Week 8 of Field School 2017

21. March 2017 Fort Tombecbe (0)
by Ashley Dumas
Greetings all, 
I thought I would interject and elaborate on some of what we have found this semester. Before I do, however, I would like to remind you that our excavations this semester are focused on excavating small, 35 cm by 35 cm holes into which we will set the support posts for our new interpretive panels. Each "panel hole," as we have referred to them in previous blog entries, receives a number and is designated for the right or left support post. The posts will be set 3 feet apart, so some of these holes are being excavated quite closely to one another. This is good, because it gives us a better picture of what is happening under ground in that area, and while the students are excavating so closely to one another, they are able to discuss ideas and interpretations about what they are finding. 

Compared to the broader horizontal excavations we have undertaken in previous field schools, each panel hole is just a small window into what's beneath the surface. However, this is the first time that I have directed excavations inside the Spanish earthworks, and we are documenting some remarkable things about forts Tombecbe and Confederation that we did not previously understand. The "Layer C clay" that is mentioned in several blog posts was confounding. We first encountered it during the 2014 excavations of the Franco-British barracks. It was a layer of solid orange-brown clay found in only one of the meter-square units. Several of us debated whether it was a natural deposit or intentionally brought to the site, but the discovery of a small iron nail within the fill indicated the latter. The next time this mystery clay turned up was a few weeks ago, in the panel holes #6 and #7, for the left and right supports posts for the "Fort Confederation" panel. Here, however, the clay is layered on top of and between a 50 cm thick deposit of chalk cobbles. Some of them are rounded, obviously having been brought up from the river, and others have the sharper edges from being quarried. Except for one piece of bone, no artifacts have been found in the clay. The clay and chalk layer in panel hole #8 yielded a few small, decaying fruits, no more than a centimeter across. (Kudos to Natalie Mooney for spotting these and bringing them to my attention!) UWA botanist, Dr. Brian Keener, identified them as probably the fruit of the swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora), so we had further confirmation that the clay was brought up to the fort and was part of an ancient, natural soil profile. 

All of this is very exciting, because we now have evidence that this bluff was not the level, park-like setting that it is today. Significant efforts were made to level and fill the landscape by collecting or quarrying chalk and clay, and hauling these materials to the fort. After British Lieutenant Thomas Ford arrived at Fort Tombecbe to accept its transfer from the French, he made reports on the condition of its buildings and land, including the following, excerpted from a letter he wrote on December 3, 1763:
"I must observe to you in a particular manner, that the rock above mentioned decays greatly after heavy rains, and will continue so to do, if not defended wither by a brick or stone wall and proper water courses to convey heavy rains out of the fort, and as clear of the rock as possible; if the war had continued the French intended to have repaired it the ensuing summer, and had broke up four lime pitts [sic] for that purpose." (Mississippi Provincial Archives: English Dominion)
In this letter, we have confirmation of erosion problems at the fort, but it was never clear if the English or the Spanish ever followed through with plans to stop it. Our archaeology not only demonstrates that efforts were made, but that they were substantial efforts that must have required a lot of labor and time. We have not yet determined whether the French, British, or Spanish were responsible for the Layer C clay and chalk fill, but I am optimistic that the meticulous efforts of our students will yet yield a clue to solve that mystery, too. 

Week 7 of Field School 2017

10. March 2017 Fort Tombecbe (0)

by Valencia Moore

  Today (February 28, 2017) was an awesome day at field school. I have learned a lot over the past couple of weeks from my peers, Dr. Dumas, and Mr. Meredith. Myself, Skyler, Natalie, Cory, and Dr. Dumas were all present and ready to work. Once we arrived at the fort, inside the earthworks of Fort Confederation to begin working, we discovered a muddy mess due to the previous days of rain. After removing the plastic tarps used to cover the holes from the rain, we got right to work.

  Cory and Skyler begin cleaning up panel hole 6 and later in the day they were taught how to draw profile walls. It is important to have a drawing of the profile wall for each unit so the excavator or reader of the work will have a visual aid on what the unit look like before it is refilled with dirt or destroyed by nature. I continued to remove Layer C clay from panel hole 7 and noticed that the large pieces of chalk that I worked around did not appear to be in any specific arrangement. No artifacts were found in this layer of soil. Natalie continued to dig out the clay in panel hole 8 and found decayed seeds; as of now, we are not sure what type of seed they are. She has also found a lot of chalk packed into the clay. Dr. Dumas is not sure yet what this is. 

 

 

   Moving right along to Thursday, March 2, 2017, everyone was present and we had a few visitors. Black Belt Museum staff James Lamb (director), Brian Mast (public historian), Tim Truelove (technician), and Wesley (student volunteer) came to visit us today and to help complete some tasks throughout the fort. They used small, strong magnets in the ravine to see if they were useful for finding metal artifacts. They didn’t find anything, so the magnets are probably not strong enough for pulling things out of the mud. Cory and Skyler finished their drawings of the profile walls for panel hole 6. Dr. Dumas and I drew a superior view of panel hole 7 in depth. In addition, I began learning how to draw a profile wall. It was not an easy task, but once I got the basic instructions down it became an easier task to complete. 

Throughout the remainder of the day everyone continued to work on what they had previously started and worked until the end of class. But wait there is more! Natalie continued to work on panel hole 8 and sorted through a five-gallon bucket of soil from Layer C by hand and found no artifacts. The clay is almost impossible to screen and has not yielded anything but the mysterious seeds and chalk so far. I hope you enjoyed my blog and I hope to hear from you soon with any questions.

 

Week 6 of Field School 2017

10. March 2017 Fort Tombecbe (0)

This week was a bit uneventful. On Tuesday, the only class we held this week, it was raining so we held class in the lab for two and a half hours. We had brought back material from the field prior to Tuesday, so we checked the trays that had already been presorted and organized by material, such as iron, pottery, glass, etc. Now, we archaeologists talk about sorting as second nature to us, but many people might not understand what sorting or lab days in general entail. In this blog post, I will explain sorting and other things that happen in the lab.

At the site, any soil, rocks, or artifacts left in the screen are placed in a bag. On the bag is the provenience information identifying where at the site the material came from, including the particular excavation square, feature, and Field Specimen (F.S.) number (see previous blog posts for explanation of an F.S. number), plus the initials of the excavators and the date that it was excavated and screened. These bags are then brought back to what is called the “Dirty Lab” and washed. The way we wash these bags is we get a medium size plastic basin and we fill it up with water. Inside that plastic basin we place a colander to catch artifacts that might get lost at the bottom of the buddy basin. Inside the colander is where the matrix from the bag goes. It generally loses a good bit of dirt when placed in the water. We gently clean the items inside the colander by either rubbing our hands over the stuff inside, or we use a toothbrush. If the water gets too dirty then we pour it down the sink. Dirt is captured in a silt trap installed beneath the sink, so the pipes don’t get clogged. Inside the sink is a piece of window screen to catch anything small that might have fallen through. After all the material has been cleaned, we line old cafeteria trays with newspaper and we spread out all of the wet material on the tray to dry. It then dries for roughly 24 hours. After it is dried, the sorting process begins.

I have been made fun of multiple times by my friends, because when sorting, it appears as though we are only looking at rocks. At Fort Tombecbe, chalk rubble is what most of the matrix consists of after washing, but there are often miniscule artifacts within the chalk rubble, which is why we have to go through it very carefully. For example, the glass beads that were used for trade between the colonialists and the Indians are often smaller than your fingernail. When you find an artifact while sorting, you remove it from the rest of the matrix and place it into different categories based on what the artifact is. It is generally more expedient to have little Styrofoam trays to place them onto. These categories are used so that it is easier to find and understand how much of each item is in the area. This can be interpreted in later research to determine what these people were doing, how they were doing it, and how well off they were. Some examples of categories that we use in the lab include iron, brick, daub, bone, charcoal, Indian ceramic, European ceramic, lead shot, gun flint, glass, beads, and UID which stands for unidentified. UID is for when we don’t know what something is and it needs to be identified later. These categories are essential in the processing or recovery of artifacts.

After everything is separated into categories, we place them in bags according to their category and put all relevant information on them, which includes the site number, FS number, layer of the unit, the date it was dug, the digger’s initials, and finally what it is. Then we place the flagging tape which has all of that information inside the larger bag that all the little bags go in. It is important to maintain all of that information so context will not be lost. By placing the information in three different places it is harder to lose the extremely valuable information.

Week 4 of Field School 2017

21. February 2017 Fort Tombecbe (0)
by Cory Sly
Hello to all of our Fort Tombecbe blog readers out there! This is my first experience with field school after several years of being involved with Anthropology courses. Field school has been particularly compelling for me due to a unique personal interest in the history of the Fort itself. Last Thursday (02/09/17) we had another exciting day of field school, where I continued excavating post hole #6. This is the same 35 cm-square hole we were excavating on our last date. We are still in the same F.S. (field specimen number), because the soil profile layer has not visibly changed. We began to excavate around some pieces of odd shaped chalk that appear to be features instead of natural deposits. As we carefully excavated around the chalk features they appeared to go deeper and also extend into the profile wall. After working around the chalk features and excavating as much loose dirt as possible we cleaned up the hole for a picture and screened the loose dirt for traces of artifacts. Unfortunately, after several days of rain had passed, it turned the soil into a very dense clay that was prone to forming into small “raisinet” sized clumps while screening the dirt. The dirt that was clumped up and couldn’t be properly screened was then bagged so that it could be brought to the lab for further analysis.
Can you see Layers A, B, and C in the photo below? The chalk blocks are just appearing within Layer C clay. 

Week 5 of Field School 2017

21. February 2017 Fort Tombecbe (0)

by Skyler Browder

2-14-17

Today we continued to work at a slow pace on panel holes six, seven, and eight. We are working at a slow pace in order to make sure we preserve anything that might be found. In both holes we found what is believed to be either back fill or postholes of some sort, as of now we are not exactly sure what it means. In panel hole six we finished cleaning it out and took picture to document the hole. We take pictures of the dig sites so we are able to keep track of everything, like the strange chalk rocks that we found in all three of the holes, to help us better understand what we are looking at. While this was going on, we also opened two more holes for the panel signs that will explain the location of the fort's gate and the Spanish oven. Fortunately, the 1980 dig led by Jim Parker included excavations near the gate and the Spanish oven, which means that we could put these panel holes in previously disturbed soil. Fort the panel hole at the gate we were able to dig roughly 50 cm deep, even though it continued to go further down. At first it was sand, which was just back fill from the previous excavation. Lower down and beneath a layer of black plastic, almost 30 cm down, it turned to more of a hard orange clay with sand. We think this is also back fill and stopped digging at 50 cm below the surface, which is deep enough for setting in the panel post. Fort the Spanish oven panel hole, we dug through about 30 cm of sand back fill. Beneath that was a layer of plastic. Beneath the plastic we began seeing large pieces of chalk rubble. It could be a part of the oven, maybe an outer wall, although it could have just been rubble from the 1980 dig. Once we encountered this chalk, we stopped and called it done. For both of the holes we documented the depth and the back fill. No artifacts were found in the holes.  

This photo shows the back fill from the 1980 excavations. Look carefully in the profile to see the black plastic they used to cover their excavations. Beneath the plastic is orange clay. 


2-16-17

Today we continued working on panel holes seven and eight; they should be done by next week. While those were being worked on, we opened up a new hole for installing the panel that explains the ramp to the river. The ramp was a difficult dig. While digging, we were not able to dig down past 13 cm. Basically it was the topsoil, and then we hit bedrock. There were no artifacts found in the hole. At panel hole seven we removed the rocks, while leaving imprints to be able to place them back down next week when Layer C is finished for that hole. They were removed to be able to level out the layer. In panel hole eight the dig continued, and towards the northwest corner, we found a collection of chalk rocks that formed a hole in the middle. The hole looks like it was a place for maybe a post. Speculation at the time is either a fence post or to support a post that was used to protect wood from the weather. In the hole, there was a small seed found. While walking around the outside of the fort, Dr. Meredith found a grey pistol gunflint in the Spanish moat. It was most likely washed into that area. 

As you can see below, there's not much topsoil near the edge of the cliff!

Week 3 of Field School 2017

7. February 2017 Fort Tombecbe (2)

Hello Readers,

Today (February 2, 2017) I got my hands dirty. Since I am new to field school every day is a learning experience for me. I am super excited to finally use the skills I have learned while taking Archeology/ Anthropology courses. I began excavating inside of Fort Confederation. The post hole that will be discussed is post hole number 6, which is being excavated as a 35 cm-square unit before placing a sign in this particular area. The purpose of this future sign is to inform tourists about the exact location and history of Fort Confederation.

Before excavating in this area, a field specimen number (F.S. #) was assigned. A “F.S. #” is a number that signifies a location and all contents found in that location. Contents of one F.S. # should never be mixed with contents from another F.S. #. After assigning the location a F.S. #, proper excavation tools were gathered, and I began excavating this unit. The first layer of soil (Layer A) was dark in color and lots of gravel was scattered throughout the area, possibly from the construction of the 20th-century road that was put inside the fort. I hypothesized this is where the gravel came from because the road is about 12 ft south of the post hole. In addition, a small piece of green bottle glass was removed from Layer A. While excavating Layer A and approaching the second layer (Layer B), charred wood was removed from the unit. It is not clear what purpose the charred wood or glass served in the fort, but they are probably associated with the 1794-1797 occupation of Fort Confederation. Once Layer B was visible it appeared to be filled with bits of chalk. Layer B has not been completely excavated so there are no further details about it. During the next part of the excavation, I hope to excavate beyond the third layer (Layer C) and be able to present more educational details about the unit. It will be interesting to know if there are artifacts associated with Fort Tombecbe even deeper. 

Above is a photo of me removing Layer A. Below is a photo of the unit we're digging for panel post 7, but it has the same Layer B chalk (visible in the profile wall) that I was working on today. 

Week 2 of Field School 2017

1. February 2017 Fort Tombecbe (0)
by Natalie Mooney
This is the second week of excavations for the 2017 Spring Field School. Currently the group is excavating the holes for the informative panels at Fort Tombecbe. Upon arrival at the site on Tuesday we finished screening the soil for Panel Holes 1 and 2. Screening is important, because if we simply remove the soil from these holes, even if it is nothing more than a shovel test, then we could possibly miss artifacts. In Panel Holes 1 and 2 we did not recover any artifacts, however during the excavation of Panel Holes 3 and 4 we found three different artifacts that all were from the nineteenth century. In Panel Hole 3 we found a sherd from an Albany slip stoneware vessel.  At this point we assumed that we found it in the second layer, because the topmost layer of soil at this site is mostly related to the mid-20th century campground. Archaeologists ascribe arbitrary names to the different layers in soil. Each layer may have a different color, texture, or amount of artifacts, which depends on what sort of activities created that layer of soil. At Fort Tombecbe, it is likely that the top layer will be dark loamy soil with clay. In the second layer it will have more clay and chalk. The layers of soil at this site, also called stratigraphy, look remarkably like a Snickers bar. 


In Panel Hole 4, contrary to our previous ideas, we found that the Albany slip sherd most likely came from the top-most layer of soil. This is because we found a sherd of the same vessel from that layer. In the second layer, named Layer B, we found the third artifact of the day-- the base of a stoneware vessel that has a salt glazed exterior and an Albany slipped interior. That was all that was found in those layers. After that we dug Panel hole 5, which is located in the moat of Fort Confederation. After the English abandoned Fort Tombecbe in 1768, the Spanish eventually took over the fort in 1787. They renamed it Fort Confederation and created large earthworks in order to stop possible artillery from the Americans.  Outside of these earthworks they placed a moat in order to slow military advancement. We did not reach the base chalk layer in this area. Reaching the base chalk layer in any excavation is important, because that means there is no further human alteration to the soil. We left that hole unfinished for the rest of the week until we can procure a 1-inch diameter soil corer explore more deeply.  We received a visitor to the Fort on Tuesday in the form of the illustrious Dr. Rob Riser, who was there to collect some of the wild garlic that grows in the fort. 

On Thursday, we began excavation work on Panel hole 6. This is the first panel hole that is officially inside of Fort Confederation. We were curious as to whether we would encounter remains of the Spanish Blockhouse at this location, and it turns out we were correct in our assumptions. Within a few digs of the shovel we ran into large amounts of charcoal. At this point Dr. Dumas made an executive decision to excavate this panel hole as a small excavation unit at 35 cm x 35 cm. We learned the technique to create a perfect square for the unit. This is important because in Archaeology there are grids we superimpose over the landscape to maintain the context gathered from each unit as carefully as possible.  Basically, in order to create a perfect square you use right triangles. First, you make a line with pin flags the length and width you want to make your unit, which was in this case 35 cm. Then, you use the Pythagorean Theorem to figure out the distance to the other corner,  in this case 49.5 cm. Then you use the two rulers and make the 35 cm match with the 49.5 cm and place a pin flag there. Then repeat for the other corner. In the excavation of Panel hole 6 we found interesting artifacts and features, such as a burned board, which explains the charcoal. We also found a healthy amount of metal artifacts such as nails. These artifacts and the location that we were in the fort indicated that we likely had found a burned board of the Spanish Blockhouse.  


This discovery meant that for Panel Hole 7, we needed to start it as an excavation unit. So we organized the unit with a little trouble without help from Dr. Dumas, but we eventually sorted it out and began excavating the unit. We did not dig deep enough to discover any artifacts before we had to leave. 

Week 1 of Field School 2017

25. January 2017 Fort Tombecbe (0)
By Skyler Browder
Tuesday January 17, 2017:

We started out by plotting and planning where and how we were going to place our new informational signs around the fort. While doing so we had to keep in mind of places that might have already been excavated, or places that might affect future digs. There are 12 signs in total that we plan to put up throughout the fort. After the spots were chosen, we began to start digging and sifting the dirt for the first two holes. The first hole we were able to dig about 23 cm before we hit chalk, and were not able to go much further. The second hole was roughly 91 cm away. We were able to dig about 30 cm before we hit chalk again. The soil layers for the first hole were 0-8 cm dark brown clayey loam with a lot of gravel and roots. It turns out that the gravel was all brought in about 40 years ago when parts of the site were used for a camp ground. The next layer was roughly 8-21 cm light grayish brown clayey loam. Then, at  21-23 cm we hit chalk bedrock. In the first hole there was "no field recovery," which means that we did not find any artifacts. For hole two, from 0-9 cm it was dark brown clayey loam with less gravel than hole one. From 9-28 cm, a light grey with a powdery chalk was mixed into the soil. Then, from 28-30 cm it was chalk, bedrock. There was also no field recovery for the second hole.

Thursday, January 19, 2017:

Today we were not able to go out into the field due to inclement weather. Instead of doing fieldwork, we stayed in the lab and first went over the basics for taking down Field Specimen logs and the proper way to label the bags. Each Field Specimen number, or F.S. number, refers to the specific part of the fort  where an artifact was found. These numbers help us keep the artifacts associated with their context. We also discussed the proper utensils to use in the lab to label specific artifacts, and how to do so. After we got use to writing with calligraphy ink, we all practiced labeling, allowing us to get hands-on with some of the artifacts that have been found in previous years. Each artifact is labeled with its F.S. number, so that we will always know where its place was at the fort. 

Dr. Dumas's note: Imagine having an ancient, fragile book. Imagine that this is the only book about a particular place and time in history. Imagine that some of the pages are missing--some have rotted and some have been stolen. Now imagine that the only way to read what remains of the important story inside is to carefully take part the book, page by page, word by word. Wouldn't it make sense to keep all those pages in order and to keep words found together on the page all together back in the lab, where you can reassemble the story? This is the point of CONTEXT in archaeology. Archaeological sites are like history books, many of them rare. Artifacts are the words, layers of artifacts in the ground are the sentences. Some of the words have deteriorated, some taken. To make sense of what's left, we keep up with layers and assign everything that we remove with a label, such as an F.S. number. 

Why Do I Need an Appointment to Visit?

23. June 2015 Fort Tombecbe (0)
One of the more common questions we get about Fort Tombecbe is why we strongly encourage people to contact us before visiting the site. One answer is that much of the land around the fort is privately owned, including the land with the access road to the site, and you must go through a privately-owned gate and cattle gap to access that road. There are often cattle grazing in the fields near the fort. We ask that anyone wishing to visit the fort respect the rights of the private landowners and that you do not access the fort without a guide from UWA. 

Another answer is that there has been quite a bit of vandalism, littering, and looting of the site over the years. We hope to reduce this sort of destructive behavior by keeping up with "who goes there!" 

Besides these reasons, you may get more out of your visit with one of our knowledgeable staff members along! 

Go to our Contact page for information on who to call or email about a visit to Fort Tombecbe. 

About This Blog

23. June 2015 Fort Tombecbe (0)
The Fort Tombecbe website blog is for two primary purposes: 1) to make announcements and provide detailed information about events or activities associated with the site, and 2) to provide background information on the site, including its history, management, and what we are learning about it through archaeology. Should you have specific questions or like to suggest a topic for the blog, please contact Dr. Ashley Dumas at adumas@uwa.edu or use the Comment box below. We'd love to hear from you!