Citation
Nuestra Senora del Rosario de la Punta: Lifeways of an Eighteenth Century Colonial Spanish Refugee Mission Community, St. Augustine, Florida

Material Information

Title:
Nuestra Senora del Rosario de la Punta: Lifeways of an Eighteenth Century Colonial Spanish Refugee Mission Community, St. Augustine, Florida
Creator:
BOYER III, WILLET A.
Copyright Date:
2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Agriculture ( jstor )
Ceramic materials ( jstor )
Clay pipes ( jstor )
Earthenware ( jstor )
Eggshells ( jstor )
Jars ( jstor )
Maps ( jstor )
Native Americans ( jstor )
Refugees ( jstor )
Tableware ( jstor )
City of St. Augustine ( local )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Willet A. Boyer III. 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.
Embargo Date:
4/15/2006
Resource Identifier:
75400851 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

boyer_w ( .pdf )

boyer_w_Page_201.txt

boyer_w_Page_121.txt

boyer_w_Page_213.txt

boyer_w_Page_017.txt

boyer_w_Page_125.txt

boyer_w_Page_062.txt

boyer_w_Page_152.txt

boyer_w_Page_086.txt

boyer_w_Page_011.txt

boyer_w_Page_039.txt

boyer_w_Page_226.txt

boyer_w_Page_093.txt

boyer_w_Page_124.txt

boyer_w_Page_168.txt

boyer_w_Page_085.txt

boyer_w_Page_074.txt

boyer_w_Page_197.txt

boyer_w_Page_202.txt

boyer_w_Page_067.txt

boyer_w_Page_005.txt

boyer_w_Page_060.txt

boyer_w_Page_117.txt

boyer_w_Page_021.txt

boyer_w_Page_078.txt

boyer_w_Page_099.txt

boyer_w_Page_166.txt

boyer_w_Page_007.txt

boyer_w_Page_172.txt

boyer_w_Page_075.txt

boyer_w_Page_100.txt

boyer_w_Page_227.txt

boyer_w_Page_071.txt

boyer_w_Page_087.txt

boyer_w_Page_144.txt

boyer_w_Page_109.txt

boyer_w_Page_155.txt

boyer_w_Page_217.txt

boyer_w_Page_209.txt

boyer_w_Page_215.txt

boyer_w_Page_079.txt

boyer_w_Page_140.txt

boyer_w_Page_162.txt

boyer_w_Page_114.txt

boyer_w_Page_049.txt

boyer_w_Page_164.txt

boyer_w_Page_199.txt

boyer_w_Page_141.txt

boyer_w_Page_053.txt

boyer_w_Page_135.txt

boyer_w_Page_068.txt

boyer_w_Page_157.txt

boyer_w_Page_025.txt

boyer_w_Page_057.txt

boyer_w_Page_156.txt

boyer_w_Page_069.txt

boyer_w_Page_054.txt

boyer_w_Page_016.txt

boyer_w_Page_187.txt

boyer_w_Page_190.txt

boyer_w_Page_205.txt

boyer_w_Page_108.txt

boyer_w_Page_047.txt

boyer_w_Page_148.txt

boyer_w_Page_145.txt

boyer_w_Page_211.txt

boyer_w_Page_082.txt

boyer_w_Page_001.txt

boyer_w_Page_180.txt

boyer_w_Page_004.txt

boyer_w_Page_207.txt

boyer_w_Page_128.txt

boyer_w_Page_196.txt

boyer_w_Page_026.txt

boyer_w_Page_112.txt

boyer_w_Page_183.txt

boyer_w_Page_024.txt

boyer_w_Page_133.txt

boyer_w_Page_146.txt

boyer_w_Page_037.txt

boyer_w_Page_098.txt

boyer_w_Page_143.txt

boyer_w_Page_221.txt

boyer_w_Page_219.txt

boyer_w_Page_091.txt

boyer_w_Page_107.txt

boyer_w_Page_116.txt

boyer_w_Page_032.txt

boyer_w_Page_056.txt

boyer_w_Page_119.txt

boyer_w_Page_176.txt

boyer_w_Page_154.txt

boyer_w_Page_064.txt

boyer_w_Page_028.txt

boyer_w_Page_120.txt

boyer_w_Page_105.txt

boyer_w_Page_184.txt

boyer_w_Page_089.txt

boyer_w_Page_188.txt

boyer_w_Page_131.txt

boyer_w_pdf.txt

boyer_w_Page_106.txt

boyer_w_Page_118.txt

boyer_w_Page_149.txt

boyer_w_Page_042.txt

boyer_w_Page_002.txt

boyer_w_Page_096.txt

boyer_w_Page_111.txt

boyer_w_Page_006.txt

boyer_w_Page_150.txt

boyer_w_Page_033.txt

boyer_w_Page_052.txt

boyer_w_Page_195.txt

boyer_w_Page_192.txt

boyer_w_Page_034.txt

boyer_w_Page_113.txt

boyer_w_Page_008.txt

boyer_w_Page_139.txt

boyer_w_Page_224.txt

boyer_w_Page_147.txt

boyer_w_Page_090.txt

boyer_w_Page_022.txt

boyer_w_Page_208.txt

boyer_w_Page_225.txt

boyer_w_Page_027.txt

boyer_w_Page_186.txt

boyer_w_Page_066.txt

boyer_w_Page_115.txt

boyer_w_Page_083.txt

boyer_w_Page_177.txt

boyer_w_Page_097.txt

boyer_w_Page_165.txt

boyer_w_Page_178.txt

boyer_w_Page_198.txt

boyer_w_Page_212.txt

boyer_w_Page_094.txt

boyer_w_Page_101.txt

boyer_w_Page_173.txt

boyer_w_Page_159.txt

boyer_w_Page_171.txt

boyer_w_Page_189.txt

boyer_w_Page_179.txt

boyer_w_Page_136.txt

boyer_w_Page_072.txt

boyer_w_Page_220.txt

boyer_w_Page_013.txt

boyer_w_Page_040.txt

boyer_w_Page_055.txt

boyer_w_Page_014.txt

boyer_w_Page_038.txt

boyer_w_Page_210.txt

boyer_w_Page_153.txt

boyer_w_Page_058.txt

boyer_w_Page_043.txt

boyer_w_Page_129.txt

boyer_w_Page_009.txt

boyer_w_Page_003.txt

boyer_w_Page_015.txt

boyer_w_Page_061.txt

boyer_w_Page_051.txt

boyer_w_Page_044.txt

boyer_w_Page_170.txt

boyer_w_Page_048.txt

boyer_w_Page_222.txt

boyer_w_Page_223.txt

boyer_w_Page_077.txt

boyer_w_Page_029.txt

boyer_w_Page_070.txt

boyer_w_Page_019.txt

boyer_w_Page_102.txt

boyer_w_Page_204.txt

boyer_w_Page_092.txt

boyer_w_Page_031.txt

boyer_w_Page_218.txt

boyer_w_Page_110.txt

boyer_w_Page_018.txt

boyer_w_Page_036.txt

boyer_w_Page_076.txt

boyer_w_Page_169.txt

boyer_w_Page_080.txt

boyer_w_Page_041.txt

boyer_w_Page_203.txt

boyer_w_Page_194.txt

boyer_w_Page_206.txt

boyer_w_Page_163.txt

boyer_w_Page_132.txt

boyer_w_Page_045.txt

boyer_w_Page_046.txt

boyer_w_Page_081.txt

boyer_w_Page_063.txt

boyer_w_Page_084.txt

boyer_w_Page_127.txt

boyer_w_Page_010.txt

boyer_w_Page_200.txt

boyer_w_Page_134.txt

boyer_w_Page_088.txt

boyer_w_Page_160.txt

boyer_w_Page_035.txt

boyer_w_Page_216.txt

boyer_w_Page_167.txt

boyer_w_Page_104.txt

boyer_w_Page_123.txt

boyer_w_Page_175.txt

boyer_w_Page_095.txt

boyer_w_Page_130.txt

boyer_w_Page_023.txt

boyer_w_Page_059.txt

boyer_w_Page_137.txt

boyer_w_Page_151.txt

boyer_w_Page_126.txt

boyer_w_Page_193.txt

boyer_w_Page_122.txt

boyer_w_Page_142.txt

boyer_w_Page_073.txt

boyer_w_Page_181.txt

boyer_w_Page_030.txt

boyer_w_Page_185.txt

boyer_w_Page_191.txt

boyer_w_Page_012.txt

boyer_w_Page_158.txt

boyer_w_Page_050.txt

boyer_w_Page_020.txt

boyer_w_Page_065.txt

boyer_w_Page_138.txt

boyer_w_Page_103.txt

boyer_w_Page_214.txt

boyer_w_Page_161.txt

boyer_w_Page_174.txt

boyer_w_Page_182.txt


Full Text











NUESTRA SENORA DEL ROSARIO DE LA PUNTA: LIFEWAYS OF AN
EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY COLONIAL SPANISH
REFUGEE MISSION COMMUNITY, ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA















By

WILLET A. BOYER, III


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2005

































Copyright 2005

by

Willet A. Boyer, III

































This thesis is dedicated to Curtiss Baillie and to A. David Baillie, Jr. (1917-2005), two of
my connections with Florida's past.















ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Since my return to academic endeavor in the fall of 2002, I have become far more

aware of the ways in which the work of a scholar is based on the work of those who came

before and prepared the ground for future students. I want to acknowledge and publicly

thank the many people who have helped me reach the goal of preparation of this thesis.

An archaeological site, any site, is located and excavated through the work of teams

of dedicated people, and analysis of the archaeological record found through such

excavation. I would like to publicly thank the people with whom I worked in the spring

of 2004 excavating and analyzing the material recovered from the 8 Hedrick and 11

Tremerton sites in the City of St. Augustine: Nick McAuliffe, Toni Wallace, Pat Moore,

Mike Tarleton, Helen Gradison, and Dr. Chester dePratter. Above all, I want to thank

Carl Halbirt, the City Archaeologist for St. Augustine, for his willingness to let me join

the team of excavators working on the La Punta mission site, for his work and effort

helping to teach me my craft, and for his endless patience with my questions and

comments throughout the process.

I would also like to acknowledge and thank the men and women of the University

of Florida and the Florida Museum of Natural History who have taught me my profession

and have guided and helped me to an understanding of the disciplines of archaeology and

anthropology: Dr. Kenneth Sassaman, Donna Ruhl, Dr. Michael Heckenberger, Dr.

Gifford Waters, Scott Mitchell, Al Woods, Dr. John Moore, Dr. Susan Gillespie, Dr.

Kathleen Deagan, and Dr. John E. Worth. I would most particularly like to thank and









acknowledge Dr. Jerald T. Milanich, whose works drew my interest in studying Florida's

archaeology, who helped and encouraged my return to study, and who has provided

continuing help, counsel and discipline throughout the course of my studies.

I would like to thank my younger brother, James A. Boyer, the Research

Coordinator for the Pine Acres Research Center of the Institute of Food and Agricultural

Sciences of the University of Florida, for his knowledge and insight into agricultural

conditions at the La Punta mission community during the eighteenth century and his

assistance with this research.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge five people whose help and encouragement

has sustained me throughout the course of my work and study. My dear friend, the

historian and author Karen Harvey, has provided me assistance and support throughout

the time of my work on this project. My cousin, Thompson Van Hyning, encouraged me

to "follow my dream" and has given me an example to follow in doing so. My

grandparents, A. David Baillie, Jr. (1917-2005), and Curtiss Baillie, have lifelong taught

me my passion for Florida's history and archaeology, and my grandfather gave me help

and insight into Florida's history and outdoors unmatched by no one else living. And

finally, my fiance and then wife, Josyane Paige Boyer, has given me both love and

patience throughout the many months this work has been in progress. To all, thank you.















TABLE OF CONTENTS


page

A CK N OW LED GEM EN TS ......... ............................................................... .............. iv

LIST O F TA B LE S ......... .. .......... .......... ............. .............. viii

LIST OF FIGURES ......... ............................... ........ ............ ix

ABSTRACT ........ .............. ............. ...... ...................... xi

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION AND RESEARCH FOCUS........................................................1

2 THE HISTORIC EVIDENCE: INDICATIONS AND RECORDS OF THE
MISSION COMMUNITY'S PRESENCE ....................................... ..............12

Eighteenth Century Florida: Disruption and Change ...........................................12
The Historic Evidence for La Punta's Existence................................... ............... 18
Maps Depicting the Location of the La Punta Mission Community ................. 18
First Spanish Period maps of the La Punta Mission community.........................19
The Palm er M ap of 1730 ....................................... ........................... 19
The A rredondo M ap of 1737 ........................................................ .................. 20
Anonymous Map of the City and Port of Saint Augustine, 1740 ................22
The Castello M ap of 1763 .................................... ..... ............... 23
British Period maps of the former location of La Punta............... .................24
The J. Purcell M ap of 1777 .................................. ...................... .. .......... 24
The H Burrard M ap of 1780........................... ....... ............... .... 26
Anonymous Map of Saint Augustine and Environs, 1782.........................26
Documents Describing the Mission Community ..........................................29
The Anonymous M mission List of 1736.............................. ............... 29
The Benavides M mission List: April 21, 1738 ............................................ 29
The First M ontiano M mission List: June 4, 1738 ....................................... 29
The Guemes y Horcasitas List of 1739 ............................. .... ........... 30
The Second Montiano Mission List: June 23, 1739.................................30
The G elabert R report of 1752.................................... ........................ 30
The G rifian R report of 1756 ........................................ ....... ............... 31
D isc u ssio n ................................................... ................... ................ 3 2









3 ARCHAEOLOGY OF SITES IN THE STUDY AREA.........................................36

The Physical Environment of the Study Area ......................................................36
Archaeological Projects Associated With the Study Area .............. ................... 38
M ethodology and Techniques ........................................ ......... ............... 39
L location 1: 161 M arine Street...................................... .................. .... ........... 43
Location 2: 159 M arine Street ..................................................... ............ 47
Location 3: 321 St. G eorge Street ............................................ ............... 57
L location 4: 8 H edrick Street.......................................... ........... ............... 61
Location 5: 11 Trem erton Street...................................... ........................ 68

4 AN EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY MISSION COMMUNITY AND ITS
L IF E W A Y S ........................................................................... 78

Are the Archaeological Sites In the Study Area the Remains of La Punta? ..............78
The Correlation Between the Historic and Archaeological Evidence of La
P unta' s L location .............. ...... .................... ................. .. .. ... ........ ......... 79
The Presence of Ceramic Series Associated With Native American Groups
P resent at L a P unta..................... ......................... ........... ................1. 1
Correspondence Between the Archaeological Features Present at the Sites
and Structures Known from Spanish Mission Communities.........................82
The Presence of a Burial Area Within a Structure ...........................................84
Lifeways of an Eighteenth Century Refugee Mission Community..........................85
The L giving A rea ........................................ ... .... ........ ......... 90
T h e A gricu ltu ral A rea............................................................... .....................96
The Sacred A rea ........ .................... .. .................. .... .... ..............101
Avenues for Future Research and Conclusions................................... ............... 104

APPENDIX

A ARTIFACT COUNTS, LA PUNTA-RELATED SITES ..................................... 107

B ARTIFACT COUNTS AND WEIGHTS BY LOCATION AND
PR O V E N IEN C E .......... .................................................................. ................... 170

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H ........................................ ............................................215
















LIST OF TABLES


Tablege

3-1 O overall Totals for 161 M marine Street ............................................ .....................47

3-2 Overall Totals for 159 M arine Street ............................................ ............... 57

3-3 Overall Totals for 321 St. George Street.......................... ....... .. ............. 60

3-4 Overall Totals for 8 Hedrick Street................................. ....................68

3-5 Overall Totals, 11 Tremerton Street (Burial Area) ..............................................76

4-1 Artifact Counts and W eights by Location..................................... ............... 86

4-2 Artifact Density by Number and Weight for Each Location..................................86
















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure pge

1-1 The Colonial City of St. Augustine and the Study Area............... ..............11

2-1 T he P alm er M ap (1730) ................................................................ .....................20

2-2 A rredondo M ap (1737).................................................. ............................... 21

2-3 A nonym ous M ap of 1740...................... .... ......... ......................... ............... 23

2-4 C astello M ap (1763) ........................................................................ .... ......... 24

2-5 The J. Purcell Map (1777) ................................ ................. 25

2.6 The H Burrard M ap (1780) .................................. .....................................27

2-7 A nonym ous M ap (1782) ................................................ .............................. 28

3-1 LID AR M ap of Study A rea......... ................. ................................. ............... 39

3-2 Plan Map: Features at 161 Marine Street Site from White (2002) ......................44

3-3 Profile of Well Feature, 161 Marine Street from White (2002)..........................46

3-4 Plan Map: Excavation Units and Features, 159 Marine Street .............................48

3-5 Feature Map: Test Unit 1, Stripping Area 1, 159 Marine Street..............................49

3-6 Feature Map: Test Unit 2, Stripping Area 1, 159 Marine Street............................52

3-7 Plan Map: Test Units and Site Features, 321 St. George Street..................................59

3-8 Plan Map: Test Units 1 and 2, 321 St. George Street..................... ..................60

3-9 Site Map, Post Holes and Test Units, 8 Hedrick Street.........................................63

3-10 Plan Map and Profile, Test Unit 2, 8 Hedrick Street............... ............................64

3-11 Plan Map and Profile, Test Unit 3, 8 Hedrick Street............... ............................64

3-12 Plan M ap: Features at 11 Tremerton Street............................... ............... 70









3-13 Plan Map: Features, Southern Limits of Burial Area, 11 Tremerton Street.............71

3-14 Bone Placement, Burial Unit, Structural Feature, 11 Tremerton Street..................73

3-15 North-South Discrete Burial, 11 Tremerton Street ...............................................75














Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts

NUESTRA SENORA DEL ROSARIO DE LA PUNTA: LIFEWAYS OF AN
EIGHTEENTH CENTURY COLONIAL SPANISH
REFUGEE MISSION COMMUNITY, ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA

By

Willet A. Boyer, III

December 2005

Chair: Jerald T. Milanich
Major Department: Anthropology

The eighteenth century refugee colonial Spanish mission communities of Florida

were created in response to the destruction of the earlier missions founded in the late

sixteenth and seventeenth centuries by the Spanish among the Native American groups

indigenous to Florida and southeastern Georgia. These refugee mission communities

were formed during a time of political, military, and economic conflict between the

colonial powers of Spain and England in the Southeast, and existed in a state of

demographic and cultural flux.

This thesis examines the lifeways of the inhabitants of one such refugee mission

community: Nuestra Senora del Rosario de La Punta, or more commonly, simply "La

Punta." La Punta was founded during the 1720's as a mission serving Native American

refugees, principally Yamassee Indians from what is today South Carolina. La Punta

continued to exist until at least 1752, prior to the mission community's abandonment.









The historic evidence suggests that the people of La Punta existed as a part of a

complex system of social and political conflict among the secular authorities of colonial

Florida, the regular priests of the Franciscan Order, and the secular parish priests of St.

Augustine, as well as between the Spanish, other European colonial powers, and the

Native American groups of the Southeast. Archaeological sites associated with the

mission community of La Punta indicate the presence of at three areas of activity within

the mission community: a living area where the inhabitants built their homes and engaged

in domestic activities, an agricultural area where crops were grown, and a sacred area

housing the mission church and burial ground.

The historic and archaeological evidence, taken as a whole, suggests that the people

of the mission community attempted to make maximum use of very limited physical

resources to survive, and attempted to maintain at least a part of their traditional lifeways

while embracing both the Catholic faith and some of the cultural environment of Spanish

St. Augustine. This evidence also suggests fruitful avenues for future research.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION AND RESEARCH FOCUS

The focus of this thesis is the eighteenth-century Spanish colonial mission of

Nuestra Senora del Rosario de La Punta ("La Punta"). La Punta was one of ten refugee

missions founded near modern St. Augustine, Florida after the destruction of the earlier

Franciscan missions established in La Florida during the late sixteenth and seventeenth

centuries.

The destruction and abandonment of the earlier missions severely impacted the

Native American population of Spanish La Florida. The original inhabitants of the

Florida missions were killed, taken as slaves, or forced to move from the traditional lands

they had occupied. Raids by other Indians and Carolinian militia in the first decade of

the eighteenth century effectively destroyed all the missions outside the area of St.

Augustine. The survivors of Apalachee, Timucua, and Guale provinces who did not flee

north, west, or south down the Florida peninsula and who chose resettlement by the

Spanish were placed in refugee missions near St. Augustine, where they could both be

protected by the Spanish authorities and serve as a part of the colonial capital's defenses

(Halbirt 2004:40-41). The original survivors of the earlier mission communities were

joined by Native American groups from outside Florida, groups such as the Yamassee,

who also came as refugees to Spanish Florida.

In this study of the La Punta mission community, I have three goals. The first is to

examine the results of five excavations south of the colonial city of St. Augustine in light

of the historic documents relating to La Punta, to conclusively show that these sites are









the remains of the La Punta mission community. The second is to use the historic and

archaeological record of the La Punta mission to begin to provide a picture of the

lifeways of the mission's inhabitants. Finally, I intend suggest avenues for future

research into the eighteenth-century Spanish missions of colonial Florida.

The first chapter of this thesis provides a brief overview of the history surrounding

the creation of the eighteenth-century missions of Spanish Florida. It delineates the area

of study in terms of its geographical boundaries; it then provides the research focus which

will shape the form of the remainder of the thesis.

Chapter 2 provides a more in-depth examination of the historical circumstances

surrounding the shaping of the eighteenth-century missions near St. Augustine; this

section specifically examines both the broad context of Spanish-English interaction and

interplay in North America and the limited context of the jurisdictional issues

surrounding regular and secular priests' areas of responsibility and control and their

relationship with the secular government. It then examines in detail the documentary

evidence for La Punta's existence, focusing first on the mission's visual depictions in

maps and thereafter on the census lists which give some indication of the community's

demography.

Chapter 3 examines the archaeological evidence from the hypothesized area of La

Punta's existence. It first presents a detailed consideration of the physical environment

within the delimited area of study. It then presents the results of the excavations of five

sites within the study area: 161 and 159 Marine Streets, 321 St. George Street, 8 Hedrick

Street, and 11 Tremerton Street.









Chapter 4 first takes the results of the investigations presented in Chapters 2 and 3

and argues that the sites within the study area are the remains of the La Punta mission

community, based on the following four factors: the correlation between the historic

evidence and the archaeological evidence as to La Punta's location; the presence of

ceramic series associated with the Native American groups which were known to be

present at La Punta; the correspondence between the form of the structures present at the

sites examined and those known through research elsewhere to have been present at

Spanish mission communities; and the presence of a burial ground within a structure,

which is a clear indicator of the presence of a mission church.

Thereafter, it is argued that the sites, taken as a whole, represent three areas within

the mission community: a living area for the mission's inhabitants, an agricultural area

where crops were grown, and a sacred area where worship and other religious activities

took place. Avenues for future research are discussed, and conclusions about the site are

presented, along with the theoretical underpinnings that might guide research on the

eighteenth century missions as compared to the earlier missions of Spanish Florida.

During the time of the Spanish colonization of the Americas in the sixteenth and

seventeenth centuries, the mission system was the principal institution under which

Spanish and Native American interaction took place (Crow 1992:191-208; Worth

1998a:35-43). In southeastern North America, as elsewhere under the rule of imperial

Spain, the mission system was ideally intended to provide a mechanism for the

integration of Native American groups into Spanish colonial society, and to provide a

source of labor and food for the Spanish crown (Crow 1992:207-208; Worth 1998a:42-

43; Milanich 1995:202, 206, 1999:146, 149).









The missions of Spanish La Florida changed significantly through time. At the

height of the mission system's expansion during the First Spanish period [1565-1763],

prior to the Timucuan Rebellion in 1656, the area missionized by the Spanish included all

of the northern third of modern Florida, the southeastern portion of Georgia, and all of

the Atlantic Coast between modern Ponce de Leon Inlet and St. Catherine's Island (Hann

1996:174-190; Milanich 1999:128). Later in the seventeenth century population decline

in the original Native American groups missionized by the Spanish the Guale,

Timucua, and Apalachee resulted in an influx of Native American groups from outside

the original area of missionization to the La Florida missions (Worth 1998b:9, 16-21;

Hann 1996:257-267).

Furthermore, the area directly controlled by the Spanish contracted continually

throughout much of the first Spanish period. As a result of the English settlement of

Charles Town in 1670, English colonists and soldiers and English-allied Native American

groups could raid into Spanish Florida to capture Indians to be sold as slaves and to

destroy the mission settlements. The coastal Guale missions of what is now Georgia were

abandoned as a result of such attacks late in the seventeenth century (Milanich 1995:222-

223). During the first decade of the eighteenth century, major English invasions and

attacks took place in 1702, 1704, and 1706, ultimately resulting in the Spanish deciding

to abandon most of the area west of the St. Johns River and to concentrate mission

settlements within a defensible distance of the colonial capital at St. Augustine (Hann

1988, 1996:300-303; Milanich 1999:188-190).

While the mission system continued to provide an arena for Spanish/Native

American interaction during the eighteenth century, the collapse of Florida's original









Native American population, the immigration of Native American groups from outside

the earlier mission territories, and the need to concentrate mission settlements for

defensive purposes all suggest that the mission communities of the eighteenth century

may have differed from the missions founded by the Spanish in the late sixteenth and

seventeenth centuries. The original missions founded by the Franciscans in the late

1500s and the first decades of the 1600s in Spanish Florida were founded in two stages.

First, a Native American leader, usually a principal chief within a group, would formally

"render obedience" to the Spanish crown, thereby creating at least a nominal and

voluntary subordination of chiefly authority to Spanish colonial officials; often this took

place during a visit by this principal chief to St. Augustine, the colonial capital of Spanish

Florida. Thereafter, a mission with a resident friar would be formally established within

that leader's territory (Worth 1998a:36-41), typically within the "principal town" of the

converted chiefdom (Worth 1998a:41; Milanich 1995:178 -179).

Thus, the original missions of Spanish Florida were originated in a way which

tended to reinforce chiefly authority, and were placed in areas which were chosen by

Native Americans for their own reasons rather than the convenience of the Spanish

(Milanich 1995:178; Gannon 1983:54). For the earlier missions of Spanish Florida, then,

it is likely that mission placements were in areas where resources were abundant enough

to support "principal towns," and they would have been dependent on choices made by

Native American groups regarding resource availability, routes of contact with other

Native American groups, and their own defense and ability to travel.

The missions of the eighteenth century, however, were located where they were for

very different reasons, particularly to allow them to protect and be protected by St.









Augustine. The decision to concentrate missions within a defensible distance of St.

Augustine meant that eighteenth-century colonial Spanish missions needed to be placed

in a relatively small area, on the St. Augustine peninsula or nearby, within the defenses

established for the protection of St. Augustine by the Spanish (Waterbury 1983:69-71).

Because the primary factor governing the placement of eighteenth-century Spanish

missions was the defense of the colonial capital (Hann 1996:300-303), as well as

movement in response to raids or attacks (Parker 1999:47-51), the missions of the

eighteenth century would not have been in traditional native locales with ample resource

availability. Such mission communities would have had to make use of the limited

resources available within the defensive perimeter established by the colonial authorities.

This was in contrast to many of the earlier missions, particularly those established within

the territory of the Apalachee, which were in areas very well suited for crop production.

Such missions provided food not merely for the mission's inhabitants but for the Spanish

colonists of La Florida, as well as for export from the colony (Hann and McEwan 1998;

Scarry 1993:369; McEwan 1993:296-297; Worth 1998a:176-186).

Furthermore, the people of the eighteenth-century missions would have been

substantially different both in ethnic (tribal) affiliation and in cultural practices from the

Native American groups first missionized by the Spanish the Timucua, Apalachee and

Guale Indians. The mission populations of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries would

have principally been those Native American groups indigenous to the areas colonized by

the Spanish: the Guale of the coastal region of Georgia (Saunders 2000:29, 43), the

Apalachee of the eastern Panhandle region of Florida (Hann 1988:6), and the Timucua-

speaking groups of the northern third of peninsular Florida (Milanich 1994:247, 1995:80-









87, 1999:31). But the process of missionization meant exposure to European-introduced

diseases, leading throughout the mission era to catastrophic population collapse over time

(Dobyns 1991:74; Worth 1998b:8, 9) and consequent changes in cultural and political

alliances and territories among Native American groups. Ultimately, raids by the English

and their Native American allies into Spanish Florida resulted in the eventual cultural

extinction of the original people of Florida (Worth 1998b:144-146) and the movement of

new groups into the traditional mission territories.

Native American groups from outside Florida began to enter the lands of the

original groups in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, settling in areas

outside Spanish control or, in some cases, seeking the protection of the Spanish (Worth

1998b:27-35, 147-149). The largest such group was the Yamassee, a "colonial tribe of

refugees.., comprised of a diverse assortment of individual communities that seem to

have aggregated around several important core towns" (Worth 2004: 1-2), many of whom

were fleeing English Carolina after the Yamassee War of 1715 (Worth 1998b:48-149,

Hann 1996:306-318; Crane 1929: 162). The Yamassee had been English allies prior to

the Yamassee War, and had been one of the groups participating in the destruction of the

mission system during the raids of 1702-1706 (Milanich 1999:178, 183; Wright 1986:8,

13, 16). With the expulsion of the Yamassee in 1715, and their decision to seek refuge in

Spanish Florida, the Spanish were placed in the position of incorporating a Native

American group into the mission system whose members had long experience dealing

with the English. The Yamassee, as the principal cultural group seeking refuge at the

eighteenth-century missions, had been in contact with the English, had regularly traded

with them, and had served as English allies during the earlier raids into Spanish Florida.









Some Yamassee groups had already been missionized by the Spanish prior to the first

decades of the 1700's (Hann 1996:306-307; Milanich 1999:171-174). Thus, some people

of the eighteenth-century missions would thus have been culturally different and perhaps

more experienced dealing with Europeans than the earlier mission populations, and

would quite likely have had the knowledge necessary to take advantage of the proximity

of the Spanish colonial presence.

For these reasons, it seems likely significant differences would have existed

between the eighteenth-century refugee missions and the missions founded earlier. Since

the sixteenth and seventeenth century Spanish missions were placed at considerable

distances from St. Augustine (Worth 1998b:Appendix A), the Spanish presence at the

earlier missions was in most cases minimal. A doctrine a mission which had resident

friars would typically have had one or two priests living alone among many hundreds

of Native Americans (Milanich 1995:167), with small garrisons of soldiers at missions of

unusual size or importance (Milanich 1995:172; Hann and McEwan 1998). Thus, the

Spanish would not have been able to enforce their cultural norms on the people of the

sixteenth and seventeenth century mission communities primarily by force and needed to

work more through persuasion and negotiation (Worth 1998a:36-41).

But the eighteenth-century missions were placed within a defensive perimeter in

walking distance of the colonial capital and of one another (Arredondo 1737), shifting

their locations in a "concertina" movement in response to military and economic

pressures (Parker 1999: 47). For that reason, far more Europeans would have been in

close proximity to the eighteenth-century refugee missions than the earlier missions,









exposing the people living at these missions to continuous close contact with European

ways of life and thought and to the conflicts taking place within Spanish society.

The focus of this thesis is the lifeways which existed at one eighteenth-century

mission community: Nuestra Senora del Rosario de La Punta, more commonly known as

"La Punta" for short, the term used throughout this work. A small part of the La Punta

mission community has been examined in earlier study (White 2002), both to compare

the mission with Yamassee archaeological sites located in South Carolina and to identify

the form of the material culture record of Yamassee communities.

In this work, I want to analyze the historic and archaeological record of the La

Punta mission community for the purposes of understanding the living conditions and

cultural practices of the people of the eighteenth-century colonial Spanish mission

communities and to outline how those communities differed from the earlier mission

communities of the interior of La Florida (the missions of Apalachee, Guale and

Timucua). The research questions addressed in this thesis are as follows:

1. Are the early to mid-eighteenth century archaeological sites south of the colonial
city of St. Augustine associated with the La Punta mission community? The
historic evidence suggests that the only early-to-mid eighteenth century occupation
of the area south of the colonial city of St. Augustine proper, on the St. Augustine
peninsula, was the refugee mission community of La Punta. Are the archaeological
remains dating to the eighteenth century in that area indeed associated with the
mission community of La Punta?

2. If so, what does the historic and archaeological information relating to the La Punta
mission community reveal about the lifeways of a Spanish refugee mission of the
eighteenth century? How are those lifeways different from those of the earlier
missions found well outside the St. Augustine locality?

In the chapters which follow, the historic record of the eighteenth century is

analyzed and evidence is presented which suggests that any site in the study area, dating

to the eighteenth century and showing archaeological evidence of Native American









occupation is almost certainly associated with the La Punta mission community. Then

the archaeological evidence from sites located within the study area is presented and

discussed to provide a clearer picture of the form of the La Punta mission community,

including patterns of land use, spatial positioning of structures and activity areas within

the larger area analyzed, and lifeways of the people of the mission community, including

agricultural, domestic and burial practices. Third, the historic and archaeological

information from the La Punta mission community is discussed to begin to create a

picture of that community and the lifeways of its inhabitants. Lastly, theory is used to

suggest future research to further describe the eighteenth-century refugee missions of St.

Augustine and to explain how and why they differ from the earlier mission communities.

Prior to this discussion, the geographic area of study within this work will be

defined. The colonial city of Spanish San Agfustin was built on a peninsula defined on the

west by Maria Sanchez Creek, on the east by the Matanzas River, on the south by the

joining of the creek and the Matanzas River, and on the north by the Castillo de San

Marcos and the Cubo Line, a palm log wall which extended westward from the fort (see

Figure 1.1). The western and southern boundaries of the city itself were defined by the

Rosario Line, which with the Cubo Line formed a "line of circumvallation" ending in a

redoubt "a short distance south" of St. Francis Street (Chatelain 1941: 86-87; Chatelain

undated:7). Thus, the area of study consists of the land south of the National Guard

Headquarters and cemetery, west of the Matanzas and east of Maria Sanchez Lake, south

to the southern tip of the peninsula, and just south of the colonial city of St. Augustine

itself (see Figure 1.1).















Colonial cfty. line
ciicumullation


-- Sites within the
study area


,. ,- -


Figure 1-1 The Colonial City of St. Augustine and the Study Area














CHAPTER 2
THE HISTORIC EVIDENCE: INDICATIONS AND RECORDS OF
THE MISSION COMMUNITY'S PRESENCE

To understand the colonial-era documents which refer to the La Punta mission

community, it is necessary to understand the historic context in which the documents

were written. The eighteenth century in North America was a time of tremendous

demographic and political change, and the existence of the St. Augustine refugee

missions of that era in Spanish Florida was a consequence of the shifting political,

economic, and military alliances among the European powers of the time in the

Southeast, particularly England and Spain and the Native American groups in whose

territory Europeans were settling. Accordingly, I first will discuss the historic events

taking place in the Southeast and elsewhere immediately before La Punta's founding,

during its existence, and immediately thereafter. I will then present the historic

documents discussing the La Punta mission community, and their relevance to the

research questions presented.

Eighteenth Century Florida: Disruption and Change

The opening years of the eighteenth century set in motion events which would

determine the form of life in Spanish Florida for the remainder of the first Spanish period.

Prior to 1702, English entry into Spanish Florida had been relatively minimal. While

raids on the missions of Florida and on St. Augustine had increased, such attacks were

relative pinpricks compared to what came after (Milanich 1999:168-174).









In 1702, Governor James Moore of Carolina led a major military force consisting

of some 500 Carolina colonists and more than 300 Native American allies, principally

Yamassee Indians, into Spanish Florida. During this raid, Moore destroyed all of the

Spanish coastal missions between Charles Town and St. Augustine, laid siege for nearly

two months to the Castillo de San Marcos, and ultimately burned St. Augustine to the

ground prior to his withdrawal (Arnade 1959: 23, 58; Halbirt 2002: 29-30; Milanich

1999:177-185: 2002:1-2). Moore led two further major raids into Spanish Florida. The

first, in 1704, devastated the Apalachee missions of the eastern Panhandle of Florida

(Hann 1988:264-265), while in 1706, the last surviving Timucua missions of San

Francisco de Potano and its satellites, near modern Gainesville (Milanich 1995:225-227;

Hann 1996:300-303; Worth 1998b:142-146) were destroyed. During these raids, Creek

and Yamassee Indians, as allies of the English, were encouraged to take slaves from the

mission populations. Some Apalachee Indians threw off their allegiance to the Spanish

and returned to Carolina with the English; others fled west to Mobile and beyond. As a

result of the raids, the mission chain of Spanish Florida west of the St. Johns River was

totally destroyed (Milanich 1999:187-188; Worth 1998b: 142-146).

Following the destruction of the missions, particularly during the first two decades

of the eighteenth century, Native American slavers allied with the English were able to

range freely throughout the Florida peninsula, even to the Keys (Hann 2003:179; Worth

1998b:146). The decision was made by Florida's Spanish governors, beginning with

Joseph de Zufiiga y Zerda in 1706, to concentrate all Native American groups within

Florida close to the Spanish capital, behind the Spanish defensive works and near to or

within the city of St. Augustine (Hann 1996:303). This meant a large increase in the









Native American population in St. Augustine, a fact which is reflected archaeologically

in a substantially increased proportion of Native American to European ceramics in St.

Augustine sites dating to the eighteenth century, as well as the increasing presence of

colonoware in early eighteenth century contexts (Deagan 2002:107). The Native

American refugees arriving in St. Augustine were organized into mission towns

surrounding the colonial capital. Some of these missions Nombre de Dios and

Tolomato already existed prior to the destruction of the interior missions (Worth 1998b:

Appendix A). Others were constructed in areas that had not been previously occupied by

missions, within the limits of the town's defenses or near enough to the defenses to be

effective as a "first line" of obstacles for an attacking enemy to overcome (Worth

1998b:147). Ultimately, the chain of missions near St. Augustine formed a semicircular

perimeter enclosing the city on the north, west and south (Arrendondo 1737), though the

locations of the refugee mission communities changed through the time of their existence

(Parker 1999:47).

The Native Americans relocated to St. Augustine in the first decade of the

eighteenth century primarily included survivors of the missions destroyed by Moore's

raids into Florida: Timucua, Guale, and Apalachee Indians (Hann 1996:303-305).

However, events during the next decade would drastically alter the demographic makeup

of the refugee missions. In 1715, many Native American groups in Carolina, including

the Yamassee, Creeks, Choctaw, and to some degree the Cherokee (Crane 1929:162),

joined in a general uprising against the English at Charles Town, an uprising which

became known as the Yamassee War (Hann 1996:306; Hann 2003:179). The uprising,

incited by abuses against Native Americans perpetrated by English traders (Hann









2003:179), was defeated by the English. As a result, the Yamassee fled from Carolina,

many of them seeking sanctuary with the Spanish in Florida. While this movement by

recent adversaries may at first seem unusual, the Spanish needed Native American allies

for the defense of the capital, and the Yamassee, long familiar with the political and

military conflicts between Spain and England, needed European allies opposed to

England. The Yamassee were quickly integrated into the existing mission system.

The Yamassee have been characterized as "a historic period aggregation of diverse

coastal and interior peoples" (Saunders 2000:48), which appear to have principally

centered on the remnants of the De Soto-era chiefdoms of Altamaha/Tama, Ocute, and

Ichisi (Worth 2004:2-3; Smith 1968:51-65). The Yamassee appear to have spoken a

Muskogean dialect related to Hitchiti and Guale (Worth 2004:1). While it has been

claimed that the term "Yamassee" was a name given to the Yamassee by Spanish

observers (Carl Halbirt, City of St. Augustine archaeologist, 2005, personal

communication), the name is actually Native American in derivation and appears to have

been the term used by the Yamassee themselves (John Worth 2005, personal

communication).

The refugee missions around St. Augustine existed within a complex jurisdictional

system of both ecclesiastical and secular government and within the social statuses

associated with these institutions. The Catholic Church was the common cultural bond

for all of the residents of St. Augustine and its environs:

Regardless of how the citizens of St. Augustine might describe themselves in terms
of race, origin, or profession, they always identified themselves as Catholics... This
corporate identity was essential in demarcating the sociopsychological boundaries
of colonial St. Augustine... Race, nationality, familial background, and economic
standing determined one's place within St. Augustine's social order, but without a









profession of Catholic faith, one would remain decidedly outside that social order.
(Kapitzke 2001:8)

However, one's place within the Catholic faith and the social order was also

determined by jurisdictional conflict between the regular and the secular clergy. In the

Catholic religious hierarchy, "regular" clergy are those clergy who are members of

religious orders, such as the Jesuits or Franciscans, which are committed to particular

tasks and are exempt from the jurisdiction of the local bishop (Gannon 1983:XIV).

"Secular" clergy, on the other hand, are those priests who work "in geographically

defined parishes under the direct supervision of a bishop" (Gannon 1983:XIV).

The mission system of Spanish Florida was under the control of regular clergy from

the Franciscan order, and their support was, in theory, to be provided by the governors of

Spanish Florida through the support of the crown (Gannon 1983:37). During the

sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the Franciscans would primarily have been

concerned with missions at substantial distances from the "secular" parish priests in St.

Augustine itself (Worth 1998b:Appendix A). Though the center of operations for

Franciscan missionary efforts was located within the urban area of St. Augustine at the

friary of St. Francis (Hoffman 1993:62), the Franciscans' principal concern during this

time would have been with the missions located in the hinterland, out of the geographic

boundaries of the parish priest's jurisdiction.

But during the eighteenth century, the refugee missions were placed in close

proximity to St. Augustine. This tended to create questions of jurisdiction and conflicts

between the Franciscans, as regular clergy overseeing the refugee missions, and the

parish priests of the city:

Their harmonious interaction was essential in maintaining social and religious
stability in the frontier town of St. Augustine. Yet at times, their relationship









turned acrimonious. When this occurred, the ensuing struggles disrupted the social
order and presented the citizens of St. Augustine with the image of a house divided
against itself. (Kapitzke 2001:124)

During the period of the refugee missions, one of the primary areas of dispute

centered on "secularization": the shifting of control of parishes and parishioners from

regular to secular clergy (Kapitzke 2001:124). In eighteenth century St. Augustine, the

process of "secularization" would have meant the movement of mission populations from

the control of the Franciscans to St. Augustine's parish priest (Kapitzke 2001:124-125).

Another area of dispute between the friars and parish priests centered on the rights and

privileges attached to each office, including the right to administer the sacraments

(Kapitzke 2001:124, 125, 128-130).

The Native American groups living at the refugee missions thus lived in a religious

and social atmosphere centered on the Catholic Church and its traditions, and affected by

conflict between both regular and secular clergy and the secular authority, led by the

governors of Spanish Florida.

English raids and attacks on St. Augustine continued throughout the remainder of

the First Spanish period, including Palmer's 1728 raid and destruction of several Native

American mission settlements near St. Augustine (Chatelain 1941:88) and the 1740 siege

conducted by James Oglethorpe, founder of Georgia (Waterbury 1983:76-79).

Throughout this time, the populations of the refugee missions steadily declined, from a

high point in of 1,011 total Native Americans in 1717 to 89 people in the year 1763, the

year of the first Spanish withdrawal from Florida (Hann 1996:328). During these years,

however, the refugee population fluctuated somewhat, though the overall trend was

down.









The 89 Native American mission inhabitants were withdrawn from Florida with the

Spanish in 1763, when La Florida was passed from Spanish to British rule. During the

time of British rule in Florida (1763 -1784), the British created a plantation agricultural

system in Florida, concentrated east of the St. Johns River, with St. Augustine serving as

principal military outpost in Florida (Schafer 2001:48-58, 76-99). The Seminoles, Creek

descendents who had begun moving into central Florida during the last decades of

Spanish rule, visited St. Augustine but were never allowed to settle there by the British.

Treaty agreements between the British and the Creek and Seminole leaders fixed the St.

Johns River as the boundary between British occupation in the east, and Native American

occupation in the west (Schafer 2001:48-58, 76-99).

The Historic Evidence for La Punta's Existence

The founding of Nuestra Senora de La Punta as one of the refugee mission towns

around St. Augustine appears to have taken place after the Yamassee War of 1715. The

historic evidence for La Punta's presence as a mission community, and its demographic

composition, comes from two sources: depictions of the mission community in maps, and

documents noting the mission's presence. Each of these sources is discussed in turn.

Where applicable, I also will note descriptions of the mission community incorporated in

the visual depictions.

Maps Depicting the Location of the La Punta Mission Community

Colonial-era Spanish and British maps from the early to mid-eighteenth century

provide depictions of the La Punta mission community and its placement relative to St.

Augustine proper and the other mission towns; they also provide evidence regarding the

time of the community's founding and its abandonment by the Spanish. British maps

from Florida's era of British rule (1763-1784) provide some indication of the land's use









immediately subsequent to the time of the mission community's existence. Together

these sources suggest that the La Punta mission occupied the area south of St. Augustine,

on the St. Augustine peninsula, from the late 1720s until 1752, less than 30 years, and

that British structures occupied the land where the mission community had existed during

the time of British rule (Halbirt, in preparation).

First Spanish Period maps of the La Punta Mission community

The Palmer Map of 1730

The Palmer map, made by an English officer who led a raid against the Native

American mission communities near St. Augustine in 1728 (Chatelain 1941:88) and was

killed besieging the city of St. Augustine with Oglethorpe in 1740 (see Figure 2.1),

depicts an "Indian Town" immediately to the south of the southern wall of the city,

between what appears to be Maria Sanchez Creek and the Matanzas River (Palmer 1730).

To the west of this first "Indian Town" is noted a second "Indian Town," across what

appears to be Maria Sanchez Creek and east of the San Sebastian River. These two

"Indian Towns" appear to correspond with the missions of La Punta and Pocotalaca,

respectively, as listed on the 1737 Arredondo map (Arredondo 1737).

There is no information listed on the 1730 Palmer map as to the nature of the

inhabitants of these two "Indian Towns." However, two other such towns, located

northwest across the San Sebastian River and immediately to the north of the city wall

extending to from the Castillo, are listed as: "Yamacy Town taken by Col. Palmer from

Charles Town", and "Yamacy Hutts", respectively (Palmer 1730), suggesting the

presence of Yamassee Indians in the towns when the Palmer map was drawn.

Furthermore, the primary objective of Palmer's raid in 1728 was "the destruction... of the










remnants of the once powerful Yemassee nation" (Chatelain 1941:88), suggesting the

"Indian towns" depicted on Palmer's map would have been inhabited by Yamassee.




Indian Town A





































residents.
X .z .--




Figure2-1 The Palmer Map (1730) ,









The Arredondo ap o o o

Theroad running south of the city'sArredondo map of Stuthern wall to thine peninsula's envtip (see Figure 2.2)May 15. ,

Residents. Ple

The Arredondo map locates La Punta immediately south of the city. It depicts a173









road running south of the city's southern wall to the peninsula's tip (see Figure 2.2). A












I,


,, :1. '. .i I,y .,
'Pkf t V


...... ... .. ,,,/ 'i ., ,. :.__ ,,. ...A rc tu
V;3
-tr- i g P.



-k 'It...i :' ;::; ,C ied
P jP iI;



I i ..... f.o S .'t .... ,. ..
-z -' .:.. : r ."r "\ A iljtural


___f~jt--- --- -. p 'g't. ,"'- f$.,t.
I .i i.




.* ,.--- ... ,l ---ii", "
' .. t k, t I

C -rr








_.,,rt,,.;- 4%?1 ._'; Ks%;' .....:-i: ,,: *.p".,J:: Structures
*I t,-Fi id




rI r ; -;"
7 7, *1 P I f l I -l ;k i /ki 'k




-'- *--rrY '(if' l



}-'.,'- t ,-z.; ;~TI -
T1 ;!TI.- V ol~-~4,if~;, i *- rS "-f
iur AenM(T
pt 'P~,

t .
s,- rtt ~ I~ I- I' r..,if,, *rr YI* ~f
I-----'~~ Iir I ~ .





*' "'j7,i rtIj tn




"r
Figure 2Ao M1


















single larger structure, probably the mission church, is surrounded by sixteen smaller

structures, with four smaller structures at the road' s southernmost end. Presumably these
r P

Ir, 'p F4 4'..14 W
I ~ -` I 1,' 1: V r -- ~
Fi V

P : L A' j; Iu t ~~141
aI Z



Figure -2 Arreondo Ma (1737
sigelrersrcue proalyte isinchrhi sroudd ysitensale
stutue, ih o r smle tutrsa tera' oten ot n.Peu al hs









are individual houses of the mission villagers. These houses are surrounded with what

appear to be cultivated fields. The mission community is bounded on the west by Maria

Sanchez Creek, on the east by the Matanzas River, and on the south by the confluence of

the two.

The legend accompanying the map lists each feature by number. La Punta, number

21, is described as "Church and town of La Punta 17 men and 17 women and children

accordingly" (Arrendondo 1737).

Anonymous Map of the City and Port of Saint Augustine, 1740

This map by an unknown maker, written in French, depicts an "Indian Town"

located to the south of the southern city wall between what appears to be Maria Sanchez

Creek and the San Sebastian River (see Figure 2.3).

This map appears to depict twelve structures present at the designated "Indian

Town," centered on a road running to the southern tip of the peninsula between them

(Anonymous 1740). A dock or wharf of some sort is shown on the southeastern side of

the Indian Town," extending into the Matanzas River (see Figure 2.3).

This map is not a clear depiction of La Punta as an individual town; the town itself

is designated only as "Ville Ind", and its location would place it in the vicinity of the

mission community of Pocotalaca rather than that of La Punta (Arredondo 1737).

However, the notation of the town's existence suggests the presence of Native American

communities south of the colonial city during this period.













P 1,

-1..1.-..FP.R D


AL.
.0.


...___ __' _ ___._- -: ;-, .3
...;Jll













The Pablo Castello map of 1763, drawn to provide a clear reference for the British
authorities occupying St. Augustine after Spanish withdrawal from Florida, depicts the
, '- -,-- ..... ._. s /T^


















city wall, between Maria Sanchez Creek and the Matanzas River (see Figure 2.4). The
Figure 2-3 Anonymous Map of 1740







The Castello map describes the ruins as "Ruined church that was of the Town of Indians of Laof 1763

The Pablo Castelo 1763). This indicates the mission community no loear reference for the Britishn 1763,
authorities occupying St. Augustine after Spanish withdrawal from Florida, depicts the

ruined remains of the La Punta mission community immediately south of the southern

city wall, between Maria Sanchez Creek and the Matanzas River (see Figure 2.4). The

Castello map describes the ruins as "Ruined church that was of the Town of Indians of La

Punta" (Castello 1763). This indicates the mission community no longer existed in 1763,

though its location was still known to the Spanish, and was still apparently visible on the

ground. This further suggests that the British, at least at the beginning of the British

occupation of Florida, would have known and recognized the area occupied by the La

Punta mission when determining placement of their own buildings in the area.

















I'~O~ P Iff L~ YC II :Xl*ll 1r Ill 1. 1111 ~ I I I ~ rrn 1 )/ rrrl r r~ 11. ( r
C~a~yn~ rrur~lFr .r v ~lr, r~ r*
I8LICS~~ i 1 CI t-
L "'U1L3-~~C-- ~.. C-
~3P~c~ ,,
iB-. L,,
krrlY~-LC~l~-* *---
-U ---c--
"P-
':~-
'~"'"
rr Cw rc.r ~~~
i ~~sub~pr-~da~
-n,
,~--- -r,
Clf~L~i~lf~F


Figure 2-4 Castello Map (1763)


British Period maps of the former location of La Punta


The J. Purcell Map of 1777


The J. Purcell map of British St. Augustine shows a trail running south of the


southernmost wall of the city to the area of the La Punta mission and the "Indian Towns"


noted on the earlier Spanish maps (see Figure 2.5). This trail terminates within what


appears to be a walled enclosure containing three structures, one larger and two smaller


(see Figure 2.5) These features are placed on the southern tip of the peninsula of St.


Augustine, between Maria Sanchez Creek and the Matanzas River (Purcell 1777).


The legends accompanying this map do not indicate the nature of the walls of the


enclosure or of the structures, nor their occupants (Purcell 1777), though other documents
















































Figure 2-5 The J. Purcell Map (1777)

suggest the structures may have been a hospital (McGee et. al. 2005). Furthermore, the

enclosure and structures are dissimilar to any of the depictions of the La Punta mission

community as drawn on the earlier Spanish or English maps (Palmer 1730; Arredondo

1737; Anonymous 1740), suggesting that the features depicted on the Purcell map, while









built on the La Punta site, were not part of the mission community ruins and were built

subsequent to the Castello map's drafting (Castello 1763).

The H. Burrard Map of 1780

This map depicts two separate features to the south of the southern wall of St.

Augustine: an enclosure within what appears to be a single structure, and, to the south of

that feature, what appears to be a separate enclosure with three structures inside (see

Figure 2.6). Immediately beside the southern wall, within the city itself, is a legend

noting "Barracks", also depicting an enclosure with three structures within (see Figure

2.6). The southernmost feature is clearly placed between Maria Sanchez Creek and the

Matanzas River (Burrard 1780).

This southernmost feature is very similar, though not identical, to the features

depicted on the Purcell map, and appears to be placed in the same location. Furthermore,

the Franciscan mission headquarters where the British later built their principal barracks

was north of the site of La Punta and appears to be north of the features depicted on the

Burrard map at the southern extreme of the St. Augustine peninsula (Schafer 2001:55;

Hoffman 1993:73-74). Thus, given the cartographic imperfection of the maps of the

time, it seems reasonably certain that the southernmost features depicted on the Burrard

map are the same features depicted on the Purcell map, and that these features were built

on the site of the earlier La Punta mission.

Anonymous Map of Saint Augustine and Environs, 1782

This map depicts the enclosure and three structures appearing on the earlier British-

era maps; it has a legend labeling this cluster of features as "Fort Wright" (see Figure

2.7), while other versions of this map label the same cluster of features "Dr. Wright" or

"Hospital" (McGee et. al. 2005). As with the earlier maps, this cluster is placed between
























d -/







SjII "British
SHospital .





/




Figure 2.6 The H. Burrard Map (1780)









Maria Sanchez Creek and the Matanzas River south of the walled city. It also appears to

be placed in the area labeled as La Punta mission or "Indian Town" on the maps drawn in

1763 or earlier.


Figure 2-7 Anonymous Map (1782)

The British built a number of new defensive structures to protect St. Augustine

during the time of their control of Florida, including redoubts and barracks (Schafer

2001:48-58). Since the structures depicted in the study area on the British-era maps are

relatively consistent through time, it seems likely that this cluster of features, whether a

fort or a hospital, were British structures built during the first half of the British period









and remaining in existence through at least 1782. The cluster was clearly located south

of the barracks built on the site of the Franciscan convent.

Documents Describing the Mission Community

Documents listing the refugee mission communities of the early eighteenth century

provide a time frame for Nuestra Senora del Rosario de La Punta. They also provide

some clues as to the identity and ethnic affiliation of the people living within the mission

community.

The Anonymous Mission List of 1736

The first written mention of the La Punta mission occurs in a 1736 mission census

(Swanton 1922:105). La Punta is listed as one of eight refugee missions in existence at

the time, the others being Pocotalaca, Nombre de Dios Chiquito, San Nicolas, Tolomato,

La Costa, Palica, and a "Village of Timucua" (Swanton 1922:105; Hann 1996:316). La

Punta's inhabitants are described as being "Cacique Juan and 16 men, 1 of them

Apalachee" (Swanton 1922:105; Hann 1996: 316.)

The Benavides Mission List: April 21, 1738

This mission census lists a total of nine refugee missions: La Punta, Macharis, La

Costa, Tolomato, Palica, Pocotalaca, Nombre de Dios Chiquito, San Nicolas, and an

unnamed "Chapter House (St. Augustine" (Benavides 1738). La Punta is described as

having "41 people, 15 of them warriors", suggesting the earlier 1736 census may have

only listed fighting men available to the Spanish rather than the total number of

inhabitants.

The First Montiano Mission List: June 4, 1738

This 1738 census names ten refugee missions, suggesting a new influx of people

between April and June of 1738. This list includes La Punta, as well as Macaris, La









Costa, Tholomato, Palica, Pocotalaca, Nombre de Dios Chiquito, San Nicolas, Pojoy and

Amacaparis, and "Chapter House" (Montiano 1738). La Punta's inhabitants are listed as

"43 people (10 men, 13 women, and 20 children)" (Hann 1996:316).

The Guemes y Horcasitas List of 1739

This document from late 1738 lists only eight mission communities, suggesting that

some amalgamation of the mission populations may have taken place subsequent to the

compilation of Montiano's listing. N. Senora del Rosario, Punta is present, as well as

Nombre de Dios Macaris, San Antonio de la Costa, N. Senora de Guadelupe, Tolomato,

N. Senora de La Assumpcion, Palica, N. Senora de la Concepcion, Pocotalaca, Santo

Domingo de Chiquitos, and San Nicolas de Casapullos (Guemes y Horcasitas 1739).

The inhabitants of the La Punta mission were 14 families and 51 total inhabitants (Hann

1996:317). Because 43 inhabitants were listed as present at La Punta on Montiano's

listing, it seems likely that some of the inhabitants from one of the other missions had

been moved to La Punta by this time.

The Second Montiano Mission List: June 23, 1739

This census lists a total of eight mission communities: Nuestra Senora de Rosario

de la Punta, Nombre de Dios de Macaris, Nuestra Senora de Guadelupe de Tolomato,

Santo Domingo de Chiquito, Nuestra Senora de la Assuncion de Palica, Nuestra Senora

de la Concepcion de Pocotalaca, Pueblo de San Nicolas de Casapullos, and Pueblo de San

Antonio de la Costa (Montiano 1739). This census of mission towns contains no

demographic data; it simply lists the communities in existence at that time.

The Gelabert Report of 1752

This census of the mission communities indicates that six mission communities

were present in 1752. They are La Punta, Tolomato, Pocotalaca, la Costa, Palica, and









Nombre de Dios (Gelabert 1752). La Punta was the largest of the refugee mission

communities with 25 men and 34 women. No children are listed. The leader of the La

Punta mission community is "Antonio Yuta", a Yamassee name, suggesting that the

inhabitants of the mission community were primarily Yamassee at this time (Hann

1996:323).

The Gelabert report is the last direct mention of the mission community of La

Punta. By 1759, the six refugee missions listed by Gelabert had been consolidated into

two mission communities, Nombre de Dios and Tolomato (Hann 1996:323). This is

consistent with the information included on the Castello map, indicating that La Punta

mission was in ruins by 1763 (Castello 1763).

The Grifian Report of 1756

This document was written in 1756 by a royal official who had lived in St.

Augustine from 1731 to 1742, for the purpose of providing a comprehensive summary of

Florida's conditions and defenses for Spain's new secretary of State for the Navy and the

Indies (Scardaville and Belmonte 1979:1). Grifian's report provides a description of the

conditions of the mission towns as they appeared to him during his time stationed in St.

Augustine, which would have applied to La Punta, since the mission was in existence

during that time.

16. Christian Indians. There are 50 to 60 armed men in the Indian villages around
the town who serve on frequent expeditions, by regularly accompanying the
cavalry squads on patrols in the vicinity.



26. Inclinations, Vices and Villages of the Christian Indians. In the environs of
Florida (but outside of the circumvallation line and under the cannon of the
fortresses), there are five small villages of Christian Indians from the Yamassee
Nation that are inhabited by up to one hundred families. Their dwellings are small
palm houses, much distant from one another, and they plant corn and legumes on









their respective plots. But because of their limited efforts at farming, for they do
not put much effort into this work, they produce only a very small harvest. They
use most of their time to hunt, for which they have more inclination, and also to
wage war. They are brave, but greatly inclined to inebriety, consuming in this vice
whatever they earn from their hunting and even from the fruits of their sowing.
(Scardaville and Belmonte 1979:9, 11)

While Grifian's report was written well after his time of residence in St. Augustine,

and is clearly not perfectly impartial in its observations, it does provide some insight into

how conditions at the refugee mission communities, including Nuestra Senora de La

Punta, appeared to the Spanish residents of St. Augustine during the time of the refugee

missions' existence.

Discussion

The data from the historic documents relating to the La Punta mission community

suggest two things. First, the physical location of the La Punta mission community

appears to have changed relatively little if at all throughout the time of its documented

existence, from at least 1728 to at least 1752. Second, the community itself, as well as

the system of which it was a part, was under constant demographic change.

The maps, when taken as a whole, seem to indicate that from the time of La Punta's

first depiction on the Palmer map (Palmer 1730), the mission community remained in the

same physical location. Palmer depicted an "Indian town" south of St. Augustine, yet

apparently located on the St. Augustine peninsula (Palmer 1730); Arredondo depicted La

Punta as being south of the city of St. Augustine proper, on the southern tip of the

peninsula between Maria Sanchez creek on the west, the Matanzas River to the east, and

their confluence to the south (Arredondo 1737). Subsequent maps of the area around St.

Augustine, through the end of the First Spanish Period in 1763, continue to depict a

mission community in that same location; the last map from the era, the Castello map,









notes that the ruins of the La Punta mission community were still visible in the same

location that La Punta had been depicted by earlier cartographers (Castello 1763;

Arredondo 1737; Palmer 1730; Anonymous 1740). Accordingly, it seems highly likely

that the physical location of the La Punta mission community changed very little over

time.

But while the physical setting of the La Punta mission community may have

changed little through time, its demographic composition appears to have been in a state

of flux. The numbers of people present at La Punta through time appear to have slowly

increased, from the sixteen warriors listed as present in 1736 (Swanton 1922:105), to the

fifty-nine people listed as present at the mission in 1752, including twenty-five men and

thirty-four women (Gelabert 1752; Hann 1996:323). The numbers of people present at

La Punta, when taken in conjunction with the changing numbers of other refugee

missions, suggest that this increase was likely due both to the consolidation of other

mission populations with the population of La Punta itself, as well as a continuing

movement of refugees to the area. The overall decline of the total refugee missions'

population throughout this time (Hann 1996:317-325) suggests that continuing in-

migration of people would have been necessary for La Punta's population to remain

constant, let alone increase. The proximity of the refugee missions to the colonial capital

would have increased the risk of disease, as well as social and psychological pathologies,

and would have subjected the inhabitants to attacks on the city, all of which would have

contributed to population decline.

It may be significant that there is no data for La Punta and the other mission

communities between 1739 and 1752. Those years would have been a time of great









danger for the refugee missions: James Oglethorpe, the governor of Georgia, had laid

unsuccessful siege to the city of St. Augustine in 1740 (Chatelain 1941:91-92; Waterbury

1983:76-79), as a part of the War of Jenkins' Ear, and open hostilities between Spain and

England continued until 1742. It is known that a mission community of free blacks,

Gracia Real de Santa Teresa de Mose, which existed north of the colonial city, was

moved within the city walls until 1752, the year of the Gelabert report (Landers 1992:27;

Deagan and McMahon 1995). The lack of data for La Punta, as well as the other refugee

mission communities during this period, may be due to their populations being moved

within the city walls as well. Given the clear record of changing numbers of people

present at the mission through time, this suggests that La Punta's people were subject to

being moved from mission to mission, and from mission to city, at the decision of the

colonial authorities.

From an archaeological standpoint, the historic data relating to La Punta suggests

several things. First, archaeological sites related to the La Punta mission community will

be located in the area south of St. Francis Street and the National Guard cemetery, the

location of the southern wall of the colonial city, between modern Maria Sanchez Lake

and the Matanzas River (see Fig. 1.1). Second, such sites should exhibit archaeological

complexes related to the early to mid eighteenth century, both European (Spanish) and

Native American. The names and tribal affiliations existing on the mission lists indicate

that La Punta's inhabitants were most likely Yamassee, with some Apalachee present

(Swanton 1922:105).

Finally, archaeological sites which are a part of the La Punta mission community

should show evidence of subsequent British occupation in the same area. The British






35


period maps of the area (Purcell 1777; Anonymous 1782) indicate the presence of either a

fort or a hospital in the same physical location as the La Punta mission community.

Accordingly, sites associated with the La Punta mission community should show some

evidence of British occupation in the same location.














CHAPTER 3
ARCHAEOLOGY OF SITES
IN THE STUDY AREA

This chapter examines the archaeological record of the sites within the study area

defined in the first chapter of this thesis and hypothesized to include the remains of the

eighteenth century refugee mission community of La Punta. Chapter 4 will examine how

the archaeological data from the study area sites relate to La Punta, and it will examine

what those data tell us about the La Punta mission community.

In 1987, the City of St. Augustine, the oldest continuously occupied European

settlement in the mainland United States, established an archaeological protection

ordinance which requires archaeological investigation of any building or utility

construction with "ground-penetrating activities that exceed 100 square feet in area and 3

or more inches in depth... located within one of the City's archaeological zones" (Halbirt,

in preparation). The archaeological sites reported here were all located and excavated as

a part of the City's archaeological program, under the terms of the ordinance.

In presenting the archaeological evidence, the physical and geological environment

of the study area, including what is known of its natural topography and soil conditions,

are discussed first. Then the archaeological sites associated with the La Punta mission

are discussed as individual locations and as an integrated whole.

The Physical Environment of the Study Area

As noted in the first chapter of this thesis, the study area is the southern end of the

peninsula on which St. Augustine is located, bordered by Maria Sanchez Lake and marsh,









the Matanzas River, and their confluence. Prior to the nineteenth century building

activities of Henry Flagler, Maria Sanchez Lake was Maria Sanchez Creek, and extended

northwards along the western boundary of the colonial city, adding a natural barrier in the

form of a tidal creek to the town's defenses (Waterbury 1983:114).

Both Maria Sanchez Creek and the Matanzas River are tidal rivers connected to the

Atlantic Ocean. Neither has any direct discharge of fresh water supplying their natural

flow and levels. Consequently, the natural environment of the study area is best

characterized as salt marsh surrounding tidal hammock land (Smith and Bond 1984;

Audubon 1998). In the salt marsh environment, the principal plant species are smooth

cordgrass, red cedar, and needle palmetto (Smith and Bond 1984; Audubon 1998), all of

which were likely present in the eighteenth century. Plant species typically present in

tidal hammock environments include some hardwoods such as pignut hickory and live

oak, as well as scrub pine and sabal palmetto (Audobon 1998).

The soil association present in the environment of the study area is the Myakka-

Immokalee-St. Johns, which is characterized as "sandy... poorly to very poorly drained"

(Smith and Bond 1984:25).

Overall, the soils of St. Johns County [including the area of study] are sandy,
acidic, and wet. These conditions do not lend themselves to widespread
agriculture. In fact, none of the soils are rated as good cropland. To farm in the
area requires drastic changes to the soil structure; the most common of these are
drawing down the water table and raising the soil's PH and nutrient levels. (Smith
and Bond 1984:24)

The plant species naturally occurring in the environment are adapted to such acidic

soil conditions, but introduced plants of most kinds are unable to tolerate the environment

of the study area without some modification of the soil conditions.









The topography of the study area prior to human modification included dune ridges

characteristic of the Atlantic coastal environment (Smith and Bond 1984). Within the

study area, a north-south ridge extends from the colonial city's southern edge to the

southern tip of the peninsula (see Fig. 3.1). Based on a post hole survey conducted at the

159 and 161 Marine Street sites, it was hypothesized by Halbirt (Halbirt, in preparation)

that

The ridge appears to be more expansive and better defined toward the north end of
the [study area] than at the south; the north end exhibits a mound shape appearance,
whereas the rise at the south end of the property is less pronounced. On the east
(Matanzas Bay) side the ridge slopes into the river, whereas on the west (Maria
Sanchez Creek) side the ridge slopes into a terrace surface. The ridge crest appears
to follow an undulating pattern that is reminiscent of dune ridges: a vertical
displacement of approximately one foot (28cm) distinguishes this pattern. (Halbirt,
in preparation) (See Fig. 3.1)

Fauna present in the immediate area of the study area include oyster, quahog clam,

and saltwater fish species such as mullet, drum, and white grunt (Audobon 1998).

There is no record of extensive modification of the topography of the study area

prior to the late nineteenth century (Halbirt, in preparation). Consequently, it appears

likely that the physical and topographical environment occurring naturally in the area

prior to the eighteenth century would have been the environment existing when the La

Punta mission community was founded in that century (Halbirt, in preparation). It is in

that context that the data from the archaeological sites associated with the La Punta

mission are considered.

Archaeological Projects Associated With the Study Area

The study area is currently occupied by a series of private homes, two assisted

living facilities, the offices of the St. Johns County Council on Aging offices, and

associated parking lots (see Fig. 1.1).










Below, the general methodology used during the location and excavation of sites

within St. Augustine is discussed. Then the specific information recovered during the

archaeological investigation of each of the sites within the study area is presented.























S of Centerline Drawing
-Unes
061 068_069_076_077_084_08 C...
Areas : [Helgnt]
0.00- 1.00
1.00 2.00
2.00 3.00
3.00 4.00
S4.00 5.00
5.00 6,00
6.00 7.00
7,00 8.00
all <0.00
| > 8.00


Figure 3-1 LIDAR Map of Study Area

Methodology and Techniques

Since the adoption of St. Augustine's archaeological protection ordinance in 1987,

certain methods and techniques have been developed to allow the maximum recovery of

information from sites investigated within the city limits (Halbirt 1992). All of the sites









discussed here were excavated after the adoption of the ordinance, and thus were

excavated using those methods.

When the requirements of the ordinance trigger the need for archaeological

investigation at a location within the city, the first phase of analysis is a posthole survey

within the limits of the property under investigation. The postholes are dug to a depth

which varies with the depth below the ground surface of culturally sterile soils. Material

from the postholes is screened through 1/4" mesh for the purpose of recovering artifacts.

Artifact location and density are then plotted on a map of the site (Halbirt, in

preparation). Based on artifact distribution and density, plans are then formulated for

more extensive excavations.

During this second phase of the investigation, either 1 m by 2 m excavation units or

2m by 2m excavation units are laid out on the site, placed in areas which had high

concentrations of artifacts, features, or for other reasons, based on the data collected

during the first phase of testing. Since most sites tested under the City's program have

modern fill and overburden present, the City archaeologist may lay out and excavate

profile trenches prior to digging excavation units to reveal the soil stratigraphy and the

depth of modern fill and overburden. When this information has been collected, larger

"stripping areas" may be laid out within which excavation will take place. These

stripping areas will then have the upper layer of modern fill and overburden stripped off

with a backhoe to expose the historic layer, subsequently excavated in either Im by 2m or

2m by 2m test units (Halbirt, in preparation; Carl Halbirt, City of St. Augustine

archaeologist, personal communication, 2005). In St. Augustine, the historic 18th century

layer throughout the city generally consists of a concentration of fine, grayish brown to









brown soil, which represents the cultural midden layer produced by human activity

(White 2002). If no modern overburden is present at a site, stripping areas are not

utilized.

Each excavation unit is excavated by hand, with the soil removed from the unit

either dry-screened through 1/4in mesh for artifact recovery or, if water is present at the

site, wet-screened, also through '4in mesh (Carl Halbirt, City of St. Augustine

archaeologist, personal communication, 2005). To locate all features present within a

unit, the cultural midden is excavated down to sterile soil, represented throughout most of

St. Augustine by a layer of clean yellow-gold-colored soil.

Features within each unit are then mapped, and either bisected for profiling or

completely excavated. Based on features and material recovered from each unit, adjacent

or nearby units plotted on the site map are then excavated to recover further information.

Each unit is mapped both separately and on the overall site map prepared as a part of the

second phase of archaeological testing. At this juncture, prior to analysis, the City

archaeologist will either certify the owner's compliance with the ordinance, allowing use

of the property, or recommend further excavation (Carl Halbirt, City of St. Augustine

archaeologist, personal communication 2005).

In the third and final research phase of testing, the artifacts and material recovered

from the site are weighed and analyzed, and the city archaeologist makes a final

determination as to the site's significance and nature.

Five archaeological projects have been conducted in the study area. All such

projects are within the boundaries of the modem City of St. Augustine, and consequently

are designated both here and within the records of the city's archaeology program by









their physical addresses within the city: 161 Marine Street; 159 Marine Street; 321 St.

George Street; 8 Hedrick Street; and 11 Tremerton Street. All of these locations appear

to be associated with the hypothesized La Punta mission site as a whole, designated as

8SJ94 in the Florida Master Site File.

All of the projects associated with the study area were tested and excavated under

the methodology outlined above. However, the 11 Tremerton project was also partially

excavated using a different system, for reasons which will be discussed. Each of the sites

tested and excavated are discussed below. For each project, the numbering system,

stripping areas, unit numbers, and feature numbers are unique; that is, each was tested as

a distinct unit.

In analyzing the artifacts and other material found at each of these locations, the

categories for analysis are those which have been created for Florida historic archaeology

by Dr. Kathleen Deagan of the Florida Museum of Natural History at the University of

Florida. Those categories are as follows: 1) majolicas, 2) utilitarian wares (made by the

Spanish), 3) non-Spanish tablewares, 4) non-European ceramics (i.e., Native American),

5) kitchen items (including glassware), 6) non-masonry architecture, 7) military items, 8)

clothing/sewing, 9) personal items, 10) craft/products, 11) unidentified metal objects, 12)

masonry, 13) domestic furnishings, 14) tools or implements, 15) toys, games, or leisure,

16) tack or harness, 17) religious items, 18) miscellaneous weighed items, 19 truly

unknown items, and 20) 20th century (modern) items.

The artifact counts and weights for each of the project locations, by test unit and

level, are provided in Appendix A to this thesis. The tables provided in Appendix B for

each location include the total counts and weights for each of the above-listed categories









by test unit and stripping area, where applicable, and are the basis for the tables in this

chapter containing the relative percentages by count and weight for each location as a

whole. Through this analysis, the types of activities which took place at each location

will be suggested.

Location 1: 161 Marine Street

A portion of the 161 Marine Street excavation was analyzed by Andrea P. White in

her thesis comparing a Yamassee site in Florida with a similar site in South Carolina

(White 2002), to determine the archaeological "signature" of Yamassee sites in both

locations. A part of the information presented here is drawn from White's study, for the

purposes of integrating it with other sites related to La Punta; for the purposes of this

thesis, however, the entire collection of artifacts and features found at 161 Marine Street

is considered.

Excavations at this site revealed the presence of 43 features which appeared to date

to the time of mission occupation (White 2002: 49) (see figure 3.2). Some of these

features appear to be associated with between three to four structures, including a

probable structure located over a walk-in well. There also were five daub processing pits,

including two which were later used as trash pits; two trenches running parallel to each

other; and 18 miscellaneous pits, as well as the cultural midden layer relating to human

activity present throughout the site (White 2002:49).

The structures noted by White were all circular to ovoid in shape (White 2002:56-

58). One such structure appears to have been relatively complete, consisting of six






44





N

110 -

16 105 2
y,,,g~ -Li nts of Excaabon 116 s ,

1 1 90 Stt S1npp-ing Area 4




49 Daub Pit
1. 1] Miscellaneous Pit
S92 ; Post Hole










Figure 3-2 Plan Map: Features at 161 Marine Street Site from White (2002)
posthole/postmold features (Features 29/30, 46, 63a, 76, 77, and 92) forming an outer

wall, and a single center support post (Feature 50) (White 200256). Other features found







within the site (Features 112, 110, 115, and two unnumbered features) appear to represent

the remains of two more structures (White 2002:58), each one also circular in shape (see

figure 3.2).
Present near these structures was a well feature (see figures 3.2 and 3.3). As noted
by White, this well is atypical of wells in Spanish St. Augustine. Rather than employing


Figure wood-lined shaft from which water was drawn, the well found at 161 Marine Street Site from White (2002)

a saucer-shape/ostmold depression s(Featurrounding a barrel within which was a formingotpath leading outer
wall, and a single center support post (Feature 50) (White 2002:56). Other features found

within the site (Features 112, 110, 115, and two unnumbered features) appear to represent

the remains of two more structures (White 2002:58), each one also circular in shape (see

figure 3.2).

Present near these structures was a well feature (see figures 3.2 and 3.3). As noted

by White, this well is atypical of wells in Spanish St. Augustine. Rather than employing

a wood-lined shaft from which water was drawn, the well found at 161 Marine Street had

a saucer-shaped depression surrounding a barrel within which was a footpath leading to









the water source (White 2002:54). Furthermore, the well appeared to have been covered

by a structure which also was unique, as other wells found in Spanish St. Augustine are

typically uncovered and open (White 2002:55; Carl Halbirt, City of St. Augustine

archaeologist, personal communication 2005). Aeolian deposits and animal remains

within the well suggest that the well and possibly the entire community of La Punta -

was abandoned for a time (White 2002:54).

The two trenches identified during excavations appear to intersect at least one of

the structures identified by White (White 2002; figure 3.2). This trench, which had filled

in with sediment, appears to have been intruded into by this structure (White 2002:67).

This, like the deposits present in the well feature, suggests the possibility of the

abandonment of La Punta for a time during the course of its existence.

Artifacts recovered from the 161 Marine Street site consist overwhelmingly of fired

clay ceramics and cookware, which comprised 90.48% of the total collection of artifacts

recovered during excavations (White 2002:71). Of this total, 69.71% were Native

American in origin, including San Marcos ware, Mission Red Filmed, and St. Johns

ceramics series, as well as unidentified aboriginal ceramics (White 2002:74). Also

present within this total were Hispanic and some non-Hispanic European ceramics, as

well as glassware and metal cooking vessel fragments (White 2002:71).

The form of the structures found at the site strongly suggests that they were Native

American in origin. Native American structures in Spanish Florida were typically

circular or oval in shape, consisting of posts set into the ground and either bent to form a

curving roof or surmounted with a conical roof (Manucy 1997:15-19). The presence of

daub processing pits at the site tends to strengthen this interpretation of these features.









































Plan View of the Wall

0 0.5 1m


A- Mottled sterile sands
B Accumulated sands from first use
C Aeolian sands accumulated after first abandonment
D Greenish gray day and coquina lense sealing off the well
E Accumulated sands from second use
F Fluvial and aeolian sands accumulated after second abandonment
G Continuation of accumulated sands post-abandonment
H Yellowish brown colored sands with heavy charcoal
I Ashy sands
J Brown sands
K Later gray-brown modem deposit
L- Later modem fill deposit
M Unexcavated sterile soil


Figure 3-3 Profile of Well Feature, 161 Marine Street from White (2002)

Wattle-and-daub construction consists of a technique whereby branches or vines are

woven between posts set into the ground (wattles), which are then coated with a mixture

of clay and plant fiber, usually palm leaf (daub) (Manucy 1997:144). While Manucy was

describing Timucuan structures, the archaeological evidence suggests the Yamassee used

similar structures (White 2002:115-116; citing Southerlin, et. al. 2001). The presence of

circular structures with daub processing pits adjacent thereto is thus strongly indicative of

Native American occupation of this site, an inference which is reinforced by the presence

of Native American ceramic series as the largest ceramic type found at 161 Marine

Street.


CL









Appendices A and B contain the artifact counts and weights for each provenience

within the 161 Marine Street site. The following table provides the total counts, weights,

and relative percentages of each for the location as a whole.

Table 3-1 Overall Totals for 161 Marine Street
Category Artifact % of Total Artifact Weight % of Total
Count Count for Weight for
Location Location
1.Majolicas 105 1% 222. lg <1%
2.Util. Wares 185 2% 1,494. Ig 2%
3.Non-Spanish 579 6% 1,219.4g 2%
Tablewares
4.Non-European 4,504 44% 32,240.9g 54%


Ceramics
(+NAUID/disc.)
5.Kitchen Items, non-
ceramic (+bone weight)
6.Architecture, non-
masonry
7.Military Items
8.Clothing/Sewing
9.Personal Items
10. Craft/Product
11.UID Metal
12.Masonry
13.Domestic Furn
15. Toys/Games/Lei sure
16. Tack/Harness
17.Religious
18.Misc. Weighed
20.20th Century
TOTALS:


1,498

845

21
21
148
48
1,753
198
6
1
2
1
191
33
10,139


15%

8%

<1%
<1%
2%
<1%
17%
2%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
2%
<1%
100%


2,679.3g(5,211,7g)

8,893.4g

85.4g
67.4g
162.5g
558.6g
2,718.8g
2,781g
12.4g
4.8g
13.4g
0.6g
4,416.6g
130g
60,233.1g
(60.23kg)


9%

15%

<1%
<1%
<1%
1%
5%
5%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
7%
<1%
100%


Location 2: 159 Marine Street

The 159 Marine Street site is immediately to the north of the 161 Marine Street

site. This location was excavated under the city ordinance prior to the development of

condominiums on the property (Halbirt, in preparation). During the excavation of this

location, six stripping areas were cleared and excavation units placed within four of them

(see figure 3.4). These stripping areas were placed within those areas of the highest and










most diverse artifact assemblage, based on the results of the posthole survey of the

property.

Stripping Area 1: Three excavation units were dug in stripping area 1. Test Unit 1

was found to contain twelve features. Feature 2, consisting of a saucer-shaped depression

with embedded charcoal, appeared to be a hearth (see figure 3.5). Near this feature were

six other features appearing to be postholes/postmolds, five of which (Features 4, 7, 10,

11, andl2) may have represented a structure adjacent to Feature 2. The other features

Foundation


SAI


5ft. 6"


Property Line


Marine Street


Figure 3-4 Plan Map: Excavation Units and Features, 159 Marine Street


I I 1











2m 190 180 170 160 150 140 130 120 110 Im 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

10
ST. A
S20 TU1,
level 6
30
410
00
N

60



-m KEY
F- 9


F2 110 Posthole
-120 Oyster Shell Pit

-r0 Structural
SF 10 Outline
-140
S-1 Firepit Hearth

s ,h g -s160 F1 Feature+#

F5 -170



F6


Figure 3-5 Feature Map: Test Unit 1, Stripping Area 1, 159 Marine Street


present in this unit were all pits (Features 3, 5, 6, 8, and 9). Feature 3 consisted of a


circular pit with a flat base, filled entirely with oyster shell and some fragments of


aboriginal pottery. The other features were simply depressions with brown cultural


midden soil extending into the culturally sterile layer.


Test Unit 2 was found to contain ten features (see Figure 3.6). Only one (Feature


14) appears to have been a posthole. Two possible hearth or firepit features (Features 17


and 20) were found in this unit, as well as an isolated iron ring of unknown function


(Feature 18). The remaining features within this unit all appear to be related to food


preparation or discard: two of the features were found to be oyster shell pits similar to the


pit found in Test Unit 1 (Features 15 and 19), while the other features appear to be









depressions or deliberately constructed pits used either for storage or for discard

(Features 13, 16, 20, 21, and 22).

Test Unit 3 was found to contain six features. One (Feature 23) was a postmold

surrounding an associated posthole. All of the remaining features within this unit appear

to be pits of unknown functions, although one (Feature 32) contained clay similar to that

used for daub processing and may have been used for that purpose.

Artifacts recovered from these units consisted principally of Native American

ceramics including San Marcos ware fragments and Mission Red Filmed, Spanish

ceramics including Puebla Polychrome and unidentified majolica, and daub and lead shot

fragments.

Stripping Area 2: Five excavation units were dug in stripping area 2. Test Unit 1

was found to contain five features. Two of the features appeared to be trenches of

uncertain function (Feature 76, 74b). Both of these features were found to have postholes

associated with the trench feature. In Feature 76, the posthole features were noted as

being spaced along the deepest part of the trench feature; in Feature 74b, the trench

feature contained a posthole depression (Feature 74a) and a possible animal burrow. The

other two features found in this unit were a posthole believed to date to the nineteenth

century (Feature 79) and an area of mottled soil of indeterminate nature (Feature 77).

Test Unit 2 was found to contain four features. Two of these features (Feature 71a

and 71b) appear to have served as storage or processing pits of some type; artifacts found

in these features included English slipware dating to the early eighteenth century,

delftware, and thirty sherds of Native American ceramics, as well as bone and charcoal.









Adjacent to these pit features were two postholes (Features 71d and 72). Feature 72 also

contained English slipware and Native American ceramic sherds present.

Test Unit 3 contained three features: an apparent floor surface (Feature 77), with an

iron spike protruding from the southern wall; an irregular pit which appears to have been

a larger posthole 43 cm in diameter at its maximum width and associated with the floor

surface (Feature 77a); and a trash pit associated with a wall trench and postholes (Feature

76). This test unit was also found to contain substantial quantities of material dating to

the early eighteenth century, including more than 200 sherds of Native American

ceramics, a variety of European ceramics including English slipware, delftware, Puebla

Blue on White majolica, San Agustin Blue on White, gun flints, pipe fragments, and

metal fragments. The presence of the floor surface suggests the presence of a structure in

this area.

Test Units 4 and 5 contained no visible features. However, both units yielded a

substantial amount of cultural material, including more than 150 Native American

ceramic fragments, Mexican Red and El Morro sherds, pipe fragments, iron fragments,

English slipware, and a shell disc in excess of 1 kg. in weight. Beyond those artifacts, all

of the units located in Stripping Area 2 were found to contain both Native American and

European ceramics dating to the early eighteenth century, as well as scattered iron and

brass fragments and charcoal.

Stripping Area 3: Four excavation units were dug in stripping area 3. Test Unit 1

was found to contain only one definite feature, Feature 64, a posthole. However, three

depressions were noted near Feature 64 which suggest human activity. Artifacts

recovered from Test Unit 1 included more than 100 fragments of Native American


























1' KEY

120- F1 Oyster Shell P1
130- Poslhole
140 'P epitlHearth
150- -
F1 Feature+#
160-- - -

17 '0-

F22a '



Figure 3-6 Feature Map: Test Unit 2, Stripping Area 1, 159 Marine Street

pottery (San Marcos ware fragments and Mission Red Filmed) and "abundant charcoal."

Test Unit 2 had three definite features present. Feature 45 was a pit in excess of 80

cm in diameter which contained gray, ashy sand with some charcoal, as well as San

Marcos ware fragments and iron fragments. Feature 48 was a shallow, irregular pit

varying between 33 and 42 cm in diameter and 11 cm in depth, of unknown function.

Feature 49, like Feature 48, was a pit of unknown function and approximately the same

size (38 x 36 cm diameter, 13 cm depth). In addition, several depressions apparently

resulting from human activity were present within Test Unit 2. Native American

ceramics in excess of 100 small sherds were found in this unit, as well as bottle glass, San









Agustin Blue on White majolica, English slipware, faience, and a fragment of Mission

Red Filmed pottery.

Test Unit 3 contained five features. Four (Features 40, 41, 42, and 44) were pits of

undetermined function. Feature 40 contained a gaming piece made from olive jar and

one fragment of San Luis Polychrome, as well as in excess of 75 fragments of Native

American sherds. The other features contained only Native American pottery fragments.

The fifth feature, Feature 43, was a posthole which contained a San Marcos ware

fragment and three discs made from Native American pottery, as well as green bottle

glass and charcoal.

Test Unit 4 had no confirmed features present. However, depressions in the sterile

soil surface suggested human activity. Two discs made from aboriginal pottery, charcoal,

and burned bone and shell were the only artifacts found within this unit.

Stripping Areas 4 and 5: These areas were not excavated.

Stripping Area 6: Nine excavation units were dug in this stripping area. Test Unit

1 had no features clearly present; more than 40 sherds of San Marcos ware and Mission

Red Filmed pottery were recovered, as well as bone, nail and other iron fragments, and

more than 100 pieces of charcoal. The area appeared to be a midden deposit.

Test Unit 2 had one feature present: Feature 81, which consisted of a ditch with two

layers. The uppermost layer of this feature was between 140 170 cm in width and

extended to a depth of 47-49 cmbd; the lower section of the feature was between 50 65

cm in width and extended to a depth of 73-77 cmbd. More than a thousand Native

American sherds were recovered from this feature, including San Marcos ware, Mission

Red Filmed, and a single piece of St. Johns pottery. Also recovered were European









ceramics including Puebla Blue on White majolica, pipe stem fragments, olive jar, and

delftware. Other artifacts were animal bone including turtle and unspecified mammal

fragments; iron fragments; glass fragments; and more than 100 fragments of charcoal.

Test Unit 3 also had a single feature present, Feature 84, a shallow trench running

north and south and extending between 25 and 35 centimeters below datum in depth.

Eight sherds of Native American pottery and five iron fragments were recovered from the

feature itself, while more than 15 iron nail fragments and more than 20 additional San

Marcos Ware sherds were recovered from the rest of the unit.

Test Unit 4 contained features which appear to be associated with Feature 81: a

series of irregular pits which correspond with the upper level of Feature 81. This feature

contained a pipe bowl fragment, bone fragments, Native American pottery of unknown

type, and three iron fragments. More Native American sherds were found within the unit

itself, including sand-tempered plain fragments, San Marcos ware, and Mission Red

Filmed fragments, as well as unidentified animal bone fragments and pieces of iron nail.

Test Unit 5 had three features. The first two appear to be a trench (Feature 81b)

extending east and west and between 45 and 77cmbd in depth. The fill of the same ditch

(Feature 81a) appears to date from the eighteenth century. Feature 82 was a saucer-

shaped pit immediately adjacent to Features 81a and b, which may have been the remains

of a lateral trench associated with the other trench feature.

Features 81 a and b were found to contain more than 180 Native American ceramic

sherds, all either San Marcos ware or Mission Red Filmed; European ceramics present in

these features included olive jar, El Morro sherds, and a pipe bowl. A tabby fragment

and a raw daub fragment were found within Feature 81 a. The nature of the ditch and fill









suggests two episodes of use, since the upper deposits appear to be much wider than the

lower deposits (Halbirt 1997).

Test Unit 6 contained a single feature Feature 83 a trench 110 cm in width and

extending between 23 and 45 cmbd in depth, oriented north-south. This feature appeared

to be both wider and shallower than the other trench features found at the site. Artifacts

present in this feature included more than 50 Native American potsherds (San Marcos

ware, Mission Red Filmed, and a single St. Johns pottery fragment); olive jar fragments;

more than 30 bones including turtle and unidentified mammal fragments; and more than

50 charcoal fragments. This feature appeared to be associated with the other trench

features present in Test Units 5, 8, and 9.

Test Unit 7 contained two features. The first, Feature 81, appeared to continue into

this unit from Test Units 2, 5, and 8. In this area, Feature 81 extended between 22 and 75

cmbd in depth, with a width comparable to that observed in the other excavation units.

The other feature, Feature 85, was a posthole which appeared to have a squared outline

deepening and tapering to a point, extending between 30 and 71 cmbd in depth. Native

American potsherds all Mission Red Filmed were found in both features, as well as

iron and glass fragments. In the unit as a whole, more than 30 additional Native

American sherds all San Marcos ware were recovered, as well as glazed Spanish olive

jar and porcelain which date to the early eighteenth century.

Test Unit 8 had four features. The first two, Features 81 a and b, were

continuations of the same trench and fill features observed in Test Unit 5. As observed in

Test Unit 5, these features appeared to represent two episodes of use and re-use. The

other two features observed in Test Unit 8 were Feature 86, a rectangular pit 35 by 22 cm









in length and width and extending between 26 and 37 cmbd in depth, and Feature 87, a

rectangular posthole which tapered to a shaped point and extending between 25 and 70

cmbd in depth. Features 81 a and b contained more than 30 Native American sherds, 2

pipe bowls, bird shot, and iron and glass fragments. The unit as a whole had more than

50 additional Native American sherds (San Marcos ware, Mission Red Filmed, and sand-

tempered plain pottery), a pipe stem, and more than 20 iron nail fragments, as well as in

excess of 125 grams of shell.

Test Unit 9 contained no visible features. However, more than 70 Native American

sherds were found within the unit, including Mission Red Filmed, San Marcos ware, and

several unidentified fragments. Also recovered were a single olive jar fragment, in excess

of 20 nail fragments, a chert flake, bottle glass fragments, and charcoal.

The presence of postholes in close conjunction with some of the trench features

found at the 159 Marine Street site suggests the possibility that the trenches may have

been in some way associated with the structures present in the area. However, trenches

found at other sites associated with the La Punta mission community appear to have other

functions, as will be discussed. It is also possible that the trenches and posthole features

present at the site, while both belonging to the mission community, may be evidence of

two periods of use of the site by the mission community, utilizing the land for differing

functions each time (White 2002).

Appendices A and B present the total artifact counts and weights for each

excavated provenience within the 159 Marine Street site. The following table presents

the total artifact counts, weights, and the relative percentages of each for the location as a

whole.









Table 3-2 Overall Totals for 159 Marine Street
Category Artifact % of Total Artifact Weight % of Total
Count Count for Weight for
Location Location
1.Majolicas 32 1% 39.2g <1%
2.Util. Wares 92 2% 518.2g 1%
3.Non-Spanish 219 5% 811.9g 2%
Tablewares
4.Non-European 1,703 39% 14,140.3g 39%
ceramics
(+NAUID/disc.)
5.Kitchen Items, non- 847 19% 5,338.8g(9,430.6g) 26%
ceramic (+bone weight)
6.Architecture, non- 782 18% 3,102.9g 9%
masonry
7.Military Items 12 <1% 97.8g <1%
8.Clothing/Sewing 6 <1% 6.9g <1%
9.Personal Items 53 1% 46.7g <1%
10.Craft/Product 6 <1% 43.4g <1%
11.UID 459 10% 1,601.3g(2,387.4g) 7%
Metal(+uncounted fr.)
12.Masonry 62 1% 931.6g 3%
13.Domestic Furn. 3 <1% 6.1g <1%
14.Tools/Implements 1 <1% 1.lg <1%
15.Toys/Games/Leisure 1 <1% 21.8g <1%
16.Tack/Harness 2 <1% 675.6g 2%
18.Misc. Weighed 61 1% 2,460.6g 7%
20.20th Century 47 1% 64.3g <1%
TOTALS: 4,388 100% 36,387.7g(36.39kg) 100%

Location 3: 321 St. George Street

The 321 St. George Street site is approximately 200 m northwest of the 159 and

161 Marine Street sites, on the western side of the peninsula on which the study area is

located, within 20 meters of Maria Sanchez Lake. At this location, initial testing revealed

only a scant presence of artifacts, and the area of work was limited in size; for these

reasons, stripping areas were not utilized.

Three test units were dug immediately adjacent to each other, forming a larger

continuous excavation area (see figure 3.7). Test Units 1 and 2 contained the two

features: two parallel trenches (Features 1 and 2), 28 cm in width, and extending between









60 and 84 cmbd (see figure 3.8). These trenches were found to run roughly north-

northwest and south-southeast. Floors of the trenches varied between 80 and 84 cmbd,

with what appeared to be regularly spaced depressions present in Feature 1 all 84 cmbd

in depth (see figure 3.8), and between 2-4 cm deeper than the rest of the floor of the

trenches. Between these two features was a raised area of sterile sands some 60 cm in

width.

The only artifacts found within these trench features were Native American

potsherds, all San Marcos ware pottery. Within the units themselves, nineteenth-century

artifacts were found from the surface of the ground to a depth of 45 cmbd. Beginning at

45 cmbd, San Marcos ware pottery began to be found intermixed with nineteenth-century

artifacts to 57 cmbd; below 57 cmbd, only San Marcos ware ceramic was found,

suggesting that the trench features located at this site were most likely associated solely

with Native American activity. No European ceramics or metal artifacts of any sort were

found at this level. However, the brown cultural midden soil previously noted as being

associated with human activity in the area was present throughout the lowest layer to the

sterile layer beneath.

Appendices A and B contain the artifact counts and weights for each provenience

within the 321 Marine Street location. The following table represents the artifact counts,

weights, and the relative percentages of each within the total counts and weights for the

location as a whole.










property line


recently disturbed area,
possible tree removal


-5 along trench
.)


pipe


pipe


garden bed roots


St. George Street


Figure 3-7 Plan Map: Test Units and Site Features, 321 St. George Street












Utility Trench


KEY

STrench
Feature

Q Depressions
within trench


Figure 3-8 Plan Map: Test Units 1 and 2, 321 St. George Street


Table 3-3 Overall
Category


1.Majolicas
2.Util. Wares
3.Non-Spanish
Tablewares
4.Non-European
Ceramics
(+NAUID/disc.)
5.Kitchen Items,
non-ceramic
(+bone weight)


Totals for 321
Artifact
Count

2
27
182

160


279


St. George Street
% of Total
Count for
Location
<1%
2%
15%

13%


23%


Artifact Weight


1.2g
315.3g
636.4g

464.2g


1,131.1g(2,112,8g)


Trench

/ .


% of Total
Weight for
Location
<1%
6%
12%

8%


38%









Table 3-3 Continued
Category Artifact % of Total Artifact Weight % of Total
Count Count for Weight for
Location Location
6.Architecture, 54 4% 182.8g 3%
non-masonry

7.Military Items 4 <1% 36.7g 1%
8.Clothing/Sewing 7 1% 5.4g <1%
9.Personal Items 6 <1% 17.3g <1%
10.Craft/Product 1 <1% 31.4g 1%
11.UID Metal 451 37% 668.8g 12%
12.Masonry 12 1% 707.4g 13%
18.Misc. Weighed 21 2% 302g 5%
20.20th Century 21 2% 42g 1%
TOTALS: 1,227 100% 5,523.7g 100%

Location 4: 8 Hedrick Street

The 8 Hedrick Street site lies due west of the boundary between the 159 and 161

Marine Street sites, and is directly adjacent to Maria Sanchez Lake, with the western side

of the property terminating in the marsh itself. During initial post hole testing at this site,

prior to construction of a new building on the property, thirty postholes were dug on a

regular grid. Since this location was a single family residence, and limited in size,

stripping areas were not utilized. Nine test units were dug during the course of

excavations (see figure 3.9).

Test Unit 1 contained no features. Artifacts present in Test Unit 1 included more

than 100 Native American potsherds, predominantly San Marcos ware (88 sherds), as

well as Mission Red Filmed, sand-tempered plain, and unidentified Native American

sherds. Also recovered was an unidentified piece of Spanish majolica, bone fragments,

shell, and two fired daub fragments.

Test Unit 2 had five features present (see Figure 3.10). Features 1 and 4 were bowl

shaped depressions, each filled with a concentration of whole, uncrushed oyster shell (see









figure 3.9). Feature 3 appeared to be a trench running roughly west-northwest and east-

southeast, adjacent to Feature 1. This feature was at its shallowest (70 cmbd) nearest

Feature 1, and deepened to 77 cmbd nearest the eastern wall of the test unit. The other

two features found within this unit were a 14 by 11 cm piece of unfired daub (Feature 2),

and what appeared to be either a post hole or, possibly, the beginning of a second trench

in the southeast wall of the unit (Feature 5). The presence of a large root made precise

identification of this feature impossible, but the presence of unfired daub suggests the

possibility of a structure nearby. The only artifacts within Features 1, 3, and 4 were

Native American potsherds including San Marcos ware, sand-tempered plain sherds, and

unidentified pieces. In Test Unit 2 as a whole, more than 100 more fragments of Native

American sherds were found, principally San Marcos ware. Also found within this unit

were European ceramics including glazed coarse earthenware, slipware, San Luis

Polychrome, San Luis Blue on White, and coarse molded earthenware; lead shot; iron

fragments; and a brass fragment appearing to be a personal strap from a belt.

Test Unit 3 contained two features (see Figure 3.11). Feature 6 was a trench

running west-southwest and east-southeast; this feature aligned with Feature 3 found in

Test Unit 2, appearing to narrow as it ran from west to east within the unit. Feature 7 was

a bowl-shaped concentration of unfired daub found in the northeast quarter of Test Unit

3, suggesting that this feature was a daub-processing pit. Two pieces of European

ceramic were found in Feature 6, San Luis Blue on White and a fragment of unidentified

majolica; 32 Native American potsherds were also found in this feature. Present in Test

Unit 3 as a whole were historic glass fragments including a wine bottle fragment; a








63



European kaolin pipe fragment; and more than 60 more Native American sherds,


including San Marcos ware and Mission Red Filmed.


1D-




2215




3



6.77m
4


1 'rTest Unit 1
5



sI




7.b
b -s-


'I

I /
I I
#14 /


Test Un3it




/ r
r /


Unit
/ N2 r /
J 0


9.93m


da3

daub T F9
0 TestUnit6


F3 Test F1T F1
2 Unit2 Test
SF I unit-
3F12
o s


0
slump




stump


s12 tu

slump


stumP stump



Test Unit 5


Test
unit 4
13

028 9.75m
0


oak tree


sea le V l,
datum

palm tree


camphor tree


#24 #25

on
3












3i) F12
Test Unit 7


#29
0


Figure 3-9 Site Map, Post Holes and Test Units, 8 Hedrick Street


r





i






6.7m












N.


KEY


* tree, root, stumps

- -I
house footprint


] house comer markers

#1 posthole

F1 Feature + #


/















NW





Profile
West Wall


Plan View


20-Rosum



SE 0 1I I I I I NE
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 BO 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 2M
Figure 3-10 Plan Map and Profile, Test Unit 2, 8 Hedrick Street


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 160 190 2M

oo 0
10-
Daub Mixing Pil
20 Feature 7 Feature Plan Map
Trench Plan Map"
30
Test Unit 3
40

50-

60 -

70

80

90

100

NE SE
Modern Surface Deposit- Organic Root Zone with Light Grayish Fine Grain Sand
I0- Profile:
Beige Sand (Late Historic) Western
20- Wall,
Coutra Midden Gray Organic Fine Sana Test Unit 3
30- Daub Mixing PIt
Gray Sand
4 Reddish Brown Fine Sand (Sierile) Featuren

50--
KEY
60-
S0 Feature edge


Figure 3-11 Plan Map and Profile, Test Unit 3, 8 Hedrick Street


Modem Surface Deposit Organic Root Zone with Light Grayish Fine Grain Sand
10-
Beige Sand (Late Historic)
20-(1

30- GCULmral Midden Gray O~raniQ Fine S$nd oar


FPature4 Falure 1
Redash Brown
50-
70 Fine. (Sl.iile..


10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 10 150 160 170 180 190 2M


Fe7ure 4


Feature 1






SFeature 3
Em 2


NW









Test Unit 4 contained a single feature, Feature 8, a bowl-shaped concentration of

whole oyster shell extremely similar to Features 1 and 4 present in Test Unit 2. This

feature appeared to be placed in an east-west alignment with Feature 1. More than 130

Native American sherds were found in this unit, with San Marcos ware (71 pieces)

predominating. A large number (67 pieces) of the Native American ceramics found in

this unit were not clearly identifiable due to the small size. Also found were two burned

daub fragments, two fragments of European ceramic (olive jar and coarse earthenware),

lead shot, and iron and brass fragments.

Test Unit 5 contained no features which were assigned numbers; however, three

areas of light gray soil were found in the eastern wall of the unit, with no corresponding

stains in the floor of the unit. These soil stains appeared to be the very beginning of three

parallel trenches similar to those found at the 321 St. George Street site. However, due to

the presence of trees which could not be removed, an adjacent unit to Test Unit 5 could

not be opened. Native American ceramics including San Marcos ware and Mission Red

Filmed fragments, as well as 30 unidentifiable Native American sherds (size too small for

identification), were found in Test Unit 5. Also present were European ceramics

(unidentified majolica, coarse earthenware), iron fragments, and charcoal fragments.

Test Unit 6 had a single feature present, Feature 9, an oblong dumbbell-shaped

trench similar to and parallel to Feature 6 found in Test Unit 3. This trench became

shallower as it extended from west to east within the unit 82 cmbd at the western wall

of the unit and 74 cmbd at the eastern wall. Only a single bone fragment, appearing to be

a mammal, was found within Feature 9; however, Test Unit 6 contained Native American

ceramics (San Marcos ware, Mission Red Filmed), fired daub fragments, a Native









American red-paste elbow pipe, and a whiteware fragment appearing to date to the mid-

eighteenth century.

Test Unit 7 had four observable features. Features 11, 12, and 13 each appeared to

be a shallow (3-5 cm in total depth) posthole, all of which were placed in an arc, while

Feature 10 appeared to be a shallow concentration of whole oyster shell. Unlike the other

features containing whole shell at this site, Feature 10 was oblong and comparatively

shallow. Taken as a whole, these features appear to represent a Native American

structure of some type, with an associated shell scatter. Feature 10 contained a sherd of

Puebla Polychrome majolica, as well as Native American ceramics (San Marcos ware,

Mission Red Filmed, and unidentified series), and burned daub fragments. Artifacts

found within the unit as a whole included more than 100 additional Native American

sherds of the same types as in Feature 10, iron fragments, two pieces of slag, and a

burned daub fragment.

Test Unit 8 contained a single feature, Feature 14, a trench which appeared to be a

continuation of Features 3 and 6, running in the same direction. This feature deepened as

it ran east through the unit, reaching 95 cmbd in the western end of the feature and

deepening to 102 cmbd at the eastern end. Feature 14 contained no artifacts, but Test

Unit 8 was found to contain more than 200 Native American ceramic fragments,

including the ubiquitous San Marcos ware and Mission Red Filmed. However, some 80

of the Native American sherds recovered from this unit belonged to no clearly

identifiable ceramic tradition. In addition to the Native American ceramics found in this

unit, European ceramics including two pipestem fragments, unidentified majolica and









earthenware. There also were iron and slag fragments, historic glass fragments, and two

pieces of burned daub.

Test Unit 9 contained three features. Two of these, Features 15 and 17, were

trenches running east and west and appearing to be parallel to the other trench features

observed throughout this site. The third feature, Feature 16, was a posthole which was

driven through Feature 17 and extended below the surface of the water table. Feature 16

contained a part of the original wooden post which was preserved by the water table;

beneath the post was found a Civil-War era bottle base, suggesting the feature post-dates

the La Punta mission. Feature 17 contained Native American ceramics including San

Marcos ware and Mission Red Filmed sherds. Test Unit 9 as a whole contained more of

the same ceramic series, as well as unidentified Native American sherds (small size

prevented identification). Two European ceramic fragments, one English slipware and

one unidentified, were also found in this unit, together with iron fragments, a piece of

burned daub, and historic glass fragments.

The trench features found at this site, as noted, appear to vary significantly in

depth; they also appear to be perpendicular to the trench features which were found at

321 St. George Street. The presence of similar ceramic series and comparable depths of

the upper part of the trenches at each site suggests that these features at both sites are

contemporaneous.

The artifact counts and weights for each provenience within the 8 Hedrick Street

site are included in Appendices A and B. The following table represents the artifact

counts, weights, and the relative percentages of each within the total counts and weights

for the location as a whole.









Table 3-4 Overall Totals for 8 Hedrick Street
Category Artifact Count % of Total Artifact Weight % of Total
Count for Weight for
Location Location
1.Majolicas 8 <1% 39.7g 1%
2.Util. Wares 3 <1% 14.lg <1%
3.Non-Spanish 11 1% 120.9g 3%
Tablewares

4.Non-European 1,762 78% 2,192.6g 55%
Ceramics
(+NAUID/disc.)
5.Kitchen Items, 18 1% 99.7g(108.4g) 3%
non-ceramic
(+bone weight)
6.Architecture, 12 1% 19.8g <1%
non-masonry
7.Military Items 7 <1% 19.1g <1%
8.Clothing/Sewing 4 <1% 7.8g <1%
9.Personal Items 7 <1% 23.9g 1%
11.UID Metal 81 3% 408.2g 10%
12.Masonry 22 1% 339.4g 9%
18.Misc. Weighed 48 2% 42.4g 1%
20.20th Century 269 12% 628.9g 16%
TOTALS: 2,252 100% 3,965.2g 100%

Location 5: 11 Tremerton Street

As previously noted, the 11 Tremerton location was excavated using two separate

methodologies. The property was slated for the development of a small subdivision,

Bonita Bay, within the city limits, triggering the need for archaeological investigation

under the ordinance. No initial posthole survey was done at this location due to extensive

disturbance of the soil, which had occurred during the demolition of a doctor's office

building and parking lot which had previously existed on the property (Carl Halbirt, City

of St. Augustine archaeologist, personal communication 2005). Instead, backhoe

trenches extending east and west were dug on the property to determine if the property

contained significant archaeological features. However, during the course of excavation,

human remains were found in the northern third of the site (see figure 3.12). Pursuant to









Florida Statute 872 governing unmarked burials, the State Archaeologist assumed

jurisdiction of the site. Since construction was scheduled to begin at the site, excavations

were focused on the area found to contain the remains. Monitoring by the State

Archaeologist's office continued using a different excavation strategy aimed at delimiting

the southern limits of the burial area (see figure 3.13).

Here, the two portions of the site are discussed separately. One portion, to the

south, is an alignment of postholes apparently associated with structures similar to those

found at 161 and 159 Marine Streets to the south. The second is the burials and the

postholes, excavated initially by the City Archaeologist and monitored under the

jurisdiction of the State Archaeologist after the City recused itself from the project.




















































49--2 ------ 32


KEY

Mission-era featureglborderSs

Coquina shell Stains

SHuman burials

SBritish-era features

STestunit

Excntav~ation unit

F1 Feature


--1-----

5a


36 1 i] 4


Ix 58E


Figure 3-12 Plan Map: Features at I I Trernerton Street




















l 1 2.



N


Figure 3-13 Plan Map: Features, Southern Limits of Burial Area, 11 Tremerton Street

The initial excavation of the site involved the digging of two east-west trenches to

produce a stratigraphic profile of the site; later, a third, northernmost trench was added

(see figure 3.12). The southern alignment of postholes was clustered around the southern

edge of the middle trench. This area was badly disturbed by the construction and

subsequent demolition of a twentieth-century parking lot that had been built atop it, but

certain features were visible in the eighteenth century cultural strata. One of the most

significant was an arc of postholes in Test Units 21, 22, and 25 (see figure 3.12). This arc

appeared to represent the remains of a structure of some sort, although the nature of the

structure is not certain. Adjacent to this cluster of features, in Test Unit 22, was found a

sheet of whole oyster shell forming an arc associated with the arc of postholes. This

feature appeared to represent a sheet midden associated with a structure. Other postholes

were found in Test Units 25 and 29. These features did not appear to be associated with

the postholes found in units 21 and 22, and their function was uncertain, though it is

possible they represent a larger wall standing near a smaller structure. Artifacts found in









this area included Native American sherds (San Marcos ware, Mission Red Filmed)

European ceramics including British creamware and pearlware, iron fragments, and

modern construction rubble.

The area containing the pattern of burials and postholes was found around the

northernmost profile trench dug at the site (see figure 3.12). The burials were not

discovered during initial trenching because the trenches were dug in the absence of a

monitor. Instead, human bone fragments were found in the spoil pile at the edges of the

profile trench. The spoil was screened, beginning at the westernmost edge of the spoil

pile and continuing eastward until no further human remains were found. Thereafter, the

profile trench walls were cleared, exposing burial pits (graves). Additional shovel tests

were performed between Trench #2 and Trench #3 and north of Trench #3 to delimit the

burial area. Excavation units were dug surrounding the northernmost profile trench to

further determine the pattern and limit of the burials and structures present at the site.

The pattern of features within this northernmost concentration suggests the

presence of multiple structures, representing two different periods of occupation (see

figure 3.12). The earlier occupation appears to be represented by a structure rectangular

in shape, approximately 20 m in length and 10 m in width, oriented roughly on an east-

west axis and perpendicular to the adjacent north-south Matanzas River. The south end

of the structure is defined by a row of postholes surrounded by a concentration of crushed

shell in Test Units 11 and 12 (see figure 3.12). The west side is defined by a row of

postholes without such a shell concentration, while the north end has a second series of

postholes, also surrounded by crushed shell. The east side, like the west, is defined by

another row of posts. Standard shovel tests were performed in the area between the











burial and posthole features in the northern area and the features found in the southern


area. These tests indicated that no burials were present south of the structure's southern


wall, indicating the southern limits of the burial area did not extend outside the structure


(Carl Halbirt, City of St. Augustine archaeologist, personal communication 2005).


All but one of the burials were placed within the rectangular structure, and followed


the east-west orientation of the axis of the structure. The burials in this area were not


discrete internments. Rather, they appear to represent overlapping single burials with


newer graves intersecting and disturbing earlier burials (see figure 3.14). The crania


were oriented towards the east of the structure with the feet to the west. The only unit

E 381 38 M 3 8 4 384 5 3M 38 30 389 E39 391 392 383 39.4 435 396 39.7 398 39 E40 1 402 403 404 45 40 407 40 8 4 E41

324- -m
23-










N^1 J --------- f---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
322-1
319 anf an




~.. -- ------




314=




KEY
= Burial pit limits


Figure 3-14 Bone Placement, Burial Unit, Structural Feature, 11 Tremerton Street

which was fully excavated contained the remains of a minimum of four individuals, with


the possibility of others being present (Falsetti 2004). Though a determination of sex


could not be made, one of the incisors was found to be shovel-shaped, suggesting Native


American ancestry (Falsetti 2004). The size of the intact fragments of long bone found









suggested the presence of mature individuals. While no grave goods were found in this

unit, one of the shovel test units, placed within the limits of the structure, found a burial

with a higa. The higa is an amulet used both during the Spanish colonial period and in

modern Latin America as a magical protection against evil for children (Deagan

2001:95). This suggests that at least some of the burials present within this structure may

represent children. The burials found within the excavated unit and the walls of the trench

appeared to be extended and laid on the back, with the hands crossed on the chest (see

figure 3.14).

The sole burial at this site which did not follow this east-west pattern was found

just outside the structure to the north and east of the other burial units. This burial was of

a single mature adult. Unlike the other burials, the body was oriented in a northeast to

southwest pattern, with the head oriented northeast, and the bones of the skeleton were

intact and had not been disturbed by later burials (see figure 3.15). The body was laid on

its back, with the hands crossed over the pelvic region. This burial was at the same

stratigraphic level wherein the other individuals were found (41-50 cmbd), suggesting the

interment is contemporaneous with the burials within the structure. There were grave

goods present with this burial: a greenstone celt placed between the left arm and the

torso, and a polished necklace of shell beads placed around the neck. No evidence of

European goods was found.

This structure and associated burials were found to have what appears to be a




































From: Bass. William M. Human Osteology, A Labotatoty and Field Manual.
1987: Missouri Archeology Soiety: Columbla, p. 3.


Figure 3-15 North-South Discrete Burial, 11 Tremerton Street

separate, later occupation of the site atop them. Within the burial area and extending to

the east was found a trench (see figure 3.12). The trench itself appeared to precede the

cemetery; the uppermost deposits within the trench contained British artifacts believed to

date from the period of the British occupation of St. Augustine (1763-1784). The artifacts

included English creamware, an intact bayonet of the type typically mounted on a

musket, British-era regimental buttons, and iron barrel hoops. To the west, overlaying

and partly destroying the western wall of the rectangular structure, was a portion of a

second wall which was not framed with posts. Rather, this second wall appears to

represent the remains of a solid log or shaped, wooden beam set horizontally into the

ground and supporting a second layer of wood above it (see figure 3.12). This feature,









when excavated, was found to contain the remains of more British-era creamware and

another British regimental button. Since the original wall was wooden and the only

artifacts found inside the feature dated to the British period, application of the principle

of terminus post quiem suggests the feature dates to no earlier than the British period.

In summary, the 11 Tremerton site appears to represent the remains both of two

distinct areas of contemporaneous occupation, and two separate eras of occupation. The

southern concentration of features appears to represent an occupation area similar to that

found at the 159 and 161 Marine Street sites, which are approximately 75 m south of the

11 Tremerton cluster of features. The northern structure with associated burials at 11

Tremerton is contemporaneous with the southern features. A later occupation dating from

the British period overlays this northern structure.

The artifact counts and weights for each provenience within the burial area at 11

Tremerton are included in Appendices A and B. The following table includes the total

artifact counts, weights, and the total percentages of each within the counts and weights

for the burial area of the 11 Tremerton Street location. The burial area is represented by

Stripping Area 3, Test Unit 9, and Features 100, 102, 105, 106, and 107 within this area.


Table 3-5 Overall Totals, 11 Tremerton Street (Burial Area)
Category Artifact Count % of Total Artifact Weight % of Total
Count Per Weight Per
Location Location
2.Util. wares 1 <1% 10.3g 1%
4.Non- 6 4% 36.8g 4%
European
Ceramics
(+NAUID/disc.)
5.Kitchen 5 3% 415g(599.4g) 71%
Items, non-
ceramic (+bone
weight)









Table 3-5 Continued
Category Artifact Count % of Total Artifact Weight % of Total
Count Per Weight Per
Location Location
6.Architecture, 4 2% 26.3g 3%
non-masonry
11.UID Metal 12 7% 19.5g 2%
12.Masonry 2 1% 5.5g 1%
17.Religious 119 70% 76.1g 9%
18.Misc. 22 13% 74.6g 9%
Weighed
TOTALS 171 100% 848.5g 100%

Having presented the archaeological evidence recovered from the study area, the

historic and archaeological evidence is examined in order to answer the questions: 1) Are

the sites within the area of study the remains of the mission community of La Punta; and

2) if so, what does the historic and archaeological record of La Punta reveal about the

lifeways of the people of an eighteenth-century refugee mission community?














CHAPTER 4
AN EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY MIS SON COMMUNITY
AND ITS LIFEWAYS

To begin to understand the lifeways of the eighteenth-century refugee mission

community of La Punta, it is necessary to first confirm that the archaeological sites

discussed above in Chapter 3 are in fact the remains of La Punta. Thereafter, it will be

possible to use the archaeological and historic records of the La Punta mission

community to begin to provide a picture of the lifeways of an eighteenth-century Spanish

refugee mission. Finally, that information will be integrated with theory to model

additional research on the refugee missions of St. Augustine, especially their differences

from the seventeenth century missions of Apalachee, Guale, Timucua and elsewhere.

Are the Archaeological Sites In the Study Area the Remains of La Punta?

The five sites discussed in the preceding chapter of this thesis must be shown with

a relatively high degree of certainty to be associated with the La Punta mission

community. Taking into consideration all of the archaeological and historic evidence, it

is certain the sites are in fact, associated with the mission community of La Punta. The

bases for such an assertion are as follows: 1) the correlation between the historic and

archaeological evidence as to the location of La Punta; 2) the presence of ceramic types,

particularly red-filmed wares which are characteristic of the Yamassee, associated with

the Native American groups who were known to be present at La Punta; 3) the form of

the structures found at the sites corresponds with the form of structures known to be

present at other Spanish mission communities in La Florida; and 4) the presence of









burials within a structure, oriented east and west and displaying Native American

physical characteristics, identifying that building as a mission church.

The Correlation Between the Historic and Archaeological Evidence of La Punta's
Location

The historical evidence for the La Punta mission community's location comes from

the colonial era maps of the city outlined in the second chapter of this thesis. The most

detailed such map, the Arredondo map (Arredondo 1737), shows Nuestra Senora de La

Punta as: 1) south of the colonial city, between Maria Sanchez Creek and the Matanzas

River, on the peninsula's tip; and 2) having a mission church, surrounded by structures

appearing to be houses, with agricultural fields surrounding the church and structures.

All of the archaeological sites discussed in this thesis' third chapter are south of the

colonial city, between Maria Sanchez Creek and the Matanzas River, on the peninsula's

tip. The sites, taken as a whole, show the presence of a mission church, south of which

are the remains of what appear to be house and other features associated with the mission

village. Surrounding the village are features which appear to be associated with

agricultural activities. The correspondence between the historically recorded La Punta

mission and the features present at the sites in the study area is exact.

Furthermore, the historic record of the La Punta mission community indicates that

La Punta was founded by 1730 or somewhat earlier, and that the community existed

through 1752, being permanently abandoned prior to 1759. The absence of records

between 1738 and 1752, noted in the second chapter of this thesis, suggests that Nuestra

Senora de La Punta may have been abandoned for a time during the War of Jenkins' Ear

(1740-1742) and the ensuing Spanish and English hostilities around St. Augustine

(Waterbury 1983). The refugee mission villages "moved alternately nearer to and then









farther from St. Augustine in response to raids or threats of raids" (Parker 1999:47); it is

definitely known that, from 1740 to 1752, the African-American settlement of Fort Mose

north of St. Augustine was abandoned, with its former inhabitants living within St.

Augustine during that time (Deagan and McMahonl995:23). This suggests the

possibility that the inhabitants of La Punta may have done the same during that period.

The archaeological record of the sites in the study area, examined in the third

chapter above, indicates that the initial European ceramics at all the sites date principally

to the early-to-mid eighteenth century. The principal exception to this record is at the 11

Tremerton site, where features with artifacts dating to the late eighteenth century were

found. Late eighteenth century British maps of St. Augustine record the presence of a

complex of structures identified as either a fort or a hospital in the same area where the

Spanish mission church was documented (Purcell 1777; Anonymous 1782). Thus, the

archaeological evidence from 11 Tremerton is consistent with an early-to-mid eighteenth

century Spanish mission occupation of the site, atop which is a later eighteenth century

British occupation. This is exactly what one would expect from the historic records.

Finally, the historic evidence as presented in the Castello map (Castello 1763),

indicates "the remains of La Punta" were still visible at the time of Spanish withdrawal

from Florida in 1763. No other mission community was identified in that area. The

archaeological evidence at these sites suggests no permanent occupation of the area prior

to the eighteenth century (Halbirt, in preparation). In addition the Spanish and Native

American artifacts in the lowest midden strata at the sites date to that era. Thus, both the

archaeological and historic evidence indicate the sites studied here are the remains of the









eighteenth century La Punta mission community, with later British and Second Spanish

period occupations on top of a portion of the community.

The Presence of Ceramic Series Associated With Native American Groups Present
at La Punta

As noted in the second chapter of this thesis, the principal Native American ethnic

group present at the La Punta mission appears to have been Yamassee refugees from the

Carolinas. The Yamassee were "a historic period aggregation of diverse interior and

coastal peoples" (Worth 1995:20; 2004:1) from the area that is today the coastal Georgia

and South Carolina border. The Yamassee as a people would thus most likely have

included the remnants of northern coastal Guale (Saunders 2000:40-43), Altamaha,

Ocute, Ichisi, and other De-Soto era chiefdoms (Smith 1968:45-65; Worth 2004:2) and

possibly other peoples from the interior.

Pottery derived from the Irene/Altamaha traditions, known as San Marcos ware

(Saunders 2000:49) is representative of coastal populations in contact with the Spanish in

St. Augustine, and is a reliable indicator of those post-contact populations (Saunders

2000:49). Forms of pottery called "Mission Red Filmed" appear throughout the area of

the Spanish missions in the lower Southeast. Variants differ in form, shape, and color

based on the Native American group which made them (Dr. Chester De Pratter, personal

communication, 2004). The Yamassee variant of Mission Red Filmed ceramics typically

have a deep red interior slip and an exterior smoothed, with a rounded lip (De Pratter,

personal communication, 2004).

The overwhelmingly predominant ceramics found at the five sites considered in

this thesis were San Marcos ware pottery, and the Yamassee variant of Mission Red

Filmed pottery. This is strongly consistent with the typical Yamassee ceramic









assemblage, which includes grit-tempered ceramics and red filmed wares (White

2002:112). Thus, from the archaeological evidence, the native people who lived at these

sites were Native Americans, including Yamassee. This is consistent with the historic

evidence of the refugee mission settlements generally and with what we know of the

people of La Punta in particular, based on the historical documents noted in the second

chapter of this thesis.

Correspondence Between the Archaeological Features Present at the Sites and
Structures Known from Spanish Mission Communities

Archaeological and historic evidence from known mission sites dating to the late

sixteenth and seventeenth centuries indicates that the mission communities, while built in

differing environments, tended to follow fairly consistent patterns in terms of the features

and structural remains which may be expected to be present archaeologically at mission

sites. Broadly speaking, European buildings present at a mission should include a church

and possibly two or more other structures, including a cocina (kitchen) and convento

(friary). Native American structures present at a mission include a village area with

houses, plazas, council houses, and other structures and activity areas. These features are

discussed further below.

The two types of Spanish missions existing in La Florida were the doctrine and the

visit. Doctrinas, where religious doctrine was taught, were missions which had at least

one full-time resident priest living there. Visitas, "places of visitation," were villages that

had mission churches or chapels, but which were served by visiting priests rather than

having priests in residence (Gannon 1983:39). Whether doctrine or visit, each mission

community would have a church. Doctrinas also have a convento, the "friary" or friar's

living residence, and a cocina, the kitchen where the friar's meals would be prepared.









Most of the late sixteenth and seventeenth century mission sites discovered to date have

all three structures (Thomas 1993:9-19; Saunders 1993:40; Weisman 1993:173-185;

Hann and McEwan 1998). One mission, San Luis de Talimali, had homes for Spanish

residents as well (Hann and McEwan 1998). Additionally, the larger, more strategically

important missions, such as San Juan del Puerto on Fort George Island and San Luis de

Talimali, near modem Tallahassee, had palisades and/or blockhouses (Dickinson and

Wayne 1985; Hann and McEwan 1998); and some had barracks where Spanish soldiers

stationed at particular missions were housed, such as Santa Catalina on Amelia Island

(Saunders 1988:26-28). Thus, European features present in a mission community's

archaeological record should include, at a minimum, a church structure, and may have a

friary, kitchen, defensive work, etc.

Native American structures present in a mission community should include

evidence of houses and living and activity areas, plazas, and possibly a council house.

Native Americans who were a part of the mission system lived in communities near the

churches served by the Franciscan friars (Worth 1998a: 112-113; Milanich 1999:131-

137). Late sixteenth and seventeenth century missions, furthermore, were typically

placed in or near the principal towns of leading chiefdoms, the better to facilitate

conversion and catechization of converts and to reinforce Native American acquiescence

to the Spanish presence (Worth 1998a:76-79; Hann 1996:142-143). Such towns would

normally possess a chief s residence and a council house for the chief and the "leading

men" of the chiefdom to meet (Hann 1996: 86-94), as well as a plaza for the people living

there to gather (Hann 1996:86-94). Living areas, chiefs residences, and possible council

house structures have been archaeologically identified at several of the missions









discovered to date (Dickinson and Wayne 1985; Weisman 1993:179-185; Loucks

1993:202; Marrinan 1993:263-265; Hann and McEwan 1998). Thus, Native American

structural features which should be present in a mission community's archaeological

record should include, minimally, living areas and activity areas, including house

structures. Other Native American structures may include a chiefly residence, council

house, and plaza.

La Punta, as a refugee mission, did not have possess all of the structures present at

the earlier missions of Spanish Florida, though the reasons for this remain to be explored

further. However, a European structure identified as a mission church is clearly present

at the 11 Tremerton site, as will be discussed in the next section. The southern area of 11

Tremerton, as well as the 159 and 161 Marine Street sites, show evidence of Native

American circular houses, activity areas, and evidence of continuing occupation and re-

use. Thus, the archaeological evidence present at these sites, taken as a whole,

corresponds with the structures one would expect to be present at a colonial Spanish

mission community.

The Presence of a Burial Area Within a Structure

Church structures at the missions of Spanish Florida, following the Catholic custom

of the time, typically did not have cemeteries separated from the church buildings.

Rather, burials took place within the walls of the church itself, with the burials placed in

the floor of the church (Marrinan 1993:281-284; Milanich 1995:195-198, 1999:137-142;

Hann and McEwan 1998). Such burials were normally primary interments with people or

groups of people buried in graves, on their backs with hands clasped or folded on chests.

In the mission churches, later burials often were dug through existing burials, creating

jumbles of bones when the bones of older burials were encountered and moved to









facilitate new burials (Larsen 1993:326, 329-335). Such burial areas have been found at

mission sites throughout Spanish Florida (Thomas 1993:13-16; Weisman 1993:176-177;

Hoshower and Milanich 1993:217-221; Larsen 1993:323-335; Saunders 1993:51-53).

Within each church, burials and graves are oriented parallel to the church's long axis.

The 11 Tremerton site produced evidence of a rectangular structure, approximately

20 m by 10 m and oriented east and west. This structure is smaller than most mission

churches found to date but is similar in size to the late seventeenth century mission

church found at relocated Santa Catalina on Amelia Island (Saunders 1988:12). Within

the 11 Tremerton structural feature, as would be expected, were burials also oriented east

and west, with the crania towards the east. Burials intruded on each other with later

burials dug through earlier burials (Halbirt, personal communication, 2004; DePratter,

personal communication, 2004). Thus, the archaeological evidence from the 11

Tremerton site is exactly consistent with what would be expected at a mission church.

Taken together, these four lines of evidence suggest it is virtually certain the five

sites discussed here are remains of the refugee mission community of La Punta. We can

now use these sites to provide evidence for reconstructing the lifeways of a refugee

mission of the eighteenth century.

Lifeways of an Eighteenth Century Refugee Mission Community

The archaeological evidence noted in the third chapter of this thesis provides a

basis for determining what sorts of activities were taking place at each of the locations

previously discussed. The following table shows the relative percentages of the total

artifact counts and weights for each location within the study area when compared to the

site ofNuestra Senora de La Punta as a whole. As can be seen, there are substantial and









significant differences between each of the sites considered, both in terms of the total

number of artifacts found at each location and in terms of the total weight of artifacts.

Table 4-1 Artifact Counts and Weights by Location
Location Artifact Count % of Total Artifact Weight % of Total
Count For Weight for
Entire Site Entire Site
161 Marine 10,139 56% 60,233.1g 56%
Street
159 Marine 4,388 24% 36,387.7g 34%
Street
321 St. George 1,227 7% 5,523.7g 5%
Street
8 Hedrick 2,252 12% 3,965.2g 4%
Street
11 Tremerton 171 1% 848.5g 1%
Street(burial
area)
TOTALS: 18,177 100% 106,958.2g 100%
(106.96kg)

As these figures show, the largest percentage of artifacts both by count (80%) and

by weight (90%) come from the 161 and 159 Marine Street locations. However, in order

to provide a basis for comparison, the disparity in relative sizes between the sites must be

taken into account. To do so, it is useful to plot the density of artifacts both by number

and by weight per square meter excavated at each of the sites.

Table 4-2 Artifact Density by Number and Weight for Each Location
161 159 321 St. 8 11
Marine Marine George Hedrick Tremerton
Street Street Street Street St., Burial
Area
Artifact Count 10,139 4,388 1,227 2,252 171
Artifact Weight 60,233.1g 36,387.7g 5,523.7g 3,965.2g 848.5g
Number of m2 150m2 70m2 3m2 18m2 6m2
Excavated
Artifacts/m2 67.6/m2 62.7/m2 409/m2 125/m2 28.5/m2
Weight/m2 402g/m2 520g/m2 1,841g/m2 220g/m2 141.4g/m2









This weight per m2 includes the total weight of artifacts found at the 321 St. George

Street location. Test Units 1 and 2, as noted in Chapter 3 of this thesis, appear to have

been placed near a known 19th century trash dump (Carl Halbirt, City of St. Augustine

archaeologist, field notes; personal communication 2005) post-dating the La Punta

mission occupation. If Test Unit 3, placed at a distance from the trash dump, is

considered in isolation, its relative percentages by number of artifacts and weight per m2

are 116/m2 and 381.8g/m2 respectively.

As can be seen from the above tables, taking into account the relative differences in

size between the different locations, the number of artifacts per square meter at the 161

and 159 Marine Street locations is less than that at the 321 St. George Street and 8

Hedrick Street locations. Conversely, the weight of artifacts per square meter is greater

at the 161 and 159 Marine Street than in Test Unit 3 of the 321 St. George Street location

and at the 8 Hedrick property overall. The 11 Tremerton Street burial area has the lowest

number of artifacts per square meter and the lowest weight of artifacts per square meter

of any of the locations discussed in this thesis.

These relative percentages suggest that, while the density of artifact numbers is

lower at the 161 and 159 Marine Street properties, the higher weight of artifacts per m2 at

those sites indicates greater human activity and presence at those locations. The

relatively greater density of artifact numbers per m2, the lower weight of artifacts per m2,

and the lower artifact totals and weights overall for 321 St. George Street and 8 Hedrick

Street, suggest that some form of activity was taking place at those locations which

involved less regular human activity, and which may have damaged or broken any

material culture remains left at those locations thus accounting for the greater density of









artifacts but a correspondingly lower weight of artifacts at those locations. Agricultural

activity, involving regular disturbance and shifting of soils, seems the most likely human

activity which would create such a record of material culture.

This seems even more likely when the relative counts and weights of artifacts in

each of the material culture categories listed in Chapter 3 for each location are taken into

account. For 161 Marine Street, non-European ceramics (44% of total number of

artifacts and 54% of total weight of artifacts for the property), non-ceramic kitchen items

together with bone weight (15% of total number of artifacts and 9% of total weight of

artifacts for the property), and non-masonry architectural remains (8% of total number of

artifacts and 15% of total weight of artifacts for the property) make up the largest activity

categories, comprising some 67% of the total number of artifacts and 78% of the total

weight of artifacts for that location. Likewise, for 159 Marine Street, non-European

ceramics (39% of the total count and weight of artifacts), non-ceramic kitchen items

(19% of the total count and 26% of the total weight of artifacts) and non-masonry

architecture (18% of the total count and 9% of the total weight of artifacts) also make up

the largest activity categories, comprising 76% of the total count of artifacts and 74% of

the total weight of artifacts for the property as a whole. And for both these locations,

there is a larger range of artifact categories present than at either 321 St. George Street or

at 8 Hedrick Street. Taken together, these facts suggest that the primary areas of human

presence and activity at Nuestra Senora de La Punta were the Marine Street locations.

Conversely, at 321 St. George Street, non-European ceramics (13% of the total

count of artifacts and 8% of the total weight of artifacts), non-ceramic kitchen items

(23% of the total count of artifacts and 38% of the total weight of artifacts), and non-




Full Text

PAGE 1

NUESTRA SENORA DEL ROSARIO DE LA PUNTA: LIFEWAYS OF AN EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY COLONIAL SPANISH REFUGEE MISSION COMMUNITY, ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA By WILLET A. BOYER, III A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2005

PAGE 2

Copyright 2005 by Willet A. Boyer, III

PAGE 3

This thesis is dedicated to Curtiss Baillie and to A. David Baillie Jr. (1917-2005), two of my connections with FloridaÂ’s past.

PAGE 4

iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Since my return to academic endeavor in the fall of 2002, I have become far more aware of the ways in which the work of a sc holar is based on the work of those who came before and prepared the ground for future st udents. I want to acknowledge and publicly thank the many people who have helped me reach the goal of preparation of this thesis. An archaeological site, any s ite, is located and excavate d through the work of teams of dedicated people, and analysis of th e archaeological record found through such excavation. I would like to public ly thank the people with whom I worked in the spring of 2004 excavating and analyzi ng the material recovered from the 8 Hedrick and 11 Tremerton sites in the City of St. Augustine: Nick McAuliffe, Toni Wallace, Pat Moore, Mike Tarleton, Helen Gradison, and Dr. Chester dePratter. Above all, I want to thank Carl Halbirt, the City Archaeologist for St. Augustine, for his willingness to let me join the team of excavators working on the La P unta mission site, for his work and effort helping to teach me my craft, and for hi s endless patience with my questions and comments throughout the process. I would also like to acknowledge and tha nk the men and women of the University of Florida and the Florida Museum of Natura l History who have taught me my profession and have guided and helped me to an understa nding of the discipli nes of archaeology and anthropology: Dr. Kenneth Sassaman, Donna Ruhl, Dr. Michael Heckenberger, Dr. Gifford Waters, Scott Mitchell, Al Woods, Dr. John Moore, Dr. Susan Gillespie, Dr. Kathleen Deagan, and Dr. John E. Worth. I w ould most particularly like to thank and

PAGE 5

v acknowledge Dr. Jerald T. Milanich, whose work s drew my interest in studying Florida’s archaeology, who helped and encouraged my return to study, and who has provided continuing help, counsel and discipline throughout the course of my studies. I would like to thank my younger brother, James A. Boyer, the Research Coordinator for the Pine Acres Research Center of the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences of the University of Florida, fo r his knowledge and insight into agricultural conditions at the La Punta mission community during the eighteenth century and his assistance with this research. Finally, I would like to ac knowledge five people whose help and encouragement has sustained me throughout the course of my work and study. My dear friend, the historian and author Karen Harvey, has pr ovided me assistance a nd support throughout the time of my work on this project. My cousin, Thompson Van Hyning, encouraged me to “follow my dream” and has given me an example to follow in doing so. My grandparents, A. David Baillie, Jr. (1917-2005) and Curtiss Baillie, have lifelong taught me my passion for Florida’s history and arch aeology, and my grandfather gave me help and insight into Florida’s history and out doors unmatched by no one else living. And finally, my fianc and then wife, Josyane Paige Boyer, has given me both love and patience throughout the ma ny months this work has been in progress. To all, thank you.

PAGE 6

vi TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...............................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES...........................................................................................................viii LIST OF FIGURES...........................................................................................................ix ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... xi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND RESEARCH FOCUS...........................................................1 2 THE HISTORIC EVIDENCE: IN DICATIONS AND RECORDS OF THE MISSION COMMUNITYÂ’S PRESENCE.................................................................12 Eighteenth Century Florida: Disruption and Change.................................................12 The Historic Evidence for La PuntaÂ’s Existence........................................................18 Maps Depicting the Location of the La Punta Mission Community...................18 First Spanish Period maps of th e La Punta Mission community.........................19 The Palmer Map of 1730..............................................................................19 The Arredondo Map of 1737...............................................................................20 Anonymous Map of the City and Port of Saint Augustine, 1740................22 The Castello Map of 1763............................................................................23 British Period maps of the former location of La Punta......................................24 The J. Purcell Map of 1777..........................................................................24 The H. Burrard Map of 1780........................................................................26 Anonymous Map of Saint Augustine and Environs, 1782...........................26 Documents Describing th e Mission Community................................................29 The Anonymous Mission List of 1736.........................................................29 The Benavides Mission List: April 21, 1738...............................................29 The First Montiano Mission List: June 4, 1738...........................................29 The Guemes y Horcasitas List of 1739........................................................30 The Second Montiano Mission List: June 23, 1739.....................................30 The Gelabert Report of 1752........................................................................30 The Grian Report of 1756..........................................................................31 Discussion...................................................................................................................32

PAGE 7

vii 3 ARCHAEOLOGY OF SITES IN THE STUDY AREA............................................36 The Physical Environment of the Study Area............................................................36 Archaeological Projects Associ ated With the Study Area.........................................38 Methodology and Techniques.............................................................................39 Location 1: 161 Marine Street.............................................................................43 Location 2: 159 Marine Street.............................................................................47 Location 3: 321 St. George Street.......................................................................57 Location 4: 8 Hedrick Street................................................................................61 Location 5: 11 Tremerton Street..........................................................................68 4 AN EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY MISSON COMMUNITY AND ITS LIFEWAYS................................................................................................................78 Are the Archaeological Sites In the Study Area the Remains of La Punta?...............78 The Correlation Between the Historic and Archaeological Evidence of La PuntaÂ’s Location..............................................................................................79 The Presence of Ceramic Series Associated With Native American Groups Present at La Punta...........................................................................................81 Correspondence Between the Archaeologica l Features Present at the Sites and Structures Known from Spanish Mission Communities...........................82 The Presence of a Burial Area Within a Structure..............................................84 Lifeways of an Eighteenth Cent ury Refugee Mission Community............................85 The Living Area..................................................................................................90 The Agricultural Area..........................................................................................96 The Sacred Area................................................................................................101 Avenues for Future Research and Conclusions........................................................104 APPENDIX A ARTIFACT COUNTS, LA PUNTA-RELATED SITES.........................................107 B ARTIFACT COUNTS AND WE IGHTS BY LOCATION AND PROVENIENCE.......................................................................................................170 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................215

PAGE 8

viii LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1 Overall Totals for 161 Marine Street.......................................................................47 3-2 Overall Totals for 159 Marine Street.......................................................................57 3-3 Overall Totals for 321 St. George Street..................................................................60 3-4 Overall Totals for 8 Hedrick Street..........................................................................68 3-5 Overall Totals, 11 Tremer ton Street (Burial Area)..................................................76 4-1 Artifact Counts and Weights by Location................................................................86 4-2 Artifact Density by Number and Weight for Each Location....................................86

PAGE 9

ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1-1 The Colonial City of St Augustine and the Study Area..........................................11 2-1 The Palmer Map (1730)...........................................................................................20 2-2 Arredondo Map (1737).............................................................................................21 2-3 Anonymous Map of 1740.........................................................................................23 2-4 Castello Map (1763).................................................................................................24 2-5 The J. Purcell Map (1777)........................................................................................25 2.6 The H. Burrard Map (1780).....................................................................................27 2-7 Anonymous Map (1782)..........................................................................................28 3-1 LIDAR Map of Study Area......................................................................................39 3-2 Plan Map: Features at 161 Mari ne Street Site from White (2002)........................44 3-3 Profile of Well Feature, 161 Ma rine Street – from White (2002)............................46 3-4 Plan Map: Excavation Units and Features, 159 Marine Street................................48 3-5 Feature Map: Test Unit 1, Stripping Area 1, 159 Marine Street..............................49 3-6 Feature Map: Test Unit 2, Stripping Area 1, 159 Marine Street..............................52 3-7 Plan Map: Test Units and Site Features, 321 St. George Street...............................59 3-8 Plan Map: Test Units 1 and 2, 321 St. George Street...............................................60 3-9 Site Map, Post Holes and Test Units, 8 Hedrick Street............................................63 3-10 Plan Map and Profile, Te st Unit 2, 8 Hedrick Street................................................64 3-11 Plan Map and Profile, Te st Unit 3, 8 Hedrick Street................................................64 3-12 Plan Map: Features at 11 Tremerton Street..............................................................70

PAGE 10

x 3-13 Plan Map: Features, Southern Limits of Burial Area, 11 Tremerton Street.............71 3-14 Bone Placement, Burial Unit, Stru ctural Feature, 11 Tremerton Street...................73 3-15 North-South Discrete Bu rial, 11 Tremerton Street..................................................75

PAGE 11

xi Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts NUESTRA SENORA DEL ROSARIO DE LA PUNTA: LIFEWAYS OF AN EIGHTEENTH CENTURY COLONIAL SPANISH REFUGEE MISSION COMMUNITY, ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA By Willet A. Boyer, III December 2005 Chair: Jerald T. Milanich Major Department: Anthropology The eighteenth century refugee colonial Spanish mission communities of Florida were created in response to the destruction of the earlier missions founded in the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries by the Spanish among the Native American groups indigenous to Florida and southeastern Ge orgia. These refugee mission communities were formed during a time of political, military, and economic conflict between the colonial powers of Spain and England in the Southeast, and existed in a state of demographic and cultural flux. This thesis examines the lifeways of th e inhabitants of one such refugee mission community: Nuestra Senora del Rosario de La Punta, or more commonly, simply “La Punta.” La Punta was founded during the 1720’s as a mission serving Native American refugees, principally Yamassee Indians from what is today South Carolina. La Punta continued to exist until at least 1752, prior to the mission community’s abandonment.

PAGE 12

xii The historic evidence suggests that the peopl e of La Punta existed as a part of a complex system of social and political conflic t among the secular aut horities of colonial Florida, the regular priests of the Franciscan Order, and the secular parish priests of St. Augustine, as well as between the Spanish, other European colonial powers, and the Native American groups of the Southeast. Archaeological sites associated with the mission community of La Punta indicate the pres ence of at three areas of activity within the mission community: a living area where the inhabitants built their homes and engaged in domestic activities, an agricultural area where crops were grown, and a sacred area housing the mission church and burial ground. The historic and archaeological evidence, taken as a whol e, suggests that the people of the mission community attempted to ma ke maximum use of very limited physical resources to survive, and attempted to maintain at least a part of their traditional lifeways while embracing both the Catholic faith and so me of the cultural environment of Spanish St. Augustine. This eviden ce also suggests fruitful avenues for future research.

PAGE 13

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND RESEARCH FOCUS The focus of this thesis is the eightee nth-century Spanish colonial mission of Nuestra Senora del Rosario de La Punta (“La Punta”). La Punta was one of ten refugee missons founded near modern St. Augustine, Fl orida after the destru ction of the earlier Franciscan missions established in La Florida during the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The destruction and abandonment of the earlier missions severely impacted the Native American population of Spanish La Florida. The original inhabitants of the Florida missions were killed, taken as slaves, or forced to move from the traditional lands they had occupied. Raids by other Indians and Carolinian militia in the first decade of the eighteenth century effectively destroye d all the missions outsi de the area of St. Augustine. The survivors of Apalachee, Timu cua, and Guale provinces who did not flee north, west, or south down the Florida pe ninsula and who chose resettlement by the Spanish were placed in refugee missions near St. Augustine, where they could both be protected by the Spanish authorities and serve as a part of the col onial capital’s defenses (Halbirt 2004:40-41). The original survi vors of the earlier mission communities were joined by Native American groups from outside Florida, groups such as the Yamassee, who also came as refugees to Spanish Florida. In this study of the La Punta mission commun ity, I have three goals. The first is to examine the results of five excavations south of the colonial city of St. Augustine in light of the historic documents relati ng to La Punta, to conclusive ly show that these sites are

PAGE 14

2 the remains of the La Punta mission communit y. The second is to use the historic and archaeological record of the La Punta missi on to begin to provide a picture of the lifeways of the missionÂ’s inhabitants. Fi nally, I intend suggest avenues for future research into the eighteenth-century Spanish missions of colonial Florida. The first chapter of this thesis provides a brief overview of the history surrounding the creation of the eighteenth-ce ntury missions of Spanish Florid a. It delineates the area of study in terms of its geographical boundaries ; it then provides the research focus which will shape the form of the remainder of the thesis. Chapter 2 provides a more in-depth examination of the historical circumstances surrounding the shaping of the eighteenth-ce ntury missions near St. Augustine; this section specifically examines both the broad context of Spanish-E nglish interaction and interplay in North America and the limite d context of the jurisdictional issues surrounding regular and secular priestsÂ’ areas of responsib ility and control and their relationship with the secular government. It then examines in detail the documentary evidence for La PuntaÂ’s existence, focusing first on the missionÂ’s visual depictions in maps and thereafter on the census lists which give some indication of the communityÂ’s demography. Chapter 3 examines the archaeological ev idence from the hypothesized area of La PuntaÂ’s existence. It first presents a detailed considera tion of the physical environment within the delimited area of study. It then pres ents the results of the excavations of five sites within the study area: 161 and 159 Marine Streets, 321 St. George Street, 8 Hedrick Street, and 11 Tremerton Street.

PAGE 15

3 Chapter 4 first takes the results of the inve stigations presented in Chapters 2 and 3 and argues that the sites with in the study area are the remains of the La Punta mission community, based on the following four factor s: the correlation between the historic evidence and the archaeological evidence as to La Punta’s location; the presence of ceramic series associated with the Nativ e American groups which were known to be present at La Punta; the corre spondence between the fo rm of the structures present at the sites examined and those known through resear ch elsewhere to have been present at Spanish mission communities; and the presen ce of a burial ground within a structure, which is a clear indicator of the presence of a mission church. Thereafter, it is argued that the sites, taken as a whole, represent three areas within the mission community: a living area for the mission’s inhabitants, an agricultural area where crops were grown, and a sacred area wh ere worship and other religious activities took place. Avenues for future research are discussed, and conclusions about the site are presented, along with the theoretical underpin nings that might guide research on the eighteenth century missions as compared to the earlier missions of Spanish Florida. During the time of the Spanish colonizati on of the Americas in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the mission system was the principal institution under which Spanish and Native American interac tion took place (Crow 1992:191-208; Worth 1998a:35–43). In southeastern North America, as elsewhere under the rule of imperial Spain, the mission system was ideally in tended to provide a mechanism for the integration of Native American groups into Spanish colonial soci ety, and to provide a source of labor and food for the Span ish crown (Crow 1992:207-208; Worth 1998a:4243; Milanich 1995:202, 206, 1999:146, 149).

PAGE 16

4 The missions of Spanish La Florida changed significantly through time. At the height of the mission system’s expansi on during the First Spanish period [1565-1763], prior to the Timucuan Rebell ion in 1656, the area missionized by the Spanish included all of the northern third of modern Florida, the southeastern portion of Georgia, and all of the Atlantic Coast between modern Ponce de Leon Inlet and St. Ca therine’s Island (Hann 1996:174-190; Milanich 1999:128). Later in the seventeenth century population decline in the original Native American groups missionized by the Spanish – the Guale, Timucua, and Apalachee – resulted in an in flux of Native American groups from outside the original area of missioni zation to the La Florida mi ssions (Worth 1998b:9, 16-21; Hann 1996:257-267). Furthermore, the area directly controlled by the Spanish contracted continually throughout much of the first Spanish period. As a result of the English settlement of Charles Town in 1670, English co lonists and soldiers and En glish-allied Native American groups could raid into Spanish Florida to captu re Indians to be sold as slaves and to destroy the mission settlements. The coastal Gu ale missions of what is now Georgia were abandoned as a result of such attacks late in the seventeenth ce ntury (Milanich 1995:222223). During the first decade of the eight eenth century, major English invasions and attacks took place in 1702, 1704, and 1706, ultimat ely resulting in the Spanish deciding to abandon most of the area west of the St. Johns River and to concentrate mission settlements within a defensible distance of the colonial capital at St. Augustine (Hann 1988, 1996:300-303; Milanich 1999:188-190). While the mission system continued to provide an arena for Spanish/Native American interaction during the eighteenth cen tury, the collapse of Florida’s original

PAGE 17

5 Native American population, the immigration of Native American groups from outside the earlier mission territories, and the n eed to concentrate mission settlements for defensive purposes all suggest that the mission communities of the eighteenth century may have differed from the missions founded by the Spanish in the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The original missions founded by the Franciscans in the late 1500s and the first decades of the 1600s in Sp anish Florida were founded in two stages. First, a Native American leader, usually a principal chief within a group, would formally “render obedience” to the Sp anish crown, thereby creating at least a nominal and voluntary subordination of chiefly authority to Spanish colonial officials; often this took place during a visit by this principal chief to St. Augustine, the colonial capital of Spanish Florida. Thereafter, a mission with a resident friar would be formally established within that leader’s terr itory (Worth 1998a:36-41), typically within the “p rincipal town” of the converted chiefdom (Worth 1998a :41; Milanich 1995:178 –179). Thus, the original missions of Spanish Fl orida were originated in a way which tended to reinforce chiefly authority, and we re placed in areas which were chosen by Native Americans for their ow n reasons rather than the convenience of the Spanish (Milanich 1995:178; Gannon 1983:54). For the earli er missions of Spanish Florida, then, it is likely that mission placements were in areas where resources were abundant enough to support “principal towns,” and they would have been dependent on choices made by Native American groups regarding resource avai lability, routes of contact with other Native American groups, and their own defense and ability to travel. The missions of the eighteenth century, how ever, were located where they were for very different reasons, partic ularly to allow them to pr otect and be protected by St.

PAGE 18

6 Augustine. The decision to concentrate missi ons within a defensible distance of St. Augustine meant that eighteenth-century coloni al Spanish missions needed to be placed in a relatively small area, on the St. Augustin e peninsula or nearby, within the defenses established for the protection of St. A ugustine by the Spanish (Waterbury 1983:69-71). Because the primary factor governing the placement of eighteenth-century Spanish missions was the defense of the coloni al capital (Hann 1996:300-303), as well as movement in response to raids or attack s (Parker 1999:47-51), the missions of the eighteenth century would not have been in tr aditional native locales with ample resource availability. Such mission communities would have had to make use of the limited resources available within the defensive perime ter established by the colonial authorities. This was in contrast to many of the earlier missions, particularly t hose established within the territory of the Apalachee, which were in areas very we ll suited for crop production. Such missions provided food not merely for th e missionÂ’s inhabitants but for the Spanish colonists of La Florida, as well as for e xport from the colony (Hann and McEwan 1998; Scarry 1993:369; McEwan 1993:296-297; Worth 1998a:176-186). Furthermore, the people of the eightee nth-century missions would have been substantially different both in ethnic (tribal) affiliation and in cultural practices from the Native American groups first missionized by the Spanish the Timucua, Apalachee and Guale Indians. The mission populations of th e sixteenth and seventeenth centuries would have principally been those Native American groups indigenous to the areas colonized by the Spanish: the Guale of the coastal region of Georgia (Saunders 2000:29, 43), the Apalachee of the eastern Panhandle region of Florida (Hann 1988:6), and the Timucuaspeaking groups of the northern third of peninsular Florida (Milanich 1994:247, 1995:80-

PAGE 19

7 87, 1999:31). But the process of missionizati on meant exposure to European-introduced diseases, leading throughout the mission era to catastrophic population collapse over time (Dobyns 1991:74; Worth 1998b:8, 9) and consequent changes in cultural and political alliances and territories among Native Americ an groups. Ultimately, raids by the English and their Native American allies into Spanish Florida resulted in the eventual cultural extinction of the original people of Flor ida (Worth 1998b:144-146) and the movement of new groups into the tradi tional mission territories. Native American groups from outside Flor ida began to enter the lands of the original groups in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, settling in areas outside Spanish control or, in some cases, se eking the protection of the Spanish (Worth 1998b:27-35, 147-149). The largest such group wa s the Yamassee, a “colonial tribe of refugees…comprised of a diverse assortment of individual communities that seem to have aggregated around several important core towns” (Worth 2004: 1-2), many of whom were fleeing English Carolina after th e Yamassee War of 1715 (Worth 1998b:48-149, Hann 1996:306-318; Crane 1929: 162). The Yamassee had been English allies prior to the Yamassee War, and had been one of the gr oups participating in th e destruction of the mission system during the raids of 17021706 (Milanich 1999:178, 183; Wright 1986:8, 13, 16). With the expulsion of the Yamassee in 1715, and their decision to seek refuge in Spanish Florida, the Spanish were placed in the position of incorporating a Native American group into the mission system w hose members had long experience dealing with the English. The Yamassee, as the prin cipal cultural group seeking refuge at the eighteenth-century missions, had been in cont act with the English, had regularly traded with them, and had served as English allies during the earlier raids into Spanish Florida.

PAGE 20

8 Some Yamassee groups had already been missi onized by the Spanish prior to the first decades of the 1700‘s (Hann 1996:306-307; Milanich 1999:171-174). Thus, some people of the eighteenth-century missi ons would thus have been culturally different and perhaps more experienced dealing with European s than the earlier mission populations, and would quite likely have had the knowledge nece ssary to take advantage of the proximity of the Spanish colonial presence. For these reasons, it seems likely signif icant differences would have existed between the eighteenth-century refugee missi ons and the missions founded earlier. Since the sixteenth and seventeenth century Spanish missions were placed at considerable distances from St. Augustine (Worth 1998b:A ppendix A), the Spanish presence at the earlier missions was in most cases minimal. A doctrina – a mission which had resident friars – would typically have had one or two priests living alone among many hundreds of Native Americans (Milanich 1995:167), with sm all garrisons of soldiers at missions of unusual size or importance (Milanich 1995: 172; Hann and McEwan 1998). Thus, the Spanish would not have been able to enfor ce their cultural norms on the people of the sixteenth and seventeenth century mission comm unities primarily by force and needed to work more through persuasion a nd negotiation (Worth 1998a:36-41). But the eighteenth-century missons were placed within a defensive perimeter in walking distance of the colonial capital and of one another (Arredondo 1737), shifting their locations in a “concertina” moveme nt in response to military and economic pressures (Parker 1999: 47). For that reason, far more Europeans would have been in close proximity to the eighteenth-century refugee missions than the earlier missions,

PAGE 21

9 exposing the people living at these missions to continuous close contact with European ways of life and thought and to the conflicts taking place within Spanish society. The focus of this thesis is the lifeways which existed at one eighteenth-century mission community: Nuestra Senora del Rosari o de La Punta, more commonly known as “La Punta” for short, the term used throughout this work. A small part of the La Punta mission community has been examined in earlier study (White 2002), both to compare the mission with Yamassee archaeological sites lo cated in South Carolina and to identify the form of the material culture record of Yamassee communities. In this work, I want to analyze the hist oric and archaeological record of the La Punta mission community for the purposes of understanding the living conditions and cultural practices of the pe ople of the eighteenth-century colonial Spanish mission communities and to outline how those communities differed from the earlier mission communities of the interior of La Florida (the missions of Apalachee, Guale and Timucua). The research questions addr essed in this thesis are as follows: 1. Are the early to mid-eighteenth century ar chaeological sites sout h of the colonial city of St. Augustine associated with the La Punta mission community? The historic evidence suggests th at the only early-to-mid ei ghteenth century occupation of the area south of the colonial city of St. Augustine proper, on the St. Augustine peninsula, was the refugee mission community of La Punta. Are the archaeological remains dating to the eighteenth century in that area indeed associated with the mission community of La Punta? 2. If so, what does the historic and archaeol ogical information relating to the La Punta mission community reveal about the lifeways of a Spanis h refugee mission of the eighteenth century? How are those lifeway s different from those of the earlier missions found well outside the St. Augustine locality? In the chapters which follow, the histor ic record of the ei ghteenth century is analyzed and evidence is presented which sugge sts that any site in the study area, dating to the eighteenth century and showing archaeological evidence of Native American

PAGE 22

10 occupation is almost certainly associated with the La Punta mission community. Then the archaeological evidence from sites locate d within the study area is presented and discussed to provide a clearer picture of the form of the La Punta mission community, including patterns of land use, spatial positioning of struct ures and activity areas within the larger area analyzed, and lifeways of the people of th e mission community, including agricultural, domestic and burial practices. Third, the historic and archaeological information from the La Punta mission commun ity is discussed to begin to create a picture of that community and the lifeways of its inhabitants. Lastly, theory is used to suggest future research to further describe the eighteenth-century refugee missions of St. Augustine and to explain how and why they differ from the earlier mission communities. Prior to this discussion, the geographic ar ea of study within this work will be defined. The colonial city of Spanish San Agstin was built on a peninsula defined on the west by Maria Sanchez Creek, on the east by the Matanzas River, on the south by the joining of the creek and the Matanzas Rive r, and on the north by the Castillo de San Marcos and the Cubo Line, a palm log wall wh ich extended westward from the fort (see Figure 1.1). The western and southern boundaries of the city itself were defined by the Rosario Line, which with the Cubo Line form ed a “line of circum vallation” ending in a redoubt “a short distance south” of St. Fran cis Street (Chatelain 1941: 86-87; Chatelain undated:7). Thus, the area of study consists of the land south of the National Guard Headquarters and cemetery, west of the Matanz as and east of Maria Sanchez Lake, south to the southern tip of the peni nsula, and just south of the colonial city of St. Augustine itself (see Figure 1.1).

PAGE 23

11 Figure 1-1 The Colonial City of St. Augustine and the Study Area

PAGE 24

12 CHAPTER 2 THE HISTORIC EVIDENCE: INDICATIONS AND RECORDS OF THE MISSION COMMUNITY’S PRESENCE To understand the colonial-era document s which refer to the La Punta mission community, it is necessary to understand the historic context in which the documents were written. The eighteenth century in North America was a time of tremendous demographic and political change, and th e existence of the St. Augustine refugee missions of that era in Spanish Florida wa s a consequence of the shifting political, economic, and military alliances among the European powers of the time – in the Southeast, particularly England and Spain – and the Native American groups in whose territory Europeans were settli ng. Accordingly, I first will discuss the historic events taking place in the Southeast and elsewher e immediately before La Punta’s founding, during its existence, and immediately therea fter. I will then present the historic documents discussing the La Punta mission community, and their relevance to the research questions presented. Eighteenth Century Florid a: Disruption and Change The opening years of the eighteenth cent ury set in motion events which would determine the form of life in Spanish Florida for the remainder of the first Spanish period. Prior to 1702, English entry into Spanish Flor ida had been relatively minimal. While raids on the missions of Florida and on St. Augustine had increased, such attacks were relative pinpricks compared to what came after (Milanich 1999:168-174).

PAGE 25

13 In 1702, Governor James Moore of Carolin a led a major military force consisting of some 500 Carolina colonist s and more than 300 Native American allies, principally Yamassee Indians, into Spanish Florida. Du ring this raid, Moore destroyed all of the Spanish coastal missions between Charles Town and St. Augustine, laid siege for nearly two months to the Castillo de San Marcos and ultimately burned St. Augustine to the ground prior to his withdrawal (Arnade 1959: 23, 58; Halbirt 2002: 29-30; Milanich 1999:177-185: 2002:1-2). Moore led two further major raids into Spanish Florida. The first, in 1704, devastated the Apalachee mi ssions of the eastern Panhandle of Florida (Hann 1988:264-265), while in 1706, the last surviving Timucua missions of San Francisco de Potano and its sa tellites, near modern Gain esville (Milanich 1995:225-227; Hann 1996:300-303; Worth 1998b:142-146) were dest royed. During these raids, Creek and Yamassee Indians, as allies of the English, were encouraged to take slaves from the mission populations. Some Apalachee Indians th rew off their allegiance to the Spanish and returned to Carolina with the English; others fled we st to Mobile and beyond. As a result of the raids, the mission chain of Span ish Florida west of the St. Johns River was totally destroyed (Milanich 1999:187-188; Worth 1998b:142-146). Following the destruction of the missions, pa rticularly during the first two decades of the eighteenth century, Native American slav ers allied with the English were able to range freely throughout the Fl orida peninsula, even to the Keys (Hann 2003:179; Worth 1998b:146). The decision was made by Flor idaÂ’s Spanish governors, beginning with Joseph de Ziga y Zerda in 1706, to concen trate all Native American groups within Florida close to the Spanish capital, behind th e Spanish defensive works and near to or within the city of St. A ugustine (Hann 1996:303). This m eant a large increase in the

PAGE 26

14 Native American population in St. Augustine, a fact which is reflected archaeologically in a substantially increased proportion of Na tive American to European ceramics in St. Augustine sites dating to the ei ghteenth century, as well as the increasing presence of colonoware in early eight eenth century contexts (Deagan 2002:107). The Native American refugees arriving in St. Augustine were organized into mission towns surrounding the colonial capital. Some of these missions – Nombre de Dios and Tolomato – already existed prior to the dest ruction of the interior missions (Worth 1998b: Appendix A). Others were constructed in areas that had not been pr eviously occupied by missions, within the limits of the town’s defens es or near enough to the defenses to be effective as a “first line” of obstacles fo r an attacking enemy to overcome (Worth 1998b:147). Ultimately, the chain of missions n ear St. Augustine formed a semicircular perimeter enclosing the c ity on the north, west and south (Arrendondo 1737), though the locations of the refugee mission communities ch anged through the time of their existence (Parker 1999:47). The Native Americans relocated to St. Augustine in the firs t decade of the eighteenth century primarily included survi vors of the missions destroyed by Moore’s raids into Florida: Timucua, Guale, and Apalachee Indians (Hann 1996:303-305). However, events during the next decade woul d drastically alter the demographic makeup of the refugee missions. In 1715, many Native American groups in Carolina, including the Yamassee, Creeks, Choctaw, and to some degree the Cherokee (Crane 1929:162), joined in a general uprising against the E nglish at Charles Town, an uprising which became known as the Yamassee War (Hann 1996:306; Hann 2003:179). The uprising, incited by abuses against Native American s perpetrated by English traders (Hann

PAGE 27

15 2003:179), was defeated by the English. As a result, the Yamassee fled from Carolina, many of them seeking sanctuary with the Span ish in Florida. While this movement by recent adversaries may at first seem unusual, the Spanish needed Native American allies for the defense of the capital, and the Yama ssee, long familiar with the political and military conflicts between Spain and Engla nd, needed European allies opposed to England. The Yamassee were quickly integrated into the existing mission system. The Yamassee have been characterized as “a historic period aggr egation of diverse coastal and interior peoples” (Saunders 2000:48), which appear to have principally centered on the remnants of the De Soto-era chiefdoms of Altamaha/Tama, Ocute, and Ichisi (Worth 2004:2-3; Smith 1968:51-65). The Yamassee appear to have spoken a Muskogean dialect related to Hitchiti and Guale (Worth 2004:1). While it has been claimed that the term “Yamassee” was a name given to the Yamassee by Spanish observers (Carl Halbirt, City of St Augustine archaeologist, 2005, personal communication), the name is actually Native Am erican in derivation and appears to have been the term used by the Yamassee themselves (John Worth 2005, personal communication). The refugee missions around St. Augustine ex isted within a complex jurisdictional system of both ecclesiastical and secular government and within the social statuses associated with these institutions. The Catholic Church was the common cultural bond for all of the residents of St Augustine and its environs: Regardless of how the citizens of St. Augus tine might describe themselves in terms of race, origin, or profession, they always identified themselves as Catholics…This corporate identity was essential in de marcating the sociopsychological boundaries of colonial St. Augustine…Race, nationa lity, familial background, and economic standing determined one’s place within St Augustine’s social or der, but without a

PAGE 28

16 profession of Catholic faith, one would rema in decidedly outside that social order. (Kapitzke 2001:8) However, one’s place within the Catholic faith and the social order was also determined by jurisdictional c onflict between the regular and the secular clergy. In the Catholic religious hierarc hy, “regular” clergy are those clergy who are members of religious orders, such as the Jesuits or Fr anciscans, which are committed to particular tasks and are exempt from the jurisdic tion of the local bishop (Gannon 1983:XIV). “Secular” clergy, on the other hand, are thos e priests who work “in geographically defined parishes under the direct supe rvision of a bishop” (Gannon 1983:XIV). The mission system of Spanish Florida was under the control of regular clergy from the Franciscan order, and thei r support was, in theory, to be provided by the governors of Spanish Florida through the support of the crown (Gannon 1983:37). During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the Franciscans would primarily have been concerned with missions at substantial distan ces from the “secular” parish priests in St. Augustine itself (Worth 1998b:Appendix A). Though the center of operations for Franciscan missionary efforts was located wi thin the urban area of St. Augustine at the friary of St. Francis (Hoffman 1993:62), the Franciscans’ principa l concern during this time would have been with the missions loca ted in the hinterland, out of the geographic boundaries of the parish priest’s jurisdiction. But during the eighteenth century, the re fugee missions were placed in close proximity to St. Augustine. This tended to create questions of jurisdiction and conflicts between the Franciscans, as regular cler gy overseeing the refugee missions, and the parish priests of the city: Their harmonious interaction was essentia l in maintaining social and religious stability in the frontier town of St. A ugustine. Yet at times, their relationship

PAGE 29

17 turned acrimonious. When this occurred, the ensuing struggles disrupted the social order and presented the citizens of St. A ugustine with the image of a house divided against itself. (Kapitzke 2001:124) During the period of the refugee missions, one of the primary areas of dispute centered on “secularization”: the shifting of control of parishes and parishioners from regular to secular clergy (Kap itzke 2001:124). In eighteenth century St. Augustine, the process of “secularization” would have m eant the movement of mission populations from the control of the Franciscans to St. Augus tine’s parish priest (Kapitzke 2001:124-125). Another area of dispute between the friars and parish priest s centered on the rights and privileges attached to each office, includi ng the right to administer the sacraments (Kapitzke 2001:124, 125, 128-130). The Native American groups liv ing at the refugee missions thus lived in a religious and social atmosphere centered on the Catholic Church and its traditions, and affected by conflict between both regular and secular clergy and the secular authority, led by the governors of Spanish Florida. English raids and attacks on St. Augustine continued throughout the remainder of the First Spanish period, including Palmer’s 1728 raid and destruction of several Native American mission settlements near St. A ugustine (Chatelain 1941: 88) and the 1740 siege conducted by James Oglethorpe, founder of Georgia (Waterbury 1983:76-79). Throughout this time, the populations of the refugee missions steadily declined, from a high point in of 1,011 total Native American s in 1717 to 89 people in the year 1763, the year of the first Spanish withdrawal from Florida (Hann 1996:328). During these years, however, the refugee populati on fluctuated somewhat, though the overall trend was down.

PAGE 30

18 The 89 Native American mission inhabitants were withdrawn from Florida with the Spanish in 1763, when La Florida was passed from Spanish to British rule. During the time of British rule in Florida (1763 -1784), the British created a plantation agricultural system in Florida, concentrated east of the St Johns River, with St. Augustine serving as principal military outpost in Florida (Sch afer 2001:48-58, 76-99). The Seminoles, Creek descendents who had begun moving into centr al Florida during th e last decades of Spanish rule, visited St. Augustine but were neve r allowed to settle there by the British. Treaty agreements between the British and th e Creek and Seminole leaders fixed the St. Johns River as the boundary between British o ccupation in the east, and Native American occupation in the west (Schafer 2001:48-58, 76-99). The Historic Evidence for La PuntaÂ’s Existence The founding of Nuestra Senora de La Punta as one of the refugee mission towns around St. Augustine appears to have taken place after the Yamass ee War of 1715. The historic evidence for La PuntaÂ’s presence as a mission community, and its demographic composition, comes from two sources: depictions of the mission community in maps, and documents noting the missionÂ’s presence. Each of these sources is discussed in turn. Where applicable, I also will note descriptions of the mission community incorporated in the visual depictions. Maps Depicting the Location of the La Punta Mission Community Colonial-era Spanish and British maps from the early to mid-eighteenth century provide depictions of the La Punta mission community and its placement relative to St. Augustine proper and the other mission towns; th ey also provide evid ence regarding the time of the communityÂ’s founding and its abandonment by the Spanish. British maps from FloridaÂ’s era of British rule (1763-1784) provide some indication of the landÂ’s use

PAGE 31

19 immediately subsequent to the time of the mission community’s existence. Together these sources suggest that the La Punta missi on occupied the area south of St. Augustine, on the St. Augustine peninsula, from the late 1720s until 1752, less than 30 years, and that British structures occupied the land where the mission community had existed during the time of British rule (Halbirt, in preparation). First Spanish Period maps of the La Punta Mission community The Palmer Map of 1730 The Palmer map, made by an English offi cer who led a raid against the Native American mission communities near St. A ugustine in 1728 (Chatelain 1941:88) and was killed besieging the city of St. Augustine with Oglethorpe in 1740 (see Figure 2.1), depicts an “Indian Town” immediately to the south of the southern wall of the city, between what appears to be Maria Sanchez Creek and the Matanzas River (Palmer 1730). To the west of this first “Indian Town” is noted a second “Indian Town,” across what appears to be Maria Sanchez Creek and east of the San Sebastian River. These two “Indian Towns” appear to correspond with the missions of La Punta and Pocotalaca, respectively, as listed on th e 1737 Arredondo map (Arredondo 1737). There is no information listed on the 1730 Palmer map as to the nature of the inhabitants of these two “Indian Towns.” However, two other such towns, located northwest across the San Sebastian River and immediately to the north of the city wall extending to from the Castillo, are listed as : “Yamacy Town taken by Col. Palmer from Charles Town”, and “Yamacy Hutts”, re spectively (Palmer 1730), suggesting the presence of Yamassee Indians in the towns when the Palmer map was drawn. Furthermore, the primary objective of Palme r’s raid in 1728 was “the destruction…of the

PAGE 32

20 remnants of the once powerful Yemassee nation” (Chatelain 1941:88), suggesting the “Indian towns” depicted on Palmer’s ma p would have been inhabited by Yamassee. Figure 2-1 The Palmer Map (1730) The Arredondo Map of 1737 The Antonio de Arredondo map of St. A ugustine and its environs, dated May 15, 1737, depicts St. Augustine and the refugee missi on communities in existence at the time. It also shows superimposed plans for futu re defensive works surrounding the city (see Figure 2.2). The map includes a legend num bering each of the mission communities’ residents. The Arredondo map locates La Punta immediately south of the city. It depicts a road running south of the city’s southern wa ll to the peninsula’s ti p (see Figure 2.2). A

PAGE 33

21 Figure 2-2 Arredondo Map (1737) single larger structure, probably the missi on church, is surrounded by sixteen smaller structures, with four smaller structures at th e roadÂ’s southernmost end. Presumably these

PAGE 34

22 are individual houses of the mission villager s. These houses are surrounded with what appear to be cultivated fields. The missi on community is bounded on the west by Maria Sanchez Creek, on the east by the Matanzas Ri ver, and on the south by the confluence of the two. The legend accompanying the map lists each feature by number. La Punta, number 21, is described as “Church and town of La Punta 17 men and 17 women and children accordingly” (Arrendondo 1737). Anonymous Map of the City and Port of Saint Augustine, 1740 This map by an unknown maker, written in French, depicts an “Indian Town” located to the south of the s outhern city wall between what appears to be Maria Sanchez Creek and the San Sebastian River (see Figure 2.3). This map appears to depict twelve stru ctures present at the designated “Indian Town,” centered on a road running to the sout hern tip of the peni nsula between them (Anonymous 1740). A dock or wharf of some so rt is shown on the southeastern side of the Indian Town,” extending into the Matanzas River (see Figure 2.3). This map is not a clear depiction of La P unta as an individual town; the town itself is designated only as “Ville Ind”, and its lo cation would place it in the vicinity of the mission community of Pocotalaca rather th an that of La Punta (Arredondo 1737). However, the notation of the town’s existen ce suggests the presence of Native American communities south of the coloni al city during this period.

PAGE 35

23 Figure 2-3 Anonymous Map of 1740 The Castello Map of 1763 The Pablo Castello map of 1763, drawn to pr ovide a clear reference for the British authorities occupying St. Augustine after Spanis h withdrawal from Florida, depicts the ruined remains of the La Punta mission comm unity immediately south of the southern city wall, between Maria Sanchez Creek and the Matanzas River (see Figure 2.4). The Castello map describes the ruins as “Ruined chur ch that was of the Town of Indians of La Punta” (Castello 1763). This indicates the mission commun ity no longer existed in 1763, though its location was still known to the Spanish, and was sti ll apparently visible on the ground. This further suggests that the Britis h, at least at the be ginning of the British occupation of Florida, would have known a nd recognized the area occupied by the La Punta mission when determining placement of their own buildings in the area.

PAGE 36

24 Figure 2-4 Castello Map (1763) British Period maps of the former location of La Punta The J. Purcell Map of 1777 The J. Purcell map of British St. Augustin e shows a trail running south of the southernmost wall of the city to the area of the La Punta mission and the “Indian Towns” noted on the earlier Spanish maps (see Figure 2.5 ). This trail terminates within what appears to be a walled enclosure containing th ree structures, one larger and two smaller (see Figure 2.5) These features are placed on the southern tip of the peninsula of St. Augustine, between Maria Sanchez Creek a nd the Matanzas River (Purcell 1777). The legends accompanying this map do not indi cate the nature of the walls of the enclosure or of the structures, nor their occupants (Purcell 1777), though other documents

PAGE 37

25 Figure 2-5 The J. Purcell Map (1777) suggest the structures may have been a hos pital (McGee et. al. 2005). Furthermore, the enclosure and structures are dissimilar to a ny of the depictions of the La Punta mission community as drawn on the earlier Spanis h or English maps (Palmer 1730; Arredondo 1737; Anonymous 1740), suggesting that the feat ures depicted on the Purcell map, while

PAGE 38

26 built on the La Punta site, were not part of the mission community ruins and were built subsequent to the Castello map’s drafting (Castello 1763). The H. Burrard Map of 1780 This map depicts two separate features to the south of the southern wall of St. Augustine: an enclosure within what appears to be a single structure, and, to the south of that feature, what appears to be a separate enclosure with three structures inside (see Figure 2.6). Immediately beside the southern wall, within the city itself, is a legend noting “Barracks”, also depicting an enclosur e with three structures within (see Figure 2.6). The southernmost feature is clearly placed between Maria Sanchez Creek and the Matanzas River (Burrard 1780). This southernmost feature is very sim ilar, though not identical to the features depicted on the Purcell map, and appears to be placed in the same location. Furthermore, the Franciscan mission headquarters where the British later built thei r principal barracks was north of the site of La Punta and appears to be north of the f eatures depicted on the Burrard map at the southern extreme of the St. Augustine peninsula (Schafer 2001:55; Hoffman 1993:73-74). Thus, given the cartogr aphic imperfection of the maps of the time, it seems reasonably certain that the sout hernmost features depicted on the Burrard map are the same features depicted on the Purcell map, and that these features were built on the site of the earlier La Punta mission. Anonymous Map of Saint Augustine and Environs, 1782 This map depicts the enclosure and three st ructures appearing on the earlier Britishera maps; it has a legend labeling this cluster of features as “Fort Wright” (see Figure 2.7), while other versions of this map label th e same cluster of features “Dr. Wright” or “Hospital” (McGee et. al. 2005). As with the ea rlier maps, this cluste r is placed between

PAGE 39

27 Figure 2.6 The H. Burrard Map (1780)

PAGE 40

28 Maria Sanchez Creek and the Matanzas River sout h of the walled city. It also appears to be placed in the area labeled as La Punta mi ssion or “Indian Town” on the maps drawn in 1763 or earlier. Figure 2-7 Anonymous Map (1782) The British built a number of new defensiv e structures to protect St. Augustine during the time of their cont rol of Florida, including redoubts and barracks (Schafer 2001:48-58). Since the structures depicted in the study area on the British-era maps are relatively consistent through time, it seems likely that this cl uster of features, whether a fort or a hospital, were British structures built during the first half of the British period

PAGE 41

29 and remaining in existence through at least 1782. The cluster was cl early located south of the barracks built on the site of the Franciscan convent. Documents Describing the Mission Community Documents listing the refugee mission comm unities of the early eighteenth century provide a time frame for Nuestra Senora del Ro sario de La Punta. They also provide some clues as to the identity and ethnic aff iliation of the people living within the mission community. The Anonymous Mission List of 1736 The first written mention of the La P unta mission occurs in a 1736 mission census (Swanton 1922:105). La Punta is listed as one of eight refugee missions in existence at the time, the others being Pocotalaca, Nombre de Dios Chiquito, San Nicolas, Tolomato, La Costa, Palica, and a “Village of Ti mucua” (Swanton 1922:105; Hann 1996:316). La Punta’s inhabitants are described as be ing “Cacique Juan and 16 men, 1 of them Apalachee” (Swanton 1922:105; Hann 1996: 316.) The Benavides Mission List: April 21, 1738 This mission census lists a total of nine refugee missions: La Punta, Macharis, La Costa, Tolomato, Palica, Pocotalaca, Nombre de Dios Chiquito, San Nicolas, and an unnamed “Chapter House (St. Augustine” (Benavides 1738). La Punta is described as having “41 people, 15 of them warriors”, suggesting the earlier 1736 census may have only listed fighting men available to the Sp anish rather than the total number of inhabitants. The First Montiano Mission List: June 4, 1738 This 1738 census names ten refugee missi ons, suggesting a new influx of people between April and June of 1738. This list includes La Punt a, as well as Macaris, La

PAGE 42

30 Costa, Tholomato, Palica, Pocotalaca, Nombre de Dios Chiquito, San Nicolas, Pojoy and Amacaparis, and “Chapter House” (Montiano 1738). La Punta’s inhabitants are listed as “43 people (10 men, 13 women, an d 20 children)” (Hann 1996:316). The Guemes y Horcasitas List of 1739 This document from late 1738 lists only eight mission communiti es, suggesting that some amalgamation of the mission populations may have taken place subsequent to the compilation of Montiano’s listing. N. Senora del Rosario, Punta is present, as well as Nombre de Dios Macaris, San Antonio de la Costa, N. Senora de Guadelupe, Tolomato, N. Senora de La Assumpcion, Palica, N. Se nora de la Concepcion, Pocotalaca, Santo Domingo de Chiquitos, and San Nicolas de Casapullos (Guemes y Horcasitas 1739). The inhabitants of the La Punta mission were 14 families and 51 total inhabitants (Hann 1996:317). Because 43 inhabitants were listed as present at La Punta on Montiano’s listing, it seems likely that some of the inha bitants from one of the other missions had been moved to La Punta by this time. The Second Montiano Mission List: June 23, 1739 This census lists a total of eight missi on communities: Nuestra Senora de Rosario de la Punta, Nombre de Di os de Macaris, Nuestra Senor a de Guadelupe de Tolomato, Santo Domingo de Chiquito, Nuestra Senora de la Assuncion de Palica, Nuestra Senora de la Concepcion de Pocotalaca, Pueblo de Sa n Nicolas de Casapullos, and Pueblo de San Antonio de la Costa (Montiano 1739). Th is census of mission towns contains no demographic data; it simply lists the co mmunities in existence at that time. The Gelabert Report of 1752 This census of the mission communities i ndicates that six mission communities were present in 1752. They are La Punta, Tolomato, Pocotalaca, la Costa, Palica, and

PAGE 43

31 Nombre de Dios (Gelabert 1752). La P unta was the largest of the refugee mission communities with 25 men and 34 women. No child ren are listed. The leader of the La Punta mission community is “Antonio Yut a”, a Yamassee name, suggesting that the inhabitants of the mission community were primarily Yamassee at this time (Hann 1996:323). The Gelabert report is the last direct mention of the mission community of La Punta. By 1759, the six refugee missions listed by Gelabert had been consolidated into two mission communities, Nombre de Dios and Tolomato (Hann 1996:323). This is consistent with the information included on the Castello map, indi cating that La Punta mission was in ruins by 1763 (Castello 1763). The Grian Report of 1756 This document was written in 1756 by a r oyal official who had lived in St. Augustine from 1731 to 1742, for the purpose of providing a comprehensive summary of Florida’s conditions and defens es for Spain’s new secretary of State for the Navy and the Indies (Scardaville and Belmont e 1979:1). Grian’s report provides a description of the conditions of the mission towns as they appear ed to him during his ti me stationed in St. Augustine, which would have applied to La Punta, since the mission was in existence during that time. 16. Christian Indians. There are 50 to 60 armed men in the Indian villages around the town who serve on frequent expeditions, by regularly accompanying the cavalry squads on patrols in the vicinity. *** 26. Inclinations, Vices and V illages of the Christian Indian s. In the environs of Florida (but outside of the circumvallation line and under the cannon of the fortresses), there are five small villages of Christian Indians from the Yamassee Nation that are inhabited by up to one hundred families. Their dwellings are small palm houses, much distant from one anothe r, and they plant corn and legumes on

PAGE 44

32 their respective plots. But because of their limited efforts at farming, for they do not put much effort into this work, they produce only a very small harvest. They use most of their time to hunt, for which th ey have more inclination, and also to wage war. They are brave, but greatly inc lined to inebriety, consuming in this vice whatever they earn from th eir hunting and even from the fruits of their sowing. (Scardaville and Belmonte 1979:9, 11) While Grian’s report was written well afte r his time of residence in St. Augustine, and is clearly not perfectly impartial in its ob servations, it does provi de some insight into how conditions at the refugee mission communities, including Nuestra Senora de La Punta, appeared to the Spanish residents of St. Augustine during the time of the refugee missions’ existence. Discussion The data from the historic documents re lating to the La Punta mission community suggest two things. First, the physical location of the La Punta mission community appears to have changed rela tively little if at all thr oughout the time of its documented existence, from at least 1728 to at least 1752. Second, the community itself, as well as the system of which it was a part, was under constant demographic change. The maps, when taken as a whole, seem to indicate that from the time of La Punta’s first depiction on the Palmer map (Palmer 1730), the mission community remained in the same physical location. Palmer depicted an “Indian town” south of St. Augustine, yet apparently located on the St. Augustine pe ninsula (Palmer 1730); Arredondo depicted La Punta as being south of the city of St. Augustine proper, on the southern tip of the peninsula between Maria Sanchez creek on the west, the Matanzas River to the east, and their confluence to the sout h (Arredondo 1737). Subsequent maps of the area around St. Augustine, through the end of the First Span ish Period in 1763, continue to depict a mission community in that same location; the last map from the era, the Castello map,

PAGE 45

33 notes that the ruins of the La Punta mission community were still visible in the same location that La Punta had been depicted by earlier cartographers (Castello 1763; Arredondo 1737; Palmer 1730; Anonymous 1740). Accordingly, it seems highly likely that the physical location of the La Punta mission community changed very little over time. But while the physical setting of the La Punta mission community may have changed little through time, its demographic co mposition appears to have been in a state of flux. The numbers of people present at La Punta through time appear to have slowly increased, from the sixteen wa rriors listed as present in 1736 (Swanton 1922:105), to the fifty-nine people list ed as present at the mission in 1752, including twenty-five men and thirty-four women (Gelaber t 1752; Hann 1996:323). The numb ers of people present at La Punta, when taken in conjunction w ith the changing numbers of other refugee missions, suggest that this increase was likel y due both to the consolidation of other mission populations with the population of La Punta itself, as well as a continuing movement of refugees to the area. The overall decline of the total refugee missionsÂ’ population throughout this time (Hann 1996: 317-325) suggests that continuing inmigration of people would have been nece ssary for La PuntaÂ’s population to remain constant, let alone increase. The proximity of the refugee missions to the colonial capital would have increased the risk of disease, as well as social and psyc hological pathologies, and would have subjected the inhabitants to attacks on the city, all of which would have contributed to population decline. It may be significant that there is no data for La Punta and the other mission communities between 1739 and 1752. Those y ears would have been a time of great

PAGE 46

34 danger for the refugee missions: James Ogleth orpe, the governor of Georgia, had laid unsuccessful siege to the city of St. Augustine in 1740 (Cha telain 1941:91-92; Waterbury 1983:76-79), as a part of the War of JenkinsÂ’ Ear, and open hostilities between Spain and England continued until 1742. It is known that a mission community of free blacks, Gracia Real de Santa Teresa de Mose, whic h existed north of the colonial city, was moved within the city walls un til 1752, the year of the Gela bert report (Landers 1992:27; Deagan and McMahon 1995). The lack of data for La Punta, as well as the other refugee mission communities during this period, may be due to their populations being moved within the city walls as well. Given the clear record of chan ging numbers of people present at the mission through time, this suggest s that La PuntaÂ’s peop le were subject to being moved from mission to mission, and from mission to city, at the decision of the colonial authorities. From an archaeological standpoint, the hist oric data relating to La Punta suggests several things. First, archaeological sites related to the La Punta mission community will be located in the area south of St. Francis Street and the National Guard cemetery, the location of the southern wall of the colonial city, between modern Maria Sanchez Lake and the Matanzas River (see Fig. 1.1). Second, such sites should exhibit archaeological complexes related to the early to mid eight eenth century, both European (Spanish) and Native American. The names and tribal affiliations existing on the mission lists indicate that La PuntaÂ’s inhabitants were most lik ely Yamassee, with some Apalachee present (Swanton 1922:105). Finally, archaeological sites which are a part of the La Punta mission community should show evidence of subsequent British o ccupation in the same area. The British

PAGE 47

35 period maps of the area (Pur cell 1777; Anonymous 1782) indicat e the presence of either a fort or a hospital in the same physical lo cation as the La Punta mission community. Accordingly, sites associated with the La Punta mission community should show some evidence of British occupation in the same location.

PAGE 48

36 CHAPTER 3 ARCHAEOLOGY OF SITES IN THE STUDY AREA This chapter examines the archaeological record of the sites within the study area defined in the first chapter of this thesis and hypothesized to incl ude the remains of the eighteenth century refugee mission community of La Punta. Chapter 4 will examine how the archaeological data from the study area site s relate to La Punta, and it will examine what those data tell us about the La Punta mission community. In 1987, the City of St. Augustine, the ol dest continuously occupied European settlement in the mainland United States, established an arch aeological protection ordinance which requires archaeological investigation of any building or utility construction with “ground-penetr ating activities that exceed 1 00 square feet in area and 3 or more inches in depth…located within one of the City’s archaeological zones” (Halbirt, in preparation). The archaeological sites repo rted here were all lo cated and excavated as a part of the City’s archaeological pr ogram, under the terms of the ordinance. In presenting the archaeological evidence, the physical and geological environment of the study area, including what is known of its natural topography and soil conditions, are discussed first. Then the archaeologica l sites associated with the La Punta mission are discussed as individual locatio ns and as an integrated whole. The Physical Environment of the Study Area As noted in the first chapter of this thes is, the study area is the southern end of the peninsula on which St. Augustine is located, bordered by Maria Sanchez Lake and marsh,

PAGE 49

37 the Matanzas River, and their confluence. Prior to the nineteenth century building activities of Henry Flagler, Maria Sanchez Lake was Maria Sanchez Creek, and extended northwards along the western boundar y of the colonial city, addi ng a natural ba rrier in the form of a tidal creek to the to wn’s defenses (Waterbury 1983:114). Both Maria Sanchez Creek and the Matanzas River are tidal rivers connected to the Atlantic Ocean. Neither has a ny direct discharge of fresh water supplying their natural flow and levels. Consequently, the natura l environment of the study area is best characterized as salt marsh surrounding tidal hammock land (Smith and Bond 1984; Audubon 1998). In the salt marsh environment, the principal plant species are smooth cordgrass, red cedar, and n eedle palmetto (Smith a nd Bond 1984; Audubon 1998), all of which were likely present in the eighteenth century. Plant species typically present in tidal hammock environments include some ha rdwoods such as pignut hickory and live oak, as well as scrub pine and sabal palmetto (Audobon 1998). The soil association present in the envi ronment of the study area is the MyakkaImmokalee-St. Johns, which is characterized as “sandy…poorly to very poorly drained” (Smith and Bond 1984:25). Overall, the soils of St. Johns County [including the area of study] are sandy, acidic, and wet. These conditions do not lend themselves to widespread agriculture. In fact none of the soils are rated as good cropland. To farm in the area requires drastic changes to the soil st ructure; the most common of these are drawing down the water table and raising the soil’s PH and nutrient levels. (Smith and Bond 1984:24) The plant species naturally occurring in th e environment are adapted to such acidic soil conditions, but introduced plants of most kinds are unabl e to tolerate the environment of the study area without some m odification of the soil conditions.

PAGE 50

38 The topography of the study area prior to human modification included dune ridges characteristic of the Atlan tic coastal environment (Smith and Bond 1984). Within the study area, a north-south ridge extends from the colonial ci tyÂ’s southern edge to the southern tip of the peninsul a (see Fig. 3.1). Based on a post hole survey conducted at the 159 and 161 Marine Street sites, it was hypothesi zed by Halbirt (Halbirt, in preparation) that The ridge appears to be more expansive a nd better defined toward the north end of the [study area] than at the south; the nor th end exhibits a mound shape appearance, whereas the rise at the sout h end of the property is less pronounced. On the east (Matanzas Bay) side the ridge slopes into the river, whereas on the west (Maria Sanchez Creek) side the ridge slopes into a terrace surface. The ridge crest appears to follow an undulating pattern that is reminiscent of dune ridges: a vertical displacement of approximately one foot (28c m) distinguishes this pattern. (Halbirt, in preparation) (See Fig. 3.1) Fauna present in the immediate area of the study area include oyster, quahog clam, and saltwater fish species such as mullet, drum, and white grunt (Audobon 1998). There is no record of extensive modifi cation of the topography of the study area prior to the late nineteenth century (Halbirt in preparation). Consequently, it appears likely that the physical and t opographical environment occurr ing naturally in the area prior to the eighteenth century would have been the environment existing when the La Punta mission community was founded in that cent ury (Halbirt, in prepar ation). It is in that context that the data fr om the archaeological sites a ssociated with the La Punta mission are considered. Archaeological Projects Associ ated With the Study Area The study area is currently occupied by a se ries of private homes, two assisted living facilities, the offices of the St. Johns County Council on Aging offices, and associated parking lots (see Fig.1.1).

PAGE 51

39 Below, the general methodology used duri ng the location and excavation of sites within St. Augustine is discussed. Then th e specific information recovered during the archaeological investigation of each of the site s within the study area is presented. Figure 3-1 LIDAR Map of Study Area Methodology and Techniques Since the adoption of St. AugustineÂ’s ar chaeological protectio n ordinance in 1987, certain methods and techniques have been de veloped to allow the maximum recovery of information from sites investigat ed within the city limits (Hal birt 1992). All of the sites

PAGE 52

40 discussed here were excavate d after the adoption of the ordinance, and thus were excavated using those methods. When the requirements of the ordinan ce trigger the need for archaeological investigation at a location within the city, the first phase of analysis is a posthole survey within the limits of the prope rty under investigation. The postholes are dug to a depth which varies with the depth below the ground su rface of culturally sterile soils. Material from the postholes is screened through ” mesh for the purpo se of recovering artifacts. Artifact location and density are then plotted on a map of the site (Halbirt, in preparation). Based on artifact distribution and density, plans are then formulated for more extensive excavations. During this second phase of the investiga tion, either 1 m by 2 m excavation units or 2m by 2m excavation units are laid out on the site, placed in areas which had high concentrations of artifacts, features, or fo r other reasons, based on the data collected during the first phase of testing. Since most sites tested under the City’s program have modern fill and overburden present, the C ity archaeologist may lay out and excavate profile trenches prior to digging excavation un its to reveal the soil stratigraphy and the depth of modern fill and overburden. When this information has been collected, larger “stripping areas” may be laid out within which excavation will take place. These stripping areas will then have the upper laye r of modern fill and overburden stripped off with a backhoe to expose the historic layer, su bsequently excavated in either 1m by 2m or 2m by 2m test units (Halbirt in preparation; Carl Halb irt, City of St. Augustine archaeologist, personal communication, 2005). In St. Augustine, the historic 18th century layer throughout the city generally consists of a concentr ation of fine, grayish brown to

PAGE 53

41 brown soil, which represents the cultur al midden layer produced by human activity (White 2002). If no modern overburden is pr esent at a site, stripping areas are not utilized. Each excavation unit is excavated by ha nd, with the soil removed from the unit either dry-screened through in mesh for artif act recovery or, if wa ter is present at the site, wet-screened, also through in mesh (Carl Halbirt, City of St. Augustine archaeologist, personal communication, 2005). To locate all features present within a unit, the cultural midden is excavated down to sterile soil, represented throughout most of St. Augustine by a layer of clean yellow-gold-colored soil. Features within each unit are then mappe d, and either bisected for profiling or completely excavated. Based on features and material recovered from each unit, adjacent or nearby units plotted on the site map are th en excavated to recover further information. Each unit is mapped both separately and on the ov erall site map prepared as a part of the second phase of archaeological testing. At th is juncture, prior to analysis, the City archaeologist will either certify the owner’s compliance with the ordinance, allowing use of the property, or recommend further excavation (Carl Halb irt, City of St. Augustine archaeologist, personal communication 2005). In the third and final resear ch phase of testing, the arti facts and material recovered from the site are weighed and analyzed, and the city archaeologist makes a final determination as to the site’s significance and nature. Five archaeological projects have been conducted in the study area. All such projects are within th e boundaries of the modern City of St. Augustine, and consequently are designated – both here and within the reco rds of the city’s archaeology program – by

PAGE 54

42 their physical addresses within the city: 161 Marine Stree t; 159 Marine Street; 321 St. George Street; 8 Hedrick Street; and 11 Tremer ton Street. All of th ese locations appear to be associated with the hypothesized La P unta mission site as a whole, designated as 8SJ94 in the Florida Master Site File. All of the projects associat ed with the study area were tested and excavated under the methodology outlined above. However, the 11 Tremerton project was also partially excavated using a different system, for reasons which will be discussed. Each of the sites tested and excavated are discussed below. For each project, the numbering system, stripping areas, unit numbers, and feature numbe rs are unique; that is, each was tested as a distinct unit. In analyzing the artifacts and other material found at each of these locations, the categories for analysis are those which have been created for Florida historic archaeology by Dr. Kathleen Deagan of the Florida Museum of Natural History at the University of Florida. Those categories are as follows: 1) majolicas, 2) utilitarian wares (made by the Spanish), 3) non-Spanish tablew ares, 4) non-European ceramic s (i.e., Native American), 5) kitchen items (including glassware), 6) nonmasonry architecture, 7) military items, 8) clothing/sewing, 9) personal items, 10) craft/ products, 11) unidentifie d metal objects, 12) masonry, 13) domestic furnishings, 14) tools or implements, 15) toys, games, or leisure, 16) tack or harness, 17) religious items, 18) miscellaneous weighed items, 19 truly unknown items, and 20) 20th century (modern) items. The artifact counts and wei ghts for each of the project locations, by test unit and level, are provided in Appendix A to this th esis. The tables provi ded in Appendix B for each location include the total counts and wei ghts for each of the above-listed categories

PAGE 55

43 by test unit and stripping area, where applicable and are the basis for the tables in this chapter containing the relative percentages by count and weight for each location as a whole. Through this analysis, the types of activities which took place at each location will be suggested. Location 1: 161 Marine Street A portion of the 161 Marine Street excavat ion was analyzed by Andrea P. White in her thesis comparing a Yamassee site in Flor ida with a similar site in South Carolina (White 2002), to determine the archaeologica l “signature” of Yama ssee sites in both locations. A part of the information presen ted here is drawn from White’s study, for the purposes of integrating it with other sites re lated to La Punta; for the purposes of this thesis, however, the entire co llection of artifacts and features found at 161 Marine Street is considered. Excavations at this site revealed the presen ce of 43 features which appeared to date to the time of mission occupa tion (White 2002: 49) (see figu re 3.2). Some of these features appear to be associated with be tween three to four structures, including a probable structure located over a walk-in well. There also were five daub processing pits, including two which were later used as tras h pits; two trenches r unning parallel to each other; and 18 miscellaneous pits, as well as the cultural midden layer relating to human activity present throughout the site (White 2002:49). The structures noted by White were all circular to ovoid in shape (White 2002:56– 58). One such structure appears to have b een relatively complete, consisting of six

PAGE 56

44 Figure 3-2 Plan Map: Features at 161 Marine Street Site from White (2002) posthole/postmold features (Features 29/ 30, 46, 63a, 76, 77, and 92) forming an outer wall, and a single center s upport post (Feature 50) (White 2002:56). Other features found within the site (Fea tures 112, 110, 115, and two unnumbered f eatures) appear to represent the remains of two more stru ctures (White 2002:58), each one also circular in shape (see figure 3.2). Present near these structures was a well feature (see figures 3.2 and 3.3). As noted by White, this well is atypical of wells in Spanish St. Augustine. Rather than employing a wood-lined shaft from which water was draw n, the well found at 161 Marine Street had a saucer-shaped depression surrounding a barrel within which was a footpath leading to

PAGE 57

45 the water source (White 2002:54). Furthermore, the well appeared to have been covered by a structure which also was unique, as ot her wells found in Spanish St. Augustine are typically uncovered and open (White 2002:55; Carl Halbirt, C ity of St. Augustine archaeologist, personal communication 2005). Aeolian deposits and animal remains within the well suggest that the well – and po ssibly the entire community of La Punta – was abandoned for a time (White 2002:54). The two trenches identified during excavations appear to intersect at least one of the structures identified by White (White 2002; figure 3.2). This trench, which had filled in with sediment, appears to have been in truded into by this structure (White 2002:67). This, like the deposits presen t in the well feature, sugge sts the possibility of the abandonment of La Punta for a time dur ing the course of its existence. Artifacts recovered from the 161 Marine Street site cons ist overwhelmingly of fired clay ceramics and cookware, which comprised 90.48% of the total co llection of artifacts recovered during excavations (White 2002:71) Of this total, 69.71% were Native American in origin, including San Marcos ware, Mission Red Filmed, and St. Johns ceramics series, as well as unidentified a boriginal ceramics (White 2002:74). Also present within this total we re Hispanic and some non-Hispanic European ceramics, as well as glassware and metal cooki ng vessel fragments (White 2002:71). The form of the structures found at the si te strongly suggests that they were Native American in origin. Native American stru ctures in Spanish Florida were typically circular or oval in shape, consisting of posts set into the ground and e ither bent to form a curving roof or surmounted with a conical roof (Manucy 1997:15-19) The presence of daub processing pits at the site tends to strengthen this interp retation of these features.

PAGE 58

46 Figure 3-3 Profile of Well Feature, 161 Marine Street – from White (2002) Wattle-and-daub construction consists of a technique whereby branches or vines are woven between posts set into the ground (wattl es), which are then coated with a mixture of clay and plant fiber, us ually palm leaf (daub) (Manuc y 1997:144). While Manucy was describing Timucuan structures, the archaeo logical evidence suggests the Yamassee used similar structures (White 2002:115-116; citing Southerlin, et. al. 2001) The presence of circular structures with daub processing pits adjacent thereto is thus strongly indicative of Native American occupation of this site, an inference which is reinforced by the presence of Native American ceramic series as th e largest ceramic type found at 161 Marine Street.

PAGE 59

47 Appendices A and B contain the artifact c ounts and weights for each provenience within the 161 Marine Street site. The followi ng table provides the to tal counts, weights, and relative percentages of each for the location as a whole. Table 3-1 Overall Totals for 161 Marine Street Category Artifact Count % of Total Count for Location Artifact Weight % of Total Weight for Location 1.Majolicas 105 1% 222.1g <1% 2.Util. Wares 185 2% 1,494.1g 2% 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 579 6% 1,219.4g 2% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 4,504 44% 32,240.9g 54% 5.Kitchen Items, nonceramic (+bone weight) 1,498 15% 2,679.3g(5,211,7g) 9% 6.Architecture, nonmasonry 845 8% 8,893.4g 15% 7.Military Items 21 <1% 85.4g <1% 8.Clothing/Sewing 21 <1% 67.4g <1% 9.Personal Items 148 2% 162.5g <1% 10.Craft/Product 48 <1% 558.6g 1% 11.UID Metal 1,753 17% 2,718.8g 5% 12.Masonry 198 2% 2,781g 5% 13.Domestic Furn 6 <1% 12.4g <1% 15.Toys/Games/Leisure 1 <1% 4.8g <1% 16.Tack/Harness 2 <1% 13.4g <1% 17.Religious 1 <1% 0.6g <1% 18.Misc. Weighed 191 2% 4,416.6g 7% 20.20th Century 33 <1% 130g <1% TOTALS: 10,139 100% 60,233.1g (60.23kg) 100% Location 2: 159 Marine Street The 159 Marine Street site is immediatel y to the north of the 161 Marine Street site. This location was excavat ed under the city ordinance prior to the development of condominiums on the property (Halbirt, in prep aration). During the excavation of this location, six stripping areas were cleared and excavation units placed within four of them (see figure 3.4). These strippi ng areas were placed within those areas of the highest and

PAGE 60

48 most diverse artifact assemb lage, based on the results of the posthole survey of the property. Stripping Area 1: Three excavation units were dug in stripping area 1. Test Unit 1 was found to contain twelve features. Featur e 2, consisting of a saucer-shaped depression with embedded charcoal, appeared to be a h earth (see figure 3.5). Near this feature were six other features appearing to be postholes /postmolds, five of which (Features 4, 7, 10, 11, and12) may have represented a structure ad jacent to Feature 2. The other features Figure 3-4 Plan Map: Excavation Un its and Features, 159 Marine Street

PAGE 61

49 Figure 3-5 Feature Map: Test Unit 1, Stripping Area 1, 159 Marine Street present in this unit were all pits (Features 3, 5, 6, 8, and 9). Feature 3 consisted of a circular pit with a flat base filled entirely with oyster shell and some fragments of aboriginal pottery. The other features we re simply depressions with brown cultural midden soil extending into the culturally sterile layer. Test Unit 2 was found to contain ten featur es (see Figure 3.6). Only one (Feature 14) appears to have been a posthole. Two po ssible hearth or firep it features (Features 17 and 20) were found in this unit, as well as an isolated iron ring of unknown function (Feature 18). The remaining features within this unit all appear to be related to food preparation or discard: two of the features were found to be oys ter shell pits similar to the pit found in Test Unit 1 (Features 15 and 19), while the other features appear to be

PAGE 62

50 depressions or deliberately constructed pits used either for storage or for discard (Features 13, 16, 20, 21, and 22). Test Unit 3 was found to cont ain six features. One (Fea ture 23) was a postmold surrounding an associated posthole. All of the remaining features with in this unit appear to be pits of unknown functions, although one (F eature 32) contained clay similar to that used for daub processing and may have been used for that purpose. Artifacts recovered from th ese units consisted principally of Native American ceramics including San Marcos ware frag ments and Mission Red Filmed, Spanish ceramics including Puebla Polychrome and unide ntified majolica, and daub and lead shot fragments. Stripping Area 2: Five excavation units were dug in stripping area 2. Test Unit 1 was found to contain five featur es. Two of the features a ppeared to be trenches of uncertain function (Feature 76, 74b). Both of th ese features were found to have postholes associated with the trench feature. In F eature 76, the posthole features were noted as being spaced along the deepest part of the tr ench feature; in F eature 74b, the trench feature contained a posthole de pression (Feature 74a) and a po ssible animal burrow. The other two features found in th is unit were a posthole believed to date to the nineteenth century (Feature 79) and an ar ea of mottled soil of indeterm inate nature (Feature 77). Test Unit 2 was found to contain four featur es. Two of these features (Feature 71a and 71b) appear to have served as storage or processing pits of so me type; artifacts found in these features included English slipware dating to the early eighteenth century, delftware, and thirty sherds of Native Ameri can ceramics, as well as bone and charcoal.

PAGE 63

51 Adjacent to these pit features were two postholes (Features 71d and 72). Feature 72 also contained English slipware and Native American ceramic sherds present. Test Unit 3 contained three features: an appa rent floor surface (Feature 77), with an iron spike protruding from the southern wall; an irregular pit which appears to have been a larger posthole 43 cm in diameter at its maximum width and associated with the floor surface (Feature 77a); and a tras h pit associated with a wall trench and postholes (Feature 76). This test unit was also found to contain substantial quantities of material dating to the early eighteenth century, including mo re than 200 sherds of Native American ceramics, a variety of European ceramics in cluding English slipware, delftware, Puebla Blue on White majolica, San Agustn Blue on White, gun flints, pipe fragments, and metal fragments. The presence of the floor su rface suggests the presen ce of a structure in this area. Test Units 4 and 5 contained no visible f eatures. However, both units yielded a substantial amount of cultural material, including more than 150 Native American ceramic fragments, Mexican Red and El Morro sherds, pipe fragments, iron fragments, English slipware, and a shell disc in excess of 1 kg. in weight. Beyond those artifacts, all of the units located in Stri pping Area 2 were found to cont ain both Native American and European ceramics dating to the early eight eenth century, as well as scattered iron and brass fragments and charcoal. Stripping Area 3: Four excavation units were dug in stripping area 3. Test Unit 1 was found to contain only one definite featur e, Feature 64, a posthole. However, three depressions were noted n ear Feature 64 which suggest human activity. Artifacts recovered from Test Unit 1 included more than 100 fragments of Native American

PAGE 64

52 Figure 3-6 Feature Map: Test Unit 2, Stripping Area 1, 159 Marine Street pottery (San Marcos ware fragments and Mi ssion Red Filmed) and “abundant charcoal.” Test Unit 2 had three definite features pres ent. Feature 45 was a pit in excess of 80 cm in diameter which contained gray, ashy sand with some charcoal, as well as San Marcos ware fragments and iron fragments. Feature 48 was a shallow, irregular pit varying between 33 and 42 cm in diameter and 11 cm in depth, of unknown function. Feature 49, like Feature 48, wa s a pit of unknown function and approximately the same size (38 x 36 cm diameter, 13 cm depth). In addition, several de pressions apparently resulting from human activity were presen t within Test Unit 2. Native American ceramics in excess of 100 small sherds were found in this unit, as well as bottle glass, San

PAGE 65

53 Agustn Blue on White majolica, English slip ware, faience, and a fragment of Mission Red Filmed pottery. Test Unit 3 contained five f eatures. Four (Features 40, 41, 42, and 44) were pits of undetermined function. Feature 40 containe d a gaming piece made from olive jar and one fragment of San Luis Polychrome, as well as in excess of 75 fragments of Native American sherds. The other features containe d only Native American pottery fragments. The fifth feature, Feature 43, was a post hole which contained a San Marcos ware fragment and three discs made from Native American pottery, as well as green bottle glass and charcoal. Test Unit 4 had no confirmed features presen t. However, depressions in the sterile soil surface suggested human activity. Two disc s made from aboriginal pottery, charcoal, and burned bone and shell were the onl y artifacts found with in this unit. Stripping Areas 4 and 5: These areas were not excavated. Stripping Area 6: Nine excavation units were dug in this stripping area. Test Unit 1 had no features clearly present; more than 40 sherds of San Marcos ware and Mission Red Filmed pottery were rec overed, as well as bone, nail an d other iron fragments, and more than 100 pieces of charcoal. The area appeared to be a midden deposit. Test Unit 2 had one feature present: Featur e 81, which consisted of a ditch with two layers. The uppermost layer of this feat ure was between 140 – 170 cm in width and extended to a depth of 47-49 cmbd; the lower section of the feature was between 50 – 65 cm in width and extended to a depth of 73-77 cmbd More than a thousand Native American sherds were recovered from this feature, including San Marcos ware, Mission Red Filmed, and a single piece of St. Johns pottery. Also recovered were European

PAGE 66

54 ceramics including Puebla Blue on White majolic a, pipe stem fragments, olive jar, and delftware. Other artifacts were animal bone including tu rtle and unspecified mammal fragments; iron fragments; gl ass fragments; and more than 100 fragments of charcoal. Test Unit 3 also had a single feature pres ent, Feature 84, a shallow trench running north and south and extending between 25 and 35 centimeters below datum in depth. Eight sherds of Native American pottery and five iron fragments were recovered from the feature itself, while more than 15 iron nail fragments and more than 20 additional San Marcos Ware sherds were recovered from the rest of the unit. Test Unit 4 contained features which appear to be associated with Feature 81: a series of irregular pits whic h correspond with the upper level of Feature 81. This feature contained a pipe bowl fragment, bone frag ments, Native Ameri can pottery of unknown type, and three iron fragments. More Native American sherds were found within the unit itself, including sand-tempered plain frag ments, San Marcos ware, and Mission Red Filmed fragments, as well as unidentified an imal bone fragments and pieces of iron nail. Test Unit 5 had three features The first two appear to be a trench (Feature 81b) extending east and west and between 45 and 77c mbd in depth. The fill of the same ditch (Feature 81a) appears to date from the ei ghteenth century. Feature 82 was a saucershaped pit immediately adjacent to Features 81a and b, which may have been the remains of a lateral trench associated with the other trench feature. Features 81a and b were found to contain more than 180 Native American ceramic sherds, all either San Marcos ware or Missi on Red Filmed; European ceramics present in these features included olive jar, El Morro sherds, and a pipe bo wl. A tabby fragment and a raw daub fragment were found within Feat ure 81 a. The nature of the ditch and fill

PAGE 67

55 suggests two episodes of use, since the upper de posits appear to be much wider than the lower deposits (Halbirt 1997). Test Unit 6 contained a singl e feature – Feature 83 – a trench 110 cm in width and extending between 23 and 45 cmbd in depth, orie nted north-south. This feature appeared to be both wider and shallower than the other trench features found at the site. Artifacts present in this feature included more than 50 Native American potsherds (San Marcos ware, Mission Red Filmed, and a single St. J ohns pottery fragment); olive jar fragments; more than 30 bones including turtle and unide ntified mammal fragments; and more than 50 charcoal fragments. This feature appeared to be associ ated with the other trench features present in Test Units 5, 8, and 9. Test Unit 7 contained two feat ures. The first, Feature 81, appeared to continue into this unit from Test Units 2, 5, and 8. In th is area, Feature 81 extended between 22 and 75 cmbd in depth, with a width comparable to that observed in the other excavation units. The other feature, Feature 85, was a posthole which appeared to ha ve a squared outline deepening and tapering to a point, extending between 30 and 71 cmbd in depth. Native American potsherds – all Mission Red Filmed – were found in both features, as well as iron and glass fragments. In the unit as a whole, more than 30 additional Native American sherds – all San Marcos ware – were recovered, as well as glazed Spanish olive jar and porcelain which date to the early eighteenth century. Test Unit 8 had four features. The first two, Features 81 a and b, were continuations of the same trench and fill feat ures observed in Test Unit 5. As observed in Test Unit 5, these features appeared to repr esent two episodes of use and re-use. The other two features observed in Test Unit 8 were Feature 86, a recta ngular pit 35 by 22 cm

PAGE 68

56 in length and width and extending between 26 and 37 cmbd in depth, and Feature 87, a rectangular posthole which ta pered to a shaped point and extending between 25 and 70 cmbd in depth. Features 81 a and b contained more than 30 Native American sherds, 2 pipe bowls, bird shot, and iron and glass fragments. The unit as a whole had more than 50 additional Native American sherds (San Marcos ware, Mission Red Filmed, and sandtempered plain pottery), a pipe stem, and more than 20 iron nail fragments, as well as in excess of 125 grams of shell. Test Unit 9 contained no visi ble features. However, more than 70 Native American sherds were found within the unit, including Mission Red Filmed, Sa n Marcos ware, and several unidentified fragments. Also recovered were a single olive jar fragment, in excess of 20 nail fragments, a chert flake, bottle glass fragments, and charcoal. The presence of postholes in close conjunc tion with some of the trench features found at the 159 Marine Street site suggests the possibility that the trenches may have been in some way associated with the structur es present in the area. However, trenches found at other sites associated with the La Punta mission comm unity appear to have other functions, as will be discussed. It is also pos sible that the trenches and posthole features present at the site, while bot h belonging to the mission community, may be evidence of two periods of use of the s ite by the mission community, util izing the land for differing functions each time (White 2002). Appendices A and B present the total ar tifact counts and weights for each excavated provenience within the 159 Marine Street site. The fo llowing table presents the total artifact counts, weights, and the rela tive percentages of each for the location as a whole.

PAGE 69

57 Table 3-2 Overall Totals for 159 Marine Street Category Artifact Count % of Total Count for Location Artifact Weight % of Total Weight for Location 1.Majolicas 32 1% 39.2g <1% 2.Util. Wares 92 2% 518.2g 1% 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 219 5% 811.9g 2% 4.Non-European ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 1,703 39% 14,140.3g 39% 5.Kitchen Items, nonceramic (+bone weight) 847 19% 5,338.8g(9,430.6g) 26% 6.Architecture, nonmasonry 782 18% 3,102.9g 9% 7.Military Items 12 <1% 97.8g <1% 8.Clothing/Sewing 6 <1% 6.9g <1% 9.Personal Items 53 1% 46.7g <1% 10.Craft/Product 6 <1% 43.4g <1% 11.UID Metal(+uncounted fr.) 459 10% 1,601.3g(2,387.4g) 7% 12.Masonry 62 1% 931.6g 3% 13.Domestic Furn. 3 <1% 6.1g <1% 14.Tools/Implements 1 <1% 1.1g <1% 15.Toys/Games/Leisure 1 <1% 21.8g <1% 16.Tack/Harness 2 <1% 675.6g 2% 18.Misc. Weighed 61 1% 2,460.6g 7% 20.20th Century 47 1% 64.3g <1% TOTALS: 4,388 100% 36,387.7g(36.39kg) 100% Location 3: 321 St. George Street The 321 St. George Street site is approxi mately 200 m northwest of the 159 and 161 Marine Street sites, on th e western side of the penins ula on which the study area is located, within 20 meters of Maria Sanchez Lake At this location, initial testing revealed only a scant presence of artifacts, and the area of work was limited in size; for these reasons, stripping areas were not utilized. Three test units were dug immediately ad jacent to each other, forming a larger continuous excavation area (see figure 3.7). Test Units 1 and 2 contained the two features: two parallel trenches (Features 1 and 2), 28 cm in width, and extending between

PAGE 70

58 60 and 84 cmbd (see figure 3.8). These tren ches were found to run roughly northnorthwest and south-southeast. Floors of the trenches varied between 80 and 84 cmbd, with what appeared to be re gularly spaced depressions present in Feature 1 – all 84 cmbd in depth (see figure 3.8), and between 2-4 cm deeper than the rest of the floor of the trenches. Between these two features was a raised area of sterile sands some 60 cm in width. The only artifacts found with in these trench features were Native American potsherds, all San Marcos ware pottery. With in the units themselves, nineteenth-century artifacts were found from the su rface of the ground to a dept h of 45 cmbd. Beginning at 45 cmbd, San Marcos ware pottery began to be found intermixed with nineteenth-century artifacts to 57 cmbd; below 57 cmbd, only San Marcos ware ceramic was found, suggesting that the trench featur es located at this site were most likely associated solely with Native American activity. No European ce ramics or metal artifa cts of any sort were found at this level. However, the brown cu ltural midden soil previ ously noted as being associated with human activity in the area wa s present throughout the lowest layer to the sterile layer beneath. Appendices A and B contain the artifact c ounts and weights for each provenience within the 321 Marine Street location. The following table represents the artifact counts, weights, and the relative percentages of each within the total count s and weights for the location as a whole.

PAGE 71

59 Figure 3-7 Plan Map: Te st Units and Site Featur es, 321 St. George Street

PAGE 72

60 Figure 3-8 Plan Map: Test Units 1 and 2, 321 St. George Street Table 3-3 Overall Totals for 321 St. George Street Category Artifact Count % of Total Count for Location Artifact Weight % of Total Weight for Location 1.Majolicas 2 <1% 1.2g <1% 2.Util. Wares 27 2% 315.3g 6% 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 182 15% 636.4g 12% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 160 13% 464.2g 8% 5.Kitchen Items, non-ceramic (+bone weight) 279 23% 1,131.1g(2,112,8g) 38%

PAGE 73

61 Table 3-3 Continued Category Artifact Count % of Total Count for Location Artifact Weight % of Total Weight for Location 6.Architecture, non-masonry 54 4% 182.8g 3% 7.Military Items 4 <1% 36.7g 1% 8.Clothing/Sewing 7 1% 5.4g <1% 9.Personal Items 6 <1% 17.3g <1% 10.Craft/Product 1 <1% 31.4g 1% 11.UID Metal 451 37% 668.8g 12% 12.Masonry 12 1% 707.4g 13% 18.Misc. Weighed 21 2% 302g 5% 20.20th Century 21 2% 42g 1% TOTALS: 1,227 100% 5,523.7g 100% Location 4: 8 Hedrick Street The 8 Hedrick Street site lies due west of the boundary between the 159 and 161 Marine Street sites, and is di rectly adjacent to Maria Sanchez Lake, with the western side of the property terminating in the marsh itself. During initial post hole testing at this site, prior to construction of a ne w building on the property, th irty postholes were dug on a regular grid. Since this location was a si ngle family residence, and limited in size, stripping areas were not util ized. Nine test units we re dug during the course of excavations (see figure 3.9). Test Unit 1 contained no feat ures. Artifacts present in Test Unit 1 included more than 100 Native American potsherds, predomin antly San Marcos ware (88 sherds), as well as Mission Red Filmed, sand-tempered plain, and unidentified Native American sherds. Also recovered was an unidentified piece of Spanish majolica, bone fragments, shell, and two fired daub fragments. Test Unit 2 had five features present (see Figure 3.10). Features 1 and 4 were bowl shaped depressions, each filled with a concen tration of whole, uncrushed oyster shell (see

PAGE 74

62 figure 3.9). Feature 3 appeared to be a trench running r oughly west-northwest and eastsoutheast, adjacent to Feature 1. This feat ure was at its shallowest (70 cmbd) nearest Feature 1, and deepened to 77 cmbd nearest the eastern wall of the test unit. The other two features found within this unit were a 14 by 11 cm piece of unfired daub (Feature 2), and what appeared to be either a post hole or, possibly, the beginni ng of a second trench in the southeast wall of the unit (Feature 5). The presence of a large root made precise identification of this feature impossible, but the presence of unfired daub suggests the possibility of a structure nearby. The only artifacts within Features 1, 3, and 4 were Native American potsherds including San Marc os ware, sand-tempered plain sherds, and unidentified pieces. In Test Un it 2 as a whole, more than 100 more fragments of Native American sherds were found, principally San Marcos ware. Also found within this unit were European ceramics including glazed coarse earthenware, slipware, San Luis Polychrome, San Luis Blue on White, and co arse molded earthenware; lead shot; iron fragments; and a brass fragment appeari ng to be a personal strap from a belt. Test Unit 3 contained two features (see Figure 3.11). Feature 6 was a trench running west-southwest and eastsoutheast; this feature alig ned with Feature 3 found in Test Unit 2, appearing to narrow as it ran from west to east within the unit. Feature 7 was a bowl-shaped concentration of unfired daub found in the northeast quarter of Test Unit 3, suggesting that this feature was a daubprocessing pit. Two pieces of European ceramic were found in Feature 6, San Luis Bl ue on White and a fragment of unidentified majolica; 32 Native American potsherds were al so found in this feature. Present in Test Unit 3 as a whole were historic glass frag ments including a wine bottle fragment; a

PAGE 75

63 European kaolin pipe fragment; and more than 60 more Native American sherds, including San Marcos ware and Mission Red Filmed. Figure 3-9 Site Map, Post Holes and Test Units, 8 Hedrick Street

PAGE 76

64 Figure 3-10 Plan Map and Profile Test Unit 2, 8 Hedrick Street Figure 3-11 Plan Map and Profile Test Unit 3, 8 Hedrick Street

PAGE 77

65 Test Unit 4 contained a singl e feature, Feature 8, a bow l-shaped concentration of whole oyster shell extremely similar to Featur es 1 and 4 present in Test Unit 2. This feature appeared to be placed in an east-wes t alignment with Featur e 1. More than 130 Native American sherds were found in this unit, with San Marc os ware (71 pieces) predominating. A large number (67 pieces) of the Native American ceramics found in this unit were not clearly identifiable due to the small size. Also found were two burned daub fragments, two fragments of European ceramic (olive jar and coarse earthenware), lead shot, and iron and brass fragments. Test Unit 5 contained no features whic h were assigned numbers; however, three areas of light gray soil were found in the eastern wall of the unit, with no corresponding stains in the floor of the unit. These soil stains appeared to be the very beginning of three parallel trenches similar to those found at the 321 St. George Street si te. However, due to the presence of trees which could not be re moved, an adjacent unit to Test Unit 5 could not be opened. Native American ceramics in cluding San Marcos ware and Mission Red Filmed fragments, as well as 30 unidentifiabl e Native American sherds (size too small for identification), were found in Test Unit 5. Also present were European ceramics (unidentified majolica, coarse earthenware), iron fragments, and charcoal fragments. Test Unit 6 had a single f eature present, Feature 9, an oblong dumbbell-shaped trench similar to and parallel to Feature 6 found in Test Unit 3. This trench became shallower as it extended from west to east wi thin the unit – 82 cmbd at the western wall of the unit and 74 cmbd at the eastern wall. On ly a single bone fragment, appearing to be a mammal, was found within Feature 9; howev er, Test Unit 6 contained Native American ceramics (San Marcos ware, Mission Red Filmed), fired daub fragments, a Native

PAGE 78

66 American red-paste elbow pipe, and a whiteware fragment appearing to date to the mideighteenth century. Test Unit 7 had four observable features. Features 11, 12, and 13 each appeared to be a shallow (3-5 cm in total depth) posthole, all of which were placed in an arc, while Feature 10 appeared to be a shallow concentrat ion of whole oyster shel l. Unlike the other features containing whole shell at this site, Feature 10 was oblong and comparatively shallow. Taken as a whole, these features appear to represent a Native American structure of some type, with an associated sh ell scatter. Feature 10 contained a sherd of Puebla Polychrome majolica, as well as Na tive American ceramics (San Marcos ware, Mission Red Filmed, and unidentified series), and burned daub fragments. Artifacts found within the unit as a w hole included more than 100 additional Native American sherds of the same types as in Feature 10, iron fragments, two pieces of slag, and a burned daub fragment. Test Unit 8 contained a single feature, Feature 14, a trench which appeared to be a continuation of Features 3 and 6, running in th e same direction. This feature deepened as it ran east through the unit, reaching 95 cmbd in the western end of the feature and deepening to 102 cmbd at the eastern end. Feature 14 contained no artifacts, but Test Unit 8 was found to contain more than 200 Native American ceramic fragments, including the ubiquitous San Marcos ware and Mission Red Filmed. However, some 80 of the Native American sherds recovered from this unit belonged to no clearly identifiable ceramic tradition. In addition to the Native American ceramics found in this unit, European ceramics including two pipe stem fragments, unide ntified majolica and

PAGE 79

67 earthenware. There also were iron and slag fr agments, historic gla ss fragments, and two pieces of burned daub. Test Unit 9 contained three features. Two of these, Features 15 and 17, were trenches running east and west and appearing to be parallel to the ot her trench features observed throughout this site. The third feature, Featur e 16, was a posthole which was driven through Feature 17 and extended belo w the surface of the water table. Feature 16 contained a part of the orig inal wooden post which was pr eserved by the water table; beneath the post was found a Civil-War era bo ttle base, suggesting the feature post-dates the La Punta mission. Feature 17 containe d Native American ceramics including San Marcos ware and Mission Red Filmed sherds. Test Unit 9 as a whole contained more of the same ceramic series, as well as uniden tified Native American sherds (small size prevented identification). Two European cer amic fragments, one English slipware and one unidentified, were also found in this unit, together with iron fragments, a piece of burned daub, and historic glass fragments. The trench features found at this site, as noted, appear to vary significantly in depth; they also appear to be perpendicular to the trench features which were found at 321 St. George Street. The presence of simila r ceramic series and comparable depths of the upper part of the trenches at each site sugg ests that these featur es at both sites are contemporaneous. The artifact counts and weights for each provenience within the 8 Hedrick Street site are included in Appendices A and B. The following table represents the artifact counts, weights, and the relativ e percentages of each within the total counts and weights for the location as a whole.

PAGE 80

68 Table 3-4 Overall Totals for 8 Hedrick Street Category Artifact Count % of Total Count for Location Artifact Weight % of Total Weight for Location 1.Majolicas 8 <1% 39.7g 1% 2.Util. Wares 3 <1% 14.1g <1% 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 11 1% 120.9g 3% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 1,762 78% 2,192.6g 55% 5.Kitchen Items, non-ceramic (+bone weight) 18 1% 99.7g(108.4g) 3% 6.Architecture, non-masonry 12 1% 19.8g <1% 7.Military Items 7 <1% 19.1g <1% 8.Clothing/Sewing 4 <1% 7.8g <1% 9.Personal Items 7 <1% 23.9g 1% 11.UID Metal 81 3% 408.2g 10% 12.Masonry 22 1% 339.4g 9% 18.Misc. Weighed 48 2% 42.4g 1% 20.20th Century 269 12% 628.9g 16% TOTALS: 2,252 100% 3,965.2g 100% Location 5: 11 Tremerton Street As previously noted, the 11 Tremerton lo cation was excavated using two separate methodologies. The property was slated fo r the development of a small subdivision, Bonita Bay, within the city limits, triggeri ng the need for archaeo logical investigation under the ordinance. No initial posthole surv ey was done at this location due to extensive disturbance of the soil, which had occurred during the demolition of a doctorÂ’s office building and parking lot which had previously existed on the property (Carl Halbirt, City of St. Augustine archaeologist, personal communication 2005). Instead, backhoe trenches extending east and west were dug on the property to determine if the property contained significant archaeologi cal features. However, duri ng the course of excavation, human remains were found in the northern third of the site (see figur e 3.12). Pursuant to

PAGE 81

69 Florida Statute 872 governing unmarked buria ls, the State Archaeologist assumed jurisdiction of the site. Sin ce construction was scheduled to begin at the site, excavations were focused on the area found to contai n the remains. Monitoring by the State ArchaeologistÂ’s office continued using a diffe rent excavation strategy aimed at delimiting the southern limits of the burial area (see figure 3.13). Here, the two portions of the site are di scussed separately. One portion, to the south, is an alignment of postholes apparently associated with structures similar to those found at 161 and 159 Marine Streets to the s outh. The second is the burials and the postholes, excavated initially by the City Archaeologist and monitored under the jurisdiction of the State Arch aeologist after the City recused itself from the project.

PAGE 82

70 Figure 3-12 Plan Map: Featur es at 11 Tremerton Street

PAGE 83

Figure 3-13 Plan Map: Featur es, Southern Limits of Buri al Area, 11 Tremerton Street The initial excavation of the site involved the digging of two east-west trenches to produce a stratigraphic profile of the site; la ter, a third, northernmost trench was added (see figure 3.12). The southern alignment of postholes was clustered around the southern edge of the middle trench. This area wa s badly disturbed by the construction and subsequent demolition of a twentieth-century parking lot that had been built atop it, but certain features were visible in the eighteenth century cultural strata. One of the most significant was an arc of postholes in Test Units 21, 22, and 25 (see figure 3.12). This arc appeared to represent the rema ins of a structure of some so rt, although the nature of the structure is not certain. Adjacen t to this cluster of features in Test Unit 22, was found a sheet of whole oyster shell forming an arc a ssociated with the arc of postholes. This feature appeared to represent a sheet midden associated with a structure. Other postholes were found in Test Units 25 and 29. These featur es did not appear to be associated with the postholes found in units 21 and 22, and their function was uncertain, though it is possible they represent a larger wall standing near a smaller st ructure. Artifacts found in

PAGE 84

72 this area included Native American sherds (San Marcos ware, Mission Red Filmed) European ceramics including British cream ware and pearlware, iron fragments, and modern construction rubble. The area containing the pattern of buria ls and postholes was found around the northernmost profile trench dug at the site (see figure 3.12). Th e burials were not discovered during initial trench ing because the trenches we re dug in the absence of a monitor. Instead, human bone fragments were found in the spoil pile at the edges of the profile trench. The spoil was screened, begi nning at the westernmost edge of the spoil pile and continuing eastward unt il no further human remains were found. Thereafter, the profile trench walls were cleared, exposing burial pits (graves). Additional shovel tests were performed between Trench #2 and Trench #3 and north of Trench #3 to delimit the burial area. Excavation units were dug su rrounding the northernmost profile trench to further determine the pattern and limit of the burials and structures present at the site. The pattern of features w ithin this northernmost concentration suggests the presence of multiple structures, representi ng two different periods of occupation (see figure 3.12). The earlier occupa tion appears to be represente d by a structure rectangular in shape, approximately 20 m in length a nd 10 m in width, oriented roughly on an eastwest axis and perpendicular to the adjacent north-south Matanzas River. The south end of the structure is defined by a row of post holes surrounded by a concentration of crushed shell in Test Units 11 and 12 (see figure 3.12). The west side is defined by a row of postholes without such a she ll concentration, whil e the north end has a second series of postholes, also surrounded by crushed shell. The east side, like th e west, is defined by another row of posts. Standard shovel te sts were performed in the area between the

PAGE 85

73 burial and posthole features in the northern area and the features found in the southern area. These tests indicated that no burials we re present south of th e structureÂ’s southern wall, indicating the southern limits of the burial area did not extend outside the structure (Carl Halbirt, City of St. Augustine ar chaeologist, personal communication 2005). All but one of the burials were placed with in the rectangular st ructure, and followed the east-west orientation of the axis of the st ructure. The burials in this area were not discrete internments. Rather, they appear to represent overlappi ng single burials with newer graves intersecting and disturbing ear lier burials (see figur e 3.14). The crania were oriented towards the east of the structur e with the feet to the west. The only unit Figure 3-14 Bone Placement, Burial Unit, Structural Feature, 11 Tremerton Street which was fully excavated contained the remain s of a minimum of f our individuals, with the possibility of others being present (Fal setti 2004). Though a determination of sex could not be made, one of the incisors was found to be shovel-shaped, suggesting Native American ancestry (Falsetti 2004). The size of the intact fragments of long bone found

PAGE 86

74 suggested the presence of matu re individuals. While no grave goods were found in this unit, one of the shovel test units, placed with in the limits of the st ructure, found a burial with a higa The higa is an amulet used both during th e Spanish colonial period and in modern Latin America as a magical prot ection against evil for children (Deagan 2001:95). This suggests that at least some of the burials present within this structure may represent children. The burials found within the excavated unit and the walls of the trench appeared to be extended and laid on the bac k, with the hands crossed on the chest (see figure 3.14). The sole burial at this site which did not follow this east-west pattern was found just outside the structure to th e north and east of the other buri al units. This burial was of a single mature adult. Unlike the other buria ls, the body was oriented in a northeast to southwest pattern, with the h ead oriented northeast, and th e bones of the skeleton were intact and had not been disturbed by later burials (see figure 3.15). The body was laid on its back, with the hands crossed over the pe lvic region. This burial was at the same stratigraphic level wherein the other individuals were found (41-50 cmbd), suggesting the interment is contemporaneous with the burials within the structure. There were grave goods present with this burial: a greenstone celt placed between the left arm and the torso, and a polished necklace of shell bead s placed around the neck. No evidence of European goods was found. This structure and associated burials were found to have what appears to be a

PAGE 87

75 Figure 3-15 North-South Discrete Burial, 11 Tremerton Street separate, later occupation of th e site atop them. Within the burial area and extending to the east was found a trench (see figure 3.12). The trench itself appeared to precede the cemetery; the uppermost deposits within the tr ench contained British artifacts believed to date from the period of the British occupa tion of St. Augustine ( 1763-1784). The artifacts included English creamware, an intact ba yonet of the type typically mounted on a musket, British-era regimental buttons, a nd iron barrel hoops. To the west, overlaying and partly destroying the western wall of th e rectangular structur e, was a portion of a second wall which was not framed with posts Rather, this second wall appears to represent the remains of a so lid log or shaped, wooden beam set horizontally into the ground and supporting a second layer of wood a bove it (see figure 3.12). This feature,

PAGE 88

76 when excavated, was found to contain the re mains of more British-era creamware and another British regimental button. Since the original wall was wooden and the only artifacts found inside the featur e dated to the British period, application of the principle of terminus post quiem suggests the feature dates to no earlier than the British period. In summary, the 11 Tremerton site appear s to represent the remains both of two distinct areas of contemporaneous occupati on, and two separate eras of occupation. The southern concentration of feat ures appears to represent an occupation area similar to that found at the 159 and 161 Marine Street sites, which are approximately 75 m south of the 11 Tremerton cluster of features. The norther n structure with associated burials at 11 Tremerton is contemporaneous with the southe rn features. A later occupation dating from the British period overlays this northern structure. The artifact counts and weights for each provenience within the burial area at 11 Tremerton are included in Appendices A and B. The following table includes the total artifact counts, weights, and the total percen tages of each within the counts and weights for the burial area of the 11 Tremerton Street location. The burial area is represented by Stripping Area 3, Test Unit 9, and Features 100, 102, 105, 106, and 107 within this area. Table 3-5 Overall Totals, 11 Tremerton Street (Burial Area) Category Artifact Count % of Total Count Per Location Artifact Weight % of Total Weight Per Location 2.Util. wares 1 <1% 10.3g 1% 4.NonEuropean Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 6 4% 36.8g 4% 5.Kitchen Items, nonceramic (+bone weight) 5 3% 415g(599.4g) 71%

PAGE 89

77 Table 3-5 Continued Category Artifact Count % of Total Count Per Location Artifact Weight % of Total Weight Per Location 6.Architecture, non-masonry 4 2% 26.3g 3% 11.UID Metal 12 7% 19.5g 2% 12.Masonry 2 1% 5.5g 1% 17.Religious 119 70% 76.1g 9% 18.Misc. Weighed 22 13% 74.6g 9% TOTALS 171 100% 848.5g 100% Having presented the archaeological evid ence recovered from the study area, the historic and archaeological evidence is examined in order to answer the questions: 1) Are the sites within the area of study the remains of the mission community of La Punta; and 2) if so, what does the historic and archaeolo gical record of La Punta reveal about the lifeways of the people of an eighteenth -century refugee mission community?

PAGE 90

78 CHAPTER 4 AN EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY MISSON COMMUNITY AND ITS LIFEWAYS To begin to understand the lifeways of the eighteenth-century refugee mission community of La Punta, it is necessary to first confirm that the archaeological sites discussed above in Chapter 3 are in fact the remains of La Punta. Thereafter, it will be possible to use the archaeological and hi storic records of the La Punta mission community to begin to provide a picture of th e lifeways of an eight eenth-century Spanish refugee mission. Finally, that information will be integrated with theory to model additional research on the ref ugee missions of St. Augustine, especially their differences from the seventeenth century missions of Apalachee, Guale, Timucua and elsewhere. Are the Archaeological Sites In the St udy Area the Remains of La Punta? The five sites discussed in the preceding ch apter of this thesis must be shown with a relatively high degree of certainty to be associated with the La Punta mission community. Taking into consideration all of the archaeological and historic evidence, it is certain the sites are in f act, associated with the mission community of La Punta. The bases for such an assertion are as follows: 1) the correlation between the historic and archaeological evidence as to the location of La Punta; 2) the presen ce of ceramic types, particularly red-filmed wares which are charac teristic of the Yamass ee, associated with the Native American groups who were known to be present at La Punta; 3) the form of the structures found at the sites corresponds w ith the form of structures known to be present at other Spanish mission communities in La Florida; and 4) the presence of

PAGE 91

79 burials within a structure, oriented east and west and displaying Native American physical characteristics, identifying that building as a mission church. The Correlation Between the Historic and Archaeological Evidence of La Punta’s Location The historical evidence for the La Punt a mission community’s location comes from the colonial era maps of the ci ty outlined in the second chapte r of this thesis. The most detailed such map, the Arredondo map (Arredondo 1737), shows Nuestra Senora de La Punta as: 1) south of the co lonial city, between Maria Sa nchez Creek and the Matanzas River, on the peninsula’s tip; and 2) havi ng a mission church, surrounded by structures appearing to be houses, with agricultural fi elds surrounding the chur ch and structures. All of the archaeological sites discussed in this thesis’ third chapter are south of the colonial city, between Maria Sanchez Creek and the Matanzas River, on the peninsula’s tip. The sites, taken as a w hole, show the presence of a mission church, south of which are the remains of what appear to be house a nd other features associated with the mission village. Surrounding the village are features which appear to be associated with agricultural activities. The correspondence be tween the historically recorded La Punta mission and the features present at th e sites in the study area is exact. Furthermore, the historic record of the La Punta mission commun ity indicates that La Punta was founded by 1730 or somewhat ear lier, and that the community existed through 1752, being permanently abandoned prior to 1759. The absence of records between 1738 and 1752, noted in th e second chapter of this th esis, suggests that Nuestra Senora de La Punta may have been abandoned for a time during the War of Jenkins’ Ear (1740-1742) and the ensuing Spanish and English hostilities around St. Augustine (Waterbury 1983). The refugee mission villages “moved alternately nearer to and then

PAGE 92

80 farther from St. Augustine in re sponse to raids or threats of raids” (Parker 1999:47); it is definitely known that, from 1740 to 1752, the Af rican-American settlement of Fort Mose north of St. Augustine was abandoned, with its former inhabitants living within St. Augustine during that time (Deagan a nd McMahon1995:23). This suggests the possibility that the inhabitants of La Punt a may have done the same during that period. The archaeological record of the sites in the study area, examined in the third chapter above, indicates that the initial Europ ean ceramics at all the sites date principally to the early-to-mid eighteenth century. The principal exception to this record is at the 11 Tremerton site, where features with artifacts dating to the late ei ghteenth century were found. Late eighteenth century British maps of St. Augustine record the presence of a complex of structures identified as either a fort or a hospital in the same area where the Spanish mission church was documented (P urcell 1777; Anonymous 1782). Thus, the archaeological evidence from 11 Tremerton is consistent with an early-to-mid eighteenth century Spanish mission occupation of the site atop which is a later eighteenth century British occupation. This is exactly what one would expect from the historic records. Finally, the historic eviden ce as presented in the Cast ello map (Castello 1763), indicates “the remains of La Punta” were sti ll visible at the time of Spanish withdrawal from Florida in 1763. No other mission commun ity was identified in that area. The archaeological evidence at these sites suggests no permanent occupation of the area prior to the eighteenth century (Halbirt, in prepar ation). In addition the Spanish and Native American artifacts in the lowest midden strata at the sites date to that era. Thus, both the archaeological and historic evidence indicate th e sites studied here ar e the remains of the

PAGE 93

81 eighteenth century La Punta mission communit y, with later British and Second Spanish period occupations on top of a portion of the community. The Presence of Ceramic Series Associated With Native American Groups Present at La Punta As noted in the second chapter of this th esis, the principal Native American ethnic group present at the La Punta mission appears to have been Yamassee refugees from the Carolinas. The Yamassee were “a historic pe riod aggregation of diverse interior and coastal peoples” (Worth 1995:20; 2004:1) from the area that is today the coastal Georgia and South Carolina border. The Yamassee as a people would thus most likely have included the remnants of northern coasta l Guale (Saunders 2000:40-43), Altamaha, Ocute, Ichisi, and other De-Soto era ch iefdoms (Smith 1968:45-65; Worth 2004:2) and possibly other peoples from the interior. Pottery derived from the Irene/Altamaha traditions, known as San Marcos ware (Saunders 2000:49) is representa tive of coastal populations in contact with the Spanish in St. Augustine, and is a reliabl e indicator of those postcontact populations (Saunders 2000:49). Forms of pottery called “Mission Re d Filmed” appear throughout the area of the Spanish missions in the lower Southeast. Variants differ in form, shape, and color based on the Native American group which made them (Dr. Chester De Pratter, personal communication, 2004). The Yamassee variant of Mission Red Filmed ceramics typically have a deep red interior slip and an exte rior smoothed, with a r ounded lip (De Pratter, personal communication, 2004). The overwhelmingly predominant ceramics f ound at the five sites considered in this thesis were San Marcos ware potte ry, and the Yamassee variant of Mission Red Filmed pottery. This is strongly consis tent with the typical Yamassee ceramic

PAGE 94

82 assemblage, which includes grit-tempered ceramics and red filmed wares (White 2002:112). Thus, from the archaeological evid ence, the native people who lived at these sites were Native Americans, including Yamassee. This is consistent with the historic evidence of the refugee mission settlements generally and with what we know of the people of La Punta in particular, based on th e historical documents noted in the second chapter of this thesis. Correspondence Between the Archaeological Features Present at the Sites and Structures Known from Spa nish Mission Communities Archaeological and historic evidence from known mission sites dating to the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries indicates that the mission communities, while built in differing environments, tended to follow fairly co nsistent patterns in terms of the features and structural remains which may be expected to be present archaeologically at mission sites. Broadly speaking, European buildings present at a mission should include a church and possibly two or more ot her structures, including a cocina (kitchen) and convento (friary). Native American structures present at a missi on include a village area with houses, plazas, council houses, and other structur es and activity areas. These features are discussed further below. The two types of Spanish missions existing in La Florida were the doctrina and the visita. Doctrinas, where reli gious doctrine was taught, were missions which had at least one full-time resident priest liv ing there. Visitas, “places of visitation,” were villages that had mission churches or chapels, but which we re served by visiting priests rather than having priests in residence (Gannon 1983:39). Whether doctrina or visita, each mission community would have a church. Doctrinas also have a convento, the “friary” or friar’s living residence, and a cocina, the kitchen where the friar’s meals would be prepared.

PAGE 95

83 Most of the late sixteenth and seventeenth century mission sites disc overed to date have all three structures (Thomas 1993:9-19; Saunders 1993:40; We isman 1993:173-185; Hann and McEwan 1998). One mission, San Luis de Talimali, had homes for Spanish residents as well (Hann and McEwan 1998). A dditionally, the larger, more strategically important missions, such as San Juan del Puer to on Fort George Island and San Luis de Talimali, near modern Tallahassee, had pa lisades and/or blockhouses (Dickinson and Wayne 1985; Hann and McEwan 1998); and some had barracks where Spanish soldiers stationed at particular missi ons were housed, such as Santa Catalina on Amelia Island (Saunders 1988:26-28). Thus, European f eatures present in a mission community’s archaeological record should include, at a mini mum, a church structure, and may have a friary, kitchen, defensive work, etc. Native American structures present in a mission community should include evidence of houses and living and activity areas, plazas, and possi bly a council house. Native Americans who were a part of the mi ssion system lived in communities near the churches served by the Franciscan fria rs (Worth 1998a:112-113; Milanich 1999:131137). Late sixteenth and seventeenth centu ry missions, furthermore, were typically placed in or near the principal towns of l eading chiefdoms, the better to facilitate conversion and catechization of converts and to reinforce Native American acquiescence to the Spanish presence (Worth 1998a: 76-79; Hann 1996:142-143). Such towns would normally possess a chief’s residence and a c ouncil house for the chief and the “leading men” of the chiefdom to meet (Hann 1996: 8694), as well as a plaza for the people living there to gather (Hann 1996:8694). Living areas, chief’s resi dences, and possible council house structures have been archaeologically identified at several of the missions

PAGE 96

84 discovered to date (Dickinson and Wa yne 1985; Weisman 1993:179-185; Loucks 1993:202; Marrinan 1993:263-265; Hann and Mc Ewan 1998). Thus, Native American structural features which should be present in a missi on communityÂ’s archaeological record should include, minimally, living areas and activity areas, including house structures. Other Native American structures may include a chiefly residence, council house, and plaza. La Punta, as a refugee mission, did not have possess all of the structures present at the earlier missions of Spanish Florida, though the reasons for this remain to be explored further. However, a European structure iden tified as a mission church is clearly present at the 11 Tremerton site, as will be discussed in the next section. The southern area of 11 Tremerton, as well as the 159 and 161 Marine Street sites, show evidence of Native American circular houses, activity areas, a nd evidence of continuing occupation and reuse. Thus, the archaeological evidence present at these sites, taken as a whole, corresponds with the structures one would expect to be pr esent at a colonial Spanish mission community. The Presence of a Burial Area Within a Structure Church structures at the missions of Spanis h Florida, following the Catholic custom of the time, typically did not have cemeteri es separated from the church buildings. Rather, burials took place within the walls of the church itself with the burials placed in the floor of the church (Marrinan 19 93:281-284; Milanich 1995:195-198, 1999:137-142; Hann and McEwan 1998). Such burials were normally primary interments with people or groups of people buried in graves, on their back s with hands clasped or folded on chests. In the mission churches, later burials ofte n were dug through existing burials, creating jumbles of bones when the bones of older burials were encountered and moved to

PAGE 97

85 facilitate new burials (Larsen 1993:326, 329-335). Such burial areas have been found at mission sites throughout Spanish Florida (Thomas 1993:13-16; Weisman 1993:176-177; Hoshower and Milanich 1993:217-221; La rsen 1993:323-335; Saunders 1993:51-53). Within each church, burials and graves are or iented parallel to the churchÂ’s long axis. The 11 Tremerton site produced evidence of a rectangular structure, approximately 20 m by 10 m and oriented east and west. This structure is smaller than most mission churches found to date but is similar in size to the late seventeenth century mission church found at relocated Santa Catalina on Amelia Island (Saunders 1988:12). Within the 11 Tremerton structural feature, as would be expected, were burials also oriented east and west, with the crania towards the east. Burials intruded on each other with later burials dug through earlier burials (Halbirt, personal communicati on, 2004; DePratter, personal communication, 2004). Thus, the archaeological evidence from the 11 Tremerton site is exactly consistent with what would be expected at a mission church. Taken together, these four lines of evidence suggest it is virtually certain the five sites discussed here are remains of the refugee mission community of La Punta. We can now use these sites to provide evidence fo r reconstructing the lif eways of a refugee mission of the eighteenth century. Lifeways of an Eighteenth Ce ntury Refugee Mission Community The archaeological evidence noted in the th ird chapter of this thesis provides a basis for determining what sorts of activitie s were taking place at each of the locations previously discussed. The following table s hows the relative percentages of the total artifact counts and weights for each location within the study area when compared to the site of Nuestra Senora de La Punta as a whole. As can be seen, th ere are substantial and

PAGE 98

86 significant differences between each of the s ites considered, both in terms of the total number of artifacts found at each location and in terms of the total weight of artifacts. Table 4-1 Artifact Counts and Weights by Location Location Artifact Count % of Total Count For Entire Site Artifact Weight % of Total Weight for Entire Site 161 Marine Street 10,139 56% 60,233.1g 56% 159 Marine Street 4,388 24% 36,387.7g 34% 321 St. George Street 1,227 7% 5,523.7g 5% 8 Hedrick Street 2,252 12% 3,965.2g 4% 11 Tremerton Street(burial area) 171 1% 848.5g 1% TOTALS: 18,177 100% 106,958.2g (106.96kg) 100% As these figures show, the largest percen tage of artifacts both by count (80%) and by weight (90%) come from the 161 and 159 Mari ne Street locations. However, in order to provide a basis for comparison, the disparity in relative sizes between the sites must be taken into account. To do so, it is useful to plot the density of artifacts both by number and by weight per square meter excavated at each of the sites. Table 4-2 Artifact Density by Numb er and Weight for Each Location 161 Marine Street 159 Marine Street 321 St. George Street 8 Hedrick Street 11 Tremerton St., Burial Area Artifact Count 10,139 4,388 1,227 2,252 171 Artifact Weight 60,233.1g 36,387.7g 5,523.7g 3,965.2g848.5g Number of m Excavated 150m 70m 3m 18m 6m Artifacts/m 67.6/m 62.7/m 409/m 125/m 28.5/m Weight/m 402g/m 520g/m 1,841g/m220g/m 141.4g/m

PAGE 99

87 This weight per m includes the total wei ght of artifacts found at the 321 St. George Street location. Test Units 1 and 2, as noted in Chapter 3 of this thesis, appear to have been placed near a known 19th century trash dump (Carl Halb irt, City of St. Augustine archaeologist, field notes; personal communication 2005) post-dating the La Punta mission occupation. If Test Unit 3, placed at a distance from the trash dump, is considered in isolation, its relative percentage s by number of artifac ts and weight per m are 116/m and 381.8g/m respectively. As can be seen from the above tables, ta king into account the relative differences in size between the different locations, the numbe r of artifacts per square meter at the 161 and 159 Marine Street locations is less than that at th e 321 St. George Street and 8 Hedrick Street locations. Conversely, the wei ght of artifacts per squa re meter is greater at the 161 and 159 Marine Street than in Test Unit 3 of the 321 St. Ge orge Street location and at the 8 Hedrick property overall. The 11 Tremerton Street burial area has the lowest number of artifacts pe r square meter and the lowest wei ght of artifacts per square meter of any of the locations di scussed in this thesis. These relative percentages suggest that, wh ile the density of artifact numbers is lower at the 161 and 159 Marine Street properties, the higher weight of artifacts per m at those sites indicates greate r human activity and presence at those locations. The relatively greater density of ar tifact numbers per m, the lower weight of artifacts per m, and the lower artifact totals and weights ove rall for 321 St. George Street and 8 Hedrick Street, suggest that some form of activit y was taking place at those locations which involved less regular human activity, and which may have damaged or broken any material culture remains left at those locati ons – thus accounting for the greater density of

PAGE 100

88 artifacts but a correspondingly lo wer weight of artifacts at th ose locations. Agricultural activity, involving regular disturbance and sh ifting of soils, seems the most likely human activity which would create such a record of material culture. This seems even more likely when the re lative counts and weights of artifacts in each of the material culture ca tegories listed in Chapter 3 for each location are taken into account. For 161 Marine Street, non-European ceramics (44% of total number of artifacts and 54% of total weight of artifac ts for the property), non-ceramic kitchen items together with bone weight (15% of total num ber of artifacts and 9% of total weight of artifacts for the property), and non-masonry ar chitectural remains (8% of total number of artifacts and 15% of total weight of artifacts for the property) make up the largest activity categories, comprising some 67% of the total number of artifacts and 78% of the total weight of artifacts for that location. Li kewise, for 159 Marine Street, non-European ceramics (39% of the total c ount and weight of artifacts) non-ceramic kitchen items (19% of the total count a nd 26% of the total weight of artifacts) and non-masonry architecture (18% of the total count and 9% of the total weig ht of artifacts) also make up the largest activity categories, comprising 76% of the total count of artifacts and 74% of the total weight of artifacts for the property as a whole. And for both these locations, there is a larger range of arti fact categories present than at either 321 St. George Street or at 8 Hedrick Street. Taken t ogether, these facts s uggest that the primary areas of human presence and activity at Nuestra Senora de La Punta were the Mari ne Street locations. Conversely, at 321 St. George Street, non-European ceram ics (13% of the total count of artifacts and 8% of the total weight of artifacts), non-ceramic kitchen items (23% of the total count of artifacts and 38% of the total weight of artifacts), and non-

PAGE 101

89 masonry architecture (4% of the total count of artifacts and 3% of the total weight of artifacts) comprise only 40% of the total count and 49% of th e total weight of artifacts respectively for this location, substantially less overall than at the Mari ne Street locations. At 8 Hedrick Street, the largest artifac t category both by count and weight is nonEuropean ceramics (78% of th e total count and 55% of the to tal weight of artifacts for this location). Non-ceramic kitchen items (1% of the total count and 3% of the total weight of artifacts) and nonmasonry architecture (1% of th e total count and less than 1% of the total weight of artifacts) make up onl y a negligible part of the material culture record at the 8 Hedrick Street property. This suggests that, while both these locations were associated with the La Punta missi on community, substantially less variety of human activity took place at th ese two locations, which would be consistent with these areas being used for agricultural purposes. Finally, as previously noted, the burial area within the 11 Tremerton Street location has the lowest relative percentages of artif act counts and weights of all of the areas analyzed for this thesis. Furthermore, the burial area has the highest percentage by count of religious artifacts (burials ) present anywhere w ithin the study area (7 0%), as well as the highest relative percentage by weight of re ligious artifacts (9%). The fact that this area has a relatively low presence of artifact s per excavated square meter compared to the other locations studied, as well as the presence of burials with religious significance, suggests that this area was reserved for a use different from that found at the other locations within the study area, a use that wa s religious in nature and one that involved less in the way of material cu lture than the activities taking place in the other parts of the mission community.

PAGE 102

90 Given these results, the historic a nd archaeological evidence of the mission community of Nuestra Senora del Rosario de La Punta suggests a community which would have been divided into three areas of use: a “living area” where homes existed and where the mission’s villagers lived; an “agri cultural area” where crops were grown; and a “sacred area” where the mission’s church was located and where religious activities took place. The Arredondo map of 1737, the best an d most detailed historic source for the mission’s location and the placement of th ese areas within the mission community, suggests that La Punta’s living area surrounde d the mission’s church and its environs (Arredondo 1737), while the agricultural area surrounded both the mission’s church and the houses of La Punta’s inhabitants. This is consistent with the Grian report’s description of “small palm houses” with agricultural plots nearby (Scardaville and Belmonte 1979:11) The sacred area, the mission’s church a nd its environs, appears from the Arredondo map to have been at the center of the missi on community. La Punt a’s location would put it nearest of all the refugee mi ssions to the main Franciscan friary in St. Augustine, which was north of the city’s southern defensive wall. The sites discussed in the third chapter of th is thesis appear to represent portions of each of these three areas. Each area, take n in conjunction with the historic evidence, provides a basis for understand ing the lifeways of La Punt a’s people, and avenues for future research into the refugee missions of the eighteenth century. The Living Area A portion of the living area of La Punta is represented by the 159 and 161 Marine Street sites, which correspond with the area on the Arredondo map depicting village

PAGE 103

91 structures. The features and archaeological assemblage present at these sites are consistent with an area used as living space. As noted above in Chapter 2, most of the Indians living at La Punta were Yamassee, “a historic period aggregation of diverse coastal and interior peoples” (Saunders 2000:48; Worth 1995:20). This “h istoric period aggreg ation,” based on the Yamassee’s initial presence in the area near Charles Town, would likely have included the remnants of the northern Guale (Saunders 2000:29, 43) along with remnants of other groups present at the time of European cont act. As an aggregation of various ethnic groups, the Yamassee had been allies of the English prior to the Yamassee War of 1715 and had regularly traded with the English pr ior to their expulsion from South Carolina (Hann 1996:306-307; Wright 1986:41-42). Thus, the historic evidence of the Yamassee suggests that their culture was an exampl e of ethnogenesis, one which drew on the indigenous traditions of differing Southeastern Native American groups. Furthermore, the Yamassee’s experience with the English su ggests that they w ould have arrived in Spanish Florida with considerable experien ce in interacting with Europeans and an understanding of the colonial-period conflicts between Spain and England. The documentary evidence cited in Chapter 2 suggests La Punta was a community in demographic flux. La Punta’s people may have been shifted from other missions as refugee mission populations were combined, as well as including new refugees who came to the city and its environs. Thus, while th e “raw numbers” of people living at La Punta may have increased over time, it is possibl e that the ethnic com position of the people themselves may have changed relatively qui ckly through deaths due to disease and

PAGE 104

92 perhaps warfare, the shifting of populati ons among mission villages around St. Augustine, and the in-migration of newcomers and other refugees. It has been argued that a factor contri buting to the decline in numbers of the refugee missions’ population was th e phenomenon of the “urban Indians”: that is, Native Americans who took advantage of Spanish so cial mechanisms such as marriage and godparenthood to leave the refugee mission vill ages and to integrate themselves into Spanish colonial society as citizens (Parker 1993:1-13; 1999:47-67). In other words, the decline in numbers of Native Americans at the mission communities is argued to be due in significant part to the pe ople of the missions’ use of social alliances with Spanish citizens, flexible racial classifications, and so cial mobility to make themselves a part of St. Augustine’s culture in such a way that th eir identity as Native American disappears from the historic r ecord (Parker 1993:2). There is no question that some cases of such social integration di d exist. However, the “urban Indian” phenomenon described by Park er would not have applied to the great majority of the inhabitants of Nuestra Senora de La Punta, nor the other refugee missions, because three more powerful countervailing cu ltural, societal and governmental forces would have acted to bar the people of th e refugee missions from entry into Spanish society: 1) the continuing need for the defe nse of St. Augustine and Spanish Florida, 2) conflict between regular and secular clergy, and 3) the proximate presence of Native American groups outside of direct European control. The refugee mission communities served as a first line of defense for the colonial capital, moving in a “concertina” fashion nearer to and further away from the city in response to raids and other military threats to the Spanish (Halbirt 2004:40-41; Parker

PAGE 105

93 1999:47). A number of the refugee missions ha d forts intended to provide defensible strong points outside the city (Halbirt 2004:41; Scardav ille and Belmonte 1979:12). Integration of the people of the missions into the city w ould have defeated one of the primary purposes for which the mission communities existed. If the people of the refugee missions could easily have integrated th emselves into the social fabric of the city, and thereby easily abandoned the mission towns, the outermost layer of defenses would have been effectively abandoned. It is highly likely that the colonial authorities actively discouraged the integration of Native American refugees into Spanish society for this reason alone. The historic evidence also suggests that the jurisdictional co nflicts between the regular clergy serving the mission communities and the secular clergy serving the city of St. Augustine may have acted to limit the ability of La PuntaÂ’s people to interact with the people of St. Augustine. As noted in Chapte r 2, one of the princi pal areas of conflict between regular and secular clergy was over the issue of secularization and the transfer of power and control over mission populations fr om regular Franciscans to the parish priests. In La Florida, as in other parts of the Spanish empire, a major way for the regular clergy to resist secularizati on was to refuse to teach mission populations the Spanish language (Kapitzke 2001:136-137) The reluctance of the Franciscans to teach Spanish to the Indians of Florida served two purposes: allowing the Indians to reta in their native language was insurance against the possibility of th eir falling under the care of a secular shepherd; and the continuing inability of the Indians to speak or understand Spanish gave the Creole [Spaniard born in the Americas] Francis cans a distinct advantage. (Kapitzke 2001:137) In 1732, peninsulares [Spaniards born in Spain] were shifted between missions to give locally born friars an advantage (Kapitz ke 2001:137). Further, there is evidence

PAGE 106

94 that, at the refugee mission of Palica, the fria r serving the mission was required to use the Timucuan language to serve the missionÂ’ s population (Milanich 1999:193-194). Thus, the jurisdictional struggl es between regular and secular prie sts may have had the effect of placing a barrier of language be tween the people of La Punta, as well as the other refugee missions, and the people of St. Augustine. Fu rthermore, since secularization would have effectively ended any need for Franciscan pres ence near St. Augustine, it is clear that the Franciscan friars serving the missions would ha ve acted to prevent any social integration of their charges at the mission comm unities into Spanish social life. Finally, it is important to remember that, during the time of La PuntaÂ’s existence, accommodation with Spanish society was not th e only cultural option available to the people of the refugee missions. By the tim e of the founding of Nuestra Senora de La Punta in the late 1720s, Native American groups particularly the Creeks, ancestral to the Seminoles had begun movement into Flor ida (Weisman 1999:13-16; 2000:302-303). While it is not likely that perm anent villages of Creek groups had been established during the time of La PuntaÂ’s existence, regular Cr eek hunting parties had established territories in Florida during that time (John Worth, pe rsonal communication 2005). Given the experience of the Yamassee with the Englis h in Carolina, and their position at the margins of Spanish society, it would seem likel y that, if an option of integrating into a Native American culture existed during this time, the people of the refugee missions would have taken it, abandoning both Spanish and English alike. The archaeological record of the 159 and 161 Marine Street sites appears to be consistent with this historic evidence in a number of ways. As noted in Chapter 3, the structures found at both sites a ppear to be Native American in form, and the predominant

PAGE 107

95 ceramic series present at the sites were Native American, primarily San Marcos ware and the Yamassee variant of Mission Red Filmed. Th is is consistent with the presence of a population at La Punta primarily Native Amer ican and Yamassee in cultural a ffiliation. The archaeological evidence from 158 and 161 Marine Streets also is consistent with that of a community in demographic change. As noted in Chapter 3, White’s work at the well found at 161 Marine Street sugge sts its abandonment for a period of time, followed by an episode of re-use (White 2002:54). The presence of numerous unidentified pits and features throughout the cultu ral midden layer at these sites may be indicative of shifting areas of varying uses during the time of the mission community’s existence, which would be expected of a community whose numbers and cultural makeup changed rapidly over time. A point worth noting about the ceramic assemblage found in the living area of La Punta is the near-total absence of col onoware – Native American pottery made in European vessel forms. It has been no ted that the production of colonoware was common on missions of the hinterland (D eagan 1993:101) but was very uncommon within the limits of the col onial city of St. Augustine, wh ere traditional Native American forms “persisted in a largely unaltered stat e through the entire colonial period” (Deagan 1993:101). If colonoware is indeed a mi ssion-related phenomenon, its absence among the ceramics at these sites s uggests a change in the intera ction between the Spanish and the mission populations at the refugee missi ons. The absence of colonoware in the archaeological record of Sain t Augustine has been describe d as evidence of cultural resilience on the part of Na tive Americans residing in the city (Deagan 1993:102; Deagan 2002:107); its absence at the mission site of La Punta may be evidence of a change in the

PAGE 108

96 relationship between the friars and the mission populations in the eighteenth century. One possible explanation is that the friars se rving the refugee missions, such as La Punta, did not actually live at the ref ugee missions, but rather within the Franciscan friary inside the city. That is, colonoware s were made for the use of Fr anciscans and other Spaniards living at the missions in the hinterland a nd without easy access to European vessels through trade. It is worthy of note that no evidence of a European-style convento was found at La Punta; again, it is likely the friars serving La Punta did not live in the mission village itself. In summary, the historic and archaeological evidence fr om La PuntaÂ’s living area suggests that La PuntaÂ’s people, while familia r with European intera ction prior to their arrival in Spanish Florida, continued to ma ke traditional ceramics, and, presumably, also continued to practice other aspe cts of their traditional cultur es, including use of their own language, during the time of the missionÂ’s exis tence. Further, both the historic and archaeological evidence sugge st a community whose demographic makeup changed as people were moved into or out of the community, and changing patterns of use within the missionÂ’s living area. The Agricultural Area The agricultural area of La Punta appears to be represented by the 321 St. George Street and the 8 Hedrick Stre et sites. The features in this area may be linked to agricultural activ ities at the mission. The basis for rega rding these features as agricultural in nature is threefold: the historic evid ence that agriculture took place at the La Punta mission, the historic and archaeological eviden ce of agricultural ac tivity at mission sites in Spanish Florida, and the similarity of the features found at the si tes to features known to represent flood and irrigation control for ag ricultural activity in Fl orida and elsewhere.

PAGE 109

97 As the principal documentary evidence for th e patterning of structures and features at La Punta, the Arredondo map clearly depict s agricultural fields in the area surrounding the living area used by the missionÂ’s inha bitants (Arredondo 1737). Furthermore, the patterning depicted on the Arredondo map depict s some of the agricultural trenches used by the people of La Punta as running both eas t and west, while others were north and south in orientation (Arredondo 1737). The Grian report clearly indicates that agricultural activities took place at the refugee mission communities. The reportÂ’s desc ription of agricultural activities states that they [the people of the mission commun ities] plant corn and legumes on their respective plots. But because of their lim ited efforts at farming, for they do not put much effort into this work, they produce only a very small harvest. (Scardaville and Belmonte 1979:11) Both the location of the sites and the featur es found there are consistent with this historic evidence. Eight Hedrick and 321 St George Street are in relatively close proximity to the 159 and 161 Marine Street prope rties, placing them in the area depicted on the Arredondo map as being used for agricu lture by La PuntaÂ’s inhabitants (see Figure 2.2). The trench features found at 8 Hedrick St reet run east and west in their orientation, while those at 321 St. George St reet run north and south. Th e ceramics found in this area were primarily Native American, principall y San Marcos ware and the Yamassee variant of Mission Red Filmed. Thus, the archaeologi cal and historic evidence are consistent with each other and together suggest that th e trench features found at 8 Hedrick and 321 St. George Street are agricultural in nature. It is known both through hi storic evidence and arch aeological ev idence that agricultural activity took place at missions throughout Spanish La Florida including

PAGE 110

98 areas where pre-mission populations did not rely principally on agricultural activity for subsistence. Historic records indicate that mission populations grew most of the food crops used by the Spanish colony of Florida, with a particular emphasis on maize (Hann 1988:126-127; 1996:164; Milanich 1995: 202-203, 1999:146-147; Worth 1998a:187-189) for use both by the mission Native Americans and by the Spanish in St. Augustine. The archaeological evidence indicates the presence of maize at a number of mission sites throughout Spanish Florida (Scarry 1993:366367; Reitz and Scarry 1985:58-62). Bioarchaeology of pre-contact and mission-period Guale populat ions suggests a shift in subsistence from a marine-resource-based subs istence strategy prior to European contact to a diet based primarily on maize duri ng the mission era (Larsen 1993:338; Saunders 2000:48-49). The historic and archaeologi cal evidence strongly suggest s subsistence agriculture, with an emphasis on maize cultivation, took place throughout the mission era among all of the Native American groups missionized by th e Spanish. This, in conjunction with the Grian reportÂ’s description of agricultural activity at the refugee missions, suggests that such agriculture, including ma ize cultivation, took place at La Punta, as well as the other refugee missions. Finally, the archaeological evidence of the features at La Punta appears to be consistent with evidence from sites presen t in other areas controlled by the Spanish during the colonial era and known to be agricultural. In a nu mber of locations in South America, raised-field agriculture, making us e of ditches and trench es to control water flow and to provide raised areas for crop cultivation, was used extensively by Native American groups (Parsons and Bowen 1989:188-191; Parsons and Denevan 1989:211-

PAGE 111

99 216; Parsons 1989:206-207). The purpose of the cr eation of such “raised fields” is to control the flow of water and runoff in lowlying areas subject to inundation (Denevan 1992:210; Parsons and Bowen 1989:190-191), and to increase soil fertility in areas where soils are too poor and poorly drained to support crop produc tion (Parsons and Bowen 1989:194-195; Denevan 1992:210). A similar technique to raised-field agriculture is used in modern Florida to allow drainage and cultivation of poor ly drained soils. This techni que involves the cutting of a series of large trenches, betw een 1 1.5m in depth, to allow water to drain into and flow through, in the area to be cultiv ated. Between these larger tr enches are placed a series of shallower trenches, between .3 and .5 m in depth, with raised “beds” between them (Boman and Tucker 2002:6; James Boyer, IFAS/Pine Acres research coordinator, personal communication 2004). Th e trench patterning used in this technique allows water to drain into the deeper trenches, reducing the water level below the soil, and allows control of water flow between the ra ised “beds” where crops are grown. This technique is used in the vici nity of modern St. Augustine at the town of Hastings, and allows the large-scale cultivation of crops in areas othe rwise too poorly drained to allow agriculture (Waterbury 1983:199). The trenches found at the 8 Hedrick site are perpendicular both to the north-south axis of the St. Augustine peninsula and to Maria Sanchez Creek, which runs north-south (see Figure 1.1). They are similar in pattern and orientation to the caos reported from the South American sites described by Parsons and Bowen (Parsons and Bowen 1989:188-191). The caos are trenches perpendicular to the water source feeding a raised field which serve to channel water in to the area to be cultivated (Parsons and

PAGE 112

100 Bowen 1989:188). The trenches at the 8 Hedrick site are in an area closer to sea level than the living area to the east (see Figure 3.1), and thus could have served to channel fresh water from rainfall into the area to the west. The most likely use of the features found at 8 Hedrick Street and 321 St. George Street, then, based on the historic and ar chaeological evidence from Florida and elsewhere, appears to be for agriculture. A ssuming this to be the case, what does this evidence suggest about the lifeway s of the people of La Punta? Given the physical evidence of the envir onment in the area discussed in Chapter 3, as well as the uses of “raised field” agricu lture discussed heretofo re, the archaeological evidence from these sites suggests that the people of La Punta were attempting to maximize the use of land which would have been marginal at best for agriculture of any kind. As noted in Chapter 3, farming in the so rt of physical environm ent which existed at La Punta would require “drastic changes to the soil structure; the most common of these are drawing down the water tabl e and raising the soil’s pH and nutrient levels” (Smith and Bond 1984:24). If the principal crop grown at La Punta a nd the other refugee missions continued to be maize, this would have been especially true. Maize cultivation requires a water table level of no higher than 70 cm below the soil ’s surface, since maize roots extend between 60-65 cm in average depth below the surf ace (James Boyer, personal communication 2004). Maize also requires a soil pH of 5.6 6.2 for successful growth (Wright et.al 2004:4-5; James Boyer, pers onal communication 2004). Such a pH can only be achieved on Coastal Plain soils, such as those pres ent at La Punta, th rough the addition of substantial quantities of lime and fertilizer (Wright et.al. 2004:4). A layer of natural

PAGE 113

101 compaction exists on Coastal Plain soils such as those present at La Punta, which has to be disrupted through soil tillage to allow growth of maize (Wright et.al 2004:2). Where the water table is naturally high, as at La Punt a, drainage is necessary to allow the growth of crops (Smajstria et.al. 2002:9). The presence of trenches at the sites in th e agricultural area, as well as the presence of shell in the soil, thus seems to represent attempts by La Punta’s people to modify and control a marginal cropping envi ronment to make it suitable for agriculture. This, in turn, suggests the refugee missions’ peop le would have been attempting to farm in an area that might have been rejected as unsuitable for farming under other conditions. While further research on these issues will be necessary to establish the patterns of agricultural use at the refugee missions, it appears likely that th e people of La Punta were attempting to make maximum possible use of poor and marg inal cropland for their subsistence. The Sacred Area The sacred area of the La Punta mission community, represented by the church and burials found at the 11 Tremerton site, suggests that most of the people of La Punta had been integrated into the Catholic Church, and thus the Spanish social order, through adoption of the Roman Catholic faith. Howeve r, the evidence, highlighted below, also suggests that at least some of La Punta’s people attempted to preserve their traditional systems of belief despite social and political pressure to do otherwise. It is important to remember, as discussed in Chapter 2, the critical role which the Catholic faith played in colonial Spanish society in Florida. Without adoption of the Roman Catholic faith, “one would remain deci dedly outside [the] soci al order” (Kapitzke 2001:8).

PAGE 114

102 To become a part of the soci al order in St. Augustine, th e people of La Punta would have had to have been practicing Catholic s. The archaeological evidence from the 11 Tremerton site suggests most of them were. As previously discu ssed, church burials at missions throughout Spanish Florida followe d a common pattern conforming to the prevailing Catholic belief in the return of th e resurrected Christ. Ne arly all of the known burials at the 11 Tremerton site follow this bur ial pattern, suggesting th at the people of La Punta had acculturated in to the social fabric of St. A ugustine through the adoption of the Catholic faith (Kapitzke 2001:8). The limited evidence found at 11 Tremerton s uggests that acculturation on the part of the Yamassee and other Native Americans present at La Punta may have extended beyond the adoption of the Catholic faith. The presence of the higa found with one of the burials suggests the people of La Punta may have adopted a number of Spanish social and cultural practices and beliefs not purely religious in nature. Higas are amulets executed in the form of clenched fists, intended to provide the wearer prot ection against the evil eye and also general good health (Deagan 2001:95). Amulets like the higa were believed by the Spanish to possess intrinsic power as an innate quality, rather than having power conferred on them by a higher authority. Th ey also do not serve as an intermediary between an individual and a hi gher authority, such as a crucifix might (Deagan 2001:87). The presence of the higa with one of the La Punta bur ials thus may represent an adoption by some of La Punta’s people of Spanish social norms and beliefs beyond the religious practices of Catholicism. As a “magical” object, the use of the higa would have required a belief on the part of the user in the “evil eye”, the higa ’s efficacy against it, and in the higa ’s property as a means of promoti ng good health. While we cannot be

PAGE 115

103 certain of what the higa would have meant to the people of La Punta, its use in a burial context may indicate that some of La Punta’ s people had begun to adopt Spanish cultural beliefs as well as religious practices. Other evidence also suggests that at leas t some of La Punta’s people attempted to maintain their traditional beliefs and practices as well. The indivi dual buried outside the confines of the church wall was buried alone, separately from the Christian burials, and was found with symbolic goods known to be important to pre-contact Southeastern Native American groups. The greenstone celt, in particular, is known to have been used as a symbol of chiefly authority to Missi ssippian peoples (Mil anich 1994:370-378). The presence of a burial making use of such symbo lism, outside the area of the church burials but within close proximity to them, suggest s that even at the refugee missions, some Native Americans continued to practice their traditional religion and culture despite the very close proximity of the cente r of Spanish power in Florida. Finally, the area surrounding th e burials suggests that the church and its environs, despite the limited space available to the mission community, was accorded respect and “separated” from the other areas set aside for ordinary use. It is worthy of note that a zone of space empty of featur es separates the area of the remains from the northernmost area where the houses of the villagers were f ound. It is also notew orthy that ceramics and metal artifacts found in the burial area app ear mostly to date from the time of British occupation or later, suggesting that during the time of mission o ccupation, the area was not used for ordinary purposes as the living and agricultural areas were. This evidence suggests the church and the area surrounding it we re accorded respect by the people of La

PAGE 116

104 Punta, and were regarded as “separate” and divided from those parts of the mission which were devoted to common use. Avenues for Future Research and Conclusions The historic and archaeological evidence fr om the La Punta mission site suggests a number of avenues for future research on the refugee mission communities. The living area of La Punta may provide a basis for comparison between refugee mission living conditions and those conditions existing at the older missions of Spanish Florida. Studies of spatial use and patterning may help to prov ide a better understanding of changes in the use of space at the missions of Florida ove r time as populations at mission villages shrank. La Punta as a community of refugees ma y help to provide a basis for comparison between legally sanctioned and protected refugee communities, and refugee communities which existed outside the social order entirely. Communities of cimmarones – “runaways” – existed throughout the Ameri cas, from the time of the first Spanish settlement at La Isabela onward (Deag an and Cruxent 2002:209-210; Deagan and McMahon 1995:13). Such communities consiste d of both Native American and African runaways escaping Spanish attempts at enslavement and control (Deagan and McMahon 1995:13). During the time of British contro l of Florida, the Second Spanish Period (1784-1821), and the American territorial period (1821-1845), the Seminole Indians allowed runaway slaves to join them and to form “Seminole” communities of their own (Porter 1996:4-6). Such comm unities of refugees would have existed outside the social order of Spanish, and later, American societ y. An avenue for study would be to compare the lifeways at such refugee communities with those practiced at legally sanctioned

PAGE 117

105 refugee settlements such as La Punta, or the African-American community of Fort Mose north of St. Augustine (Deagan a nd McMahon 1995; Landers 1992:7-9). A further area of study would be the role of the refugee mission communities in the ethnogenesis of new Native American groups, su ch as the Seminoles. The people of La Punta, living in close proximity to yet at the fringes of Spanish society, would have had the opportunity to learn of Spanish social norms and customs as well as practicing customs of their own, as noted above. S hould members of such a refugee community choose to escape from the Spanish social orde r, one option they may have had available was to join the Creek and other groups movi ng into Florida in the later First Spanish Period (Weisman 1999:13-16). In that way, they may have served as bridges between the Spanish and the emerging Seminoles. It is know n that some “Spanish” Indians lived with Seminole groups settled in Florida during the British period (B artram 1791:164), which included “Yamassee captives” whom were a pparently baptized, spoke Spanish, and followed Catholic customs (Bartram 1791:164). It is possible that the people described by Bartram were people from the refugee missi on settlements who had chosen to join the Seminoles, and future study may provide an answer to the questi on of these peoples’ presence among the Seminoles. A fruitful avenue for such study would be the comparison of the archaeological complexes pr esent at the refugee mission settlements with those of the earliest known Seminole sites. What appears to be the agricultural area of La Punta may also provide bases for comparative studies, such as archaeobotanical research. Study of plant remains from the refugee missions may allow a greater unders tanding of crop produc tion and use in the eighteenth century as opposed to such produc tion and use at the earlier missions, through

PAGE 118

106 comparison of botanical remains from the earlier missions and th e refugee missions. Another avenue for comparative study in th is area would be the trenching techniques observed at La Punta. Were they indige nous techniques brought to Florida by the Yamassee, or techniques taught the refugee mission populations by the Spanish based on observation of “raised field” agricu lture elsewhere in their empire? Finally, the presence of church burials in the sacred area suggests the need to consider the presence of such burials at the other refugee mi ssions as well. The presence of burials at the La Punta, Tolomato, a nd Nombre de Dios missions suggests the possibility that the other refugee missions as yet undiscovered may well have mission churches and such burials pres ent, and that future archaeol ogical study should take this possibility into account in devi sing strategies for research. Another avenue for research would be issues of social status, since the mi ssion villagers appear to have been buried in the missions’ churches ra ther than in town. The historic and archaeological eviden ce of the La Punta mission community suggests lifeways shaped by demographic change environmental pressures, and tensions between traditional ways of life and new ones. The refugees who inhabited La Punta in the early eighteenth century appear to ha ve made the maximum possible use of the marginal environment which they inhabited, an d to have attempted a balance between the customs and culture they brought to Span ish Florida and the customs and culture circumstances thrust them into.

PAGE 119

107 APPENDIX A ARTIFACT COUNTS, LA PUNTA-RELATED SITES The artifact counts for the sites discussed in this thesis are listed below. For the purposes of this appendix, the artifacts found at the sites are classed into seven categories, according to physical composition: Native Am erican Ceramics, European Ceramics, Historic Glass Fragments, Modern Glass Fragments, Iron/Metal Fragments, Bone Fragments, and Other. As to the artifact categories listed in this appendix, two should be clarified. Historic Glass Fragments are any glass pieces found dur ing excavation which, through patination, bubbles, or form are clearly not modern in nature; where evidence of the artifactÂ’s nature exists, this category is further subdivided in to the types of glass artifacts found at each site. Native American, UID is used to identify any ceramic fragment which is clearly Native American, but, due to very small size (generally less than .25 cm in width and thickness) is not clearly identifiable as to pa ste and surface treatment. This category of artifact was found in many of the excavated areas of the La Punt a site. It is also referred to as Aboriginal Discar d in other publications. The raw counts and weights listed within these tables form the basis for the counts, weights, and relative percentages thereof noted in Appendix B and in Chapters 3 and 4 of this thesis.

PAGE 120

108 161 Marine Street Stripping Area 1 Test Unit 1 Level 2 Artifact Types Count Weight Native American Ceramics San Marcos ware 41 195 g St. Johns ware 5 18.9g Sand-tempered ware 1 0.3g Grog-tempered ware 1 3.1g Native American, UID 121 87.4g European Ceramics Puebla Blue on White 1 6.1g El Morro 1 6.0g Olive Jar 1 0.4g Slipware 1 1.4g Kaolin Clay pipe bowl 1 0.3g Brick Fragment 1 149.9g Historic Glass Fragments 16 28.1g Iron/Metal Fragments Iron Fragments, uncounted 32.3g Bone Fragments Bos Taurus 2 33.7g Bone Fragments, UID 9 4.2g Level 3 Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 1 8.6g Iron/Metal Fragments Metal Fragment, UID 1 1.2g Bone Fragments Bone Fragments, UID 15 6.6g Feature 6 Native American Ceramics San Marcos ware 41 184.7g Mission Red Filmed 1 1.2g Sand-Tempered ware 8 22.7g Native American UID 132 82.4g European Ceramics Olive Jar 1 24.4g El Morro 2 12.6g Puebla Polychrome 1 0.9g Kaolin Clay pipe bowl 1 <0.1g Kaolin Clay pipe stem 1 3.8g Historic Glass Fragments 10 29.8g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail Fragments, iron 2 4.5g Iron objects, UID 2 20.0g

PAGE 121

109 Iron Fragments, unc. 7.8g Bone Fragments Odocoileus virginianus (deer) 3 0.4g Fish, UID 1 <0.1g Bone Fragments, UID 21 1.2g Test Unit 2 Level 2 (48-55 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos ware 48 213.7g Mission Red Filmed 8 15.3g Sand-Tempered ware 39 178.6g Shell-Tempered ware 3 10.2g Native American UID 178 113.4g Daub fragment 1 37.6g European Ceramics Olive Jar 5 45.2g Pearlware 2 3.8g Delftware 1 0.2g Slipware 1 9.6g Kaolin Clay pipe bowl 2 2.9g Kaolin Clay pipe stem 1 1.0g Historic Glass Fragments 20 27.2g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail Fragments, iron 4 12.0g Tack Frgaments, iron 3 1.2g Iron spikes 2 127.8g Folded object, lead 1 1.9g Iron Fragments, UID 50+ 31.6g Slag, iron 1 1.5g Lead shot 1 1.0g Bone Fragments Odocoileus virginianus 6 5.3g Shark, UID 1 0.5g Sciaenidae (drum) 1 0.5g Fish, UID 2 0.3g Artiodactyl 5 23.0g Bird, UID 2 0.2g Bone Fragments, UID 63 37.7g Other Button, green glass 1 0.9g Bead, glass, black faceted 1 <0.1g Bead, glass, blue 1 1.0g Coquina stone 1 241.0g Shell Fragments 2 2.5g Chert Fragment 1 0.1g Level 3 (55-69 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos ware 17 62g Mission Red Filmed 1 3.5g Sand-tempered ware 3 5.4g Native American UID 65 32.0g Daub Fragments 1 48.5g

PAGE 122

110 European Ceramics Kaolin Clay pipe bowl 1 1.4g Historic Glass Fragments 7 10.7g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail Fragments, iron 1 0.7g Iron Fragments, UID 11 6.5g Bone Fragments Mammal, UID 3 9.0g Bone Fragments, UID 6 1.3g Other Flint, flake 1 0.7g Pebble, dark 1 18.4g Feature 6 Native American Ceramics San Marcos ware 21 90.3g Sand-Tempered ware 1 3.3g Native American UID 40 14.8g Historic Glass Fragments 7 5.3g Iron/Metal Fragments Metal Fragments, UID 12 7.2g Slag, iron 1 1.4g Feature 11 Native American Ceramics San Marcos ware 5 15.4g Mission Red Filmed 1 2.3g St. Johns ware 1 0.9g Native American UID 9 4.0g European Ceramics Black Lead-Glazed coarse earthenware 1 1.3g Delftware 1 0.5g Brick Fragment 1 1.5g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail Fragment, iron 1 6.5g Iron Fragments 20 2.3g Test Unit 3 Level 1 Native American Ceramics San Marcos ware 90 418.8g Mission Red Filmed 2 6.2g Sand-tempered ware 16 50.6g Native American UID 295 263.9g European Ceramics San Luis Polychrome 1 16.0g Olive Jar 9 20.1g Slipware 4 5.3g Delftware 2 2.0g Majolica, UID, Mexico City tradition 3 2.1g Kaolin clay pipe bowl 2 1.2g Kaolin clay pipe stem 2 2.8g Tile fragment 1 5.1g

PAGE 123

111 Brick fragments 5 3.8g Historic Glass Fragments 24 49.9g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail Fragments, iron 8 12.1g Lead shot 2 3.3g Iron fragments, uncounted 40.5g Bone Fragments Ursus (black bear) 1 9.9g Bos Taurus (cow) 2 12.1g Gallus gallus (chicken) 2 5.6g Bagre Marinus (gafftopsail catfish) 1 0.2g Moon snail 1 18.3g Artiodactyl 1 17.8g Mammal, UID 5 9.5g Fish, UID 1 0.5g Bone Fragments, UID 48 14.3g Other Chert Fragments 2 1.4g Button, silver 1 <0.1g River pebble 1 2.8g Coquina stone fragments 3 79.0g Tabby Fragments 2 7.5g Comb fragment 1 1.9g Shell, coquina clam 1 0.3g Level 2 Native American Ceramics San Marcos ware 35 173.6g Native American UID 83 71.7g Daub fragment 1 4.5g European Ceramics Olive Jar, glazed 1 3.0g Delftware 1 1.3g Tile, black glazed 5 10.0g Kaolin clay pipe bowl 1 0.4g Historic Glass Fragments 4 3.1g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail Fragments, iron 1 1.1g Iron Fragments, UID 25 17.1g Iron Slag 1 0.5g Bone Fragments Shark 1 1.5g Bone Fragments, UID 15 9.9g Other Coal Fragment 1 13.4g Tabby Fragment 1 2.5g Test Unit 4 Level 1 Native American Ceramics San Marcos ware 59 339.3g Mission Red Filmed 5 4.4g St. Johns check-stamped 1 1.8g Sand-tempered ware 34 165.7g

PAGE 124

112 Fiber-tempered ware 4 37.9g Colonoware 4 10.5g Native American UID 568 617.6g European Ceramics Puebla Polychrome 1 0.4g Aranama Polychrome 2 3.1g Rey Ware 1 1.1g Delftware 6 10.2g Slipware 8 19.8g Olive Jar, plain 5 64.0g Olive Jar, green-glazed 1 0.4g Majolica, UID, Puebla tradition 1 4.1g Tile, brown glazed 3 33.3g Kaolin clay pipe stems 2 3.6g Kaolin clay pipe bowl 1 1.0g Historic Glass Fragments 39 54.1g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail fragments, iron 8 26.8g Tack fragments, iron 2 2.4g Wire fragment, iron 1 5.1g Lead fragments 2 12.3g Cup fragment, bronze 1 6.8g Iron fragments, uncounted 16.5g Bone Fragments Bone fragments, UID 47 35.1g Other Construction debris, concrete 6 9.6g Level 2 Native American Ceramics San Marcos ware 144 798.1g Mission Red Filmed 4 20g St. Johns ware 2 13.3g Sand-tempered ware 71 330g Colonoware 1 4.1g Native American UID 726 661.7g European Ceramics Puebla Blue on White 2 3.4g Puebla Polychrome 1 1.1g Santo Domingo Blue on White 1 4.5g Black Lead-Glazed coarse earthenware 1 1.3g El Morro 1 0.5g Slipware 4 20.1g Olive Jar 4 41.6g Faenza 1 1.0g Delftware 2 3.3g Kaolin clay pipe stems 5 4.2g Kaolin clay pipe bowls 9 4.2g Coarse earthenware 4 6.0g Historic Glass Fragments 30 90.3g Cup fragment, clear glass 1 35.1g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail fragments, iron 15 48.9g Iron band, function unknown 1 35.2g Iron slag 2 9.0g

PAGE 125

113 Iron fragments, UID 103 74.0g Copper fragment 1 0.2g Bone Fragments Odocoileus virginianus 4 5g Mammal, UID 14 38.3g Bird, UID 2 3.9g Bone fragments, UID 112 21.4g Other Flint fragment 1 3.7g Chert fragment 1 0.2g Quartz fragment 1 99.4g Level 3 Native American Ceramics San Marcos ware 52 251.4g Mission Red Filmed 9 15.1g St. Johns ware 3 6.2g Sand-tempered ware 97 513.5g Shell-tempered ware 7 57.1g Native American UID 372 265.0g Daub fragments 3 110.7g European Ceramics Sevilla Blue on Blue 1 0.1g El Morro 1 0.1g Olive Jar 7 20.5g Delftware 1 6.5g Kaolin clay pipe stem 1 1.6g Kaolin clay pipe bowl 6 3.4g Historic Glass Fragments 7 11.7g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail fragments, iron 6 24g Iron fragments, UID 34 37.3g Bone Fragments Gallus gallus (chicken) 1 0.1g Odocoileus virginianus 1 1.1g Bagre Marinus 1 <.1g Mammal, UID 7 15.6g Fish, UID 1 <.1g Bird, UID 1 <.1g Bone fragments, UID 1 <.1g Other Chert fragment 1 .4g Pebble 1 1.0g Feature 13 Native American Ceramics San Marcos ware 43 200.3g Mission Red Filmed 2 12.4g Sand-tempered ware 34 214.9g Colonoware 1 5.6g Native American UID 308 269.7g Daub fragments 3 1,798.9g European Ceramics San Luis Polychrome 1 2.4g

PAGE 126

114 Slipware 1 <.1g Faience 1 0.3g Kaolin clay pipe stem 1 8.5g Kaolin clay pipe bowl 1 0.1g Glazed tile fragment 1 4.5g Coarse earthenware 1 0.1g Brick fragments 2 4.0g Historic Glass Fragments 3 3.1g Iron/Metal Fragments Iron fragments, UID 11 4.0g Iron slag 1 1.2g Bone Fragments Odocoileus virginianus 6 16.6g Gallus gallus 1 0.5g Fish, UID 5 1.2g Mammal, UID 5 29.4g Bone fragments, UID 77 7.6g Other Botanical remains (charred seeds) 3 0.1g Test Unit 5 Level 2 Native American Ceramics San Marcos ware 36 166g Mission Red Filmed 1 1.8g Sand-tempered ware 11 4.4g Native American UID 318 295.2g European Ceramics Puebla Polychrome 1 1.0g Delftware 3 3.6g Pearlware 2 1.9g Slipware 7 11.4g Olive Jar 5 17.6g Majolica, UID 1 0.2g Tile Fragments 16 169.5g Kaolin clay pipe stems 1 3.5g Historic Glass Fragments 22 51.3g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail fragments, iron 5 20.9g Brass, ridged 2 7.2g Wire, UID 1 6.2g Lead shot 1 3.5g Iron fragments, UID, uncounted 39.1g Bone Fragments Bone fragments, UID 32 3.8g Other Construction debris, concrete 5 6.1g Limestone fragment 1 32.6g Level 3 (48-59 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos ware 73 373g Mission Red Filmed 5 28.3g

PAGE 127

115 St. Johns ware 2 2.2g Sand-tempered ware 18 78.6g Native American UID 336 290.4g European Ceramics Puebla Polychrome 2 4.4g Olive Jar 8 271.8g Slipware 5 9.2g El Morro 1 1.8g Delftware 2 8.7g Coarse earthenware 1 0.5g Porcelain 1 0.1g Kaolin clay pipe bowl 4 0.9g Kaolin clay pipe stem 2 1.5g Roof tile, Second Spanish period 1 59.4g Brick fragment 1 40.0g Historic Glass Fragments 35 67.5g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail fragments, iron 5 45.1g Iron spike 1 39.1g Iron fragments, UID 65 59.0g Bone Fragments Bos Taurus 1 26.8g Mammal, UID 14 45.4g Bone fragments, UID 48 16.1g Other Chert fragments 2 0.6g Tabby fragments 2 7.3g Coquina stone fragments 2 3.4g Botanical remains (corn kernels, burnt) 10 1.0g Level 4 Native American Ceramics San Marcos ware 28 158.8g Mission Red Filmed 4 7.1g Sand-tempered ware 14 64.4g Colonoware 1 18.4g Native American UID 206 177.1g Daub fragment 1 3.2g European Ceramics Olive Jar 1 9.1g Slipware 5 7.1g Delftware 1 1.0g Kaolin clay pipe stem 1 8.0g Tile fragment 1 44.0g Historic Glass Fragments 17 35.1g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail fragments, iron 2 1.1g Iron fragments, UID 22 13.9g Bone Fragments Sus scrofa (pig) 3 3.4g Squirrel 1 0.2g Mammal, UID 1 0.5g Bone fragments, UID 21 4.4g Other Ballast stone 1 107.4g

PAGE 128

116 Coquina stone 1 8.3g Worked flint 1 0.2g Botanical remains (corn kernel, seeds) 12 1.5g Feature 6 Native American Ceramics San Marcos ware 54 281.3g Mission Red Filmed 2 5.2g Sand-tempered ware 36 167.9g St. Johns ware 5 15.7g Colonoware 1 6.8g Native American UID 310 221.7g European Ceramics Puebla Polychrome 1 0.4g Sevilla Blue on Blue 1 2.1g Slipware 2 4.1g Delftware 4 8.5g Faience 1 3.1g Majolica, UID, Mexico City tradition 1 0.5g Olive Jar 1 30.3g Kaolin clay pipe stem 2 0.6g Kaolin clay pipe bowl 2 1.1g Historic Glass Fragments 27 74.5g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail fragments, iron 6 16.3g Iron fragments, UID 50 40.3g Bone Fragments Muskrat 1 0.3g Bird, UID 1 0.2g Fish, UID 1 <.1g Bone Fragments, UID 64 12.8g Other Stone (river cobble) 1 22.8g Botanical remains (seed, UID) 1 <.1g Feature 9 Native American Ceramics San Marcos ware 1 2.8g Sand-tempered ware 1 7.7g Native American UID 9 5.5g European Ceramics Kaolin clay pipe bowl 1 1.6g Iron/Metal Fragments Iron fragments, UID 3 1.4g Feature 9A Native American Ceramics San Marcos ware 3 12.3g Native American UID 3 5.9g Iron/Metal Fragments Iron fragment, UID 1 0.5g Iron rust, uncounted 2.2g Bone Fragments

PAGE 129

117 Odocoileus virginianus 1 4.4g Bone fragments, UID, uncounted 1.0g Other Blue bead 1 <.1g Feature 9B Native American Ceramics San Marcos ware 4 20.3g Native American UID 10 6.8g Historic Glass Fragments 1 0.6g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail fragment, iron 1 16.0g Test Unit 6 Level 2 Native American Ceramics San Marcos ware 15 60.6g Sand-tempered ware 16 55.5g Native American UID 148 89.4g European Ceramics Porcelain 2 2.8g Slipware 1 3.3g Whiteware 1 0.6g Coarse earthenware 1 1.5g Kaolin clay pipe stem 1 0.4g Kaolin clay pipe bowl 1 0.8g Brick fragment 1 81.9g Glazed tile fragment 1 6.1g Historic Glass Fragments 13 8.3g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail fragments, iron 7 5.7g Iron fragments, UID 60 29.4g Bone Fragments Bone fragments, UID 19 2.6g Other Tabby fragments 32 43.1g Coal fragment 1 1.8g Level 3 (48-54 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos ware 19 52.1g Mission Red Filmed 1 1.1g Sand-tempered ware 11 24.3g Native American UID 63 32.3g European Ceramics El Morro 1 7.9g Olive Jar 2 34.2g Coarse earthenware 5 9.0g Porcelain 1 0.1g Kaolin clay pipe stem 1 2.8g Kaolin clay pipe bowl 2 0.8g Glazed tile fragment 1 39.2g Historic Glass Fragments 15 11.7g

PAGE 130

118 Iron/Metal Fragments Iron fragments, UID 14 11.5g Lead shot 1 20.9g Bone Fragments Artiodactyl 22 16.8g Bone fragments, UID 10 2.9g Other Tabby fragment 1 31.9g Coquina stone fragment 4 73.6g Botanical remains (seeds, UID, burnt) 9 1.0g Feature 6 Level 4 Native American Ceramics San Marcos ware 24 106.4g Sand-tempered ware 2 10.0g Native American UID 90 78.1g European Ceramics Olive Jar 1 77.2g Slipware 2 8.9g Delftware 2 1.0g Creamware 3 2.6g El Morro 3 2.6g Black Lead-Glazed coarse earthenware 1 3.6g Historic Glass Fragments 14 62.8g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail fragment, iron 2 4.0g Iron spike 1 36.3g Tack fragment, iron 2 3.1g Iron fragments, UID 19 16.2g Button, brass 1 2.1g Bone Fragments Odocoileus virginianus 2 3.7g Gopherus polyphemus (gopher tortoise) 1 3.7g Artiodactyl 1 1.0g Mammal, UID 9 22.9g

PAGE 131

119 Bone fragments, UID 33 11.0g Other Botanical remains (corn cob and husk, burnt) 3.6g Botanical remains (kernels, corn, burnt) 1.9g Botanical remains (squash rind, burnt) 3.6g Level 5 Native American Ceramics San Marcos ware 19 90.6g Sand-tempered ware 1 5.4g Mission Red Filmed 2 4.5g Colonoware 1 4.5g Native American UID 63 57.8g European Ceramics San Luis Polychrome 1 1.5g Historic Glass Fragments 13 32.8g Iron/Metal Fragments Iron fragments, UID 2 1.1g Bone Fragments Bone fragments, UID, uncounted 8.6g Level 6 Native American Ceramics San Marcos ware 13 43.7g Mission Red Filmed 2 8.2g Sand-tempered ware 9 24.3g Native American UID 33 19.9g Historic Glass Fragments 4 1.5g Iron/Metal Fragments Iron object, function unknown 1 90.0g Iron fragments, UID 10 9.5g Bone Fragments Bone fragments, UID, uncounted 2.5g Level 8 Native American Ceramics San Marcos ware 10 42.4g St. Johns ware 2 6.3g Sand-tempered ware 4 17.8g Native American UID 42 42.5g European Ceramics San Luis Polychrome 1 2.7g Historic Glass Fragments 1 3.0g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail fragment, iron 1 1.1g Iron spike 1 108.5g Iron fragments, UID 17 4.1g Feature 6

PAGE 132

120 Level 8 Native American Ceramics San Marcos ware 17 88.4g St. Johns ware 2 1.5g Sand-tempered ware 6 25.2g Grog-tempered ware 1 3.0g Colonoware 2 32.3g Native American UID 112 101.2g European Ceramics Puebla Blue on White 2 0.5g Slipware 1 1.4g Olive Jar 1 0.1g Kaolin clay pipe stem 2 4.2g Historic Glass Fragments 13 29.7g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail fragment, iron 1 0.6g Iron fragments, UID 5 4.4g Lead fragment (weight) 1 6.2g Bone Fragments Sciaenidae (drum) 1 0.2g Bone fragments, UID 9 3.1g Feature 6 – E1/2 Native American Ceramics San Marcos ware 63 277.8g Mission Red Filmed 1 3.2g Sand-tempered ware 23 82.7g Native American UID 328 222.0g European Ceramics Puebla Blue on White 3 10.0g Olive Jar 2 7.7g Slipware 2 19.7g Majolica, UID, Puebla tradition 1 <.1g Kaolin clay pipe stem 4 4.4g Historic Glass Fragments 22 17.8g Iron/Metal Fragments Iron fragments, UID 30 16.6g Tube, UID metal 1 0.5g Lead fragment, chewed 1 18.4g Bone Fragments Bone fragments, UID 5 1.0g Other Pebbles 5 6.6g Feature 6 – W1/2 Native American Ceramics San Marcos ware 36 154.6g Sand-tempered ware 6 20.3g Native American UID 88 64.3g

PAGE 133

121 European Ceramics Kaolin clay pipe bowl 1 0.2g Historic Glass Fragments 10 66.7g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail fragments, iron 7 5.4g Iron fragments, UID 9 3g Button, brass 1 0.6g Other Coal fragment 1 8.4g Botanical, UID 1 <.1g Wood fragment 1 16.9g Chert fragment 1 0.4g Feature 6 – S1/2 Native American Ceramics San Marcos ware 19 70.2g Sand-tempered ware 2 3.3g Colonoware 1 6.8g Native American UID 50 25.1g European Ceramics Olive Jar 1 7.8g Slipware 2 6.9g Historic Glass Fragments 3 1.5g Iron/Metal Fragments Iron fragment 1 2.5g Bone Fragments Fish, UID, uncounted 1.8g Bone fragments, UID 9 0.7g Other Botanical (seeds – 1 watermelon, other) 7 5.7g Wood fragments 3 4.5g Slate fragment 1 0.1g Feature 6 – N1/2 Native American Ceramics San Marcos ware 10 86.1g Sand-tempered ware 2 12.4g Native American UID 19 12.2g Historic Glass Fragments 12 5.9g Iron/Metal Fragments Iron Fragments, UID 5 0.8g Other Botanical – seeds, UID 4 <.1g Cloth fragment 1 <.1g Thread fragments 5 <.1g Coquina stone 1 1,200g Test Unit 7 Level 3 (48-50/54 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos ware 30 113.2g Sand-tempered ware 3 12.8g Native American UID 159 131.2g

PAGE 134

122 Daub fragments 2 1.9g European Ceramics Nottingham stoneware 1 3.6g Aranama Polychrome 1 0.5g San Luis Polychrome 1 0.8g San Agustin Blue on White 1 0.1g Puebla Polychrome 1 3.0g Majolica, UID 1 1.3g Kaolin clay pipe bowl 3 1.1g Olive Jar 2 10.6g Tile, coarse earthenware 1 13.9g Historic Glass Fragments 18 44.1g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail fragments, iron 3 43.0g Tack fragments, iron 2 1.8g Iron fragments, UID 4 3.8g Iron slag 6 1.2g Copper pin, wire wound 1 0.2g Iron fragments, uncounted 4.3g Bone Fragments Bos Taurus 1 12.4g Mammal, UID 3 19.4g Fish, UID 1 0.4g Bone fragments, UID 47 13.9g Other Botanical (corn kernels, uncounted) 8.6g Construction debris, concrete 7 4.5g Coquina stone 1 2.9g Level 4 Native American Ceramics San Marcos ware 2 6.1g Native American UID 8 7.8g Historic Glass Fragments 2 2.3g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail fragments, iron 2 3.5g Bone Fragments Bone fragments, UID 4 0.4g Other Botanical – corn kernel 1 0.1g Stone, gray, UID 1 0.5g Level 6 Native American Ceramics San Marcos ware 10 47.7g Native American UID 34 21.2g Historic Glass Fragments 1 <.1g Iron/Metal Fragments Iron fragments, UID 6 2.7g Bone Fragments Bone fragments, UID 4 0.7g Other Chert fragment 1 1.6g

PAGE 135

123 Feature 6 Native American Ceramics San Marcos ware 12 77.8g Sand-tempered ware 7 37.3g Native American UID 54 43g European Ceramics San Luis Blue on White 1 1.6g Historic Glass Fragments 6 10.8g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail fragment, iron 1 1.0g Iron fragments, UID 13 10.6g Tack, brass 1 1.2g Buckle, metal UID 1 1.4g Bone Fragments Bone fragments, UID 17 5.1g Other Botanical (corn kernels and cob, burnt) 10 1.6g Test Unit 8 Level 1 Native American Ceramics San Marcos ware 43 130.2g St. Johns ware 3 3.9g Mission Red Filmed 3 3.9g Sand-tempered ware 37 139.7g Native American UID 170 140.1g European Ceramics Olive Jar 1 2.4g Aranama Polychrome 1 4.5g Marine ware 1 5.0g Delftware 3 3.7g Puebla Blue on White 1 2.3g Majolica, UID, Puebla tradition 2 4.1g Slipware 4 9.1g Pearlware 1 1.7g Black Lead-Glazed coarse earthenware 1 10.2g Kaolin clay pipe bowl 2 1.4g Brick fragment 1 1.3g Historic Glass Fragments 61 101.9g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail fragments, iron 2 8.7g Bolt head, iron 1 53.2g Staple, iron 1 0.2g Iron objects, UID 13 379.5g Iron fragments, UID, uncounted 121.9g Metal objects, UID metal 4 5.8g Iron slag 3 5.2g Other Graphite fragment 1 1.1g Chert fragments 2 1.2g Level 2 Native American Ceramics

PAGE 136

124 San Marcos ware 94 474.7g Mission Red Filmed 7 15.7g Sand-tempered ware 65 325.9g St. Johns ware 1 1.2g Native American UID 620 511.8g Daub fragment 1 26.0g European Ceramics Olive Jar 8 88.7g Ab Polychrome 2 2.0g Aranama Polychrome 1 0.4g Puebla Polychrome 1 2.6g El Morro 1 1.1g Slipware 6 15.6g Majolica, UID 2 2.1g Creamware 1 0.1g Delftware 2 4.4g Kaolin clay pipe stem 2 4.9g Kaolin clay pipe bowl 2 1.3g Historic Glass Fragments 26 42.4g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail Fragments, iron 6 22g Iron fragments, UID 44 46.9g Iron slag 1 0.3g Bone Fragments Bone fragments, UID 81 50.8g Other Botanical (corn kernels) 18 2.0g Chert fragments 3 7.7g Level 3 Native American Ceramics San Marcos ware 12 82.6g Mission Red Filmed 1 4.0g Sand-tempered ware 4 18.3g Native American UID 41 32.8g Daub fragments 1 589.6g European Ceramics Puebla Blue on White 1 3.4g Slip-trailed American redware 1 7.5g Historic Glass Fragments 5 1.1g Iron/Metal Fragments Scale, iron 4 1.8g Pin, metal UID 1 <.1g Bone Fragments Bone fragments, UID 5 8.8g Feature 3 Native American Ceramics San Marcos ware 4 10.2g Mission Red Filmed 2 3.5g Sand-tempered ware 13 34.6g Colonoware 1 11.0g Native American UID 31 17.5g Daub fragment 1 326.0g

PAGE 137

125 European Ceramics El Morro 1 1.6g Historic Glass Fragments 3 2.7g Iron/Metal Fragments Iron fragments, UID 12 4.0g Bone Fragments Bone fragments, UID 13 1.7g Feature 4 Native American Ceramics San Marcos ware 5 33.6g Sand-tempered ware 4 15.0g Native American UID 33 27.2g European Ceramics Olive Jar 2 18.8g Kaolin clay pipe stem 1 1.8g Historic Glass Fragments 2 0.6g Iron/Metal Fragments Iron fragments, UID 5 3.2g Feature 6 Native American Ceramics San Marcos ware 18 71.9g St. Johns ware 1 0.7g Sand-tempered ware 16 43.4g Native American UID 104 70.7g European Ceramics Puebla Polychrome 1 2.1g Puebla Blue on White 1 3.8g San Luis Polychrome 1 9.6g Huejotzingo Blue on White 1 0.5g Olive Jar 1 3.1g Slipware 3 4.6g Kaolin clay pipe bowl 1 0.7g Historic Glass Fragments 10 15g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail fragments, iron 4 8.9g Iron fragments, UID 17 10.1g Slag, iron 1 0.2g Bone Fragments Odocoileus virginianus 3 1.8g Bone fragments, uncounted, UID 5.4g Other Chert fragment 1 0.3g Level 4 Native American Ceramics San Marcos ware 6 21.7g Sand-tempered ware 4 15.4g Native American UID 59 53.1g Daub fragment 1 6.1g European Ceramics

PAGE 138

126 Slipware 1 17.4g Historic Glass Fragments 1 0.5g Iron/Metal Fragments Iron fragments, UID 6 3.2g Bone Fragments Bone fragments, UID 13 2.5g Test Unit 9 Level 1 (35-47 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos ware 77 417g Sand-tempered ware 148 607.2g Mission Red Filmed 9 26g 159 Marine Street Stripping Area 1 Test Unit 1 Level 2 (30-35 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 4 11.1g Sand-Tempered ware 2 5g Native American, UID 6 6.1g European Ceramics Brick Fragment 2 6.1g Whiteware 1 .6g Pearlware 2 2.1g Historic Glass Fragments 11 63.1g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail Fragments, iron 9 86.7g Iron Fragments, UID, uncounted 143.2g Bone Fragments Sus scrofa (pig) 2 6.0g Bone fragments, UID 1 .5g Level 3 (36-40 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 13 46.4g Mission Filmed Red 1 1.4g Sand-Tempered ware 3 12.5g Native American, UID 33 44.1g European Ceramics Olive Jar 1 1.5g Slipware 6 18.4g El Morro 1 2.1g Porcelain, UID 1 .1g Delftware 1 <.1g Faience 1 .2g Whiteware 6 29.6g Brick Fragments 2 4.9g Historic Glass Fragments 125 170.7g

PAGE 139

127 Iron/Metal Fragments Lead Shot pellet 1 31.1g Nail Fragments, Iron 55 302.9g Bone Fragments Gallus Gallus (chicken) 2 1.2g Sus Scrofa 1 1.0g Meleagris (turkey) 1 .1g Mammal, UID 5 6.2g Bone Fragments, UID 10 3.3g Other Gunflint 1 1.4g Plastic fragments, black 3 4.4g Level Four (40-50 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 9 37.6g Mission Filmed Red 1 1.8g Sand-Tempered ware 3 7.4g Native American, UID 31 42.1g European Ceramics Slipware 1 1.1g Rey Ware 1 1.4g Refined Earthenware, UID 1 .6g Majolica, UID, Puebla Tradition 1 1.4g Pearlware 1 6.6g Historic Glass Fragments 38 61.6g Iron/Metal Fragments Brass Pencil base 1 .8g ID band for bird, modern 1 .6g Nail Fragments, Iron 50 175.8g Iron, UID, object 1 56.5g Iron Slag 2 2.7g Screw Fragment 1 1.5g Iron Fragments, UID, uncounted 256.1g Bone Fragments Gallus gallus 16 56.6g Mammal, UID 2 5.0g Bone fragments, UID 4 0.8g Level Five (50-53 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 27 120.9g Mission Filmed Red 2 7.2g Sand-Tempered ware 3 14.5g Colonoware 1 4.9g Native American, UID 107 92.4g European Ceramics Delftware 1 2.0g Olive Jar 1 9.1g Slipware 4 5.3g Coarse earthenware 2 5.0g Brick Fragment 1 2.1g Historic Glass Fragments 9 7.5g Iron/Metal Fragments

PAGE 140

128 Nail Fragments, iron 14 62.5g Iron Fragments, UID,uncounted 62.9g Bone Fragments Gallus gallus 20 14.4g Bird, UID 11 1.3g Fish, UID 1 .7g Bone Fragments, UID 18 5.7g Level 6 (53-60 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 6 91.6g Sand-Tempered ware 17 79.3g Native American, UID 39 30g Daub Fragments 2 1.0g European Ceramics Mexican Red-Painted ware 1 .6g Olive Jar 1 4.6g Delftware 1 1.8g Historic Glass Fragments 4 3.5g Iron/Metal Fragments Iron Fragments, UID 44 27.8g Feature 1 Level 4 (40-50 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 4 13.3g Sand-Tempered ware 1 2.2g Native American, UID 5 5.3g European Ceramics Delftware 1 <.1g Pearlware 1 1.0g Historic Glass Fragments 35 34.8g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail Fragments, iron 25 60.4g Bullet, lead 1 25.9g Iron Fragments, UID, uncounted 51.8g Bone Fragments Fish, UID (scale) 1 <.1g Bone fragments, UID 2 1.3g Other Shell Fragment, UID (poss. Busycon) 1 2.6g Level 5 (50-53 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 5 23.2g Sand-Tempered ware 2 5.5g Colonoware 1 8.0g Native American, UID 16 10.5g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail Fragments, iron 3 6.9g Iron Fragments, UID 11 2.2g Feature 2

PAGE 141

129 Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 1 4.3g Mission Filmed Red 1 .2g Sand-Tempered ware 1 2.3g Orange Period Fiber-Tempered 2 27.7g Native American, UID 11 3.1g Daub Fragments 1 .1g Historic Glass Fragments 3 .6g Iron/Metal Fragments Iron Fragments, UID 4 .7g Bone Fragments Fish, UID (vertebra) 1 <.1g Bone Fragment, UID 1 <.1g Feature 4 Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 3 5.0g Native American, UID 5 2.2g Iron/Metal Fragments Iron Fragments, UID 11 4.9g Feature 5 Native American Ceramics Sand-tempered ware 2 5.0g Native American, UID 2 1.0g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail Fragments, iron 3 5.2g Bone Fragments Bone Fragments, UID 5 .7g Feature 6 Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 1 1.5g Native American, UID 1 .6g Feature 7 Native American Ceramics Native American, UID 1 1.5g European Ceramics Olive Jar 1 2.7g Feature 9 Iron/Metal Fragments Iron Fragments, UID 22 15.3g Feature 10 Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 2 6.8g Mission Red Filmed 1 1.2g

PAGE 142

130 Sand-Tempered ware 1 1.6g Native American, UID 11 4.5g Iron/Metal Fragments Iron Fragments, UID 1 <.1g Test Unit 2 Level 2 (42-45 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 21 97.1g Sand-Tempered ware 4 13.4g Native American, UID 63 67.9g European Ceramics Whiteware 1 11.8g Delftware 1 .5g Slipware 1 9.7g Kaolin clay pipe bowl 1 .5g Historic Glass Fragments 37 47.3g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail Fragments, iron 14 43g Iron Spike 1 20.7g Fuse,iron 1 1.0g Knurled nut, brass 1 1.6g Tack, brass 1 .9g Iron fragments, UID, uncounted 96.0g Bone Fragments Fish, UID 2 <.1g Bird, UID 1 <.1g Bone Fragments, UID 3 2.2g Other Button, bone, carved 1 .1g Level 3 (45-54 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 31 110.7g Sand-Tempered ware 8 19.5g Colonoware 1 17.3g Native American, UID 158 101.2g European Ceramics Olive Jar 3 64.5g Puebla Polychrome 1 .2g Slipware 2 2.9g Delftware 1 .3g Kaolin clay pipe bowl 1 1.4g Historic Glass Fragments 3 1.9g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail Fragments, iron 1 1.5g Iron Fragments, UID 17 13.6g U.S. Penny, copper, dated 1899 1 3.0g Lead Fragment 1 8.3g Tin Fragments 2 .9g Metal object, UID 6 3.9g Other Bead, glass 1 1.1g

PAGE 143

131 Feature 11 – W1/2 Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 12 54.9g Mission Red Filmed 2 1.3g Sand-Tempered ware 6 14.3g Native American, UID 72 65.0g European Ceramics Coarse earthenware 1 2.8g Puebla Blue on White 2 2.7g Majolica, UID, Puebla tradition 1 1.1g Porcelain, UID 1 0.2g Brick fragments 25 20.1g Historic Glass Fragments 79 75.4g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail Fragments, iron 60 163.9g Iron Fragments, UID 1 4.4g Tack Fragments, iron 7 8.4g Staple, iron 1 1.9g Iron Slag 1 .4g Wire mesh fragment 1 .8g Iron fragments, UID, uncounted 66.5g Bone Fragments Fish, UID (vertebra) 1 .1g Turtle, UID 1 .3g Mammal, UID 1 .5g Bird, UID 1 .1g Bone fragments, UID 18 5.7g Other Jewelry piece – silver butterfly 1 .8g Coquina stone fragments 1 33.9g Feature 11 – E1/2 Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 7 26.7g Mission Red Filmed 2 8.2g Sand-Tempered ware 2 10.6g Native American, UID 45 40.8g European Ceramics Pearlware 1 .3g Slipware 1 2.8g Brick fragments 10 537.7g Tile Fragments 1 3.5g Historic Glass Fragments 13 24.5g Modern Glass Fragments 40 32.2g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail Fragments, iron 31 130.7g Iron Fragment, UID 1 118.8g Horseshoe 1 571.1g Aluminum Fragments 23 58.3g Brass Shell Casing 1 .8g Bone Fragments Bos Taurus (cow) 1 1.8g Fish, UID (vertebra) 2 .2g

PAGE 144

132 Bone Fragments, UID 27 8.7g Other Tabby Fragments 23 207.4g Feature 13 Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 1 3.2g Sand-Tempered ware 1 1.7g Native American, UID 2 1.1g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail Fragments, iron 1 1.3g Iron Fragments, UID 2 .4g Feature 14 Native American Ceramics St. Johns check-stamped 1 9.6g European Ceramics Coarse earthenware 1 3.0g Bone Fragments Bone Fragment, UID 1 2.4g Other Beads – glass, blue 4 .1g Beads – glass, turquoise 2 <.1g Feature 15 Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 13 79.8g Mission Red Filmed 1 2.9g Sand-Tempered ware 12 73.6g Native American, UID 69 48.6g Clay ball 1 8.8g European Ceramics Redware, glazed 1 10.9g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail Fragments, iron 2 23.9g Bone Fragments Sciaenidae (drum) 1 .3g Fish, UID 10 1.1g Artiodactyl 2 6.5g Bone Fragments, UID 13 3.0g Other Oyster Shells, whole 143 2,720g Quartz Fragments 2 41g Feature 17 Native American Ceramics Native American, UID 13 14.6g Bone Fragments Siluriformes (catfish) 2 <.1g Bone Fragments, UID 3 .2g

PAGE 145

133 Other Oyster Shells, whole 5 37.5g Lava Stone grinder 1 246.5g Feature 18 Iron/Metal Fragments Circular iron ring, poss. bull nose ring 1 104.5g Feature 19 Native American Ceramics Sand-Tempered ware 1 1.9g Native American, UID 3 2.5g European Ceramics Olive Jar 1 8.1g Iron/Metal Fragments Iron Fragment, UID 1 .9g Other Oyster Shells, whole 62 1,006g Feature 21 Native American Ceramics Native American, UID 10 6.2g Other Shell Fragments, UID 3 10.3g Feature 22 Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 1 2.1g European Ceramics Coarse earthenware, unglazed 1 4.4g Iron/Metal Fragments Iron fragments, UID 2 6.6g Bone Fragments Bone fragments, UID 2 .3g Test Unit 3 Level 2 (40-48 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 2 8.2g Mission Red Filmed 1 10.6g Sand-Tempered ware 3 17.0g Native American, UID 30 37.9g European Ceramics Tile fragment, brown glazed coarse 1 105.4g earthenware Rey ware 1 9.2g Slipware 2 1.3g Delftware 1 .3g Historic Glass Fragments 31 45.3g

PAGE 146

134 Iron/Metal Fragments Nail Fragments, iron 61 135.9g Staple, iron 1 1.1g Iron Fragments, UID 2 43.4g Lead Fragments, app. residue 1 154.5g Pipe fitting, brass 1 109.2g Iron fragments, UID, uncounted 84.6g Bone Fragments Siluriformes 7 1.6g Fish, UID 1 <.1g Gallus gallus 1 3.5g Bone fragments, UID 6 4.6g Other Slate, broken stone fragment 1 1.8g Level 3 (48+ cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 41 138.1g Mission Red Filmed 4 25.7g Sand-Tempered ware 64 299.7g Native American, UID 131 77.9g Colonoware 1 3.1g Daub Fragments 8 3.5g European Ceramics Puebla Polychrome 2 1.5g Slipware 1 .7g Delftware 1 .3g Olive Jar 1 39.1g Historic Glass Fragments 3 1.7g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail Fragments, iron 11 14.7g Iron Fragments, UID 44 33.8g Iron slag 1 1.8g Shot Pellets, lead 1 3.7g Rivets, brass 6 1.2g Bone Fragments Siluriformes (otolith) 1 .5g Bos Taurus 2 20.0g Bird, UID 1 .3g Mammal, UID 1 4.0g Bone Fragments, UID 21 4.0g Other Quartz Fragment 1 6.3g Feature 23 Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 3 16.0g Native American, UID 6 1.3g Iron/Metal Fragments Iron Fragments, UID 1 1.7g Bone Fragments Bone Fragments, UID 14 5.2g Feature 24

PAGE 147

135 Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 1 1.5g Native American, UID 1 .1g Feature 25 Native American Ceramics Native American, UID 7 1.4g European Ceramics Kaolin clay pipe bowl 1 .3g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail Fragment, iron 1 .8g Iron Fragments, UID 7 2.5g Bone Fragments Siluriformes 1 <.1g Bone Fragments, UID 2 <.2g Feature 31 Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 6 12.9g Sand-Tempered ware 1 12.4g Native American, UID 2 .7g Daub Fragments 4 15.4g European Ceramics Olive Jar 1 12.2g Iron/Metal Fragments Iron Fragments, UID 2 2.8g Other Oyster Shells, whole 29 210.3g Clam Shells, whole 4 1.1g Beads – glass, blue 3 .1g Feature 32 Native American Ceramics Native American, UID 1 .4g Sand-Tempered ware 1 .7g Stripping Area 2 Test Unit 1 Level 2 (52-60 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 32 144.9g Mission Red Filmed 1 7.5g Sand-Tempered ware 7 18.4g Native American, UID 118 128.2g European Ceramics Olive Jar 6 11.2g Puebla Blue on White 1 .2g Salt-glazed stoneware 1 4.3g Slipware 8 12.7g

PAGE 148

136 Pearlware 2 1.9g Brick Fragments 4 8.8g Historic Glass Fragments 15 2.0g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail Fragments, iron 8 41.2g Copper fragment 1 .8g Iron fragments, UID, uncounted 54.5g Bone Fragments Sus scrofa (tooth) 1 .5g Gallus gallus 3 .2g Artiodactyl (ribs) 2 6.0g Fish, UID 1 .1g Mammal, UID 1 .2g Bone Fragments, UID 26 10.2g Other Coquina stone fragments 2 16.2g Golf ball (modern) 1 24.8g Level 3 (60-70 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 48 288.2g Mission Red Filmed 6 28.9g St. Johns ware 2 3.2g Sand-Tempered ware 46 228.2g Colonoware 2 5.9g Native American, UID 394 331g European Ceramics Olive Jar 8 54.6g El Morro 3 20.8g Brown Stoneware, salt-glazed 1 18.0g Delftware 7 15.6g Porcelain, British 1 .9g Faience 3 36.5g Pearlware 3 3.0g Puebla Blue on White 2 4.1g Slipware 18 42.2g Marineware 5 7.2g Kaolin clay pipe stems 2 1.3g Kaolin clay pipe bowl 1 .8g Historic Glass Fragments 18 27.3g Iron/Metal Fragments Aglet, brass 1 1.8g Button, pewter 1 1.2g Nail Fragments, iron 20 65.6g Iron Fragments, UID 3 63g Bone Fragments Gallus gallus 4 <.6g Odocoileus virginianus (white-tailed deer) 1 .2g Artiodactyl (teeth) 3 .5g Elasmobranchiomorphi (Sharks) 1 .2g Pogonias cromis (Black drum) 1 .8g Fish, UID 4 <.3g Bird, UID 7 1.4g Mammal, UID 2 1.6g Bone Fragments, UID 60 17.4g

PAGE 149

137 Other Coquina stone fragments 2 16.5g Chert fragments 2 .9g Bead, UID 1 .3g Level 4 (70-75 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 36 264.9g Mission Red Filmed 5 23.7g Sand-Tempered ware 1 5.7g Colonoware 1 267.8g Native American, UID 154 115.2g European Ceramics Puebla Blue on White 2 4.3g El Morro 2 1.2g Delftware 5 12.2g Marineware 1 3.5g Slipware 5 18.6g Coarse earthenware 2 1.0g Kaolin clay pipestems 2 1.6g Historic Glass Fragments 6 37.9g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail Fragments, iron 6 11.3g Iron Fragments, UID 21 185.9g Iron Spike 1 48.4g Shot pellet, lead 1 1.3g Copper Fragment 1 1.1g Bone Fragments Siluriformes 2 .3g Shark 1 1.3g Bird, UID 1 .3g Mammal, UID 17 46.4g Bone Fragments, UID 50+ 9.7g Other Busycon shell 2 221.6g Coquina Stone fragments 2 143.5g Tabby fragments 1 7.6g Gun flints 2 4.6g Feature 74b Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 9 48.8g Native American, UID 27 27.8g European Ceramics El Morro 1 .3g Slipware 1 1.3g Coarse earthenware 1 9.8g Historic Glass Fragments 1 3.5g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail Fragments, iron 1 3.0g Iron Fragments, UID 4 49.6g Bone Fragments Sciaenidae 1 .2g

PAGE 150

138 Feature 76 Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 8 37.1g Sand-Tempered ware 1 2.0g Native American, UID 35 21.6g European Ceramics Olive Jar 1 1.0g Delftware 1 .3g Historic Glass Fragments 1 32.7g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail Fragments, iron 3 9.8g Iron Spike 1 49.8g Iron Fragments, UID 10 6.4g Bone Fragments Sciaenidae (teeth) 8 3.1g Silfuriformes 3 .8g Fish, UID 8 1.8g Bone Fragments, UID 505.6g Other Oyster Shells, whole 15 208.8g Clam Shell fragments 4 81.2g Feature 77 Native American Ceramics Native American, UID 23 13.1g Iron/Metal Fragments Iron Fragment, UID 1 .3g Bone Fragments Sciaenidae (tooth) 1 .2g Fish, UID 1 <.1g Bone Fragments, UID 9 3.8g Feature 78 Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 2 6.1g Native American, UID 3 1.6g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail Fragment, iron 1 15.0g Iron Fragment, UID 1 .6g Bone Fragments Bone Fragment, UID 1 <.1g Other Coquina stone fragment 1 1.2g Feature 79 Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 4 13.4g Sand-Tempered ware 1 2.7g Native American, UID 9 4.8g Daub Fragments 2 1.0g European Ceramics

PAGE 151

139 Slipware 1 .8g Historic Glass Fragments 2 4.2g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail Fragments, iron 2 4.7g Iron Fragments, UID 7 10.6g Bone Fragments Sciaenidae (tooth) 1 <.1g Bos taurus 2 26.4g Mammal, UID 1 1.0g Bone Fragments, UID 12 3.3g Other Bead, glass, blue faceted 1 .2g Coquina stone fragments 2 3.5g Tabby fragment 1 1.7g Test Unit 2 Level 2 (52-62 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 29 138.2g Mission Red Filmed 3 9.8g Sand-Tempered ware 9 29.4g St. Johns ware 1 2.0g Colonoware 1 13.8g Native American, UID 159 166.5g European Ceramics Whiteware 1 15.5g Pearlware 1 15.1g El Morro 1 .4g Delftware 4 4.5g Slipware 7 11.8g Puebla Polychrome 1 .5g Puebla Blue on White 1 .3g Faience 2 5.1g Majolica, UID, Puebla tradition 3 3.5g Kaolin clay pipe stems 2 5.0g Kaolin clay pipe bowls 2 .2g Glazed tile fragment 1 6.8g Brick fragments 3 2.5g Historic Glass Fragments 25 41.4g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail Fragments, iron 7 42.2g Tack, iron 1 .9g Shell casing, brass 1 2.4g Iron fragments, UID, uncounted 439.0g Bone Fragments Ovis (sheep) 1 6.6g Bos Taurus 3 38.2g Sciurus (squirrel) 1 .5g Gallus gallus 8 10.3g Fish, UID 6 1.1g Bird, UID 30 11.4g Mammal, cut, UID 39 166.5g Bone Fragments, UID 1000+ 239.8g Other Gunflint 1 2.4g

PAGE 152

140 Level 3 (62-70 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 39 176.7g Sand-Tempered ware 11 58.6g Colonoware 1 28.3g Native American, UID 222 191.2g European Ceramics Slipware 2 1.5g Coarse earthenware 2 5.1g Bone Fragments Bos Taurus 8 73.7g Siluriformes 4 .2g Bird, UID 1 <.1g Mammal, UID 1 <.1g Bone fragments, UID 41 10.5g Feature 70A Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 1 7.0g Sand-Tempered ware 1 3.9g Native American, UID 1 2.2g European Ceramics Olive Jar 1 45.3g Whiteware 1 17.0g Majolica, UID 1 3.4g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail Fragments, iron 7 39.5g Iron Fragments, UID 44 123.9g Brass Fragment, UID 1 7.8g Bone Fragments Gallus gallus 4 6.6g Bos Taurus 45 366.3g Sus scrofa 1 5.4g Mammal, UID 32 81.4g Bird, UID 12 6.9g Bone fragments, UID 4 1.1g Bone fragments, UID, uncounted 124.6g Other Oyster Shell, whole 5 61.3g Clam Shell, fragments 8 65.6g Button, silver 1 .5g Feature 70B Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 1 8.1g Sand-Tempered ware 5 16.7g European Ceramics Olive Jar 1 25.1g Pearlware 4 72.7g Whiteware 2 19.5g Brick Fragments 1 1.8g Historic Glass Fragments 20 147.8g

PAGE 153

141 Iron/Metal Fragments Nail Fragments 27 74.4g Iron Fragments, UID 54 62.2g Bone Fragments Gallus gallus 11 18.7g Bos Taurus 80 461.3g Bird, UID 35 141.3g Mammal, UID 131 316.3g Fish, UID 23 3.1g Bone Fragments, UID 1326 285.6g Other Oyster shell fragments 7 94.3g Clam shell fragments 6 33.5g Feature 71A Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 3 11.5g Mission Red Filmed 1 2.7g Sand-Tempered ware 1 13.9g Native American, UID 10 5.2g European Ceramics Delftware 1 0.3g Kaolin clay pipe bowl 1 0.3g Historic Glass Fragments 1 1.1g Bone Fragments Mammal, UID 3 13.9g Bone Fragments, UID 14 1.1g Other Shell fragments (oyster, clam) 20 35.8g Feature 71B Native American Ceramics Sand-Tempered ware 2 7.2g Native American, UID 5 2.2g European Ceramics Slipware 1 24.0g Bone Fragments Bone Fragments, UID 2 0.1g Other Shell Fragments (oyster, clam) 10 26.0g Feature 71D Native American Ceramics Sand-Tempered ware 2 5.3g Native American, UID 1 0.3g Feature 72 Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 9 51.5g Native American, UID 9 6.6g Daub Fragments 3 14.1g European Ceramics

PAGE 154

142 Slipware 1 <.1g Historic Glass Fragments 2 19.5g Bone Fragments Bone fragments, UID, uncounted <.1g Other Coquina stone fragments 1 8.0g Shell fragments, UID, uncounted 95.9g Feature 73 Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 2 6.1g Mission Red Filmed 1 2.0g Sand-Tempered ware 3 8.4g Native American, UID 14 8.8g European Ceramics El Morro 1 0.8g Delftware 1 0.1g Other Shell Fragments (clam, oyster) 2033.2g Test Unit 3 Level 2 (56-65 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 15 67.9g Mission Red Filmed 2 8.6g Sand-Tempered ware 16 67.8g Native American, UID 158 164.1g European Ceramics Olive Jar 1 1.3g Brick Fragments 2 1.4g Historic Glass Fragments 9 10.5g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail Fragments, iron 4 8.4g Iron Fragments, UID 15 12.8g Bone Fragments Bos Taurus 1 1.0g Bone Fragments, UID 12 10.0g Other Gunflint 1 6.2g Flint flakes 2 14.4g Button, milk glass 1 0.3g Level 3 (65-75 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 64 456.2g Mission Red Filmed 3 10.9g Sand-Tempered ware 17 62.7g Colonoware 1 20.9g Native American, UID 197 188.2g European Ceramics Slipware 19 66.1g Puebla Blue on White 4 4.9g El Morro 1 .8g

PAGE 155

143 Delftware 9 8.6g Olive Jar 1 3.7g Coarse earthenware 1 <.1g Kaolin clay pipe stems 2 6.7g Kaolin clay pipe bowls 1 1.0g Brick Fragment 1 107.4g Historic Glass Fragments 19 50.4g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail Fragments, iron 6 21.6g Iron Fragments, UID 32 150.6g Iron Slag 1 .4g Bone Fragments Bos Taurus 2 0.8g Sus scrofa 2 0.9g Bagre marinus (gafftopsail catfish) 1 1.2g Siluriformes 2 0.2g Artiodactyl 6 26.1g Shark, UID 1 0.2g Turtle, UID 1 0.1g Fish, UID 3 1.9g Bone fragments, UID 5 10.9g Other Flint chips 3 28.9g Button, brass 1 3.0g Bead, whiteware 1 1.1g Clam shell, fragment 1 24.2g Coquina stone, fragments 3 14.6g Slate, fragment 1 0.3g Feature 76 Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 9 32.7g Mission Red Filmed 2 1.6g Sand-Tempered ware 3 29.9g Native American, UID 23 15.7g European Ceramics Ab Polychrome 1 3.2g Marine ware 1 99.5g Transfer-print pearlware 1 <.1g Slipware 1 0.4g Delftware 1 6.0g Majolica, UID 3 1.5g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail Fragment, iron 1 6.5g Iron Spike 1 138.9g Iron Fragments, UID 9 38.5g Tool, function unknown, iron 1 382.0g Bone Fragments Gopherus polyphemus (Gopher tortoise) 1 0.6g Bos Taurus 2 80.0g Siluriformes 2 <.2g Sciaenidae 4 2.4g Odocoileus virginianus 1 12.6g Shark, UID 1 0.1g Fish, UID 13 4.2g

PAGE 156

144 Mammal, UID 7 38.9g Bone, UID, uncounted 32.9g Other Busycon shell 2 405.2g Clam shell 13 222.8g Coquina stone, fragments 1 4.0g Ballast stone, ship (igneous) 1 20.3g Feature 77 Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 11 39.7g Mission Red Filmed 3 9.9g Native American, UID 102 6.3g Clay ball 1 1.4g European Ceramics El Morro 3 2.9g Slipware 1 0.5g Delftware 1 0.3g Olive Jar 5 4.4g Majolica, UID 1 0.2g Historic Glass Fragments 6 1.5g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail Fragment, iron 1 4.1g Iron Fragments, UID 7 2.5g Bone Fragments Fish, UID 4 0.5g Bone Fragments, UID 13 3.1g Other Chert Flakes 1 0.1g Feature 77a Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 2 3.5g Mission Red Filmed 1 1.6g Native American, UID 10 6.7g European Ceramics Olive Jar 1 <.1g Agate 1 16.4g Delftware 1 <.1g Iron/Metal Fragments Iron Fragments, UID 2 0.5g Bone Fragments Fish, UID 2 0.2g Feature 80 Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 2 5.5g Sand-Tempered ware 1 5.7g Native American, UID 14 7.8g Bone Fragments Bone Fragments, UID 8 0.5g Test Unit 4

PAGE 157

145 Level 2 (60-75 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 23 121.6g Mission Red Filmed 7 34.7g Sand-Tempered ware 16 68.2g Grog-Tempered ware 1 10.8g St. Johns ware 3 2.2g Native American, UID 277 242.7g Daub Fragments 1 0.3g European Ceramics Kaolin clay pipe stems 2 1.8g Faience 1 1.8g El Morro 2 2.3g Slipware 10 40.2g Mexican White 1 1.7g Majolica, UID, Mexico City tradition 1 0.8g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail Fragments, iron 16 47.4g Brass Fragments (poss. buckles) 2 1.7g Bone Fragments Bos Taurus 3 7.5g Siluriformes 1 <.1g Fish, UID 2 0.4g Mammal, UID 3 4.6g Bone fragments, UID 36 6.2g Other Flint flake 1 0.4g Clear quartz fragment 1 0.1g Unfired clay, mass 1 44.3g Test Unit 5 Level 2 (60-75 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 9 37.9g Mission Red Filmed 1 4.9g Grog-Tempered, red filmed 1 8.9g Grog-Tempered ware 1 3.2g Sand-Tempered ware 6 12.5g Native American, UID 36 25.9g European Ceramics El Morro 2 0.5g Olive Jar 1 5.0g Slipware 3 9.7g Kaolin clay pipe stem 1 2.0g Iron/Metal Fragments Iron Fragments, UID 1 0.8g Bone Fragments Sus scrofa 1 0.6g Odocoileus virginianus 4 3.9g Bos Taurus 1 31.5g Sciaenidae 2 0.4g Siluriformes 1 4.8g Shark, UID 1 <.1g Fish, UID 9 .1g

PAGE 158

146 Bone Fragments, UID 40+ 8.3g Stripping Area 3 Test Unit 1 Level 2 (32-37 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 34 207.1g Mission Red Filmed 5 22.3g Grog-Tempered, red filmed 1 7.3g Sand-Tempered ware 13 61.9g Native American, UID 103 96.1g European Ceramics Coarse earthenware 1 4.0g Majolica, UID 1 0.8g Historic Glass Fragments 1 2.9g Iron/Metal Fragments Iron Fragments, UID 4 23.7g Iron Slag 1 2.0g Lead Fragment 1 1.8g Bone Fragments Bone Fragments, UID 6 3.0g Other Bead, glass, black 1 0.8g Level 3 (38-44 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 8 23.1g Sand-Tempered ware 1 8.3g Native American, UID 16 14.3g Daub Fragments 1 0.7g Historic Glass Fragments 1 0.3g Iron/Metal Fragments Iron Fragments, UID 2 0.6g Bone Fragments Bone Fragments, UID 3 0.7g Feature 62 Native American Ceramics Sand-Tempered ware 1 0.5g Native American, UID 1 2.3g Feature 63 Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 1 3.1g Mission Red Filmed 1 3.0g Test Unit 2

PAGE 159

147 Level 2 (32-38 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 37 299.3g Mission Red Filmed 1 4.5g Sand-Tempered ware 12 48.8g St. Johns Check-Stamped 1 1.5g Colonoware 1 17.8g Native American, UID 79 72.1g European Ceramics Olive Jar 3 26.4g Faience 1 6.1g Puebla Blue on White 1 0.6g Slipware 1 1.3g Kaolin clay pipe bowls 5 0.9g Kaolin clay pipe stem 1 1.9g Historic Glass Fragments 12 63.0g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail Fragments, iron 2 6.0g Iron Fragments, UID 1 14.7g Bone Fragments Sus scrofa (tooth) 1 0.1g Artiodactyl 1 0.5g Bone Fragments, UID 9 2.1g Level 3 (38-44 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 11 40.8g Sand-Tempered ware 4 10.5g Native American, UID 22 10.9g European Ceramics Slipware 1 0.1g Historic Glass Fragments 1 1.6g Iron/Metal Fragments 1 0.9g Bone Fragments Teeth fragments, UID 2 0.4g Test Unit 3 Level 3 (33-40 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 10 58.2g Sand-Tempered ware 2 4.2g St. Johns ware 1 2.1g Native American, UID 15 13.0g European Ceramics Brick fragments 1 7.6g Iron/Metal Fragments Iron Fragments, UID 2 35.2g Iron Spike 1 18.5g Lead Fragment 1 1.0g Bone Fragments Tooth, UID 1 <.1g Other Tabby fragment 1 2.1g

PAGE 160

148 Musket plate, brass 1 18.0g Level 4 (40-46 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 4 15.7g Sand-Tempered ware 1 3.1g Native American, UID 12 7.3g European Ceramics Olive Jar 1 0.4g Other Coal Fragments 3 3.7g Feature 40 Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 104 2,446.6g Mission Red Filmed 1 13.5g Sand-Tempered ware 2 4.2g St. Johns ware 1 2.4g Native American, UID 83 56.9g European Ceramics San Luis Polychrome 1 2.3g Gaming disk, coarse earthenware 1 21.8g Coarse earthenware 2 20.8g Kaolin clay pipe stem 1 <.1g Iron/Metal Fragments Iron fragments, UID 9 48.9g Bone Fragments Bone Fragments, UID 4 1.0g Other Chert Fragment 1 <.1g Shell ( Busycon ) fragment 1 18.0g Feature 41 Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 1 5.1g Sand-Tempered ware 1 2.0g Feature 42 Native American Ceramics Native American, UID 1 <.1g Feature 43 Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 1 3.5g Native American, UID 3 1.0g Historic Glass Fragments 1 0.6g Bone Fragments Bone Fragment, UID 1 <.1g Other Oyster shell, whole 2 8.2g Clam shell, whole 2 21.6g

PAGE 161

149 Tabby fragment 1 6.5g Feature 44 European Ceramics Coarse earthenware, construction debris 2 0.4g Iron/Metal Fragments Iron Fragment, UID 2 4.4g Test Unit 4 Level 2 (depth unnoted) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 13 105.0g Mission Red Filmed 3 26.4g Sand-Tempered ware 8 32.0g Native American, UID 46 48.4g Daub Fragments 1 <.1g European Ceramics Olive Jar 1 0.8g Porcelain, UID 1 3.9g Coarse earthenware (construction debris) 3 2.9g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail Fragment, iron 1 2.5g Iron Fragments, UID 6 3.5g Bone Fragments Bone Fragments, UID 4 1.9g Feature 53 Native American Ceramics Native American, UID 2 3.0g Bone Fragments Mammal, UID 1 0.4g Other Clam shell, fragment 1 3.2g Stripping Area 6 Test Unit 1 Level 1 (16-20 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 7 20.3g Mission Red Filmed 2 6.0g Sand-Tempered ware 2 5.7g Native American, UID 8 5.8g Historic Glass Fragments 4 4.5g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail Fragments, iron 10 50.1g Iron Fragment, UID 14 5.2g Bone Fragments Sus scrofa (tooth) 1 2.8g Bone Fragments, UID 9 4.3g Level 2 (20-30 cmbd)

PAGE 162

150 Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 4 17.8g Mission Red Filmed 2 9.6g Sand-Tempered ware 1 2.0g Native American, UID 4 3.7g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail Fragment, iron 1 2.5g Bone Fragments Bone Fragments, UID 2 0.6g Test Unit 2 Level 1 (16-25 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 32 168.9g Mission Red Filmed 7 35.0g Sand-Tempered ware 18 90.5g Native American, UID 98 80.3g European Ceramics Rey ware 1 1.8g Slipware 1 <.1g Delftware 1 0.4g Olive Jar 1 4.2g Black-glazed coarse earthenware 1 0.4g Historic Glass Fragments 15 45.0g Iron/Metal Fragments Iron spike 1 40.0g Nail Fragments, iron 7 15.9g Iron Fragments, UID 23 38.9g Bone Fragments Bagre marinus (otolith) 1 0.6g Gopherus polyphemus (shell fragment) 4 2.4g Fish, UID 3 1.2g Bird, UID 2 0.6g Mammal, UID 3 5.1g Bone Fragments, UID 62 16.8g Other Amulet Fragment (clay) 1 5.6g Bead, glass, amethyst 1 0.8g Botanical – corn kernel, zea mays burnt 1 <.1g Feature 81 Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 57 328.3g Mission Red Filmed 17 84.6g Sand-Tempered ware 34 156.1g St. Johns ware 1 1.7g Native American, UID 259 250.7g Daub Fragments 1 1.8g European Ceramics Rey ware 2 2.1g El Morro 1 1.7g Slipware 2 2.2g Olive Jar 3 16.6g

PAGE 163

151 Delftware 2 13.2g Kaolin clay pipe stem 1 3.1g Historic Glass Fragments 4 7.3g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail Fragments, iron 1 4.2g Iron Fragments, UID 7 4.2g Bone Fragments Gopherus polyphemus (carapace) 50+ 66.3g Bone Fragment, UID 1 0.5g Other Pinellas point, chert 1 1.1g Test Unit 3 Level 1 (17-25 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 8 45.1g Sand-Tempered ware 4 18.3g Native American, UID 16 16.0g Historic Glass Fragments 7 37.5g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail Fragments, iron 14 59.8g Iron Fragment, UID 15 9.1g Bone Fragments Bone Fragments, UID 2 1.6g Feature 84 Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 3 16.3g Mission Red Filmed 1 2.6g Native American, UID 6 5.1g Historic Glass Fragments 1 0.2g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail Fragments, iron 5 4.2g Other Coquina stone fragment 1 157.6g Quartz fragment 1 20.6g Test Unit 4 Level 1 (17-25 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 9 44.5g Sand-Tempered ware 2 7.4g St. Johns ware 1 3.4g Grog-Tempered ware 1 1.8g Native American, UID 23 6.0g European Ceramics Whiteware 2 1.6g Historic Glass Fragments 5 5.5g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail Fragments, iron 25 73.2g Bone Fragments Gallus gallus 1 0.9g Sciaenidae 1 0.3g

PAGE 164

152 Bird, UID 1 0.1g Fish, UID 1 <.1g Bone fragments, UID 6 1.7g Other Botanical remains (burnt pecan) 3 1.0g Feature 82 Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 6 17.0g Grog-Tempered ware 1 2.0g Native American, UID 13 7.3g European Ceramics Coarse earthenware 1 <.1g Kaolin clay pipe bowl 1 2.9g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail Fragment, iron 1 2.0g Bone Fragments Bone Fragments, UID 4 1.5g Test Unit 5 Level 1 (18-25 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 28 150.6g Mission Red Filmed 5 8.5g Sand-Tempered ware 9 67.7g Native American, UID 57 66.0g European Ceramics Rey ware 3 3.4g Olive Jar 4 51.3g Slipware 1 2.3g Blue-rimmed pearlware 1 1.0g Black-glazed coarse earthenware 1 0.8g Coarse earthenware 1 1.3g Kaolin clay pipe stem 2 1.6g Brick Fragment 1 199.2g Historic Glass Fragments 7 38.5g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail Fragments, iron 39 183.8g Bone Fragments Gopherus polyphemus (plastrons) 4 1.3g Bone Fragments, UID 26 12.1g Other Coquina stone fragments 2 973.7g Feature 81A Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 19 76.6g Mission Red Filmed 5 22.6g Sand-Tempered ware 11 90.5g Grog-Tempered ware 1 3.4g St. Johns ware 1 1.5g Native American, UID 130 135.3g Daub Fragments 4 4.8g

PAGE 165

153 European Ceramics Olive Jar 5 17.8g El Morro 1 1.2g Rey ware 1 0.6g Kaolin clay pipe bowl 1 0.7g Mortar fragment 1 6.4g Historic Glass Fragments 3 5.2g Iron/Metal Fragments Iron Fragments, UID 8 10.4g Bone Fragments Gopherus polyphemus (carapace fragments) 14 7.5g Bone Fragments, UID 26+ 4.3g Mammal, UID (tooth fragment) 1 0.2g Feature 81B Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 7 34.1g Mission Red Filmed 2 18.3g Sand-Tempered ware 6 18.2g Native American, UID 19 14.3g European Ceramics Rey ware 1 0.3g Historic Glass Fragments 1 0.3g Iron/Metal Fragments Iron Fragments, UID 1 0.9g Bone Fragments Bone Fragments, UID 9 1.8g Test Unit 6 Level 1 (18-23 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 9 15.4g Sand-Tempered ware 4 22.1g St. Johns Check-Stamped 1 1.5g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail Fragments, UID 9 42.3g Iron Fragments, UID 3 1.4g Level 2 (23-30 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 1 6.5g Sand-Tempered ware 1 1.7g Native American, UID 1 0.4g European Ceramics Whiteware 1 1.2g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail Fragment, iron 1 2.9g Iron Fragment, UID 1 0.3g Bone Fragments Bone Fragment, UID 3 <.1g Feature 83

PAGE 166

154 Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 28 175.8g Mission Red Filmed 3 6.1g Sand-Tempered ware 11 50.4g St. Johns Check-Stamped 1 9.4g Native American, UID 67 49.4g Daub Fragment 1 3.6g European Ceramics Olive Jar 1 9.3g Historic Glass Fragments 2 2.1g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail Fragments, iron 7 34.2g Iron Fragments, UID 12 5.7g Bone Fragments Sus scrofa 1 4.6g Bone Fragments, UID 46 15.3g Other Coquina stone fragments 2 18.5g Test Unit 7 Level 1 (18-22 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 7 29.5g Sand-Tempered ware 4 12.9g Native American, UID 15 15.4g European Ceramics El Morro 1 2.0g Olive Jar 1 14.6g Pearlware 1 0.7g Porcelain 1 0.2g Historic Glass Fragments 14 19.4g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail Fragments, iron 86+ 237.2g Bone Fragments Rattus spp. (Rat) 6 0.9g Bone Fragments, UID 4 1.7g Other Ballast stone, igneous 1 182.9g Feature 81 Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 5 12.9g Mission Red Filmed 1 3.4g Sand-Tempered ware 3 4.3g Native American, UID 4 0.8g European Ceramics Whiteware 1 <.1g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail Fragments, iron 2 3.9g Iron Fragments, UID 2 0.9g Feature 85 Native American Ceramics

PAGE 167

155 San Marcos Ware 2 8.0g Native American, UID 1 <.1g Test Unit 8 Level 1 (20-24 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 11 20.4g Mission Red Filmed 5 13.9g Sand-Tempered ware 3 26.4g Grog-Tempered ware 1 2.9g Native American, UID 33 31.2g Daub Fragments 1 0.8g European Ceramics Coarse earthenware 1 0.5g Kaolin clay pipe stem 1 0.4g Brick Fragment 1 16.2g Historic Glass Fragments 3 1.5g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail Fragments, iron 25 86.3g Iron Fragments, UID 14 5.5g Level 2 (24-35 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 1 7.6g Sand-Tempered ware 1 1.1g Feature 81A Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 10 47.8g Mission Red Filmed 3 9.1g Sand-Tempered ware 5 16.1g Grog-Tempered ware 1 2.4g Native American, UID 42 27.6g European Ceramics Coarse earthenware 1 <.1g Kaolin clay pipe bowl 2 0.3g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail Fragment, iron 1 6.4g Iron Fragments, UID 2 2.1g Bone Fragments Fish, UID 1 <.1g Bone Fragments, UID 6 7.2g Feature 81B Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 3 6.4g Native American, UID 5 2.8g Feature 87

PAGE 168

156 Iron/Metal Fragments Iron Fragments, UID 1 1.0g Test Unit 9 Level 1 (18-25 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 22 135.2g Mission Red Filmed 3 30.5g Sand-Tempered ware 8 48.1g Native American, UID 50 54.6g European Ceramics Olive Jar 1 14.9g Historic Glass Fragments 2 2.4g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail Fragments, iron 20 84.2g Iron Fragments, UID 21 19.7g Bone Fragments Bone Fragments, UID 6 9.6g Other Stone, quartz 1 7.4g Level 2 (25-30 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 5 65.4g Sand-Tempered ware 1 4.6g Native American, UID 11 11.2g Historic Glass Fragments 1 2.8g Iron/Metal Fragments Iron Fragments, UID 2 1.3g Bone Fragments Bone Fragments, UID 2 1.5g 321 St. George St. Test Unit 1 Level 1(15-24 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 3 6.8g European Ceramics Olive Jar 1 6.0g Coarse earthenware 2 8.5g Porcelain, UID 1 0.3g Pearlware, molded 1 3.0g Whiteware 5 17.2g Transfer print 3 1.1g Stoneware 2 6.6g Refined earthenware, UID 3 3.4g Modern Glass Fragments 12 25.7g Historic Glass Fragments 11 54.8g Iron/Metal Fragments

PAGE 169

157 Nail Fragments, iron 7 25.4g Hinge, iron 1 24.3g Iron Fragments, UID 50+ 37.5g Bone Fragments Mammal, UID 14 23.5g Other Shell casings, brass 3 2.7g Penny, U.S., 1941 1 3.5g Buttons, wood 2 1.0g Button, plastic 1 0.2g Tab, brass, UID 1 2.9g Washer, brass 1 0.1g Level 2 (24-35 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 9 16.7g Mission Red Filmed 1 0.9g Sand-Tempered ware 2 9.6g St. Johns ware 1 1.5g European Ceramics Black-glazed coarse earthenware 3 30.3g Olive Jar 2 2.2g Blue-edged pearlware 5 29.0g Green-edged pearlware 1 5.3g Creamware 5 12.7g Whiteware 16 18.5g Transfer print 14 27.0g Majolica, UID 1 0.6g Refined earthenware, UID 1 1.3g Porcelain, UID 10 25.3g Coarse earthenware 1 2.9g Brick fragments 2 322.8g Historic Glass Fragments 65 186.4g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail Fragments, iron 18 61.5g Cap, brass 1 2.9g Knurled nut 1 7.1g Lead Fragment 1 29.8g Iron Fragments, UID 100+ 180.2g Bone Fragments Bos Taurus 2 11.3g Fish, UID 2 0.2g Mammal, UID 41 54.2g Bone Fragments, UID 36 10.3g Other Shell Fragments, UID 4 0.8g Coquina stone fragments 6 121.2g Tabby fragments 1 17.0g Level 3 (35-45 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 8 29.7g Sand-Tempered ware 6 12.7g

PAGE 170

158 Native American, UID 6 4.4g European Ceramics Black-glazed coarse earthenware 5 99.2g El Morro 1 1.0g Whiteware 18 35.1g Kaolin clay pipe stem 1 1.1g Stoneware, salt-glazed 1 2.8g Pearlware 1 16.5g Transfer print 8 26.6g Banded annular ware 1 8.2g Porcelain 9 20.9g Brick fragments 4 236.3g Modern Glass Fragments 7 2.7g Historic Glass Fragments 59 151.7g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail Fragments, iron 8 22.3g Iron Fragments, UID 50+ 103.6g Bone Fragments Bos Taurus 3 24.2g Gallus gallus 1 1.3g Bone Fragments, UID 58 56.9g Other Coquina stone fragments 7 147.7g Slate fragment 1 1.9g Pumice fragment 1 3.2g Level 4 (46-57 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 21 54.1g Sand-Tempered ware 3 15.5g Native American, UID 17 14.2g European Ceramics Olive Jar 3 37.6g Rey ware 1 4.3g Lead-glazed coarse earthenware 1 3.1g Porcelain 1 1.2g Coarse earthenware 2 5.0g Majolica, UID 1 0.6g Pearlware 1 17.3g Whiteware 5 17.5g Transfer print 7 11.9g Kaolin clay pipe stem 1 2.3g Brick Fragments 3 127.2g Historic Glass Fragments 49 367.1g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail Fragments, iron 5 9.3g Iron Fragments, UID 50+ 142.1g Bone Fragments Bos Taurus 7 75.0g Bone Fragments, UID 183 152.2g Other Coquina stone fragments 1 23.7g Tabby Fragments 2 29.0g Minie ball, lead 1 34.0g Quartz fragment 1 0.5g

PAGE 171

159 Button, bone 1 0.6g Button, glass 1 0.8g Level 5 (57-69 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 9 23.0g Mission Red Filmed 2 8.2g Sand-Tempered ware 2 2.1g St. Johns ware 1 3.7g European Ceramics Black lead-glazed coarse earthenware 1 10.9g Olive Jar 1 11.9g Whiteware 7 23.8g Transfer print 4 10.9g Pearlware, blue-rimmed 1 5.4g Kaolin clay pipe stem 1 1.7g Historic Glass Fragments 21 134.5g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail Fragments, iron 5 10.2g Iron ring 1 3.7g Plate, iron, unknown function 1 31.4g Iron Fragments, UID 22 16.2g Bone Fragments Bos Taurus 7 158.5g Bone Fragments, UID 5 4.5g Other Button, brass 1 2.8g Buttons, bone 2 0.8g Feature 1 Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 5 13.7g Native American, UID 6 4.4g Bone Fragments Bone Fragment, UID 1 4.4g Feature 2 Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 6 16.7g Iron/Metal Fragments Iron Spike 1 14.1g Iron Fragments, UID 19 10.6g Bone Fragments Bone Fragments, UID 11 3.6g Test Unit 2 Level 1 (35-45 cmbd) European Ceramics Black lead-glazed coarse earthenware 6 70.9g

PAGE 172

160 Olive Jar 1 33.6g Transfer Print 8 38.1g Stoneware, salt-glazed 2 30.0g Banded annular ware 3 31.0g Whiteware 14 146.6g Porcelain 5 26.7g Historic Glass Fragments 2 31.5g Bone Fragments Bos Taurus 1 29.6g Bone Fragments, UID 2 9.2g Level 2 (47-57 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 14 35.2g Mission Red Filmed 3 3.4g St. Johns Check-Stamped 1 8.4g Sand-Tempered ware 8 14.5g Native American, UID 5 3.1g European Ceramics Coarse earthenware 1 9.6g Transfer print 6 10.5g Whiteware 3 11.1g Pearlware 2 137.9g Refined earthenware, UID 2 6.4g Porcelain 1 1.0g Historic Glass Fragments 47 186.6g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail Fragments, iron 7 24.3g Staple, iron 1 0.9g Iron Fragments, UID 100+ 137.4g Bone Fragments Bos Taurus 7 95.5g Gallus gallus 1 0.5g Fish, UID 1 0.3g Bone Fragments, UID 104 69.0g Other Stone pipe bowl fragment, Native American 1 8.5g Level 3 (57-69 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 5 5.9g Mission Red Filmed 3 5.1g St. Johns ware 2 1.2g Sand-Tempered ware 3 5.5g European Ceramics Coarse earthenware 2 2.9g Brick Fragment 1 4.1g Historic Glass Fragments 6 3.2g Iron/Metal Fragments Iron Fragments, UID 3 3.4g Bone Fragments Bone Fragments, UID 6 2.0g Test Unit 3

PAGE 173

161 Level 2 (47-57 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 21 59.1g Mission Red Filmed 1 9.6g Sand-Tempered ware 3 6.1g Native American, UID 8 11.0g European Ceramics Creamware 1 0.3g Olive Jar 1 1.4g Kaolin clay pipe stem 1 1.2g Historic Glass Fragments 9 4.8g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail Fragments, iron 1 4.6g Iron Fragments, UID 37 4.5g Bone Fragments Bos Taurus 5 78.7g Gallus gallus 1 <.1g Bone Fragments, UID 47 21.8g Level 3 (57-69 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 12 36.8g Mission Red Filmed 1 0.6g Sand-Tempered ware 4 17.1g Native American, UID 3 3.7g European Ceramics Whiteware 1 3.8g Historic Glass Fragments 9 10.5g Iron/Metal Fragments Iron Fragments, UID 14 11.2g Bone Fragments Bos Taurus 6 69.3g Bone Fragments, UID 16 25.7g 8 Hedrick Street Test Unit 1 Level 2 (25-45 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 43 105.8g Mission Red Filmed 3 16.4g Sand-Tempered ware 3 6.5g Native American, UID 11 9.5g European Ceramics Transfer print 1 32.9g Roofing tile, Second Spanish period 3 155.1g Modern Glass Fragments 6 25.8g Historic Glass Fragments 19th-century medicine bottle neck 1 18.3g Iron/Metal Fragments Iron Fragments, UID 7 63.1g Building tack, modern (steel) 1 1.2g Metal Fragments, UID 2 16.9g

PAGE 174

162 Bone Fragments Bone Fragments, UID 4 1.1g Other Shell Fragment (oyster) 1 <.1g Button, glass, wire-wound 1 1.2g 19th-century shell casing, brass 1 10.0g Cap for firearm, brass 1 0.3g Level Three (45-60 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 45 100.8g Mission Red Filmed 2 5.5g St. Johns ware 1 2.3g Sand-Tempered ware 2 4.6g Native American, UID 3 1.5g Fired Daub Fragments 2 5.7g European Ceramics Mexico City majolica, poss. San Luis Polychrome 1 12.7g Iron/Metal Fragments Iron Fragments, UID 1 1.5g Other Shell fragments, UID 2 1.0g Test Unit 2 Level 2 (25-40 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 36 90.2g Mission Red Filmed 2 4.8g Native American, UID 7 6.5g European Ceramics Slipware 1 4.3g Glazed coarse earthenware 1 4.7g San Luis Polychrome, blue variety 1 1.6g Modern Glass Fragments 1 0.2g Iron/Metal Fragments Lead shot pellet 2 3.9g Spring Fragment, iron 1 0.8g Iron Fragments, UID 1 0.4g Other 19th-century button 1 1.2g Level 3 (40-54 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 58 123.2g Mission Red Filmed 3 7.3g Native American UID 10 4.4g European Ceramics San Luis Blue on White 1 17.4g Coarse earthenware, molded 1 13.9g Modern Glass Fragments 2 0.7g Iron/Metal Fragments Iron Fragment, UID 1 11.2g

PAGE 175

163 Brass Fragment (poss. strap buckle) 1 2.5g Iron slag 1 1.2g Other Coal fragment (anthracite) 1 2.2g Feature 1 Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 1 8.1g Sand-Tempered ware 1 2.0g Bone Fragments Bone Fragments, UID 3 0.2g Other Shell Fragments, clam shell 1 0.5g Feature 3 Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 4 3.5g Native American, UID 2 1.0g Modern Glass Fragments 1 0.5g Feature 4 Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 1 6.2g Test Unit 3 Level 2 (25-43 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 38 85.6g Mission Red Filmed 1 1.6g Native American, UID 9 4.6g European Ceramics Glazed earthenware, UID 1 0.5g Brick fragments 4 4.4g Modern Glass Fragments 43 9.0g Historic Glass Fragments Wine bottle fragment 1 25.3g White glass 1 0.5g Green glass 1 0.9g Iron/Metal Fragments Iron Fragments, UID 15 13.9g Lead shot pellet 1 1.7g Bone Fragments Bone Fragments, UID 1 0.2g Other Coal Fragments (anthracite) 2 3.8g Penny, American 1 3.0g Level 3 (43-49 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 35 96.0g

PAGE 176

164 Mission Red Filmed 2 8.4g Native American, UID 24 20.4g European Ceramics Kaolin clay pipe fragment 1 6.2g Historic Glass Fragments 2 6.2g Iron/Metal Fragments Iron Fragment, UID 1 <.1g Bone Fragments Bone Fragment, UID 1 4.4g Feature 6 Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 22 60.7g Mission Red Filmed 2 6.0g Native American, UID 8 9.1g European Ceramics San Luis Blue on White (poss. Fig Springs) 1 4.8g Majolica, UID 1 2.8g Historic Glass Fragments Bottle piece, type unknown 1 10.1g Iron/Metal Fragments Iron Fragment, UID 1 0.6g Test Unit 4 Level 2 (25-33/36 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 12 31.8g Native American, UID 9 7.2g European Ceramics Coarse earthenware 1 19.3g Roofing tile, Second Spanish period 1 24.7g Brick Fragments 4 5.6g Modern Glass Fragments 167 436.1g Iron/Metal Fragments Iron Fragments, UID 4 31.1g Lead shot pellet 1 1.8g Plate, steel, poss. alloy 1 103.6g Other Modern coquina cement fragment 1 35.6g Ring with mount, poss. silver 1 2.1g Modern light fitting 1 5.9g Level 3 (33/36-49/52 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 59 142.3g Native American, UID 58 46.9g Pot Handle, small 1 0.5g Daub Fragments, burned 2 1.2g European Ceramics Olive Jar 1 9.3g Coarse earthenware 1 8.7g Iron/Metal Fragments

PAGE 177

165 Iron Fragments, UID 3 7.1g Iron Slag 1 4.0g Copper Fragments, poss. bell 2 4.9g Lead shot pellet 1 1.4g Other Coal Fragments (anthracite) 3 <.1g Button, metal UID 1 2.9g Feature 8 Native American Ceramics Native American, UID 3 4.7g Iron/Metal Fragments Iron Fragments, UID 1 44.2g Sabal Palm Root Ball Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 1 6.1g Native American, UID 3 2.8g Modern Glass Fragments 2 2.1g Iron/Metal Fragments Iron Fragment, UID 1 0.1g Test Unit 5 Level 2 (15-32 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 13 30.8g Mission Red Filmed 2 2.1g Native American, UID 8 17.1g European Ceramics Roofing Tile, Second Spanish Period 1 40.1g Coarse earthenware 2 24.5g Brick Fragments 2 23.1g Modern Glass Fragments 8 60.1g Iron/Metal Fragments Iron Fragments, UID 13 23.5g Copper casing 1 0.4g Other Plastic fragment 1 1.1g Level 3 (32-53 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 36 98.1g Mission Red Filmed 10 11.0g Native American, UID 30 34.3g European Ceramics Majolica, UID 1 0.1g Iron/Metal Fragments Iron Fragments, UID 1 1.6g Bone Fragments Bone Fragments, UID 2 1.7g Other Charcoal Fragments 10 0.2g

PAGE 178

166 Test Unit 6 Level 2 (23-39 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 12 56.9g Mission Red Filmed 1 10.6g Red-paste elbow pipe 1 15.0g Native American, UID 7 15.7g European Ceramics Creamware 1 4.1g Roofing tile, Second Spanish Period 1 59.1g Brick Fragments 6 22.1g Modern Glass Fragments 40 45.8g Other Quartz Fragment 1 20.5g Level 3 (39-64 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 21 58.7g Mission Red Filmed 2 6.6g Native American, UID 12 6.7g Daub fragments, burned 1 0.2g Iron/Metal Fragments Iron Fragments, UID 1 0.4g Bone Fragments Bone Fragments, UID 2 0.4g Other Charcoal Fragments 8 1.3g Feature 9 Bone Fragments Bone Fragments, UID 1 0.2g Test Unit 7 Level 2 (40-49 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 46 86.7g Mission Red Filmed 2 4.2g Native American, UID 28 43.7g Daub Fragment, burned 1 <.1g Modern Glass Fragments 4 4.4g Iron/Metal Fragments Iron Fragments, UID 2 0.7g Other Coal Fragment (anthracite) 1 1.2g Charcoal Fragments 3 0.1g Level 3 (49-60 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 38 74.7g Mission Red Filmed 2 1.7g

PAGE 179

167 Native American, UID 19 4.1g Iron/Metal Fragments Iron Fragments, UID 5 8.0g Iron slag 2 0.4g Bone Fragments Bone Fragments, UID 2 0.1g Other Charcoal Fragments 17 3.9g Plastic Fragments 1 0.4g Feature 10 Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 11 28.9g Mission Red Filmed 2 5.3g Native American, UID 11 11.3g Daub Fragments, burned 3 11.7g European Ceramics Puebla Polychrome 1 0.3g Historic Glass Fragments Green Glass 2 0.3g Bone Fragments Bone Fragments, UID 2 0.4g Test Unit 8 Level 2 (40-57 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 87 185.8g Mission Red Filmed 6 9.5g Native American, UID 65 27.9g European Ceramics Kaolin clay pipe stem 1 3.0g Historic Glass Fragments 7 28.7g Iron/Metal Fragments Iron Fragments, UID 2 1.9g Iron Slag 2 0.3g Level 3 (57-95/102 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 52 96.3g Mission Red Filmed 4 1.9g Native American, UID 33 30.9g Daub Fragments, burned 2 0.7g European Ceramics Coarse earthenware 1 0.5g Majolica, UID 1 <.1g Kaolin clay pipe stem 1 4.7g Glass Fragments (Age UID) 1 6.9g Iron/Metal Fragments Iron Fragments, UID 3 14.6g Other Coal Fragments (anthracite) 0.8g Test Unit 9

PAGE 180

168 Level 2 (39-57 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 21 71.2g Mission Red Filmed 2 2.7g Native American, UID 5 6.3g European Ceramics Slipware, British 1 10.3g Level 3 (57-130 cmbd) Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 6 22.9g Sand-Tempered ware 1 41.2g Native American, UID 3 5.6g Other Charcoal Fragments 1 <.1g Feature 16/17 Native American Ceramics San Marcos Ware 6 20.3g Mission Red Filmed 1 1.1g Daub Fragments, burned 1 0.3g European Ceramics Coarse earthenware 1 2.0g Historic Glass Fragments 2 9.4g Iron/Metal Fragments Iron Fragments, UID 7 56.7g 11 Tremerton Street Church/Burial Area Stripping Area 3 Test Unit 9 Level 2 Native American Ceramics Mission Red Filmed 4 19.4g European Ceramics Guadalajara Polychrome 1 10.3g Historic Glass Fragments 4 406.0g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail Fragments, iron 2 7.7g Iron Fragments, UID 7 15.6g Slag, type UID 1 1.0g Bone Fragments Homo Sapiens (human burial, teeth, 4 2.2g Including 2 shovel-shaped incisors) Bos Taurus 1 153.6g Bagre marinus 1 0.2g Fish, UID 1 0.2g Mammal, UID 6 19.0g Bone fragments, UID, uncounted 8.4g Other Coal fragments 3 19.7g

PAGE 181

169 Level 3 Native American Ceramics Native American, UID 1 0.4g Bone Fragments Homo Sapiens (human burial, 8 53.8g Including skull, metatarsal, phalange, 2 teeth including shovel-shaped incisor, uncounted fragments Feature 100 Bone Fragments Homo Sapiens 2 <.1g Other Clay fragments 3 1.0g Feature 102 (Burial #3) Bone Fragments Homo Sapiens (human burial) 30+ 1.2g Feature 105 (Burial #5) Native American Ceramics Mission Red Filmed 1 7.2g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail fragments, iron 1 5.7g Bone Fragments Homo Sapiens (human burial, including 66 8.1g teeth, bone fragments) Other Clay fragments, uncounted 40.9g Feature 106 Bone Fragments Homo Sapiens (including molar) 9 10.8g Other Clay fragments 13 13.0g Tabby fragments 2 5.5g Feature 107 Native American Ceramics Sand-tempered ware 1 9.8g Historic Glass Fragments 1 9.0g Iron/Metal Fragments Nail fragments, iron 1 12.9g Iron fragments, UID 4 2.9g Bone Fragments Bone fragments, UID 14

PAGE 182

170 APPENDIX B ARTIFACT COUNTS AND WEIGHTS BY LOCATION AND PROVENIENCE As noted in the text of this thesis, thes e tables are intended to provide a detailed analysis by area and provenience of the relati ve numbers and weights of artifacts found at the five locations known to be associ ated with the La Punta mission site. The categories used for this analysis are t hose developed for use with historic sites by Dr. Kathleen Deagan of the Florida Museum of Natural History at the University of Florida. Those categories are as follows: 1) majolicas, 2) utilitarian wares (made by the Spanish), 3) non-Spanish tablew ares, 4) non-European ceramic s (i.e., Native American), 5) kitchen items (including glassware), 6) nonmasonry architecture, 7) military items, 8) clothing/sewing, 9) personal items, 10) craft/ products, 11) unidentifie d metal objects, 12) masonry, 13) domestic furnishings, 14) tools or implements, 15) toys, games, or leisure, 16) tack or harness, 17) religious items, 18) miscellaneous weighed items, 19 truly unknown items, and 20) 20th century (modern) items. For each test unit and feature within each site, the total number of artifacts in each of the above-listed categories was sorted, a nd the total number of ar tifacts and the total weight of artifacts within each category entere d in the tables below. Then each total per category was calculated as a percentage agai nst the total number of artifacts found in each provenience and the total weight of artifac ts in each provenience. These calculated totals formed the basis for the tables and cal culations noted in Chapters 3 and 4 of this thesis.

PAGE 183

171 161 MARINE STREET – ARTIFA CT COUNTS AND WEIGHTS Unit and Location Stripping Area 1 Test Unit 1 (Including Feature 6) Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 1. Majolicas 2 1% 7 g 1% 2. Util. Wares 5 4% 43.4g 4% 3. Non-Spanish Tablewares 1 1% 1.4g <1% 4. NonEuropean Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 99 70% 610.3g 62% 5. Kitchen Items, nonceramic (+bone weight) 26 18% 57.9 (104g) 11% 6. Architecture (non-masonry) 2 1% 4.5g <1% 9. Personal Items 3 2% 4.1g <1% 11. UID Metal (+uncounted fr.) 3 2% 21.2g (61.3g) 6% 12. Masonry 1 1% 149.9g 15% TOTALS: 142 100% 985.9g 100% Test Unit 2 (including Features 6, 11) Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 2.Util. Wares 6 2% 46.5g 3% 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 5 2% 14.1g 1% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 148 47% 765.1g 51% 5.Kitchen Items, non-ceramic (+bone weight) 34 11% 43.2g (123.5g) 8% 6.Architecture, non-masonry 13 4% 234.3g 16%

PAGE 184

172 7.Military Items 1 <1% 1.0g <1% 8.Clothing/Sewing 1 <1% 0.9g <1% 9.Personal Items 6 2% 6.3g <1% 11.UID Metal 96 30% 52.4g 4% 12.Masonry 1 <1% 1.5g <1% 18.Misc. Weighed 4 1% 260.2g 17% TOTALS: 315 100% 1505.8g 100% Test Unit 3 Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 1.Majolicas 4 2% 18.1g 1% 2.Util. Wares 10 4% 23.1g 2% 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 7 3% 8.6g 1% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 143 55% 984.8g 70% 5.Kitchen Items, non-ceramics (+bone weight) 28 11% 53g (156.4g) 11% 6.Architecture, non-masonry 10 4% 17.7g 1% 7.Military Items 2 1% 3.3g <1% 8.Clothing/Sewing 1 <1% <.1g <1% 9.Personal Items 6 2% 6.3g <1% 11.UID Metal (+uncounted fr.) 26 10% 17.6g (58.1g) 4% 12.Masonry 14 5% 28.9g 2% 18.Misc. Weighed 8 3% 96.9g 7% TOTALS: 259 100% 1,402.2g 100% Test Unit 4 (including Feature 13) Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 1.Majolicas 10 1% 19.1g <1% 2.Util. Wares 21 2% 129.5g 2% 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 29 3% 67.3g 1% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 574 60% 4,815.6g 63%

PAGE 185

173 5.Kitchen Items, non-ceramic (+bone weight) 81 8% 201.1g (391g) 5% 6.Architecture, non-masonry 48 5% 1,905g 25% 9.Personal Items 26 3% 26.6g <1% 11.UID Metal (+uncounted fr.) 145 15% 174.3g (190.8g) 2% 12.Masonry 6 1% 41.8g <1% 18.Misc. Weighed 5 1% 104.7g 1% 20.20th Century 6 1% 9.6g <1% TOTALS: 674 100% 4,046.6g 100% Test Unit 5 (including Features 6, 9, 9A, 9B) Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 1.Majolicas 7 1% 8.6g <1% 2.Util. Wares 16 2% 330.6g 8% 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 34 5% 59.2g 1% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 300 45% 2,465.2g 61% 5.Kitchen Items, non-ceramic (+bone weight) 102 15% 229g (350.8g) 9% 6.Architecture, non-masonry 21 3% 141.7g 4% 7.Military Items 1 <1% 3.5g <1% 9.Personal Items 14 2% 15.6g <1% 10.Craft/Product 1 <1% 0.2g <1% 11.UID Metal (+uncounted fr.) 144 21% 128.5g (169.8g) 4% 12.Masonry 21 3% 320.2g 8% 18.Misc. Weighed 8 1% 175.1g 4% 20.20th Century 5 1% 6.1g <1% TOTALS: 674 100% 4,046.6g 100% Test Unit 6 Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 2.Util. Wares 3 1% 42.1g 5% 3.Non-Spanish 11 5% 17.3g 2%

PAGE 186

174 Tablewares 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 62 27% 315.2g 41% 5.Kitchen Items, non-ceramic (+bone weight) 28 12% 20g (43.3g) 6% 6.Architecture, non-masonry 7 3% 5.7g 1% 7.Military items 1 <1% 20.9g 3% 9.Personal Items 5 2% 4.8g 1% 11.UID Metal 74 32% 40.9g 5% 12.Masonry 36 16% 202.2g 26% 18.Misc. Weighed 5 2% 75.4g 10% TOTALS: 232 100% 767.9g 100% Feature 6 Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 1.Majolicas 8 2% 14.7g <1% 2.Util. Wares 9 2% 99g 3% 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 12 2% 40.5g 1% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 280 51% 1,855g 48% 5.Kitchen Items, non-ceramic (+bone weight) 92 17% 221.7g (296.7g) 8% 6.Architecture, non-masonry 15 2% 159g 4% 8.Clothing/Sewing 8 2% 2.7g <1% 9.Personal Items 7 1% 8.8g <1% 11.UID Metal 102 19% 173.3g 4% 18.Misc. Weighed 13 2% 1,236.9g 32% TOTALS: 546 100% 3,886.6g 100% Test Unit 7 (including Feature 6) Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 1.Majolicas 6 4% 7.3g 1% 2.Util. Wares 2 1% 10.6g 1% 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 1 1% 3.6g <1%

PAGE 187

175 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 64 41% 498.1g 67% 5.Kitchen Items, non-ceramic (+bone weight) 27 17% 57.2g (119.7g) 16% 6.Architecture, non-masonry 11 7% 52.4g 7% 8.Clothing/Sewing 2 1% 1.6g <1% 9.Personal Items 3 2% 1.1g <1% 11.UID Metal (+uncounted fr.) 29 19% 18.3g (22.6g) 3% 12.Masonry 1 1% 13.9g 2% 18.Misc. Weighed 3 2% 5g 1% 20.20th Century 7 4% 4.5g <1% TOTALS: 156 100% 740.4g 100% Test Unit 8 (includi ng Features 3, 4, 6) Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 1.Majolicas 15 2% 37.4g 1% 2.Util. Wares 15 2% 125.9g 3% 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 23 4% 69.1g 2% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 344 53% 2,314.3g 52% 5.Kitchen Items, non-ceramic (+bone weight) 108 17% 164.2g (235.2g) 5% 6.Architecture, non-masonry 17 3% 987.5g 22% 9.Personal Items 9 1% 10.1g <1% 10.Craft/Product 14 2% 432.7g 10% 11.UID Metal (+uncounted fr.) 97 15% 77.5g (199.4g) 5% 12.Masonry 1 <1% 1.3g <1% 18.Misc. Weighed 7 1% 10.3g <1% TOTALS: 650 100% 4,423.2g 100%

PAGE 188

176 Test Unit 9 Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 1.Majolicas 14 2% 28.7g 1% 2.Util. Wares 10 2% 7.9g <1% 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 34 5% 76.2g 2% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 464 70% 3,328.2g 80% 5.Kitchen Items, non-ceramic (+bone weight) 67 10% 179.5g (239.7g) 6% 6.Architecture, non-masonry 22 3% 255.7g 6% 8.Clothing/Sewing ` <1% 5.0g <1% 9.Personal Items 11 2% 19.7g <1% 10.Craft/Product 1 <1% 5.1g <1% 11.UID Metal (+uncounted fr.) 29 4% 56g (117.3g) 3% 12.Masonry 2 <1% 79.3g 2% 13.Domestic Furn. 1 <1% 7.8g <1% 18.Misc. Weighed 3 <1% 3.5g <1% TOTALS: 659 100% 4,174.1g 100% Test Unit 10 (includi ng Features 1, 2, 2A) Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 1.Majolicas 8 2% 30.9g 1% 2.Util. Wares 2 <1% 0.4g <1% 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 32 7% 49.6g 2% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 277 61% 2,077.9g 74% 5.Kitchen Items, non-ceramic (+bone weight) 35 8% 60.9g (79.3g) 3% 6.Architecture, non-masonry 14 3% 257g 9% 7.Military Items 1 <1% 5.4g <1% 9.Personal Items 7 1% 7.8g <1% 11.UID Metal 39 9% 93.1g 3%

PAGE 189

177 12.Masonry 18 4% 142.3g 5% 18.Misc. Weighed 8 2% 7.3g <1% 20.20th Century 13 3% 76.0g 3% TOTALS: 454 100% 2,827g 100% Test Unit 11 (includi ng Features 93, 94) Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 27 67% 215.1g 78% 5.Kitchen Items, non-ceramic (+bone weight) 3 7% 4.3g (32.3g) 12% 6.Architecture, non-masonry 2 5% 20.9g 8% 7.Military Items 1 3% 2.5g 1% 9.Personal Items 1 3% 0.9g <1% 11.UID Metal 4 10% 3.8g 1% 18.Misc. Weighed 2 5% 1.4g <1% TOTALS: 40 100% 276.9g 100% Test Unit 12 Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 2 33% 19.2g 94% 5.Kitchen Items, non-ceramics (+bone weight) 1 17% <.1g (<.1g) 6.UID Metal 3 50% 1.3g 6% TOTALS: 6 100% 20.5g 100% Test Unit 14 (including Feature 105) Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 1 25% 3.8g 18% 4.Non-European Ceramics 2 50% 6.1g 29% 7.Military Items 1 25% 11.4g 53% TOTALS: 4 100% 21.3g 100%

PAGE 190

178 Test Unit 15 Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 1.Majolicas 3 1% 3.9g <1% 2.Util. Wares 13 5% 17.4g 1% 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 19 7% 22.6g 1% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 146 52% 1,282.1g 69% 5.Kitchen Items, non-ceramic (+bone weight) 21 7% 52g (117.1g) 6% 6.Architecture, non-masonry 18 6% 115.6g 6% 7.Military Items 2 1% 4.8g <1% 8.Clothing/Sewing 1 <1% 2.8g <1% 9.Personal Items 5 2% 2.0g <1% 10.Craft/Product 1 <1% 5.1g <1% 11.UID Metal 18 6% 56.3g 3% 12.Masonry 16 6% 111g 6% 18.Misc. Weighed 20 7% 116.3g 6% TOTALS: 283 100% 1,857g 100% Test Unit 16 Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 2.Util. Wares 2 3% 6.8g 2% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 33 56% 253.3g 74% 5.Kitchen Items, non-ceramic (+bone weight) (1g) <1% 6.Architecture, non-masonry 5 8% 74.1g 22% 9.Personal Items 4 7% .6g <1% 10.Craft/Product 1 2% 1.0g <1% 11.UID Metal 14 24% 6.0g 2% TOTALS: 59 100% 342.8g 100%

PAGE 191

179 Test Unit 17 (including Features 104, 110, 111, 112, 114) Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 1.Majolicas 4 2% 12.5g 1% 2.Util. Wares 3 1% 16.6g 1% 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 7 3% 11.9g 1% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 135 61% 638.3g 48% 5.Kitchen Items, non-ceramic (+bone weight) 18 8% 56.1g (207.9g) 16% 6.Architecture, non-masonry 33 15% 83.1g 6% 7.Military Items 2 1% 2.4g <1% 9.Personal Items 2 1% 0.4g <1% 11.UID Metal (+uncounted fr.) 7 3% 7.5g (51.4g) 4% 12. Masonry 3 1% 124.4g 9% 18.Misc. Weighed 9 4% 184.5g 14% TOTALS: 223 100% 1,333.4g 100% Stripping Area 2 Test Unit 1 Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 2.Util. Wares 3 4% 3.5g 1% 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 7 10% 5.7g 1% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 47 61% 386.3g 69% 5.Kitchen Items, non-ceramic (+bone weight) 11 14% 8.4g (8.7g) 1% 6.Architecture, non-masonry 5 6% 47.8g 8% 9.Personal Items 3 4% 3.1g 1% 11.UID Metal (+uncounted fr.) 1 1% 96.9g (111.1g) 19% TOTALS: 77 100% 576.2g 100%

PAGE 192

180 Test Unit 2 (including Feature 116) Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 2.Util. Wares 2 2% 0.2g <1% 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 15 16% 10.7g 2% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 60 63% 385.6g 79% 5.Kitchen Items, non-ceramic (+bone weight) 10 10% 12.5g (29.9g) 6% 6.Architecture, non-masonry 6 6% 37.7g 8% 11.UID Metal (+uncounted fr.) (14.0g) 3% 12.Masonry 1 1% 1.5g <1% 18.Misc. Weighed 2 2% 5.9g 1% TOTALS: 96 100% 485.5g 100% Test Unit 6 Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 1 4% 1.2g 1% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 12 46% 74.7g 87% 5.Kitchen Items, non-ceramic 2 8% 4.2g 5% 6.Architecture, non-masonry 1 4% 0.2g <1% 11.UID Metal 9 34% 5g 6% 12.Masonry 1 4% 0.3g <1% TOTALS: 26 100% 85.6g 100% Stripping Area 3 Test Unit 1 (including Fe atures Unknown, 100, 101, 103) Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 1.Majolicas 3 <1% 4.8g <1%

PAGE 193

181 2.Util. Wares 29 1% 163.6g 3% 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 265 11% 572.5g 10% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 293 12% 1,349.4g 23% 5.Kitchen Items, nonceramic (+bone weight) 618 25% 774g (1,274.3g) 21% 6.Architecture, nonmasonry 425 18% 995.5g 17% 7.Military Items 2 <1% 9.6g <1% 8.Clothing/Sewing 1 <1% 5.5g <1% 9.Personal Items 14 1% 19.1g <1% 10.Craft/Product 28 1% 90.6g 1% 11.UID Metal (+uncounted fr.) 665 27% 486.9g (878.9g) 15% 12.Masonry 38 2% 338.2g 6% 13.Domestic Furn. 5 <1% 4.6g <1% 15.Toys/Games/Leisure 1 <1% 4.8g <1% 17.Religious 1 <1% 0.6g <1% 18.Misc. Weighed 35 1% 212g 4% 20.20th Century 2 <1% 33.8g <1% TOTALS: 2,425 100% 5,965.9g 100% Stripping Area 4 Test Unit 1 Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 2.Util. Wares 1 2% 1.1g <1% 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 2 4% 12.1g 5% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 27 53% 134.4g 53% 5.Kitchen Items, nonceramic 5 10% 2.5g 1% 6.Architecture, nonmasonry 1 2% 83.2g 33% 11.UID Metal 8 15% 6.3g 2% 18.Misc. Weighed 7 14% 15.5g 6% TOTALS: 51 100% 255.1g 100%

PAGE 194

182 Test Unit 3 Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 2.Util. Wares 3 5% 5.4g 8% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 48 75% 57.1g 82% 5.Kitchen Items, nonceramic 2 3% 3.4g 5% 11.UID Metal 11 17% 3.8g 5% TOTALS: 64 100% 69.7g 100% Test Unit 4 Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 2.Util. Wares 2 6% 19.3g 9% 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 2 6% 0.6g <1% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 25 69% 158.3g 73% 5.Kitchen Items, nonceramic (+bone weight) 5 13% 5g (6g) 3% 10.Craft/Product 2 6% 23.9g 11% 11.UID Metal (+uncounted fr.) (8.6g) 4% TOTALS: 36 100% 216.7g 100% Test Unit 5 Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 1.Majolicas 1 1% 0.4g <1% 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 3 3% 9.2g 3% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 65 69% 226.8g 80% 5.Kitchen Items, nonceramic (+bone weight) 4 4% 3.8g (4.2g) 2% 6.Architecture, nonmasonry 3 3% 30.4g 11%

PAGE 195

183 11.UID Metal 19 20% 11.3g 4% TOTALS: 95 100% 282.3g 100% Test Unit 6 Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 34 69% 66g 63% 5.Kitchen Items, nonceramic (+bone weight) 5 10% 3.2g (3.5g) 3% 6.Architecture, nonmasonry 1 2% 28.5g 27% 11.UID Metal 9 19% 7.0g 7% TOTALS: 49 100% 105g 100% Stripping Area 5 Test Unit 1 (including Features 36, 36A, 36B) Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 2.Util. Wares 2 1% 2.8g <1% 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 5 2% 19.3g <1% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 53 23% 404.2g 9% 5.Kitchen Items, nonceramic (+bone weight) 51 23% 296g (476.7g) 10% 6.Architecture, nonmasonry 51 23% 942.9g 21% 7.Military Items 1 <1% 1.3g <1% 8.Clothing/Sewing 2 1% 0.5g <1% 9.Personal Items 4 2% 1.5g <1% 11.UID Metal 19 8% 11.6g (56.8g) 1% 12.Masonry 30 13% 1,138.6g 25% 18.Misc. Weighed 10 4% 1,556.7g 34% TOTALS: 228 100% 4,601.3g 100%

PAGE 196

184 Test Unit 2 (including Features 36A, 36B, 36C) Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 1.Majolicas 1 <1% 1.7g <1% 2.Util. Wares 7 3% 298.1g 11% 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 2 1% 4.4g <1% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 69 31% 530.8g 19% 5.Kitchen Items, nonceramic (+bone weight) 17 8% 33.7g (306.4g) 11% 6.Architecture, nonmasonry 57 26% 1,202g 44% 7.Military Items 1 <1% 1.2g <1% 8.Clothing/Sewing 1 <1% 0.7g <1% 9.Personal Items 1 <1% <.1g <1% 11.UID Metal 45 20% 69.5g 3% 12.Masonry 2 1% 49.3g 2% 16.Tack/Harness 2 1% 13.4g <1% 18.Misc. Weighed 19 9% 274.3g 10% TOTALS: 224 100% 2,751.8g 100% Test Unit 3 (including Features 21, 23) Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 2.Util. Wares 5 6% 44.8g 4% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 56 70% 551.8g 52% 5.Kitchen Items, nonceramic (+bone weight) 11 14% 15.1g (19.5g) 2% 6.Architecture, nonmasonry 6 7% 443.5g 41% 9.Personal Items 1 1% 0.3g <1% 11.UID Metal (+uncounted fr.) 1 1% 0.2g (11.9g) 1% 18. Misc. Weighed 1 1% 0.5g <1% TOTALS: 81 100% 1,072.3g 100%

PAGE 197

185 Test Unit 4 (including Feature 14) Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 1.Majolicas 8 3% 4.7g <1% 2.Util. Wares 7 3% 38.5g 1% 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 6 2% 6.2g <1% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 182 72% 1,918g 71% 5.Kitchen Items, nonceramic (+bone weight) 11 4% 12.2g (102.3g) 4% 6.Architecture, nonmasonry 18 7% 497.9g 18% 9.Personal Items 3 1% 3.5g <1% 11.UID Metal 12 5% 131.9g 5% 18.Misc. Weighed 8 3% 15.3g 1% TOTALS: 255 100% 2,718.3g 100% Test Unit 5 (including Features 27, 29, 30) Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 4 7% 12.2g 3% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 35 61% 278.6g 75% 5.Kitchen Items, nonceramic (+bone weight) 5 9% 3.6g (77g) 21% 6.Architecture, nonmasonry 2 4% 1.0g <1% 9.Personal Items 1 2% 0.2g <1% 11.UID Metal 10 17% 3.7g 1% TOTALS: 57 100% 372.7g 100% Test Unit 6 Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 1.Majolicas 1 4% 2.7g 2% 2.Util. Wares 1 4% 1.1g <1%

PAGE 198

186 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 3 11% 3.9g 3% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 14 54% 113.5g 78% 5.Kitchen Items, nonceramic (+bone weight) (18.3g) 13% 7.Military Items 1 4% 3.1g 2% 11.UID Metal 6 23% 3.1g 2% TOTALS: 26 100% 145.7g 100% Test Unit 7 (including Features 45, 46) Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 1 4% 1.4g 2% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 16 59% 86.8g 92% 5.Kitchen Items, nonceramic (+bone weight) 7 26% 4.3g (5.9g) 6% 11.UID Metal 3 11% 0.7g <1% TOTALS: 27 100% 94.8g 100% Test Unit 8 (including Features 50, 51, 96) Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 4 6% 7.3g 2% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 45 71% 402.3g 89% 5.Kitchen Items, nonceramic 6 9% 5g 1% 6.Architecture, nonmasonry 1 2% 18.4g 4% 8.Clothing/Sewing 1 2% 6.8g 1% 9.Personal Items 1 2% 0.4g <1% 11.UID Metal (+uncounted fr.) 3 5% 1.2g (14g) 3% 18.Misc. Weighed 2 3% 0.3g <1% TOTALS: 63 100% 454.5g 100%

PAGE 199

187 Test Unit 9 (including Features 52A, 53, 92) Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 1.Majolicas 6 3% 9.6g 1% 2.Util. Wares 3 1% 4.8g <1% 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 8 4% 32.6g 2% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 126 60% 1,199.6g 82% 5.Kitchen Items, nonceramic (+bone weight) 17 8% 16g (52.2g) 4% 6. Architecture, nonmasonry 7 4% 61.5g 4% 8.Clothing/Sewing 2 1% 40.9g 3% 9.Personal Items 4 2% 12.7g 1% 11.UID Metal 33 16% 30.9g 2% 12.Masonry 1 <1% 13.2g 1% 18.Misc. Weighed 2 1% 3.5g <1% TOTALS: 209 100% 1,464.5g 100% Test Unit 10 (including Features 60, 62, 63, 63A) Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 4 7% 7.9g 3% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 23 40% 81.1g 28% 5.Kitchen Items, nonceramic (+bone weight) 13 23% 31.1g (190.5g) 67% 6.Architecture, nonmasonry 1 2% 0.2g <1% 9.Personal Items 1 2% 1.5g <1% 11.UID Metal 11 19% 3.3g 1% 12.Masonry 4 7% 2.1g 1% TOTALS: 57 100% 286.6g 100%

PAGE 200

188 Test Unit 11 (including Features 67, 69, 71, 72, 74) Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 1.Majolicas 1 1% 0.6g <1% 2.Util. Wares 2 2% 10.6g 2% 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 6 7% 16.9g 3% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 38 45% 356.5g 66% 5.Kitchen Items, nonceramic (+bone weight) 2 2% 7.0g (7.9g) 2% 6.Architecture, nonmasonry 5 6% 47.2g 9% 7.Military Items 3 4% 12.6g 2% 9.Personal Items 2 2% 2.0g <1% 11.UID Metal 17 20% 9.8g 2% 12.Masonry 1 1% 21.0g 4% 18.Misc. Weighed 8 10% 53.8g 10% TOTALS: 85 100% 538.9g 100% Test Unit 12 (includi ng Features 1, 78, 79) Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 1.Majolicas 1 1% <.1g <1% 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 11 10% 22.7g 3% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 64 60% 532.3g 80% 5.Kitchen Items, nonceramic (+bone weight) 9 8% 12.9g (27g) 4% 6.Architecture, nonmasonry 6 6% 75.1g 11% 9.Personal Items 4 4% 3.1g 1% 11.UID Metal 12 11% 5.4g 1% TOTALS: 107 100% 665.6g 100%

PAGE 201

189 Test Unit 13 Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 1.Majolicas 1 4% 3.1g 2% 3Non-Spanish Tablewares 1 4% 0.8g 1% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 15 63% 110.3g 85% 5.Kitchen Items, nonceramic (+bone weight) (5.2g) 4% 6.Architecture, nonmasonry 1 4% 1.9g 1% 11.UID Metal 5 21% 8.8g 7% 18.Misc. Weighed 1 4% 0.4g <1% TOTALS: 24 100% 130.5g 100% Test Unit 14 (inc luding Feature 82) Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 1.Majolicas 1 2% 6.3g 4% 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 1 2% 5.0g 3% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 23 60% 129.8g 80% 5.Kitchen Items, nonceramic (+bone weight) 3 8% 5g (14.8g) 9% 6.Architecture, nonmasonry 1 2% 0.4g <1% 11.UID Metal 10 26% 6.8g 4% TOTALS: 39 100% 163.1g 100% Test Unit 15 (including F eatures 84, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90) Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 2.Util. Wares 1 1% 0.5g <1% 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 12 14% 21.6g 5% 4.Non-European 34 40% 252.8g 58%

PAGE 202

190 Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 5.Kitchen Items, nonceramic (+bone weight) 13 15% 20.3g (76.3g) 17% 6.Architecture, nonmasonry 9 11% 63.9g 15% 7.Military Items 1 1% 2.4g 1% 11.UID Metal 14 17% 18.4g 4% 18.Misc. Weighed 1 1% 0.9g <1% TOTALS: 85 100% 436.8g 100% 159 MARINE STREET – ARTIFA CT COUNTS AND WEIGHTS Stripping Area 1 Test Unit 1 (including Feat ures 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10) Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 1.Majolicas 1 <1% 1.4g <1% 2.Util. Wares 7 1% 22.0g <1% 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 31 5% 74.4g 2% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 121 21% 792.8g 19% 5.Kitchen Items, nonceramic (+bone weight) 226 39% 341.8g (449.2g) 11% 6.Architecture, nonmasonry 166 29% 701.5g 17% 7.Military Items 3 1% 58.4g 1% 11.UID Metal (+uncounted fr.) 9 2% 115.3g (2,091.4g) 50% 12.Masonry 5 1% 13.1g <1% 20.20th Century 6 1% 7.3g <1% TOTALS: 575 100% 4,211.5g 100% Test Unit 2 (including Features 11 W1/2, E1/2, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22) Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 1.Majolicas 4 <1% 4g <1% 2.Util. Wares 5 <1% 83.5g 1% 3.Non-Spanish 12 2% 38.5g 1%

PAGE 203

191 Tablewares 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 128 16% 905.5g 12% 5.Kitchen Items, nonceramic (+bone weight) 343 44% 4,111.8g (4,145.2g) 56% 6.Architecture, nonmasonry 141 18% 602.7g 8% 7.Military Items 1 <1% .8g <1% 8.Clothing/Sewing 1 <1% .1g <1% 9.Personal Items 10 1% 3.9g <1% 11.UID Metal (+uncounted fr.) 59 8% 218.2g (380.7g) 5% 12.Masonry 35 4% 557.8g 8% 13.Domestic Furn. 3 <1% 6.1g <1% 16.Tack/Harness 2 <1% 675.6g 9% 18.Misc. Weighed 2 <1% 36.9g <1% 20.20th Century 40 5% 32.2g <1% TOTALS: 786 100% 7,473.5g 100% Test Unit 3 (including Features 23, 24, 25, 31, 32) Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 1.Majolicas 2 <1% 1.5g <1% 2.Util. Wares 3 1% 60.5g 4% 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 5 1% 2.6g <1% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 133 36% 655.6g 38% 5.Kitchen Items, nonceramic (+bone weight) 67 18% 258.4g (302.2g) 17% 6.Architecture, nonmasonry 86 23% 171.4g 10% 7.Military Items 1 <1% 3.7g <1% 9.Personal Items 4 1% 0.4g <1% 11.UID Metal (+uncounted fr.) 65 18% 350.9g (435.5g) 25% 18. Misc. Weighed 3 1% 113.5g 6% TOTALS: 369 100% 1,746.9g 100%

PAGE 204

192 Stripping Area 2 Test Unit 1 (including Fe atures 74B, 76, 77, 78, 79) Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 1.Majolicas 5 1% 8.6g <1% 2.Util. Wares 21 4% 89.1g 2% 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 66 14% 193.9g 5% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 212 45% 2,041.3g 51% 5.Kitchen Items, nonceramic (+bone weight) 43 9% 107.6g (763.5g) 19% 6.Architecture, nonmasonry 47 10% 258.1g 7% 7.Military Items 3 1% 5.9g <1% 8.Clothing/Sewing 2 <1% 3.0g <1% 9.Personal Items 7 2% 3.6g <1% 11.UID Metal (+uncounted fr.) 49 10% 272.7g (393g) 10% 12.Masonry 4 1% 8.8g <1% 18.Misc. Weighed 11 2% 181.1g 5% 20.20th Century 1 <1% 24.8g 1% TOTALS: 471 100% 3,975.4g 100% Test Unit 2 (including Features 70A, 70B, 71A, 71B, 71D, 72, 73) Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 1.Majolicas 6 2% 7.7g <1% 2.Util. Wares 4 1% 71.6g 1% 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 30 9% 192.2g 4% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 126 39% 984.1g 20% 5.Kitchen Items, nonceramic (+bone weight) 48 15% 209.8g (2,947.8g) 59% 6.Architecture, nonmasonry 44 14% 170.2g 3% 7.Military Items 2 1% 4.8g <1% 8.Clothing/Sewing 1 <1% .5g <1%

PAGE 205

193 9.Personal Items 5 1% 5.5g <1% 11.UID Metal (+uncounted fr.) 54 17% 194.8g (633.8g) 13% 12.Masonry 5 1% 11.1g <1% TOTALS: 325 100% 5,029.3g 100% Test Unit 3 (including Features 76, 77, 77A, 80) Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 1.Majolicas 9 3% 9.8g <1% 2.Util. Wares 13 4% 13.1g <1% 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 36 10% 197.8g 7% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 152 42% 1,215.3g 41% 5.Kitchen Items, nonceramic (+bone weight) 34 9% 62.4g (316g) 11% 6.Architecture, nonmasonry 13 4% 179.5g 6% 7.Military Items 1 <1% 6.2g <1% 8.Clothing/Sewing 2 <1% 3.3g <1% 9.Personal Items 4 1% 8.8g <1% 10.Craft/Product 6 2% 43.4g 2% 11.UID Metal 66 18% 205.3g 7% 12.Masonry 3 1% 108.8g 4% 18.Misc. Weighed 21 6% 667.2g 22% TOTALS: 360 100% 2,974.5g 100% Test Unit 4 Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 1.Majolicas 2 2% 2.5g <1% 2.Util. Wares 2 2% 2.3g <1% 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 11 12% 42g 7% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 50 56% 480.2g 75% 5.Kitchen Items, nonceramic (+bone weight) (18.7g) 3% 6.Architecture, non-17 19% 47.7g 7%

PAGE 206

194 masonry 9.Personal Items 4 5% 3.5g 1% 18.Misc. Weighed 3 3% 44.8g 7% TOTALS: 89 100% 641.7g 100% Test Unit 5 Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 2.Util. Wares 3 12% 5.5g 3% 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 3 12% 9.7g 6% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 18 69% 93.3g 58% 5.Kitchen Items, nonceramic (+bone weight) (49.6g) 31% 9.Personal Items 1 4% 2.0g 1% 11.UID Metal 1 4% 0.8g 1% TOTALS: 26 100% 160.9g 100% Stripping Area 3 Test Unit 1 (including Features 62, 63) Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 1.Majolicas 1 1% 0.8g <1% 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 1 1% 4.0g 1% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 65 82% 449.3g 92% 5.Kitchen Items, nonceramic (+bone weight) 2 3% 3.2g (6.9g) 1% 6.Architecture, nonmasonry 1 1% 0.7g <1% 9.Personal Items 1 1% 0.8g <1% 11.UID Metal 8 10% 28.1g 6% TOTALS: 79 100% 490.6g 100%

PAGE 207

195 Test Unit 2 Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 1.Majolicas 1 1% .6g <1% 2.Util. Wares 3 3% 26.4g 4% 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 3 3% 7.5g 1% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 67 69% 506.2g 80% 5.Kitchen Items, nonceramic (+bone weight) 13 13% 64.6g (67.7g) 11% 6.Architecture, nonmasonry 2 2% 6g 1% 9.Personal Items 6 6% 2.8g <1% 11.UID Metal 2 2% 15.6g 3% TOTALS: 97 100% 632.8g 100% Test Unit 3 (including Features 40, 41, 42, 43, 44) Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 1.Majolicas 1 <1% 2.3g <1% 2.Util. Wares 1 <1% .4g <1% 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 2 <1% 20.8g 1% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 129 78% 2,638.8g 92% 5.Kitchen Items, nonceramic (+bone weight) 1 <1% 0.6g (1.6g) <1% 6.Architecture, nonmasonry 1 <1% 18.5g <1% 7.Military Items 1 <1% 18.0g <1% 9.Personal Items 1 <1% <.1g <1% 11.UID Metal 14 8% 89.5g 3% 12.Masonry 5 3% 16.6g <1% 15.Toys/Games/Leisure 1 <1% 21.8g 1% 18.Misc. Weighed 9 5% 51.5g 2% TOTALS: 166 100% 2,879.8g 100%

PAGE 208

196 Test Unit 4 (including Feature 53) Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 2.Util. Wares 1 3% 0.8g <1% 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 1 3% 3.9g 2% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 24 63% 214.8g 92% 5.Kitchen Items, nonceramic (+bone weight) (2.3g) 1% 6.Architecture, nonmasonry 2 5% 2.5g 1% 11.UID Metal 6 16% 3.5g 2% 12.Masonry 3 7% 2.9g 1% 18.Misc. Weighed 1 3% 3.2g 1% TOTALS: 38 100% 233.9g 100% Stripping Area 6 Test Unit 1 Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 18 38% 75.4g 50% 5.Kitchen Items, nonceramic (+bone weight) 4 9% 4.5g (18.2g) 12% 6.Architecture, nonmasonry 11 23% 52.6g 35% 11.UID Metal 14 30% 5.2g 3% TOTALS: 47 100% 151.4g 100% Test Unit 2 (including Feature 81) Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 2.Util. Wares 9 4% 26.8g 2% 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 6 3% 15.8g 1% 4.Non-European 166 68% 1,196.1g 80%

PAGE 209

197 Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 5.Kitchen Items, nonceramic (+bone weight) 19 8% 52.3g (145.8g) 10% 6.Architecture, nonmasonry 10 4% 61.9g 4% 9.Personal Items 3 1% 9.5g <1% 11.UID Metal 30 12% 43.1g 3% 14.Tools/Implements 1 <1% 1.1g <1% TOTALS: 244 100% 1,500.1g 100% Test Unit 3 (including Feature 84) Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 16 27% 103.4g 26% 5.Kitchen Items, nonceramic (+bone weight) 8 13% 37.7g (39.3g) 10% 6.Architecture, nonmasonry 19 32% 64g 16% 11.UID Metal 15 25% 9.1g 2% 18.Misc. Weighed 2 3% 178.2g 46% TOTALS: 60 100% 394g 100% Test Unit 4 (including Feature 82) Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 3 5% 1.6g <1% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 20 34% 89.4g 50% 5.Kitchen Items, nonceramic (+bone weight) 5 9% 5.5g (10g) 6% 6.Architecture, nonmasonry 26 45% 75.2g 42% 9.Personal Items 1 2% 2.9g 2% 18.Misc. Weighed 3 5% 1.0g <1% TOTALS: 58 100% 180.1g 100%

PAGE 210

198 Test Unit 5 (including Features 81A, 81B) Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 2.Util. Wares 16 9% 75.4g 3% 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 3 2% 4.6g <1% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 94 51% 707.6g 32% 5.Kitchen Items, nonceramic (+bone weight) 12 7% 50.4g (77.6g) 4% 6.Architecture, nonmasonry 43 23% 188.6g 8% 9.Personal Items 3 2% 2.3g <1% 11.UID Metal 9 5% 11.3g <1% 12.Masonry 1 <1% 199.2g 9% 18.Misc. Weighed 2 1% 973.7g 44% TOTALS: 183 100% 2,240.3g 100% Test Unit 6 (including Feature 83) Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 2.Util. Wares 1 1% 9.3g 2% 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 1 1% 1.2g <1% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 59 60% 338.7g 71% 5.Kitchen Items, nonceramic (+bone weight) 2 2% 2.1g (22g) 5% 6.Architecture, nonmasonry 18 18% 83g 17% 11.UID Metal 16 16% 7.4g 1% 18. Misc. Weighed 2 2% 18.5g 4% TOTALS: 99 100% 480.1g 100% Test Unit 7 (includes Features 81, 85) Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 2.Util. Wares 2 2% 16.6g 3%

PAGE 211

199 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 3 2% .9g <1% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 22 17% 87.2g 16% 5.Kitchen Items, nonceramic (+bone weight) 14 10% 19.4g (22g) 4% 6.Architecture, nonmasonry 88+ 67% 241.1g 44% 11.UID Metal 2 2% 0.9g <1% 18.Misc. Weighed 1 <1% 182.9g 33% TOTALS: 132 100% 551.6g 100% Test Unit 8 (including Features 81A, 81B, 87) Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 2 2% .5g <1% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 44 45% 215.7g 62% 5.Kitchen Items, nonceramic (+bone weight) 3 3% 1.5g (8.7g) 3% 6.Architecture, nonmasonry 27 28% 93.5g 27% 9.Personal Items 3 3% .7g <1% 11.UID Metal 17 18% 8.6g 3% 12.Masonry 1 1% 16.2g 5% TOTALS: 97 100% 343.9g 100% Test Unit 9 Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 2.Util. Wares 1 1% 14.9g 3% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 39 45% 349.6g 71% 5.Kitchen Items, nonceramic (+bone weight) 3 4% 5.2g (16.3g) 3% 6.Architecture, nonmasonry 20 23% 84.2g 17% 11.UID Metal 23 26% 21g 4%

PAGE 212

200 18.Misc. Weighed 1 1% 7.4g 2% TOTALS: 87 100% 493.4g 100% 321 ST. GEORGE STREET – ARTI FACT COUNTS AND WEIGHTS Test Unit 1 (includes Features 1, 2) Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 1.Majolicas 2 <1% 1.2g <1% 2.Util. Wares 18 2% 206.5g 5% 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 133 16% 356.7g 9% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 79 9% 237.9g 6% 5.Kitchen Items, nonceramic (+bone weight) 205 24% 894.5g (1,474.6g) 36% 6.Architecture, nonmasonry 45 5% 153g 4% 7.Military Items 4 <1% 36.7g 1% 8.Clothing/Sewing 7 1% 5.4g <1% 9.Personal Items 4 <1% 8.8g <1% 10.Craft/Product 1 <1% 31.4g 1% 11.UID Metal 297 35% 512.3g 13% 12.Masonry 11 1% 703.3g 17% 18.Misc. Weighed 21 3% 302g 7% 20.20th Century 21 3% 42g 1% TOTALS: 848 100% 4,071.8g 100% Test Unit 2 Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 2.Util. Wares 8 3% 107.4g 10% 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 47 18% 275.6g 26% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+bone weight) 39 15% 82.3g 8% 5.Kitchen Items, nonceramic (+bone weight) 56 21% 221.3g (427.4g) 40% 6.Architecture, nonmasonry 8 3% 25.2g 2%

PAGE 213

201 9.Personal Items 1 <1% 8.5g 1% 11.UID Metal 103 39% 140.8g 13% 12.Masonry 1 <1% 4.1g <1% TOTALS: 263 100% 1,071.3g 100% Test Unit 3 Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 2.Util. Wares 1 1% 1.4g <1% 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 2 2% 4.1g 1% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 42 36% 144g 38% 5.Kitchen Items, nonceramic (+bone weight) 18 15% 15.3g (210.8g) 55% 6.Architecture, nonmasonry 1 1% 4.6g 1% 9.Personal Items 1 1% 1.2g <1% 11.UID Metal 51 44% 15.7g 4% TOTALS: 116 100% 381.8g 100% 8 HEDRICK STREET – ARTIFACT COUNTS AND WEIGHTS Test Unit 1 Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 1.Majolicas 1 1% 12.7g 2% 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 1 1% 32.9g 5% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 98 76% 252.9g 42% 5.Kitchen Items, nonceramic (+bone weight) 1 1% 18.3g (19.4g) 3% 6.Architecture, nonmasonry 2 2% 5.7g 1% 7.Military Items 2 2% 10.3g 2% 8.Clothing/Sewing 1 1% 1.2g <1% 11.UID Metal 10 7% 81.5g 14% 12.Masonry 3 2% 155.1g 26% 18.Misc.Weighed 3 2% 1.0g <1%

PAGE 214

202 20.20th Century 7 5% 27.0g 5% TOTALS: 129 100% 599.7g 100% Test Unit 2 (includi ng Features 1, 3, 4) Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 1.Majolicas 2 1.6% 19g 6% 2.Util. Wares 1 1% 4.3g 1% 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 2 1.6% 18.6g 6% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 106 85% 257.2g 79% 5.Kitchen Items, nonceramic (+bone weight) (0.2g) <1% 7.Military Items 2 1.6% 3.9g 1% 8.Clothing/Sewing 2 1.6% 3.7g 1% 11.UID Metal 4 3% 13.6g 4% 18.Misc. Weighed 2 1.6% 2.7g 1% 20.20th Century 4 3% 1.4g <1% TOTALS: 125 100% 324.6g 100% Test Unit 3 Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 1.Majolicas 2 1% 7.7g 2% 2.Util. Wares 1 1% 0.5g <1% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 100 56% 292.4g 75% 5.Kitchen Items, nonceramic (+bone weight) 6 3% 43g (47.6g) 12% 7.Military Items 1 1% 1.7g <1% 9.Personal Items 2 1% 9.2g 2% 11.UID Metal 17 10% 14.5g 4% 12.Masonry 4 2% 4.4g 1% 18.Misc. Weighed 2 1% 3.8g 1% 20.20th Century 43 24% 9.0g 2% TOTALS: 178 100% 390.7g 100%

PAGE 215

203 Test Unit 4 (including Featur e 8, Sabal palm root ball) Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 2.Util. Wares 1 <1% 9.3g 1% 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 2 1% 28g 3% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 73 27% 242.3g 24% 6.Architecture, nonmasonry 2 1% 1.2g <1% 7.Military Items 2 1% 3.2g <1% 8.Clothing/Sewing 1 <1% 2.9g <1% 9.Personal Items 3 1% 7g 1% 11.UID Metal 11 4% 190.1g 19% 12.Masonry 5 2% 30.3g 3% 20.20th Century 171 63% 479.7g 48% TOTALS: 271 100% 994g 100% Test Unit 5 Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 1.Majolicas 1 1% 0.1g <1% 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 2 2% 24.5g 7% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 61 60% 193.4g 52% 5.Kitchen Items, nonceramic (+bone weight) (1.7g) <1% 11.UID Metal 15 15% 25.5g 7% 12.Masonry 3 3% 63.2g 17% 18.Misc. Weighed 10 10% 0.2g <1% 20.20th Century 9 9% 61.2g 17% TOTALS: 101 100% 369.8g 100%

PAGE 216

204 Test Unit 6 (including Feature 9) Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 1 1% 4.1g 1% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 37 38% 170.2g 53% 5.Kitchen Items, nonceramic (+bone weight) (0.6g) <1% 6.Architecture, nonmasonry 1 1% 0.2g <1% 11.UID Metal 1 1% 0.4g <1% 12.Masonry 7 8% 81.2g 25% 18.Misc. Weighed 9 9% 21.8g 7% 20.20th Century 40 42% 45.8g 14% TOTALS: 96 100% 324.3g 100% Test Unit 7 (including Feature 10) Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 1.Majolicas 1 1% 0.3g <1% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 101 71% 260.6g 89% 5.Kitchen Items, nonceramic (+bone weight) 2 1% 0.3g (0.8g) <1% 6.Architecture, nonmasonry 4 3% 11.7g 4% 11.UID Metal 9 6% 9.1g 3% 18.Misc. Weighed 21 15% 5.2g 2% 20.20th Century 5 3% 4.8g 2% TOTALS: 143 100% 292.5g 100% Test Unit 8 Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 1.Majolicas 1 1% <.1g <1% 3.Non-Spanish 1 1% 0.5g <1%

PAGE 217

205 Tablewares 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 149 87% 352.3g 85% 5.Kitchen Items, nonceramic 7 4% 28.7g 7% 6.Architecture, nonmasonry 2 1% 0.7g <1% 9.Personal Items 2 1% 7.7g 2% 11.UID Metal 7 4% 16.8g 4% 18.Misc. Weighed 1 1% 7.7g 2% TOTALS: 170 100% 414.4g 100% Test Unit 9 Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 3.Non-Spanish Tablewares 2 4% 12.3g 5% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 37 74% 171.3g 69% 5.Kitchen Items, nonceramic 2 4% 9.4g 4% 6.Architecture, nonmasonry 1 2% 0.3g <1% 11.UID Metal 7 14% 56.7g 22% 18.Misc. Weighed 1 2% <.1g <1% TOTALS: 50 100% 250g 100% 11 TREMERTON STREET (Burial Area) – ARTIFACT COUNTS AND WEIGHTS Test Unit 9 Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 2.Util. Wares 1 3% 10.3g 1% 4.Non-European Ceramics (+NAUID/disc.) 4 12% 19.8g 3% 5.Kitchen Items, nonceramic (+bone weight) 4 12% 406g (587.4g) 82% 6.Architecture, nonmasonry 2 6% 7.7g 1%

PAGE 218

206 11.UID Metal 8 23% 16.6g 2% 17.Religious 12 35% 56g 8% 18.Misc. Weighed 3 9% 19.7g 3% TOTALS: 34 100% 717.5g 100% Features 100, 102, 105, 106, 107 Category Artifact Count % of Total Count per Unit Artifact Weight % of Total Weight per Unit 4.Non-European Ceramics 2 >1% 17g 13% 5.Kitchen Items, nonceramic (+bone weight) 1 1% 9.0g (12.0g) 9% 6.Architecture, nonmasonry 2 >1% 18.6g 14% 11.UID Metal 4 3% 2.9g 2% 12.Masonry 2 >1% 5.5g 4% 17.Religious 107 78% 20.1g 16% 18.Misc. Weighed 19 14% 54.9g 42% TOTALS: 137 100% 131g 100%

PAGE 219

207 LIST OF REFERENCES Arnade, Charles W. 1959. The Siege of St. Augustine in 1702. University of Florida Monographs, Social Sciences No.3: Summer. Audubon Society. 1998. National Audubon Society Field Guide to Florida. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. Bartram, William. 1791. Travels Through North and South Carolina, Georgia, East and West Florida, the Cherokee Country, the Extensive Territories of the Muscogulges, or Creek Confederacy, and the Country of the Chactaws Penguin Books: New York. Boman, Brian, and Dave Tucker. 2002. Drainage Systems for Flatwoods Citr us in Florida. Document No. CH165, Circular 1412, Agricultural and Bi ological Engineering Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. Chatelain, Verne E. 1941. The Defenses of Spanish Florida:1565 – 1763. Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication 511:Washington, D.C. Undated typescript. Historic St. Augustin e. Carnegie Institution of Washington. Crane, Verner W. 1929. The Southern Frontier, 1670-1732 Ann Arbor Books, The University of Michigan Press: reissued 1956. Crow, John A. 1992. The Epic of Latin America Berkely: University of California Press. Deagan, Kathleen. 1987. Artifacts of the Spanish Colonies of Florida and the Caribbean 1500-1800, Volume 1: Ceramics, Glassware and Beads Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.

PAGE 220

208 1993. St. Augustine and the Mission Frontier. In The Spanish Missions of La Florida ed. by Bonnie G. McEwan, pp. 87110. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. 2001. Artifacts of the Spanish Colonies of Florida and the Caribbean 1500-1800, Volume 2: Portable Personal Possessions Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press. 2002. A New Florida & A New Century: Th e Impact of the English Invasion on Daily Life in Saint Augustine. El Escribano: The Saint Augustine Journal of History 39:102-112. Saint Augustin e Historical Society. Deagan, Kathleen, and Jose Maria Cruxent. 2002. ColumbusÂ’s Outpost Among the Tainos Yale University Press: New Haven. Deagan, Kathleen, and Darcie McMahon. 1995. Fort Mose: Colonial AmericaÂ’s Black Fortress of Freedom Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Denevan, William M. 1992. The Aboriginal Population of Amazonia. In The Native Population of the Americas in 1492 ed. by William M. Denevan, pp. 205-234. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press. Dickinson, Martin F., and Lucy B. Wayne. 1985. An Archaeological Survey of Fort George Island, Florida On File: P.K. Yonge Library of Florida Hi story, Gainesville, Florida. Dobyns, Henry F. 1991. The Invasion of Florida: Disease and the Indians of Florida. In Spanish Pathways in Florida, ed. by Ann L. Henderson and Gary R. Mormino, pp. 58-77. Sarasota: Pin eapple Press, Inc. Falsetti, Anthony B. 2004. Report of Osteological Examination, Cases 5E04 and 2D04. C.A. Pound Human Identification Laboratory: University of Florida. Gannon, Michael V. 1983. The Cross in the Sand Gainesville: University Press of Florida.

PAGE 221

209 Halbirt, Carl D. In Preparation. ’Where sea breezes cons tantly blow-an ideal place for a home…:’ A Phase I Archaeological Survey at La Punta. St. Augustine: City of Saint Augustine. 1992. Grasping the Past: Understandi ng Archaeology in the City of St. Augustine, Florida, A Working Ma nual. Draft:Planning/Building Department, City of St. Augustine. 1997. Field Notes, Excavations at 159 Ma rine Street, St. Augustine, Florida. BDAC No. 97-0232 2002. The Apocalypse of 1702: Archaeologi cal Evidence of Moore’s Siege. El Escribano: The Saint Augus tine Journal of History 39: 29-44. St. Augustine Historical Society: St. Augustine. 2004. La Ciudad de San Agustn: A Europ ean Fighting Presidio in Eighteenth Century La Florida. Historical Archaeology 38(3):33-46. Society for Historical Archaeology:California. Hann, John H. 1988. Apalachee: The Land Between the Rivers Gainesville: University Press of Florida. 1996. A History of the Timucua Indians and Missions Gainesville: University Press of Florida. 2003. Indians of Central and South Florida, 1513 –1763 Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Hann, John H., and Bonnie G. McEwan. 1998. The Apalachee Indians and Mission San Luis Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Hoffman, Kathleen. 1993. The Archaeology of the Convento San Francisco. In The Spanish Missions of La Florida ed. by Bonnie G. McEwan, pp. 62-86. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Hoshower, Lisa M., and Jerald T. Milanich. 1993. Excavations in the Fig Spri ngs Mission Burial Area. In The Spanish Missions of La Florida ed. by Bonnie G. McEwan, pp. 217-243. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.

PAGE 222

210 Kapitzke, Robert L. 2001. Religion, Power and Politics in Colonial St. Augustine. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Landers, Jane. 1992. Fort Mose. Gracia Real de Santa Te resa De Mose: A Free Black Town in Spanish Colonial Florida St. Augustine: St. Augustine Historical Society. Larsen, Clark Spencer. 1993. On the Frontier of Contact: Mission Bioarchaeology in La Florida In The Spanish Missions of La Florida ed. by Bonnie G. McEwan, pp. 322-356. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Loucks, L. Jill. 1993. Spanish-Indian Interaction on the Florida Missions: The Archaeology of Baptizing Spring. In The Spanish Missions of La Florida ed. by Bonnie G. McEwan, pp. 193-216. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Manucy, Albert. 1997. Sixteenth-Century Saint Augustin e: The People and Their Homes Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Marrinan, Rochelle A. 1993. Archaeological Investigations at Mission Patale, 1984-1992. In The Spanish Missions of La Florida ed. by Bonnie G. McEwan, pp. 244-294. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. McEwan, Bonnie G. 1993. Hispanic Life on the Seventeent h-Century Florida Frontier. In The Spanish Missions of La Florida ed. by Bonnie G. McEwan, pp. 295-321. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. McGee, Ray, Antoinette B. Wallace, Nick Mc Auliffe, Michael B. Tarleton, and Carl D. Halbirt. 2005. Archaeological Investigations of a Multi-component Spanish Mission/British Hospital site in St. A ugustine, Fl. Paper Presented at the 57th Annual Conference of the Fl orida Anthropological Society, Gainesville, Florida. Milanich, Jerald T. 1994. Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida Gainesville: University Press of Florida.

PAGE 223

211 1995. Florida Indians and the Invasion from Europe Gainesville: University Press of Florida. 1999. Laboring in the Fields of the Lord Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press. 2002. Gone, but Never Forgotten: Mission Santa Catalina on Amelia Island and the 1702 Raid. In El Escribano: The Saint Augus tine Journal of History 39:1-15. St. Augustine: St. A ugustine Historical Society. Milanich, Jerald T., and Rebecca Saunders. 1986. The Spanish Castillo and the Franci scan Doctrina of Santa Catalina, at Santa Maria, Amelia Island, Florida (8-NA-41). Miscellaneous Project Report Series No. 20. Florida State Museum: Gainesville. Parker, Susan R. 1993. Spanish St. Augustine’s “Urban” Indians. El Escribano Vol. 30, 1-15. St. Augustine Historical Society: St. Augustine. 1999. The Second Century of Settlement in Spanish St. Augustine, 1670-1763. Doctoral dissertation, Un iversity of Florida. Parsons, James. J. 1989. Ridged Fields in the Rio Guayas Valley, Ecuador. In Hispanic Lands and Peoples: Selected Writings of James J. Parsons ed. by William M. Denevan, pp.203-210. Boulder: Westview Press. Parsons, James J., and William A. Bowen. 1989. Ancient Ridged Fields of the San Jorge River Floodplain, Colombia. In Hispanic Lands and Peoples: Selected Writings of James J. Parsons ed. by William M. Denevan, pp. 177-202. Boulder: Westview Press. Parsons, James J., and William M. Denevan. 1989. Pre-Columbian Ridged Fields. In Hispanic Lands and Peoples: Selected Writings of James J. Parsons, ed. by William M. Denevan, pp. 211-221. Boulder: Westview Press. Porter, Kenneth W. 1996. The Black Seminoles: History of a Fr eedom-Seeking People. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Reitz, Elizabeth J., and C. Margaret Scarry. 1985. Reconstructing Historic Subsisten ce With an Example from SixteenthCentury Spanish Florida. Special Pub lication Series, Number 3: Society for Historical Archaeology.

PAGE 224

212 Saunders, Rebecca. 1988. Excavations at 8NA41: Two Mi ssion Period Sites on Amelia Island, Florida. Miscellaneous Project Re port Series No. 35. Florida State Museum: Gainesville. 1993. Architecture of the Missions Santa Ma ria and Santa Catalina de Amelia. In The Spanish Missions of La Florida ed. by Bonnie G. McEwan, pp. 3561. Gainesville: Univers ity of Florida Press. 2000. The Guale Indians of the Lower Atlant ic Coast: Change and Continuity. In Indians of the Greater Southeas t: Historical Archaeology and Ethnohistory ed. by Bonnie G. McEwan, pp. 26-56. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Scardaville, Michael C., a nd Jess Maria Belmonte. 1979. Florida in the Late First Span ish Period: The 1756 Grin Report. El Escribano: The Saint Augus tine Journal of History 16:1-24. St. Augustine: St. Augustine Historical Society. Scarry, C. Margaret. 1993. Plant Production in Apalachee Province. In The Spanish Missions of La Florida ed. by Bonnie G. McEwan, pp.357375. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Schafer, Daniel L. 2001. St. AugustineÂ’s British Years: 1763-1784 El Escribano: The Saint Augustine Journal of History 38. St. Augustine: St. Augustine Historical Society. Smajstria, A.G., B.J. Boman, G.A. Clark, D.Z. Haman, D.S. Harrison, F.T. Izuno, D.J. Pitts and F.S. Zazueta. 1991. Efficiences of Florida Agricultur al Irrigation Systems. Document BUL247, Agricultural and Biological Engineering Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, In stitute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. Smith, Buckingham. 1968. Narratives of De Soto in the Conquest of Florida. Gainesville: Kallman Publishing Co.

PAGE 225

213 Thomas, David Hurst. 1993. The Archaeology of Mission Santa Cata lina de Guale: Our First 15 Years. In The Spanish Missions of La Florida ed. by Bonnie G. McEwan, pp. 134. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Smith, James M., and Stanley C. Bond, Jr. 1984. Stomping the Flatwoods: An Archaeological Survey of St. Johns County, Florida. St. Augustine: Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board. Swanton, John R. 1922. Early History of the Creek Indians and Their Neighbors. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 73. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. Waterbury, Jean Parker. 1983. The Oldest City: St. Augustine Saga of Survival St. Augustine: St. Augustine Historical Society. Weisman, Brent R. 1993. Archaeology of Fig Springs Mission, It chetucknee Springs State Park. In The Spanish Missions of La Florida ed. by Bonnie G. McEwan, pp.165192. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. 1999. Unconquered People: FloridaÂ’s Seminole and Miccosukee Indians. University Press of Florida: Gainesville. White, Andrea P. 2002. Living on the Periphery: A Study of an Eighteenth-Century Yamassee Mission Community in Colonial St. Augus tine. MasterÂ’s Thesis: Virginia, The College of William and Mary. Worth, John E. 1995. The Struggle for the Georgia Coas t: An Eighteenth-Century Spanish Retrospective on Guale and Mocama. Anthropological Papers no. 75. American Museum of Natural History, New York. 1998a. The Timucuan Chiefdoms of Spanish Florida, Volume 1: Assimilation. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. 1998b. The Timucuan Chiefdoms of Spanish Florida, Volume 2:Resistance and Destruction Gainesville: University Press of Florida. 2004. Yamassee. Handbook of North American Indians. Draft article (unpublished).

PAGE 226

214 Wright, David, Jim Marois, Jim Rich, and Richard Sprenkel. 2004. Field Corn Production Guide. Document SS-AGR-85, Department of Agronomy, Florida Cooperative Extens ion Service, Inst itute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. Wright, Jr., J. Leitch. 1986. Creeks and Seminoles Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

PAGE 227

215 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Willet A. Boyer, III is a seventh-generation Florida native whose principal areas of academic interest include the late preColumbian and colonial-era history and archaeology of Florida and th e Southeast, landscape and ag ency theory in archaeology, and the relationship between shamanisti c and priestly systems of belief. His academic background includes a B.A in English and a J.D. in law from the University of Florida, and he is curr ently pursuing a Ph.D in anthropology.