Redware Pottery 

        by John Nass, Jr., Editor, President of Mon Yough Chapter 3

 Season Greetings!

     In order to get back on track with the Mon Yough Chapter Blog, I will be writing a series of vignettes on artifact classes often found on French and English colonial sites, and sites postdating the Revolutionary War. Vignettes are basically a short narrative.

     The first vignette considers redware, a lead glazed earthenware pottery found on historical sites from the 16^th century until the early 20^th century. Redware gets its name from the reddish brown colored paste used to structure the vessels. During this lengthy period of time redware was used in the kitchen, the dairy parlor, for laundry, hygiene/washing, and the family meal table. Redware was also used for meals at commercial localities such as taverns.

     Excavations at the Green Tree Tavern Stand in Fayette County recovered a fair amount of redware. Much of it resembles the redware vessels shown in this image below. In fact, redware is a very prolific type of ceramic, having been found at every historical site (Searight’s Tavern, Peter Colley Tavern, Gaddis Fort, and Nemacolin Castle) investigated by California University of Pennsylvania in Fayette Counties. 

     Of the redware vessels represented within these various collections are redware flatware (plates) and bowls that are decorated with a slip decoration (see below). Decoration is applied by slip-trailing in white, and is simple and geometric. Designs include broad bands, stripes, loops and lobes. The interior surface is then covered with a clear lead glaze. Slip decoration was applied to the following redware shapes: Bowls, Jars, Jugs, Pitchers, plates, platters, saucer, and tea pots.

     It is rare to find a complete or even a broken vessel that can be cross-mended. Most recovered sherds resemble the example shown below and sometimes the slip has spalled off the sherds, leaving the imprint or pattern of the slip design. Such wares were produced from the mid 18^th century into the 1820/30s.

Slip decorated redware plate.

    Slip decorated redware bowl.

     Like stoneware, redware was often produced for local consumption by small businesses, which could range from an individual to a group of artisans. The well-known stoneware potters of Greensboro in western Pennsylvania produced an array of products for both local and distant markets., made possible via river transportation.  Redware, however, was often produced by a family strictly for local consumption.

 

Example of an archaeologically recovered sherd.

     Excavations at urban redware potteries have recovered a plethora of vessel forms. In contrast, I believe it is safe to say that a small, rural, family operated redware pottery has never been excavated in Pennsylvania. Since the distribution of redware vessels by a rural pottery is usually circumscribed, most small communities were probably serviced by at least one redware pottery.   

     All of the sites that I previously mention have examples of undecorated and slip decorated redware and I assume that it was produced somewhere around Uniontown or Brownsville in Fayette County, Pennsylvania. To be able to find and excavate a small, intact redware pottery site would be a major achievement.

                                               

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

Roles of Historical Archaeology in the Interpretation of our Historic       Past, Part IV

    by John Nass, Jr., Editor, President of Mon Yough Chapter 3

 Ground Truth based Reconstruction

     The ultimate purpose of this usage of archaeologically based reconstruction is the meticulous rebuilding of structures on the original footprint of the building using period building methods. The two outstanding examples of this usage are Fort Michilmackinac at the straights of Michigan and James Fort, the fortified settlement known as Jamestown in tidewater Virginia. 

     Fort Michilmackinac was built by the French in 1715 during its conflict with the Fox Nation in the western Great Lakes region. After the end of hostilities, the post became a central node in the network of French fort/trading posts in the Great Lakes region. The post was surrendered to the British at the end
of the French and Indian War who enlarged the fortification. The fort was captured and held by Native Americans during Pontiac's uprising in1763. The British assumed control of the fort after the conflict and retained ownership until the Revolutionary. War, the the fort was abandoned in favor of a new, more defendable fort on nearby Mackinac Island. 

  

     Excavation at the site occurred during the WPA era and led to the reconstruction of the British palisade line. Small interpretative structures were built to display artifacts found during the WPA investigation. As a young boy, my family would visit the fort each summer in the 1950s on our way across the straits on a lake ferry to St Ignace. 

     In the 1950s new excavations were sponsored by the state as a first step in the renovation of the WPS erected palisade and structures seen in this early postcard. Excavation reestablished the location of the palisade and identified the footprint of several structures (see postcard to left).

     The site reopened in the 1960s. Inside, the new reconstruction were the rebuilt soldiers barrack, the home of the commanding officer, and a French Church. Each of these structures was rebuilt on its original footprint. Extensive archival and architectural research were conducted to learn about 18th century British and French building traditions. The resulting structures are considered true to the period. 

     Since then, excavations at the fort have continued each summer. As work slowly progresses, additional structures are delineated and some of these have been rebuilt using the same detailed construction methods. Others, such as the power magazine, were exposed, stabilized, and then protected from the elements with a protective structure.  

     

  

Images inside of fort.

Aerial images of the fort

     Archaeology at 1607James Fort in Virginia has been nearly continuous since being discovered in 1994 by the Jamestown Discovery Team. Excavation disclosed that most of the 1607 fort still exists. This realization has proved to be a watershed for revealing the lives of the fort's inhabitants for the first decade of the colony's existence.   L

     Like Fort Michilmackinac, the palisade and rebuilt structures are located atop the footprints of the buildings. Extensive research was needed to insure the the structures were constructed as accurately as possible. Nothing is rebuilt until detailed plans have been developed. The structures rebuilt thus reflect the 17th century building tradition of the English colonists. 

Rebuilt bastion and portions of the stockade.

Several rebuilt dwellings within the fort. 

            

     The stories of Fort Michilmackinac and James Fort are still unfolding. 

     In summary, the purpose purpose of this discourse has been to draw attention to the purpose or goals of historical reconstruction. Is the goal an idealized version of what we think was the past, based on imperfect information, or should we instead accept archaeological evidence, or is ground truth.   

    Of course, historical reconstruction and/or the interpretation of historical sites can also be polarized through the intentional disregard for the facts as revealed by archaeology for an alternative narrative that cherry-picks what the public will experience.   

    Bruce Trigger expressed this point in an article (1984) in the journal of Man entitled “alternative archaeologies.” He identified what he believed were three different types of archaeology, each associated with a different historical social/political context. These were nationalist, colonialist, and imperialist. While we are still living within the colonialist- type paradigm, the nationalist and imperialist are the most concerning because each can be twisted or bent to service the agenda of the prevailing political climate.    

   And this point returns me to the theme of reconstruction and/or interpretation. I believe both must be negotiated, especially when archaeology does not uphold or support opinions about sites and events as envisioned by the sponsoring group. For this reason, I believe it is important for archaeology to not loose focus about the proper presentation of the past. If we fail to assume our responsibility, what we know to be factual will be brushed aside and replaced with a new narrative that will corrupt the story that we have worked for years to craft.

   

                   

Roles of Historical Archaeology in the Interpretation of Our  Historic Past, Part III

        by John Nass, Jr., Editor, President of Mon Yough Chapter 3

Stabilizing of existing structural remains with little to no additional reconstruction

     The focus of this role is to present to the visitor an image of what had existed at a particular site through the use of signage, landscaping as a means to outline architectural features, the stabilization of extant remains, and the usage of stone and wood to outline the location of once extant buildings. Two such examples are Fort Frederica in Georgia and Tellico Blockhouse in Tennessee.

     The Fort Frederica settlement on St. Simons Island was built by James Oglethorpe in 1736, to serve as a buffer to help protect the city of Savannah, itself established in 1732 by Oglethorpe, from the Spanish colony in Florida. Oglethorpe also planned a community around the fort. The settlement on St. Simons Island, however, slipped into obscurity once the threat from Florida was alleviated and the garrison abandoned the fort. By 1800, little remained of the the settlement except foundations and structure depressions. 

     Excavations were undertaken in the 1950s, with the usage of historical records, were able to relocate structures and homes within the settlement. The locations of government building the homes of artisans and other prominent members of the colony along Broad Street, the main roadway through the community, are denoted by the cleaver usage of rebuilt foundations and basements with signage, while house depressions are delineated using  stone and wooden outlines around the house depressions.  

Diagram of the fortified Frederica settlement showing Fort Frederica along the river at the top of the diagram.

Reconstructed power magazine in the background. South storehouse foundation in the foreground.

Foundation of the home of Francis Moore, James Oglethorpe's secretary.

Home site of candlemaker John Calwell.

     The second example is Tellico Blockhouse, built by the government in Tennessee in 1794. The outpost operated until 1807. Its purpose was to help maintain good relation with the nearby Overhill Cherokee towns even as settlers encroached upon Cherokee lands. Over its history, the Tellico Blockhouse served as the site of several treaties with the Cherokee.

     In 1975, congress passed the Factory Act, with the intent to maintain good relations with the Cherokee and other Native nations in the southeast by establishing trading posts and to help the Native Americans adopt certain Euromerican trades, as well as acquiring finished goods and agricultural tools through the exchange of furs. As a result of the Factory Act, Tellico was expanded to incorporate a civilian staff to achieve these goals.  

Excavations were conducted at the Blockhouse site in the 1970s in response to the building of the Tellico Dam by the TVA.  The footprint of the fort's buildings were located. However, the lack of records prevented any reconstruction of the fort. Instead, the foundations were rebuilt and wooden posts used to show the position of the blockhouse walls so visitors could see the fort's layout. Interpretative signage was also used to identify the building foundations and explain the fort's history.

   

Google Earth image of Blockhouse outline.

     What I find interesting is the clever usage of rebuilt foundations, gravel, sand, and wooden posts to delineate the foot print of the buildings and fortifications at both Frederica and Tellico. When done correctly, the visitor is presented with all the relevant information regarding the location of buildings, structure footprints, the and the length of grass to locate fortifications, and the layout of the site with only minimal reconstruction. 

  

Roles of Historical Archaeology in the Interpretation of Our Historic Past, Part II

        by John Nass, Jr.

                                                 Editor, President of Mon Yough Chapter 3

Complete reconstruction to make the past live again

     The purpose of this role is to reconstruct structures found through archaeological excavation. The scale or scope of this approach can vary from a single structure, to an entire set of structures, such as a fortification. Examples of this role include Fort Necessity National Battlefield Site, Pennsylvania; Fort Ligonier, Pennsylvania; and Fort Loudoun, Tennessee.

     Fort Necessity National Battlefield Site experienced two episodes of excavation. One in the 1930s by the WPA, and another in the 1950s by J. C. Harrington. The WPA investigation failed to locate any structural evidence of the fortification hastily built by at the Great Meadows by soldiers under the command of George Washington in 1754. The resulting presentation of the fortification (breastwork and blockhouse) were more the imagination of the excavators and historians than factual data. 

                                                                                  

Site map based on Harrington's excavations.  

     Harrington's investigation was published as a monograph in 1957 as "New Light on Washington's Fort Necessity: a report on the archaeological explorations at Fort Necessity National Battlefield Site." The reconstruction of the fortification is placed atop the original foot print of the palisade and the storehouse. Visitors to the site are presented with a fairly accurate portrayal of of fortification.  

                

    

Image of reconstruction based on Harrington's work.     

                                                                                       

     Fort Ligonier, Pennsylvania, is a fairly accurate rendering of the French and Indian War fortification built by the British 1758 during the Forbes campaign again Fort Duquesne at modern day Pittsburgh. The post was decommissioned in 1766. The first archaeological investigation of the fort occurred in 1947. At that time the Ligonier Memorial Foundation enlisted the services of historian Charles M. Stotz to research records made of the fort in the 18th century, while Eugene M. Gardner conducted excavations on the land donated by the DAR to the foundation. Gardner located evidence of the fort, but the actual footprint was not located Grimm 1970).

    The major excavation of the fort's setting occurred between 1960 and 1965 under the supervision of Jacob L. Grimm. Excavation recovered evidence of the fortification's footprint along with hundreds of artifacts. With these data, reconstruction commenced, resulting in the reconstructed fort (Grimm 1970). Since that time additional property was acquired and additional archaeology help delineate the location of the outer defenses.  

Oblique image of Fort Ligonier showing the location of the site against the community of Ligonier. 

Aerial view of the fort itself.

     The final site to be discussed is Fort Loudoun in Tennessee. This fortification was also built during the French and Indian War at the request of the Cherokee Nation by the British in 1756 adjacent to the Little Tennessee River. It was hoped the presence of the fort would have a moderating effect to offset the influence of the French upon the Native Americans.

                                                                             

     Initial excavation at the site was sponsored by the WPA in 1936-1937. Other excavations at the site took place between 1558 and 1975 to answer specific questions relating to the reconstruction of the fortification 1n 1956-1957. Excavation at the site between 1936 and 1975 consisted of 5 foot squares an trenches to locate evidence of stone foundations and the inner and outer palisade walls. The outer stockade wall was rebuilt, as were the magazine and the guardhouse. Several chimney bases discovered during the WPA excavations were also built so visitors could see where other structures had once been located.

                                                             

 Reconstructed Fort Loudoun

     In 1975 the Tennessee Division of Archaeology, conducted excavations at the site in advance of the building of of TVA reservoir. The project required the complete excavation of the interior of the for, as well as establishing the location of the outside fortifications. Although excavation revealed a more complex site than first realized, with several period building foundations located that were not on any official British documents . Not all of the discovered buildings were rebuilt for the rendering of the fort see today. The rebuilt fort sits an the bluff overlooking the reservoir and the location of the original fort which is beneath several feet of water. 

References

Grimm, Jacob L

1970 Archaeological Investigation of Fort Ligonier, 1960-1965. Annals of Carnegie Museum, Vol. 42. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Harrington, Jean C.

1957  New Light on Washington's Fort Necessity: a Report on the Archaeological Explorations at Fort Necessity National Battlefield Site. Eastern National Park and Monument Association, NPS, Washington, D.C. 

Kuttruff, Carl 

2010 Fort Loudoun in Tennessee, 1756-1760: History, Archaeology, Replication, Exhibits,  and Interpretation. Tennessee division of Archaeology, Research Series No.17. Waldenhouse Publishers, Inc. /signal Hill, Tennessee.

          

               

  Roles of Historical Archaeology in the Interpretation of 

                         Our Historic Past, Part I

                                        by John Nass, Jr.

                                                            Editor, President of Mon Yough Chapter 3

Comments from the editor: This contribution is taken from my historical lectures while teaching at California University of Pennsylvania.  Over the years, I came to realize that historical archaeology has been and is still used to accomplish certain tasks, especially those that involve the portrayal of historical events and historical period sites. 

Introduction     

     The scholarly debate in the 1950s-1960s to define the proper subject matter of historical archaeology, who is qualified to excavate historic period sites, and move it beyond simply assisting historians was intense and sometimes vicious (see Schuyler 1978, editor). I prefer the description of Historical Archaeology posited by Charles Orser, “it is a multi-disciplinary field that shares a relationship with both History and Anthropology” (Orser 2016). 

     In the 1970s research by Stanley South (1977, 1978) and others, helped define the theoretical and anthropological trajectory for Historical Archaeology. Since that time, the discipline has made great strides in helping us understanding now gender, nationalism, ethnicity, social status, and ideological teachings can be gleamed from the archaeological record with the assistance of documents.

     As stated above, I believe it is possible to sort historical archaeological investigation of the built environment into several themes. These are: 1) Archaeology assisted on-site interpretation of extant structures for visitors; 2) complete reconstruction to make the past live again; 3) stabilizing of existing structural remains with little to no additional reconstruction; and 4) ground truth based reconstruction. This installment will focus on the first of the four themes. 

     Examples of the first role, assisted on-site interpretation of an extant historical site, include Williamsburg in Virginia; Monticello, the home of Thomas Jefferson in Virginia ; Fort Mackinac on Mackinac Island Michigan; and the Hermitage, the home of Andrew Jackson in Tennessee. At each of these sites, commissions, or foundations, or agencies have used targeted archaeology to enrich the educational experience of the visitor by revealing the lives of the people who worked, lived and died at these sites.   

     Colonial Williamsburg was saved from falling victim to urban blight by the John D. Rockefeller, Jr. in the 1920s. The city of Williamsburg was established at the site of Middle Plantation in 1699. The evolving community was renamed Williamsburg in honor of King William III of England. The town functioned as the capital of the colony and Commonwealth from 1699 to 1780.  

     Colonial Williamsburg was saved from falling victim to urban blight by the John D. Rockefeller, Jr. and his wife Abby Aldrich Rockefeller in the 1920s.  Their effort created Colonial Williamsburg, a 301 acre historic area celebrating the historical importance of the colonial-era. Archaeological investigation within the historic area has been ongoing since the 1920s. One of the earliest excavation projects was establishing the location of the colonial Governor's Palace that burned in the 1780s. The structural complex was later rebuilt on the exact footprint of the original residence in the 1930s. Today the Archaeology Department is actively engaged in revealing the social history of the people who lived at this historic community. Costumed guides, craftsman, and others give the visitor an idea of what life was like for some members of the community. 

   

Carriage outside of the reconstructed colonial Governor's mansion at Williamsburg, Virginia.

    While the Rockefeller's supported Williamsburg, other historically significant properties such as Monticello, the Hermitage, and other sites such as Mount Vernon and the Jamestown Rediscovery Project were saved by preservation minded women's associations. 

     Monticello has been maintained and kept open to the public by the non-profit Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc, which owns nearly 3000 acres of the original 5000 acre plantation. Archaeological investigations over the past several years have focused on two areas: the craft activities buildings along a service road west of the main house, and the accommodations and activities of enslaved individuals around the plantation.    

    

Monticello, home of President Thomas Jefferson, Virginia.

     Fort Mackinac was built near the end of the Revolutionary War in 1780/1781 on Mackinac Island by the British who had abandoned wooden Fort Michilmackinac at the straights of Mackinac (Mackinac City). American forces took possession of thReferene fortification ca. 1796, lost it during the War of 1812, and reoccupied it until the late 19th century. Today the fortification is operated by the Mackinac Park Commission. 

     Archaeological and historical investigations have focused on the lives of the soldiers who garrisoned the fortification, such as the lifestyles of the officer class, wives of the enlisted men, their diet, recreational activities, etc. for both British and American soldiers. The fort also has a living history program during its summer season. 

View of Fort Mackinac, Mackinac Island, Michigan, from Sthe harbor.

Inside of Fort Mackinac.

  

          The Hermitage, outside of Nashville, Tennessee, was the home of  President Jackson from 1804 until 1845. The Ladies Hermitage Association, renamed the Andrew Jackson Foundation in 2014, acquired from the state the core 25-acre site with existing key buildings of the Hermitage in 1889. 

     The evolution of the plantation occurred in two phases: purchase of the original farm buildings and acreage in 1804 and occupied until the Federal-style, brick mansion was finished in 1821, and the post-1821 period. Rebuilding of the fire damaged mansion in 1834, created the Greek Revival appearance seen today. 

     Archeological testing by the state in 1975, at the request of the foundation, focused on  Jackson's home and slave quarters of the first Hermitage to gather information about the material culture and dietary behavior of the enslaved workers and the Jackson's. Inhouse archaeological investigation continue at the site.  

The First Hermitage, used by Jackson prior to the building of his larger mansion in 1821.

The later Hermitage, remodeled in the Greek Revival style, 

     What is significant about the archaeological research at these sites is the effort to go beyond simply providing signage for the visitor to read and rooms with furnishings. What were the lives of children really like in the colonial period? Why were housed built the way they were? How was their perception of refuse different from ours? How was landscaping used to structure the placement of formal gardens, gardening spaces, and outbuildings? These and other questions offer a real glimpse into the world view of the people. 

 References

Orser, Charles E, Jr.

2016 Historical Archaeology, 3^rd edition, Routledge, London.

South, Stanley

1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.

 1977 Research Strategies in Historical Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.

1978 Research Strategies for Archaeological Pattern Recognition on Historic Sites. World Archaeology 10(1):36-50.

Schuyler,  Robert L., editor

1978 Historical Archaeology: A Guide to Substantive and Theoretical Contributions. Baywood Publishing, Farmingdale, New York.