by Ashley DumasGreetings 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.