”I‘sefii‘d' , 3"] i3? ' w' “v.50 33.12.91 5‘, 1h“: ad. v :1- . .. : \a up. 1d... z? :3. ,‘L :25 Juana- u t . c1313. .1“. 7E. .8..mTh¢l..u.u..-z y, u 9...... Ya. ,331....vx-N.. 5.. .1303...” {in $5.13!.- i.......~5t!..l {a . i I x 8.3 3:! 13». ._ , 4 . .34... 1:. .uflv‘ its-‘2“ .‘ . as 63.... ‘ . £321.. V . haw... . 510...!th an)”: 5 Mn .3. I. 3...... 7.... : wv.‘{i.1||vt‘. I! 053 v 7‘ - shun-i .. «null: hmfiv).z¢1 .rzvi‘ ””4 Elvin... IO ‘1: . 1 ii?! -rfiiasi? 2.»: . {I o . ‘ .r ’guvvaz. - sir 1.59.0.3». . 7 .3. THESL‘. ATE U ITY UBRARI Illllllllllwillllllllllll 3 1293 01389 2959 This is to certify that the thesis entitled By Design: A Semiotic Analysis of Architectural Variation at Fort Frederica presented by Margaret Birney has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Master of Arts degree in Anthropology Major professor Date 4/ 1 M96 0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 4 A _ A“. _--f‘ _ A_ LIBRARY Michigan State Unlverslty PLACE IN RETURN BOX to roman this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or bdoro duo duo. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE MS” I. All I‘m A- A A} - . ‘rr 4 n . BY DESIGN: A SEMIOTIC ANALYSIS OF ARCHITECTURAL VARIATION AT FORT FREDERICA Tort ‘ ‘ By '~ . Margaret Birney TVS“. ‘ A , A THESIS .fi1‘“~"" Submitted to Michigan State university 13"£fl”pertial fulfillment of the requirements '. for the degree of MASTER or ARTS ' . .‘ Riii; M: flépartment of Anthropology ” “ '”‘1 .1 ~. -, . .'.;-‘. .._A .- “" ”F-* 'i 1995 ABSTRACT BY DESIGN: A SEMIOTIC ANALYSIS OF ARCHITECTURAL VARIATION AT FORT FREDERICA BY Margaret Birney Fort Frederica was established in 1735 in order to protect British interests in the new colony of Georgia and to provide a home for impoverished emigrants. In spite of apparent economic egality among the settlers, architectural variation which seems to contradict that egality soon appeared. Since Frederica was a planned town, this phenomenon may have been a deliberate display of differential status incorporated into its design by founder, James Oglethorpe. Three components of housing value — size, complexity and construction inethods —- will be compared to determine relative worth of dwellings in the settlement. The results will be used to test hypotheses designed to explain patterns in architectural variation. ‘ When subjected to semiotic analysis, those patterns yield insights into the way a power structure was employed to maintain control and authority on the military frontier. COPYI-‘ight by MARGARET nu'm Brawn? Etta? ram: .. ‘ 1996 I. “r. 'KQTH‘Avéi . .. ”tetror» ; . Tam-1 ...,- Flnxide s: Wrts «1.; , . . f‘ “Dance 9). {11* . M” ciao new. pr ‘ y 1.. ll '. {an 2L1. it t'vu- . ,.‘ o -- _ LwWO‘Iu 11-: "up . _ 'r . WM ta.’. ,1 v‘ ‘IJLA .'_ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Great appreciation is extended to Dr. Kenneth Lewis for his encouragement, patience and guidance during the lengthy _gestation of this work” Additional thanks go to Audrey Trowner of the Southeast Archaeological Center in'rallahassee, Florida for her helpfulness in supplying the excavation reports and drawings that are the basis of the archaeological evidence in this study. Jimmy Smith and Patricia Barefoot have also been most helpful in providing access to materials on file at Fort Frederica National Monument. Finally, I am grateful for the constant support of my husband, Victor Howard through the preparation and writing of this thesis. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii I. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Assumptions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Theoretical Position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 III. HISTORY OF FORT FREDERICA Prelude to Frederica: The World System . . . . . 20 The Founding and History of Fort Frederica . . . 26 IV. A REVIEW OF PREVIOUS LITERARY AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH Literary Studies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Archaeology . . . . 40 The Fort, Fortifications and Related Structures 42 The Dwellings . . . . . . . . . . . 43 The Artifacts . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . .47 V. HYPOTHESES Architecture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Size. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Complexity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 The Occupants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 The Political Officials . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Occupational Classes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 The Military. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 The Locational Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 VI. PRESENTATION OF THE DATA FOR PERSONNEL HYPOTHESES The Political Officials . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Occupational Classes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 The Military. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 VII. PRESENTATION OF THE DATA FOR LOCATIONAL HYPOTHESE Dwellings along Broad Street. . . . . . . . . . 148 Dwellings along Cross Street. . . . . . . . . 151 Dwellings near the Fort, Church and Storehouse. 155 v VII. CONCLUSION. . Epilogue. GLOSSARY . . . . . APPENDIX ROSTER OF FREDERICA'S RESIDENTS . LIST OF REFERENCES. vi 164 179 182 192 Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table ‘Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table 10. 11. 15. 16. LIST OF TABLES Size Value of Public Officials’ Dwellings . . . .91 Size Value of Alternates’ Dwellings . . . . . . .96 Size Value of Other Dwellings South Side of Broad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Size Value of Other Dwellings North Side of Broad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 Size Value for Lots 12—21S-First Street South of Broad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Size Value for Lots 31- 418- Second Street South of Broad . . . . . . . . . . . .114 Size Value for Lots 12-21N-First Street North of Broad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .116 Size Value for Lots 31—41N-Second Street North of Broad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .117 Size Value for Lots 41-51N-Third Street North of Broad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .119 Size Value of All Groups. . . . . . . . . . . . .119 Complexity’Value of Public Officials’ Dwellings .121 . Complexity Value of Alternate’s Dwellings . .. .122 Complexity Value of Other Dwellings- -South Side of Broad . . . . .123 . Complexity Value for Lots 12- 218, First Street South of Broad. . . . . . . . .124 Complexity 'Value for Lots 31- 418- Second Street South of Broad. . . . . . .125 Complexity Value of Other Dwellings-I -North Side of Broad . . . . . . .126 Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table 17. 18. 19. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 35. 36. 37. Complexity Value for Lots 12- 21N— First Street North of Broad. . . . . . . . 126 Complexity ‘Value for Lots 31- 41N- Second Street North of Broad. . . . . . . . . . . . . .127 Complexity Value for Lots 43, 46, 47 and 48N. . .128 . Complexity Values for All Groups. . . . . .. . .128 Construction Value for Public Officials’ Dwellings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130 Construction Value for Alternates’ Dwellings. . .130 Construction Value for Other Dwellings - South Side of Broad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131 Construction Value for Lots 12—218—First Street South of Broad. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131 Construction Value for Lots 31-4ls-Second Street South of Broad. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131 Construction Value for Other Dwellings— —North Side of Broad. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .132 Construction Value for Lots 12-21N-First Street North of Broad. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .132 Construction Value for Lots 31=41N—Second Street North of Broad. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .132 Construction Value for Dwellings on Lots 43,46, 47 and 48N. . . . . . . . . .132 . Construction Values for All Groups. . . . .. . .133 Total Values for All Groups . . . . . . . . . . .134 . Size Value of Dwellings of Professionals. . . . .136 Size Value of Dwellings of Laborers . . . .. . .137 . Size Value of Dwellings of Skilled Trades Group .137 Complexity Value of Professionals’ Dwellings. . .138 Complexity Value of Laborers’ Dwellings . .. . .138 Complexity Value of Dwellings of Skill Trades Group . . . .139 viii Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table 38. 39. 40. 49. 50. 51. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. Construction Value of Professionals' Dwellings. .139 Construction Value of Laborers’ Dwellings . .. .140 Construction Value of Dwellings of Skilled Trades Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .140 . Total Values for All Occupational Groups. . . . .141 . Size Value of Regular Soldiers’ Dwellings . . . .144 . Size Value of Officers’ Dwellings . . .. . . . .145 . Complexity Value of Regular Soldiers' Dwellings .146 . Complexity Value of Officers’ Dwellings . .. . .146 Construction Value of Regular Soldiers' Dwellings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .147 . Construction Value of Officers’ Dwellings . . . .148 . Total Values of Regular Soldiers and Officers . .148 Average Values for Dwellings on South Side of Broad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .150 Average Values for Dwellings on North Side of Broad .151 Average Values for Dwellings Behind Broad Street. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .151 . Total Value of Dwellings on Cross . . . . . . . .153 . Average Value of Dwellings on Cross . . . .. . .154 Comparison—Cross Street Dwellings and Others on Same Street . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .155 . Values of Dwellings on Lots 2-58. . . . . . . . .157 Values of Dwellings on Lots 6-118 . . . . . . . .157 Values of Dwellings on Lots 18-218. . . . .. . .158 Values of Dwellings on Lots 12-17S. . . . . . . .158 Values of Dwellings on Lots 31-358. . . .. . . .158 Values of Dwellings on Lots 36-408. . . . .. . .159 Values of Dwellings on Lots 2-5N. . . . . .. . .159 ix Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure ' Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. LIST OF FIGURES Palmetto bowers Bastide plan-Hull and Caernarvon. Plan of Frederica Coastline of Southern Georgia Fort Frederica on St. Simons Island Augspourger Plan. Miller Plan Hawkins/Eyre Plan Reconciled Plan Excavated areas of Frederica. Plan of Francis Moore house-Lot 21N Closet and stairway Plan of Thomas Hawkins house-Lot 28 Artist's conception of Hawkins house. Scottish dwelling with external staircase Plan of Samuel Perkins house—Lot 2N Plan of Samuel Davison house—Lot 38 Plan of John Calwell house-Lot 4N Plan of Daniel Cannon house—Lot 6N. Plan of Dunbar-Houstoun house—Lot 48. Plan of John Levally Jr. house-Lot 9S .26 .29 .36 .38 .38 .40 .45 .75 .77 .79 .80 80 .83 .86 .89 .92 .97 .101 Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure 23_. 24. 25. 26. 27. Plan of Daniel Griffith house-Lot 108 Plan of Levi Bennet house-Lot 9N. Lean-to kitchen Plan of William Forrester house-Lot 218 Plan of Thomas Mason house-Lot 48N. Beaded Weatherboard Clapboard (cleftboard). Framed construction on posts. . Hall and parlour plan with lean-to. Lean-to . Mortise and tenon joint Nogging Puncheon construction xi .103 .108 .109 .114 .118 .182 .182 .184 .185 .185 .186 .187 Chapter I Introduction Four years after poor but worthy British citizens disembarked at Savannah to settle the natal city of America's last colony, it became clear that in order to secure the area, a garrisoned settlement was needed in southern Georgia. In the fall of 1735, emigrants departed for Georgia where they would establish Frederica, the response to that need. As was the case at Savannah, the people bound for Frederica had suffered financial hardships and faced a dim future in England. The Georgia Trust, overseer of Georgia’s foundation, offered an opportunity for indigent British citizens to relocate to America where new prospects could change their fortunes. Members of the Trust sought to fill the new colony with hard-working, honest persons whose luck had been fickle but whose talents would sustain them on the new frontier (Oglethorpe. 1990. 11-12; Oglethorpe. 1994, 164; Oglethorpe. 1994, 220; Coleman. 1989, 155-6). On arrival at their new home, the settlers found a small encampment of palmetto bowers raised by an advance contingent sent to Frederica two months before. Recorder Francis Moore described the scene: Each freeholder had sixty foot in front, by ninety foot in depth, upon the high street, for their house and garden; but those which fronted the river had but 2 thirty foot in front by sixty foot in depth. Each family had a bower of palmetto leaves, finished upon the back street in their own lands; the side towards the front street was set out for their houses. These palmetto bowers were very convenient shelters, being tight in the hardest rains; they were about twenty feet long, and fourteen foot wide, and in regular rows, looked very pretty, the palmetto leaves lying smooth and handsome, and of a good color. The whole appeared something like a camp; for the bowers looked like tents, only being larger, and covered with palmetto leaves instead of canvass (sic). (Moore. 1840, 114). (Figure 1) Figure 1. Palmetto bowers Within a year, however, architectural variation in the town began to reveal a developing social hierarchy (Egmont. 1920, vol. II, 411). Moreover, the disposition of larger and more elaborate homes followed the form typical of cities of the pre—industrial era; finer homes stood near the center of the settlement, while less substantial dwellings occupied back street lots (Sjoberg. 190, 95; Denecke. 1988, 126). Normally, the developing economy of a town determined such a pattern. In Connecticut, for instance, Anthony Garvan 3 noted that, "-the colonial towns of Connecticut present an orderly pattern created by the economic demands of the settlers and these in turn directed the flow of architectural change and the development of town planning." (Garvan. 1951, 12). Thus, proprietership established merchants near the center of a nebular settlement and profits were displayed in architectural elaboration. Frederica's economy, however, was extremely limited. Most of the profits to be made came from supplying the village and meeting internal needs (Candler. 1908a, 171; Lane. 1990, 501). Further, architectural variation occurred so soon after the settlers arrived that economic success could hardly have played a significant role. A bare six months after the arrival of settlers, the three- story brick home of Thomas Hawkins was raised on Frederica's high street, setting the pattern of architectural variation which would continue throughout Frederica's short history (Egmont. 1920, 250). Hawkins' superior home was soon joined by that of Francis Moore and Samuel Davison and these houses remained three of the finest homes ever built at Frederica (Egmont. 1923, 411; Candler. 1913, 17, 145). How, in such a short period, could such a significant range of financial success have developed that some citizens were able to erect substantial homes while others remained in huts? And by what contrivance were the best homes built along the main streets not only in the beginning but throughout Frederica's brief history? If the answer to Frederica's early pattern of architectural variation does not rest in a natural \\-‘\\\ \\'\\\\" "\ \ (\ Nd!) \v: ‘ \ .‘ \\-\\ .\ \1l 1“ ‘7' ‘aWb'ww SEAL! :2: [Al [I Figure 2. Bastide plan-Hull (top) and Caernarvon (bottom) 5 Development of economic diversity, then the plan for the town and the ideology of those who conceived it may offer more insights. Frederica’s plan was based, like that of Detroit, on the French bastide (Marshall. 1973, 12; Reps. 1965, 2). Bastides developed in Europe during the late medieval period in conjunction with the revitalization of European commerce. To the end of economic domination, fortified cities, bastides, were built on frontiers so that military and political control could be maintained (Reps. 1965, 2; Tout. 1965, 13, 15). Edward I brought the bastide plan to England in the late thirteenth century, and the design subsequently' began to influence town planning in northern Wales, Ireland and England (Reps. 1965, 2; Tout. 1965, 15, 20-28; Shillaber. 1947, 297). Bastides followed a consistent plan that reflected their military character. Always small, for greater defensibility and often square or rectilinear to the extent allowed by the terrain, they featured a wall and ditch around the perimeter, a gridiron layout of the streets, and a square near the center (Tout. 1965, 17; Shillaber. 1947, 202-3; Reps. 1965, 2; Garvan. 1951, 28; Bruce Trigger. 1968, 66). (Figure 2) 1 Primary streetS‘at twenty-four to thirty feet wide were always at least half again as large as secondary ones (Reps. 1965, 2; Shillaber. 1946, 302). The wide main streets characteristic of bastides were required for efficient movement of troops, but these avenues also allowed displays of power that would awe the populace (Mumford. 1938, 95). Main streets ran from 6 the city gates to the settlement center, terminating at a castle, cathedral or other public buildings (Tout. 1965, 17; Shillaber, 299). Frederica followed the bastide form in both plan and in principle. (Figure 3) The walls and ditch were there, as was the wide main street (Broad Street) leading to the fort and ’IA'H cut-pug me Hi“; '—1.__ l I‘- Invaungl Figure 3. Plan of Frederica parade. Cross Street, half as wide as Broad and running south to north, intersected Broad and ended at the soldiers' barracks. The gridiron plan was neatly laid out by General Oglethorpe and surveyor Samuel Augspourger and when the settlers arrived, Oglethorpe directed them to their lots along the straight streets (Candler. 1904, 120). The way those lots were dispersed and; the domestic architecture erected on them animated the town plan; in particular, symbols of social hierarchy began to emerge as architectural variation developed. Grand homes are frequently 7 media for the display of wealth, but at Frederica, where initially wealth did not separate the settlers, other reasons for the phenomenon must be considered. If high quality houses did not symbolize wealth, then what message was being sent? What forces determined that almost from the inception of the settlement, houses along the main street would be larger, more elaborate and built of higher quality materials than dwellings on back lots? The powerful symbolism incorporated into a built environment purveys ideology as efficiently as a txeatise although, unlike the written word, structures confront the observer constantly. Symbols in a built environment, noted Amos Rapaport, "-serve a culture by making concrete its ideas and feelings," outweighing even the restrictions of climate and technology in determining building form (Rapaport. 1969, 47). The objective of this study is to bring forth evidence which will reveal the ideas and feelings that shaped architectural variation at Frederica during its formative years. Archaeological and literary sources supply the necessary data, but it is the agency of symbolic interpretation that will illuminate the evidence and lead to greater understanding of the forces at work in the frontier settlement. Chapter II Theoretical and Methodological Framework Any study incorporates assumptions of the author. The general assumptions lying behind the theoretical stance and the resulting interpretations in this work are listed below. 1) Social structure is to be found in social groups and social structure will have an impact on the behavior and ideology of individuals in that group (Shanks & Tilly. 1987, 71). The social structure ‘will be understood as the means of holding a group together in the interests of the group as a whole. However, social structure will also be understood as linked to cultural history (Hodder 1982, 9—10; Hodder 1991, 163). Social structure will further be seen as responsive to actions of an individual or a small group of individuals (Hodder 1991, p.157; Christopher Tilly. 1991, 26). Social behavior, then, is affected by social structure, cultural history and influential individuals. 2) Social structure comprises a system of systems, or sub- systems. The activities of a system are interrelated a n d therefore affect each other. Further, activities occurring in one system can be affected by, or themselves affect, other systems (Hodder 1991, p.6, 36). Due to the structured nature of society, symbols are meaningful not only when they express 8 9 difference, but also when they convey meaning by association with another symbol or part of the social structure, that is their meaning may be understood as metaphorical (Jencks. 1969, 21; Shanks & Tilly 1987, 102; Hodder. 1982, 9, 10). 23) Because there is a social structure, at least some human behaviors are patterned due to the influence of the social structure (Tilly. 1991, 28; Stanley South. 1988, 25); that patterned behavior will be reflected in the archaeological record. 4) Power has influence on human behavior whether it is exerted by an individual or by the social structure. As Shanks and Tilly sum up, "Power is a force and process to be found in all social totalities—" (Shanks and Tilly. 1987, p.70). Further, as Hodder points out, "Cultural meanings and symbols are used within strategies of power and in the negotiation of control, -" (Hodder, 1991, 72; F. Bourdieu. 1977."Symbolic power," in Annales, 32, 405-11, cited by Renfrew. 1984, 24); therefore,it is to be expected that symbols of power play a role in social activities. 5) Symbols convey meaning and therefore can be seen as influencing human understanding and behavior. Symbols are constructed by humans and can therefore be seen as reflecting human understanding. Symbols constitute a sub-system and have an affect on other components of that sub-system as well as other systems in the social structure. Symbols occur in the realm of material culture and those that are may be seen in the archaeological record. ,ah 1 10 Theoretical Position The theoretical fray into which the field of archaeology was thrown in 1962 with. Lewis Binford's call for. a more scientific approach to the discipline has resulted in a general embrace of scientific principles in the study of past cultures (Binford. 1962). The emphasis, whatever the theoretical camp might be, is to proceed through archaeological investigation guided by hypotheses which can be tested. From the results of hypothesis testing, inferences might be made, conclusions drawn and understanding of past culture enhanced to a degree not possible without such intellectual tools. Semiotic analysis, although grounded in the ideal, can, and will in this study, rely on the principle of hypothesis testing as the basis of interpretation. The materiality of the subject, the architecture of Frederica and its disposition through the town, lends itself to investigation focusing on tangible, measurable features. Architecture, however, also requires an idealist response in order to fully assess its social significance. Symbolic interpretations of architecture and town planning have been the basis of numerous studies including Semiotics of Cities Selves and Cultures, by Milton Singer, "The Cultural Role of Cities," by Singer and Robert Redfield, and the collection of essays in Meaning in Architecture, edited by Charles Jencks and George Baird, to name only a few. Such studies generally agree that architecture, and the way it 11 is arranged in space, comprise sign systems that convey meaning, or, as expressed more explicitly by Charles Jencks, forms in the environment, like signs in languages are "— motivated or capable of being motivated" by a human response (Charles Jencks. 1969, 11). Moreover, as Shanks and Tilly suggest, all material culture can be understood as communication based on a structured sign system (Shanks and Christopher Tilly. 1987, 99), therefore all elements falling into the class of material culture can be examined for their semiotic significance. Semiotics, or the study of signs, is widely acknowledged to be derived from linguistic theories developed by Charles Sanders Pierce and Ferdinand de Saussure (See, for instance, Milton Singer's Semiotics of Cities, Selves and Cultures, Michael Shanks' and Christopher Tilly's Social Theory and Archaeology, D. Miller's "Artefacts as products of human categorization process," in Symbolic and Structural Archaeology). The formula on which the science of semiology is based is simple; an entity known as a sign is composed of two parts, a signifier, the means of identifying that which the sign refers to, and a signified, the object, or referent of the signifier (Morris. 1938, 2; Shanks and Tilly. 1987, 99). A sign is effected through the agency of an interpreter, the person who observes and reacts to the sign (Morris 1938, 2). Another way of expressing the concept is that described by D. Miller as a "triangle of signification" where the line of 12 significance moves between the concept, the symbol or representation of the concept, and the object of the concept (Miller 1982, 19). If the formula is simple, however, its application is not and can, indeed, be very complex and difficult to apply to interpretations of cultures. For this reason, a strict correlation between the linguistic and the cultural approaches to semiotics is hardly possible and attempts to press cultural phenomena into a linguistic mold often result in overly contrived analyses. However, two important concepts in linguistics are useful in the interpretation of cultural symbols and should be noted. First, if there is no real or natural relationship with an object, the signifier is arbitrary and is therefore considered a symbol, while a rational connection between an object and its meaning is understood as indexical and called a sign (Miller 1982, 20, citing Edmund Leach. 1976 Culture and Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. and C.S. Pierce. 1931. Collected Papers. Cambridge, Mass.; Morris 1938, 4-5). In either case, the signifier and the signified function together to form the sign. For this study symbols, or arbitrary signs, will play a larger role than signs that are indexical. Secondly, there is in semiotics the notion of networks of meaning. A symbol, derives its meaning for the interpretant by virtue of its relationship with other symbols or signs (Shanks & Tilly 1987, 102; Morris 1938, 6). A sign, therefore derives meaning from its difference or similarity to other signs. 13 Symbols and the relational quality of signs will be important elements in the analysis of Frederica's architecture and town plan. The above paragraph describes twentieth century development of semiotics, and its application to cultural interpretations would in any event offer an intellectually sound approach to the study of Frederica. However, it is significant for the greater veracity of this investigation that more than two centuries before Pierce and Saussure began to formulate their semiotic philosophies, John Locke (1632— 1704) had outlined a science of semiotics in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. In his essay Locke explained that, "Words are sensible Signs, necessary for Communication," and added that, "Words are the sensible Signs of his Ideas who uses them." (John Locke. 1964, 259). Locke also recognized that "Their Signification (is) perfectly arbitrary" (Ibid p.262). Locke's examination of communication systems extended to the study of the intellectual relationship between objects and ideas, seeking to explain the human mental processes responsible for the formulation of ideas. Locke postulated that where an object has "primary qualities" the relationship is based on resemblance of the object and the idea, whereas when nothing in the object has the inherent power to be associated with an idea, that idea is a consequence of "secondary qualities" (Ibid p.112). In twentieth century terms, the former is an indexical sign, while the latter is arbitrary, and therefore a symbol. 14 Related to Locke's ideas about signs and symbols is his analysis of the way human beings learn. "All ideas," claimed Locke, "come from Sensation or Reflection" (Ibid, p. 89). According to Locke, a person's senses "-convey into the mind several distinct perceptions of things, according to those various ways wherein those objects do affect them (Ibid p. 90). Sensation, then, is the observation, through the senses, of objects. And Sensation was, "(The)-great source of most of the ideas we have,—"(Ibid). Once an object had been sensually perceived, its contemplation provided the second source of ideas. Calling this process Reflection, Locke described it as "-the operations of our own minds within,-" (Ibid, p. 91). Through Sensation and Reflection, humans learned all that he or she knew. Human character, therefore, was not innate, but was the result of what one experienced through Sensation and Reflection (Passmore. 1965, 21). Eighteenth century morality tended to temper Locke's belief that reason was the source of human understanding with the view that divine inspiration played a role. Nonetheless, Hanoverian England generally accepted the notion that human conduct could be influenced by education and that experience played an important role in the formation of character. Human beings were malleable (Ibid p.28, 39) and signs and symbols, through Reflection and Sensation, could influence human behavior. John Locke's opinions about human potential were influential in the move to resettle poor English citizens in colonial America and it is unsurprising to discover that in 15 1696 he brought his expert views to the first meeting of the Commissioners for Promoting the Trade of the Kingdom and Improving the American Plantations (Laslett. 1957, 370). Locke's ideas were not confined to the halls of government or even academe, however. An abbreviated version of Locke's theory of sign systems was broadly disseminated by author Jonathan Swift whose Gulliver's Travels satirized seventeenth and early eighteenth century debates about the use and misuse of words and the greater purity of visual communication (Singer. 1991, 75). When Gulliver visited the Grand Academy at Lagado, he discovered that professors in the School of Languages advocated a system of communication in which ideas were expressed by objects rather than words (Swift 1726 [1957], 1983, cited by Singer 1991, 74). The use of visual symbols as communication, then, and the understanding that human beings could be influenced by their environment, was widely known and could be exploited when Frederica was settled in the eighteenth century. A semiotic approach to the investigation of Frederica is appropriate not only because it an American student of the twentieth century finds it useful, but also because an eighteenth century Englishman had access to the same intellectual tools. The precepts put forth. by Locke, and later Pierce, Saussure and others, comprise the means for semiotic interpretation. But those means can be manipulated in a variety of ways; the implementation of semiotic theory does not arrange itself into the simple foundational formula, 16 'signifier plus signified equals sign.‘ In addition to the previously mentioned difficulty of adapting linguistic semiotics to the study of culture, semiotic interpretations are based on symbols and symbol systems which may be as concrete as a monument or as ephemeral as a gesture (Geertz. 1973, 45). The utility and appropriateness of semiotic interpretation of architecture and town planning, however, can hardly be disputed. Citing Bourdieu's study of Berber house structure, M. Alison Wylie has drawn attention to the obvious fact that one only has to look at a house to understand that its purpose extends beyond that of mere shelter and into the domain of social communication (F. Bourdieu. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press cited in Wylie. 1982, 41). Any deviation from the most elementary form of protective structure can function as a symbol; an extra room, a window, an elaboration of any feature may be read as a signifier communicating a message. In architecture, the message, or that which is signified, often relates to the status, wealth or power. Because all parts of the built environment are the product of human behavior, town plans, gates, and walls can be understood along with architecture as cultural communication systems. A semiotic analysis of Frederica's architecture and its spatial distribution will search for ways in which the social structure and the relations within it are communicated through symbolic references. Architectural symbols of status lie in 17 elements sudh as the building material, the technique of building, style, size and complexity of plan. When the structure's function plays a role in the form, such as in housing where a shop occupies the lower floor, function may be considered an auxiliary rather than an integral component of its symbolic value. To the extent, however, that associations with occupational or economic status may be attached to a shop or business incorporated into a: domestic structure, their symbolic relevance should be considered. Frederica's architecture and its location in the village are inseparably intertwined in symbolic importance. In this fact, it is like all material culture which, as Shanks & Tilly point out, "-depends on the structure of its interrelations, and the signification of any particular artefact (sic) or item can be seen as being intersected by the meanings of other items" (Shanks & Tilly 1987, 103; Hodder 1982, 9). Architecture, therefore, must be considered in relation to its location. In this study, the degree of centrality in the settlement as well as proximity to non-domestic structures, such as the fort and the barracks, will be given significant weight in assessing the symbolic value of architecture. Of particular importance in the study of Frederica's architecture and its spatial disposition is the fact that the settlement was a planned town. The authority to divide and distribute the property at Frederica was given to General Oglethorpe by the Georgia Trust and lots were assigned rather than chosen (Coleman. 1989, vol. XXXII, 159). Further, all of 18 the settlers were beneficiaries of the Trust's charity and, on arrival, were more or less equally bereft of either wealth or social position. Thus patterns of architectural variation that existed in the natal period or developed afterward can not be attributed to the advantage of pre—existing wealth. The analysis, then, of the symbolic significance of Frederica's built environment must consider the settlement's conception as a planned town and the forces at work in its realization. This, in turn, should be placed in the larger context of Frederica's role in British affairs in order to gain a complete picture of the relevance of symbolic references. Finally, the artifacts associated with occupation of Frederica's lots augment the interpretation of architecture. Like architecture, artifacts are the product of human behavior and so are imbued with social meaning. The interrelatedness of artifacts, architecture and location comprise part of the system of symbols functioning at Fort Frederica. As will be discussed in a subsequent chapter, the artifactual material is incomplete and not always well documented. However, there is variation in the material from lot to lot, and it therefore can be used, in a restricted way, to support analyses. All of the elements mentioned will be understood as interactive and brought to symbolic life through the agency of an interpretant. A semiotic analysis of artifacts and features incorporates ideology into the archaeological study of past cultures. While trying to interpret a world view may be 19 hazardous when the society under study is very distant in time and/or lacks written accounts, historical archaeology has the advantage of access to documentary sources that can supplement archaeological.investigation (Binford. 1978, 246; Schuyler. 1978, 36). When the historical and cultural context of the archaeological materials can be verified through use of contemporary literature, the opportunity to interpret the social meanings of artifacts and features is brought within the grasp of the scholar (Schuyler 1988, 39). The search for social meaning is best accomplished by the semiotic approach because it goes beyond the mere assignment of objects to a social category, such as a gender or ethnic group, and asks about the nature of the categorization. Why does it exist? What is the view it represents? How and why are symbols manipulated? (Hodder 1991, 124). Seeking answers to those questions not only enhances the study of a particular culture, it benefits archaeology generally by maximizing the potential of material culture interpretation. At Frederica the nature of categories will be seen as highly important for understanding the town’s internal composition. However, Frederica was a colony, an arm of the mother country,-and symbolic interpretation of any feature of the settlement must always be mindful of Frederica’s links to England. In the following chapter the reasons for, and nature of, those links will be outlined. Chapter III History of Fort Frederica Prelude to Frederica: The World System European expansion into the Americas was led by Spain. Spanish explorers would claim, for their government and God, footholds in the Caribbean (1502), then South and Central America (1519), and ultimately portions of North America. (Meinig. 1986, 9, 11—12). Portugal followed suit soon after when the east-west division of exploitable lands placed Brazil in the eastern hemisphere allotted to Portugal (Ibid, 10, 17). The French were also competing for North American soil in the mid-sixteenth century. Along the eastern seaboard of both South and North America, French Huguenots, with the support of their government, had begun to establish a few tentative, and ultimately shortlived, settlements (Ibid, 26). In contrast to the success of French claims along the St. Lawrence, efforts to settle the southeastern coast of North America met with disaster. French privateers, tempted by the richly laden Spanish ships returning home with South American goods, antagonized the Spanish government.by repeatedly attacking the Spanish fleets; consequently, French incursions along the Atlantic coast of southern North America were harshly suppressed by the Spanish and whole settlements massacred (de Meras. 1964, 38; Meinig. 1986, 61; Bolton and Ross. 1925, 7) 20 21 The nearly complete disappearance of the French in that area, would tempt British expansion into the void. The England colonization which began in Virginia in the early 17th century was a long—awaited step in the development of English economic interest in the New World. Piqued by John Cabot's voyage to Newfoundland in 1497, British designs for expansion quickened in 1578 when Humphrey Gilbert guided a fleet of colonists to what is now Newfoundland, Canada (Meinig. 1986, 30). Gilbert's attempt at settlement was ill- fated, and English colonization efforts later suffered still another blow with the demise of the equally ill—fated Roanoke settlement. In 1607, however, England finally established a permanent settlement at Jamestown. When settlers stepped ashore on the banks of the Powhatan (James) River forty miles upstream from Chesapeake Bay, they were encroaching on land once claimed by Spain. The Spanish, however, had never established a permanent settlement in the area (Meinig. 1986, 61), thus inviting occupation by other powers. In the early seventeenth century, Spanish claims along the east coast were limited to the Florida peninsula and coastal areas north of it up to, but not including, present day Charleston; the whole was called La Florida (Bolton and Ross. 1925, 2). The lands north of La Florida and south of those areas held by France along the St. Lawrence awaited exploitation by the British (Ibid, 3). Although England was able to eventually claim most of the area, it was not destined to be theirs alone. Control of trade along North America's 22 eastern coast was equally desired by the Dutch who formed the Dutch West India Company in 1621 to assert their dominance of Atlantic commerce (Meinig. 1986, 41). The purchase of a portion of Manhattan Island, to be named New Amsterdam, provided land for Dutch colonization at the mouth of the Hudson River (Meinig. 1986, 40). By the middle of the 17th century, then, the four primary powers in the European commercial system had founded settlements which together occupied the entire eastern seaboard of North America as well as stretching into the Caribbean (Meinig. 1986, 64). The European mercantile network had exploded into a transAtlantic system with enormous stakes in New World goods. Exploitation of the new largesse continued apace while the four major players jockeyed for commercial advantage, occasionally provoking military confrontation. Although France played a peripheral role, dominance along the southeastern Atlantic coast was most eagerly contested by England and Spain. From late in the seventeenth century and through most of the first half of the eighteenth, disputes centered on what became known as "The Debatable Lands," an area which lay between the present borders of Florida and South Carolina. The coast was dotted with Spanish missions and forts with century or more old histories, but that did not intimidate English entrepreneurs seeking fertile lands in South Carolina to replace exhausted plantations in the Caribbean (Bolton and Ross. 1925, 28). In 1670 increasing English population of the area led to the foundation of 23 Charleston, challenging Spanish supremacy. Spain acquiesced by ceding control of all lands occupied by the British to that date, but the treaty did not clarify ownership along the coast south of Charleston (Ibid, vii); control of the "The Debatable Lands" had been left unresolved. Spain and England both understood the commercial advantage of holding "The Debatable Lands," albeit not necessarily for the same reasons. The sub-tropical climate of coastal Georgia, and to some extent South Carolina, offered important commercial possibilities that were especially attractive to England. Georgia, in particular, laid close enough to the equator to grow agricultural commodities incapable of thriving in colonies to the north. Silk, rice, indigo and other exotic crops, it was supposed, would comprise the raw goods that made up the colony’s portion of the trade exchange, while the mother country provided manufactured goods which the colonies were not yet equipped to produce (Reese. 1963, 14—15). Heretofore, Britain had relied on non-British nations to provide tropical luxuries, and independence from foreign monopoly of these commodities moved England closer to being a self—sustaining entity (Ibid, 15-16). An additional reason for rivalry over coastal lands was the access they provided to rivers flowing into the interior. Along these passages both Spain and England hoped to send a wealth of deerskins from western Georgia to entrepots serving the motherland. To that end, both countries cultivated 24 alliances with indigenous populations who would become the distant provider of resources to the state. (Ibid, 12). Alliances were tenuous, however, and the balance of power shifted with changing sentiments of the native Americans. Tensions between the two countries were heightened as English privateers continually attacked Spanish trade ships at sea (Meinig. 1986, 38). Animosities reached a critical point in 1715 when Indians loyal to Spain attacked South Carolinian colonists in an uprising called the Yamassee War. With lives and livelihoods threatened, the colonists began to clamor for protection of their southern frontier (Reese. 1963, 12). Establishing military protection for English colonists was a necessary corollary to economic exploitation of North American soil. It was, in fact, as D.W. Meinig proposes, a stage in the "recurrent general pattern" of the process of imperial expansion (Meinig. 1986, 65). Meinig has postulated a progression of occupation beginning with exploration of distant lands, followed by gathering of resources in coastal areas, and trade with the local population, or possibly plundering of local commodities. These early stages, emphasizing acquisition, are followed.by attempts to establish permanent control, and therefore sustained economic advantage. This is accomplished through the creation of trade outposts, where eventually political and military personnel could be posted. At this point in the development of distant market centers, settlers could be introduced who would ultimately control the area they occupied and impose authority over it. 25 The final stage was formed by the implementation of an imperial colony with its full complement of cultural and political institutions (Ibid, 65-66). The colonization of Georgia represents the latter stages of this sequence; when occupied by British settlements Georgia would protect existing colonies, particularly South Carolina, through the posting of political and military personnel, creation of long term communities, and establishing the cultural and political institutions needed to establish permanent claims to the land. The population of Georgia with British citizens, and the creation of a system of forts along the Georgia coast, then, was a predictable and necessary outcome of England's search for expanded market opportunities and provided, as well, for the shoring up of previously established ones. Competition with other European countries for control of New World resources required protection of the claimed lands by military forces, using both militia and regular troops. Thus when South Carolina was threatened by foreign powers and their Indian allies, the Board of Trade in London determined to forestall that threat by building Fort King George on the Altamaha River. When the fort burned in 1726, the Board's determination to protect plantations abroad was to be fulfilled by a new and more extensive complex of fortifications which became the system lining Georgia's coast from Savannah to Cumberland Island. With a foothold having been established in Georgia in 1733 as a result of the settlement of Savannah, 1736 brought about expansion as Fort 26 Frederica and other forts of the military system were put into place to protect and extend England's commercial interests. Figure 4. 25‘" “sum stnuo ST. CATHERINES ISL AND SAPELO ISLAND G E ORGIA ST. SIMDNS ISLAND JI‘YLL ISLAND ATLAHTIC OCEAN CUMBERLAND lSLAND Coastline of Southern Georgia 27 The Founding and History of Fort Frederica The founding and settling of Georgia was implemented by the Georgia Trust, an organization spawned by an existing charitable group known as the Bray Associates. James Edward Oglethorpe, a member of the Trust as well as the Board of Trade, was an ardent supporter of settlement on the southern frontier and in 1731 authored "Some Account of the Design of the Trustees for establishing Colonys in America (Oglethorpe. 1990, xii). In his document Oglethorpe described the multiple purpose of the colony; it would comprise a charitable mission in its resettlement of the poor, it would provide a "barrier" to South Carolina and finally, would serve economic interests by producing agricultural goods, such as silk, that could be grown in the colony's temperate climate (Ibid, 21-23). When Parliament granted a charter in 1732 for the foundation of a new colony, the Georgia Trust, which included a number members of parliament, was empowered to govern it. The Trust was given full responsibility for the government of Georgia, constrained only by the stricture that its laws and ordinances should be fitting for the colony and "-not repugnant to the laws and statutes of England,—" (Reese. 1963, 18 citing the Georgia charter in Candler, 1904a, vol. I, 11- 26). The powers of the Trust were to continue for the first twenty-one years of Georgia's existence after which political authority would return to the Crown (Reese. 1963, 18). The charitable focus of the association from which the Georgia Trust was derived remained of especial interest to the 28 Trust, and its members were actively involved in the selection of the poor but worthy candidates who petitioned to go to Georgia. James Oglethorpe, who had both military and philanthropic experience as well as considerable energy, wOuld guide the new colonists to their new home and assist them in the early period of settlement. Thus, in November 1732, a mere nine months after George II approved the Charter, Oglethorpe and 114 settlers departed from Gravesend, England on the Anne bound for their new home (McPherson. 1960, 220; Coleman. 1978, 5). Their destination on the Savannah River was named. Savannah and became the hearth front which the settlement of Georgia spread. Despite predictable difficulties in the early years, the new colony succeeded; new houses were built, gardens planted and more settlers arrived. Although several sites around Savannah were manned with rangers to protect the new settlement, the larger purpose of protecting South Carolina against the presence of Spanish troops to the South remained unmet (Ivers. 1974, 16). For that purpose, it was necessary to establish fortifications along the coast below Savannah as far as Spanish Florida, the area which would comprise Georgia's southern division. Oglethorpe traveled south along Georgia's coastline in 1734 to determine where to site military outposts for the protection of the new colony (Reese. 1969, 17). Strategic sites were located on St. Simons Island and at Darien where the Altamaha River empties into the Atlantic just north of the island (Ivers. 1974, 51). 29 Oglethorpe later placed additional fortifications along the coast on Cumberland Island (Fort Saint Andrews), and on Amelia Island, carrying British presence to the edge of Spanish-held territory on the Florida peninsula (Ivers. 1974, 76—77). St. Simons Island would have two forts, Fort St. Simon at the southern tip of the island and Fort Frederica, with the latter serving as the center of command. (Figure 5) Allan“: Ocoan SC GA . FL] Lkn- . lulaynd Map Locshen Figure 5. Fort Frederica on St. Simons Island 30 Frederica was located on the Frederica River, which, along with a stretch of marshlands and tidal creeks, separated St. Simons from the mainland. At the site of the fort, a loop in the river would force approaching boats to present their broad side as they rounded the bend, making them vulnerable targets for British munitions. (Moore. 1890, 116). The fort and town occupied a cleared field of thirty or forty acres lying about ten feet above the level of the river (Ibid, 115). Frederica was to be a garrisoned town occupied by a foot regiment under the command of James Oglethrope. Although the 650 soldiers which would make up the regiment did not arrive until 1738, the first permanent building to be erected at Frederica was the fort. So important was this structure to the scheme of Frederica that Oglethorpe set about marking out its plan the morning after his arrival in February, 1736 (Cate. 1955, 27; Reese. 1969, 21; Moore. 1890, 36). Only after this was accomplished did Oglethorpe and a contingent of men accompanying him lay out the town and begin to build the huts which would be used by the forty families expected in March. By April, thirty—seven of these palmetto-thatched, temporary shelters were built and occupied by the settlers (Moore. 1890, 36). Building must have been a primary occupation of the new settlers for in the following December a Mr. McBane could report to the Trustees that the fort had four bastions and a double-palisaded ditch and two main streets of the town were lined with "—fifteen or sixteen houses—" (Egmont. 1923, 316). 31 Despite occasional "alarms of the Spanish," construction of homes and businesses in Frederica continued throughout 1738 and 1739 (Samuel Davison to John Gilbert , 26 April 1738 Public Records Office, C05 649 Pt. I p. 93; Thomas Hawkins to the'Trustees Ibid, 101-102; George Dunbar to Harmon Verelst 25 June, 1739 Ibid, 126-7). Such apparently affirmative activity notwithstanding, the "alarms" and other difficulties of frontier living, drove numbers of discouraged persons out of Frederica in the next few years (Oglethorpe to Trustees, Oct. 1739. Candler and Northern. 1913, 279). The total population seems, nevertheless, to have remained relatively stable, and even to have grown somewhat, due to continued immigration. Thus Richard Lawley reports thirty-four freeholders ( male land owners) in Frederica on February 6, 1740, a decline of only six families from the original forty (Egmont. 1923. vol.3, 188). 'That figure, however, is substantially less than the sixty' families Frederica. surveyor’ Samuel .Augspourger suggested were living in the settlement during the previous November and the actual number may well have been somewhere between these two estimates (Ibid, 90). In 1742 fears of a major attack were realized as Spanish forces invaded St. Simons Island. Although the Spanish destroyed Fort St.Simons, the subsequent battle, in reality little more than a skirmish, resulted in an English victory. The confrontation seems to have secured the borderlands for the Spanish never again made a serious attempt to claim the coastline above the St. Mary's River. 32 With peaceful conditions apparently ensured for the time being, magistrates Dr. Hawkins and Thomas Eyre returned to England in 1743, taking along with them a report on conditions at Frederica (Candler. 1906. vol. 6, 146). The extant portion of the document reveals that the settlement contained 14 houses of two floors, and approximately twenty dwellings described as one story timber-framed or clapboard houses, or as huts (Hawkins/Eyre Map. In Berndt. 1980, 102—114). The population of Frederica in 1743, then, conforms to Richard Lawley's count of thirty-four households in 1740. This number almost certainly never increased after 1743 and following the disbanding'of the garrison in 1749 the pOpulation.at Frederica began to suffer a steady decline (Candler. 1906, vol. 6, 249). When Governor John Reynolds made a trip to the south of the colony in 1755 he saw a settlement "-in ruins, the fortifications entirely'decayed, and.the houses falling down." (Coleman and Ready. 1977, 62). The fort itself was dismantled by 1756 (Manucy. 1962, 18). In the same year much of the island nearly disappeared under a rising sea (Reese. 1969, 71). Finally, in 1758 Frederica suffered a fire which destroyed much of what was left of the town (Demere. 1758). Although Frederica continued to function as a port, most of the local population had dispersed across other tracts of land on St. Simons where large plantations grew the famed sea island cotton. Eventually the property that had once constituted Fort Frederica was consolidated under one owner, Captain Charles Stevens. In 1903 Belle Stevens Taylor donated 33 the land to the Georgia Society of the Colonial Dames of America who undertook a limited amount of restoration of the fort (Cate. 1955, 13). The land was subsequently purchased by the Fort Frederica Association and in 1947 it was officially dedicated as a national monument under the auspices of the National Park system (Ibid) Chapter IV A Review of Previous Literary and Archaeological Research Literary Studies Frederica has been studied through both archaeology and literary research. While archaeological investigation is the focus of this study, contemporary documents and scholarly research are important sources which will augment and support archaeological data. Using the literary data will not only provide information that is beyond.the reachsof archaeological investigation, but has the additional advantage of revealing the way in which Frederica was perceived and described in the contemporary literature. Without question, the single most valuable primary resource is the Colonial Records of Georgia, an indispensable source for any study of colonial Georgia. These documents include minutes of the political bodies which governed Georgia as well as letters, accounts and reports of both.officials and citizens of the colony. In addition, any researcher‘ of colonial.orflpost-colonial Frederica must acknowledge the‘great contribution of Margaret Davis Cate, a local historian who made the study of the coastal area her life's work. The substantial collection of primary materials relevant to Frederica’s history which resulted from her efforts is now housed at the‘Georgia,Historical Society facility in Savannah. 34 35 In addition to collecting materials, Cate published two articles pertaining to Frederica, "Fort Frederica and the Battle of Bloody Marsh" and "The Original Houses of Frederica, Georgia: The Hawkins-Davison Houses." Charles Fairbanks' pendant article, "The Excavation of the Hawkins— Davison Houses," accompanied Cate's latter publication in 1gp figppgia Higtorical Quarterly (Fairbanks. 1956, 213-229). Undoubtedly it was Cate's efforts which helped to make possible Albert C. Manucy's 1962 publication, The Fort at Frederica" a synthesis. of documentary' and. archaeological research at Fort Frederica. Manucy's study concentrated on the fort itself, particularly the components of the structure, its construction and its use. Manucy also compiled a report on the domestic architecture of the settlement, drawing on architectural histories, colonial records and the archaeology of Frederica up to the time of his study. Manucy's report is on file at Fort Frederica and a scale model based on his findings is displayed in the visitors center. The archaeology of Fort Frederica has spawned a small body of books based on archaeological investigations but appealing to a broad audience. The earliest, and probably most ambitious of these, is Trevor Reese's consolidation of archaeological and. documentary' sources.‘which. resulted. in Frederica: Colonial Fort and Town--Its Place in Higtory. Reese's publication describes Frederica's military mission as well as the economic and social issues encountered in the settlement. More recently Nick Honerkamp produced a popular 36 account of life at Frederica drawing on his work on the site known as the Thomas Hird lot (Honerkamp. 1985). In the same \— --------- 1‘ :I l'IlI ---------- \ I:II"" 'll'III‘r 7 I [III I : F‘IF—i I I II II I II 'T ' I II II : II[ II I I : f—n H r—jr—fig II I I I : H I II -' I I' II II I H l: I r—IF—I Ifif _J l_IL__J PM ’1. '1 r—-1 I II I‘ I ' II II I II I I l"_l I IF I I II I I II I I '——| fin I . I H II II I II I A I (j! l I II II II I II I, \I I I II I L__JL_J I ll / Figure 6. Augspourger Plan 37 year James Scott published a gazette of settlers who lived in Frederica. Scott's book is based on research which significantly altered the understanding of lot ownership at Frederica; his work and the material on which.it is based will be discussed in detail below. Most recently, (1995) The Women of Frederica, an anthology of gender-based essays edited by Phinizy Spalding, was published by the Fort Frederica Association. The essays highlight studies of the political and economic role of women in the settlement during its most populous period. The most important recent development in documentary research, mentioned above, was the 1980 discovery of a previously unknown map of Frederica. This document, known as the Hawkins/Eyre map, brought to three the known number of maps depicting the settlement. The first was one drawn in or about 1736 by surveyor Samuel Augspourger. It does not indicate lot numbers and was probably a blueprint for the town that was never executed (Scott. 1985, 2). (Figure 6) The second map was drawn in 1796 by Joshua Miller, a surveyor for the state of Georgia (Ibid). Until the discovery of the Hawkins-Eyre map, scholars based their identification of lot owners on the Miller plan. As can be seen from Figure 7, Miller's numbering system, repeated in both north and south wards, began with 1 and proceeded more or less logically through number 42. Scholars had.discovered, however, that the numbers of the map did not always correspond to other documentary information (Scott. 1985, 3; Shiner. 1958, 2). 38 32 21 11 11 21 32‘\\ 33 22 12 12 22 33 34 23 13 13 23 34 35 24 14 14 24 35 36 25 15 15 25 36 E 37 26 16 16 26 37 38 27 17 17 27 38 59 28 18 18 28 39 IV 40 29 19 19 29 4o 41 30 2o 20 30 41 42 31 31 42 Figure 7. Miller plan 90 38 27 l 16 2 I; p———{ 89 79 69 59 49 37 26 ( 15 5 88 7s 68 53 46 36 25 14 37 77 67 57 47 35 24 14 ,xarracks sI 86 76 66 a: 56 46 34 23 13 3. g: 35 75 65 5 55 45 33 22 I 12 84 74 64 -' 54 44 32 21 11 33 73 63 53 43 31 20 10 32 72 62‘ 52 42 30 19 “I 81 71 61 51 41 29 18 so 70 60 50 4o 25 17 E Figure 8. Hawkins/Eyre Plan 39 The Hawkins-Eyre map offered another, and vastly different, numbering system indicating 90 consecutively numbered lots across the north and south wards. (Figure 8) James Scott undertook the monumental task of resolving the conflicting information, and published the results in IQ; First Families of Frederica: Their Lives and Locations. Giving priority to the contemporary document, the Hawkins-Eyre map, Scott correlated it with other settler list documents to determine lot ownership (Scott, 1985, 1-6). The effort resulted in revisions of attributed ownership of many, although not all, of the lots in Frederica. Scott’s reorganization of Frederica lot numbers relied on the comparison of what he called "the Oglethorpe List," of 1738 and the Hawkins/Eyre map. Scott found that in twenty- three instances the names of inhabitants of lots were in agreement in both documents although the lot numbers were different. Based on this information, and using the numbering system of the Oglethorpe list, Scott then. waS' able to extrapolate the location of known residents and assign numbers to the other lots in the settlement (Scott. 1985, 3). The result is a reconciled.map with lot numbers two through fifty- two repeated inrthe north and south wards. (Figure 9) Other jproblems remained, however, because ‘while the Miller map numbering system commenced logically with lot one, the Oglethorpe List, as well as Scott’s reconciled numbering system, designated this same lot as number two (Ibid, 4). This, of course, left the location of lots one north and south 40 3O 28 26. 24 22 I'I‘11 rrrn I-r-r-I l 1 I I] l I II I I I 1-1.1.1 LLLJ LLLJ 29 ..27 25 23 7‘1 I 52l 31 '7“! I51 I 32 21 I---4 I 50 I 33 2O F—fl — .I .__.I ' 491 34 19 '---1 _ .— 1 48 I 35 18 l 47 1 36 17 ‘ I I 46 37 16 45 I 38 15 44 1 39 14 Figure 9. Reconciled Plan unexplained. Scott speculated that these two plots of land had been given over to public wells and cited references to those wells in the documentary record to support his opinion (Ibid). Another difficulty encountered by Scott was the lack of any reference to lots twenty-two through thirty in the Oglethorpe List. Not only did these not lie between lots twenty-one and thirty-one, they seemed not to exist at all (Ibid). These "missing twenties," Scott has suggested, were numbers assigned to lots along the Strand, that is, near the river west of the main part of the settlement (Ibid, citing Phillips Collection, Vol. 14201. University of Georgia, Athens, Ga.). Scott pointed to references in Francis Moore's journal of 1744 and documents in the Trustee records to verify 41 journal of 1744 and.documents in the'Trustee records to verify the existence of these lots (Moore. 1840, 114). Further corroboration was found in the Hawkins/Eyre map which indicated that lots west of the north ward were occupied by one Richard Lawley. And finally, the Oglethorope list noted that Lawley received.lots twenty-five and.twenty-six (Ibid, 4- 5). These sources together confirmed.both the location of the "missing" lots and the fact that at least some of them were occupied. Although not all of the questions about lot numbering have been answered by Scott's effort, this study will adopt his solution because it offers the most logical resolution of the documents’ differences. Further, as Scott points out, the creation of a list by contemporary observers living in the community must be assumed to be more accurate than any other document (Scott. 1985, 3). Scott’s research of Frederica's lot numbering system clearly enhances the efforts of scholars, but it should also be noted that even in the event of any inaccuracies, the affect on this study would.be negligible. ‘While lot ownership is important to the correlation of occupational, political or social status of the occupant and.physical characteristics of the dwelling, along Broad Street Scott’s numbering system represents only a small shift. The Miller map would.place each owner one lot to the west of his location on Scott’s reconciled map. Such a change does not so significantly alter the nature of the pattern of ownership along this main 42 thoroughfare that it should nullify interpretations. In addition, other elements, such as architectural variation or spatial patterning, possess their own symbolic dynamic which operates regardless of the occupant and is therefore relatively'unmoved.byIdifferences in the numbering system..And finally, the greatest contrast, and the one which will receive the most focus, occurs between those dwellings located along the main streets and those that lie on the lots behind them. The Hawkins/Eyre document is important not only for its role in providing contemporary evidence for lot occupancy; but for the passages it contains describing the dwellings at Frederica. These produce a fuller picture of excavated structures and allow inferences to be drawn about the appearance and location of houses which have not been excavated. The information provided by literary descriptions and the archaeological record will allow comparisons between dwellings to be made and thus to determine the degree to which, or the way, structures display differential status. Archaeology "The ideal feature for architectural study would be the remains of a house that was built with wall trenches, deep chimney base, and cellars, was occupied.for a relatively brief time was not added onto in any way and burned in place," (James Deetz. 1977, 95). Many, although not all, of the structures excavated at Fort Frederica meet Deetz’ requirements for the ideal feature. Certainly not all of the houses had cellars and a number of 43 them had additions which confused the archaeological interpretation. Nevertheless, the brevity of occupation for many'of Frederica's dwellings provides a sealed record for the period between the settlement's founding in 1735 and its burning in 1758 and it is therefore an exceptional, if not perfect, site for archaeological study. A summary of archaeological investigation at Fort Frederica is recounted below. The Fort, Fortifications and Related Structures The earliest archaeological investigations at Fort Frederica began in 1947 when Charles Fairbanks conducted tests on the regimental barracks at the north end.of the settlement. The investigation was rewarded with the discovery of the corners of the soldiers' barracks. In the same year, additional testing was done along the fortifications marking the town's eastern perimeter, and the area now occupied by the visitors center and museum. This initial study obtained samples from known. structures and ‘verified. the eastern, western, and northern limits of the fort and settlement (Deagen 1975, 10 citing Charles Fairbanks. 1953. "1948-1952 Excavations at Frederica. Unpublished excavation report, SEAC Library, Tallahassee, Fla.) In 1953 Fairbanks worked again in the fort area, excavating the storehouse and parts of the parade grounds. During the same season, Fairbanks investigated Frederica's town gate and the settlement's moat and. palisade fortifications (Deagen. 1975, 11). Joel Shiner continued the 44 study of Frederica's wall with an excavation of its northeast bastion in 1957 (handwritten insert, initial JWW, 1982 citing Shiner, 1982d in Deagen, 1982, 11). In the following year, Jackson.Moore carried out archaeological investigation of the wall's southeast bastion and searched for the powder magazine of the fort (Deagen 1975, 11, citing Jackson Moore. 1959. "The Search for the Powder Magazine." Unpublished manuscript held at the SEAC Library, Tallahassee, F1a.). Further archaeological investigations took place in 1958 when Joel Shiner explored the citadel, the central well, and the blacksmith shop of the fort as well as an additional portion of the parade. Also in 1958, Shiner followed up on Fairbanks' tests of the soldiers' barracks with excavations of the structure and its courtyard (Deagan. 1975. 11). And finally, in 1983, Nicholas Honerkamp surveyed and tested the waterfront area on the river side of the fort' (Honerkamp, Council and Reitz. 1985). The Dwellings Although archaeological studies of Fort Frederica began in 1947, the investigation of Frederica's dwellings did not commence until 1952 when Charles Fairbanks excavated the Hawkins-Davison houses (Deagan. 1975, 10, citing Fairbanks. 1956). This initial excavation was a critical prelude to future work because the duplex shared by the Hawkins and the Davisons featured.a1common.wall built along the lot line. Once the common wall was discovered, Fairbanks was able to extrapolate the lot lines of the entire town from that point. 45 Fairbanks' 1952 investigations also established the locations of both Broad and Cross Streets, Frederica's main thoroughfares. 21 Z 3’4 g 3 ° 2 U 0 :1 .. ITS \ ,., 5'4 5:" \ 1W 3 5:4 11k 3‘. 1' ‘ '5 x. I 1111/ o \ M4173 m 0' ' g) . 4\ 351' €§§k§§§§® g m 0 - \ ‘ .0 o g I g m x (D 4, (D , m . f}. :8 5 4 -* . 33:4: 5 : 1: 2 \ .1... r 2 U) Figure 10. Excavated areas of Frederica 46 Fairbanks’ work on the Hawkins—Davison house was followed in 1958 with a season of excavations on the Broad Street dwellings conducted.by Joel Shinerx Shiner excavated eighteen lots along this main street, thus completing examination of all of the lots on Broad street (Deagan. 1975, 10, citing Joel Shiner. 1958). During the same season, Jackson Moore undertook the excavation of lots along the northern extension of Cross Street, that is, the Cross Street lots north of the Broad Street intersection. Moore investigated Lots 17, 18, 35, 36, 47 and 48 north (based on the revised lot numbering system). Of the six lots excavated, only one, lot 36, yielded good architectural information. The Hawkins/Eyre document, however, indicates that this structure was the public bake house and neither the Egmont List nor the Oglethorpe List register a grantee for the lot (Berndt. 1980, 107, 110, H/E lot 33; Scott. 1985, 41). Moore also excavated Lot 21 North which belonged to Frederica's first Recorder, Francis Moore (Moore. 1958). The excavations discussed above concentrated on the front portion of lots where the main dwelling place would have been located. Archaeological investigation of two back lot areas was carried out by Nicholas Honerkamp in 1975 and again in the fall of 1978 and winter of 1979. The two lots, 41 South and 13 North, were situated on small streets behind the main throughways. Honerkamp also carried out a general survey of Frederica, an excavation of the waterfront, and conducted a 47 week long excavation on the site of what was thought to be General Oglethorpe's farm, east of the town area (Deagan. 1975, 13, citing Nicholas Honerkamp. 1975. "Material Culture of Fort Frederica: the Thomas Hird Lot." Masters Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville; Honerkamp. 1984; Honerkamp. 1985). Figure 10 shows the areas excavated by Fairbanks, Shine, Moore and Honerkamp. Finally, a limited exploration of a pre-historic site has been conducted near Fort Frederica, but outside both the fort and the town. A 20' trench, two 5' square test pits and one 10' square test pit were dug at the site. The report from this work is incomplete and is unsigned by its excavator (Deagen. 1975, 13). The Artifacts The interpretations of archaeological studies at Frederica. were restricted. by 'the focus of the earliest excavations, which was to provide a visual resource for the education of visitors to the National Park. This focus particularly affected the artifactual material because collections were skewed by the need to retain whole, or nearly whole, pieces for exhibition (Deagen, 1975, p.32). The dilemma of artifactual bias was compounded by the fact that the Frederica archaeologists of the 1940's and 1950's lacked knowledge of British ceramics and architecture (Shiner, 1959, 2). In addition to both of these problems, the systematic documentation.methods taken for granted today were not always used in the past. This led to instances of incomplete 48 recording’ of jprovenience, confusing cataloguing' and. even large-scale disposal of artifacts which did not meet exhibition standards (Deagan. 1975, 30, 32). Because of these problems, as well as the lack of dietary remains, Kathleen Deagen, who assessed pre-1975 archaeological investigation.at Fort Frederica, has concluded that the artifact collections offer very limited potential for study (Deagan. 1975, 32). Due to the difficulties outlined above, the approach to the artifacts must be cautious. Nevertheless, all of the archaeological reports contain some description and comment about the artifacts, in particular noting the presence of a variety of ceramic types, as well as iron goods, glass and other easily preserved materials. It is possible, then, to correlate artifacts to lot which, in turn allows comparisons between lots to be made. Through such a comparison, inferences about status differences can be made for those structures which have been the subject of archaeological investigation. Evaluation The archaeological data on which this study relies was provided by previous excavations at Frederica and as a result, the material used is restricted to that which was produced through the work of others. The earliest excavations, driven by the requirements of the National Park Service for a visual resource and constrained by archaeological practices of the period, sometimes produced a far less satisfactory result than could be accomplished today. 49 Later excavations conducted by Nick Honerkamp, while still cognizant of the needs of the National Park Service, embraced a theoretical and scientific approach that amplified the findings considerably. Honerkamp practiced stringent recovery and recording methods as well as utilizing statistical approaches to analyze excavated material (Honerkamp. 1980, 65-157). While Honerkamp's work did not focus on dwellings, his study provides information about diet, adaptive behaviors, status and maintenance of cultural forms at Frederica (Honerkamp. 1980, 217-220, 261, 274—288). In order to minimize any deficiencies and maximize that which had been accomplished, it was determined that the study of architectural features would be most fruitful. Architecture had been the focus of the majority of the early excavations and was less vulnerable to the consequences of uneven handling than the artifacts were. A variety of approaches to the subject of architecture are possible, and the evaluation of architectural variation at Frederica, the subject of this study, represents only one means of investigating this very rich body of material. Chapter V Hypotheses The archaeological and literary sources described in the previous chapter provide invaluable raw materials which allow the continued study of the nature of society at Frederica. The management of this material, however, requires that it be organized through the instrument of hypothetical statements. The evidence around which hypotheses will be organized is presented below, beginning first with a discussion of the plan and architecture at Frederica. Frederica had been laid out by Samuel Augspourger in the winter of 1735/6 and when the settlers arrived Francis Moore reported that "The town was building, the streets were all laid, out, the main street that went from the front into the country, was twenty-five yards wide. Each freeholder had sixty foot in front, by ninety foot in depth upon the high street, for their house and garden, [while] those which fronted the river had smaller plots of thirty foot in front by sixty foot in depth." (Moore. 1840, 114). In reality, however, a number of freeholders among the original settlers at Frederica were assigned lots on back streets. Since there were more original settlers in Frederica than lots upon the high street, it could be no other way and in some instances relegation to back lots appears explicable. Will Davis, Willes 50 51 Weston and Will Moore, for instance, were all tanners whose lot location at the northern edge of the settlement may have been designed to distance their odoriferous business (Coulter and Says. 1949, 12, 36, 57). But no equally compelling cause explains other disbursements that resulted in the assignment of back street lots to some citizens while others were granted lands along the broad twain avenue. Because Frederica was a planned town it can be assumed that little of its design was accidental. Oglethorpe had been empowered to "-set out, limit, divide and.bound [Frederica] as well as to "grant and dispose" of the lands therein, acts which he executed by March, 1735/6 (Candler. 1910, vol. XXI, 103-05). There can.be little doubt that his vision laid behind the character that Frederica was to assume (Candler. 1904, 120). Some features can be understood as solutions to practical problems such as the distancing of the tanneries mentioned. above. Others may' have combined. practical and symbolic functions. The great breadth.of Broad Street may, for instance, imbue the thoroughfare with a measure of grandeur that has symbolic value, but at the same time its width helps to control the spread of fire and allows easy passage of soldiers between the town gate and the fort. The fact that a feature combines practical and symbolic functions does not diminish the importance of either component. The plan of Frederica, its form as a bastide, clearly reflects the practical requirements of a udlitary outpost. The walls and ditch are designed to restrict access to the 52 vital inner structures-the fort, nerve center of military control, and the barracks housing personnel who protect the town and the larger network of settlements that ensured Britain's hold on the Georgia coast. In addition, and indeed symbiotically, these structural elements were highly emotive. The symbolic power, authority and constraints of settlement walls has been discussed by Ross Samson in "Knowledge, Constraint, and Power in Inaction: The Defenseless Medieval Wall." (Samson. 1992). As Samson pointed out, the control of movement constitutes an act of authority and can function, like Foucault's panopticon, to foster self-imposed control and subjugation (Ibid, 34; Foucault. 1984, 218-19). Frederica's fort, standing at the western boundary of the settlement and the soldiers' barracks on the north perimeter combined with the walls to define the nature of the settlement for all who lived in their shadows. The citizens of Frederica, living on an unfamiliar island and threatened by a military enemy, had a particularly strong motivation to be mindful of the social messages of the built environment. ARCHITECTURE Within the settlement walls, dwellings, too, conveyed symbolic messages even while fulfilling the basic need for shelter (Johnson. 1993, 1, 12; Blanton. 1994, 8; Neiman. 1986, 294). In Frederica, as in other towns and villages, the character of a structure in which one lives conveys to others much about the occupants. The non-verbal messages communicated by dwellings tend to focus on creating social 53 distinctions, usually related.to«one’s rank.within the society (Blanton. 1994, 10-11). Like the design of a settlement itself, this may or may not be deliberate. Even in those instances when it is not, however, the sites andIforms of structures are virtually always a response to social factors (Rapaport. 1969, 74). Understanding the symbolic significance of Frederica’s architectural variation and its disposition within the settlement can be broken down into two tasks. First, it is necessary to determine the nature of the symbols and the way they are manipulated. That is, those components of architecture which can be understood as conveyers of messages must first be identified and subjected to qualitative and quantitative analysis. Second, the nature of the message must be analyzed based on the context in which architectural variation has occurred. To the end of accomplishing the first of these objectives, archaeological and literary sources will be used to identify manifestations of architectural variation at Frederica. The archaeological evidence is comprised primarily of domestic architecture located along the length of Broad Street, a portion of Cross Street, and material from one lot located on a back street. Distortion caused by the limited number of excavated dwellings on.back street lots is offset by documentary materials, in particular, the Hawkins/Eyre descriptions of Frederica in 1743. Documents also augment evidence in those instances where dwellings suffered 54 destruction from later building or plowing, and even to establish details, such. as the number of stories, that archaeology cannot discover. Both archaeological and literary sources reveal that houses in the settlement varied in size, construction materials and techniques, and complexity, all of which created differences in value that were both real and symbolic (Johnson. 1993, 140-163; Blanton. 1994, 23-33; Sweeney. 1994, 13, 15, 19; Denecke. 1988, 128). Establishing parameters for interpreting these features is not always as obvious an exercise as acknowledging their existence, however. The challenge is not so great where archaeological investigation has revealed foundations or other structural evidence from which measurements can be taken, the degree of complexity in plan determined, and construction materials ascertained. Literary sources, in contrast, frequently incorporate terms for defining each characteristic that are somewhat vague. Descriptive evidence is based on subjective impressions that include such imprecise terms as small, large or good. It is possible, however to correlate descriptive terms and known characteristics, usually drawn from archaeological sources, to establish a key which can be used in the interpretation of nonspecific terms. Each characteristic used to evaluate Frederica’s dwellings will be described in more detail below so that the means by which value rankings have been established will be fully clarified. 55 Size Size is the simplest characteristic through which value can be determined. Only three categories of size will be included in evaluating architecture at Frederica: small, medium and large. While these clearly are subjective terms, a standard can be set which reflects the way these terms were understood in colonial Frederica. The house on Lot 21 North, for example, is described as small and the area is known through a combination of documentary and archaeological sources to be just slightly under six hundred square feet (Berndt. 1980, 111; Moore. 1958, plan of Moore house, lot 20 N, Acc. # 1003, on file at SEAC, Tallahassee, Fla., reproduced in.Manucy. 1960. #22). Although recorded as small, this area is significantly larger than that of the original palmetto bowers described by Recorder Francis Moore. Moore reported that these huts were fourteen feet by twenty feet, providing two hundred and eighty square feet of living space (Moore. 1840, 114). At the other end of the spectrum are houses known through archaeology to have over eleven hundred square feet and these can be considered large by the standard of housing at Frederica” .Based on.these sources, small can be understood as at least the size of the original bowers but smaller than the home of Francis Moore, while medium lies between six hundred and eleven hundred square feet, and large is eleven hundred or more square feet. Where figures are very close to the minimum or maximum for a size category, the structure will be placed in the size value group to which it is closest. 56 In the documentary record, many structures at Frederica were described as huts. Normal usage of hut describes a crudely built, small, one-story structure (Shipley. 1955, "hut"), although in one instance, a hut at Frederica is referred to as a large structure (Berndt. 1980, 110). In spite of that description, which appears to be an anomaly, the huts found at Frederica will be understood as relatively smaller than even a small house, that is, significantly less than six hundred square feet. A house, in turn, will be considered at least a medium-sized structure and so any dwelling described as a house or a small house will be assumed to fall between six and eleven hundred square feet in area. Houses described as large or of two stories will be presumed to have eleven hundred or more square feet. Complexity Complexity is related to size since a greater number of rooms, eg. complexity, will usually result in greater overall size of a structure. There is, however, a deeper significance to the term. Complexity can be understood as the increase in special use areas such as parlours, kitchens, andchambers, or bedrooms as well as passages between rooms including stairs and entry ways (Blanton. 1994, 33). The division and special use of space that is complexity increases the ability to control social relations. Although control of social communication was not absent in one room houses where the upper and lower parts of the hall held social significance, (Peter Eden. 1969, 6), the addition of more 57 rooms and passageways enhances the monitoring or control of social relations and activities within the household and between the household members and those outside it (Johnson. 1993, 29). Because such control is associated with.high social status, the enhanced value indicated by complexity is both real and symbolic (Johnson. 1993, 146-149; Sweeney. 1994, 20- 21; Upton. 1986, 321). At Frederica, most dwellings not classified as a hut would have at least two rooms and.probably a loft for sleeping as was the case in the simple homes at Savannah (Lane. 1986, 17). The special use areas in such a house can be seen as a minimum standard at Frederica, and the extent to which a household expanded beyond that minimum will be considered an expression of greater wealth and/or status. Foundations uncovered in archaeological investigations reveal complexity in plan through the number of rooms, evidence of stairs or other passages and the presence of cellars. Construction In addition to size and complexity, building materials and the manner of construction play an important role in both the real and symbolic value of a structure (Blanton. 1994. 13; Sweeney. 1994, 15). The manner and materials of construction are ‘usually' apparent where archaeological excavation. has occurred and documentary sources also frequently offer some information about construction. Using both sources, comparisons between structures can be made and inferences drawn regarding relative values of housing. Architectural 58 elaboration such as fireplaces, windows and so forth would further enhance value and.add.more avenues for comparison; the data for these elements are, however, insufficient for reaching valid conclusions and so will not be included. In Frederica, a few houses were built of tabby or brick, but the majority were of wood (Berndt. 1980, 105). Within the category'of'wood.constructionq a number of distinctions should be made. First, some dwellings described as timber or wood in the Hawkins/Eyre report were found by archaeologists to have tabby or twick foundations (Shiner. 1958, 21, 39). It is possible that some of these houses had an entire first story of masonry and a second story of wood since composite construction of this sort was well known in Britain (Clifton- Taylor. 1987, 309). This manner of construction would, in fact, have a distinct advantage at Frederica where the sub- tropical climate caused.speedy'decay'of organic material. Only one description, however, (Lot 98) specifically refers to the use of both tabby and lumber in the construction of a dwelling at Frederica (Berndt. 1980, 112. H/E Lot 62). Unfortunately, this single entry neither verifies that tabby was used for the entire first story, nor that this was the only house at Frederica to incorporate more than one building material. In the absence of more certain information relating to composite construction at Frederica, there will be no category for this building method. Any of the dwellings described as wood but having a foundation of tabby’or brick, and if not composite, would have 59 been of framed construction. Therewwas an important difference between framed houses and wooden houses which utilized puncheon.construction~ For the latter, walls were formed from upright posts set into the ground or onto a sill. The walls might be left completely unsheathed or, alternatively, plastered or covered by horizontal or vertical boards formed from split logs (West. 1971, 21; Carson et a1. 1988, 125). The area between the upright posts was filled with nagging of clay, clay mixed with straw, brick or any other substance which would help to weatherproof the structure (Kniffen and Glassie. 1986, 163). The puncheon method was developed in Neolithic times and thus represents a far earlier phase of house building 'than frame. construCtion (Lane. 1986, 15; Kniffen and Glassie. 1987, 163; Clifton-Taylor. 1986, 298). Its simplicity, however, remained desirable in certain circumstances and evidence for its retention can be seen in a number of the American colonies (Kniffen and Glassie. 1987, 163). Framed houses were more complex in their construction. First, a foundation of masonry or wood was laid either slightly below ground level or on the soil surface. A sill -was then laid on top of the foundation and studs or upright posts of heavy timbers mortised.into the sill (Lane. 1986, 16; Clifton-Taylor. 1987, 300, 309). The top of the studs were tenoned into a horizontal timber called the summer beam, completing the box-like shape of the frame (Clifton-Taylor. 1987, 309). Interstices between the studs were filled with 60 nogging of brick or clay, and either this portion alone or the entire exterior may be covered with plaster or whitewashed coatingy or even tiles (Clifton-Taylor. 1987, 319-321; Kniffen and Glassie. 1987, 161). (Fig. 10) In America wood sheathing, especially weatherboard, was the most common covering for wooden structures (Clifton-Taylor. 1987, 321, 331). In addition to the differences between framed and puncheon built houses, there was frequently a further distinction. made between the two in the form. of their sheathing; framed houses were often covered with weatherboard, while the simpler puncheon structure was apt to be sheathed with clapboards. Oglethorpe distinguished between the two in a description of early building at Savannah, saying, "Our people still lie in tents, there being only two clapboard houses built and three sawed houses framed." (Oglethorpe. 1990, 110—101). That distinction is as important as that between frame and puncheon construction. Weatherboards have been sawn in such a way as to produce a board which is thick at one edge and thin at the other so that the succession of boards can be overlapped. The resulting contrast.of light and shadow on the surface adds aesthetic interest to the house, an affect which is sometimes further enhanced by adding a.bead.along the lower edge of the board (Clifton-Taylor. 1987, 332). Clapboards also have a thick and a thin edge but are made by splitting lengths of logs around their circumference with an axe. The result, while of equal utility, is a product far less uniform 61 in appearance, and is characterized by a wavy edge instead of the straight one produced by sawing. The greater skill and time it takes to;producewweatherboard and its finer appearance explains its use on better houses, while cleftboards tended to be used on such humble structures as barns and huts (Garven. 1951, 93). Due to the lesser skill required for the manufacture of cleftboard, as well as its association with the most simple of buildings, this material will be assigned the lowest value for construction materials used at Frederica.- The Occupants In order to understand the significance of the architectural variation described above, the population of Frederica will be divided into three categories: political officials, occupational classes and.military personnel. Each of these categories will be used to generate hypotheses designed to illuminate the :meaning' of the architectural diversity in the settlement. Political Officials When the settlers arrived at Frederica, they did so with their local leaders already designated by the Common Council of the Georgia Trust. In a meeting on September 25, 1736, prior to the embarkation of the settlers, the officials were chosen who would be charged with maintaining order, solving problems and communicating with the Trust. Thomas Hawkins was assigned the post of First Bailiff, Samuel Perkins would be the Second Bailiff and Edward Addison Third Bailiff (C05 670, 62 #247, 247. Public Records Office, hereafter referred to as PRO; Egmont. 1923a, vol. II, 197; Egmont 1923b, vol. II, 125). Bailiffs were the highest officers at Frederica, responsible for overseeing those who served under them and as well as generally supervising the activities of the townspeople (Webb. 1963, 307, 311). Their authority was broad, and, perhaps to the disadvantage of many citizens, sometimes lacked clearly defined limits (Ibid, 310). These three men, along with the Recorder, who maintained the court records, made up the Town Court of Frederica and, as was typical of their station, enjoyed a pmestige that surpassed all other town officials (Webb. 1963, 310). Where there was more than one bailiff, as at Frederica, a hierarchy existed within the office so 'that the First Bailiff could. claiHI a stature superior to the others (Ibid, 319). Below the magistrates in status and power were the Constables, Thomas Hird and Samuel Davison (C05 670, #247. PRO; Webb. 1963, 307). The two functioned as law enforcement officers, reporting infractions, making arrests, and ensuring that village restrictions against drunkenness or other petty violations were not violated (Webb. 1963, 307, 463). Oglethorpe in his Design noted that the position of constable could be held at two levels; a higher constable should be responsible for about one hundred men, while an under constable might be responsible for only 25 and was directly accountable to the higher constable (Oglethorpe. 1990, 29). At Frederica there was no such division and the two constables 63 for the village held responsibilities approximately equivalent to those of a constable of a hundred. The third level of officialdom at Frederica included Tythingmen, one for each ward, North and South. John Calwell was Tythingman for the North Ward and William Allen for the South (CO 5 670 #247. PRO). Tythingmen kept order in their own wards and reported to the constable if anything was amiss (Oglethorpe. 1990, 29). Along with the Constables and Bailiffs, the Tythingmen attempted to keep Frederica orderly, law abiding and morally sound. In the event any of these men were unable to fulfill their term of office, alternates were designated, some of these as early as the September twenty-fifth meeting of the Trust, and others some time after. John Levally Sr. and Daniel Parnell were alternate Tythingmen” Will Abbott would be a constable in the event of a vacancy, both Daniel Cannon and Richard White were named alternate Second Bailiffs and John Calwell, already Tythingman, also was chosen to be Third Bailiff if that post was vacated. If political prominence can be associated with high status, it can.be anticipated that it was also associated.with prominence of a‘more tangible nature. The public officials, like all of Frederica’s citizens, were resettled at Frederica on the charity of the Georgia Trust, but as the permanent dwellings were raised, an expression of their greater status could occur through the agency of architecture. This expectation can be tested through evaluating dwellings 64 occupied by Frederica's officials and comparing their homes with those who did not hold a political office in the communityu The evidence for evaluation of the structures will be derived from the results of archaeological excavation where this has taken place. For buildings which have not been the subject of archaeological investigation, and to augment understanding of houses which have been excavated, documentary sources such as the Hawkins/Eyre document provide brief descriptions. Using both sources, relative values for Frederica's dwellings will be determined based on size, complexity and construction materials and techniques. Hypothesis 1) There should be a correlation between political status, achieved through an official position, and the value of the dwelling in which that official lives. Size is one component of value (Stone and Stone. 1984, 300-301; Langton. 1990, 177, 179), so it can be expected that political officials will occupy' houses that are. on. an average larger than. those occupied by other citizens. Hypothesis II) Complexity of plan, that is a greater number of rooms reflecting specialized use and the presence of passageways, is another component of value. It is expected that political officials will occupy houses that are characterized by complex plans. 65 Hypothesis III) The materials from which a dwelling is constructed and the manner of construction is a third component of value. Brick and tabby are considered high value materials due to their resistance to fire and decay as well as the labor involved in their manufacture. Wood, however, is also used in high value housing, but its designation as a high value material is linked with framed construction and sawn cladding. Puncheon construction and cleftboard cladding are, in contrast, not associated with high value structures. It is expected that political officials will occupy houses in which construction.materials and techniques are of high value, that is, brick, tabby or framed wooden structures. Occupational Classes There were at Frederica three occupational classes that correspond to a broad breakdown of occupational groups in eighteenth century British society. These include the professionals or gentry, the trades class, including merchants and those practicing skilled trades, and the laborers (Speck. 1977, 31). In addition, a number of Frederica's Settlers were indentured servants who could be described as laborers, at least during the period of their indenture. These persons were, however, not granted lots until they had served their required time and when they had, many of them chose to leave Frederica. As a result, it is difficult to correlate housing value or location. with indentured servants either as a discrete group or as members of the laboring class. Although 66 indentured servants are otherwise a significant group of settlers they will not, for the reasons stated, be included as an occupational class. The majority of settlers at Frederica belonged to the skilled trades class of workers, while both the gentry, or professional class and the laborer class were represented by only a few (excluding, of course, the indentured servants). Many of the skilled workmen, although not all, pursued the same trades at Frederica as they had in London. Only three men in the settlement have been associated with occupations which can be safely defined as of the labor class, Samuel Davison, chairman, Will Abbot, woodcutter, and John Humble, who was described simply as "laborer" (Coulter and Saye. 1949, 1, 12, 25). The professional class included Francis Moore, Recorder, who if traditionally prepared for his position might have been a lawyer (Webb. 1963, 321), and two apothecary-surgeons, Thomas Hawkins and John Smith. In England the occupational classes were marked by a hierarchy where minute but important distinctions were often made (Speck. 1977,31; Porter. 1982, 64; M. Dorothy George. 1963, 159; Denecke. 1973, 132). Whether these remained at Frederica is, however, uncertain; the fine differences that obtained in London may have been lost on the frontier, even when persons continued to follow their original calling. The social and geographical distance between the small settlement at Frederica and.England is likely to have created a situation in which the customs, mores, and institutions of the 67 motherland lost vitality and were replaced by behaviors and institutions that responded to the reality of life on the frontier (Lewis. 1984, 110-11). Further, the skilled trades class was by far the largest group of settlers at Frederica and the shear dominance of their number may have worked to ameliorate previously held distinctions in occupational status. And finally, because the function of the settlement revolved around its political and military role, it is reasonable to presume that status would have been linked to positions reflecting the nature of the community. If status was indeed prompted by factors other than occupation, architectural variation should not correlate to the three occupational classes found in the settlement. The premise set forth in the following hypotheses expresses the view that architectural variation based on occupational status is unlikely to have existed at Frederica. Hypothesis IV) The evidence for variation in house size is expected to reveal that at Frederica the professional class did not live in houses that were significantly larger in mean size than members of other occupational groups. Hypothesis V) Greater or lesser complexity of plan is likewise not expected to be linked to occupational class. Complexity of plan may, however, be linked to a commercial enterprise carried out within the dwelling. The instances where this occurs at Frederica will be given weight only if there is 68 evidence for its association with a single occupational group to the exclusion of other occupational groups. Hypothesis VI) The range of construction materials and techniques used at Frederica should not be linked to occupational class differences. construction materials and techniques in the highest value category, including brick, tabby and frame construction, should be found among the dwellings of all occupational groups, as should construction materials and techniques of the lowest value, such as wood puncheon and cleftboard. The Military The military constituted a significant percentage of persons living at Frederica after Oglethorpe's regiment arrived in 1738. Clearly, this is a class of citizens by itself, but it is a class that is further divided between regular soldiers and officers. The following hypotheses are specifically designed to test differences within the military but results should also describe any separation between both groups in the military and other citizens at Frederica. Hypothesis VII) Due to the necessity of maintaining power relations to maintain control in the military sphere, nowhere are status differences more integral to the social structure than in military units (Feister. 1984, 104). It is anticipated that there 'will be: a status difference between officers and ordinary soldiers (Ivers. 1974, 198; Johnson. 1992, 16). The 69 value of the dwelling in which that person resides should reflect that difference. Size, being one component of high value, it is expected that officers will live in houses that are larger on the average than those occupied by regular soldiers. Hypothesis VIII) Complexity of plan, a second component of high value housing, is expected to characterize the dwellings of military officers, while regular soldiers will occupy housing that is simple in plan. Hypothesis IX) A marked difference in construction materials has been shown through archaeological studies to symbolically segregate officers from regular soldiers (Feister. 1984). At Frederica, construction materials and techniques of high value are expected to be associated with the houses occupied by officers while construction materials and techniques of lower value will be used for the housing of ordinary soldiers. Locational Hypotheses D The last three hypotheses are designed to assess the correlation between location and the value of domestic architecture. The same value systemwused for evaluating links between personnel and high value structures will be used in the locational hypotheses. Each hypothesis, however, will utilize total values comprised of the sum of size, complexity and construction values. 70 Because there was a‘tendency’ingpre-industrial cities for the better homes to be found in the center of the settlement, hypotheses will be formulated to evaluate the link between centrality and the valueIof structures (Sjobert. 1960, 95, 97, 98; Schnore. 1965, 366; Denecke. 1988, 126-128; Aston and Bond. 1976, 112). The center will be broken down into two locations: Broad Street, which extends from the gate at the eastern boundary to the western edge of the civilian settlement where it borders the glacis, and Cross Street which travels from north to south, intersecting Broad. 'In addition to the symbolic significance of the central area of a town or city, proximity to features important to a culture may transfer significance to nearby constructions. This relational significance might affect those dwellings at Frederica which were relatively closer to structures which particularly represented the institutions carried from England to Frederica and/or constituting an important part of culture on the frontier. Symbolically significant features at Frederica, based on their connections to traditional cultural institutions, were the fort and church, located at the western side of Frederica between.the river and the civilian settlement. In addition to these two structures, a storehouse containing all of the goods used in the settlement stood in the same area” 'Together these buildings and the grounds on which they stood functioned similarly to the square in a non-military town. 71 Hypothesis X) It.is expected that.dwellings located.along Broad Street will have a higher mean value than dwellings located on back street lots. Hypothesis XI) Dwellings along Cross Street are expected to have a higher mean value than dwellings located on back street lots. Hypothesis XII) The evidence is expected to show that dwellings in close proximity to Frederica's "square" will have a mean value that is higher than houses at a greater distance. Those structures lying west of Cross Street will be considered in close proximity and will be compared with houses east of that street . Chapter Six Data for Personnel Hypotheses A value system will be used to rate three characteristics of the dwellings of Frederica - size, complexity, and construction materials and techniques. In each of these categories, numerical values will be assigned according to the degree of variation possible. Size and construction materials and techniques, for instance, can logically be divided into three value levels, while complexity, which incorporates a number of features, requires a correspondingly greater range of levels. A detailed explanation of the ranking system for each category will be provided as that category is presented. Houses will be evaluated individually so that it is possible to link individuals and specific dwellings, but these values can also be used to calculate averages in the evaluation of groups. A group may include all of the dwellings in a specific location, or all of the dwellings associated with a social grouping. Using such a system to evaluate the architectural variation at Frederica makes it possible to identify links between dwellings of high value and the political, occupational or military status of those who occupied them. It is understood that high status in any of the categories may be associated with some degree of wealth, although is not 72 73 invariably'so. However, because the settlers ofIFredericanwere selected, in part, on the basis of their poverty, this study will proceed on the assumption that wealth; or lack of it, was more or less equal among the settlers of Frederica at the time of their arrival. Other forms of status, therefore, should be more significant than wealth in the initial period of Frederica's history. In order to avoid repetition, the archaeological data will be presented only once, in the section where size value is assessed. Findings from excavations are, however, relevant not only to size but also to complexity and construction values. Information from excavations will, along with the literary record, be considered in evaluating all of the categories under consideration. Hypothesis I Hypothesis I stated the expectation. that size, one component of value, should be relatively greater in houses belonging to Frederica's public officials. In order to test that hypothesis, the homes of both officials and non-official persons will be subjected to a system of ranking based on the following method. The houses at Frederica fall into three size categories in the literary and archaeological records-huts, small houses, and large houses. Huts are assumed to be at least equivalent to the two hundred and eight square feet of the original bowers and but less than the six hundred square feet of the house on Lot 21 North belonging to Francis Moore. All huts 74 will be assigned a value of 1. Small houses, such as the one occupied by Moore, will be given a value of 2 based on the calculation that houses so described will have between six hundred and one thousand square feet. An arbitrary figure of one thousand or more square feet will be considered large and given a size value of 3. In those instances where neither archaeology nor the literary record refer to the size of a dwelling but the structure is described as a house rather than a hut, that building will be given a size value of 2. This ascription. is based. on the assumption that contemporary observation differentiated between a house and a hut following common eighteenth century usage where "house" meant a substantial structure, often of two floors, and "hut" described a more poorly built and smaller dwelling (Shipley. 1955, "hut"). For clarity, however, any house assigned.a 2 on this basis will be indicated by a *. Homes of Presiding Officials In 1958 Jackson.Moore excavated the home on Lot 21 North, belonging to Francis Moore, Frederica's Recorder. The house stood at the western edge of the civilian settlement on an ally, or narrow street behind Broad Street. On the western side of the lot Moore located.numerous postholes along the lot line which. matched others just beyond. the northern and southern side of the structure. Due to this symmetry and the location of the postholes, Moore determined that a wooden fence surrounded the Recorder's house (Ibid). (Figure 11) 75 mortar—laid brick walls forming a semi-subterranean cellar dug approximately one and a half feet below the colonial level (Moore. 1958, 4; Manucy. 1960, 64). Moore was able to .1 l n—.——v- ... Figure 11. Plan of Francis Moore house-Lot 21N 76 determine the location and dimensions of the eastern and northern walls of the structure as well as a portion of the western wall. All walls were of English Bond.brick laid on a spread footing of two bricks laid end to end (Moore. 1958, 4). Documentary sources confirm.that the Recorder’s house was made entirely of brick (Berndt. 1980, 111. H/E Lot 49). A series of trenches established the dimensions of the structure at fifteen feet by twenty feet (Moore. 1958, plan of Lot 21 North). On the exterior of the southern wall, near its center, Moore located a brick entryway approximately four feet square (Ibid, 7). It is not known, nor did Moore speculate, whether this entry was enclosed or open, although the likelihood is that it was at least covered by a roof. The doorway leading to the interior was marked by a charred wooden door sill (Ibid). Inside, the house was divided into three rooms; the largest, lying on the western side of the structure, was twelve feet by fifteen feet. The floor in this room was formed of mortar-laid brick and was almost completely intact Moore. 1958, 4). In the northeast corner a Moore located a fireplace, leading him to postulate that this room had been used as a kitchen (Ibid). A.partition dividing the western and eastern portions of the house was only partially'in.place, but served.to establish the dimensions of each side. A second partition crossed the eastern section east to west, dividing this side of the houses into northern and southern rooms (Ibid, 6). In the northern 77 room, Moore found a circular structure made of brick which he identified as a forge due to the evidence of fires within the feature (Ibid, 5). The floor in this room was of packed earth with a few areas appearing to have been hardened by deposits of oil or asphalt (Ibid). This small room measured approximately seven feet by nine feet producing an area of approximately sixty-three square feet. AIbrick partition separated the "forge" room from that on the southern side of the structure. Moore found a sill of charred pine on the western wall, establishing the passage between the western and eastern side of the house. Unmortared brick paved the flooerhich.had dimensions of seven.and a half by six feet, or forty—five square feet. (Ibid, 6). Moore suggested that a closet and stairway, much like that illustrated in Figure 12, occupied the southeastern corner in this room (Ibid). Figure 12. Closet and stairway 78 The combined areas of this room, the one to its north and the large western room are two hundred and eighty-eight square feet. Because the house is known to have been at least two stories high, the area can be doubled to just under six hundred square feet” iManucy, perhaps not allowing for partitions, placed the interior area at three hundred square feet, including*a.twelve by fifteen foot western room, a seven by nine northeastern room, and not giving dimensions for the small southeastern room (Manucy. 1960, 64). Whichever figure is correct, the house is very near six hundred feet and will be considered a medium-sized house. The First.Bailiff'of‘Frederica, Thomas Hawkins, was along with Francis Moore, one of the first to build a permanent home in the settlement (Candler. 1913, 16; Fairbanks. 1952, 3 citing Phillips Collection, vol. 14202, 213). His home was also the first dwelling’ to ibe excavated during Charles Fairbanks' 1952 season (Fairbanks. 1952, 6). (Figure 13) Hawkins' house was comprised of the western half of a duplex, and occupied Lot 2 South at the western end of Broad Street. The main portion of the structure was of brick and was described in literary sources as three stories high (Fairbanks. 1952, 3, citing Phillips Collection, Vol. 14202, p. 213). Fairbanks' excavation confirmed the presence of a semi-subterranean cellar with a brick foundation, and the base of an stairway leading toIa.second story entrance at the front of the structure (Fairbanks. 1952, 6, 9-10; Fairbanks. 1956, 218-19). Fairbanks postulated a third story, apparently 79 \> Z" Figure 13. Plan of Thomas Hawkins house-Lot ZS Figure 14. Artist's Conception of Hawkins house Figure 15. Scottish dwelling with external staircase 81 following literary sources and persuaded by the general conformity of these with the archaeological research he had conducted. (Fairbanks. 1956, 218; Fairbanks. 1952, 7). lui artist's conception of the exterior of Hawkins' house is shown in Figure 14, and for comparison, an example of a second story entrance in Scotland. (Figure 15) The exterior dimensions of the house were twenty feet long, east to west and fifteen feet deep, north to south (Ibid). Allowing for one foot walls, formed by one and one half 8" bricks, the interior floor space would be two hundred and sixty-six square feet (Ibid). This space, however, did not comprise the totality of the structure in 1736. A wooden outshut at the western side of the brick portion of the house had actually been constructed prior to the building of the main house. Fairbanks found that a three and a half foot deep footing ditch for the outshut ran below the foundation of the main house, thus establishing its priority (Fairbanks. 1952, 6). The outshut measured ten feet east-west by fifteen and a quarter feet north-south (Fairbanks. 1956, 217; Fairbanks 1952, 6). Fairbanks has speculated that this building may have served as temporary quarters as the family awaited the construction of their permanent home (Fairbanks. 1952, 6). Had this room comprised additional living space, it would have added one hundred and fifty-three square feet to the home for a total of four hundred and nineteen feet on the lowest level. However, there is no indication in the western brick wall of the main house that there was a passage between the two structures 82 (Fairbanks. 1956, 218; Fairbanks. 1952, 7). Further, the artifacts found in the wooden outshut included fragments of blue and white Delft jars, an ivory enema tube and numerous fragments of pale green. bottles used for medicines and stoppers, all suggesting that this structure had been an apothecary shop (Fairbanks. 1956, 219; Fairbanks. 1952, 10; Kathleen Deagen. 1972, 11-34). Thus while the building added space to the structure, it did not comprise a living area. In addition to the above rooms, a back room was added in a final phase of improvements. The brick addition measured eighteen and a half feet, east-west, and sixteen and a half feet,:north-south.(Fairbanksc 1956, 221; Fairbanks, 1952, 14- 15). Again allowing for one foot wide walls, this room added two hundred and sixty-seven and a quarter feet to the house. Across the ground floor alone, then, there was living space of five hundred and thirty-three and a quarter square feet, not including the apothecary shop. When this is tripled, and Fairbanks concluded that the addition was, like the front rooms, of three stories (Fairbanks. 1956, 221), then the total living space is almost sixteen hundred square feet, a figure that compares with small houses of the twentieth century. It should be noted that the upper story, if built with the sloping roof shown in the artist's conception of the structure, would have had low sidewalls, thus limiting the useable space in the third.story. Hawkins' house, at well over eleven hundred square feet in area, has a size value of 3. 83 The home of the Second Bailiff, Samuel Perkins, lay directly across Broad Street on Lot 2 North. (Figure 16) Joel Shiner's excavations on that lot revealed tabby wall footings whichmwere somewhat.degraded, but substantial enough to allow 1 1;)2 Figure 16. Plan of Samuel Perkins house-Lot 2N 84 an approximate determination of the perimeter of the dwelling. Shiner calculated an east-west width of just over nineteen feet and a.north-south length of thirty-two to thirty—two and a half feet revealing that the house was oriented with the gable end to the street. The footings averaged one and one half feet in width and were three to four inches thick (Shiner. 1958, 5). Allowing for walls of approximately one foot width, the interior would have held five hundred and fifty-eight square feet of living space. Although.Shiner found no evidence of a semi-subterranean lower level, both literary references and the width of the footings indicate that the house had two stories (Lane. 1990, 593). If the area of the first level is doubled, the house has a total of eleven hundred and sixteen square feet, thus earning this structure a size value of 3. The Third Bailiff, Edward Addison, was assigned Lot 15 North. This lot was located on the first street north of Broad and has not been excavated. Documentary reports, therefore, replace measurements gained through.archaeological excavation. The Hawkins/Eyre map reports that a "large" house stood on this lot in 1743 (Berndt. 1980, 110, H/E Lot 43). By that time Addison had left Frederica but he is probably the builder of the house on the lot as he is included in the number of people who had made improvements in 1737 (Coulter and Saye. 1949, l; Candler. 1913b, Pt. I, 18). Addison's house is not included in the list of two-story dwellings at Frederica and so its dimensions would have to be the 85 equivalent of at least 32' x 35' to amount to eleven hundred square feet. There is no way to determine this in the absence of archaeological excavation, however, so the description in the Hawkins/Eyre document must suffice. Based on the literary description then, the house will be given a size value of 3. Constable Samuel Davison of Lot 3 South lived in the eastern half of the duplex shared by the Hawkins family. (Figure 17) Davison's side of the duplex presented its gable end to Broad Street, an orientation frequently found in townhouses in England where the first story room in the front of the dwelling might be used as a store (Taylor. 1975, 78; Whiffen. 1960, 75—6). The structure had a semi-subterranean lower floor, slightly shallower than that of its neighbor, having been excavated to two feet, four inches below colonial grade (Fairbanks. 1956, 218; Fairbanks. 1952, 19). The front room ‘was seventeen feet, east-west, and eighteen feet, north-south, forming a nearly square space. The rectangular room to the rear added an additional twenty and a half feet, east-west, by eleven feet, north-south (Ibid). Fairbanks' excavation established that the north wall and the northern half of the east wall, associated with the north room, were of brick and so once again allowing for walls one foot in width, the area .of this room was two hundred and seventy-tonsquare feet (Fairbanks. 1952, 20). The twenty and a half by eleven foot room at the rear must have been a later addition because the south wall and the south half of the eastern wall were formed from tabby (Ibid). The 86 '92 16.5156 Figure 17. Plan of Samuel Davison house-Lot 3S 87 tabby walls were slightly less than three-quarters of a foot wide, leaving interior space. of approximately hundred and ninety-one and a half square feet. In combination, then, the two rooms together provided four hundred and sixty-three and a half square feet of useable space. If this were extended through three floors, the total would have been thirteen hundred and ninety and a half square feet. Although somewhat small than the western side of the duplex, Davison's house, like that of Hawkins, has a size value of 3. Thomas Hird, who became a Constable in 1738/9, was assigned Lot 13 North (Coulter and Saye. 1949, 23; Scott. 1985, 32, citing Egmont, vol.14203 p. 239, vol 14220 p. 85, vol. 14206, p. 51, Candler, 1906, 128; Berndt. 1980, 102. H/E Lot 41). Hird had not been appointed as an alternate for any post at Frederica, and it is unclear whether he replaced the original Constable, John Brooks, or perhaps John Flower who, along with Will Abbot, had been designated Alternate Constables prior to their emigration (PRO C05 #670, 248; Egmont. 1920, 199). Nicholas Honerkamp excavated Lot 13 North in 1975 but concentrated on the back portion of the property. Consequently he found only secondary evidence for a dwelling in the form of a possible root cellar (Honerkamp. 1980, 214). No foundations or other features to confirm the presence of a substantial building were found. The Hawkins/Eyre document describes the structures on the lot as small shingled houses (Berndt. 1980, 110. H/E lot 41). 88 It is known that Hird.developed land outside of the settlement and may never have constructed a large home within its walls (Ibid, 104). The houses described in the Hawkins/Eyre report are the only evidence for his lodgings within Fredrica and based on the descriptions, Hird's home will be given a size value of 2. Lot 4 North was granted to Tythingman John Calwell, who also held the position of alternate Third Bailiff (Coulter and Saye. 1949, 8; C05, #470, 249; Egmont. 1920, 199). He assumed the latter position in 1739, replacing Edward Addison (Coulter and Saye. 1949, 1, 8). In 1743, the Hawkins/Eyre map described the structures on Calwell's lot as a small boarded house and outbuildings (Berndt. 1980, 111. H/E Lot 57). By September, 1746, however, the owner's fortunes had improved enough to allow him to make improvements, which resulted in the home described by Joel Shiner as the best in Frederica (Candler. 1915, 102-104; Coleman. 1986, 'vol.31, 125-6; Shiner. 1958, 18). (Figure 18) Shiner's excavation revealed that the house had a semi~ subterranean basement dug two feet below the colonial ground level. The walls of the foundation were tabby and the great amount of the tabby rubble suggest that the walls of at least the lowest level of the house were of the same material. (Shiner. 1958, 11, 13, 15). The exterior measurements of the house were thirty-six and three-quarter feet, east-west, by just over twenty-seven feet, north south (Ibid, 11). Shiner failed to mention the width of the walls, but it can be 89 presumed that, like others at Frederica, they averaged about one foot and two inches. With the usual allowances for wall width, the interior space of the ground level would be just . BRICK STEPS ‘*-TAEEY WALL Figure 18. Plan of John Calwell house-Lot 4N 90 over eight hundred and eighty square feet. None of the stairs discovered by Shiner could be established as accesses to an upper story; all of these were found on exterior walls and might have provided egress only to the exterior; However, the existence of a subterranean ground level implies at least one upper story. The quality of the house, and the known improvement in Calwell’s fortunes, suggest that even two stories is conservative. Based on a modest estimate of two floors, however, the total area of the dwelling would be seventeen hundred and sixty square feet giving the structure a size value of 3. Lot 6 South was granted to the Tythingman for the South Ward, Will Allen. On this lot the Hawkins/Eyre document reported a cleftboard house but included no referenCe to its size (Berndt. 1980, 112. H/E Lot 65). Allen is known to have left Frederica in 1741, and there is no further information about claims on this lot until 1755 when the lot was purchased by Captain James Mackay (Coulter and Saye. 1949, 1; Scott. 1985, 8; Bryant. 1975, 148). The house excavated on Lot 6 South, thought by Shiner to be a duplex, with tabby foundations, a basement and stairways, can probably be attributed to Mackay (Shiner. 1958, 45, 50). Since this dwelling would have been built after 1748 it is beyond the period under study and will not be included. It is, rather, the cleftboard house which is associated with Frederica’s early period and it is this structure which.will be evaluated. 91 Table 1 Size Value of Public Officials' Dwellings Lot 2S = 3 Lot 2N = 3 Lot 21N = 2 Lot 38 = 3 Lot 4N = 3 Lot 6S = 2* Lot 15N = 3 Lot 13N = 2 The mean size value for the homes of public officials is 2.62. Homes of Alternate Officials Both Daniel Cannon and Richard White are reported to have been given the position of alternate Second Bailiff (Coulter and Saye. 1949, 8, 57). Cannon occupied Lot 6 North where he built a home described as a good timber, two story house (Berndt. 1980, 105, 110, 111. H/E lot 55). (Figure 19) Shiner's excavation.on Cannon's lot located footing ditches in which were found some in situ bricks testifying to a brick foundation (Shiner. 1958, 21). The house had a complex plan comprised of two major areas which could be traced along footing ditches (Shiner. 1958, 21). The first section, which was divided into two rooms, laid adjacent to Broad Street” .At the north or rear doorway of this area Shiner discovered a small (5.2' wide x 6.2' long) tabby floor, apparently an entryway. Contiguous with the entryway on the north side of the structure was still another room whose eastern wall extended beyond the southern room. The room on the north side had exterior measurements of six feet, north-south by twenty-two feet, east-west. Allowing for one foot wide brick walls, interior dimensions are five feet by twenty-one feet or one hundred and five square feet. 92 I “ O .0 0 .’ ”*Ilo- an I ..o c o . ‘l‘. 0-. 5." ‘ . a . o [4... ' :2. M. - .. o u o- u ' \‘4 .f '1'A'B'B'Yii-Zx-I3'.“If",WAtsL f0 OTING I T l 0 y I o I I F I 1 L. . " c ‘ .. ‘ ‘ _‘ BASEMENT _ c’ 1 ’- ' '- a h .. - 6 . _ , -* -ir .m~., _- 2‘. If?" .._ , Macf: ‘. - . l 2.9—— HUBBLE Figure 19. Plan of Daniel Cannon house-Lot 6N 93 The southern room had interior measurements of approximately twelve feet, north-south, by thirty-three feet, east-west, yielding three hundred and ninety—six square feet. The dimensions of this room(s) suggest that it comprised the primary living space(s), while the very narrow room at its rear may have been a porch or kitchen and could have been a later addition. The total area for this portion of the house is just over five hundred and thirty-three square feet. Literary sources indicate that the house had two stories doubling the space to produce a total area of one thousand and sixty-six square feet with a size value of 3. In addition to these primary spaces, there were two more rooms contiguous to the eastern end of the structure. Immediately adjacent to the house was an eight foot, north- south, by fifteen foot, east-west area dug two and one half feet below the' ground level; at the eastern end of this basement was an outshut measuring eight feet, north-south, by five feet, east-west (Ibid, 21-23). The additional rooms, curiously, extended beyond the lot line at the eastern end of the structure (Ibid, 23). The date of this extension is unknown, but Shiner ascribed a late colonial date to some of the ceramics from this house and, more significantly, a coin found on the tabby slab was dated 1769. Plowing had mixed the artifactual material so firm dating of the various areas of the house is precarious (Ibid, 25). However, the combination of late material, violation of the lot line, and the added-on 94 nature of this portion of the dwelling suggest that this part of the structure post-dates the period of study. Richard White lived on Lot 35 South which laid on Cross Street south of its intersection.with.Broad (Coulter and Saye. 1949, 57). No archaeological investigation of the dwelling has been conducted but the Hawkins/Eyre description referred to it as one of the two-story houses in Frederica; there is otherwise no reference to its size (Berndt. 1980, 105. H/E lot 86). Since it is clear from the example on Lot 21 North that even a two-story structure can be regarded as small, Richard White’s home will be assigned a 2 in the absence of any reference to its having been a large house. Will Abbott held the position of Constable in case of vacancy. Abbott was granted Lot 8 North and built there a cleftboard house (Coulter and Saye. 1949, l; Berndt. 1980, 116. H/E lot 53). Unsurprisingly, Lot 8 North yielded no architectural remains (Shiner. 1958, 31). Further, few artifacts were found and over half of those that were unearthed post-dated the colonial period. Shiner thus concluded that no one had ever built on the lot (Ibid). Documentary sources, however, contradict Shiner’s conclusion, reporting a cleftboard house on Lot 8 North (Berndt. 1980, 116, H/E lot 53). The lack of structural remains is consistent with an earthfast structure as the cleftboard house surely was. In spite of Shiner’s conclusion, then, the presence of a cleftboard house on this lot will be assumed. 95 John Levally Sr. of Lot 7 South was named alternate Tythingman for the South Ward (Egmont. 1923, vol. 2, 199; Scott. 1980, 8, citing Egmont, vol. 14220, 110). The Hawkins/Eyre document described.the structure on.this lot only as a cleftboard.house, omitting any reference to size (Berndt. 1980, 112. H/E Lot 64). Shiner was unable to locate structural remains on Lot 7 South. He did find tabby rubble but determined.that it was unrelated.to a structure and.was merely a redeposited mass (Shiner (1958, 51). The lack of clear architectural evidence supports the description of the earth- fast house described in the Hawkins/Eyre information (Berndt. 1980, 112. H/E lot 64). Shiner found no suggestion of the cleftboard house reported by the Hawkins/Eyre document and, like the house on Lot‘s, it was undoubtedly built entirely above ground (Berndt. 1980, 108, H/E lot 65). The last alternate official among the original settlers was Daniel Parnell who was granted Lot 20 North (Coulter and Saye. 1949, 39). Parnell was assigned the position of alternate Tythingman for the North Ward (Egmont. 1923. Vol. 2, 199). Parnell’s lot and home have not been excavated so the documentary evidence will form the basis of its valuation. The Hawkins/Eyre document reports that Parnell’s home was one of the settlement’s two story houses but otherwise gives no information as to size (Berndt. 1980, 105. H/E Lot 64). This house, then, like that belonging to Richard White, will be assumed to have been small to medium-sized. 96 Table 2 Size Value of Alternates’ Dwellings Lot 78 = 2* Lot 6N = 3 Lot 358 = 2* Lot 8N = 2* Lot 20N = 2* The mean size value for homes of alternate officials is 2.20 Among the officials assigned to posts at Frederica in 1736 there is a clear trend toward large houses. All three bailiffs occupied houses given a size value of 3 as did Constable Samuel Davison.and.Tythingman.John Calwell. The only officials whose house did not merit the highest size value were those of Thomas Hird, whose shingled houses earned only a 2, and Will Allen whose home also was assigned a value of 2. Among the alternates, Daniel Cannon, alternate Second Bailiff, occupied a large home, assigned a value of 3, while the size of the houses of the other alternates was valued at 2. Homes owned by presiding public officials earned a mean size value of 2.71 while alternate officials’ homes had a lower mean size value of 2.20. If the two values are combined and averaged, the result is a lower over all mean of 2.45. Homes Belong to Persons Not Holding a Public Office A number of houses along Broad Street did not belong to public officials. On the south side of Broad, Lots 4, 5, 8 9 10, amd 11, all of which have been excavated, belonged to persons who did not hold public position. Lot 4 South was initially granted to Priscilla Dunbar by General Oglethorpe. At the time of Dunbar’s marriage to 97 ' . 're. .g---:::::::: I ' .-sRI_c1< . . _ . . (.WALLS - I . ~ .‘ . WALL "1;, _ - . /_FOOTINGS 1 '- l I . 1 l I ' - \ . . BRICK WALL 1 1 -‘ I IN srru 1 ' Bik/ I I » 1 , ' ERICK l , STORAGE 1 / ems I l l I . I L I l 1 Figure 20. Plan of Dunbar-Houstoun house-Lot 4S 98 Patrick Houstoun.in 1740, ownershiplof the lot.was transferred to Houstoun (Bryant. 1975, 139). Shiner's 1958 excavation of this lot uncovered shallow, rubble-filled, wall footing ditches (Shiner. 1958, 38). Shiner was able to delineate a building which was, in the main, rectangular, but had a small room attached at the rear. (Figure 20) The exterior measurements of the main portion were twenty-four feet, east- west, by sixteen feet, north-south; the room at the rear was ten feet, east—west, by nine feet, north-south (Ibid, 39). Portions of brick walls appeared in the trench of the south wall of the main part of the house, and single rows of brick formed headers on the north and west walls; none of the headers was higher than three levels of brick (Ibid). The house is described as one of timber in the Hawkins/Eyre document, (Berndt. 1980, 112. H/E Lot 67), so bricks were apparently used for the foundation only. The nearly square room at the rear had been dug approximately six inches lower than the front portion and was paved with a two inch deep tabby floor (Shiner. 1958, 39). A three inch layer of sand over the original floor indicated that a later floor was constructed over the original; its condition, however, made certain identification of the material impossible (Ibid). The interior dimensions of the.main room(s) on the north side of the dwelling were twenty-three and a half, east-west) by fifteen feet, north-south, giving the household three hundred and fifty and a half square feet of living space. This area may have comprised the entire interior area during 99 the dwelling’s earliest years if, as was common practice, the room at the rear, was added as conditions in the settlement improved and a greater commitment to the residence ensued (Hamlin. 1953, 519). The room at the rear of the structure added seventy-two square feet to the living space for a total of four hundred and twenty-two and a half square feet on the ground level. The dwelling on Imn1‘4 was two stories high (Berndt. 1980, 105. H/E Lot 59), therefore the space would have been doubled, yielding nine hundred and ninety-eight square feet. While one thousand square feet is the minimum area which could designate it as a large house, this structure is so close to meeting that requirement that it will be assigned a size value of 3. Directly east lay Lot 5 South, occupied by John Welch. Shiner’s excavation found. no (architectural remains here, although two barrel wells were discovered on the back of the lot (Shiner. 1958, 43, 44). The Hawkins/Eyre document reported that only a hut existed on the lot in 1743 and the paucity of remains suggests that nothing more was ever built on Lot 5 (Berndt. 1980, 108. H/E Lot 66). A size value of 1 is based on the literary report. Lot 8 South was originally granted to John Humble (Scott. 1985, 9 citing Egmont, vol. 14203, 238—41, Egmont, vol. 14220. 89. Coulter and Saye, 1949, 25 indicate that Humble received Lot 7 South, but this is assumed to be incorrect based on Scott’s reconciliation). Shiner’s excavation of Lot 8 unearthed a house with a large and elaborate plan, much of 100 which was thought to be of late eighteenth century date (Shiner. 1958, 52-57). The artifacts in the central portion of the dwelling were thought by Shiner to be from the 1740's period (Ibid, 53). Documentary evidence, however, confirms that Humble died in 1740 having only built a hut on his lot (Coulter and Saye. 1949, 25). The Hawkins/Eyre document reported no significant structure on this plot of land in 1743, and no other source suggests that the building discovered by Shiner was built prior to 1748 (Berndt. 1980, 103, 112. H/E Lot 65). John Humble's hut, then, is the structure that will be assessed for this study. Lot 9 South was originally granted to John Levally Jr (Coulter and Saye. 1949, 30). Shiner's excavations on this lot did not uncover footing trenches, suggesting that the foundations for the structure had been entirely above ground (Shiner. 1958, 59). (Figure 21) The plan was revealed primarily through the expanse of tabby floor that remained (Ibid). A one foot wide tabby wall ran east-west through the structure dividing it into two rooms, one behind the other in a north-south orientation (Ibid). Entry appears to have been from the west side of the north room, where two badly eroded sections of tabby wall defined either a ground floor entryway, or the base of a stairs to the second level (Ibid, 60). The latter is a distinct possibility since in 1743 Lot 9 South is reported to have on it a two story tabby and lumber house (Berndt. 1980, 108, H/E Lot 62). Allowing for a one foot thick wall, Shiner determined.an.interior space sixteen feet, 101 _ ~_.. '1 ‘}C3;':'t 2‘; ll ' a .- :l ' E: ;l |l 'II _c:::: , :‘a ' 'l -fl[L_r ..... H: . - Lil-.- . ' ’ I . .13‘ h... S: . 'II F ____-'u [ , . Wig . '- —--— --~TA58Y ‘9‘?“ Figure 21. Plan of John Levally Jr. house-Lot 9S north-south by twelve feet, east-west for the northern room (Ibid). The southern room was equally long north to south, that is sixteen feet, but its width could not be determined (Shiner. 1958, 60). It is, however, reasonable to postulate a room of approximately the same dimensions as that of the north end of the dwelling. The total area, assuming one 102 hundred and ninety-two square feet in each room, would be three hundred and eighty-four square feet.on the ground level; this figure would, of course be doubled if, as documentary sources suggest, the house had two floors (Berndt. 1980, 108, H/E Lot 62). With a total area of seven hundred and sixty- eight square feet, this house receives a size value of 2. Shiner found no footings for a structure on Lot 10 South, granted to Daniel Griffith (Coulter and.Saye. 1949, 20; Scott. 1985, 10 citing Advertiser, 18 Sept. 1735; EL, 73). Like the neighboring house to the west, its foundations must have rested on the ground. Excavations revealed that the structure was built.of tabby, as documentary sources had indicated, with walls averaging about one foot in width (Shiner. 1958, 64; Berndt. 1980, 105, 114. H/E Lot 61). Shiner's work revealed a two-roomed dwelling in which the partition was formed by a tabby wall eight inches wide running north to south (Shiner. 1958, 64). (Figure 22) The interior dimensions of the western room were thirteen feet, east-west and slightly over twelve feet, north-south (Ibid, 65). The exterior tabby walls were a foot wide, averaging about four inches wider than the interior partition wall (Ibid). Both this room and the one at the east end of the dwelling had tabby floors; determination of the area in the eastern room is based on the dimensions of that floor because no walls could be discerned at the floor level in this room (Ibid). The interior space of the eastern room was ten feet, east-west by twelve feet, north-south, thus one hundred and 103 twenty square feet (Ibid, 67). The combined area would be two hundred and seventy-six square feet, but the Hawkins/Eyre document reported that this was a two-story house (Berndt. 1980, 105, H/E lot 61). The area, including both floors, would be five hundred and fifty-two square feet, thus a medium size structure with a size value of 2. —-——-——- u . J-,f K-TAEBY rLooe '_‘."—-"\ ' 7 \. , -) 2! Figure 22. Plan of Daniel Griffith house—Lot lOS 104 Shiner found no trace of a structure on Lot 11 South, although a barrel well near the center lot testified to occupancy of the lot (Shiner. 1958, 69). Scott has suggested that this was the site of the flesh. market, based on information in the Hawkins/Eyre document (Scott. 1985, 12 citing H/E Lot 60). Several entries in the document, however, make no reference to such an enterprise on Lot 11, but describe a boarded hut/house seemingly of a domestic nature (Berndt. 1980, 108, 112. H/E Lot 60). The structure will, therefore, be assumed in this study to have been a dwelling. The houses belonging to persons along the south side of Broad who did not hold a public position are shown below. Table 3 Size Value of Other Dwellings-South Side of Broad Lot 4 South = 3 Lot 9 South = 2 Lot 5 South = 1 Lot 10 South = 2 Lot 8 South = 1 Lot 11 South = 2* The average size value of these houses is 1.83. On the north side of Broad Street lots 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, and 11, all of which have been excavated, were also occupied by persons not holding a public office. Lot 3 North was granted to Michael Germain who died within the first year of settlement (Scott. 1985, 24 citing Egmont, vol. 14203, 239, Egmont, vol. 14220, 68; Wesley. 1829, 31). Germain's widow remarried but was soon widowed again and returned to England (Scott. 1985, 24 citing Egmont, 14220 68). Several other owners followed who never built a substantial home (Ibid). 105 Shiner found no traces of architecture in his excavation of Lot 3 North (Shiner. 1958, 8). The Hawkins/Eyre document indicated that only two cleftboard houses, in one entry, or huts, in another entry, stood on this property, the lack of structural evidence is unsurprising (Berndt. 1980, 103, 112. H/E Lot 58). Shiner did, however, find wine bottle fragments of "unusually high quality" and a small amount of oriental porcelain. (Shiner. 1958, 9). Due to the artifact assemblage, Shiner inferred the presence of a colonial period house, which, as suggested by the lack of foundations or footings, may have rested on piers built on the ground surface (Ibid). Since neither literary nor archaeological evidence can confirm the size of the dwelling(s) on Lot 3, a cautious size value of 1 is most appropriate for these structures. Lot 5 North was originally granted to George Spencer (Coulter and Saye. 1949, 49). The search for structural information yielded little that was relevant to the colonial period (Shiner. 1958, 19-20). Footings, brick paving and a number of reused tabby blocks revealed by Shiner's parallel trenching were determined to be associated with a mid- nineteenth century structure. Any traces of a colonial building on Lot 5 were destroyed by the construction of this later building (Ibid). Shiner did, however, unearth delft sherds, colonial period wine bottles and, most importantly, a brass escutcheon plate inscribed with the name Ct. A. Heron, a member of Oglethorpe's regiment (Ibid, 20). The escutcheon plate links Heron with Lot 5 North and, along with ceramic and 106 glass evidence, verifies occupation of the site in.the 1740's. The Hawkins/Eyre map reported that only huts, or cleftboard houses, were built on Spencer's lot, explaining Shiner's inability to find remains associated with Frederica's early years (Berndt. 1980, 103, 111. H/E Lot 56). Based on these literary descriptions the structures on Lot 5 North warrant a size value of 1. Michael Wilson was the original grantee of Lot 7 North (Scott. 1985, 28, citing Egmont, 14203, 240, Egmont, 14220 229; Berndt. 1980, 102. H/E lot 54. Coulter and Saye, 1949, 58, report that. Wilson owned Lot. 6 North). Archaeology provides no illumination for structures associated with the years 1736-48 as the dwelling which Shiner excavated was a large, tabby structure almost certainly built by James Spalding who claimed the lot in 1772 (Shiner. 1958, 26-30; Bryant. 1972, 30). Shiner concluded that none of the‘artifacts could be firmly linked to the colonial period; most of the material, in fact, he described as nineteenth century trash (Shiner. 1958, 29). Further, two coins, a 1755 British penny and a 0.8. penny dated 1798 were on the floor (Ibid, 30). While these could have been deposited on a floor built many years prior to their minting, their presence in conjunction with other data tends to support a construction date beyond the period of this study. The Hawkins/Eyre map reported only cleftboard huts on this lot, and so the size value for Wilson's dwelling will be a 1 (Berndt. 1980, 111. H/E Lot 54). 107 Lot 9 North belonged to Levi Bennet (Coulter and Saye. 1949, 4; Scott. 1985, 29 citing Egmont, 14203, 238, Egmont, 14220, 17-18). The Hawkins/Eyre document reports that the Bennets occupied a substantial two-story building in which they operated a tavern (Berndt. 1980, 105, 108. H/E Lot 52). Shiner’s excavation of Lot 9 North uncovered a three—room dwelling made up of a front room facing Broad Street, a back room on the north side of the house and between these rooms a basement dug two feet below the colonial level (Shiner. 1958, 32—3). (Figure 23) The area of the front room was poorly defined, containing only a row of bricks along the northern perimeter of the room, parallel to the south wall of the basement. The poor condition of this brick feature made its identification uncertain (Ibid). The northernmost room was approximately three to four inches below colonial grade and was twenty feet, east-west, by nine feet north—south (Ibid, 32). In this room Shiner found ashes and charcoal associated with a feature that appeared to be a fireplace; Shiner, as a result, speculated that the room was a lean-to kitchen (Ibid, 32). Figure 24 shows the usual form of a lean-to room, often, as Shiner suggested, a kitchen and usually added after the original structure had been built. The basement lacked foundation walls, nor was there any indication of a floor. The dug out area was nearly square, measuring approximately 12 feet, north-south by 13 feet east- west (Ibid, 33). Just east of the center of the basement's northern wall Shiner found the first step of a short stairs 108 -, ,‘., TAHBY FLOOR. '5' T - .m . .- f 4m . O‘I'Ulir[rtr; ‘ \\\\.P03T /' HOLES 'llL’Jlll.' --1'=:l 99b”- I l I I N ;r W Figure 23. Plan of Levi Bennet house-Lot 9N 109 Figure 24. Lean-to kitchen The basement lacked foundation walls, nor was there any indication of a floor. The dug out area was nearly square, measuring approximately 12 feet, north-south by 13 feet east- west (Ibid, 33). Just east of the center of the basement's northern wall Shiner found the first step of a short stairs that lead to the room at the north; there may also have been stairs on the opposite wall leading to the room at the front, but their remains were unclear (Ibid, 34). Three postholes were found along the east wall, and three more along the west wall, all about four inches in diameter (Ibid). If the postholes were part of the superstructure, and if the house was two stories, as the Hawkins/Eyre document indicated, there must have been quite a few more postholes which were not 110 The poor condition of the house makes a good assessment of its area difficult; however, using Shiner's best estimates of the dimensions, some of the areas can be approximated. The room at the rear of the dwelling, thought by Shiner to be a kitchen, had an area of one hundred and fifty-two square feet allowing one foot width for the walls. The next room to its south, the basement, added one hundred and thirty-two square feet, once again subtracting of one foot for the walls. IBased on the presence of bricks forming a row adjacent to the basement, it may be surmised that the length of this room was at least equal to that of the basement, or about thirteen feet, east-west, exterior measurement. While it would be purely speculative to arrive an areal measurement for the south.room, it can safely be said that this room increased the area by a certain, although unknown amount. The dimensions of the two known rooms on the ground floor together indicate a minimum area of five hundred and sixty-eight square feet. The central basement, however, seems to have functioned as the place of business and thus was not living space for the family. The room above it would have been one hundred and.thirty-two square feet, and if there was a room above the "kitchen" as well, there would have been four hundred and thirty-six square feet even when the basement is not included. In addition, there was a room of unknown size at the front of the houses and this certainly would have been duplicated in the story above. A most conservative estimate of area for this house places it beyond that of a.hut 111 James Shepherd occupied Lot 10 North.in Frederica's early years (Coulter and Saye. 1949, 48; Scott. 1985, 30 citing Advertiser, 18 Sept. 1735; Egmont, vol. 14203, 240, Egmont, vol. 14220, 193). Shepherd left Frederica in 1739 and subsequently a series of other settlers lived on the lot including Thomas Eyre, one of the authors of the Hawkins/Eyre document. Eyre described his house as a small one (Scott. 1985, citing Egmont, vol. 14205, 166). Descriptions in the Hawkins/Eyre document refer to the house as a hut in one entry (Berndt. 1980, 102, H/E Lot 51), and a cleftboard house in another (Ibid, 111). Shiner’s archaeological investigation shed no light on the matter because the site had been destroyed by the construction of a swimming pool in the twentieth century (Shiner. 1958, 36). Since the literary descriptions indicate that there was little to differentiate this house from a hut, a size‘ value of 1 seems to be most appropriate. The owner of Lot 11 North was Thomas Walker (Scott. 1985, 31 citing Advertiser, 18 Sept. 1735, Egmont, 14203, 240, Egmont, 14220, 223; Berndt. 1980, 108. H/E Lot 50; Coulter and Saye indicate that Walker was granted lot 10). The Hawkins/Eyre document reports a two story house on this lot, indicating a house of at least medium size. Shiner found no evidence of architecture on the lot because it, like the dwelling on Lot 10, had been destroyed by the construction of a swimming pool (Shiner. 1958, 37). 112 evidence of architecture on the lot because it, like the dwelling on Lot 10, had been destroyed by the construction of a swimming pool (Shiner. 1958, 37). Table 4 Size Value of Other Dwellings-North Side of Broad Lot 3 North = 1 Lot 9 North = 2 Lot 5 North = 1 Lot 10 North = 1 Lot 7 North = 1 Lot 11 North = 2 Average size value for persons along north side of Broad who did not hold an official position is 1.33 Little archaeological investigation has occurred on the back lots. Where it has occurred, the results will be noted, but for those dwellings which have not been the subject archaeological research, evaluation must rely on literary sources. Due to the relative brevity of the evidence, these houses will be consolidated into courses consisting of the length of the street on which they lie. A course would, for instance, include all of the relevant dwellings from the eastern end of the street to its western terminus. From the houses in the course, a mean value will be derived. All of the lots in this section belonged to persons who did not hold an office in Frederica's political structure. Lots 12 through 21 South were located on the first street south of Broad. Two of these, Lots 12 and 14, were huts, of around two hundred and eighty square feet in area. The house on lot 15 south was described as large, and the cleftboard house on Lot 21 south was considered "long," Its size, like 113 those of the other houses in this two block range, lacked any further description as to size. (Berndt. 1980, 112-13, H/E Lots 70-79). Size values for these houses are shown below. Table 5 Size Value for Lots 12—213, First Street South of Broad Lot 12 South = 1 Lot 17 South = 2* Lot 13 South = 2* Lot 18 South = 2* Lot 14 South = 1 Lot 19 South = 2* Lot 15 South = 3 Lot 20 South = 2* Lot 16 South = 2* Lot 21 South = 2* Average Size Value = 1.90 Behind this rank of house, on the southernmost street in Frederica, lie Lots 31 through 41. Lot 41, granted to William Forrester, was excavated by Nick Honerkamp who located a rectangular colonial structure of puncheon construction (Berndt. 1980, 109. H/E Lot 80; Honerkamp. 1980, 190). The pattern of postholes indicated that the structure included.one room of approximately twenty-four by fifteen feet and another of unknown dimensions, known through the presence of a cluster of postholes (Ibid). The dwelling, then, had a known area of three hundred and sixty square feet plus additional space of unknown dimensions. This dwelling was described as a "good cleftboard house" in the Hawkins-Eyre document suggesting that the structure was more than.a hut (Berndt. 1980, 113. H/E Lot 80). Based on the literary and the archaeological evidence, the dwelling will be assigned a size value of 2. (Figure 25) The dwelling on lot 34 is described as large and on lot 40 the structure is called a hut. All other dwellings lack 114 reference to size but are described as houses (Ibid, 113-l4, jH/E Lots 79-90). Size values for dwellings on Lots 31-41 are shown below in Table 6. H C3 a . :30 I. if ‘ .5 1 ‘C . It.) " 8° Q. 604%) 9 =0“ =2 . . Figure 25. Plan of William Forrester house—Lot 4lS 115 Table 6 Size Value for Lots 31-418, Second Street South of Broad Lot 35 is not included because the house on this lot was occupied by an official. Lot 31 South = 2* Lot 37 South = 2* Lot 32 South = 2* Lot 38 South = 2* Lot 33 South = 2* Lot 39 South = 2* Lot 34 South = 3 Lot 40 South = 1 Lot 36 South = 2* Lot 41 South = 2 Average Size Value = 2.00 In the north ward, the first street behind Broad contained lots 12 through 21 north. Lot 15 belonged to Edward laridison and has been included in the evidence for political appointees. The house on lot 21 has been excavated and Provides the areal correlation for a house described as small. This house, however, belonged to Recorder Francis Moore and, ].ike Lot 15, has been included in the calculations for size of cafficials' homes. Jackson Moore's excavation of Cross Street Estructures included Lots 17 and 18 North. Several postholes of indeterminate pattern and two areas of disturbed earth Izomprised the only evidence of a structure on Lot 17 North (Moore. 1958, 2). (Figure 26) There was, however, a stacked barrel well, containing a number of artifacts of colonial date, confirming the occupation of the lot during the colonial period (Ibid) . On Lot 18 North Moore found a dwelling built in the nineteenth century and therefore not pertinent to the present study (Moore. 1958, 4). Archaeological research on Lot 13 North was carried out by Nicholas Honerkamp in 1975. No architectural material was 116 also indicated that a hut was built on Lot 19 North, while Lot 18 held a "small" house. Lot 18N was excavated by Jackson Moore, but the remains he discovered there belonged to a nineteenth century structure (Moore. 1958, 4). Of the remaining houses, one was described as large, two more lacked a reference to size and for the remaining lot, number 14, there was no report (Ibid, 110-11, H/E Lots 40-49). Table 7 Size Value for Lots 12-20N, First Street North of Broad Lots 13, 15 and 20 are not included as they belonged to officials Lot 12 North = 1 Lot 17 North = 2* Lot 14 North = 2* Lot 18 North = 2 Lot 16 North = 3 Lot 19 North = 1 Average Size Value = 1.75 The second street back of Broad in the north ward held Lots 31 through 41. Lots 35 and 36 were excavated by Jackson Moore and the structure on Lot 36 provided the best architectural evidence Moore found during the entire season. This building was, however, the public bake house and.will not be included in the evaluation of homes. On Lot 35 North, Moore searched extensively for a structure but his efforts were rewarded with only decayed brick fragments, a feature Moore interpreted as a fireplace (Moore. 1958, 11). The literary evidence reveals that two lots on this street, 38 and 41, held several small houses and huts while two large houses stood on Lots 31 and 32. The houses on Lots 35 and 37 were of unknown size and Lots 39 and 40 were 117 The literary evidence reveals that two lots on this street, 38 and 41, held several small houses and huts while two large houses stood on Lots 31 and 32. The houses on Lots 35 and 37 were of unknown size and Lots 39 and 40 were apparently unoccupied (Ibid, 110 H/E Lots 28-38). Table 8 Size Value for Lots 31—41N, Second Street South of Broad Lot 31 North = 3 Lot 37 north = 2* Lot 32 North = 3 Lot 38 north = 1 Lot 33 North = 1 Lot 39 north - Unoccupied Lot 34 North = 2 Lot 40 north - Unoccupied Lot 35 North = 2 th 41 north = 1 * Average Size Value = 1.87 In the north ward, the final street contained Lots 42 through 52. Only four of these lots were occupied, Lots 43, 46, 47, and 48 (Berndt. 1980, 110). Lot 47 North was excavated by Jackson Moore but he found little from which to reconstruct the dimensions of a structure. Two post holes, two pieces of floor tile and a well were all that remained of the house (Moore. 1958, 12). The artifactual material did not enhance the findings from this lot as Moore reported that there was "nothing distinctive" about them other than the low number of wine bottle fragments (Ibid, .13). Documentary sources, however, indicate that there was a large house on this lot and this evidence will provide the basis for its size value (Berndt. 1980, 110, H/E Lot 26). Moore also investigated Lot 48 North where he found a number of postholes. These were, however, interpreted as 118 \<;£Z7 Figure 26. Plan of Thomas Mason house—Lot 48N 119 noncontemporaneous and therefore not demarcating a structure (Ibid, 15). Moore did find, however, a brick entryway and an "H" fireplace along with a stacked barrel well, both of which verify the presence of a building (Ibid). (Figure 26) The Hawkins/Eyre document is at some variance in the description of this dwelling; in one instance it is described as a clapboard hut, while a different entry reports that it was a large clapboard house (Berndt. 1980, 107, 111. H/E Lot 23). Because the fireplace and entry discovered through archaeology support the latter description, this dwellingHwill be regarded as a large house. Literary_evidence reveals that there were huts and a small house on Lots 43 and 46 (Berndt. 1980, 110. H/E Lots 21 and 23). Table 9 Lots 41—51N, Third Street North of Broad Lot 43 North 1 Lot 47 North Lot 46 North 1 Lot 48 North Average Size Value = 2.0 II II (A Table 10 displays the size value of all groups. Table 10 Size Value of All Groups Officials' dwellings . - 2.62 Alternates' dwellings - 2.20 Dwellings of others along south side of Broad - 1.83 Dwellings on first street south of Broad - 1.90 Dwellings on second street south of Broad - 2.00 Dwellings of others along north side of Broad - 1.33 Dwellings on first street north of Broad - 1.85 Dwellings on second street north of Broad 1.87 Dwellings on third street north of Broad - 2.00 120 The figures confirm that Frederica's public officials lived in houses that averaged a larger size than the homes of Ipersons not holding public office. Approximately three- qxuarters of a percentage point in size value separates the ciwellings of presiding officials from those of persons who Ileld no official position; nearly one and a half percentage Ipoints distances the officials' homes from those of the least \ralued housing at Frederica. Alternate officials fared less ‘vvell, although they could claim the second best mean value in 110using size. Hypothesis II The second hypothesis expresses the expectation that the llomes of public officials will exhibit.more complex plans than 1:hose of other citizens at Frederica. Complexity is related ‘touthe size of a structure since a larger house is likely to llave a greater number of rooms than a small house. Stairs and «entries, both associated with houses of some size, further increase the complexity of a dwelling. Due to the correlation laetween size and complexity, complexity values can be assigned as long as the size of the dwelling is known. 7 In determining complexity values, hutS'will be assumed to hold a single room. In reality, these small dwellings may have had spatial divisions reflecting activities in the household, and many of them must have incorporated sleeping lofts. Nevertheless, structural division of the interior :Space of a hut was almost certainly limited and all huts will therefore receive a complexity value of 1. 121 Houses, even small ones, can be assumed to be of greater complexity than a hut and will, as a result, be given a complexity value of 2. Large houses, those determined by archaeology to have more than three rooms or described in the literature as large, will receive a 3. In addition to these basic elements, stairs and entries or porches, will each be given an additional point. A house known to be two stories will be presumed to have a stairs even when the literary or archaeological record do not confirm their presence. Some ratings, in particular those derived from literary sources, will reflect the lack of evidence for elements of complexity. The complexity values associated with dwellings belonging to persons of official status will comprise the first group presented below, and these will be followed by values associated with other categories of Frederica citizens. The determination of complexity values relies on the same archaeological and literary data reviewed above in the presentation of evidence for size. Table 11 Complexity Value of Public Officials' Dwellings First Bailiff — Lot 2 South - Large House = 3 Stairs = 1 porch (entry) = 1 Total = 5 Second Bailiff - Lot 2 North Large House = 3 Stairs = 1 Total = 4 122 Table 11 (cont'd) Third Bailiff - Lot 15 North Large House = 2 Total = 3 Recorder - Lot 21 North Small House‘ = 2 Stairs = 1 Entry = 2 Total = 4 Constable — Lot 3 South Large House = 3 Stairs = 1 Entry = 2 Total = 5 Constable - Lot 13 North Small House = 2 Total = 2 Tythingman - Lot 6 South Small House = 2* Total = 2 Tythingman — Lot 4 North Large House = 3 Stairs = 1 Entry = 2 Total = 5 Average complexity value = 3.50 The following table contains complexity values for homes of Frederica's alternate officials Table 12 Complexity Value of Alternate's Dwellings Alt. Bailiff - Lot 35 South Small House = 2* Total = 2 Alt. Bailiff - Lot 6 North Large House = 3 Stairs = 1 Entry = 2 Total = S 123 Table 12 (cont’d) Alt. Constable - Lot 8 North Small House = 2* Total = 2 Alt. Tythingman - Lot 7 South Small House = 2* Total = 2 Alt.Tythingman — Lot 20 North Small House = 2* Total = 2 Average complexity value = 2.60 Table 13 Complexity Value of Other Dwellings-South Side of Broad Lot 4 south More than 3 rooms Stairs Total "ll" ewa Lot 5 south Hut Total nu FHH Lot 8 south Hut Total uu FHH Lot 9 south Large House Stairs Entry Total mneth Lot 10 south - Large House Stairs Total ewdw Lot 11 south - Small House -Total MIN Average Complexity value = 2.83 The houses on Lots 12 through 21 south lying behind.Broad Street were, as has been shown, slightly smaller as an average than those along the main street, and none have been described 124 as two-story in the documentary record. Because there has been no archaeological investigation of these houses, all dwellings described simply as a house, or as a small house will be assumed to have two rooms. Huts will, of course, be understood as one room structures, and large houses will be assumed to have three or more rooms. It is impossible to determine whether any of these dwellings had entry ways or other kinds of passages since the Hawkins/Eyre document makes no reference to such details. Stairs can easily'be eliminated since none of the houses along this street had. more than. one floor, but there is no equivalent logic from which the presence or absence of entryways could be deduced. Notably, however, only three entrys were documented for the houses along Broad Street and these were found on the largest houses in that group. Based on that evidence, it is not unreasonable to conclude that most, or all, of the houses on Lots 12 through 21 were not likely to have had entry ways. Table 14 Complexity Value for Lots 12-218, First Street South of Broad Lot 12 South - Hut = 2 Total = 1 Lot 13 South - Small House = 2* Total = 2 Table 14, continued Lot 14 South - Hut = 2 Total = 1 Lot 15 South - Large House = 2 Total = 3 125 Table 14 (cont'd) Lot 16 South - Small House = 2* Total = 2 Lot 17 South — Small House = 2* Total = 2 Lot 18 South - Small House = 2* Total = 2 Lot 19 South - Small House = 2* Total = 2 Lot 20 South - Small House = 2* Total = 2 Lot 21 South - Small House = 2 Total = 2 Average Complexity Value = 1.9 Table 15 Complexity Value for Lots 31-418, Second Street South of Broad Lot 35 South not included as it belonged to a person of offical status Lot 31 South - Small House = 2* Total = 2 Lot 32 south - Small House = 2 Total = 2 Lot 33 south - Small House = 2 Total = 2 Lot 34 south - Large House = 2 Total = 3 Lot 36 South - Small House = 2 Total = 2 Lot 37 South - Small House = 2 Total = 2 Lot 38 South - Small House = 2 Total = 2 126 Table 15 (cont'd) Lot 39 South - Small House = 2 Total = 2 Lot 40 South - Hut = 2 Total = 1 Lot 41 South - Small House = 2 Total = 2 Average Complexity Value = 2.00 The following tables contain complexity values of dwellings in the North Ward. Table 16 Complexity Value for Other Dwellings-North Side of Broad Lots 4, 6, and 8 are not included as they belong to persons holding an office Lot 3 North - Hut = 2 Total = 1 Lot 5 North - Hut = 2 Total = 1 Lot 7 North - Small house = 2 Total = 2 Lot 9 North - Large House = 3 Stairs = 2 Total = 4 Lot 10 North- Hut = 2 Total = 1 Lot 11 North- Small house = 2 Total = 2 Average Complexity Value = 1.83 Table 17 Complexity Value for Lots 12-21N, First Street North of Broad 127 Table 17 (cont'd) Lots 13, 15, 20, and 21 are not included as they are owned by officials Lot 12 north - Hut = 2 Total = 1 Lot 14 North - Small House = 2* Total = 2 Lot 16 North - Large House = 2 Total = 3 Lot 17 North - Small House = 2* Total = 2 Lot 18 North - Small House = 2 Total = 2 Lot 19 north - Hut = 2 Total = 1 Average complexity value = 1.83 Table 18 Complexity Value for Lots 31-41N, Second Street Northmof Broad Lot 36 not included because it was not a dwelling Lot 31 North - Large House = 2 Total = 3 Lot 32 North - Large House = 2 Total = 3 Lot 33 North — Hut = 2 Total = 1 Lot 34 North - Small House = 2 Total = 2 Lot 35 North - Small House = 2 Total = 2 Lot 37 North - Small House = 2 Total = 2 128 Table 18 (cont'd) Lot 38 North - Small House = 2 Total = 2 Lot 39 North - Not Occupied Lot 40 North - Not Occupied Lot 41 North - Small House = 2 Total = 2 Average complexity value = 2.12 Table 19 Complexity Value for Lots 43, 46, 47, 48N Lot 43 north Lot 47 North - Large House = 3 Small House = 2 Stairs = 2 Total = 2 Total = 4 Lot 46 north Lot 48 North - Large House = 3 Hut = 2 Entry = 2 Total = 1 Total = 4 Average Complexity Value = 2.75 The complexity value for all groups are shown below. Table 20 Complexity Values for All Groups Officials - 3.62 Alternates - 2.40 Lots 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11 South - 2.83 Lots 12-21 South 1.90 Lots 31-41 South , 1.90 Lots 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11 North 1.83 Lots 12-19 North (minus 15, 20, 21) 1.66 Lots 31-41 North 2.12 Lots 43, 46, 47, 48 North 2.75 Complexity values reveal that, just as in size, dwellings belonging to officials exceed others in value by almost a 129 percentage point. In this category, the houses occupied by alternates show a clear tendency to be of lower value than dwellings owned by active officials. This disparity signals the social differences between these two groups. Hypothesis III The third hypothesis anticipates that construction materials and techniques used for the building of public Officials' homes will be, on the average, higher in value than those used in others of Frederica's structures. Recognizing that bricks were the chosen material if one could afford it, brick construction will be assigned the highest value of 3 (Clifton-Taylor. 1986, 329). Dwellings made of tabby will also be accorded a rating of 3. Framed houses will receive a value of 2, while cleftboard huts, houses and log houses will be given a 1. A log house was found on a single lot in Frederica in 1743 (Ibid, 114, H/E lot 89). All log construction is composed of horizontal squared or uncut beams placed on top of one another and joined at the corners of the structure (Kniffen and Glassie. 1986, 165-66). Due to the simple construction method used, log'houses will be included with clapboard as the least valued construction method in the settlement (Morrison. 1987, 167—9). The assumption will be that buildings sheathed with the lesser valued cleftboard were of puncheon construction regardless of whether they were considered a hut or a house. A few houses are described in the Hawkins/Eyre document only as good. Since brick.or tabby dwellings are identified.in 130 the document, and since in only one instance was a cleftboard structure described as good, it will be presumed that "good" normally indicates a framed house; houses so described will therefore be accorded a rating of 2. In the instances where no archaeological or literary information exists, the house will be noted as unknown and will not be included in the averaging of the values. Table 21 displays the construction values for officials' dwellings. Table 21 Construction Value for Public Officials' Dwellings First Bailiff - Lot 2 South - brick = 3 Second Bailiff - Lot 2 North - framed = 2 Third Bailiff - Lot 15 North - cleftboard = 1 Recorder - Lot 21 North = brick = 3 Constable - Lot 3 South - brick = 3 Constable - Lot 13 North - cleftboard = 1 Tythingman - Lot 6 South - cleftboard = l Tythingman - Lot 4 North - tabby = 3 Average construction and materials value = 2.12 The following table contains construction materials and technique evaluations of the alternate officials dwellings. Table 22 Construction Value for Alternates' Dwellings Alternate Bailiff - Lot 35 South - framed = 2 Alternate Bailiff - Lot 6 North - framed = 2 Alternate Constable - Lot 8 North - cleftboard = 1 Alternate Tythingman - Lot 7 South - cleftboard = 1 Alternate Tythingman - Lot 20 North - cleftboard = 1 Average construction materials and technique value = 1.4 131 ‘ Tables 23 through 29 contain the construction materials and technique evaluations for the dwellings of persons who did not hold an official position. Construction Value Table 23 for Other Dwellings-South Side of Broad Lot 48 — framed Lot SS - cleftboard Lot 83 - cleftboard 2 Lot 9S - tabby 1 Lot 10S - tabby 1 Lot 113 - framed II II II Nww Average construction materials and technique value = 2.0 Table 24 Construction Value for Lots 12-218-First Street South of Broad Lot Lot Lot Lot Lot Average 12$ 13S 148 158 16S - cleftboard - unknown - cleftboard - cleftboard - cleftboard Construction 1 Lot 173 - cleftboard Lot 18 - cleftboard 1 Lot 198 - framed 1 Lot 203 — framed 1 Lot 218 - cleftboard H "II" n HboNJH+a and Materials Value = 1.22 Table 25 Construction Value for Lots 31—4ls-Second Street South of Broad Lot 35 South is not included because it belonged to an official Lot Lot Lot Lot Lot Average 31$ 32S 33S 34S 36S - tabby - log - framed - unknown - cleftboard construction = 3 Lot 378 - cleftboard = 1 = 1 Lot 388 - framed = l = 2 Lot 398 - framed = 2 Lot 408 - cleftboard = 1 = 1 Lot 418 - cleftboard = 1 and materials value = 1.50 132 Table 26 Construction Value for Other Dwellings-North Side of Broad Lot 3N - cleftboard Lot 5N - cleftboard Lot 7N — cleftboard Lot 9N - framed Lot 10N - cleftboard Lot llN - framed "ll" PJPJH HIIH NPJN Average construction and materials value = 1.33 Table 27 ConstructionValue for Lots 12-19N-First Street North of Broad Lots 13, 15, 20 and 21 are not included because these are occupied by officials. Lot 12N-cleftboard = 1 Lot 17N-cleftboard = 1 Lot 14N-Unknown Lot lBN-Unknown Lot l6N-framed = 2 Lot lQN-cleftboard = 1 Average construction and materials value = 1.25 Table 28 Construction Value for Lots 31-41N-Second Street North of Broad Lot 31N—framed = 2 Lot 37N-framed = 2 Lot 32N-framed = 2 Lot 38N-cleftboard = 1 Lot 33N-cleftboard = 1 Lot 39N-Not Occupied Lot 34N—c1eftboard = 1 Lot 4ON-Not Occupied Lot BEN-Unknown Lot 41N-cleftboard = 1 Average Construction and Materials Value = 1.42 Table 29 Construction Value for Lots 43, 46, 47, 48N-Third Street North of Broad 2 Lot 47N-framed Lot 48N - cleftboard Lot 43N -framed Lot 46N - cleftboard OI ll H II II N 133 Construction Value for Lots 43, 46, 47, 48N—Third Street North of Broad Lot 43N ~framed Lot 46N - cleftboard 2 Lot 47N-framed 1 Lot 48N - cleftboard II II N Table 29 (cont’d) Average Construction and Materials Value = 1.50 Table 30 Construction Values for All Groups Officials 2.12 Alternates 1.40 Others on the south side of Broad Street 2.00 Others on the north side of Broad Street 1.33 Lots 12-21 South 1.22 Lots 31-41 South 1.44 Lots 12-21 North 1.25 Lots 31-41 North 1.42 Lots 43, 46, 47, 48 North 1.50 In this category the residences of officials rated only slightly higher in value than other groups. The figure for construction values of the officials homes was affected by the cleftboard houses occupied by several officials, namely Edward Addison, Third Bailiff, Thomas Hird, Constable and Will Allen, Tythingman in the South Ward. Neither Allen nor Addison were long term residents of Frederica; Addison left by December, 1740 and Allen was gone by May 1741 (Coulter and Saye. 1949, 1). The short stay of both of these men may have reflected a lack of commitment to Frederica which, in turn, could manifest itself in the relatively poorer quality of the construction.of their homes. Thomas Hird, the third official whose house used 134 In spite of the lower figure for construction, total values of the homes of officials top those for citizens in other groups, as shown in the table below. Table 31 Total Values for All Groups Officials Size - 2.62 Complexity - 3.50 Construction - 2.12 Total Value - 8.25 Alternates Size - 2.20 Complexity - 2.40 Construction - 1.40 Total Value - 6.00 Others on the south side of Broad Size - 1.83 Complexity - 2.83 Construction — 2.00 Total 6.66 Others on the north side of Broad Size - 1.33 Complexity - 1.83 Construction — 1.33 Total - 4.49 Lots 12—21 South Size — 1.90 Complexity - 1.90 Construction — 1.22 Total - 5.02 Lots 31-41 South Size - 2.00 Complexity - 2.00 Construction — 1.44 Total - 5.44 Lots 12-21 North Size - 1.66 Complexity - 1.66 Construction - 1.25 Total 4.57 135 Table 31 (cont'd) Lots 31-41 North Size - 2.12 Complexity - 2.12 Construction - 1.28 Total - 5.52 Lots 43, 46, 47, 48 North Size - 2.00 Complexity - 2.75 Construction - 1.50 Total - 6.25 These figures together confirm that the value of the Officials' homes, as a whole, are significantly higher than those belonging to others who lived in Frederica. All three components on which value is based have symbolic importance. Clearly the size alone can create an imposing affect, while complexity and construction define and elaborate the size and enhance the importance of a large structure. OCCUPATIONAL CLASSES The second group of hypotheses are used to evaluate the impact of occupational status on dwelling value. Three occupational classes were found at Frederica, the laborer class which included Samuel Davison, Will Abbott and John Humble, the large skilled trades group to which most of Frederica' s citizens belonged, and the professionals, Recorder Francis Moore, Thomas Hawkins and Joseph Smith. Most problematic of these groups, as far as determining its members is concerned, is the large skilled trades class. The occupation of each settler was not always identified, and this is particularly so for persons arriving after the initial 136 settlement. Further, some settlers left Frederica after a year or two and others arrived to replace them. The total number of occupations represented at Frederica is, as a result, higher than the population at any one time. James Scott's history of settlement in early Frederica provides the best guide for navigating these difficulties and the number of members of the skilled trades class are therefore based on his study. In the few instances where neither Scott nor other sources can identify the occupation of a citizen, the assumption will be that the person belonged to the skilled trades class. Like all assumptions, this one is subject to error; however, the preponderance of skilled tradesmen in the settlement support its logic. Using the figures for evaluating dwelling values in Hypotheses I, II, and III, the homes of each of these groups will be compared. Hypothesis IV Hypothesis IV expresses the expectation that homes belonging to members of the professional class will not be of a mean size that is greater than the dwellings of persons belonging’tolother'occupational groups. Only three citizens at Frederica could be considered professionals; the size values of their homes is presented in Table 32. Tables 33 and 34 contain size values for the other occupational classes. Table 32 Size Value of the Professionals' Dwellings Lot 2 South-Thomas Hawkins, apothecary/surgeon Size - 3 137 Table 32 (cont'd) Lot 33 North—John Smith, apothecary/surgeon or lawyer. Dwelling described as a hut (Berndt. 1980, 110, H/E lot 36). Size - 1 Lot 21 North - Francis Moore, Recorder Size - 2 Average Size of dwellings belonging to professionals - 2.0 Table 33 Size Value of the Laborers' Dwellings Lot 3 South-Samuel Davison, chairman Size - 3 Lot 8 South-John Humble, laborer Size - 1 Lot 8 North-Will Abbott, woodcutter Size - 2 Average size of dwellings belonging to labor class - 2.0 Values for the skilled trades class, presented in the tables below, will not be itemized here due to the large size of the group (55 households). However, the evaluations for dwellings in this group are included in the data for Hypotheses I, II, and III. Table 34 Size Value of Dwellings of the Skilled Trades Class Average size of dwellings of skilled trades class (all other dwellings in Frederica) - 1.98 The size value of dwellings belonging to the professional class and the labor class are exactly the same while homes of the skilled trades class are only slightly lower in size 138 Average size of dwellings of skilled trades class (all other dwellings in Frederica) - 1.98 The size value of dwellings belonging to the professional class and the labor class are exactly the same while homes of the skilled trades class are only slightly lower in size value. The difference between the latter figure and the size values of the professional and labor classes is less than a tenth.of a percentage point, hardly a significant disparity in size. The mean size for all groups is approximately equivalent confirming that the size value of dwellings at Frederica cannot be correlated with occupational status. Hypothesis V Hypothesis V anticipates that lesser or greater complexity can not be correlated to occupational class at Frederica. The following evaluation will compare complexity between the three classes. Table 35 Complexity Value of Professionals’ Dwellings Lot 2 South - Thomas Hawkins Complexity - 5 Lot 33 North - John Smith Complexity - 1 Lot 21 North - Francis Moore Complexity - 4 Average Complexity among professional class - 3.33 Table 36 Complexity Value of Laborers' Dwellings 139 Table 36 (cont'd) Average Complexity among laborer class - 2.66 Table 37 Complexity Value of Dwellings of the Skilled Trades Class Average complexity among skilled trades class - 2.29 Just over a half percentage point describes the difference between plan complexity in homes belonging to the professional group and the next highest group, the laborers. Over a percentage point separates the group with the lowest figures from that of the highest. The significance of the figures, however, is derived from the fact that complexity values do not correlate to traditional rankings of occupational class; the skilled trades group trails the labor class instead.of'being in an intermediate position between.the traditionally highest occupational rank and the lowest. Hypothesis VI Hypothesis VI proposed that construction materials and techniques will not exhibit mean values that correlate to traditional occupational rankings. Construction materials and techniques ratings are presented in Tables 38 through 40. Table 38 Construction Value of the Professionals' Dwellings Lot 2 South - Thomas Hawkins Construction - 3 Lot 33 North - John Smith Construction - 1 140 Table 38 (cont'd) Lot 21 North - Francis Moore Construction - 3 Average construction value among professionals - 2.33 Table 39 Construction Value of the Laborers' Dwellings Lot 3 South - Samuel Davison Construction - 3 Lot 8 South — John Humble Construction - 1 Lot 8 North — Will Abbott Construction - 1 Average construction value among laborers - 1.66 Table 40 Construction Value of Dwellings of the Skilled Trades Class Average construction value among skilled trades class - 1.50 Construction values echoed the distribution of values found in complexity rankings. Almost a percentage point separates the lowest figure, that of the skilled trades class, from the highest, earned by the professional group. While dwellings of the latter occupational class earned significantLy higher construction values, there was little difference between the values for the labor class and the skilled trades class. The total values of homes occupied by the three occupational groups are presented in Table 41. 141 Table 41 Total Values for All Occupational Groups Professionals Size 2.00 Complexity 3.33 Construction 2.33 Total 7.66 Skilled Trades Class Size 1.98 Complexity 2.29 Construction 1.50 Total 5.77 Laborers Size 2.00 Complexity 2.66 Construction 1.66 Total 6.32 All value categories show' a Ihigher figure for the professionals than for other occupational groups at Frederica seeming to verify that professionals at Frederica enjoyed the same high status accorded to that group in England. This figure, however, must be viewed with great caution. Two of the three professional men at Frederica were the top magistrates in the settlement and the high values associated with dwellings of professionals may only constitute an reiteration of the findings for public officials. Arguing for this interpretation is the low value of the home of John Smith, the lawyer who lived in a hut on a back street in the North Ward. Nevertheless, it is possible that a reciprocal affect was at work in the value of the homes of Thomas Hawkins and Francis Moore since their professional status may have influenced their selection as magistrates. 142 Approximately one half percentage point separates the total mean values of dwellings.of the skilled trades class and the laborers and, perhaps surprisingly, the higher of these values is associated with the laborer class rather than with those of the skilled trades group. Again some caution is required in interpreting these values. All three men in the labor class were public officials while the skilled trades group includes a large number of persons who did not hold public office. With this caveat in mind, however, the figures showing home values in these two groups suggest that laborers and skilled tradesmen at Frederica succeeded at approximately the same rate. The image of social mobility that these figures suggest is further supported by the fact that the range of values in all categories is found in each occupational group. Laborer Samuel Davison lived in a large, complex, brick house, while lawyer John Smith lived in a hut on a back lot. THE MILITARY The next three hypotheses asses the impact of status on the dwellings of members of the military at Frederica. While there may be subtle distinctions within the ranks of this group, only two categoriesmwill be‘evaluated, the officers and the rank and file soldier. The regiment arrived in 1738, by which time cleftboard structures had been built to house them (Lane. 1990, vol II, 411; Candler. 1908a, 677). Huts built.specifically'for housing soldiers were very small, twelve by fourteen feet, and held 143 six men (Candler and Northern. 1913b, Part I, 185). Soldiers also rented housing from residents of Frederica. Thomas Hird of Lot 13 North, for instance, built several small huts on his lot which.were rented by soldiers while Hird lived on property outside the settlement (Berndt. 1980, 104, 110-114. H/E Lot 41; Candler. 1908b, 708-9). Not all of the housing rented by soldiers was so humble, however. Absentee owners were known to rent their homes to soldiers as was the case on Lots 47 North, owned by William Moore, 15 North, former home of Edward Addison, and 11 South (Berndt. 1980, 110, 112. H/E Lots 22 and 60). These were large structures built as homes for the original owner but becoming rental properties when the owner left Frederica or built elsewhere on the island. Soldiers who shared a hut, house, or a complex composed of either or both of these occupied Lots 12, 13, 19, 38, 41, and 46 North and lots 11 and 18 South (Berndt. 1980, 110-112. H/E Lots 40, 41, 47, 31, 28, and 21 North, and Lots 60 and 76 South). Officers of the regiment, on the other hand, often lived in single family'dwellings with.their family or with.a.servant (Ibid, 110-114. H/E Lots 42, 46, 49, 55, 57). Captain Davis lived on Lot 14 North, Captain Morgan on 18 North, Captains Thompson and Horton in Francis Moore's former home on Lot 21 North. On Broad Street lived Captain Mackay with his servant (Lot 6 North), and Lieutenant Wall occupied John Calwell's house on Lot 4 North during Calwell's absence (Ibid, pp 110- 11). The house on Lot 4 North was, at the time of its lease to Lt. Wall, not yet the opulent structure built by Calwell some 144 time between 1743 and 1745. The Hawkins/Eyre document reports that the dwelling was a small boarded house in 1743 (Berndt. 1980, 111. H/E Lot 57). Accuracy for the evaluation of the dwelling occupied by Lt. Wall requires that it is this small structure and not the later one that should.be assessed . Only one officer, Captain Demere, lived in the South Ward.where he rented the "good" house on Lot 19 (Ibid, 113. H/E Lot 77). Using the same criteria cited above for evaluating the values of a dwelling, the houses occupied by soldiers can be compared with those of their officers. Hypothesis VII Hypothesis VII stated that members of the officer class would occupy relatively larger homes than regular soldiers. The values for dwelling size in each group are shown below in Tables 42 and 43. Table 42 Size Value of Regular Soldiers' Dwellings Lot 11 South Lot 7 North Lot 46 North Size - 2 Size - 1 Size - 1 Lot 13 South Lot 12 North Lot 47 North Size - 2 Size - 1 Size - 3 Lot 15 South Lot 13 North Lot 48 North Size - 3 Size - 1 Size - 3 Lot 18 South Lot 38 North Size - 2 Size - 1 Lot 41 South Lot 41 North Size - 2 Size - 1 Average size value of soldiers' dwellings - 1.40 145 Lot 15 South Lot 13 North Lot 48 North Size - 3 Size - 1 Size - 3 Lot 18 South Lot 38 North Size - 2 Size - 1 Lot 41 South Lot 41 North Size - 2 Size - 1 Average size value of soldiers’ dwellings - 1.40 Table 43 Size Value of Officers’ Dwellings Lot 4 North Lot 18 North Size - 2 Size - 2 Lot 5 North Lot 19 North Size - 1 Size - 1 Lot 6 North Lot 21 North Size - 3 Size - 2 Lot 14 North Lot 35 North Size - 2 Size - 2 Average size value of officers’ dwellings - 1.87 Less than one half percentage point in size value separates the officers’ lodgings from those of the regular soldiers. As mentioned previously, however, a number of soldiers might occupy a single dwelling and, as a result, the density' of the occupation. was much, higher than ‘usually occurred in the homes of officers (Berndt. 1980, 107, 110, 111, 112). When this is considered, the small size difference in dwellings can be seen in better perspective; the officers lived in single family dwellings that were larger than the quarters shared by regular soldiers. Hypothesis VIII 146 Table 44 Complexity Value of Regular Soldiers' Dwellings Lot 11 South Lot 7 North Complexity - 2 Complexity - 1 Lot 15 South Lot 12 North Complexity - 3 Complexity - 1 Lot 18 South Lot 13 North Complexity - 2 Complexity - 2 Lot 41 South Lot 38 North Complexity - 2 Complexity - 2 Lot 41 North Complexity - 2 Lot 46 North Complexity - 1 Lot 47 North Complexity - 3 Lot 48 North Complexity - 1 Average complexity value of soldiers' dwellings - 1.83 Table 45 Complexity Value of Officers' Dwellings Lot 4 North Lot 18 North Complexity — 2 Complexity — 2 Lot 5 North Lot 19 North Complexity - 1 Complexity - 1 Lot 6 North Lot 21 North Complexity - 5 Complexity - 4 Lot 14 North Lot 35 North Complexity - 2 Complexity - 2 Average complexity value of officers' dwellings - 2.37 147 As expected, the complexity'of officers' homes was higher than for regular soldiers, although the difference is less than.a half percentage point" Only one house, on Lot 6 North, occupied by an officer was elaborate by Frederica's standards. Hypothesis XIX Hypothesis XIX stated that the construction values of officers' homes would. be higher than for those of the soldiers. Construction values for both groups are shown in Tables 46 and 47. Table 46 Construction Value for Regular Soldiers' Dwellings Lot 11 South Lot 7 North Construction - 2 Construction — 1 Lot 15 South Lot 12 North Construction - 1 Construction - 1 Lot 18 South Lot 13 North Construction - 1 Construction - 1 Lot 41 South Lot 38 North Construction - 1 Construction - 1 Lot 41 North Construction - 1 Lot 46 North Construction - 1 Lot 47 North Construction — 2 Lot 48 North Construction I H Average construction value of soldiers' dwellings - 1.16 148 Table 47 Construction Value of Officers' Dwellings Lot 4 North Lot 18 North Construction - 1 Construction - Unknown Lot 5 North Lot 19 North Construction - 1 Construction - 1 Lot 6 North Lot 21 North Construction - 2 Construction — 3 Lot 14 North Lot 35 North Unknown Construction - 2 Average construction value of officers' dwellings - 1.66 Construction values for officers exceed those of soldiers by slightly less than one half percentage point. No soldier lived in a homes built of tabby or brick, and only one officer did. This single construction value, however, had a positive, albeit small, impact on the construction values for officers' dwellings. Total mean values of the dwellings of both groups are shown below. Table 48 Total Values of Regular Soldiers and Officers Regular Soldiers Size — 1.40 Complexity - 1.83 Construction - 1.16 Total Value - 4.39 Officers Size - 1.83 Complexity - 2.37 Construction - 1.66 I 0" (D G Total Value . 149 The total values for the.officers are clearly'higher than those for the soldiers. Even these figures, however, do not fully portray the great disparity between the living conditions of the two groups. The single family dwellings officers enjoyed contrast with the soldiers' shared lodgings in ways that the simple evaluation of size, complexity and construction do not reveal. More than any other population category at Frederica, these two groups illustrate Dietrich Denecke's conclusion that dense occupancy characterizes lower value dwellings while homes of high value tend to contain fewer people (Denecke. 1988, 126). The evidence for the military hypotheses concludes the personnel hypotheses portion. Chapter Seven will present those hypotheses developed to test the importance of location at Frederica. While different in focus, it will be ultimately be seen that these two sets of hypotheses are not really discrete, but work together toward the end of providing more understanding of the nature of colonial Frederica. Chapter Seven Locational Hypotheses The values of dwellings which were calculated in the previous chapter described the architectural variation in Frederica and linked that variation to various population groups. In this chapter a correlation between architectural variation and location in Frederica will be evaluated. Hypotheses X, XI and XII were designed to test this link in an effort to further elucidate the meaning of architectural variation at Frederica. Hypothesis X Hypothesis X expresses the expectation that homes along Broad Street will be characterized by a higher total value than homes in other areas. Dwellings Along Broad Street Each figure in the evaluation represents the average value of the houses along the south side of Broad in that category and will be restated here. values for individual lots are provided in Chapter Six. The figures below do not separate officials or other groups and include all of the dwellings on each street. Table 49 Average Values for Dwellings on South Side of Broad Size - 2.10 150 151 Table 49 (cont'd) Complexity - 3.00 Construction - 2.00 Total Value - 7.10 With 10 lots evaluated, the:mean value of lots along the south side of Broad is 7.10 The lots on the north side of Broad are calculated in the same way as for the south side of the street. Table 50 Average Values for Dwellings on North Side of Broad Size - 1.88 Complexity - 2.77 Construction - 1.66 Total Value - 6.31 The nine lots included in the evaluation produced a total mean value of 6.31. The total values of houses behind Broad Street will be presented in courses comprised of all dwellings along a single street. These figures will be compared with total values of houses on both sides of Broad in order to determine relative values. Table 51 Average Values for Dwellings Behind Broad Street Lots 12-21 South - Size — 1.90 Complexity - 1.90 Construction - 1.22 Total Value - 5.02 Lots 31-41 South - Size - 1.90 Complexity - 2.10 Construction - 1.55 Total Value - 5.55 152 Table 51 (cont’d) Lots 12—21 North - Size — 2.00 - Complexity - 2.20 - Construction - 1.37 - Total - 5.57 Lots 31-41 North - Size - 1.87 Complexity - 2.12 Construction - 1.28 Total Value — 5.27 Lots 41-48 North - Size - 2.00 Complexity - 2.75 Construction — 1.50 Total Value 6.25 The figures demonstrate that the highest value dwellings did appear along Broad Street. Interestingly, however, those along the north side of Broad are only marginally higher than the total mean value for Lots 43, 46, 47 and 48 North which lay on the northernmost street in the settlement. These four lots rated a higher mean value due to the large houses on Lots 47 and 48, while the dwellings on Lots 43 and 46 were a small house and but respectively. Although both sides of Broad. were lined by houses relatively higher in value than those on back lots, there is a further breakdown in which structures on the south side of Broad had a higher mean value than those on the north side. The difference -between the north and south sides of Broad Street does not characterize the wards as a whole since Lots 12—21 South and Lots 12—21 North are very similar in their mean values as are most of the remaining courses of lots in each ward. In spite of the variance between the north and south sidesof Broad, the findings from this set of figures 153 verify that, as expected, the houses lining Broad Street were of greater value than those on the back streets. Hypothesis XI Hypothesis XI will test the expectation that homes along Cross Street will exhibit greater value than houses in other areas of Frederica. The Dwellings along Cross Street Five houses along Cross Street in the North Ward have been excavated by Jackson Moore but the results were generally poor. No Cross Street excavations have taken place in the South Ward, except for dwellings on the corner of Broad and Cross. Due to the lack of good archaeological data, the documentary record will provide much of the data for evaluation of these houses. The lots along Cross include Lots 35, 36, 17, 18, 6, 5, North and South and Lots 47 and 48 in the North Ward. Lot 36 North was the public bakery and will not be included. Because the value data has been reorganized to meet the objective of this hypothesis, total values will be given for each lot along Cross Street. . Table 52 Total Value of Dwellings on Cross Lot 5 South Lot 5 North Size - 1 Size - 1 Complexity - 1 Complexity - 1 Construction - 1 Construction - 1 Lot 6 South Lot 6 North Size - 2 Size - 3 Complexity - 2 Complexity - 5 154 Table 52 (cont’d) Lot 6 South Lot 6 North Construction — 1 Construction - 2 Lot 17 South Lot 17 North Size — 2 Size - 1 Complexity — 2 Complexity - 1 Construction - 1 Construction - Unknown Lot 18 South Lot 18 North Size — 2 Size — 2 Complexity ~ 2 Complexity - 2 Construction - 1 Construction - Unknown Lot 35 South Lot 35 North Size - 2 Size - 2 Complexity - 2 Complexity — 2 Construction - 2 Construction - 2 Lot 36 South Lot 47 North Size - 2 Size - 3 Complexity - 2 Complexity - 4 Construction — 1 Construction - 2 Lot 48 North Size - 3 Complexity - 4 Construction - 1 The average values in each.category'is presented.in Table 53. Table 53 Average Value of Dwellings on Cross Size - 2.00 Complexity - 2.30 Construction - 1.36 Total - 5.36 While there are pockets of higher value dwellings along Cross Street, the mean value of Cross Street houses is not substantially higher than the mean values of back street lots gene rally. The total mean value of 5.36 for Cross Street 155 houses is, moreover, nearly two percentage points lower than for houses on the south side of Broad and nearly one point lower than for those on the north side of the avenue. A better determination of the relative values of Cross Street houses is, however, gained through comparison of those houses with dwellings lying on back streets but not on Cross. For easy comparison, the table below includes values for both Cross Street houses and other houses in each course. Table 54 Comparison-Cross Street Dwellings and Others on Same Street Cross Street Houses Others Lots 5 & 6 South Lots 2-11 South(less 5 & 6) Size - 1.5 Size - 2.25 Complexity - 1.5 Complexity - 3.50 Construction - 229 Construction — 2.25 Total - 4.0 Total — 7.75 Lots 17 & 18 South Lots 12—21 South(less 17 a 18) Size - 2.0 Size - 1.87 Complexity - 2.0 Complexity - 1.87 Construction - 229 Construction - 1.28 Total - 5.0 Total - 5.02 Lots 35 & 36 South Lots 31-41 South(less 35 & 36) Size - 2.00 Size - 2.0 Complexity — 2.00 Complexity - 2.0 Construction - 1.50 Construction - 1.71 Total 4.50 Total 4.71 Lots 5 & 6 North Lots 2—11 North(less 5 & 6) Size - 2.00 . Size - 2.12 Complexity - 3.00 Complexity - 2.50 Construction - 1.50 Construction - 1.62 Total - 6.50 Total — 6.24 Lots 17 & 18 North Lots 12-21 North(less l7 & 18) Size - 1.50 Size - 2.00 Complexity - 1.50 Complexity - 2.25 Construction - Unknown Total - Undetermined Construction - 1.42 Total - 5.67 156 Table 54 (cont’d) Lot 35 North Lots 31-41 North(less 35) Size r 2.00 Size - 1.85 Complexity - 2.00 Complexity - 1.85 Construction - 2.00 Construction - 1.28 Total - 6 00 Total - 4.98 Lots 47 & 48 North Lots 43 & 46 North Size - 3.00 Size - 1.50 Complexity - 4.00 Complexity - 1.50 Construction - 1.50 Construction - 1.50 Total - 8.50 Total - 4.50 When compared with houses off Cross Street, total mean values for Cross Street dwellings are indeed higher. The values responsible for the higher average, however, occur sporadically. Values for Lots 35 North and South, and 47 and 48 North raise the Cross Street average values considerably. These values, and that of the dwelling on Lot 6 North, which stood on the corner of Broad, are primarily responsible for higher average values along Cross Street. The way high values are dispersed do not support a picture of a street lined by grand homes as occurred on Broad Street. Nevertheless, even a somewhat irregular pattern of finer homes on Cross, when combined with the consistently better houses on Broad, supports a pre-industrial character disposition of architecture at Frederica. That is, the finer houses lie in the center of the settlement while the poorer dwellings are found in the periphery. Hypothesis XII Hypothesis XII expressed the expectation that the domestic architecture located relatively nearer the fort, 157 storehouse and church will have a higher mean value than dwellings in other areas of the settlement. Houses west of Cross Street will be evaluated first in the South Ward and then in the North Ward. Total mean values derived from these figures will be calculated and will be compared.with the total mean values for houses east of Cross. As for the previous hypothesis, all values will be presented due to the objective of Hypothesis XII. Values will presented alternatively, houses west of Cross Street first and with.all values for each lot given, followed by those east of the intersection where total values for each category will be presented. Table 55 Values of Dwellings on Lots 2-53 Lot 2 South Lot 3 South Size - 3 Size - 3 Complexity - 5 Complexity - 5 Construction - 3 Construction - 3 Lot 4 South - Lot 5 South Size - 3 Size - 1 Complexity - 4 Complexity - 1 Construction - 7 Construction — 2 Average Values for Lots 2—5 Size - 2.50 Complexity - 3.75 Construction - 2.25 Average Total Value for Lots 2-5 South - 8.50 Table 56 Values of Dwellings on Lots 6-118 Size - 2.50 Complexity - 2.66 Construction — 1.83 158 Table 56 (cont'd) Average Total Value for Lots 6-11 South - 6.99 Table 57 Values of Dwellings on Lots 18-213 Lot 18 South Lot 19 South Size - 2 Size - 2 Complexity - 2 Complexity - 2 Construction - 1 Construction — 2 Lot 20 South Lot 21 South Size - 2 Size - 2 Complexity - 2 Complexity - 2 Construction - 2 Construction - 2 Lots 18-21 South Size - 2.00 Complexity - 2.00 Construction - 1.75 Average Total Value for Lots 18-21 South — 5.75 Table 58 Values of Dwellings on Lots 12-17S Lots 12-17 South Size - 1.83 Complexity - 1.83 Construction - 1.00 Average Total Value for Lots 12-17 South - 4.66 Table 59 Values of Dwellings on Lots 31-358 Lot 31 South Lot 34 South Size - 2 Size - 2 Complexity - 2 Complexity - 2 Construction - 2 Construction - Unknown Lot 32 South Lot 35 South Size - 2 Size — 3 159 Table 59 (cont'd) Complexity - 2 Complexity - 3 Construction - 2 Construction - 2 Lot 33 South Size - 2 Complexity - 2 Construction — 2 Lots 31-35 Size — 2.20 Complexity - 2.20 Construction - 2.00 Average Total Value for Lots 31-35 — 6.40 Table 60 Values of Dwellings on Lots 36-4OS Lots 36-40 South (41 not occupied) Size - 1.80 Complexity — 1.80 Construction - 1.40 Average Total Value for Lots 36-40 South - 5.00 Table 61 Values of Dwellings on Lots 2-5N Lot 2 North Lot 3 North Size - 3 Size - 1 Complexity - 4 Complexity - 1 Construction - 2 Construction - 2 Lot 4 North Lot 5 North Size - 3 Size - 1 Complexity - 5 Complexity - 1 Construction - 3 Construction - 3 Lots 2-5 North Size - 2.00 Complexity 2.75 Construction — 1.75 Average Total Value for Lots 2-5 North — 6.50 160 Table 62 Values of Dwellings on Lots 6-11N Lots 6-11 North Size - 2.16 Complexity - 2.50 Construction - 1.50 Average Total Value for Lots 6-11 North - 6.16 Table 63 Values of Dwellings on Lots l8-21N Lot 18 North Lot 19 North Size - 2 Size Complexity - 2 Complexity Construction - Unknown Construction Lot 20 North Lot 21 North Size - 2 Size Complexity - 2 Complexity Construction - 1 Construction Lots 18-21 North Size - 1.75 Complexity - 2.25 Construction - 1.66 Average Total Value for Lots 18-21 North — 5.66 HF‘H (new Table 64 Values of Dwellings on Lots 12-17N Lot 12-17 North Size - 2.0 Complexity - 2.0 Construction — 1.20 Average Total Value for Lots 12-17 - 5.20 Table 65 Values of Dwellings on Lots 31-35N 161 Table 65 (cont'd) Lot 31 North Size - 3 Complexity - 3 Construction - 1 Lot 32 North Lot 33 North Size - 3 Size - 1 Complexity - 3 Complexity - 1 Construction - 2 Construction - 2 Lot 34 North Lot 35 North Size - 2 Size - 2 Complexity - 2 Complexity - 2 Construction - 1 Construction - 2 Lots 31-35 North Size - 1.40 Complexity — 2.20 Construction - 1.40 Average Total Value for Lots 31-35 - 5.00 Table 66 Values of Dwellings on Lots 37-41N Lots 37-41 (Lot 36 is a public bakehouse and Lots 39 and 40 were not occupied) Size - 1.33 Complexity - 1.33 Construction - 1.33 Average Total Value for Lots 37-41 - 3.99 Table 67 Value of Dwelling on Lot 48N Lot 48 North Size - 3 Complexity - 4 Construction - 1 Total Value for Lot 48 - 7.0 162 Lot 43 North Lot 47 North Size - 2 Size - 3 Complexity - 2 Complexity - 4 Construction — 1 Construction - 2 Lot 46 North Size - 1 Complexity — 1 Construction - 1 Lots 43-47 North Size - 2.00 Complexity - 2.33 Construction - 1.33 Average Total Value for Lots 43, 46 and 47 North - 5.77 The dwellings on the western side of Cross Street are characterized by consistently higher values. These range from a minimum of .21 on the second street behind Broad in the North Ward to 1.51 along the south side of Broad Street. Five streets manifest more than a one point difference, while two (the north side of Broad Street and the second street north of Broad) display insignificant differences between the west side of Cross and the eastern side. All of the expectations expressed in Hypotheses X through XII have been verified through the findings preSented in this chapter. Some findings are, however, are of less magnitude than others. The housing values on Cross Street, for instance, while of some greater value than other houses on back streets, do not demonstrate the large value differential found in the housing along Broad Street. The significance of all of the findings discussed in this chapter will be more clearly illuminated in the conclusion where these results and 163 all of the findings discussed in this chapter will be more clearly illuminated in the conclusion where these results and those derived from the findings of the personnel hypotheses are combined and analyzed as a body. Chapter 8 Conclusion In chapters six and seven evidence was presented which demonstrated the relative values of the dwellings at Frederica. It was seen in Chapter Six that total mean values for dwellings of political officials of the settlement were substantially higher than for others in the settlement. This finding was consistent through all categories and the degree of difference was substantial in all cases. Three hypotheses expressing the expectation that occupational status had negligible impact on housing values were also tested. The results of the evaluations supported the expectation that traditional notions of occupational status were somewhat modified.at Frederica. In.those instances where an occupational group was largely comprised of political officials, however, the results were blurred by this conflation. It should be remembered that the findings reflect only the earliest years of Frederica’s history and do not address subsequent changes; investigation of occupational status as it developed later is a rich field for future study. The final personnel hypothesis stated the expectation that values of housing in two classes of the military would differ. The evidence demonstrated that officers did occupy housing of a total mean.value that was higher than for regular 164 165 housing of a total mean value that was higher than for regular soldiers. In addition, regular soldiers, unlike most officers, frequently shared their quarters and as a result their living space was undoubtedly further devalued. The locational hypotheses were designed to test the expectation that location and architectural variation could be correlated. The evidence for these hypotheses demonstrated that the housing on Broad Street was of a higher mean value than other dwellings in Frederica. Cross Street dwellings also tended to be of higher value than dwellings not located along that street, although.the difference‘was:not.as.dramatic as for Broad Street houses. Finally, it was established through the evidence that those dwellings which stood west of Cross Street, and therefore close to the fort, parade, storehouse and church, were characterized by a higher mean value than structures on the east side of Cross. While these hypotheses were presented separately, they are not unrelated. Because high value housing is correlated with both status and location, the most cogent way to begin interpretation of these findings is to combine the results. The first category of personnel, the public officials, and the location of the high value housing in which they lived is shown below in Table 69. Each dwelling with a total value of at least 6.0 will be indicated by an x, those with a total value of 8.0 or higher by an #, and 10.0 or higher a *. All other dwellings are signified.by'an o and unoccupied lots will be shown as -. 166 Table 69 Plan Showing Housing Values x Broad St. x - o o * x # o - x x * o x o - x x # * o o — x o o o o o x Cross Street 0 o o # o o x o o o o o o o x o o x x o - x o * # o o - o o # o o o o o o o x o o - A correlation of official status and location in the settlement can also be produced graphically. Bailiffs will be designated with.a B, constables with.a C, the Recorder with an R, and Tythingmen with a T. For officials appointed in case of vacancy, the letters will be the same, but enclosed in parentheses. Table 70 Plan Showing Location of Public Officials - Broad St. - - - - B B R - - _ _ C _ (T) - _ (T) - - T - - - (B) - - - - - - Cross Street - - T (B) - - — - _ .. (T)‘ .. .. - .. _ _ - _ (C) B _ _ _ _ _ - - C _ _ _ The association between high value housing, location, and political position can be seen in these representations. 167 Both occupational groups and military personnel can also be shown in graphic representations and this is done in Tables 71 and 72. In Table 71 the three occupational groups will be indicated by P for professional, L for Laborer and S for skilled trades class. Table 71 Plan Showing Location of Occupational Groups Broad St. Cross Stree mmmmmm mmmmm mmmmmm mmmm mmmrmm mmrm mmmrmmnmmmm mmmmmm mmmm mmmmmm mmmmm mmmmmm m: Military Officers will be indicated by an O in Table 74 and regular soldiers by an R. As mentioned previously, the dwelling on Lot 4 North was a much simpler construction during the time it was occupied by a military officer. Table 72 Plan Showing Location of Military Personnel - Broad St. - - .. .. - .. 0 _. .. - O - O O - - - R — O O O R Cross Street — - - O - - R - - - R - - R _ R .. _. .. R .. .. .. - _ o - _ _ .. - .. R .. .. R — R - R R - 168 Both the maps shown above and the evidence presented in chapters six and seven.present.a picture of Frederica.in.which political officials and military officers occupy conspicuous locations in the settlement as well as living in houses relatively higher in value than those occupied by other citizens. Significantly, the best of Frederica’s houses, those indicated by a *, all lie on Broad Street and three of the four earning this designation were occupied by public officials. Further, all of the houses which were of the highest value ranking and were occupied by Frederica’s officials stood west of Cross Street. In the second rank of housing, indicated by a #, the correlation between official position and housing value is less strong, with the Recorder Francis Moore and later military officers occupying one of these, and the other three owned by persons of no official status. One military officer and six of eleven officials, all but one of whom were alternates, occupied housing designated by an x, that is, houses of the third highest value ranking. In combination these results show a strong correlation between political position and high value housing and perhaps even more significantly, that there is an ascending ranking which correlates to the degree of status. That is, the best housing tended to belong to the most important figures in Frederica’s political hierarchy, while housing of lesser value was apt to be occupied by persons holding a less responsible and therefore less prestigious position. 169 There are, however, exceptions to this trend. The Third Bailiff, Edward Addison, for instance, not only lived on a back street, but occupied a dwelling that was of the third rank in value. Because his position was only slightly less prestigious than those of the other Bailiffs and the Recorder, expectation would place him in a fine house on Broad Street. In light of this expectation, it is important to note that Addison was removed from his original lot by General Oglethorpe when it was found to contain a good deposit of clay (Scott. 1985, 34 citing Egmont, vol. 14220, 9 and Egmont, vol. 14205, 253; Egmont. 1923, vol III, 217). Although.when Addison left Frederica in 1741 he gave the confiscation of his lot as the cause, it is not completely clear whether the lot in question was 15 North, or another lot from which he was moved 29 15 Nbrth. In the context of lot dispersal among other officials, the latter interpretation is a strong possibility. Addison and his lot/housing is not the only aberration to be found in the correlation between dwelling value and political position. Three officials lived in dwellings that were included in the lowest rankings at Frederica. One of these, Thomas Hird of Lot 13 North, had not been assigned any official position when he arrived, and, not surprisingly was given a lot on a back street. Hird, an able husbandman, subsequently chose to develop land outside of the settlement rather than concentrating on improvements within it. If Hird's lot assignment on a back street and disinclination to build an expensive home within Frederica's 170 walls is explicable, the situation.of‘Tythingman Will Allen.of Lot 6 South and Alternate Tythingman John Levally Sr., Lot 7 South, is less so. Neither ever built or occupied housing of high value at Frederica. Nevertheless, it is important to note that their lot assignments were, like those of a number of other officials, along Broad Street. Their failure to invest in good housing, as did their neighbors and colleagues, perhaps marks the gap between expectation and reality. In contrast to the obvious impact of political position, little significance was attached to occupational status in the granting of lots. While it is true that some individuals eventually obtained.wealth, and undoubtedly the social status accompanying it, in the beginning no such difference existed (Driesler. 1995. 894, 899). The lack of influence of occupational status in the assignment of lots and the subsequent social rise of some citizens suggest that democratic principles, including social mobility, marked life at Frederica in a way unlikely to have occurred in England. The promise of opportunity in the NewrWorld seems to have been fulfilled for some ambitious immigrants. Social principles at work in the civilian arena had little impact on the military segment of Frederica's population. While the late arrival of the garrison limited housing that was available to military personnel, within the choices that were left, officers frequently selected sites along Cross Street.where convenience combined with high value housing and location to invite the cluster of officers along 171 this secondary conduit. One of these officers lived on the corner of Cross and Broad while two other officers lived on Broad Street, Frederica's grandest avenue. The tendency of these men to occupy relatively high value houses in highly valued locations attests to the important part; military personnel, particularly officers, played in the settlement. Perhaps as a corollary, the low value housing, and remote locations associated with regular soldiers at Frederica suggests that these men occupied the lower end of the social scale. While there is little doubt that considerable social distance normally separates officers and regular soldiers, it should also be noted that regular soldiers, unlike many of the officers, frequently returned home to England after their military obligation was fulfilled in spite of the offer of small grants of land to those who would stay (Candler. 1904b, vol. II, 207; Candler. 1908b, vol. V, 347, 591; Candler. 1908a, vol.IV, 75;). For those who did plan to leave, there was little reason to improve upon the minimal housing that was available to them. Broad and Cross Streets, characterized by relatively high value housing and populated by prestigious personnel, divided the settlement into quarters. Cross ran from the southern boundary to the soldiers' barracks at the northern end of the community, while Broad Street, an avenue of twice the width.as Cross, led from the eastern gate to the parade and fort on the western edge of the settlement. 172 A crescendo of value marks the houses along Broad Street as the avenue proceeds from the eastern gate; the best houses in Frederica lie west of the intersection of Cross and Broad. The magnitude of authority also increases along Broad and at its zenith lie the superior homes of the First and Second Bailiffs, joined by that of the Recorder on the edge of the glacis. Broad Street thus formed an avenue of signification, flanked by Frederica's most imposing facades and terminating at the seat of civilian authority. In the vista west of these homes stood the fort, storehouse and church reminding all Frederica's citizens of the source of their support - Britain's military force, the generosity of the Trust and the tabernacle of their faith. The walls that enframed these components defined the focus and the limits of the message. If the correlation of architectural variation and authority comprised the message, its significance was linked to the need to establish an authoritative system within Frederica which could, in turn, be amplified through the network of forts along the Georgia coast. Notably, the lots of the First and Second Bailiffs were divided between two wards. That partition of authority was echoed by locating a Constable in each ward and, necessarily, a Tythingman in each ward as well. The division of authority distributed power across the settlement and set up a visual expression of Oglethorpe's plan for a chain of authority which began at the level of Tythingman and culminated with the Magistrates (Oglethorpe. 1990, 29- 31). 173 A material exhibition of authority was essential in the face of the essential powerlessness of the persons charged with governing the settlement. None of the magistrates could claim prior experience appropriate for leading any community, let alone one on.a military frontier. The problem.of fostering respect for officials who lacked the social or political credentials to set them apart from.others had been experienced earlier in Savannah (Coleman and Temple. 1961, 20 citing Candler, 1904a, 83, 1904b, 11,1906a, 379; Coleman. 1989, 22- 38; Egmont, vol. 14200, 108; Egmont. 1920, 295; South.Carolina Gazette, Aug. 25, 1733). There, where no differentiation in housing separated.political personnel from ordinary citizens, the Trust sought to enhance the prestige of officials by sending robes edged in sable for the Bailiffs and a "tufted" black gown for the Recorder (Coleman and Temple. 1961, 149; Coleman. 1985, 214; Moore. 1983, 18; Lane. 1986, 18). All of these men, and those who held office at Frederica, were particularly in need of an emblem of authority because their powers were entirely ascriptive and not gained through knowledge, previous experience or democratic competition. The findings related to»nulitary status expressed in architectural variation have a significance outside of the internal differences that were measured. That is, while officers occupied.housing relatively higher in value than that of the soldiers, their dwellings were generally of less value and. also less ‘well located. than. those: of the jpolitical officials. That pattern is, in.part, a consequence of the late 174 arrival of the military and probably also reflects lack of cOmmitment to long term settlement. Nevertheless, while housing values for military officers were less than that of the political officials, the values were higher than for many of Frederica’s citizens. The dwellings of the military officers did, in effect, hold an upper mid-level place in the architectural value structure of the town, a position that probably closely reflected the social status of these men. Although the apparent intentionality that characterized the housing and location of political appointees does not have an equivalent in the military, an effective symbolic message was still conveyed. Military officers, like political officials although to a lesser degree, occupied more influential positions than the citizenry at large, and their prominence was asserted in their housing. The use of architectural variation to symbolize status at Frederica was by no means a new idea. John Brinckerhoff Jackson has noted that in the building of medieval towns "- town authorities recognized the street as a versatile tool for exerting control" to which end ordinances "~regulating building height, design, construction,-" and.even.the pitch of the roofs were established (Jackson. 1980, 65-6). The political center at Williamsburg is only one example in the American colonies where building codes were established which served to display in wood and brick the differences in status between the citizenry (Whiffen. 1960, 80, 83). 175 While at Frederica no known regulations comparable to those at Williamsburg governed the buildings along Broad Street, the granting of main street lots to those who would be prominent citizens suggests an expectation that such persons would erect houses that expressed their social rank. There was, moreover, some monetary compensation for persons who held political or other positions at Frederica, an advantage which undoubtedly helped enable those people to afford better housing. The Bailiffs, for instance received thirty pounds yearly initially and later forty from the Trust for their work; other political personnel at Frederica were paid salaries commensurate with their responsibilities (Candler. 1904b, 236, 464; Coleman. 1985, 125-6,) John Calwell's income was further supplemented by a salary paid him for assisting engineer Samuel Augspourger (Candler. 1913a, 280; Candler. 1914, 305). In a rather graphic example of the connection between services rendered and investment in quality housing, Recorder Francis Moore requested reimbursement of four hundred pounds for his services up to 1739, an amount exactly equivalent to the cost of his house and grounds (Candler. 1908b, 552, 549). In addition to direct payments such as those listed above, there was undoubtedly an economic advantage for those who were not only politically prominent but centrally located. The profits which reflected all of these advantages could be, and seem in fact to have been, used for the expression of status through architectural display. 176 European and American precedents for the controlled variation in architecture found at Frederica were certainly familiar to General James Oglethorpe when he conceived his bastide on the southern frontiern But the classical ideals of the Hanoverian Age in which Oglethorpe lived may have been equally important in the formation of his ideas. The influence of the Roman architect Vitruvius (1st century B.C.) on Oglethorpe’s siting of Frederica is made clear by the extensive citation from Vitruvius’ Ten Books of Architecture included in Oglethorpe’s Designs of the Trustess for Establishing a New Colony in Georgia (Oglethorpe. 1990, 33- 36). The location of Frederica on a sea coast salt marsh met Oglethorpe’s, and Britain’s, military requirements but followed” as well, the recommendations of 'Vitruvius for choosing a satisfactory location. Oglethorpe may have been similarly inspired by Vitruvius’ ideas on "propriety" as it related to domestic architecture. Architectural variation, Vitruvius believed, should separate the wealthy and the important from ordinary citizens (Vitruvius. 1960, 16; Rosenau. 1959, 17). Those who govern, in particular, should be provided with suitable dwellings (Vitruvius. 1960, 16, 182). The thesis that architecture should reflect social position is not unexpected given Vitruvius’ ideas about the nature of architecture. "In all matters, but particularly in architecture," he said, "there are these two points:--the thing signified, and that which gives it its significance. That which is signified is the 177 subject of which we may be speaking; and that which gives significance is 21 demonstration CH1 scientific principles." (Vitruvius. 1960, Book I, 5). In Frederica, "that which is signified" is the authority vested in the public officials, and "that which gives significance" can be understood as the quality and location of the dwellings in which the officials lived. The likelihood of Oglethorpe’s familiarity with John Locke’s (1632-1704) theory of signs and their impact on human behavior, in conjunction with the undoubted debt to Vitruvius suggest that symbolic authority displayed in architectural variation almost certainly influenced Oglethorpe’s design of Frederica. The higher value of political Officials’ housing combined with that of military officers to define, both internally and.externally, the authority'and.power required to carry out Frederica’s assignment on the southern frontier. As long as Frederica’s military and political role in the south of Georgia was still in an active phase, the symbolic ordering of the built environment retained its meaning. In the early 1740’s, however, three signal events occurred which were to severely restrict Frederica’s development: a British military victory secured the area, the Trust began.t0‘withdraw support and the town court was dissolved (Candler. 1906, vol. VI, 146; Candler. 1904b, vol. II, 442-3; Candler. 1904b, vol. II, 446;Candler. 1915, 392; Lane. 1990, 627-648). That which was signified was, in essence, gone, and without it the signifiers had no message to send. The records of Frederica 178 the second half of the 1740's depict a society increasingly in disorder (Candler. 1915, vol. XXIV. 249, 252-3, 265, 409, 385-392; Candler. 1906, vol. VI, 241-42). As the sources and symbols of Frederica's coherence waned, the lands outside the walls began to hold greater promise than the plots confined within. Frederica's population responded.by drifting away to better opportunities. 179 Epilogue Frederica and the system of forts which were planted along the coastline of Georgia were designed to thwart Spanish claims to the area and establish England's priority. The British victory at the Battle of Bloody Marsh in 1742 secured the island and in 1748 hostilities were formally ended. The military function of Frederica was over and the second goal, that of long term settlement could begin to take place. With the cessation of hostilities, the disbanding of the town court and the removal of the garrison, Frederica lost its utility as a military settlement. Although a few persons remained at Frederica, it ultimately entered the annals of history as a town which had died (Jones. 1878, 45-140). Frederica's obituary' as it is 'traditionally' written is, however, much too pessimistic. Frederica's history as a military outpost and home for resettled British citizens comprised the early stages of the colonization described by Donald Meinig (1986, 65-66). The final episode would take the form of long term settlement' based on the development of agriculture. That development had.been encouraged by neither the plan' nor the responsibilities of early Frederica. In a practical sense, farming land which lay outside of the protective walls was not only awkward and old-fashioned, it was dangerous as long as hostilities continued (Lemon. 1987, 80). In spite of these issues, a model for agricultural development in Georgia had been in place since the early 180 eighteenth century' when British statesman. William Purry proposed that agricultural units should be located in the vicinity of military strongholds (Rabac. 1978, 49). Although Purry's plan.was followed in.most closely around Savannah, it also underlaid.the pattern of settlement in the southern part of the colony (Ibid, 50; Oglethorpe. 1994b, 230-239). Thomas Hird, it will be remembered, owned and farmed property outside Frederica's walls as did others of Frederica's population (Berndt. 1980, 104, 112). When British control of Georgia was secured, more of Frederica's citizens as well as newly arrived settlers began to request grants of land outside the settlement proper, demonstrating the desire to live and develop lands there (Bryant. 1975, 23-207). Requests continued to be made for a lot in the town of Frederica, but attached to such.a grant was an outlying plot of fifty acres. Lands accrued in this manner might form the nucleus of development or add to properties already under cultivation by some of the early settlers. These land grants signal a significant rise in property acquisition across the island, heralding even greater development in the 1750's (CR6 7, 411-2, 768-70, 788, 806, 808, 918-22). With the accumulation of land, and the relaxing of the prohibition against slavery, men could begin to develOp viable agricultural operations which were beyond the reach of the early settlers. The transition from military outpost to agricultural community that these develOpments signal has received little 181 scholarly attention. Most research of St. Simons' history has focused either on the early history of Frederica or the plantation era without consideration of the bridge between the two periods. The dynamic generative years between these two phases promises not only to be a fruitful period for future study but may also prompt reinterpretation of the legendary demise of Frederica. GLOSSARY GLOSSARY OF ARCHITECTURAL TERMS BEAD: a narrow semicircular ridge sometimes placed at the outer (lower) edge of weatherboards (Figure 28) Bin. 4 L .1 Figure 27. Beaded clapboard CLAPBOARD: a board constructed by splitting a log around the perimeter of its circumfrance. A board made in this manner will be thicker at its outer edge and thinner at its inner, a form which allows overlapping of the boards used to sheath a structure. Clapboard may also be used in its adjectival form to refer to a building covered with this material. (Figure 28) i- LIHA Ou (IIIOOILII Figure 28. Clapboard (cleftboard) 182 183 HIRED RAW“ TRUSS -\ A CLNMON rum -\ \ COLLAR BEAM -\ CLASTRL' CT ION LATH \ ~ FALSE PLATE WALL PLATE I’IE 351.34 005'” MORTISE JOINT LAI‘ JOINT —', DOWN BRACE \ HOLE-SET rosr w 4 0 I , . manaumeo suu. -/ / « FRAMED STUD -/ J. . NOCCINC CLAI’DOARDS '-., POSTHOLE - Fr; r'osmow Ag... .""""""“"’"" g . u. . . . \ .7‘4' EARTH FLOOR -/ \ .5 .-‘ \\ 2.33:... ‘ ’z \ Figure 29. Framed construction on posts 184 CLEFTBOARD: the meaning is synonomous with clapboard, but reveals more precisely the manner of construction EARTHFAST: referring to any manner of construction not using footings or foundations. The superstructure may be formed of horizontal logs or upright beams/logs set either into the ground or on top of it. FOOTINGS: a base for the superstucture, often excavated below the ground level. For wooden structures, footings may be in the form of piers spaced along the length of a wall, while masonry structures require continuous footings that are slightly wider than the walls they are to support. FRAMED CONSTRUCTION: also called timber-framed. A manner of construction.whichIItilizes bothnvertical and.horizontal.beams that together form the frame of a structure. The walls are load-bearing through their entire length due to the spacing of upright beams although heavier posts may be placed at corners where the greatest thrust occurs. Framed structures employ footings, along the top of which a sill rests. The lower ends of upright.posts are mortised into the sill and the upper ends are tenoned into a horizontal beam which is used to support either the roof rafters (1 story structures) or the joists of a second story. (Figure 29) HALL: a multi-purpose room associated with medieval and early American colonial dwellings. .A fireplace for cooking would be placed at one end of the room and eating, along with mok. other interior daily activities, would take place in this area. (Figure 30) Figure 30. Hall and parlour plan with lean-to 185 LEAN-TO: a single-story addition, characterized by a slanting roof. Such rooms, usually found at the rear of the main structure, frequently functioned as the kitchen but could be constructed for any purpose. (Figure 31) Figure 31. Added lean-to at rear of dwelling MORTISE: a cavity carved into a post or sill to receive the tenoned end of another post. (Figure 32) Figure 32. Mortise and tenon joint 186 NOGGING: material filling the space between upright posts. Clay, clay mixed with straw, or brick were frequently used materials. (Figure 34) _.—- ‘1;- ET 5%- =14 .. I j .J Figure 33. Nogging OUTSHUT: a room that projected out from the primary structure, often an addition and frequently in the form of a lean—to. PARLOUR: the second of two rooms in a hall and parlour plan. Traditionally, the parlour was reserved for leisure or special activities. (See Figure 31) PIER: a columnar, weight-bearing base for a superstructure. A pier could be made from large logs of decay-resistant timber, or of masonry. 187 PUNCHEON: a manner of building in which upright posts were placed directly into or onto the ground. The upright posts might be closely spaced and chinked with clay, or placed at some distance from each other in which case the instices would be filled with nogging. (Figure 34) ” ‘. ,, Tr,“ a . _.. r,‘ 1‘ ' In .1 ~ o rt? "fl . wl" 7r“ Figure 34. Puncheon construction TABBY: a material made of equal parts of sand, lime and water to which has been added seashells. The lime was itself usually made by burning shells. Tabby walls were formed by pouring the material into wooden frames about 18" high which held in. place by horizontal posts piercing the frame at intervals. When the tabby had dried, these posts were removed allowing the frame to fall away and the frame was then reset so that the next course could be poured. Both the interior and exterior walls were whitewashed or plastered to protect the material and probably to enhance their appearance. Tabby is found in the United States only in the Southeast. TENON: the projection at the end of a post which is inserted into a mortise to form a joint. (See Figure 32) SILL: a horizontal member, often of wood, which lies upon the ground and provides a base for the superstructure. (See Figure 29) WEATHERBOARD: sawn boards used to clad the exterior of a structure. The boards are thicker on one side than on the other to accomodate the overlapping necessary to provide a weatherproof covering. Like clapboards, these are most frequently placed horizontally but can be used vertically. 188 WHITEWASH: a mixture of lime and water used to cover and protect surfaces. any surface. APPENDIX 189 APPENDIX Roster of Original Lot Owners in Frederica The list below includes the names of those settlers who arrived in the spring of 1735/6 and who, therefore, were the first to receive lots at Frederica. A number of servants were also among the original settlers at Frederica but are not included because they did not own lots in the initial period of settlement. Abbot, Will - Lot 8 North. Woodcutter. Emigrated October 14, 1735. Omuxabhain case of vacancy (Coulter and Saye. 1949, 1). Addison, Edward - Lot 15 North. Milleru Emigrated.October 14, 1735 with wife, Mary, son, Edward and daughter, Mary. Appointed Third Bailiff September' 1735 (C05, 1% 670, jp.248). Left. Frederica December, 1740 (Coulter and Saye. 1949, 1). Allen, Will - Lot 6 South. Baker. Appointed Tithingman September, 1735 (C05, #670, p. 249). Emigrated October 14, 1735 with wife, Elizabeth. Left Frederica May 1741 (Coulter and Saye. 1949, 1). Bennett, Levi - Lot 9 North. Inn keeper. Emigrated October 20, 1735 with wife, Anne and son, Joseph (Coulter and Saye. 1949, 4). Levi left Frederica in 1738 and died the same year (Scott. 1985, 29 citing EL, p. 17). Anne subsequently married Samuel Lee, formerly servant to the Bennets (Ibid). Buckley, Henry - Lot 39 North. Occupation unknown. Emigrated October 20, 1735 (Coulter and Saye. 1949, 6). Calwell, John - Lot 4 North. Tallowchandler. Appointed Tithingman September, 1735 (C05 #670, p. 249 Emigrated October 20, 1735 with wife, Constance‘(Coulter and Saye. 1949, 8). Appointed.Third Bailiff in.case of vacancy (Scott. 1985, 25 citing Egmont 14203, 238, Egmont, 14220, 9 and 29; Egmont. 1920, vol.2, 199). Cannon, Daniel - Lot 6 North. Carpenter. Appointed Second Bailiff in case of vacancy September, 1735. Emigrated October 20, 1735 with sons Daniel and Joseph (Coulter and Saye. 1949, 8). Cannon left Frederica in 1740 (Scott. 1985, 28 citing EL, p. 29 and Cate Collection, I, ser. 2, folder 209. Cate, in turn is citing St. Philip’s Parish Register of Charleston, South Carolina). 190 Davis, Will - Lot 46 North. Tanner: Emigrated.October 14, 1735 and left Frederica by October 1738 (Coulter and Saye. 1949, 12). Davison, Samuel - Lot 3 South. Chairman. Appointed Second Constable September, 1735 (C05 #670, 248) and Second Bailiff in case of vacancy (Egmont. 1920, vol. II, 199). Emigrated October, 1735 with wife Susannah and daughter of the same name. Left Frederica by 1741 (Coulter and Saye. 1949, 12). Dobree, Elisha - Lot 21 South. Occupation unknown. Dobree had lived.in Savannah.prior to his relocation to Frederica. He arrived at the southern settlement at approximately the same time as the settlers from.England (Scott. 1985, 17 citing Egmont, 14220, 162, John Wesley. Letters, vol. 1, 198). Faulcon, Jacob - Lot 35 North. Millwright. Emigrated December, 1735 and left Frederica by November, 1738, but returned to stay two more years, after which he permanently departed the settlement (Coulter and Saye. 1949, 15; Coleman and Ready. 1985, vol XXIX, 187). Griffith, Daniel - Lot 10 South. Cordwainer. Emigrated October 20, 1735 and departed Frederica by 1736-7 (Coulter and Saye. 1949, 20). Hassel, Will - Lot 37 North. Occupation unknown. Emigrated October, 1735 but acquired a lot only in 1738. Hassel left Frederica with his daughter Elizabeth by August 1741 (Coulter and Saye. 1949, 22). Hawkins, Thomas - Lot 2 South. Surgeon/Apothecary. Appointed First Bailiff September, 1735 (COS #670, 147). Emigrated October 1735 with wife Beatre (Coulter and Saye. 1949, 22). Left Frederica to return to England in 1743 (Candler. 1904a, 462; Candler. 1904b, 146). Scott has suggested.that Hawkins never returned to Georgia (Scott. 1985, 3), however a Thomas Hawkins requested a grant for land in the southern part of the colony in 1747/8 which would, when added to what he already owned, amount to a total of 500 acres (Candler. 1904b, 488). This is, perhaps, the same Thomas Hawkins who occupied Lot 2 South. Hird, Thomas - Lot 13 North. Hird’ s occupation prior to emigration is unknown although Oglethorpe lent Hird money to set up a brewhouse at Frederica (Coulter and Saye. 1949, 23). Hird came to Frederica with his wife Grace, daughters Phoebe and Frances, and sons John and.Mark, the latter of whom lived on Lot 12 North (Ibid). At Frederica, the senior Hird 191 was described as a husbandman (Berndt. 1980, 104). Hird became a Constable in 1738/9 but occupied no political position either as an acting official or an alternate prior to that (Scott. 1985, 32 citing Egmont, 14203, 239, Egmont, 14220, 85, CRG 6, p. 128, EP vol. 14206, p. 143; Coulter and Saye. 1949, 23; Berndt. 1980, 107). Humble, John - Lot 8 South. Husbandman/Laborer. Emigrated October, 1735 with his wife Joannne who died soon after arriving in the colony (Coulter and Saye. 1949, 25; Scott. 1985, 9 citing Daily Advertiser, Sept. 18, 1735; Candler 1913a, vol. XXI, 157-8). Humble died in 1740 (Candler.1915, vol. XXV, 28 cited by Scott. Lawley, Richard - Lots 25 & 26 North. Occupation unknown. Embarked October 1735 with his wife (Candler. 1904a, 238; Scott. 1985, 39 citing EL 108 and Egmont, 14203, 239). Lawley seems to have had some financial resources as his family paid 10L toward his passage and owned an amount of iron goods which were sent to Frederica (Candler. 1903, vol. III, 107, 147). Levally, John Sr. - 7 South Shoemaker (Scott. 1985, 8 citing OL, p. 238 and EL, p. 110). Appointed alternate Tythingman prior to emigration in October 1735 (Egmont. 1923, 199). Levally, John Jr. - Lot 9 South. Shoemaker. Emigrated October, 1735 with his wife Anne (or Sarah) and children Mary and John. The family left Frederica in 1740 (Scott. 1985, citing OL p. 239, EL p. 110, Advertiser Sept. 18, 1735; Coulter and Saye. 1949, 30; Coleman. 1985b, vol. XXIX, 187). Loope, Thomas - Lot 19 North. Wheelwright. Emigrated October, 1735 with his wife Agnese (Coulter and Saye. 1949, 30). Scott, citing EL and Advertiser of September 18, 1735, has reported that Loope was appointed Tythingman (Scott. 1985, 36 citing EL p.111 and Advertiser, Sept. 18, 1735). .Although Documents such as the Hawkins/Eyre map, Egmont Dairies, or the Colonial Records do not give any indication of Loope having occupied such a post, it is possible that he succeeded Calwell in this position. Meyer, Henry - Lot 32 South. Husbandman. Emigrated August, 1735 with his wife Katherine and three sons and three daughters (Coulter and Saye. 1949, 35; Coleman and Ready. 1985, vol. XXIX, 151). Moore, Francis - Lot 21 North. 192 Recorder prior to emigrating and also functioned as the Storekeeper at Frederica (C05 #670, 248; Coulter and Saye. 1949, 35; C05 #670, 248). Moore resigned his office in 1740 and returned to England by 1743 when Captains Thompson and Horton were listed as occupying the house on Lot 21 (Coulter and Saye. 1949, 35; Berndt. 1980, 111). Moore, Will - Lot 47 North. Tanner. Emigrated October, 1735. Moore continued to operate his tanning business at Frederica (Coulter and Saye. 1949, 36). Moore was appointed Constable in 1740 and held the post until 1744 (Scott. 1985, 45 citing OL 239, EL 121). Parnell, Daniel - Lot 20 North. Brazier. Emigrated October, 1735 and left Frederica by 1738/9 (Coulter and Saye. 1949, 39). Parnell is reported to be an alternate Tythingman in Egmont's Diary (Egmont. 1923, 199). Paterson, Robert - Lot 31 South. Emigrated October 1735 with his wife Mary Anne (Coulter and Saye. 1949, 40; Scott. 1985, 18 citing CL 239, EL 161). Samuel Perkins - Lot 2 North. Coachmaker. Emigrated October 1735 but left by May, 1741. Perkins was appointed Second Bailiff by the Trustees (Coulter and Saye. 1949, 40; C05 #670, 147). Proctor, Thomas - Lot 17 North. Carpenter. Emigrated October, 1735 with his wife, Elizabeth, three sons and a daughter Susanna. Thomas, along with two of his sons and his daughter, had died by 1740 (Coulter and Saye. 1949, 41). A third son, also named Thomas, claimed Lot 34 North in 1738 (Ibid). Roberson, John - Lot 11 South. Bricklayer. Emigrated October, 1735 with his wife Hannah and son William (Coulter and Saye. 1949, 44). A son and a daughter were added to the family during the time the Robertsons lived in Frederica, but Hannah died (date unknown) and John retired from the colony Scott. 1985, ll citing Gegrgia Histgrical Sggiety Qollections II, pp. 107-110, 112-113 and EL 177). Shepherd, James - Lot 10 North. Wheelwright. Emigrated October 1735 and left Frederica in 1738-9 (Couter and Saye. 1949, 48). 193 Smith, John - Lot 33 North. Surgeon/Apothecary. Emigrated October, 1735 with wife Mary and daughter Mary and son Will (Coulter and Saye. 1949, 48). Spencer, George - Lot 5 North. Bricklayer. Emigrated October, 1735 with wife, Mary and daughter, Mary. Had left Frederica by April, 1740 (Coulter and Saye. 1949, 49). Stabler, David - Lot 16 North. Husbandman. Emigrated October, 1735; his wife Frances left England December, 1735. The couple left Frederica before 1741 with their three week old daughter, Susanna. (Coulter and Saye. 1949, 49). Tuckner (Tatzer, Detzner), Ambrose - Lot 18 North. Locksmith. Emigrated October, 1735 with wife Martha (or Betty) (Coulter and Saye. 1949, 53; Scott. 1985, 36 citing John Wesley Letters, vol. 1, p. 198). Walker, Thomas - Lot 10 North. Carpenter. Emigrated October, 1735 with wife Mary and daughter Sarah (Coulter and Saye. 1949, 55). Welch, John - Lot 5 South. Carpenteru Emigrated.October 1735 with.wife.Anne and two sons, James and John. Left Frederica by 1740 but had returned by 1743, being, as was said, "too great a rogue to live anywhere but in Georgia (Coulter and Saye. 1949, 56; Berndt. 1980, 108. H/E Lot 66). Weston, Willes - Lot 43 North. Tanner. Emigrated October 1735 and left Frederica by 1740 (Coulter and Saye. 1949, 57). White, Richard - Lot 35 South. Hatter. Emigrated October, 1735. Appointed Second Bailiff in case of vacancy, but died in 1740 without having acceded to that post (Coulter and Saye. 1949, 57; Egmont. 1923, 197; Coleman and Ready. 1985. vol. XXIX, 187). Wilson, Michael — Lot 7 North. Occupation unknown. Emigrated December, 1735 with wife Alkey (Candler. 1904a, 238; Coulter and Saye. 1949, 58). The Wilsons returned to England by 1743 (Candler. 1904a, 423; Berndt. 1980, 102. H/E Lot 54). LI ST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES Aston, Michael and James Bond. 1976. The Landscape gf Towns. London: J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd. Berndt, John. 1980. Research Notes on Fort Frederica National Monument. Manuscript on file at Fort Frederica National Monument, St. Simons Island, Georgia. Binford, Lewis. 1962. Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiggity 28:217-225. 1978. Evolution and Horizon as Revealed in Ceramic Analysis. In Historical Archaeology: A Guide to Substantive and Theoretical Contributigns, ed. Robert L. Schuyler. Farmingdale, N.Y.: Baywood Publishing Company, Inc. Pp. 246-249. Blanton, Richard E. 1994. Houses and Households. New York: Plenum Press. Bolton, Herbert E. and Mary Ross. 1925. The Debatable Land. New York: Russell & Russell. Bourdieu, F. 1977. Symbolic Power. Annglgs 32:405-11. 1977. Outline 9f a Theory 9f Pragticg. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bridenbaugh, Carl. 1955. i i in he W l n s . New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Bryant, Pat, ed. 1975. Entry of Qlaims for Gegrgia Landholderg, 1733-1755. Atlanta. 194 195 Candler, Allen D., ed. 1904a. seleniel Reeerge of the Stete ef Qeergie, Vol. I. Atlanta: Franklin Printing and Publishing Company. ed. 1904b. 1 i 1 a rd f t f Gear 1 , Vol. 11. Atlanta: Franklin Printing and Publishing Company. ed. —' 1906a. ge2eniel Reegtge 9f the §tete ef geergta, Vol. III. Atlanta: Franklin Printing and Publishing Company. , ed. 1906b. 1 ' l r h of r i . Vol. VI. Atlanta: Franklin Printing and Publishing Company. , ed. 1908a. n l r h a f e i . Vol. IV. Atlanta: The Franklin-Turner Company. , ed. 1908b. gelenia2 Reeerge of the §tete Qt fiegtgia. Vol. V. Atlanta: The Franklin-Turner Company. and William J. Northern, eds. 1913a. Q212siel_Bes2reda_ei_ths_§tste_2f_§e2rgie. Vol. XXI. Revised by Lucian Lamar Knight. Atlanta: Charles P. Byrd. and William J. Northern, eds. 1913b. 1 i l R c f h t i . Vol. XXII. Revised.by Lucian Lamar Knight. Atlanta: Charles P. Byrd. , ed. 1915- Q2l9aial.3e2etda_9£_the_§tate_9f_§eergie. Vol. XXV. Revised by Lucian Lamar Knight. Atlanta: Charles P. Byrd. Carson, Gary, Norman F. Barka, William M. Kelso, Garry Wheeler Stone, and Dell Upton. 1988. Impermanent Architecture in the Southern American Colonies. In r 1 L1 in 18§Q, ed. Robert Blair St. George, pp. 113-158. Cate, Margaret Davis. 1943. Fort Frederica and the Battle of Bloody Marsh. Ee9r9ia_§i§tgrisel_92erterlx 27(2):11-174. 1955. r1 D tal i . St. Simons Island: Fort Frederica Association. 196 Cate, Margaret Davis. 1956. The Original Houses of Frederica, Georgia: The Hawkins-Davison Houses. Qeorgia Hietorical gearterly 40(3):201-212. Clifton-Taylor, Alec. 1987. The gettern gt Englieh Beileing. London: Faber and Faber. Coleman, Kenneth. 1976. gelonial Qeergia-A Hietety. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. Coleman, Kenneth, ed. 1978. r 1 Hi i 1' . Revised edition. First edition, 1955, second edtion, 1960. Athens: University of Georgia Press. .1985. 1 i 1 R f he 0 r ' . Vol. XXX. Athens: University of Georgia Press. , ed. 1986. ni R rd f S f r ia. Vol. XXXI. Athens: University of Georgia Press. , ed. 1989. Qoleeial Reeeree of tee Stete ef gegtgie, Vol. XXXII. Athens: The University of Georgia Press. and Sarah B. Gober Temple. 1961. fieetgte_292teeye. Athens: The University of Georgia Press. and Milton Ready, eds. 1977. Qo2eniel Reeotde gt the Stete ef Qeergie, Vol. XXVII. Athens: University of Georgia Press. , eds. 1985. n R c r t f r i . Vol. XXIX. Athens: University of Georgia Press. Coulter, Moulton and Albert B. Saye, eds. 1949. A L' f h E r1 er of r i . Athens: University of Georgia Press. Davison, Samuel. 1738. Letter to John Gilbert, 26 April. Public Records Office, C05 649, Pt. I, p. 93. 197 Deagen, Kathleen. 1972. Pipestems and Drug Jars: The Colonial Middle Class in 18th Century Georgia. Manuscript on file at Fort Frederica National Monument. St. Simons Island, Georgia. 1975. Thirty Years of Archaeology at Frederica, Georgia. Manuscript on file at Fort Frederica Monument, St. Simons Island, Georgia. Deetz, James. 1977. In Small Things Forgotten. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Press/Doubleday. Demere, Raymond 1758. Letter. Margaret Davis Cate Collection, PH 62. Georgia Historical Society. Savannah, Georgia. Denecke, Dietrich. 1988. Social Status and Place of Residence in Preindustrial German Towns: Recent Studies in Social Topography. In Urbeg Historical Geggraphy. ed. Dietrich Denecke and Gareth Shaw. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Driesler, Johann Ulrich. 1995. Letter to Gotthilf August Francke, 1745. Trans. and edited by George Fenwick Jones and reprinted as "In Frederica the Oysters Grow on Trees: A 1745 Letter from its Lutheran Pastor, Johann Ulrich Driesler in Georgie Histgricel Quarterly 79 (4):883-903. Dunbar, George. 1739. Letter to Harmon Verelst, 25 June. C05 649, Pt. I, pp. 126-7. Eden, Peter. 1969. Small Houses in England 1520. London: The Historical Association Egmont, Perceival. 1920. Diary gf Visgoggt Percival afterwards the First Earl of Eggggt. Volume 1. London: His Majesty's Stationary Office. 1923a. Diety gf Vieggunt Percival afterwards the First Earl gt Egmont. Volume 11. London: His Majesty’s Stationary Office. Egmont, Perceival. Papers of the Earl of Egmont, 14 vols., volume 14200. University of Georgia Library, Special Collections. 198 Egmont, Perceival. A List of Persons who went from Europe to Georgia. Papers of the Earl of Egmont, 14 vols., volume 14220. University of Georgia Library, Special Collections. Oglethorpe List. Papers of the Earl of Egmont, 14 vols., volume 14203, 238-41. University of Georgia Library, Special Collections. Papers of the Earl of Egmont, 14 vols., volume 15205. University of Georgia Library, Special Collections. Papers of the Earl of Egmont, 14 vols., volume 14206. University of Georgia Library, Special Collections. Fairbanks, Charles. 1952. The Excavation of the Hawkins-Davison Houses. Excavation report on file at Fort Frederica National Monument. St. Simons Island, Georgia. 1956. The Excavation of the Hawkins-Davison Houses, Frederica National Monument, St. Simons Island, Georgia. Georgia Historical Querterly 40:213-229. Feister, Lois M. 1984. Building Materials Indicative of Status Differentiation at the Crown Point Barracks. Historicel Archaeology 18(1):103-107. Garvan, Anthony N.B. 1951. Architegture and Town Planning in Colonial Connectigut. New Haven: Yale University Press. Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The Interpretation gf Qulturee. BasicBooks, a division of Harper Collins Publishers. No publishing location. George, M. Dorothy. 1963. Lond :1 Li in the Ei hte nth n r . London: Penguin Books. Hamlin, Talbot. 1953. Arghitecture Thrgugh the Agee. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons. First published in 1940. Hawkins, Thomas. 1738. Letter to the Trustees. Public Records Office, C05 649, Pt. I, pp. 101-2. 199 Hodder, Ian. 1987. §ygtolic and Structural Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1991. Reading the Pest. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Honerkamp, Nicholas. 1975. Material Culture of Fort Frederica: the Thomas Hird Lot. Masters Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville. 1980. Frontier Process in Eighteenth Century Colonial Georgia: An Archeological Approach. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Florida. 1984. The Smouldering Ruin and the Ivyed Wall. Excavation report on file at Fort Frederica National Monument, St. Simons Island, Georgia. 1985. The Thomas Hird Family. St. Simons Island, Ga.: Fort Frederica Association. , R. Bruce Council and Elizabeth J. Reitz. 1985. On the Waterfront: Archaeological Research at Fort Frederica National Monument, St. Simons Island, Georgia. Excavation report on file at Fort Frederica National Monument, St. Simons Island, Georgia. Ivers, Larry E. 1974. British Drums on the Sguthern Frontier. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press. Jackson, John Brinckerhoff. 1980. The Neceseity for Reine. Amherst: The University of Massachusetts Press. Jencks, Charles. 1969. Semiology and Architecture. In Meening in Archit cture, ed. Charles Jencks and George Baird. Barrie & Rockliff: The Cresset Press, 11-25. and George Baird, eds. . 1969. New Yorszarrie and Rockliff: The Cresset Press. Johnson, James. 1992. Militiamen, Reggere, ang Redcgate. Macon: Mercer University Press. 200 Johnson, Mathew. 1993. ngei g gelture. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. Jones, Charles C. 1878. the Deed Towns of Qegrgie. Collections of the Georgia Historical Society, Vol. IV. Savannah: Georgia Historical Society. Kniffen, Fred B. and Henry Glassie. 1987. Building in Wood in the Eastern United States: A Time-Place Perspective. In Common Places, ed. Dell Upton and John Michael Vlach, 159-180. Athens: The University of Georgia Press. Lane, Mills. 1986. Archi cur fth 1 th: Geor ia. Savannah: The Beehive Press. , ed. 1990. Generel Oglethgrge'e Georgia-Colgniel Letters 1723-1732. Two Volumes. Savannah: The Beehive Press. Langton, John. 1990. Residential Patterns in Pre-industrial Cities: Some Case Studies from Seventeenth-Century Britain. In The Tudor and Stuart Town, A Reader in English Urban History, ed. Jonathan Barry. Originally published in Tr 8 ti n of h n tit f B ti h G r ra rs 65 (1975). Laslett, Peter. 1957. John Locke and the Board of Trade. flilliam eeg_Mety_Qgettet2y 3rd series 14: 370-402. Leach, Edmund. 1976. Qelture egg ggmmunicetign. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lemon, James T. 1987. Agriculture and Society in Early America. The Agricglturel Hietgry Review 35 (l):76-79. Lewis, Kenneth. 1984. Tee Ametigee Froetier. New York: Academic Press . Locke, John. 1964. An Eseey ggngerning Heean Qnderstenging, ed. A.D. Woozley. New York: Meridian Books. 201 Manucy, Albert C. 1962. The Fgrt et Freeeriga. Florida State University Notes in Anthropology, Vol. 5. 1960. Specifications for a Scale Model of the Town of Frederica in Georgia About 1742. M85. Fort Frederica Monument, St. Simons Island, Georgia. Marshall, Douglas. 1973. The City in the New World. Exhibition Guide. William L. Clements Library. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. McPherson, Robert G., ed. 1960. The Voyage of the Anne-A Daily Record. Geotgia Histgrical Quarterly 44:220-231. Meinig, Don W. 1986. The Sheging of America. New Haven: Yale University Press. . Meras, Gonzalo Solis de. 1925. Pegro Menendez de Avilee, Memoir, trans. Jeanette T. Conner. Gainesville, Fla:University of Florida Puma. Miller D. 1982. Artefacts as products of human categorization process. In Syetglic and Sttuctural Archaeology, ed., Ian Hodder. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 17-24. ' Moore, Francis. 1840. A ngage to Georgia BegLn in the Year 1735. Georgia Historical Society Collections, Vol. I, pp. 79- 151. Savannah: Georgia Historical Society. Originally published in London, 1744 by Jacob Robinson. Moore, Jackson. 1958. Excavations on Cross Street. Excavation report on file at Southeast Archaeological Center, Tallahassee, Fla. Morris, Charles W. 1938. The Neture gf a Sige. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Morrison, Hugh. 1987. Early American Architegture. New York: Dover Publications, Inc. 202 Mumford, Lewis. 1938. The geltpre gf Citiee. New York: Harcourt, Bruce and World, Inc. Neiman, Fraser D. 1986. Domestic Architecture at the Clifts Plantation: The Social Context of Early Virginia Building. In Cgmmon Placee, ed. Dell Upton and John Michael Vlach, pp. 292-314. Athens: The University of Georgia Press. Oglethorpe, James. 1990. Some Agcount gf the Deeigp of the Trusteee for establishin. Colon s in Americ , ed. Rodney M. Baine and Phinizy Spalding. Athens: University of Georgia Press. 1994a. Appeal for the Georgia Colony. In The Pepligatione 0; James Edwatd Oglethorpe, ed. Rodney M. Baine. Athens: The University of Georgia Press. 1994b. Account of the Provinces of South Carolina and Georgia. In The Pglicetions of Jamee Edwarg Oglethorpe, ed. Rodney M. Baine. .Athens: The University of Georgia Press. Passamore, J. A. 1965. The Malleability of Man in Eighteenth-Century Though. In A e ts f th Ei hteenth Centu , ed. Earl R. Wasserman. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press. Pp. 21-46. Pierce, C.S. 1931. Collected Papers. Cambridge, Mass. Porter, Roy. 1982. Eng2ieh eggiety in the Eighteepth Qentury. Harmondworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books. Public Records Office. Colonial Records. Grants of Land, Instructions and Petitions. C05 670. #247. Rabac, Donna Marie. 1978. Economy and Society in Early Georgia: A Functional Analysis of the Colony's Origins and Evolution. Dissertation, University of Michigan. Rapaport, Amos. 1969. ngse Fotp egg Qultpre. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall Inc. 203 Reese, Trevor Richard. 1963. Qoloniel Gegrgia-e §tudy in British Imperial Pglicy in the Eighteenth Century. Athens, Ga.: University of Georgia Press. 1969. Fregerica: Colonial Fort and Town--Its Plece in Histoty. St.Simons Island: Fort Frederica Association. Renfrew, Colin. 1984. Societies in Space: the Landscape of Power. In Approachee tg §ogiel Archaeology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Reps, John W. 1965. The Mating gf Urban America. Princeton, N.J.: The University of Princeton Press. Rosenau, Helen. 1959. The Ideal gity. Boston: Boston Book and Art Shop. Samson, Ross. 1992. Knowledge, Constraint and Power in Inaction: The Defenseless Medieval Wall. Historical Archaeglggy 26:26-44. Scott, James T. 1985. The Firet Familiee of Frederica; Their Lives epd Locations. St.Simons Island, Ga.: Fort Frederica Association. Schuyler, Robert L. 1988. Archaeological Remains, Documents, and Anthropology: A Call for a New Culture History. Hietgrigel Archeeolggy 22(2):36-42. Shanks, Michael and Christopher Tilly. 1987. §ogial Thegry egg ergheeology. Cambridge: Polity Press . Shillaber, Caroline. 1947. Edward I, Builder Of Towns. ,2pegp2ee 22:297-309. Shiner, Joel. 1958. The Colonial Houses on Broad Street, Frederica, Georgia. Excavation report on file at Fort Frederica Monument, St. Simons Island Georgia and Southeast Archaeological Center, Tallahassee, Florida. Shipley, Joseph. 1955. Dictignery of gerlv Englieh. New York: Philosophical Library Inc. 204 Schnore, Leo F. 1965. On the Spatial Structures of Cities. In The Study of Urbanization, ed. Philip M. Hauser and Leo F.8chnore. pp. 347-398. London: John Wily & Sons, Inc. Singer, Milton. 1991. Semiotics of Cities. Selvee and Culture_. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. and Robert Redfield. 1956. The Cultural Role: of Cities. Man in India 35(3):161-194. Sjoberg, Gideon. 1960. The Preindustrial City. New York: The Free Press. South, Stanley. 1988. Whither Pattern. istorical Archaeology 22: 25-27. Spalding, Phinizy, ed. 1995. The Wopen of Frederica. St. Simons Island, Ga.: Fort Frederica Association. Speck. W. A. 1977. Stability and Strife, England 1714—1760. Cambridge, Mass.; Harvard University Press. Stone, Lawrence and Jeanne C. Fautier. 1984. An Open Elite. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Taylor, Robert. 1975. Town Houses in Taunton, 1500-1700. Post- Medieval Archaeology 8:63-79. Tilly, Christopher. 1991. Social formation, social structures and social change. In Sympolic and Structural Archaeology, ed. Ian Hodder. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tout, T.F. 1965. Medieval Town Planning. The Town Planning Review 8:7-36. Trigger, Bruce. 1968. The Determinants of Settlement Patterns. In Settlem t Ar hae lo , ed. K.C. Chang, pp. 53-78. Palo Alto, Calif.: National Press Books. Upton, Dell. 1986. Vernacular Domestic Architecture in Eighteenth Century Virgina. In Qommon Places, ed. Dell Upton and 205 Upton, Dell. (cont'd) John Michael Vlach, pp. 315-335. Athens: The University of Georgia Press. Vitruvius. 1960. The Ten Books of Arghitecture. Trans. and ed. by Morris Hicky Morgan. New York: Dover Publications, Inc. Webb, Sidney and Beatrice. 1963. English Local Government, Vol. II. Hamden, Conn.: Archon Books, The Shoestring Press. First published 1906. Wesley, John. 1829. Volume 1, 3rd edition. London: John Mason. Whiffen, Marcus. 1960. Eighteenth-gentury Houses of Williamsburg. Williamsburg, Va.: The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. Wylie, Allison M. 1982. Epistemological issues raised by a structuralist archaeology. In Sympolic and Structural Archaeology, ed. Ian Hodder. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 39-47. "71111111111411