Qoo?

 

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

‘THE PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS ARMY’:
AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY OF ANGLO-AMERICAN
CULTURAL VARIABILITY ALONG THE SEVEN YEARS’
WAR FRONTIER

presented by

ANDREW STEPHEN FARRY

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

 

 

 

 

 

Ph.D. degree in Anthropologl
% Major Professor’s Signature
73?”, 4; 2006
Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

PLACE IN RE TL’i
TO A}
HAY BI R

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PLACE lN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/ClFlC/DateDue.p65-p. 15

 

 

 

 

 

'7: F
ANARCHAEC
VARIABTL

 

‘THE PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS ARMY’:
AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY OF ANGLO-AMERICAN CULTURAL
VARIABILITY ALONG THE SEVEN YEARS’ WAR FRONTIER
By

Andrew Stephen Farry

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
For the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Anthropology
2006

THE PEC
AN ARCHAEOLC
VARIABILITY

This dissertateof
frontiers. Frontier COT
pozm bat specific lorw
detail, M.i:tary trontte'
have not oflen been I!
oten than not these C
sutac‘ae only for ‘drua
the minutiae of mi'ita'
3&6!th perspectwe i
the i3'9‘3i process of
states emanded IDES
efisc‘ave core DOIle 1
Seen 35 Important loc
Mutations. Such a

and temporal contex‘

‘afi‘e.
l ‘

.5 “J“ _
II recDEI-“HZES

and pro
:- 556;”.
is Yhese ir

ABSTRACT
‘THE PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS ARMY’:
AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY OF ANGLO-AMERICAN CULTURAL
VARIABILITY ALONG THE SEVEN YEARS’ WAR FRONTIER
By
Andrew Stephen Farry
This dissertation proposes an archaeological model of colonial military

frontiers. Frontier contexts have long held the attention of scholars, even to the
point that specific forms of frontier settlement have been identified in minute
detail. Military frontiers are included among this number, but unfortunately they
have not often been the settlement type of choice among frontier scholars. More
often than not these contexts have been deemed analytically uninteresting,
suitable only for “drum-and-trumpet” efforts to study battlefield tactics, describe
the minutiae of military life, or re-fight old battles. This study advocates a very
different perspective on military frontiers. Such contexts are seen as integral to
the larger process of colonization, representing the means by which colonial
states expanded their physical presence into new regions and maintained an
effective core policy in peripheries. At the same time, military frontiers are also
seen as important loci of cultural contact between diverse frontier military
populations. Such contact was not experienced across the large-scale spatial
and temporal contexts tying periphery to core, but rather within more restricted,
face-to-faoe contexts and in the daily practices of frontier communities. In short,

this study recognizes the multi-scalar issues involved in military frontier contexts

and presents these in the form of a comprehensive military frontier model.

This muiti-sca
archaeologicaI Iii/90t
against Anglo-Amen:
northeastern North A.
the final struggle bent
American hegemony
Ataotic worid and she
eaoest in the remote
conflict across the 9131
@366 the first true we

event. itwas stilt pCa/e

:-
‘ F
.. 0§U

backgrounds that were
respects. Thus. we i
be divorced from their

mu 2' '
s in turn not obscur

interaction Chatacterist

Ihi r .
S eseath to unde's

exzsted between moo"
provincial aiiies along ‘

archaeohgrcaily.

 

 

 

This muIti-scalar frontier model serves as the basis for a series of specific
archaeological hypotheses and material expectations, each of which is tested
against Anglo-American archaeological data relating to the Seven Years’ War in
northeastern North America (ca. 1754-1763). The Seven Years’ War signaled
the final struggle between the colonial empires of England and France for North
American hegemony, one that ultimately defined the imperial character of the
Atlantic world and shaped the colonial trajectory of North America. Begun in
earnest in the remote forests of the Ohio Valley, the war would eventually spark
conflict across the global colonial landscape and culminate into what some have
called the first true world war. But while the conflict itself was a global-scale
event, it was still played out in small-scale spatial and temporal contexts:
individual frontier military settlements incorporating groups of diverse cultural
backgrounds that were united in overall political aims but divergent in many other
respects. Thus, while a focused examination of these military settlements cannot
be divorced from their larger, external political contexts, such broad contexts
must in turn not obscure the more localized processes of cultural diversity and
interaction characteristic of all peripheral military environments. It is the intent of
this research to understand the nature of such small-scale cultural diversity as
existed between imported British regulars forces and their indigenous American

provincial allies along the Seven Years' War military frontier, as can be observed

archaeologically.

To my mother and father

A nur'i'9'3r C
foremost. Ken Lev
the long Dmss‘
needed dam to t’
sewed as 3 mm
Chris Danieis a’so
Loris and Jodie 0'
Man) of the ideas in
tenure as graduate

Chuck F ishe
York State Moses-n
starts as an inspzre
York State Office C.‘
graCIO'JSIY ptowdec‘
and information on {

IN“ All ‘
”ems beIIli'id mus

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

A number of people have helped in the completion of this work. First and
foremost, Ken Lewis served as mentor, friend, and committee chair throughout
the long process. His sage advice and constructive commentary provided much
needed clarity to this study. Helen Pollard provided important feedback and
served as a source of inspiration and encouragement. Lynne Goldstein and
Chris Daniels also served as important members of my graduate committee. Bill
Lovis and Jodie O’Gonnan provided the initial impetus behind this research.
Many of the ideas were also developed in conversation with Rob Cook during our
tenure as graduate students at Michigan State University.

Chuck Fisher provided access to Fort George collections held at the New
York State Museum, and his pioneering archaeological work at Crown Point
stands as an inspiration behind much of these pages. Lois Feister of the New
York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP)
graciously provided access to Fort Gage data. David Starbuck provided data
and information on occasions too many to count, and has been the primary
impetus behind much of the Seven Years’ War archaeological fieldwork
conducted in northern New York to date. Ed Curtin provided a supportive and
stimulating working environment during much of the writing process.

But most of all, thanks and much more are due to Cathleen Catalfamo, the
one person without whom this dissertation could not have been finished, and the

one who is most glad that it finally is.

CHAPTER1

lNTRODUCTlON ..
Dissertation Intr:
Drssemtion Res
Reievance OI Re
D;ssenation OTC?

CHAPTER 2
THEORETICAL CC
Chapter InthCUC
Macro-Scale The
Trans-Atiantrc
Frontier Coton.
Micro-scale Thec
Cultural Divers
Cultural ldentt
Historical F ra'ne.
Anglo-America
Chapter Summer

CHAPTER 3

THE COLONIAL ht:
HYPOTHESES
Chapter Introdué,
Cotonral hirina'y F
Archaeological H
SmaII-Scaie SE
ar96-Scaie 8;

Chapter Summa,

SEWER 4
”VI-IAEOLO Ilfin
YtARS WfARGIvfi.

has: .........

er lntr ,

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
Dissertation Introduction .................................................................................... 2
Dissertation Research Problem: Overview ........................................................ 3
Relevance of Research ..................................................................................... 7
Dissertation Organization by Chapter .............................................................. 10
CHAPTER 2
THEORETICAL CONCEPTS AND HISTORICAL FRAMEWORK ...................... 16
Chapter Introduction ........................................................................................ 17
Macro-Scale Theoretical Concepts ................................................................. 2O
Trans-Atlantic Core-Periphery Perspectives ................................................ 20
Frontier Colonization .................................................................................... 25
Micro-scale Theoretical Concepts ................................................................... 29
Cultural Diversity and Interaction ................................................................. 29
Cultural Identity ............................................................................................ 35
Historical Framework: Pluralist Perspectives on the Seven Years’ War .......... 4O
Anglo-American Cultural Diversity During the Seven Years’ War ................ 42
Chapter Summary ........................................................................................... 52
CHAPTER 3
THE COLONIAL MILITARY FRONTIER MODEL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL
HYPOTHESES ................................................................................................... 53
Chapter Introduction ........................................................................................ 54
Colonial Military Frontier Model ....................................................................... 55
Archaeological Hypotheses ............................................................................. 61
Small-Scale Spatio-Temporal Contexts ....................................................... 62
Large-Scale Spatio—Temporal Contexts ....................................................... 72
Chapter Summary ........................................................................................... 81
CHAPTER 4
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AND THE RESEARCH CONTEXT OF THE SEVEN
YEARS’ WAR ...................................................................................................... 83
Chapter Introduction ........................................................................................ 84
Descriptive/ Typological Approaches .............................................................. 88
Fort Necessity, PA ....................................................................................... 89
Fort Ligonier, PA .......................................................................................... 92
Fort Stanwix, NY .......................................................................................... 93
Fort William Henry, NY ................................................................................ 96
Fort Edward/ Rogers Island, NY .................................................................. 98
Fort George, NY ........................................................................................ 100
Fort Gage, NY ............................................................................................ 102

vi

Analytical App'
Fort Ligonie'
Fon Bea-use;
Fort Michitzrn
Crown Point.

Chapter Summ

CHAPTER 5
ARCHAEOLOGIC
CheTiter Introdc
Archaeoiogrgg
Hypothess 1
HW’JTI‘r-ESIS 2
Hymm‘ESES 3
III/90918515 4
Archaeolocgrgai i
HiDOthess 5
HTDOthesis 7_
Hypothess 5.

CHAPTER 6
0".”ERVEEN. CON
Chapter Introdu:
Summary of Tes
Hypothess 1 I
Hypothess 2 t
Hypothesés 3 t
Hypothess 4 E
Summary of Tes
Hypothesis 5 <
Hypothess 5 2
Hi’DOtheszs 7 <
i’DOthGSES 8 E
raluatIOns and:
oven Years' 3::

Analytical Approaches ................................................................................... 104

Fort Ligonier, PA ........................................................................................ 105
Fort Beauséjour, NB .................................................................................. 106
Fort Michilimackinac, MI ............................................................................ 108
Crown Point, NY ........................................................................................ 110
Chapter Summary and Assessment .............................................................. 113
CHAPTER 5
ARCHAEOLOGICAL TESTING ........................................................................ 116
Chapter Introduction ..................................................................................... .1 17
Archaeological Hypotheses: Small-scale Contexts ....................................... 118
Hypothesis 1. ............................................................................................. 121
Hypothesis 2. ............................................................................................. 139
Hypothesis 3. ............................................................................................. 155
Hypothesis 4. ............................................................................................. 180
Archaeological Hypotheses: Large-Scale Contexts ....................................... 201
Hypothesis 5 and Hypothesis 6. ................................................................ 202
Hypothesis 7. ............................................................................................. 223
Hypothesis 8. ............................................................................................. 243
CHAPTER 6
OVERVIEW, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS ....................................... 251
Chapter Introduction ...................................................................................... 252
Summary of Testing Results: Small-scale Hypotheses ................................. 253
Hypothesis 1 Summary .............................................................................. 256
Hypothesis 2 Summary .............................................................................. 257
Hypothesis 3 Summary .............................................................................. 259
Hypothesis 4 Summary .............................................................................. 260
Summary of Testing Results: Large-Scale Hypotheses ................................ 262
Hypothesis 5 Summary .............................................................................. 263
Hypothesis 6 Summary .............................................................................. 265
Hypothesis 7 Summary .............................................................................. 267
Hypothesis 8 Summary ....... ‘ ....................................................................... 269
Evaluations and Conclusions ........................................................................ 271
Seven Years’ War Archaeology ..................................................................... 279
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................... 285

vii

Table I: Musket C
Table 2: Sherd an

Table 3: Ceramic '

oooooooooooooooooooooo

Table 4: Ceramic I
Table 5: Ceramic 5

Table 6: Button h;

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Musket ball diameter counts per British and provincial contexts. ........ 127
Table 2: Sherd and vessel counts per British and provincial structures. ........... 144

Table 3: Ceramic vessel form frequencies per British and provincial structures.
................................................................................................................... 146

Table 4: Ceramic vessel function counts per structure (Farry 2005a: 28). ........ 150
Table 5: Ceramic Sherd counts for Fort George barracks buildings. ................. 168

Table 6: Button type frequencies at Fort George and Fort Gage ...................... 238

viii

 

Figure 1: The north
Years' War, so

Figure 2: Detail of p

Figure 3: Oistnbutio
Farry 2335546

Figure 4: Distnbutio
(based on Fa'n

Figure 5; Distributes
Parry 20C5'o:4*3

Figure 6: Distribute:
2035a.27)........

FI5.741? 7: Distribute:
Farry 2325a 27

”we 12; PI

an ‘ -.
IOUTTdat we"

Ions 0‘.-

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: The northeast colonial frontier in North America during the Seven

Years’ War, Showing select British and French settlements. ....................... 86
Figure 2: Detail of portage sites in northeastern New York. ................................ 87
Figure 3: Distribution of Rogers Island barracks musket ball diameters (based on

Farry 2005bz464). ...................................................................................... 128
Figure 4: Distribution of Fort William Henry west barracks musket ball diameters

(based on Farry 2005bz464). ..................................................................... 129
Figure 5: Distribution of Fort George barracks musket ball diameters (based on

Farry 2005bz465). ...................................................................................... 130
Figure 6: Distribution of Stanwix barracks musket ball diameters (based on Farry

2005a:27) ................................................................................................... 131
Figure 7: Distribution of Rogers Island hut 6 musket ball diameters (based on

Fany 2005a:27). ........................................................................................ 134
Figure 8: Distribution of Rogers Island hut 1 musket ball diameters (based on

Farry 2005bz467). ...................................................................................... 135
Figure 9: Categories of lead shot based on distributions Shown in Figures 7 and

8 ................................................................................................................. 136
Figure 10: CA plot based on Table 3 vessel form frequencies .......................... 148

Figure 11: CA plot based on Table 4 vessel function frequencies (based on Farry
2005a:29, Figure 5). .................................................................................. 151

Figure 12: Plan view of Fort George barracks buildings showing exposed
foundations, observed building outlines, and excavation limits .................. 163

Figure 13: Plan of Fort George barracks showing projected building footprint. 164

Figure 14: Rogers Island provincial hut 1 (based on Starbuck 2004254, Figure
5.8). ........................................................................................................... 173

Figure 15: Rogers Island provincial hut 2 (based on Starbuck 2004:55, Figure
5.10). ......................................................................................................... 174

 

Fioure16: Rogers
5.13). .............

Figure 17; Rogers
5.14). .............

Figure 18: Rogers
5.19). ............

F'gure 1.9: Rogers
522). .............
Figure 20: Plan vre
barracks build

(contour inter;

Figure 21: Profiée c
feature. View i

Figure 22: Artrtact <

FWE 23; Detail 0"
(based on And

Figure 24:0vervievr
archaeologists

Figure 25: Spatial C
Figure 26: Spatal C
Figure 27: Spatial C

Figure 28; Spa: at r

n» I;
Zu‘o‘obfifig).
Fig», '
FIT" Pp
SI... 31. Categnr

Figure 16: Rogers Island provincial hut 3 (based on Starbuck 2004:57, Figure
5.13). ......................................................................................................... 175

Figure 17: Rogers Island provincial hut 4 (based on Starbuck 2004:58, Figure
5.14). ......................................................................................................... 176

Figure 18: Rogers Island provincial hut 5 (based on Starbuck 2004:61, Figure
5.19). ......................................................................................................... 177

Figure 19: Rogers Island provincial hut 6 (based on Starbuck 2004:63, Figure
5.22). ......................................................................................................... 178

Figure 20: Plan view of the 50-cm wide trench at Fort George showing the
barracks building corner, stockade feature, and Slope leading towards marsh

(contour interval= cms. below datum). ....................................................... 193
Figure 21: Profile of the 50-cm wide Fort George trench Showing the stockade
feature. View north ..................................................................................... 194
Figure 22: Artifact counts along the 50-Cm Fort George trench. ....................... 195
Figure 23: Detail of Humphrey Bland's "Layout of a Regular Battalion Area"
(based on Anderson 1984:91). .................................................................. 206
Figure 24:Overview plan of Crown Point huts discovered by OPRHP
archaeologists (based on Fisher 19932Figure 3) ........................................ 207
Figure 25: Spatial Overlay of CP Feature 1 with Colonel dwelling. ................... 214
Figure 26: Spatial Overlay of CP Feature 2 with Colonel dwelling. ................... 215
Figure 27: Spatial Overlay of CP Feature 3 with Colonel dwelling. ................... 216
Figure 28: Spatial Ovenay of CP Feature 2 with Lt. Colonel dwelling. .............. 217

Figure 29: Distribution of Fort Gage musket ball diameters (based on Farry
2005bz469) ................................................................................................. 229

Figure 30: Categories of lead Shot among British barracks and Fort Gage. ..... 230
Figure 31: Categories of lead Shot among Rogers Island Hut and Fort Gage. .231

Figure 32: CA plot of Table 6 button types at Fort George and Fort Gage. ...... 239

CHAPTER 1:

INTRODUCTION

 

 

033011350" lntrodUC

In simplest torrr
frontiers. Its focus ce'
colonial states clazme:
Frontier contexts have
point that specific for"-
detail Miiitary frontier
have not often been ti
ohen than not these c
sot-table only for ‘drur
the minutiae of miirtar
DE'SDectzve on miiita'
to the larger process
513195 expanded the
effective core DOIICy I
Seen as "‘lportant (O:

C i.
D .Du auOnS. SUCh Ct

3m temDOral CODText

laoe-toface contexzs

Dissertation Introduction

In simplest form, this is an archaeological study of colonial military
frontiers. Its focus centers on those extended, remote areas in which expanding
colonial states claimed or defended sovereignty through military settlement.
Frontier contexts have, of course, long held the attention of scholars, even to the
point that specific forms of frontier settlement have been identified in minute
detail. Military frontiers are included among this number, but unfortunately they
have not often been the settlement type of choice among frontier scholars. More
often than not these contexts have been deemed analytically uninteresting,
suitable only for “drum-and-trumpet” efforts to study battlefield tactics, describe
the minutiae of military life, or re-fight old battles. In these pages a very different
perspective on military frontiers is advocated. Such contexts are seen as integral
to the larger process of colonization, representing the means by which colonial
states expanded their physical presence into new regions and maintained an
effective core policy in peripheries. At the same time, military frontiers are also
seen as important loci of cultural contact between diverse frontier military
populations. Such contact was not experienced across the large-scale spatial
and temporal contexts tying periphery to core, but rather within more restricted,
face-to—face contexts and in the daily practices of frontier communities. In short,
this study recognizes the multi-scalar issues involved in colonial military frontiers.
It recognizes that military frontiers were obvious manifestations of core-periphery
contact, but that they also served as much more restricted arenas of cultural

interaction between specific colonial groups. While such a multi-scalar approach

 

 

is not unique to these

frontiers IS-

mention Reseal
Archaeolog'CE
frontier communities
treatment of periphe'
FarryZOCSat15-17)
peripheries are linke
such settlements hat
influences. This plar
frontiers as areas o'e
homogenous Popula
3”” a ’Mefintion or
in which crosSQLfim

drierent spatial and

is not unique to these pages, its application to functionally specific military

frontiers is.

Dissertation Research Problem: Overview

Archaeological approaches to the nature of social organization among
frontier communities have been critiqued as being too “colonizer-centric” in their
treatment of peripheral settlements (Lightfoot and Martinez 1995; Stein 1999;
Farry 2005az16-17). As a result of a Single macro-scale perspective in which
peripheries are linked to their structural position in global economic systems,
such settlements have inevitably been portrayed as passive recipients to core
influences. This pluralist critique has also highlighted the implicit assumptions of
frontiers as areas defined by crisp ethnic boundaries dividing relatively
homogenous populations. These issues have prompted a re-conceptualization
and a re-definition of frontier communities as active “zones of cultural interfaces
in which cross-cutting, segmentary groups can be defined and recombined at
different spatial and temporal scales of analysis” (Lightfoot and Martinez
1 9952474).

With this critique in mind, this dissertation examines the role of such
segmentary group dynamics in frontier military contexts, as expressed through
material evidence. Its central theme rests upon the argument that small-scale
processes of cultural diversity and interaction must come to be recognized as a
defining feature of the colonial frontier experience, even among those frontier

settlement types for which large-scale external influences may seem paramount

(i.e. military contexts). Attention is drawn to the category “colonizer” to
understand how actual cultural variability implicit in this label is manifest among
small-scale spatial and temporal contexts, and how this variability might change
among larger scales of analysis. If indeed the effect of a large-scale structural
perspective on frontier settlements has been to dichotomize them into
homogenous categories of “colonizer” and “colonized,” a more refined level of
resolution is likely the appropriate venue in which cultural variability and
segmentary groups can be observed. This poses the general question: are the
behaviors reflective of differing group identities or ethnic boundaries (those
frontier communities which define the variability within the designation
“colonizer”) clearly visible in the archaeological record within small-scale spatial
and temporal contexts? Alternatively, are such identities indeed redefined or
recombined if observed within ever-larger Spatial or temporal frames of
reference? In attempting to answer these questions, this dissertation presents a
scalar model of military frontiers which is then explored along the British military
frontier of northern New York during the Seven Years’ War. While the model is
multi-scalar in its design, archaeological testing of the model is confined primarily
to exploring the archaeological evidence for small-scale cultural variability in
frontier military environments, in part due to data availability. The manner in
which larger spatial contexts serve to reconfigure cultural boundaries is
examined, but primarily as means to suggest future research questions.

Frontier research has benefited from a core-periphery framework that has

revealed the large-scale external networks or non-local influences present

 

 

among Peripheral 5
notice the diverse s
rirversrlil Shaped thr
raised these very 54
general (Lightfoot a
proposes to aDD‘Y 5
specific military fror
A fundament
will in fact be ref'ect
nature of interaction
which these occur.
then seem likely that
boundaries would be
nature 0f cultural ma
smallscale bounded

ever larger scales. T

erected (d. Lighttoot
units subied to recon

Military frontier
Created primarily to e

Denpheral Settlemen‘

among peripheral settlements. At the same time, this framework has failed to
notice the diverse social groups occupying colonial environments or how such
diversity shaped the fabric of colonial societies. While other researchers have
raised these very same concerns for the archaeological study of frontiers in
general (Lightfoot and Martinez 1995; Cusick 1998; Wells 2005), this dissertation
proposes to apply such thinking to the archaeological study of functionally
specific military frontiers.

A fundamental assumption of this analysis is that clear cultural boundaries
will in fact be reflected in the archaeological record, particularly based on the
nature of interactions between frontier populations and on the contexts within
which these occur. If cultural groups do recombine at different scales it would
then seem likely that within a single frame of reference or scale of analysis clear
boundaries would be observed. The active “overlapping” and “cross-cutting”
nature of cultural margins may be manifest in the processes through which these
small-scale bounded categories are redefined or restructured among different or
ever larger scales. The existence of such sharp boundaries is therefore not
rejected (cf. Lightfoot and Martinez 1995); they are rather recast as malleable
units subject to reconfigurations in different scalar contexts.

Military frontiers offer a unique perspective on the frontier experience.
Created primarily to establish and maintain political control over a region of
peripheral settlement, such settlements are necessarily closely linked to external
concerns and to the dictates of the parent state (Lewis 1984:286). A large-scale

“colonizer-centric” approach would thus seem most appropriate, as such

fihfiUJlL‘

 

settlemeFits more!
peripheral regions
balanced approaCi
settlements as we
characteristic of a?
military settlement:
“both the MOO-'13”:
as well as the socze
frontier contexts” (L
pluralist critique of i
Perspective. particu
influences served a

Archaeologrc
eastern North Amen

this discussion (Farr

settlements represent the most direct extension of a core state’s power into
peripheral regions. Acknowledging the effect of scale, however, enables a
balanced approach that recognizes both the larger external concerns of military
settlements as well as the more localized processes of cultural interaction
characteristic of all frontier environments. This is not to underestimate the role of
military settlements within an expanding colonial system, but rather to provide for
“both the important role that core-periphery interactions play in frontier studies,
as well as the socially charged arena of intercultural or interethnic interactions in
frontier contexts” (Lightfoot and Martinez 1995:487). This further emphasizes the
pluralist critique of interpreting peripheries solely from a core-dominated
perspective, particularly instances (i.e. military settlements) in which external
influences served a fundamental role.

Archaeological data relating to sites of British military expansion along
eastern North America during the Seven Years’ War serve as a case study for
this discussion (Farry 2005a, 2005b). The Seven Years’ War (ca. 1754-1763)
signaled the final struggle between the colonial empires of England and France
for North American hegemony, one that ultimately defined the imperial character
of the Atlantic world and shaped the colonial trajectory of North America. Begun
in earnest in the remote forests of the Ohio Valley, the war would eventually
spark conflict across the global colonial landscape and culminate into what some
have called the first true world war (e.g., Todish 2002). But while the conflict
itself was a global-scale event, it was still played out in small-scale spatial and

temporal contexts: individual frontier military settlements incorporating groups of

diverse backgrounds that were united in overall political aims but divergent in
many other respects. Thus, while a focused examination of these military
settlements cannot be divorced from their larger, external political contexts, such
broad contexts must in turn not obscure the more localized processes of cultural
diversity characteristic of peripheral military environments. It is the intent of this
research to understand, at least in part, the nature of such small-scale cultural
diversity among Anglo-American military populations (imported British regulars

and indigenous American provincials), as can be observed archaeologically.

Relevance of Research

The significance of this dissertation can be distinguished in terms of
theoretical and practical applications. Its theoretical relevance lies in its
participation in an important recent critique within the field of frontier archaeology.
The critique points out certain problems with long-held core-periphery
assumptions, most notably that their large-scale perspective precludes any real
consideration of the inherent cultural diversity within frontier environments. The
critique argues instead for more restricted scales of analysis so as to examine
the character of culturally diverse communities and how these were expressed
archaeologically. This dissertation voices a similar concern, but in doing so it
does not require the overt rejection of core-periphery assumptions. Instead, it
recognizes the multi-scalar issues involved in the colonial frontier experience.
Whereas a core-periphery emphasis provides insight into the large-scale

networks present within frontier contexts, an emphasis upon cultural interaction

 

recognizes me 5
leads to different
especlat'IY' 85 IS 2
dissertation l5 ”0"
its applicai’on 5'36
frontiers.

This disserf
concerning the co."
redefining the front
have shed light UPC
interpretations of he
manufacture and us:
ore correlation beta/1
or even that cu ltura: l
'ethnlc markers.” mOl

r ' *
eauons between Id“-

recognizes the small-scale issues also present. While each particular emphasis
leads to different lines of frontier research, both must at least be recognized,
especially- as is argued here- when considering military frontiers. Thus while this
dissertation is not unique in its particular theoretical perspective, it is in modeling
its application specifically to the archaeological record of colonial military
frontiers.

This dissertation also participates in an important theoretical discussion
concerning the complex relationship between artifacts and social identity. By
redefining the frontier experience so as to focus upon cultural diversity, scholars
have shed light upon the implicit assumptions underlying most archaeological
interpretations of how cultural groups expressed affiliations through the
manufacture and use of material items. Rather than assuming a direct, one-to-
one correlation between identity and material culture (as acculturation suggests),
or even that cultural groups can be broken down into a series of trait lists or
“ethnic markers,” more recent scholarship has embraced the complicated
relations between identity and artifacts. Now favored are contextual approaches
that view the concept of identity as subjective and selective, as a process that
occurs in the context of social interaction or in relation to others, and as a
process that is expressed in the patterned practice of day-to-day living (and is
therefore very much a concept that has material implications). This research
thus emphasizes a complex, relational, but certainly archaeologically visible,

concept of social identity to better understand the complex character of frontier

military populations.

 

up. the
Undenfl
oWes VE
phys’ca
harsh in;
confi‘d’ (
rel-l"eW cf
prOVes b:
which 37:“:
pafficuiafi‘s‘
theoremafi’
disoUSSlcns'
amount 0f 8r
must be draw
remains r9583“
The mefi
interrelated. Th
erplbred usrhg ~
We research
particuanStz'c fr;
character'zed t.“ I

provide a cow
‘P I

The more practical relevance of this research lies in its attempt to “open
up” the archaeological study of the Seven Years' War. It is an unfortunate if
undeniable fact that much of what is presently understood about the conflict
owes very little to the discipline of historical archaeology, beyond its providing
physical examples of British material culture or architectural details. This rather
harsh indictment is not meant to suggest that archaeology has ignored the
conflict, or even that important studies do not exist in the literature; a summary
review of Seven Years' War archaeological research provided below (Chapter 4)
proves both of these statements false. It is rather a measure of the extent to
which archaeological research has moved beyond a site-oriented and
particularist framework, a move that is defined by employing a broad range of
theoretically informed research questions and by incorporating the on-going
discussions of colonial historians. If this measure is cast against the large
amount of British military archaeological data collected to date, the conclusion
must be drawn that, as a whole, the archaeology of the Seven Years’ War
remains relatively understudied (Crabtree et al. 200221).

The theoretical and practical relevance of this research is, of course,
interrelated. The very fact that such theoretical questions and concepts can be
explored using Seven Years’ War archaeological data reinforces the fact that
future research of the conflict can and must move beyond descriptive and
particularistic frameworks. The data-gathering endeavors that have
characterized the majority of Seven Years’ War archaeology to date have helped

provide a complex database that is appropriate for application in theoretically

 

informed 335

cont'ibu‘te lm

Dmtion
Chapn
concepts and
theoretical gr<
world system:
Priority is also
among more rr
Penphery. and
relationship to
and colonizatio
mentioned here
0000893 devei;
Which fOC'us atte
CtJiOTlles Site

3"
\4

along the frontie
segment. and

M‘CrO—Sp-

  

Mint 0? COP-75:3»

arthaeology this

informed analyses. Clearly, Seven Years’ War archaeology has the potential to

contribute important insights to the broader study of colonial military frontiers.

Dissertation Organization by Chapter

Chapter 2 begins the discussion by first outlining the basic theoretical
concepts and perspectives involved in this study. Given that much of the
theoretical groundwork for the interpretation of frontiers lies in the discussion of
world systems or cores and peripheries, this macro-scale topic is treated first.
Priority is also warranted given that the topic serves as the subject of critique
among more recent frontier theory. Wallerstein’s (1974, 1980) concepts of core,
periphery, and semi-periphery are introduced, as is the character of their
relationship to one another in this historically based model of political economy
and colonization. F rank’s (1966) concepts of metmpole and satellite are also
mentioned here given their similarity to Wallerstein’s model. Frontier colonization
concepts developed among historians and archaeologists are also introduced,
which focus attention to how particular economic emphases among peripheral
colonies shaped their relations with the core and the character of their settlement
along the frontier. These include concepts such as interacting links, insular
settlement, and cosmopolitan frontiers.

Micro-scale theoretical concepts are introduced next, which serve as a
point of comparison and critique to the previous discussion. Within historical
archaeology this “pluralist” critique derives largely from the frontier theoretical

discussions of Kent Lightfoot and colleagues (Lightfoot 1995; Lightfoot and

10

 

A

Martinez ”95
antriropo'ogES
focuses agent
frontier settler“
diversity and "
exafl'llned and
From this pe'S
of a farfiuf‘g ‘3
heterogeneous
line in the creel
situations' (ng "
Also ds:
scholars worm
archaeoIOgiCal t
given the reoe.‘
2005 50). Ass:
longer tenable a
contains. and th

over others via r

 

DlOCeSs. ThEO.’
regatta”? here, a:

sewer identifica'

mTOUgh the U35

Martinez 1995, Lightfoot et al. 1998), though prehistoric archaeologists and
anthropologists (e.g. Wolf 1982; Stein 1999) voice similar positions. The critique
focuses attention to the concept of scale, arguing that micro-scale analyses of
frontier settlements should be pursued that examine the character of cultural
diversity and interaction. Indeed, the very concept of frontier is critically re-
examined and re-defined to include small-scale processes of cultural interaction.
From this perspective, frontier settlements are not merely the distant appendages
of a far-flung economic system but rather “socially charged places” in which
heterogeneous cultural groups interact and exist. They are, ultimately, the “front
line in the creolization or syncretization of cultural constructs in culture contact
situations” (Lightfoot and Martinez 1995:472).

Also discussed here is the concept of cultural identity and how frontier
scholars working under the pluralist critique have begun to investigate it from an
archaeological perspective. Addressing this concept is a necessary precondition
given the re-definition of frontier contexts as culturally diverse places (Wells
2005:50). Assumptions based largely upon the concept of acculturation are no
longer tenable as explanations for understanding cultural dynamics in these
contexts, and the means by which active agents demonstrate certain affiliations
over others via material culture is now understood as a complex and subjective
process. Theoretical concepts such as daily practice and ethnogenesis become
relevant here, as these speak to how archaeologists can observe processes of
social identification and cultural change within heterogeneous frontier societies

through the use of material culture.

11

Chapter 2 continues with an outline of the basic historical setting for this
study. Colonial historians of the Seven Years’ War have been instrumental in
recognizing the multiple scales of analysis involved in frontier research, and they
have proposed that a heterogeneous and active cultural environment
characterized British military settlements. Fred Anderson (2000:xx), for example,
makes the point that British frontier settlements during the conflict were small-
scale “theatre[s] of intercultural interaction,” and has approached this diversity in
terms of its expression among imported British regular troops and indigenous
American provincial forces. These were allied Anglo-American groups who were
united in their defense of the British Empire and subjects to the same king, but at
the same time cultural strangers with very different martial experiences. A
summary review of Anderson’s research on this issue of American provincial and
British regular cultural diversity offers a very detailed, contextual and historically
based framework for the archaeological study of small-scale cultural dynamics
within specific frontier military contexts.

With the theoretical concepts and historical framework presented, Chapter
3 then integrates both into a scalar model that identifies the salient
characteristics of colonial military frontiers and, in turn, provides the basis for
developing a series of archaeological hypotheses to be tested in Chapter 5. A
pervasive point throughout this study is that the large and small-scale theoretical
perspectives introduced in Chapter 2 do not form clearly opposing or mutually
exclusive positions on the fundamental character of frontier environments (in

general) or military contexts (in specific). To the contrary, the various concepts

12

 

Chapter 1
study. Coloniz
recognizing the
have propose:
diaraderzed l
makes the per
scale ‘theat'efs
terms of its ex:
American DiCVi
united in their d
the Same time c
Summary le'wer
Bitish regular
based framewo
m” SDQCrficf

With the
Mien ime’a‘i'ate
charat‘ieristinbs

deveiODW a se

 
 
  
  

DEWaSn/e pOint

perspeCfiVes int:

Gimme Dost.

genera” or ~

in;

Chapter 2 continues with an outline of the basic historical setting for this
study. Colonial historians of the Seven Years’ War have been instrumental in
recognizing the multiple scales of analysis involved in frontier research, and they
have proposed that a heterogeneous and active cultural environment
characterized British military settlements. Fred Anderson (2000:xx), for example,
makes the point that British frontier settlements during the conflict were small-
scale “theatre[s] of intercultural interaction,” and has approached this diversity in
terms of its expression among imported British regular troops and indigenous
American provincial forces. These were allied Anglo-American groups who were
united in their defense of the British Empire and subjects to the same king, but at
the same time cultural strangers with very different martial experiences. A
summary review of Anderson’s research on this issue of American provincial and
British regular cultural diversity offers a very detailed, contextual and historically
based framework for the archaeological study of small-scale cultural dynamics
within specific frontier military contexts.

With the theoretical concepts and historical framework presented, Chapter
3 then integrates both into a scalar model that identifies the salient
characteristics of colonial military frontiers and, in turn, provides the basis for
developing a series of archaeological hypotheses to be tested in Chapter 5. A
pervasive point throughout this study is that the large and small-scale theoretical
perspectives introduced in Chapter 2 do not form clearly opposing or mutually
exclusive positions on the fundamental character of frontier environments (in

general) or military contexts (in specific). To the contrary, the various concepts

12

an be includec
one that “9009‘"
cultural dynamli
Chapter 3 thus
Chapter 2. and
American relati:
As a who
character of mi.
British North Art
of small-scale s
miiitary frontiers
matenal variatic;
British regulars
patterns that 58'
fOfCes as 9313':
framework Sug;
American CURL):
The mod.

 

    
  

That is, cjeafiy 5

0f

Concept: ind Md

can be included to form a comprehensive and multi-scalar approach or model,
one that recognizes both macro-scale external influences and micro-scale
cultural dynamics at play within all frontier contexts. The scalar model outlined in
Chapter 3 thus draws directly upon the various theoretical concepts outlined in
Chapter 2, and the model is situated in terms of the historical context of Anglo-
American relations during the Seven Years’ War.

As a whole, the model presented in Chapter 3 demonstrates the complex
character of military frontiers as a significant component of eighteenth-century
British North America. The model argues that, when viewed from the perspective
of small-scale spatio—temporal contexts, a diverse mix of cultures characterizes
military frontiers. Expressed in terms of the historical framework, significant
material variation distinguishes small-scale provincial occupations from those of
British regulars. Such variation is hypothesized as a series of archaeological
patterns that derive from the complex historical relationship of Anglo-American
forces as established by colonial historians. The control afforded by the historical
framework suggests a number of possible material manifestations of Anglo-
American cultural diversity which in turn form the basis for archaeological testing.

The model further argues that such patterns of diversity may correlate or
conflict with those observable from broader spatial or temporal scales of analysis.
That is, clearly defined categories of provincial and British may not be as clear as
when viewed from a greater spatial or temporal frame of reference. This aspect
of the model recognizes that cultural identity is a complex and often relational

concept; individuals can and do actively alter their perceived identities or

13

affiliations, particularly in diverse cultural situations. As previously mentioned,
the active and overlapping nature of cultural margins within frontier environments
(of. Lightfoot and Martinez 1995) may be revealed in how these categories are
restructured or reconfigured among ever-larger scales. The model also
recognizes that large scales of analysis are ideal for observing core-periphery
influences, and that among them the resolution likely becomes too coarse to
shed direct light upon cultural dynamics or Anglo-American relations during the
Seven Years’ War. At such scales, processes of cultural diversity are likely
masked by the larger political or economic networks within which frontier military
settlements served, and hypotheses may be geared towards examining these
influences.

Chapter 4 provides a summary review of British Seven Years’ War
archaeology, including those sites later employed as data sources for
archaeological testing. This discussion is introduced here prior to testing the
model and its hypotheses in order to provide comment on the data used in this
dissertation and on the general archaeological context of the present study. The
vast majority of Seven Years’ War archaeology (and indeed, military sites
archaeology in general) has tended to be very particularistic and descriptive in
scope. Theoretically informed analyses that incorporate the work of colonial or
social historians are relatively rare in the literature, with most studies geared
towards gathering artifactual or architectural details for site reconstruction. This
general pattern is substantiated by a brief review of a number of British military

sites and their respective archaeological investigations. While the explicit

14

purpose of Chapter 4 is to introduce the sites and data used in this study, its
implied purpose is to demonstrate the theoretical and analytical potential of
Seven Years’ War archaeology.

Chapter 5 subjects the model and its various archaeological hypotheses to
testing with Seven Years’ War archaeological data. The data derive from a
number of British Seven Years’ War settlements, though the sites tend to be
restricted spatially to northern New York. This spatial restriction has no analytical
significance other than the fact that this area- an overland portage area lying
between the Hudson River and Lake George (Figure 2)- saw a dense clustering
of British military occupations throughout the war, many of which have been
subjected to intensive archaeological investigation. Testing primarily concerns
the micro-scale hypotheses in the model, though discussion of the macro-scale
hypotheses and data do suggest future directions for research. Unlike the
chapters previous, Chapter 5 does not include a chapter summary because this
forms the first discussion section of Chapter 6. Chapter 6 summarizes and
evaluates the testing results, and explores the implications of this study for future
Seven Years’ War archaeological research. One obvious conclusion of this
study is that the field of Seven Years’ War archaeology is fertile and cpen ground
for continued research, whether or not the particular analytical perspective

advocated in this study is pursued or another advocated.

15

CHAPTER 2:

THEORETICAL CONCEPTS AND HISTORICAL FRAMEWORK

16

Chapter Introduction

The goals of this chapter are twofold: first is to introduce the key
theoretical concepts employed in this study, second is to present its basic
historical context and framework. The first goal involves discussion of the
relevant theoretical literature within frontier research, both within and beyond the
field of archaeology. Presentation of this material is according to scale of
analysis, as this aspect serves as a point of contention between two dominant
theoretical perspectives in the study of colonial frontier contexts. Macro-scale
core-periphery concepts of are discussed first, in particular Immanuel
Wallerstein’s (1974, 1980)wor1d-system model and Andre Gunder Frank’s
(1966) metropole—satellite dichotomy. Also included here are frontier colonization
concepts developed among historians and archaeologists. These latter concepts
focus attention to the manner in which particular economic emphases among
peripheral colonies shaped their relations with the core and the character of their
settlement along the frontier.

Micro-scale “pluralist” concepts are introduced second, the strongest and
most recent statements of which derive from the work of Kent Lightfoot (1995;
Lightfoot and Martinez 1995; Lightfoot et al. 1998) within historical archaeology.
These latter theoretical statements challenge long-held core-periphery
assumptions, and force attention to issues of cultural dynamics such as
interaction and change as defining features of the frontier experience. They also
highlight the complex means by which material items are incorporated into the

on-going process of cultural identification and affiliation within heterogeneous

17

contexts.

As discussion of the two theoretical perspectives make clear, no one scale
of analysis can exhaust the research possibilities of colonial contexts, a fact that
is particularly relevant to this dissertation given that research is directed towards
military frontier environments. Above all other types of frontier settlement,
military frontiers demonstrate the strongest connections to large-scale external
influences. Indeed, they have been defined as “the [frontier settlement] type
linked most closely with the parent state because they represent one of its
agencies. The components of such a frontier represent direct control by the core
state in areas where its expansion is threatened either by aboriginal groups or
other colonial states” (Lewis 1984:267-268). At the same time, much more
immediate and localized processes of cultural interaction and identification are
also at work within military environments, which emphasizes the point that not all
aspects of military frontiers are necessarily revealing of the larger external
networks within which they participate. These smaller-scale issues take
precedence in this dissertation research, but this is hardly because the large-
scale core-periphery issues are no longer considered relevant or useful (Lightfoot
and Martinez 1995; Farry 2005a).

The second goal of this chapter is to introduce the historical framework of
this study. Historians of the eighteenth-century British colonial empire in North
America have been instrumental in recognizing the multiple scales of analysis
involved in frontier research, and their discussions provide a useful point of

comparison to the theoretical concepts and perspectives introduced in the first

18

part of this chapter. Among their discussions is a renewed appreciation for the
role peripheries served in what typically has been interpreted as a metropolitan
story of colonial conquest and empire building. .“Scholars who study the
[colonial] frontier,” historian Patrick Griffin (2003:179) writes, “are now claiming
that the process of cultural negotiation in the backcountry was central, not
marginal, to American social development”. Among Seven Years’ War
historians, Fred Anderson (1981, 1983, 1984, 2000; see also Rogers 1974,
Leach 1986a, 1986b; cf. Agostini 2002) has been prominent in investigating
small-scale cultural negotiations among British frontier military populations,
particularly between imported British regular troops and indigenous American
provincial forces. Anderson’s work strongly argues the point that the Seven
Years' War colonial frontier was an important site of intercultural relations in
which Anglo-American groups came into intimate and prolonged contact with one
another for the first time. “The war," Anderson (19842111) writes, “offered
[provincials] and Britons [regulars] a chance to take each other’s measure with
an intimacy and on a scale unprecedented in colonial history. Such intercultural
contact- for that is what it was- largely took place through the operation of the
British military justice system, and it gave the colonial soldiers an unflattering,
disturbing impression of their comrades in arms”.

Anderson’s detailing of the historical relations between allied Anglo-
American groups during the war is, of course, but one perspective on the shaping
influence of small-scale cultural diversity and interaction within British military

populations. Other scholars, for example, have begun to recognize the diverse

19

and important character of allied Indian groups (Jennings 1988; Steele 1990;
Shannon 1996; Ward 2003), while others have focused upon the heterogeneity
within the American provincial forces themselves (e.g. Shy 1963; Anderson 1983,
1984; Ferling 1986; Selesky 1990; Titus 1991; Ward 1995, 2003; Knoblauch
1997; Staudt 1999). Anderson’s provincial-regular dichotomy does represent,
however, a significant and influential first attempt to understand the Seven Years’
War frontier as a multi-cultural arena of contact and interaction. Even more
importantly, his discussion of the relations between the two groups- in tandem
with the theoretical concepts- provides the basis for a multi-scalar social model
with archaeological test implications. Discussion of the model and the

archaeological hypotheses derived from it is presented in Chapter 3.

Macro-Scale Theoretical Concepts
Trans-A tlantic Core-Periphery Perspectives

An important context within which colonial settlements have been
interpreted is in terms of their participation in the development and expansion of
European economic hegemony during the post medieval and modern periods.
From this trans-Atlantic perspective, individual frontier settlements- military or
otherwise- are inextricably linked to and enmeshed within complex and extra-
local networks that are relevant far beyond the confines of immediate
circumstances. Frontier settlements are thus not perceived as remote outposts
along an isolated fringe of settlement, but rather as integral components of a

large-scale economic structure that continually incorporates new areas and

20

markets through colonial expansion.

Immanuel Wallerstein (1974, 1980) has been a very influential proponent
of this perspective, and he has defined an elaborate trans-Atlantic model of
economic interdependence that details the rise of the modem capitalist world
since the late-fifteenth century. Wallerstein (1974:347) conceives of this process
as analogous to an organic system, with a specified set of relationships existing
between individual components that, taken together, comprise a coherent and
functioning structure. And it is a structure that is truly defined by the sum of its
parts in that individual components cannot exist in isolation. The structure is
broadly termed a world-system, the two varieties of which Wallerstein
distinguishes are world-empires and world-economies. The difference between
the two largely involves the nature of political influence within the system: world-
empires have a single overarching political power, while world-economies, given
their scale, do not. The idea that the system is a “world” system is not meant to
convey the idea of the entire planet, but rather to emphasize the point that the
network is far larger than any of its constituent political units (Wallerstein
1974:15; Stein 1999210).

Prior to Europe’s trans-Atlantic explorations and colonization of the New
World, world economies were highly unstable structures that often reverted in
form to world-empires or tended to disintegrate. “It is the peculiarity of the
modern world-system,” Wallerstein (1974:348) argues, “that a world-economy
has survived for 500 years and yet has not come to be transformed into a world-

empire”. Such peculiarity Wallerstein (19742348) attributes to “the political side of

21

 

the form of €-
capitaiism 10$
economic fac
extensive tha
chvdopedinc
maximizing pi
mahnalsourc
(197415) arg:
Misti
have
meflc
hepe
elimin
SUpen

The Continued

the New World

 

the form of economic organization called capitalism”. As a mode of production,
capitalism fostered continuous expansion of the modern world-system because
economic factors operated within an environment much larger and more
extensive than that which any single political entity could control. Capitalism
developed increasingly efficient and flexible technologies of production, thereby
maximizing production and ensuring the opening of new markets and raw
material sources through colonial expansion. On this point, Wallerstein

(1 974: 1 5) argues that

It is the social achievement of the modern world, if you will, to

have invented the technology that makes it possible to increase

the flow of surplus from the lower strata to the upper strata, from

the periphery to the center, from the majority to the minority, by

eliminating the ‘waste' of too cumbersome a political

superstructure. '
The continued penetration of foreign, non-capitalist economies such as those of
the New World was the inevitable result of this achievement. (Lewis 200225).

The modem-world economy is based primarily upon a functional division

of labor between the system’s components, a division that is also expressed
geographically and temporally. Core states form the geographical center of the
model, which in turn are bounded by semi-peripheries and peripheries towards
the system’s colonial fringe. Peripheral areas essentially serve as sources for
raw materials not found within the core areas, as well as important markets for
core-manufactured goods and services. Core areas and peripheries are linked
by a system of “unequal exchange” and trade in which “high-wage (but low-

supervision), high-profit, high-capital intensive” goods are produced in the core

and are then exchanged for “low-wage (but high-supervision), low-profit, low-

22

capital intensive goods” produced in the periphery (Wallerstein 19742351; Wolf
1982:22). Semi-peripheries fall geographically and functionally between the two
extremes; they serve to integrate the economies of core and periphery, while at
the same time act as buffers to deflect pressures away from the core (Wallerstein
19742350; Lewis 1984:15; Champion 1995a26). Although each of the
components of the world-economy is functionally dependent upon the others,
their relationship is an explicitly hierarchical one. Core areas “dominate[] the
world-system,” and stand at the head of an unequal power relationship in which
surplus and benefits are siphoned off from peripheral and semi-peripheral areas
and are directed upward towards the core (Paynter 1982; Stein 1999211). Mere
surplus extraction from periphery to core, however, does not define the full extent
of the asymmetrical relationship, and control by the core pervades into other
realms such as the organization of peripheral labor and political structures (Stein
1999213). The synchronous division of labor across space that is Wallerstein’s
model can also define a diachronic developmental scheme, with peripheral and
semi-peripheral areas eventually taking on the role of core areas.

Andre Gunder Frank (1966) offers a very similar formulation to
Wallerstein’s world-system model, particularly in terms of the asymmetrical
relationships linking core to periphery. Frank essentially portrays capitalism as
an expansive and penetrating force, one that spreads outward from metropolitan
centers (cores) and continually subverts newly incorporated areas into
dependent satellites (peripheries). The exploitative relationship is maintained

through time by explicitly structuring satellite economies to produce and supply

23

surplus upward towards the external metropoles. Development of satellite areas
is thus “distorted and thwarted” over time in that all production is geared towards
meeting the particular needs of the metropole, despite any long-term negative
effect on peripheral regions. As core subjugates periphery in an unequal
economic relationship, so too does metropole subjugate satellite, thereby forming
a large-scale economic structure of increasingly ranked components.

These basic tenets of the traditional core-periphery framework have been
very influential among scholars, including those studying pre-capitalist or non-
westem world systems (see e.g., Schneider 1977; Blanton and Feinman 1984;
Dincauze and Hasenstab 1989; Woolf 1990; Chase-Dunn and Hall 1991;
Champion 1995b; Urban and Schortrnan 1999). Notable examples within the
historical archaeology frontier literature include Lewis’s (1984) analysis of the
South Carolina agriculture frontier, Paynter’s (1982) study of the Connecticut
River Valley’s role in the British world-system, and Crowell’s (1994, 1997) study
of the Russian fur trade frontier in America. Williams (1992) applies Wallerstein’s
model specifically to a military frontier context, in this case to the military frontier
of New Spain during late eighteenth and early nineteenth century.

The core-periphery model has offered an important spatial and temporal
framework for the uneven pace of development between the western and non-
westem worlds since the late fifteenth century, one that is certainly more effective
than appeals to differences in social evolution (Champion 1995a:4).
Nevertheless, as defined by Wallerstein, the core-periphery framework has not

been without its critics. Critical attention has been drawn, for example, to the

24

framework’s over-emphasis on asymmetrical relations and the methods by which
the core subjugates periphery. Such a choice, Eric Wolf (1982223) argues,
necessarily leads one to “omit consideration of the range and variety of
[peripheral] populations, of their modes of existence before European expansion
and the advent of capitalism, and of the manner in which these modes were
penetrated, subordinated, destroyed, or absorbed". Others have pointed out that
the framework erroneously assumes the primacy of core dominance in shaping
all aspects of peripheral societies; that in fact the ‘passive’ periphery as
described by Wallerstein is actually a dynamic and active area not subject solely
to the whims of the core states. As Stein (1999216) points out, such traditional
assumptions of core dominance tend to “eliminate or minimize the roles of
polities or groups in the periphery, local production and local exchange, and
internal dynamics of developmental change”. Fuller treatment of these and other

critiques are provided below in discussing small-scale theoretical concepts.

Frontier Colonization

Scholars interested in the colonial frontier have expounded upon the core-
periphery perspective favored by Wallerstein and Frank by examining specifically
how the economic emphases of colonization and core expansion were
manifested physically along the periphery. The relationship, it is argued, was a
direct one, in that differing economic pursuits in the periphery necessitated
distinct production strategies and encouraged distinct forms of colonial frontier

settlement (Lewis 1984:17, 200225). As production strategies and requirements

25

 

differEd amo
[hereby dete
peripherY- T
which perm”
wthIl. in tum
(LEWlS 2002.!
frontiers base

Cosme
meaning that ‘
strong links M
specialized. at
or controlled b
experienced in
was modal rat?
among frontier
“conceptual fo.

change ‘invoiv

 

upon Which g.
in direct respc'
rather than the
Settlements as
Standardizatio-

1934264; 051'

 

differed among peripheries, so too did their particular relationships with the core,
thereby determining the number and type of interacting links between core and
periphery. The true nature of such links had a direct impact upon the degree to
which peripheral regions were (or were not) insulated from core influences,
which, in turn, “governed the degree of change experienced by a colonial society”
(Lewis 200225). Scholars have distinguished two distinct types of colonial
frontiers based on the degree of insularity existing between core and periphery.

Cosmopolitan frontiers are defined by an overall lack of insularity,
meaning that their particular economic emphases- though often varied- ensured
strong links with states in the system’s core. These emphases were extractive,
specialized, and often short-term economic pursuits, and were directly influenced
or controlled by external (core) policies. In addition, any and all change
experienced in the political, social, or economic realms of cosmopolitan frontiers
was modal rather than fundamental. Steffan (19802xi) defines modal change
among frontiers as merely a surface alteration of a given practice or belief whose
“conceptual foundation remained essentially the same,” while fundamental
change “involved the replacement or significant alteration of the very assumption
upon which given practices were based”. As cosmopolitan frontier change was
in direct response to the external economic system within which it was enmeshed
rather than the immediate circumstances of the local environment, cosmopolitan
settlements also tended to exhibit a degree of cultural uniformity or

standardization by importing much of the core state’s material culture (Lewis

19842264; Ostrogorsky 1982). Economic activities falling within the cosmopolitan

26

model include lumbering, mining, cattle ranching, and trading (Steffan 1980;
Lewis 1984).

Military frontiers are also included within the cosmopolitan category,
despite the fact that their establishment is not necessarily geared towards
exploiting or extracting the economic potential of a peripheral region. Military
frontiers act to support cosmopolitan frontier expansion by ensuring that there
exists a strong core presence in peripheries, providing both offensive and
defensive capabilities as new areas are explored and settled. Because by
definition there exists no single political power within the modern world economy,
core states inevitably dispute the right to extract surplus from (or market
commodities within) certain peripheral regions. Military settlements thus act to
defend such rights from both aboriginal and other colonial states’ threats. Lewis
(200225) describes this uniquely cosmopolitan role of British military settlements
in the colonization of the American interior:

The successful operation of the world economy relied on the
establishment of political domination over foreign territories as
well as routes of trade and communication, and Great Britain’s
substantial investment in its American provinces, backed by
naval and military power, provided the stability required to
protect settlers and nurture colonial economic development.
British authority undenrvrote production and insured the
availability of commodities crucial to the operation of its far-flung
economy. State political influence made possible the settlement

expansion that accompanied the economic penetration of the
American interior.

Often cosmopolitan settlement marked the initial stages of expansion into
peripheral regions (Lewis 19842269). Meinig (1986:65-76), for example, outlines

a generalized scheme of colonization that emphasizes increasingly intensive

27

settlement of colonial peripheries, the early stages of which can be defined as
cosmopolitan in nature. Initial and “accidental” colonial contact in Meinig’s (1986)
scheme gives way eventually to increasing penetration of peripheral regions
through gathering, barter, plunder, and the establishment of commercial
outposts. These early, cosmopolitan-type endeavors involving extractive
economic pursuits and information gathering provided regular points of contact
between core and periphery. They also established a firm core presence or
entrepot in colonial regions and provided the knowledge base for continued
penetration (Lewis 200226). If conditions permitted, cosmopolitan settlement
could develop into the establishment of imperial imposition through formal claims
of colonial territory and, eventually, the planting of permanent, intensive
agricultural settlements.

Such intensive settlement- termed insular frontiers— stands at the opposite
end of the spectrum to cosmopolitan frontiers. Insular frontiers are defined, over
time, by rather weak or indirect links with the core area, and they possessed
much more diverse economies rather than relying on specialized production for
expert. Local circumstances played a much greater role in their success, and
settlements often reinvested surpluses locally, thereby lessening their
dependence on external support and further weakening their links to the core
area. Compared to modal change among cosmopolitan frontiers, insular
settlements experienced fundamental changes in political and social forms,
which could often bring about competition with the core. Lewis (200226)

describes succinctly this process of change experienced on insular frontiers:

28

“Permanent settlement, accompanied by economic diversification, indigenous
institutional development and reinvestment, and expansion into new territories,
brought a shift of social, economic, and political interests from the homeland to

the colony and fostered the region’s potential for independent development”.

Micro-scale Theoretical Concepts

Cultural Diversity and Interaction

A more recent perspective in the study of colonial contexts is one that
gives primacy to the socially dynamic nature of frontier communities. From this
“pluralist" standpoint frontiers are redefined so as to underscore their culturally
heterogeneous character and emphasis is placed upon micro-scale processes of
culture contact, diversity, and interaction rather than solely upon links to large-
scale external networks. By and large this theoretical perspective grew out of
critiques of the traditional core-periphery framework, and it is distinguished by a
much greater emphasis upon smaller scales of analysis. It should be stressed
again, however, that its application does not necessarily require the overt
rejection of core-periphery assumptions. As discussed previously, the two
contexts approach the frontier experience from very different, but not necessarily
conflicting, analytical scales. Taken together they offer multiple analytical frames
of reference on the frontier experience, a multi-scalar framework that has been
described as “a balanced perspective that recognizes both the important role that
core-periphery interactions play in frontier studies, as well as the socially charged

arena of intercultural or interethnic interaction in frontier contexts” (Lightfoot and

29

 

Martinez 199
for their cosr'

recognized fc‘l
Recogl

l

Horvath (197]

colonialism trl

cultural intera.

regions is cha

 

otters a mode
domination” cl
‘5 Composed (
domination (c
semen) and t
assimilation. (
large-scare or
are manifest I
also Bartel 19

AIQUao

Martinez 1995:487). If it is true, then, that military frontiers must be recognized
for their cosmopolitan attributes, it is also true that they must come to be
recognized for their inherent cultural diversity.

Recognizing the latter is not an entirely new phenomenon (Rice 1998).
Horvath (1972), for example, makes the case for a behavioral model of
colonialism that is focused specifically on the nature of colonial-indigenous
cultural interaction along the frontier. In this scheme colonization of frontier
regions is characterized as a form of social domination, and Horvath (1972)
offers a model of “probable behavioral outcomes in situations of power
domination” characteristic of colonial-indigenous frontier interactions. The model
is composed of a matrix of colonization “types” distinguished between manner of
domination (colonialism or imperialism, defined by the presence or absence of
settlers) and the nature of colonial-indigenous relationships (extermination,
assimilation, or relative equilibrium). While Horvath’s model deals explicitly with
large-scale processes of colonization and imperialism, they are processes that
are manifest through small-scale colonial-indigenous frontier interactions (see
also Bartel 1980, 1985).

Arguably the most influential effort to recognize the macro-and micro-scale
issues involved in colonial contexts has been Eric Wolf’s (1982) Europe and the
People without History. While a severe critic of certain world-system
assumptions, Wolf (1982223) nevertheless appreciates the large-scale analytical
context it provides and the fact that the model “points to wider linkages that must

be investigated if the processes at work in the periphery are to be understood”.

3O

Wolf is theref
since the late
capitalist deve
populations 3
His study thus
invariably for
peripheral co

scaleofthee

 

1982.23).
lntegral
the model con
Wallerstein's r
EXist in isolarr;
SYStem. one ti
teglhmation. a
homogenous
scale. (30”va
discrete and c
spatially Chani
Sets of relatior
expansion Was
a means to to;

interactiOns the

Wolf is therefore able to examine the growth and spread of European influence
since the late-fifteenth century in terms of general processes of mercantile and
capitalist development. At the same time, he brings into sharp relief the micro-
populations along the periphery affected or penetrated by such development.
His study thus recognizes that, while useful, a world-system perspective
invariably forces one to omit consideration of the cultural diversity present in
peripheral contexts, and analyses must therefore constantly move between the
scale of the encompassing system and the scale of individual communities (Wolf
1 982223).

Integral to Wolf’s (1982) critique of the world-system model is the fact that
the model conveys a sense of closure or boundedness to the system. While
Wallerstein’s model clearly rejects the notion that individual nations or societies
exist in isolation, the model nevertheless argues that a world-system “is a social
system, one that has boundaries, structures, member groups, rules of
Iegitimation, and coherence” (Wallerstein 19742347). To Wolf, such internally
homogenous and externally distinctive or bounded entities- irrespective of their
scale- convey a false sense of reality (Horvath 1972250). They disassemble into
discrete and component parts what is in fact an interconnected “temporally and
spatially changing and changeable set of relationships, or relationships among
sets of relationships” (Wolf 198226). His emphasis upon how European colonial
expansion was manifest among peripheral micro-populations is thus intended as
a means to “open up” the large-scale system and identify the significant

interactions that occurred along its porous frontier fringe.

31

Within the discipline of archaeology, recent scholarship has attempted to
incorporate this idea of “open” systems into how colonial or frontier contexts are
interpreted. Green and Perlman (1985), for example, recognize the difficulty of
examining “open social process” within the limitations of closed or bounded
analytic models. As an alternative, the authors distinguish between a frontier and
boundary approach (Green and Perlman 198524). In this view, frontiers
represent the peripheral fringe of an expanding society, and frontier research
involves understanding the processes of political or economic expansion into
these regions, an approach very much akin to Wallerstein’s (1974) world-system
model. Boundaries, on the other hand, refer to the interactions that occur within
frontier contexts, with research focused on the various factors that guide or
structure interaction between frontier populations. An analogy can be drawn
between this perspective and the more recent core-periphery critiques.

The strongest assertion within the theoretical archaeological literature for
multi-scalar approaches to frontier contexts, however, is that of Lightfoot and
Martinez (1995). These authors argue that advances such as that of Green and
Perlman's (1985) frontier-boundary distinction simply do not do enough to
promote frontiers as arenas of inter-cultural contact (Lightfoot and Martinez
19952474). Because of this, they argue, most archaeological research of colonial
contexts continues to be stuck in a colonialist or “colonizer-centric” framework of
core-periphery relationships, and as a result, continues to rely solely on macro-
scales of analysis (Lightfoot and Martinez 19952474; Farry 2005a). The authors

call instead for a reconceptualization of frontiers as socially charged arenas of

32

culture contact where the creolization or syncretization of new cultural forms
occurs among diverse and active communities. Their discussion enumerates
three central problems with relying solely upon traditional core-periphery
frameworks in the archaeological study of colonial contexts (see also Stein
1999:16-26). In enumerating these critiques, the authors define a new model for
the archaeological study of frontier contexts, one that places a decided emphasis
upon cultural dynamics and more restricted spatio—temporal contexts.

The first problem has been the tendency to apply an insular view of culture '
change, with any and all cultural transformations proceeding within the system
from core to periphery. The character of the interacting links that serve to
connect the system’s components thus determine the type and degree of change
experienced by a colonial society (Lewis 2002:5). This is a very top-heavy model
that ultimately denies an active role to frontier cultural interaction or diversity as
an important source of innovation or change. The assumption of core dominance
becomes all-pervasive in that it does not allow for any sort of agency on the part
of peripheral regions. As a result, “The peoples of the periphery,” Stein
(1999219) argues, “are treated as passive victims of the core’s dynamic
expansion” (Wolf 1982; Rowlands 1998). This assumption also perpetuates a
closed or bounded view of the world-system model, the notion being that internal
(“closed”) homeland-colonial relationships are more important than external
(“open") colonial-indigenous interactions (Lightfoot and Martinez 19952476).

The second problem identified by the authors has been the over-reliance

on large-scale analyses in investigating colonial frontier contexts. The authors

33

 

 

point CU
broaden
pan-regir

out at the

use in eiuc
simply mai
enough to g
Martinez 19
scalar apprc
into how a w
Populations.
The th
approaches tl
homogenous r

they argue. in :

 

point out that, at least since the 1970s, frontier studies have increasingly
broadened their spatial perspectives to include multiple settlements, regions, and
pan-regions. While no doubt useful, this tendency has nevertheless been carried
out at the expense of more restricted spatial scales of analysis focused on
processes of cultural interaction along the frontier itself. Lightfoot and Martinez
(1995) do not reject the use of such large-scale models; in fact, they praise their
use in elucidating the organizational structures linking colony to homeland. They
simply make the point that “most core-periphery models are not fine grained
enough to consider interethnic interactions along frontiers” (Lightfoot and
Martinez 19952477). Again, the authors strongly promote an explicitly multi-
scalar approach-r both spatial and temporal- that allows for synthetic research
into how a world-system is mediated at the local level amidst diverse colonial
populations.

The third problem has been the assumption within core-periphery
approaches that frontiers delimit a sharp boundary between relatively
homogenous colonial and indigenous populations. This assumption misleads,
they argue, in that more often than not material culture traits tend to blur or
merge at the margin of social units (Lightfoot and Martinez 19952479). This fact
brings into sharp relief the truly complex relationship that exists between one’s
cultural affiliation or identity and how such an identity is expressed through
material culture within diverse settings (see below). The authors argue that
archaeologists studying the colonial frontier experience should not over-simplify

this complex process, but instead should embrace the “noise” commonly found in

34

the archaeolot
represent the
constructs. as
perpetuate th F
These .
leg. Stein 193

l

settiements- rr-
are they necesl
sen/ed, Equa I
scale issues OJ
(Fany 2005a;

aOlicept of froj
acore‘pel’iphe
indbdmg “Com
0‘ the world’ {gr
Processes of a r

Just how settle.

Calm,” Idem

I” Shani
Within co'Onia}
paradigm have

”Ems and idea

 

the archaeological record of frontier contexts. If, as they argue, frontiers do
represent the front lines in the process of blending or creating new cultural
constructs, assuming the presence of sharp boundaries will only serve to
perpetuate the false reality of tightly bounded cultural units.

These arguments put forth by Lightfoot and Martinez (1995) and others
(e.g. Stein 1999) act as reminders of the fact that not all aspects of frontier
settlements- military or otherwise- are the direct result of external influences; nor
are they necessarily revealing of the larger arena within which such settlements
served. Equally important as the links between core and periphery are the micro-
scale issues of culture interaction and change within diverse frontier communities
(Farry 2005a). Scholars such as Lightfoot and Martinez (1995) do accept the
concept of frontiers as cosmopolitan in nature, with all that this implies in terms of
a core-periphery perspective, but they also accept the full definition of that term,
including “composed of persons, constituents, or elements from all or many parts
of the world” (Merriam-Webster online dictionary). A mix of cultures and their
processes of interaction thus become a hallmark of the frontier experience, not

just how settlements connected to or functioned within metropolitan networks.

Cultural Identity

In attempting to untangle and understand this diverse mix of cultures
within colonial contexts, frontier scholars working under the pluralist archaeology
paradigm have found it necessary to deal explicitly with the link between material

items and identity. This link becomes paramount, of course, when one accepts

35

the perspectri
expenence. 7
than not. arch
'oultureartria:
1999221). F :
groups were a
identifying the
presence of tr
culture such a
culture changs_
traditional ma:
Served as the
resulting from
acculturation.
Change as a 2.

materials or be

 

 

the perspective that culture heterogeneity and interaction define the frontier
experience. The link also becomes paramount given the fact that, more often
than not, archaeological studies of pluralistic settings have tended to simplify the
“culture-artifact” relationship by assuming a one-to-one correlation (Jones
19992221). For much of the history of culture contact studies, individual cultural
groups were assumed to possess particular suites of material culture, and
identifying the archaeological remains of all or part of one suite suggested the
presence of the corresponding cultural group. Any adoption of alternate material
culture- such as those of neighboring or encroaching cultural groups- signaled
culture change, and could physically be measured by the relative loss of
traditional materials to the gain of newer ones. Such an approach has long
served as the means to understand indigenous New World culture change
resulting from European colonial contact. This process, better known as
acculturation, modeled cultural identity as a trait list of artifacts and cultural
change as a zero sum game in which the inevitable adoption of newer European
materials or behaviors coincided with the loss of native ones (see e.g., Redfield
et al. 1936; Spicer 1961; Fontana 1965; Fitting 1976; Cusick 1998). Thus, from
an archaeological perspective, the “proportion of European goods in Native
American contexts was viewed as a direct reflection of the degree of culture
change that had transpired over time as native peoples assimilated into the
material wor1d of Europeans or European Americans, while the proportion of
traditional native materials was viewed as a proxy of cultural conservatism”

(Lightfoot et al. 19982200). Acculturation has since been challenged on a

36

number of grounds as an inappropriate model for the archaeological study of
heterogeneous contexts, both within and beyond frontier settings (see eg.
Rubertone 1989; Howson 1990; Ferguson 1992; Rogers and Wilson 1993;
Lightfoot 1995:206-207)

As a more recent alternative, scholars interested in the pluralistic
character of frontier contexts have favored contextual and practice-oriented
approaches. These concepts draw upon an ever-growing body of theoretical
work that focuses attention to the study of daily practices- those “little routines
people enact, again and again, in working, sleeping, and relaxing, as well as little
scenarios of etiquette they play out again and again in social interaction” (Ortner
19842154)- and how these practices reflect or reveal different peoples’
wortdviews, cultural meanings, and social identities (Lightfoot et al. 19982201;
see also Bourdieu 1977, 1990; Giddens 1979, 1981; Miller and Tilley 1984;
Ortner 1984; Sahlins 1985; Wilson 1993). The basic premise of this concept is
that even the most mundane of daily tasks, such as the disposal of refuse, the
manufacture and use of tools, or the ordering of domestic space, reveal
underlying organizational principles and fundamental structural categories- one's
“culture”. Bourdieu (1977272) termed this the habitus, a system of “durable,
transposable dispositions” that are unconsciously inculcated within individuals
from birth and are manifested in their day-to—day behaviors and practices.
Individuals thus repeatedly enact and reproduce their underlying cultural
affiliations, belief systems, and organizational categories through the patterned

performances of routine tasks.

37

One‘s :.
daily practice,
along ooloniat
categories anc
creatively moc

contact. peopi

 

both make se'
Sahlins's (195
witurat categ:
lettodudion c
concept ethnc
With multiple c
1998.23; see ,
broadcast oer~
the Presence :
the emergenc.
Conce;
Managed in J
individuals ap'l

affiliations the

their CUhUlaf jr

One’s cultural identity, however, is not simply passively reflected through
daily practice, particularly within culturally heterogeneous contexts such as found
along colonial frontiers. As Lightfoot et al. (19982201) remark, “Cultural
categories and values are not simply reproduced in daily practice, rather they are
creatively modified during encounters with others. In the process of culture
contact, people will reconstitute and reinterpret cultural practices in ways that
both make sense of “others” and best suit their own interests”. This is akin to
Sahlins’s (19852xiv) structure of the conjuncture, or the practical realization of
cultural categories in specific historical contexts that can either lead to social
reproduction or cultural change (“failed reproduction”). Others have termed this
concept ethnogenesis or syncretization, or the “emergence of a new cultural form
with multiple origins and multiple active agents (Ferguson 1992; Deagan
1998223; see also McGuire 1982; Jones 1999). The means by which individuals
broadcast certain cultural affiliations are thus dependent, at least in part, upon
the presence of a heterogeneous cultural environment, which in turn can lead to
the emergence of new cultural forms and new daily practices.

Concepts such as daily practice and ethnogenesis provide archaeologists
interested in a pluralist archaeology with the means to understand how
individuals and communities express cultural affiliations, as well as how such
affiliations may be observed within the archaeological record of frontier contexts.
The focus on the “little routines" people enact day to day as an expression of
their cultural identity, for example, is very much suited to archaeological analysis.

Indeed, it is these types of. routines that produce much of the material culture

38

recovered from the archaeological record (Lightfoot et at. 19982201). Continuous
practices and behaviors such as the disposal of trash, the preparation of meals,
or the structuring of domestic spaces result in patterned accumulations of
material culture, much of which is commonly found within the archaeological
record. The concepts thus provide both an important theoretical basis for
understanding the notion of cultural identity, and an important methodological
tool for observing it in the archaeological record.

The application of these concepts to specific cases in the archaeology of
frontier contexts has been most noticeable among eighteenth and nineteenth-
century fur-trade settlements spread across western North America, particularly
at the northern California Russian trade outpost at Fort Ross (see, e.g., Lightfoot
et al. 1991, 1993, 1997, 1998; Schiff 1994; Martinez 1994; Lightfoot1995;
Lightfoot and Martinez 1995; Woodhouse-Beyer 1997). It comes as no surprise
that- as probably the most vocal proponent of a pluralist approach to the
archaeology of frontier contexts- Kent Lightfoot and his colleagues have also
been the most active in applying such an approach to frontier archaeological
data. Their long-term investigations at the cosmopolitan frontier site represented
by Fort Ross explicitly attempt to implement a muIti-scalar “archaeology of
pluralism” by investigating the material manifestations of cultural diversity and
interaction, while they operationalize many of the arguments made in their more
theoretical statement on the archaeology of frontier contexts (Lightfoot and

Martinez 1995).

39

Historical Framework: Pluralist Perspectives on the Seven Years’ War

A common theme to both theoretical perspectives just discussed is that of
interaction. It is found within the macro-scale core-periphery perspective by the
fact that frontiers are defined in terms of their interacting links to external
networks. Within the micro-scale “pluralist” perspective advocated more recently,
the theme is stressed by reworking the concept of frontiers to include cultural
diversity and processes of inter-ethnic interaction. Recent discussions among
historians of the Seven Years’ War appreciate the relevance of both perspectives
by arguing the point that small-scale interactions between diverse British military
populations played an integral rather than peripheral role in the prosecution of
the war. Even more broadly, such interaction is given a trans-Atlantic reach,
ultimately playing an important part in the larger process of British colonization of
North America. “Above all,” Anderson (2000:xx) argues, the Seven Year’ War
was “a theater of intercultural interaction, an event by which colonists of New
France and British North America came into intimate contact both with
metropolitan authorities- men who spoke their languages but who did not share
their views of the war or the character of the Imperial relationship- and with
Indian peoples, whose participation as allies, enemies, negotiators, and neutrals
so critically shaped the war’s outcome”. Because of this fact, the Seven Years’
War presents an interesting case study for the investigation of cultural
heterogeneity and interaction within small-scale spatial and temporal contexts,

one that is clearly embedded within a much larger, trans-Atlantic context of core

and periphery.

40

By recognizing the various multi-scalar issues involved, historians of the
Seven Years' War have begun to emphasize the decidedly multi-ethnic character
of British military populations and the fundamental role such heterogeneity
played in course of British imperial policy. From this perspective, colonial
empires are no longer cast as rigid institutions imposed from above, a very “top
heavy” model in which metropolitan influence dictates peripheral response (e.g.
Gipson 1936, 1961-1970). Rather, they are portrayed as negotiated and mutable
processes contingent upon the varied cultural groups involved in their
development. Now favored are synthetic approaches that can combine a social
history emphasis on “multivalence, specificity, and texture” with an Atlantic
perspective on how disparate groups and regions are linked together into a
structural whole (Anderson and Cayton 19932300; Griffin 2003). Scholars have
come to appreciate the “messiness” of empires in the sense that a diversity of
peoples- both within the metropolitan center and along the colonial periphery- are
involved in and can influence its development. As Eric Hinderaker (19972xii) has
argued on this issue, “If we regard empires as cross-cultural constructions that
were shaped by the opportunities, constraints, and crises facing the people who
participated in them, we can understand them as organic systems instead of
abstracted, ideal forms”.

This is precisely the definition of empire employed by Fred Anderson in his
recent grand-scale narrative of the Seven Years' War (Anderson 20002xix). In
Crucible of Wan The Seven Years’ War and the Fate of Empire in British North

America, 1754-1766, Anderson adapts Hinderaker’s definition of empire as a

41

 

negotiated s.
the British 3"

heterogeneo

  

Anderson‘s (2
Seven Years'

interface betw
Amencan 301C
as retracted tr
makes the poi
obvious (thou;
Amefican/ Nag
provincial and
Amencan Com

°“““tal Unit.

negotiated system of intercultural interaction, one in which the imperial designs of
the British and French metropoles were played out and shaped by a
heterogeneous colonial populace on the margins of empire. Among this

diversity, Anderson highlights the cultural distinctiveness and interaction of two
groups in particular: American provincials and British regular soldiers (Anderson
1984, 2000; see also Leach 1986a, 1986b; Rogers 1974; cf. Agostini 2002).
Anderson’s (20002288) research emphasizes the point that the British army of the
Seven Years' War was a key locus of intercultural contact; a zone of cultural
interface between Anglo-American populations in which “tens of thousands of
American colonists [provincials] encountered the British cultural and class system
as refracted through the prism of the regular army". Anderson’s research also
makes the point that such cultural divergence was experienced beyond the more
obvious (though equally important) categories of French/ English or Anglo-
American/ Native American. The analysis of the interactions between allied
provincial and regular troops thus offers a fine-grained examination of Anglo-

American communities that all too often have been treated as a single, monolithic

cultural unit.

Anglo-American Cultural Diversity During the Seven Years' War

Although “British” in their political aims, frontier military settlements were
seldom composed of strictly British military populations; by necessity, manpower
was augmented through the raising of American provincial troops in the colonies

and the use of Native American allies (Farry 2005a). At one level, the distinction

42

of Native and Euro-American populations within such military settlements offers
an important line of research into aspects of cultural diversity and interaction.
Recognizing the diversity of Native groups, however, can have the unintended
effect of normalizing the character of Euro-American populations: “the effort to
recover the past from perspectives other than that of British Americans has
tended to homogenize the colonists/conquerors and reduce them to a single
cultural stereotype” (Cayton and Tuete 199829). Addressing a provincial/regular
dichotomy thus offers an explicit recognition of the variable and diverse character
of these military groups: equally English within the larger political arena, contact
among imported British regular soldiers from the parent-state and indigenous
provincial troops raised from the American colonies represented the extended
(and often hostile) interaction of two very different cultures (Anderson 19842111).

Through the use of soldiers’ diaries, correspondence, and enlistment and
service records, historical research has framed a basic disjunction between these
two groups during their course of joint service against the French in the Seven
Years’ War. Leach (1986a), for example, portrays the disjunction as an
underlying psychological gulf between the two groups. In this framework
colonists (provincials) personify a prior dissatisfaction with the British homeland
and a preference for the colonies, a feeling that is expressed in their movement
to the periphery and subsequently reinforced and justified as they come into
close contact with the British regular command. Similarly,

the homelander [regular], now enrolled in His Majesty's forces
serving in America, felt compelled to justify his continuing

attachment to Old England by flaunting the superiority of its
people and way of life. How easy and natural it was for the

43

colonist to view with a certain disdain those who appeared to be
willing adherents of that which he himself had abandoned, how
easy and natural for the true Briton in uniform to scorn the
colonist as one who, having failed to measure up at home, had
opted out for a crude existence in the wilderness (Leach

1 986a25-6).

Notwithstanding the possibility of such a psychological divergence
between those who had left and those who had remained in England, a more
practical distinction serving to structure provincial and British interactions was
likely the differing perceptions both cultural groups had on the nature of their
roles within the overall military framework (Anderson 1981, 1983, 1984, 2000).
Contrary to the experiences of the professional British military, the locus of
authority for provincial soldiers was a form of contract-based soldiery in which
annually negotiated contracts of enlistment clearly laid out both the terms and
lengths of service (Anderson 1981, 1984:167-195). Such contracts
unambiguously defined the terms of service and duties expected of provincials,
and were mutually agreeable to all parties involved. Provincial soldiers often
emphasized the business-like nature of these agreements, framing their
enlistment negotiations and daily military service in quasi-legal terms. The long-
established practice of combating the French sans British assistance also
instilled a sense of autonomy throughout the New England provincial forces, the
and it was clearly “not the King’s say-so [which] specified the service [a provincial
soldier] would render and the care and compensation he would receive in return”
(Anderson 19842195). Anderson locates the provincial notion of an autonomous

and contractual military force within the framework of New England society at

large- a “society fairly steeped in covenants”- and by so doing provides a logical

 

relationshr
provincials
the war) w
that seems
A d:
that of and;
stands as a
Concerning
[provincial c
and comma
body; and ti
raised were
1984172),
Governor Tl
“Ecessary {f
and employs

00”tract bet

 

violated”- (Apl

198140241,

“'dlerv tea:

  
 
 

Alter:

homers. civ

relationship between military behavior and cultural context; Massachusetts
provincials (who formed the largest contingent of provincial troops fielded during
the war) were simply acting according to long-standing social experiences, a fact
that seemed to be lost on their British allies.

A dispute over the imposed subordination of provincial officers relative to
that of equally ranked British regular officers during the early years of the war
stands as a good example of this contractual mentality among the Americans.
Concerning this dispute, American officer John Winslow remarked “they
[provincial officers] were universally of opinion they could not give up [their rank
and command compared to the British], as the army was a properly organized
body; and that they by the several governments from whom these troops were
raised were executors in trust, which it was not their power to resign” (Anderson
19842172). Referring to the same dispute and employing similar phrasing,
Governor Thomas Fitch of Connecticut pointed out that “It therefore seems
necessary that these [provincial] troops be continued under the same command
and employed agreeable to the design of their enlistments; otherwise the
contract between them and their constituents may be broken and their rights
violated” (Anderson 19842178). Combined with similar but more numerous
journal accounts among the provincial enlisted, the idea of a contract-based
soldiery reads like a constant theme among the provincial armies (Anderson
19812402-411, 19842167,185-195).

Alternatively, while the provincials perceived themselves essentially as

Iaborers- civilians temporarily obligated to the colonies in which they had been

45

raised- the British professional military drew upon experiences of discipline,
obedience, and subordination to royal authority as the proper organization for an
army, typified in one British commander's response to the provincials” “seditious”
remarks quoted above: “I hope the king has a better opinion than to imagine
that they could ever think they had a right to refer his majesty's commands, to be
debated in a provincial council of war” (Anderson 19842176).

A further distinction between the two communities was each group’s
persistent disagreement over the authority vested in provincial armies. Prior to
1756 both British and American politicians tacitly accepted a “separate but equal”
footing for provincial troops relative to the British (Rogers 1974270). This policy
secured the use of both groups in furthering the war effort and, to the provincials,
ensured that their contracts for enlistment did not suffer interference from royal
authority. The practical necessity of merging colonial and British forces as the
war progressed, however, inevitably guaranteed a subordinate role for the
provincials. British disregard for provincial equality is evident early in the war, as
the Royal Proclamation of November 1754 made clear:

We are hereby pleased to declare, It is Our VWII & Pleasure, that

all Troops serving by commissions signed by Us, or by Our

General Comanding [sic] in Chief in North America [regulars],

shall take Rank before all Troops which may serve by

Commission from any of the Governors or Councils of Our

Provinces in North America [provincials] (Pargellis 1936244).
“This order,” Anderson (20002140) comments, “reduced the most experienced
colonial military leaders, colonels and generals not excepted, to a level below

that of the newest pimpled ensign in the regular army”. The less-then-equal

relationship of rank was partially modified through the course of the war to

46

improve the status of provincial officers serving jointly with British regulars: Lord
Loudon’s Rule of 1755 ranked provincial field officers and generals as “eldest
captains” when in joint service, while William Pitt in late 1757 ordered that
“provincial majors, colonels, and generals would enjoy a status equivalent to their
counterpart ranks in the regular army, ranking as juniors only to the regular
officers of comparable grades” (Anderson 20002145, 214). Nevertheless, the fact
that such orders were issued, even if to improve the relative status of provincials,
indicates the overall disdain British commanders had for their American
counterparts. Yet despite such an explicit lack of confidence by the British
command, provincials maintained a sense of equality for themselves throughout
the course of joint service (Anderson 1984).

The kin-based structure of many provincial units also distinguished them
from the rigidly hierarchical rank structure characteristic of the British military. A
sampling of six Massachusetts regiments enlisted for the 1756 expedition
demonstrates 104 cases of two or more men in the same provincial company
sharing surname, birthplace and place of residence at time of enlistment, 65 of
which included officers or noncommissioned officers (Anderson 1984242). As
these men would have been very active in enlisting soldiers to fill unit ranks,
kinship ties were often employed to meet recruitment needs, thus resulting in a
very unique understanding among the provincials as to the officer-soldier
relationship.

Writ large, this officer-soldier relationship resulted in an army structure

quite unlike that of the British command. Where the British functioned under an

47

idealized arrangement akin to a human pyramid- a hierarchically organized body
of status and rank positions bound together through chains of command and
often bmtal discipline- provincial forces combined to form a loosely knit network
of kinship ties and personal loyalties (Anderson 1984248). Sharp distinctions
between lines of rank were often blurred among provincials, and the necessary
maintenance of discipline relied more often on entreaty and solidarity than on
terror. “The process of [provincial] enlistment,” Anderson (1984244) concludes,
“thus created unusually close ties between the army’s leaders and its rank and
file- ties incomprehensible to regular soldiers like the redcoats, who understood
that a virtually unbridgeable chasm separated officers from other ranks”. Such
community and kinship-oriented relationships among the provincials, unlike the
“draconian discipline in a system that discouraged [British] officers from even
learning their men's Christian names,” may have provided more of a sense of
shared identity within American units as well as less of a sense of distinction
across lines of provincial rank and hierarchy (Anderson 1984244; Leach

1986a: 1 08).

To suggest a stronger sense of regional identity among all provincials,
however, may confuse a range of variability within this group. In contrast to the
kin-related regiments of New England, provincial units raised in other colonies
often demonstrate much greater heterogeneity in their social composition.
Muster rolls for the colony of New York during the 1760 campaign indicate only
about a third of the men enlisted for service were native-bom New Yorkers; the

majority were either migrants from other colonies or from various parts of Europe

48

(Knoblauch 1997). Data from the Virginia Regiment size rolls for the years 1756
and 1757 reveal an army almost equally divided between native and foreign-born
soldiers, while in Pennsylvania muster rolls indicate that less than 20% of
provincial forces were native to that colony (Ferling 1986; Ward 1995289-90,
Table 4). These patterns contrast sharply with regiments from Massachusetts,
over 80% of who were born within the colony (Anderson 19842232, Table 13).

A uniquely temporary character of military service also clearly
differentiated provincials from British regulars. American terms of enlistment
ensured that the provincial army “was never a permanent body Men enlisted
not for a term of years or for the duration of the war, but for a campaign that they
understood would last eight months. By law, none of the enlisted men could be
compelled to serve longer than twelve months” (Anderson 1984250). This
discontinuous character of American service meant that, from year to year, its
army was essentially a new creation, clearly distinguished from the British army’s
reliance upon long-term enlistments among an experienced enlisted and officer
corp. This no doubt resulted in a provincial military force wholly unfamiliar with
the prescribed rules and regulations governing even the smallest and most
mundane of soldering duties such as was outlined in military manuals like
Humphrey Bland’s (1746) Treatise of Military Discipline. Conventional practices
as described in such a manual were standard procedure for the British army, but
not so for the American forces (Anderson 1984277). The temporary nature of
provincial service also served as a constant source of friction during British and

American joint expeditions, where provincial plans to return home at the end of

49

 

enlistment ]

A co
and British
formal (i.e.
disproporti:
charactenzr
and do the
1965100, F
immune to .
remarks cor
September

due Suborc.

 

have neithe.

  

Suited lOr “p
provincials
Cleanng an
they 3'30 re
Given their ,
Units. Callie
”ECeSSary it

when

enlistment periods were, to the British command, threats of mutiny and desertion.
A comparable level of military training also clearly set apart the provincial
and British ranks, with the provincials simply lacking an equivalent experience in
formal (i.e. European) tactics of war. As a result, provincial units were
disproportionately employed in manual labor tasks, or as the British would
characterize it, merely suited “to work our Boats, drive our Wagons, to fell Trees,
and do the Works that in inhabited Countrys are performed by Peasants” (Shy
19652100; Rogers 1974267; Leach 1986a2132). Provincial officers were not
immune to such contempt from their British counterparts, as William Johnson’s
remarks concerning the provincial forces under his command at Lake George in
September 1755 made clear: “In short there is not through the Troops in general
due Subordination kept up. The officers are most of them low weak People, who
have neither the ability nor Inclination to maintain a necessary Superiority. Some
of them I believe are sorry Fellows & rather join with than restrain their Men”
(Sullivan 192227). In fact, the characterization of provincial forces as merely
suited for “peasant work” was not wholly accurate (Anderson 1984281 ). While
provincials were often employed in such manual labor tasks as cutting firewood,
clearing and repairing roads, escorting supply trains, and digging entrenchments,
they also represented a pool of skilled labor unmatched among the British ranks.
Given their status as temporary or part-time soldiers, many among the provincial
units- carpenters, smiths, masons- provided the supportive skills and services
necessary for maintaining an effective military force that were simply lacking

among the British professionals. The comparative lack of reliable infrastructure

50

and the various physical challenges posed by the American frontier environment
found the British army ill-suited towards certain skilled tasks, and reliance on
Americans was inevitable. Among members of Jonathan Bagley’s
Massachusetts Regiment, for example, were a large percentage of skilled
woodworkers who were employed in building fortifications, bridges, outbuildings,
and a large number of maritime vessels at forts Edward and William Henry
(Kemmer 1997).

Taken together these historical sources of British-American relations
suggest that the interaction of native- and foreign-born soldiers served as a
significant organizational feature among colonial military settlements. While
status and military rank were, by definition, integral factors to the structure of
these settlements, the distinction of provincial or British likely cut across lines of
rank to define a broader cultural division within these military populations. Such
a division was clearly recognized by the communities themselves, as both
provincial and British accounts attest to the influence of this dichotomy in
structuring the behavior of either group during joint occupations. As real
differences between the two were, over time, combined with imagined and even
exaggerated differences, the regulars and provincials ultimately “came to have a
poor opinion of one another” (Rogers 1974260).

These accounts also suggest that significant interactions occurred within
British colonial military frontiers in addition to the organizational structures tying
periphery to core. While inextricably linked to a larger political arena, peripheral

military settlements evidence important processes at the local level: “the

51

dynamic interplay that takes place between colonial and indigenous populations,

an important source of culture change” (Lightfoot and Martinez 19952487).

Chapter Summary

The historical framework of Anglo-American relations during the Seven
Years’ War provides an ideal case study for the application of the various
theoretical concepts introduced earlier in this chapter. As a cosmopolitan military
frontier, British settlements of the Seven Years’ War were necessarily embedded
within metropolitan networks, networks that extended the reach cf British colonial
power and linked disparate components into a large-scale trans-Atlantic system
of core/periphery relationships. But these same settlements were also active
arenas of culture contact, interaction, and change. Equally important were the
small-scale contexts of contact between American provincial and British regular
populations. Cultural dynamics between Anglo-American populations were thus
significant influences at these settlements, equally so as were the political
directives of the core state. Ultimately, then, what is needed is a scalar model to
help integrate the various threads into a coherent and encompassing framework,
one that defines the basic components of colonial military frontiers and outlines
how these might be observed archaeologically among Seven Years’ War British

contexts. This is the subject of the subsequent discussion.

52

CHAPTER 3:

THE COLONIAL MILITARY FRONTIER MODEL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL
HYPOTHESES

53

Chapter Introduction

The intent of this chapter is to synthesize the various topics discussed in
Chapter 2 into a coherent and scalar model of colonial military frontiers. The
model is presented first in terms of its basic assumptions. These basics help to
define clearly the salient characteristics of colonial military frontiers, in part by
incorporating many of the theoretical concepts discussed in the first part of I
Chapter 2. These basic assumptions are abstracted from any one historical
context and apply to colonial military frontiers in general. The model is also
presented in terms of the historical framework presented in the latter part of
Chapter 2. This helps define application of the model to real-world contexts, and
helps to determine exactly how certain hypothesized patterns might be observed
against the archaeological record of British military settlements. Taken together,
the basic assumptions of the model demonstrate the importance not only of the
military frontier as a social phenomenon of eighteenth-century British North
America, but also of the multi-scalar issues involved in colonial frontier contexts.
In many respects the model is similar to that advocated for frontiers in general by
pluralist scholars, but applied here to the functionally specific context of military
frontiers. In this sense the various components of the model have already been
discussed at length, with further discussion serving only to assemble and
consolidate the salient points. It is hoped that this chapter provides such a
succinct review prior to testing the model against British military data.

The model and its derived archaeological hypotheses offer a theoretically

informed and historically contextual approach to the general study of colonial

military frontiers. While the various hypotheses and expected material patterns
are specific to Anglo-American relations during the Seven Years' War, the
processes at work and the behavior being modeled are characteristic of a much
wider audience. As such, they provide the means to comment on the broader
issue of colonial frontier cultural dynamics, and how the issue of scale plays an
important part in observing and studying such dynamics. From a more practical
perspective, the model also provides a specific framework to help structure future

archaeological research into British military settlements of the Seven Years’ War.

Colonial Military Frontier Model

The model of colonial military frontiers may be best enumerated as a
series of basic assumptions. First and foremost, a fundamental assumption of
the model is that colonial military frontiers are multi-cultural arenas in which
groups of varied backgrounds coexist and interact. This fact is true for
cosmopolitan and insular frontiers in general, a point reinforced by Lightfoot and
Martinez (1995), but it is one that until only very recently has gone unrecognized
for its analytical importance. Diverse frontier military populations can include, but
are not limited to, imported homeland armies, locally raised colonial troops, and
allied indigenous forces. When viewed in terms of competing colonial empires,
these varied cultural groups necessarily take on a more homogenized identity;
thus, for example, the “British” fought against the “French” in North America

during the Seven Years’ War.

But when viewed from the perspective of the frontier itself and within more

55

restricted contexts, such large-scale appellations serve only to reduce the true
complexity of the cultures present. Thus the “British” army was comprised of
imported British regular troops, locally raised volunteer American units, and allied
native groups, among others, with their French foes equally varied in character.
Observing and examining this varied character is therefore integral to a fuller
understanding of the military frontier experience, in part because it is a topic that
has not garnered adequate attention by frontier scholars over the years.

A second assumption of the model is that examining military frontiers
from restricted spatial/temporal contexts- for example, small-scale
domestic contexts- will help reveal the character of this culturally diverse
environment. This assumption implies that the traditional large-scale
perspective common among frontier scholars is not adequately suited to
understanding cultural diversity in military contexts. It also implies that it is in the
day-to-day, private, small-scale contexts such as domestic occupations that we
might best observe how individuals and groups express their shared cultural
behaviors in opposition to others and in varied cultural environments. In acting
out daily, repetitive, even mundane tasks- the preparation and consumption food,
the use of tools or other accoutrements, the disposal of trash, even the
construction and maintenance of domestic spaces- individuals reinforce (but also
potentially reconfigure) cultural affiliations, particularly within heterogeneous
contexts. Examining small-scale domestic contexts may thus offer a useful
perspective into the character of cultural diversity as was experienced by frontier

military populations.

56

The fact that clear cultural boundaries will be observed when viewed
within small-scale domestic contexts is a third assumption of the model,
though such relatively bounded categories are conceptualized as neither fixed
nor absolute. This aspect serves as an important point of divergence from the
more general pluralist frontier perspective espoused by Lightfoot and Martinez
(1995). Here the authors argue that cultural margins are in general quite “fuzzy”
in heterogeneous frontier contexts because individuals continually alter their
cultural affiliations as established practices are recast in novel social
environments. Thus the authors decry the existence of sharp cultural margins
while at the same time they celebrate the cultural “noise” of frontiers in which
there exists a complex and ever-shifting mosaic of crosscutting segmentary
groups (Lightfoot and Martinez 19952474). This perspective is valid in a
theoretical sense, but it is an assumption that proves very difficult to
operationalize for archaeological testing. It also represents an assumption that
the authors themselves found very difficult to maintain in practice, and brief
mention of this is in order.

In their study of the cosmopolitan and multi-ethnic Fort Ross colonial
outpost in California (Lightfoot et al. 1998), the authors implicitly observed clear
cultural margins among inter-ethnic households. The authors were able to define
Native Californian (female) behaviors and practices within the scale of individual
households. Female Kashaya Pomo wives reproduced their traditional daily
practices of food preparation and refuse disposal as evidenced by patterns seen

in the domestic artifact assemblages they left behind. At the scale of individual

57

neighborhoods and in the alignment of multiple inter-ethnic households, however,
it was clear that their Native Alaskan husbands’ conventions were employed.
Male Alutiiq hunting conventions were observed through the placement of
villages along marine terraces that afforded an unobstructed view of the ocean.
In this case the inter-ethnic Kashaya Pomo and Alutiiq households changed their
overt cultural affiliations depending on the spatial scale under consideration. And
at the scale of the overall colonial outpost, the imprint of Russian managers was
evident in the segregation of discrete neighborhoods based on class, status, and
ethnicity.

What these patterns suggest is a clear identification of cultural boundaries
by the authors, boundaries that are entwined with the concept of scale. While a
strict reliance on such sharp cultural boundaries is no doubt an over simplification
of reality, they are nevertheless analytically necessary and in turn seem apparent
in the archaeological record. The authors’ strong claim against any kind of rigid
cultural boundary in frontier contexts thus confuses what is ultimately a scalar
issue: such boundaries are fluid and changeable in the manner in which they
reconfigure among different spatial/temporal contexts, but within any single
context they are necessarily visible.

Cultural margins may indeed be “noisy” of “fuzzy” in frontier contexts, but
such noise is the result of reconfigurations across different spatial or temporal
scales. The overlapping or crosscutting nature of cultural margins as advocated
by Lightfoot and Martinez (1995) is therefore not rejected in the present model,

despite the claim for clear cultural boundaries within small-scale spatial and

58

temporal contexts. Rather, cultural margins as recast as malleable units subject
to reconfigurations in different contexts. That is, the crosscutting nature of
cultural boundaries- the noise celebrated by Lightfoot and Martinez (1995)- may
be manifest in the processes by which these categories are redefined or
restructured among different spatial or temporal scales.

This line of reasoning leads to a fourth basic assumption of the colonial
military frontier model: patterns In the diverse fabric of military frontier
cultures which are observable within small-scale contexts may correlate or
conflict with those patterns observable within much broader spatial or
temporal frames of reference. This aspect of the model recognizes that one’s
cultural affiliation or identity is not something that is strictly enacted or simply
reproduced through cultural practice. Rather, it is an aspect that is often actively
and creatively reconfigured in response to new situations, particularly during
encounters with others. Frontier military populations- as among all types of
frontier settlement- thus participate in the ethnogenesis of new cultural practices
and forms, and these may be expressed and observed across different scales of
analysis. Ultimately this represents part of the larger process of culture change.
As the relevant spatial scale moves from individual domestic spheres to larger,
more public spaces, colonial military populations may actively modify their
cultural affiliations by adopting new practices or adapting old ones. Behaviors
and practices that serve to distinguish certain populations within small-scale
contexts may, when viewed from larger contexts for example, serve as a means

for blurring or altering cultural boundaries depending on the nature of the

59

historical relationship between the groups. And as the temporal scale moves
from single points in time to spans of years or longer, groups may shift affiliations
as they come to incorporate new ideas and behaviors over a period of time.

A fifth and final assumption of the colonial frontier model is that such
settlements functioned within large-scale metropolitan networks that were
relevant far beyond the immediate concerns of the local cultural
environment. This assumption recognizes, as do Lightfoot and Martinez
(19952487), the need for a balanced perspective to frontier studies, one that
accepts the important influence of core-periphery relationships as well as the
fundamental role of micro-scale cultural dynamics. If it is true that not every
aspect of frontier environments is revealing of the larger external connections
present, it must also be true that not every aspect is necessarily revealing of
processes of cultural diversity, interaction, and change. As the scale of analysis
ever increases to include multiple settlements across a regional colonial
landscape or across spans of years, the larger political and economic influences
at work within military settlements certainly become relevant, and to the expense
of micro-scale cultural dynamics. At these large scales, the diverse frontier
military populations likely exhibit a much more homogenous character overall as
they begin to assume the role of a specialized cosmopolitan frontier carrying out
the dictates and will of their parent state. While this last assumption on the
importance of external influences is no doubt true for all types of frontier

settlement, it is particularly relevant when considering colonial military frontiers.

60

 

Arc

fran
absl
Arne
cult.
the o
inforr
to a 5
cents.
Specif.
drfi‘ere
frontier
valid in
I
Study de
the pars
Seven y
bUl lnSte;
EValuate.
popUlailo;

Archaeological Hypotheses

Application of the model’s theoretical assumptions to the historical
framework offers the opportunity to develop the model more fully by placing
abstract concepts in real-world contexts. The result is a model of Anglo-
American behaviors across variable scales, behavior that likely involved material
culture and is reflected in the archaeological record. Application thus involves
the development of a series of archaeological hypotheses, and the theoretically
informed and historically contextual general model enjoys a detailed application
to a specific archaeological case study. Expressed in terms of another historical
context (or even in terms of another type of cosmopolitan frontier settlement), the
specific archaeological hypotheses and material implications would, of course, be
different. But the processes they seek to observe- the means by which diverse
frontier cultures exist and interact on a daily basis within diverse contexts- remain
valid in every colonial frontier military environment.

It is important to note that the archaeological hypotheses explored in this
study derive only from the application of relevant frontier theoretical concepts to
the particular historical circumstances of Anglo-American relations during the
Seven Years’ War. Archaeological data are not used to develop the hypotheses,
but instead represent an independent line of evidence with which to explore and
evaluate the nature of cultural diversity as was experienced by frontier
populations. In this way, the archaeological record adds an equally valid line of

evidence to the historical record and to the study of colonial frontier settlement.

61

Small-Scale Spatia- Temporal Contexts

A fundamental assumption of the colonial military frontier model is that
significant material variation will in fact clearly distinguish diverse frontier
populations within small-scale contexts. While it is true that, by definition,
reducing one’s scale of analysis to ever smaller contexts will necessarily bring to
light greater variation, it is the fact that such variation takes the form of a clear
Anglo-American distinction that is relevant (Farry 2005a218). It is thus assumed
that material variation will clearly distinguish small-scale spatial and temporal
contexts of American provincial or British regular occupations (for example,
provincial huts/tents and regular barracks structures).

The nature of this Anglo-American material culture diversity likely
assumed various forms based on the historical relationship of provincials and
British regulars. What, for example, are the material correlates of a community
defined by an autonomous martial tradition, a temporary and contractual basis for
wartime service, and an army structure consisting of informal relations between
relatively inexperienced troops? Further, how would these patterns compare or
contrast with those associated with an allied community defined by a rigidly
hierarchical rank structure, strong central command, and a highly disciplined
corps of seasoned troops? Again, hypotheses derived from this historical
relationship focus upon Anglo-American cultural differences in small-scale
contexts because it assumed that such contexts offer the best perspective on
frontier cultural diversity. The means by which cultural margins change or

become blurred isexplored among larger spatial and temporal scales.

62

The control afforded by Anderson’s detailed historical framework means
that a number of possible archaeological hypotheses and material implications
might be suggested to help understand small-scale diversity between British and

American forces during the Seven Years’ War, including:

Hypothesis 1: British and provincial material assemblages from small
spatio-temporal contexts will likely reveal differing degrees of material
culture standardization.

From a broad perspective, this hypothesis assumes that Anglo-American
groups differed significantly in their participation in a “professional” military
culture. It posits that, at any specific point in time, specific British contexts will
likely reveal a comparatively professional-looking martial identity manifested by
standardized materials. The British military was long practiced in the tactics of
formal European warfare and was quite familiar with how to adequately supply
and arm its forces, particularly in the use of similar weaponry and other
accoutrements to ease replacement and help standardize fire. The American
provincials, to the contrary, could not draw upon such a lengthy or professional
martial tradition, even those numerous New England forces among the ranks that
were all too familiar with colonial warfare. As a result, provincial forces were
unfamiliar and likely unable to similarly supply and arm their troops as were the
British regulars. American provincial contexts will thus likely reveal a lack of
standardized materials as befitted a professional fighting force. Based on the

general historical depiction of the colonial forces conveyed by Anderson (1984),

63

one can almost picture the rather “motley” looking appearance of the provincials
in comparison to the dress and discipline of the British regulars.

Specific archaeological test expectations derived from this hypothesis
could cover a wide spectrum of material items because the concept of
standardization is not limited to any single item or artifact category. For example,
it could be expected that British regulars employed a uniform weaponry, most
likely using the “Brown Bess” as a standard issue musket while the provincials
did not. It is documented that the acceptance of the flintlock musket among
warring European nations during the first half of the eighteenth century led to the
eventual standardization of military weaponry, as Brumwell (20022194) points
out: “This union of firepower and cold steel [represented by the innovative
flintlock musket] revolutionized warfare: uniformity of armament simplified drill,
enhanced the scope for manoeuvre, and rendered infantry less vulnerable to
prowling cavalry”. Neumann (1967) makes a similar argument, stating that
acceptance of the flintlock musket eventually led to the rationalization of military
firepower across Europe and to the adoption of the standard issue Brown Bess
musket by the British in the mid-1720s. “Prior to this time,” Neumann (1967216)
argues, “most European governments had bought arms from individual
contractors, letting them arrange the details of manufacture. As a rule, only the
barrel length and approximate bore size had been specified. Now the complete
pattern, including the stock and furniture, was being given standard dimensions”.
Provincial forces, by comparison, likely employed whatever weaponry was

available, including any and all muskets that were issued to them or that

64

individual American recruits brought with them during the initial gathering of
forces. Indeed, Kemmer (1998246) notes that it was often common for individual
American colonies to offer bounties to provincial soldiers who could supply their
own working musket.

And as the mustering of provincials started anew each year, this would
suggest that from year to year provincial weaponry remained non-standardized
compared to the British regulars. Contemporary sources during William
Johnson’s 1755 campaign against the French at Crown Point, for example, note
the general’s disdain that provincial armaments- those of officers and soldiers
alike- were a variable mix “of difft. Bores and sorts” (Lauber 19392206). Again,
the motley appearance of the unprofessional and amateur provincials comes to
mind in relation to the regulars.

Other categories of materials, such as items of military dress or even the
architectural designs of individual dwellings, may also demonstrate differences in
the degree of standardization (Farry 2005a222). Concerning the latter, Anderson
(1984) argues that the design and construction of domestic structures used by
the soldiers was one of the most obvious and public points of divergence
between Anglo-American forces. Anderson (1984292) quotes at length the
description given of the provincial camp at Lake George in 1755, the author of
which wondered whether it was indeed possible to

describe the various accommodations and conveniences of
living used in this place? In one part you might behold rows of
habitations appearing like whites sepulchers...in another part
you might see a cave or hole in the rocks; some huge poles of

brush and dirt served to fend off the cold and rain- others had
long rows of buildings that much resemble meeting-house

65

 

 

And

ofien
lack 1
com;
411).
stand
could
The s;
stmctu

Americ

Hypoth
Provinc
assemt
T.
and cont
expenem
Enlistmen
Service, pr
”Winder
anumber

after year

sheds.

And given mention of the fact in contemporary accounts that provincial uniforms
often consisted of the civilian clothes that they brought with them on campaign, a
lack of standardized uniforms could be hypothesized for American contexts
compared to the standardized redcoats of the regulars (see Anderson 20002410-
411). Musket ball diameters could serve as a proxy for measuring weapon
standardization among British and provincial assemblages, while button types
could do the same for measuring the “uniformity” of colonial and British uniforms.
The specific architectural features or patterns of British and American domestic
structures could also help evaluate differences in standardization among Anglo-

American architecture.

Hypothesis 2: Colonial assemblages may reflect the temporary character of
provincial military service, while in comparison, British regular
assemblages may reflect a much more long-term military service.

This hypothesis explores the uniquely provincial attribute of a temporary
and contractual-based military service, one that was quite at odds to the
experience of the professional British military and its reliance upon long-term
enlistments. As soldiers under contract for only a single campaign or year of
service, provincial ranks were never a permanent body. While a number of
provincial soldiers might (and did) reenlist during the course of the war, and while
a number of provincial officers might be recommissioned (and often were) year

after year, the provincial army during the Seven Years’ War was a perennial re-

66

creation. “Any continuity it enjoyed,” Anderson (1984251) writes, “was
accidental”.

That being the case, it is worthwhile to suppose that temporary military
service will be reflected in some manner in the composition of provincial
assemblages, while in comparison, long-term military service will be reflected in
the composition of British regular material assemblages. Temporary military
service among the provincials, for example, might involve a comparative lack in
the range or amount of material items used, which might suggest that certain
categories of materials were considered unnecessary or unneeded baggage
given the imperrnanent character of provincial service. In effect, provincials may
have brought (or bought) less items than the regulars given their short tours of
duty. Similarly, provincial domestic structures may demonstrate an imperrnanent

character compared to more substantial and long-term British regular structures.

Hypothesis 3: Small-scale Anglo-American assemblages may differ
significantly in the degree to which they reflect a hierarchical order of
military rank and status positions.

This hypothesis posits that British regular contexts will demonstrate much
greater evidence for status and rank divisions within the military hierarchy as
compared to American provincial contexts. The hypothesis is, in one sense, a
continuation of the earlier idea that British regulars were a much more
”professional” military force compared to Americans. In another sense, however,

the hypothesis draws upon the discordant military structures underlying both

67

armies. As Anderson (1984:48) argues, provincial forces functioned under a
unique officer-soldier relationship compared to the British ranks, resulting in two
very different military arrangements among the Anglo-American allies:

We can understand the apparently erratic behavior of
provincial armies in the field only by first recognizing that
intense personal loyalties and expectations of reciprocity
between men and officers suffused the process by which these
armies were created. In its institutional ideal, a provincial army
was a human pyramid, hierarchically organized and held
together with chains of command, authority, and obligation,
extending from the commander in chief at its peak down to the
individual soldiers at its base. But the reality of recruitment gave
the lie to the superficial orderliness of the provincial armies’
organization. Rather than a uniform hierarchy of officers and
men, a provincial army was in fact a confederation of tiny war
bands, bound together less by the formal relationships of
command than by an organic network of kinship and personal

loyalties.
The “institutional ideal” Anderson references was very much characteristic of
British regular forces, representing an ideal that was constantly enforced and
ingrained upon the regulars through the workings of a brutal military justice
system.

Because of this “war band” structure and the many kinship and personal
ties within provincial units, it can be assumed therefore that provincial material
assemblages will look much the same across lines of rank. That is, excepting
only the most obvious and necessary distinctions of military status (e.g. officer
insignia), provincial assemblages will likely not reveal significant differences in
terms of rank differentiation. The construction techniques of individual provincial
domestic structures as well as their associated material assemblages, for

example, might exhibit a degree of similarity in terms of status and rank. It may

68

also be the case (as explored above) that a variety of construction techniques
were used to construct provincial officer and enlisted dwellings alike, such that no
one technique or building material could be distinguished along lines of military
rank (Farry 2005a:23). By way of contrast, the artifactual assemblages and
architectural details associated with British regular occupations are assumed to
reflect the presence of sharp distinctions of military rank.

These expected patterns of Hypothesis 3, however, do require one
important caveat. While the notions of a loosely knit network and a war band-like
structure describe well the numerous New England provincial forces, forces
drawn from other American colonies demonstrate a social composition much like
that of the British army. This suggests that certain provincial assemblages might
reveal patterns that are very similar to British regular contexts in terms of status
distinctions. Deviations from Hypothesis 3 might therefore be expected in certain
instances as not all provincial units derived from New England or were composed
of men related through kinship or community ties (Ferling 1986; Ward 1995;

Knoblauch 1997).

Hypothesis 4: Provincial and British domestic contexts may be
disflnguished in terms of their familiarity with orderly encampment
behaviors, evidenced by very different patterns in the manner in which

domestic trash is disposed.

Implicit in this hypothesis is, again, the notion that British regulars were a

much more professional military force than the provincials and that they were

69

much more familiar with the basic daily tasks involved in maintaining a dense
military settlement. Provincial soldiers, unaccustomed to life in compact urban
settlements (which in terms of sheer population density is what British military
settlements of the period were) or to the military regulations regarding sanitation,
may have followed less-than-ideal practices of trash disposal or camp
cleanliness (Anderson 1984:95-98; Chet 2003:127). This was certainly the
conclusion drawn by British Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Burton after his visit to the
New England provincial encampment at Fort William Henry in 17562 “The
[provincial] camp nastier than anything I could conceive. Their necessary houses
[latrines], kitchens, graves and places for slaughtering cattle, all mixed through
the encampment” (Anderson 1984295). Burton’s visit also brought him to William
Henry’s sister settlement to the south at Fort Edward, where he found a slightly
better situation but one still deficient in the eyes of a British officer: “At Fort
Edward about 2,500 men, between five and six hundred sick. Bury daily from five
to eight men, and officers in proportion. Their camp much cleaner than at Fort
William Henry, but not sufficiently so to keep the men healthy” (Anderson

1 984296).

At the Fort Edward settlement official orders were issued to ensure a
degree of camp order and cleanliness among provincial encampments, as
Phinehas Lyman noted in his orderly book at Fort Edward in 1757: “It is Major
Fletcher’s orders that the commanding officer of the different corps, see that the
streets of their respective encampments be swept clean every day and that an

officer of a company visit the men’s tents in order to see that they are kept as

70

clean as possible” (Hill 19292119). But the fact that such orders were often re-
issued (as Major F letcher’s were only two days later [Hill 192921191), raises
questions as to how carefully official policy was actually put into daily practice by
provincial soldiers (Farry 2005a:24). Reference to numerous other orderly books
in which daily orders issued to the provincial troops were recorded finds a
number of edicts on camp cleanliness (see, e.g., Henshaw 1759; Lyman
1899232,34-35; Hastings 1911225; Moneypenny 19702435,444).

Material manifestations of provincial “slovenliness” might include the
random or indiscriminant disposal of refuse immediately among huts or tents or
in public spaces surrounding domestic structures, as Burton’s remarks suggest.
This might result in the accumulation of debris within a sheet midden layer rather
than within specialized refuse areas or pits. By contrast, British barracks may

evidence cleaner, if not more regular, procedures for removing domestic refuse

into specialized areas.

The concept of professionalism is a recurrent theme through all of the
hypotheses just discussed, and as such, it deserves special mention prior to
discussing subsequent large-scale archaeological hypotheses. As Anderson
(19842viii) points out, “Judged by timeless standards of military professionalism,
the provincials seem merely to be what the British said they were: bad soldiers”.
But while it is true that American forces subscribed to notions of military service
that were wholly at odds with their British regular allies, to evaluate them simply

as deficient, unprofessional, or “bad” because of these tendencies misses the

71

underlying cultural distinctiveness of American and British forces during the
Seven Years’ War. “To judge the provincials only as deficient versions of
professional troops, without reference to the provincials’ shared values and their
beliefs concerning war and military service, would be to misunderstand the
actions and motivations of eighteenth-century New Englanders at war" (Anderson
19842ix). Thus the various material differences hypothesized for regulars and
provincials in small-scale spatio—temporal contexts are not simply a measure of
which group was more professional or which was better at soldiering; they are an
attempt to measure the fundamental cultural diversity that existed among

historically situated groups in a specific frontier military context.

Large-Scale Spatio- Temporal Contexts

Broadening the spatial scale of analysis beyond domestic contexts to
include troop encampments, entire military settlements, or multiple settlements
across a regional landscape may suggest even more complex relations between
provincial and British populations. Broadening the temporal scale beyond single
points in time might also shed light on Anglo-American cultural interaction and
diversity. Archaeological patterns evident within small-scale domestic contexts
(e.g. huts and barracks) that likely clearly demarcate provincial and British
groups may either correlate or conflict with those patterns observable among, for
example, troop encampments or whole settlements. The same may be true for
broader temporal spans. This aspect reinforces the idea that the clear cultural

margins hypothesized for restricted scales of analysis are neither fixed nor

72

absolute; they may be reinforced or changed as the spatial/temporal scale is
expanded. It also reinforces the idea that one’s cultural affiliation or identity can
be actively reproduced but also actively reconfigured in different contexts. These
larger scales of analysis can also help reveal the cosmopolitan character of

colonial military frontiers and the external trans-Atlantic networks within which

they participated.

Hypothesis 5: Over a broad spatial scale, the design or layout of British
and provincial troop encampments may differ in the degree to which either
reflects a hierarchical order of military rank.

Hypothesis 5 is actually a version of Hypothesis 3, but projected at the
spatial scale of entire encampments rather than individual structures. That is, as
the construction techniques and associated material assemblages within
provincial and British regular domestic structures have been hypothesized to
exhibit very different patterns of military rank (Hypothesis 3), a similar
arrangement may be observed when dealing with the use of space between such
structures (Farry 2005a:24). Again, Hypothesis 5 assumes that the significant
difference will likely be a lack of rank divisions within provincial contexts
compared to a clear delineation of rank within British contexts.

The historical record is very clear in its portrayal of British regular
encampments as a perfect expression of the army’s hierarchical ideals. The
physical space among British encampments functioned as a sort of “geometry of

rank” that embodied the sharp divisions separating officers from men. This

73

geometry was well entrenched in the professional British military culture and was
spelled out in minute detail in contemporary military manuals such as Humphrey
Bland’s Treatise of Military Discipline (Bland 1746). Anderson (1984290)
provides a succinct summary of how British regular encampments were designed
to reflect military rank:

Laid out in a grid composed of rectangular battalion areas each

a hundred yards wide and three hundred yards long, the regular

camp separated officers and men, allowed easy movement

along avenues that intersected at right angles, and located

sanitary facilities well away from troop kitchens. Within each

battalion block, the arrangement of tents replicated the pyramid

of command. The Colonel’s quarters stood in the heart of the

area, at the apex of a broad triangle of officers” tents. Below the

baseline formed by the subaltern’s billets, the enlisted men

pitched their tents in a compact rectangle, along parallel

company streets. Shelters reflected the rank of the occupants.

Common soldiers slept five to a tent in tents that measured

about seven by nine feet; captains lived individually in tents of

about nine feet by ten (see Figure 23).

Provincial encampments were, as Anderson (1984290) argues, “chaotic by
comparison” and never approached the geometrical order demonstrated by their
regular allies. Given their lack of familiarity with proper camp conventions and
their networks of kinship and community ties, entire provincial encampments may
therefore evidence little or no distinctions in the use of space to mark status or
military rank. This might include a complete lack of order in the placement of
huts and tents within provincial encampments, compared to the orderly
placement of British regular structures per military manual orders.

Alternatively, consider the fact that provincial units may have purposefully
adopted a traditional and fixed spatial arrangement of troop encampments,

mirroring the hierarchy of (and therefore indicating an affiliation with) the British

74

command. This represents an alternate version of Hypothesis 5, one that
considers it possible that- at the scale of troop encampments— provincial forces
may have consciously adopted a much more British character in their use of
space to mark status positions. Given the visible and public nature of its
expression, this message would have been communicated to the largest possible
audience and may have served to demonstrate the equal position provincials
perceived for themselves- unprofessional or not- throughout their service with the
British. This possibility is suggestive of the fact that provincials may have
actively conveyed different affiliations depending on context: conforming to the
norms and rules of the British military in outward appearance (encampments)

while maintaining a. sense of distinction within their own domestic spheres

(huts/tents).

Hypothesis 6: Multiple British and provincial encampments within a single
military settlement may differ significantly in terms of their overall
configuration.

This hypothesis assumes that when a single but entire military settlement
is considered- that is, the central fort and its surrounding troop encampments and
smaller fortifications- the distribution of Anglo-American forces might reflect the
fundamental cultural differences that existed between British and provincials. If,
as has been hypothesized, the professional British ranks served chiefly in a
martial capacity during the war given their level of training and skill, it may be

hypothesized that such units were specifically deployed within individual

75

settlements to reflect this-specialized role. That is, British forces may have been
positioned within settlements such that they could defend the settlement
perimeter or quickly and efficiently mobilize forces for an attack. This might
suggest that British forces tend more often than not to be positioned along the
periphery of individual settlements, or along those strategic and fortified strong
points (e.g. redoubts) that ensured the security and safety of the settlement.

The low relative fighting value the British command held for their American
allies might suggest that provincial encampments tended to be located within the
confines of British regular encampments. They might also be positioned along
those areas of the settlement in need of construction or repair given the
supportive function of many provincial units. On the other hand, provincial
encampments might have been placed as buffers around a military settlement by
the British command, thereby forcing the Americans to serve as a sort of cushion
or “shock absorber” against any surprise attacks. On this last point, for example,
British Colonel James Montrésor noted the obvious discontent among provincial
forces at Fort Edward in 1757 that were ordered to set up their encampment
north of the fort and “on the same side of the river that the Ennemy [sic] was on,

and so could not so conveniently run away” (quoted in Leach 1986bz131).

Hypothesis 7: Over a broad temporal scale, provincial and British
assemblages might demonstrate similar patterning as either group adopted
specific behaviors or practices during their course of joint service.

Hypothesis 7 attempts to understand the nature of provincial and British

76

cultural diversity and interaction over a span of time, with the assumption that
such diversity may have been more pronounced during the early years of the war
as compared to the later years. While the general intent of this hypothesis is to
suggest that either group may have adopted behaviors of the other, this issue
might be best approached in terms of the extent to which American provincials
adopted the martial practices of the British regulars. At least in terms of such
characteristics as the use of standardized materials, familiarity with encampment
conduct, or the display of rank divisions, it seems more logical that the
provincials would draw from their British allies rather than vice versa. There is, of
course, no doubt that the British army altered its basic composition in response
to the unique challenges posed by the American theatre of war, for example in
their development of mobile Light Infantry scouts akin to the provincial Ranger
units. But theT British army in North America by the end of the war was much the
same as it was in the beginning, due in part to the careful application rather than
fundamental innovation of European martial conventions (Russell 1978; Ward
1997; Brumwell 1998, 2002; Chet 2003). As a result, provincial contexts likely
provide the best source for observing any evidence for change over a time scale
that encompasses the entire conflict (ca. 1754-1763). It would, nevertheless, be
quite enlightening to come to find that an expected British standard through time
was in fact lacking in archaeological evidence.

It may be hypothesized that provincial domestic contexts dating to late in
the war will demonstrate much greater standardization in material items

compared to earlier contexts. It may also be the case that over time American

77

forces gained a degree of skill in soldiering that actually prompted the British
command to use them in a more martial capacity. This might suggest that early
provincial assemblages which demonstrate a secondary, supportive role will be
distinguished from later, more martial-looking provincial assemblages. A similar
temporal pattern might be hypothesized for the degree to which provincial
artifactual or architectural assemblages reflect clear distinctions of rank, or the
degree to which they demonstrate familiarity with proper camp behaviors. In
terms of trash disposal from domestic contexts, for example, similar disposal
patterns among Anglo-Americans towards the end of the war may reflect a
greater provincial understanding and acceptance of conventional camp practices.
A provincial perception of equality relative to that of the British regulars, despite
‘ the latter’s explicit disagreement, may have served as a motivating factor among
Americans to adopt strict camp regulations or other British practices over time.
Anderson (1984277) hints at this possibility in remarking that, “Procedural
directives tended to become less frequent [among provincial units] as campaigns
progressed, a fact that suggests they were becoming less necessary and
that...provincials had become more or less habituated to life in camp”.
Hypothesis 7 thus juxtaposes the first 5 small-scale hypotheses with the factor of
time, suggesting that the various expected Anglo-American cultural differences
may in fact be muted when viewed across a broad temporal scale.

It should be mentioned that the discussion of a broad temporal scale in
Hypothesis 7 refers to a relatively short span of years (ca. 1754-1763). Such a

time frame may be considered large, however, in that it based on the entire span

78

of the war. And based on evidence gleaned from the later Revolutionary War,
the time frame should allow for observation of any and all patterns of change
among provincial contexts. Seidel’s (1984) study of the Revolutionary War, for
example, discusses documentary and archaeological evidence that reveals an
increasing sophistication among the Americans in terms of their design of troop
encampments over the course of the war. It similar patterns did existamong

provincial contexts, then, they have the potential to be archaeologically visible.

Hypothesis 8: The establishment, deployment and expansion over time of
multiple settlements across a large-scale region of military settlement will
likely assume a more homogenous “British” character, with Anglo-
American diversity playing less of role at this scale compared to the
political directives ofthe British core state.

Hypothesis 8expands the scale of analysis to its largest spatial extent,
and recognizes that at such a scale external core-periphery influences likely
played a much more influential role than issues of Anglo-American cultural
diversity and interaction. Multiple military settlements spread across a region are
assumed to reflect the spatial pattern of an expanding colonial power in
peripheral areas. As the purpose of the British military frontier during the mid-
eighteenth century was to counteract the expanding presence of the French and
secure a strategic foothold to the continental interior, the overall patterning of
military settlements would necessarily conform to meeting these military needs.

In this large-scale context, the “echo” of provincial units would be silent in that the

79

determining factor in settlement pattern and expansion would strongly reflect the
external dictates of the core and the nature of the perceived threat, not the
cultural conditions of the local peripheral military environment (Lewis 19842286-
288). Distinctions of provincial and British communities would thus not be as
clearly visible, and the overall social fabric of military settlements would likely
assume a more homogenous “British” character in response to external
influences and connections.

Material implications might be observed as a dendritic and efficient pattern
of settlement linking functionally related and specialized military sites (Farry
1995). This pattern would ensure a direct link to the core state and the rapid
infusion of any and all military directives, a necessary condition if the colonial
frontier settlements are to fulfill their military objectives. The functional
connections between settlements might include "larger, more accessible central
locations well within the region of colonial settlement to serve as supply depots
and points of departure that are linked to smaller sites positioned to protect
strategic transportation routes and the movement of supplies. These might
connect with even more distant military strongholds protecting the extreme
frontier fringe.

What this suggests is a large-scale functional system of British military
settlement, with specific locations and settlements serving different roles to
ensure a strong colonial military presence. Settlement function might be
discerned based on sheer size, with the more central depot sites much larger

than the fringe strongholds. It might also be inferred based on the materials

80

present at each sites, with the larger central settlements demonstrating storage
activities and the pooling and distribution of materials while fringe settlements
demonstrate a concentration of martial items. These large-scale functional
relationships spread across space might also be observed through time, such
that more diversified “behind the lines” supportive roles may develop as
settlements are caught farther and farther behind the expanding frontier. This is
analogous to Lewis’s ( 1984) colonization gradient concept among insular frontier
settlements (see also Casagrande et al. 1964). Overall, settlement pattern and
expansion at this scale is a decidedly British endeavor, regardless of Anglo-

American interactions.

Chapter Summary

A scalar model of colonial military frontiers has been proposed. The basic
assumptions of the model focus attention to issues of cultural diversity,
interaction, and change in frontier military environments and how these were
expressed among variable spatial and temporal scales. Expressing the model in
terms of the historical relationships that existed between Anglo-American groups
during the Seven Years’ War has allowed for the development of a series of
specific archaeological hypotheses. These hypotheses explore how frontier
cultural dynamics were actually manifested among diverse populations in real-
world contexts, and further how these dynamics might be observed through
material culture. Small-scale spatio-temporal contexts have been emphasized as

these likely represent the best venues with which to observe hypothesized

81

patterns of diversity. Larger-scale contexts have also been discussed,
particularly in terms of how they reflect (or fail to reflect) those patterns of cultural
diversity observed within more restricted contexts. What remains now is a brief
review of relevant archaeological sites, followed by the careful application of the
model to British archaeological data to explore the veracity of the assumptions

and the hypothesized archaeological patterns.

82

CHAPTER 4:

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AND THE RESEARCH CONTEXT OF THE
SEVEN YEARS’ WAR

83

Chapter Inhoduction

The underlying intent of this chapter is to introduce briefly the specific
archaeological sites and data used to test this study’s model and hypotheses in
subsequent chapters. While a site-by-site description would be sufficient (and is
employed), presentation of the material is framed more broadly in terms of
evaluating the state of Seven Years’ War archaeological research and this
study’s placement within it. In doing so, this chapter includes discussion of a
number of sites and data, not all of which is later employed in archaeological
testing in Chapter 5.

Much of the archaeological data associated with Seven Years’ War sites
derive from what can be termed descriptive or typological approaches. Such
approaches and their respective sites and data are discussed first, and these are
found to comprise the bulk of “traditional” Seven Years’ War archaeological
research. One benefit of these approaches has been the amassing of a large
and complex data source, some of which will later be employed in testing the
archaeological hypothesis outlines in Chapter 3. The small number of analytical
studies that do exist in the literature are discussed second, and they are offered
as evidence that the complex data source represented by British military material
culture of the Seven Years’ War remains a relatively under-utilized resource by
frontier scholars. Their data are not ignored in this study, with certain patterns
re-examined in light of this study’s assumptions and offered as evidence in the
evaluation of the material expectations.

Discussion of these analytical studies and their respective sites (again,

some of which are later employed in archaeological testing) is followed by a
summary review of Seven Years’ War archaeology and this study’s relationship
to it. One conclusion to be drawn is that the predominance of descriptive, data-
rich and site-specific studies of the Seven Years’ War must not come at the
expense of more theoretically informed and historically based analyses.
Particularistic reconstruction excavations have provided important benefits to
Seven Years’ War archaeology, but there is much to be gained by employing
such archaeological data in the creation of theoretically based models informed
by relevant historical scholarship. In so doing, the archaeological record of
British military sites becomes an important source of knowledge about the
colonial military frontier, one that is independent and as equally relevant as the
historical record. It is therefore hoped that the following discussion- while
intended as means to introduce specific sites and data later used in this analysis-
will also help to define the theoretical and analytical importance of Seven Years’
War archaeology in general and this study’s placement within it.

Archaeological data introduced here and again in Chapter 5 include both
published and unpublished data sources. These data derive primarily from
excavations conducted at a number of British frontier settlements located along
the overland portage route lying between the Hudson River and the Lake
George-Lake Champlain Valley in northeastern New York (Figure 2). This
portage served as a key lynchpin in the imperial designs of both French and
British forces during the war: to the French, control of the portage allowed a

direct route to Albany and points south; to the British, control provided a direct

85

 

Figure 1: The northeast colonial frontier in North America during the
Seven Years' War, showing select British and French settlements

I.

’V. — _. \ 2 j
,y 7: // ‘z" \_ -~ I) K
I E
l 1%
i/V‘L ’j "\ ° .5
I, % \\_ _ 5
J “' t
\

 

      
 
 
 
   
   

. ~21, , , », _, ‘
7' r Beatsslousm+yiéW"'“\$ i
t \10 L- _ H

m Montre f /,fl~i . . _. ,7, I;
1 ~"“ ' r’ -¥_ . /"L{ ‘/
V' /’ f\ J 7‘ i, 14 n, ». r f k,”

r r ' ‘ ~. 2 I.” :1 .
' Crpwrii Point J’s/av" ./ if? i
5 J at” first" Halifax .

r ‘ l r1

p; Portage sites
r ,
I 'v\ Boston
iii/Afi

  
  

élK /
R tanwlxfi
l .9 _ “—‘j‘: ,
l, {\Machault‘u” ,
l' Lpudoun ._ Albany

7K; New York

_"/’ ,- ' 'V
“~'~__r-‘\ Necessity/ ,
i" If}

/Ligonier ‘r’ . ‘34,; Frederick
/5» v2) :3 r
‘ x/v/ .,, A
1’" ' Y‘s
/ ”.2.

 

”F M. ”ig/ x, M j A French then British |
~ g 0 French ’
7M. r. “f / ' I British ‘ ‘

 

i-
; 300 o 300 600 Miles

 

 

86

 

 

Figure 2: Detail of portage sites in northeastern New York.

 

 

\
/-

Fort GageW?

 

 

 

A 5 O 5 Miles

87

 

route into Canada. Other British military settlements discussed in this chapter

include sites in Michigan, Nova Scotia, and Pennsylvania (Figure 1).

Descriptive! Typological Approaches

Even the most cursory review of Seven Years’ War archaeology
demonstrates an unfortunate if undeniable fact: much of the work conducted to
date has consisted of data-gathering endeavors intended to provide artifactual or
architectural details for purposes of site reconstruction. Where research was not
directed towards aiding reconstruction, approaches have tended towards the
development of detailed artifact typologies or to producing descriptive summaries
of excavations that simply add to or “fill in” the existing historical record.

Clearly, the value of such research is not in question. Detailed typological
studies such as Hanson and Hsu’s (1975) study of Fort Stanwix artifacts or
Grimm’s (1970) typology of Fort Ligonier artifacts provide the basic formal,
spatial, and temporal properties of a British frontier settlement during the Seven
Years’ War. At the same time, it is in establishing some degree of control over
these properties that should allow for more in-depth analytical research, a pattern
that is found lacking overall in Seven Years’ War archaeology. This has no doubt
prompted scholars such as Crabtree et al. (2002221) to remark that, despite the
amount research conducted to date, the “archeology of the French and Indian
War remains relatively understudied”.

The overall tenor to Seven Years’ War archaeology matches that

attributed to Revolutionary War archaeological research by Seidel (1987). Seidel

88

(1977:26-29) cites Robert Schuyler’s (1977) five—stage evolutionary scheme for
the development of historical archaeology in general, a scheme that assumes
that the discipline begins as an aid to restoration efforts and only later develops
into an independent means of researching and understanding the past. Seidel
(1987:27-28) describes Revolutionary War archaeology as still struggling to
emerge from Schuyler’s hypothetical Stage III of development:

The archaeologists by this time [Stage III] realize that the

[artifacts] themselves and the information they hold are at least

equal in importance to the goal of restoration. . . Here the

architectural information is generally combined with that

obtained from the artifacts, in order to obtain a slightly more

analytical understanding of the site. In general, however,

artifacts are used merely as a convenient means of illustrating

the site’s past or to extract technical information to aid

reconstruction efforts.
Unfortunately, much of this assessment by Seidel holds equally true for the
archaeology of the Seven Years’ War.

Notable sites for which descriptive or typological approaches have been
the norm include Forts Necessity and Ligonier in western Pennsylvania; and Fort
Stanwix, Fort William Henry, Fort Edward, Fort George, and Fort Gage in
northern New York. Select data from all of the New York British military sites

discussed below are employed later in archaeological testing.

Fort Necessity, PA

Situated in western Pennsylvania at the Great Meadows, Fort Necessity
was the scene of extensive archaeological excavations, first conducted during

the 19303 for the purposes of site reconstruction and then again during the early

89

1950s to correct many of the initial mistakes. The fort, consisting of a small
stockaded post surrounded by embankments, was a hastily constructed strong
point that was witness to the opening salvo of the war. A young George
Washington’s task of reinforcing the advance British post at the Forks of the Ohio
changed when word spread of the surrender of that settlement to the French in
1754. Washington’s immediate response was to fortify the Necessity site as a
main camp and supply base for the construction of a new British fort at Red
Stone Creek, now intended to oppose the French presence in the Ohio Valley.
Following a brief skirmish between advance guards, the French attacked
Washington’s force of Virginia provincials and a South Carolina Independent
Company and forced a quick surrender. Washington’s brief and failed military
encounter signaled the beginning of formal hostilities during the war and made
very clear the competing desires between British and French interests over
control of the Ohio Valley.

Excavations were conducted very briefly at Fort Necessity in 1901, and
again in 1931 for the purposes of reconstructing the stockaded post.
Excavations were resumed in the early 1950s under the aegis of the National
Park Service (NPS) and the direction of JC. Harrington (1952, 1953, 1977, 1978)
to locate certain entrenchments outside of the reconstructed stockade, as
suggested by historical documents. This latter project unintentionally recovered
architectural details of the stockaded post that proved the original reconstruction
to be in serious error. The supposed stockade uncovered during the earlier

excavations was in fact a series of earth embankments that originally lay some

90

distance beyond the stockaded post. The actual stockade was round, within
which lay a small log storehouse, and its discovery prompted the NPS to expand
the scope of the excavations and eventually rebuild the park according to these
more accurate standards.

As a cautionary tale on the hasty reconstruction of a fort site, Harrington’s
work is an important contribution. His discovery and confirmation of a round
stockade surrounded by a diamond-shaped earthwork laid to rest a debate on
the actual shape and design of the fort, a debate that raged for years and argued
at various times for a triangle or a diamond-shaped Stockade. The result, of
course, has been the “re”- reconstruction of Fort Necessity as an educational
exhibit, one that accurately reflects the original design of the encampment and
provides the public with a rare opportunity to experience life on the military
frontier. But the public education aspect of Fort Necessity National Park was
intended as but one of the site’s contributions. On this point, Harrington
(19782131 ) remarked that

The one consolation, in addition to knowing that thousands of
people will derive a great deal of pleasure from their visit to the
site, is that all, or any part, can be done over at any
time...another archaeologist may come along and question the
reconstruction or the adequacy of the exploration. If he decides
to explore a little further, he may find some additional evidence,

and, if this evidence warrants, a different reconstruction will be
conceived. Or possible, by then, reconstructions will be out of

style.

It is an unfortunate fact that little interpretative analyses have since been
published on the Necessity data, and Harrington’s optimism for future

contributions remains an important reminder of work yet to be done.

91

Fort Ligonier, PA

Also found in western Pennsylvania is Fort Ligonier, an advance post built
during General John Forbes’s 1758 expedition to the French stronghold at Fort
Duquesne (modern Pittsburgh). Situated along Loyalhanna Creek, the Fort
served as the base for an unsanctioned and preemptive attack (also
unsuccessful) against the French at Duquesne prior to Forbes’s arrival in mid-
November of 1758. By the time Forbes’s army reached Fort Duquesne on
November 25th, the French had abandoned their post in smoldering ruins and
effectively ceded their control of the strategic Ohio Valley. Following attacks
during the pan-tribal uprising known as Pontiac’s War in 1763, Fort Ligonier lost
its military importance and was decommissioned by 1766.

Excavations of the site began in 1947, following the incorporation of the
Fort Ligonier Memorial Foundation and the commission of Charles Stotz, an
architectural historian, to research and locate contemporary plans of the fort for
purposes of reconstruction (Stotz 1974). Despite the fact that these early
excavations uncovered some 17,000 square feet, the seemingly random
placement of features that were encountered prevented the identification of the
original footprint, thereby precluding a completely accurate fort reconstruction.
Grimm’s (1970) more extensive excavations during the years 1960-1965
ultimately revealed a number of fort features and their similarity to original fort
plans, and enabled the complete reconstruction of the fort by the late 1960s. In
describing his appreciation for Grimm’s archaeological work, Stotz (Grimm

197026) commented that the rebuilding of Fort Ligonier proved “a model for any

92

project involving a cooperative effort between historical archaeologist and
restoration architect”.

Grimm’s (1970) published report of the excavations offers a very detailed
listing and descriptive account of the features and artifacts recovered from Fort
Ligonier, providing an important comparative typological collection of mid-
eighteenth century British military material culture. In many ways the collection is
unrivaled by other colonial military sites in the degree of artifact preservation,
which includes large and intact fragments of leather shoes, wooden barrels, and
floral/faunal remains (Stotz 1974239-40). In his concluding remarks, Grimm
(19702175) commented that given the fort’s short occupation period and the
amount of material recovered in excavation, the artifacts would “therefore serve
as benchmarks in comparing artifacts from other excavations of the Colonial
period”. Benchmarks they have served, and served well (Hanson and Hsu
1975), but the detailed Ligonier assemblage seems to be limited to this role given
the lack of subsequent analyses that have since employed the data. It seems
equally possible that the Fort Ligonier artifacts could be compared to other site

assemblages not for the items they represent, but for the cultural behaviors that

produced and used them.

Fort Stanwix, NY

Located in western New York, the construction of Fort Stanwix ensured
British control over the Mohawk River-Wood Creek portage, a lynchpin in the

overland travel route between the Great Lakes and the Atlantic. The fort was

93

built in 1758 by troops under Brigadier General John Stanwix, at a time when the
fortunes of war were beginning to shift towards an ultimate and inevitable British
victory. With the decrease of hostilities by the early 1760s the fort became less
important and would eventually be deactivated from duty, with the barracks
known to have burned down in the fall of 1774 (Hsu 1972; Hanson and Hsu
1975221). In 1776 Continental troops occupied and re-enforced the aging
settlement in preparation for a British attack, which came in August of the next
year. St. Leger’s 1777 invasion through the Mohawk Valley ended in the British
abandoning the siege of Stanwix and returning to Canada, a move that helped
ensure Burgoyne’s surrender at Saratoga two months later. The fort continued to
be occupied until a 1781 fire destroyed most of the wooden superstructure, and
eventually, the city of Rome was built atop and around the fort grounds. By the
late 1960s, the grounds were purchased, cleared, and donated to the Federal
Government, after which the National Park Service prepared a master plan for
the site prior to its reconstruction (Hanson and Hsu 197521; Luzader et al. 1976).
The reconstructed Fort Stanwix remains open to the public as a National
Monument site and a museum.

To facilitate the fort’s reconstruction, National Park Service archaeologists
excavated approximately one-third of the site (Hanson and Hsu 1975). A
complex series of structural features was encountered relating to the continued
military occupation of the site during both the Seven Years’ War and the later
Revolutionary War. Unfortunately, either component could not be distinguished

via stratigraphy, resulting in a date span between 1758 and 1781. The end result

94

of the excavations was twofold: (1) the assembly of a comprehensive dataset of
architectural details which allowed for the accurate reconstruction of Stanwix,
and (2) the publication of these details and their associated artifacts in a
comprehensive final report authored by Lee Hanson and Dick Hsu (Hanson and
Hsu 1975).

The Hanson and Hsu (1975) report provides a meticulously detailed
typology of artifacts that is similar in form to Grimm’s (1970) Fort Ligonier report.
Although each of the reports offers summary conclusions on British military life,
their intent is clearly the descriptive presentation and dissemination of the artifact
assemblage for future researchers. The Stanwix report lacks any inter-site
comparisons, in part due to data availability given the lack of similarly detailed
typologies at the time (excepting Grimm; see Hanson and Hsu 1975248). In fact,
the Stanwix typology is explicitly designed for others’ use in the level of detail
presented, as the authors felt that “a less detailed description along strictly
functional lines might not meet the needs of future researchers” (Hanson and
Hsu 1975248). Unfortunately, it would seem that such needs have not been
forthcoming, and the Hanson and Hsu (1975) report more often than not serves
as an artifact identification tool rather a comparative data source (cf. Farry
2005a). As with the public education afforded by the reconstructed fort, this role

is not an unimportant one, but it a regrettable fact that such a detailed dataset

remains relatively underutilized.

95

Fort Willlam Henry, NY

Foremost among New York Seven Years’ War sites in the historical
consciousness of America, Fort William Henry served as the frontline British post
in the Hudson-Champlain Valleys between 1755 and 1757. William Johnson
secured the location following his victory at the Battle of Lake George. The fort
remained in British hands through the next year and into the late summer of
1757, finally destroyed by the French under Montcalm following a protracted,
European-style siege. The retreating British and provincial forces also suffered a
violent, if brief, attack by French-allied Indians who felt betrayed by the terms of
capitulation. The fort attack and subsequent ‘massacre’ was immortalized in
American history by James Fenimore Cooper’s Last of the Mohicans, a piece of
American literature that, more often than not, is recognized for its “literary
offenses” over its historical reality (Twain 1856; Devoto 1946; Steele 19902169-
170). Little of the actual fort grounds was disturbed into the nineteenth century
beyond the installment of walking paths for tourists (Gates 2004) until plans were
developed in the early 19503 to reconstruct Fort William Henry to its full and
original specifications. Excavations under Stanley Gifford (1955) were conducted
to locate the original footprint of the fort, and in conjunction with contemporary
plans, allowed for the very accurate rebuilding of the fort’s walls and interior
buildings. By 1955, a fully reconstructed Fort William Henry was open to the
large resort community during the spring and summer months.

While the resulting angles and distances of the reconstructed fort were of

the highest standard, the same cannot be said of the excavations prior to the

96

rebuilding. As project archaeologist, Gifford published a short history of the fort
(Gifford 1955), including a brief description of the excavations, but no summary
report of his work exists. Aside from photographs, a few field records, and plenty
of unprovenienced artifacts, no detailed account exists as to where Gifford dug or
what was found. No doubt the poor excavation techniques were the result of
leapfrogging just ahead of construction in the attempt to locate very quickly the
needed structural details.

More recent excavations were conducted between 1997 and 2000 in the
attempt to re-locate Gifford’s trenches and to sample possible intact areas. Field
school students participated in the excavation of numerous fort features,
including the east and west British regular barracks, the parade ground, exterior
moat trash deposits, the original well, and the fort cemetery (Bradfield 2000;
Starbuck 1991, 1993, 1999, 2002; Farry 2000). The barracks within the fort were
originally home to surprisingly few of troops stationed at Lake George, probably
no more than 500, with the majority encamped on the rocky knoll to the
southeast that would eventually become Fort George. Occupants included
Colonel William Eyre’s contingent of regulars and later soldiers in Colonel
Munro’s 35 Regiment of Foot (Starbuck 200428). Stratigraphic information
revealed heavily disturbed upper levels resulting from the fort’s reconstruction
and subsequent use as a tourist site, a fact that is tempered by the very short
lifespan of the original fort and the identification of deeper intact architectural

features.

The primary publication from these more recent excavations is Starbuck’s

97

(2002) Massacre at Fort William Henry, a popular-style book that provides a
descriptive overview of each of the field seasons and a series of vignettes on
various topics of archaeology and eighteenth-century military life. Tabulated data
showing artifact totals per excavation context (barracks, well, dump, etc.) are
included in the short book, though these are clearly intended for others given that
they are rarely referenced in the text and are only provenienced at the level of
site number. Intra-site comparisons of the artifact data between different parts of
the fort, or inter-site comparisons with other fort sites, are not offered in the
discussion, and a technical report detailing the artifacts and features for use by
professionals has yet to be published (Babits 20032116). As with Gifford’s, then,
no detailed final report exists for the more recent excavations, and it is difficult to
assess what knowledge has been gained of the site. Indeed, it may even be
argued that without at least the widespread publication of a detailed and
descriptive final report(s), information has in fact been lost in the sense that the
data are not being put to use or made available to others. This is an unfortunate
fact given the size of the assemblage and the very tightly dated time span (less

than two years) of the British military component at Fort William Henry.

Port Edward! Rogers Island, NY

A similar argument could be advanced for the work conducted at William
Henry’s sister settlement Fort Edward. Located some 15 miles to the south
along the banks of the Hudson, Fort Edward represented an important behind-

the—Iines supportive settlement where troops would mass prior to their advance

98

north to Lake George or Lake Champlain. The area marked the northem-most
point of water travel along the Hudson River, thereby forming the southern
control point of the strategic overland portage route to Lakes George or
Champlain. From the loss of Fort William Henry in August 1757 to Abercromby’s
1758 advance to Lake George, Fort Edward served as the frontline settlement
standing guard against possible French attack. No siege ever came, and the fort
and its adjacent island (Rogers Island) served primarily as a rallying point for
troops and material moving north. Following the war, surrounding settlements
grew increasingly dense through time as the fort grounds became part of the
village of Fort Edward. Unlike William Henry, the settlement was never
reconstructed, and undeveloped portions of the island saw rather intensive pot-
hunting from the early 19603 into the late twentieth century (Stott 1986; Starbuck
1994a2247-251). Dredgings unearthed from the adjacent Hudson River channel
during the early twentieth century- much of which was dumped on the island at
variable depths- have served to protect large portions of the archaeological
deposits. The lack of post-occupation disturbance to many portions of the island
is reflected, for example, in the recovery of but structures still composed of traces
of their wooden floors with floor nails and sills in situ (Farry 2005a:26).
Sanctioned looting of the island officially ended with transfer of ownership,
and beginning in 1991 summer field schools conducted excavations across the
island and adjacent fort grounds. Excavated contexts were diverse, including
portions of the British barracks complex, a possible storehouse, the smallpox

hospital, numerous Ranger or provincial hut sites, large segments of the original

99

fort and its moat, and a sutler’s site. The island barracks (and those within the
fort proper) housed British regular units such as the 42nd Highland regiment, the
48th Regiment of Foot, the 55th Regiment of Foot and others (Starbuck 2004214-
15,18). The primary publication on these modern excavations is Starbuck’s
(2004) Rangers and Redcoats on the Hudson. Similar to the William Henry
summary (Starbuck 2002), this publication does provide tabular and graphic data
on artifacts counts from separate excavation contexts, but exploration and
discussion of any and all patterns within the data are for the most part missing in
the text. A single technical report (Starbuck et al. 1992) exists for the first year of
excavation on Rogers Island, but the remaining field seasons are only briefly
discussed amid a number of limited circulation publications or public
presentations (De Angelo 1994, 1995; Jarvis 1997; Starbuck 1994a, 1994b,
1995, 1996, 1997a; 1999254-82; Romeo 1994). Many of the remaining field
records have also been dispersed among numerous sources and separated from
the artifact assemblage, making detailed data acquisition difficult. Overall, then,
the Fort Edwardl Rogers Island excavations still lack an accessible summary
report(s), a regrettable fact given the density of Seven Years’ War archaeological

deposits so far unearthed.

Fort George, NY
Subsequent to the loss of Fort William Henry in 1757, the head of Lake

George lacked a formal, Vauban-style fortification until British General Amherst’s

ultimately successful campaign tWo years later. The rocky prominence upon

100

which Fort George stood did, however, serve a military purpose long before the
massive stone fort was begun in 1759. William Johnson’s provincial forces held
the ground in 1755 during the Battle of Lake George, and the grounds would
serve as an adjacent entrenched camp throughout the Fort William Henry
occupation. During 1758, Abercromby also fortified the area prior to (and after)
his failed attempt to take Ticonderoga. General Amherst’s decision to re-fortify
the Lake George area with a permanent fortification came as the tide of the war
turned to the British. His 1759 campaign saw the construction of a number of
fortified sites along the Hudson River-Lake George portage area, including forts
along the shores of Lake Champlain as the French retreated north and ceded
control of the valley. With British control of northern New York solidified by the
stout walls at Ticonderoga and Crown Point, the strategic value of Fort George
lessened, and aside from a massive stone bastion, the fort was never completed.
A small contingent of British troops garrisoned the site through the 17603 and
17703.

In 1898, the State of New York purchased the grounds for the purposes of
commemorating the 150th anniversary of Johnson’s victory at the Battle of Lake
George. During this time, the still-visible stone bastion was reinforced and
stabilized. The grounds encompassing Fort George- labeled “Battlefield Park”-
have since been managed by New York State under the auspices of the
Department of Environmental Conservation. The site currently serves as a public
picnic area for seasonal visitors to Lake George, with interpretive signs spread

across the site to alert visitors to the site’s rich military heritage.

101

Modern excavations were initiated at Fort George in the summer of 2000.
Initial testing during the archaeological field school concentrated on two large
British regular barracks buildings first identified on a 1758 map of Abercromby’s
entrenchments (Fraser 1758; Bellico 2001273). Subsequent testing during the
2001 field school expanded to various features across the Fort George site,
including the fort’s single bastion. Very little of the information gained through
these excavations, however, has been made public by way of published reports.
The field school excavations are briefly mentioned in Starbuck (2002:104-105)
and Vandrei (2001226—28), but no technical report(s) detailing the various
features and artifact assemblages has yet been published. Limited circulation
“gray literature” exists for cultural resource management studies that have been
conducted on or near the park grounds (Nelson, Curtin, and Padeni 2001;
Hartgen et al. 1998), but these are limited in scope to Phase 1A and Phase 1B
presence/absence surveys. Again, the lack of widely accessible and detailed
publications on the extensive Fort George work is regrettable, similar to the

situations at Fort William Henry and Fort Edward.

Fort Gage, NY

Within a year of the fall of Fort William Henry in 1757, British troops
reoccupied the head of Lake George in their continued attempt to dislodge
French occupation of the Champlain Valley. Under the leadership of General
Abercromby, a combined provincial and regular army some 16,000 strong sailed

north to finally overwhelm the French at Ticonderoga and Crown Point. The

102

intended victory turned quickly into a rout, and the remains of Abercromby’s army
retreated south and “dug in” at the south end of Lake George. The heavily
fortified camp integrated various detached guards and stockades, including a
map-documented provincial outpost south of the camp and along the military
road leading to Fort Edward. This fortified post— termed Fort Gage— was only
occupied between July and October in 1758, essentially the length of time
between Abercromby’s defeat at Ticonderoga and his ultimate abandonment of
the Lake George area that fall. Through the remaining war years and later
Revolutionary War, the site was apparently left unoccupied. Disturbance in the
early twentieth century by railroad construction and in the 19603 by highway
construction impacted approximately 10 percent of the site (Feister and Huey
1985212). By 1975, the expanding tourist economy of the Lake George region
prompted development (and ultimate destruction) of the site as a seasonal motel.
Exploratory excavations were conducted by the New York State Office of
Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) at Fort Gage during the
initial stages of development to determine the integrity of the archaeological
remains. The picture conveyed from relevant documentary sources suggested a
brief occupation by provincial forces, which if intact, offered a rare glimpse at a
single-component military settlement. As was the case with the majority of
colonial military sites, individual locations were recognized by succeeding armies
for their strategic importance and were occupied again and again, often
producing intrusive or mixed deposits. Fort Gage, however, offered very tight

temporal control over any existing deposits down to the month of occupation.

103

Some 2,800 square feet of the fort site was excavated in 1975, which identified
such features as the moat, a bastion, hearths, refuse pits, postholes, and original
and disturbed occupation surfaces. Because immediately prior to excavations
portions of the site were illegally bulldozed, a majority of excavation units
identified ground disturbance down to and below subsoil. The excavations also
recovered thousands of mid-eighteenth century artifacts, including such
functional groups as food remains, military items, architectural fragments, and a
range of personal items. One bit of negative evidence was the total absence of
ceramics from the collection, a very unusual trait even among enlisted or low-
rank contexts.

The sample produced by the Fort Gage excavations clearly indicated the
presence of an important military site that, despite considerable disturbance,
maintained a degree of integrity. Nevertheless, prior to full-scale salvage work,
the site was completely bulldozed when the development plans were altered
slightly so as to bypass any and all agency review. This destroyed the integrity
of the site and precluded the recovery of larger artifact samples or more detailed
investigations of the site’s spatial organization. The exploratory work, field
records, and its descriptive published report (Feister and Huey 1985) thus remain

the only record of the site.
Analytical Approaches

Beyond restoration projects, typological studies, or impact assessment

investigations, a small number of analytical studies employing British military site

104

data also exist in the literature. While these studies do not limit themselves to a
purely descriptive framework, the do still tend towards site-specific analyses. As
with the discussion above, then, these approaches are presented in a site-
specific format. Data and patterns from the last site discussed- Fort Crown Point

along the shores of Lake Champlain- are employed later in this study.

Fort Ligonier, PA

As an alternative to descriptive and particularist studies like Grimm’s,
Stanley South’s (1977a, 1977b, 1978a, 1978b) artifact pattern studies from Fort
Ligonier helped explore the means by which historical archaeology uncovers
quantitatively based “deep patterning” within the archaeological record of past
cultural systems in the effort to reveal universal cultural laws. South employed
the Fort Ligonier data in his definition of the Frontier/Architectural Artifact Pattern.
The pattern is defined by the relative frequencies of artifacts that have been
classified within specific functional groupings. Eight groups are defined in all, but
it is the relative frequencies of artifacts within the Kitchen (food-related) and
Architecture groups that are most relevant, with architectural items such as nails,
brick, and window glass predominant. To define the pattern, some forty to sixty
percent of the entire assemblage should consist of architecture items, followed
by approximately twenty to thirty-four percent food-related artifacts (South
1978a2230). So constituted, the ratio represents an inverse of the Carolina
Artifact Pattern common to domestic contexts. South explained this patterning

as possibly the result of sampling error: very little data was excavated fromthe

105

moat (where refuse is often discarded) in any of the sites, thereby favoring the
assemblage towards non food-related items.

Alternatively, South argued the pattern may be reflective of frontier military
or trading post settlements, definable site types that are remote from sources of
supply and characterized by a high concentration of architecture within the
bounds of a relatively restricted space (South 1978b243). It has also been
argued that the particular relationship of the kitchen and architecture artifact
groups might reflect the virtual absence of ceramics (artifacts which typically
compose the bulk of the Kitchen group) among enlisted men stationed at frontier
military posts (South 1978b247). The utility of South’s patterns and the means
used to derive them from archaeological data have, of course, come under more
recent scrutiny (e.g. Beaudry et al. 1996, Pena and Pena 1988), and one might
even questiOn the explanations offered for such patterns. Nevertheless, in the
context of Seven Years’ War archaeology, South’s analyses represent an
innovative use of data that was intentionally designed to move away from

particularist and descriptive frameworks like that reported by Grimm (1970).

Fort Beauséjour; NB

Originally a French fort, Beauséjour (later Fort Cumberland) was captured
by Monckton in the only “bright spot” of the 1755 campaign (Anderson 20002112).
In the same season that saw the defeat of Braddock along the Monongahela and
the stalling of Shirley and Johnson in the forests of New York, Monckton’s New

England forces successfully laid siege to the French post along the Chignecto

106

isthmus in Canada, a move that would represent one of the few military victories
enjoyed by the British during the early years of the war. The British remained at
the fort until 1833, including two brief abandonments, and since 1926 the partially
restored site has been interpreted by Parks Canada as a national historic site
(see publications in Parks Canada 1998).

In the course of stabilizing and partially restoring the site, Parks Canada
has produced a number of published reports on the excavations, including
Wilson (1969), Herst (1970), McNaIly (1971), Cunningham (1971), and Snow
(1975). Among the various publications, Sussman’s (1974, 1975, 2000) work on
the British ceramics at Beauséjour stands out as an innovative approach to
Seven Years’ War archaeological data. Her analyses, in particular Sussman
(2000), examine the degree to which British military ceramics evidence
homogeneity in comparison to other, non-military domestic assemblages. Her
hypothesis states that, based on the unique circumstances of frontier or remote
regions, ceramics likely demonstrate a high degree of uniformity or
standardization in ware type and decorative categories. This is derived from
certain assumptions of frontier military settlements, such as the primacy of British
transport efficiency, the desire among certain frontier groups to maintain and
display formal dining habits, and the need to easily replace broken items
(Sussman 2000252-53). The combined result of these factors, Sussman argues,
is a homogenous ceramic assemblage; tableware that displays high counts of
identical or very similar decorations and very low counts of different ceramic

wares. In the course of her analyses, the Fort Beauséjour ceramics “confirmed

107

beyond expectation the phenomenon of low variability” throughout the entire
period of British occupation (ca. 1755-1833) (Sussman 2000245).

In one respect, Sussman’s (2000) analysis does confuse the issue of
ceramic use across lines of rank. As does South (1978b), Sussman assumes
ceramic use was the sole purview of the officer class, a notion that comparable
analyses (e.g. Feister 1984b) have proved wrong. Her perspective on the
institutional workings of the British military and its expression in ceramic use,
however, has continued relevance in Seven Years’ War archaeology. The
hypothesis of low variability is similar to that proposed by this study, though
Sussman does not approach the question as one of cultural diversity. The
Beauséjour analysis is not geared towards a comparative understanding of
small-scale standardization among British and American contexts, but only to
how such standardization would be manifest among the British regular army

across a long temporal span.

Fort Michilimackinac, Ml

As a fortified colonial outpost, Fort Michilimackinac boasts an occupational
history that stretched long before (and after) the eruption of the Seven Years’
War. The palisaded settlement was originally established ca. 1715 along the
southern shore of the Straits of Mackinac, a strategic pass linking Lakes
Michigan and Huron. For the French, the settlement at the Straits served two
primary roles: a Jesuit mission site and a regional distribution center for the fur

trade characterized by a culturally heterogeneous population (Majewski and

108

Noble 19992302; Scott 1991 :42). The French settlement greatly expanded
through the early and mid-eighteenth century, such that the original palisaded
area grew to approximately three times its original size (Maxwell and Binford
1961212). Following the loss of Quebecto the British in 1759 and Montreal in
1760, French involvement in the North American theatre of the Seven Years’ War
effectively ended, and Michilimackinac was ceded to and occupied by British
forces in September of 1761. Much of the French inhabitants of Michilimackinac
remained at the fort during the British occupation. The fort remained under
British military control through the 17603 and 17703, until its removal across the
Straits to the better-defended Mackinac Island area in 1781. During Pontiac’s
War in 1763, Chippewa Indians killed or captured much of the British garrison,
and as a result the fort was for a short period of time under the de facto control of
a French inhabitant, Charles Langlade.

It should be noted that, compared to other military sites discussed in this
chapter, the British occupation of Fort Michilimackinac technically post-dates the
Seven Years’ War. The British took control of the fort subsequent to the loss of
Montreal and the effective end of French power in North America, though peace
was not officially signed until the Treaty of Paris in 1763. Ultimately, then,
Michilimackinac represents a British military post for which the traditional French
threat in North America was greatly reduced or non-existent, and the site did not
factor significantly in the events of the war. Nevertheless, the site is included in
the present discussion for two primary reasons: (1) the British garrison of

Michilimackinac represented a functionally specific military post by the early

109

17603, one designed above all else for military purposes despite the reduced
French threat (Stone 19742354); and (2) the fort has been subject to a long-
standing program of archaeological research which has produced a large corpus
of publications.

The body of research that has resulted from Michilimackinac archaeology
covers a wide spectrum, covering both the French and British periods of
occupation. Categories of publications include descriptive site reports of specific
field seasons (e.g. Maxwell and Binford 1961; Binford 1962b; Stone 1973;
Heldman 1978; Halchin 1985; Heldman and Grange 1981; Brown n.d.); detailed
artifact typologies (e.g. Stone 1974; Miller and Stone 1970); discussions of the
French occupation (Heldman 1991), the British occupation (Shapiro 1978), and
comparisons of both (Binford 1962a; Stone 1974: 349-356; Cleland 1977);
remote sensing investigations (e.g. Williams and Shapiro 1982); and artifact-
specific analyses (Brown 1971; Heldman 1980; Hamilton and Emery 1988;
Majewski and Noble 1999), to name but a few. Because of Michilimackinac’s
limited role in the events of the Seven Years’ War, very little of the published
work actually relates to the specifics of the conflict, though the immediate post-
war occupation of the fort certainly offers a picture of a functionally specific

British military settlement during the early 17603.
Crown Point, NY

Some of the most innovative Seven Years’ War archaeological

investigations of British military sites have been conducted by OPRHP

110

archaeologists at the Crown Point State Hi3toric Site along Lake Champlain.
Originally a French post (St. Frederic) dating. to the early 17303, the small
peninsula at Crown Point had been the intended goal of many a British campaign
during the Seven Years’ War, including Johnson’s in 1755, Loudon’s in 1756,
and Abercromby’s in 1758. The area served the French and their allies as an
important platform from which to conduct devastating raids, and their
construction of the post clearly signaled French regard for British land claims in
the Champlain Valley (Farry 200327; Bellico 1995, 1999, 2001:17-18). None of
the British attempts to dislodge the French were successful until General
Amherst’s in 1759. It was Amherst’s decision to leave the smoldering St.
Frederic in ruins in favor of a new stone and timber fortification, one that would
forever lay to rest which European nation could truly lay claim to the Champlain
Valley and northern New York in general. Within three years the massive fort
was completed, though the elimination of the ever-present French threat
subsequent to the war’s end meant a much-reduced role for the fort. With the
reduced military function came an expanded civilian settlement to Crown Point
' (Fisher 1995267).

Since the early twentieth century, New York State has owned the fort and
its grounds, which have been stabilized as interpreted as ruins. In 1968 the
National Park Service designated the area as a National Historic Landmark, and
since that time, any and all work at the site has been preceded by archaeological
testing by OPRHP archaeologists (Feister 1984a2103). Excavations of various

parts of the fortification have been conducted on an as-needed basis to prevent

111

any adverse impacts on the site (Starbuck 19992167-173; see also Huey 1996).
OPRHP investigations have produced valuable analyses of the British
military occupation at Crown Point. Feister’s (1984a, 1984b) work in and around
the massive Georgian-style stone barracks buildings, for example, embodies
some of this more innovative research. Feister details both the structural (1984a)
and artifactual (1984b) features associated with these still-standing British
officers’ and soldiers’ domestic sites. Because historical sources provided
unambiguous control over the two structures’ occupants, Feister’s exploration of
archaeological patterning along lines of military rank provides a valuable
comparative data source, particularly when viewed in terms of this study’s model
and hypotheses. Fisher’s (1993, 1995) published accounts of the survey of a
proposed maintenance building at Crown Point also demonstrate a valuable
analysis and offer an important source of Seven Years’ War archaeological data.
Fisher details the architectural and artifactual patterns associated with three
distinct officers’ hut sites beyond the walls of the fort. The locations of sites
matched the placement of Colonel Nathan Whiting’s 2nd Connecticut Regiment
as shown on contemporary plans of the fort. This fact allowed Fisher to examine
the archaeological patterns in terms of a relatively rare context: a series of three,
spatially related and historically documented provincial officers’ sites. As with
Feister's data, when viewed in terms of the colonial frontier model presented

here, Fisher’s research offers an invaluable source of comparative information.

112

Chapter Summary and Assessment

Excepting a small number of individual studies, it can be argued that the
use of archaeological methods and data to elucidate the Seven Years’ War
remains a relatively underdeveloped field of research, particularly in the context
of comparable colonial military and social historians’ discussions. Again, this is
not to say that important archaeological work has not been conducted, only that
much is to be gained from moving beyond site-specific and particularist
frameworks. Such a move involves embracing a range of theoretically informed
research questions, and participating in the on-going debates of colleagues who
study the same historical event but do so with different forms of primary data
(Farry 2005b). It is an unfortunate fact that very little cross-disciplinary
discussion is reflected in the literature (to be fair, in either direction), and the
archaeology of the Seven Years’ War would do well to become more involved
and more informed.

Archaeological studies that explicitly address topics in the historical
literature or that investigate historical models with archaeological data are
relatively few in number. This is regrettable considering the wealth of recent
scholarship on the war and the sophisticated historical arguments and models
archaeologists have at their disposal. Archaeologists have been primarily
concerned with refining artifact typologies, providing architectural details, and
assembling comparative type collections. The benefits of these pursuits are not
in question; what is is whether or not such pursuits represent the full analytical

potential of Seven Years’ War archaeological research.

113

It can also be argued that much of the research reviewed above has been
site-oriented, narrow in scope, and very particularistic, focusing on the smallest
of details within a single site to the expense of inter-site comparisons. The
narrow scope is of course the inevitable consequence of research that has been
predominately concerned with gathering architectural and material culture details
for site reconstruction. Such a pursuit has been the impetus behind much of the
initial excavations at Seven Years’ War sites. Among the sites discussed in the
text, large-scale reconstructions include Fort Necessity, Fort Ligonier, Fort
Michilimackinac, Fort Stanwix, and Fort William Henry. The publications for
these sites essentially exist in isolation; each is cited by the others, but primarily
for aid in identifying artifacts rather than as a means for drawing inter-site
comparisons.

A clear benefit of the various reconstruction efforts has been public
education, both in the physical setting of the reconstructed forts and in the
publication of detailed site reports (e.g. Waddell and Bomberger1996). Indeed,
the goal of fort reconstruction seems to be integral to the widespread publication
of archaeological site reports, given that excavations conducted at a number of
non-reconstructed sites have yet to make comparable work available (e.g. Fort
Edward/Rogers Island; Fort George). Fort William Henry remains the only
reconstructed site discussed above for which detailed site reports do not exist.
Published works the likes of Harrington’s (1952, 1953, 1977, 1978) for Fort
Necessity, Stone’s (1974) for Michilimackinac, Grimm’s (1970) for Fort Ligonier,

and Hanson and Hsu’s (1975) for Fort Stanwix provide very detailed data on

114

these extensive excavations. Taken together the reports provide a veritable
mine of comparative data that, surprisingly, has not been adequately tapped.
Given the destructive nature of excavations, future work should concentrate on
employing as much of these data as are appropriate to a range of research
questions.

This is the intent of the subsequent chapter, which examines the various
archaeological hypotheses presented in Chapter 3 against certain portions of the
archaeological data presented in Chapter 4. For the purposes of this study,
domestic contexts of provincial and British occupation are the relevant units of
analysis, and where possible, are isolated in the existing Seven Years’ War
archaeological data base. Numerous British regular barracks occupations have
been subjected to excavation, particularly at Forts Edward, William Henry,
George, Crown Point, and Stanwix. Provincial domestic occupations of
huts/tents had much less impact on the archaeological record and are much
more rare, but a number have been identified at Forts Edward (Rogers Island),
Gage, and Crown Point. The archaeological data from these domestic
occupations are not all equal in their level of detail, but they nonetheless
represent suitable and relevant sources from which expected material patterns

might be sought.

115

CHAPTER 5:

ARCHAEOLOGICAL TESTING

116

Chapter Introduction

Chapter 5 begins application of the frontier model to British military
archaeological data of the Seven Years’ War. All of the data to be considered
derive from the various excavations reviewed in the preceding chapter, with
different combinations of sites and data used for different hypotheses. The data
include those compiled from previously published sources as well as raw data
from excavations not yet incorporated in any descriptive or analytical accounts.
The data are comparative in nature in that numerous settlements are tapped to
help explore archaeological patterns. The geographical scope of these sites,
however, tends to be restricted to the overland portage route separating the
Hudson River from Lakes George and Champlain (Figure 2). Compared to other
frontier military regions of the Seven Years’ War, this area was host to a number
of formal British military occupations during the entire course of the war, and the
author has been involved in many of their respective archaeological excavations.

While Chapter 3 outlines a comprehensive and multi-scalar model of
Anglo-American cultural diversity during the Seven Years’ War, full exploration of
each of the 8 hypotheses is not the intent of this chapter. The present focus is
primarily upon the small-scale hypotheses discussed in the model (14), or on
how the perceived Anglo-American cultural differences were manifested
archaeologically within restricted spatio-temporal contexts. Published and raw
data are discussed in exploring the large-scale hypotheses, particularly among
Hypotheses 5 and 7, but patterns in general remain speculative at this level of

resolution until future research can provide more adequate samples for study.

117

The structure of the hypothesis testing mirrors that of Chapter 3, with
attention drawn first to small-scale hypotheses and then large-scale hypotheses.
Discussion of each archaeological hypothesis is structured such that the
hypothesis is reintroduced. The particular material expectations are outlined and
then examined against provincial and/or British regular archaeological data, with
evidence for either cultural group discussed separately except in Hypothesis 8.
Discussion also includes a brief review of the conformance between expected

and actual archaeological patterns.

Archaeological Hypotheses: Small-scale Contexts

The primary focus of Chapter 5 is on understanding the degree to which
the hypothesized artifact patterns for small-scale spatial and temporal contexts
accurately predict provincial or British artifact assemblages. The first four
hypotheses suggest significant differences between the two cultural groups, and
that such differences will be clearly identified within the archaeological record.
The archaeological model thus proposes a direct link between the material
record of Anglo-American troops and the cultural diversity which characterized
their ranks. Each of the anticipated archaeological patterns are a logical
outgrth of the dichotomous model proposed by Anderson, and the specific
material expectations are possible only because of the control afforded by his
detailed historical framework. Following a brief discussion of the analytical

methods employed , the first four hypotheses are evaluated in terms of available

archaeological data.

118

Where data manipulation is required in this study, it is consistently minimal
and limited primarily to exploratory data analysis and recoding variables among
different analytical classes to aid in various comparisons. Statistical significance
of certain patterns is formally measured through chi-square contingency tests,
but the analysis relies most often on simple descriptive data displays or metric
distributions. For certain hypotheses, these distributions serve as very useful
and easily compared summaries for different sets of artifact data. As has been
argued, such exploratory techniques provide simple but effective methods for
understanding fundamental patterns or “shape” within data, including
archaeological data (Goldstein 1986). All data comparisons are conducted
between British regular and American provincial analytical units, which is to say
between British barracks assemblages and American provincial hut or tent
assemblages. Data requirements for many of the hypotheses are rather
stringent, which serves to limit what is available for study particularly as the
spatial and temporal scale of analysis is broadened.

An important exploratory technique that is employed in this study is
Correspondence Analysis (subsequently CA). With a long but relatively
inconspicuous history, CA is a relatively simple multivariate technique that has
recently gained favor among scholars (Hill 1974; Greenacre 1984; Greenacre
and Hastie 1987; Higgs 1991; Beh 2004). This fact has become increasingly true
among archaeologists, with a growing number of discussions and applications of
CA in the literature (see Bolviken et al. 1982; Bertelsen 1988; Ringrose 1992;

Clouse 1996, 1999; Duff 1996; Farry 2005a). This exploratory or descriptive

119

statistical technique allows for the transformation of frequency data contained in
two-dimensional tables into a more readable graphical display (Farry 2005a:26;
Clouse 1999296). It intends a graphical representation of both the rows and
columns in the original data matrix in terms of as few dimensions as possible
such that cluster of variables among analytical units can be observed (Hoffman
and Franke 19862215). From a practical perspective, this permits a better sense
of what artifact variables (table columns) distinguish or cluster among the
provincial or British domestic contexts (table rows), at least better than that
determined from the original matrices alone.

As Bolviken et al. (1982241) argue, CA provides a promising exploratory
tool for archaeologists in part because of its ability to handle the inevitable zero
cells common to archaeological frequency data tables. The data requirements of
CA are not stringent and only require non-negative entries in the data matrix and
that row and column totals not equal zero; zero entries for individual cells are
acceptable (Hoffman and Franke 19862213; Weller and Romney 1990272). The
technique thus provides an appropriate tool given the data at hand, but it is a tool
that is decidedly non-deterrninistic. That is, CA provides the means with which
data may be reduced and viewed across geometric space, but its function
remains exploratory rather than confirmatory. CA simply provides an additional
technique with which to explore the fundamental “shape” of the archaeological
data, which in turn may shed light on any and all material culture differences
separating British regular and American provincials.

Overall, the use of CA in this study is very similar to Clouse’s (1996, 1999)

120

application of the technique to archaeological data associated with the
nineteenth-century American military frontier at Fort Snelling, Minnesota. Clouse
compiles detailed tabular data on the various structural contexts within the fort
site identified by excavation, which ultimately consists of artifact counts per
archaeological feature/ structure. The numerous artifact types are grouped by
Clouse (1999) into fewer functional categories, and the frequency of artifacts per
functional group for the various structures are graphed with CA to observe
differences or similarities between the structures. No one single master table of
data is used in the present analysis in favor of smaller, more numerous and
versatile data, but the application of the statistical technique is still very much the

same as Clouse’s application to the Fort Snelling context and data.

Hypothesis 1: Small-scale British and provincial domestic contexts will
likely reveal differences in the degree of material culture standardization.
The first hypothesis to be examined contends that an important point of
cultural divergence between Anglo-American forces during the Seven Year’ War
was in their use of a homogenous material culture. Broadly speaking, this
hypothesis rests upon the assumption that provincial and British forces differed
significantly in terms of their participation in a professional military culture. It
posits that, as a much more experienced and practiced military force, the British
army employed a suite of standardized accoutrements to adequately and
efficiently equip its troops in the field. Standardized materials among the

professional ranks allowed for uniformity in military drills, eased the supply and

121

replacement of items, and helped rationalize the production of weapon projectiles
(Brumwell 20022194). Such standardization has also been historically
documented among the British arrny- at least in its use of weaponry- through the
adoption of the Brown Bess musket during the early eighteenth century
(Neumann 1967216). In comparison, the relative inexperience among the
provincial forces concerning the mobilization and supply of novice troops likely
resulted in a lack of standardized materials. While it is likely that some
provincials were supplied with or were able to obtain material items similar to that
of the British regulars, many more likely did not and had to rely on personal
belongings or personal firepower (Kemmer 1998). Again, one might conceive of
the “motley” (read: non-standardized) appearance of the provincials compared to
the uniform appearance of the professional British military.

Overall, analysis of musket ball diameters reveals expected patterns of
standardization among British contexts. Comparable measurements associated
with provincial huts, however, do not fully support the model’s expectations.
While variability is noted among one provincial domestic occupation, another
reveals unexpected patterns of standardization. This suggests that, while
standardization may indeed be associated with British regulars, variability may
not always be associated with provincial occupations. Clear cultural differences
in material culture standardization may thus not always distinguish Anglo-
American forces, though this pattern could be confused by the factor of time.
Resolving this issue of standardization is examined among provincial musket ball

and button assemblages across broad temporal scales in Hypothesis 7.

122

British Regular Test Implications and Data

The specific archaeological test implication of Hypothesis 1 for British
regular contexts posits the use of standardized musketry among the British
regulars. The most likely candidate is the British Brown Bess musket, and it is
expected that British domestic contexts will demonstrate consistently high
frequencies of this musket type rather than a variable range of different makes or
models. Unfortunately, few archaeological assemblages include complete
musket barrels for analysis, which requires that a proxy be used to help measure
this attribute among British weaponry. Musket balls (measured by their diameter)
fill this need quite well given that they were cast to fit the barrels of specific
musket types and tend to be ubiquitous in the archaeological assemblages of
British military sites (Calver and Bolton 1950:74-75). The expected material
pattern for British contexts thus involves comparatively high frequencies of those
musket ball diameters specifically designed to fit a Brown Bess musket, thereby
lending support for the use of this weapon type among the British and helping to
reveal their tendency for standardization.

More specifically, British musket ball assemblages are expected to
demonstrate a unimodal or single-peaked frequency distribution of diameters
most likely at 69-70 inches but peaking in general between .65-.74 inches. The
expected caliber range is that associated with the large .75-caliber Brown Bess
musket, particularly once the effect of windage is accounted for (Peterson 1956;
Neumann 1967214; Ferguson 1977:59). Windage refers to the difference

between the barrel diameter and the ball diameter. By necessity, musket balls

123

were cast substantially smaller in diameter than their respective weapon barrels
to allow for the build up or fouling of black powder on the inside of the barrels
after repeated use. The bore-loaded weapons required that musket balls be
rammed down prior to each firing, a difficult task as black power began to
increasingly cake the interior of the weapon. A ball cast at a consistent size
smaller than the barrel was thus employed to account for this fouling process,
with differences typically ranging between 05-10 inches (Neumann 1967214;
Farry 2005a:27). Though unimodal, the expected distribution shape of any single
British assemblage will be asymmetrical and peaked towards the higher Brown
Bess calibers and therefore skewed to the left along decreasing numbers of
smaller ball diameters.

To evaluate the British component of Hypothesis 1, musket ball data were
culled from a number of existing barracks assemblages (Table 1). These
included Rogers Island, Fort William Henry, Fort George, and Fort Stanwix (Farry
2005b2459-463). Assembling the Rogers Island collection required consultation
with previous excavators who provided musket ball metric data for both the
barracks and available provincial huts. Data were also collected from available
Rogers Island artifact catalog sheets. Fort William Henry counts were tabulated
from individual artifact catalog sheets, while the Fort George data were pulled
from the existing digital artifact catalogs now on file with the New York State
Museum in Albany. Both barracks buildings 1 and 2 at Fort George are
combined in Table 1 as sample sizes for each were small and their individual

distributions similar. The Fort Stanwix assemblage was easily compiled with

124

reference to Hanson and Hsu’s (1975279, Table 12) detailed report of their
excavations. All diameter measurements were compiled to 1/100ths of an inch,
with the data range restricted between .47-.74. A number of archaeological
discussions of musket ball diameters employ this general range for different
musket and pistol weapons types (see Hanson and Hsu 1975; Poirier1976;
Ferguson 1977; Feister and Huey 1985; Sivilich 1996; Farry 2005a). Smaller
bird or buckshot lead projectiles with diameters less than .47 inches are thus
excluded from consideration from all sites.

Temporal control is not the same for each site, though each was
constructed and occupied during the Seven Years’ War. The Fort William Henry
west barracks building offers the tightest date range at 1756-1757. This structure
was ordered to be built opposite one for officers after a 1756 inspection of the
frontier fort found it wanting in certain respects (see Bradfield 2000:40-43). The
barracks would serve as home for the 274 “Regulars fit for duty” Major William
Eyre commanded in the spring of 1757, as well as for the troops of the 35th,
44th, and 48th regiments commanded by Colonel Munro just prior to its
destruction (Bradfield 2000:50-51; Bellico 2001). The post-1757 Rogers Island
barracks complex was largely abandoned by 1766, and it seems unlikely that the
wooden barracks once home to the Scottish Highland regiments, the 55th
Regiment of Foot and others would have remained intact enough or survived the
Island’s seasonal floods to be again occupied by the small American garrison
there in 1775-1777 (Fitch 1968241; Starbuck 1999270, 2004214-15, 18). The Fort

George barracks immediately post-date the William Henry occupation as the

125

buildings didn’t exist until after the French destroyed Fort William Henry. It is not
clear that the Fort George barracks structures were occupied long after their
construction during the Seven Years’ War, though their use of stone for
construction might suggest a longer life span. Fort Stanwix dates to 1758, with
the British barracks known to have burned down by the fall of 1774 (Hanson and
Hsu 1975221). Though of a much shorter duration, the later American occupation
during the Revolutionary War ca. 1777-1781 could not be distinguished in the
archaeological record of the site as a whole (Hanson and Hsu 1975248).

Figures 3-6 show the frequency distributions of each of the barracks
contexts based on the Table 1 data. Overall they demonstrate concordance
between the expected and actual musket ball distribution patterns. The Rogers
Island assemblage (Figure 3) peaks between the .66-.70-inch caliber range,
while both the Fort William Henry (Figure 4) and Fort George (Figure 5)
distributions peak between the .65-.70-inch diameter range. The Stanwix
distribution (Figure 6) measures most frequently at .69-inches diameter, with a
few examples at .66 and .67 inches. Each one of these ranges falls within that
expected for the Brown Bess musket, and indeed, the predominance of .68
and.69-inch musket ball diameters is what was expected for the .75-inch caliber
weapon. All four figures illustrate a skewed distribution anchored along the high
calibers with decreasing numbers of smaller caliber musket balls. The Fort
William Henry assemblage evidences a slightly more diverse distribution, with

much smaller peaks between the .55-.61-inch diameter range. The .65-.70 inch

126

Table 1: Musket ball diameter counts per British and provincial contexts.

 

British
Barracks Provincial Huts

 

Musket Ball Rogers William RI RI
diameter. (in.) Island Henry George Stanwix Hut6 Hut1

 

0.47 0

 

0.48

 

0.49

 

0.50

 

0.51

 

0.52

 

0.53

 

0.54

 

0.55

 

0.56

 

0.57

 

0.58

 

0.59

 

0.60

 

0.61

 

0.62

 

0.63

 

0.64

 

0.65

 

0.66

 

0.67

 

0.68

 

AA

0.69

 

0.70

 

0.71

 

0.72

 

0.73

 

0.74

 

 

 

“COCOAODNNwo-AOOOOO—x-boc40000000
@OOAébNomA-bNN-swwO—thw—t-tANOOOO
wooooaxin—x—xoooooooo—xooooooooo
gooooogowboon-so—sooxsoaowooooom
SOAOA->wN—tOO—tAAVOANA—tANONOOOOO
flea-soa‘fiooAce—s-sw—xoooo—sooooo—soo

.3
as
.3

Total

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

127

Figure 3: Distribution of Rogers Island barracks musket ball diameters (based on Farry
2005b 464)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

n

128

Diameter in Inches

110

$10

 

mono... E EEEED

89 0
39 0
L9 0
09 0
69 0
89 0
L9 0
99 0
990
’79 0
89 0
29 0
l9 0
09 0
617 0
8V 0
L? 0

.0
w

ZL 0
IL 0
02 0
69 0
890
L9 0
99 0
99 0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.Avoeamoom
been. no cow—ma EcaoEmB =3 “9.3.: 9.09:3 .mp3 Eco: Em____>> to“. ho cozsnEmE ”v 059“.

9..

NF

3.

129

Figure 52 Distribution of Fort George barracks musket ball diameters (based on Farry

2005b2465).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

no
_ ez'o
_ zro
_ IL'O
_ oro
690
990
£90
930
990
ve'o
_ 990
C ze'o

L9'0
_ oe'o
_ es'o
_ 99‘0
_ 290
H 990

990
_ :30
F 990
P 390
: is'o

090
b 670
P 8170
_ £170

 

 

 

 

 

130

Diameter in Inches

Figure 6: Distribution of Stanwix barracks musket ball diameters (based on Farry 2005a:27).

 

 

 

 

 

 

no
_ ez'o
_ are
P MD
: oz'o

# 690
9920

.—

 

230
4 I90

£90
990
990
#90
_ 89'0

.—

090

J 690

_ 890
£90

 

99'0

.-

1790

q: 990

290
_ I9‘0
_ os'o
: 617'0

 

 

87'0

 

30

n

25

20

15

131

10

q we
:3

Diameter in Inches

peak, however, clearly dominates the distribution, and as a whole each of the
barracks assemblages resemble a standardized collection of musket balls.
Based on the data presented, then, the hypothesis of standardized materials
manifest as uniform weaponry among British regular contexts appears valid.
That is, nothing in the various barracks distributions conflicts with or refutes the
expected metric patterns, and the archaeological data appear to support the
claim that British regular forces maintained a standardized weaponry comprised

of the Brown Bess musket.

Provincial Test Implications and Data

The specific archaeological test implication of Hypothesis 1 for American
provincial assemblages posits the lack of standardized musketry among these
contexts. No one single weapon type like the Brown Bess is assumed for the
Americans, though use of this weapon is not precluded among the provincials.
The expected material pattern for American contexts involves comparatively wide
distributions of musket ball diameters intended for use in a number of different
musket types, thereby bolstering support for the claim of material culture
variability among the provincial forces. Compared to a dominant .65-.74-inch
range expected among the British, provincial diameters will likely fall anywhere
along the .47-.74-inch continuum of possible musket ball diameters. A unimodal
distribution in not expected, with multiple clusters of diameters defining the whole
of the provincial distribution. Relevant provincial assemblages with which to test

these hypothesized patterns come from hut excavations conducted at the

132

provincial encampment on Rogers Island.

As Starbuck (2004218) notes, while “British soldiers lived within massive
barracks buildings on Rogers Island and within the fort...provincial soldiers,
rangers, and some officers lived in rows of small huts, houses, or tents”.
Reference to such temporary shelters is common in provincial soldiers’ journals,
such as Jabez Fitch’s account of his stay on Rogers Island during the fall and
winter months of 1757-1758 (Fitch 1968). Fitch mentions, for example, setting
up camp on the island and even adding a chimney to his tent in October of 1757,
no doubt an attempt to winterize the dwelling before the full onset of the season
(Starbuck 2004248). By December of the same year Fitch refers to his “Hous”
and later “my Hutt”, suggesting the dwelling took on even more permanent
architecture as the season progressed. There is little doubt that the various
temporary shelters or huts that have been excavated on Rogers Island mark the
remains of Fitch’s and other provincial soldiers’ dwellings. Actual musket ball
diameter data from two of these structures were available for comparison against
expected patterns and those seen for the barracks assemblages (Table 1). The
hut features lack very tight temporal control beyond the ca.1755-1766 occupation
date for the Fort Edward settlement as a whole. As Starbuck (2004267) has
remarked, it was difficult to “date any of the [provincial huts] precisely, so it is
impossible to say whether [they] were constructed before, during, or after the
massive barracks buildings went up on the island”.

Figures 7-8 display the distribution of provincial musket ball diameters as

listed in Table 1. The first structure (Figure 7) does indeed demonstrate a

133

mecca. E LouoEmE

.0
I.
8

VIC
ZL 0
IL 0
01 0
69 0
89 0
£9 0
99 0
99 0
79°C
89 0
29 0
L9 0
09 0
69 0
89 0
L9 0
99 0
99 0
89 0
Z9 0
L9 0
:'09 0
:'617 0
817 0

w .

 

£170

 

 

.H: =I_=I_== —_._._.:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.Cmummoom Emu. co comma wLoCoEmfi =3 CoxmaE m S; ucflm. Emmom ho 5:3:55 K 9:9“.

w":

134

320:. E .9855

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

or

 

 

 

 

it- 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.? "C

$9.588
Emu. co comma: mLoHoEE—o =3 «963E F S; 2.2m. whomom Lo 6:39.55 ”w 2:9“.

135

 

 

 

 

vn. 9 mm. vo. 2 mm.

cocoa. E .cCoEmE

mm. 9 D».

 

l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

or

 

 

 

ON

 

 

 

om

 

 

ov

 

 

 

 

 

22.2m-

 

 

 

 

 

 

OBI—m0

 

on

ice

 

on

 

 

 

ow

 

om

 

 

.w cam n 8.59“. E Esocm mcouanEwfi co comma “one the. ac mctcmoumo ”m Bani

00—.

136

comparatively dispersed distribution, with a dominant peak at .61-inches and
another smaller one between .67-.71-inches in diameter. The latter peak
suggests that the larger-diameter Brown Bess musket was not the intended
weapon for the majority of the musket balls left behind at this dwelling. Overall
this distribution confirms the expectations of Hypothesis 1. The second hut’s
distribution (Figure 8), however, is clearly that associated with use of a single
weapon type with the ovenivhelming number of diameters measured at 69-70
inches. The shape of its distribution matches very closely that seen among the
British barracks contexts, and as a result it disputes the expectations of
Hypothesis 1.

Reclassifying these two provincial distributions by weapon categories
provides an even better perspective on their shapes (Figure 9). The diameter
ranges used in the process of reclassifying are the same as those used by a
number of other scholars to group musket ball diameters, including Hanson and
Hsu (1975280), Poirier (1976248), Ferguson (1977258-59), and Sivilich
(19962103). Three separate categories of weapons are recognized: .47-.57-
inches in diameter (including such weapons as American-made rifles, pistols,
etc); .58-.64-inches in diameter (including the British fusil, Dragoon carbine,
etc.); and .65-.74 inches (including the Brown Bess musket). The percentages of
lead shot in each weapon category for both huts shown in Figure 9 is clearly
different, again highlighting the unexpected pattern seen in the second ‘
structure’s musket ball assemblage. The first structure’s percentages are much

more widely and evenly distributed, and although all three categories are

137

represented among the second provincial hut, large-caliber shot likely used in the
standard-issue Brown Bess musket clearly predominates (Farry 2005a:27). A
statistical comparison based on the chi-square test of association of the data
shown in Table 1 and Figure 9 demonstrates a significant difference in their
distributions: X2= 59.249, df 2, p=1.362x10”3. This test measures whether or not
there exists a relationship between the percentages of the different weapons
categories and the hut contexts from which they derive; in short, if the structures’
distributions are the same or not. Such a high chi-square value provides
evidence against the null hypothesis (which assumes no association), and it
identifies a significant difference between the musket ball distributions of the two
Rogers Island huts. The first hut’s dispersed percentage distribution has been
similarly distinguished from those of the British barracks contexts. In comparison
to the Stanwix assemblage, for example, a chi-square test of association
demonstrates a significant difference in their distributions: X2: 14.658, df 2,
p=.00065 (see Farry 2005a:27-28).

What these patterns suggest is that, contrary to expectations, provincial
contexts do evidence standardized musketry very similar to that demonstrated for
British barracks contexts. At the same time, at least one provincial context did
marshal evidence for significantly greater heterogeneity among American
weapons and confirmed the test expectations. Taken together, the data suggest
a greater degree of variability among multiple provincial occupations, but a
possible lack of variability when viewed within individual provincial contexts. In

terms of this study’s hypotheses, the standardized hut assemblage on Rogers

138

Island may in fact represent a late occupation during the war, suggesting an
expected adoption of standardization among the provincials. This fact cannot be
evaluated since it requires a known (and hopefully restricted) occupation date
during the war, and none of the provincial huts on Rogers Island could be more
accurately dated between ca. 1755-1766 (Starbuck 2004267). It can at least be
concluded that, while British regular barracks assemblages reflect their use of
standardized weaponry, provincial data only partially confirm their lack of

standardization.

Hypothesis 2: Colonial assemblages may reflect the temporary character of
provincial military service when compared to assemblages associated with
the Briflsh regulars.

Hypothesis 2 posits that the unique and temporary character of military
service among the provincials can be observed in their respective archaeological
assemblages, and that this will clearly distinguish them from comparable British
regular assemblages. Provincial terms of enlistment were decidedly different
than the long-term service among the British ranks, with provincials typically
signing on for an eight-month tour of duty. This fundamental difference in the
structure of military service may have had material correlates, and these may
have had a demonstrable effect upon the material record left behind at former
British and provincial occupations. Observing and examining this effect on the
material record can thus serve to identify the actual means by which provincials

and British regulars differed from one another, and Hypothesis 2 anticipates what

139

such material correlates or “demonstrable effects” might have been. Anticipated
patterns, in turn, are evaluated against British barracks and provincial hut
archaeological data.

Overall, the observed archaeological patterns support expectations of
diversity between provincial and British contexts, but the actual material
expressions of such diversity are not necessarily those that were anticipated.
Analysis focuses upon the category of ceramics, with anticipation that provincials
may have tended to avoid such items given their temporary terms of service
compared to the British. Contrary to this idea, however, a provincial hut context
from Rogers Island demonstrates an equally wide range of ceramic types and
forms as do comparable British barracks contexts. The true character of either
archaeological assemblage, however, is demonstrably different, and this
highlights certain patterns of diversity in ceramic use between British and

provincial domestic contexts.

British and Provincial Test Implications and Data

The discussion of British and provincial archaeological patterns relevant to
Hypothesis 2 are combined. This is due to the fact that expected patterns for
each group are examined among the same category of materials (ceramics), and
that the tabular and graphic data for each are presented together. Provincial
material expectations project a general lack of ceramic items compared to the
British ranks if, again, these items were considered unnecessary to fulfilling

provincial terms of service. Certain categories of ceramics may have simply

140

been avoided by provincials stationed in the field who may have been wary of
having to carry extra baggage during their journeys. This may have resulted in a
much more restricted or smaller provincial ceramic assemblage compared to the
British. Fort Gage provides a certain perspective on this question, with a
complete lack of ceramics reported for the short provincial occupation at the site.
The authors recognize the uniqueness of this situation, with no similar examples
reported of eighteenth-century Anglo-American military sites lacking ceramic
artifacts (Feister and Huey 1985251). It is thus analytically more useful to
suggest that provincials will probably lack the same range or amount of ceramic
vessels as compared to British contexts, rather than anticipate a complete lack of
such items. British ceramic assemblages, by contrast, should demonstrate a
diverse and wide range of ceramic vessels reflecting the widespread, common,
and long-term use of these items among the British ranks while in the field (cf.
Ferguson 1977; Sussman 2000245).

Relevant archaeological data with which to examine these patterns is
provided by the ceramic assemblages of Fort Stanwix and Crown Point (British
barracks), and Rogers Island (provincial hut). The data consist of sherd counts
as well as minimum vessel counts, the latter distinguished across a range of
different forms and wares. Occupation periods of these sites are not the same,
though there is considerable overlap. The Rogers Island provincial hut ceramic
assemblage is the earliest and dates to ca. 1755-1766, or the general date
during which the settlement as a whole was occupied during the war (Farry

2005a:26). Tighter temporal control is not possible for the hut feature (Starbuck

141

2004:67), and in fact multiple occupations are suggested by certain architectural
clues and the large number of unique ceramic vessels associated with the
feature. The plan view of the hut indicates that an original hearth area was cut
into by a shallow wall trench with vertical wood boards, which in turn likely
housed a brick fireplace. Another hearth feature cuts into this trench, suggesting
the dwelling may have been reconstructed for continued occupation over a
period of time and through various seasons on the island (Figure 14). Evidence
for similar construction episodes in provincial huts on Rogers Island is
documented in Jabez Fitch’s (1968:28) journal, where he indicates that he “Built
a Chimney to our Tent” in early October in anticipation of the oncoming cold
season. Fitch was Winterizing his dwelling on the island for occupation through
the fall and winter months at Fort Edward, and the apparent multiple construction
episodes at the provincial hut are likely evidence for similar practices. Thus,
while the exact occupation period of the Rogers Island provincial hut is not
known, there is evidence to suggest that it was not limited to a single campaign
season.

Comparative British barracks ceramic data derive from Crown Point and
Fort Stanwix. The Crown Point barracks date between 1759-1773, the latter date
the time at which the fort as a whole is documented to have burned down. As
Feister (1984bz125) argues, the “Soldiers” barracks at Crown Point represent
tangible evidence of life in the British army in the third quarter of the 18th
century,” and its associated ceramic assemblage provides a useful and

comparative data source to the provincial hut assemblage. The post-1758

142

Stanwix barracks assemblages derive primarily from wood-lined cellar hole
features in both the east and west barracks at the site (Hanson and Hsu
1975:21-27). These barracks features likely date through to the end of the British
occupation period at 1774, but again, they could not be clearly distinguished from
the later American occupation during the Revolutionary War ca. 1777-1781. All
British barracks and provincial hut data used in the discussion of Hypothesis 2
were culled from ceramic data presented in Hanson and Hsu (1975:118, Table

23), Feister (1984bz130, Table 1), and DeAngelo (19951103, Table 2).

Table 2 provides a summary of the number of ceramic sherds and the
number of identified vessels for each excavation context. Inspection of the ratios
between number of sherds recovered and number of vessels identified at each
site reveals a surprising pattern. The provincial hut on Rogers Island produced
the fewest number of ceramic sherds of all the structures (n=299), which might
be expected given their relative sizes, presumed number of original occupants,
and their respective excavation limits. But while the total frequency of sherds is
low, the number of identified vessels within the assemblage is comparatively
high. Of the 299 sherds, a total of 76 vessels were identified across 13 different
vessel forms suggesting that on average a unique provincial ceramic vessel
could be identified among every four ceramic sherds. This contrasts sharply with
the sherdzvessel ratios seen among the British barracks assemblages, which
collectively could identify a ceramic vessel out of every 8-10 ceramic sherds.
This suggests that, while small, the assemblage associated with the provincial

hut includes a comparatively high number and wide range of vessels, which

143

Table 2: Sherd and vessel counts per British and provincial structures.

 

 

 

 

 

Sherds n Vessel n S:V ratio
RI Hut 1 299 76 4:1
CP barracks 1048 103 10:1
Stanwix West 569 71 8:1
Stanwix East 403 47 9:1

 

 

 

 

 

 

contrasts with that expected for a temporary military force. While the pattern
could simply be the result larger overall sherd size among the provincial ceramics
allowing for better identification of vessel form, it might also suggest that
provincials utilized a large and complex ceramic assemblage during the Seven
Years' War, one at least as equally large and varied (or more so) as among the
more permanent British ranks. This preliminary inspection of the data therefore
does not lend much support for an obviously restricted ceramic assemblage
among provincials.

More in-depth examination of the data, however, provides clear evidence
for differences in British and provincial ceramic use. Table 3 provides a
summary of the frequency of vessel forms tabulated for each excavation context.
For each site’s vessel assemblage, individual vessel forms were tabulated and
compiled into a single display to aid comparisons. Upon initial inspection, and
when viewed in context with the British assemblages, the provincial hut ceramics
again demonstrate a wide and diverse range of vessel forms, with more vessel
categories identified among the provincial context than two of the three barracks
contexts (n=13 compared to n=9 and n=10, respectively). But the frequency

distribution of different vessel forms in the hut context is clearly different than that

144

seen among the barracks assemblages, and this pattern is graphically
represented in Figure 10. The Figure displays the CA plot of the vessel form
data in Table 3. These differences suggest that, indeed, provincials and British
groups were using ceramics differently, though not as was anticipated in
Hypothesis 2.

The CA plot clearly displays two clusters of structures defined by an
overall spatial division between provincial huts on the right and British barracks
on the left, with a degree of variation with the barracks cluster (Farry 2005a:29).
The first axis accounts for almost 80% of the spatial variation or inertia evident in
the plot, and it is along this axis that the barracks and hut are clearly
distinguished. The second axis accounts for an additional 17% of the spatial
variation in the plot, which seems to distinguish the Crown Pointabarracks from
those at Fort Stanwix. While such a clear distinction between the provincial hut
and British barracks is anticipated in the model, it is the exact form such a
distinction assumes among ceramics that was unanticipated. The provincial
contexts are distinguished from the British not by relative amounts or diversity of
ceramics but by relative types, with numerous categories of different vessel
forms found in both contexts. The specific vessel forms which cluster among the
provincial hut context include small bowls and posset cups, chamber pots,
storage crooks/jars, bottles, and drug jars. While posset cups, small bowls and
chamber pots are almost exclusively found among provincial contexts, stoneware
storage vessels comprise the single largest vessel form category. Among the

barracks, a small amount of site variability appears to distinguish the two Stanwix

145

Table 3: Ceramic vessel form frequencies per British and provincial structures.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ceramic vessel form:

12 3 4 5678910111213141516Total
thut1180183802510 8 8 3 6 5 76
CP
barrack3233131510020412 61113103
Stanwix
West 710010500073005171671
Stanwix
East 51100011006103311547

Total1562122 4192 2 5 34 8 913174539 297
VesselFormKe:
1: pan 9: small bowl
2: bowl 10: plate
3: pie pan 11: platter

4: storage crock/jar
5: vase/bottle
6: mug/tankard
7: pitcher/jug
8: posset cup

12: chamber pot

1 3: drug jar/ointment pct
14: tea/coffee pot

1 5: saucer/teabowl
16:cup

barracks slightly from the Crown Point assemblage, but the three are clearly

distinguished from the hut context. The saucer, cup, and teapot vessel forms

appear to cluster among the Stanwix barracks, while plates and bowls cluster

among the Crown Point barracks. The mug/tankard category seems relatively

equally distributed except among the east barracks at Fort Stanwix. The

pitcher/jug, pie pan, and platter categories are only represented in the three

barracks contexts, but these are not similarly distributed among each and are

represented overall in relatively low numbers.

Before meaningful patterns were fully examined among these various

differences in vessel forms, the data in Table 3 were recoded according to a

146

 

functional vessel typology to help facilitate inter-assemblage comparisons. In
their own applications of Correspondence Analysis Bolviken et al. (1982246)
argue that for CA “it was found that the use of a reduced type list [column
variables] proved to be entirely adequate and that an extended type list produced
a great amount of noise which was difficult to interpret”. Re-coding the ceramics
in terms of functional classes helps to evaluate whether observed formal
differences between the hut and barracks vessels are indeed significant of
different activities, or instead simply indicative of different vessels used for the
same basic purposes. Specific ceramic vessel forms for each structure (Table 3)
were re-coded and re-grouped according to vessel function, which was assigned
based on an established classification system (Farry 2005a:28). Classification
was based upon the POTS (Potomac Typological System) formal-functional
scheme, a system that employs probate inventories and emic categories of
vessel use in colonial Chesapeake “as clues to where breaks of possible
functional significance occur along the continuum of formal variation” (Beaudry et
al. 1988:53). Derived primarily from seventeenth-century sources, an additional
tea category is included to account for the popularity of tea drinking in the mid-
eighteenth-century and for the prevalence of such ceramics among the sites
examined in these pages (see Feister 1985b2129-130). The intentions behind
the use of the POTS classification system were simply to utilize an established
and accepted typology for which specific vessel forms are explicitly assigned
functional categorization, rather than assign such categories arbitrarily or

inconsistently (Beaudry et al. 1988:Table 1). Table 4 presents the same data as

147

3.. 8.3 E

 

 

mN N m... _. md o md- T mé-
1 I ill I l . -1-.. 1 ..il. l i . 1.. ; -. - - ..ll.-.11..- Ag... - . ii. l1 :1 «I 3! ..II .II 1 :...| I . .1 I i. .. . m. Fl
05
O
a 1 w
.
W lxomtmn Ina watmcoza . m o.
w, o
2. o_=on%mm> .380 Sci
2 8a .852... 8.2on man .963 ,
F L .0 o 3 _ _ o _ _
_ _ _ ‘HA 1 _ a . d O
w .38 =95 o S: E 0 so m9 0
388 3.523% as o .mxicsm
_
. o
M 5033 l>>x_>>:£w
w l md
, smog
fl
., F

 

 

820523: E2 _ommc> m cBm... co comma “ca <0 ”or 2:9“.

F2 (17.10 %)

148

in Table 3, but re-coded according to the functional typology, while Figure 11
displays the corresponding CA plot of the functional grouping.

The CA plot (Figure 11) makes the same basic distinction as seen in
Figure 10, with the provincial hut clearly distinguished to the right and apart from
the cluster of British barracks. The provincial-British distinction revealed in
FigUre 11 lie along the first principle axis (F1), which accounts for over 87% of
the spatial variation seen in the CA plot. Ceramic categories of Health/Hygiene,
Storage, and Food Consumption (stews) cluster among the provincial context at
Rogers Island, while the Tea Service, Food Processing, and Food Consumption
(solids) vessels cluster among the barracks. As with the mug/tankard vessel
form category, the Beverage Consumption and Beverage Serving categories fall
spatially intermediate between the hut and barracks buildings, though based on
sheer frequency they have a tendency towards the provincial context. The
second principle axis accounts for just over 10% of the plots total inertia, and
seem to distinguish the three barracks structures from each other. Certain of the
ceramic patterns shown in Figures 10 and 11 may indeed reflect the temporary
character of provincial service as compared to the British ranks. Other patterns
are considered as specific to the data at hand, and may possibly reflect the
broader issue of site function. Still other patterns may suggest unanticipated
differences in ceramic use between the British and provincials. As to the first
issue, one obvious characteristic of the plot is the association of the Tea Service
category among the barracks buildings (Farry 2005az30). This category is

composed of such ceramic forms as handled cups, teabowls, saucers, and

149

Table 4: Ceramic vessel function counts per structure (Farry 2005a: 28).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ceramic vessel function:
FF 8 BC BS FC-st FC-so HH T Total
RI hut 1 9 21 8 2 5 1 16 14 76
CP barracks 36 4 5 1 0 24 3 30 103
Stanwix West 17 1 0 0 10 0 38 71
Stanwix East 16 0 1 1 0 7 3 19 47
Total 78 26 19 4 5 42 22 101 297

 

 

Vessel function Ke :
FP: Food Processing F C-st: Food Consumption- stews

S: Storage FC-so: Food Consumption-solids
BC: Beverage Consumption HH: Health/ Hygiene
BS: Beverage Serving T: Tea Service

coffee or teapots. The association of such ceramic forms among certain contexts
but not others cannot be the result of status or rank differences, as the Crown
Point barracks are documented to have been occupied by enlisted British
regulars (Feister 1984a, 1984b). Tea Service ceramics are indeed present in the
Rogers Island hut assemblage as white salt-glazed stoneware and porcelain
vessels, but their distribution in comparison to British assemblages might suggest
that provincials enjoyed less access to these vessel forms. Given the prevailing
attitude among provincials as to their temporary status as soldiers, restricted
access to tea consumption materials could have been by choice as provincials
may have deemed such extra items unnecessary baggage for their limited
duration of enlistment (Farry 2005az30). In comparison, British regular forces
may not have viewed tea items in such a manner given their longer enlistment
periods and they may have enjoyed the use of such ceramics more often.

But if provincials did indeed deem tea service ceramics unnecessary

150

§ 8.5 E

 

 

 

 

md-

md

md N we r ad 0 md- T m. T
fl
.23 1 a
9..me omEM>mm xomtmn do 0
Erma .+coo.m 0- cm. dEzmcoO w
0990qu poo... poo“. ._
J. 4 i“ s I i s E
o S: E .30 53:me
6.453250 0
coon. dEamcoO amok O U
ommum>cm I m
“we; 0&5:ma W

.6 2:9“.

.mmummoom Emu. co comma 86:33: 5:05: _ommo> V min... co comma «ca <0 ”3 059“.

F2 (10.01 %)

151

baggage for their haversacks, the same was clearly not the case for stoneware
storage crocks and jars. These vessels are very well represented in the Rogers
Island hut assemblage, and overwhelmingly so when compared against the
Crown Point and Stanwix barracks. Understanding this pattern, however, may
have more to do with the overall site function of the Fort Edward settlement
rather than some indication of Anglo-American differences. Consider that in their
quest to dislodge the French, British expeditions in 1755, 1758, and 1759 utilized
Fort Edward as a supply depot and base of operations to mount offensives
against forts Carillon (Ticonderoga) and St. Frederic (Crown Point). The role was
a natural one given that the settlement lay at the northern-most point of water
travel on the Hudson River and along a natural fork in the north-south travel
through New York, with British military expedition after military expedition
stopping off here prior to heading north to attack the French. If such a role did in
fact apply to the settlement, one in which it served as a sort of supply nexus
within a large-scale settlement system, then the prevalence of utilitarian storage
wares across all archaeological contexts might be anticipated at Fort Edward
(Fany 2005a:29). The high frequency of these ceramics in association with the
provincial context might therefore be dismissed in terms of how they reflect any
significant differences in Anglo-American ceramic use.

The close association of different Food Consumption vessels to the
barracks and hut contexts, however, are not so easily dismissed. Neither is the
clustering of Health/Hygiene vessel forms. Concerning the Food Consumption

associations, these vessel categories distinguish the consumption and serving of

152

solid and stew-like foods, with the latter clustering around the provincial huts and
the former around the British barracks (Fany 2005az30). In fact, reference to
Table 4 indicates that the Rogers Island context includes all of the FC (stew)
vessels (comprised of small bowls) and only a single vessel for solid food
consumption (plates), while the plates are well represented in the barracks
contexts. This pattern might be indicative of fundamental differences separating
British from provincials, in this case the less formal and more communal
relationships within provincial ranks based on their kinship structure and
apparent lack of rank divisions. That is, the association of FC (stews) vessels
with the provincial context may suggest differently prepared meals for the Anglo-
American allies, with more communal dining practices among provincials
compared to the individual consumption of solid foods by British soldiers. Plates
for individual consumption clearly dominate the assemblage at the Crown Point
barracks, though they are found in smaller numbers at Stanwix. By comparison,
small bowls associated with consumption of stew-like foods are non-existent
among the barracks occupations. Provincials may have thus been preparing
communal meals more often within their ranks with the intent that consumption
be shared and public. By comparison, the British ranks appear to have
continued to individually proportion the meals their soldiers were to enjoy, with
less intention that they be prepared communally and then shared among the
ranks.

As to the association of Health/ Hygiene vessels, this too might represent

an unanticipated expression of underlying cultural differences separating the two

153

groups. These vessels are equally divided within the hut context between gray
salt-glazed stoneware chamber pots and white salt-glazed stoneware drug jars or
ointment pots. Such a high incidence of medicine-related ceramic vessels in
provincial contexts, with a corresponding lack in barracks contexts, might
suggest the possibility of different health care practices among the two groups.
Is it the case, for example, that British regular health care was managed within
specifically designed hospital contexts while provincials remained in their own
domestic contexts when sick, thereby ensuring a spatial separation of the two
groups? This would produce ceramic patterns similar to that just described, with
British regular medicinal vessels only associated with functionally specific
hospital contexts but not barracks and the opposite pattern for provincial
domestic contexts. Hospital space could not have been at more of a premium at
Rogers Island than any other settlement given the large smallpox hospital
constructed there in May, 1757 (see Fitch 1968:3; Rozell 1995). Therefore the
resulting patterns cannot be dismissed as reflecting differential access to hospital
facilities between the sites. Could it also be the case that provincials more often
than British regulars brought medicinal supplies with them from home? The
stoneware drug jars and ointment pots thus may not have been considered
unnecessary baggage, but rather important home remedies for the provincial
soldier on campaign. British regulars, by comparison, could not have relied on a
similar source of home remedies and medications to cart around with them, and
would therefore not likely demonstrate a similar use of health/hygiene vessels in

domestic contexts as did the provincials.

154

Taken together, the data suggest significant differences in the use of
ceramics between provincial hut and British barracks contexts, which supports
the model’s general expectation for cultural differences in small-scale spatio—
temporal contexts. Not all such ceramic differences as were observed, however,
were necessarily anticipated in the discussion of Hypothesis 2. While the
provincial data do suggest a comparable lack in the amounts of certain vessel
types (teawares), as expected, the same assemblage demonstrates a large
number and wide range of ceramic vessel forms, as was not expected. The data
are nevertheless clearly distinguished between British barracks and provincial
hut ceramics, and the exact form these ceramic differences assume are

instructive in terms of Anglo-American relations.

Hypothesis 3: Small-scale Anglo-American assemblages may differ
significantly in the degree to which either reflects a hierarchical order of
military rank and status positions.

Hypothesis 3 posits clear evidence for status or rank divisions as
recognized within the military hierarchy for British contexts, compared to a lack of
such divisions within American provincial contexts. Such reasoning draws upon
the discordant military structures underlying both armies, and again, upon the
fact that either group participated differently in a professional military culture.
Compared to the pyramid of rank and discipline of the British army, sources

indicate that the provincial forces demonstrated a much more informal “war band

structure composed of multiple kinship ties. This structure, it is assumed, drew

155

upon but also instilled quite a different officer-soldier relationship than that within
the British ranks that resulted in an overall hypothesized lack of material
differences between officers and the provincial enlisted, at least among the
numerous New England forces. That is, excepting only the most obvious and
necessary distinctions of military status (e.g. officer insignia), provincial
archaeological assemblages are not expected to reveal significant differences in
terms of rank differentiation. The construction techniques of individual provincial
domestic structures will also likely exhibit a degree of similarity in terms of status
and rank, or it may be the case that a variety of construction techniques were
used to construct provincial officer and enlisted dwellings alike such that no one
technique or building material can be distinguished along lines of military rank
(Farry 2005a:23). By way of contrast, the artifactual assemblages and
architectural details associated with British regular occupations are assumed to
reflect the presence of sharp distinctions of military rank, or as Anderson
(1984:44) aptly put it, that “virtually unbridgeable chasm” separating British
officers from the enlisted.

Overall, the available archaeological data provide limited support for the
model’s expectations concerning British rank distinctions. Published details of
excavations conducted at known British officer and enlisted contexts at Crown
Point (Feister 1984a, 1984b) did thoroughly record each groups’ artifactual and
architectural patterns, but the differences between the two are far more subtle
than that expected from the model. Slight architectural differences contrast with

a complete lack of artifactual differences between British enlisted and officer

156

contexts. Patterns seen among raw data associated with the pair of British
barracks at Fort George mirror those at Crown Point, with little to no architectural
differences and even fewer artifactual. Patterns among provincial data
concentrate upon architecture over artifacts, as the latter does not appear to be a

reliable indicator of differences in military rank, even among British regulars.

British Rggular Test Implications and Data

The data requirements for examining this hypothesis and its material
expectations require control over the variable of rank. That is, officer or enlisted
contexts must be known independently to allow comparison of their
archaeological differences, and this limits the available data. Among British
regular contexts, Feister’s (1984a, 1984b) excavation of the two barracks
buildings at Crown Point provides data that meet the analytical requirements.
Historical documents and maps provide numerous references to the officers’ and
soldiers’ stone barracks at Crown Point, and with the buildings still standing in
their original footprint, considerable control over this variable is provided. By
understanding Feister’s (1984a, 1984b) original data in light of this study’s
expectations and hypotheses, the patterns take on new meaning in terms of
Anglo-American cultural dynamics. They also serve as a point of comparison to
similar patterns noted more recently among the British barracks occupations at
Fort George.

The specific test expectations of Hypothesis 3 for British contexts includes

clearly defined architectural and artifactual differences between officer and

157

enlisted occupations. Architecture associated with occupation by officers is
assumed to have been larger and more elaborate compared to that associated
with the enlisted. British officers are assumed to have enjoyed restricted access
to certain items or luxuries by virtue of their rank, wealth, income, standing in
society, or any combination thereof. It is assumed this would result in obvious
artifactual differences between the officers and enlisted, manifested as a greater
variety of items among the former, or possibly an assemblage of superior quality
or price. Officer contexts, for example, might be characterized by less common
ceramics than the enlisted, suggesting the presence of unique wares or
expensive decorative motifs. In either case, enlisted and officer assemblages
are expected to look very different from one another based on the variable of
rank.

First, in terms of architecture, Feister’s (1984a) data support the model’s
expectations, but only to a limited extent. It would seem based on the building
exteriors and their overall design that both Crown Point barracks demonstrate a
high degree of formal similarity. Both buildings were of mortared stone
construction and consisted of four attached 2-story Georgian-style dwellings
(Feister 1984b:126, Figure 2). Two rooms were attached across a smaller
central room or “hallway” with doors at either end, and four of these 2-room
blocks joined end-to-end composed the length of each barracks buildings at
Crown Point. The stone for both was laid immediately atop bedrock within the
fort proper, with timber construction used in door and window framing and in the

upper flooring. Thus from the outside, and even in the basic design of the inside

158

building footprint and elevation, the officers and soldiers shared occupation of
two very similar buildings at Crown Point (Feister 1984a:106). The absolute size
of both dwellings was the same, despite rank, though it is unclear if the officers
enjoyed more living space through occupation by fewer men.

What unambiguous architectural differences that did exist were observed
in the construction materials used on the interiors of both buildings. Inside the
officers’ barracks, Feister (1984a:104) uncovered a series of square, dry-laid
ceramic tiles laid in a pattern in relation to the outside edges of the barracks
rooms. This type of flooring was limited to the first floor, and was more intact
along the outer edges of individual rooms due to less foot traffic. The officers’
building also demonstrated above-floor red brick fireplace construction on top of
cut limestone hearth foundations. By comparison, in the soldiers’ building Feister
(1984:104) found only dry-laid red brick floors (no tiles) and complete cut
limestone fireplace construction above and below ground (no brick).

There seems little doubt that the different construction materials were the
result of the different occupants. Sourcing analysis of the tile and brick flooring
materials indicated that the bricks were locally made while the tiles were likely
imported, possibly from Albany. Contemporary sources also price the per-
square-yard cost of tile flooring at over five times that of brick flooring (Feister
19843:104). Clearly, the British officers at Crown Point enjoyed access to
imported and more expensive tile flooring and brick hearths that were otherwise
denied to the enlisted, as expected in the model. But at the same time, these

interior architectural differences are hardly clear manifestations of rank

159

differences as existed within the British army and as expected archaeologically.
The differences are too subtle and limited only to those areas internal to the
buildings and on the first floor, with the exteriors and overall design of the
buildings much more similar than had been anticipated. The expectation of
obvious or clear material distinctions of rank in Hypothesis 4 thus appears too
strongly conceived, at least in terms of its architectural expression and visibility in
the archaeological record. Architectural correlates that have been observed
appear to have been less public and more subtle than anticipated, and limited
only to the most immediate architectural features of the Crown Point buildings.
In terms of artifactual evidence, Feister’s (1984a:106) data provide even
less support for the model’s expectations, going so far as to argue that “the
material culture of the two groups [officers and enlisted] was essentially the
same”. Either group, it would appear, had access to essentially the same items,
suggesting that whatever items officers might have seemingly enjoyed exclusive
access to or had been able to bring with them, the enlisted were more than likely
able to get their hands on. Contrary to certain long-held assumptions ceramic
use was not the sole purview of the officer class (e.g., Ferguson 1977; Sussman
2000), and the soldiers’ assemblage included such items as porcelain bowls and
plates, refined earthenware teawares, and a stoneware chamber pot, all similar
in ware and form to those found in the officers’ context (Feister 1984b). In its
many expressions, the soldiers’ artifact assemblage as a whole resembled that
associated with the officers’ barracks, with no discernable differences in form or

function (Feister 1984a:106). On their artifactual similarity, Feister (1984b:131)

160

points out that the Seven Years’ War saw the full weight of the British military’s
power and supply network link even the most remote and distant of frontier
settlements to a rapid infusion of increasingly mass-produced items. Any
possible artifactual patterns expressing divisions of rank might therefore be
masked by rapid saturation of the frontier market with goods available to one and
all, despite rank, and therefore be much less archaeologically visible. These
issues speak to the large-scale external networks within which military frontier
settlements served, and are discussed in relation to Hypothesis 8.

Keeping Feister’s (1984a) Crown Point data in mind, British material
expectations were also explored in architectural and artifactual data from the Fort
George barracks. During the 2000 field season at Fort George, internal
excavations were made of the two buildings that shed light on the basic forms of
their construction and that sampled a comparative archaeological assemblage
from each building (Figure 12). Documented control over the two parallel
barracks buildings’ occupants is not nearly as tight as at Crown Point, with
contemporary sources failing to provide independent evidence for rank
differences between the two buildings. Contemporary maps indicate the
placement of separate officers’ and soldiers’ barracks within the Fort George
settlement (see Starbuck 1999:120), but linking these to actual buildings on the
ground have not been successful. A single diagnostic piece of archaeological
evidence, however, might be employed to control the variable of rank at these
two buildings and thus allow additional examinations of any and all material

differences between the two structures. The southern building (Barracks 2)

161

recovered a single, 6-inch long fragment of gold braiding as worn by British
officers (Starbuck 20022105). Assuming then that Building 2 represents an
officers’ context while Building 1 does not, the assemblages can be explored for
any and all possible rank differences. To do so is not to draw upon the same
level of independent control as Feister (1984a) has at the Crown Point barracks,
but the distinction is a valid one.

First, in terms of the architecture, both barracks buildings demonstrate
very similar construction techniques, materials, and design. The (assumed)
officer status of Building 2 does not correlate with any unique or even any subtle
architectural features as was observed at Crown Point, and indeed, those that
are noted suggest Building 1 was the home of high-ranked individuals. Both
buildings demonstrate foundations of mortared blocky limestone locally quarried
and laid directly atop exposed bedrock. In Building 2, larger-sized rubble
limestone blocks with drill bore marks were noted at the very bottom of the
structure and were likely deployed as a means of improving drainage or possibly
to level the slope; similar cut blocks were not noted beneath Building 1. Maxwell
and Binford (1961) observed comparable dolomite rocks beneath the British
barracks building at Michilimackinac, but the scattered rocks at Fort George do
not line up down the long axis of the building as in Michilimackinac suggesting
supports for roof beams. Neither barracks at Fort George demonstrated
significantly different patterns in terms of flooring, with hard-packed clay floors
serving to level out an irregular limestone bedrock surface at both buildings (cf.

Grimm 1970242). Wooden planks and sleepers may have been placed on top of

162

 

 

Figure 12: Plan view of Fort George barracks buildings showing exposed
foundations, observed building outlines, and excavation limits.

 

    

 

\
\
‘ -
\ ‘ , ¢ ’ mortared stone
“ ’ , - v ‘ corner exposed
’ a ‘ In 2001
' ‘ ’ \
Building 1
visible foundation , .. v ‘\
a ’ a
\
, mortared “
' fl
, o ’ stone walls \
\"‘ ‘
‘ \
, a
‘ ’ v ‘
“ a ’ ‘ ’ ‘ ’
fl
\ v"“
‘ fl
‘\ v ‘ ’ ’ ’ \
" Building 2
visible foundation
A 5 O 5 10 Meters
Grid N

 

 

163

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 13 Plan of Fort George barracks showrng prOJected
building footprint.

 

projected
building footprint

 

projected
building footprin

/\
fl
"
"
-’
fl

\
\\ ‘
\ \
\ \
T_\ dense rock rubble
. \

I |

 

 

 

 

 

’
’
a
y
z
a
a

\
\
\
,1

 

visible foundation

 

5
Grid N

10 Meters

 

 

this packed clay surface, similar to that seen in the Fort Stanwix and
Michilimackinac barracks buildings, but neither Fort George barracks building
produced definitive evidence for this practice. (Maxwell and Binford 1961;
Hanson and Hsu 1975:21-22; Feister 1984a:105).

It is not known if either barracks buildings had upper floors, though the
sheer size of the footing stones- 4 ft wide in certain sections- would suggest it
likely, as would the high numbers of rosehead and T-headed wrought nails
associated with each building. The nail assemblages are similarly sized, which
suggests similar wooden construction for both buildings. Building 1 does have
considerably more 4d nails (4penny, 1 ‘/2 inch) than Building 2, but much of this
discrepancy is explained by the very high numbers of unmeasurable nails in the
Building 2 assemblage (1,279 out of 1,638 were not measurable at Building 2,
compared to only 615 out of 1,481 in Building 1). Overall, the wooden
construction for both buildings- either in the flooring, framing, or clapboarding-
was likely very much the same based on the available nail evidence.

Brick fireplace construction was inferred for both buildings based on the
sheer amounts of brick fragments, including many whole but unassociated or
scattered bricks. No complete or intact fireplaces were identified within either
building, though a probable fireplace support base of mortared limestone was
exposed within Barracks 1 along its eastern end and towards the center of the
building (Figure 12). Brick weights recorded per excavation unit in each building
also spike toward the interior long axis of both buildings, suggesting an internal

line of brick fireplaces and chimneys for both buildings. It is not clear if Building 2

165

also employed a mortared limestone fireplace base or if it used complete brick
construction throughout.

In addition to the similar-sized exterior foundation walls (visible as two,
parallel rectangles of low mounds of rock), interior walls were excavated in both
buildings. The interior walls ran perpendicular to the foundation walls, and they
suggest a similar overall building footprint for both structures, especially when
considered in relation to the Crown Point barracks buildings (Figure 13). In
Building 1, the interior wall was found approximately 9 meters west of the
eastern-most edge of the building; In Building 2, a similar wall was found 13
meters to the west of the eastern-most edge of that structure. The level of
integrity of the walls was slightly better in Building 1, but the projected extensions
of the interior walls in both buildings were inferred amidst a dense jumble of
limestone rubble. These data suggest that both barracks buildings were
constructed according to the basic same design: two rooms, each approximately
9x7 meters in area (30x20 ft), joined by a central room approximately 4x7 meters
in area (13x20 ft). Along their exterior visible edges, both buildings measured
approximately 22x7 meters in size (70x20 ft). These measurements resemble
those recorded for the Georgian-style Crown Point barracks, with the Fort
George structures differing in absolute size but basically designed as one-quarter
of the Crown Point barracks. Rather than a 4-block configuration of 2 rooms
joined by a central room or hallway, the Fort George barracks consist of only one
block each; thus if both barracks at Fort George were joined end-to-end, they

would match one-half the overall design of the Crown Point barracks. In the

166

eastern-most room of Building 1 at Fort George, heavy amounts of mortar and
plaster were also observed during excavation. Building 2 did not record similar
deposits within the structure, suggesting an interior wall architecture common
only to this building and room.

The architectural data from Fort George do not demonstrate any major
architectural differences between the two barracks buildings. Admittedly, the
variable of rank is not well controlled in this context, but the recovery of the gold
officer’s braid from Building 2 provides logical and sufficient evidence with which
to posit it was an officers’ barracks. If this assumption is made, the architectural
data do not support the material expectations of Hypothesis 3. The two buildings
are basically identical in outward appearances, with mortared stone foundations
on bedrock serving as the base for a probable two-story wooden superstructure.
Hand wrought nails comprise very similar percentages of each buildings’ artifact
assemblage (85.7% in Building 1; 85.2% in Building 2), as do aqua flat glass
sherds, and both architectural sub-assemblages are very similar in form across
buildings. The floor plan for both structures reveals what was likely the same
basic design and one similar to that seen for the stone barracks built at
approximately the same time at Crown Point. What differences were noted
cannot be correlated with rank. Building 1 had clear evidence for plastered
interior walls, at least along it eastern half, which conceivably would be a trait
associated with officers rather the enlisted. The stone foundation in Building 1
also expands from 2 to 4 feet in width in certain revealed sections, though how

this could be related to an inferior rank is difficult to imagine.

167

Table 5: Ceramic sherd counts for Fort George barracks buildings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ware Type Decoration Barracks 1 Barracks 2
Stoneware gray salt-glazed undecor. 5 3
blue painted 41 2
white salt-glazed undecor. 20 34
molded 1 12
scratch blue 1 3 10
brown salt—glazed undecor. 1 0
Porcelain hard-paste undecor. 3 3
blue painted 10 11
0| chrome
gaixted 5 6
Earthenware buff-bodied undecor. 6 2
slipped 0 1 2
redware lead-glazed 13 11
slipped 0 1
tin-enameled undecor. 24 12
blue painted 20 6
creamware undecor. 31 3
pearlware undecor. 1 1
whiteware undecor. 3 14
yellowware undecor. 0 2
Total 197 145

 

Artifactual comparisons between the two Fort George buildings also

demonstrate very similar assemblages. That is, expectations of artifact

differences based on rank as outlined in Hypothesis 3 are not observed within

the British regular archaeological data at Fort George, and in this they mirror the

Crown Point data (Feister 1984b). As the assumed high-rank context, Building 2

does not demonstrate, for example, exclusive access to expensive ceramic

wares or decorations. Table 5 provides a summary demonstration of this fact,

displaying the sherd frequencies for each of the barracks buildings distinguished

168

 

by ware and decorative motif. The sherd counts for the different wares are
basically the same across both buildings, with major differences explained by
differential sherd breakage. The high relative frequency of gray salt—glazed
stoneware sherds in Building 1, for example, derives from a single but very
fragmented chamber pot, while the large frequency of molded white salt-glazed
stoneware sherds in Building 2 consists of conjoined plate rims. Building 2 does
include all of the slip—decorated buff earthenware sherds, but 8 out of the 12
sherds conjoin to form a single handled pot fragment. Building 1 includes a high
relative frequency of creamware sherds, but this fact might simply suggest a 1
longer period of occupation compared to Building 2. The sherds likely
accumulated ca. 1762-1768, the terminal date suggested by the almost complete
lack of numbered military buttons in either building’s button assemblages (Calver
and Bolton 1950296; Olsen 1963:552; Maxwell and Binford 1967291; Grimm
1970:62; Stone 1974247). Even disregarding this fact, the lack of a significantly
higher frequency of pearlware sherds in the Building 1 assemblage suggests that
its occupation does not post-date that of Building 2 for very long, with such
ceramics found on British military sites as early as 1778 (Ferguson 1977; Babits
1979; Fisher 1987). And the higher counts of whiteware at Building 2 are
insignificant as this post-1820 ceramic clearly dates to after the occupation of
both structures, likely deposited by nineteenth-century tourists picnicking at the
site. As a whole, both buildings” ceramic assemblages consist of roughly equal
amounts of molded white salt-glazed stoneware plates and teawares, blue- and .

polychrome painted porcelain vessels, tin-glazed wares, and at least 1 gray salt

169

glazed stoneware chamber pot each.

Neither do the two barracks buildings at Fort George demonstrate
significant differences in terms of their respective button assemblages. It might
be inferred, for example, that Building 2 would reflect unique button attributes
based on the assumed rank of its occupants, either in the materials used or in
their designs or methods of manufacture. But the data displayed in Table 6
(Hypothesis 7, see below pp. 237) suggest just the opposite conclusion. Both
barracks buildings are dominated by the same button type: a plain, brass 2-piece
button (Type A3) with an attached wire shank and hollow body. The only
noticeable difference lies in the amount of bone buttons, with all of them (n=3)
recovered from Building 1. It might be expected that lower-ranked contexts
would include such inferior quality buttons, but the fact that the difference is only
3 total buttons makes this a difficult conclusion to rely on. The lack of substantial
difference between the button assemblages suggests that while certain clothing
insignia (i.e., gold braid) may have demarcated rank distinctions, other clothing
materials did not.

Taken together, the artifactual and architectural data from both Fort
George and Crown Point suggest a surprising conservatism among the British
ranks in terms of expected status distinctions. The various sources of British
barracks data do not provide much support for clear demarcations of rank as
expected in Hypothesis 3. At least based on the British Crown Point and Fort
George data, then, it would seem that artifactual expressions of rank were not a

distinguishing characteristic of the British army, at least as can be observed

170

archaeologically, and that this aspect did not serve as a significant point of
cultural divergence between the British and provincials. At the same time,
architectural expressions of rank were a distinguishing characteristic of the
British army, as was observed archaeologically, but the manner of such

expression was much more subtle and muted than anticipated.

Provincial Test Exmtations and Data

If, as has been observed archaeologically, artifactual differences
associated with rank were not characteristic of the British army, it follows that this
practice cannot serve to distinguish British and provincials. It may be the case
that artifactual manifestations of rank among the British were limited to items that
simply did not survive well in the archaeological record, as the relative rarity of
excavated gold braiding suggests. In either case, the anticipated artifactual
evidence is lacking among British regular contexts as compared to architectural
evidence. Although hardly overwhelming, the British regular archaeological
patterns suggest that it is architectural data that may be most sensitive in terms
of rank differentiation. Among provincial contexts, expectations include a lack of
obvious architectural differences associated with rank, though it is recognized
that such differences were not nearly as overt among the British as expected.

Abundant provincial hut architectural data with which to explore these
expectations have been published for Rogers Island (Starbuck 2004). These
various provincial dwellings spread across the island, however, suffer from a lack

of independent control over rank similar to that of the Fort George barracks. That

171

is, among the various provincial huts it is not known as to which ones were home
to officers and which ones to enlisted based on independent information, and it is
therefore impossible to associate any unique architectural features with known
rank (Starbuck 2004:47—67). Documented officer occupations among provincial
architectural features are only reported for Crown Point (Fisher 1993:57;1995),
which includes three officers’ dwellings associated with the 2nd Connecticut
Regiment lead by Colonel Nathan Whiting. The huts as reported by Fisher
(1993, 1995) demonstrate wood framing with wooden sleepers resting on packed
soil, and dry-laid limestone fireplaces connected to clay-chinked chimneys
(Fisher 1993:Figures 4 and 5). These are the only archaeologically known
architectural features that can be reasonably associated with occupation by
provincial officers, and while the lack of similar control at Rogers Island prevents
rigorous evaluation, comparisons of the two sites’ provincial data do suggest
some interesting patterns.

Figures 14-19 provide overall plan views of the Rogers Island huts, each
one displayed at the same scale to facilitate comparisons (see Starbuck 2004:53-
63). Clearly Dwelling 5 stands out as the largest and most elaborately
constructed (Figure 18). It also resembles in certain architectural aspects the
Crown Point officers’ huts, particularly in the use of wood flooring and in the
overall size. Fireplace construction in Dwelling 5 consists of a rather substantial
mortared brick hearth adjacent to, but offset from, the wall center, with the scatter
of loose brick and mortar obvious candidates for chimney construction. The

framing and roof were also likely wood, in evidence by the rotting wood planks

172

 

 

Figure 14: Rogers Island provincial hut 1 (based on Starbuck 2004:54,
Figure 5.8).

Dark clay stain
w/ vertical wood frags.

{‘

 

 

artifact location

wood remains
hearth areas
brick fragments

A 1 0 1 2 Meters

N

W" .

 

 

.......~
- .....-..
.u......
.......u

 

 

 

173

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 15: Rogers Island provincial hut 2 (based on Starbuck 2004:55,
Figure 5.10).

Intact brick
fireplace \

\ Projected building

\\ / outline
\

 

 

 

N 1 0 1 2 Meters

 

 

 

174

 

Figure 16: Rogers Island provincial hut 3 (based on Starbuck 2004:57,
Figure 5.13).

Hard-packed dark
/ brown stain

 

 

artifact location

A 1 0 1 2 Meters

N P:—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

175

 

 

 

Figure 17: Rogers Island provincial hut 4 (based on Starbuck 2004:58,
Figure 5.14).

edge of

\l

l

l

I

e ' . I
l

. /excavation

l

|

|

l

l

l

 

Hard-packed dark
brown sandy floor

 

artifact location
- brick

......
........

A 1 0 1 2 Meters

 

 

 

 

 

 

176

 

 

 

Figure 18: Rogers Island provincial hut 5 (based on Starbuck 2004:61,

Figure 5.19).
vertical boards

 

apparent edge

 

/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% flogrdboards

r
a 175d location
2 Meters

A 1 .

 

 

 

 

 

177

 

 

Figure 19: Rogers Island provincial hut 6 (based on Starbuck 2004:63,
Figure 5.22).

 

excavation
edge
0
,._.
7 \
l
l
- /
/- ...i3E:?9?'2.§15::"
/ ‘ 1;;E§::i;f;E;:§:;:;:;_
1 / . _.;:;;;;::::::r
\ / - ..:.:r::;::-
\ /.
..... x 1., __, /- "

 

/ “ V / disturbed area

 

 

 

1 0 1 2 Meters

 

 

 

 

 

 

178

found atop the wooden floor molds. Dwelling 2 can also be included among
those with wood floors, observed as remaining rows of nails formerly connecting
floor boards to joists below, with a mortared brick hearth atop a fieldstone base
(Figure 15). Dwelling 2 also consists of a partial baked clay apron along the
dwelling’s western edge, similar to the more substantial clay apron surrounding
the British barracks building at Fort Michilimackinac to help draw water away
from the building base (Maxwell and Binford 1961 :73). Interestingly, Dwelling 5
is the only provincial hut feature to have recovered fragments of gold braid,
suggesting a probable officer occupation (Starbuck 2004:88-89, Figure 7.13).

The remaining hut features demonstrate a varied mix of architectural
features, which again, cannot be linked to any independently known rank
information for the provincial occupants. All evidence hard-packed dirt floors, but
the probable superstructures for each are different. Dwelling 1, for example,
includes wood planks set vertically into a clay-filled perimeter trench, which may
have served as a relatively strong base for a fabric tent site or a rather weak
base for a wooden hut site (Figure 14). Multiple occupations of Dwelling 1 are
suggested by the sequence of hearth areas. Dwellings 3 and 4 consist of packed
earthen floors but no substantial wood construction, while Dwelling 6 likely
demonstrates a very short tent occupation, with limited long-term architectural
evidence (Figures 16, 17, and 19).

These data suggest a variety of construction techniques among the
provincial hut features. The only dwellings which share multiple attributes are

Dwellings 2 and 5, including wood flooring, mortared brick fireplaces, and

179

probable wooden superstructures similar in form to the Crown Point hut features.
Their sizes and fireplace bases, however, are not the same. The other, earthen-
floored dwellings on Rogers Island employ a range of fireplace construction
techniques, ranging from relatively substantial dry-laid brick features (Dwellings 1
and 4), to reddish soil stains suggesting open-air fires (Dwelling 6), to none at all
(Dwelling 3). Dwelling size among these also ranges from 8x8 feet to almost
12x12 feet. Clearly, a range of construction choices were made, in different
combinations, but it is unclear how this might (or might not) correlate with
provincial military rank. What can be said, and it contradicts the material
expectations of Hypothesis 3, is that the flooring of a documented provincial
officer occupation at Crown Point is similar in form to an undocumented but
possible provincial officer occupation at Rogers Island (Dwelling 5). Dwelling 5
on Rogers Island in turn recovered probable officer insignia, which might suggest
a positive relationship between wooden flooring, substantial fireplace
construction, and provincial rank. The data simply remain too ambiguous to
provide enough support for this correlation, and the true relationship between

provincial rank and the archaeological record remains unclear.

Hypothesis 4: Provincial and British domestic contexts may be
distinguished in terms of their familiarity with orderly encampment
behaviors, including knowledge and practice of prescribed methods for the
orderly disposal of domestic trash.

As with the other small-scale hypotheses, Hypothesis 4 posits in general

180

that the British regulars were a much more professional military force than were
the provincials and that they were much more familiar with even the most
mundane daily tasks involved in maintaining a dense military settlement during
the Seven Years’ War. One such daily task was the proper disposal of domestic
refuse, a routine but nevertheless important task if military settlements were to
maintain a degree of cleanliness and the men their health. British forces are
assumed to have strictly adhered to prescribed military conventions regarding the
orderly disposal of trash within specialized pits and the continued maintenance of
sanitary living arrangements, such as outlined in contemporary military manuals
(e.g., Bland 1746; Anderson 1984). Provincials, to the contrary, are assumed to
have been unfamiliar with such conventions and to have maintained their own
civilian patterns of trash disposal. Most likely, the areas in and around provincial
hut or tent structures were repositories for American domestic refuse,
demonstrating their comparative inexperience with proper camp cleanliness. On
this point Anderson ( 1984) remarks that provincial regimental orders were
repeatedly issued to instruct the Americans in proper sanitary practices, while
similar orders were comparatively absent among the British regulars. Clearly,
such matters as the proper disposal of encampment refuse “would have been
controlled by custom, habit, or standard procedure in a professional military
organization,” but possibly not so among the unprofessional American ranks
(Anderson 1984277).

Overall, the provincial data conflict with the model’s expectations. Such is

not the case, however, if the data are cast within a broader temporal perspective,

181

a point returned to in the discussion of Hypothesis 7. The British data support
the model’s expectations and demonstrate a practiced and patterned disposal of

trash among barracks contexts, though it is of an unexpected form.

Provincial Test Implications and Data

The specific archaeological test implications of Hypothesis 4 for provincial
contexts posits the accumulation of an artifact-rich sheet of refuse or midden
layer immediately in and around domestic structures, thereby demonstrating a
degree of “messiness” and an overall lack of concern for the ordered disposal of
trash away from living spaces. Artifact categories comprising such refuse could
include, for example, food debris in the form of animal bone fragments, or the
ceramic and glass vessels also used in food preparation and consumption.
These items would have been used and discarded with much greater frequency
than many other categories of materials and would therefore most likely comprise
the bulk of domestic refuse assemblages. Archaeological implications might also
include the complete absence of any and all sub-surface features or pits
immediately around provincial structures that could have been used for the
specialized removal of such domestic refuse. Relevant archaeological data with
which to examine these testable material implications come from Fisher’s (1993,
1995) excavation of provincial officer huts at Crown Point and Feister and Huey’s
(1985) excavation of the provincial encampment at Fort Gage. A re-examination
of original data from these sites in light of this study’s model and hypotheses

provides for a number of interesting and revealing archaeological patterns.

182

At Fort Crown Point, Fisher’s (1993, 1995) excavation of two separate
provincial officers’ huts provides the best small-scale view of the use of space in
and around individual provincial domestic structures during the Seven Years’
War. The huts were originally identified as low mounds of rock during a 1985-
1988 archaeological survey of a proposed maintenance building intended along
the south side of the entrance to the Crown Point State Historic Site. Reference
to contemporary maps of the Crown Point encampment during the British
occupation indicated that the survey area and the identified huts corresponded
very well with the location of Colonel Nathan Whiting’s 2nd Connecticut
Regiment of provincials (Anonymous 1759; Fisher 1995277). Intensive
excavation of the two provincial huts (designated Huts 1 and 2) and their
immediate surroundings was conducted during the surveys, and a third hut was
identified but not excavated (see Fisher 1993:13—57, Figures 4 and 5).
Interestingly, the archaeological test expectations of (1) an accumulated layer of
bone, ceramic, or vessel glass domestic refuse and (2) the absence of trash pits
around provincial huts that are posited in Hypothesis 4 are not completely
supported by the Crown Point excavation data. Conversely, the test
expectations are not completely refuted by the data, suggesting a situation
somewhere in between the careless discard of refuse in and around buildings by
the provincials on one hand and the organized disposal of refuse into special
areas on the other.

In terms of the first material expectation, it appears that midden

accumulation was relatively restricted spatially to the immediate areas around

183

hearths inside the Crown Point huts. Close examination of each of the huts’
artifact inventories indicates that between 60-70% of the 1,327 artifacts
recovered from Hut 1 and the 474 artifacts from Hut 2, consisted of calcined
animal bone. These heated bone fragments were very small and fragmentary
and were not identifiable beyond classification as mammalian. Within both hut
contexts, the overwhelming majority of this dominant artifact category was
recovered in the immediate vicinity of the fireplaces within the estimated building
outlines (a single fireplace was identified within each but). This demonstrates
that the bulk of both the Hut 1 and Hut 2 artifact assemblages consisted of food
garbage that was located proximal to a hearth area. Both the burning of the
bone and its proximity to the fireplaces suggest that these artifacts were involved
in food preparation and consumption, but it also suggests that the food refuse
was not indiscriminately tossed within or outside either hut feature. Rather, the
food was likely prepared, consumed, and ultimately discarded within the same
relatively restricted area inside both dwellings. This suggests an unexpected
degree of camp cleanliness, and that the provincial occupants of both huts did
not haphazardly discard debris in or around the whole of their living quarters.
While faunal debris and various other material categories (i.e., ceramics and
vessel glass) did accumulate in and among the huts, overall their numbers were
very low, leading Fisher (1 993170) to conclude that “only a few small items were
disposed of as sheet refuse”. In short, the hypothesized “messiness” of
provincial domestic spaces was not in evidence across each hut feature as a

whole, with only limited amounts of faunal debris, ceramic sherds, or vessel glass

184

fragments discarded as sheet refuse beyond hearth areas.

In terms of trash pits among the Crown Point provincial dwellings, the data
are conflicting and suggest an intermediary position between organized and
unorganized disposal practices. The excavation of the immediate area
surrounding both dwellings did in fact reveal the presence of pit features. At Hut
1, for example, 5 spatially discrete and man-made subsurface features
associated with the dwelling were recorded and excavated, though two of these
likely represented the southern and western edges of the hut while a third pit
resembled a possible support pier for the building (Fisher 1993:17-18, Figures 8-
10). Fisher argues that the remaining two pit features (Features 1A and 1B)
were likely originally dug for sources of chinking clay for fireplace construction or
possibly as privies, and that only later did they serve as receptacles for domestic
trash. Feature 1B, for example, contained burned soil, mammal teeth fragments,
colorless lead vessel glass, and tin-glazed earthenware sherds, with additional
ceramics, charcoal, and calcined bone in the topsoil immediately above the
feature. Based on its character, the material within and above the Feature 1B fill
soil

appears to be redeposited fill, because the charcoal
concentration is below the burned clay. This pit was excavated
not to contain trash but possibly for use as a privy or clay
source, similar to Feature 1A. The material objects were in the
pit fill and possibly relate to a secondary use of this feature.
And at Hut 2, a pit feature similar to Features 1A and 1B was excavated beyond

the north wall of this dwelling. The feature was filled with a dark brown clay soil

with charcoal, wood fibers, burned clay, rocks, and 16 dark green wine bottle

185

sherds. As with the Hut 1 pit features, Fisher (1993245) argues that “This pit
[Feature 2B] was not excavated originally for the deliberate disposal of trash but
for some other purpose. The material present here was contained in the pit fill
and was related to the secondary use of this feature”.

Concerning these three trash pit features, Fisher (1993:70) makes the
important point that the “use of pits to contain trash contrasts with trash pits,
which were deliberately constructed to contain trash”. Functionally specific pit
features designed to receive domestic refuse, Fisher argues, are thus
significantly different than pit features intended for some other use but then
subsequently employed as trash receptacles, an important distinction when
considered in terms of the Hypothesis 4 test expectations. The provincial pit data
thus conflict with but do not necessarily refute the expected material patterns.
That is, the data seem to suggest an intermediate position or a process of
change from an initial and casual discard of refuse to the eventual use of trash
pits (Fisher 1993:70). Provincial soldiers at Crown Point, as expected, were not
utilizing specialized areas for the removal of their domestic refuse- at least not
initially- and much of this material was initially discarded in and among hearth
areas. At the same time, these soldiers were not allowing the indiscriminate
build up of garbage all around their living areas and ultimately did utilize existing
pits for trash disposal.

The fact that such ambiguous evidence for trash disposal behaviors was
found among provincial occupations that date to late in the war is of no small

account. As mentioned in the Chapter 4 site discussions, the British occupation

186

of Crown Point post-dates General Amherst’s successful 1759 campaign to
dislodge the French presence in northern New York and thus represents a
relatively late British settlement of the Seven Years’ War. Ambiguous data
suggesting a possible change from one form of provincial refuse disposal to
another thus might be expected in such a temporal context, as provincial soldiers
slowly began to adopt more professional martial behaviors associated with their
Anglo-American allies towards the end of the war. These temporal implications
of culture change among the provincials are explored in the discussion of
Hypothesis 7.

Additional data to explore provincial disposal practices derive from
scrutiny of Feister and Huey’s (1985) excavation data on the provincial redoubt at
Fort Gage. Situated on a small hill south of Lake George and adjacent to the
military road leading south to Fort Edward, Fort Gage was constructed after
Abercromby’s failed attempt to take Ticonderoga from the French. The
construction of the small redoubt and its protection of the vital military road no
doubt reflected the continued danger felt among the British for continued attacks
by the French and French-allied Indians (Feister and Huey 1985:41). The small
fort is identified on Andrew Fraser’s “A Map of the Retrenched Camp at Lake
George in 1758” as the site of the “Provincial light Infantry” (Fraser 1758; Feister
and Hueyz42, Figure 1). The archaeological work conducted at Fort Gage was
intentionally designed to leave a major portion of the site unexcavated in the
hopes that the initial sample could guide more thorough and complete

excavations (Fester and Huey 1985:41). Unfortunately, immediately prior to

187

,/

i

public disclosure of the archaeological sampling the site was completely
destroyed by bulldozing for a motel specifically re-designed to bypass
Adirondack Park Agency review. As a result, the excavations failed to
unambiguously identify or fully excavate undisturbed provincial domestic
structures similar to that encountered at Crown Point. While the data are thus
not comparable in the same level of detail as the Crown Point hut excavations,
careful inspection of that which remains nevertheless identifies relevant
archaeological patterns concerning the disposal practices of American
provincials.

Put simply, the Gage data refute the material expectations for provincial
contexts. Similar patterns to Crown Point suggest a limited accumulation of
sheet refuse beyond that discarded immediately adjacent to hearth areas and
probably within individual dwellings. Evidence was also recovered suggesting
that a substantial amount of the Fort Gage assemblage was specifically
deposited within specialized sub-surface trash pits. This fact contrasts with the
more subtle pattern at Crown Point, and it clearly refutes the notion that
provincials did not intentionally bury domestic trash.

Concerning the first material test expectation, much of the Fort Gage site
was found to consist of disturbed (previously bulldozed) soils described as brown
and yellow mottled sand full of unassociated eighteenth-century artifacts. Of the
28 10-foot grid squares excavated in a checkerboard pattern across the site, 22
were disturbed down to and sometimes below the top of the yellow gravelly

sterile subsoil. The remaining six grid squares, however, revealed a sandy

188

brown undisturbed and original occupation surface some 6-8 inches in thickness
that also included a large number of artifacts. In addition, while no clearly
defined hut features were identified during the excavation, a number of jumbled
and relatively indistinct stone concentrations likely representing the walls of
individual structures were observed in the central portion of the site. On this
point the authors noted that when “the Bureau of Historic Sites archaeologists
visited the Fort Gage site a few years before bulldozing occurred, the types of
depressions left in the ground seemed to be those of hut sites” (Feister and Huey
1985253).

These various factors, when considered in tandem with artifactual
evidence, suggest limited evidence for the presence of a refuse midden layer
strewn across portions of the Fort Gage site. Such accumulation or
indiscriminant discard as was allowed seems to have been restricted to hearth
areas within former dwellings, thereby defining a much more spatially
conservative pattern of refuse discard than has been hypothesized. Consider
that of the 3,129 period artifacts recovered from the site as a whole, some 1,594
artifacts (51%) derived from the disturbed bulldozed soils. An additional 706
artifacts (23%) derived from the undisturbed original occupation surface (the
remaining 26% of the assemblage was found in sub-surface features, including
apparent trash pits). While there is no doubt that a portion of the unassociated
artifacts found in the disturbed soils were uprooted from the identified trash pit
features, much of the disturbed assemblage likely came from bulldozing the

original occupation surface rather than the deeper, sub-surface pit features.

189

Thus it is likely that a much greater percentage of the entire artifact assemblage
(greater than 23%) was originally located within the undisturbed brown sandy
occupation surface prior to the bulldozing, though of course how much greater is
a matter of speculation. Nevertheless, this line of reasoning suggests that a
substantial portion of the Fort Gage assemblage was contained within a thick
sandy brown occupation layer that was full of artifacts, which on its own would
suggest a relatively widespread level of indiscriminate discard on the part of the
provincial occupants. But consider also that among the undisturbed occupation
surface contexts, those areas that had the greatest density of artifactual material
“were located near the remains of stone walls close to the center of the
excavation area, and one was directly associated with a hearth feature” (Feister
and Huey 1985245).

This suggests a pattern very similar to that observed among the Crown
Point provincial huts. That is, a substantial portion of the Fort Gage artifact
assemblage (at least 23% and likely much more) accumulated within a general
occupation layer rather than being deposited in specialized sub-surface pit
features. And the majority of this refuse (at least 62%) consisted of calcined
animal bone fragments. Such accumulation, however, was not evenly distributed
horizontally across the Fort Gage site but seemed to cluster alongside or within
former dwellings and hearth features. Thus, much like the Connecticut
provincials occupying the Crown Point huts, the Fort Gage troops do not appear
to have haphazardly discarded or failed to dispose of domestic food debris, at

least in locations beyond hearth areas. In this sense, their discard of food

190

garbage cannot be considered “messy” as it only occurred within spatially
restricted areas surrounding fireplaces. This conclusion, of course, is tempered
by the lack of clearly defined boundaries among the stone concentrations, which
conceivably could represent features other than that of provincial domestic
structures. Again, obvious demarcation of hut features as seen at Crown Point
were simply not found atthe Fort Gage site.

Concerning the second test expectation, it has already been noted that
trash pit features were identified and excavated across the Fort Gage site.
Indeed, excavators identified some 37 individual pit features which together
produced 829 historic artifacts (Feister and Huey 1985:45—46, Table 1). Unlike
the Crown Point pit features, however, the authors do not question the intended
function of these pits and they unambiguously label them as specialized
receptacles for domestic refuse: “Most of the pits at the Fort Gage site were
undoubtedly dug for the disposal of garbage and other camp refuse” (Feister and
Huey 1985251). As previously mentioned, some 26% of the Fort Gage artifact
assemblage was contained within these pits, and of this percentage the most
numerous artifact category was calcined animal bone: “Faunal material was by
far the most ubiquitous type of artifact found in the 37 Fort Gage pits that
contained remains” (Feister and Huey 1985:49). That a specialized function of
trash disposal could be attributed to even one of these features meant that all 37
functioned as such, given the fact that artifact frequencies within each were
essentially the same (Feister and Huey 1985:57). Such a high number of

specialized trash pits across the site does argue against the expectations of

191

Hypothesis 4 among provincial contexts. Clearly, as the authors point out, there
was an obvious attempt at Fort Gage to keep the site clean (Feister and Huey
1985245).

Overall, the patterns that emerge from a re-analysis of the Fort Gage data
provide less than convincing evidence or support for the expectations of
Hypothesis 4. The general accumulation of provincial trash was not nearly as
spatially extensive as was expected in the model, and provincial “messiness”
seems to have been very limited spatially to the immediate areas surrounding
fireplaces within dwellings. At the same time, pit data similar to that expected for
British regular contexts was observed. Revaluating both sites’ data in terms of
the present model identifies patterns that call into question the notion that
provincials lacked the ability to adopt professional British military practices
regarding the burying of domestic refuse. Placing these patterns within a
broader temporal frame of reference, however, may demonstrate that such
change as was experienced by the provincials occurred only as they became
more and more familiar with conventional martial practices and actively adopted
them during their terms of service. Again, this notion of change over a broader

temporal scale is explored directly in Hypothesis 7.

British Material Implications and Data

The specific archaeological test implications of Hypothesis 4 for British
regular contexts posits a corresponding lack of accumulation of an artifact-rich

sheet of refuse or midden layer immediately in and around domestic structures,

192

 

 

 

 

 

   

,, ,A ,, , . ,, 42225, e a N s o s w
a E,“ , _ I,
_ W _ . _ , .. A, _ .
,, ,2 hm” . w. W. t,
,_ . , . 0 _,,
arm 8m Em .
z _.. _ a _ _ ____. m
.. . chamowcumxoofi,
,, A. ,,_ .
_, , .
_ mm. _ Q
A E , _.__ _~ _,.,_ ’
, ,,_ . _ _. _,_ ., ’
. .. . . ,2, ... .. .. a
,2. . . r _ ..._ ... ._. _,. .. \O
t. ,., . ._ ,_ ,... , _._ 3:8 F 323m 3.
z. __ a. 7 _ ,.. .. . _ , E _,_e.
.__ .2 __ H M __ _.__ _.,. _,_ __ M _, .11..
.__ W. _, m ,.. A8356 30.3 .mEo "62an 52:08 :miE «2152 26mm. 32m «wan .0553 oomxooum

.5500 9:252 9.8th 05 @5265 09000 to". 5 5:0: 023 Eoém on. Co 303 Bad How 059“.

 

 

193

 

msm

 

 

i
390.2 v m N F o w

.8920 .3 Eco. 35cm

.65 {cu bc>
Em m> or
Eco. 6:»..6.
:3o5..3o..c {cu Eco > :cm
in m; 0.. Eo:n.>ro.n_vm> {co

 

m? m; 2. Eco. >u:cm
:3o5.3o..m> Eco
Sm m> or

.nr

 

 

 

 

 

Eco. 2cm
:32: {ca 39
EN m> or
msm _ _ . _ oem . . 3m
Bacc— cucxooum
.coo:c:o xocB >vccm Eco. uccm :cEmefiofitcn
SN m> or :30... {cu bc>
Na m> o..

:to: 305 .9338 cccxooum 05 @5305 5:2. c980 to”. 8.3 Eoém 9.. ho ween. ”Pu 239“.

 

 

194

“E: :o=c>coxw

wwmwm firmww ormww mwmew vwmww mwmww New—aw :mew owmww momww mom—.w

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.ccacn. I
.050 =<D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

10

 

 

 

 

00..

 

 

m:_cEm:

00m

 

 

 

 

cucxooum 00 5:82 c>=c.c:

00m

 

_

 

00v

 

000

 

000

 

005

 

000

 

 

coco: c980 to". Eoém 05 m:o.c wucaoo Scat/x ”mm 9:9“.

000 u:

195

thereby demonstrating a degree of cleanliness and an obvious concern for the
ordered disposal of trash away from living spaces. Artifact categories comprising
such refuse would remain the same as those hypothesized for provincial contexts
(e.g., faunal debris, ceramic materials, vessel glass, etc.). Archaeological
implications might also include the presence of sub-surface features or pits
immediately around British barracks structures that could have been used for the
specialized removal of domestic refuse. Relevant British barracks archaeological
data with which to examine these testable material implications derive from
excavations conducted at Fort George in 2001 in which the author was involved.
Situated along a rocky prominence overlooking the headwaters of Lake
George, the two parallel British barracks at Fort George were constructed within
a three-bastioned stockade after Abercromby’s army licked its wounds following
its unlikely defeat at Ticonderoga. The stockade and barracks buildings are
noted on a number of contemporary maps of Fort George and Lake George, and
Henry Skinner’s 1759 “A Perspective View of Lake George” provides probably
the most detailed drawing of the stockade architecture (see Bellico 2001284).
One of the primary goals of the 2001 excavations at the site was to identify this
stockade in relation to the two barracks structures. To accomplish this, a 50-cm
wide trench was hand excavated that began at the eastern edge of the northern
barracks building (Building 1) and extended east and down slope away from the
buildings, thereby intending to intersect any remaining traces of the stockade.
The trench was limited in its width to 50cm so as to reduce the impact on the site

while still providing an adequate means with which to identify the feature and its

196

archaeological character. The resulting trench extended 14 meters beyond the
eastern building’s stone foundation wall (Figure 20). At a distance of
approximately 4 meters, and extending at least another 2 meters to the cast, a
very dark black feature thick with charcoal was encountered, which matches very
well with the location of the wooden stockade shown on period maps. Profiling
revealed the feature lay atop two thin and seemingly prepared layers of very dark
gray and dark yellowish brown clayey soil serving as the base above limestone
bedrock, and fragmentary pieces of wood were observed in the dark black
charcoal matrix. The east and west edges of the feature were very indistinct, but
as a whole the feature itself was clearly distinguished from the surrounding dark
brown loamy soil on either side (Figure 21). The feature as identified
stratigraphically is interpreted as the remains of the bastioned stockade based on
its character, inclusions, and location (Farry 2005c). When considered in relation
to artifactual evidence gleaned from the trench, the feature provides important
data with which to evaluate the British material expectations of Hypothesis 4.
Overall, The Fort George trench data support the first expectation by
demonstrating very little accumulation of sheet refuse within the immediate
surroundings of the two barracks buildings. Such a form of deposited refuse,
however, was identified at a distance from the buildings. This does not
necessarily call into question the disposal habits of the British regulars, as
posited, but it does suggest that certain areas proximal to domestic structures
were allowed to become comparatively “messy". Conversely, the trench data do

not support the second material expectation of specialized trash pits. This lack of

197

confirmation, however, is no doubt affected by certain physical conditions at the
site as well as sampling error, and the negative evidence is not thought sufficient
refute the second material expectation.

Interpretation of the data in terms of the first expectation (lack of sheet
refuse) requires that an analytical distinction be made between those artifacts
recovered from inside and outside the stockade limits. Excavation units
deployed to the west of the stockade would have fallen within the wall’s limits and
immediately adjacent to the two barracks buildings. Units to the east would have
fallen increasingly outside of the stockade and towards a sharp slope leading
down to the marshy banks of Lake George. Figure 22 displays the raw artifact
counts for each of the 50-cm wide excavation units along the length of the trench
while maintaining their correct spatial relationships to one another. The relative
location of the stockade is also shown on the bar graph to allow comparisons to
be made with the frequency of artifacts per excavation unit. The x-axis of the
graph thus mimics the actual placement of units along the trench if viewed from
the south, with the area to the left of the stockade line representing the interior
and the area to the right the exterior. Each unit’s raw artifact count total is
distinguished between the relative amounts of faunal debris and all other artifact
categories combined.

As is clearly shown, the raw counts remain below 200 per unit to the west
of the stockade feature and immediately adjacent to the northern barracks
building. At 1 and particularly 2 meters to the east and outside of the feature,

however, the raw counts spike at over 800 artifacts per unit. Beyond this to the

198

east and further outside of the stockade, the counts remain high for at least 2
meters before they fall off at the trench’s eastern edge. The distribution remains
the same if the raw unit counts are converted to percentages of the trench’s
entire eighteenth-century assemblage. This overall distribution is interpreted to
represent a “toss pattern” of domestic refuse- particularly faunal debris- over and
beyond the stockade walls. As this edge of the stockade faced the sharp rocky
slope leading down to the marshes alongside Lake George, the troops were not
just tossing their garbage outside of the immediate stockaded area but effectively
beyond the edges of the Fort George encampment as a whole. To do so, of
course, meant that the British regulars recognized this distinction between space
within the stockade and space without, thereby ensuring that interior space
alongside domestic structures remained relatively free of domestic refuse. Such
garbage does occur within the stockade, but the relative amounts are such that
there must have been a clear difference between the interior and exterior
contexts.

But if the toss pattern gives weight to the notion of relative cleanliness
among British regular domestic contexts, it does not support the second material
expectation that garbage was carefully buried in specialized receptacles. Indeed,
the barracks occupants were disposing of refuse in a sheet midden as would be
expected among the provincial forces; they simply ensured that the midden
accumulated beyond the sights of their barracks and the walls of their fortification
and away from their immediate domestic contexts. The trench did not uncover

any clear evidence for subsurface features, though the restricted width and

199

coverage of the trench, and the density of blocky limestone fragments in the soil,
made for very uneven pit floors and reduced visibility. Small refuse pits either
within or outside of the stockade might therefore exist but still await discovery,
though seven 1x1-meter excavation units spread around the northern, eastern,
and southern barracks buildings did not recover any evidence.

From a more practical perspective, the bedrock limestone is very near the
surface across this site which has resulted in only a thin accumulation of soil in
certain areas. Conceivably, this might have precluded the digging of any sub-
surface features or at least required that they be located elsewhere and in
deeper soils. Ultimately, then, while the trash pit evidence is lacking, it is not
clear that this is not simply the result of sampling too small an areal extent
around the buildings or a result of the thin and rocky geology of the site, or both.
The negative evidence is not considered sufficient to disprove the model’s
expectations, and it might not necessarily correspond with a lack of such disposal
practices among the British ranks at Fort George.

The Fort George data do not refute the British regular test implications of
Hypothesis 4. The data demonstrate that trash disposal behaviors were being
carried out that ensured a relatively clean living area. British occupants of the
barracks building were evidently removing debris from their immediate domestic
contexts, though it is not clear if they removed the garbage into specific trash
pits. It is known that they were removing at least portions of their domestic
refuse over and beyond the immediate limits of their enclosed stockade. While

this resulted in a seemingly uncharacteristic accumulation of sheet refuse, the

200

accumulation was located well beyond the occupied portions of the Fort George
settlement and strewn along the rocky slope towards Lake George and well
beyond the confines of the encampment as a whole. In one sense, such a
location- though not a clearly defined pit- might be conceived of as its own

1

specialized trash receptacle, one that was at least partially removed from the

domestic quarters and living spaces of the British forces.

Archaeological Hypotheses: Large-Scale Contexts

The various data marshaled as evidence in Hypotheses 1-4 do provide
support for material culture differences between British regular and American
provincial archaeological assemblages, as anticipated. But while certain
expected patterns were revealed in the data, others were not, suggesting that
either the archaeological record is not suited to measuring such differences or
that such differences did not exist. Expectations for rank distinction, for example,
were not nearly as pronounced among the British as expected, suggesting that
this was not an overt cultural practice which served to distinguish them from the
Americans, at least in terms of architecture and even less so in terms of material
items. Provincial trash disposal behaviors were also much more “British” in form
than that anticipated in the model, although this pattern may have temporal
implications beyond that considered in Hypothesis 4. Either group can be
distinguished archaeologically, however, if standardization of weaponry or use of
ceramic vessels is considered, as was expected in the model.

The remaining sections of Chapter 5 focus on how the perceived cultural

201

differences observed in restricted spatial or temporal contexts either correlate or
conflict with those patterns examined in broader contexts. Data at these scales
of analysis, however, a not nearly as abundant, particularly given the stringent
data requirements. As a result, certain discussions of the large-sale hypotheses
involve identifying what data are lacking and what this means in terms of future
research. Published and raw data are examined against the expected

archaeological patterns, particularly in discussions of Hypotheses 5 and 7.

Hypothesis 5: The design or layout of British and provincial troop
encampments may differ in the degree to which either reflects a
hierarchical order of military rank; and Hypothesis 6: Multiple British and
provincial encampments within a single military settlement may difier
significantly in terms of their overall configuration.

Hypotheses 5 and 6 are condensed for discussion, in part because the
expectations of both require archaeological data at such a spatial scale that few if
any assemblages meet their analytical requirements. Unlike the multiple intact
American cantonments of the Revolutionary War, many of which have been
subjected to detailed archaeological study of broader spatial patterns (e.g.,
Seidel 1987; Fisher 1982, 1983b, 1987), similar numbers of intact provincial or
British regular encampments from the Seven Years’ War are extremely rare.
Data consisting of multiple structures tend to be isolated, with little known
concerning their basic spatial or temporal relationships; witness the Rogers

Island provincial hut assemblage (Starbuck 2004:67). The only existing data that

202

do meet certain of the requirements derive from the provincial huts excavated at
Crown Point (Fisher 1993, 1995). These data represent historically documented
and brief occupations across a spatially extensive study area. The data are
nevertheless limited in certain detail, and observed patterns must remain
suggestive rather than definitive for both hypotheses. The Rogers Island
provincial huts provide similar but not sufficient data for testing Hypotheses 5 or
6. Comparable British archaeological data are wholly lacking at this scale.

The basic assumptions behind Hypotheses 5 and 6 are complex in that
the dichotomous patterns proposed for small-scale spatio—temporal contexts in
Hypotheses 1-4 may either correlate or conflict with those observed at ever
broader spatial scales. The initial assumption is that, as expected for restricted
contexts, Anglo-American encampments will continue to demonstrate clear
cultural differences. The marking of provincial rank would thus not be expected
in the layout of multiple dwellings or in the use of space between these dwellings,
as would British regular encampments. At the same time, such broader spatial
contexts may have provided the arenas within which new cultural practices and
identities were adopted among allied Anglo-American groups, particularly among
the American provincials. Provincial rank distinctions, for example, might
therefore have been specifically manifested and defined across broader spatial
scales, possibly in the attempt to adopt conventional practices or even to convey
certain messages. Similar patterns of change as reflected in the archaeological
record are not assumed for British ranks, which likely maintained strict adherence

to codified principles and practices regardless of spatial scale and throughout it

203

tenure in North America (Chet 2002). Patterns alternate to that anticipated for
British contexts would nonetheless be enlightening, though few are expected
among this cultural group.

Overall, expected patterns of change are observed in the available
provincial archaeological data, but a critical analysis of the spatial data for
Hypothesis 5 suggests that strict encampment practices were not adhered to in
every manner or form. Though limited, the provincial encampment data suggest
an overall conformance to British standard practices, but not in every specific
detail or nuance. How much of this pattern is reflective of a broader temporal
scale rather than a spatial one, however, is not clear; the late occupation date for
the huts at Crown Point already anticipate change among the Americans towards
conformance of the British standard, as outlined in Hypothesis 7.

In terms of Hypothesis 6, the data offer limited evidence for differential
placement of British and provincial encampments within individual settlements,
though this is no doubt a result of the type of data required and the subsequent
lack of sufficient data. Hypothesis 5 requires data pertaining to
contemporaneous, multiple, and short-tenn provincial or British occupations,
while Hypothesis 6 requires ever larger scales of data including multiple
provincial and British regular encampments. The Crown Point provincial hut data

meet certain of these requirements, and in this they stand alone.

Provincial Test Implications and Data

The initial material expectations of Hypothesis 5 for provincial contexts

204

rest upon the assumption that the lack of status distinctions hypothesized for
individual dwellings will be similarly reflected in the manner in which such
dwellings are deployed across space; in other words, that provincial
encampments will lack an ordered and specific topology between the enlisted
and officers’ structures, with various dwellings spread haphazardly and in no
necessary spatial relationship to one another. At the same time, the model
recognizes the capacity for change, and that across different spatial scales a
provincial-British dichotomy may have taken on different forms of material
expression. How this might have occurred draws directly upon the control
offered by Anderson’s (1984) detailed historical framework.

It may be the case, for example, that the provincial troops employed a
professional encampment appearance to ensure that equality with the regulars
was a message that reached the widest possible audience. Both groups are
known to have quarreled over the exact military relationship between the two
forces, among various other issues, with the British actually having to publicly
decree the relative equality of the Americans towards the end of the war
(Anderson 20002145214). In short, the provincials may have actively adopted an
uncharacteristic “British” appearance by laying out their encampments in such a
manner as befitted a professional European army, with all that that intended.
This would have been expressed in a very public arena, involving the use of
space and architecture in a very prescribed fashion such that all could see. The
rules by which this occurred were available in contemporary sources, and

presumably visible in the deployment of their allied British regular encampments,

205

 

 

Figure 23: Detail of Humphrey Bland's "Layout of a Regular
Battalion Area" (based on Anderson 1984291).

I
I
I
|
I
|
I

I

(cont)
Troops
I
adjacent: I II II II II II I I
battalion. I II II II II II I I
<———— l
. I I I II II II I I I I
. Subalterns
l
l
| Captains
. I I I I I I I I I I
| \ /
I \ /
i \ /
I \ /
I I \ / I
I Major \ / Lt. Colonel
I \ /
I \ /
| -
l . Colonel
l
I Staff. I I I
I
I towards kitchens,
I sutlers
l
, I
l
l
l
I
50 0 50 100 150 Feet
=5:

I adjacent

I battalion
l

I
I
|
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
|
I
l
I
l
l
l
l
I
I
I
|
I
l
|
I

 

206

 

 

 

Figure 24: Overview plan of Crown Point huts discovered by OPRHP
archaeologists (based on Fisher 1993:Figure 3).

 

o o o o
o .
Hut/ Feature 1 wme bottle) 0

o o O

OO O
O O O Q

o
O
\o
\ \ O
D \ \
o O
/
I O /
O /
150 ft 0 / Hutl Feature 2
o ' o 9 /
O /
/
o O /

0 30 60 Feet

 

 

 

 

 

 

207

with the physical locations of encampment dwellings specifically detailed in
relation to military rank (Bland 1746; Anderson 1984). Figure 23 shows a
detailed view of how these rules were to be expressed spatially in the form of an
ideal British encampment taken from contemporary sources (see also Fisher
1993:Figure 15).

While the material expectations of Hypothesis 5 for provincial contexts do
initially involve a tendency towards chaotic and unordered encampment designs,
regularly spaced structures intentionally deployed to reflect military rank might
also be expected at this spatial scale. This pattern of change might be intimately
linked to temporal considerations, such that the delivery of any provincial
message of equality via encampment design would likely have occurred as the
war progressed and only as their ranks became more familiar with British
practices. Patterns of regular encampment design among provincials would thus
be more likely among sites that date to later in the war than earlier, though the
effect of time is tested in its own right with other archaeological data in
discussions of Hypothesis 7.

Thus the expected layout of provincial structures may not be haphazard at
all, but according to those conventional rules concerning the proper arrangement
of military forces in temporary shelters. Provincial encampments may, in effect,
resemble that prescribed in contemporary military manuals for the British
regulars (Figure 23). These archaeological expectations recognize the malleable
nature of cultural affiliations, and that provincials were capable of maintaining

distinctive cultural practices in certain contexts and not in others. While this

208

process most likely occurred later than earlier, testing of this additional
hypothesis awaits subsequent discussion.

It is very possible that the nature of provincial service and the men that it
employed prevented the adoption of any conventional camp behaviors,
particularly within larger spatial scales. The material expectations of Hypothesis
5 nevertheless include the factor of cultural change, including expectations of
order, symmetry, and coherence with contemporary sources in the layout of
multiple provincial dwellings, particularly later in the war. This allows for intent
among the provincials (though not among the regulars), and for their ability to
incorporate the practices of those around them into their own daily habits, for
various reasons.

Unfortunately, the provincial but data on Rogers Island do not bear on
resolving this issue because it cannot be known if they share some special
spatial-temporal relationship to one another or none at all. None could be dated
precisely or distinguished as early or late in the war, and each could conceivably
represent concurrent or consecutive provincial occupations of the island with
temporary shelters (Starbuck 2004). Spatial relationships cannot be inferred or
otherwise known if the structures cannot be determined as contemporaneous
within individual years. If the Rogers Island but data did ever pass analytical
muster, however, the only conclusion to be drawn is a chaotic dispersion of
dwellings “built just about everywhere” and spread among other buildings,
including the barracks complex on the Island (Starbuck 2004:67). Fisher’s (1993,

1995) excavation of the Crown Point officers’ huts thus provides the only existing

209

data source on multiple provincial dwellings known to have been occupied
simultaneously and that maintain their original spatial relationships, and a

rigorous re-analysis of their patterns in terms of this study’s hypotheses is
necessary.

Fisher (1993, 1995) details the excavation of two separate provincial huts,
but a third, unexcavated hut was also recorded, mapped, and subsequently
untouched (Figure 24). As mentioned, the huts’ locations matched that of a 1759
map of Crown Point in which Whiting’s 2nd Connecticut Regiment were visible
along the edge of an obvious ridge of bedrock. General Amherst himself
mentions the lodging of provincial officers on the outside of the newly constructed
fort in this general area during the fall of 1760, and it appears these are the same
huts found during survey (Fisher 1995:77-78). Occupation of the structures
appears to have been very brief, with a documented move of the 2nd
Connecticut regiment closer towards the fort proper by 1761 (Grant 1761; Fisher
1995278). Excavation of numerous test pits between the three hut features
revealed only two small finds: an olive-green wine bottle fragment and a sherd of
glass stemware, both widely scattered across a seemingly unoccupied and open
area. Based on the contemporary references, the large size of the structures,
and various artifacts they contained, Fisher (1995:77) interprets them as
occupied by officers from Whiting’s regiment. More importantly, Fisher also
argues that the three but features demonstrate patterned spatial relationships
similar to that prescribed for British regular units. He notes that hut Feature 1 lies

approximately 150 feet from hut Features 2 and 3, both of which lie 170 feet from

210

one another, and that the “broad triangle formed by these three features suggest
the field officer portion of the battalion layout recommended by Bland [1746] for a
British regular encampment” (Fisher 1993259).

Themgst compelling aspect of Fisher’s recognition of spatial pattern is not
so much the large size of the structures or the artifacts associated with each;
rather, it is the almost complete lack of material culture or similar features found
in-between the three structures. If, as the historical record suggests, the three
features were occupied at the same time and only briefly by officers of Whiting’s
regiment, then the lack of material culture or features in between the
contemporaneous buildings suggests the intentional maintenance of large, empty
spaces around the structures. This pattern does not suggest a tightly packed
encampment, even if said encampment were deployed haphazardly and
according to no rules at all. If it was not known that the huts were contemporary,
then the lack of cultural material in between the features could be dismissed.
Instead, the negative evidence actually supports an ordered use of space among
the provincial dwellings, most likely by officers, and therefore by definition
suggests that codified rules were being followed in provincial encampment
design. As such, F isher’s (1995277) claim that the triangle formed by the
features matches that advocated for British field officer encampments seems
warranted, and the patterns he observes provide support for the material
expectations predicted in Hypothesis 5.

But critical re-analysis of the Crown Point spatial data employing scaling

techniques suggests a more complex picture. The re-analysis does not refute

211

Fisher’s conclusions; in its overall design, the provincial encampment revealed at
Crown Point does indeed suggest concordance with British patterns. What the
examination instead brings to light is the detail to which provincials employed this
prescribed encampment design, revealing that in certain important respects the
provincial encampment at Crown Point does not at all convey an ordered
encampment deployed according to strict rules.

Re—analysis of the spatial data required scaling both the modern
archaeological maps of the hut features (Figure 24) with contemporary plans on
British military encampment design (Figure 23). Bland’s (1746) Treatise offers
such designs, providing the necessary documented standard against which the
provincial reality can be compared. To aid in this endeavor, CAD software was
employed in digitizing the modern maps and Bland’s (1746:244) encampment
plan (see also Anderson 1984291). The original figures were scanned, imported
into the CAD program, and then traced over or digitized for their significant
details. The resulting line drawings were next configured to the same scale, an
easy task given the graphic scales on the original figures and the capabilities of
the CAD software. Scale factors were computed for each drawing, and the
drawings were then combined into a single, layered figure. This allowed for the
plan of the hut features to be shifted around in various orientations to see how it
compared in the smallest of details of angle or distance to Bland’s (1746) plan.
The different orientations resulted in a number of possible spatial overlays
between the hut features and the encampment plan, each one suggesting

different alignments and different degrees of encampment order. Lastly, the

212

overlays were imported into a GIS software program for easier presentation of
the spatial data.

Figures 25-28 display the resulting spatial overlays. For each map, the 3
archaeological hut features in Figure 24 are shifted across Bland’s encampment
plan (Figure 23) to evaluate compatibility. The archaeological test units
excavated between the hut features are shown to help visualize the open areas
in between; the two locations of recovered vessel glass are also shown. This
helps to understand where projected structures lie according to the particular
alignment. The first overlay shows the alignment of the Crown Point hut features
as if the largest hut (Hut Feature 1) corresponded with the location of the
Colonel’s dwelling on Bland’s map (Figure 25). Conformance between the two
plans is suggested by the sheer size of Hut Feature 1 (16x16 ft). It is also
suggested in the general alignment of Hut Features 2 and 3 near the line of
Captains’tents (though the distances between them and the Colonel’s tent are
off by over 20 feet), as well as in the location of the vessel glass proximal to the
hypothetical location of the Major's dwelling. The numerous other empty
archaeological test units might be expected in such an alignment as they do tend
to fall in-between the suggested locations for structures. The largest discrepancy
between the two plans, however, is in the angle alignments of each of the
structures, suggesting a clear lack of parallel dwellings (alignment of Hut Feature
3 was not determined). The deployment of Hut Features 1 and 2 indicates a 17
degree difference in their wall angles, and the alignment shown in Figure 25

suggests that a considerable discrepancy in angle was allowed between these

213

 

 

Figure 25: Spatial Overlay of CP Feature 1 with Colonel dwelling.

(cont.
Troops

I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
Subalterns
Captains
I

\ Hut Feature 2

Majorb F \
Staff I I I I
. towards kitchens,
Gnd N sutlers
i; 50 0 50 Feet
E

 
  
 

Hut Feature 3 /

/
/I

O/ Lt. Colonel
/

 

 

214

 

 

Figure 26: Spatial Overlay of CP Feature 2 with Colonel dwelling.

(cont.
Troops

 

 

 

I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Subalterns
Hut Feature3 o Captains o o HutFeature1
I I I
/
/
/
o /
/
/
o /
o / I
Lt. Colonel
Hut Feature2 o O o
I Colonel
towards kitchens,
sutlers
j 50 O 50 100 Feet
Grid N 5::

 

215

 

 

 

Figure 27: Spatial Overlay of CP Feature 3 with Colonel dwelling.

 

 
    
  

(cont.
Troops
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Subalterns o o

Hut Feature1 oCaptains’ : °° Hut Feature2
I I I
\ U

\ ° /
/
\
\
\
\ /
\ /
MajorI \ / I
\ \ ° / Lt. Colonel
/
\
\
Hut Feature 3

. Colonel

towards kitchens,

V sutlers

Grid N 50 0 50 100 Feet
H

 

 

216

 

 

 

Figure 28: Spatial Overlay of CP Feature 2 with Lt. Colonel dwelling

(cont.
Troops

 

 

 

 

 

I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Subalterns o Hut Feature 1
I I
\
\
\
\
\
Majo
Hut Feature 3; / / Lt. Colonel
\ /
\ /
\ /
I Colonel
Staff I I I I
towards kitchens,
sutlers
4 60 o 60 120 Feet
Grid N

 

217

 

 

contemporaneous structures. This discrepancy persists through all of the various
overlays, and its seems unlikely to imagine that this provincial encampment could
have been described as ideal if such “ordered miss-alignment” continued across

' all of the encampment dwellings.

Figure 26 next shows the alignment of the archaeological features if Hut
Feature 2 at Crown Point corresponded with the Colonel’s dwelling. This
scenario indicates a perfect match in distance between the Captain’s dwellings
and Hut Features 1 and 3. The location of the two vessel glass fragments
corresponds in general with the location of other Captains’ tents and the Lt.
Colonel’s tent. The angle alignments between Hut Features 1 and 2 are off by
16 degrees in this scenario, but the matching distances between the two maps
are intriguing, suggesting even better conformance than seen in Figure 25.
Figure 27 displays unexcavated Hut Feature 3 in the location of the Colonel’s
tent, and as just observed, the distances between it and the other huts matches
the distances to the Captains’ tents perfectly. Here the angle discrepancy
between how parallel the two buildings were is 18 degrees, and the location of
the vessel glass fragments seem to fall in what should otherwise be empty
spaces. If this scenario were correct, it would seem unlikely to have recovered
so little evidence from the test units for additional occupations between Hut
Features 1 and 2, considering where the test units seem to fall in relation to the
Captains’ dwellings.

Figure 28 displays the last alignment, and it supposes that Hut Features 2

and 3 at Crown Point match the locations of the Major and Lt. Colonel’s dwellings

218

shown on Bland’s map. If this is correct, the distances between the two are
exact, though again, a discrepancy of 17 degrees in wall angle is noted. This
scenario also projects Hut Feature 1 in an odd spatial location in relation to
Bland’s map, though the positive test units do correspond well with the projected
locations of the Captains’ dwellings. The lack of additional structural evidence in
the test units, however, does not match the projected location of the Captains’
dwellings.

Each one of the spatial overlays contains information which suggests its
own particular alignment may indeed match Bland’s deployment of officers’
structures. Fisher (1995) does not suggest exactly how the three hut features
may have aligned with the officers’ portion of Bland’s encampment plan, though
his identification of pattern in the encampment layout seems warranted
particularly given the presence of such large and open spaces. Fisher’s
observed patterns support the hypothesized expectations of order among
provincial encampments across larger spatial scales, but a closer look at how
such patterns exactly match expectations suggests that a British-like order in
encampment design was not absolute. No matter which overlay is chosen, the
angles between the two buildings’ walls are off considerably, suggesting that
while overall encampment order was incorporated by the provincial occupants,
they still failed to maintain a truly ordered encampment consisting of perfectly or
nearly aligned structures. Indeed, it seems difficult to imagine how an
encampment consisting of multiple angle discrepancies of 16 or 17 degrees

would look ordered but from the widest of perspectives.

219

Taken together, these patterns suggest at least the likelihood that among
larger spatial scales (and/or possibly across broad temporal scales, a factor that
cannot be controlled), provincial forces were adopting prescribed British practices
of military campaigning. The spatial relationships of the three relatively large
buildings suggest that some overall degree of order was followed in how these
were deployed, if not right out of the British Army playbook, and that provincial
encampments purposefully reflected the spatial designs of a professional military
force. In this respect, Fisher’s (1995:84) claim that the “regularly spaced clean
camp identified archaeologically tits Anderson’s [1984:90] description of the
British regular encampments” is warranted. But at the same time, more refined
spatial analysis suggests that variation from the prescribed theme wasalso
followed, seemingly to the point where the encampment might not be considered
so orderly. It might be concluded that the larger-scale encampment data show
that processes of change were at least active among the American provincials
across broader spatial scales; that the small-scale cultural differences separating
Anglo-Americans were transcended and reconfigured in more public contexts, at
least in terms of encampment design. Such change among provincials, however,
was not absolute or exactly enacted.

As to Hypothesis 6, expected provincial patterns would likely reveal
separate encampments spatially distinguished from British regulars within
individual settlements. It is difficult to hypothesize the actual spatial relationships
as might be encountered archaeologically because contemporary sources

suggest provincials could have been relatively “hidden” in the center of

220

settlements or otherwise excluded to the extreme boundary of settlements, both
the result of the supposed inferior quality of the Americans compared to the
British allies. At the same time, provincial forces may have actively played a role
in choosing which location to encamp upon, and may have simply chosen based
on such qualities as level soil, drainage, proximity to water, etc. The same
Crown Point data just discussed are relevant to this hypothesis, but again, the
strict data requirements limit the available data and the conclusions derived from
them. The archaeological data at Crown Point do bear witness to the
deployment of Whiting’s Connecticut provincials in a specific location in relation
to the fort proper and seemingly separated from British regular encampments,
one that also seems to match very well that shown on a 1759 map of the
settlement (Anonymous 1759; Fisher 1995). From this coherence Fisher
(1995:78) projects that “The main feature of this camp is the separation of the
Provincial regiments from the British regulars. The Provincial camps are also
enclosed, or surrounded, by the regulars who are camped along the edges of the
peninsula,” with the author concluding that “The British regulars are positioned to
protect the point of land and the Provincial troops from attack. This may indicate
the low relative value of the Provincials as fighting soldiers in the minds of the
British military establishment that designed the encampment”.

While such a large-scale dispersion of forces is expected archaeologically
in terms of Hypothesis 6 reflecting the continued differentiation of provincials and
British across various scales, the archaeological data do not in fact convey such

an image. The conclusions Fisher draws are ultimately based only upon the

221

archaeological identification of a single provincial unit in relation to the fort Crown
Point proper and the settlement boundary; the archaeological evidence says
nothing about the true location of British regulars in relation to Whiting’s
provincials. That is, Fisher projects a particular pattern for the settlement as a
whole based on a single coherence between map and archaeological data,
between Whiting’s identified location on the map and the actual location on the
ground. Similar coherence has not been observed for the various British regular
units indicated on the map, and Fisher’s claims of a weak provincial center
defended by a strong British regular (or provincial Ranger) perimeter is not
supported archaeologically within the Crown Point settlement.

In fact, the evidence only indicates that the provincials were located
relatively close to the fort grounds, a similar pattern as that seen at Fort Edward.
The identification of provincial huts across various locations on the adjacent
Rogers Island encampment places provincials proximal to the fort proper at this
settlement just as at Crown Point. Surrounding British regular encampments,
however, have not been identified archaeologically, though the provincial huts
clearly lie in the immediate vicinity of and mixed among the large British regular
barracks complex on the island. This is an intriguing spatial relationship, but
again, patterns can only be inferred as the exact temporal relationships between
the huts and the barracks on Rogers Island remain known only in broad strokes.
The evidence of provincial encampments archaeologically distinguished from
British regular encampments is thus lacking in terms of material expectations of

Hypothesis 6. Expectations may simply require too fine a temporal resolution

222

over too large a spatial scale, thereby limiting the data available to examine the

models’ expectations.

British Rggular Test Implications and Data

Comparative patterns of material expectations among the British regulars
have already been discussed in relation to provincial test expectations for both
Hypotheses. In terms of Hypothesis 5, and despite the fact that small-scale
evidence provides limited support for clear material manifestations of rank, a
clear officer—enlisted distinction is projected for larger spatial scales among
British encampments. In terms of Hypothesis 6, British regulars are also
expected to be clearly distinguished from provincial encampments, though in
what manner is not clear. What is lacking, ultimately, is an adequate source of
spatially extensive British encampment data with which to test the model’s
hypotheses and expectations. British occupation data during the Seven Years’
War is limited to barracks data, with encampment data basically non-existent.
Again, data similar in form and scale to the various Continental cantonments of
the Revolutionary War simply do not exist for Seven Years’ War, or simply may

be too archaeological fragile to be observed properly.

Hypothesis 7: Over a broad temporal scale, provincial and British
assemblages might demonstrate similar patterning as either group adopted
specific behaviors or practices during their course of joint service.

Hypothesis 7 introduces the factor of time in an attempt to better

223

understand the nature of provincial and British cultural diversity and interaction.
Its basic assumption is that such diversity may have been more pronounced
during the early years of the war as compared to later, particularly as American
provincials incorporated certain British practices and martial behaviors despite
their limited terms of service That assumption in turn rests upon even broader
ones concerning the reconfiguring of cultural affiliations within diverse social
contexts and across multiple scales of analysis. Hypothesis 7 juxtaposes the first
four hypotheses with the factor of time and suggests that the various expected
Anglo-American cultural differences may in fact be muted when viewed across a
broader temporal scale. The process being modeled is thus one of cultural
change over time, with provincial contexts anticipated as the most likely to
provide evidence for the adoption of new behaviors. A least in terms of the
behaviors and material correlates of the first four, small-scale hypotheses, British
contexts are not assumed to have changed and are unlikely to reveal
archaeological patterns similar to that anticipated for early provincial occupations.
Evidence so far gleaned from earlier hypothesis testing suggests that the
late date of certain provincial occupations may indeed be one of the reasons
behind observed artifact patterns. In Hypothesis 4, for example, the known late
dates at Fort Gage (post 1758) and Crown Point (post 1759) were suggested as
possible factors behind the trash disposal patterns of their provincial occupants.
Rather than failing to support the test expectations of diversity among small-scale
spatial contexts in Hypothesis 4, the disposal data from both sites may have

actually supported one of the possible material expectations of Hypothesis 7.

224

Also remember that in the discussion of Hypothesis 5, the observed patterns of
change within the Crown Point provincial encampment could not necessarily be
distinguished between the effect of a broader spatial scale and the effect of a
broader temporal scale. Even the lack of tight temporal control over the
structures on Rogers Island suggests that various years of the conflict are in
evidence and that this may account for why one of the provincial hut musket ball
distributions showed patterns of standardization. Taken together, the evidence
so far examined gives at least nominal support to the notion that, among
American provincial contexts, late occupations seem to demonstrate change
towards the adoption of certain British army practices and behaviors. That is, the
later provincial archaeological assemblages seem to look much the same as that
predicted for British regular archaeological assemblages, at least in terms of
certain trash disposal behaviors and overall encampment design.

Additional archaeological evidence designed to test this temporal
hypothesis, however, needs to be addressed before conclusions can be drawn.
In an attempt to do so, previously unexamined musket ball and button data were
culled from the Fort Gage assemblage to help measure the degree of artifact
standardization among this late provincial occupation. Barracks button data were
also culled from existing collections at Fort George to provide a comparative
British button assemblage for analysis. Comparative musket ball distributions
from a number of British barracks sites were introduced in Hypothesis 1 testing
and are shown in Figures 3-6.

Overall, the data confirm expectations of provincial standardization, but

225

not equally so across both artifact categories. Musket ball diameters clearly
demonstrate standardization in measurement and resemble British barracks
distributions, which suggests that by at least 1758 provincial forces were being
supplied with and were using a standardized weaponry. Button data, however,
reveal only an ambiguous degree of standardization among provincial clothing
(of. Feister and Huey 1985:57), which may in turn be the result of the sample
'size. The patterns suggest that while evidence exists to support the adoption of
British martial practices such as material culture standardization, this practice did
not pervade equally all aspects of provincial soldiers’ material lives, even towards
the end of the conflict, and that not all expected provincial artifact patterns
necessarily need to reveal consistent change over time towards a British
standard. Instead, provincial soldiers appear to have adopted certain British

behaviors but not others, thereby creating a unique blend of British and American

material traits.

Provincial Test Expectations and Data

The specific test implications of Hypothesis 7 contend that provincial
material assemblages dating to late in the war may look much the same as
British material assemblages. The various hypothesized cultural differences
explored in Hypotheses 1-4 are recast within a broad temporal perspective, with
anticipation of standardization, rank differentiation, or conformance with camp
behaviors, etc. among these later provincial contexts. Just as Hypothesis 5

suggested concordance between British and provincial encampment layouts

226

given the large spatial arena, Hypothesis 7 anticipates a degree of change
among the provincials given the long time scale involved. It anticipates that that,
when viewed from the broad perspective of time, provincials incorporated martial
practices of their Anglo allies such that the obvious differences seen in small-
scale contexts might be reconfigured or blurred when viewed from this much
broader vantage point. Archaeological patterns already noted among later
provincial contexts suggest that these occupations were indeed following
prescribed methods of trash disposal and encampment design, and were thus
similar in many respects to patterns associated with British regulars. Hypotheses
4 and 5 make mention of this fact, but these analyses were not intended to
specifically test the factor of time. Hypothesis 7 thus confronts this suggested
pattern directly with an archaeological analysis of its own. Analysis focuses upon
additional archaeological evidence from the Fort Gage provincial assemblage in
terms of the variable of standardization, with anticipation for a relatively high
degree among different provincial artifact categories.

The testing of any anticipated provincial archaeological patterns in
Hypothesis 7 first requires control over the variable of time, and the particular
data requirements restrict that which is suitable for study. Among provincial
contexts, the Fort Gage data reflect a historically documented and very brief
occupation, and thus provide the best data source for measuring aspects of
change late in the war. The Crown Point provincial data provide similar control
over time, but the associated artifact assemblages for both provincial huts are

relatively small in number compared to the Fort Gage data, which itself is small

227

within certain artifact categories. Comparable sites with temporal control that
date to early in the war, however, are completely lacking. One of the provincial
huts on Rogers Island did demonstrate clear variability in musket ball diameters,
but once again, the precise temporal span of this structure is not known and an
early date can only be presumed, as for all of the hut contexts on the island.
Evidence for Hypothesis 7 thus technically only measures the degree to which
later provincial contexts evidence material culture standardization or resemble
British regular assemblages, rather than comparing early versus late provincial
occupations. This is due to the fact that no data exist that can be confidently
attributed to an early provincial occupation with which to provide a solid baseline.
With these limitations in mind, Hypothesis 7 is tested through an examination of
Fort Gage musket ball and button data, and Fort George button data. While
standardization is hypothesized for the entire Fort Gage assemblage, multiple
categories are employed to understand the actual material contexts within which
provincials may have (or have not) employed a standardized material culture.
Fort Gage data collection required consultation with original field records
maintained at the New York State Historic Preservation Office, with access
provided by Lois Feister. Excepting the published site report (Feister and Huey
1985), these data sheets represent the only remaining data source from the Fort
Gage excavations after the artifacts were returned to the owner upon full site
development. Metric diameter musket ball measurements were culled from the
catalog; for the buttons, all qualitative and quantitative variables as were entered

on the original data sheets were recorded to help with classification. Original

228

 

Figure 29: Distribution of Fort Gage musket ball diameters (based on Farry 2005bz469)

 

 

 

 

 

no
(em
zz'o
” LL'O
- [0
690
990
_ 290
i? 990
b 990
V we
890
290
L90
9'0
_ 69'0
_ 990
I; [3'0
990
i 990
_ vs'o
_ 99'0
_ 290
L IQ'O
9'0
617'0
:97'0
LV'O

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"— 50
45
4o
35
30

25
20
15
1O
5
0

229

Diameter in Inches

mecca. E .cacEmE

VB. 9 no. we. 2 mm. mm. 9 he.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

memo .n. s
mxomtmn E I
9.02.3 0980 ...._ D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mono to“. can mxomtmn swarm mcoEm aozm one. no motomcfio ”om 9:9...

or
cm
on
a?
on
om
oh
ow
cm

2: us

230

Figure 31: Categories of lead shot among Rogers Island Hut and Fort Gage

 

 

 

 

 

 

El RI HUt

% F. Gage

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. %= 90

8o

7o

60

5o

4o

231

3o

20

1o

.65 to ‘74

.47 t° -57

Diameter in 'nChes

cataloging of the buttons did not involve measuring a standard suite of attributes
from each sample, so attributes are unequally represented across the sub-
assemblage, a situation confounded by the few numbers of buttons (n=11) and
their fragmentary nature. Comparable Fort George button attributes were
extracted from the existing digital artifact catalogs and also observed through
physical inspection of the collection at the New York State Museum. Though
small in size compared to the Fort George collection, a critical analysis of the
Fort Gage button database does allow for certain conclusions to be drawn from
the observable archaeological patterns.

The specific test expectation for the musket ball data involve the same as
that predicted for British barracks contexts. These include, again, a single-
peaked distribution centered most likely on .69 inches but nevertheless ranging
between .65-.74 inches, with fewer numbers of smaller diameters trailing of to the
left of the peak. This expectation assumes that provincials would have adopted
the use of standard issue weaponry if and when it became available, either
through the auspices of their own colonial support systems or those of the British.
This would have resulted in less reliance on individually obtained or supplied
muskets and in later-dated provincial assemblages looking much the same as
that associated with the British regulars. Figure 29 displays the frequency
distribution of the Fort Gage musket ball diameters. The Fort Gage data are not
spatially associated with any single provincial structure as are other musket ball
data, but they can nevertheless be grouped for analysis considering that the site

as a whole was occupied solely by provincial forces and for a very short period of

232

time (Feister and Huey 1985). It is at least clear from the distribution that any
grouping in the assemblage does not result in a more variable distributions than
could be expected among more spatially restricted contexts.

The Fort Gage distribution is as expected, with a single-peak centered on
.69 inches in diameter (Figure 29). Of the 72 balls in the measured assemblage,
over 60% are measured at .69 inches in diameter demonstrating that an
ovenrvhelming majority were likely used in the British Brown Bess musket.
Reclassifying the distribution according to the 3 weapons categories serves only
to clarify its skewed shape and its tendency towards the large-caliber Brown
Bess calibers (Figure 30-31). The percentage distribution of the Fort Gage
weapons categories is shown in relation to the Fort George and Rogers Island
barracks assemblages (Figure 30), as well as in relation to the dispersed
provincial hut on Rogers Island (Figure 31). The first comparative distribution
demonstrates the similarity of the Gage assemblage to those associated with
British regulars; the second shows its dissimilarity to another provincial context.
Again, it is not possible to determine if the Island’s provincial hut distribution
shown in Figure 7 represents an early occupation of the site, but the two contexts
are clearly different, a fact that is supported by a chi-square test of association:
x2= 51.2919, df 2, p=7.279x1o"2.

The musket ball data from Fort Gage support the notion of a standardized
material culture among the provincials in terms of their weaponry, at least by the
end of 1758. Although only four years into the war, this date can be considered

relatively late given that major fighting in North America was over by 1760. It

233

appears that in terms of weaponry, later provincial occupations employed a
material culture very similar to that of the British regular.

Provincial button data from the same site, however, convey much more
ambiguous archaeological patterns. The specific test expectations for provincial
clothing late in the war involve standardized or “uniform” uniforms among the
provincials. As with expected patterns of standardization among weaponry, the
clothing provincial forces donned are expected to have changed during the
course of the war towards a British-like standard, at least in character if not in
exact form. This certainly would have provided the provincials with a very public
and visible context within which to demonstrate their adopted martial behaviors
and presumed equality with the British, as has been hypothesized for broad
spatial encampment contexts (Hypothesis 5). Buttons serve as a useful proxy for
this test, with anticipation of few button types and a relatively similar-looking
assemblage demonstrating homogenous provincial clothing. Analysis also
involves comparison to a similarly dated British button assemblage, with
anticipation for the two to look much the same. This comparison is necessary
given the lack of comparable provincial data dating to early in the war. The
barracks button data were compiled from each of the post-1758 Fort George
assemblages.

Maxwell and Binford (1961 :91) point out that a “plain, hollow, pewter
button, pierced at the back with two holes to allow hot gases to escape in the
manufacturing process...is regular British Army issue from 1750 to 1768” and

that a similar “plain, brass button is also British Army from 1750 on”. The years

234

1767 or 1768 mark the date after which military buttons included numbered
regimental decorations or embossing, and the almost complete lack of such
buttons in the assemblages examined here confirms their pre-1768 association
(Olsen 19632552; Maxwell and Binford 1967291; Grimm 1970:62; Stone 1974:47;
2 of the 59 Fort George buttons were marked with regimental numbers and are
excluded from study). The specific test expectation of the provincial button
assemblage would thus consist of few button types and a clear majority of these
plain brass or pewter two-piece buttons, the same as would be expected among
British regular occupations.

To help address these expectations using the Fort Gage provincial and
Fort George British button data, the assemblages were first classified into a
useful typology to aid comparisons. Similar to other button typologies (e.g. South
1964; Stone 1974:45-68; Hanson and Hsu 1975:82-90), the Fort Gage buttons
were distinguished based upon methods of manufacture (1-piece or 2-piece),
material types (brass, pewter, bone, etc), and types of attachment (attached wire
shank or cast as one). The same was done to the Fort George barracks button
assemblage for both Barracks 1 and 2. These structures did recover
considerably more intact buttons than at Fort Gage (n=29 and 26, respectively,
compared to n=11), but they nevertheless provide useful comparative British
assemblages that should, ultimately, meet the same material expectations. The
exact categories used in the comparative button typology are specific to the data
at hand, though the categories are essentially the same as that defined by others

(Maxwell and Binford 1961; South 1964; Grimm 1970; Stone 1974; Hanson and

235

Hsu 1975). Only Classes (manufacture method/shank type) and Types
(material) are defined; more refined varieties within the types are ignored or
condensed as their attributes are too limited to define analytically useful button
styles. The categories of the typology are tailored to reflect the range of button
types included within the two Fort George and the much smaller Fort Gage
assemblages. Among the three assemblages, the typology defines a total of 11
different types distinguished across 5 different classes (Table 2). Briefly

described, the typology categories and their respective button attributes include:

Class A: Two-piece button with attached wire shank

- M: 2-piece pewter button with separate wire shank attached; shape is
hollow with rear air holes for escaping gasses during manufacture; plain;
George1=0; George2=0; Gage=2.

- M: same for white metal buttons; George1=0; George2=0; Gage=2.

- M: same for brass buttons; George1 =1 5; George2=16; Gage=1 .

. M: same for copper buttons; George1=1; George2=1; Gage=0.

Class B: One-piece button with attached wire shank

- m: 1-piece white metal button with separate wire shank attached; plain;
George1=0; George2=0; Gage=2.

- M: same for brass buttons; George1 =4; George2=4; Gage=1.

- M: same for pewter buttons; George1 =2; George2=3; Gage=0.

Class C: One-piece metal button with cast shank

. lypg_C_1: 1-piece pewter button cast as solid piece, including shank; shape is

flat, plain front; George1=3; George2=1; Gage=2.

236

I meg: same for brass buttons; George1 =0; George2=1; Gage=0.
Class D: One-piece bone button, no shank

I M: hole attachment; George1 =3; George2=0; Gage=0.

Class E: One-piece metal button, no shank

I M: hole attachment; George1=1; George2=0; Gage=1.

Table 6 provides a summary of the frequencies for each button type as listed in
the typology, and Figure 32 displays the CA plot of the matrix table. Upon
inspecting the tabular data, it is clear that both Fort George assemblages consist
primarily of Class A, Type 3 buttons, or brass 2-piece buttons with an attached
wire shank, hollow body and 2 rear air-holes. The CA plot confirms this in the
clustering of type A3 buttons among both barracks contexts. That button type
constitutes between 50-60% of both barracks’ button assemblages, and is
precisely the type of button Maxwell and Binford (1961:91) identify as standard
issue among British regulars between 1750 and 1768, with pewter versions more
numerous at Fort Michilimackinac. A few Class B, Type 2 buttons are noted
among both barracks, but clearly it is the Class A 2-piece types that comprise the
ovenrvhelming majority of the Fort George button assemblages. The British
regular contexts thus confirm expectations of standardization by demonstrating
only very few abundant button types and a predominance of the 2-piece metal
buttons common among British ranks during the Seven Years’ War.

As for the provincial Fort Gage button assemblage, Feister and Huey
(1985157) suggest that one of its most obvious features is its variability: “Although

only 11 buttons were found, their variability should be noted. The buttons varied

237

Table 6: Button type frequencies at Fort George and Fort Gage

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Class A B C D E Total
Type 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 1 2 1 1
George1 0 0 15 1 0 4 2 3 0 3 1 29
George2 0 0 16 1 0 4 3 1 1 0 0 26
Gage 2 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 0 0 1 1 1
Total 2 2 32 2 2 9 5 6 1 3 2 66

 

 

 

 

 

as to type, material, and size”. This pattern is born out by inspecting the
frequencies of button types represented in the typology, with examples spread
among 7 different types and 4 different button classes. Materials varied
predominately between white metal and pewter, with brass and iron in smaller
numbers. This might suggest that clothing standardization was indeed not a
feature of later provincial occupations (Feister and Huey 1985:57), but in fact the
data patterns are even more ambiguous than this. Consider that of the 11 Fort
Gage buttons, no small percentage of them (45.5%) were identified as Class A
buttons, distinguished from the barracks assemblage only by the different types
of metal used in the 2-piece buttons. While the large percentage is tempered by
the very small assemblage size, it does at least suggest that a significant number
of provincial buttons at Fort Gage were very similar in manufacture and form to
those being worn by British regulars at the same time, different only in the
materials used. The CA plot (Figure 32) locates these two types (A1 and A2)
proximal to Fort Gage. Pewter and white metal comprise the main material
categories among these Class A buttons at Fort Gage, while at Fort George
brass is the overwhelming metal of choice for the two-piece plain buttons.

Diameter measurements of the Fort Gage button assemblage show that most

238

mN

As Reg E

 

 

 

 

 

 

N we F md o md- 7 me-
o. T
Fm
ll v!
$0 50 1 $9000 md-
I
v<
. z a a 0.1 E o
l 0 m@
«M. some mm 08
E
E l
1 «69066 md
i v
Nw
me

080 to“. can c980 to... as weak cozan my aim... so “ca <0 ”mm 659“.

F2 (15.49 %)

239

cluster between 1/2"- 6/8”, which suggests that they were limited to use in
waistcoats and possibly knee bands (Hanson and Hsu 1975:82; Feister and
Huey 1985:57). At Fort George, the diameters cluster within the same general
range and suggest the same function, though larger regimental coat or pant waist
buttons are also noted.

But if British regular waistcoat and knee band buttons are well represented
among the admittedly small Fort Gage provincial button assemblage, so too are
button types that have been specifically attributed a non-military or civilian
affiliation. Note that 2 of the 11 Fort Gage buttons (18%) consist of Class C,
Type 1 buttons, or pewter buttons cast as a single, integrated item. Similar
buttons recovered from Fort Michilimackinac prompted Stone (1970:162;
1974247) to suggest that, because of contexts within which they were found and
“their absence in both early French and British military structures...that they were
in use at the fort between approximately 1740-1745 and 1780 and that they may
have been used by civilian rather than military personnel”. This would be a type
of button expected among provincial contexts that were not relying on the
standardized supply of uniforms, with soldiers providing their own clothing
materials. Their presence in the Fort Gage assemblage might then suggest that
a certain segment of the provincial occupants were not using the same buttons
as the British regulars, despite their now consistent use of similar weaponry.
Class C, Type 1 buttons were recovered in association with both barracks
buildings at Fort George, but they constitute only approximately 7% of the entire

button assemblage compared to 18% of the Fort Gage collection.

240

The patterns discerned from the provincial buttons are tempered by the
very small size of the collection. The overall percentages of button classes found
at Forts George and Gage are essentially the same, with the only noticeable
difference being that Class C buttons are represented about twice as much in the
Fort Gage assemblage than in the Fort George collection. This relatively large
percentage, however, may be inflated due to the very small sample size at Fort
Gage thus making definitive conclusions difficult. The CA plot clearly
distinguishes the Gage and George assemblages, but it does not appear to be
due to the significant presence of type C1 civilian buttons; this category falls
squarely in-between the barracks and Fort Gage, and in fact appears more
closely associated with Barracks 1 at Fort George. The CA plot seems to
strongly distinguish the two sites based only on the different materials used in the
Class A buttons, or those noted as British standard issue. This would lend
support to the idea that the two button assemblages are essentially the same in
form. In the plot, types A1 and A2 cluster around Fort Gage while types A3 and
A4 cluster between the two barracks structures. Again, this reflects the
predominance of white metal and pewter among the provincial buttons and brass
among the British buttons. This would support the claim that the Gage
assemblage does in fact reflect a degree of standardization, or at least
concordance with expected button types associated with the British military, and
that the provincials by 1758 were adopting the use of such clothing. At the same
time, provincials also appear to be relying on civilian clothes most likely supplied

by themselves, though the small sample size and the patterns seen in the CA

241

plot require caution on this conclusion.

The ambiguous button data conflict with the obvious standardization
among the musket balls. They also conflict with the conclusion that the Fort
Gage assemblage is characteristically varied rather than standardized (Feister
and Huey 1985). It might be said that, while the provincials were clearly relying
on standardized weaponry late in the war, evidence for such standardization
among their clothing is less convincing. Taken a step further, the provincials may
have enjoyed uneven adoption of British-like material culture traits,

demonstrating a creative blend of Anglo-American martial practices.

British Test Expectations and Data

Again, patterns of change are not anticipated among British contexts over
time. While this aspect of the model is not specifically tested, the data already
examined do suggest continuity. The musket ball distributions at Fort William
Henry (Figure 4) and Fort George (Figure 5), for example, both demonstrate a
degree of weaponry standardization among the British regulars between ca.
1755-1759, the effective length of major operations in North America. Notice
also the concordant button evidence among the Fort George barracks buildings,
as well as the concordant patterns of intentional trash disposal at the site.
Sussman (2000) has also demonstrated a long—tenn pattern of standardization
among the British army’s ceramic assemblages at the settlement at Fort
Beauséjour, Canada. Between the years 1760-1820, Sussman demonstrates a

low degree of variability among the ceramics used by the British regiments

242

stationed at the fort. Each of these data sources suggest that the hypothesized
patterns of British behaviors (and their material correlates) likely remained

unchanged during their course of service in Seven Years’ War.

Hypothesis 8: The establishment, deployment and expansion over time of
multiple setdements across a large-scale region of military settlement will
likely assume a more homogenous “British ” character, with Anglo-
American diversity less significant at this scale compared to the political
directives of the British core state.

Hypothesis 8 expands the scale of analysis to its broadest spatial and
temporal extents, with the assumption that at such scales the effect of a
provincial-British cultural dichotomy will play far less of an important role than will
external core-periphery influences. As such, the dynamics of interaction between
the two groups with have a far less significant effect in shaping the
archaeological record at these scales. By comparison, the particular politico-
economic factors behind the settlement, expansion, and ultimate abandonment
of the British colonial military frontier through time are anticipated to play a
significant role in shaping large-scale archaeological patterns. The expectations
of Hypothesis 8 are intended to serve as reminders of the important macro-scale
external networks within which British military settlements ultimately served, and
how these might be identified archaeologically across large spatial and temporal

scales of analysis.

Relevant archaeological data at such scales are not complete. Discussion

243

does concern those data that do exist and that do bear on the topic, but much of
the attention in Hypothesis 8 is drawn to future research in the form of large-
scale archaeological pattern expectations. As such, the overall intent of
Hypothesis 8 is intended more as means to systematize continued research into

large-scale questions concerning the British military frontier.

Anglo-American Archaeological Test Implications and Data

As attention broadens from individual domestic contexts to multiple British
or provincial contexts, multiple encampments, and eventually to multiple
settlements across a frontier region of space or broad span of time, the relevant
factors structuring the archaeological record are not the same, with external core-
periphery influences likely much more relevant at the broadest analytical scales.
That is, the Anglo-American dynamic likely played a marginal role in the
deployment of multiple settlements a cross a region of British settlement, or in
the long-term development and elaboration of individual British settlements.

From these broad points of view, the cosmopolitan character of British military
settlements likely becomes the relevant analytical perspective. It can be
assumed, for example, that the overall military settlement pattern will conform to
the nature of the perceived threat and to the specific political objectives of the
core state, not to the specific cultural conditions of local frontier environment
(Lewis 1984:286-288). This suggests order, efficiency and structural connections
between strategically placed (and possibly functionally specialized) military

settlements. These assumptions have material implications, and would likely be

244

reflected in how settlement ruins are spread across specific regions and the
nature of their former connections.

Expectations of cosmopolitan military settlement might include an
idealized functional hierarchy of sites spread across and throughout the entire
region of military settlement (Farry 1995). This idealized settlement hierarchy
would be comprised of those settlements types that would foster the efficient and
effective military conquest of a region. These might include, for example, larger
and more accessible central depot settlements well within the region of military
settlement that are connected to more distant waypoints designed to secure
strategic locations and funnel supplies to even more distant strongholds
protecting the frontier fringe. The spatial sequence of ideal types might also be
projected through time in that individual frontier settlements assume different
functional roles as the fringe of military settlement expands or contracts. The
settlement tendency among all functional types, however, would necessary be
according to strategic locations such as embarkment or disembarkment points,
points of alternate routes, or areas proximal to the perceived threat, based on the
local physical geography. These locations may often fall alongside earlier
aboriginal routes of travel. Again these material expectations can be evaluated
against the location and available archaeological data of known military
settlements, to asses conformance to the model’s expectations.

Material expectations of functionally distinct settlements might include a
tendency for behind-the-lines supportive settlements to evidence storage

activities while more extreme frontier settlements evidence a higher

245

concentration of martial activities. Such a clear functional division between sites
would be tempered, however, by the hypothesized temporal changes in site
function and by the fact that “storage activities” would have included storing
those same martial items used eventually along the frontier fringe. Ceramic
evidence previously discussed in Hypothesis 2 might bear on this issue, with the
CA plot shown in Figures 10 and 11 demonstrating a cluster of salt-glazed
storage ceramics among the Rogers Island provincial hut assemblage. This
might be expected for the Fort Edward settlement given its behind-the-lines role
during much of the conflict, with high frequencies of storage vessels in all
contexts at Rogers Island and Fort Edward (Farry 2005a:29). Conclusions must
remain unconfirmed because it is not yet clear, for example, if martial items are
more densely distributed at frontier sites than at Fort Edward, but the patterns of
ceramic use are nonetheless suggestive.

Specific material expectations of efficient settlement patterns might be
anticipated in the amount of time lag demonstrated by frontier military artifact
assemblages, the difference serving to measure the speed and ease with which
materials reached even the most distant of colonial frontier military settlements.
lf cosmopolitan military settlements are in fact positioned according to efficient
points of travel to ensure constant connections to external networks, than it can
be expected that even the most recent material items would be found at distant
frontier military sites with very little time lag. Put another way, the material
assemblages of colonial frontier military sites should look much the same as

other, non-frontier settlements, indicating that frontier regions enjoyed access to

246

the same material items as other, more settled regions despite their obvious
remoteness. This would lend support to expectations of efficient lines of travel
and communication existing between cosmopolitan military settlements, thereby
ensuring a continued line of contact between periphery and core and the
continued application of the colonial military policy.

The Fort William Henry west barracks ceramic assemblage provides an
interesting perspective on this test expectation and offers some preliminary
conclusions. The ceramic assemblage represents a very tightly dated context
between 1756-1757, with subsequent disturbance of the site limited only to
modern times. Following the destruction of the fort in 1757 by French forces,
British occupation of the Lake George area continued through the late 1750s as
attempts were made to challenge French authority in northern New York, but the
ruins of the original fort remained relatively unscathed with settlement confined
primarily to the heights around nearby Fort George. The items found in
association with the British west barracks at Fort William Henry thus offer a
snapshot view of British material culture during the mid-17508 at the extreme
frontier fringe of military settlement.

Included in this snapshot is a significant number of stoneware ceramics:
just under 40% of the west barracks ceramic sherd assemblage at William Henry
consists of white salt-glazed stoneware vessels (239 sherds out of 604 total),
many of which demonstrate a “scratch-blue” form of decoration on teawares
(Starbuck 20022119). Noel Hume (19692117) provides the most authoritative

description of this ceramic ware, including a date range: “In the mid-eighteenth

247

century white saltglaze stoneware began to be decorated with incised ornament
that was filled with cobalt before firing, great care being taken to brush off all
excess color so that the result would be patterns of thin blue lines. This technique
has come to be known as “scratch blue,” and the bulk of it was confined to the
third quarter of the century...The ware is fairly common on late colonial sites and
is a valuable dating guide”. More recently, Mountford (1971 :48-51) and Miller et
al. (2000:10) have refined Noel Hume’s date range only slightly, placing
decorated white salt-glazed wares between 1744-1775. Based on this date
range, the Fort William Henry assemblage demonstrates the very latest in
decorated stoneware vessels. This suggests that British frontier military
settlements during the Seven Years’ War did enjoy use of the same ceramics as
those of other, non-frontier sites, and that the spread of cosmopolitan frontiers
ensured a relatively quick dispersal of manufactures through an efficient
settlement system. This matches expectations of Hypothesis 8 and lends
support to the notion that military frontier settlements were deployed such that
interconnectedness remained high and core military policies remained in effect at
the frontier (Majewski and Noble 1999).

But this pattern only takes on meaning if considered in terms of multiple
settlements; that is, a single site demonstrating contemporary materials with non-
frontier sites is compelling but not definitive proof for Hypothesis 8, and similar
patterns should be in evidence at other frontier military sites. Consider, then, the
temporally sensitive ceramic and button evidence from nearby Fort George. As

touched upon in discussion of Hypothesis 7, the button assemblage from both

248

barracks at this site demonstrates an overall lack of embossed regimental
numbers. In fact the vast majority of the sub-assemblage reveals little or no
decoration with only 5 of the 59 total buttons showing evidence of a stamped,
geometrical face design and only 2 showing numbered regimental buttons. This
suggests an end occupation date for the barracks buildings sometime around or
not long after the inception of numbered regimental buttons by the British military
ca. 1767 or 1768 (Calver and Bolton 1950296; Olsen 19632552; Maxwell and
Binford 1967:91; Grimm 1970:62; Stone 1974:47). The presence of creamware
ceramics at the Fort George barracks further suggests a post-1762 date, or the
date after which Josiah Wedgwood perfected the manufacture of this ultimately
very common ceramic ware (Noel Hume 19692125; Miller et al. 2000:12). This
date is only three years after the documented construction date of Fort George
(1759). Together these data suggest that the creamware ceramics at Fort
George were imported to the site within a relatively short span of time following
the inception of this particular ware type, again suggesting a rapid infusion of
materials through a very efficient system of settlement. Even at Crown Point,
Feister’s (1984b:131) ceramic data revealed that the “presence of British-
manufactured earthenwares that is a characteristic of 18th-century domestic sites
in North America is also a characteristic of the Soldiers’ Barracks at Crown
Point”. This too suggests a rapid infusion of material items through the
cosmopolitan British military frontier of the Seven Years’ War.

Ultimately, Hypothesis 8 posits its own model of military frontiers, one

simply tailored to large-scale cosmopolitan patterns in the archaeological record

249

and beyond those which apply to Anglo-American cultural dynamics. lt
anticipates that the macro-scale settlement pattern of frontier military sites will
necessarily conform to certain factors, including: ( 1) the nature of the perceived
colonial threat, (2) the specific political objectives behind the military settlement,
(3) the most efficient routes of communication and transportation, (4) a perceived
settlement hierarchy based upon functional specialization, and (5) existing lines
of aboriginal transportation. The specific material expectations derived from
these factors could be developed along a number of different lines, only a few of
which have been explored here. Additional processes of military expansion and
even ultimate abandonment might also be developed and their expected material

patterns outlined (see Farry 1995), again demonstrating the breadth of research

potential of Hypothesis 8.

250

CHAPTER 6:

OVERVIEW, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS

251

Chapter Introduction

The goals of this final chapter are threefold. First is to provide an
overview of the hypothesis testing presented in the previous chapter, a
necessary step given the amount of information presented and the spatial and
temporal scales traversed. The intent is to cull only the most salient aspects
from the much more detailed testing discussions in Chapter 5 into a condensed
and accessible summary for each hypothesis. The summaries are structured
such that each hypothesis is broken down and briefly reviewed in terms of: ( 1)
fundamental assumptions; (2) expected material patterns; (3) relevant data used
for analysis, including data limitations; (4) observed archaeological patterns; and
(5) conformance to hypothesized expectations. As was seen in the previous
chapter, certain of the expected patterns were reflected and observed in the
archaeological record while others were not; still others await sufficient data with
which to be adequately evaluated and thus remain suggestive rather than
definitive.

The second goal is to provide further comment and to draw conclusions
on the analytical significance of the testing results, both in terms of the proposed
model and the historical context. Whereas the first goal demonstrates in
summary form how the results speak to the immediate expectations of the
hypotheses, this second takes one step back to consider how the results speak
to the underlying assumptions of the frontier military model and to Anglo-
American cultural dynamics. As the model represents application of the pluralist

perspective to military contexts, the discussion also speaks to this more general

252

frontier theoretical perspective. Discussion of Hypothesis 8 is geared towards
how the results address issues of cosmopolitan frontier settlement and core-
periphery connections. Ultimately, this second section is as much a review as is
the first given that many of the salient points have been touched upon through
the course of archaeological testing presented in Chapter 5.

The third and final goal is to outline the research implications this study
has brought to light for the continued archaeological study of the Seven Years’
War. A recurrent if secondary theme of this study has been to emphasize the
analytical promise of the Seven Years' War and that archaeological data
associated with the event offers important insights into the broader study of
colonial military frontiers. It is hoped that this final section serves as an important
point of departure for future archaeological research, and for the continued
development of analytical models for use with the existing Seven Years’ War

archaeological database.

Summary of Testing Results: Small-scale Hypotheses

A fundamental assumption underlying the first four hypotheses presented
in the military frontier model has been that clear cultural boundaries should
distinguish the archaeological record of American provincials from that of British
regulars during the Seven Years’ War. This reflects the underlying pluralist
perspective of this research and that restricted spatial or temporal frames of
reference provide the proper perspective for observing the diverse cultural fabric

of military frontier settlements. It also reflects the detailed historical context of

253

this research, which on the one hand emphasizes the documented cultural
distinctiveness of the two groups during their course of joint service and on the
other provides the means with which to predict how these differences might have
been expressed through material culture. Domestic contexts have been
considered appropriate small-scale archaeological units of study with which to
explore anticipated patterns of diversity, in part because they provide one of the
best sources for those routine and even mundane behaviors reflective of
underlying cultural affiliations or identities; in short, those behaviors and practices
that culturally distinguished American provincials from their British regular allies
and that are visible in the archaeological record. Other pluralist frontier scholars
similarly advocate such contexts as appropriate small-scale units of analysis
(Lightfoot et al. 1998). From a more practical perspective, domestic contexts
such as British barracks assemblages or those associated with a provincial huts
or tents offer the smallest spatial context within which meaningful archaeological
patterns can be observed in terms off sheer sample sizes. And in certain cases
even these domestic contexts lack sufficient artifactual data with which to draw
comparisons or conclusions, as seen in the very sparse artifact assemblages at
the Crown Point provincial huts. The overall intent of Hypotheses 1-4 has been
to predict Anglo-American material culture differences for domestic contexts and
to identify them in the archaeological record of Seven Years’ War settlements.

Detailed exploration of Hypotheses 14 revealed patterns of material
culture differences between British regular and American provincial

archaeological contexts, as predicted by the model. At the same time, certain

254

patterns were not revealed in the data, which suggests that either the
archaeological record is not a suitable indicator of the expected material patterns,
the archaeological data at hand do not provide adequate samples for study, or
even more fundamentally, that such differences did not exist between the two
groups. In terms of differences in rank distinctions (Hypothesis 3), for example,
British and provincial archaeological data do not provide much support for
anticipated patterns. The same might be said of provincial trash disposal
behaviors (Hypothesis 4), although this latter pattern may be correlated with the
factor of time and therefore actually lend support to Hypothesis 7. In terms of
standardization of material culture (Hypothesis 1) and ceramic use (Hypothesis
2), provincial and British contexts demonstrate expected (and unexpected)
patterns of divergence.

In all cases additional data would help to better evaluate the model’s
hypotheses, an unavoidable if unfortunate fact given the inconsistent character of
the archaeological record. Ideal archaeological data sets consisting of multiple,
detailed, and fully excavated provincial and British domestic contexts are simply
not available, particularly as relate to provincial occupations. Those data that do
exist have also been inconsistently excavated and reported, and even original
artifact assemblages enjoy different levels of availability and completeness.
Nevertheless, the provincial and British domestic context data represent an
imperfect but important source for understanding Anglo-American cultural

dynamics, and the detailed patterns observed in Chapter 5 are summarized and

discussed below.

255

Hypothesis 1 Summary

Assumptions: Differential participation among the allied Anglo-American
forces in a professional military culture, manifest as a standardized British
material culture and a variable provincial material culture.

Exmcted material patterns: British standardization is anticipated across all
material categories, as is provincial variability. Among weaponry, a single-
peaked British musket ball diameter distribution is expected corresponding to
the standardized use of the large caliber Brown Bess musket. By contrast, a
multi-peaked provincial musket ball diameter distribution is expected
corresponding to multiple musket types or a lack of standardized weaponry.
Data/ limitations: Musket ball data derive from British barracks occupations at
Rogers Island, Fort William Henry, Fort George, and Fort Stanwix, and from
two provincial hut occupations at Rogers Island. The Fort Stanwix British
barracks data predate 1774, though a later American occupation ca. 1777-
1781 cannot be distinguished archaeologically. The available provincial data
set is also small, with only 2 musket ball assemblages of adequate size.
Observed patterns: British barracks data reflect the standardized use of the
Brown Bess musket, and this is seen in comparisons of bar-chart frequency
distributions. A single provincial dwelling reflects a multi-peaked distribution
of musket ball diameters; a second provincial dwelling, however, reflects the
standardized use of Brown Bess musket. Chi-square contingency tests
confirm a significant difference between the standardized and dispersed

distributions based on percentages of weapon categories.

256

Conformance with pattern expectations: British data patterns conform to the
model’s expectations. So too do provincial data, though only among 1 of the
2 provincial contexts. The standardized provincial assemblage observed on
Rogers Island lacks tight temporal control and may represent a relatively late

provincial occupation, as anticipated in the discussion of Hypothesis 7.

Hypothesis 2 Summary

Assumptions: The unique and temporary character of provincial military
service may be discerned in the archaeological record, and this may serve to
distinguish provincial contexts from comparable British regular contexts and
their reliance upon long-term enlistments.

Expected material patterns: Provincial assemblages may demonstrate
restricted or much smaller ceramic assemblages compared to diverse and
much larger British ceramic assemblages. Certain categories of ceramics
may have been deemed unnecessary baggage given the limited terms of
provincial enlistment and their shortened tours of duty.

Datal limitations: Ceramic vessel assemblage data were culled from British
barracks at Fort Stanwix and Crown Point, while comparable ceramic data
were culled from a provincial hut at Rogers Island. The data consist of the
minimum number of different vessel forms per ceramic ware for each
barracks or hut structure.

Observed patterns: The provincial hut assemblage demonstrates a small

relative sherd sample size but a very large relative vessel sample size. Two

257

CA plots of the tabulated counts for ceramic vessel forms and vessel
functions per structure demonstrate clear distinctions between the Anglo-
American contexts in terms of their use of ceramics. The provincial
occupation, for example, demonstrates a general lack of tea service ceramics
compared to the British barracks. Both occupations also demonstrate an
inverse relationship in terms of food consumption vessels, with plates
predominant among the barracks occupations and small bowls more frequent
among the American occupation. This suggests a tendency within provincial
contexts towards the communal preparation and consumption of stew-like
meals while the British barracks enjoyed the individual preparation and
consumption of solid meals. The Anglo-American contexts can also be
distinguished based on the predominance of health/hygiene ceramic vessels
among the Americans. This might reveal a tendency among provincials to
remain within their existing domestic contexts during a sickness while British
regulars were removed to specialized hospital facilities. Their predominance
might also suggest that provincials considered ceramic medicinal supplies
anything but extra baggage and often brought such items with them from
home.

Conformance with pattern expectations: The comparable lack of provincial tea
service ceramics conform to the model’s expectations, but the range and
diversity of the provincial vessels do not. It appears that the provincial
assemblage differs from the British barracks assemblage not in terms of the

range of ceramics present but in the exact vessel forms and functions

258

represented. Although unanticipated, these differences in ceramic use are

revealing of Anglo-American cultural dynamics during the Seven Years’ War.

Hypothesis 3 Summary

Assumptions: Anglo-American forces can be distinguished by fundamentally
different military structures, resulting in very different officer-soldier
relationships manifest as different material patterns of rank distinctions.
Exgcted material patterns: British officer and enlisted domestic contexts are
anticipated to reflect obvious rank distinctions in terms of artifactual and
architectural expressions. By comparison, American officer and enlisted
domestic contexts are not.

Qfl/ limitations: Barracks data include artifactual and architectural patterns
associated with separate British officer and enlisted buildings at Crown Point.
Artifactual and architectural data associated with separate barracks buildings
at Fort George are also examined. The provincial data focus on architecture,
and include provincial huts excavated at Crown Point and Rogers Island.
Unlike the Crown Point barracks data, both the Fort George barracks and
Rogers Island hut data lack independent control over the documented rank of
each building’s Anglo-American occupants.

Observed patterns: At Crown Point, the two British barracks buildings
demonstrate a lack of artifactual differences, but architectural differences
were noted in the form of differential flooring and chimney construction. At

Fort George, higher rank was assumed for Building 2 based upon the

259

recovery of officer insignia (gold braid), but this distinction fails to correlate
with any unique architectural or artifactual patterns. Documented provincial
officer occupations at Crown Point demonstrate similar architectural features
with another (possible) provincial officer occupation on Rogers Island. The
diversity of architectural traits across the different hut features on Rogers
Island, however, precludes any definitive rank-architecture relationship within
provincial contexts.

Conformance with pattern expectations: Overall, the British and provincial
data fail to support the model’s expectations. Only subtle architectural
differences were observed among the Crown Point British barracks, with a
total lack of artifactual differences; even less support was gained from the
analysis of the Fort George British barracks. As a result, Anglo-American
groups cannot be distinguished in terms of differences in rank distinctions, at

least in terms of its expression in the archaeological record.

Hypothesis 4 Summary

Assumptions: Anglo-American groups differed in terms of their familiarity with
daily encampment behaviors and practices as prescribed in contemporary
military manuals. Provincials, for example, were likely unfamiliar with such
practices as the ordered removal and disposal of domestic refuse compared
to the British regulars.

Expected material patterns: Provincial occupations will evidence: (1) an

accumulated sheet of domestic refuse spread throughout and among their

260

immediate living areas, and (2) a lack of purposefully dug trash pits. British
occupations should evidence specialized trash pits but not the haphazard
accumulation of a refuse midden across domestic contexts.

Data/ limitations: Provincial data include the officer huts excavated at Crown
Point and the settlement at Fort Gage. British regular data include the
barracks buildings at Fort George.

Observed patterns: Provincial assemblages from Crown Point and Fort Gage
demonstrate relatively ordered patterns of refuse disposal. At Crown Point,
provincial officers appear to have reduced the indiscriminant discard of
domestic refuse only to those areas immediately surrounding hearth areas
within dwellings. Sub-surface pits were also used for the disposal of kitchen
refuse, although these features were apparently dug for some other original
purpose. At Fort Gage, sheet refuse accumulation also appears to have been
limited only to hearth areas where meals were likely consumed and small
debris inadvertently discarded. Multiple specialized trash pits were used
across the Fort Gage provincial encampment, suggesting a British-like
conformance to established disposal practices. At Fort George, British
patterns of trash disposal suggest that domestic refuse was purposefully
disposed of away from the immediate area surrounding the barracks buildings
and beyond the limits of the site’s wooden stockade.

Conformance with pattern expectations: The British barracks disposal data at
Fort George support the model’s expectations, though in an unanticipated

form. The lack of sub-surface trash pits at the site is probably influenced by

261

the small archaeological sample and by the shallow, rocky geology of the site
which likely precluded their use. The British troops instead disposed of
kitchen refuse by tossing it down slope and beyond the stockaded limits of
their barracks buildings. This is not the ordered disposal of trash as
anticipated in the model, but it is ordered disposal nonetheless. The
provincial disposal data at Crown Point and Fort Gage do not support the
model’s expectations, at least in terms of Hypothesis 4. The sites’
conformance with patterns expected for British regulars, however, may be a
factor of their late occupation dates, as anticipated in Hypothesis 7. The
provincial data considered in this discussion might therefore support

Hypothesis 7 rather than disprove Hypothesis 4.

Summary of Testing Results: LargeScale Hypotheses

A fundamental assumption of the military frontier model is that the obvious
cultural boundaries anticipated for restricted spatio-temporal contexts may
correlate or conflict with those patterns observed from broader frames of
reference. This assumption reflects the underlying pluralist perspective of this
research, and the idea that the active “overlapping” and “cross-cutting” nature of
cultural margins may be manifest in the processes through which these small-
scale bounded categories are redefined or restructured among ever larger spatial
and/or temporal scales. It also reflects the detailed historical context of this
research, which again, provides the means to predict how these dynamics may

have been expressed through British and provincial material culture. The

262

assumption further reflects the realization that as the analytical scale moves to
broader spatial or temporal extents, the influence of Anglo-American cultural
dynamics plays less of a shaping influence over the archaeological record
compared to cosmopolitan influences and external core-periphery issues.
Exploration of Hypotheses 5-8 is not nearly as detailed as for the small-scale
spatio-temporal contexts, which is a reflection of the limited archaeological data
at these scales. Data analyses nevertheless suggest patterns of change within
provincial contexts towards a more professional British identity when cast in

broad spatial or temporal perspectives.

Hypothesis 5 Summary

I Assumptions: Same as for Hypothesis 3: Anglo-American forces can be
distinguished by fundamentally different military structures resulting in very
different officer-soldier relationships and manifest as different patterns of rank
distinctions. At the same time, the broader spatial arena considered in this
hypothesis may have prompted a change in provincial behavior such that the
Americans purposefully adopted British practices on how to lay out brigade
and regimental encampments. This assumes that a provincial cultural identity
was neither fixed nor absolute but was in fact a malleable configuration that
may have been restructured across multiple spatial and temporal scales. It
also assumes that provincial forces employed encampment design as a
means to broadcast a professional military appearance and a perceived

equality with their fellow British allies.

263

Emcted material patterns: Based on the assumption of cultural change for
provincials across broader spatial scales (and a similar lack thereof among
the British), Anglo-American encampments are expected to look much the
same and are expected to conform quite well with contemporary and
established methods for setting up regimental encampments.
Q_a_ta/filirmta_tions2 The Crown Point provincial officer hut data represent the
only relevant provincial archaeological data source with which to evaluate
Hypothesis 5. The three hut features represent documented provincial officer
occupations that are contemporaneous and very brief, and thus represent the
only known encampment-scale provincial data. Comparative British data
exist in the form of contemporary plans for the proper layout of British
encampments, which provides the ideal encampment standard against which
the provincial spatial reality can be compared and evaluated. The effect that
the late occupation date of Crown Point (1759) might have had on the
observed archaeological patterns cannot be distinguished from the effect of
the broad spatial scale under consideration. '
Observed patterns: The provincial huts do seem to suggest, as Fisher (1993,
1995) argues, that the 2nd Connecticut Regiment’s encampment plan at
Crown Point was similar in overall design to that prescribed in British military
manuals. The three huts seem to suggest the triangle-shaped officer portion
shown on contemporary British encampment plans, particularly given the
large and culturally sterile areas in-between these contemporaneous hut

features. Comparisons designed to explore this similarity were facilitated by

264

digitizing plan views of the excavated hut features at Crown Point and the
idealized British encampment plan provided by contemporary sources. After
projecting both plans to the same scale, spatial overlays of the two data sets
could then be performed with ease and according to various possible
alignments. In certain alignments the three excavated hut features match
very well the overall encampment design for British regiments, but not in
every detail. Most noticeably, the wall angles of the three structures are off
by at least 17 degrees.

I Conformance with pattern expectatjpnp: The overall pattern that Fisher (1993,
1995) describes supports the expectations of Hypothesis 5. That is, the
deployment of provincial huts as revealed by the excavation at Crown Point
suggests that Americans were adhering to and adopting British conventions
regarding encampments, at least in overall design. But the detailed spatial
analysis reveals that such change was neither absolute nor fully enacted in
every minute detail; there existed an overall ordered design to the provincial
encampment, but it was one betrayed by an underlying variability. It is not
clear if such cultural change as experienced among the provincials was due
to the larger spatial arena within which it occurred (as anticipated in

Hypothesis 5) or was due to the broader temporal context (as anticipated in

Hypothesis 7).

Hypothesis 6 Summary
I Assumptions: At the scale of whole settlements, the deployment of Anglo-

265

American encampments might reflect the fundamental cultural differences
that existed between British and provincials during the Seven Years’ War.
E_xppcted material patterns: Because of their differing martial capabilities and
skills, British regular encampments are anticipated to be deployed separate
from American provincials, though the exact form such separation took is
difficult to anticipate. It may be the case that British encampments are
deployed along the periphery of individual settlements so as to position the
most skilled fighting force closest to the potential point of attack. On the other
hand, the low relative value the British held for provincial forces might have
resulted in their placing Americans along the periphery of individual
settlements to act as a sort of shock absorber or early detection system
against enemy attack. Documentary evidence suggests evidence for both
scenarios. Provincials may have even attempted to exert their perceived
equality by choosing on their own what areas they would encamp on within
settlements. These expectations may be best suited as a series of alternate
possibilities or hypotheses that can be evaluated against archaeological data.
Data/ limitations: Adequate archaeological data are lacking at this scale of
entire military settlements. Data consisting of multiple British or provincial
encampments have not been as easily identified in the archaeological record,
certainly not to the same extent as have later Revolutionary War settlements,
making comparisons difficult and conclusions impossible. Historic maps of
individual settlements abound, but these do not represent an independent

archaeological data source and the two must not be confused.

266

Observed patterns: The Crown Point and Rogers Island provincial hut
excavations reveal the presence of American units very close to the center of
both settlements and proximal to the fort proper, but comparable British
encampment data are lacking. It is thus impossible to determine, based
solely on archaeological data, the exact spatial relationships between Anglo-
American encampments within single settlements or how these may

correspond with hypothesized patterns.

Hypothesis 7 Summary

Assumptions: Over a broader temporal scale, provincial assemblages might
demonstrate patterning similar to that of the British regulars as the Americans
adopted specific British behaviors or practices over their course of joint
service. The underlying assumption here is, again, that broader scales of
analysis will likely reveal restructured Anglo-American cultural affiliations, with
the clear distinctions hypothesized for restricted contexts tending to blur when
viewed from broader perspectives. It is also assumed that provincial contexts
provide the most likely source for culture change, with the British army
unlikely to have altered its basic form based on its experience of joint service
during the Seven Years’ War.

Expected material patterns: In terms of material culture standardization,
provincial contexts dating to late in the Seven Years’ War are expected to
look much the same as British regular contexts. Because artifact

standardization among the British army is assumed across all material

267

categories, so too is it for later provincial contexts. Provincial weaponry
should demonstrate the standardized use of the British Brown Bess musket,
while clothing should reveal a uniformity of button types similar (in character if
not exact form) to that observed for British regular contexts.

Data/ limitations: Musket ball and button data were culled from the
excavations of the1758 Fort Gage provincial occupation to measure their
degree of standardization. The provincial button assemblage is very small,
making definitive conclusion difficult. Data associated with a known provincial
occupation dating to early in the war are not available for temporal
comparisons. Because of this, button data were also compiled from the Fort
George British barracks occupations for comparative purposes.

Observed patterns: The Fort Gage musket ball data demonstrate a restricted
diameter distribution very similar in shape and form to those distributions
associated with British regular occupations. This suggests the standardized
use of the Brown Bess musket among the Americans rather than muskets “of
difft. Bores and sorts” (Lauber 19392206). The Fort Gage button data
demonstrate that a significant percentage of the sub-assemblage is very
similar to the standardized button types associated with Fort George British
barracks buildings (Class A buttons), differing only in the materials used to
make the buttons. At the same time, a smaller but still significant percentage
of the Fort Gage sub-assemblage consists of button types that have been
attributed to use by civilians rather than the British military. A CA plot of the

Fort Gage and Fort George button data suggest that it is in the types of

268

metals used to construct the Class A buttons that distinguishes the two
occupation contexts, not the presence of these civilian or other button types
at Fort Gage.

Conformance with pattern expectations: The musket ball data conform very

well with the expected pattern, which suggests that towards the end of the
war American provincials were using standardized weaponry similar to their
British allies. The same appears to be true for provincial clothing, though the
evidence is less convincing given that the very small data set precludes any

definitive conclusions.

Hypothesis 8 Summary

Assumptions: At the broadest spatial and temporal scales of analysis, Anglo-
American cultural dynamics likely play less of a shaping influence as do core-
periphery influences and issues of cosmopolitan settlement. The
establishment, deployment and expansion over time of multiple settlements
across a large-scale region of military settlement will therefore likely take on a
much more homogenous “British” character, with issues of provincial and
British interactions less significant compared to the political directives of the
British core state. The fundamental assumption in Hypothesis 8 is that
frontier settlements- particularly military frontier settlements- were inextricably
entangled within macro-scale networks relevant far beyond the immediate
cultural environment of frontier regions.

Expected material patterns: Expected patterns concerning the cosmopolitan

269

nature of frontier military settlements could be developed along a number of
different directions, only a few of which are explored in these pages. The
cosmopolitan aspect of frontier military settlement could represent a
comprehensive analytical model in its own right, capable of producing a range
of archaeological hypotheses. It is expected, for example, that military
colonization of frontier regions utilized a specific settlement pattern consisting
of functionally specialized settlement types spread throughout the region of
military conquest. Efficiency in transportation and communication must have
been paramount if frontier settlements were to fully enact military policies. It
might thus be expected that settlement locations would be proximal to speedy
routes of travel, or that material items would reach the frontier fringe with
relatively little time lag.

Data/ limitations: Ceramic data from Fort William Henry, Fort George, and
Fort Crown Point provide evidence to measure the speed at which material
items reached the military frontier. At Fort William Henry, scratch-blue
decorated salt-glazed stoneware vessels provide temporally diagnostic
information, while creamware and plain buttons provide the same at Fort
George.

Observed patterns: All three sites demonstrate up-to-date ceramic materials
that suggest a relatively rapid infusion of items. Scratch-blue decorated
stoneware vessels, for example, were a very popular English ceramic ware
during the third quarter of the eighteenth century (ca. 1744-1775), and are

present among the northern-most point of British military settlement (William

270

Henry) in North America as early as 1755. The creamware assemblage at
Fort George appears to have been deposited within the first few years that
this ceramic type was manufactured and popular (ca. 1762-1768), again
suggesting relatively little lag time in the speed at which such ceramics
reached the military frontier fringe.

Conformance with pattern expectations: The temporally diagnostic ceramic
data support the idea that the settlement of the British military frontier
occurred along a very efficient pattern designed to facilitate the movement of
men, material, and information relatively quickly between core and periphery.
As much of the discussion of Hypothesis 8 is intended to spark future
research, the patterns were only subjected to preliminary examination with

archaeological data.

Evaluations and Conclusions

Compared to the hypothesis summaries, this section specifically considers

the testing results in light of the frontier military model’s basic assumptions and in

terms of Anglo-American cultural dynamics. In many ways, much of this

discussion has already been spread throughout Chapter 5, with the present

discussion serving to consolidate and highlight the main points.

As stressed throughout these pages, the fundamental core of the frontier

military model consists of three inter-related assumptions: (1) colonial military

frontiers are multi-cultural arenas in which groups of varied backgrounds coexist

and interact; (2) micro-scale archaeological contexts such as domestic spaces or

271

structures provide the proper scale of analysis with which to observe the
character of this muIti-cultural arena; and (3) obvious cultural boundaries will be
observed when viewed within micro-scale domestic contexts. These are
essentially the same assumptions of the more general pluralist frontier
perspective. Indeed, the fundamental intent of this study has been the
application of a pluralist frontier theoretical perspective to a specific form of
colonial settlement- military frontiers- and to the specific historical context of
Anglo-American relations during the Seven Years’ War. The archaeological
patterns revealed through testing Hypotheses 1-4 speak to these three basic
pluralist assumptions of the frontier military model, and they suggest an number
of important conclusions.

First and foremost, the archaeological patterns do suggest significant
differences in the use of material culture between British and provincials. The
use of standardized weaponry, for example, clearly distinguishes known British
barracks occupations from a provincial hut occupation, as expected. Use of
ceramic vessels also clearly distinguishes British barracks from another
provincial hut occupation, though all of the exact expressions were not as
anticipated. That in both hypotheses the analytical units were so clearly
distinguished between British barracks and provincial hut contexts does support
the idea of two very different cultural groups visible within small-scale
archaeological contexts. Control over possibly confounding factors, particularly
occupation time of the structures, varies, but the differences clearly fall along

Anglo-American cultural lines.

272

Despite these patterns, caution is warranted in terms of the basic
assumption concerning clear cultural boundaries in the archaeological record.
Consider that in discussion of Hypotheses 1 and 2 it is the same provincial hut
from Rogers Island (Hut 1; Figure 14) that reveals on one hand a very British-like
musket ball assemblage and on the other a very provincial-like ceramic vessel
assemblage (See Figures 8, 10, and 11). The weapons used by the hut’s
provincial occupants were clearly the same as used by the British regulars, while
the ceramic vessels associated with the structure were not, suggesting a
combination of provincial and British material patterns within the same American
domestic context. This is contrary to the assumption that within restricted spatial
and temporal contexts clear cultural boundaries will be reflected in the
archaeological record, but technically only in the sense that the same pattern
should remain constant across different (or all) artifact categories.

This suggests a second important conclusion: that Anglo-Americans can
indeed be distinguished in the archaeological record of small-scale spatial and
temporal contexts, but that such a distinction may not be consistently found
across every material category. Taken a step further, this suggests that
provincials enjoyed a blending of uniquely American and uniquely British material
traits reflecting a complex process of cultural change among their ranks. Why
such a change was associated with arms-related artifacts but not food-related is
not immediately clear. It may be the case, for example, that given the very real
war-time conditions under which these settlements were occupied American

soldiers were tempted to adopt the better British weapons if and whenever the

273

opportunity arose, while a similar urgency for adoption of British ceramic patterns
was not as strongly felt. Thus any and all patterns of change among the
provincials towards adoption of British behaviors or practices may be more
common among arms-related artifact categories than any other. What is clear is
that any assumptions concerning obvious cultural boundaries in the
archaeological record must at least recognize that not all categories of materials
may have been equally involved in distinguishing provincials from the regulars,
and that the provincials could selectively adopt British practices and behaviors.

Of course, these conclusions are tempered by the fact that it is difficult to
ascertain exactly when this particular provincial hut on Rogers Island was
occupied during the ca. 1755-1766 general occupation date range. Tighter
temporal control is not known for the structure, and successive construction
episodes do imply an occupation that spanned more than a single season.
Conceivably this could mean that the hut’s ceramic and musket ball data
represent completely separate provincial occupations. But it is equally possible
that the ceramics and musket ball data are contemporary, suggesting the
differential adoption of British behaviors and their creative blending with distinctly
American practices. In short, the variable of time is not well controlled in this
case, and its possible effect on any interpretations is recognized.

Provincial archaeological data from the tightly dated Fort Gage settlement
support the idea that patterns of change among the Americans were at least
partially a function of time, a third conclusion of this study. In contrast to those

basic assumptions concerning frontier cultural diversity in small-scale contexts

274

enumerated above, an additional assumption of the military frontier model
suggests that it is within broader spatial and temporal contexts that small-scale
patterns may be reconfigured or restructured, and archaeological patterns
revealed through testing provide support for this fact (over time if not just across
space). Thus it is with the late provincial Fort Gage musket ball data, which
demonstrate a very British-like distribution similar in form to that seen for the
provincial hut on Rogers Island. Such a standardized distribution, however,
stands alongside a much more ambiguous button assemblage at Fort Gage.
Feister and Huey (1985257) argue that the assemblage, though small,
demonstrates a high degree of variability; more recent analysis, however,
suggests that the buttons differ from an obviously standardized British army
button assemblage only in the metals used to construct the buttons. If the point
made by Feister and Huey (1985) is accepted, then additional support is drawn
for the uneven adoption of British practices among the provincials, in this case
late in the war. A variable button assemblage at Fort Gage suggests a very
different cultural affiliation for the settlement compared to the musket ball
assemblage, and again, patterns of change correlate with arms-related items.
The presence of the civilian-type buttons in the Fort Gage assemblage support
Feister and Huey’s (1985) conclusion, though their numbers are very small
overall.

On the other hand, if the button assemblage is deemed more standardized
than anything else (as suggested by the CA plot), then it may be the case that

provincial adoption of standardized material culture applied to an increasing

275

number of items as the war progressed. Culture change as experienced by the
provincials thus may not have been limited solely to arms-related material
culture, especially late in the war, and in fact may have included a range other
British practices and behaviors beyond material culture standardization. On this
point the archaeological patterns revealed in Hypotheses 4 and 5 become
relevant, with evidence to suggest that later provincial contexts such as at Crown
Point were incorporating British trash disposal practices and British encampment
designs. The encampment data patterns could of course result from the larger
spatial arena considered, though distinguishing the temporal and spatial effects
was not possible. The patterns suggest, nevertheless, that among broader
temporal and (possibly) spatial scales American provincials experienced cultural
change by increasingly incorporating British army practices. The specific
practices adopted are not limited to martial items, and include disposal practices,
encampment designs, and possibly a wide range of standardized material items.
Overall, the archaeological patterns reveal a complex process of cultural
interaction and change between the Anglo-American allies during their course of
joint service.

This complex process of change seen among colonial provincial contexts
actually anticipates patterns of change that have been observed for later
Revolutionary War military settlements, a fact that bears some discussion and is
a fourth conclusion of this study. As was mentioned in an earlier chapter (see
pp. 79), archaeological studies of Continental Army cantonment sites have

demonstrated a temporal pattern of change in American regimental encampment

276

designs. Revolutionary War archaeologists have observed a clear change from
rather haphazard encampment layouts early in the war to quite sophisticated and
ordered encampments later in the conflict. Luckily, intact encampment-scale
data abound for Continental Army cantonment sites, and these data can even be
distinguished on a year-by-year basis through most of the conflict. Research at
the first major American cantonment at Mount Independence, Vermont, ca. 1776-
1777, for example, demonstrates a haphazard deployment of numerous
clustered American huts that were quite variable in chimney construction and hut
designs (see Starbuck et al. 1990, 1991, 1993; Howe 1991, 1995, 1996; Howe et
al. 1994; Starbuck 1999:124-159). The succeeding year’s cantonment at Valley
Forge, Pennsylvania was equally haphazard, with hut placement, orientation, and
dimensions seemingly enacted at random (Seidel 1987:60—74,114; see also
Cotter 1972, Hall 1972, Parrington 1976, 1980; Parrington et al. 1996). By the
time of the 1778-1779 cantonments at Camp Reading, Connecticut (Poirier 1976)
and Middlebrook, New Jersey, (Seidel 19872115), however, greater regularity in
encampment design can be seen, a pattern that appears to have continued in the
subsequent 1779-1780 cantonment at Morristown, New Jersey (Rutsch and
Peters 1976, 1977; Seidel 1987:75-97) and the 1780-1781 cantonment at New
Windsor, New York (Fisher 1981 , 1983a, 1984, 1986; Seidel 1987:98-1 13).
These latter occupation sites, particularly New Windsor, demonstrate much more
ordered and homogenous American encampments in terms of hut placement,
design, orientation, and construction, and are very similar in form to those

advocated in contemporary military treatises. As Seidel (19872118) points out,

277

“The greater sophistication in hutting [towards the later years of the war] reflects
the greater expertise and professionalism of the [Continental] troops, and the
greater order is consistent with tighter discipline.”

This pattern is consistent with that advocated for provincial forces during
the Seven Years’ War. While the later Continental data is much more extensive
and intact, the provincial data examined here suggest a comparable change in
American encampment designs towards the end of the Seven Years’ War. This
parallel trend might have no analytical significance if not for the fact that many of
the provincial soldiers in service during the Seven Years’ War were eventually to
serve as senior officers in the Continental Army. George Washington is no doubt
the most obvious and best example of this: a novice, even inept, officer during
the Seven Years’ War, Washington would eventually draw from these earlier
experiences and specifically mold the new American Army into a professional
fighting force during the Revolutionary War. What this suggests is that, while the
Continental Army patterns of change are undeniable, they in fact represent only
an extension of a pattern of ethnogenesis that first becomes apparent during the
Seven Years’ War. This earlier experience of joint service with the British no
doubt instilled a tendency among the American forces towards accepting formal
martial practices and behaviors. And just as American provincials may have
adopted British behaviors as a means of actively conveying a sense of equality
towards their Anglo allies, so too did the Continental forces perceive an equal
footing for themselves, this time towards their Anglo enemies.

A fifth and final conclusion of the archaeological testing necessarily relates

278

to the last basic assumption of the frontier military model. Above all other types
of frontier settlement, military frontiers participate in wider exchange networks
linking periphery to core, and these networks play a crucial role in shaping the
large-scale temporal and spatial patterns of military frontiers. While
hypothesized archaeological patterns and material expectations could be
developed for this theme in a number of different directions, preliminary evidence
suggest the means with which to identify these networks in the archaeological
record. The presence of ceramic types at distant frontier posts that could just as
easily be found on any other colonial site at the same time, for example, confirms
an efficient transportation and supply system at the scale of multiple settlements
across a colonial region of conquest. Clearly, British military settlements dating
to the Seven Years’ War in North America have an important story to contribute
towards understanding large-scale processes of colonial settlement and
expansion, only a few of which are examined in this study. Rather than a single
hypothesis in the current model, this aspect of Seven Years’ War frontier

research represents a comparable model of its own.

Seven Years’ War Archaeology

It is hoped that this study prompts a critical reevaluation of traditional
research goals as practiced in Seven Year’s War archaeology. The application
of theoretically informed and historically contextual research designs to the
archaeological record of the conflict are far too rare given the number of sites

that have been subjected to excavations. And for far too long British military

279

material culture has been approached merely as an addendum to the rich
historical record, with excavations designed only to provide a grounded physical
reality to reconstructed military sites. Clearly, the archaeological record of the
Seven Year's War offers important insights into the study of military frontiers, and
the research model proposed in this study represents but one path for possible
research. A number of these paths are considered here, including those that lie
beyond the specific research model proposed in this study.

In terms other lines of research, one critical area is the need to assemble
existing Seven Years’ War data sets such that a larger percentage are available
for research. While hardly cutting-edge, this is a fundamental step that would no
doubt allow for an expanded range of research questions. The preponderance of
site reconstructions have resulted in many research collections, but an
unfortunate number of important British military site data still remain limited to
little or no availability. In certain cases, site data in the form of artifacts and field
records are detached and offer differential availability, while in other cases the
data lack a detailed and comprehensive technical report. Either way, the
available data is much less than the existing data, and remedying this fact
through publication and curation represents a worthy pursuit.

Another more obvious direction for future research is away from
descriptive or typological site studies and towards more analytical methods. As a
recurrent argument expressed throughout this study, this fact is not meant to
imply that analytical research must be conducted (or limited) along the lines

proposed here. Rather, these pages represent one particular perspective and

280

one particular application of theoretical concepts and historical frameworks to the
archaeological record of the Seven Years’ War. Various other perspectives and
applications could no doubt be proposed and explored. The fact, then, that this
study outlines what is described as a multi-scalar and comprehensive analytical
model is not meant to suggest that it is the only model possible for organizing
archaeological research. Rather than a multi-scalar continuum of Anglo-
American relations and core-periphery influences, the British Seven Years’ War
frontier might be conceived of along very different analytical lines.

It is hoped also that future archaeological research of the Seven Years’
War be conducted as much as possible among existing archaeological
collections. It is felt that the descriptive data-gathering endeavors of traditional
Seven Year’s War archaeology have produced an abundance of data, much of
which remains relatively underutilized. This is why scholars such as Crabtree et
al. (2002221) can rightly claim that the field of Seven Years’ War archaeology
remains undeveloped despite the number of sites that have been host to
extensive excavations. The abundance of the existing data source is such that it
would seem to require rather unique circumstances to justify additional work.
Continued excavation beyond mitigation efforts are not unnecessary, but it
certainly no longer seems necessary to collect data in the field solely for
descriptive or restorative purposes. Future archaeological fieldwork relating to
the Seven Years’ War must be justified by detailed analytical research designs
that require their own unique or fresh data. The development of analytical

models would help define and direct those necessary mitigation efforts that do

281

continue to excavate new ground. Cultural resource management studies that
might involve Seven Year's War British military settlements, for example,
currently have little or no research contexts within which to frame research
questions, determine excavation strategies, or even interpret results.

In terms of directions that lie with the analytical perspective advocated in
this study, a number of research possibilities exist. The first 4 hypotheses, for
example, do not represent the full spectrum of possible material correlates of
Anglo-American diversity; they merely represent a few logical expectations based
upon the detailed historical discussions. Another reading of the historical
framework, conducted with particular attention to any and all links between
material culture and Anglo-American practices, might suggest a number of
additional archaeological hypotheses across a range of different material
expressions. How did higher provincial pay, for example, find expression in
material items, and how might these differ from British regulars? What are the
expected patterns concerning the form and content of British and American
faunal debris from small-scale domestic contexts? How might the use of
provincial forces as skilled and unskilled laborers find material expression in
domestic contexts, and how might these differ from the British? The underlying
assumption of Anglo-American diversity remains the same among all of these
possibilities; what differs is the means by which it might have been expressed in
material culture and in the archaeological record.

The model of Anglo-American relations advocated here requires rather

stringent comparative archaeological data, and continued research might be

282

directed towards increasing the relevant database. This likely would require
additional fieldwork, but much of this could be limited to low-impact remote
sensing surveys to locate possible data with full excavation only required for a
sampling of the domestic contexts identified. The fieldwork would also be
conducted with specific research goals in mind that justified the excavations.
“Perfect” or ideal data would consist of numerous archaeologically rich domestic
features distinguished between Anglo-American, officer-enlisted, and early-late.
Unfortunately, data of this nature will no doubt continue to remain elusive,
especially across large spatial scales, but future work might be conducted to
identify those areas in which potential data exist. Additional data may
nevertheless be very limited in availability given the stringent analytical
requirements, and the sources at hand and explored in these pages will probably
remain the best Anglo-American data sources for some time. If appropriate data
are located in the field, strategies of complete feature excavation as advocated
by Lightfoot et al. (1998) are recommended.

A more detailed exploration of the issues discussed in Hypothesis 8 also
provided fertile ground for continued archaeological research dedicated to the
Seven Years’ War. Although a common perspective in the broader study of
colonization, core-periphery and cosmopolitan frontier concepts are not well
represented in the Seven Years’ War archaeological literature (of. Farry 1995;
2005a). The means by which the cosmopolitan features of military frontiers
might have been expressed in British military settlement during the war is thus an

open field for future research. What is clear is that much remains to be

283

accomplished in Seven Years’ War archaeology beyond that advanced in this
study. The data base offers fertile ground for research across a host of topics.
Seven Years’ War archaeology must make a clear break with its traditional
approaches and embrace a wide range of possible theoretical or methodological

research pursuits.

284

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Agostini, Thomas C.

2002 'Cousins in Arms': Experience and the Formation of a British-American
Identity among Regular and Provincial Soldiers during the Seven Years’
War. Doctoral dissertation, Department of History, Lehigh University. Ann
Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms lntemational.

Anderson, Fred
1981 Why Did Colonial New Englanders Make Bad Soldiers? Contractual
Principles and Military Conduct during the Seven Years' War. William and

Mary Quarterly, 38(3):395-417.

1983 A People's Army: Provincial Military Service in Massachusetts during the
Seven Years' War. lMI/iam and Mary Quarterly, 40(4):499-527.

1984 A People '3 Arm y: Massachusetts Soldiers and Society in the Seven Years’
War. Chapel Hill: The Institute of Early American History and Culture and
The University of North Carolina Press.

2000 Crucible of War: The Seven Years’ War and the Fate of Empire in British
North America, 1 754-1 766. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Anderson, Fred and Andrew Cayton
1993 The Problem of Fragmentation and the Prospectus for Synthesis in Early
American Social History. William and Mary Quarterly, 50(2):299-310.

Anonymous
1759 Plan of the Fort and Fortresses at Crown Point with Their Environs with

the Disposition of the English Army under Command of General Amherst
Encamped There 1759. Waterford: New York State Office of Parks
Recreation and Historic Preservation, Bureau of Historic Sites.

Babits, Lawrence E.
1979 Report on Preliminary Archaeological Investigation: Fort Butts, 1777-1781.
Providence, Rhode Island: Historical Preservation Commission.

2003 Review of Massacre at Fort William Henry. Historical Archaeology,
37(2):115-116.

Bartel, Brad
1980 Colonialism and Cultural Responses: Problems Related to Roman

Provincial Analysis. World Archaeology, 12(1):11-26.

285

1985 Comparative Historical Archaeology and Archaeological Theory. In
Comparative Studies in the Archaeology of Colonialism. Stephen Dyson,
editor, pp. 8-37. BAR lntemational Series.

Beaudry, Mary 0., Lauren J. Cook, and Stephen A. Mrozowski

1996 Artifacts and Active Voices: Material Culture as Social Discourse. In
Images of the Recent Past: Readings in Historical Archaeology. Charles
E. Orser, Jr., editor, pp. 272-310. Walnut Creek, California: Altimira Press.

Beaudry, Mary, Janet Long, Henry Miller, Frasier Neiman, and Gary Wheeler

Stone

1988 A Vessel Typology for Early Chesapeake Ceramics: The Potomac
Typological System. In Documentary Archaeology in the New World, Mary
Beaudry, editor, pp. 51-67. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Beh, Eric J.
2004 Simple Correspondence Analysis: A Bibliographic Review. lntemational

Statistical Review, 72(2):257-284.

Bellico, Russell P.
1995 Chronicles of Lake George: Journeys in War and Peace. Fleischmanns,

New York: Purple Mountain Press.

1999 Chronicles of Lake Champlain: Journeys in War and Peace.
Fleischmanns, New York: Purple Mountain Press.

2001 Sails and Steams in the Mountains: A Maritime and Military History of
Lake George and Lake Champlain. Revised Edition. F leischmanns, New
York: Purple Mountain Press.

Bertelsen, Reidar

1988 The Find Pattern of Archaeological Excavations: Correspondence
Analysis as Explorative Tool. In Computer and Quantitative Methods in
Archaeology, C. Ruggles and S. Rahtz, editors, pp. 25-28. Oxford,
England: BAR lntemational Series 393.

Binford, Lewis R.
1962a A Discussion of the Contrasts in the Developments of the Settlement at

Fort Michilimackinac Under British and French Rule. Southeastem
Archeological Conference Newsletter, 9(1):50-52.

1962b Excavations at Fort Michilimackinac, 1961 Season: Preliminary Report.
Lansing, Michigan: Mackinac Island State Park Commission.

Bland, Humphrey
1746 Treatise of Military Discipline. Sixth Edition. London.

286

Blanton, Richard and Gary Feinman
1984 The Mesoamerican World System. American Anthropologist, 86:673-682.

Bolviken, Erik, Ericka Helsog, Knut Helsog, Inger Marie Holm-Olsen, Leiv

Solheim, and Reidar Bertelsen
1982 Correspondence Analysis: An Alternative to Principal Components. World

Archaeology, 14(1):41-60.

Bourdieu, Pierre
1977 Outline of a Theory of Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.

1990 The Logic of Practice. Palo Alto, California: Stanford University Press.

Bradfield, Gerald E.
2001 Fort William Henry: Digging Up History. The French and Indian War

Society.

Brown, James A.
n.d. Final Report of the Excavations at Fort Michilimackinac, Emmet County,
Michigan. Mackinac Island, Michigan: Mackinac Island State Parks

Commission.

Brown, Margaret K.
1971 Glass from Fort Michilimackinac: A Classification for Eighteenth Century

Glass. The Michigan Archaeologist, 17(3-4):97-215.

Brumwell, Stephen '
1998 ‘A Service Truly Critical’: The British Army and Warfare with the North

American Indians, 1755-1764. War in History, 5(2):146-175.

2002 Redcoats: The British Soldier and War in the Americas, 1755-1763.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Calver, William L. and Reginald P. Bolton
1950 History Written with Pick and Shovel. New York: New York Historical

Society.

Cayton, Andrew and F redrika Teute ,
1998 Introduction: On the Connections of Frontiers. In Contact Points: American

Frontiers from the Mohawk Valley to the Mississippi, 1 750-1830. Andrew
Cayton and Fredrika Teute, editors, pp. 1-15. Chapel Hill: University of
North Carolina Press.

Champion, Timothy C.

1995a Introduction. In Centre and Periphery: Comparative Studies in
Archaeology. Timothy C. Champion, editor, pp. 1-21. New York:

287

 

Routledge.

Champion, Timothy C., editor
1995b Centre and Periphery: Comparative Studies in Archaeology. New York:
Routledge.

Chase-Dunn, Christopher, and Thomas D. Hall, editors
1991 Core/Periphery Relations in Precapitalist Worlds. Boulder, Colorado:

Westview Press.

Chet, Guy
2003 Conquering the American erdemess: The Triumph of European Warfare
in the Colonial Northeast. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

Cleland, Charles

1977 Comparison of the Faunal Remains from French and British Refuse Pits at
Fort Michilimackinac: A Study in Changing Subsistence Patterns. In For
the Director: Research Essays in Honor of James B. Grifl‘in. Charles
Cleland, editor, pp. 7-23. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

Clouse, Robert Alan ,

1996 Fort Snelling, Minnesota: lntrasite Variability at a Nineteenth Century
Military Post. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
University of lllinois-Urbana. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms

lntemational.

1999 Interpreting Archaeological Data Through Correspondence Analysis.
Historical Archaeology. 33(2):90-107.

Cotter, John
1972 Virginia Encampment, Outer Line, Hut 9 Investigation, Valley Forge State
Park. Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: Valley Forge National Historical Park.

Crabtree, Pam, Douglas V. Campana, and John R. Wright
2002 Exploring the Archaeological Potential of French and Indian War
Fortifications. CRM, 25(3):21-22.

Crowell, Aron

1994 World System Archaeology at Three Saints Harbor: An 18th Century
Russian Fur Trade Site on Kodiak Island. Doctoral dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley. Ann
Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms lntemational.

1997 Archaeology and the Capitalist World System: A Study from Russian
America. New York: Plenum Press.

288

Cunningham, Ann
1971 Coins from Fort Beauséjour, New answick. Ottawa, Canada: Parks
Canada.

Cusick, James, editor.
1998 Studies in Culture Contact: Interaction, Culture Change, and Archaeology.

Carbondale: Center for Archaeological Studies, Southern Illinois
University.

Deagan, Kathleen

1998 Transculturation and Spanish American Ethnogenesis: The Archaeological
Legacy of the Quincentenary. In Studies in Culture Contact: Interaction,
Culture Change, and Archaeology. James Cusick, editor, pp. 23-43.
Carbondale: Center for Archaeological Studies, Southern Illinois
University.

DeAngeIo, Barbara

1994 Eighteenth-Century Ceramics on Two Military Sites: Rogers Island and
Mount Independence. In Military Sites of the Hudson River, Lake George,
and Lake Champlain Conidor. David R. Starbuck, editor, pp. 43-48.
Queensbury, New York: Adirondack Community College. .

1995 Eighteenth-Century Ceramics from a French and Indian War Site: Rogers
Island. In Archeology in Fort Edward. David R. Starbuck, editor, pp. 89-
112. Concord, New Hampshire: The Printed Word.

Devoto, Bernard
1946 Fenimore Cooper's Further Literary Offenses, by Mark Twain. The New

England Quarterly, 19(3):291-301.

Dincauze, Dena, and Robert Hasenstab

1989 Explaining The Iroquois: Tribalization on a Prehistoric Periphery. In Centre
and Periphery: Comparative Studies in Archaeology. Timothy C.
Champion, editor, pp. 67-87. New York: Routledge.

Duff, Andrew I.
1996 Ceramic Micro-Seriation: Types or Attributes? American Antiquity,

61(1):89-101.

Fany, Andrew
1995 The Cosmopolitan Frontier: Military Frontier Settlement during the French

and Indian War, 1756-1763. Master’s Thesis, Department of
Anthropology, Columbia University.

2000 Colonial Military Frontiers: Fort William Henry. Paper Presented at the
Annual Meeting of the Society for Historical ArchaeoloQY. Quebec,

289

Canada.

2003 Phase 1A Cultural Resource Survey, Ticonderoga Boat Launch, Town of
Ticonderoga, Essex County, New York. Prepared for the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation.

20053 Regulars and “lrregulars”: British and Provincial Variability Among
Eighteenth-Century Military Frontiers. Historical Archaeology, 39(2)216-32.

2005b ‘...of difft. Bores & sorts”: An Archaeological Study of Anglo-American
Musket Balls. New York History, 86(4):451-471.

2005c Archaeological Trivia from the Test Pit. The Lake George Battlefield Park
(Fort George) Alliance Newsletter. Fall Edition.

Feister, Lois M.
1984a Building Materials Indicative of Status Differentiation at the Crown Point
Barracks. Historical Archaeology, 1 8(1):1 03-107.

1984b Material Culture of the British Soldier at ’His Majesty's Fort of Crown Point'
on Lake Champlain, New York, 1759-1783. Journal of Field Archaeology,
11(2):123-132.

Feister, Lois and Paul Huey

1985 Archaeological Testing at Fort Gage: A Provincial Redoubt of 1758 at
Lake George, New York. The Bulletin and Joumal of Archaeology for New
York State, (90):40-59.

Ferguson, Leland

1977 An Archaeological-Historical Analysis of Fort Watson: December 1780-
April 1781. In Research Strategies in Historical Archaeology. Stanley
South, editor, pp. 41-71. New York: Academic Press.

1992 Uncommon Ground: Archaeology and Early African America, 1650-1800.
Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Ferling, John , ,
1986 Soldiers for Virginia: Who Served in the French and Indian War? The
Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 94(3):307-328.

Fisher, Charles L.

1981 Archaeological Investigations at New Windsor Cantonment State Historic
Site, Orange County, New York. Waterford: New York State Office of
Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation, Bureau of Historic Sites.

1982 Archeological Reconnaissance Survey in the Area of the 1st

290

 

Massachusetts Brigade, New Windsor Cantonment, Orange County, New
York. Waterford: New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic
Preservation, Bureau of Historic Sites.

1983a Report on the 1982 Field Season of Archeological Survey in the Area of
the 1st Massachusetts Brigade, New Windsor Cantonment, Orange
County, New York. Waterford: New York State Office of Parks,
Recreation, and Historic Preservation, Bureau of Historic Sites.

1983b Archaeology at New Windsor Cantonment: Construction and Social
Reproduction at a Revolutionary War Encampment. Northeast Historical

Archaeology, 12:1 5-23.

1984 Archaeological Survey and Historic Preservation at the Site of a
Revolutionary War Cantonment in New Windsor, New York. North

American Archaeologist, 6(1 )2 25-39.

1986 Material Objects, Ideology, and Everyday Life: Archaeology of the
Continental Soldier at the New Windsor Cantonment. Waterford: New
York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation, Bureau

of Historic Sites.

1987 The Ceramics Collection from the Continental Army Cantonment at New
Windsor, New York. Historical Archaeology, 21:48-57.

1993 "...Obliged to live...on the outside of the Fort": A Report on the Soldiers”
Huts Found During Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Maintenance
Building Site, Crown Point State Historic Site, Essex County, New York.
Waterford: New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic
Preservation, Bureau of Historic Sites.

1995 The Archaeology of Provincial Officers' Huts at Crown Point State Historic
Site. Northeast Historical Archaeology, 24:65-86.

Fitch, Jabez '
1968 The Diary of Jabez Fitch, Jr. in the French and Indian War, 1 757. Second

Edition. Fort Edward, New York: Rogers Island Historical Association.

Fitting, James
1976 Patterns of Acculturation at the Straits of Mackinac. In Cultural Change
and Continuity: Essays in Honor of James Griflin. Charles Cleland, editor,

pp. 321-334. New York: Academic Press.

Fontana, Bernard
1965 On the Meaning of Historic Sites Archaeology. American Antiquity,

31(1):23-26.

291

Frank, Andre Gunder
1966 The Development of Underdevelopment. Monthly Review, 18:17-31.

Fraser, Andrew
1758 A Map of the Retrenched Camp at Lake George in 1758. Ticonderoga,

New York: Fort Ticonderoga MuseUm.

Gates, William Preston
2004 History of the Fort William Henry Hotel. Queensbury, New York: W.P.

Gates Publishing Company.

Giddens, Anthony
1979 Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure and Contradiction in

Social Analysis. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley.

1981 A Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism. Berkeley: University of
California Press.

Gifford, Stanley
1955 Fort lMlliam Henry, A History. Glens Falls, New York: Bullard-Glencraft

Printing, Inc.

Gipson, Lawrence Henry
1936 The British Empire before the American Revolution. Volumes 1-3.

Caldwell, Indiana: Caxton Printers.

1961- The British Empire before the American Revolution. Volumes 4- 15. New
1970 York. Alfred A. Knopf.

Goldstein, Lynne
1986 The Art of Understanding Data. Wheels for the Mind, 2(4):42-49.

Grant, John
1761 Orderly Book of John Grant of Litchfield, Conn., of Archibald McNeile’s

Company of the 2nd Connecticut Regiment Commanded by Nathan
Whiting, 1761. Waterford: New York State Office of Parks, Recreation
and Historic Preservation, Bureau of Historic Sites.

Green, Stanton and Stephen Perlman
1985 Frontiers, Boundaries, and Open Social Systems. In The Archaeology of
Frontiers and Boundaries. Stanton Green and Stephen Perlman, editors,

pp. 3-13. New York: Academic Press.

Greenacre, Michael
1984 Theory and Applications of Correspondence Analysis. New York:

Academic Press.

292

Greenacre, Michael and Trevor Hastie
1987 The Geometric Interpretation of Correspondence Analysis. Joumal of the

American Statistical Association, 82(398)2437-447.

Griffin, Patrick
2003 In Retrospect: Lawrence Henry Gipson's The British Empire before the
American Revolution. Reviews in American History, 31:171-183.

Grimm, Jacob L.
1970 Archaeological Investigations of Fort Ligonier, 1960-1 965. Pittsburgh,

Pennsylvania: Carnegie Museum.

Halchin, Jill Y.
1985 Excavations at Fort Michilimackinac, 1983-1985: House C of the

Southeast Row House. Mackinac Island, Michigan: Mackinac Island State
Park Commission.

Hall, Joseph
1972 The Excavation of Four Hut Sites at the Outer Defensive Line of Valley
Forge. Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: Valley Forge National Historical Park.

Hamilton, TM, and KO. Emery
1988 Eighteenth-Century Gunflints from Fort Michilimackinac and other Colonial
Sites. Mackinac Island, Michigan: Mackinac Island State Park

Commission.

Hanson, Lee and Dick Ping Hsu
1975 Casemates and Cannonballs: Archaeological Excavations at Fort Stanwix,

Rome, New York. Washington, DC: US Department of the Interior,
National Park Service.

Harrington, J.C.
1952 Preliminary Report, Archeological Explorations, Fort Necessity National
Battlefield Site, August-September. Region One Office: National Park

Service.

1953 Report on 1952 Archeological Explorations at Fort Necessity National
Battlefield Site. Region One Office: National Park Service.

1977 Washington’s Fort Necessity: A Report on the Archeological Explorations
at Fort Necessity National Battlefield Site. Conshohocken, Pennsylvania:
Eastern National Parks and Monuments Association.

1978 New Light on Washington's Fort Necessity. In Historical Archaeology: A

Guide to Substantive and Theoretical Contributions. Robert Schuyler,
editor, pp. 90-138. Farrningdale: Baywood.

293

Hartgen Archaeological Associates, Inc.
1998 Phase 1A Literature Review and Archeological Sensitivity Assessment,
Proposed Wetland Restoration, Lake George Beach State Park. Prepared

for Warren County SWCD.

Hastings, Hugh, editor
1911 Orderly Book and Journal of Major John Hawks on the Ticonderoga-
Crown Point Campaign, Under General Jeffery Amherst, 1759-1 760. New

York: Society of Colonial Wars.

Heldman, Donald P.
1978 Excavations at Fort Michilimackinac, 1977: House One of the South
Southeast Row House. Mackinac Island, Michigan: Mackinac Island State

Park Commission.
1980 Coins at Michilimackinac. Historical Archaeology, 14282-107.

1991 The French in Michigan and Beyond: An Archaeological View from Fort
Michilimackinac Toward the West. In French Colonial Archaeology: The
Illinois Country and the Western Great Lakes. J.A. Walthall, editor, pp.
201-217. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Heldman, Donald P. and Roger T. Grange, Jr.
1981 Excavations at Fort Michilimackinac, 1978-1979: The Rue de la
Babillarde. Mackinac Island, Michigan: Mackinac Island State Park

Commission.

Henshaw, Vlfilliam
1909 Orderly Book of William Henshaw. In Manuscript Records of the French

and Indian War, pp. 188-249. Worcester, Massachusetts: American
Antiquarian Society.

Herst, DiAnn
1970 Preliminary Report on the Excavation of the Officers' Quarters (2E19) and

the French Casemate (2E13) at Fort Beauséjour, New Brunswick. Ottawa,
Canada: Parks Canada.

Higgs, NT.
1991 Practical and Innovative Uses of Correspondence Analysis. The
Statistician, 40(2): 1 83-1 94.

Hill, Edward
1929 Old Fort Edward Before 1800. Fort Edward, New York: Privately Printed.

Hill, M. e
1974 Correspondence Analysis: A Neglected Multivariate Method. Applied

294

Statistics, 23:340-354.

Hinderaker, Eric
1997 Elusive Empires: Constructing Colonialism in the Ohio Valley, 1673- 1 800.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hoffman, Donna L. George R. Franke
1986 Correspondence Analysis: Graphical Representation of Categorical Data
in Marketing Research. Journal of Marketing Research, 23(3):213-227.

Horvath, Ronald
1972 A Definition of Colonialism. Current Anthropology, 13(1):45-57.

Howe, Dennis
1991 The Archeology of a 1776 Cantonment of New Hampshire Regiments.

The New Hampshire Archaeologist, 32(1):1-25.

1995 The Archeological Investigations of 18th-Century Temporary Military
Shelters. In Archeology in Fort Edward. David Starbuck, editor, pp. 38-59.
Concord, New Hampshire: The Printed Word.

1996 This Ragged, Starved, Lousy, Pocky Army: The Archaeology of Soldiers’
Huts and a Summary of Underwater Research at Mount Independence
Historic Site. Concord, New Hampshire: The Printed Word.

Howe, Dennis, William Murphy, and Marjorie Robbins
1994 The Southern Battery at Mount Independence. The Journal of Vermont

Archaeology, 12127-140.

Howson, Jean E.
1990 Social Relations and Material Culture: A Critique of the Archaeology of
Plantation Slavery. Historical Archaeology, 24(4):78-91.

Hsu, Dick Ping
1972 Fort Stanwix. Northeast Historical Archaeology. Special Issue on
Fortifications, 2(1):29-34.

Huey, Paul
1996 A Bibliography of Reports, Published Articles, and Books Relating to the

Archeology of Crown Point State Historic Site through August 1996.
[online document] <http://www.nysl.nysed.gov/edocs/parks/crown_
pt.htm>. New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic
Preservation.

Jarvis, Brad
1997 Behavior and Patterning in the Archaeological Record: Examples from

295

Eighteenth-Century Military Sites in New York. Unpublished manuscript.
East Lansing: Michigan State University.

Jennings, Francis , .
1988 Empire of Fortune: Crowns, Colonies, and Tribes in the Seven Years War

in America. New York: WW Norton & Co.

Jones, Sian

1999 Historical Categories and the Praxis of Identity: The Interpretation of
Ethnicity in Historical Archaeology. In Historical Archaeology: Back from
the Edge. Martin Hall, Sian Jones, and Pedro Funari, editors, pp. 219-232.

One World Archaeology, Vol. 31. London: Routledge.

Kemmer, Brenton C.
1997 Freeman, Freeholders, and Citizen Soldiers: An Organizational History of

Colonel Jonathan Bagley’s Regiment, 1755-1760. Bowie, Maryland:
Heritage Books.

1998 Redcoats, Yankees and Allies: A History of the Uniforms, Clothing and
Gear of the British Army in the Lake George-Lake Champlain Corridor,
1 755-1 760. Bowie, Maryland: Heritage Books.

Knoblauch, Edward H.
1997 Mobilizing Provincials for War: The Social Composition of New York

Forces in 1760. New York History, 42147-172.

Lauber, Almon W., editor
1939 Sir William Johnson Papers. Volume 9. Albany: The University of the State

of New York.

Leach, Douglas Edward
19863 The Cartagena Expedition, 1740-1742, and Anglo-American Relations. In

Adapting to Conditions: War and Society in the Eighteenth Century. M.
Ultee, editor, pp. 43-55. University, Alabama: University of Alabama
Press.

1986b Roots of Conflict: British Armed Forces and Colonial Americans, 1677-
1763. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Lewis, Kenneth E.
1984 The American Frontier: An Archaeological Study of Settlement Pattern
and Process. Orlando, Florida: Academic Press.

2002 West To Far Michigan: Settling the Lower Peninsula, 181 5- 1860. East
Lansing: Michigan State University Press.

296

Lightfoot, Kent G.
1995 Culture Contact Studies: Redefining the Relationship between Prehistoric

and Historical Archaeology. American Antiquity, 60(2)2199-217.

Lightfoot, Kent G. and Antoinette Martinez
1995 Frontiers and Boundaries in Archaeological Perspective. Annual Review of

AnthropolOQY. 24:471-492.

Lightfoot, Kent, Antoinette Martinez, and Ann M. Schiff

1998 Daily Practice and Material Culture in Pluralistic Social Settings: An
Archaeological Study of Culture Change and Persistence From Fort Ross,
California. American Antiquity, 63(2): 1 99-222.

Lightfoot, Kent, T.A. Wake, and Ann M. Schiff
1991 The Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross, California. Volume 1 .

Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley.

1993 Native Responses to the Russian Mercantile Colony of Fort Ross,
California. Journal of Field Archaeology, 20:159-175.

Lightfoot, Kent , Ann M. Schiff, and TA. Wake
1997 The Native Alaskan Neighborhood: A Multiethnic Community at Colony
Ross. Volume 2. Berkeley, California: University of California, Berkeley.

Luzader, John F ., Louis Torres, and Orville W. Carroll

1976 Fort Stanwix: History, Historic Fumishing, and Historic Stnrcture Reports.
Washington, DC: Office of Park Historic Preservation, National Park
Service, US. Department of the Interior.

Lyman, Phineas
1899 General Orders of 1 757 Issued by the Earl of Loudon and Phineas Lyman
in the Campaign against the French. New York: Grillis Press.

Majewski, Terisita and Vergil E. Noble

1999 British Ceramics on the American Colonial Frontier, 1760-1800. In Old and
New Worlds: Historical/Post Medieval Archaeology Papers from the
Societies’ Joint Conference at Williamsburg and London 1997 to Mark
Thirty Years of Work and Achievement. Geoff Egan and Ronald Michael,
editors, pp. 299-309. Oxford and Oakville, Connecticut: Oxbow Books.

Martinez, Ann
1994 Native Women as Cultural Mediators. In Proceedings of the Society for

California Archaeology. M. Rosen, S. Hector, and D. Laylander, editors,
pp. 41-46. San Diego: Society for California Archaeology.

297

Maxwell, Moreau S. and Lewis H. Binford
1961 Excavation at Fort Michilimackinac, Mackinac City, Michigan: 1959
Season. Publications of the Museum, 1(1): 1-129.

McGuire, Randall
1982 The Study of Ethnicity in Historical Archaeology. Journal of

Anthropological Archaeology, 1 (2)2159-178.

McNally, Paul
1971 Table Glass at Fort Beauséjour, New Brunswick. Ottawa, Canada: Parks

Canada.

Meinig, David
1986 The Shaping of America: A Geographical Perspective on 500 Years of
History, Vol. 1, Atlantic America, 1492-1800. New Haven: Yale University

Press.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
n.d. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. [online website] http://wwwmerriam-

webster.com.

Miller, J. Jefferson II, and Lyle M. Stone
1970 Eighteenth-Century Ceramics from Fort Michilimackinac. Washington, DC:

Smithsonian Institution Press.

Miller, Daniel and Christopher Tilley

1984 Ideology, Power and Prehistory: an Introduction. In Ideology, Power and
Prehistory. Daniel Miller and Christopher Tilley, editor, pp. 1-15.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Miller, George L., Patricia Samford, Ellen Shlasko, and Andrew Madsen
2000 Telling Time for Archaeologists. Northeast Historical Archaeology, 29:1-

22.

Moneypenny, Alexander
1969 Moneypenny Orderly Book. The Bulletin of the Fort Ticonderoga Museum,

12(5):180-197.

1970 Moneypenny Orderly Book. The Bulletin of the Fort Ticonderoga Museum,
12(6):434-461.

Mountford, Arnold R.

1971 The Illustrated Guide to Staliordshire Salt-glazed Stoneware. New York:
Praeger Publications.

298

Nelson, Kerry, Edward Curtin, and Scott Padeni

2001 Phase 1A/1B Archaeological Survey, Proposed Campground, Lake
George Battlefield Park, Town of Lake George, Warren County, New York.
Prepared for the New York State Department of Environmental

Conservation.

Neumann, George C.
1967 The History of Weapons of the American Revolution. New York: Bonanza

Books.

Noel Hume, Ivor
1969 A Guide to Historic Artifacts of Colonial America. Philadelphia: University”

of Pennsylvania Press.

Olsen, Stanley
1963 Dating Early Plain Buttons by their Form. American Antiquity, 28(4):552.

Ortner, Sherry B.
1984 Theory in Anthropology Since the Sixties. Comparative Studies in Society

and History, 26:126-1 66.

Ostrogorsky, Michael
1982 An Idaho Model of Frontier Settlement. North American Archaeologist,

3(1):79-83.

Pargellis, Stanley, editor.
1936 Military Affairs in North America, 1 748-1765: Selected Documents from

the Cumberland Papers in Windsor Castle. New York: D. Appleton-
Century Co.

Parks Canada
1998 Heritage Presentation and Public Education Research Publications

Catalogue. Quebec, Canada: Parks Canada.

Parrington, Michael
1979 Report on the Excavation of Part of The Virginia Brigade Encampment,
Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, 1972-73. Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: Valley

Forge National Historical Park.

1980 Revolutionary War Archaeology at Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. North
American Archaeologist, 1(2): 1 61 -1 76.

Parrington, Michael, Helen Schenck, and Jacqueline Thibaut

1996 The Material World of the Revolutionary War Soldier at Valley Forge. In
Images of the Recent Past: Readings in Historical Archaeology. Charles
Orser, editor, pp. 110-140. Walnut Creek, California: AltaMira Press.

299

Paynter, Robert
1982 Models of Spatial Inequality: Settlement Patterns in Historical Archeology.

New York: Academic Press.

Perla, Theodore, and Elizabeth Pena
1988 Review of The Archaeology of Slavery and Plantation Life. American

Journal of Archaeology, 92(1 ): 1 53-155.

Peterson, Harold L.
1956 Arms and Armor in Colonial America, 1526-1783. New York: Bramhall

House.

Poirier, David A.
1976 Camp Reading: Logistics of A Revolutionary War Winter Encampment.
Northeast Historical Archaeology. 5(1-2):40-52.

Redfield, Robert, Ralph Linton, and Melville J. Herskovits
1936 Memorandum for the Study of Acculturation. American Anthropologist,

382149-152.

Rice, Prudence

1998 Contexts of Contact and Change: Peripheries, Frontiers, and Boundaries.
In Studies in Culture Contact: Interaction, Culture Change, and
Archaeology. James Cusick, editor, pp. 44-66. Carbondale, Illinois: Center
for Archaeological Studies, Southern Illinois University.

Ringrose, Trevor J.
1992 Bootstrapping and Correspondence Analysis in Archaeology. Journal of

Archaeological Science, 19:61 5-629.

Rogers, Alan
1974 Empire and Liberty: American Resistance to British Authority, 1755-1763.

Berkeley: University of California Press.

Rogers, J. Daniel and Samuel Wilson, editors.
1993 Ethnohistory and Archaeology: Approaches to Postcontact Change in the
Americas. New York: Plenum Press.

Romeo, Jene C.

1994 Military Foodways and the Difficulty of Provisioning Troops in the
Eighteenth Century. In Military Sites of the Hudson River, Lake George,
and Lake Champlain Corridor. David R. Starbuck, editor, pp. 49-53.
Queensbury, New York: Adirondack Community College.

300

Rowlands, Michael
1998 Centre and Periphery: A Review of a Concept. In Social Transformations

in Archaeology: Global and Local Perspectives. K. Kristiansen and M.
Rowlands, editors, pp. 219-242. London: Routledge.

Rozell, Matthew

1995 The Excavation of a Smallpox Hospital on Rogers Island. In Archeology in
Fort Edward. David Starbuck, editor, pp. 60-72. Queensbury, New York:
Adirondack Community College.

Rubertone, Patricia

1989 Archaeology, Colonialism and 17th-century Native America: Towards an
Alternative Interpretation. In Conflict in the Archaeology of Living
Traditions. R. Layton, editor, pp. 32-45. London: Unwin Hyman.

Russell, Peter E.
1978 Redcoats in the Wilderness: British Officers and Irregular Warfare in
Europe and America, 1740 to 1760. William and Mary Quarterly,

35(4):629—652.

Rutsch, Edward and Kim Peters
1976 A Survey of Archaeological Resources at Morristown National Historical
Park, New Jersey. Morristown, New Jersey: Morristown National Historical

Park.

1977 Forty Years of Archaeological Research at Morristown National Historical
Park, Morristown, New Jersey. Historical Archaeology, 12:15-38.

Sahlins, Marshall David
1985 Islands of History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Schiff, Ann M.

1994 Archaeological Investigations of the Native Alaskan Village Site, Fort
Ross, California. In Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology.
M. Rosen, S. Hector, and D. Laylander, editors, pp. 13-17. San Diego:
Society for California Archaeology.

Schneider, Jane
1977 Was There a Precapitalist World-System? Peasant Studies, 6(1)220-29.

Scott, Elizabeth
1991 A Feminist Approach to Historical Archeology: Eighteenth-Century Fur
Trade Society at Michilimackinac. Historical Archaeology, (25)4:42-53. .. .

Schuyler, Robert L.
1977 Parallels in the Rise of the Various Subfields of Historical Archaeology.

301

The Conference on Historic Site Archaeology Papers, 10:2-10.

Selesky, Harold E.
1990 War and Society in Colonial Connecticut. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale

University Press.

Seidel, John

1987 The Archaeology of the American Revolution: A Reappraisal and Case
Study at the Continental Artillery Cantonment of 1778-1779, Pluckemin,
New Jersey. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University
of Pennsylvania. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms International.

Shannon, Timothy J.
1996 Dressing for Success on the Mohawk Frontier: Hendrick, William Johnson,

and the Indian Fashion. William and Mary Quarterly, 53(1):13-42.

Shapiro, Gary

1978 Early British Subsistence Strategy at Michilimackinac: An Analysis of
Faunal Remains from the 1977 Excavation Season. In Excavations at Fort
Michilimackinac, 1977: House One of the South Southeast Row House.
Donald P. Heldman, editor. Mackinac Island, Michigan: Mackinac Island

State Park Commission.

Shy, John
1963 A New Look at Colonial Militia. William and Mary Quarterly, 20(2):175-185.

1965 Toward Lexington: The Role of the British Army in the Coming of the
Revolution. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Sivilich, Daniel M.
1996 Analyzing Musket Balls to Interpret a Revolutionary War Site. Historical

Archaeology. 30(2): 1 01 -1 09.
Snow, M. Elizabeth

1975 Salvage Archaeology at Fort Beauséjour National Historic Park, New
Brunswick. Ottawa, Canada: Parks Canada.

South, Stanley

1964 Analysis of the Buttons from Brunswick Town and Fort Fisher. Florida
Anthropologist, 17(2):1 13-133.

1977a Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. New York: Academic Press.

1978a Pattern Recognition in Historical Archaeology. American Antiquity,
43(2):223-230.

302

1978b Research Strategies for Archaeological Pattern Recognition on Historic
Sites. World Archaeology, 10(1)236-50.

South, Stanley, editor.
1977b Research Strategies in Historical Archaeology. New York: Academic

Press.

Spicer, Edward
1961 Types of Contact and Processes of Change. In Perspectives in American
Indian Culture Change. Edward Spicer, editor, pp. 517-544. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Starbuck, David R.
1991 A Retrospective on Archaeology at Fort William Henry, 1952-1993:
Retelling the Tale of The Last of the Mohicans. Northeast Historical

Archaeology. 2028-26.
1993 Anatomy of a Massacre. Archaeology, 46243-46.

1994a The Rogers Island Archaeological Site: Transforming Myths Into
Strategies For Interpreting And Managing A Major Encampment From The
French And Indian War. In Cultural Resource Management:
Archaeological Research, Preservation Planning, and Public Education in
the Northeastern United States. Jordan E. Kerber, editor, pp. 244-260.
Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group.

1995 Four Years of Archeological Research on Rogers Island. In Archeology in
Fort Edward. David R. Starbuck, editor, pp. 20-37. Concord, New
Hampshire: The Printed Word.

1996 Fort Edward: Excavations at a 1755 British Fort on the Hudson River.
Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Historical
Archaeology, Cincinnati, Ohio.

1997a Unearthing the French and Indian War in New York State. Paper
Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Historical Archaeology,
Corpus Christie, Texas.

1999 The Great Warpath: British Military Sites from Albany to Crown Point.
Hanover, New Hampshire: University Press of New England.

2002 Massacre at Fort William Henry. Hanover, New Hampshire: University
Press of New England.

2004 Rangers and Redcoats: Exploring the Past on Rogers Island. Hanover,
New Hampshire: University Press of New England.

303

Starbuck, David, Dennis Howe, William Murphy, and Gordon DeAngelo
1990 Mount Independence 1989 Completion Report. Montpelier: Vermont
Division for Historic Preservation.

Starbuck, David, Dennis Howe, William Murphy, Gordon DeAngeIo, Barbara

DeAngeIo, and Bruce Hedin
1991 Mount Independence 1990 Completion Report. Montpelier: Vermont

Division for Historic Preservation.

Starbuck, David, William Murphy, Daniel Weiskotten, Frank Schlamp, Shelia

Charles, Donald Wickman, Bruce Hedin, Gordon DeAngeIo, and David Pinkham

1993 Mount Independence 1992 Archaeological Completion Report. Montpelier:
Vermont Division for Historic Preservation.

Starbuck, David R., editor
1992 Rogers Island 1991 Archeological Completion Report. Prepared for the
Rogers Island Yacht Club.

1994b Archaeology of the French and Indian War: Military Sites of the Hudson
River, Lake George, and Lake Champlain Corridor. Queensbury, New
York: Adirondack Community College.

1995 Archeology in Fort Edward. Concord, New Hampshire: The Printed Word.

Staudt, John G.
1999 Immigrants, Indians, and Idle Men: Long Island's “Rabble in Arms” in the

French and Indian War. Long Island Historical Joumal, 11(2):178-189.

Steele, Ian Kenneth
1990 Betrayals: Fort William Henry and the “Massacre”. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Steffan, Jerome
1980 Comparative Frontiers: A Proposal for Studying the American West.

Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Stein, Gil J.
1999 Rethinking World-Systems: Diasporas, Colonies, and Interaction in Uruk

Mesopotamia. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.

Stone, Lyle M.
1970 Archaeological Research at Fort Michilimackinac, an Eighteenth Century

Historic Site in Emmet County, Michigan: 1959-1966 Excavations.
Doctoral dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Michigan State
University. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms lntemational.

304

1973 Fort Michilimackinac- Parking Lot Area: Summary of Excavations and
Structural Evidence, 1970-1973. Mackinac City, Michigan: Mackinac State

Historic Parks.

1974 Fort Michilimackinac, 1 715- 1 781: An Archaeological Perspective on the
Revolutionary Frontier. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.

Stott, Earl, editor
1986 Exploring Rogers Island. Fort Edward, New York: Rogers Island Historical

Association.

Stotz, Charles M.
1974 The Reconstruction of Fort Ligonier: The Anatomy of a Frontier Fort.

Bulletin of the Association for Preservation Technology. 6(4): 1 -1 04.

Sullivan, James, editor.
1922 Sir William Johnson Papers. Volume 2. Albany: The University of the State

of New York.

Sussman, Lynne
1974 Transfer-printed Ceramics from Fort Beauséjour (Cumberland). Ottawa:

National Historic Parks and Sites Branch, Parks Canada.

1975 Pearlware from Fort Beauséjour (Cumberland). Ottawa: National Historic
Parks and Sites Branch, Parks Canada.

2000 British Military Tableware, 1760-1830. In Approaches to Material Culture
Research for Historical Archaeologists. David R. Brauner, editor, pp. 44-
55. The Society for Historical Archaeology.

Titus, James
1991 The Old Dominion at War: Society, Politics, and Warfare in Late Colonial

Virginia. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.

Todish, Timothy
2002 America’s First World War: The French and Indian War, 1 754-1763.

Second Edition. Fleischmanns, New York: Purple Mountain Press.

Turner, Frederick Jackson .
1893 The Significance cf the Frontier in American History. Annual Report of the

American Historical Association for the Year 1893, pp. 1 99-227.

Twain, Mark
1856 Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offenses. North American Review, 15621-12.

305

 

Urban, Patricia and Edward Schortman

1999 Thoughts on the Periphery: The Ideological Consequences of
Core/Periphery Relations. In World-Systems Theory in Practice:
Leadership, Production, and Exchange. P. Nick Kardulias, editor, pp. 125-
152. Lanham: Rowman 8. Littlefield.

Vandrei, Charles E. - _
2001 The Lake George Battlefield Park: Looking to the Future Through the

Past. New York State Conservationist, 55(4):26-27.

Waddell, Louis M. and Bruce D. Bomberger
1996 The French and Indian War in Pennsylvania, 1753-1763: Fortification and
Struggle During the War for Empire. Harrisburg: Pennsylvania Historical

and Museum Commission.

Wallerstein, Immanuel
1974 The Modern World-System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the
European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York: Academic

Press.

1980 The Modem World-System II: Mercantilism and the Consolidation of the
European World-Economy, 1600-1750. New York: Academic Press.

Ward, Matthew C.
1995 An Army of Servants: The Pennsylvania Regiment during" the Seven
Years’ War. The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, 119(1-

2):75-93. ‘

1997 ‘The European Method of Warring Is Not Practiced Here’: The Failure of
British Military Policy in the Ohio Valley, 1755-1759. War in History,

4(3):247-263.

2003 Breaking the Backcountry: the Seven Years' War in Virginia and
Pennsylvania, 1754-1765. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: University of
Pittsburgh Press.

Weller, Susan C. and A. Kimball Romney
1990 Metric Scaling: Correspondence Analysis. Sage University Paper Series
on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences. Newbury Park,

California: Sage.

Wells, Peter S.
2005 Creating an Imperial Frontier: Archaeology of the Formation of Rome's

Danube Borderland. Journal of Archaeological Research, 13(1):49-88.

306

Williams, Jack S.
1992 The Archaeology of Underdevelopment and the Military Frontier of
Northern New Spain. Historical Archaeology, 26(1):7-21.

\Mlliams, J. Mark and Gary Shapiro
1982 A Search for the Eighteenth Century Village at Michilimackinac: A Soil
Resistive/y Survey. Mackinac Island, Michigan: Mackinac Island State

Park Commission.

VVrlson, A. E.
1969 Notes, Illustration and Plans for the Partial Restoration of the Remains of

the Men 's Barracks, Fort Beauséjour. Ottawa: Parks Canada.

Wilson, Samuel

1993 Structure and History: Combining Archaeology and Ethnohistory in the
Contact Period Caribbean. In Ethnohistory and Archaeology: Approaches
to Postcontact Change in the Americas. J. Daniel Rogers and Samuel
\Mlson, editors, pp. 19-30. New York: Plenum Press.

Wolf, Eric R.
1982 Europe and the People Without History. Berkeley: University of California
Press. ‘

Woodhouse-Beyer, Katharine

1997 Traditional and Transcendence in Russian America: An Archaeological
Approach to Identity in Colonial Contexts. Paper presented at the All for
One or One for All?: (Re)constructing Identity in the Ancient World, Bryn
Mawr College Symposium.

Woolf, Greg

1990 World-Systems Analysis and the Roman Empire. Journal of Roman
Archaeology, 3244-58.

307