
livestock as well as humans (Noel Hume 1969a:144). A
possible terminus post quern of 1740 can be established for
the backfilling of the shaft by the presence of a sherd of
refined agateware, which has a beginning manufacturing date
of sometime in the mid-l8th century according to Noel Hume
( 1974:132) and of 1740 according to South ( 1977a:211) The
construction of the well pit could not be more closely dated
due to the broad manufacturing ranges of the ceramic types
recovered from it. The mean ceramic date, calculated from
181 ceramic fragments, was 1749.2.
Feature 1 contained the only complete wine bottle found
at the site. The upright position of the bottle (Figure 6-4)
and the presence of a wooden stopper in the mouth suggest


278
World counterparts. Drawing on this and other research, the
present author and colleague Elizabeth Reitz have attempted
to test a number of hypotheses concerning resource use at
colonial sites: Reitz has made an intersite comparison of
British and Spanish subsistence patterns in the southeastern
United States (1979), Honerkamp has tried to relate relative
differences in status between three British colonial
households to differences in associated faunal assemblages
(1980), and together we are preparing an in-depth study of
resource utilization at the Hird Site ( 1980) Some of the
concepts defined in this last paper are useful for the
purposes of the present study (see below).
Subsistence Models
As indicated earlier, uncritical acceptance of the idea
of domestic food sources buffering historic European
populations from all but minor adaptations to New World
conditions has been prevalent in historical archeology for
some time. If this hypothesis is to be tested, it must be
made more explicit. Jay Allen Anderson's synthesis of
British foodways, consisting of a compilation of primary
materials dealing with rural and urban food habits in 17th
century England, can be used to define what is referred to by
Reitz and Honerkamp as the "British Barnyard Complex."
According to Anderson (1971), the English yoeman
practiced a mixed farming strategy that included maintaining
a wide variety of domestic livestock, with wild animals
constituting a small but important part of the diet. The




Figure 6 18. Profile of Feature 29 and Underlying Postholes,
Dobree Site.




Figure 5-10. Cross Section Drawings of Ceramic Vessels,
Dobree Site.
Row 1s White salt glazed stoneware lids.
Row 2: Porcelain bowl; white salt glazed stoneware
bowl.
Row 3: White salt glazed stoneware cup and bowl.
Bottom right: Astbury bowl.






Figure 7-6. Distribution of White Clay Pipe Fragments,
Plowzone, Dobree Site.


o
metars
kO
I\)




157
Table 5-12. Summary of Six Faunal Categories, Hird
Site, Frederica.
Biomass of Taxa for Which MNI Was Determined
MNI Biomass
Taxa
#
%
kg
%
Domestic Animals
47
20.0
189.2
77.9
Wild Terrestrial
40
17.0
40.7
16.7
Wild Birds
49
20.9
2.0
0.8
Aquatic Reptiles
7
3.0
0.6
0.2
Fish and Sharks
87
37.0
10.4
4.3
Commensals
5
2.1
0. 1
0.004
Totals
235
243.0
Biomass of
Taxa
Taxa for Which MNI Was Not Determined
Biomass
kg %
Mammals
180.71
90.9
Birds
1.31
0.7
Reptiles
0.46
0.2
Amphibians
0.01
0.005
Fish
16.21
8.2
Total
198.70


47
Fredericas inhabitants and craft activities were apparently
not frequently practiced (see discussion below).
The Trustees gave specific instructions concerning the
construction of dwellings, which were to be built in the
Georgian style and to measure at least 16 by 20 feet (Candler
1904-37:XXXIV,288). At Frederica the documentary and
archeological evidence gives a fairly clear picture of the
types of houses built by the colonists. A contemporary
visitor to the town mentioned "...some houses built entirely
of Brick, some of Brick and Wood, some few of Tappy-Work, but
most of the meaner sort of Wood only" (Jones 1878:122).
Archeological excavations support this description. Most of
the inhabitants built "common freeholder" houses which Manucy
describes as timber framed clapboard huts (1960:20).
Architectural variability as a function of socioeconomic
status seems to be evident at Frederica. Timber frame
structures were the most economical and easiest to build, and
by far made up the majority of residences. Tabby and brick
houses, which were more secure but entailed much higher costs
in labor and materials than their wooden counterparts, were
selected by the wealthier colonists (Manucy 1960:20-23).
There is also some indication of a correlation between lot
location and type of house, with the brick and tabby examples
more commonly located near the fort or facing Broad Street.
Archeological evidence of wooden houses has yet to be
recorded and remains a high research priority.






231
amount of bone is 337.6 grams/square meter for the Hird Site
versus 92.8 grams/square meter for the Dobree Site.
(Occupation indices for the Hawkins-Davison Site were not
derived since Fairbanks was not able to completely excavate
all the wells he encountered (1956:216).) It is proposed that
the differences in occupation intensity that are demonstrated
by these indices are directly related to the differences in
the degree of clustering of features that is present at both
s i tes.
The test implication concerning maximization of the
trash disposal potential at each site refers to the secondary
use of subsurface features such as wells, privies, and
storage pits as trash containers. Features that were
originally constructed for purposes other than holding trash
but that were later used for that purpose have been
identified at both sites. At the Dobree Site special
function features that were not defined as trash pits include
the three wells (Features 1, 2, and 3), a storage pit
(Feature 10), a fire pit (Feature 8), a pallisade wall trench
(Feature 29), and six postholes (Features 15, 23, 25, 26, and
27). As was indicated in the last two chapters (see
especially Figure 6-10), all of these features, with the
exception of Feature 8, contained heavy concentrations of
secondary trash. At the Hird Site two privies (Features 5
and 7), a storage pit (Feature 9), and a root cellar (Feature
10) are all considered to have originally functioned as
special purpose features that were eventually converted to


102
Not considered in the analyisis were 129 of the 133
ceramic fragments classified as "Miscellaneous Stoneware"
since the appropriate temporal and ethnic affiliations for
these nondiagnostic sherds could not be determined. The four
sherds of miscellaneous stoneware that were included in the
analysis are all scratch blue white salt glazed stoneware, a
type for which temporal and ethnic associations have been
established (Noel Hume 197^:117).
Only one ceramic vessel could be completely recon
structed from the Dobree ceramic assemblage. The white salt
glazed stoneware cup shown in Figure 5-9 was found in the
shaft fill dirt of the Feature 3 well. Cross sections of the
mended and partial ceramic vessels for which vessel shape
could be determined are shown in Figure 5-10.
Although the fragments of wine and case bottles used for
the Wine Bottle and Case Bottle classes are very nearly
identical in terms of color, evidence of bottle shape
provides a useful guide for recognizing the bottle type and
class. All round sectioned, olive-green fragments, except
for obvious shoulder fragments from case bottles, were
incuded in the Wine Bottle class. Case Bottle fragments were
defined as square sectioned fragments of olive-green glass.
Blown-molded glass, which began to be manufactured in the
last quarter of the 18th century (Lorraine 1968), was
excluded from the Kitchen group since it postdates the
Frederica occupation. This later dark green glass was
recognized by the presence of mold marks or a pebbled texture




173






120
latches, and one case lock part were recovered. Except for
the window came, all of these objects are of iron.
Furniture Group
The Furniture Hardware class making up this group is
comprised of a diverse assortment of artifacts, as summarized
in the following table:
Table 5-5. Summary of Furniture Hardware Class Artifacts,
Dobree Site.
Brass Items Plowzone
Tacks 5
Drawer handles 4
Drawer handle mounting post 1
Furniture screwplate 1
Furniture screws 1
Phinials 2
Features
3
2
0
0
1
0
Iron Items
Hinges 2 2
Drawer handles 4 0
Screws 4 0
Keyhole surround 1_ 0
Totals 26 8
Several of these Furniture class brass and iron artifacts are
illustrated in Figure 5-14. The complete brass drawer handle
and mounting post shown in this figure are nearly identical
to examples from Williamsburg which Noel Hume dates from
1720-40 (1971:36, 1974:224).
Arms Group
The Musketball-Shot-Sprue class is self explanatory.
The totals for this class shown in Table 5-1 include only one
sprue fragment. The gunflint class consists of 48 whole or












298
1961 Notes on Robert Patterson. Margaret Davis Cate Collec
tion (microfilm), Fort Frederica National Monument, St.
Simons Island, Georgia.
Chance, David H.
1977 Review of Method and Theory in Historical Archeology,
by Stanley South. Historical Archeology 11:126-128.
Cleland, Charles E.
1970 Comparison of the Faunal Remains from French and
British Refuse Pits at Fort Michilimackinac: A Study
in Changing Subsistence Patterns. Canadian Historic
Sites Occasional Papers in Archeology and History 3:8-23.
Cleland, Charles E. and James E. Fitting
1968 The Crisis of Identity: Theory in Historic Sites Arche
ology. The Conference on Historic Site Archeology Papers
1967 2(2):124-138.
Coleman, Kenneth
1972 The Southern Frontier: Georgias Founding and the
Expansion of South Carolina. Georgia Historical Quarterly
56:163-174.
1976 Colonial Georgia: A History. New York: Charles Scribner
and Sons.
Cornwall, I. W.
1958 Soils for the Archeologist. London: Phoenix House Ltd.
Coulter, E. Merton and Albert B. Saye
1949 A List of the Early Settlers of Georgia. Athens:
University of Georgia Press.
Cumbaa, Stephen L.
1975 Patterns of Resource Use and Cross-Cultural Dietary
Change in the Spanish Colonial Period. Ph.D. dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, University of Florida.
Davis, Harold E.
1976 The Fledgling Province: Social and Cultural Life in
Colonial Georgia, 1733-1776. Chapel Hill: The University
of North Carolina Press.
Deagan, Kathleen A.
1972 Pipe Stems and Drug Jars: The Colonial Middle Class
in 18th Century Georgia. Manuscript, National Park Service
Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee.
1975 Thirty Years of Archeology at Frederica, Georgia, 1945-
1975: An Archeological Assessment. Manuscript, National
Park Service Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee.


254
feature as a waste pit or a pit for storing blacksmithing raw
materials would account for the heavy concentration of ash
noted in the pit, its unusal form, and its location in the
forge area. The large square posthole (Feature 27) within a
circular pit (Feature 24) may have resulted from the use of a
wooden anvil base anchored into the ground.
It is difficult to date with accuracy the period in
which the forge was in operation. The only closed context
feature which contained a significant amount of slag as well
as a sufficient number of dateable ceramics for determining a
mean ceramic date was Feature 10, which yielded a date of
1740.5. Mean ceramic dates for the precreamware ceramics
recovered from the plowzone can also be used to indirectly
date the forge. A contour map of the dates derived for each
excavation unit having a minimum of 30 dateable sherds is
presented in Figure 7-2. A close correspondence is seen
between slag concentrations and relatively early mean ceramic
dates. The plowzone dates found for part of the structure,
in which the main concentration of slag occurs, range from
1738.5 to 1743.6. The smaller concentration of slag to the
south of the building is also located in an area of early
dates. In contrast, areas of the site in which lateM
features but little slag are found generally exhibit late
plowzone mean ceramic dates. It is therefore suggested that
the forge was in operation during the first few years of
Fredericas existence. Temporal and artifactual evidence
from the features and plowzone also indicate that a domestic


75
A permanent datum was established at the Hird and Dobree
sites to facilitate use of a transit, chain, and stadia rod
for horizontal and vertical control. Excavated dirt was
screened through one-fourth inch square mesh fitted to
gasoline-powered shaker screens (Figure 5-5), with the
exception of Square 13 at the Hird Site where three-eighths
by one inch diamond mesh was used. Water screening was
employed whenever necessary, for instance when excavating
features containing wet soil or high bone densities. One-
eighth inch screen was used for excavating part of a barrel
well at the Dobree Site, but this technique resulted in
greatly increased excavation time and labor without a
corresponding increase in artifact recovery (most of the
small bone recovered with this screen size could not be
identified). Other features at the site were therefore
screened with the one-fourth inch mesh.
Besides the extent of the sample frames, the most
important difference between the field strategies employed at
the Hird and Dobree sites consisted of the way in which some
artifact classes were collected and recorded. Brick, tabby,
and shell were noted only on a presence-absence basis at the
Hird Site, while at the Dobree Site these artifact categories
were quantified for nearly half of the excavation units in an
attempt to define the location of a domestic structure. In
view of the extreme limitations that presence-absence
approach to artifact collection imposes on the interpretation
of the archeological record (Taylor 1948), and the




Figure 5-8. Ceramic Artifacts, Dobree Site.
Top row: Unglazed.earthenware pipkin handle; two
unglazed earthenware rims.
Bottom row: Molded white salt glazed stoneware;
refined brown lead glazed earthenware
refined dark brown lead glazed earth
enware .














Figure 1-1. The Barrier Islands of Coastal Georgia.




I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
V
/
Hjlc Cl'^
Charles H. Fairbanks, Chair
Distinguished Service Professor
of Anthropology
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
/v caJIja^ Cf
Hnl oon A Doacran 'Z
CT'O
Kathleen A. Deagan
Associate Professor of Anthropology
I certify that I have read this study and that in ray
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
fc
Prudence M. Rice
Assistant Professor of
LL
Anthropology
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fullv^erttequate, in scope arid quality,
as a dissertation for t>he degree of Doctor x>f Ph/I^bsophy.
aid T.
ociate
Milanich
Prof essor
Anthropology


126
self-explanatory. The exceptions consisted of the modifica
tion of one artifact class and the creation of a new one. In
the present format the Glass Bead class has been expanded to
include a shell bead since both types are assumed to have had
similar decorative functions (see Figure 5-16). A
Miscellaneous Clothing class was added to the Clothing group
(Class 26-B in Table 5-1) in order that artifacts unique to
Frederica, but logically included in an artifact group, be
considered in the analyisis. This class consists of two
sequins and three decorative braid fragments from Feature 3
and five small brass clothing studs or rings, two of which
were found in the wells.
Personal Group
Coins, keys and personal items make up the three classes
for this group. Of the 12 coins found, 9 are George II
young-head half pennies. After conservation and
stabilization, the following dates could be read on these
coins: one at 1737, three at 1738, and five at 1739. The
presence of all of these artifacts is believed to have
resulted from loss. Two half pennies were found in the
Feature 1 and Feature 2 wells but the rest were associated
with the plow zone; no definite "artifact trap" locations
could be discerned at the site. Three silver Spanish coins
were also found in the plow zone. As evinced by their
locations, the Spanish coins appear to have been subject to
similar loss processes as their British counterparts. Two
were recovered from squares that also contained British


301
Hamilton, T.M.
1976Firearms on the Frontier: Guns at Fort Michilimackinac,
1715-1781. Reports in Mackinac History and Archeology,
No. 5.
Hanson, Lee and Dick Ping Hsu
1975 Casemates and Cannonballs. Publications in Archeology
No. 14. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior.
Harrington, J.C.
1955 Archeology as Auxiliary to American History. American
Anthropologist 55:1121-1130.
1979 The Importance of Interpretation in Historical Arche
ology. North American Archeologist 1(1):7584.
Harris, Marvin
1977 Cannibals and Kings: The Origins of Culture. New York:
Random House.
1979 Cultural Materialism: The Struggle for a Science of
Culture. New York: Random House.
Harris, Marvin and Eric Ross
1978 How Beef Became King. Psychology Today 12(5) :88 9^4.
Heighton, Robert F. and Kathleen A. Deagan
1972 A New Formula for Dating Kaolin Clay Pipestems. Con
ference on Historic Site Archeology Papers 6:220-229.
Heizer, Robert F. and John A. Graham
1967 A Guide to Field Methods in Archeology. Palo Alto:
National Press.
Helwig, Jane T. and Kathryn A. Council, eds.
1979 SAS Users Guide, 1979 Edition. Raleigh: SAS Insti
tute.
Hilliard, Sam B.
1972 Hogmeat and Hoecake: Food Supply in the Old South,
1840-1860. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University
Press.
Honerkamp, Nicholas
1975 The Material Cultre of Fort Frederica: The Thomas
Hird Lot. M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Uni
versity of Florida.
1977a Colonial Life on the Georgia Coast. St. Simons Island:
Fort Frederica Association.
1977b Review of Method and Theory in Historical Archeology, by
Stanley South. Florida Journal of AnthrODology 2(2):3334.




Figure 5-20. Military Artifacts, Dobree Site.
Top: Iron hollow shot.
Bottom: Brass insignia.




222
noncolonial ceramics were readily identified and excluded
from the mean ceramic date calculations but corresponding
"late pipestems that were deposited at the site after the
Hird occupation could not be identified and removed. It
should be noted, however, that the pipestem dates are closer
to the documented occupation midpoint (late 1741-early 1742)
than the mean ceramic date. This suggests an alternative
interpretation for the ceramic and pipestem data. The
earlier ceramic date may be attributed to factors at the site
that resulted in a higher rate of ceramic use and subseqent
discard during the first half of the occupation. The most
important factor in the generation of domestic refuse would
be occupation density. Documentary evidence reviewed for the
Hird Site indicates that at least five persons were living at
Lot 12-North during the initial occupation of the site. It
is unlikely that the family unit remained stable over the
entire occupation of the site. One of Hird's daughters is
reported to have married and presumably left the Hird
household after she arrived in Georgia, and Thomas Hird is
known to have developed another homestead sometime after 1743
on an island between Savannah and Frederica. Eleven years
after his death, Hirds "plantation was still substantial
enough to be the object of a petition by his daughter and
son-in-law (Candler 1904-37:VIII,202). Thus, factors are
present in the early part of the Hird occupation that would
have produced a higher rate of transformation of artifacts
from systemic contexts to archeological contexts (Schiffer






Figure 5-6. Distribution of Postcreamware Ceramics,
Plowzone, Dobree Site.


Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
FRONTIER PROCESS
IN EIGHTEENTH CENTURY COLONIAL GEORGIA:
AN ARCHEOLOGICAL APPROACH
By
Nicholas Honerkamp
December 1980
Chairman: Charles H. Fairbanks
Major Department: Anthropology
Frontier regions offer unique opportunities for
anthropologists to study the adaptive responses of intrusive
colonizing societies to new social and natural conditions.
The process of colonization is reflected archeologically
through the patterning of settlement structure and function.
The purpose of this study is to examine the archeological
correlates of a British colonial frontier adaptation in
Georgia and to interpret this evidence through reference to
documented 18th century sociocultural, political, and
demographic factors.
Analysis of archeological materials from three sites at
Fort Frederica, Georgia (1736-1750), and contemporaneous
x


235
Physical degradation of bone may also account for the
differences in bone quantity noted for the plowed and
nonplowed proveniences but this proposition is difficult to
test without resorting to a long-term experimental archeology
research program. A more immediate and practical test of
hypotheses concerning differential preservation and bone
disposal practices would be to compare the results reported
here with those from undisturbed contemporary English or
British colonial sites possessing similar spatial constraints
(i.e., narrow contiguous lots). It is predicted that in the
absence of such constraints, the need to maximize the
disposal potential of a limited area will be reduced. This
will result in fewer trash pits dug and relatively less bone
deposited in them as other, more informal methods of disposal
are used. It eventually should be possible to define the
parameters of garbage formation processes at archeological
sites in such a way as to be able to make predictive
statements concerning adaptive human behavior in waste
elimination. Insights into this topic have already been
demonstrated to have practical implictions for modern
industrial societies (Rathje 1977, 1979), and a cross-
cultural research methodology for addressing questions of
this nature has recently been proposed (McNett 1979).
The fourth implication concerns the demarcation of lot
boundaries in the colonial town. The presumed emphasis on
definition of areal holdings would be a result of a situation
in which a dense population was present in a confined,


308
White, Theodore
1953 A Method for Calculating the Dietary Percentages of
Various Food Animals Used by Aboriginal Peoples. American
Antiquity 18:396-398.
Wilderson, Paul W.
1975 Archeology and the American Historian: An Interdisi-
plinary Challenge. American Quarterly 27(2):115-132.
Willey, Gordon R. and Phillip Phillips
1958 Method and Theory in American Archeology. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Wing, Elizabeth S.
1976 Ways of Going from a Sliver of Bone to a Calorie.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for
American Archeology, St. Louis.
Wing, Elizabeth S. and Antoinette B. Brown
1979 Paleonutrition: Method and Theory in Prehistoric
Foodways. New York: Academic Press.
Wood, Betty
1979 A Note on the Georgia Malcontents. Georgia Historical
Quarterly 63:264-278.
Wood, W. Raymond and Donald Lee Johnson
1978 A Survey of Disturbance Processes in Archeological
Site Formation. Ini Advances in Archeological Method and
Theory, Vol. 1. Michael B. Schiffer, ed. pp. 315-381.
New York: Academic Press.
Wright, Sir James
1873 Report of Sir James Wright On the Condition of the
Province of Georgia, On 20th Sept. 1773. In Collections
of the Georgia Historical Society, Vol. 3, pp. 158-179.
Savannah: Morning News Press.




Figure 5-5. Field Work In Progress, Dobree Site.
Shovelers are facing the gasoline-powered shaker screen.


237
excavation, the absence of a fence line, the destruction of
evidence indicating lot boundaries, or some combination of
factors may account for the lack of locational results at
this site. At the Dobree Site there was evidence of a
postcolonial pallisade fence on the north end of the site
which was intrusive over an earlier post line oriented to the
colonial town grid. This earlier posthole line may be
associated with the colonial occupation at Frederica,
although this can not be conclusively demonstrated with
archeological materials. The location of this suspected
fence line on what is thought to be the street end of a lot
and its alignment with the colonial grid support the
contention that the earlier post line was a sort of fence, or
possibly two fences, that fronted Lot 30 and Lot 31.
Evidence of a south, east, or west fence was not found
despite the large area opened up at this site.
Since the postholes were encountered in seven of the
excavation units, they extend over 60 feet and must therefore
represent two separate fences or a single fence encompassing
all of one lot and at least part of another. Elisha Dobree
was known to have attempted to "unite lo