Stanley South

Pattern Recognition in Historical Archaeology

The process of pattern recognition using data from historic sites is illustrated with data from the British colonial system. The Brunswick Pattern of Refuse Disposal monitors eighteenth century refuse disposal behavior patterns. The Carolina Pattern monitors artifact relationships from domestic occupation. The Frontier Pattern is seen on frontier sites as well as the area inside domestic ruins, and is characterized by a high architecture to kitchen artifact relationship. The formula concept of pattern recognition demonstrated by the Mean Ceramic Date Formula is a tool based on the recognition of highly regular patterns of variation in the popularity of ceramics through time. Such pattern recognition is foundational for historic site data to contribute to the explanation of culture processes. Historical archaeology has an as yet unrealized potentialfor contributing to method-refinement and theory building in archaeology generally. This is the exciting promise historical archaeology holds for the future.

HISTORIC SITE CONTENT, STRUCTURE, AND FUNCTION

Site content, structure, and function are examined using information drawn from historic sites, ethnographic observation, and modern material-culture studies in an effort to understand more about the relationship of past cultural systems to their material by-products. The elements of site content, such as artifacts, architecture, features, and strata, are examined in terms of their temporal and spatial dimensions in relation to site function. The importance of identification of use, form, function, condition, and size in relation to spatial pattern and associations is emphasized. Given the ability to control or identify site function, those of us working on historic sites can begin to recognize the site structure correlates of site function and thereby take our place alongside experimental archaeology and ethnoarchaeology in the development of general archaeological theory. MY GOAL HERE IS TO EXAMINE site content, structure, and function using information drawn from historic sites, ethnographic observation, and modern material-culture studies in an attempt to understand more about the relationship of past cultural systems to their material by-products. Site content is that combination of artifacts, architecture (structural remains), features, and strata forming the archaeological record. Site structure is composed of the spatial patterning and associations existing between the various elements of site content. Through analysis of site content and structure, chronological relationships for the formation of various elements of the archaeological record can be recognized. Site function is the role played by the site in the larger drama of the cultural system of which the site is an integral element. A basic consideration in site content is identification of the use, form, function, condition, and size of those elements making up the archaeological record. Once identification of an object is made, all interpretations to follow at higher levels are influenced, and if the identification is incorrect, the error is compounded many times by the time reconstructive interpretations are made

The Archaic, Formative, and Developmental Periods

When an archaeological site is excavated, evidence of occupation other than the period and culture of particular interest is often found. Such was the case with our excavations on Albemarle Point, where tools over 6000 years old reflect the presence of Indians there long before the English and Spaniards set foot there a mere 300 years ago. I present here the summary of the Archaic Period artifacts (Ritchie 1932; Griffin 1952:354-356) found during our search for evidence of the 1670 settlement of Charles Towne. Because my primary research goal and strategy was focused on the historic British colonial 17th century period, the evidence for the occupation by Native Americans during the Archaic Period was an unexpected bonus to my research design, a bonus I felt an obligation to record as best I could.

The Historical Pathway

The settlement of Carolina was planned as a planting and trading province by the Lords Proprietors, and the success of the venture came about through the efforts of Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper after a 1664 settlement on the Cape Fear had failed (Cheves 1897:Preface 3–4). The first settlers were from England and Barbados (Baldwin 1969). After a stormy voyage during which the vessels Albemarle and Port Royal were lost, the Carolina anchored off the Carolina coast where a discussion as to whether to plant at Port Royal or Kayawah was carried out by the settlers (Cheves 1897:168): the Gouernor adhearing for Kayawah & most of us being of a temper to follow thoug wee knew noe reason for it Imitating ye rule of ye Inconsiderate multitude cryed out for Kayawah yet some dissented… those that inclyned for Port royall were looked upon straingely soe thus wee came to Kayawah (Cheves 1897:168) .

A Pathway to the Climactic Period: A Ceremonial Center

The search for the remains of the 1670 Charles Towne settlement on Albemarle Point was sponsored by the South Carolina Tricentennial Commission as a preliminary step in the development of the site as a tourist attraction (Figure 6.1). The discovery of the 1670 fortification ditch for the settlement revealed the fact that the planned exhibition hall was to be located directly over the junction of the north and west fortification ditches on the site. At a meeting of the Tricentennial Commission Bob Stephenson and I strongly recommended that this not be done, and that the exhibit pavilion be located 700 feet further toward the north. Fortunately, the Commission voted to move the planned pavilion to the new site, but we would need to conduct exploratory archaeology to determine if any cultural resources would be revealed archaeologically that should be mitigated before construction was undertaken. The commission agreed to fund exploratory archaeology on the new site.

The Pottery Pathway at the Ceremonial Center

The major artifact class recovered from the ceremonial center was pottery. Taxonomically the pottery represents the Climactic Pottery Period of ware-group evolution as outlined in my Indian pottery taxonomy for the South Carolina Coast in Chapter 5 (Table 5.1). The ceremonial center pottery is representative of the Chicora ware-group and is defined here as the Charles Towne Series.

The Material Culture Pathway to the Ceremonial Center

Other than pottery, only six classes of artifacts are represented at the ceremonial center: discoidal artifacts, hones, awls, shell beads, mica grave offerings and gourd rattles. The presence of fragments of conch and oliva shells in bundle Burial 9 (255C) may represent an additional class of grave offering, but more likely represent incidental inclusions in the grave fill.

The Pathway to Decline

In previous chapters we saw the data from the Formative and Developmental pottery-making periods were incidentally discovered in the process of searching for the 1670 settlement of Charles Towne. We also saw that the data on the ceremonial center of the Climactic Period was found after exploratory trenching was done on the site of the planned exhibit pavilion to determine if archaeological values would be destroyed by its construction. Evidence for the Decline Period on Albemarle Point were also found, not because of a planned strategy to locate such data, but in the process of checking out yet another site for the placing of the exhibit pavilion in order to save the ceremonial center site from destruction.

The Archaeological Pathway to the 1670 Fortifications

As a result of an evaluation of the Phase 1 site survey done by Johnny Miller in the fall of 1968, the South Carolina Tricentennial Commission contracted with the Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology at the University of South Carolina to undertake a Phase 2 exploratory project. They would go over Johnny Miller’s work and recover clues to the location of Charles Towne. A one month project was outlined, and I took leave from the North Carolina Department of Archives and History to work with John Combes, assistant director of the Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, to execute the exploratory project. An additional week was later added to the field work to obtain further data.

The Methodological Pathway

A project in historic site development involves many more pathways than documentary research, archaeology, analysis and interpretation characteristically associated with historical research alone. In this chapter I will touch on only some of the aspects of an archaeological project such as that carried out in the seach for the Charles Towne settlement. To begin with, archaeology involves the pathway leading to field work to recover, in the soil itself, clues to past human occupation. Historical archaeology also involves the research pathway that is so familiar to historians. The first chapter presented a historical pathway of the Charles Towne settlement from selected written documents that have survived.