6 JOARA, CUENCA, AND FORT SAN JUAN The Construction of Colonial Identities at the Berry Site David G. Moore, Christopher B. Rodning, and Robin A. Beck Until very recently, archaeologists have often had to rely on distributions of European artifacts on Native American sites to address questions of sixteenthcentury colonial and Native interactions. The discovery of the sixteenthcentury Spanish colonial outpost of Fort San Juan and Cuenca, at the prin­ cipal town in the Native polity of Joara in western North Carolina, aUows us to take an alternate perspective and attempt to better understand such issues as the creation and maintenance of social identities proposed in the introduction of this volume. In this chapter, we discuss the historical con­ text of Fort San Juan and the archaeology that allows us to view this site as the location of a series of sixteenth-century events in which Native hosts and colonial intruders negotiated and maintained their identities. For a brief time, from 1567 to 1568, the principal Spanish outpost along the northern frontier of the colonial province of La Florida consisted of Fort San Juan and the associated settlement of Cuenca, located at the Native American town of Joara, in what is now western North Carolina. Captain Juan Pardo and his men, acting on orders from Governor Men^ndez at Santa Elena, established their outpost at Joara in early 1567. Initially peace­ ful, diplomatic relations between Pardo’s colonizing garrison and the people of Joara deteriorated by the spring of 1568, when Juan Martin de Badajoz arrived in Santa Elena with news that warriors had attacked and destroyed Fort San Juan. In fact, all six of Pardo’s outposts established at Native Ameri­ can towns in the interior had been lost Following the abandonment of Fort San Juan and Pardo’s other forts, the focus of Spanish colonialism in South­ eastern North America shifted from exploration and military installation to missionization and trade. As the first interior colonial settlements within the modern-day United States, these forts established the landscapes of co­ lonial interaction and identity in the sbcteenth-century Southeast. There are some written descriptions of events that took place at Fort San Juan and in surrounding areas in the 1560s, but there are no detailed descriptions or drawings of the fort itself, and there is some imcertainty 100 / MOORE, RODNING, AND BECK JOARA, CUENCA, AND FORT SAN JUAN / 101 Figure 6.1. Berry site excavations, 1986-2015 (plan view) (drawing by Abra (oghart). as to exactly what transpired during the 1568 attack. Given the incomplete and one-sided nature of the historical records of this important episode of American history, archaeological research has fortunately shed muchneeded light on the subject. This chapter summarizes 14 years of archaeo­ logical investigations at the Berry site, the location of the remnants of Joara, Cuenca, and Fort San Juan (Figure 6.1). During that long-term ef­ fort, the goals and nature of our research have evolved, as we discuss below. Throughout this chapter, and in publications elsewhere (Beck 1997; Beck and Moore 2002; Beck et al. 2006, 2011; Moore 2002; Moore et al. 2005), we have depended heavily on the archival research and interpretations of Charles Hudson (1990, 2005) and his colleagues (e.g., DePratter and Smith 1980) on Pardo’s expeditions and the forts built by Pardo’s troops. Juan Pardo's Expeditions During the first half of the sixteenth century, numerous Spanish expeditions explored and mapped the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of North America, a land they referred to as La Florida. Period maps show remarkably detailed coast­ lines, but theinteriorof La Florida remained poorly understood. During this period several Spanish efforts to settle the coast and interior of La Florida ended in failure. Despite these failures, increasing French pressures to colo­ nize the region spurred Spain’s colonial ambitions. By the 1550s, French pri­ vateers were attacking Spanish ships as well as Spanish settlements in the Caribbean. King Phillip II of Spain was determined to block French access to the Southern coast and to prevent their ability to intercept the fleets of galleons carrying New World riches to Spain. By June 1559, Spaniards had identified the Point of Santa Elena (on today's Parris Island, South Carolina) in Port Royal Sound as a likely location for a potential settlement In April 1562, Jean Ribault actually established a French settlement, Charlesfort at that location, only to have it fail within the first year. In March 1565, Phillip II, already aware of Charlesfort, received news of a second French settle­ ment, Fort Caroline, located farther south on the Atlantic coast. In response to these French intrusions on Spanish claims, Phillip II sent Pedro Men^ndez de Avilds to found a Spanish colony in La Florida. In September 1565, Mendndez located Fort Caroline, defeated the small French force there, and established St, Augustine, his first colonial settlement, not far away. After securing the Southern coast, he moved north with most of his men to the Point of Santa Elena, where he planned to build his colonial capital. He ar­ rived there in April 1566, laid out the city plan, directed construction of Fort San Salvador, and after leaving a detachment of soldiers at the fort returned to St Augustine for additional provisions. The Spanish fort at Santa Elena was built on the same site as the preceding French outpost of Charlesfort, and, similarly, the town of St. Augustine effectively erased the presence of the French settlement at Fort Caroline. In these ways, Mendndez created a Spanish colonial imprint on the landscape of the Southeast, in part by dis­ placing the French footprint that had been taking shape. During the summer of 1566, a fleet of Spanish vessels arrived in St. Au­ gustine with supplies and soldiers, among whom were Captain Juan Pardo and 250 men. Mendndez immediately dispatched Pardo and his troops north to resupply Santa Elena. When Pardo reached Santa Elena in July 1566, he found Fort San Salvador in very poor shape, and most of the garrison lost to a mutiny. Pardo and his men helped to rebuild the town, and they erected Fort San Felipe to replace Fort San Salvador. Menendez returned to Santa Elena in August 1566. While Pardo had helped restore order, there were few provisions to support his large force. Therefore, Menendez or­ dered Pardo immediately to execute his original colonial plan. Mendndez tasked Pardo with exploring the interior of La Florida, rlaiming the terri­ tory for Spain while pacifying and evangelizing Native American groups, and establishing an overland route connectiiig Santa Elena with the Span­ ish silver mines near Zacatecas, Mexico. TTie Zacatecas mines, which pro- 102 / MOORE, RODNING. AND BECK duced vast amotmts of wealth for the Spanish colonial empire, were erro­ neously thought to lie within easy march of the La Florida coast Because he could not spare provisions from the town’s storehouses, Men^ndez in­ structed Pardo to feed his men by extracting tribute from the Indians he en­ countered. Thus. Pardo began his first expedition with a monumental task. Not only was he to extend the colony across La Florida, but also he would have to rely on Native Americans to host and provision his men. As a re­ sult, although Pardo did command an army, he placed greater emphasis on diplomacy than had his conquistador predecessors, such as Hernando de Soto, who briefly traversed the province of “Xuala” in 1540, some 26 years before Pardo arrived at the principal town of Joaia, On December 1, 1566, Pardo departed Santa Elena with a company of 125 men. They marched on foot and carried their possessions, moving from one Native American town to the next, including several visited by the Soto expedition years before. At many such places, Pardo gave formal diplomatic talks to Native American community leaders, and he gave them gifts, while also asking that they become allies of the Spanish colonial province of La Florida. At certain towns he demanded that they build houses and set aside food for their Spanish visitors. Pardo’s small army arrived at the town of Joara several weeks after de­ parting Santa Elena. With abundant farmland and other resources near this prosperous and powerful town, and with snowcapped peaks visible to the west, foara was chosen by Pardo as the location for a Spanish fort and settle­ ment He presented gifts to the chief of Joara, and he renamed the place Cuenca, after his hometown near Madrid, Spain {Hudson 2005:153). Pardo spent two weeks at foara. Fort San Juan was completed in January 1567, al­ though little was written by the expedition’s chroniclers about the dimen­ sions or other characteristics of the fort. Before departing, Pardo placed Sergeant Hernando Moyano in charge of approximately 30 men stationed at the fort Pardo provisioned these troops with match cord, gunpowder, and other supplies and set out on his return to Santa Elena. Heading east, he visited other Native towns in the surrounding area. At the town of Gxiatari, Pardo received instructions summoning him quickly to Santa Elena to help protect the capital from a feared attack by the French. Without time to build another fort, Pardo assigned the expedition’s priest, Sebastian Montero, along with several soldiers to remain at Guatari while he and the bal­ ance of the force returned to Santa Elena. On September 1,1567, Pardo led a second expedition of 120 men with extra provisions from Santa Elena into the interior. Without authorization from Pardo and in his absence. Sergeant Moyano engaged in minerals pros­ pecting and had participated in raids on Native American villages to the JOARA, CUENCA, AND FORT SAN )UAN / 103 north and west of Joara. When Pardo reached Joara in September 1567, he learned that Moyano and several of his men were surrounded by Indians at the town of Chiaha (in eastern Tennessee). Pardo rescued Moyano, built a fort at Chiaha, marched southwest toward the powerful chiefdom of Coosa but turned back east to cross the mountains en route to Joara. Pardo and his men built forts at the town of Cauchi, then returned to Joara. where Pardo met in November with many Native American community leaders from sur­ rounding areas. He dispatched several people on prospecting trips during this period, and he did some prospecting himself in the area around Joara. The Spaniards found corundum, quartz crystal, and other gemstones, per­ haps contributing to Spanish legends that later circulated about ‘Los Diamantes," moimtains made of crystal or diamonds (Hudson 2005:189-195). Pardo visited several more Native American towns in the CaroUnas and es­ tablished three more forts before arriving at Santa Elena in early March 1568. In June 1568, news reached Santa Elena that Fort San Juan and Par­ do’s other outposts had been attacked by Native American warriors. It is uncertain how many of the soldiers died in the uprising, but only one is known to have made it back to Santa Elena alive (Hudson 2005:175). Pardo’s second expedition to the interior marked the last attempt by Mendndez to extend Spain’s reach across the interior of La Florida. Fort San Juan and Cuenca, the first of the six Spanish interior settlements, were occupied for only 18 months. Juan Pardo’s Forts Archaeologists know relatively little about sixteenth-century Spanish forts in La Florida, but archival research suggests considerable variability in the shapes, dimensions, and other characteristics of Spanish colonial forts. Generally, forts consisted of ditches or moats, log stockades, and earthen embankments enclosing spaces where wells, pit features, and structures such as casasfuertes were present Entryways to Spanish colonial forts and churches were sometimes paved with pebbles and crushed oyster shell. Archaeological excavations have uncovered evidence of all these features in Fort San Felipe, at Santa Elena, point of departure for the Pardo expedi­ tions (South et al. 1988). Pardo’s men built six forts during his two expeditions (Hudson 2005). Fort San Juan was constructed first, at Joara early in 1567, when Pardo also renamed the Native town “Ciudad de Cuenca” (Hudson 2005:153). The fort was named Fort San Juan to mark the army’s arrival at Joara on the Day of San Juan, December 27 (Hudson 2005:147). There are no known written descriptions or visual depictions of the fort Hudson (2005:147) suggests 104 / MOORE, RODNINC, AND BECK that Pardo justified building this fort “to prevent the land from remaining a wilderness {disierto)" perhaps implying that Indian towns were consid­ ered less than civilized, parts of “a wilderness.” However, we think it more likely that Pardo was following a well-established convention of Spanish colony-building. Rather than merely applying a Spanish name to the In­ dian town, Pardo was intentionally giving a name to the new Spanish co­ lonial town, the built environment of which encompassed a fort and a do­ mestic compound (Beck et al, 2016), This convention was followed at all but one of the towns in which Pardo’s men built a fort. Fort San Juan was the only fort built during Pardo's initial advance into the interior, and although there were approximately 30 men garrisoned at Fort San Juan, there were as many as 125, and perhaps as few as 10, of Pardo’s men at the fort and its associated domestic compound at any given time. The remaining five forts were built during the second expedition. Hud­ son (2005:148) suggests that they were built as defensive responses to the hostilities Pardo faced in the mountains on the second expedition. Follow­ ing Pardo’s rescue of Moyano and his men from the Chiaha threat in east­ ern Tennessee, the array moved briefly west to the town of Satapo before being warned of a planned ambush by warriors from Satapo, Coosa, and other towns. As Pardo and his small army retreated from Satapo, they built their second fort, Fort San Pedro, at the town of Olamico (or Chiaha) (Hud­ son 2005:40). No details of its construction are known, but Bandera reported that the men spent four days laying out the town and building the fort In­ terestingly. this is the single location for which Pardo provided no Spanish name for the settlement save that of the fort. This might support the idea that Pardo was not renaming the Indian towns but providing names for in­ tentional Spanish colonial settlement Fort San Pedro may have been seen as a more temporary fort holding the western flank of his conquered territories. Turning east from Olamico to foara, Pardo paused to build Fort San Pablo in Cauchi, where a house had previously been built for the Spaniards. The fort was constructed in three or three and a halfdays (Hudson 2005:40), but nothing is known about the relationship between the fort and the house. Fort San Pablo was garrisoned with 11 men, before Pardo and the rest of his detachment marched from Cauchi to Tocae, then through the Swannanoa River vaUey to the trail leading from the mountains to the province of Joara. Reaching Joara, Pardo reprovisioned Fort San Juan with the largest quan­ tity of supplies at any of the forts, including additional gunpowder, match cord, and lead balls. Interestingly, he also left the majority of iron shovels, socketed axes, and mattocks as well as the only nails recorded for any of the forts. Hudson (2005:41) suggested that the fort was again garrisoned with 30 men, and the large quantity of supplies supports his notion that lOARA, CUENCA, AND FORT SAN JUAN / lOS Fort San Juan was intended as the central outpost of the Spanish colonial frontier. FinaUy, Pardo issued 42 chisel-like tools {azolejas) to Fort San Juan, an item left at none of the other forts. In all, Pardo gave chiefs at many of the viOages a total of 126 chisels and wedges of various types and names. Though azolejas do not appear on lists of traded chisels and wedges, their large number suggests they are included in the total or were otherwise in­ tended for trade. Regardless, the scale of munitions, supplies, and possible trade tools left at Fort San Juan speaks to its intended role as the central Spanish interior settlement Pardo’s men built their fourth fort. Fort Santiago, at the town of Guatari, in the Yadkin River valley, and Pardo named the settlement “Ciudad de Sal­ amanca.” Twenty-two days were spent building Fort Santiago, which con­ sisted of two bastions built of logs and earth, “four tall ‘cavaliers’ of thick wood and dirt and a wall of high poles and dirt” (Hudson 2005:151). The people of Guatari helped in the construction of Fort Santiago, and Pardo supplied them with two socketed axes to cut wood for the fort. Because this is also the town at which Pardo had previously installed his chaplain, Sebastian Montero, it is possible that the details of this construction (none of which were noted for the other forts) were meant to leave a record of pro­ tection for the mission that Montero planned to build. Fort Santiago was garrisoned with 17 men. Neither Pardo nor Bandera described the next fort, built at Cofitachequi, which Pardo later referred to as Fort San Tomds. Pardo named the settle­ ment “Ciudad de Toledo,” and he stayed there for 18 days but left no men or munitions upon his departure (Hudson 2005:151) Pardo's sixth and final fort was “Fuerte de Nuestra Seflora," built at the Native town of Orista located on the coast a short distance from Santa Elena. Apparently construction here differed from the other forts, being described as "a strong house {casa fuerte) built out of sawn lumber” (Hudson 2005: 152). Pardo renamed the settlement “Villa de Buena Esperan9a.’ Little else is recorded about this casa fuerte or the surrounding settlement, but the reference to "sawn lumber" suggests that Pardo’s men did carry with them one or more saws during the expeditions. Pardo clearly built these forts with every intention of supporting future permanent Spanish colonial settlements. Hudson suggested that the pres­ ence of micos (principal chiefs) at Joara and Guatari persuaded him to con­ struct larger forts there than at other sites. Pardo intended for Cuenca and Fort San Juan to be the major metropolis of the interior settlements on the northern frontier of La Florida. It may have been important to him to estab­ lish a colonial presence visible both to Native peoples and to any French in­ terlopers who threatened Spanish claims to the interior. Hudson (2005:152) 106 / MOORE. RODMNG. AND BECK sliggests that the forts not only served a defensive military purpose, but were also intended as a means by which the Spaniards could exploit interior Na­ tive towns for food (principally com) for Santa Elena. Unfortunately, there is almost no information about the size or design of any of the forts, merely a few hints gleaned from the Spanish documents in­ cluding an occasional report ofthe length of time spent on fort constmction. Hudson (2005:152) thinks that the forts “resembled the small, hastily con­ structed fortifications that Europeans built in other parts of the world.” Perhaps they were smaller versions of the first forts that were built at Santa Elena, but we can have no sure knowledge until one of these forts is located—if we can be so lucky—and excavated by archaeologists” (Hudson 2005:166). Our discovery of Fort San fuan at last provides definitive evidence for the most important of the interior forts. Fort San (uan furnishes a baseline, with details on a substantial construction for permanent occupation. Ban­ dera’s lists of munitions and supplies indicate it was the most heavily pro­ visioned, and it may also have been the largest fort Archaeological Investigations at the Berry Site When Hudson (1990) first published his book about the Pardo expeditions, the location of Fort San )uan was unknown. But archaeological investiga­ tions at the Berry site (Moore 2002) and reconstructions of the Soto and Pardo routes across western North Carolina (Beck 1997) persuaded him that the Berry site is the location of Joara, Cuenca, and Fort San Juan (Hud­ son 2005:ix-x). Our research at the Berry site, located in the upper Catawba River valley of western North Carolina, has now spanned nearly three de­ cades (Beck and Moore 2002; Beck et al. 2006, 2011; Moore 2002). We have been extremely fortunate that the Berry site has been avaUable for extensive long-term excavation, as it is unlikely that the fort would have been identi­ fied otherwise. The following section briefly describes the evolution of the research designs that have guided our excavation strategies since 1986. The site covers some five hectares in a bottomland along Upper Creek, which meets Irish Creek nearby to form Warrior Fork, which then flows to the Ca­ tawba River some 12 kilometers to the south. Berry and other sites in the upper Catawba Valley are attributed to the Burke phase, an archaeological manifestation of Mississippian culture dating from A.D. 1400 to 1600 (Beck and Moore 2002; Moore 2002). Archaeological surveys (Beck 1997; Moore 2002) indicate that the Burke-phase settlement pattern includes a range of sites, from dispersed farmsteads to nucleated villages of various size, inte­ grated at a multicommimity level. The Berry site probably functioned as a regional central place (Beck 1997:55; Beck and Moore 2002). On this land­ lOARA, CUENCA, AND FORT SAN JUAN / 107 scape, the Spaniards attempted to transplant a Spanish colonial identity on the frontier of La Florida. The Berry site was first described in the 1880s as the location of an earthen mound, “about 15 feet high and unexplored," on the west bank of Upper Creek (Thomas 1891:151). There are no known photographs of the mound, but James Berry, 80 years old in 2015, remembers riding a tractor across the steep slope of the mound when he was young, and he also reports that the moimd was bulldozed in the past to fill erosional damage in the surround­ ing fields. AU local informants associate the mound location with a small rise about one meter tall (indicated by dashed line on figure 6.1). It is pos­ sible that the moimd was destroyed around 1940 following one of the most damaging floods in the r^on’s history (Geiger et al. 2012: Moore 2002). The Berry site is by far the largest of more than 26 Burke-phase sites in the Up­ per Creek drainage. On the basis of its size and the presence of the earthen mound. Beck (1997) proposes that the Berry site was the major settlement within a regional settlement hierarchy. Modem systematic study of the Berry site began in response to renewed interest in the sixteenth-century routes of the Soto and Pardo expeditions (DePratter 1994; Hally 1994b: Hally et al. 1990; Hudson 1997, 2005; Hud­ son et al. 1985, 2008; Levy et al. 1990). David Moore's 1986 survey of South Appalachian Mississippian sites and ceramics in the Catawba and upper Yadkin River valleys demonstrated that a relatively large number of Indians lived in these areas during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Based on ceramics, this population is believed to have been directly related to other Lamar cultural groups located in the Carolinas and Georgia (Moore 2002). Moore also conducted excavations at three of the largest sites in the region, including the McDoweO site (31MC41) in McDowell County, the Shuford site (31CT115) in Catawba County, and the Berry site (31BK22) in Burke County. The Berry site investigations were the most extensive and included excavation blocks and trenches on and adjacent to the presumed mound. Moore reported intact postholes and numerous features beneath the plowzone along the southwest edge of the mound. He also observed “sod-block” deposits in excavation units (see figure 6.1) across the lop of the remnant mound feature (compare with Sherwood and Kidder 2011). In 1994, Robin Beck contacted David Moore to report that he had found several sherds of Iberian olive jar vessels on the surface at the Berry site. Moore had a small number of historic potsherds in his 1986 collection but they had been identified fragments of eighteenth-century Moravian vessels. Upon comparison, they appeared to be identical to Beck's potsherds. Beck and Moore took these artifacts (along with a nail found by Beck) to Santa Elena, where Stanley South and Chester DePratter confirmed their identi- 108 / MOORE. RODNING, AND BECK fication as sixteenth-century Iberian olive jar. They also found the nail to be consistent with the nails from the Santa Elena excavations. Following this development. Moore and Beck decided to pursue additional fieldwork at Berry to try to determine the source of the sixteenth-century Spanish ar­ tifacts. Later that summer, Beck carried out geophysical surveys (performed by Thomas Hargrove) and soil coring at the north end of the site, where most Spanish artifacts had been collected, which revealed the presence of several burned structures and large pit features in an area of some two hectares, north of the mound remnant The identification of mid-sixteenthcentury Spanish artifacts and the presence of a small compound of burned buildings provided the first evidence that the Berry site might represent an early Spanish contact site. On this basis, Moore and Beck (1994,1997) pro­ posed that the Berry site represented the location of the Native American town of Joara, where Juan Pardo built Fort San Juan. In 2001, we all investigated the Berry site, and especially the compoimd ofburned structures, to determine whether this could indeed be the locabon of Joara and Fort San Juan. In addition, the project team (Rodning, Moore, and Beck) wanted to understand better the Native American occupation of the larger encompassing site, and the nature of encounters and entangle­ ments among the Native people of Joara and the Spanish colonists at Cuenca and Fort San Juan. Our excavations from 2001 to 2005 identified founda­ tions of at least five burned structures. Interestingly, we found no evidence that any of the buildings had been rebuilt after their destruction. We also excavated numerous related pit features around the structures. Feature fill included relatively large quantities of Native American ceramics, along with archaeobotanical and zooarchaeological remains, as well as numerous Span­ ish artifacts including Iberian olive jar sherds, nails, lead baUs, and rolled copper aglets. It became clear that the area adjacent to and just north of the mound constituted an unusual domestic compound of less than one-half acre consisting of five buddings loosely arranged around a small “plaza.” During this period of our investigations, we were imable to locate any features or structures that could be interpreted as part of a formal defensive “fort,” despite carefully examining every line of postholes that we uncovered. We came to interpret the five buildings as a domestic compound for Span­ ish soldiers stationed at Fort San Juan, and we began to wonder whether the structures themselves constituted the “fort.” The structures were probably burnt by the Joarans when they destroyed Fort San Juan. Following this in­ terpretation, we focused our efforts from 2006 through 2009 on excavations to expose more of the burned structures and surrounding areas, including, with the help of a National Science Foundation grant in 2007 and 2008, in­ tensive excavations of Structures 1 and 5 (Beck et al. 2016). lOARA, CUENCA, AND FORT SAN )UAN / 109 Structures Only two of the five burned structures have been excavated and the details described here are more fully discussed in Beck et al. (2016:85-149). Struc­ ture 1, measuring slightly more than 8 by 8 meters square with rounded cor­ ners, was buOt in a shallow semisubterranean basin with entryway trenches on the southeast comer. Upright log posts formed the framework for earthen walls, and four large posts placed around the central hearth supported a roof made of log poles, earth, bark, and thatch. The dirt dug from the ground to create the structure basin was presumably the source of earthen material incorporated in the walls and roof of the structure. In all of these respects, Stmcture 1 reflects many common Mississippi-period Native American ar­ chitectural practices. In other respects. Structure 1 reflects Spanish colonial practices and Spanish material culture. Lee Ann Newsom’s (2016) analy­ sis of wood samples from Structure 1 indicates that many post and timber elements were harvested, prepared, and shaped with metal tools, such as axes, adzes, chisels, and saws—tools noted in lists of items carried by Pardo and his men. Some wooden elements have saw marks; at least one chestnut plank from Structure 1 demonstrates quarter-sawing, which is only possible with metal-edged tools; and some wooden elements have holes that may have been created by iron nails. Structure 1 appears to have been built by people with intimate knowledge of Native American architectural design and materials. However, it also appears that many of the posts were cut or shaped with metal axes, possibly wielded by the Spanish soldiers. We sug­ gest that the people of Joara buUt Structure 1, but Pardo’s men actively as­ sisted in the construction. Structure 5, located southwest of Structure 1, resembles Structure 1 in its general configuration and dimensions, but there are considerable dif­ ferences in construction details. Most notably. Structure 5 lacks the foun­ dational shallow basin and, based on posthole evidence, has no discemibly dear entrance. In addition, the central roof support posts in Structure 5 were placed more shallowly than those in Structure 1, and they are shal­ lower than many wall posts in Structure 5. Several wall posts in Structure 5 were placed in postholes much larger than the posts themselves, perhaps because the holes were dug with a metal shovel. By contrast, postholes in Structure 1 were the same diameters as the posts themselves. Finally, the posts used in Structure 5 are younger and smaller in diameter than those of Structure 1. Even more significantly, many of the structural elements of Structure 5 appear to be split or sawn to double or triple their effective length, perhaps saving time in procurement but possibly resulting in a less durable structure (Newsom 2016:199). These construction details along with 110 / MOORE, RODNINC, AND BECK many other examples of metal tool use within Structure 5 lead us to suggest that Structure 5 was built by people who knew what Native American struc­ tures looked like but did not follow standard practices for constructing a more durable building. We think that Structure 5 was built by Pardo’s men. Aside from the architectural aspects of the structures, we are also inter­ ested in understanding how they were used. Unfortunately, the structures appear to have been cleaned and most evidence of activities removed be­ fore their destruction. Despite the relative paucity of material remains on the structure floors, both Native and Spanish artifacts were recovered from the floors of Structure 1 and Structure 5. Several sixteenth-century Spanish artifacts have been found on the ground surface and in the plow zone in this area of the site, including Iberian olive jar fragments and other Spanish pottery, lead shot, wrought iron nails, chain mail, brass aglets, rolled brass beads, brass or copper scrap, and glass beads. These and other types of sbrteenth-century Spanish artifacts—including chain mail links and other metal items—have also been found in intact de­ posits, including several of the large pit features present in this area of the site, as well as in the burned structures themselves. Finding a concentration of sixteenth-century Spanish artifacts in and around the burned buildings, along with our emerging understanding of construction details for the two structures, continued to support a compelling argument for our interpre­ tation of this compound as a part of Cuenca and Fort San fuan, if not the fort itself (Beck et al. 2006, 2011). Even more interesting are the results of the paleoethnobotanical (Fritz 2016) and zooarchaeological (Lapham 2016) analyses conducted on the struc­ tures and other Spanish compound features. Taken as a whole, the distri­ bution of Spanish artifacts and the ethnobotanical and zooarchaeological analyses suggest there may have been evolving patterns of activity within the compoimd. It appears that at least one structure was built cooperatively by Natives and Spaniards, whereas a second was primarily the result of Span­ ish labor. Native men may have at times helped the soldiers procure meat while Native women very likely procured food for the soldiers and cooked within the compound. Even over the short 18-month occupancy of Cuenca, interactions between the soldiers and Native women and men were likely to have been continually negotiated with respect to social boundaries and identity (Eritz 2016:268-270; Lapham 2016:300). Fort Son Juan Revealed Although we continued to explore the structures and activity areas in the Spanish compound al Berry, we also remained interested in clarifying the lOARA, CUENCA, AND FORT SAN JUAN / 111 Spatial and temporal relationship between the earthen mound and the Span­ ish compound itself As seen in figure 6.1, we originally understood the top­ ographic rise to correspond generally to the location of the earthen mound. Over the years of investigation, we considered various excavation strategies to learn more about the mound itself We thought that basic information, including the actual mound footprint, could help us understand the timing of mound construction, as well as give us a more accurate picture of the built environment at )oara at the time of Spanish contact. We also hoped to resolve questions about the northern edge of this topographic rise, where complicated stratigraphy suggested that mound deposits may even sit atop the burned remnants of Structure 4. Determining the footprint of the mound seemed a relatively simple task. We began in 2007 with several excavation units at the southeastern edge of the topographic rise associated with the mound. These units revealed a new pattern of horizontal stratigraphy that appeared to follow the edge of the rise and that we thought had resulted from plowing across several lay­ ers of mound deposits. This seemed consistent with Moore’s 1986 excava­ tion results across the western summit and at the southwestern margins of the rise and appeared to confirm the original supposition that this rise was the bulldozed and plowed remnant of the earthen mound reported to be 15 feet tall in the late nineteenth century (Thomas 1891). We continued this task in 2011 with a mound-coring regimen (Geiger et al. 2011) designed to define the moimd footprint and possibly determine stages of mound construction. Systematic l-meter-interval soil coring, bi­ secting the rise north to south and east to west, revealed a wide variety of soil profiles that included ashy and burned soils in some locations, mixed and complex layers in others, and potential deep pit features. Although this information was useful, it was also difficult to interpret At the very least the data suggested the mound had a slightly smaller footprint (see solid line in figure 6.1) that did not exactly coincidewiththeexisting topographic rise. To obtain better clarity of mound stratigraphy, we returned in 2012 to the 2007 test excavations on the southeast mound edge and expanded those units to the west. Once again, as we moved to the west, the horizontal stratigraphy seemed to correspond to the southern edge of the mound. However, our interpretation changed drastically as we continued to ex­ pand these units westward in 2013. As we moved west, it became clear that the horizontal stratigraphy did not curve to the northwest as expected to con­ form to the mound edge, but instead continued in a straight southwesterly direction. In addition, we began to recognize similar stratigraphy heading north at a right angle to our original southwest trending linear bands of fill Suddenly, it was obvious that we were not following the edge of the mound. 112 / MOORE, RODNINC, AND BECK but had instead encountered a very large feature, larger than any feature or structure seen to this point at the Berry site. Several days of conjecture led to the stunning conclusion that we had exposed a comer and a portion of one side of the moat or ditch around Fort San Juan. Nearing the end of the 2013 field school, we bisected the ditch feature with an 80-cm-wide trench, revealing a deep V-shaped ditch nearly three meters across and over two meters deep. We found very few artifacts within a complex stratigraphy. After consultation with numerous colleagues, including Chester DePratter, Sarah Sherwood, David Anderson, Jeffrey Mitchem, Kathleen Deagan, David Thomas, and Charles Ewen, we determined that this feature did not resemble known Native American moats around sites like Etowah or Parkin, but that it was nearly identical in cross section to the moat associated with Fort San Felipe at Santa Elena (Chester DePratter, personal communica­ tion 2013}. After 14 years of exploration, we had rediscovered Fort San Juan. This discovery significantly altered our planning and, indeed, the en­ tire frame of reference for our research design heading into the future. In 2014, we expanded the excavation of the southwestern comer of the ditch and continued northward, toward the edge of the “mound." Numerous fea­ tures were revealed in the southwest comer area including a large intrusive stmcture (see figure 6.1), not unlike the burned stmctures in the Spanish compound, several possible pit features, and a single row of well-defined postholes. The intrusive structure must postdate the destruction of Fort San Juan and the filling of the ditch, but the potential association of the other features and the fort is unclear. Following the 2014 field season, another systematic soil-coring regime (Kipfer 2014), along with additional remote sensing studies (Timothy Horsley, personal communication 2014), appeared to have confirmed nearly 90 percent of the ditch outline. Details of these studies are forthcoming, but the apparent footprint of the ditch surround­ ing Fort San Juan has a trapezoidal shape, about 23 by 30 meters, smaOer than but comparable to the shape and size of Fort San Felipe, at Santa Elena, which Pardo and his men built before marching inland to Joara in 1566. Understanding the Berry Abound As described, the discovery of the Fort San Juan moat clarified the nature of the overall Spanish compound. It is clear that the fort was a distinct en­ tity, separate from the five buildings located north of the fort; the fort and the five buildings constitute Cuenca, the Spanish settlement at Joara. What remains unclear is the relationship of the fort to the indigenous settlement of Joara and especially to the Berry mound. We have always considered the proximity of the Spanish compound to the mound remnant to be surpris­ )0ARA, CUENCA, AND FORT SAN JUAN / 113 ing. It seemed unlikely that the Joarans would have tolerated the construc­ tion of the Spanish compound in such close proximity to the mound, and a mound reportedly 15 feet tall next to the Spanish compound would seem to confer to the Joarans a strategic advantage over the compound. In fact, there are no written references in primary documentary sources from the sixteenth century of an earthen mound at the principal town of Joara. We have therefore wondered whether the Berry site mound was built or en­ larged over the fort after it was attacked and destroyed. This question de­ mands fiuther consideration and investigation. However, as we have further explored the area of the presumed mound base, we find the life history of the mound, like that of the ditch and fort, to be increasingly complex. At the west edge of Moore’s 1986 excavation (see figure 6.1), and in our current excavation across the topographic “rise” in the field, we see significant horizontal stratigraphy within the presumed mound base. In 1986, Moore {2002:214-218} identified significant deposits of sod blocks as well as large ash deposits, presumably the remnants of Na­ tive American mound building. To the east in our current trench crossing the rise, we have exposed an ashy midden that corresponds to similar de­ posits identified by Moore in 1986. As we continued east across the highest elevation of the presumed mound remnant in 2015, we identified more ash deposits and several hearths that may be associated with additional struc­ tures located between the fort and the burned buildings. However, no fur­ ther sod-block deposits have been identified. What remains to be answered is whether the sod-block deposits actually represent Native American mound building and, if so, does mound con­ struction predate or postdate fort construction and destruction? Figure 6.1 shows the relationship between the sod-block (presumed to be mound) de­ posits and the existing topographic rise. As of the end of the 2015 field sea­ son, it remained unclear whether moimd deposits covered any portion of the footprint of the fort. We are still investigating the spatial and temporal relationship between fort and mound. However, there are suggestions in the profiles of Ditch Trenches 1 and 2 that, when the fort ditch was dug, dig­ gers sliced through an existing earthwork of some kind at its northern edge. That is, when Pardo and his men cut this part of Fort San Juan’s dry moat, they may have sliced through the toe slope of the Berry mound or, alterna­ tively, there may have been an earlier construction stage or embankment of the fort If it was an existing mound, it was probably a very low feature at the time of the Spanish occupation, similar perhaps to the low mounds described by Cyrus Thomas (1891:152) along the Yadkin River, in Caldwell County, just northeast of the Berry site. In either case, it remains possible that the greatest period of mound construction (to the reported height of 114 / MOORE, RODNING, AND BECK 15 feet) occurred after the destruction of Fort San )uan. Such a sequence of events would indicate a complete reassertion of Joaran identity within the landscape of the Spanish colonial encounter. Fort Son juanjoara. and the Berry Mound: A Landscape of /nteroction and Identity Before the arrival of the Spanish armies in the mid-sixteenth century, Joara probably functioned as a regional central place (Beck and Moore 2002). The Pardo documents clearly demonstrate that Native peoples regularly traveled between towns, and )oara likely constituted a native landscape of interaction in which Joara social identity was maintained within regional political and economic interactions. Maintenance of Joaran social identity may have been greatly challenged when Pardo arrived and the Spaniards attempted to trans­ plant a Spanish colonial identity on the frontier of La Florida. The activities briefly described above reveal a host of intriguing possi­ bilities for further understanding of social identity on the colonial frontier. In fact, the juxtaposition of Fort San Juan, the Cuenca domestic compound, the Berry mound, and the rest of the town of Joara may be seen as map­ ping the social landscape of an early colonial event. Indeed, we may even­ tually be able to imderstand it as a complex mid-sixteenth-century physical and figurative landscape of interaction and identity. After 14 years of in­ vestigations, we are convinced that we have identified the basic footprint of Fort San Juan and the adjacent domestic compound constructed to house the Spanish soldiers who manned the fort We believe that a wide variety of activities took place within the domestic compound, perhaps involving the presence of Native women on a daOy or a semipermanent basis. We also suggest that the domestic compound and the fort represent private and public dimensions of the colonial enterprise and encounter. Given our present understanding of the Spanish colonial fort at the Berry site, it looks broadly comparable to Fort San Felipe, the fort constructed at Santa Elena by members of the Pardo expedition before they marched in­ land and built Fort San Juan. At several European colonial settlements in eastern North America, there were spatial distinctions between public and private sectors. In 1588, John White reported discovering Ralph Lane’s settlement on Roanoke Island some three years after its abandonment its fort, he wrote, had "sundry necessary and decent dwelling houses made by his men about it the yeere before" (Quinn 1985:280). Also, French Fort Caroline, founded in 1564 at the site where St. Augustine was established in 1565, was depicted as having houses outside the fort itself (Bennett 2001:19). There were spa­ lOARA. CUENCA, AND FORT SAN )UAN / US tial distinctions between forts and residential areas at the Spanish colonial capital of Santa Elena, in coastal South Carolina (Lyon 1976, 1988, 1990; South et al. 1988). Similarly, there seems to have been a spatial separation at the Berry site between the setting of Spanish domestic life at Cuenca, in the Spanish compound at the northern end of the site, and a more public space represented by Fort San Juan. Our finds at the Berry site shed light on the landscape of interaction and identity at Joara and Fort San Juan. The ditch itself is perhaps the most powerful symbol of this changing landscape. RecaO that the preliminary analysis ofthe life of the ditch suggests that, when the ditch was cut, it sliced through an earthwork of some kind along its northern edge. It is possible that the ditch around the fort cut through a small mound that was present at the site when Fort San Juan was built, in which case the fort would have encompassed and appropriated that mound, making a powerful statement about the colonial presence in a Native town. Alternatively, the ditch may have cut through an earthen parapet or rampart that was part of an earlier construction stage of the fort In either case, it looks increasingly likely that the earthen mound at the Berry site was either built or significantly enlarged on top ofthe remnants of the fort, becoming itself a monumental statement about the conquest of Fort San Juan. The rediscovery of Fort San Juan in 2013, after its abandonment in 1568, presents us with the unique opportu­ nity to explore the myriad ways in which both Spanish colonists and Native Americans from Joara attempted to orchestrate—to control—the public face of this important colonial encounter, and this decisive episode in Ameri­ can history. Fort San Juan seems to have separated the Spanish domestic compound of Cuenca from the Native American town of Joara. a clear sepa­ ration and change in the new colonial social and political landscape. Yet. following the destruction of Fort San Juan and the conquest of the north­ ernmost outpost of Spanish colonial La Florida, that separation may have been obliterated while being marked in Native monumental form by con­ struction or enlargement of the Berry site mound. The moimd construction itself may have represented a reassertion of Joaran identity and authority. Acknowledgments We first wish to thank the Berry family for their continued stewardship of the Berry site and for their interest and support of our project Our re­ search has been supported by the National Science Foundation, the Na­ tional Geographic Society, Certified Local Government grants to the city of Morganton from the Department of the Interior administered by the State Historic Preservation Office and the North Carolina Department of Cul- 116 / MOORE, RODNING. AND BECK tural Resources, the Western Piedmont Community College Foundation, the Woodbury Family Foundation, Warren Wilson College, Tulane Univer­ sity, the University of Michigan, the University of Oklahoma, and the Ex­ ploring Joara Foundation. Thanks to our field crew supervisors and all of the field school students and volunteers who have participated in our proj­ ect and to the many people from Morganton and Burke County, North Caro­ lina, who have contributed to this project Thanks to Greg Waselkov and Marvin Smith for inviting us to contribute to this volume in honor of Judith Knight. We appreciate their editorial com­ ments as well as those of the anonymous reviewers. Any errors remain our responsibility. FinaUy, it is an honor to participate in this volume and we thank Judith Knight for her fnendship and for her significant service to Southeastern archaeology. Post-Medieval Archaeology 40/1 (2006), 28–32 Jamestown Rediscovery: an introduction By WILLIAM M. KELSO Since 1994, archaeological area excavation at Jamestown, Virginia, the first permanent English colony in North America, has uncovered the remains of the 1607 James Fort, long thought destroyed by shoreline erosion of the adjacent James River (Figs 1–2). Almost all the complete triangular perimeter of the 1.1 acre (0.45ha) timber fort has now been identified and approximately 35% of the interior either selectively excavated or mapped and protectively reburied (Fig. 3). Excavations so far identified more than 2,100 archaeological features including over 800 feet (244m) of the construction trenches of the original fort walls, some containing palisade post-moulds. Other features include backfilled trenches of the dry moat, earth-fast building postholes, stone building and brick fireplace foundations, cellars, borrow pits, trash pits, drainage ditches and burials (Fig. 4).1 Over 750,000 artefacts have been identified and catalogued, at least a third found in sealed features which contained strata dated by coins, jettons, cloth seals, and other artefacts to the period 1607–11 (Fig. 5). Ceramic cross-mends indicate that a number of pits, the dry moats, cellars, and the main fort well were filled contemporaneously in 1610, probably as a result of a ‘clean-up’ and building revitalization effort backed by new and more realistic funding of the sponsoring Virginia Company of London. The shared sealed context of features across the site offers a unique tightly dated artefact collection, ideal for qualitative, quantitative and comparative research. Excavation of five of 22 burials in the fort dating to the first three months of settlement (14 May to 5 September 1607) and 72 burials from a 1610–30 burial ground west of the fort enclosure, offer insight into the general health, burial practices, life expectancy, and in some instances the cause of death, during the first two decades of the colony. Analysis of the burials is in the early stages, but preliminary in-depth study of other artefacts is producing significant results. Some of this research serves as the basis of the Jamestown articles that follow in this Journal. For some, understanding these Jamestown archaeological research reports may require a basic review of the history of Jamestown.2 So it was that, on 14 May 1607, just over 100 men and four boys chose to settle on an island some 35 miles (57km) from the sea coast on the James River in Virginia. From there, the colonists began to seek the means to show a profit for the Virginia Company. Their mission was primarily to establish a permanent base from which they could search for gold, find a short western route to the Orient, and convert the Virginia Indians to Christianity. Hostilities with the Indians, shortage of food, and the alien environment that first summer quickly took the lives of half the colonists soon after they struggled to construct the palisaded fort. With better weather in the fall, game plentiful and food from the Indians, the colony began to take root under the leadership of Captain John Smith. Conditions grew worse in the winter of 1609–10, a period known as the Starving Time, resulting in a move to abandon Virginia and sail home. However, within a matter of hours, the first resident governor of the Virginia Company arrived with fresh supplies and a contingent of men, women and children to re-energize the venture — enough to assure that Jamestown would live on to be the capital of Virginia for almost a century. The original fort fell into disrepair in the 1620s, and in 1624 King Charles I revoked the Company Charter and declared Virginia a Royal Colony. © Society for Post-Medieval Archaeology 2006 DOI: 10.1179/174581306X156454 28 JAMESTOWN REDISCOVERY: INTRODUCTION 29 FIG. 1 Archaeological plan of Jamestown, Virginia, 2006. Excavations since 1994 have uncovered the perimeter of the surviving triangular fort, two bastions, nine building footprints, nine cellars, two wells and 29 burials within or related to the fortification of 1607–24 (APVA). FIG. 2 Conjectural reconstruction of James Fort as it may have appeared in 1607–11, based on archaeological and documentary evidence. ‘Ghosted’ walls and buildings are working models that can guide future excavations (APVA). 30 WILLIAM M. KELSO FIG. 3 View of the western palisade with posts excavated and a saw pit adjacent to it (foreground), a cellar, two double burials, a chimney foundation and cobble wall footing of a 1611 ‘row’ house (middle). The 17th-century brick church tower in the background post-dates the fort (APVA). JAMESTOWN REDISCOVERY: INTRODUCTION 31 FIG. 4 Remnants of the Factory cellar, an example of the strata typical of early James Fort period cellars: collapsed earthen walls below an infilling of domestic refuse from the 1610 ‘cleansing of the town’ (right foreground) (APVA). FIG. 5 Over 750,000 artefacts have been identified and catalogued from the James Fort site, at least a third found in sealed features which contained strata dated by coins, jettons, cloth seals and other artefacts to the period 1607–11 (APVA). 32 WILLIAM M. KELSO NOTES 1 For a general survey, see Kelso 2006. For summaries of work in progress, see Kelso 1995; Luccketti & Straube 1996; Luccketti & Straube 1997; Luccketti & Straube 1998; Kelso et al. 1998; Kelso et al. 1999; Mallios & Straube 1999; Kelso & Straube 2000; Kelso et al. 2001; Kelso & Straube 2004. 2 For general introductions, see Noël Hume 1994; Haile 1998; Horn 2005. BIBLIOGRAPHY PUBLISHED SOURCES Haile, E.W. 1998, Jamestown Narratives, Champlain (VA): Roundhouse. Horn, J. 2005, A Land as God Made It, New York: Basic Books. Hume, I. Noël 1994, The Virginia Adventure, New York: Alfred Knopf. Kelso, W.M. 1995, Jamestown Rediscovery 1: Search for 1607 James Fort, Richmond (VA): Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities. Kelso, W.M. 1996, Jamestown Rediscovery 2: Search for 1607 James Fort, Richmond (VA): Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities. Kelso, W.M. 2006, Jamestown: the Buried Truth, Charlottesville (VA): University of Virginia Press. Kelso, W.M., Deetz, E.J., Mallios, S. & Straube, B.A. 2001, Jamestown Rediscovery 7, Virginia: Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities. Kelso, W.M., Luccketti, N. & Straube, B.A. 1998, Jamestown Rediscovery 4, Richmond (VA): Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities. Kelso, W.M., Luccketti, N. & Straube, B.A. 1999, Jamestown Rediscovery 5, Richmond (VA): Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities. Kelso, W.M. & Straube, B.A. 2000, Jamestown Rediscovery 6, Richmond (VA): Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities. Kelso, W.M. & Straube, B.A. 2004, Jamestown Rediscovery 1994–2004, Richmond (VA): Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities. UNPUBLISHED SOURCES Luccketti, N. & Straube, B. 1996, ‘Interim Report on the APVA Excavations at Jamestown, Virginia’, report for the Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities. Luccketti, N. & Straube, B. 1997, ‘Interim Report on the APVA Excavations at Jamestown, Virginia’, report for the Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities. Luccketti, N. & Straube, B. 1998, ‘Interim Report on the APVA Excavations at Jamestown, Virginia’, report for the Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities. Mallios, S. & Straube, B. 1999, ‘Interim Report on the APVA Excavations at Jamestown, Virginia’, report for the Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities. APVA Jamestown Rediscovery, 1367 Colonial Parkway, Jamestown, VA 23081, USA [wkelso@apva.org] Post-Medieval Archaeology 40/1 (2006), 28–32 Jamestown Rediscovery: an introduction By WILLIAM M. KELSO Since 1994, archaeological area excavation at Jamestown, Virginia, the first permanent English colony in North America, has uncovered the remains of the 1607 James Fort, long thought destroyed by shoreline erosion of the adjacent James River (Figs 1–2). Almost all the complete triangular perimeter of the 1.1 acre (0.45ha) timber fort has now been identified and approximately 35% of the interior either selectively excavated or mapped and protectively reburied (Fig. 3). Excavations so far identified more than 2,100 archaeological features including over 800 feet (244m) of the construction trenches of the original fort walls, some containing palisade post-moulds. Other features include backfilled trenches of the dry moat, earth-fast building postholes, stone building and brick fireplace foundations, cellars, borrow pits, trash pits, drainage ditches and burials (Fig. 4).1 Over 750,000 artefacts have been identified and catalogued, at least a third found in sealed features which contained strata dated by coins, jettons, cloth seals, and other artefacts to the period 1607–11 (Fig. 5). Ceramic cross-mends indicate that a number of pits, the dry moats, cellars, and the main fort well were filled contemporaneously in 1610, probably as a result of a ‘clean-up’ and building revitalization effort backed by new and more realistic funding of the sponsoring Virginia Company of London. The shared sealed context of features across the site offers a unique tightly dated artefact collection, ideal for qualitative, quantitative and comparative research. Excavation of five of 22 burials in the fort dating to the first three months of settlement (14 May to 5 September 1607) and 72 burials from a 1610–30 burial ground west of the fort enclosure, offer insight into the general health, burial practices, life expectancy, and in some instances the cause of death, during the first two decades of the colony. Analysis of the burials is in the early stages, but preliminary in-depth study of other artefacts is producing significant results. Some of this research serves as the basis of the Jamestown articles that follow in this Journal. For some, understanding these Jamestown archaeological research reports may require a basic review of the history of Jamestown.2 So it was that, on 14 May 1607, just over 100 men and four boys chose to settle on an island some 35 miles (57km) from the sea coast on the James River in Virginia. From there, the colonists began to seek the means to show a profit for the Virginia Company. Their mission was primarily to establish a permanent base from which they could search for gold, find a short western route to the Orient, and convert the Virginia Indians to Christianity. Hostilities with the Indians, shortage of food, and the alien environment that first summer quickly took the lives of half the colonists soon after they struggled to construct the palisaded fort. With better weather in the fall, game plentiful and food from the Indians, the colony began to take root under the leadership of Captain John Smith. Conditions grew worse in the winter of 1609–10, a period known as the Starving Time, resulting in a move to abandon Virginia and sail home. However, within a matter of hours, the first resident governor of the Virginia Company arrived with fresh supplies and a contingent of men, women and children to re-energize the venture — enough to assure that Jamestown would live on to be the capital of Virginia for almost a century. The original fort fell into disrepair in the 1620s, and in 1624 King Charles I revoked the Company Charter and declared Virginia a Royal Colony. © Society for Post-Medieval Archaeology 2006 DOI: 10.1179/174581306X156454 28 JAMESTOWN REDISCOVERY: INTRODUCTION 29 FIG. 1 Archaeological plan of Jamestown, Virginia, 2006. Excavations since 1994 have uncovered the perimeter of the surviving triangular fort, two bastions, nine building footprints, nine cellars, two wells and 29 burials within or related to the fortification of 1607–24 (APVA). FIG. 2 Conjectural reconstruction of James Fort as it may have appeared in 1607–11, based on archaeological and documentary evidence. ‘Ghosted’ walls and buildings are working models that can guide future excavations (APVA). 30 WILLIAM M. KELSO FIG. 3 View of the western palisade with posts excavated and a saw pit adjacent to it (foreground), a cellar, two double burials, a chimney foundation and cobble wall footing of a 1611 ‘row’ house (middle). The 17th-century brick church tower in the background post-dates the fort (APVA). JAMESTOWN REDISCOVERY: INTRODUCTION 31 FIG. 4 Remnants of the Factory cellar, an example of the strata typical of early James Fort period cellars: collapsed earthen walls below an infilling of domestic refuse from the 1610 ‘cleansing of the town’ (right foreground) (APVA). FIG. 5 Over 750,000 artefacts have been identified and catalogued from the James Fort site, at least a third found in sealed features which contained strata dated by coins, jettons, cloth seals and other artefacts to the period 1607–11 (APVA). 32 WILLIAM M. KELSO NOTES 1 For a general survey, see Kelso 2006. For summaries of work in progress, see Kelso 1995; Luccketti & Straube 1996; Luccketti & Straube 1997; Luccketti & Straube 1998; Kelso et al. 1998; Kelso et al. 1999; Mallios & Straube 1999; Kelso & Straube 2000; Kelso et al. 2001; Kelso & Straube 2004. 2 For general introductions, see Noël Hume 1994; Haile 1998; Horn 2005. BIBLIOGRAPHY PUBLISHED SOURCES Haile, E.W. 1998, Jamestown Narratives, Champlain (VA): Roundhouse. Horn, J. 2005, A Land as God Made It, New York: Basic Books. Hume, I. Noël 1994, The Virginia Adventure, New York: Alfred Knopf. Kelso, W.M. 1995, Jamestown Rediscovery 1: Search for 1607 James Fort, Richmond (VA): Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities. Kelso, W.M. 1996, Jamestown Rediscovery 2: Search for 1607 James Fort, Richmond (VA): Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities. Kelso, W.M. 2006, Jamestown: the Buried Truth, Charlottesville (VA): University of Virginia Press. Kelso, W.M., Deetz, E.J., Mallios, S. & Straube, B.A. 2001, Jamestown Rediscovery 7, Virginia: Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities. Kelso, W.M., Luccketti, N. & Straube, B.A. 1998, Jamestown Rediscovery 4, Richmond (VA): Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities. Kelso, W.M., Luccketti, N. & Straube, B.A. 1999, Jamestown Rediscovery 5, Richmond (VA): Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities. Kelso, W.M. & Straube, B.A. 2000, Jamestown Rediscovery 6, Richmond (VA): Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities. Kelso, W.M. & Straube, B.A. 2004, Jamestown Rediscovery 1994–2004, Richmond (VA): Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities. UNPUBLISHED SOURCES Luccketti, N. & Straube, B. 1996, ‘Interim Report on the APVA Excavations at Jamestown, Virginia’, report for the Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities. Luccketti, N. & Straube, B. 1997, ‘Interim Report on the APVA Excavations at Jamestown, Virginia’, report for the Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities. Luccketti, N. & Straube, B. 1998, ‘Interim Report on the APVA Excavations at Jamestown, Virginia’, report for the Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities. Mallios, S. & Straube, B. 1999, ‘Interim Report on the APVA Excavations at Jamestown, Virginia’, report for the Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities. APVA Jamestown Rediscovery, 1367 Colonial Parkway, Jamestown, VA 23081, USA [wkelso@apva.org]
Purchase answer to see full attachment