Did someone say ceramics...?

Hello, 

During our last week of excavation, Hollie and I had some cool finds in our unit, N10 E3, a couple of which were ceramic sherds. Both of these sherds (pictured left) have a white glaze as well as some decoration, one being just blue and white while the other also includes a brown/orange squiggle. While these are certainly not the first ceramic sherds discovered at Fort St. Joseph, they still constitute an interesting find.

Other significant ceramic sherds found at the site include a white faience sherd (below left) found at N6 E2 and a white saltglazed sherd (below right) found at S2 W6. There have been a number of tiny pieces of faience found throughout the site as well.    
            

While an analysis of excavated ceramics has not yet been done, we do have information on ceramics found before excavations began, as well as data for Fort Michilimackinac. The ceramics fall into several categories, each with multiple subcategories. In both this data and the data for Fort Michilimackinac, earthenware, particularly white and blue ceramic, was most common. Stoneware, such as the saltglazed sherd that was found here, was much less common. The ceramic sherds we found in our unit seem to be blue and white French faience as well as blue and buff polychrome. 

Ceramics can provide lots of useful information about our site. They can give us an insight into many different areas, such as the presence or absence of class, social status, or other differences, trade patterns, or even what people are eating and drinking. They can also be used to date the site. Even though ceramic artifacts are not nearly as common as other artifacts like bone or seed beads, they play a very important role in furthering our understanding of what life was like at Fort St. Joseph.

Thanks for reading!

Emma

Fin. The end.

A letter to all the Fort Followers,

August 11th marked the final day of the WMU field school excavation work at Fort St. Joseph. Everyone has worked extremely hard through insane heat, long days, and the occasional downpour. We shoveled and troweled our way from 21st century Niles, Michigan to 18th century New France. We cleaned and sorted every artifact recovered from the site; each expanding our knowledge of the day-to-day activities of those once lived there. And along the way, we have made friends while hopefully gaining some insight into fort occupants. 

Over the course of the last month, we learned the importance of public archaeology and the impact that has on the Project. The public is the driving factor, and without the public, the story of Fort St. Joseph may never have been told. We strive to inform the community of the work we have done, and continue to do, to promote an understanding of the fort and its residents as well as to increase public interest. These public outreach opportunities not only help inform the local community but also help reinforce the knowledge gained by the students. It is through these interactions that Fort St. Joseph will be remembered as we strive to expand public knowledge of not only the fort, but of the processes that archaeologists use to uncover the past. 

The importance of the field school cannot be overstated. Through the field school, students learn the methods necessary to paint such pictures. We also learn that careful preservation and historical research that can help us do our part to save the past for future generations. We are now able to employ our skills  as we transition from students to professionals in the field of anthropology and archaeology. 

I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in the field school and I am overwhelmed by the support and interest that the city of Niles and the public have shown in our findings, it really makes everything worthwhile. I will look back on this experience with fondness and pride because of how my work played a small part in telling the story of Fort St. Joseph.

While the dig season may have closed, the lab season is just beginning. 

John

Fabulous Features

Hey Fort Followers,

This field season has brought countless findings, including two new features identified in me and my unit partner’s very own unit! A feature is an immovable “artifact” that indicates human activity. For example, a feature can be a wall, hearth, post, and more. Our unit was located the farthest west of the season. We chose the spot for our unit because we wanted to see if we could find evidence of a boundary of the fort. For many weeks, we were not turning up as many artifacts as the other units were. Many of us, including some instructors, began to worry that our unit would not have an occupation zone, but instead only have what we call a B Horizon. This is the dirt that would have been underneath the fort at the time of occupation without any cultural activity. At around 40 centimeters below datum, we noticed something odd. In the ground, an unusually large stone appeared, and this stone grew increasingly in diameter every time we troweled away more dirt. Officially, this collection of large stones, mortared rocks, and gravel fill is called Feature 30. 

After the fun ands excitement of finding evidence of a structure after long weeks with low artifact density, we noticed some suspicious circular dirt spots. To investigate if they could be posts, we first bisected the spot located in the northeast of the unit. With the top of the possible post at 40 centimeters below datum, we trowelled a rectangular area, bisecting half, down to 55 centimeters below datum, revealing a cone-shaped mold on the profile. Within the darker soil of the possible post, we found a few pieces of wood. All of the dirt from the possible post was removed and placed in a bag to be later floated in the lab. This float sample would allow us to recover any material light enough to float on water such as wood or seeds. Ultimately, we decided it was not an intact post, but a post mold. This would be named Feature 31.

In the image above, we can see the final plan view of our unit. In the left part of the image, we see Feature 30, a large stone surrounded by many smaller rocks. Note the large mortared stone near the center of the unit. In the upper right, we see the rectangular area that was used to identify Feature 31. In the upper middle, that was an area we used to inspect another possible post/mold, but it turned out to be a bioturbation. Feature 30 appears to be structural, especially because it has very large stones and some with mortar. Its exact function at this time is unknown, so it merits further excavation in the future. For now, it would be interesting to compare it with other features found at the fort.  

The top left photograph is from a different unit which shows evidence of a wall. The stones are all lined up and some have mortar on them. Walls usually have a distinct line shape, which is a lot different from Feature 30. Another difference is that this wall does not have many small gravel rocks surrounding it. The bottom left photograph shows a fireplace from the fort. It is distinct because the stones are placed in a circular pattern, there is ash in the center, and there is red dirt. Dirt turns red with burning because it changes the chemical structures in the dirt. Our unit shows no evidence of burning, nor do we see a certain pattern with our stones.

Analysis by comparison for Feature 30 leaves us with more questions than answers. At least we know what it’s not! Even though we may not know its function, we know it indicates human activity. These rocks and stones did not end up there by mistake. Could this be a collapsed wall, a floor, or maybe even a structural marker of the boundaries of Fort St. Joseph? More excavations in the area may give us some answers to these puzzling questions about the fabulous Features 30 and 31.

- Adyn Hallahan 

What can green glass tell us?

Hi there,

Near the end of the dig, my unit partner Kieran found a shard of glass near the southwest corner of our unit around 34 cm below datum. It was a very thick piece of glass, with a beautiful olive green color, slightly curved, and full of bubbles, resembling old bottle glass. This was the biggest piece of glass we had found, and we found the color and shape to be quite intriguing. It made me wonder: How were glass bottles made in the 18th century? Could we find the particular usage of this type of glass/bottle? 

A picture of one green
glass bottle found at Cahokia

After some research, I found some information that answered my questions. In a colonial Illinois village called Cahokia, archaeologists uncovered 18th-century bottle glass fragments that were dark green and hand-blown. These were characteristics of glass bottles made by French bottle makers in the 1700s. The procedure for creating these glass bottles goes as follows:

“Sand and wood ash are melted in giant iron pots placed on a red-hot flame to form molten glass. Sand could be made from a variety of crushed rocks ranging from very expensive to very cheap. The cheaper the sand, the greener the glass. The assistant gathers a mass of molten glass on the end of a hollow blowing pipe and inflates it like a soap bubble into a mold. Molds enabled bottle makers to mass-produce bottles that held the same amount of liquid. The assistant transfers the bottle from the blower's pipe to the pontil iron. The pontil iron is used to support the bottle while the glassmaker forms the neck of the bottle. The pontil iron is also used to push the base of the bottle up into its interior, forming the 'Kick-up.' The kick-up served two purposes: to make the bottle stronger and to catch the dregs of the wine--solid matter left over from the wine-making process. The bottle is removed from the pontil-iron, leaving a pontil scar on the base of the bottle, and then left to harden as the glass cools.” Illinois State Museum, 1996.

The bottles found from the site in Cahokia were exported from France and shipped to New Orleans and Illinois, and Illinois is pretty close to southwest Michigan. They appear to be a very similar color and thickness as the glass shard from our unit, though it can be hard to tell. This makes me wonder if glass bottles were exported from Illinois to Fort St Joseph, or if they were brought to the fort via the Great Lakes.

Glass bottle fragment found in our unit. 

I am also curious about what these bottles were used for. One theory I have is for wine. The existence of wine at the Fort has been documented. In a previous FSJAP blog post made ten years ago, a student stated that “wine bottle fragments are common, and are typically olive green,” and that at the fort, “ glass for liquor containers, wine bottles, and oil, medicinal, and many other containers of varying color have been found, as well as some tableware and a lot of window glass” (Gerechka, 2013). So we do have some evidence that the people of Fort St. Joseph were wine drinkers. The wine imports not only came from France but from Britain as well, and both countries have great influence over the fort. In the 18th and early 19th centuries, “The ‘wine’ bottle was the principal product of British bottle-glass factories... The bottles were used to ship, store, mature, and serve a variety of products, primarily beverages, and were widely used not only in Britain but also in her colonies and in other countries that traded with Britain” (Jones, 1984). Britain often traded wine with France, and at Fort Saint Joseph, so there was a constant cycle of trade throughout the three different countries.

The shard of glass we found near the end of our dig season gave us additional evidence as to what the people of Fort St. Joseph may have been doing hundreds of years ago. It also paints a picture of what may have happened in our unit. Maybe people at the fort has a great taste for wine. Though we may never get an official answer, small finds like these help us dig further into the history of the fort, one step at a time.

- Alivia

Sources:

At Home: 1700: Behind the Scenes. (December 31, 1996). Illinois State Museum. https://exhibits.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/athome/1700/activity/behind/frenchbot.htm

Gerechka, A (2013). At FSJ the Glass is Half Full. Blogspot.com. https://fortstjosepharchaeology.blogspot.com/2013/07/at-fsj-glass-is-half-full.html

Jones, O. Cylindrical English Wine and Beer Bottles 1735-1850 (1984). https://sha.org/assets/documents/Cylindrical%20English%20Wine%20and%20Beer%20Bottles%20-%20English.pdf