Citation
The Florida anthropologist

Material Information

Title:
The Florida anthropologist
Abbreviated Title:
Fla. anthropol.
Creator:
Florida Anthropological Society
Place of Publication:
Gainesville
Publisher:
Florida Anthropological Society.
Frequency:
Quarterly[<Mar. 1975- >]
Two no. a year[ FORMER 1948-]
quarterly
regular
Language:
English
Edition:
Volume 72 Number 3, September 2019
Physical Description:
v. : ill. ; 24 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Indians of North America -- Antiquities -- Periodicals -- Florida ( lcsh )
Antiquities -- Periodicals -- Florida ( lcsh )
Genre:
serial ( sobekcm )
periodical ( marcgt )

Notes

Summary:
Contains papers of the Annual Conference on Historic Site Archeology.
Dates or Sequential Designation:
v. 1- May 1948-
General Note:
Cumulative index: Vols. 1-24, no. 2, 1948-June 1971. 1 v.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
Department of Special Collections and Area Studies, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Florida Anthropologist Society, Inc. Permission granted to University of Florida to digitize and display 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:
609502567 ( OCLC )
56028409 ( LCCN )
0015-3893 ( ISSN )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
The
Florida
Anthropologist
Volume 72, Number 3, September 2019
published BY FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY


The Florida Anthropologist is published by the Florida Anthropological Society, Inc. Subscription is by membership in the Society.
Membership is NOT restricted to residents of the State of Florida nor to the United States of America. Membership may be initiated
at any time during the year and covers the ensuing twelve month period. Dues shall be payable on the anniversary of the initial dues
payment. Members shall receive copies of all publications distributed by the Society during the 12 months of their membership
year. Annual dues are as follows: student $15, individual $30, family $35, institutional $30, sustaining $100 or more, patron $1000
or more, and benefactor $2500. Foreign subscriptions are an additional $25 U.S. to cover added postage and handling costs for
individual, family, or institutional membership categories. Copies of the journal will only be sent to members with current paid
dues. Please contact the Editor for information on recent back issues.
Requests for information on the Society, membership application forms, and notifications of changes of address should be sent to the
Membership Secretary. Donations should be sent to the Treasurer or may be routed through the Editors to facilitate acknowledgment
in subsequent issues of the journal (unless anonymity is requested). Submissions of manuscripts should be sent to the Editor.
Publications for review should be submitted to the Book Review Editor. Authors please follow The Florida Anthropologist style
guide (on-line at www.fasweb.org) in preparing manuscripts for submission to the journal and contact the Editor with specific
questions. The journal is formatted using Adobe In Design. All manuscripts must be submitted via email to the journal Editor in
final form in Microsoft Word format. Address changes should be made AT LEAST 30 DAYS prior to the mailing of the next issue.
The post office will not forward bulk mail nor retain such mail when “temporary hold” orders exist. Such mail is returned to the
Society postage due. The journal is published quarterly in March, June, September, and December of each year.
Officers of the Society
President: Emily Jane Murray, 8 Mulvey St. Apt. B, St. Augustine, FL 32084 (president@fasweb.org)
First Vice President: George M. Luer, 3222 Old Oak Drive, Sarasota, FL 34239 (lvp@fasweb.org)
Second Vice President: Rebecca O’Sullivan, 4202 East Fowler Ave., SOC 110, Tampa FL 33620 (2vp@fasweb.org)
Recording Secretary: John Simon-Suarez, 8 Mulvey St. Apt. B, St. Augustine, FL 32084 (secretary@fasweb.org)
Membership Secretary: Dorothy Block. 306 NE 1st Avenue #202, Boynton Beach, FL 33435 (membership@fasweb.org)
Treasurer: Joanne Talley, P.O. Box 788, Hobe Sound, FL 33475 (treasurer@fasweb.org)
Directors at Large: Maranda Kies, Jen Knutson, and Nigel Rudolph
Immediate Past President: Jason Wenzel
Newsletter Editor. Jeff Moates, 4202 East Fowler Ave, SOC 110, Tampa FL 33620 (newsletter@fasweb.org)
Journal Editorial Staff
Editor: George M. Luer, 3222 Old Oak Drive, Sarasota, FL 34239 (editor@fasweb.org)
Assistant Editor. Dorothy Block, 306 NE 1st Avenue #202, Boynton Beach, FL 33435 (editor@fasweb.org)
Technical Editor: Laura Dean, 3020 Cambridge Dr., Sarasota, FL 34232 (laura@runjikproductions.com)
Printer: Durra-Print, 717 South Woodward Ave., Tallahassee, FL 32304
Editorial Review Board
Albert C. Goodyear,
Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208 (goodyear@sc.edu)
Jeffrey M. Mitchem,
Arkansas Archeological Survey, P.O. Box 241, Parkin, AR 72373 (jmitcheml@yahoo.com)
Nancy Marie White,
Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33620-8100 (nmw@usf.edu)
Robert J. Austin,
P.O. Box 2818, Riverview, FL 33568-2818 (roc_doc@verizon.net)
NOTE: In addition to the above Editorial Review Board members, the review comments of others knowledgeable in a
manuscript’s subject matter are solicited as part of our peer review process.
VISIT FAS ON THE WEB: fasweb.org
LIKE AND FOLLOW: facebook.com/FloridaAnthropologicalSociety/


The Florida
Anthropologist
Volume 72, Number 3
September 2019
Table of Contents
From the Editors
Articles
From Beneath the Urban Landscape:
1781 Spanish Siege of Pensacola Archaeological Sites 135-158
Gregory A. Mikell
Trends in Grave Marker Attributes in Greenwood Cemetery, Orlando, Florida 159-177
Erin K. Martin, John J. Schultz, and J. Marla Toyne
About the Authors 178
Published by the
FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY, INC.
ISSN 0015-3893


FROM THE EDITORS
It is a pleasure to present Volume 72 Number 3 of The Florida Anthropologist.
George M. Luer, Ph.D., Editor
Dorothy A. Block, M.A., Assistant Editor
Laura Dean, Technical Editor
Recent back issues can be purchased through the FAS website fasweb.org/publication-sales/
The journal digital archive is available through the University of Florida Library http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027829/00217
The Florida Anthropologist Fund is designed
to support production of The Florida
Anthropologist, the scholarly journal,
published by the Florida Anthropological
Society since 1947.
Donations are accepted from individuals,
CORPORATIONS, AND FOUNDATIONS.
Inquiries and gifts can be directed to:
Joanne Talley, FAS Treasurer
P. O. Box 788
Hobe Sound, FL 33475
THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY IS ANON-PROFIT
ORGANIZATION UNDER SECTION 501(C)(3) OF THE INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE. CONTRIBUTIONS ARE TAX-DEDUCTIBLE AS
PROVIDED BY SECTION 170 OF THE CODE.
Vol. 72 (3)
The Florida Anthropologist
September 2019


FROM BENEATH THE URBAN LANDSCAPE: 1781 SPANISH SIEGE OF
PENSACOLA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
Gregory A. Mikell
Panamerican Consultants, Inc., 4430 Yarmouth Place, Pensacola, FL 32514 gmikeIII(cuearthlink.net
Introduction
In 2008, pipeline monitoring in Pensacola, Florida, discovered evidence of the Spanish siege of British Pensacola
in 1781. Military artifacts were recovered and two sites were recorded in the Florida Master Site File (FMSF): the 1781
Siege of Pensacola Site 1 (8ES3423), and the 1781 Siege of Pensacola Site 2 (8ES3509) (Table 1). Here, I provide
historic accounts of the siege and I document the archaeological evidence, providing maps and other clues for future
researchers to carry investigations further.
Figure 1. Cuadro por España y por el Rey, Galvez en America. Oil on canvas by Augusto Ferrer-Dalmau (Ferrer-Dalmau
Magazine 2015). This image of a painting was not altered from the original. It is used here under the Creative Commons
Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license: (https://creativecommons.Org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en).
2019 Vol. 72 (3)
The Florida Anthropologist
135


136
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (3)
Background
Seldom does a sewer and pipeline project in a long-
developed residential area of Pensacola generate interest
and excitement. Usually, materials beneath the streets
outside “old Pensacola” are disturbed or post-date the
mid-1800s (Mikell 2001, 2010; Phillips et al. 1997).
Nonetheless, historic events did take place outside
downtown, in the North Hill Preservation District of
Pensacola, some leaving a trail of evidence. Meaningful
research emerged from beneath those streets in late 2008
while monitoring pipeline installation for Emerald Coast
Utilities Authority (Mikell 2010).
We first discovered artifacts related to the 1781
Spanish siege of British Pensacola in shovel tests and
pipeline trenches adjacent to the North Hill Preservation
District. We followed up by documenting collections
made by residents living in the pipeline project area.
The findings allowed us to identify the general location
of the Spanish advanced siege trench (and potential
evidence of a segment of the trench itself), which we
recorded as site 8ES3423. Potential parts of these trench
positions were the Spanish “advanced redoubt” that was
attacked by the British on May 4, 1781, as well as the
Spanish “fort” from which the Spanish launched their
deadly attack on British defenses on May 8, 1781. These
battlefield features may all be part of archaeological
site 8ES3423 as it has been tentatively defined (Mikell
2010) and updated by archaeologist Larry James (2011),
during his graduate thesis work at the University of West
Florida (UWF).
Methods
With archaeological data from 8ES3423 in hand and
the known locations of two British fortifications, as well
as invaluable information from diaries describing the
1781 siege (see below), 1 set about using historic maps
depicting British forts and Spanish siege positions in an
attempt to place them on the modem landscape. This
“overlay” was done by tracing the historic map features
in Adobe Illustrator™ and then “dropping” them on the
area’s most recent topographic quadrangle map (USGS
1978[ 1987]) and aligning the features with as many
known locations and topographic features as possible.
The resulting maps (see below), while not thought to
be entirely accurate, provide a general guideline about
where additional sites like 8ES3423 may be located.
Being dissatisfied with the limited area of the
sewer pipeline project, I followed up with informal
investigation of vacant lots, using the overlay maps and
“asking around” for additional information and leads.
This included artifacts found previously by residents,
who kindly allowed us to document them. A result was
the recording of 8ES3509, which appears to be the site
of the initial Spanish gun battery constructed during the
siege. Although the context of materials identifying
8ES3509 as a component of the Spanish siege trench are
less certain than those from 8ES3423, the site is in the
right location for the first gun emplacement and camp
as depicted in historic maps of the 1781 siege, and the
artifacts are of the appropriate time period. No other
colonial period sites are recorded in the FMSF within
400 m (0.25 mi) of8ES3509.
Larry James compiled additional information via
a non-invasive pedestrian survey and by interviewing
residents of the North Hill Preservation District and
surrounding neighboring houses near 8ES3423 (James
2011). Using a questionnaire, James asked of their
knowledge of the siege and if they had found any
artifacts. By combining historic maps and documents
with previous archaeological findings and interviews
with residents, James developed and evaluated a model
placing key landmarks and events on the modem city
grid. Whereas James’ model generally agrees with the
location and interpretation of 8ES3423, it also points
to shortcomings of the archaeological data. His study
reiterates that 8ES3423 and 8ES3509, as currently
defined, represent approximate locations of potentially
identifiable Spanish siege line positions. James
concludes that both studies warrant additional research
and in-depth archaeological investigations to refine and
to pinpoint placement of events in 1781 on the modem
landscape (James 2011 :xii, 163-173).
History of the 1781 Siege of Pensacola
In 1779, as the American Revolutionary War was
underway in the Thirteen Colonies, Spain and England
were, once again, at war. Under the command of Field
Marshal Don Bernardo de Gálvez, the Spanish averted
a British planned attack on Spanish New Orleans.
Then, the Spanish set out to destroy the British military
occupation along the Gulf Coast and Mississippi
River by controlling the Mississippi at New Orleans,
Baton Rouge, and Natchez, capturing Fort Charlotte in
Mobile, and in 1781, setting siege to the British military
stronghold in Pensacola (Figures 1 and 2).
Gálvez and one of his officers, Francisco de Miranda,
kept diaries of the siege. Thus, detailed information about
daily events exists and is applicable here. Translations
of the diaries (Baker and Haas 1977; James 2011; Rush
1966; Worcester 1951) are invaluable to research about
the siege and several artifact types recovered.


Mikell
1781 Spanish Siege of Pensacola
137
Commanded by Gálvez, a flotilla of warships
exploited a weakness in the British land-based naval
defenses, neutralizing the outer British defenses, and on
March 9, 1781, landed on the north shore of Pensacola
Bay to begin their siege. By mid-April, the Spanish siege
trenches were approaching British defensive positions
and would eventually advance to within 800 m (0.5 mi)
of the garrison in Pensacola (Figures 2, 3, 4).
Numerous artillery exchanges took place between
the British and Spanish forces. By late April, the British
were bombarding the siege trenches relentlessly. On May
4, 1781, a British attack on the “advanced fort” (Battery
2) at the forward portion of the trench line resulted in a
brief setback for the Spanish.
Gálvez Account
The Gálvez diary (the Diario) provides an insightful
eyewitness description of the event and helps interpret
remains, as follows (from Rush 1966:80):
The fourth [May 4, 1781], Although all
night they worked diligently toward the total
completion of the trench and redoubt, there was
not sufficient time for forming the banquette
so that the soldiers could with difficulty make
fire from the parapet lodged in these works,
nor was it possible to remain outside of them
because of the continued grape-shot that was
discharged from the Half-Moon [Queen’s
Redoubt],
All morning the enemy made continuous
cannon fire toward this part with good enough
hits, but particularly at one in the afternoon
concentrated grape-shot, bombs and grenades
so vigorously that they forced the troops to use
all the resources which they judged suitable to
free themselves. At this time several English
troops which had gone out of the Half-Moon
without being seen and with a premeditated
plan attacked the redoubt that was garrisoned
by a company of grenadiers of Mallorca and
half a company of Irish. The troops in these
circumstances, although encouraged by their
officers, since near the beginning the captain
and ensign of the Mallorca were dead, the
lieutenant gravely wounded as well as the
captain and lieutenant of the Irish, retreated
to the second redoubt up to which place the
enemy pursued them with arme blanche, re¬
establishing themselves in the first one they
had taken.
At the first news of this event the General
ordered Colonel Ezpeleta with four companies
of chasseurs to go to dislodge the enemy, but
before this colonel arrived they had already
retreated leaving the trench burned, four
field cannon spiked and capturing the captain
and lieutenant of the Irish and the same
grade of officers of the Mallorca, since they
were wounded and could not retreat. In the
afternoon they restored the trench and redoubt
in which four other cannon were placed, and
during the night the enemy made fire from
mortar and howitzer, all aimed at this part.
The Spanish forces recovered from the attack and
mounted a counter attack, but the British had withdrawn
to their garrison. The Spanish then set about renewing
their siege positions and the exchange of artillery with
the British. On May 8, 1781, as a plan for an infantry
assault on the British was being initiated, a Spanish
“grenade” fired from their forward siege position blew
up the powder magazine in Queen’s Redoubt, resulting in
more than 100 British casualties, most of them fatalities.
The Spaniards then took possession of the redoubt,
established a garrison (Fort San Bernardo) on the site of
Queen’s Redoubt, and fired artillery on Prince of Wales
Redoubt and Fort George. British forces were no longer
able to defend Pensacola and surrendered. The official
date for the Spanish recapture of West Florida was May
10, 1781, and Florida was ceded to Spain in 1783 (Coker
1999:38) by the Treaty of Paris, which also formally
ended the American Revolutionary War.
Miranda Account
Miranda’s diary provides even greater detail.
Miranda indicates that the trench line extended eastward
toward Queen’s Redoubt and was constructed in an
existing road or trail (Worcester 1951:182). Miranda
wrote of daily cannon and mortar bombardment of the
Spanish trench and “advanced redoubt” (battery) from
Queen’s Redoubt between April 29 and May 8, 1781
(Worcester 1951:182-191). Excerpts from Worcester
(1951:185-191) provide Miranda’s viewpoint of the
British shelling:
Immediately that the enemy perceived our
work [on the trench line] with the light of day,
he began a cannon and mortar fire, lively at
the beginning, slower later, until at 11 a.m. it
ceased. It had produced for us only two dead
and one wounded (April 29).


138
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (3)
The enemy fire upon us and our trenchworks
on the left has been the most lively and
continuous so far, but it has produced only 8
dead and one wounded (May 3).
Today the enemy fire started as usual and
about 10 a.m. it stopped.
...At 12:30 the enemy began a lively fire of
mortars, cannons, and howitzers over the
Queen’s Redoubt and works to the left of our
parallel, which attracted the attention of as
many of us as heard it in the camp....
The rapidity and good accuracy of the enemy
fire forced our unwise and inexperienced troops
to remain under cover of their entrenchments,
not taking any more risks than those which
could come from the artillery ... (May 4).
The work on our trenches and the construction
of the much-desired battery at the left continues
slowly. Despite the damage by the enemy
howitzers and bombs which we experience
each day, that is the only remedy against this
cruel evil, unavoidable by any other means...
(May 6).
The fire of the enemy batteries has continued
with the same degree of activity and accuracy
as the preceding days. It caused sufficient
damage in our trench... (May 8).
Miranda also provides details about the location of
the “advanced redoubt” attacked by the British on May
4 (Battery 2) and the battery located to the southeast
(Battery 3), from which Queen’s Redoubt was shelled
on May 8. Miranda’s estimates imply Battery 2 was
approximately 500 m (1,640 ft) from Queen’s Redoubt,
800 m (2,625 ft) from Prince of Wales redoubt, and was
on a trench 800 m in length. Miranda also places Battery
3 approximately 420 m (1,380 ft) from Queen’s Redoubt.
Miranda wrote the following about these fortifications
and the trench (Worcester 1951:183):
At dawn all our troops were found under cover
of a trench..., which seemed an immense
work for 700 workers unless we consider the
openness of the sandy terrain (April 29).
...constructing the battery on the left
mentioned previously, which was to mount 8
or 10 cannons of 24 pounds. These can start
firing tomorrow at a distance from the circular
battery or Queen’s Redoubt (May 8).
Miranda’s description of the British attack on May 4
(Worcester 1951:186-187) also helps interpret 8ES3423
artifacts. The description of the artillery shelling and the
chaos that resulted from the infantry attack can be tied
to artifacts recovered and documented at site 8ES3423:
Eighty of them with bayonets fixed thrust
themselves upon our troops in the redoubts,
attacking them from the rear. The soldiers that
were inside the trenches did not expect such a
risk and had stacked their arms. The unwise
officer had begun to eat, and consequently they
had relaxed the vigilance which the occasion
required. An inexperienced guard alone
observed the fort, and with so little attention
that he did not perceive the extraordinary
signals.
...They found themselves surprised, gave up
the position, and fled in haste that introduced a
general disorder in the rest of the troops in that
part. The enemy under these circumstances
was not resisted in taking the advanced
redoubt, which we abandoned immediately,
and following with bayonets those who
were retreating from the forward trench they
wounded and killed as many as they found in
the intermediate branch between this redoubt
and the second one ..., and they took control of
this one also. They captured 5 field pieces that
we had. They set fire to the fascines and gun
mounts, redoubts and trenches and retreated,
carrying with them the silver utensils that they
found on the table of the commander of the
trench, the buckles and money of the dead and
wounded, who amounted in number to about
35 or 40.
... All of these brave officers were dead, and
just like the rest of the soldiers whose wounds
had been received from the front they were
buried facing the enemy, with all military
honors and accompanied by the generals,
chiefs, and officers that were then in the camp.
Farmar Account
The British perspective of the siege also provides
insight about site 8ES3423. Major Robert Farmar’s
journal (Padgett 1943:311-329) indicates that he was
present at Fort George during the entire siege. Farmar’s
statements indicate that the British and their allies
continually harassed the Spanish in their execution of the


Mikell
1781 Spanish Siege of Pensacola
139
siege operations with both artillery and ground forces.
Both sides acknowledge that the actions of the British
and their allies periodically inflicted heavy casualties on
the Spanish forces.
Farmar indicates that the Spanish began their attempt
to gain control of “a hill within the distance of 300 yards
[275 m] from their advanced redoubt” (Queen’s Redoubt)
on April 22 (Padgett 1943:321). In his April 29 entry,
Farmar observed the Spanish entrenchment (Padgett
1943:323), presumably in the same general location.
However, Farmar described the Spanish trench as about
3.2 km (2 mi) long. On May 3, the day before the British
assault on the Spanish “advanced fort” as described by
Miranda (above), Farmar states (Padgett 1943:324):
Last night the enemy was heard working in the
fort of the advanced redoubt, about a distance
of 1/2 a mile & this morning we fired at them
now and then, but could not hurt them as they
were behind a hill. The enemy fired during the
day 534 shot and 186 shells.
Farmar goes on to describe the May 4th British attack
on the Spanish position in similar terms as did Miranda,
except some details and differences in perspective, as
well as the Spanish artillery fire over the next four days
culminating in the Spanish taking of Queen’s Redoubt
(Padgett 1943:324-326). Farmar’s narrative indicates
that even after losing four to six cannon in the assault
on their advanced redoubt (Battery 2), the Spanish were
able to mount artillery bombardment from their gun
emplacements (Battery 3).
On May 6, it was described by Farmar as a “very
heavy fire which hurt our advanced redoubt [Queen’s
Redoubt] very much ...” and on May 8 resulted in the
destruction of the powder magazine and the taking of
Queen’s Redoubt. By Farmar’s account, although
the Spanish siege campaign was hindered by British
defensive actions, the Spanish resolve eventually
resulted in victory.
Other Investigations of the 1781 Siege
In 1974 and 1975, archaeologist Henry Baker
directed excavations at Fort George (8ES46), built by
the British in 1778 atop Gage Hill immediately north
of the town of Pensacola (see maps below). The Fort
George excavations unearthed a portion of the moat
surrounding the fort, portions of the sand and wood walls
and rampart, a powder magazine, and a group of vaulted
brick rooms (latrines?) beneath the parapet. Baker
(1975:iv) surmised that a “complete cross section of the
homwork rampart [that] was the location of a major gun
battery” was excavated. Numerous artifacts from the
late 1700s were recovered that provided tangible insight
into the history of the fort.
Other work associated with the 1781 Siege of
Pensacola (James 2011) includes recording the locations
of Queen’s Redoubt/Fort San Bernardo, Prince of Wales
Redoubt, and the North Baylen Trench site by UWF
(Table 1).
These investigations were limited because they were
in the North Hill Preservation District, but some data
and materials were recovered. The location of Queen’s
Redoubt/Fort San Bernardo was pinpointed (Bense
1989; Phillips et al. 1997), Prince of Wales Redoubt
was located (Bense 1989; Phillips et al. 1997), and an
unexploded 13-inch British mortar shell was recovered
from site 8ES1373 beneath Baylen Street (Joy 1987).
Evidence of the siege had not been documented
outside the North Hill Preservation District prior to the
sewer pipeline project (Mikell 2010). James (2011)
followed the documentation of 8ES3423 with a Master’s
Thesis about the entire 1781 Battle of Pensacola. He
developed and evaluated a method for examining
archaeological landscapes in urban environments, created
a model of the physical and cultural remains relating
to events of the battle, and presented a methodology
for reconciling the modem landscape with the historic
landscape and events.
Table 1. Pensacola Archaeological Sites Mentioned in the Text.
FMSF
Site Name
Also Called
Article Maps Label
8ES22
Third Site of Pensacola, 1722-1756
Presidio Isla de Santa Rosa Pensacola
-
8ES46
Fort George
-
H
8ES1367
Fort San Bernardo
Queen’s Redoubt
F
8ES1373
North Baylen Trench
North Baylen Street
-
8ES2386
Prince of Wales Redoubt
-
G
8ES3422
Moreno Street 1
Brosenham 1
-
8ES3423
1781 Spanish Siege Site 1
Batteries 2 and 3, portions of left flank trenches
D and E
8ES3509
1781 Spanish Siege Site 2
Battery 1, portions of right flank trenches
B


140
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (3)
James (2011:119-126,145-148) included the Spanish
siege archaeology in his investigation and battlefield
model. He reached conclusions like those presented
here. Albeit preliminary in nature and warranting
further archaeological documentation, identifying sites
8ES3423 and 8ES3509 as components of the Spanish
offensive is an important step in the process of locating
the 1781 battlefield.
Archaeological Evidence of the Siege at 8ES3423
Military and associated artifacts were recovered
from shovel tests, during monitoring of pipeline trench
excavation, and from the surface of yards of private
residences. They include .69 caliber musket balls (n=4),
gunflints (n=4), hollow mortar shell fragments (n=35),
solid shot 4-inch cannon balls (n=2), canister or grape
Moreno St
> •
5 A
• •
• K>' "X.
A A
* A
A
•
•
A
A
•A
A#
*26
• •
LU
<
•
<
1
V A
•A
•
8ES3422
• • i
I m • A
8ES3423
Blount St
r
m
1
8#
V 6
•
5
s
• •
^.*3 .
• •
A A
• A *(
•A .
• ,
•
• *E
M *
4—'
F 1/1
a/m <
14
M
Blount:
St
Legend:
positive shovel test
negative shovel test w.
significant surface artifact(s)
location s
current site boundary
artillery (mortar shell fragments, solid cannon shot, grape shot)
musketry (musket balls, gun flints) 0
equipage (buckles, iron spikes, metal objects)
8ES3423
Site Map
100
200
meters
Figure 2. 8ES3423 Site Map Based on Archaeological Evidence as of 2012.


Mikell
1781 Spanish Siege of Pensacola
141
shot (n=2), ferrous metal buckles (n=2), cupreous metal
buckles (n=l), a large iron chisel or wedge, an iron
carriage or utility hook, and an apparent wrought iron
spike fragment. While the context of these artifacts is
far from ideal, most of the potential late 18th-century
military items are of types used by Spanish and British
forces and appear to be evidence that the trench line
and associated gun emplacements (Batteries 2 and 3)
were in the area of 8ES3423. The artifacts recovered
or documented are summarized in Table 2 and their
distribution is depicted in Figure 2.
Table 2. Summary Description of Pertinent* Artifacts from Sites 8ES3423 and 8ES3509.
Specific
Provenience
Depth
(cmbs)
Count
Artifact Description
8ES3423
private
residence
unknown
2
cast iron hollow artillery shell fragments from 8/10-inch diameter shell, 1 with smooth
bore fuse hole, previous find
private
residence
unknown
1
cast iron hollow artillery shell fragment from 8/10-inch diameter shell, previous find
private
residence
unknown
1
cast iron solid artillery shot, 5-inch (101.6 mm) diameter, previous find
private
residence
unknown
4
cast iron hollow artillery shell fragments from 8/10-inch (3) and 13-inch (1) diameter
shells, previous find
private
residence
unknown
1
lead musket ball, .69 caliber (16.4 mm diameter), weight=24.9 g, previous find
private
residence
unknown
1
cast iron hollow artillery shell fragment from 8/10-inch diameter shell, previous find
private
residence
unknown
4
cast iron hollow artillery shell fragments from 8/10-inch diameter shell, 1 with smooth
bore fuse hole, previous find
private
residence
unknown
4
cast iron hollow artillery shell fragments from 8/10-inch (2) and 13-inch (2) diameter
shells, previous find
private
residence
unknown
12
cast iron hollow artillery shell fragments from 8/10-inch (n=8) and 13-inch (n=4)
diameter shell, 4 with smooth bore fuse holes (1 is 13-inch), previous finds
private
residence
unknown
1
cast iron hollow artillery shell fragment from 8/10-inch diameter shell, previous find
private
residence
unknown
1
gray gunflint, 21.5 x 22.1mm, 10.9 mm thick, previous find
private
residence
unknown
1
lead musket ball, .69 caliber (16.4 mm diameter), weight=24.9g, previous find
private
residence
unknown
1
deformed (fired) lead musket ball, .69 caliber (16.4 mm max diameter), weight=25.2g,
previous find
private
residence
unknown
1
cast iron solid artillery shot, 4-inch (101.6 mm) diameter, previous find
surface
surface
1
lead musket ball, .69 caliber (16.4 mm diameter), weight = 25.7g, “A” Street and
Blount Street
pipe trench
30-60
1
wrought iron spike fragment (distal), utility easement on “C” Street just north of
Moreno Street intersection
pipe trench
30-60
1
wrought iron carriage or utility hook, utility easement on “C” Street 12 m north of
Moreno Street intersection
pipe trench
30-45
2
cast iron solid artillery grape shot or canister shot, 41.5 mm (1.5 inch) diameter utility
easement on “C” Street just north of Moreno Street intersection


142
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (3)
Table 2, continued.
Specific
Provenience
Depth
(cmbs)
Count
Artifact Description
pipe trench
30-60
2
cast iron hollow artillery shell fragments, utility easement on “C” Street just north of
Moreno Street intersection
pipe trench
30-60
1
cast iron hollow artillery shell fragment, 10 m north of inter-section of “C” and
Moreno Streets
pipe trench
30-60
1
light gray gunflint with light brown cortex, 24.5 X 23.3 mm, 7.2 mm thick, intersection
of “A” and Moreno Streets
pipe trench
30-60
1
forged iron heavy chisel or wedge; 1.75 inch diameter, 9.5 inch length, intersection of
“A” and Moreno Streets
pipe trench
30-60
2
cast iron hollow artillery shell fragments, 10 to 15 m south of intersection of “A” and
Moreno Streets
utilities
access pit
30-45
1
cast brass equipment buckle, Punta Sigüenza type (Powell 2008), 5 m north of ST 15
utilities
access pit
30-45
1
cast iron hollow artillery shell fragment, 5 m north of ST 15
ST 3
30-40
1
ferrous metal buckle fragment, proximal comer fragment
ST 5
30-45
1
light gray gunflint, fractured, 22.0 X 23.3 mm, 12.2 mm thick
ST 5
30-45
1
small cast iron artillery shell fragment
ST 10
20-35
2
small cast iron artillery shell fragments
ST 14
25-35
1
flattened (fired) musket ball, 24.8g, .69 caliber(?)
ST 14
25-35
1
dark gray “English” gunflint, 24.7 X 21.8 mm, 6.9 mm thick
ST 15
30-40
1
complete ferrous metal buckle, equipment or horse tack buckle, 30.5 X 29.6 mm
ST 26
20-35
1
cast iron hollow artillery shell fragment
8ES3509
surface
2
cast iron hollow artillery shell fragments (no diameter on shell)
surface
2
kaolin tobacco pie stem fragments
surface
1
creamware: edge molded shallow bowl or plate rim fragment
surface
2
pearlware: undecorated jar lid and “fancy” brown and blue annular decorated cup (?)
rim fragment
surface
1
dark olive green bottle neck fragment (heavily patinated, no finish)
*later historic (late 19th century to early 20th century) materials not included
Artillery and Musketry Artifacts
Characteristics of certain artifacts provide evidence
linking them to the Siege of Pensacola. Most convincing
are artillery shell and musketry-related materials
(Figures 3, 4, and 5). British and Spanish artillery of
the period included 8-inch, 10-inch, and 13-inch mortars
and howitzers. British 8-inch, 10-inch, and 13-inch
howitzers were quite common, but the Spanish tended
to prefer 5-inch and 10-inch mortars (NPS 2008). The
8- and 13-inch shell fragments are likely from exploded
shells, suggesting they were fired by the British at
Spanish positions.
A complete, unexploded 13-inch British mortar shell
was recovered from beneath Baylen Street (Joy 1987)
less than 800 m (0.5 mi) east of 8ES3423, and unexploded
(unarmed?) 8- to 10-inch and 13-inch mortar shells were
found during the Fort George excavations (Baker 1975).
The 4-inch diameter, 12-pound solid shot documented
was a common field artillery projectile type during the
18th century and was used up to the American Civil
War. “Twelve pounder cannon” was a common Spanish
field artillery during the siege, however, and they are
mentioned in both the Gálvez and Miranda diaries. The
two 12-pound cannon balls documented could have been
associated with Spanish Battery 2 or 3.


Mikell
1781 Spanish Siege of Pensacola
143
Figure 3. Selected Mortar Shell Fragments from 8ES3423. Top row: 8- to 10-inch shell fragments (n=2) with smooth bore
fuse holes (top) and 13-inch shell fragment with smooth bore fuse hole (top), exterior view. Next row: 8- to 10-inch shell
fragments (n=2) and 13-inch shell fragment, interior view. Bottom left: 13-inch shell fragment, cross section view showing
shell wall thickness.
Figure 4. Solid Cannon Shot of 4-inch Diameter from 8ES3423.


144
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (3)
The hollow shell fragments and grape shot are
consistent with the Gálvez and Miranda descriptions
of the British shelling with mortar and howitzer. The
distribution of shell fragments and grape shot is roughly
in line (relative to Queen’s Redoubt) with the mapped
orientation of the Spanish trench and redoubt attacked by
the British on May 4, 1781. The artillery shell fragments
include 8- to 10-inch (n=22) and 13-inch (n=7) hollow
mortar shell fragments, smaller shell fragments too small
to yield diameter measurements (n=8), and solid iron
grape shot (n=2). Six of the mortar shell fragments (five
8- to 10-inch and one 13-inch fragments) have smooth¬
bore fuse holes, but no fuse hole opening rings.
Both British and Spanish infantry carried .69
caliber smooth bore muskets in the late 1700s (Hogg
and Batchelor 1975; Winsor 1972). While .69 caliber
musket balls (Figure 5) are not temporally diagnostic
and were used up to the Civil War, the fact that only .69
caliber musket balls were found at 8ES3423 is consistent
with other evidence. Gunflints are also not temporally-
specific, but the recovery of a large dark gray “English”
flint and other large, generic gray gunflints (Figure 5)
correlates well with .69 caliber smooth bore muskets.
Figure 5. Artifacts from 8ES3423. Top: iron grape shot (n=2). Middle row: lead .69 caliber musket shot
(n=5). Fourth specimen from left is slightly deformed. Specimen at far right is flattened. Bottom row:
gunflints (n=4). “English” gunflint at far left. Severely spalled and fractured gunflint at far right.


Mikell
1781 Spanish Siege of Pensacola
145
Buckles and Equipage
Besides artillery and musketry artifacts, buckles
provide a link to the siege. Two complete buckles and
one buckle fragment were documented from 8ES3423
(Figure 6). The buckle fragment and one of the whole
buckles are made of ferrous metal and may or may not
be related to the siege, but neither was associated with
later materials. One cupreous metal (brass) buckle was
documented that more readily can be associated with
the 1781 siege. It is identified as a “Punta Sigüenza”
buckle type dated to ca. 1730-1780 (Powell 2008).
Figure 6. Buckles from 8ES3423. Left: cast brass Punta
Sigüenza buckle type. Right: ferrous metal equipment or
tack buckle.
According to Powell (2008), Punta Sigüenza buckles
have been excavated at Presidio Isla de Santa Rosa
Pensacola (1722-1752), the Pensacola area, and the site
of Gálveztown, Louisiana (established 1779). The Punta
Sigüenza buckle was a sliding or adjustable friction
fastener.
Equipage (Figure 7) artifacts are not temporally
diagnostic and cannot be associated with the siege with
certainty. However, their characteristics and presence on
the site suggest that they may be from the siege of 1781.
The forged, heavy iron chisel or wedge seems out of
place for a late 19th-century and later residential setting.
This artifact could be derived from logging in the area
before residential development, but it also could be a
tool used by Spanish troops to split and to shape wooden
timbers to construct trenches and gun emplacements.
The chisel/wedge was recovered from the vicinity of
what is thought to be the general location of a Spanish
“advanced redoubt” (Battery 2).
The same can be said of the wrought iron spike distal
fragment, except that it was found near the anomaly that
may represent a portion of the trench described below.
The wrought iron hook could be Spanish artillery
carriage hardware (tie-down or towing), but it could be
from a 19th-century carriage. However, it is wrought,
lending support to its association with the siege.
Figure 7. Equipage from 8ES3423. a: forged chisel/wedge, b: wrought iron utility (carriage) hook, c: wrought iron
spike distal fragment.


146
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (3)
Archaeological Evidence of the Siege at 8ES3509
Military and associated temporally “correct”
artifacts from 8ES3509 (Figure 8 and 9) include two
cast iron hollow shell fragments. Both are too small for
determining their diameter. They are consistent in width
(thickness) with 8- to 10-inch shell fragments from
8ES3423 and are likely from exploded British shells
fired at Battery 1.
Other artifacts from 8ES3509 are less secure in their
attribution to the 1781 siege. However, because there is
no evidence of later 18th- and early 19th-century activity
in the area, they are potentially associated with Battery
1. These artifacts (Figure 8) include two kaolin pipe
stem fragments with 1.3 to 1.5 mm stem bores, a molded
edge creamware shallow bowl or plate rim fragment, a
“fancy” blue and brown annular decorated pearlware
cup (?) rim fragment, an undecorated pearlware jar lid
fragment, and a fragment of a heavily patinated dark
olive green bottle neck with no finish present.
Figure 8. Artifacts from 8ES3509. a: cast iron hollow mortar shell fragments, b: edge-molded creamware rim
fragment, c: undecorated pearlware jar lid fragment, d: annular decorated pearlware, e: kaolin pipe stem
fragments, f: dark olive green bottle glass.


Mikeix
1781 Spanish Siege of Pensacola
147
Summary of Archaeological Findings
The location of 8ES3423 corresponds to a portion of
a siege trench, an outpost or redoubt, and gun batteries
(Batteries 2 and 3). 8ES3509 correlates with the location
of the initial Spanish gun battery (Battery 1). These
Spanish positions are depicted on maps of the time in
Figures 10 through 13. Figure 14 depicts the projected
location of the Spanish siege positions, based on maps
from Rush (1966) and Coker (1999), the 8ES3423 and
8ES3509 locations, as well as the British positions on the
modem landscape.
The Figure 14 projection places each Spanish
gun battery (Batteries 1, 2, and 3) on high ground
at approximately the same elevation as the British
positions, which would facilitate firing on the British.
This projection onto the modem landscape places a
large portion of the east-west trench line on high ground
extending across a ridge, which would provide military
advantages over the lower ground between the positions
and the British defense works. The first Spanish battery
(Battery 1) is referred to as the Spanish right or right
flank, and the trench and positions (Batteries 2 and
3) within 8ES3423 are the Spanish left flank. James
(201 TFigure 39) presents a similar projected placement
of the Spanish offensive positions (Figure 15).
Dixon School
40
co
CO CO
c
0
c 8ES5509
Brainerd St
k
7)
•
a c
—
[[•a
•
Pm!
\
m c
Gonzalez St
cc
iV p*
LI
DeSntn St
Legend
# significant surface artifact(s)
location
site boundary (prelimenary)
a artillery
c ceramic /glass
o
P kaolin pipe stem
A
N
t\
lOO
8ES3509
Site Map
200
meters
Figure 9. 8ES3509 Site Map Based on Archaeological Evidence as of 2012.


Figure 10. Adaptation of Map of the town of Pensacola conquered by the Spanish Arms at the command of Field Marshall Don Bernard de Gálvez on May 8, 1781
(English translation) (Servicio Histórico Militar, Madrid, Spain). From Rush (1966:132); also digitized in Coker (1999). A: main Spanish camp and garrison;
B: initial Spanish gun battery (Battery 1); C: Spanish siege trenches; D: Spanish battery (Battery 2) attacked by British on May 4, 1781; E: advanced Spanish
battery (Battery 3); F: Queen’s Redoubt (British); G: Prince of Wales Redoubt (British); H: Fort George (British); I: town and Fort of Pensacola (British).
148 The Florida Anthropologist 2019 Vol. 72 (3)


PENSACOLA
!- ! ‘ i*.i
A»,'*, *•** * f/t ■? * ' sll * . . * * *, p k , , ‘ <• -,~V‘ * i A * *
. . -• .,* ii i t,;—jl . » . ‘ * - ’ ,», '‘A - ,.
- v. c‘ /*- / ’■ • A " ,-A /* ‘ *. * -Si .,jVr. a*
/ 4^ ir +r ,s V*** . * •’-**• 4 i , * * ? ,. 1 1 . Í *•... 4 .* , lH * 4*. •*< ♦ k * » l, . ^ » C
s Í* ’ ■ s . • '■••* • , ■- A.s • 's\s :\ A'-
ti í5.-?tw i ’’ >! " 'AsAv •*>'*•.*• \ <■ *' ‘
4 tbj- ♦ itSw-E '
•♦***/.*• **»*»**» ’» , ,
i « .V »% 4Í. .4 J- I Vi {
V * M *4\ » _ ^ 1
* ;
4 \ s w *' â–  v1 *
. > ?; v, *t - * * t i f +
* * v
A A f f * *
4 A
:uj ~/~ »tu %
, 4 4 5 .A,
â–  .^7*'
/nr mi rnmm *
- h’á runis
A» ^ »»*w ff <■<«.
B torn+m ,
: tüf&vfé
r I <« »4Í.:»'4 ^ I
é 0s S m4 SSm' t*
Sf fr* 4.
'S ' *- i
^«wi4 ^ ! »* -
i M !- ! * -í
d,.A*»i fJ> a*,*/*##* **4**<4b, «¥$■
i**#*'- 4 t*x** . r-yt 4
¡ffitoUfat’ ,tSs £i' #»* M 4 Á#
jM V»4i 144/ ■
/ásr^» JSífc.l |Wl¡ 4^» j^í-« - 4j
’0mvtá. 44<***-m MS"if #•■*. n
jl
AAS /*# %
HJUU. .***<*«.«» $■ ■■< ■ M
ymi%&Am /** *»* «:
4»Mr 0
ll Js-jA** y4*%**â– &. *â– *#
>f mt ání*mm M*4 *f **Mg *-■■* %l
+‘4mr #v IS* tés** *
. life* í> ás*nvmt- l
AptÁM 0- rN
i
â–  *4*^^
dUt'mjUtlkij'***’
Figure 11. Plan Ft. George and Adjacent Works at Pensacola in West Florida, Henry Heldring, Capt. Lt. 3rd Regiment ofWaldeck (Heldring 1781). A: main
Spanish camp and garrison; B: initial Spanish gun battery (Battery 1); C: Spanish siege trenches; D: Spanish battery (Battery 2) attacked by British on May
4,1781; E: advanced Spanish battery (Battery 3); F: Queen’s Redoubt (British); G: Prince of Wales Redoubt (British); H: Fort George (British); I: town and
Fort of Pensacola (British).
Mikell 1781 Spanish Siege of Pensacola 149


150
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (3)
Figure 12. Adaptation of Plan of the town of Pensacola, of Fort George and fortifications recently constructed by the British
nation, signed by Don Luis Huet, July 1781 (Huet 1781). B: initial Spanish gun battery (Battery 1); C: Spanish siege
trenches; D: Spanish battery (Battery 2) attacked by British on May 4, 1781; E: advanced Spanish battery (Battery 3); F:
Queen’s Redoubt (British); G: Prince of Wales Redoubt (British); H: Fort George (British).
Miranda’s estimates that the “advanced redoubt”
(Battery 2) was approximately 500 m (1,640 ft) from
Queen’s Redoubt potentially places it in the eastern
portion of 8ES3423. Miranda also placed Battery 3
approximately 420 m (1,380 ft) from Queen’s Redoubt
or in the southeastern portion of 8ES3423. These two
specific locations are in or partially in the eastern half of
site 8ES3423 as it is currently documented.
Alternatively, Farmar describes the Spanish attempt
to control high ground located 275 m (900 ft) from
Queen’s Redoubt, which appears to be short. Farmar’s
estimate of a half-mile (805 m) correlates well with
Miranda’s estimate of the distance between the trench
and Fort George, described as about 500 m from the
enemy fortifications on one side (Queen’s Redoubt) and
800 m on the other (Fort George).
Curiously, there is an account of the battle by
Brigadier General John Campbell, who commanded the
British forces in the British colony of West Florida in
1778 to 1782. Campbell states that on the night of May
7, the Spanish “pushed their approaches ... to within
100 or 150 yards [91 to 137 m] near to the advanced
redoubt [Queen’s Redoubt], where by the next morning
they had made considerable progress in constructing
a battery” (Rush 1966:103). Campbell’s distance
estimated between Queen’s Redoubt and the advanced


Mikell
1781 Spanish Siege of Pensacola
151
las mwedíáá&^sjé
vd2ó JC^JÍbrl
'¿law jut Manifiesten los fumes JnC Jans
su tormo y prefecto dem ^Alague ai dicho
JCJ7&) '
Ucacion
ó sjyítatU^SeMnny
{UifC OüUcarJC un TíJuítO CafOZ/f.l
sirbn %X cola «.^trmtktro.
D tfirm Sguna ,â– 
K fhntü yntLYcná* um un ftño
V '\J&xrtxrt* JC$l Canana
V sjfwn.l /¿atan*** +M<#urüi
jr^y
K J2>¡Utr\iX\X *Mtrrt Canvntf Ctm Mrux&nuU. fuerte
Mpryi QAcím .xutmm
T fuvnt \JerfV.g*u Cmtúu *m«h
Figure 13. Spanish Map titled Map that demonstrates the forts of Pensacola and surrounding area, t/ie terrain, and the plan
of attack as described in the field on April 25, 1781 (English translation), from Martin-Merás (2007).
fort (Battery 3) of the Spanish siege works appears to be
underestimated by other estimates and map depictions.
Unfortunately, conclusive in situ evidence of
Spanish trenches and redoubts was not found during the
pipeline project or later investigations by James (2011).
Such evidence would be artifacts of the period. Specific
military artifacts would include weapons or their parts,
diagnostic (stamped or marked) uniform buttons and
other accoutrements (gorgets, cartridge box seals, etc.),
coins predating 1781, and buried burned or unbumed
timbers or posts in disturbed soil profiles of a trench or
gun pit.
One disturbed soil profile along the pipeline route
(Figures 16 and 17) was identified, a roughly 6 m (20
ft) wide area on “C” Street, just north of the intersection
with Moreno Street. No artifacts were recovered from
the disturbed soil profile. However, this disturbance is
intriguing because its location correlates with the trench
as mapped by the Spanish, and siege-related artifacts
were recovered in proximity (mortar shell fragments,
grape shot, wrought iron hook and spike fragment). The
disturbance is wide enough (4 to 6 m) and deep enough
(approximately 2 m) to be the Spanish trench.


152
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (3)
iwpifijl
Queen’s Redoubt
8ES1367
r
Prince of Wales
Redoubt
IV X u .TJwg.ra^CT^W
vl% LMff
Fort George
8ES46
200
meters
400
Legend
Projected Location of Spanish Siege
Positions on the U.S.G.S. Pensacola
7.5” quadrangle (PR 1987)
(Map 1)
B
D
E
recorded site boundary
initial Spanish battery position (established late March 1781)
’advanced fort” on Spanish trench line attacked by British on May 4, 1781
Spanish battery from which Queen’s Redoubt was destroyed on May 8, 1781
Spanish siege works from "Map of the town of Pensacola conquered by the
Spanish arms at the command of Mariscal de Campo Don Bernardo Galvez
on May 8, 1781" (Rush 1966 and Coker 1999)
Figure 14. Projected Spanish Siege Positions on the Modern Landscape. Based on Rush (1966) map (inset),
archaeological evidence from 8ES3423, and known location of Queen’s Redoubt.


Mikell
1781 Spanish Siege of Pensacola
153
Figure 15. Projected Locations of Spanish Positions on the Modern Landscape (from James 2011:Figure 39).


154
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (3)
Figure 16. Disturbed Soil Profile. Portion of east wall in pipeline trench on “C” Street north of Moreno Street.
Legend
I Stratum I: grayish brown (lOYR 5/2) sand under sod
II Stratum II: red (2.5 YR 5/6 sandy clay road fill
III Stratum III: yellowish brown (lOYR 5/6) sand
IV Stratum IV: brownish yellow (lOYR 6/6) sand
a dark brown (lOYR 3/3) to dark yellowish
brown (lOYR 3/6) sand
b very dark brown (lOYR 2/2) to dark grayish
brown (lOYR 3/2) sand
c pale brown (lOYR 8/2) to light gray (lOYR 7/2) sand
East Wall Profile
Trench Anomaly
North of "C" St.
and Moreno St.
Intersection
0 100 200
centimeters
Figure 17. Diagram of the Soil Anomaly Profile on “C” Street. Compare with photograph in Figure 16.


Mikell
1781 Spanish Siege of Pensacola
155
Evidence from Overlay Mapping
Besides Figure 10 used to compile Figure 14, four
additional maps of the Spanish and British positions
include:
1) The Henry Heldring map (Figure 11), completed for
the British (Reparaz 1993:164; Rush 1966:118-119).
Henry Heldring was a German captain lieutenant in
the Third Regiment of Waldecks, who fought under the
British command during the siege (Rush 1966:118).
2) Two copies of a Spanish map (Figure 12) signed by
Don Luis Huet, dated May 15, 1781 (Rush 1966:136-
137) and July 1781 (Huet 1781; Reparaz 1993:169). A
similar map signed by Francisco de Planas and dated May
27, 1781, shows an alignment of the Spanish positions
virtually identical to the Huet map (Rush 1966:130-131).
3) A fanciful Spanish map, which shows the explosion
of the powder magazine at Queen’s Redoubt and troop
movements, titled “Detail of the Taking of the Stronghold
of Pensacola and the Surrender of West Florida to the
Arms of King Carlos III” (Reparaz 1993:148).
4) A Spanish map (Figure 13) titled “Map that
demonstrates the forts of Pensacola and surrounding
area, the terrain, and the plan of attack as described in
the field on April 25, 1781” from Martin-Merás (2007)
provided by the Pensacola Historical Society.
Baitisj
•Ttdjspfij
Queen’s Redoubt
8ES1367
Queen’s Redoubt
8ES1367
Prince of Wales
Redoubt
Prince of Wales
Redoubt
te,
Queen’s Redoubt
8ES1367
Queen’s Redoubt
8ES1367
Prince of Wales
Redoubt
Prince of Wales
Redoubt
¿¡Mne t
Ir
Fort George
8ES46
Figure 18. Projected Siege Positions on the Modern Landscape. Based on: a: Heldring (1781); b: Huet (1781); c:
Reparaz (1993); d: Martin-Merás (2007), archaeological evidence, and known locations of Queen’s Redoubt and
Fort George.


156
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (3)
In a fashion similar to Figure 14, the positions
depicted in Figure 18 were projected on the modern
landscape by tracing them on digitized copies of original
maps using Adobe Illustratorâ„¢ and placing them on the
area’s topographic map. Two notable patterns emerged.
Each map places the initial Spanish gun battery (Battery
1) on the high ground west of Queen’s Redoubt, where
site 8ES3509 is located. All but one map place a
significant portion of the Spanish siege trench and/or the
advanced redoubt (Battery 2) and advanced fort (Battery
3) within or near site 8ES3423 as it is currently defined
archaeologically.
The variation in the maps may be related to
perspectives of the map makers and their ability to place
the trench works in the landscape as they viewed it.
Figure 14, based on Figure 11, is the “best fit” for terrain
characteristics, the location of archaeological evidence
from sites 8ES3423 and 8ES3509, correlation with
Miranda’s distance estimates, and orientation to British
positions. This map is also considered the most reliable
in its association with the Gálvez diary (Rush 1966).
These maps indicate that the Spanish siege
trenches and gunnery positions were on high ground
and circumvented the “valley” that lay between their
approach and the British defenses in the North Hill
Preservation District and Fort George. While this has
been surmised by many interested in the siege, the
recording of sites 8ES3423 and 8ES3509 and these maps
will help archaeologists to locate an 18th-century historic
landscape in an urban environment (James 2009, 2011).
Conclusions
Although we currently lack in situ evidence
pinpointing components of the Spanish siege line (trench,
advanced redoubt, and advanced fort) within 8ES3423,
the site has yielded materials that may represent remnants
of the trench. Site 8ES3423 is situated approximately
where Spanish maps and descriptions place it relative
to Queen’s Redoubt. Ample evidence indicates that the
British shelled the site area with mortars and howitzers,
while other military artifacts (such as 4-inch sol id cannon
shot, gunflints, and musket balls) suggest that the eastern
portion of the site is a plausible general location of the
redoubt where the British attacked the Spanish advance
on May 4, 1781.
The distribution of mortar shell fragments alone
identifies the general vicinity of the trench and the
redoubt attacked by the British, and other Spanish siege
works. The distribution of British munitions (exploded
8- to 10-inch and 13-inch artillery shell fragments),
grape shot, “English” gunflints, and deformed (fired)
musket balls is strongly suggestive of British shelling
from Queens’ Redoubt and a ground assault at the site.
Similarly, 8ES3509 consists of the right types of artifacts
in the right location to allow preliminary association
with the general location of the initial Spanish battery.
The abundance of archaeological material extracted
from 8ES3423 highlights the site area’s significance.
When combined with artifacts identified during the
resident surveys by James (2011), nearly 50 18th-century
exploded cast-iron hollow artillery shell fragments were
found in the area of 8ES3423. “The abundance of
military ordinance at this location further demonstrates
the high probability of delineating this area as the site of
the Spanish works” (James 2011:167).
The evidence to date suggests that a fierce
bombardment by the British targeted a Spanish
entrenchment at the 8ES3423 location, where the Spanish
were on high ground and likely targeting Queen’s
Redoubt. The highest concentration of artillery and
other military artifacts is associated with 8ES3423, but
there is little doubt that the site will be expanded or new
sites recorded as additional investigations are conducted.
In fact, data obtained by James (2011:169) indicate that
8ES3423 likely should be expanded to the north and east
to cover the elevated topography that was beyond the
scope of the initial recording of 8ES3423 (Mikell 2010).
Acknowledgments
I would like to acknowledge the assistance and
cooperation of personnel with Utility Service Company
of Gulf Breeze, Florida. They made discoveries
described here possible. They mi 1 led asphalt and gingerly
removed fill under my direction so testing could be done
ahead of trenching and pipe laying. Without their help
during the Emerald Coast Utilities Authority wastewater
treatment relocation project, this investigation would
have yielded few results. Property owners in the area of
site 8ES3423 kindly provided access to artifacts found
on their properties over the years. This was of great help
in documenting 8ES3423.
I am grateful to John Phillips of the University of
West Florida who shared ideas about the location of
siege trenches. My hat is off to Larry James, who while a
graduate student at the University of West Florida, shared
ideas, data, and maps with me. Finally, the late Brian
O. Shoemaker, my friend and colleague at Panamerican
Consultants, Inc., contributed significantly to fieldwork
and preparation of the project report.


Mikell
1781 Spanish Siege of Pensacola
157
References Cited
Baker, Henry A.
1975 Archaeological Investigations at Fort George,
Pensacola, Florida. Miscellaneous Project
Report Series Number 24. Florida Division of
Archives, History, and Records Management,
Tallahassee.
Baker, Maury, and Margaret Bissler Haas (editors)
1977 Bernardo de Gálvez’s Combat Diary
for the Battle of Pensacola, 1781. Florida
Historical Quarterly 56(2): 189-194.
Bense, Judith A.
1989 Pensacola Archaeological Survey, Volumes 1
and 2. Pensacola Archaeological Society
Publication 2. Pensacola, Florida.
Coker, William S.
1999 Pensacola, 1686-1821. In Archaeology of
Colonial Pensacola, edited by Judith A. Bense,
pp. 5-60. University Press of Florida,
Gainesville.
Ferrer-Dalmau Magazine
2015 Cuadro por españa y por el rey, Galvez en
America. Oil on canvas by Augusto Ferrer-Dal¬
mau. Digital image, http://www.fdmagazine.es/
FD10/fdl0.html#p=40. accessed January 2015.
https://en.wikipedia.Org/wiki/File:Cuadro_por_
espa%C3%Bla_y_por el rev. Galvez en
America.ipg. accessed August 2019.
Heldring, Henry
1781 Plan of Fort George and Adjacent Works at
Pensacola in West Florida. William L.
Clements Library, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor.
Hogg, Ian V., and John H. Batchelor
1975 Armies of the American Revolution. Prentice-
Hall Inc. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Huet, Don Louis
1781 Plan of the town of Pensacola, of Fort George
in Pensacola, West Florida and fortifications
constructed recently by the British Nation.
Electronic file: USA-04-14. Instituto de
Historia y Cultura Militar, Archivo General
Militar de Madrid.
James, Larry B.
2009 Hidden Vestiges: An Approach to Recognizing
an 18th Century Historic Landscape Within an
Urban Environment. Paper presented at the
2009 Florida Anthropological Society Meeting,
Pensacola.
2011 Hidden Vestiges: An Approach to Recognizing
an 18th Century Historic Landscape Within An
Urban Environment. M.A. thesis, Department
of Anthropology, University of West Florida,
Pensacola.
Joy, Deborah
1987 Archaeological Investigations Along North
Baylen Street in North Hill, Pensacola,
Florida: Report of Investigations 11. Office
of Cultural and Archaeological Research,
University of West Florida, Pensacola.
Martin-Merás, Mia Luisa
2007 Map that demonstrates the forts of Pensacola
and surrounding area, the terrain, and the
plan of attack as described in the field on
April 25, 1781. In Bernardo de Galvez y Su
Tiempo (Pensacola Chapter). Published by
Colegio Oficial de Ingenieros Tenicos
Industriales de Malaga, Malaga.
Mikell, Gregory A.
2001 Phase 1B Cultural Resource Survey of the
Proposed AT&T New Orleans, Louisiana to
Pensacola, Florida Fiber Optics Route
through Portions of Pensacola, Florida.
Panamerican Consultants, Inc., Tuscaloosa,
Alabama.
2010 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of
the Proposed Emerald Coast Utilities Authority
Main Street Wastewater Treatment Plant
Relocation, High Probability Areas 1-6,
Archaeological Testing and Pipeline
Trench Construction Monitoring, Escambia
County, Florida. Report for Baskerville-
Donovan, Inc. and Hatch-Mott-McDonald, Inc.,
by Panamerican Consultants, Inc., Pensacola.


158
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (3)
National Park Service (NPS)
2008 Artillery Through the Ages, A Short Illustrated
History of Cannon, Emphasizing Types Used
in America. Interpretive Series History No. 3
(1955). Electronic document, http://www.nps.
gov/historv/history/online_books/source/is3/
is3c3.htm. accessed October 2008.
Padgett, Janies A. (editor)
1943 Bernardo De Gálvez’s Siege of Pensacola in
1781 As Related in Robert Farmar’s Journal.
The Louisiana Historical Quarterly 26(2).
Phillips, John C., Lee McKenzie,
and William Anderson
1997 The Geographic Information System and
Cultural Resource Management in Pensacola,
Florida. University of West Florida Institute
of West Florida Archaeology, Report of
Investigations 60. Pensacola, Florida.
Powell, John T.
2008 Military Artifacts of Spanish Florida, 1539-
1821, An Internet Museum. Spanish Military
Buckles of the Floridas and Louisiana, ca.
1700-1821. Electronic document, http://www.
artifacts.org/Bucklepage.htm. accessed July
2016.
Reparaz, Carmen
1993 1 Alone, Bernardo de Gálvez and the Taking
of Pensacola in 1781; A Spanish Contribution
to the Independence of the United States.
English version, Translated by Walter
Rubin. Ediciones de Cultura Hispánica,
Instituto de Cooperación Ibero-Americana,
Madrid.
Rush, N. Orwin
1966 The Battle of Pensacola. Florida State
University Studies 48, Tallahassee.
United States Geological Survey (USGS)
1978 Pensacola, Florida. 7.5 minute quadrangle
sheet, photo-revised 1987. Washington, D.C.
Winsor, Justin
1972 The American Revolution. Land’s End Press,
New York.
Worcester, Donald E. (Translator)
1951 Miranda’s Diary of the Siege of Pensacola,
1781. Florida Historical Quarterly
30(3): 164-192.


TRENDS IN GRAVE MARKER ATTRIBUTES IN GREENWOOD CEMETERY,
ORLANDO, FLORIDA
Erin K. Martin
Department of Anthropology, University of Central Florida, 4000 Central Florida Blvd., Howard Phillips Hall, Room
309, Orlando, FL 32816 Erinmartinfaknights. ucf edu
John J. Schultz
National Center for Forensic Science, 12354 Research Parkway, Suite 225, Orlando, FL 32816 iphi^schultz^ucfedu
J. Marla Toyne
Department of Anthropology, University of Central Florida, 4000 Central Florida Blvd., Howard Phillips Hall, Room
309, Orlando, FL 32816 J.Marla. TovneCwucf.edu
Introduction
Greenwood Cemetery in Orlando, Florida, is
important in the community as a large garden cemetery
with a wide variety of grave markers and a long time
range from the late 1800s to the present day. The purpose
of our research is to analyze a sample of grave marker
attributes in two sections of the cemetery and to evaluate
change over time following methodology outlined by
Meyers and Schultz (2016). This study evaluates grave
marker design, material, iconography, and epitaphs. Our
research also investigates how characteristics, such as age
and inferred sex of the decedent, may affect the mortuary
context of an individual. We note that our sample (Table
1) is roughly equal for males and females, but it is biased
for adults (1,012 of 1,102, or 92%), especially “old”
adults (56 years or older, 802 of 1,102 or 73%). This
bias makes our attribute analysis more robust for adults
than for teens, children, and infants.
Background
Cemeteries are socially constructed places for
interment of dead community members (Rugg 2000).
They contain historical and cultural data so those who
study them often refer to them as “museums” (Meyer
1992). In many cultures, each individual plot is marked
in a meaningful way (Rugg 2000). In North American
and European traditions, graves are often identified with
specific, permanent monuments. These grave markers
are carefully crafted, historically specific material
culture and are of interest to a wide range of disciplines,
including history, genealogy, anthropology, geography,
art, and folklore (Meyer 1992; Carmack 2002).
Historians and genealogists use cemeteries to
gather biographical data about individuals and events.
Anthropologists study cemeteries to explore cultural
changes related to beliefs about death, identity, and
memory over time (Pearson 1999; Chesson 2001;
Cannon 2002; Brown 2008). In addition, data from grave
markers can be used to study epidemics, socioeconomic
status, infant mortality, family structure, migration, life
expectancy, religion and many other topics (Meyer 1992;
Brown 2008; Carmack 2002).
Cemetery Studies in Florida
Florida has not had extensive cemetery research
compared to New England (Bunnel 1992; Renkin
2000; Brennan 2011) and New York (Culbertson
and Randall 1987; Goerlich 1987; Wright 2011). Of
limited publications about Florida cemeteries, many are
historical, with the purpose to document or to inventory,
rather than to understand more about the people
who created them. For example, one book contains
photographs and assorted facts about historic cemeteries
in Tampa (Bender and Dunham 2013), another explores
multiple cemeteries via descriptions of intriguing
individuals interred in them (Haskins 2011).
Although most publications about cemeteries in
Florida are non-academic, many important studies
have been conducted. One is a comprehensive survey
of folk graveyards in Wakulla County, which includes
information about populations, cemetery history, grave
markers, epitaphs, and other characteristics (Stokes
1991). Another study contains abundant information
about the history of cemeteries, and their populations,
in Duval County (Edwards 1956). A study of African
American cemeteries and mortuary practices was
conducted in north Florida (Nigh 1997). In recent years,
cemetery research in Florida has included study of
fraternal iconography in Greenwood Cemetery (Murphy
2007), grave markers in two Orange County cemeteries
(Robinson 2018), and a preliminary study of epitaphs in
five Florida cemeteries (Patrick 2018).
2019 Vol. 72(3)
The Florida Anthropologist
159


160
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (3)
Another important study conducted by Meyers and
Schultz (2016) involved grave markers in ten cemeteries
in Florida. The research focused on various grave
marker attributes and their frequency in specific time
periods across five counties in peninsular Florida. Here,
this article presents the first comprehensive analysis of
grave marker attributes in the Orlando area.
Greenwood Cemetery, Orlando
Historical information about Greenwood Cemetery
was provided by Stockton (2012a, 2012b) and by
personal communication in 2017 with Donald Price,
the sexton (caretaker) of Greenwood Cemetery. Prior
research of Greenwood Cemetery addressed genealogy
(Stockton 2012a, 2012b) and fraternal iconography
(Murphy 2007). Prior to 1880 and the establishment
of Greenwood Cemetery, Orlando did not have a single
central cemetery. Most individuals were buried in family
plots on private property or in small churchyards. The
land for Greenwood Cemetery was originally purchased
by eight Orlando residents. Following its acquisition
by local government in 1892, burials from multiple
small cemeteries in the Orlando area were exhumed and
reinterred at the cemetery (Stockton 2012a, 2012b). The
City of Orlando still owns and maintains the cemetery.
Greenwood Cemetery is composed of 50 blocks,
most of which are available to all residents of Orlando
able to pay the required plot fee, while others are reserved
for certain subpopulations, such as the babyland block,
American Legion block, and two segregated blocks. The
segregated blocks were reserved for non-whites, while
other blocks were for whites only. The cemetery was
desegregated in the mid-1960s, after the segregated
blocks became full. Prior to desegregation, Greenwood
Cemetery was unique in its method of segregation as
it was the only cemetery in Orlando in which African
American and white individuals were buried within
the same fence line. Following desegregation, non¬
whites became eligible for internment across the entire
cemetery, including in blocks that were previously white-
only (Donald Price, personal communication 2017; City
of Orlando 2019).
Overall, few restrictions are applied to grave
markers in Greenwood Cemetery. Marker materials
are restricted to granite, marble, and bronze, owing to
durability. The shape of markers is restricted in two
sections of the cemetery, but these were not in our
sample. Unfortunately, the cemetery did not retain a
timeline about restrictions (City of Orlando 2019).
Mortuary Theory
Grave markers are a reflection of the deceased
individual and the society in which the individual lived.
Mortuary theory serves as a framework for understanding
the relationship between the mortuary context of a
deceased individual and their society (Saxe 1970;
Binford 1971; Beck 1995). This approach relies on the
notion that mortuary contexts, including grave markers,
do not simply reflect a deceased individual, but rather a
person who had relationships with others according to
rules of their social system (Saxe 1970; Binford 1971).
The notion of social persona is important in
mortuary archaeological theory, as funerary contexts are
assumed to represent specific facets of the social persona
of the deceased individual (Saxe 1970; Binford 1971;
Beck 1995). Living individuals, the surviving family
or community members, may decide the characteristics
of the deceased that are important and appropriate
for immortalization in the mortuary setting. These
decisions are based on rules and structure in the larger
social system and change over time (Saxe 1970; Pearson
1999). Therefore, the mortuary context, including the
grave marker, of a deceased individual can provide
information about both the deceased and the values of
the sociocultural system in which they lived (Pearson
1999).
Specific aspects of the life of a deceased individual
may be represented in some manner in their mortuary
context (Saxe 1970; Binford 1971; Chesson 2001),
possibly via iconography, epitaph, or grave marker
design. These attributes may allow demographic
characteristics, such as age at death and inferred sex, to
influence the resulting mortuary context. For example,
the grave marker of a five-year-old girl may include an
iconographic imagine or epitaph which would not be
present on the grave marker of a sixty-year-old woman.
The process of creating and maintaining a mortuary
context serves multiple purposes, many of which serve
the needs and interests of living individuals rather
than those of the deceased individual (Cannon 2002).
However, in modem societies, living individuals may
choose to detail a mortuary preference in a will prior to
their death. Thus, death is a significant altering moment
in a family and community.
Through mortuary practices, we shape our responses
to this social loss. The treatment of the body, including
burial in a cemetery, allows survivors the opportunity
to shape the process through which they memorialize
the dead. Funerary rites, including the creation of
mortuary structures, such as grave markers, are related
to expressions of grief, mourning, and human agency as


Martin, Schultz, Toyne
Trends in Grave Markers
161
much as they are related to social traditions of a specific
community (Pearson 1999; Cannon 2012). The analysis
of grave marker morphology can allow us to identify
patterns and changes in those social expressions across
space and time.
Methodology of Attribute Analysis
Permission to conduct research at Greenwood
Cemetery was provided by Sexton Donald Price.
Greenwood Cemetery is composed of 50 blocks and
three units and occupies 92 acres. Methodology follows
Meyers and Schultz (2016), and specific modifications
in this analysis are identified below. The attributes are
marker design, marker material, iconography, epitaph,
and presence or absence of footstones, curbs, and
memorial photographs.
Sample Size
Data were collected from each grave marker in
Greenwood Cemetery Block A and Block 9. These
sections were sampled based on the dates of interment
within each section, as well as their size, because a
goal of this research was to collect data on a sample of
comparable size to that of Meyers and Schultz (2016).
Block A is the oldest section in Greenwood Cemetery
and thus it provided information about a number of pre-
1900 grave markers through to the modern day. Block
9, opened for internment in the mid-1950s, provided
information from mid-century to modem day. Both
blocks are composed of general population interments,
meaning that, following desegregation, these blocks
were not reserved for a specific subpopulation and are
inclusive of any Orlando resident able to pay the required
plot fee.
Data were analyzed from a total of925 grave markers
representing 1,102 distinct individuals. Therefore, when
analyzing trends such as individual iconography and
epitaph, it is necessary to analyze them separately rather
than as a unit. However, characteristics related to the
grave marker itself, rather than the individual, such
as marker design or marker material, will be analyzed
on a grave marker basis regardless of the number of
individuals represented by the grave marker. Data were
collected and analyzed on 547 female and 555 male
individuals (Table 1).
The comparative sample of Meyers and Schultz
(2016) consisted of data from ten cemeteries across
peninsular Florida. These cemeteries vary in size and
population, and from well-maintained to neglected.
They include traditional black, public, privately owned,
and family cemeteries.
MALE
FEMALE
TOTAL
Infant
29
16
45
Child
13
12
25
Teen
11
9
20
Young
Adult
28
39
67
Middle Age
Adult
82
61
143
Old Adult
392
410
802
TOTAL
555
547
1,102
Table 1. Frequency by Inferred Sex and Age at Death
Categories (see text) of the Sample from Block A and
Block 9, Greenwood Cemetery.
Marker Design
A category was assigned to each grave marker based
on the general design of the marker, mostly its shape.
For a grave marker representing multiple individuals,
data were recorded separately for each person. Our
design categories include beveled, cube, cross, ground,
ledger, slant, upright, vaults, joint vase, obelisk and
miscellaneous (Figure 1). The miscellaneous category
includes post, table, scroll top desk, T-bar, wooden,
Woodmen of the World, custom laser designs, and
temporary markers. The miscellaneous category was
created to include the marker designs thought to appear
less frequently. Military markers were in the study by
Meyers and Schultz (2016) but were excluded here
because Greenwood Cemetery has a specific section
dedicated to interment of military veterans that was not
included in this study. A new category, Joint Vase, was
used in the present study.
Marker Material
These include granite, marble, bronze, other metals,
sandstone, cement, and miscellaneous materials (Figure
2). The latter category includes ceramic, tile, and wood.
Iconographic Images
Images include animal, banner, floral, fraternal, heart,
landscape, military, matrimonial, musical, open book,
professional, patriotic, religious, scroll, sunburst, sport/
hobby, and miscellaneous (Figure 3). The miscellaneous


162
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (3)
Joint Vase
3. ABBOTT HILLS
AMO
RACE E. ABBOTT
DRQyV'-J.EO
ouNE 27. 188?
VERA I. ípUILL
Cube
Ground
Miscellaneous
Slant
Bevel
Figure 1. Grave Marker Types in Block A and Block 9, Greenwood Cemetery.


Martin, Schultz, Toyne
Trends in Grave Markers
163
Marble
Miscellaneous
Bronze
Granite
Other Metals
Cement
Figure 2. Grave Markers Showing Material Types in
Block A and Block 9, Greenwood Cemetery.
category includes any design, such as a geometric shape,
that does not fit in any other category as it is not meant to
represent any specific object. It is possible for one grave
marker, or individual, to be represented by multiple
categories of iconography.
Epitaph
After we documented them, each epitaph was placed
in a category. Categories include familial, genealogical,
military, memorial, personal information, religious,
geographical, and other (Table 2). The “other” category
includes any literary inscription that does not fit in a
previous category.
Table 2. Epitaph Categories with Examples from Block A
and Block 9, Greenwood Cemetery.
EPITAPH
CATEGORY EXAMPLE EPITAPH
Familial
“Beloved Mother and Grandmother”
“Wife of C. E Wade”
Genealogical
“Children of Jos. B. & Mae L. Davis”
“Mother of Rosa Summerall”
Geographical
“Monroe City, MO.”
Military
“SSGT US ARMY WORLD WAR II”
“Spanish-American War. Cuba and The
Philippines. Major, Medical Corps. U.S
Army. World War I.”
Memorial
“In sweet memory of my dear wife”
“At Rest”
Personal
Information
“Most Excellent Grand High Priest,
Grand Chapter, Royal Arch Masons
of Florida.”
“Aged 54 Years”
“Married Oct 2, 1948”
Religious
“In thee 0 Lord have I put my trust”
“The Lord is my Shepard”
Other
“Good and True”
“Peace I leave with you. Peace I give
to you.” (Biblical, John 14:27)
Footstones, Curbs, and Memorial Photograph
Footstones are placed by the foot of the deceased
individual while curbs border the entire burial site.
Memorial photographs, often made of ceramic or
porcelain, provide a visual representation of the deceased
individual, usually in the form of a portrait. Footstones
and curbs are used to delineate the boundaries of a
plot. For this research, footstones, curbs, and memorial
photographs were noted as either present or absent.
Demographic Information
The demographic information that we documented
includes the recorded age at death and inferred sex of
each individual. The age at death, in years, of each
individual was calculated based on birth and death
dates inscribed on the grave marker, and occasionally,
an epitaph detailing the age of the deceased individual.
Then, the deceased individual was placed in an age at
death category including infants (1 year and below),


164
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (3)
children (2-12 years), teenagers (13-19 years), young
adults (20-35 years), middle age adults (36-55 years),
and old adults (56 years and above).
The sex of each individual was inferred using the
name and epitaph inscribed on the grave marker. Most
names are commonly associated with male or female
individuals. Ambiguous names were assigned to the
male or female category if pronouns were present in an
epitaph. Pronouns that allow the determination of sex
include he, she, his, her, and him. If the name was not
gender specific, and pronouns were not included, the
data were assigned to an indeterminate sex category.
Analysis of Trends
Conforming to Meyers and Schultz (2016), our time
periods are pre-1900, 1900-1919, 1920-1939, 1940-
1959, 1960-1979, 1980-1999, and 2000-2017. These
are 20-year intervals, except pre-1900 and 2000-2017.
The pre-1900 category was created to diminish the rarity
of such early grave markers in Florida (Meyers and
Schultz 2016). Data were compiled and analyzed based
on the total frequency of each attribute in the temporal
categories, age at death categories, and inferred sex.
Animal Open Book Fraternal Musical
Floral Miscellaneous Design
Figure 3. Iconographic Types in Block A and Block 9, Greenwood Cemetery.


Martin, Schultz, Toyne
Trends in Grave Markers
165
Results
Marker Design
Marker design was highly variable through all
periods, although trends were detected across decades
(Table 3). Overall, upright markers were the most
common in the total sample, representing 30% of markers
across all periods, followed by beveled markers at 25%.
Slant and ground markers were also prevalent across all
periods, representing 17% and 15%, respectively.
Upright markers were most common from 1880 to
1919, ranging from 55% to 89%. They became dominant
again from 2000 to 2017 at 35%. Beveled markers had
the highest appearance from 1920 to 1999, ranging from
26% to 35%. Obelisks were prevalent from 1880 to
1919, but were not noted after 1939. Cross, cube, ledger,
and miscellaneous markers were infrequent. Vault and
custom laser markers were not in Block A or Block 9.
Marker Material
Grave marker material was highly variable through
time, but trends are noted (Table 4). Granite represents
74% of markers, followed by marble at 21%. Other
materials are each 1% or less of the total sample.
Markers of marble decreased greatly in number,
from 51% in 1880-1899 to 8% in 2000-2017. Granite
became more prevalent than marble in 1920-1939, and
increased to 81% of markers in 2000-2017. Cement
markers comprised 7% in 1880-1899, then decreased in
frequency from 1900 to 1939, and were not observed in
later periods. Bronze, other metals, and miscellaneous
materials were infrequent. The “other metals” category
included a variety, the most frequent being zinc.
Sandstone did not appear in Block A or Block 9.
Footstones, Curbs, and Memorial Photographs
Footstones, curbs, and memorial photographs
were uncommon in Greenwood Cemetery. Only 3%
of markers in the total sample included a footstone or
curb. Curbs were most frequent from 1880 to 1939,
ranging from 4% to 6%. Footstones were most frequent
in 1880-1899, but only on 2% of markers. Only 2% of
grave markers in the total sample included a memorial
photograph. Memorial photographs did not appear until
1940-1959 and are most frequent at 9% in 2000-2017.
Trends in Iconography
Of 925 individual grave markers, 55% contained at
least one image. Numerous individuals had more than
one image on their grave marker. Overall, 621 images
were sampled (Table 5). Floral iconography was most
common (49%), followed by religious iconography
(16%). Miscellaneous iconography was 12% of the total
sample. Floral iconography was predominant (49%) in
1880-1899 and again from 1940 to 2017 (ranging from
40% to 67%). Miscellaneous images were the most
common from 1900 to 1939, ranging from 45% to 48%.
Table 3. Numbers of Grave Markers by Design Type and Time Period in Block A and Block 9, Greenwood Cemetery.
Pre-
1900
1900-
1919
1920-
1939
1940-
1959
1960-
1979
1980-
1999
2000-
2017
Cemetery
Total
Percent
Beveled
12
21
29
74
63
24
9
232
25
Cross
0
2
2
1
0
0
0
5
>1
Cube
4
6
6
1
0
0
0
17
2
Ground
3
7
16
46
34
21
14
141
15
Ledger
1
11
8
1
2
0
0
23
2
Obelisk
16
8
2
0
0
0
0
26
3
Slant
13
24
19
44
35
16
4
155
17
Upright
64
89
25
30
33
18
17
276
30
Joint Vase
0
0
1
12
20
5
2
40
4
Mise.
2
4
1
0
0
1
2
10
1
Vault
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Custom Laser
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
115
172
109
209
187
85
48
925
100


166
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (3)
Table 4. Number of Grave Markers by Material and Time Period in Block A and Block 9, Greenwood Cemetery.
Pre-
1900-
1920-
1940-
1960-
1980-
2000-
Cemetery
Percent
1900
1919
1939
1959
1979
1999
2017
Total
Bronze
0
1
0
2
4
3
3
13
1
Granite
43
79
81
196
174
73
39
685
74
Sandstone
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Marble
59
85
23
10
9
8
4
198
21
Other Metals
2
4
2
0
0
1
1
10
1
Cement
8
2
1
0
0
0
0
11
1
Mise.
3
1
2
1
0
0
1
8
>1
Total
115
172
109
209
187
85
48
925
100
Table 5. Frequency of Iconographic Categories by Time Period in Block A and Block 9, Greenwood Cemetery. These data
represent the total number of images sampled on grave markers, as some markers contain more than one image.
Pre- 1900- 1920- 1940- 1960- 1980- 2000- Cemetery
Percent
1900 1919 1939 1959 1979 1999 2017 Total
Animal
8
6
0
1
0
1
1
17
3
Banner
3
2
2
1
1
3
0
12
2
Floral
21
28
12
72
96
47
30
306
49
Fraternal
3
9
2
7
8
3
0
32
5
Matrimonial
1
0
1
0
0
4
6
12
2
Open Book
2
1
0
0
12
8
7
30
5
Religious
3
7
3
14
33
19
20
99
16
Scroll
2
2
0
10
5
1
4
24
4
Sport/Hobby
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
>1
Patriotic
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
>1
Professional
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
3
>1
Military
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
>1
Heart
0
0
0
0
0
2
5
7
1
Musical
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
>1
Landscape
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
>1
Mise.
0
47
19
3
3
0
0
72
12
Sunburst
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Iconography
Total
43
105
40
108
160
90
75
621
-
Percent
7%
17%
6%
17%
26%
15%
12%
100%
100%


Martin, Schultz, Toyne
Trends in Grave Markers
167
Trends in Epitaph
The frequency of epitaphs was highly variable
through time (Figure 4). Of 925 grave markers, 38% had
at least one epitaph. Numerous individuals had more
than one epitaph. Overall, 434 epitaphs were identified
(Table 6). Familial epitaphs were most common (28%),
followed by memorial and personal information epitaphs
(17% each). Familial epitaphs were the most consistent
type through time, ranging from 18% to 43% from 1880
to 2017.
Trends in Iconography for Females
Of 547 females, 44% had a marker with at least one
image. Overall, there were 307 images on the grave
markers of females (Table 7). Floral images were most
popular (53%). For infant females, floral and animal
images were equal, 38% each. Animal iconography was
most common (66%) among female children. Floral
iconography was most prevalent among teens (66%),
young adults (45%), middle age adults (52%), and old
adults (55%).
Epitaph Trends for Females
Of 547 females, 30% had at least one epitaph.
Overall, there were 204 epitaphs on grave markers
of females (Table 8). Familial epitaphs are the most
prevalent in the sample of females (40%), followed by
memorial and personal information epitaphs, at 17%
each. A number of trends were noted among age groups.
Genealogical epitaphs are most common among female
Figure 4. Trends in Iconography and Epitaph in Block A and Block 9, Greenwood Cemetery.
Table 6. Frequency of Epitaph Categories by Time Period in Block A and Block 9, Greenwood Cemetery. These data
represent the total number of epitaphs sampled on grave markers, as some markers have more than one epitaph.
Pre-
1900
1900-
1919
1920-
1939
1940-
1959
1960-
1979
1980-
1999
2000-
2017
Cemetery
Total
Percent
Familial
20
22
12
19
16
17
17
123
28
Genealogical
13
13
2
0
2
1
0
31
7
Geographical
7
8
1
5
1
0
0
22
5
Memorial
19
32
3
0
5
6
9
74
17
Military
0
5
1
7
20
6
5
44
10
Personal Info.
24
25
6
1
2
9
5
72
17
Religious
13
14
7
12
6
2
4
58
14
Other
1
4
0
0
1
1
3
10
2
Epitaph Total
97
123
32
44
53
42
43
434
-
Percent
22%
28%
8%
10%
12%
10%
10%
100%
100%


168
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (3)
Table 7. Age Distribution of Iconographic Categories on Grave Markers of Females in Block A and Block 9,
Greenwood Cemetery. These data represent the total number of images sampled for females, as some markers have
more than one image.
Infant
Child
Teen
Young
Adult
Middle
Age Adult
Old Adult
Cemetery
Total
Percent
Animal
3
2
0
1
0
3
9
3
Banner
0
0
0
1
2
3
6
2
Floral
3
0
2
9
17
131
162
53
Fraternity
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
2
Heart
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
2
Landscape
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Military
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Matrimonial
0
0
0
1
0
5
6
2
Music
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Open Book
0
0
0
1
1
16
18
6
Professional
0
0
0
T
0
0
0
0
Patriotic
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Religious
1
1
0
1
3
32
38
12
Scroll
0
0
0
0
1
10
11
3
Sun
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sport/Hobby
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Miscellaneous
1
0
1
6
9
30
47
15
Images Total
8
3
3
20
33
240
307
100
Percent
3%
1%
1%
6%
11%
78%
100%
_
Table 8. Age Distribution of Epitaph Categories on Grave Markers of Females in Block A and Block 9, Greenwood
Cemetery. These data represent the total number of epitaphs sampled for females, as some markers have more than
one epitaph.
Infant
Child
Teen
Young
Adult
Middle
Age Adult
Old Adult
Cemetery
Total
Percent
Family
1
0
1
9
15
56
82
40
Genealogical
5
1
0
1
1
6
14
7
Military
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
>1
Memorial
0
2
1
3
10
19
35
17
Personal Info.
1
0
0
5
6
22
34
17
Religious
0
1
1
3
4
19
28
14
Geographical
0
0
0
0
3
3
6
3
Other
0
1
0
0
1
2
4
2
Epitaph Total
7
5
3
21
40
128
204
100
Percent
3%
3%
1%
10%
20%
63%
100%
-


Martin, Schultz, Toyne
Trends in Grave Markers
169
infants (71%), and memorial epitaphs are most common
among female children (40%). Familial epitaphs are
the most prevalent type among females of young adults
(43%), middle age adults (38%), and old adults (44%).
Trends in Iconography for Males
Of 555 males, 49% had at least one iconographic
image, but numerous individuals had more than one
image. Overall, 333 images were on markers of males
(Table 9). Images were highly variable, though trends
were noted among age groups. Floral iconography was
the most prevalent type in the total sample of males
(43%), followed by religious (18%). Floral images are
the only type present in all male age groups (n=144) and
the only type in the child age group (n=l). The most
common type among male infants is animal iconography
(50%). Among male teens (n=3), miscellaneous
iconography is most prevalent (n=2). The most, and
equally, present types among young adult males are
floral and miscellaneous images (38% each). Lastly,
religious images are most popular for middle age adult
males (33%), while floral iconography predominates
among old males (47%).
Trends in Epitaph for Males
Of 555 males, 34% had at least one epitaph and
many had more than one. Overall, 230 epitaphs were
identified on markers of males (Table 10). The most
frequent epitaph categories for males are military (19%),
followed by familial (18%). A number of trends occur
across age groups. Most common among male infants
are genealogical epitaphs (48%). For male children,
memorial epitaphs are most common (33%). Among
male teens, religious are most frequent (50%). Memorial
epitaphs are the most popular (40%) among young adult
males. Most prevalent among middle age adult males
are military epitaphs (31%), while familial epitaphs are
common among old adult males (23%).
Table 9. Age Distribution of Iconographic Categories on Grave Markers of Males in Block A and Block 9,
Greenwood Cemetery. These data represent the total number of images sampled for males, as some markers have
more than one image.
Infant
Child
Teen
Young
Adult
Middle
Age Adult
Old Adult
Cemetery
Total
Percent
Animal
6
0
0
0
0
2
8
2
Banner
0
0
0
2
1
3
6
2
Floral
5
1
1
6
10
121
144
43
Fraternal
0
0
0
0
7
20
27
8
Heart
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
>1
Landscape
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
>1
Military
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
>1
Matrimonial
0
0
0
0
0
6
6
2
Music
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
>1
Open Book
0
0
0
0
1
11
12
4
Professional
0
0
0
0
0
4
4
1
Patriotic
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
>1
Religious
0
0
0
2
14
45
61
18
Scroll
1
0
0
0
2
10
13
4
Sun
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sport/Hobby
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
>1
Miscellaneous
0
0
2
6
8
27
43
13
Images Total
12
1
3
16
43
258
333
100
Percent
4%
>1%
1%
5%
13%
77%
100%
-


170
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (3)
Table 10. Age Distribution of Epitaph Categories on Grave Markers of Males in Block A and Block 9, Greenwood
Cemetery. These data represent the total number of epitaphs sampled for males, as some markers have more than
one epitaph.
Infant
Child
Teen
Young
Adult
Middle
Age Adult
Old Adult
Cemetery
Total
Percent
Familial
0
1
0
2
7
31
41
18
Genealogical
12
0
1
2
0
2
17
7
Military
0
0
0
1
13
29
43
19
Memorial
4
2
1
6
4
22
39
17
Personal Info.
3
1
1
2
9
22
38
16
Religious
6
1
3
0
2
18
30
13
Geographical
0
0
0
2
6
8
16
7
Other
0
1
0
0
0
5
6
3
Epitaph Total
25
6
6
15
41
137
230
100
Percent
10%
3%
3%
6%
18%
60%
100%
_
Discussion
Results from Greenwood Cemetery indicate that
various grave marker attributes changed over time, and
that attributes vary in age at death and sex categories.
Sociocultural values are reflected in mortuary contexts
(Binford 1971; Pearson 1999). Thus, changing attributes
on grave markers lend insight to shifts in sociocultural
values in Orlando through time. These values include
the significance of family relationships, military service,
religious beliefs, and attitudes toward childhood.
Marker Material
Marble was the most prevalent marker material in
Greenwood Cemetery from 1880 until 1919, when it was
surpassed by granite, which remains today as the most
common. This is consistent with Meyers and Schultz
(2016), who state that granite is the most prevalent in
their sample, but that marble was most common in their
earliest period, pre-1900. In addition, a recent study
of two cemeteries in Orange County, Florida, reached
a similar conclusion, stating that marble markers were
the most common in the late 1800s and early 1900s,
but that they were surpassed by granite in later periods
(Robinson 2018).
The trend of marble replacement by granite is noted
by multiple cemetery researchers, and historians, across
the United States (Snider 2017; Hassen and Cobb 2017;
Keister 2004). This trend is attributed to the soft nature
of marble. Marble is likely to erode or to stain due to
industrial pollution and exposure, rendering inscriptions
illegible in only a few decades, while granite is less
expensive and highly durable (Snider 2017; Hassen and
Cobb 2017; Keister 2004).
Variation in multiple categories of marker material
was found between Greenwood Cemetery and the
aggregated sample of Meyers and Schultz (Figure 5).
Cement markers are often associated with individuals
who lived outside mainstream society, possibly due to
economic factors, as cement markers were less expensive
and may not require a stone carver or monument builder
(Keister 2004). Cement markers were frequently noted
by Meyers and Schultz (2016), while they comprise only
roughly 1 % of the total sample at Greenwood Cemetery
(Figure 6).
80
Granite Marble Cement Bronze Other Sandstone Mise.
Metals
â–  Meyers and Schultz Greenwood Cemetery
Figure 5. Frequency of Marker Material in Block A and
Block 9, Greenwood Cemetery, compared to Meyers and
Schultz (2016).


Martin, Schultz, Toyne
Trends in Grave Markers
171
o
Pre-1900 1900-1919 1920-1939 1940-1959 1960-1979 1980-1999 2000-2017
—♦—Meyers and Schultz (2016) —♦—Greenwood Cemetery
Figure 6. Trends in Cement Grave Markers in Block A and Block 9, Greenwood Cemetery, compared to Meyers and
Schultz (2016).
The prevalence of cement markers noted by
Meyers and Schultz (2016) may be due to their sample,
which encompassed a range of cemeteries, including
small family cemeteries and multiple traditional black
cemeteries. A previous study of African American
cemeteries in Florida noted the use of handmade cement
markers in traditional black cemeteries (Nigh 1997).
While such use might have been customary due to low
cost, the practice of constructing handmade cement
markers continues as a source of pride and respect for
tradition in many contemporary African American
cemeteries (Nigh 1997).
Marker Design
Multiple categories of marker design varied between
Greenwood Cemetery and Meyers and Schultz (2016)
(Figure 7). Obelisks were uncommon in the latter, so
they included them in their miscellaneous category.
The present study created an individual category for
obelisks. The periods when obelisk grave markers are in
Greenwood Cemetery are consistent with Egyptomania,
an American fascination with Egypt that influenced
mortuary architecture such as pyramids and obelisks
(Debusk 2018; Snider 2017; Brier 2004). Obelisks also
might have been popular for the option to place several
names on four sides, as was common in Greenwood
Cemetery. Over time, the use of obelisks in Greenwood
Cemetery declined, and no new ones were installed after
1939. Although no timeline was included in Stokes
(1991), obelisks of various materials are noted in white
35
30
♦ Meyers and Schultz Greenwood Cemetery
Figure 7. Frequency of Marker Form or Design in Block
A and Block 9, Greenwood Cemetery, compared to
Meyers and Schultz (2016).
and black cemeteries in Florida.
Another difference between Greenwood Cemetery
and Meyers and Schultz (2016) is the frequency of
upright and beveled grave markers (Figures 8 and 9).
In both studies, upright markers were the most common
in the entire samples. However, in Meyers and Schultz
(2016), upright grave markers remained the most
prevalent in all periods except 1940-1959, while beveled
markers became the most prevalent type of grave marker
in Greenwood Cemetery from 1919 through 1999.
Beveled markers were infrequent in the total sample of
Meyers and Schultz (2016).


172
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (3)
Figure 8. Trends in Upright Grave Markers in Block A and Block 9, Greenwood Cemetery, compared to Meyers
and Schultz (2016).
Figure 9. Trends in Beveled Grave Markers in Block A and Block 9, Greenwood Cemetery, compared to Meyers
and Schultz (2016).


Martin, Schultz, Toyne
Trends in Grave Markers
173
In the present study, upright grave markers
often correspond to periods when both epitaph and
iconography exceed 50%. Upright markers are the
easiest type to personalize, and thus were chosen
(Stokes Monument Company, personal communication,
2018). Personalization and expression on grave markers
indicate emotional attachment, while lack of expression
on markers indicates a decrease as well as possible
economic factors because personalization requires
energy and resources (Cannon 1989).
Iconography
Images in general, as well as specific categories,
are highly variable in different periods. In Greenwood
Cemetery, they are similar to findings of Meyers and
Schultz (2016) in which 43% of markers include an
iconographic image. Floral and religious images are
the two most popular types in both samples. Floral
iconography is most common in Greenwood Cemetery,
while religious is dominant in Meyers and Schultz
(2016).
Floral imagery has multiple symbolic and aesthetic
purposes (Snider 2017; Keister 2004; Debusk 2018).
Meanings may relate to the species or life stage of the
flower. For example, a drooping stem may symbolize
a life that has ended too soon (Snider 2017; Keister
2004; Debusk 2018). A rose may symbolize love that
transcends death (Snider 2017; Keister 2004; Debusk
2018).
Floriography, or the Victorian Language of Flowers,
spread from France to the United States in the early
1800s. The importance of specific kinds of flowers to
symbolic meanings necessitated the clear rendering of
each (Snider 2017). More recently, floral imagery has
lost much of its meaning and is now often used only as an
aesthetic, usually a border. Floral images were popular
for both males and females in most age groups, and male
and female old adults were almost equally represented.
The multifaceted function of floral iconography may
make it desirable regardless of age or sex.
Religious iconography persists through time, as
religion is an important aspect of American 1 ife. Religious
images were on markers of males and females of almost
every age group, but variation was noted. Female infants
and children are more likely than their male counterparts
to be represented by religious iconography, while older
males are more likely than their female counterparts to be
so represented. This is possibly because young, middle
age, and old adult males are defined by their place in
a religious community, while religious images represent
innocence and virtuous potential of infants and children,
especially females (Giguere 2007).
Innocence and virtue of female over male children is
not restricted to religious images. Animal iconography
was not noted among male children but was prevalent
for female children. Male and female infants are
almost equally represented by animal images. This is
important as animal iconography among children in the
sample is restricted to depictions of lambs. Lambs are
representative of innocence and sacrifice (Keister 2004;
Snider 2017; Debsuk 2018) and have maintained well-
known symbolic meaning in past and contemporary
society. Lamb iconography is the most common animal
found in mortuary contexts of children (Debusk 2018).
Miscellaneous design iconography is the third most
common type in the current study, specifically from 1900
to 1939. It was infrequent in other periods and appears
to be decorative, usually along the border of a marker,
often as a geometric design (Debusk 2018). It served
a similar aesthetic function as the highly stylized floral
images on contemporary grave markers at Greenwood
Cemetery.
Images in recent cemetery studies also include a
wide variety of secular themes (Hamscher 2006), such
as sport/hobby, heart, musical, and landscape. They
do so along with religious imagery. No secular images
appeared in Greenwood Cemetery until 1980 to 2017,
while religious images also increased in frequency.
The representation of middle age adult males by
fraternal iconography is expected as many fraternal
organizations, such as Freemasons, are restricted to
males. This is consistent with a study by Murphy (2007),
who tallied all the fraternal images in Greenwood
Cemetery, where they were more commonly associated
with males than females. Freemason iconography was
the most frequent in the sample, although others were
present. Perhaps coincidentally, Greenwood Cemetery
is within a three-mile radius of two Masonic Lodges.
Epitaph
Epitaphs are described by Donald Price, Greenwood
Cemetery Sexton, as “your last sentence on Earth.”
They are often used to delineate important aspects
of life, society, or culture, even inadvertently, such as
many epitaphs in Greenwood Cemetery that reaffirm
historically defined gender roles. The frequency of
epitaphs in general and their types are highly variable
through all periods at Greenwood Cemetery, including
based on the inferred sex of the deceased. While Patrick
(2018) noted variance among epitaph categories on
the markers of males and females in five cemeteries in
Florida, interpretations of the data were not provided.


174
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (3)
Familial and memorial epitaphs are the two most
common categories found in Greenwood Cemetery and
by Meyers and Schultz (2016). Familial epitaphs were
prevalent in every period. Females are far more likely to
be represented by a familial epitaph than males in every
age group except children. This may be expected as
women, both in the past and present, are highly defined
by their familial relationships, while men stand on their
own in society with family relationships infrequently
acknowledged (Giguere 2007).
The prevalence of familial epitaphs in each period
shows that the importance of family is not a fleeting
trend, but is a continuous ideological aspect of life in
Orlando. This is consistent with a recent study that
found epitaphs containing “domestic imagery” (utilizing
the grave marker as a vehicle for discourse related to the
household) in each of five Florida cemeteries (Patrick
2018). The prevalence of familial epitaphs among
females, specifically, shows that society places the
importance of the life of a woman in the realm of the
household (Giguere 2007). It indicates that although
females can maintain various social personas throughout
their lives, the social persona that demonstrates their role
as a wife or mother is often viewed as the most valuable
and worthy of eternal memorialization.
Epitaphs that state the marital status of the deceased
(“wife of’) are frequent for females but was noted only
once (“husband of’) on the grave marker of a male.
This is consistent with a study of gender inequality in
cemeteries, which noted that the marital status of males is
infrequently acknowledged while the markers of females
often include a husband’s name (Abel 2009). The
inclusion of marital status is indicative of the perceived
dependent status of even mature women (Giguere 2007),
especially in periods that restricted the rights of women
to own property, or to work outside the home.
Memorial epitaphs are not inherently gendered and
are consistently prevalent among both males and females
in all age groups, except female infants. Memorial
epitaphs usually do not delineate information about the
deceased, but they may express feelings of sadness or
loss on behalf of the family members and friends left
behind. As previously mentioned, cemeteries and grave
markers serve the purpose of allowing living individuals
to grieve while perpetuating the memory of the deceased
individual (Cannon 2002). Memorial epitaphs discuss
grief and memory directly, often while demonstrating the
emotional attachment between the deceased individual
and the living members of the family and community.
Personal information epitaphs are the third most
common in Greenwood Cemetery. This differs from
Meyers and Schultz (2016) who state that such epitaphs
were infrequent. Personal information epitaphs were
in every period in Greenwood Cemetery and their
frequency was relatively consistent among most male
and female age groups.
Personal information epitaphs vary highly in their
information. They were considered personal when
the information did not fit in one of the other epitaph
categories. The majority of epitaphs are, technically,
related to some type of personal information purposely
chosen to represent and to immortalize the deceased
(Herat 2014). Immortalization takes place through the
delineation of facts related to the life of the deceased
and to social roles while living. Therefore, personal
information is an important aspect of a mortuary context
as the deceased continue to maintain one or more
personas even after death (Tarrow 2000). Personal
information epitaphs in Greenwood Cemetery often
consisted of the age of the deceased, occupation, dates
related to marriage, and occasionally cause of death.
One such epitaph simply read “drowned.”
Infants are more likely than any other age group
to have a genealogical epitaph as infants have not yet
formed their own identity beyond their parents. In some
cases, infants do not yet have a name and are called
only “Infant Son” or “Infant Daughter,” followed by
their parents’ names. This is consistent with a recent
study in the United Kingdom that noted a preference for
memorializing children on grave markers they shared
with an adult relation, particularly in the late 18th century
and early 19th century (Buckham 2003).
In addition, a study of anonymity in cemeteries
noted that most anonymous burials (markers without
the name of the deceased) were infants, and more than
50% of these stated a familial relationship (Foster and
Hendrickson 2006). The social persona of an individual
is linked to their name. Therefore, conferring a name on
an infant is a key step in the development of individual
social identity (Foster and Hendrickson 2006). While
the mortuary contexts of many infants do not include
a name or social identity of their own, they are often
connected to a recognizable social network via family
relationships.
Only one female at Greenwood Cemetery had a
military epitaph. Males are far more likely to serve in
the military in the United States (Walter 2018). Although
women have served in every American war, they were
not officially integrated into the Armed Forces until
1948. The full integration of women in the military did
not occur until 2013 (Walter 2018). Military epitaphs
indicate respect for members of the military. Mention


Martin, Schultz, Toyne
Trends in Grave Markers
175
Figure 10. Trends in Religious Iconography and Epitaph in Block A and Block 9, Greenwood Cemetery.
of a military career in the mortuary context is important
to the memorial characteristic of the marker and to the
social identity of the deceased.
Temporal trends in religious epitaphs and images are
inconsistent through time at Greenwood Cemetery. This
means that while religion remained important in Orlando,
its representation in mortuary contexts varied (Figure
10). Religious epitaphs decreased in frequency over time
while religious iconography increased, representing 50%
of images from 2000 to 2017. This may be attributed
partially to the dominance of images over epitaphs in the
general sample at Greenwood Cemetery.
Future Research
Further research of demographic differences
between epitaph and iconography in Florida, and across
the United States, is necessary to interpret the importance
of noted trends, as well as their possible variation
across a wide geographic area. A larger sample from
Greenwood Cemetery will allow a more comprehensive
understanding of trends in grave marker attributes as
they relate to historic events or trends through time.
Hopefully, continued research at Greenwood Cemetery
will occur in the near future.
Conclusion
The social and personal memory perpetuated by
cemeteries is important to the process of grieving and
to establishing a sense of community (Cannon 2002).
Cemeteries also preserve information about past
societies that can be used by scholars. Greenwood
Cemetery can shed light on historical, cultural, and
societal trends in Orlando, from the late 19th century
to the present. Grave marker attributes changed over
time in relation to changing aspects of society, such as
the shift from predominately religious images to the
inclusion of secular ones. Comparison of the data from
Greenwood Cemetery with those of Meyers and Schultz
(2016) uncovers multiple trends in each cemetery,
some of which are similar and others that are not. This
suggests that there are general trends across Florida as
well as trends that are determined by characteristics of
specific cemeteries and their populations.
The analysis of age at death and inferred sex of a
deceased individual in a mortuary context should be
more frequently included in cemetery research as age
and sex are fundamental aspects of the life and social
persona of an individual. Individuals who were viewed
differently by society in life were treated differently
in death, as demonstrated by the higher prevalence of


176
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (3)
familial epitaphs among women than among men.
Males and females of various age groups were treated
differently.
Cemetery research is not only essential to
understanding the past, but to preserving data that
are often lost due to neglect and damage. Cemetery
destruction, and the resulting loss of history, is an
impediment to multidisciplinary researchers who rely
on cemetery data, as well as to the individuals who rely
on cemeteries as a resting place for themselves and their
loved ones (Meyers and Schultz 2016; Carmack 2002;
Olexa et al. 2012). It is important to survey and to
document cemeteries before valuable information is lost
(Thompson and Strangstad 1989).
Acknowledgments
Donald Price, sexton of Greenwood Cemetery, gave
his permission for research and provided valuable data
about its history and population. We would like to thank
editors of The Florida Anthropologist for editorial work
as well as two anonymous reviewers for comments.
References Cited
Abel, Ernest L.
2009 Changes in Gender Discrimination After Death:
Evidence from a Cemetery. OMEGA 58
(2): 147-152.
Beck, Lane A. (editor)
1995 Regional Approaches to Mortuary Analysis.
Plenum Press, New York.
Bender, Shelby Jean R., and Elizabeth L. Dunham
2013 Tampa’s Historic Cemeteries. Arcadia
Publishing, Charleston, South Carolina.
Binford, Lewis R.
1971 Mortuary Practices: Their Study and Their
Potential. Memoir of the Society for American
Archaeology 25:6-29.
Brennan, Michael L.
2011 Geological Survey of Historical Cemeteries,
Jamestown, Rhode Island, 1693-1900.
Historical Archaeology 45:102-114.
Brier, Bob
2004 Egyptomania! Archaeology 57:16-22.
Brown, Ian W.
2008 Teaching Tombstones in Tuscaloosa County.
Alabama Heritage 88:11-17.
Buckham, Susan
2003 Commemoration as an Expression of Personal
Relationships and Group Identities: A Case
Study of York Cemetery. Mortality
8(2): 160-175.
Carmack, Sharon D. B.
2002 Your Guide to Cemetery Research. Betterway
Books, Cincinnati, Ohio.
City of Orlando
2019 Greenwood Cemetery Rules and Regulations.
Electronic document, https://www.orlando.gov/
OCN R- Drafts/Greenwood-Cemetery/
Greenwood-Cemeterv-Rules-and-Regulations.
accessed June 12, 2019.
Culbertson, Judi, and Tom Randall
1987 Permanent New Yorkers: A Biographical Guide
to the Cemeteries of New York. Chelsea Green
Publishing Co., White River Junction, Vermont.
Debusk, Jacqueline
2018 A Beginner s Dictionary of Cemetery
Iconography: Classic Symbols Defined and
Photographed. Amazon Digital Services, LLC.
Edwards, Lucy A.
1956 Stories in Stone. The Florida Historical
Quarterly 35(2): 116-129.
Foster, Gary S., and Darren Hendrickson
2006 Graves of Unknowns in Gardens of Stone:
An Analysis of Infant Anonymity from a
Midwestern Cemetery, 1863-1983. Illness,
Crisis & Loss 14(3):271 -288.
Giguere, Joy
2007 Virtuous Women, Useful Men, Lovely
Children. Markers 24:1-23.
Goerlich, Shirley B.
1987 At Rest in Unadilla, Otsego County, New York.
RSG Publishing, Plymouth, Michigan.
Hamscher, Albert N.
2006 Pictorial Headstones: Business, Culture
and the Expression of Individuality in the
Contemporary Cemetery. Markers 23:6-35.
Haskins, Lola
2011 Fifteen Florida Cemeteries: Strange Tales
Unearthed. University Press of Florida,
Gainesville.


Martin, Schultz, Toyne
Trends in Grave Markers
177
Hassen, Hal, and Dawn Cobb
2017 Cemeteries of Illinois: A Field Guide to
Markers, Monuments, and Motifs. University
of Illinois Press, Urbana.
Herat, Manel
2014 The Final Goodbye: The Linguistic Features
of Gravestone Epitaphs from the Nineteenth
Century to the Present. International Journal
of Language Studies 8:127-150.
Keister, Douglas
2004 Stories in Stone: The Complete Illustrated
Guide to Cemetery Symbolism. Gibbs Smith,
Salt Lake City, Utah.
Meyer, Richard E,
1992 Cemeteries and Gravemarkers: Voices of
American Culture. Utah State University Press,
Logan, Utah.
Meyers, Patricia L., and John J. Schultz
2016Temporal Trends in Grave Marker Attributes: A
Preliminary Analysis of Headstones in Florida.
The Florida Anthropologist 69:29-47.
Murphy, Roberta J.
2007 Headstone Iconography: Documentation
and Interpretation of Fraternal Emblems at
Greenwood Cemetery, Orlando. Undergraduate
honors thesis, Department of Anthropology,
University of Central Florida, Orlando.
Nigh, Robin F.
1997 Under Grave Conditions: African American
Signs of Life and Death in North Florida.
Markers 14:158-189.
Olexa, Michael T., Nancy C. Hodge, Tracey L.
Owens, and Caycee D. Hampton
2012 A Grave Situation: Protecting the Deceased
and Their Final Resting Places from
Destruction. The Florida Bar Journal 86:35.
Patrick, Maureen
2018 Gone from Our Home, but Not from Our
Hearts: Nineteenth Century Epitaphs in
Selected Florida Rural Cemeteries. Sunland
Tribune 28:35-54.
Pearson, Mike Parker
1999 The Archaeology of Death and Burial. Sutton
Publishing, Stroud, UK.
Renkin, Jenne
2000 Cemetery Records of Martic Township,
Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Willow Bend
Books, Westminster, Maryland.
Rugg, Julie
2000 Defining the Place of Burial: What Makes a
Cemetery a Cemetery? Mortality 5:259-275.
Robinson, Tyra
2018 Comparative Headstone Analysis and
Photogrammetry of Cemeteries in Orange
County, Florida. Undergraduate honors thesis,
Department of Anthropology, University of
Central Florida, Orlando.
Saxe, Arthur A.
1970 Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices.
University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Snider, Tui
2017 Understanding Cemetery Symbols: A Field
Guide for Historic Graveyards. CreateSpace
Publishing, Scotts Valley, California.
Stockton, Betty Jo
2012a Greenwood Cemetery Orlando, Florida:
Volume 1: Sections A-J. CreateSpace
Publishing, Scotts Valley, California.
2012b Greenwood Cemetery Orlando Florida: Volume
2: Sections K-W. CreateSpace Publishing,
Scotts Valley, California.
Stokes, Sherrie
1991 Gone but Not Forgotten: Wakulla County’s
Folk Graveyards. The Florida Historical
Quarterly 70(2): 177-191.
Thompson, Sharyn, and Lynette Strangstad
1989 Florida s Historic Cemeteries: A Preservation
Handbook. Historic Tallahassee Preservation
Board, Tallahassee.
Walter, Brittany L.
2018 Women in Special Operations Forces: A
Battle for Effectiveness Amidst the Pursuit of
Equality. University of San Francisco Law
Review 52:175-198.
Wright, Elizabethada A.
2011 A Death of Markers: Ambivalence of Memory
in Elmira, New York, and Its National and
Woodlawn Cemeteries. Markers 28:44-75.


ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Erin K. Martin is a graduate student in Anthropology at the University of Central Florida (UCF), where
she earned a B.A. in Anthropology in 2018. Her research interests include cemetery studies, forensic
anthropology, and isotopic analysis.
Gregory A. Mikell is a professional archaeologist who has spent his career of more than 30 years primarily
in northwest Florida and is known to regular readers of The Florida Anthropologist.
John J. Schultz earned a Ph.D. in Anthropology from the University of Florida. He is Professor and Chair
of the Anthropology Department at the University of Central Florida. John is the consulting forensic
anthropologist for Districts 9 and 25 Medical Examiner’s Office, Orlando. He specializes in forensic
anthropology with a primary research focus in taphonomic and forensic archaeological methods. In
particular, current research with his graduate students involves the integration of photogrammetric methods
for crime scene documentation involving human skeletal remains.
J. Marla Toyne is Associate Professor of Anthropology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.
Her research interests include human osteology, biogeochemistry, paleopathology, and skeletal trauma
contextualized in a bioarchaeological exploration of the Andean past. Her multidisciplinary investigations
of ancient diet, disease, and medical practices have been supported financially by the National Geographic
Society and the Rust Foundation. Her work appears in the International Journal of Osteoarchaeology,
International Journal of Paleopathology, Journal of Archaeological Science, and the American Journal of
Physical Anthropology. She co-edited (with Haagen D. Klaus) the volume Ritual Violence in the Ancient
Andes: Reconstructing Sacrifice on the North Coast of Peru (2016).
Vol. 72 (3)
The Florida Anthropologist
178




FAS CHAPTERS
10 4 9
13
1. Archaeological Society of Southern Florida
fasweb.org/assf/
2. Central Florida Anthropological Society
fasweb.org/cfas/
3. Central Gulf Coast Archaeology Society
fasweb.org/cgcas/
4. Emerald Coast Archaeology Society
fasweb.org/ecas/
5. Gold Coast Anthropological Society
fasweb.org/gcas/
6. Indian River Anthropological Society
fasweb.org/iras/
7. Kissimmee Valley Archaeological and Historical
fasweb.org/kvahc/
8. Palm Beach County Archaeological Society
fasweb.org/pbcas/
9. Panhandle Archaeological Society at Tallahassee
fasweb.org/past/
10. Pensacola Archaeological Society
fasweb.org/pas/
11. Southeast Florida Archaeological Society
fas web. org/sefas/
12. Southwest Florida Archaeological Society
fas web. org/s wfas/
13. St. Augustine Archaeological Association
fas web. org/ saaa/
14. Time Sifters Archaeology Society
fasweb.org/tsas/
15. Warm Mineral Springs/Little Salt Spring Archaeological Society
fasweb.org/wmslssas/
14
15
Conservancy
2
6
7
11
12


JOIN THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY
Membership in FAS supports education initiatives statewide, including an annual conference,
student grants, Florida Archaeology Month, and more. Join today and you will receive our quarterly
newsletter and The Florida Anthropologist. Membership is open to all interested individuals who are
willing to abide by the FAS Statement of Ethics (available at fasweb.org/membership/).
Membership categories and rates:
Student: $15
Regular: $30
Family $35
Institutional: $30
Sustaining: $100
Patron: $1000
Benefactor: $2500
• Student membership is open to graduate, undergraduate, and high school students. A photocopy of
your current student ID must accompany payment
• Add $25 for foreign address
• Membership forms are also available at fasweb.org/membership/
• The Society publishes the journal The Florida Anthropologist and newsletters, normally quarterly and
sponsors an annual meeting hosted by a local chapter
Name
Address
City
State
Zip
Telephone
Email
FAS Chapter
I agree to abide by the Code of Ethics of the Florida Anthropological Society
Mail to:
Florida Anthropological Society
c/o FAS Membership Secretary
P O Box 1561 Boynton Beach, FL 33425










NON-PROFIT
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
TALLAHASSEE, FL
PERMIT NO. 329
RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED
Table of Contents
From the Editors
Articles
From Beneath the Urban Landscape:
1781 Spanish Siege of Pensacola Archaeological Sites 135-158
Gregory A. Mikell
Trends in Grave Marker Attributes in Greenwood Cemetery, Orlando, Florida 159-177
Erin K. Martin, John J. Schultz, and J. Marla Toyne
About the Authors 178
Cover:
18th-century engraving titled Vista de Panzacola y sn Baia Tornado por los Españoles año de 1781.
From Florida Memory Project, Image #RC02438.
Copyright 2019 by the
FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY, INC.
ISSN 0015-3893
Florida Anthropological Society, Inc.
George M. Luer, Pii.D.
3222 Old Oak Drive
Sarasota, FL 34239


Full Text
The
Florida
Anthropologist
Volume 72, Number 3, September 2019
published BY FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY

The Florida Anthropologist is published by the Florida Anthropological Society, Inc. Subscription is by membership in the Society.
Membership is NOT restricted to residents of the State of Florida nor to the United States of America. Membership may be initiated
at any time during the year and covers the ensuing twelve month period. Dues shall be payable on the anniversary of the initial dues
payment. Members shall receive copies of all publications distributed by the Society during the 12 months of their membership
year. Annual dues are as follows: student $15, individual $30, family $35, institutional $30, sustaining $100 or more, patron $1000
or more, and benefactor $2500. Foreign subscriptions are an additional $25 U.S. to cover added postage and handling costs for
individual, family, or institutional membership categories. Copies of the journal will only be sent to members with current paid
dues. Please contact the Editor for information on recent back issues.
Requests for information on the Society, membership application forms, and notifications of changes of address should be sent to the
Membership Secretary. Donations should be sent to the Treasurer or may be routed through the Editors to facilitate acknowledgment
in subsequent issues of the journal (unless anonymity is requested). Submissions of manuscripts should be sent to the Editor.
Publications for review should be submitted to the Book Review Editor. Authors please follow The Florida Anthropologist style
guide (on-line at www.fasweb.org) in preparing manuscripts for submission to the journal and contact the Editor with specific
questions. The journal is formatted using Adobe In Design. All manuscripts must be submitted via email to the journal Editor in
final form in Microsoft Word format. Address changes should be made AT LEAST 30 DAYS prior to the mailing of the next issue.
The post office will not forward bulk mail nor retain such mail when “temporary hold” orders exist. Such mail is returned to the
Society postage due. The journal is published quarterly in March, June, September, and December of each year.
Officers of the Society
President: Emily Jane Murray, 8 Mulvey St. Apt. B, St. Augustine, FL 32084 (president@fasweb.org)
First Vice President: George M. Luer, 3222 Old Oak Drive, Sarasota, FL 34239 (lvp@fasweb.org)
Second Vice President: Rebecca O’Sullivan, 4202 East Fowler Ave., SOC 110, Tampa FL 33620 (2vp@fasweb.org)
Recording Secretary: John Simon-Suarez, 8 Mulvey St. Apt. B, St. Augustine, FL 32084 (secretary@fasweb.org)
Membership Secretary: Dorothy Block. 306 NE 1st Avenue #202, Boynton Beach, FL 33435 (membership@fasweb.org)
Treasurer: Joanne Talley, P.O. Box 788, Hobe Sound, FL 33475 (treasurer@fasweb.org)
Directors at Large: Maranda Kies, Jen Knutson, and Nigel Rudolph
Immediate Past President: Jason Wenzel
Newsletter Editor. Jeff Moates, 4202 East Fowler Ave, SOC 110, Tampa FL 33620 (newsletter@fasweb.org)
Journal Editorial Staff
Editor: George M. Luer, 3222 Old Oak Drive, Sarasota, FL 34239 (editor@fasweb.org)
Assistant Editor. Dorothy Block, 306 NE 1st Avenue #202, Boynton Beach, FL 33435 (editor@fasweb.org)
Technical Editor: Laura Dean, 3020 Cambridge Dr., Sarasota, FL 34232 (laura@runjikproductions.com)
Printer: Durra-Print, 717 South Woodward Ave., Tallahassee, FL 32304
Editorial Review Board
Albert C. Goodyear,
Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208 (goodyear@sc.edu)
Jeffrey M. Mitchem,
Arkansas Archeological Survey, P.O. Box 241, Parkin, AR 72373 (jmitcheml@yahoo.com)
Nancy Marie White,
Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33620-8100 (nmw@usf.edu)
Robert J. Austin,
P.O. Box 2818, Riverview, FL 33568-2818 (roc_doc@verizon.net)
NOTE: In addition to the above Editorial Review Board members, the review comments of others knowledgeable in a
manuscript’s subject matter are solicited as part of our peer review process.
VISIT FAS ON THE WEB: fasweb.org
LIKE AND FOLLOW: facebook.com/FloridaAnthropologicalSociety/

The Florida
Anthropologist
Volume 72, Number 3
September 2019
Table of Contents
From the Editors
Articles
From Beneath the Urban Landscape:
1781 Spanish Siege of Pensacola Archaeological Sites 135-158
Gregory A. Mikell
Trends in Grave Marker Attributes in Greenwood Cemetery, Orlando, Florida 159-177
Erin K. Martin, John J. Schultz, and J. Marla Toyne
About the Authors 178
Published by the
FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY, INC.
ISSN 0015-3893

FROM THE EDITORS
It is a pleasure to present Volume 72 Number 3 of The Florida Anthropologist.
George M. Luer, Ph.D., Editor
Dorothy A. Block, M.A., Assistant Editor
Laura Dean, Technical Editor
Recent back issues can be purchased through the FAS website fasweb.org/publication-sales/
The journal digital archive is available through the University of Florida Library http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027829/00217
The Florida Anthropologist Fund is designed
to support production of The Florida
Anthropologist, the scholarly journal,
published by the Florida Anthropological
Society since 1947.
Donations are accepted from individuals,
CORPORATIONS, AND FOUNDATIONS.
Inquiries and gifts can be directed to:
Joanne Talley, FAS Treasurer
P. O. Box 788
Hobe Sound, FL 33475
THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY IS ANON-PROFIT
ORGANIZATION UNDER SECTION 501(C)(3) OF THE INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE. CONTRIBUTIONS ARE TAX-DEDUCTIBLE AS
PROVIDED BY SECTION 170 OF THE CODE.
Vol. 72 (3)
The Florida Anthropologist
September 2019

FROM BENEATH THE URBAN LANDSCAPE: 1781 SPANISH SIEGE OF
PENSACOLA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
Gregory A. Mikell
Panamerican Consultants, Inc., 4430 Yarmouth Place, Pensacola, FL 32514 gmikeIII(cuearthlink.net
Introduction
In 2008, pipeline monitoring in Pensacola, Florida, discovered evidence of the Spanish siege of British Pensacola
in 1781. Military artifacts were recovered and two sites were recorded in the Florida Master Site File (FMSF): the 1781
Siege of Pensacola Site 1 (8ES3423), and the 1781 Siege of Pensacola Site 2 (8ES3509) (Table 1). Here, I provide
historic accounts of the siege and I document the archaeological evidence, providing maps and other clues for future
researchers to carry investigations further.
Figure 1. Cuadro por España y por el Rey, Galvez en America. Oil on canvas by Augusto Ferrer-Dalmau (Ferrer-Dalmau
Magazine 2015). This image of a painting was not altered from the original. It is used here under the Creative Commons
Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license: (https://creativecommons.Org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en).
2019 Vol. 72 (3)
The Florida Anthropologist
135

136
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (3)
Background
Seldom does a sewer and pipeline project in a long-
developed residential area of Pensacola generate interest
and excitement. Usually, materials beneath the streets
outside “old Pensacola” are disturbed or post-date the
mid-1800s (Mikell 2001, 2010; Phillips et al. 1997).
Nonetheless, historic events did take place outside
downtown, in the North Hill Preservation District of
Pensacola, some leaving a trail of evidence. Meaningful
research emerged from beneath those streets in late 2008
while monitoring pipeline installation for Emerald Coast
Utilities Authority (Mikell 2010).
We first discovered artifacts related to the 1781
Spanish siege of British Pensacola in shovel tests and
pipeline trenches adjacent to the North Hill Preservation
District. We followed up by documenting collections
made by residents living in the pipeline project area.
The findings allowed us to identify the general location
of the Spanish advanced siege trench (and potential
evidence of a segment of the trench itself), which we
recorded as site 8ES3423. Potential parts of these trench
positions were the Spanish “advanced redoubt” that was
attacked by the British on May 4, 1781, as well as the
Spanish “fort” from which the Spanish launched their
deadly attack on British defenses on May 8, 1781. These
battlefield features may all be part of archaeological
site 8ES3423 as it has been tentatively defined (Mikell
2010) and updated by archaeologist Larry James (2011),
during his graduate thesis work at the University of West
Florida (UWF).
Methods
With archaeological data from 8ES3423 in hand and
the known locations of two British fortifications, as well
as invaluable information from diaries describing the
1781 siege (see below), 1 set about using historic maps
depicting British forts and Spanish siege positions in an
attempt to place them on the modem landscape. This
“overlay” was done by tracing the historic map features
in Adobe Illustrator™ and then “dropping” them on the
area’s most recent topographic quadrangle map (USGS
1978[ 1987]) and aligning the features with as many
known locations and topographic features as possible.
The resulting maps (see below), while not thought to
be entirely accurate, provide a general guideline about
where additional sites like 8ES3423 may be located.
Being dissatisfied with the limited area of the
sewer pipeline project, I followed up with informal
investigation of vacant lots, using the overlay maps and
“asking around” for additional information and leads.
This included artifacts found previously by residents,
who kindly allowed us to document them. A result was
the recording of 8ES3509, which appears to be the site
of the initial Spanish gun battery constructed during the
siege. Although the context of materials identifying
8ES3509 as a component of the Spanish siege trench are
less certain than those from 8ES3423, the site is in the
right location for the first gun emplacement and camp
as depicted in historic maps of the 1781 siege, and the
artifacts are of the appropriate time period. No other
colonial period sites are recorded in the FMSF within
400 m (0.25 mi) of8ES3509.
Larry James compiled additional information via
a non-invasive pedestrian survey and by interviewing
residents of the North Hill Preservation District and
surrounding neighboring houses near 8ES3423 (James
2011). Using a questionnaire, James asked of their
knowledge of the siege and if they had found any
artifacts. By combining historic maps and documents
with previous archaeological findings and interviews
with residents, James developed and evaluated a model
placing key landmarks and events on the modem city
grid. Whereas James’ model generally agrees with the
location and interpretation of 8ES3423, it also points
to shortcomings of the archaeological data. His study
reiterates that 8ES3423 and 8ES3509, as currently
defined, represent approximate locations of potentially
identifiable Spanish siege line positions. James
concludes that both studies warrant additional research
and in-depth archaeological investigations to refine and
to pinpoint placement of events in 1781 on the modem
landscape (James 2011 :xii, 163-173).
History of the 1781 Siege of Pensacola
In 1779, as the American Revolutionary War was
underway in the Thirteen Colonies, Spain and England
were, once again, at war. Under the command of Field
Marshal Don Bernardo de Gálvez, the Spanish averted
a British planned attack on Spanish New Orleans.
Then, the Spanish set out to destroy the British military
occupation along the Gulf Coast and Mississippi
River by controlling the Mississippi at New Orleans,
Baton Rouge, and Natchez, capturing Fort Charlotte in
Mobile, and in 1781, setting siege to the British military
stronghold in Pensacola (Figures 1 and 2).
Gálvez and one of his officers, Francisco de Miranda,
kept diaries of the siege. Thus, detailed information about
daily events exists and is applicable here. Translations
of the diaries (Baker and Haas 1977; James 2011; Rush
1966; Worcester 1951) are invaluable to research about
the siege and several artifact types recovered.

Mikell
1781 Spanish Siege of Pensacola
137
Commanded by Gálvez, a flotilla of warships
exploited a weakness in the British land-based naval
defenses, neutralizing the outer British defenses, and on
March 9, 1781, landed on the north shore of Pensacola
Bay to begin their siege. By mid-April, the Spanish siege
trenches were approaching British defensive positions
and would eventually advance to within 800 m (0.5 mi)
of the garrison in Pensacola (Figures 2, 3, 4).
Numerous artillery exchanges took place between
the British and Spanish forces. By late April, the British
were bombarding the siege trenches relentlessly. On May
4, 1781, a British attack on the “advanced fort” (Battery
2) at the forward portion of the trench line resulted in a
brief setback for the Spanish.
Gálvez Account
The Gálvez diary (the Diario) provides an insightful
eyewitness description of the event and helps interpret
remains, as follows (from Rush 1966:80):
The fourth [May 4, 1781], Although all
night they worked diligently toward the total
completion of the trench and redoubt, there was
not sufficient time for forming the banquette
so that the soldiers could with difficulty make
fire from the parapet lodged in these works,
nor was it possible to remain outside of them
because of the continued grape-shot that was
discharged from the Half-Moon [Queen’s
Redoubt],
All morning the enemy made continuous
cannon fire toward this part with good enough
hits, but particularly at one in the afternoon
concentrated grape-shot, bombs and grenades
so vigorously that they forced the troops to use
all the resources which they judged suitable to
free themselves. At this time several English
troops which had gone out of the Half-Moon
without being seen and with a premeditated
plan attacked the redoubt that was garrisoned
by a company of grenadiers of Mallorca and
half a company of Irish. The troops in these
circumstances, although encouraged by their
officers, since near the beginning the captain
and ensign of the Mallorca were dead, the
lieutenant gravely wounded as well as the
captain and lieutenant of the Irish, retreated
to the second redoubt up to which place the
enemy pursued them with arme blanche, re¬
establishing themselves in the first one they
had taken.
At the first news of this event the General
ordered Colonel Ezpeleta with four companies
of chasseurs to go to dislodge the enemy, but
before this colonel arrived they had already
retreated leaving the trench burned, four
field cannon spiked and capturing the captain
and lieutenant of the Irish and the same
grade of officers of the Mallorca, since they
were wounded and could not retreat. In the
afternoon they restored the trench and redoubt
in which four other cannon were placed, and
during the night the enemy made fire from
mortar and howitzer, all aimed at this part.
The Spanish forces recovered from the attack and
mounted a counter attack, but the British had withdrawn
to their garrison. The Spanish then set about renewing
their siege positions and the exchange of artillery with
the British. On May 8, 1781, as a plan for an infantry
assault on the British was being initiated, a Spanish
“grenade” fired from their forward siege position blew
up the powder magazine in Queen’s Redoubt, resulting in
more than 100 British casualties, most of them fatalities.
The Spaniards then took possession of the redoubt,
established a garrison (Fort San Bernardo) on the site of
Queen’s Redoubt, and fired artillery on Prince of Wales
Redoubt and Fort George. British forces were no longer
able to defend Pensacola and surrendered. The official
date for the Spanish recapture of West Florida was May
10, 1781, and Florida was ceded to Spain in 1783 (Coker
1999:38) by the Treaty of Paris, which also formally
ended the American Revolutionary War.
Miranda Account
Miranda’s diary provides even greater detail.
Miranda indicates that the trench line extended eastward
toward Queen’s Redoubt and was constructed in an
existing road or trail (Worcester 1951:182). Miranda
wrote of daily cannon and mortar bombardment of the
Spanish trench and “advanced redoubt” (battery) from
Queen’s Redoubt between April 29 and May 8, 1781
(Worcester 1951:182-191). Excerpts from Worcester
(1951:185-191) provide Miranda’s viewpoint of the
British shelling:
Immediately that the enemy perceived our
work [on the trench line] with the light of day,
he began a cannon and mortar fire, lively at
the beginning, slower later, until at 11 a.m. it
ceased. It had produced for us only two dead
and one wounded (April 29).

138
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (3)
The enemy fire upon us and our trenchworks
on the left has been the most lively and
continuous so far, but it has produced only 8
dead and one wounded (May 3).
Today the enemy fire started as usual and
about 10 a.m. it stopped.
...At 12:30 the enemy began a lively fire of
mortars, cannons, and howitzers over the
Queen’s Redoubt and works to the left of our
parallel, which attracted the attention of as
many of us as heard it in the camp....
The rapidity and good accuracy of the enemy
fire forced our unwise and inexperienced troops
to remain under cover of their entrenchments,
not taking any more risks than those which
could come from the artillery ... (May 4).
The work on our trenches and the construction
of the much-desired battery at the left continues
slowly. Despite the damage by the enemy
howitzers and bombs which we experience
each day, that is the only remedy against this
cruel evil, unavoidable by any other means...
(May 6).
The fire of the enemy batteries has continued
with the same degree of activity and accuracy
as the preceding days. It caused sufficient
damage in our trench... (May 8).
Miranda also provides details about the location of
the “advanced redoubt” attacked by the British on May
4 (Battery 2) and the battery located to the southeast
(Battery 3), from which Queen’s Redoubt was shelled
on May 8. Miranda’s estimates imply Battery 2 was
approximately 500 m (1,640 ft) from Queen’s Redoubt,
800 m (2,625 ft) from Prince of Wales redoubt, and was
on a trench 800 m in length. Miranda also places Battery
3 approximately 420 m (1,380 ft) from Queen’s Redoubt.
Miranda wrote the following about these fortifications
and the trench (Worcester 1951:183):
At dawn all our troops were found under cover
of a trench..., which seemed an immense
work for 700 workers unless we consider the
openness of the sandy terrain (April 29).
...constructing the battery on the left
mentioned previously, which was to mount 8
or 10 cannons of 24 pounds. These can start
firing tomorrow at a distance from the circular
battery or Queen’s Redoubt (May 8).
Miranda’s description of the British attack on May 4
(Worcester 1951:186-187) also helps interpret 8ES3423
artifacts. The description of the artillery shelling and the
chaos that resulted from the infantry attack can be tied
to artifacts recovered and documented at site 8ES3423:
Eighty of them with bayonets fixed thrust
themselves upon our troops in the redoubts,
attacking them from the rear. The soldiers that
were inside the trenches did not expect such a
risk and had stacked their arms. The unwise
officer had begun to eat, and consequently they
had relaxed the vigilance which the occasion
required. An inexperienced guard alone
observed the fort, and with so little attention
that he did not perceive the extraordinary
signals.
...They found themselves surprised, gave up
the position, and fled in haste that introduced a
general disorder in the rest of the troops in that
part. The enemy under these circumstances
was not resisted in taking the advanced
redoubt, which we abandoned immediately,
and following with bayonets those who
were retreating from the forward trench they
wounded and killed as many as they found in
the intermediate branch between this redoubt
and the second one ..., and they took control of
this one also. They captured 5 field pieces that
we had. They set fire to the fascines and gun
mounts, redoubts and trenches and retreated,
carrying with them the silver utensils that they
found on the table of the commander of the
trench, the buckles and money of the dead and
wounded, who amounted in number to about
35 or 40.
... All of these brave officers were dead, and
just like the rest of the soldiers whose wounds
had been received from the front they were
buried facing the enemy, with all military
honors and accompanied by the generals,
chiefs, and officers that were then in the camp.
Farmar Account
The British perspective of the siege also provides
insight about site 8ES3423. Major Robert Farmar’s
journal (Padgett 1943:311-329) indicates that he was
present at Fort George during the entire siege. Farmar’s
statements indicate that the British and their allies
continually harassed the Spanish in their execution of the

Mikell
1781 Spanish Siege of Pensacola
139
siege operations with both artillery and ground forces.
Both sides acknowledge that the actions of the British
and their allies periodically inflicted heavy casualties on
the Spanish forces.
Farmar indicates that the Spanish began their attempt
to gain control of “a hill within the distance of 300 yards
[275 m] from their advanced redoubt” (Queen’s Redoubt)
on April 22 (Padgett 1943:321). In his April 29 entry,
Farmar observed the Spanish entrenchment (Padgett
1943:323), presumably in the same general location.
However, Farmar described the Spanish trench as about
3.2 km (2 mi) long. On May 3, the day before the British
assault on the Spanish “advanced fort” as described by
Miranda (above), Farmar states (Padgett 1943:324):
Last night the enemy was heard working in the
fort of the advanced redoubt, about a distance
of 1/2 a mile & this morning we fired at them
now and then, but could not hurt them as they
were behind a hill. The enemy fired during the
day 534 shot and 186 shells.
Farmar goes on to describe the May 4th British attack
on the Spanish position in similar terms as did Miranda,
except some details and differences in perspective, as
well as the Spanish artillery fire over the next four days
culminating in the Spanish taking of Queen’s Redoubt
(Padgett 1943:324-326). Farmar’s narrative indicates
that even after losing four to six cannon in the assault
on their advanced redoubt (Battery 2), the Spanish were
able to mount artillery bombardment from their gun
emplacements (Battery 3).
On May 6, it was described by Farmar as a “very
heavy fire which hurt our advanced redoubt [Queen’s
Redoubt] very much ...” and on May 8 resulted in the
destruction of the powder magazine and the taking of
Queen’s Redoubt. By Farmar’s account, although
the Spanish siege campaign was hindered by British
defensive actions, the Spanish resolve eventually
resulted in victory.
Other Investigations of the 1781 Siege
In 1974 and 1975, archaeologist Henry Baker
directed excavations at Fort George (8ES46), built by
the British in 1778 atop Gage Hill immediately north
of the town of Pensacola (see maps below). The Fort
George excavations unearthed a portion of the moat
surrounding the fort, portions of the sand and wood walls
and rampart, a powder magazine, and a group of vaulted
brick rooms (latrines?) beneath the parapet. Baker
(1975:iv) surmised that a “complete cross section of the
homwork rampart [that] was the location of a major gun
battery” was excavated. Numerous artifacts from the
late 1700s were recovered that provided tangible insight
into the history of the fort.
Other work associated with the 1781 Siege of
Pensacola (James 2011) includes recording the locations
of Queen’s Redoubt/Fort San Bernardo, Prince of Wales
Redoubt, and the North Baylen Trench site by UWF
(Table 1).
These investigations were limited because they were
in the North Hill Preservation District, but some data
and materials were recovered. The location of Queen’s
Redoubt/Fort San Bernardo was pinpointed (Bense
1989; Phillips et al. 1997), Prince of Wales Redoubt
was located (Bense 1989; Phillips et al. 1997), and an
unexploded 13-inch British mortar shell was recovered
from site 8ES1373 beneath Baylen Street (Joy 1987).
Evidence of the siege had not been documented
outside the North Hill Preservation District prior to the
sewer pipeline project (Mikell 2010). James (2011)
followed the documentation of 8ES3423 with a Master’s
Thesis about the entire 1781 Battle of Pensacola. He
developed and evaluated a method for examining
archaeological landscapes in urban environments, created
a model of the physical and cultural remains relating
to events of the battle, and presented a methodology
for reconciling the modem landscape with the historic
landscape and events.
Table 1. Pensacola Archaeological Sites Mentioned in the Text.
FMSF
Site Name
Also Called
Article Maps Label
8ES22
Third Site of Pensacola, 1722-1756
Presidio Isla de Santa Rosa Pensacola
-
8ES46
Fort George
-
H
8ES1367
Fort San Bernardo
Queen’s Redoubt
F
8ES1373
North Baylen Trench
North Baylen Street
-
8ES2386
Prince of Wales Redoubt
-
G
8ES3422
Moreno Street 1
Brosenham 1
-
8ES3423
1781 Spanish Siege Site 1
Batteries 2 and 3, portions of left flank trenches
D and E
8ES3509
1781 Spanish Siege Site 2
Battery 1, portions of right flank trenches
B

140
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (3)
James (2011:119-126,145-148) included the Spanish
siege archaeology in his investigation and battlefield
model. He reached conclusions like those presented
here. Albeit preliminary in nature and warranting
further archaeological documentation, identifying sites
8ES3423 and 8ES3509 as components of the Spanish
offensive is an important step in the process of locating
the 1781 battlefield.
Archaeological Evidence of the Siege at 8ES3423
Military and associated artifacts were recovered
from shovel tests, during monitoring of pipeline trench
excavation, and from the surface of yards of private
residences. They include .69 caliber musket balls (n=4),
gunflints (n=4), hollow mortar shell fragments (n=35),
solid shot 4-inch cannon balls (n=2), canister or grape
Moreno St
> •
5 A
• •
• K>' "X.
A A
* A
A
•
•
A
A
•A
A#
*26
• •
LU
<
•
<
1
V A
•A
•
8ES3422
• • i
I m • A
8ES3423
Blount St
r
m
1
8#
V 6
•
5
s
• •
^.*3 .
• •
A A
• A *(
•A .
• ,
•
• *E
M *
4—'
F 1/1
a/m <
14
M
Blount:
St
Legend:
positive shovel test
negative shovel test w.
significant surface artifact(s)
location s
current site boundary
artillery (mortar shell fragments, solid cannon shot, grape shot)
musketry (musket balls, gun flints) 0
equipage (buckles, iron spikes, metal objects)
8ES3423
Site Map
100
200
meters
Figure 2. 8ES3423 Site Map Based on Archaeological Evidence as of 2012.

Mikell
1781 Spanish Siege of Pensacola
141
shot (n=2), ferrous metal buckles (n=2), cupreous metal
buckles (n=l), a large iron chisel or wedge, an iron
carriage or utility hook, and an apparent wrought iron
spike fragment. While the context of these artifacts is
far from ideal, most of the potential late 18th-century
military items are of types used by Spanish and British
forces and appear to be evidence that the trench line
and associated gun emplacements (Batteries 2 and 3)
were in the area of 8ES3423. The artifacts recovered
or documented are summarized in Table 2 and their
distribution is depicted in Figure 2.
Table 2. Summary Description of Pertinent* Artifacts from Sites 8ES3423 and 8ES3509.
Specific
Provenience
Depth
(cmbs)
Count
Artifact Description
8ES3423
private
residence
unknown
2
cast iron hollow artillery shell fragments from 8/10-inch diameter shell, 1 with smooth
bore fuse hole, previous find
private
residence
unknown
1
cast iron hollow artillery shell fragment from 8/10-inch diameter shell, previous find
private
residence
unknown
1
cast iron solid artillery shot, 5-inch (101.6 mm) diameter, previous find
private
residence
unknown
4
cast iron hollow artillery shell fragments from 8/10-inch (3) and 13-inch (1) diameter
shells, previous find
private
residence
unknown
1
lead musket ball, .69 caliber (16.4 mm diameter), weight=24.9 g, previous find
private
residence
unknown
1
cast iron hollow artillery shell fragment from 8/10-inch diameter shell, previous find
private
residence
unknown
4
cast iron hollow artillery shell fragments from 8/10-inch diameter shell, 1 with smooth
bore fuse hole, previous find
private
residence
unknown
4
cast iron hollow artillery shell fragments from 8/10-inch (2) and 13-inch (2) diameter
shells, previous find
private
residence
unknown
12
cast iron hollow artillery shell fragments from 8/10-inch (n=8) and 13-inch (n=4)
diameter shell, 4 with smooth bore fuse holes (1 is 13-inch), previous finds
private
residence
unknown
1
cast iron hollow artillery shell fragment from 8/10-inch diameter shell, previous find
private
residence
unknown
1
gray gunflint, 21.5 x 22.1mm, 10.9 mm thick, previous find
private
residence
unknown
1
lead musket ball, .69 caliber (16.4 mm diameter), weight=24.9g, previous find
private
residence
unknown
1
deformed (fired) lead musket ball, .69 caliber (16.4 mm max diameter), weight=25.2g,
previous find
private
residence
unknown
1
cast iron solid artillery shot, 4-inch (101.6 mm) diameter, previous find
surface
surface
1
lead musket ball, .69 caliber (16.4 mm diameter), weight = 25.7g, “A” Street and
Blount Street
pipe trench
30-60
1
wrought iron spike fragment (distal), utility easement on “C” Street just north of
Moreno Street intersection
pipe trench
30-60
1
wrought iron carriage or utility hook, utility easement on “C” Street 12 m north of
Moreno Street intersection
pipe trench
30-45
2
cast iron solid artillery grape shot or canister shot, 41.5 mm (1.5 inch) diameter utility
easement on “C” Street just north of Moreno Street intersection

142
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (3)
Table 2, continued.
Specific
Provenience
Depth
(cmbs)
Count
Artifact Description
pipe trench
30-60
2
cast iron hollow artillery shell fragments, utility easement on “C” Street just north of
Moreno Street intersection
pipe trench
30-60
1
cast iron hollow artillery shell fragment, 10 m north of inter-section of “C” and
Moreno Streets
pipe trench
30-60
1
light gray gunflint with light brown cortex, 24.5 X 23.3 mm, 7.2 mm thick, intersection
of “A” and Moreno Streets
pipe trench
30-60
1
forged iron heavy chisel or wedge; 1.75 inch diameter, 9.5 inch length, intersection of
“A” and Moreno Streets
pipe trench
30-60
2
cast iron hollow artillery shell fragments, 10 to 15 m south of intersection of “A” and
Moreno Streets
utilities
access pit
30-45
1
cast brass equipment buckle, Punta Sigüenza type (Powell 2008), 5 m north of ST 15
utilities
access pit
30-45
1
cast iron hollow artillery shell fragment, 5 m north of ST 15
ST 3
30-40
1
ferrous metal buckle fragment, proximal comer fragment
ST 5
30-45
1
light gray gunflint, fractured, 22.0 X 23.3 mm, 12.2 mm thick
ST 5
30-45
1
small cast iron artillery shell fragment
ST 10
20-35
2
small cast iron artillery shell fragments
ST 14
25-35
1
flattened (fired) musket ball, 24.8g, .69 caliber(?)
ST 14
25-35
1
dark gray “English” gunflint, 24.7 X 21.8 mm, 6.9 mm thick
ST 15
30-40
1
complete ferrous metal buckle, equipment or horse tack buckle, 30.5 X 29.6 mm
ST 26
20-35
1
cast iron hollow artillery shell fragment
8ES3509
surface
2
cast iron hollow artillery shell fragments (no diameter on shell)
surface
2
kaolin tobacco pie stem fragments
surface
1
creamware: edge molded shallow bowl or plate rim fragment
surface
2
pearlware: undecorated jar lid and “fancy” brown and blue annular decorated cup (?)
rim fragment
surface
1
dark olive green bottle neck fragment (heavily patinated, no finish)
*later historic (late 19th century to early 20th century) materials not included
Artillery and Musketry Artifacts
Characteristics of certain artifacts provide evidence
linking them to the Siege of Pensacola. Most convincing
are artillery shell and musketry-related materials
(Figures 3, 4, and 5). British and Spanish artillery of
the period included 8-inch, 10-inch, and 13-inch mortars
and howitzers. British 8-inch, 10-inch, and 13-inch
howitzers were quite common, but the Spanish tended
to prefer 5-inch and 10-inch mortars (NPS 2008). The
8- and 13-inch shell fragments are likely from exploded
shells, suggesting they were fired by the British at
Spanish positions.
A complete, unexploded 13-inch British mortar shell
was recovered from beneath Baylen Street (Joy 1987)
less than 800 m (0.5 mi) east of 8ES3423, and unexploded
(unarmed?) 8- to 10-inch and 13-inch mortar shells were
found during the Fort George excavations (Baker 1975).
The 4-inch diameter, 12-pound solid shot documented
was a common field artillery projectile type during the
18th century and was used up to the American Civil
War. “Twelve pounder cannon” was a common Spanish
field artillery during the siege, however, and they are
mentioned in both the Gálvez and Miranda diaries. The
two 12-pound cannon balls documented could have been
associated with Spanish Battery 2 or 3.

Mikell
1781 Spanish Siege of Pensacola
143
Figure 3. Selected Mortar Shell Fragments from 8ES3423. Top row: 8- to 10-inch shell fragments (n=2) with smooth bore
fuse holes (top) and 13-inch shell fragment with smooth bore fuse hole (top), exterior view. Next row: 8- to 10-inch shell
fragments (n=2) and 13-inch shell fragment, interior view. Bottom left: 13-inch shell fragment, cross section view showing
shell wall thickness.
Figure 4. Solid Cannon Shot of 4-inch Diameter from 8ES3423.

144
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (3)
The hollow shell fragments and grape shot are
consistent with the Gálvez and Miranda descriptions
of the British shelling with mortar and howitzer. The
distribution of shell fragments and grape shot is roughly
in line (relative to Queen’s Redoubt) with the mapped
orientation of the Spanish trench and redoubt attacked by
the British on May 4, 1781. The artillery shell fragments
include 8- to 10-inch (n=22) and 13-inch (n=7) hollow
mortar shell fragments, smaller shell fragments too small
to yield diameter measurements (n=8), and solid iron
grape shot (n=2). Six of the mortar shell fragments (five
8- to 10-inch and one 13-inch fragments) have smooth¬
bore fuse holes, but no fuse hole opening rings.
Both British and Spanish infantry carried .69
caliber smooth bore muskets in the late 1700s (Hogg
and Batchelor 1975; Winsor 1972). While .69 caliber
musket balls (Figure 5) are not temporally diagnostic
and were used up to the Civil War, the fact that only .69
caliber musket balls were found at 8ES3423 is consistent
with other evidence. Gunflints are also not temporally-
specific, but the recovery of a large dark gray “English”
flint and other large, generic gray gunflints (Figure 5)
correlates well with .69 caliber smooth bore muskets.
Figure 5. Artifacts from 8ES3423. Top: iron grape shot (n=2). Middle row: lead .69 caliber musket shot
(n=5). Fourth specimen from left is slightly deformed. Specimen at far right is flattened. Bottom row:
gunflints (n=4). “English” gunflint at far left. Severely spalled and fractured gunflint at far right.

Mikell
1781 Spanish Siege of Pensacola
145
Buckles and Equipage
Besides artillery and musketry artifacts, buckles
provide a link to the siege. Two complete buckles and
one buckle fragment were documented from 8ES3423
(Figure 6). The buckle fragment and one of the whole
buckles are made of ferrous metal and may or may not
be related to the siege, but neither was associated with
later materials. One cupreous metal (brass) buckle was
documented that more readily can be associated with
the 1781 siege. It is identified as a “Punta Sigüenza”
buckle type dated to ca. 1730-1780 (Powell 2008).
Figure 6. Buckles from 8ES3423. Left: cast brass Punta
Sigüenza buckle type. Right: ferrous metal equipment or
tack buckle.
According to Powell (2008), Punta Sigüenza buckles
have been excavated at Presidio Isla de Santa Rosa
Pensacola (1722-1752), the Pensacola area, and the site
of Gálveztown, Louisiana (established 1779). The Punta
Sigüenza buckle was a sliding or adjustable friction
fastener.
Equipage (Figure 7) artifacts are not temporally
diagnostic and cannot be associated with the siege with
certainty. However, their characteristics and presence on
the site suggest that they may be from the siege of 1781.
The forged, heavy iron chisel or wedge seems out of
place for a late 19th-century and later residential setting.
This artifact could be derived from logging in the area
before residential development, but it also could be a
tool used by Spanish troops to split and to shape wooden
timbers to construct trenches and gun emplacements.
The chisel/wedge was recovered from the vicinity of
what is thought to be the general location of a Spanish
“advanced redoubt” (Battery 2).
The same can be said of the wrought iron spike distal
fragment, except that it was found near the anomaly that
may represent a portion of the trench described below.
The wrought iron hook could be Spanish artillery
carriage hardware (tie-down or towing), but it could be
from a 19th-century carriage. However, it is wrought,
lending support to its association with the siege.
Figure 7. Equipage from 8ES3423. a: forged chisel/wedge, b: wrought iron utility (carriage) hook, c: wrought iron
spike distal fragment.

146
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (3)
Archaeological Evidence of the Siege at 8ES3509
Military and associated temporally “correct”
artifacts from 8ES3509 (Figure 8 and 9) include two
cast iron hollow shell fragments. Both are too small for
determining their diameter. They are consistent in width
(thickness) with 8- to 10-inch shell fragments from
8ES3423 and are likely from exploded British shells
fired at Battery 1.
Other artifacts from 8ES3509 are less secure in their
attribution to the 1781 siege. However, because there is
no evidence of later 18th- and early 19th-century activity
in the area, they are potentially associated with Battery
1. These artifacts (Figure 8) include two kaolin pipe
stem fragments with 1.3 to 1.5 mm stem bores, a molded
edge creamware shallow bowl or plate rim fragment, a
“fancy” blue and brown annular decorated pearlware
cup (?) rim fragment, an undecorated pearlware jar lid
fragment, and a fragment of a heavily patinated dark
olive green bottle neck with no finish present.
Figure 8. Artifacts from 8ES3509. a: cast iron hollow mortar shell fragments, b: edge-molded creamware rim
fragment, c: undecorated pearlware jar lid fragment, d: annular decorated pearlware, e: kaolin pipe stem
fragments, f: dark olive green bottle glass.

Mikeix
1781 Spanish Siege of Pensacola
147
Summary of Archaeological Findings
The location of 8ES3423 corresponds to a portion of
a siege trench, an outpost or redoubt, and gun batteries
(Batteries 2 and 3). 8ES3509 correlates with the location
of the initial Spanish gun battery (Battery 1). These
Spanish positions are depicted on maps of the time in
Figures 10 through 13. Figure 14 depicts the projected
location of the Spanish siege positions, based on maps
from Rush (1966) and Coker (1999), the 8ES3423 and
8ES3509 locations, as well as the British positions on the
modem landscape.
The Figure 14 projection places each Spanish
gun battery (Batteries 1, 2, and 3) on high ground
at approximately the same elevation as the British
positions, which would facilitate firing on the British.
This projection onto the modem landscape places a
large portion of the east-west trench line on high ground
extending across a ridge, which would provide military
advantages over the lower ground between the positions
and the British defense works. The first Spanish battery
(Battery 1) is referred to as the Spanish right or right
flank, and the trench and positions (Batteries 2 and
3) within 8ES3423 are the Spanish left flank. James
(201 TFigure 39) presents a similar projected placement
of the Spanish offensive positions (Figure 15).
Dixon School
40
co
CO CO
c
0
c 8ES5509
Brainerd St
k
7)
•
a c
—
[[•a
•
Pm!
\
m c
Gonzalez St
cc
iV p*
LI
DeSntn St
Legend
# significant surface artifact(s)
location
site boundary (prelimenary)
a artillery
c ceramic /glass
o
P kaolin pipe stem
A
N
t\
lOO
8ES3509
Site Map
200
meters
Figure 9. 8ES3509 Site Map Based on Archaeological Evidence as of 2012.

Figure 10. Adaptation of Map of the town of Pensacola conquered by the Spanish Arms at the command of Field Marshall Don Bernard de Gálvez on May 8, 1781
(English translation) (Servicio Histórico Militar, Madrid, Spain). From Rush (1966:132); also digitized in Coker (1999). A: main Spanish camp and garrison;
B: initial Spanish gun battery (Battery 1); C: Spanish siege trenches; D: Spanish battery (Battery 2) attacked by British on May 4, 1781; E: advanced Spanish
battery (Battery 3); F: Queen’s Redoubt (British); G: Prince of Wales Redoubt (British); H: Fort George (British); I: town and Fort of Pensacola (British).
148 The Florida Anthropologist 2019 Vol. 72 (3)

PENSACOLA
!- ! ‘ i*.i
A»,'*, *•** * f/t ■? * ' sll * . . * * *, p k , , ‘ <• -,~V‘ * i A * *
. . -• .,* ii i t,;—jl . » . ‘ * - ’ ,», '‘A - ,.
- v. c‘ /*- / ’■ • A " ,-A /* ‘ *. * -Si .,jVr. a*
/ 4^ ir +r ,s V*** . * •’-**• 4 i , * * ? ,. 1 1 . Í *•... 4 .* , lH * 4*. •*< ♦ k * » l, . ^ » C
s Í* ’ ■ s . • '■••* • , ■- A.s • 's\s :\ A'-
ti í5.-?tw i ’’ >! " 'AsAv •*>'*•.*• \ <■ *' ‘
4 tbj- ♦ itSw-E '
•♦***/.*• **»*»**» ’» , ,
i « .V »% 4Í. .4 J- I Vi {
V * M *4\ » _ ^ 1
* ;
4 \ s w *' â–  v1 *
. > ?; v, *t - * * t i f +
* * v
A A f f * *
4 A
:uj ~/~ »tu %
, 4 4 5 .A,
â–  .^7*'
/nr mi rnmm *
- h’á runis
A» ^ »»*w ff <■<«.
B torn+m ,
: tüf&vfé
r I <« »4Í.:»'4 ^ I
é 0s S m4 SSm' t*
Sf fr* 4.
'S ' *- i
^«wi4 ^ ! »* -
i M !- ! * -í
d,.A*»i fJ> a*,*/*##* **4**<4b, «¥$■
i**#*'- 4 t*x** . r-yt 4
¡ffitoUfat’ ,tSs £i' #»* M 4 Á#
jM V»4i 144/ ■
/ásr^» JSífc.l |Wl¡ 4^» j^í-« - 4j
’0mvtá. 44<***-m MS"if #•■*. n
jl
AAS /*# %
HJUU. .***<*«.«» $■ ■■< ■ M
ymi%&Am /** *»* «:
4»Mr 0
ll Js-jA** y4*%**â– &. *â– *#
>f mt ání*mm M*4 *f **Mg *-■■* %l
+‘4mr #v IS* tés** *
. life* í> ás*nvmt- l
AptÁM 0- rN
i
â–  *4*^^
dUt'mjUtlkij'***’
Figure 11. Plan Ft. George and Adjacent Works at Pensacola in West Florida, Henry Heldring, Capt. Lt. 3rd Regiment ofWaldeck (Heldring 1781). A: main
Spanish camp and garrison; B: initial Spanish gun battery (Battery 1); C: Spanish siege trenches; D: Spanish battery (Battery 2) attacked by British on May
4,1781; E: advanced Spanish battery (Battery 3); F: Queen’s Redoubt (British); G: Prince of Wales Redoubt (British); H: Fort George (British); I: town and
Fort of Pensacola (British).
Mikell 1781 Spanish Siege of Pensacola 149

150
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (3)
Figure 12. Adaptation of Plan of the town of Pensacola, of Fort George and fortifications recently constructed by the British
nation, signed by Don Luis Huet, July 1781 (Huet 1781). B: initial Spanish gun battery (Battery 1); C: Spanish siege
trenches; D: Spanish battery (Battery 2) attacked by British on May 4, 1781; E: advanced Spanish battery (Battery 3); F:
Queen’s Redoubt (British); G: Prince of Wales Redoubt (British); H: Fort George (British).
Miranda’s estimates that the “advanced redoubt”
(Battery 2) was approximately 500 m (1,640 ft) from
Queen’s Redoubt potentially places it in the eastern
portion of 8ES3423. Miranda also placed Battery 3
approximately 420 m (1,380 ft) from Queen’s Redoubt
or in the southeastern portion of 8ES3423. These two
specific locations are in or partially in the eastern half of
site 8ES3423 as it is currently documented.
Alternatively, Farmar describes the Spanish attempt
to control high ground located 275 m (900 ft) from
Queen’s Redoubt, which appears to be short. Farmar’s
estimate of a half-mile (805 m) correlates well with
Miranda’s estimate of the distance between the trench
and Fort George, described as about 500 m from the
enemy fortifications on one side (Queen’s Redoubt) and
800 m on the other (Fort George).
Curiously, there is an account of the battle by
Brigadier General John Campbell, who commanded the
British forces in the British colony of West Florida in
1778 to 1782. Campbell states that on the night of May
7, the Spanish “pushed their approaches ... to within
100 or 150 yards [91 to 137 m] near to the advanced
redoubt [Queen’s Redoubt], where by the next morning
they had made considerable progress in constructing
a battery” (Rush 1966:103). Campbell’s distance
estimated between Queen’s Redoubt and the advanced

Mikell
1781 Spanish Siege of Pensacola
151
las mwedíáá&^sjé
vd2ó JC^JÍbrl
'¿law jut Manifiesten los fumes JnC Jans
su tormo y prefecto dem ^Alague ai dicho
JCJ7&) '
Ucacion
ó sjyítatU^SeMnny
{UifC OüUcarJC un TíJuítO CafOZ/f.l
sirbn %X cola «.^trmtktro.
D tfirm Sguna ,â– 
K fhntü yntLYcná* um un ftño
V '\J&xrtxrt* JC$l Canana
V sjfwn.l /¿atan*** +M<#urüi
jr^y
K J2>¡Utr\iX\X *Mtrrt Canvntf Ctm Mrux&nuU. fuerte
Mpryi QAcím .xutmm
T fuvnt \JerfV.g*u Cmtúu *m«h
Figure 13. Spanish Map titled Map that demonstrates the forts of Pensacola and surrounding area, t/ie terrain, and the plan
of attack as described in the field on April 25, 1781 (English translation), from Martin-Merás (2007).
fort (Battery 3) of the Spanish siege works appears to be
underestimated by other estimates and map depictions.
Unfortunately, conclusive in situ evidence of
Spanish trenches and redoubts was not found during the
pipeline project or later investigations by James (2011).
Such evidence would be artifacts of the period. Specific
military artifacts would include weapons or their parts,
diagnostic (stamped or marked) uniform buttons and
other accoutrements (gorgets, cartridge box seals, etc.),
coins predating 1781, and buried burned or unbumed
timbers or posts in disturbed soil profiles of a trench or
gun pit.
One disturbed soil profile along the pipeline route
(Figures 16 and 17) was identified, a roughly 6 m (20
ft) wide area on “C” Street, just north of the intersection
with Moreno Street. No artifacts were recovered from
the disturbed soil profile. However, this disturbance is
intriguing because its location correlates with the trench
as mapped by the Spanish, and siege-related artifacts
were recovered in proximity (mortar shell fragments,
grape shot, wrought iron hook and spike fragment). The
disturbance is wide enough (4 to 6 m) and deep enough
(approximately 2 m) to be the Spanish trench.

152
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (3)
iwpifijl
Queen’s Redoubt
8ES1367
r
Prince of Wales
Redoubt
IV X u .TJwg.ra^CT^W
vl% LMff
Fort George
8ES46
200
meters
400
Legend
Projected Location of Spanish Siege
Positions on the U.S.G.S. Pensacola
7.5” quadrangle (PR 1987)
(Map 1)
B
D
E
recorded site boundary
initial Spanish battery position (established late March 1781)
’advanced fort” on Spanish trench line attacked by British on May 4, 1781
Spanish battery from which Queen’s Redoubt was destroyed on May 8, 1781
Spanish siege works from "Map of the town of Pensacola conquered by the
Spanish arms at the command of Mariscal de Campo Don Bernardo Galvez
on May 8, 1781" (Rush 1966 and Coker 1999)
Figure 14. Projected Spanish Siege Positions on the Modern Landscape. Based on Rush (1966) map (inset),
archaeological evidence from 8ES3423, and known location of Queen’s Redoubt.

Mikell
1781 Spanish Siege of Pensacola
153
Figure 15. Projected Locations of Spanish Positions on the Modern Landscape (from James 2011:Figure 39).

154
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (3)
Figure 16. Disturbed Soil Profile. Portion of east wall in pipeline trench on “C” Street north of Moreno Street.
Legend
I Stratum I: grayish brown (lOYR 5/2) sand under sod
II Stratum II: red (2.5 YR 5/6 sandy clay road fill
III Stratum III: yellowish brown (lOYR 5/6) sand
IV Stratum IV: brownish yellow (lOYR 6/6) sand
a dark brown (lOYR 3/3) to dark yellowish
brown (lOYR 3/6) sand
b very dark brown (lOYR 2/2) to dark grayish
brown (lOYR 3/2) sand
c pale brown (lOYR 8/2) to light gray (lOYR 7/2) sand
East Wall Profile
Trench Anomaly
North of "C" St.
and Moreno St.
Intersection
0 100 200
centimeters
Figure 17. Diagram of the Soil Anomaly Profile on “C” Street. Compare with photograph in Figure 16.

Mikell
1781 Spanish Siege of Pensacola
155
Evidence from Overlay Mapping
Besides Figure 10 used to compile Figure 14, four
additional maps of the Spanish and British positions
include:
1) The Henry Heldring map (Figure 11), completed for
the British (Reparaz 1993:164; Rush 1966:118-119).
Henry Heldring was a German captain lieutenant in
the Third Regiment of Waldecks, who fought under the
British command during the siege (Rush 1966:118).
2) Two copies of a Spanish map (Figure 12) signed by
Don Luis Huet, dated May 15, 1781 (Rush 1966:136-
137) and July 1781 (Huet 1781; Reparaz 1993:169). A
similar map signed by Francisco de Planas and dated May
27, 1781, shows an alignment of the Spanish positions
virtually identical to the Huet map (Rush 1966:130-131).
3) A fanciful Spanish map, which shows the explosion
of the powder magazine at Queen’s Redoubt and troop
movements, titled “Detail of the Taking of the Stronghold
of Pensacola and the Surrender of West Florida to the
Arms of King Carlos III” (Reparaz 1993:148).
4) A Spanish map (Figure 13) titled “Map that
demonstrates the forts of Pensacola and surrounding
area, the terrain, and the plan of attack as described in
the field on April 25, 1781” from Martin-Merás (2007)
provided by the Pensacola Historical Society.
Baitisj
•Ttdjspfij
Queen’s Redoubt
8ES1367
Queen’s Redoubt
8ES1367
Prince of Wales
Redoubt
Prince of Wales
Redoubt
te,
Queen’s Redoubt
8ES1367
Queen’s Redoubt
8ES1367
Prince of Wales
Redoubt
Prince of Wales
Redoubt
¿¡Mne t
Ir
Fort George
8ES46
Figure 18. Projected Siege Positions on the Modern Landscape. Based on: a: Heldring (1781); b: Huet (1781); c:
Reparaz (1993); d: Martin-Merás (2007), archaeological evidence, and known locations of Queen’s Redoubt and
Fort George.

156
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (3)
In a fashion similar to Figure 14, the positions
depicted in Figure 18 were projected on the modern
landscape by tracing them on digitized copies of original
maps using Adobe Illustratorâ„¢ and placing them on the
area’s topographic map. Two notable patterns emerged.
Each map places the initial Spanish gun battery (Battery
1) on the high ground west of Queen’s Redoubt, where
site 8ES3509 is located. All but one map place a
significant portion of the Spanish siege trench and/or the
advanced redoubt (Battery 2) and advanced fort (Battery
3) within or near site 8ES3423 as it is currently defined
archaeologically.
The variation in the maps may be related to
perspectives of the map makers and their ability to place
the trench works in the landscape as they viewed it.
Figure 14, based on Figure 11, is the “best fit” for terrain
characteristics, the location of archaeological evidence
from sites 8ES3423 and 8ES3509, correlation with
Miranda’s distance estimates, and orientation to British
positions. This map is also considered the most reliable
in its association with the Gálvez diary (Rush 1966).
These maps indicate that the Spanish siege
trenches and gunnery positions were on high ground
and circumvented the “valley” that lay between their
approach and the British defenses in the North Hill
Preservation District and Fort George. While this has
been surmised by many interested in the siege, the
recording of sites 8ES3423 and 8ES3509 and these maps
will help archaeologists to locate an 18th-century historic
landscape in an urban environment (James 2009, 2011).
Conclusions
Although we currently lack in situ evidence
pinpointing components of the Spanish siege line (trench,
advanced redoubt, and advanced fort) within 8ES3423,
the site has yielded materials that may represent remnants
of the trench. Site 8ES3423 is situated approximately
where Spanish maps and descriptions place it relative
to Queen’s Redoubt. Ample evidence indicates that the
British shelled the site area with mortars and howitzers,
while other military artifacts (such as 4-inch sol id cannon
shot, gunflints, and musket balls) suggest that the eastern
portion of the site is a plausible general location of the
redoubt where the British attacked the Spanish advance
on May 4, 1781.
The distribution of mortar shell fragments alone
identifies the general vicinity of the trench and the
redoubt attacked by the British, and other Spanish siege
works. The distribution of British munitions (exploded
8- to 10-inch and 13-inch artillery shell fragments),
grape shot, “English” gunflints, and deformed (fired)
musket balls is strongly suggestive of British shelling
from Queens’ Redoubt and a ground assault at the site.
Similarly, 8ES3509 consists of the right types of artifacts
in the right location to allow preliminary association
with the general location of the initial Spanish battery.
The abundance of archaeological material extracted
from 8ES3423 highlights the site area’s significance.
When combined with artifacts identified during the
resident surveys by James (2011), nearly 50 18th-century
exploded cast-iron hollow artillery shell fragments were
found in the area of 8ES3423. “The abundance of
military ordinance at this location further demonstrates
the high probability of delineating this area as the site of
the Spanish works” (James 2011:167).
The evidence to date suggests that a fierce
bombardment by the British targeted a Spanish
entrenchment at the 8ES3423 location, where the Spanish
were on high ground and likely targeting Queen’s
Redoubt. The highest concentration of artillery and
other military artifacts is associated with 8ES3423, but
there is little doubt that the site will be expanded or new
sites recorded as additional investigations are conducted.
In fact, data obtained by James (2011:169) indicate that
8ES3423 likely should be expanded to the north and east
to cover the elevated topography that was beyond the
scope of the initial recording of 8ES3423 (Mikell 2010).
Acknowledgments
I would like to acknowledge the assistance and
cooperation of personnel with Utility Service Company
of Gulf Breeze, Florida. They made discoveries
described here possible. They mi 1 led asphalt and gingerly
removed fill under my direction so testing could be done
ahead of trenching and pipe laying. Without their help
during the Emerald Coast Utilities Authority wastewater
treatment relocation project, this investigation would
have yielded few results. Property owners in the area of
site 8ES3423 kindly provided access to artifacts found
on their properties over the years. This was of great help
in documenting 8ES3423.
I am grateful to John Phillips of the University of
West Florida who shared ideas about the location of
siege trenches. My hat is off to Larry James, who while a
graduate student at the University of West Florida, shared
ideas, data, and maps with me. Finally, the late Brian
O. Shoemaker, my friend and colleague at Panamerican
Consultants, Inc., contributed significantly to fieldwork
and preparation of the project report.

Mikell
1781 Spanish Siege of Pensacola
157
References Cited
Baker, Henry A.
1975 Archaeological Investigations at Fort George,
Pensacola, Florida. Miscellaneous Project
Report Series Number 24. Florida Division of
Archives, History, and Records Management,
Tallahassee.
Baker, Maury, and Margaret Bissler Haas (editors)
1977 Bernardo de Gálvez’s Combat Diary
for the Battle of Pensacola, 1781. Florida
Historical Quarterly 56(2): 189-194.
Bense, Judith A.
1989 Pensacola Archaeological Survey, Volumes 1
and 2. Pensacola Archaeological Society
Publication 2. Pensacola, Florida.
Coker, William S.
1999 Pensacola, 1686-1821. In Archaeology of
Colonial Pensacola, edited by Judith A. Bense,
pp. 5-60. University Press of Florida,
Gainesville.
Ferrer-Dalmau Magazine
2015 Cuadro por españa y por el rey, Galvez en
America. Oil on canvas by Augusto Ferrer-Dal¬
mau. Digital image, http://www.fdmagazine.es/
FD10/fdl0.html#p=40. accessed January 2015.
https://en.wikipedia.Org/wiki/File:Cuadro_por_
espa%C3%Bla_y_por el rev. Galvez en
America.ipg. accessed August 2019.
Heldring, Henry
1781 Plan of Fort George and Adjacent Works at
Pensacola in West Florida. William L.
Clements Library, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor.
Hogg, Ian V., and John H. Batchelor
1975 Armies of the American Revolution. Prentice-
Hall Inc. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Huet, Don Louis
1781 Plan of the town of Pensacola, of Fort George
in Pensacola, West Florida and fortifications
constructed recently by the British Nation.
Electronic file: USA-04-14. Instituto de
Historia y Cultura Militar, Archivo General
Militar de Madrid.
James, Larry B.
2009 Hidden Vestiges: An Approach to Recognizing
an 18th Century Historic Landscape Within an
Urban Environment. Paper presented at the
2009 Florida Anthropological Society Meeting,
Pensacola.
2011 Hidden Vestiges: An Approach to Recognizing
an 18th Century Historic Landscape Within An
Urban Environment. M.A. thesis, Department
of Anthropology, University of West Florida,
Pensacola.
Joy, Deborah
1987 Archaeological Investigations Along North
Baylen Street in North Hill, Pensacola,
Florida: Report of Investigations 11. Office
of Cultural and Archaeological Research,
University of West Florida, Pensacola.
Martin-Merás, Mia Luisa
2007 Map that demonstrates the forts of Pensacola
and surrounding area, the terrain, and the
plan of attack as described in the field on
April 25, 1781. In Bernardo de Galvez y Su
Tiempo (Pensacola Chapter). Published by
Colegio Oficial de Ingenieros Tenicos
Industriales de Malaga, Malaga.
Mikell, Gregory A.
2001 Phase 1B Cultural Resource Survey of the
Proposed AT&T New Orleans, Louisiana to
Pensacola, Florida Fiber Optics Route
through Portions of Pensacola, Florida.
Panamerican Consultants, Inc., Tuscaloosa,
Alabama.
2010 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of
the Proposed Emerald Coast Utilities Authority
Main Street Wastewater Treatment Plant
Relocation, High Probability Areas 1-6,
Archaeological Testing and Pipeline
Trench Construction Monitoring, Escambia
County, Florida. Report for Baskerville-
Donovan, Inc. and Hatch-Mott-McDonald, Inc.,
by Panamerican Consultants, Inc., Pensacola.

158
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (3)
National Park Service (NPS)
2008 Artillery Through the Ages, A Short Illustrated
History of Cannon, Emphasizing Types Used
in America. Interpretive Series History No. 3
(1955). Electronic document, http://www.nps.
gov/historv/history/online_books/source/is3/
is3c3.htm. accessed October 2008.
Padgett, Janies A. (editor)
1943 Bernardo De Gálvez’s Siege of Pensacola in
1781 As Related in Robert Farmar’s Journal.
The Louisiana Historical Quarterly 26(2).
Phillips, John C., Lee McKenzie,
and William Anderson
1997 The Geographic Information System and
Cultural Resource Management in Pensacola,
Florida. University of West Florida Institute
of West Florida Archaeology, Report of
Investigations 60. Pensacola, Florida.
Powell, John T.
2008 Military Artifacts of Spanish Florida, 1539-
1821, An Internet Museum. Spanish Military
Buckles of the Floridas and Louisiana, ca.
1700-1821. Electronic document, http://www.
artifacts.org/Bucklepage.htm. accessed July
2016.
Reparaz, Carmen
1993 1 Alone, Bernardo de Gálvez and the Taking
of Pensacola in 1781; A Spanish Contribution
to the Independence of the United States.
English version, Translated by Walter
Rubin. Ediciones de Cultura Hispánica,
Instituto de Cooperación Ibero-Americana,
Madrid.
Rush, N. Orwin
1966 The Battle of Pensacola. Florida State
University Studies 48, Tallahassee.
United States Geological Survey (USGS)
1978 Pensacola, Florida. 7.5 minute quadrangle
sheet, photo-revised 1987. Washington, D.C.
Winsor, Justin
1972 The American Revolution. Land’s End Press,
New York.
Worcester, Donald E. (Translator)
1951 Miranda’s Diary of the Siege of Pensacola,
1781. Florida Historical Quarterly
30(3): 164-192.

TRENDS IN GRAVE MARKER ATTRIBUTES IN GREENWOOD CEMETERY,
ORLANDO, FLORIDA
Erin K. Martin
Department of Anthropology, University of Central Florida, 4000 Central Florida Blvd., Howard Phillips Hall, Room
309, Orlando, FL 32816 Erinmartinfaknights. ucf edu
John J. Schultz
National Center for Forensic Science, 12354 Research Parkway, Suite 225, Orlando, FL 32816 iphi^schultz^ucfedu
J. Marla Toyne
Department of Anthropology, University of Central Florida, 4000 Central Florida Blvd., Howard Phillips Hall, Room
309, Orlando, FL 32816 J.Marla. TovneCwucf.edu
Introduction
Greenwood Cemetery in Orlando, Florida, is
important in the community as a large garden cemetery
with a wide variety of grave markers and a long time
range from the late 1800s to the present day. The purpose
of our research is to analyze a sample of grave marker
attributes in two sections of the cemetery and to evaluate
change over time following methodology outlined by
Meyers and Schultz (2016). This study evaluates grave
marker design, material, iconography, and epitaphs. Our
research also investigates how characteristics, such as age
and inferred sex of the decedent, may affect the mortuary
context of an individual. We note that our sample (Table
1) is roughly equal for males and females, but it is biased
for adults (1,012 of 1,102, or 92%), especially “old”
adults (56 years or older, 802 of 1,102 or 73%). This
bias makes our attribute analysis more robust for adults
than for teens, children, and infants.
Background
Cemeteries are socially constructed places for
interment of dead community members (Rugg 2000).
They contain historical and cultural data so those who
study them often refer to them as “museums” (Meyer
1992). In many cultures, each individual plot is marked
in a meaningful way (Rugg 2000). In North American
and European traditions, graves are often identified with
specific, permanent monuments. These grave markers
are carefully crafted, historically specific material
culture and are of interest to a wide range of disciplines,
including history, genealogy, anthropology, geography,
art, and folklore (Meyer 1992; Carmack 2002).
Historians and genealogists use cemeteries to
gather biographical data about individuals and events.
Anthropologists study cemeteries to explore cultural
changes related to beliefs about death, identity, and
memory over time (Pearson 1999; Chesson 2001;
Cannon 2002; Brown 2008). In addition, data from grave
markers can be used to study epidemics, socioeconomic
status, infant mortality, family structure, migration, life
expectancy, religion and many other topics (Meyer 1992;
Brown 2008; Carmack 2002).
Cemetery Studies in Florida
Florida has not had extensive cemetery research
compared to New England (Bunnel 1992; Renkin
2000; Brennan 2011) and New York (Culbertson
and Randall 1987; Goerlich 1987; Wright 2011). Of
limited publications about Florida cemeteries, many are
historical, with the purpose to document or to inventory,
rather than to understand more about the people
who created them. For example, one book contains
photographs and assorted facts about historic cemeteries
in Tampa (Bender and Dunham 2013), another explores
multiple cemeteries via descriptions of intriguing
individuals interred in them (Haskins 2011).
Although most publications about cemeteries in
Florida are non-academic, many important studies
have been conducted. One is a comprehensive survey
of folk graveyards in Wakulla County, which includes
information about populations, cemetery history, grave
markers, epitaphs, and other characteristics (Stokes
1991). Another study contains abundant information
about the history of cemeteries, and their populations,
in Duval County (Edwards 1956). A study of African
American cemeteries and mortuary practices was
conducted in north Florida (Nigh 1997). In recent years,
cemetery research in Florida has included study of
fraternal iconography in Greenwood Cemetery (Murphy
2007), grave markers in two Orange County cemeteries
(Robinson 2018), and a preliminary study of epitaphs in
five Florida cemeteries (Patrick 2018).
2019 Vol. 72(3)
The Florida Anthropologist
159

160
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (3)
Another important study conducted by Meyers and
Schultz (2016) involved grave markers in ten cemeteries
in Florida. The research focused on various grave
marker attributes and their frequency in specific time
periods across five counties in peninsular Florida. Here,
this article presents the first comprehensive analysis of
grave marker attributes in the Orlando area.
Greenwood Cemetery, Orlando
Historical information about Greenwood Cemetery
was provided by Stockton (2012a, 2012b) and by
personal communication in 2017 with Donald Price,
the sexton (caretaker) of Greenwood Cemetery. Prior
research of Greenwood Cemetery addressed genealogy
(Stockton 2012a, 2012b) and fraternal iconography
(Murphy 2007). Prior to 1880 and the establishment
of Greenwood Cemetery, Orlando did not have a single
central cemetery. Most individuals were buried in family
plots on private property or in small churchyards. The
land for Greenwood Cemetery was originally purchased
by eight Orlando residents. Following its acquisition
by local government in 1892, burials from multiple
small cemeteries in the Orlando area were exhumed and
reinterred at the cemetery (Stockton 2012a, 2012b). The
City of Orlando still owns and maintains the cemetery.
Greenwood Cemetery is composed of 50 blocks,
most of which are available to all residents of Orlando
able to pay the required plot fee, while others are reserved
for certain subpopulations, such as the babyland block,
American Legion block, and two segregated blocks. The
segregated blocks were reserved for non-whites, while
other blocks were for whites only. The cemetery was
desegregated in the mid-1960s, after the segregated
blocks became full. Prior to desegregation, Greenwood
Cemetery was unique in its method of segregation as
it was the only cemetery in Orlando in which African
American and white individuals were buried within
the same fence line. Following desegregation, non¬
whites became eligible for internment across the entire
cemetery, including in blocks that were previously white-
only (Donald Price, personal communication 2017; City
of Orlando 2019).
Overall, few restrictions are applied to grave
markers in Greenwood Cemetery. Marker materials
are restricted to granite, marble, and bronze, owing to
durability. The shape of markers is restricted in two
sections of the cemetery, but these were not in our
sample. Unfortunately, the cemetery did not retain a
timeline about restrictions (City of Orlando 2019).
Mortuary Theory
Grave markers are a reflection of the deceased
individual and the society in which the individual lived.
Mortuary theory serves as a framework for understanding
the relationship between the mortuary context of a
deceased individual and their society (Saxe 1970;
Binford 1971; Beck 1995). This approach relies on the
notion that mortuary contexts, including grave markers,
do not simply reflect a deceased individual, but rather a
person who had relationships with others according to
rules of their social system (Saxe 1970; Binford 1971).
The notion of social persona is important in
mortuary archaeological theory, as funerary contexts are
assumed to represent specific facets of the social persona
of the deceased individual (Saxe 1970; Binford 1971;
Beck 1995). Living individuals, the surviving family
or community members, may decide the characteristics
of the deceased that are important and appropriate
for immortalization in the mortuary setting. These
decisions are based on rules and structure in the larger
social system and change over time (Saxe 1970; Pearson
1999). Therefore, the mortuary context, including the
grave marker, of a deceased individual can provide
information about both the deceased and the values of
the sociocultural system in which they lived (Pearson
1999).
Specific aspects of the life of a deceased individual
may be represented in some manner in their mortuary
context (Saxe 1970; Binford 1971; Chesson 2001),
possibly via iconography, epitaph, or grave marker
design. These attributes may allow demographic
characteristics, such as age at death and inferred sex, to
influence the resulting mortuary context. For example,
the grave marker of a five-year-old girl may include an
iconographic imagine or epitaph which would not be
present on the grave marker of a sixty-year-old woman.
The process of creating and maintaining a mortuary
context serves multiple purposes, many of which serve
the needs and interests of living individuals rather
than those of the deceased individual (Cannon 2002).
However, in modem societies, living individuals may
choose to detail a mortuary preference in a will prior to
their death. Thus, death is a significant altering moment
in a family and community.
Through mortuary practices, we shape our responses
to this social loss. The treatment of the body, including
burial in a cemetery, allows survivors the opportunity
to shape the process through which they memorialize
the dead. Funerary rites, including the creation of
mortuary structures, such as grave markers, are related
to expressions of grief, mourning, and human agency as

Martin, Schultz, Toyne
Trends in Grave Markers
161
much as they are related to social traditions of a specific
community (Pearson 1999; Cannon 2012). The analysis
of grave marker morphology can allow us to identify
patterns and changes in those social expressions across
space and time.
Methodology of Attribute Analysis
Permission to conduct research at Greenwood
Cemetery was provided by Sexton Donald Price.
Greenwood Cemetery is composed of 50 blocks and
three units and occupies 92 acres. Methodology follows
Meyers and Schultz (2016), and specific modifications
in this analysis are identified below. The attributes are
marker design, marker material, iconography, epitaph,
and presence or absence of footstones, curbs, and
memorial photographs.
Sample Size
Data were collected from each grave marker in
Greenwood Cemetery Block A and Block 9. These
sections were sampled based on the dates of interment
within each section, as well as their size, because a
goal of this research was to collect data on a sample of
comparable size to that of Meyers and Schultz (2016).
Block A is the oldest section in Greenwood Cemetery
and thus it provided information about a number of pre-
1900 grave markers through to the modern day. Block
9, opened for internment in the mid-1950s, provided
information from mid-century to modem day. Both
blocks are composed of general population interments,
meaning that, following desegregation, these blocks
were not reserved for a specific subpopulation and are
inclusive of any Orlando resident able to pay the required
plot fee.
Data were analyzed from a total of925 grave markers
representing 1,102 distinct individuals. Therefore, when
analyzing trends such as individual iconography and
epitaph, it is necessary to analyze them separately rather
than as a unit. However, characteristics related to the
grave marker itself, rather than the individual, such
as marker design or marker material, will be analyzed
on a grave marker basis regardless of the number of
individuals represented by the grave marker. Data were
collected and analyzed on 547 female and 555 male
individuals (Table 1).
The comparative sample of Meyers and Schultz
(2016) consisted of data from ten cemeteries across
peninsular Florida. These cemeteries vary in size and
population, and from well-maintained to neglected.
They include traditional black, public, privately owned,
and family cemeteries.
MALE
FEMALE
TOTAL
Infant
29
16
45
Child
13
12
25
Teen
11
9
20
Young
Adult
28
39
67
Middle Age
Adult
82
61
143
Old Adult
392
410
802
TOTAL
555
547
1,102
Table 1. Frequency by Inferred Sex and Age at Death
Categories (see text) of the Sample from Block A and
Block 9, Greenwood Cemetery.
Marker Design
A category was assigned to each grave marker based
on the general design of the marker, mostly its shape.
For a grave marker representing multiple individuals,
data were recorded separately for each person. Our
design categories include beveled, cube, cross, ground,
ledger, slant, upright, vaults, joint vase, obelisk and
miscellaneous (Figure 1). The miscellaneous category
includes post, table, scroll top desk, T-bar, wooden,
Woodmen of the World, custom laser designs, and
temporary markers. The miscellaneous category was
created to include the marker designs thought to appear
less frequently. Military markers were in the study by
Meyers and Schultz (2016) but were excluded here
because Greenwood Cemetery has a specific section
dedicated to interment of military veterans that was not
included in this study. A new category, Joint Vase, was
used in the present study.
Marker Material
These include granite, marble, bronze, other metals,
sandstone, cement, and miscellaneous materials (Figure
2). The latter category includes ceramic, tile, and wood.
Iconographic Images
Images include animal, banner, floral, fraternal, heart,
landscape, military, matrimonial, musical, open book,
professional, patriotic, religious, scroll, sunburst, sport/
hobby, and miscellaneous (Figure 3). The miscellaneous

162
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (3)
Joint Vase
3. ABBOTT HILLS
AMO
RACE E. ABBOTT
DRQyV'-J.EO
ouNE 27. 188?
VERA I. ípUILL
Cube
Ground
Miscellaneous
Slant
Bevel
Figure 1. Grave Marker Types in Block A and Block 9, Greenwood Cemetery.

Martin, Schultz, Toyne
Trends in Grave Markers
163
Marble
Miscellaneous
Bronze
Granite
Other Metals
Cement
Figure 2. Grave Markers Showing Material Types in
Block A and Block 9, Greenwood Cemetery.
category includes any design, such as a geometric shape,
that does not fit in any other category as it is not meant to
represent any specific object. It is possible for one grave
marker, or individual, to be represented by multiple
categories of iconography.
Epitaph
After we documented them, each epitaph was placed
in a category. Categories include familial, genealogical,
military, memorial, personal information, religious,
geographical, and other (Table 2). The “other” category
includes any literary inscription that does not fit in a
previous category.
Table 2. Epitaph Categories with Examples from Block A
and Block 9, Greenwood Cemetery.
EPITAPH
CATEGORY EXAMPLE EPITAPH
Familial
“Beloved Mother and Grandmother”
“Wife of C. E Wade”
Genealogical
“Children of Jos. B. & Mae L. Davis”
“Mother of Rosa Summerall”
Geographical
“Monroe City, MO.”
Military
“SSGT US ARMY WORLD WAR II”
“Spanish-American War. Cuba and The
Philippines. Major, Medical Corps. U.S
Army. World War I.”
Memorial
“In sweet memory of my dear wife”
“At Rest”
Personal
Information
“Most Excellent Grand High Priest,
Grand Chapter, Royal Arch Masons
of Florida.”
“Aged 54 Years”
“Married Oct 2, 1948”
Religious
“In thee 0 Lord have I put my trust”
“The Lord is my Shepard”
Other
“Good and True”
“Peace I leave with you. Peace I give
to you.” (Biblical, John 14:27)
Footstones, Curbs, and Memorial Photograph
Footstones are placed by the foot of the deceased
individual while curbs border the entire burial site.
Memorial photographs, often made of ceramic or
porcelain, provide a visual representation of the deceased
individual, usually in the form of a portrait. Footstones
and curbs are used to delineate the boundaries of a
plot. For this research, footstones, curbs, and memorial
photographs were noted as either present or absent.
Demographic Information
The demographic information that we documented
includes the recorded age at death and inferred sex of
each individual. The age at death, in years, of each
individual was calculated based on birth and death
dates inscribed on the grave marker, and occasionally,
an epitaph detailing the age of the deceased individual.
Then, the deceased individual was placed in an age at
death category including infants (1 year and below),

164
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (3)
children (2-12 years), teenagers (13-19 years), young
adults (20-35 years), middle age adults (36-55 years),
and old adults (56 years and above).
The sex of each individual was inferred using the
name and epitaph inscribed on the grave marker. Most
names are commonly associated with male or female
individuals. Ambiguous names were assigned to the
male or female category if pronouns were present in an
epitaph. Pronouns that allow the determination of sex
include he, she, his, her, and him. If the name was not
gender specific, and pronouns were not included, the
data were assigned to an indeterminate sex category.
Analysis of Trends
Conforming to Meyers and Schultz (2016), our time
periods are pre-1900, 1900-1919, 1920-1939, 1940-
1959, 1960-1979, 1980-1999, and 2000-2017. These
are 20-year intervals, except pre-1900 and 2000-2017.
The pre-1900 category was created to diminish the rarity
of such early grave markers in Florida (Meyers and
Schultz 2016). Data were compiled and analyzed based
on the total frequency of each attribute in the temporal
categories, age at death categories, and inferred sex.
Animal Open Book Fraternal Musical
Floral Miscellaneous Design
Figure 3. Iconographic Types in Block A and Block 9, Greenwood Cemetery.

Martin, Schultz, Toyne
Trends in Grave Markers
165
Results
Marker Design
Marker design was highly variable through all
periods, although trends were detected across decades
(Table 3). Overall, upright markers were the most
common in the total sample, representing 30% of markers
across all periods, followed by beveled markers at 25%.
Slant and ground markers were also prevalent across all
periods, representing 17% and 15%, respectively.
Upright markers were most common from 1880 to
1919, ranging from 55% to 89%. They became dominant
again from 2000 to 2017 at 35%. Beveled markers had
the highest appearance from 1920 to 1999, ranging from
26% to 35%. Obelisks were prevalent from 1880 to
1919, but were not noted after 1939. Cross, cube, ledger,
and miscellaneous markers were infrequent. Vault and
custom laser markers were not in Block A or Block 9.
Marker Material
Grave marker material was highly variable through
time, but trends are noted (Table 4). Granite represents
74% of markers, followed by marble at 21%. Other
materials are each 1% or less of the total sample.
Markers of marble decreased greatly in number,
from 51% in 1880-1899 to 8% in 2000-2017. Granite
became more prevalent than marble in 1920-1939, and
increased to 81% of markers in 2000-2017. Cement
markers comprised 7% in 1880-1899, then decreased in
frequency from 1900 to 1939, and were not observed in
later periods. Bronze, other metals, and miscellaneous
materials were infrequent. The “other metals” category
included a variety, the most frequent being zinc.
Sandstone did not appear in Block A or Block 9.
Footstones, Curbs, and Memorial Photographs
Footstones, curbs, and memorial photographs
were uncommon in Greenwood Cemetery. Only 3%
of markers in the total sample included a footstone or
curb. Curbs were most frequent from 1880 to 1939,
ranging from 4% to 6%. Footstones were most frequent
in 1880-1899, but only on 2% of markers. Only 2% of
grave markers in the total sample included a memorial
photograph. Memorial photographs did not appear until
1940-1959 and are most frequent at 9% in 2000-2017.
Trends in Iconography
Of 925 individual grave markers, 55% contained at
least one image. Numerous individuals had more than
one image on their grave marker. Overall, 621 images
were sampled (Table 5). Floral iconography was most
common (49%), followed by religious iconography
(16%). Miscellaneous iconography was 12% of the total
sample. Floral iconography was predominant (49%) in
1880-1899 and again from 1940 to 2017 (ranging from
40% to 67%). Miscellaneous images were the most
common from 1900 to 1939, ranging from 45% to 48%.
Table 3. Numbers of Grave Markers by Design Type and Time Period in Block A and Block 9, Greenwood Cemetery.
Pre-
1900
1900-
1919
1920-
1939
1940-
1959
1960-
1979
1980-
1999
2000-
2017
Cemetery
Total
Percent
Beveled
12
21
29
74
63
24
9
232
25
Cross
0
2
2
1
0
0
0
5
>1
Cube
4
6
6
1
0
0
0
17
2
Ground
3
7
16
46
34
21
14
141
15
Ledger
1
11
8
1
2
0
0
23
2
Obelisk
16
8
2
0
0
0
0
26
3
Slant
13
24
19
44
35
16
4
155
17
Upright
64
89
25
30
33
18
17
276
30
Joint Vase
0
0
1
12
20
5
2
40
4
Mise.
2
4
1
0
0
1
2
10
1
Vault
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Custom Laser
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
115
172
109
209
187
85
48
925
100

166
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (3)
Table 4. Number of Grave Markers by Material and Time Period in Block A and Block 9, Greenwood Cemetery.
Pre-
1900-
1920-
1940-
1960-
1980-
2000-
Cemetery
Percent
1900
1919
1939
1959
1979
1999
2017
Total
Bronze
0
1
0
2
4
3
3
13
1
Granite
43
79
81
196
174
73
39
685
74
Sandstone
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Marble
59
85
23
10
9
8
4
198
21
Other Metals
2
4
2
0
0
1
1
10
1
Cement
8
2
1
0
0
0
0
11
1
Mise.
3
1
2
1
0
0
1
8
>1
Total
115
172
109
209
187
85
48
925
100
Table 5. Frequency of Iconographic Categories by Time Period in Block A and Block 9, Greenwood Cemetery. These data
represent the total number of images sampled on grave markers, as some markers contain more than one image.
Pre- 1900- 1920- 1940- 1960- 1980- 2000- Cemetery
Percent
1900 1919 1939 1959 1979 1999 2017 Total
Animal
8
6
0
1
0
1
1
17
3
Banner
3
2
2
1
1
3
0
12
2
Floral
21
28
12
72
96
47
30
306
49
Fraternal
3
9
2
7
8
3
0
32
5
Matrimonial
1
0
1
0
0
4
6
12
2
Open Book
2
1
0
0
12
8
7
30
5
Religious
3
7
3
14
33
19
20
99
16
Scroll
2
2
0
10
5
1
4
24
4
Sport/Hobby
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
>1
Patriotic
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
>1
Professional
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
3
>1
Military
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
>1
Heart
0
0
0
0
0
2
5
7
1
Musical
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
>1
Landscape
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
>1
Mise.
0
47
19
3
3
0
0
72
12
Sunburst
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Iconography
Total
43
105
40
108
160
90
75
621
-
Percent
7%
17%
6%
17%
26%
15%
12%
100%
100%

Martin, Schultz, Toyne
Trends in Grave Markers
167
Trends in Epitaph
The frequency of epitaphs was highly variable
through time (Figure 4). Of 925 grave markers, 38% had
at least one epitaph. Numerous individuals had more
than one epitaph. Overall, 434 epitaphs were identified
(Table 6). Familial epitaphs were most common (28%),
followed by memorial and personal information epitaphs
(17% each). Familial epitaphs were the most consistent
type through time, ranging from 18% to 43% from 1880
to 2017.
Trends in Iconography for Females
Of 547 females, 44% had a marker with at least one
image. Overall, there were 307 images on the grave
markers of females (Table 7). Floral images were most
popular (53%). For infant females, floral and animal
images were equal, 38% each. Animal iconography was
most common (66%) among female children. Floral
iconography was most prevalent among teens (66%),
young adults (45%), middle age adults (52%), and old
adults (55%).
Epitaph Trends for Females
Of 547 females, 30% had at least one epitaph.
Overall, there were 204 epitaphs on grave markers
of females (Table 8). Familial epitaphs are the most
prevalent in the sample of females (40%), followed by
memorial and personal information epitaphs, at 17%
each. A number of trends were noted among age groups.
Genealogical epitaphs are most common among female
Figure 4. Trends in Iconography and Epitaph in Block A and Block 9, Greenwood Cemetery.
Table 6. Frequency of Epitaph Categories by Time Period in Block A and Block 9, Greenwood Cemetery. These data
represent the total number of epitaphs sampled on grave markers, as some markers have more than one epitaph.
Pre-
1900
1900-
1919
1920-
1939
1940-
1959
1960-
1979
1980-
1999
2000-
2017
Cemetery
Total
Percent
Familial
20
22
12
19
16
17
17
123
28
Genealogical
13
13
2
0
2
1
0
31
7
Geographical
7
8
1
5
1
0
0
22
5
Memorial
19
32
3
0
5
6
9
74
17
Military
0
5
1
7
20
6
5
44
10
Personal Info.
24
25
6
1
2
9
5
72
17
Religious
13
14
7
12
6
2
4
58
14
Other
1
4
0
0
1
1
3
10
2
Epitaph Total
97
123
32
44
53
42
43
434
-
Percent
22%
28%
8%
10%
12%
10%
10%
100%
100%

168
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (3)
Table 7. Age Distribution of Iconographic Categories on Grave Markers of Females in Block A and Block 9,
Greenwood Cemetery. These data represent the total number of images sampled for females, as some markers have
more than one image.
Infant
Child
Teen
Young
Adult
Middle
Age Adult
Old Adult
Cemetery
Total
Percent
Animal
3
2
0
1
0
3
9
3
Banner
0
0
0
1
2
3
6
2
Floral
3
0
2
9
17
131
162
53
Fraternity
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
2
Heart
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
2
Landscape
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Military
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Matrimonial
0
0
0
1
0
5
6
2
Music
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Open Book
0
0
0
1
1
16
18
6
Professional
0
0
0
T
0
0
0
0
Patriotic
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Religious
1
1
0
1
3
32
38
12
Scroll
0
0
0
0
1
10
11
3
Sun
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sport/Hobby
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Miscellaneous
1
0
1
6
9
30
47
15
Images Total
8
3
3
20
33
240
307
100
Percent
3%
1%
1%
6%
11%
78%
100%
_
Table 8. Age Distribution of Epitaph Categories on Grave Markers of Females in Block A and Block 9, Greenwood
Cemetery. These data represent the total number of epitaphs sampled for females, as some markers have more than
one epitaph.
Infant
Child
Teen
Young
Adult
Middle
Age Adult
Old Adult
Cemetery
Total
Percent
Family
1
0
1
9
15
56
82
40
Genealogical
5
1
0
1
1
6
14
7
Military
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
>1
Memorial
0
2
1
3
10
19
35
17
Personal Info.
1
0
0
5
6
22
34
17
Religious
0
1
1
3
4
19
28
14
Geographical
0
0
0
0
3
3
6
3
Other
0
1
0
0
1
2
4
2
Epitaph Total
7
5
3
21
40
128
204
100
Percent
3%
3%
1%
10%
20%
63%
100%
-

Martin, Schultz, Toyne
Trends in Grave Markers
169
infants (71%), and memorial epitaphs are most common
among female children (40%). Familial epitaphs are
the most prevalent type among females of young adults
(43%), middle age adults (38%), and old adults (44%).
Trends in Iconography for Males
Of 555 males, 49% had at least one iconographic
image, but numerous individuals had more than one
image. Overall, 333 images were on markers of males
(Table 9). Images were highly variable, though trends
were noted among age groups. Floral iconography was
the most prevalent type in the total sample of males
(43%), followed by religious (18%). Floral images are
the only type present in all male age groups (n=144) and
the only type in the child age group (n=l). The most
common type among male infants is animal iconography
(50%). Among male teens (n=3), miscellaneous
iconography is most prevalent (n=2). The most, and
equally, present types among young adult males are
floral and miscellaneous images (38% each). Lastly,
religious images are most popular for middle age adult
males (33%), while floral iconography predominates
among old males (47%).
Trends in Epitaph for Males
Of 555 males, 34% had at least one epitaph and
many had more than one. Overall, 230 epitaphs were
identified on markers of males (Table 10). The most
frequent epitaph categories for males are military (19%),
followed by familial (18%). A number of trends occur
across age groups. Most common among male infants
are genealogical epitaphs (48%). For male children,
memorial epitaphs are most common (33%). Among
male teens, religious are most frequent (50%). Memorial
epitaphs are the most popular (40%) among young adult
males. Most prevalent among middle age adult males
are military epitaphs (31%), while familial epitaphs are
common among old adult males (23%).
Table 9. Age Distribution of Iconographic Categories on Grave Markers of Males in Block A and Block 9,
Greenwood Cemetery. These data represent the total number of images sampled for males, as some markers have
more than one image.
Infant
Child
Teen
Young
Adult
Middle
Age Adult
Old Adult
Cemetery
Total
Percent
Animal
6
0
0
0
0
2
8
2
Banner
0
0
0
2
1
3
6
2
Floral
5
1
1
6
10
121
144
43
Fraternal
0
0
0
0
7
20
27
8
Heart
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
>1
Landscape
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
>1
Military
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
>1
Matrimonial
0
0
0
0
0
6
6
2
Music
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
>1
Open Book
0
0
0
0
1
11
12
4
Professional
0
0
0
0
0
4
4
1
Patriotic
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
>1
Religious
0
0
0
2
14
45
61
18
Scroll
1
0
0
0
2
10
13
4
Sun
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sport/Hobby
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
>1
Miscellaneous
0
0
2
6
8
27
43
13
Images Total
12
1
3
16
43
258
333
100
Percent
4%
>1%
1%
5%
13%
77%
100%
-

170
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (3)
Table 10. Age Distribution of Epitaph Categories on Grave Markers of Males in Block A and Block 9, Greenwood
Cemetery. These data represent the total number of epitaphs sampled for males, as some markers have more than
one epitaph.
Infant
Child
Teen
Young
Adult
Middle
Age Adult
Old Adult
Cemetery
Total
Percent
Familial
0
1
0
2
7
31
41
18
Genealogical
12
0
1
2
0
2
17
7
Military
0
0
0
1
13
29
43
19
Memorial
4
2
1
6
4
22
39
17
Personal Info.
3
1
1
2
9
22
38
16
Religious
6
1
3
0
2
18
30
13
Geographical
0
0
0
2
6
8
16
7
Other
0
1
0
0
0
5
6
3
Epitaph Total
25
6
6
15
41
137
230
100
Percent
10%
3%
3%
6%
18%
60%
100%
_
Discussion
Results from Greenwood Cemetery indicate that
various grave marker attributes changed over time, and
that attributes vary in age at death and sex categories.
Sociocultural values are reflected in mortuary contexts
(Binford 1971; Pearson 1999). Thus, changing attributes
on grave markers lend insight to shifts in sociocultural
values in Orlando through time. These values include
the significance of family relationships, military service,
religious beliefs, and attitudes toward childhood.
Marker Material
Marble was the most prevalent marker material in
Greenwood Cemetery from 1880 until 1919, when it was
surpassed by granite, which remains today as the most
common. This is consistent with Meyers and Schultz
(2016), who state that granite is the most prevalent in
their sample, but that marble was most common in their
earliest period, pre-1900. In addition, a recent study
of two cemeteries in Orange County, Florida, reached
a similar conclusion, stating that marble markers were
the most common in the late 1800s and early 1900s,
but that they were surpassed by granite in later periods
(Robinson 2018).
The trend of marble replacement by granite is noted
by multiple cemetery researchers, and historians, across
the United States (Snider 2017; Hassen and Cobb 2017;
Keister 2004). This trend is attributed to the soft nature
of marble. Marble is likely to erode or to stain due to
industrial pollution and exposure, rendering inscriptions
illegible in only a few decades, while granite is less
expensive and highly durable (Snider 2017; Hassen and
Cobb 2017; Keister 2004).
Variation in multiple categories of marker material
was found between Greenwood Cemetery and the
aggregated sample of Meyers and Schultz (Figure 5).
Cement markers are often associated with individuals
who lived outside mainstream society, possibly due to
economic factors, as cement markers were less expensive
and may not require a stone carver or monument builder
(Keister 2004). Cement markers were frequently noted
by Meyers and Schultz (2016), while they comprise only
roughly 1 % of the total sample at Greenwood Cemetery
(Figure 6).
80
Granite Marble Cement Bronze Other Sandstone Mise.
Metals
â–  Meyers and Schultz Greenwood Cemetery
Figure 5. Frequency of Marker Material in Block A and
Block 9, Greenwood Cemetery, compared to Meyers and
Schultz (2016).

Martin, Schultz, Toyne
Trends in Grave Markers
171
o
Pre-1900 1900-1919 1920-1939 1940-1959 1960-1979 1980-1999 2000-2017
—♦—Meyers and Schultz (2016) —♦—Greenwood Cemetery
Figure 6. Trends in Cement Grave Markers in Block A and Block 9, Greenwood Cemetery, compared to Meyers and
Schultz (2016).
The prevalence of cement markers noted by
Meyers and Schultz (2016) may be due to their sample,
which encompassed a range of cemeteries, including
small family cemeteries and multiple traditional black
cemeteries. A previous study of African American
cemeteries in Florida noted the use of handmade cement
markers in traditional black cemeteries (Nigh 1997).
While such use might have been customary due to low
cost, the practice of constructing handmade cement
markers continues as a source of pride and respect for
tradition in many contemporary African American
cemeteries (Nigh 1997).
Marker Design
Multiple categories of marker design varied between
Greenwood Cemetery and Meyers and Schultz (2016)
(Figure 7). Obelisks were uncommon in the latter, so
they included them in their miscellaneous category.
The present study created an individual category for
obelisks. The periods when obelisk grave markers are in
Greenwood Cemetery are consistent with Egyptomania,
an American fascination with Egypt that influenced
mortuary architecture such as pyramids and obelisks
(Debusk 2018; Snider 2017; Brier 2004). Obelisks also
might have been popular for the option to place several
names on four sides, as was common in Greenwood
Cemetery. Over time, the use of obelisks in Greenwood
Cemetery declined, and no new ones were installed after
1939. Although no timeline was included in Stokes
(1991), obelisks of various materials are noted in white
35
30
♦ Meyers and Schultz Greenwood Cemetery
Figure 7. Frequency of Marker Form or Design in Block
A and Block 9, Greenwood Cemetery, compared to
Meyers and Schultz (2016).
and black cemeteries in Florida.
Another difference between Greenwood Cemetery
and Meyers and Schultz (2016) is the frequency of
upright and beveled grave markers (Figures 8 and 9).
In both studies, upright markers were the most common
in the entire samples. However, in Meyers and Schultz
(2016), upright grave markers remained the most
prevalent in all periods except 1940-1959, while beveled
markers became the most prevalent type of grave marker
in Greenwood Cemetery from 1919 through 1999.
Beveled markers were infrequent in the total sample of
Meyers and Schultz (2016).

172
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (3)
Figure 8. Trends in Upright Grave Markers in Block A and Block 9, Greenwood Cemetery, compared to Meyers
and Schultz (2016).
Figure 9. Trends in Beveled Grave Markers in Block A and Block 9, Greenwood Cemetery, compared to Meyers
and Schultz (2016).

Martin, Schultz, Toyne
Trends in Grave Markers
173
In the present study, upright grave markers
often correspond to periods when both epitaph and
iconography exceed 50%. Upright markers are the
easiest type to personalize, and thus were chosen
(Stokes Monument Company, personal communication,
2018). Personalization and expression on grave markers
indicate emotional attachment, while lack of expression
on markers indicates a decrease as well as possible
economic factors because personalization requires
energy and resources (Cannon 1989).
Iconography
Images in general, as well as specific categories,
are highly variable in different periods. In Greenwood
Cemetery, they are similar to findings of Meyers and
Schultz (2016) in which 43% of markers include an
iconographic image. Floral and religious images are
the two most popular types in both samples. Floral
iconography is most common in Greenwood Cemetery,
while religious is dominant in Meyers and Schultz
(2016).
Floral imagery has multiple symbolic and aesthetic
purposes (Snider 2017; Keister 2004; Debusk 2018).
Meanings may relate to the species or life stage of the
flower. For example, a drooping stem may symbolize
a life that has ended too soon (Snider 2017; Keister
2004; Debusk 2018). A rose may symbolize love that
transcends death (Snider 2017; Keister 2004; Debusk
2018).
Floriography, or the Victorian Language of Flowers,
spread from France to the United States in the early
1800s. The importance of specific kinds of flowers to
symbolic meanings necessitated the clear rendering of
each (Snider 2017). More recently, floral imagery has
lost much of its meaning and is now often used only as an
aesthetic, usually a border. Floral images were popular
for both males and females in most age groups, and male
and female old adults were almost equally represented.
The multifaceted function of floral iconography may
make it desirable regardless of age or sex.
Religious iconography persists through time, as
religion is an important aspect of American 1 ife. Religious
images were on markers of males and females of almost
every age group, but variation was noted. Female infants
and children are more likely than their male counterparts
to be represented by religious iconography, while older
males are more likely than their female counterparts to be
so represented. This is possibly because young, middle
age, and old adult males are defined by their place in
a religious community, while religious images represent
innocence and virtuous potential of infants and children,
especially females (Giguere 2007).
Innocence and virtue of female over male children is
not restricted to religious images. Animal iconography
was not noted among male children but was prevalent
for female children. Male and female infants are
almost equally represented by animal images. This is
important as animal iconography among children in the
sample is restricted to depictions of lambs. Lambs are
representative of innocence and sacrifice (Keister 2004;
Snider 2017; Debsuk 2018) and have maintained well-
known symbolic meaning in past and contemporary
society. Lamb iconography is the most common animal
found in mortuary contexts of children (Debusk 2018).
Miscellaneous design iconography is the third most
common type in the current study, specifically from 1900
to 1939. It was infrequent in other periods and appears
to be decorative, usually along the border of a marker,
often as a geometric design (Debusk 2018). It served
a similar aesthetic function as the highly stylized floral
images on contemporary grave markers at Greenwood
Cemetery.
Images in recent cemetery studies also include a
wide variety of secular themes (Hamscher 2006), such
as sport/hobby, heart, musical, and landscape. They
do so along with religious imagery. No secular images
appeared in Greenwood Cemetery until 1980 to 2017,
while religious images also increased in frequency.
The representation of middle age adult males by
fraternal iconography is expected as many fraternal
organizations, such as Freemasons, are restricted to
males. This is consistent with a study by Murphy (2007),
who tallied all the fraternal images in Greenwood
Cemetery, where they were more commonly associated
with males than females. Freemason iconography was
the most frequent in the sample, although others were
present. Perhaps coincidentally, Greenwood Cemetery
is within a three-mile radius of two Masonic Lodges.
Epitaph
Epitaphs are described by Donald Price, Greenwood
Cemetery Sexton, as “your last sentence on Earth.”
They are often used to delineate important aspects
of life, society, or culture, even inadvertently, such as
many epitaphs in Greenwood Cemetery that reaffirm
historically defined gender roles. The frequency of
epitaphs in general and their types are highly variable
through all periods at Greenwood Cemetery, including
based on the inferred sex of the deceased. While Patrick
(2018) noted variance among epitaph categories on
the markers of males and females in five cemeteries in
Florida, interpretations of the data were not provided.

174
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (3)
Familial and memorial epitaphs are the two most
common categories found in Greenwood Cemetery and
by Meyers and Schultz (2016). Familial epitaphs were
prevalent in every period. Females are far more likely to
be represented by a familial epitaph than males in every
age group except children. This may be expected as
women, both in the past and present, are highly defined
by their familial relationships, while men stand on their
own in society with family relationships infrequently
acknowledged (Giguere 2007).
The prevalence of familial epitaphs in each period
shows that the importance of family is not a fleeting
trend, but is a continuous ideological aspect of life in
Orlando. This is consistent with a recent study that
found epitaphs containing “domestic imagery” (utilizing
the grave marker as a vehicle for discourse related to the
household) in each of five Florida cemeteries (Patrick
2018). The prevalence of familial epitaphs among
females, specifically, shows that society places the
importance of the life of a woman in the realm of the
household (Giguere 2007). It indicates that although
females can maintain various social personas throughout
their lives, the social persona that demonstrates their role
as a wife or mother is often viewed as the most valuable
and worthy of eternal memorialization.
Epitaphs that state the marital status of the deceased
(“wife of’) are frequent for females but was noted only
once (“husband of’) on the grave marker of a male.
This is consistent with a study of gender inequality in
cemeteries, which noted that the marital status of males is
infrequently acknowledged while the markers of females
often include a husband’s name (Abel 2009). The
inclusion of marital status is indicative of the perceived
dependent status of even mature women (Giguere 2007),
especially in periods that restricted the rights of women
to own property, or to work outside the home.
Memorial epitaphs are not inherently gendered and
are consistently prevalent among both males and females
in all age groups, except female infants. Memorial
epitaphs usually do not delineate information about the
deceased, but they may express feelings of sadness or
loss on behalf of the family members and friends left
behind. As previously mentioned, cemeteries and grave
markers serve the purpose of allowing living individuals
to grieve while perpetuating the memory of the deceased
individual (Cannon 2002). Memorial epitaphs discuss
grief and memory directly, often while demonstrating the
emotional attachment between the deceased individual
and the living members of the family and community.
Personal information epitaphs are the third most
common in Greenwood Cemetery. This differs from
Meyers and Schultz (2016) who state that such epitaphs
were infrequent. Personal information epitaphs were
in every period in Greenwood Cemetery and their
frequency was relatively consistent among most male
and female age groups.
Personal information epitaphs vary highly in their
information. They were considered personal when
the information did not fit in one of the other epitaph
categories. The majority of epitaphs are, technically,
related to some type of personal information purposely
chosen to represent and to immortalize the deceased
(Herat 2014). Immortalization takes place through the
delineation of facts related to the life of the deceased
and to social roles while living. Therefore, personal
information is an important aspect of a mortuary context
as the deceased continue to maintain one or more
personas even after death (Tarrow 2000). Personal
information epitaphs in Greenwood Cemetery often
consisted of the age of the deceased, occupation, dates
related to marriage, and occasionally cause of death.
One such epitaph simply read “drowned.”
Infants are more likely than any other age group
to have a genealogical epitaph as infants have not yet
formed their own identity beyond their parents. In some
cases, infants do not yet have a name and are called
only “Infant Son” or “Infant Daughter,” followed by
their parents’ names. This is consistent with a recent
study in the United Kingdom that noted a preference for
memorializing children on grave markers they shared
with an adult relation, particularly in the late 18th century
and early 19th century (Buckham 2003).
In addition, a study of anonymity in cemeteries
noted that most anonymous burials (markers without
the name of the deceased) were infants, and more than
50% of these stated a familial relationship (Foster and
Hendrickson 2006). The social persona of an individual
is linked to their name. Therefore, conferring a name on
an infant is a key step in the development of individual
social identity (Foster and Hendrickson 2006). While
the mortuary contexts of many infants do not include
a name or social identity of their own, they are often
connected to a recognizable social network via family
relationships.
Only one female at Greenwood Cemetery had a
military epitaph. Males are far more likely to serve in
the military in the United States (Walter 2018). Although
women have served in every American war, they were
not officially integrated into the Armed Forces until
1948. The full integration of women in the military did
not occur until 2013 (Walter 2018). Military epitaphs
indicate respect for members of the military. Mention

Martin, Schultz, Toyne
Trends in Grave Markers
175
Figure 10. Trends in Religious Iconography and Epitaph in Block A and Block 9, Greenwood Cemetery.
of a military career in the mortuary context is important
to the memorial characteristic of the marker and to the
social identity of the deceased.
Temporal trends in religious epitaphs and images are
inconsistent through time at Greenwood Cemetery. This
means that while religion remained important in Orlando,
its representation in mortuary contexts varied (Figure
10). Religious epitaphs decreased in frequency over time
while religious iconography increased, representing 50%
of images from 2000 to 2017. This may be attributed
partially to the dominance of images over epitaphs in the
general sample at Greenwood Cemetery.
Future Research
Further research of demographic differences
between epitaph and iconography in Florida, and across
the United States, is necessary to interpret the importance
of noted trends, as well as their possible variation
across a wide geographic area. A larger sample from
Greenwood Cemetery will allow a more comprehensive
understanding of trends in grave marker attributes as
they relate to historic events or trends through time.
Hopefully, continued research at Greenwood Cemetery
will occur in the near future.
Conclusion
The social and personal memory perpetuated by
cemeteries is important to the process of grieving and
to establishing a sense of community (Cannon 2002).
Cemeteries also preserve information about past
societies that can be used by scholars. Greenwood
Cemetery can shed light on historical, cultural, and
societal trends in Orlando, from the late 19th century
to the present. Grave marker attributes changed over
time in relation to changing aspects of society, such as
the shift from predominately religious images to the
inclusion of secular ones. Comparison of the data from
Greenwood Cemetery with those of Meyers and Schultz
(2016) uncovers multiple trends in each cemetery,
some of which are similar and others that are not. This
suggests that there are general trends across Florida as
well as trends that are determined by characteristics of
specific cemeteries and their populations.
The analysis of age at death and inferred sex of a
deceased individual in a mortuary context should be
more frequently included in cemetery research as age
and sex are fundamental aspects of the life and social
persona of an individual. Individuals who were viewed
differently by society in life were treated differently
in death, as demonstrated by the higher prevalence of

176
The Florida Anthropologist
2019 Vol. 72 (3)
familial epitaphs among women than among men.
Males and females of various age groups were treated
differently.
Cemetery research is not only essential to
understanding the past, but to preserving data that
are often lost due to neglect and damage. Cemetery
destruction, and the resulting loss of history, is an
impediment to multidisciplinary researchers who rely
on cemetery data, as well as to the individuals who rely
on cemeteries as a resting place for themselves and their
loved ones (Meyers and Schultz 2016; Carmack 2002;
Olexa et al. 2012). It is important to survey and to
document cemeteries before valuable information is lost
(Thompson and Strangstad 1989).
Acknowledgments
Donald Price, sexton of Greenwood Cemetery, gave
his permission for research and provided valuable data
about its history and population. We would like to thank
editors of The Florida Anthropologist for editorial work
as well as two anonymous reviewers for comments.
References Cited
Abel, Ernest L.
2009 Changes in Gender Discrimination After Death:
Evidence from a Cemetery. OMEGA 58
(2): 147-152.
Beck, Lane A. (editor)
1995 Regional Approaches to Mortuary Analysis.
Plenum Press, New York.
Bender, Shelby Jean R., and Elizabeth L. Dunham
2013 Tampa’s Historic Cemeteries. Arcadia
Publishing, Charleston, South Carolina.
Binford, Lewis R.
1971 Mortuary Practices: Their Study and Their
Potential. Memoir of the Society for American
Archaeology 25:6-29.
Brennan, Michael L.
2011 Geological Survey of Historical Cemeteries,
Jamestown, Rhode Island, 1693-1900.
Historical Archaeology 45:102-114.
Brier, Bob
2004 Egyptomania! Archaeology 57:16-22.
Brown, Ian W.
2008 Teaching Tombstones in Tuscaloosa County.
Alabama Heritage 88:11-17.
Buckham, Susan
2003 Commemoration as an Expression of Personal
Relationships and Group Identities: A Case
Study of York Cemetery. Mortality
8(2): 160-175.
Carmack, Sharon D. B.
2002 Your Guide to Cemetery Research. Betterway
Books, Cincinnati, Ohio.
City of Orlando
2019 Greenwood Cemetery Rules and Regulations.
Electronic document, https://www.orlando.gov/
OCN R- Drafts/Greenwood-Cemetery/
Greenwood-Cemeterv-Rules-and-Regulations.
accessed June 12, 2019.
Culbertson, Judi, and Tom Randall
1987 Permanent New Yorkers: A Biographical Guide
to the Cemeteries of New York. Chelsea Green
Publishing Co., White River Junction, Vermont.
Debusk, Jacqueline
2018 A Beginner s Dictionary of Cemetery
Iconography: Classic Symbols Defined and
Photographed. Amazon Digital Services, LLC.
Edwards, Lucy A.
1956 Stories in Stone. The Florida Historical
Quarterly 35(2): 116-129.
Foster, Gary S., and Darren Hendrickson
2006 Graves of Unknowns in Gardens of Stone:
An Analysis of Infant Anonymity from a
Midwestern Cemetery, 1863-1983. Illness,
Crisis & Loss 14(3):271 -288.
Giguere, Joy
2007 Virtuous Women, Useful Men, Lovely
Children. Markers 24:1-23.
Goerlich, Shirley B.
1987 At Rest in Unadilla, Otsego County, New York.
RSG Publishing, Plymouth, Michigan.
Hamscher, Albert N.
2006 Pictorial Headstones: Business, Culture
and the Expression of Individuality in the
Contemporary Cemetery. Markers 23:6-35.
Haskins, Lola
2011 Fifteen Florida Cemeteries: Strange Tales
Unearthed. University Press of Florida,
Gainesville.

Martin, Schultz, Toyne
Trends in Grave Markers
177
Hassen, Hal, and Dawn Cobb
2017 Cemeteries of Illinois: A Field Guide to
Markers, Monuments, and Motifs. University
of Illinois Press, Urbana.
Herat, Manel
2014 The Final Goodbye: The Linguistic Features
of Gravestone Epitaphs from the Nineteenth
Century to the Present. International Journal
of Language Studies 8:127-150.
Keister, Douglas
2004 Stories in Stone: The Complete Illustrated
Guide to Cemetery Symbolism. Gibbs Smith,
Salt Lake City, Utah.
Meyer, Richard E,
1992 Cemeteries and Gravemarkers: Voices of
American Culture. Utah State University Press,
Logan, Utah.
Meyers, Patricia L., and John J. Schultz
2016Temporal Trends in Grave Marker Attributes: A
Preliminary Analysis of Headstones in Florida.
The Florida Anthropologist 69:29-47.
Murphy, Roberta J.
2007 Headstone Iconography: Documentation
and Interpretation of Fraternal Emblems at
Greenwood Cemetery, Orlando. Undergraduate
honors thesis, Department of Anthropology,
University of Central Florida, Orlando.
Nigh, Robin F.
1997 Under Grave Conditions: African American
Signs of Life and Death in North Florida.
Markers 14:158-189.
Olexa, Michael T., Nancy C. Hodge, Tracey L.
Owens, and Caycee D. Hampton
2012 A Grave Situation: Protecting the Deceased
and Their Final Resting Places from
Destruction. The Florida Bar Journal 86:35.
Patrick, Maureen
2018 Gone from Our Home, but Not from Our
Hearts: Nineteenth Century Epitaphs in
Selected Florida Rural Cemeteries. Sunland
Tribune 28:35-54.
Pearson, Mike Parker
1999 The Archaeology of Death and Burial. Sutton
Publishing, Stroud, UK.
Renkin, Jenne
2000 Cemetery Records of Martic Township,
Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Willow Bend
Books, Westminster, Maryland.
Rugg, Julie
2000 Defining the Place of Burial: What Makes a
Cemetery a Cemetery? Mortality 5:259-275.
Robinson, Tyra
2018 Comparative Headstone Analysis and
Photogrammetry of Cemeteries in Orange
County, Florida. Undergraduate honors thesis,
Department of Anthropology, University of
Central Florida, Orlando.
Saxe, Arthur A.
1970 Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices.
University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Snider, Tui
2017 Understanding Cemetery Symbols: A Field
Guide for Historic Graveyards. CreateSpace
Publishing, Scotts Valley, California.
Stockton, Betty Jo
2012a Greenwood Cemetery Orlando, Florida:
Volume 1: Sections A-J. CreateSpace
Publishing, Scotts Valley, California.
2012b Greenwood Cemetery Orlando Florida: Volume
2: Sections K-W. CreateSpace Publishing,
Scotts Valley, California.
Stokes, Sherrie
1991 Gone but Not Forgotten: Wakulla County’s
Folk Graveyards. The Florida Historical
Quarterly 70(2): 177-191.
Thompson, Sharyn, and Lynette Strangstad
1989 Florida s Historic Cemeteries: A Preservation
Handbook. Historic Tallahassee Preservation
Board, Tallahassee.
Walter, Brittany L.
2018 Women in Special Operations Forces: A
Battle for Effectiveness Amidst the Pursuit of
Equality. University of San Francisco Law
Review 52:175-198.
Wright, Elizabethada A.
2011 A Death of Markers: Ambivalence of Memory
in Elmira, New York, and Its National and
Woodlawn Cemeteries. Markers 28:44-75.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Erin K. Martin is a graduate student in Anthropology at the University of Central Florida (UCF), where
she earned a B.A. in Anthropology in 2018. Her research interests include cemetery studies, forensic
anthropology, and isotopic analysis.
Gregory A. Mikell is a professional archaeologist who has spent his career of more than 30 years primarily
in northwest Florida and is known to regular readers of The Florida Anthropologist.
John J. Schultz earned a Ph.D. in Anthropology from the University of Florida. He is Professor and Chair
of the Anthropology Department at the University of Central Florida. John is the consulting forensic
anthropologist for Districts 9 and 25 Medical Examiner’s Office, Orlando. He specializes in forensic
anthropology with a primary research focus in taphonomic and forensic archaeological methods. In
particular, current research with his graduate students involves the integration of photogrammetric methods
for crime scene documentation involving human skeletal remains.
J. Marla Toyne is Associate Professor of Anthropology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.
Her research interests include human osteology, biogeochemistry, paleopathology, and skeletal trauma
contextualized in a bioarchaeological exploration of the Andean past. Her multidisciplinary investigations
of ancient diet, disease, and medical practices have been supported financially by the National Geographic
Society and the Rust Foundation. Her work appears in the International Journal of Osteoarchaeology,
International Journal of Paleopathology, Journal of Archaeological Science, and the American Journal of
Physical Anthropology. She co-edited (with Haagen D. Klaus) the volume Ritual Violence in the Ancient
Andes: Reconstructing Sacrifice on the North Coast of Peru (2016).
Vol. 72 (3)
The Florida Anthropologist
178


FAS CHAPTERS
10 4 9
13
1. Archaeological Society of Southern Florida
fasweb.org/assf/
2. Central Florida Anthropological Society
fasweb.org/cfas/
3. Central Gulf Coast Archaeology Society
fasweb.org/cgcas/
4. Emerald Coast Archaeology Society
fasweb.org/ecas/
5. Gold Coast Anthropological Society
fasweb.org/gcas/
6. Indian River Anthropological Society
fasweb.org/iras/
7. Kissimmee Valley Archaeological and Historical
fasweb.org/kvahc/
8. Palm Beach County Archaeological Society
fasweb.org/pbcas/
9. Panhandle Archaeological Society at Tallahassee
fasweb.org/past/
10. Pensacola Archaeological Society
fasweb.org/pas/
11. Southeast Florida Archaeological Society
fas web. org/sefas/
12. Southwest Florida Archaeological Society
fas web. org/s wfas/
13. St. Augustine Archaeological Association
fas web. org/ saaa/
14. Time Sifters Archaeology Society
fasweb.org/tsas/
15. Warm Mineral Springs/Little Salt Spring Archaeological Society
fasweb.org/wmslssas/
14
15
Conservancy
2
6
7
11
12

JOIN THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY
Membership in FAS supports education initiatives statewide, including an annual conference,
student grants, Florida Archaeology Month, and more. Join today and you will receive our quarterly
newsletter and The Florida Anthropologist. Membership is open to all interested individuals who are
willing to abide by the FAS Statement of Ethics (available at fasweb.org/membership/).
Membership categories and rates:
Student: $15
Regular: $30
Family $35
Institutional: $30
Sustaining: $100
Patron: $1000
Benefactor: $2500
• Student membership is open to graduate, undergraduate, and high school students. A photocopy of
your current student ID must accompany payment
• Add $25 for foreign address
• Membership forms are also available at fasweb.org/membership/
• The Society publishes the journal The Florida Anthropologist and newsletters, normally quarterly and
sponsors an annual meeting hosted by a local chapter
Name
Address
City
State
Zip
Telephone
Email
FAS Chapter
I agree to abide by the Code of Ethics of the Florida Anthropological Society
Mail to:
Florida Anthropological Society
c/o FAS Membership Secretary
P O Box 1561 Boynton Beach, FL 33425





NON-PROFIT
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
TALLAHASSEE, FL
PERMIT NO. 329
RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED
Table of Contents
From the Editors
Articles
From Beneath the Urban Landscape:
1781 Spanish Siege of Pensacola Archaeological Sites 135-158
Gregory A. Mikell
Trends in Grave Marker Attributes in Greenwood Cemetery, Orlando, Florida 159-177
Erin K. Martin, John J. Schultz, and J. Marla Toyne
About the Authors 178
Cover:
18th-century engraving titled Vista de Panzacola y sn Baia Tornado por los Españoles año de 1781.
From Florida Memory Project, Image #RC02438.
Copyright 2019 by the
FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY, INC.
ISSN 0015-3893
Florida Anthropological Society, Inc.
George M. Luer, Pii.D.
3222 Old Oak Drive
Sarasota, FL 34239