The Florida anThropologisT

The Florida Anthropologist Volume 64, Number 2 June 2011 Table of Contents From the Editors

81

Articles Gunflints from Fort Brooke: A Study and Some Hypotheses Regarding Gunflint Procurement Robert J. Austin The Textual Archaeology of Seminole Colonization Philip Colin Hawkins





85



107

A Brief Note on Currents, Current Archaeologists, and Ancient Fiber-Tempered Pots Christopher F. Altes

115

FAS 2011 Annual Meeting Florida Anthropological Society 2011 Award Recipients

121

Abstracts of the Florida Anthropological Society 2011 Meeting



125

About the Authors

135

Cover: Artwork celebrating the 63rd annual Florida Anthropological Society meetings held in Orlando in May 2011. Artwork by Nancy Flynn. Please see the awards and abstracts from the May meeting beginning on page 121.

Published by the FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY, INC. ISSN 0015-3893

Gunflints from Fort Brooke: A Study and Some Hypotheses Regarding Gunflint Procurement Robert J. Austin Southeastern Archaeological Research, Inc., P.O. Box 2818, Riverview, FL 33568 Email: [email protected] Gunflints are common artifacts found at eighteenthand early nineteenth-century military sites in Florida and elsewhere; the archaeological site of Fort Brooke (8HI13) is no exception. Established in 1824 at the mouth of the Hillsborough River, the fort and associated cantonment area served as an important base of operations and supply depot for the U.S. Army during the Second Seminole War (1835-1842) (Chamberlain 1968:65). Although much reduced in size and importance following the war, Fort Brooke remained in the possession of the U.S. Army until 1883 when the land was opened up for private sale (Covington 1981:43; McKay 1949). Located within the urban core of the City of Tampa, Florida, Fort Brooke has been the focus of several archaeological investigations, both large and small (e.g., Almy and Horvath 2001; Austin and Ballo 1988; Austin and Hendryx 2009; Grange 1974; Hardin and Thomsen 1984; Janus Research 1995; Piper and Piper 1980, 1982). Two of the largest occurred between 1987 and 1988 as the City’s Public Works Department began making plans to build a convention center and associated parking garage on five city blocks in the heart of historic Fort Brooke (Figure 1). Piper Archaeological Research, Inc. (now Janus Research) was contracted by the City to conduct the necessary cultural resource investigations as required by City Ordinance 8230-A. These investigations included mitigative excavations of a prehistoric midden and cemetery as well as portions of Fort Brooke that were located within the confines of the proposed development (Austin 1993; Austin et al. 1992). The author served as Co-Principal Investigator during the project. This paper presents the results of an analysis of the gunflints recovered during the Convention Center excavations of Fort Brooke. Although gunflints often are reported in excavation and survey reports, detailed analysis is rare. The 47 gunflints recovered during the 1987 and 1988 excavations are augmented by 9 additional gunflints from other smaller projects at the site of Fort Brooke and 29 gunflints from private collections. Together these 85 gunflints provide a means of characterizing Second Seminole War-era military gunflints in Florida in terms of use wear, firing position, associated firearm types, and source of origin. In addition, the dominance of French gunflints at a post-1800 site contradicts the historical pattern observed elsewhere in the continental U.S. and is examined with regard to trade relationships and ordnance acquisition patterns by the U.S. Army following the War of 1812. Vol. 64(2)

Brief History of Gunflint Production Most gunflints found on American military sites are of either British or French manufacture as these were the two primary commercial producers of gunflints. The domestic manufacture of gunflints was authorized by the U.S. Congress in 1776, but an American gunflint industry never established itself (B. Lewis 1956:159). Spanish-made gunflints are restricted to sites of Spanish colonial occupation (e.g., Durst 2009; Villalobos 2003). The Dutch, Germans, and Italians, among others, manufactured gunspalls and gunflints but these were not widely used in the United States. Native Americans also made gunflints from locally available cherts; however, even among the Indians, European gunflints were preferred once they became consistently available (Witthoft 1966:22). Several written descriptions of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century gunflint production in England and France are available in the literature (e.g., Barnes 1980[1937]; Citizen Dolomieu 1960 [1796-7]; De Lotbiniere 1980; GillettLaumont 1960; Skertchly 1879; Woodward 1960[1951]) and these provide some insight into the history and technology of gunflints. The first gunflints are thought to have been produced in the Netherlands around 1620 (Witthoft 1966:22), although this has been questioned by White (1975:67). These early forms are called spalls or gunspalls because they are simply large flakes that were struck from a cobble or wedge-shaped core. Usually the striking platform and bulb of percussion are clearly visible on the spalls (Figure 2a). Some secondary flaking may be present at the back or heel area of the spall, but for the most part the flint was left unmodified (Hamilton 1964:52). The French were apparently the first to manufacture on a large scale gunflints from “long flakes” or blades during the last half of the eighteenth century (De Lotbiniere 1980:154). The blades were struck from a core by direct percussion using a specially made steel hammer. The blade was then snapped into suitably sized pieces and trimmed using a steel chisel set at an incline and a disc-shaped hammer called a “roulette.” The knapper takes up the blades, one by one, and propping them against the chisel on the workbench, gives them a sharp tap with the roulette on the two ends of each blade [to remove the bulb of percussion at one end and the feathered margin at the opposite end]…he then produces, depending on the length of the blade,

The Florida Anthropologist

June 2011

86

The Florida Anthropologist

2011 Vol. 64(2)

Figure 1. Map of Tampa’s Central Business District showing the locations of the Tampa Convention Center (1987) and South Regional Parking Facility (1988) project areas. Also shown are locations of other projects mentioned in the text: A=US AmeriBank (Austin and Hendryx 2009); B=Quad Block (Piper and Piper 1982); C=Ashley Tower (Hardin and Thomsen 1984). two or perhaps three gunflints. Each of these fragments is then taken up again for retouching. Placing one end of the fragment against the top of the chisel, the knapper guides the roulette with short, rapid blows to the smooth side of the fragment so that numerous chips fly in all directions. These chips are produced by the counterblow, just at the point of contact between the stone and chisel, and they make the flake scars that appear on the edges of the gunflints [Schleicher 1910 quoted in Barnes 1980[1937]:161]. The British had been making gunspalls since at least the mid-seventeenth century (De Lotbiniere 1980; White 1975) and continued to do so into the early nineteenth century (Honerkamp and Harris 2005). They did not adopt the blade technique until sometime during the last quarter of the eighteenth century (De Lotbiniere 1980:156; White 1975;

Witthoft 1966:32), but when they did, they improved the technique substantially and were able to eclipse France in the mass production of gunflints. The British technique of gunflint production has been described by Barnes (1960[1937]), De Lobitniere (1980), and Skertchly (1879). It involved the systematic removal of long, parallel-sided blades from a prepared core. The blade was then held at an angle against a steel chisel blade and with a hammer similar to the French “roulette,” the knapper struck the blade on its central axis, just below the lower edge of the chisel. The result was an oblique fracture. The blade was then turned over, placed on the chisel edge at the appropriate distance for the size of the gunflint required, and with a second blow the flint was detached from the blade. This process continued until the blade was exhausted. The resulting gunflints required no additional trimming other than a quick rasp against the chisel edge to straighten the striking edge. The method was

Austin

Fort Brooke Gunflints

Figure 2. Examples of the main types of gunflints found at Fort Brooke: A) gunspall; B) round-heel blade; C) untrimmed blade; D) double-edged blade; E) square-heel blade. so efficient that British flintknappers were reportedly able to produce up to 3000 gunflints in a day compared to 500 using the French method (Skertchly 1879:31; C. Smith 1960:60). Distinguishing Between French and British Gunflints Distinguishing between French and British blade gunflints is accomplished in two ways: by the type of raw material and by technological and morphological features. Of these the latter is probably the more reliable because of the variation inherent in flint materials. Nonetheless a distinction is often made between French and British flints and when used in conjunction with other criteria, these can aid in the identification of the place of origin. Although other source areas are known to have been exploited, the raw material preferred by British flintknappers came primarily from late Cretaceous flint deposits in Suffolk County particularly in the Brandon area (Durst 2009; Hamilton and Emery 1988). The typical flint from Brandon is usually dark gray to black, relatively opaque, and fine to medium grained. Occasionally light-colored, gray, opaque flints were also used by the British (Kenmotsu 1990:95). The primary source areas of French flint were the late Cretaceous deposits located in the Seine and Marne regions (Durst 2009; Hamilton and Emery 1988). This flint tends to be light yellow, blond, or honey-colored with small whitish inclusions, although other colors ranging from gray to brown to nearly black are not uncommon (Hamilton and Emery 1988:30). Often there is a white, chalky cortex adhering to the exterior surface of the flints. The translucent and very fine-grained French flint was considered by many soldiers to be superior to British flint (Noel Hume 1978:220), presumably because of its perceived reliability in producing the necessary spark. Technologically, the difference between British and French gunflints is in the degree of secondary retouch that is exhibited. The British usually did not modify their gunflints once a blade segment of the appropriate size had been produced (Figure 2c), although secondary flaking of the sides of the

87

gunflint may be exhibited (Figure 2d). The French on the other hand trimmed all edges except for the striking edge (Figure 2b). The back or heel was often flaked into a rounded, convex edge resulting in a distinctively shaped gunflint that is called a round heel or “D‑form” (Kenmotsu 1990:98). French gunflints also tend to be slightly wider than they are long while British gunflints tend to be longer than they are wide (Hamilton and Emery 1988:13). Other styles of gunflints were made by both the French and the British, but these are rarely found on military sites in Florida. One variation manufactured by the French and which may be present is described by Hamilton (1964:56). This is a square, very thin, and flat gunflint with secondary chipping on the sides that form a bevel matching the bevels of the heel and striking edge. Hamilton mentions that he has seen larger examples in the south that were probably used on muskets. He estimates that they were made through the end of the flintlock era (ca. 1860). The French apparently also used a black flint on occasion and since this thin, flat type is definitely of French manufacture, its occurrence on black flint can be confused with a British origin. Fort Brooke Assemblage A total of 85 gunflints from Fort Brooke are included in the analysis (Appendix I). Forty-seven of these were recovered during the Convention Center project. Most of these (n=43) came from excavations at what was the future site of the South Regional Parking Facility (Figure 1), which is believed to be located where enlisted soldiers and militia bivouacked in uncovered marquees during the Second Seminole War (Austin 1993). Gunflints were recovered from Second Seminole Warperiod strata and features (primarily refuse pits). Dating of these proveniences was accomplished primarily through South’s (1977) mean ceramic formula and visual bracketing methods, which indicate a date range of 1824 to 1840 for all but three of the 19 dated features (Austin 1993:Table 7). This date range is corroborated by the recovery of an 1835 Liberty half-dime from a refuse pit (Feature 3) that contained several gunflints and an 1837 “seated” dime from a charcoal-impregnated lens within the Fort Brooke-period stratum (Austin 1993:63). Four gunflints were recovered from excavations at the Bay Cadillac site in the southeast corner of the Tampa Convention Center project area (Figure 1). The focus of the excavation here was on a prehistoric cemetery and overlying midden (Austin et al. 1992); however, a number of Fort Brooke artifacts were recovered from the upper levels of the midden. This area is believed to have been close to Frazer’s Redoubt, a triangular-shaped fortification that was constructed prior to 1836. Additional gunflints from three other projects conducted within the boundaries of 8HI13 (see Figure 1) also were included in the analysis. These include three gunflints recovered from excavation on the USAmeriBank property, including one from a late 1840s-early 1850s barrel well (Austin and Hendryx 2009); five gunflints recovered from three burials at the Fort Brooke cemetery, which is believed to have been in use between 1824 and 1846 (Hardin 1982);

88

The Florida Anthropologist

and one gunflint from a Second Seminole War refuse midden located on the Ashley Tower property (Hardin and Thomsen 1984). Finally, 29 gunflints from two private collections are included in this study. Although the provenience information of these artifacts is not as precise as the professionally excavated specimens, they have been included in order to increase the overall sample size. Gunflint Typology Five distinct styles of gunflints were defined in the Fort Brooke assemblage based on differences in manufacturing techniques: spall; blade, untrimmed; blade, double edged; blade, square heel; and blade, round heel. These reflect variations on the three major types of gunflints that are commonly found at historic sites: spall, blade, and modified or trimmed blade. A sixth category includes fragments and heavily reworked forms that cannot be accurately assigned to one of the other five categories. The six categories are described below and summarized in Table 1: Spall: These are wedge-shaped or trapezoidal in crosssection, display a prominent bulb of percussion on the upper face, and the heel and lateral margins display secondary flaking (Figure 2a). Honerkamp and Harris (2005:102) refer to this type as a “basic spall” and Stone (1971:14-18) places them in his Series C, Type 1 (Spall) category. Two examples of this style are present in the Fort Brooke sample. One is made of a gray homogeneous flint while a second, larger spall is made from a coarse-textured, dark gray chert containing quartz sand inclusions that is unsimilar to any of the other gunflint materials. Blade, untrimmed: These gunflints are made from blades and are trapezoidal in profile (Figure 2c). They possess sloping (beveled) side and back surfaces, and a flat to slightly concave midsection face. Flake scars on the face are oriented parallel to the bed, or ventral surface of the original blade blank. These are similar in form to Honerkamp and Harris’s (2005:102) “basic blade” except that their examples exhibit trimmed margins. Martin (1985:195) adds untrimmed blades to Stone’s original typology and designates them as Series D. There are three untrimmed blade gunflints in the Fort Brooke collection. Two of these are made of black flint, and one is made of honey-colored flint. Blade, double edged: This style of gunflint is similar to the untrimmed blade described above, but both side margins are trimmed and the heel and striking edge remain untrimmed (Figure 2d; cf. Honerkamp and Harris 2005:102). This is presumably to enable both the heel and edge to serve as striking edges. Four examples of this style are present in the Fort Brooke sample; two are made on gray flint, one on grayish-brown flint, and one on honey-colored flint. Blade, square heel: This style of gunflint is similar to the untrimmed blade described above, but has had three and sometimes four margins trimmed through secondary flaking (Figure 2e). The heel is straight or “square” which distinguishes it from the round-heel variety described below. This style corresponds to Honerkamp and Harris’s (2005:102)

2011 Vol. 64(2)

“basic blade.” Only three examples of this style are present in the Fort Brooke assemblage. They are made of dark gray, dark grayish-brown, and dark olive flint. Blade, round heel: This style of gunflint also is made on a prismatic blade. Two lateral margins and the heel have been trimmed by secondary flaking, with the heel trimmed into a rounded shape (Figure 2b). They correspond to Stone’s (1971:8-10) Series A, Types 1 and 2 blade gunflints. Honerkamp and Harris (2005:102) describe modified blades from the Presidio Santa Maria de Galve cache in Pensacola and compare them to Stone’s Series A, Type 2, although these square-heel gunflints are not the same as those described by Stone, which possess a “rounded back heel.” The round-heel style is the most common gunflint at Fort Brooke; 57 of the 85 gunflints (67%) are this style (Figure 3). Forty-one are made of a translucent honey-colored flint with light-colored inclusions. The others are made of grayishbrown flint (6), dark yellowish-brown flint (3), light brown flint (2), gray flint (3), dark gray flint (1), and dark grayishbrown flint. Indeterminate: Two heavily resharpened blade gunflints and 14 gunflint fragments make up this category. Nine are made of honey-colored flint, two are made of gray flint, two of dark gray flint, and one of black flint. The color of two gunflint fragments could not be accurately determined because they are heat damaged which has altered their natural colors. Dimensional Characteristics Length1, width, and thickness measurements were obtained for all specimens (Appendix I) and a summary of these data is presented in Table 2. A scatterplot of length and width values for the 62 complete specimens shows three distinct groupings (Figure 4). Most of the gunflints cluster near the center of the graph (B), but a grouping of nine gunflints with low length and width values is evident (A) and a single large gunspall also is isolated from the rest of the assemblage (C). Although the samples of most of the gunflint varieties are too small to plot their frequency distributions, the round-heel variety does contain enough examples to do so and the resulting distributions of lengths and widths are shown in Figure 5. Although the distribution of gunflints lengths is negatively skewed towards the larger sizes, there are two possible length groupings centering around 18.5-19.99 mm and 26-27.49 mm, with the latter exhibiting a large amount of variation around its peak. The distribution of width frequencies is even more strongly skewed with most of the round-heel gunflints narrowly clustered between 25.5 and 29.99 mm. These distributions are consistent with the scatterplot in Figure 4 which shows a few smaller round-heel flints separated from the majority of larger flints. The wide range of variation in lengths and the narrow range of widths illustrated by Figure 5 suggest that the B grouping in Figure 4 contains specimens possessing variable lengths but relatively consistent widths. This suggests that this group contains heavily reworked flints along with unworked and lightly worked specimens. Several authors have published size ranges for flints meant to be used in various types of firearms (e.g., B. Lewis

Fort Brooke Gunflints

Austin

89

Spall Blade, untrimmed Blade, double-edged Blade, square heel Blade, round-heel Indeterminate Totals Percents

1 1 41 9 52 61.18

1

2

1 3 3.53

1 1 2 4 4.71

1 1.18

Indeterminate

Light Brown

Dark YellowishBrown

Dark Olive

Dark GrayishBrown

Grayish-Brown

Gray

Dark Gray, Coarse with Sand

Dark Gray

Black

Types

Honey

Table 1. Classification of Fort Brooke gunflints by type and color.

1 2

1

3 2 8 8.24

6

1 1

1

7 2.35

2 9.41

1 1.18

3

2

3 3.53

2 2.35

Figure 3. Examples of gunflints and a lead flint patch from Fort Brooke.

2 2 2.35

Totals

2 3 4 3 57 16 85 100.00

Percents

2.35 3.53 4.71 3.53 67.06 18.82 100.00 --

90

The Florida Anthropologist

2011 Vol. 64(2)

Table 2. Dimensional data for Fort Brooke gunflints. Types Spall Blade, untrimmed Blade, double-edged Blade, square heel Blade, round-heel Indeterminate

N 2 3 3 3 54 3

Length (mm) Range Mean 21.3-30.2 25.7 18.6-23.0 20.1 25.8-29.9 27.3 17.5-18.0 17.8 17.6-33.4 27.0 20.0-29.9 23.8

SD 6.3 2.5 2.3 0.3 3.7 5.3

N 2 3 3 3 50 4

Width (mm) Range Mean 27.7-35.3 31.5 17.8-23.7 20.0 26.4-31.2 28.3 15.0-17.0 15.8 16.2-30.3 26.7 22.7-27.6 25.7

SD 5.4 3.2 2.6 1.0 2.8 2.3

N 2 3 4 2 55 16

Thickness (mm) Range Mean 5.9-12.1 9.0 4.8-11.0 7.5 5.6-10.0 7.5 6.0-7.0 6.5 4.4-11.0 7.4 4.0-9.0 6.4

SD 4.4 3.2 2.3 0.7 1.3 1.5

Figure 4. Scatterplot of length and width values for complete gunflints showing three size groupings (A, B, and C).

1956:160; Skertchly 1879:47-63; Woodward 1960 [1951]:39) and these are shown in Table 3. The most relevant of these for comparison to the Fort Brooke data is B. Lewis’s reproduction of the gunflint specifications in the 1849 Ordnance Manual of the United States Army. These specifications list the recommended average size (length, width, and thickness) in inches for muskets, rifles, and pistols along with acceptable size ranges. These sizes were converted to millimeters and are compared to the Fort Brooke data in Figure 6. The military specifications are quite narrow, particularly in terms of width, so size-range data from all three data sets in Table 3 were combined and are also shown in Figure 6. In addition to the larger size ranges, the Skertchly and Woodward gunflint data provide size ranges for additional firearms, such as pocket pistols, carbines, and cannons.

Comparison of these size ranges with the Fort Brooke data reveals that the latter is consistently smaller than the recommended ranges, particularly in terms of length. Undoubtedly this is due to the fact that many of the Fort Brooke gunflints have had their original sizes modified by use and resharpening. Both of these activities would have reduced their overall length while width and thickness would have remained relatively unchanged. C. Smith (1960:48) also notes that discrepancies between archaeological specimens and published military standards may be due to a lack of careful inspection by the U. S. Army when the flints were imported. It is worth noting that the two round-heel gunflints that were identified by Hardin (1982:289) as unused, as well as four gunflints identified by the author as having only minor evidence of use, all are located at the upper end of the size

Fort Brooke Gunflints

Austin

91

12

10

Frequencies

8

6

4

2

0

17-18.49

18.5-19.99

20-21.49

21.5-22.99

23-24.49

24.5-25.99

26-27.49

27.5-28.9

29-30.49

30.5-31.9

32-33.49

25.5-26.99

27-28.49

28.5-29.99

30-30.49

Length (mm)

16

14

Frequencies

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

16-16.49

16.5-17.99

18-19.49

19.5-20.99

21-22.49

22.5-23.99

24-25.49

Width (mm)

Figure 5. Frequency distributions of length (top) and width (bottom) for round-heel gunflints.

92

The Florida Anthropologist

2011 Vol. 64(2)

Table 3. Recommended size ranges of gunflints for various firearms.

Firearms Length (mm) Width (mm) 1849 U. S. Military Manual Specifications (Lewis 1956:160) Musket 30.5-38.1 27.5-28.7 Rifle 24.6-30.5 20.1-22.4 Pistol 23.6-27.7 21.3-23.3 Skertchly (1879:48-63) Musket 33.0 27.9-30.5 Carbine 30.5 25.4 Horse Pistol 25.4-27.9 22.9-25.4 Pocket Pistol 19.1 16.5 Woodward (1960 [1951]:39) Musket 28.6-38.1 31.2-41.3 Carbine 28.6-31.2 22.2-25.4 Rifle 22.2 22.2 Horse Pistol 25.4 19.1-25.4 Pocket Pistol 14.3-19.1 7.9-12.7 Cannon 44.5-63.0 38.1-57.2

40

6.6-8.4 5.1-7.4 5.3-6.9 7.6-10.2 6.4 7.6 5.1 -------

C

35

B

30

Length (mm)

Thickness (mm)

Musket

Carbine Rifle

Horse Pistol

A

25

Spall Blade, untrimmed Blade, double edged

20

Blade, square heel Blade, round heel Indeterminate

Pocket Pistol

15

1849 Military Specifications Lewis, Skertchly,& Woodward Dimensions Combined

10 5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Width (mm) Figure 6. Comparison of Fort Brooke gunflint dimensions with 1849 U.S. Army military specifications (B. Lewis 1956) and the size ranges of flints made for various firearms published in Skertchly (1879) and Woodward (1960 [1951]).

Austin

Fort Brooke Gunflints

distribution for both length and width, i.e., within or just below the range for muskets. The outlying large gunspall appears to have been meant for use in a musket as well. The intermediate-size gunflints appear to consist of a mixture of flints used in smaller carbines or rifles, horse pistols, and perhaps larger musket flints that have been reduced in size through use and resharpening. Finally, the smallest gunflints all appear too small to represent anything other than flints meant for use in pocket pistols, notwithstanding the presence of obviously used specimens. Use-Wear Analysis That the Fort Brooke gunflints represent used rather than unused specimens is indicated by an examination of their striking edges. In a study of both modern and archaeological gunflints, Kenmotsu (1990:107-113) identified four criteria that indicate whether or not a gunflint has been used. These include 1) unifacial step flaking on the upper surface of the striking edge, 2) a striking edge that is stepped in cross‑section, 3) smoothing of the striking edge, and 4) flat scalar or hinge flakes on the underside of the striking edge. Utilizing these criteria, all of the Fort Brooke gunflints were examined microscopically, except for those recovered from the Fort Brooke cemetery excavation which were not available for study (although two of the round-heel flints are described by Hardin [1982:289] as “unused”). Sixty-one of the remaining 80 gunflints exhibit moderate to heavy use wear on their primary striking edges; six exhibit minor wear, six are probable strike-a-lights, and seven are too fragmented to make a determination. Thirteen specimens display evidence of having been rejuvenated by either turning the flint over to use the opposite side of the face or rotating the flint in the cock to use one or more alternate margins. Both of these methods of gunflint rejuvenation were used in the past (Woodward 1960 [1951]:3435) and are commonly used by modern flintlock enthusiasts (Kenmotsu 1990:106). Experiments have verified that turning the flint over is an effective means of increasing sparking performance (Hamilton and Emery 1988:143). A third method of rejuvenation, retouching the striking edge to reestablish the proper striking angle and straighten edge irregularities, was observed on 17 specimens. Some of the gunflints that display only minor or moderate wear appear to be capable of being used for several more strikes. According to U. S. military ordnance manuals, a good flint was expected to last for 50 strikes and flints were issued to soldiers at 1 per 20 rounds of ammunition (Brown 1983:450; C. Smith 1960:44). However, the experiments conducted by Hamilton and Emery (1988) demonstrated a marked decrease in the performance of gunflints with continued use as measured by the length of the spark array that results from firing. The fact that some gunflints were discarded with minor use with no attempt to rejuvenate them suggests that the soldiers were concerned with the reliability of the gunflints to provide the necessary spark and so preferred new, unused edges to those that were slightly worn or were not of the proper striking angle. The available supply of gunflints may also have been

93

a factor in affecting the rate of discard. Since Fort Brooke was the principal ordnance depot for most of the military forts and campaigns in south Florida, it would be expected that the maintenance of firearms, including the examination and discarding of any gunflints not considered in prime working condition, would have been a major activity there. Six gunflints display edge damage and retouch indicating that they were recycled for use as strike-a-light flints and a seventh was recovered from the Fort Brooke cemetery excavation attached to a steel flint (Hardin 1982:289). Evidence for this type of function includes bifacial edge crushing, edge rounding, striations, and polish (Moore 2001; Runnels 1994; Stapert and Johansen 1999). Strike-a-lights produce sparks by striking a flint against iron or steel which ignites the tinder to make fire. Continued use of the flint against a fire steel results in the dulling of the striking edge which may then be rejuvenated through secondary retouch. The retouch increases the angle of the striking surface and often produces a concave edge outline (Moore 2001:73; Runnels 1994:Figures 1-3). Two gunflints display concave edges with extensive retouch, three display crushed margins, and a sixth displays steep retouch along one margin. The best example of a strike-a-light flint is shown in Figure 7. This specimen displays extensive crushing and rounding along a concave edge (Figure 8, right). Another interesting edge damage pattern that was observed on 11 round-heel specimens and one untrimmed blade consists of a small notch or concavity in the heel (Figure 3, second row, second from left; third row, two furthest to the left; see also Hardin 1982:Figure 44a; Laxson 1954:Figure 1). The interior edges of these notches tend to display crushed margins indicating that they have been in contact with a hard, unyielding surface. One of the gunflints from the site was still contained in its lead patch which is open at the back

Figure 7. Obverse and reverse views of a well worn strikea-light flint from Fort Brooke.

94

The Florida Anthropologist

2011 Vol. 64(2)

Figure 8. Edge damage resulting from (left) striking against a frizzen and (right) use as a strike-a-light flint. Horizontal bars = 1 cm.

Figure 9. Illustration of the firing mechanism for the M1816 standard issue flintlock musket showing the position of the gunflint heel against the turnscrew. revealing the heel of the flint with the characteristic notch indicating that the damage occurred while the flint was in the cock. Examination of photographs of flintlock rifles, as well as actual firearms, indicates the source of the damage. The firing mechanism of a flintlock rifle consists of a cock which holds the gunflint and a steel frizzen. When the gun is fired, the cock is released and the gunflint strikes the frizzen causing a spark to ignite the powder. The flint is set in the cock by placing it between two metal plates which are tightened

by a connecting turnscrew (Figure 9). The gunflint is placed in the cock with the heel against the turnscrew. Indeed, De Lotbiniere (1980:159) states that the steeply beveled, rounded heel of French gunflints may have enabled a soldier to place the flint directly in contact with the turnscrew in order to give better sparking performance, explaining also the hole in the center of lead and leather flint patches. Repeated impact of the striking edge of the gunflint against the frizzen would tend to drive the flint backwards into the turnscrew causing crushing

Austin

Fort Brooke Gunflints

of the heel edge. This repeated impact would produce a notch that conforms to the diameter of the turnscrew. Firing Position The 1849 Ordnance Manual further recommends that gunflints should be positioned with the bevel up when fired; however, as both C. Smith (1960:44) and Woodward (1960 [1951]:34) note, this was not a universal practice. Kenmotsu (1990) also mentions that many modern flintlock enthusiasts use their gunflints upside down, in other words with the flat ventral surface facing upwards. In the Fort Brooke assemblage it was found that 36 of the 80 analyzed gunflints were used in this fashion. Evidence of this practice is seen in the location of the flake scars that result from impact with the frizzen. Since the action is downwards, impact occurs on the underside of the flint driving flakes upward. If the flint is used with the ventral surface up, then use damage should be present on the ventral surface, as shown in Figure 8, left. Another 22 gunflints were fired from the recommended dorsal position, 11 displayed evidence of having been fired from both the dorsal and ventral positions, and one displayed no evidence of use. Firing position could not be determined for 10 gunflints either because of their fragmented condition or because they had been extensively modified by retouch or secondary use as strike-a-light flints. Origin of Manufacture Fifty-seven gunflints were determined to be of French manufacture based on the presence of the rounded heel and retouched side margins. Forty-one of these were manufactured from a translucent, honey-colored flint with whitish inclusions, with the remaining 16 round-heel specimens manufactured from a variety of different colored flints (see Table 1). In addition, one small, thin (4.8 mm), double-edged blade is of honey-colored flint (Figure 3, bottom left) and may be one of the flat French gunflints noted by Hamilton and described above. Another square but untrimmed honey-colored flint also is tentatively identified as French. Nine other broken gunflints are made of honey-colored flint. Although probably of French origin, their fragmented condition makes it difficult to determine this precisely. Most exhibit trimmed edges, however, making it more likely that they are French rather than British. Nine gunflints of likely British manufacture are present in the assemblage representing three styles: untrimmed, double-edged, and square heel. There is a wide variety of flint types among the British flints including black, gray, dark gray, grayish-brown, dark grayish-brown, and dark olive (Table 1). The dark grayish-brown flint displays trimming on all four margins and was recovered from a Fort Brooke burial along with two unused French flints. Analysis of the skeletal remains indicates that this individual was probably an Anglo-American burial (Hardin 1982:286). Two other British-style flints were recovered from two separate Native American burials; one dark olive flint was attached via corrosion to a fire steel or strike-a-light and a dark gray flint was similarly attached to an iron projectile point (Hardin 1982:286, 289). One additional

95

broken and heavily worn gunflint made from black flint is likely British in origin also. The origin of six gunflints could not be determined because they are too fragmented to determine the technology used to manufacture them and the flint material tends to be non-diagnostic gray or dark gray in color. The origin of the two spalls also is difficult to determine. The larger spall is made from a coarse-grained, opaque, dark gray chert with numerous quartz sand inclusions. The material is unlike any of the flint varieties associated with the French or British-made gunflints nor does it resemble the local Tampa Limestone cherts that outcrop along the Hillsborough River. The smaller spall is made from a relatively uniform, opaque gray flint. Although the raw materials are atypical, a likely origin for the spalls is Britain. The large cache of British-made spalls and blade flints found at the Presidio Santa Maria de Galve and dated to sometime after 1795 (Honerkamp and Harris 2005) indicates that British flintknappers continued to manufacture gunspalls after the introduction of the blade technique to that country during the late eighteenth century. Another possibility is that the spalls were struck from chert cobbles used as ballast, which would suggest that they were made on site. Gunflint Procurement during the Second Seminole War Florida and the French Connection The preponderance of French gunflints at Fort Brooke is a pattern found at other Second Seminole War sites in Florida. Clausen (1970:14) reports that of the 110 gunflints in the Fort Pierce collection, the “majority” were of French manufacture. Similarly, 10 of the 15 gunflints recovered during various investigations at Fort King appear to be of French manufacture as are 6 of the 11 gunflints pictured by Baker (1974:Figure 3) from Fort Foster. The samples of gunflints from other Second Seminole War-era sites are too small to make definitive conclusions, but when examined in their entirety, sites of this period (1835-1842) display a much greater proportion of French and possible French gunflints than earlier sites, or for that matter, sites associated with the Seminole Indians, regardless of time period (as is discussed below). The significance of this is related to previous attempts at establishing a chronology of gunflint use in the Americas. Witthoft (1966) proposed a three-stage chronology based on presumed manufacturing dominance: Dutch (wedgeshaped or gunspalls), 1650-1770; French (blade flints), 17201820; British (blade flints), 1780+. This chronology has been shown to be deficient in several ways. White (1975), for example, has shown that the Dutch did not have a monopoly on the manufacture of gunspalls and that both the British and French manufactured them in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Gunspalls also were made from ballast stones by British soldiers occupying Fort Frederica in Georgia during the early eighteenth century and they constituted a significant proportion of the large cache of British gunflints recovered from the Presidio Santa Maria de Galve in Pensacola, dated to sometime between 1795 and 1821 (Honerkamp and Harris 2005).

96

The Florida Anthropologist

2011 Vol. 64(2)

Table 4. Temporal distribution (percentages) of gunflint types in North America (Kent 1983:Table 2).

Time Periods 1625-1650 1650-1675 1675-1700 1700-1725 1725-1750 1750-1775 1775-1800 1800-1825 1825-1850

Bifacial 100 94 55 9

WedgeShaped 2 41 84 88 82 56 4

At the other end of the chronology, the presumed manufacturing dominance of British gunflints after 1780 is based on the fact that prior to that time the French held a virtual monopoly on commercial gunflint production supplying not only its own military but also those of Britain and America as well (Hamilton 1960:74, 1980:146; Stone 1971). After 1800, the use of British gunflints increased, partly due to the more efficient method of gunflint production developed by British flintknappers. In addition, Woodward (1960 [1951]:35) cites an early source that indicates that the French had ceased gunflint production by 1837, although White (1975:71) indicates the Dutch imported French gunflints for its military as late as 1817 and Hamilton (1964:56) implies that the French continued making gunflints up to the close of the flintlock era in the mid-nineteenth century. Regardless, data from archaeological sites in North America do support the contention that Britishmade gunflints dominated the commercial market after 1800, (e.g., Hamilton 1960:75-76, 1964:55; Kent 1983:Tables 1, 2). Kent’s (1983) seriation of gunflint data from 29 seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth-century sites clearly shows this trend (Table 4). In Florida, however, this pattern fails to hold, particularly during the Second Seminole War period. Table 5 provides gunflint data for 31 Florida sites for which good contextual data for gunflints are available, including 13 Second Seminole War-period sites. These data are summarized in Table 6 by 25year and 50-year periods.2 For the period 1825-1850, which included the Second Seminole War, 75% of the recovered gunflints are identified as French-made. This percentage would be even higher if quantitative data for the French gunflints from Fort Pierce could be included; however, these data are not provided by Clausen in his 1970 report. Even without these data, the percentage of French gunflints in Florida for the period 1825-1850 is significantly higher than the 8% documented by Kent for sites elsewhere in the U.S. during this same period (Table 4). This break with the general trend is not limited to Florida or to military sites. Hudson and Hudson (1972) document a cache of French gunflints from a post-1830 context at a civilian site in New Orleans. Clearly, other factors besides manufacturing dominance influenced the acquisition of gunflints in the South.

French 4 4 7 12 18 42 58 8

English

2 38 92

Totals 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

N 11 158 436 162 67 607 1324 261 89

Historical Factors Influencing Gunflint Procurement A review of the gunflint literature and American history texts suggests several possible explanations for this divergent pattern: functional differences between French and British gunflints, cost differences, commercial trade agreements, logistical problems in supplying a remote theater of operation, and the desire to utilize stockpiles of gunflints left over from earlier engagements. The first two explanations are not considered to have been major determining factors in the purchase of gunflints by the U.S. Ordnance Department. Although some soldiers may have preferred French over British gunflints, experimental tests indicate little difference between them in terms of consistently producing a reliable spark (Hamilton and Emery 1988). Price certainly could have influenced whether gunflints were purchased from one or the other country if all other factors were equal; however, all else was rarely equal in terms of international trade following the end of the American Revolution. The period from 1782 to 1815 was characterized by trade embargos, blockades, tariffs, and privateering as the newly formed republic became ensnared in the economic warfare being waged between Britain and France (Cheney 2003; Horsman 1972[1962]; O’Rourke 2006; Potofsky 2002). Although France was America’s principal ally and financial supporter during the American Revolution, relations between the two countries cooled as the U.S. tried to reestablish normal relations with Britain after the war ended. The French Revolution in 1789, war with Britain (17921797), the Quasi War of 1798, and the Napoleonic Wars (1799-1815) also hindered France’s ability to export its goods to America (Horsman 1972[1962]:22-23; Potofsky 2002:4-8; Sage 2007). During the Napoleonic Wars, Britain blockaded French ports and in response, Napoleon’s navy closed off all European ports in his Continental System hoping to strangle Britain’s economy. According to White (1975:70), citing French sources, during this period Napoleon banned the exports of gunflints from France. In 1807, Britain passed an Orders of Council which prevented U.S. ships from landing at a European port without first stopping at a British port (Horsman 1972[1962]:95-96).

Fort Brooke Gunflints

Austin

97

Table 5. Frequencies of gunflints at archaeological sites in Florida. Site

Time Period

N

ABO

GS

Nocoroco

1605

1

Fig Springs

1608-1656

2

Baptizing Spring

1610-1656

7

1

San Luis de Talimali

1656-1704

21

17

Scott Miller

1650-1725

3

3

Fort Matanzas, north midden Fort San Miguel de Panzaola/Fort of Pensacola

1742-1763

21

3

1752-1781

4

1

Zetrouer A (Seminole)

1760-1780

15

Spalding's Lower Store

1763-1780

54

FR

BR

IND/ UID

References

1

Joy 1989:39 Goggin et al. 1949:16-17; Fitts 2001:87-96

1 “French” gunspall, 1 indeterminate Fitts identified these as likely of British origin

Lewis 1969:134-137

2 aboriginal flints 3 very small, heavily retouched, reworked flints

2

Weisman 1992:142, 143

6

Loucks 1979:161, Table 3 McEwan 1991:Tables 1 and 3; Vernon and McEwan 1990:34, Tables 1-5

1

Smith 1951:124; Smith 1956:57 9

9 2

1

15 2

Deagan 1976:78

“rectangular piece of chipped flint…not made of traditional European flints” Made of French flint, but unclear if they are spalls or blades Six square bifaces with “evidence of percussion on one edge”; Loucks suggests that they are possible gunflint blanks 1 “prism” gunflint; 17 “locally made” including 2 of silicified coral Rectangular gunflint from the mission structure; all three described as “native chert” 1 gunspall made from Florida chert; 17 fragments=9 honey colored, 8 gray

Griffin and Smith 1949:356

3

44

8

Turnbull Colonists’ House

1768-1777

4

1

Fort Matanzas, west midden White-Fox

1760-1805 1768-1777

2 2

1 1

Zetrouer B (Seminole)

1770-1790

11

11

Panton, Leslie Co. Store

1793-1803

16

11

2

Stacy 1967:117-118

French flint is heat altered, broken 1 honey, 1 gray spall Fitts identified these as likely of British origin. Cites Seaberg (1955) who describes 3 European flints and 8 aboriginal flints made of local chert, but these are apparently the same 11 gunflints analyzed by Fitts. 3 aboriginal flints. Stacey identifies the spalls as French-made

Payne's Town (Seminole) Presidio Santa Maria de Galve (Spanish) Shannon Road Midden (Leonardi House)

1790-1812

4

2

2

Blakney-Bailey 2008:177

Identifies all four as British-made

1795-1821

1239

780

459

Honerkamp and Harris 2005:Table 1

1802-1821

43

Fort San Carlos de Austria

1814 or 1818

3

cache 1 possible gunflint core of French flint; 11 gunflint fragments 1 dark gray, 1 black, 1 honey colored

Ximenez-Fatio House

1821-1860

7

Ft. Brooke

89

Ft. Alabama/Ft. Foster

1824-1850 1826-1838, 1849

15

Ft. King Indian Key

1827-1846 1830-1842

16 9

Ft. Defiance/Ft. Micanopy Ft. Heileman Ft. Cooper

1835-1843 1836-1841 1836-1842

2 2 3

Fort Dade

1836-1842

4

3

1

2

2

0

3

Comments

1 1

17

11

1

2

12

1

6

61

9

17

6

5

4

10 1

4 1

2 7

2

110

3

Ft. Fanning Kennedy-Darling Store

1838-1843 1849

3 5

1 1

Dade County (Seminole)

mid-19th C.

1

1

30

878

131

1

Gaske 1982:137-138 Almy and Horvath 2001:11-12; Austin 1993:94-99; Austin and Hendryx 2009:Tables 8 and 9; Hardin 1982:289-290; Hardin and Thomsen 1984:22, Table 2; Horvath 1987:4 Baker 1974:Plate 3, 1996:Appendix B Ellis et al. 2009:93, Figure 30; Gulf Archaeology Research Institute 1999:59, Figure 66; Piatek and Hunt 1989:103 Baker 1973:Plate 2

9 UIDs are honey-colored, probably French, 1 is black, probably British

SEARCH 1997:84, Figure 30 Bland et al. 2006:6-20, 6-22 Baker 1976:Table 4

1

Bell 2004:60-61, Figure 22

Clausen 1970:13-14, Figure 11

“majority” are blonde-colored, presumably French; 3 pictured are French, 1 is British beveled

106 3 4

Bland et al. 2004:51, 54 Baker 1983:Plate 6 Laxson 1954:116, Figure 1

513

6 fragmented gunflints “chert, honey-colored flint, and black flint”

1 1 3

Carlson et al. 2009:299-303 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1992:52

1 definite French-manufactured; 1 small probably French, both honeycolored “honey-colored” 2 “aboriginal” flints 1 burned and shattered gunflint, possibly French

2 1

1838-1842

1726

Deagan 1976:85 Moore, personal communication 2011

Fitts 2001:87-96

Ft. Pierce

Totals

Moore, personal communication, 2011

174

KEY: ABO=Aboriginal; GS=Gunspall; BR=British; FR=French; IND/UID=Indeterminate/Unidentified

Identified as “Irish or British”, but appears to be French round-heel

98

The Florida Anthropologist

2011 Vol. 64(2)

Table 6. Temporal distribution (percentages) of gunflint types in Florida (Data from Table 5).

Time Aboriginal Gunspalls French English Totals N Periods 1600-1650 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4 1650-1700 87.0 13.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 23 1700-1750 ------1750-1775 2.1 67.7 18.8 11.5 100.0 96 1775-1800 10.3 79.3 3.4 6.9 100.0 29 1800-1825 0.1 61.4 1.4 37.1 100.0 1277 1825-1850 1.6 2.4 75.6 20.3 100.0 123 NOTE: The period from 1600 to 1750 is divided in 50-year increments due to less precise dating of recovery contexts. In response, the U.S. passed the Non-Importation Act in 1806, barring British exports to the U.S., followed by the Embargo Act in 1807, which was prompted largely by the British navy’s attack on the U.S. Naval Vessel Chesapeake and the capture of four U.S. sailors (Horsman 1972[1962]:123-143). The Act was repealed in 1809, to be replaced by the Non-Intercourse Act which allowed trade between the U.S. and everyone except Britain and France. This effectively kept both British and French goods from arriving on American shores, although smuggling of British goods across the U.S.-Canada border and French goods via Louisiana meant that some goods still entered the country illegally. Trade with both countries was resumed when the Non-Intercourse Act was replaced in 1810 with Macon’s Bill No. 2 (Horsman 1972[1962]:185). Trade with Britain was curtailed by the War of 1812, although it resumed immediately following the end of the war in 1814. Following the conclusion of the War of 1812, trade relations with both Britain and France were reestablished, although the U.S. almost went to war with France during the 1830s over indemnity claims for confiscation and destruction of United States ships and goods dating back to the Napoleonic Wars (Blumenthal 1972:73-77). Cooler heads prevailed, however, and the three countries entered a period of relative stability and peace. The U.S. Army was reduced in size and ordnance stocks were considered sufficient for what was needed to supply a peacetime force (B. Lewis 1956:29). The U.S. Ordnance Department, established by an Act of Congress on March 14, 1812, was abolished on May 2, 1821 and between 1822 and 1835, Congress authorized no purchases of small arms ammunition or powder until the available stores had been reduced or depleted (Brown 1983:445; B. Lewis 1956:29, 155-156), although apparently firearms production continued at the Springfield and Harpers Ferry armories (Moller 1993:425-426; M. Smith 1977:Table 1). Congress resurrected the Ordnance Department on April 5, 1832 (Brown 1983:445). When the Second Seminole War erupted in 1835, the Ordnance Department, in operation for only three years, faced fiscal and logistical demands in its efforts to supply a remote theatre of operations (Brown 1983:445, 454). That it sometimes failed in its efforts to do so, especially during the early years of the war, is documented in newspaper accounts (e.g., The Courier, December 10, 1835, cited in Anonymous 1925), as well as the letters and diaries

of officers and enlisted men who participated in that conflict (e.g., Brooke 1974; Chamberlain 1968:39, 54; Covington 1958:324-325). French Gunflints in Florida, Some Hypotheses From 1782 to 1815, trade between Britain, France, and the U.S. was constantly in a state of flux. Although firearms, ammunition, and gunpowder were manufactured in America (Brown 1983; B. Lewis 1956), an all-important element of the flintlock ignition system – gunflints – had to be imported. Consequently, it is likely that these necessary items were obtained from whichever foreign market could provide them. Although Britain may have held commercial dominance in the gunflint trade after 1800, U.S. embargos and French blockades of British ports may at times have forced the U.S. armories and private firearm manufacturers to purchase gunflints from France, particularly during the War of 1812. With the onset of the Second Seminole War, the recently reestablished Ordnance Department, having not actively purchased large quantities of supplies since the end of the War of 1812, was faced with supplying U.S. Army regulars as well as state militias and, at times, settlers, with firearms, ammunition, and gunflints. Although back on good terms with Britain, the process of ordering and shipping large quantities of goods from Europe took several months, and it seems likely that the Ordnance Department may have initially supplied U.S. troops destined for Florida using stockpiled materials. Since there was no trade with Britain during the War of 1812, it also seems likely that these surplus stocks included a large quantity of French gunflints. The Ordnance Department, as well as commanders in the field, may also have looked to private contractors to supply these and other items (Brown 1983:447448, footnote). Both private arms manufacturers and the national armories at Springfield, Massachusetts and Harpers Ferry, Virginia would have kept quantities of gunflints on hand since they were required to provide flints with each individual firearm purchased by the military (National Archives, Record Group 156, Entry 78). With the development of the percussion cap ignition system in the early 1800s, the French began to unload its surplus of gunflints on the world market (Witthoft 1966:33). Since the United States did not manufacture its first muzzle-loading percussion rifle until 18423 (Butler 71:82),

Fort Brooke Gunflints

Austin

it would have been in the market for gunflints to outfit its standard issue flintlocks. Furthermore, Chamberlain (1968:78) and Grismer (1950:89) state that Fort Brooke received its supplies from New Orleans, where Fort Pike was a major staging area for troops on their way to Florida. According to Hudson and Hudson (1972:8), many of the gun dealers in New Orleans were French and some may have sold French-made gunflints to the U.S. Army. Conclusion In this paper, I have provided a description and analysis of gunflints from Fort Brooke, a Second Seminole War military reservation and ordnance depot. The formal and functional analyses have provided information on the firearms that were most likely used by the soldiers during the war, patterns of use, refurbishment, and recycling, and the identification of countries of manufacture. The Fort Brooke gunflint assemblage was compared to similar assemblages from other sites in Florida and the continental U.S. and was found to contain a significantly greater proportion of Frenchmade gunflints than expected based on previous efforts to develop a gunflint chronology. A review of historical events that occurred during the period from the end of the American Revolution through the start of the Second Seminole War offered several potential explanations for this anomaly. Of these, the two that appear to provide the best explanation are the use of stockpiled gunflints that had accumulated during the War of 1812 and the purchase of gunflints from private contractors in New Orleans. While Britain may have eclipsed France in the commercial production of gunflints following 1780, French-made flints were in use in Florida (and perhaps New Orleans) well into the first half of the nineteenth century. Trade restrictions between the U.S., Britain, and France brought about by a variety of international wars and economic conflicts following the American Revolution no doubt affected from which foreign country the U.S. purchased its gunflints; U.S. embargos and French blockades of British ports may have forced the U.S. to purchase gunflints from France during this period. Following the War of 1812, with Britain and the U.S. again on friendly terms, there would have been no reason for British-made gunflints not to have been used during the Seminole War. However, the military may have had to rely on existing stockpiles of firearms and ordnance-related materials or purchase them from private contractors who carried French merchandise since there had been no purchases of such items for over a decade and the Ordnance Department had only recently been resurrected. Additional archival research will need to be conducted to verify these hypotheses. Notes 1. French gunflint manufacturers measured length along the axis perpendicular to the face or striking edge of the gunflint, or parallel to the long axis of the original blade blank (Stone 1971:7). Length measurements by archaeologists are made parallel to the face, or

99

perpendicular to the long axis of the blade. This convention is followed here as it is common usage and can be compared to length measurements made by other archaeologists. 2. Gunflint data from sites dating prior to 1750 are summarized by 50-year increments because of the lack of more precise dating estimates for the contexts of recovery. 3. Hall’s breech-loading percussion carbine was being issued to the U. S. Calvary in 1833 (Butler 1971:137); however, this ignition system was not utilized extensively in Florida during the Second Seminole War. The primary martial firearm during this conflict was the M1816 flintlock musket, and the U.S. military did not begin replacing the flintlock with percussion rifles in earnest until 1840 (Brown 1983:449; Moller 1993:425-426). The recovery of only a single percussion cap from Second Seminole War-period contexts during the 1987 and 1988 excavations at Fort Brooke (Austin 1993:103) provides archaeological verification of the late introduction of percussion firearms in Florida. Acknowledgments I would like to thank Janice Ballo for conducting research at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. on gunflint procurement by the U.S. Army and the Ordnance Department. She is continuing her research and we hope to resolve soon the outstanding questions regarding how and why French gunflints ended up in Florida during the Second Seminole War. Thanks also to Glen Doran for providing me with a copy of Kay’s 1967 Master’s thesis on the Panton, Leslie, and Company trading post site, 8WA9, and to Roger Grange for sending me copies of gunflint papers from the Conference on Historic Sites Archaeology. Greg Hendryx and two anonymous reviewers provided useful comments on an earlier draft of the paper. Brian Worthington drew the flintlock firing mechanism reproduced as Figure 9. Brian should not be blamed for the gunflint drawings in Figure 2; these are solely the fault of the author. References Cited Almy, Marion M., and Elizabeth A. Horvath 2001 Phase II Archaeological Investigations Block 107 Downtown Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida. Report prepared for Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority. On file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee. Anonymous 1925 Jacksonville and the Seminole War: 1835-1836 Part I Documents and Contemporary Newspaper Accounts. Florida Historical Quarterly 3(3):10-14. Austin, Robert J. 1993 Archaeological Investigations at the Site of the Tampa Convention Center, Tampa, Florida: Volume 2 - Historic Resources, Excavations at Fort Brooke.

100

The Florida Anthropologist Report prepared for the City of Tampa Public Works Department. On file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.

Austin, Robert J., and Janice R. Ballo 1988 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the MooreTaggart Development Site, Tampa, Florida. Report prepared for Moore-Taggart Properties Partnership. On file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee. Austin, Robert J., and Greg Hendryx 2009 Phase I Survey and Phase II Test Excavation, Proposed USAmeriBank Development Property, Lots 3, 4, and 5, Block 93, City of Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida. Report prepared for USAmeriBank. On file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee. Austin, Robert J., Kenneth W. Hardin, Harry M. Piper, and Jacquelyn G. Piper 1992 Archaeological Investigations at the Site of the Tampa Convention Center. Volume 1: Prehistoric Resources. Report prepared for the City of Tampa Public Works Department. On file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee. Baker, Henry A. 1973 Archaeological Investigations at Indian Key. Miscellaneous Project Report Series Number 7, Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties, Tallahassee. 1974 Archaeological Investigations at Fort Foster. Miscellaneous Project Report Series Number 15, Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties, Tallahassee. 1976 Archaeological Investigations at Fort Cooper, Inverness, Florida. Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties Bulletin 5:21-46 1983 The Archaeology of Paynes Creek State Historic Site. Report prepared for Division of Recreation and Parks, Department of Natural Resources by Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties. On file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee. 1996 Fort Foster Revisited: Archaeological Excavations at 8HI112, 1976-1977. Florida Archaeological Reports 34, Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee. Barnes, Alfred S. 1980[1937] How the British and French Flake-Type Gunflints were Made. Translated by Robert and Carol Breazeal Vernon. In Colonial Frontier Guns, by T, M. Hamilton, pp. 160-163. The Fur Press, Chadron, NE. Bell, Christine 2004 Investigating Second Seminole War Sites in Florida: Identification through Limited Testing. M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, Tampa.

2011 Vol. 64(2)

Blakney-Bailey, Jane-Anne 2008 An Analysis of Seminole Artifacts from the Paynes Town Site (8AL366), Alachua County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 61(3-4):167-188. Bland, Myles, Keith Ashley, and Vickie Rolland 2004 An Addendum to an Intensive Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the Proposed Fort Fanning Historical Park, Gilchrist County, Florida. Report prepared for the City of Fanning Springs. On file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee. Bland, Myles, Sydney Johnston, and David Mynatt 2006 Phase III Investigation of 8CL1091, the Fort Heileman Temporary Burying Ground, Clay County, Florida. Report prepared for Black Creek Harbor, LLC. On file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee. Blumenthal, Henry 1972 A Reappraisal of Franco-American Relations 18301871. Greenwood Press, Westport, CN. Brooke, George Mercer, Jr. 1974 Early Days at Fort Brooke. Sunland Tribune 1:1-14. On line version, http://digital.lib.usf.edu:8080/fedora/ get/usfldc:S57-v01n1_74-002/. Brown, M. L. 1983 Notes on U. S. Arsenals, Depots, and Martial Firearms of the Second Seminole War. Florida Historical Quarterly 61:445-458. Butler, David F. 1971 United States Firearms, the First Century 1776-1875. Winchester Press, New York. Carlson, Lisabeth A., Susan Antón, Greg S. Hendryx, Nicholas J. Linville, Debra J. Wells, and Brian E. Worthington 2009 The North River Settlements of Colonial St. Augustine: Archaeological Excavations at the Mission Period and Second Spanish Period Components of the Shannon Road Midden (8SJ3149). Volume 1: Final Report. Prepared for Marshall Creek, Ltd. On file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee. Chamberlin, Donald 1968 Fort Brooke: A History. M.A. thesis, Department of History, Florida State University, Tallahassee. Cheney, Paul 2003 Franco-American Trade during the American War of Independence: A False Dawn for Enlightenment Cosmopolitanism? Paper presented at the Program in Early American Economy and Society Conference, Philadelphia. http://www.librarycompany.org/ economics/2003conference/papers/peaes%20--%20 cheney%20conf%20paper.pdf

Austin

Fort Brooke Gunflints

Citizen Dolomieu 1960[1796-7] Report on the Art of Making Gunflints (Fire Flint). Translated by Carlyle S. Smith. Missouri Archaeologist 22:50-61. Clausen, Carl J. 1970 The Fort Pierce Collection. Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties Bulletin 1:1-21. Covington, James W. 1958 Life at Fort Brooke 1824-1836. Florida Historical Quarterly 36:319-330. 1981 The Final Years of Fort Brooke. Sunland Tribune 7:4142. On line version, http://digital.lib.usf.edu:8080/ fedora/get/usfldc:S57-v07n1_81-105/. Deagan, Kathleen A. 1976 Archaeological Investigations at Fort Matanzas National Monument. National Park Service, Southeast Archaeological Center, Tallahassee. De Lotbiniere, Seymour 1980 British Gunflint Making in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. In Colonial Frontier Guns, by T. M. Hamilton, pp. 154-159. The Fur Press, Chadron, NE. Durst, Jeffrey J. 2009 Sourcing Gunflints to their Country of Manufacture. Historical Archaeology 43:19-20. Ellis, Gary D., Michelle Formica, Kenneth Nash, Jonathan Dean, and Jill Principe 2009 Fort King Park Phase I Archaeological Study. Report prepared for the City of Ocala Planning Department. On file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee. Fitts, Mary Elizabeth 2001 Two Eighteenth-Century Seminole Burials from Alachua County, Florida. M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, Tampa. Gaske, Frederick P. 1982 The Archaeology of a Florida Antebellum Period Boarding House: the Ximenez-Fatio House (SA34-2), St. Augustine, Florida. M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee. Gillet-Laumont, F. P. N. 1960 Extract from a Report by Citizen Salivet on the Making of Gunflints in the Departments of Indre and Loir-etCher, with an indication of some other places where they are made also. Translated by Carlyle S. Smith. Missouri Archaeologist 22:61-69. Goggin, John M., Mary E. Godwin, Earl Hester, David Prange, and Robert Spangenberg

1949

101

An Historic Indian Burial, Alachua County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 2(1-2):10-25

Grange, Roger T. 1974 An Emergency Archaeological Survey of Fort Brooke, Tampa. Report on file, Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, Tampa. Griffin, John W., and Hale G. Smith 1949 Nocoroco: A Timucua Village of 1605 now in Tomoka State Park. Florida Historical Quarterly 27:340-361. Grismer, Karl H. 1950 Tampa: A History of the City of Tampa and the Tampa Bay Region of Florida. The St. Petersburg Times Printing Company, St. Petersburg. Gulf Archaeology Research Institute 1999 Final Report: An Archaeological Study to Locate the Stockade Walls of Historic Fort King. Report submitted to City of Ocala Planning Department. On file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee. Hamilton, T. M. 1960 Additional Comments on Gunflints. Missouri Archaeologist 22:73‑79 1964 Recent Developments in the Use of Gunflints for Dating and Identifi­cation. In, Diving Into the Past; Theories, Techniques, and Applications of Underwater Archaeology. Proceedings of a Conference on Underwater Archaeology, edited by June D. Holmquist and Adris H. Wheeler, pp. 52‑57. Minnesota Historical Society and the Council on Underwater Archaeology. 1980 Colonial Frontier Guns. The Fur Press, Chadron, NE. Hamilton, T. M., and K. O. Emery 1988 Eighteenth-Century Gunflints from Fort Michlimackinac and Other Colonial Sites. Archaeological Completion Report Series, Number 13, Mackinac Island State Park Commission, Mackinac Island, MI. Hardin, Kenneth W. 1982 Utilitarian Grave Goods. In Archaeological Excavations at the Quad Block Site, 8Hi998, Located at the Site of the Old Fort Brooke Municipal Parking Garage, Tampa, Florida, by Harry M. Piper and Jacquelyn G. Piper, pp. 274-290. Report prepared for City of Tampa. On file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee. Hardin, Kenneth W., and Mark M. Thomsen 1984 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the Ashley Tower Site, Tampa, Florida. Report prepared for Trammel Crow Company. On file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.

102

The Florida Anthropologist

Honerkamp, Nicholas, and Norma Harris 2005 Unfired Brandon Gunflints from the Presidio Santa Maria de Galve, Pensacola, Florida. Historical Archaeology 39:95-111. Horsman, Reginald 1972(1962) The Causes of the War of 1812. Octagon Books, New York. Horvath, Elizabeth A. 1987 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the Gonzalez Development Company Property at 620 Madison Street, Tampa, Florida. Report for Gonzalez Development Co. On file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee. Hudson, Jack C., and Kay Goelzer Hudson 1972 An Analysis of a Cache of Gunflints from a Site in New Orleans: Gallier House (16OR46). Conference on Historic Sites Archaeology Papers 1972(1):2-11. Janus Research 1995 A Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the Tampa Bay Lightning Arena Development Site, Final Report. Report prepared for Tampa Bay Arena, Inc. On file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee. Joy, Deborah 1989 Excavations under Old Christ Church in Pensacola, Florida. Report of Investigations 25, Institute of West Florida Archaeology, University of West Florida, Pensacola. Kenmotsu, Nancy 1990 Gunflints: A Study. Historical Archaeology 24:92-124. Kent, Barry C. 1983 More on Gunflints. Historical Archaeology 17:27-40. Laxson, D. D. 1954 An Historic Seminole Burial in a Hialeah Midden. The Florida Anthropologist 7:110-118. Lewis, Berkeley R. 1956 Small Arms and Ammunition in the United States Service. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections Volume 129, Washington, D.C. Lewis, Kenneth E. 1969 The History and Archaeology of Spalding’s Lower Store (Pu-23), Putnam County, Florida. M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. Loucks, Lana Jill 1979 Political and Economic Interactions Between Spaniards and Indians: Archeological and Ethnohistorical Perspectives on the Mission System

2011 Vol. 64(2)

in Florida. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. Martin, Patrick Edward 1985 The Mill Creek Site and Pattern Recognition in Historical Archaeology. Archaeological Completion Report Series, Number 10, Mackinac Island State Park Commission, Mackinac Island, MI. McEwan, Bonnie G. 1991 San Luis de Talimali: The Archaeology of SpanishIndian Relations at a Florida Mission. Historical Archaeology 25:36-60. McKay, D. B. 1949 Pioneer Florida. Tampa Tribune, October 30, 1949. Moller, George D. 1993 American Military Shoulder Arms. Volume II: From the 1790s to the End of the Flintlock Period. University Press of Colorado, Niwor, CO. Moore, James L. 2001 Analysis of the Chipped Stone Artifact Assemblage. In Valencia: A Spanish Colonial and Mexican-Period Site along NM 47 in Valencia County, New Mexico, by Nancy J. Akins, pp. 61-86. Archaeology Notes 267, Office of Archaeological Studies, Museum of New Mexico, Santa Fe. National Archives 1812-1868 Contracts for Ordnance and Ordnance Supplies, Record Group 156, Entry 78. Records of the Ordnance Department, National Archives, Washington, D.C. Noel Hume, Ivor 1978 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. O’Rourke, Kevin H. 2006 The Worldwide Economic Impact of the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, 1793-1815. Journal of Global History 1:123-149. Piatek, Bruce, and Bill Hunt 1989 An Archaeological Auger Survey of the Fort King Site (8MR60), Ocala, Marion County, Florida. Report on file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee. Piper, Harry M., and Jacquelyn G. Piper 1980 Final Report of Archaeological Testing for the Fort Brooke Hospital/Kitchen Complex in the Impact Area of the City of Tampa Parking Garage. Report prepared for Historic Tampa/Hillsborough County Preservation Board and the City of Tampa. On file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.

Austin 1982

Fort Brooke Gunflints Archaeological Excavations at the Quad Block Site, 8Hi998, Located at the Site of the Old Fort Brooke Municipal Parking Garage, Tampa, Florida. Report prepared for City of Tampa. On file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.

Potofsky, Allan 2002 The Transatlantic Political Economy: French “Interests” and the Debate Over the U.S. Debt. Transatlantica 2002(1):1-11. E-journal, http://transatlantica.revues. org/474. Runnels, Curtis 1994 Tinderflints and Firemaking in the Historical Period. Lithic Technology 19:7-16. Sage, Henry J. 2007 The New Republic: The United States, 1789-1800. http://www.academicamerican.com/revolution/ topics/1790spart2.html. Schleicher, Charles 1910 Les silex moderns (pierres á fusil et á briquette) traillée a meusnes (Loir-et-Cher). Congrés Préhistoriques de France 6e Session 1102-1109. Seaberg, Lillian M. 1955 The Zetrouer Site: Indian and Spanish in Central Florida. M. A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. Skertchly, Sydney B. J. 1879 On the Manufacture of Gunflints, the Methods of Excavating for Flint, the Age of Paleolithic Man, and the Connexion between Neolithic Art and the Gunflint Trade. Memoirs of the Geological Survey, England and Wales. London. Smith, Carlyle S. 1960 Translator’s Note to Two 18th Century Reports on the Manufacture of Gunflints in France. Missouri Archaeologist 22:40‑49. Smith, Hale G. 1951 A Spanish Mission Site in Jefferson County, Florida. In Here They Once Stood: The Tragic End of the Apalachee Missions, by Mark F. Boyd, Hale G. Smith, and John W. Griffin, pp. 107-136. University of Florida Press, Gainesville. 1956 The European and the Indian: EuropeanIndian Contacts in Georgia and Florida. Florida Anthropological Society Publications, Number 4, Gainesville. Smith, Merritt Roe 1977 Harpers Ferry Armory and the New Technology: The Challenge of Change. Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London.

103

South, Stanley 1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. Academic Press, New York. Southeastern Archaeological Research, Inc. (SEARCH) 1997 An Investigation of Site 8AL42: A Multicomponent Second Seminole War Site (1836-1843). Report prepared for the Town of Micanopy. On file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee. Stacey, Pheriba Kay 1967 8WA9, A Panton, Leslie, and Company Trading Post Site: History, Ethnohistory, and Archaeology. M. A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee. Stapert, Dick, and Lykke Johansen 1999 Making Fire in the Stone Age: Flint and Pyrite. Geologie en Mijnbouw 78:147-164. Stone, Lyle M. 1971 Gunflints from Eighteenth Century Fort Michilimackinac Michigan: A Formal Analysis and Description. Conference on Historic Sites Archaeology Papers 1971 5:2-34. United States Army Corps of Engineers 1992 Archaeological Investigations of the Underground Electrical Utilities and Fort San Carlos de Austria, Site 8Es1354, Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Florida. Report prepared for Naval Air Station Pensacola. On file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee. Vernon, Richard, and Bonnie McEwan 1990 Town Plan and Town Life at Seventeenth Century San Luis. Florida Archaeological Reports 18, Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee. Villalobos, Carol. R. 2003 A Study of Gunflints from Spanish Colonial Sites. M. A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Texas at San Antonio. White, Stephen W. 1975 On the Origin of Gunspalls. Historical Archaeology 9:65‑73. Witthoft, John 1966 A History of Gunflints. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 36(1-2):12-49. Woodward, Arthur 1960(1951) Some Notes on Gunflints. Missouri Archaeologist 22:29‑39. Originally published in Military Collector and Historian 1951.

104

The Florida Anthropologist

2011 Vol. 64(2)

Appendix I. Gunflint data, Fort Brooke, 8HI13. L (mm)

W (mm)

Th (mm)

11-1 15-1

17.6 23.4

22.2 23.7

5.0 7.0

Honey Honey

Blade, rnd Blade, rnd

French French

Ventral Dorsal

16-1

27.7

29.0

8.0

Honey

Blade, rnd

French

Dorsal?

21-1*

11.9

25.5

6.9

Honey

Indeterminate

French?

Indeterminate

41-1 42-1 42-2

30.2 26.4 26.5

35.3 28.5 27.5

12.1 7.0 6.8

Dark gray Honey Honey

Spall Blade, rnd Blade, rnd

Spall French French

NA Dorsal Ventral

44-1 484-1 50-1*

31.2 27.1 26.6

29.0 23.8 17.4

7.4 8.1 9.8

Honey Honey Indeterminate

Blade, rnd Blade, rnd Indeterminate

French French Indeterminate

Ventral Ventral Ventral

64-2* 64-3

16.1 33.4

14.5 28.6

6.6 6.9

Dark gray Honey

Indeterminate Blade, rnd

Indeterminate French

Indeterminate Ventral

Specimen No.

Material

Type

Origin

Position

64-4

21.6

27.4

6.6

Gray

Indeterminate

Indeterminate

Ventral

64-6*

21.1

27.8

5.0

Dark gray

Indeterminate

Indeterminate

Indeterminate

64-7 65-1

31.1 22.7

26.5 26.0

9.0 8.1

Gray Honey

Blade, rnd Blade, rnd

French French

Ventral Ventral

75-1 95-2 115-1

23.0 27.5 18.6

23.7 28.9 18.6

11.0 5.4 4.8

Black Honey Honey

Blade, un Blade, rnd Blade, un

British French French?

Dorsal Ventral Ventral

122-1 134-1 147-1* 154-1 219-1* 224-1 243-1 243-2* 246-1

25.0 32.1 20.0 29.2 30.2 27.0 32.1 31.0 25.4

28.7 29.3 22.7 29.2 13.4 30.1 30.3 15.7 25.3

8.3 8.5 6.8 9.0 6.0 9.6 8.5 7.4 NM

Honey Honey Honey Honey Honey Honey Honey Honey Dark gray

Blade, rnd Blade, rnd Indeterminate Blade, rnd Blade, rnd Blade, rnd Blade, rnd Blade, rnd Blade, rnd

French French French? French French French French French French

Dorsal Dorsal Ventral Dorsal Ventral Ventral Dorsal Dorsal Dorsal

246-2*

23.3

15.2

4.0

Black

Indeterminate

British?

Dorsal

246-3

18.7

17.8

6.6

Black

Blade, un

British

Dorsal

246-4 246-5

29.4 27.2

28.2 24.0

7.5 7.1

Honey Honey

Blade, rnd Blade, rnd

French French

Ventral/Dorsal Ventral

251-1*

27.5

18.4

9.0

Honey

Indeterminate

French?

Dorsal

255-1

30.5

28.0

7.2

Honey

Blade, rnd

French

Dorsal/Ventral

271-1

27.9

25.9

8.2

Honey

Blade, rnd

French

Ventral

283-1* 284-1*

23.3 20.0

13.7 10.9

7.8 5.8

Honey Indeterminate

Indeterminate Indeterminate

French? Indeterminate

Indeterminate Indeterminate

294-1*

26.1

25.9

5.6

Gray

Blade, dbl

British

Dorsal

297-1 301-1 313-1* 317-1* 35-3

26.2 27.2 23.0 12.6 26.3

27.3 28.1 17.1 16.0 28.8

7.0 9.0 5.4 4.6 7.9

Gray Honey Honey Honey Honey

Blade, dbl Blade, rnd Indeterminate Indeterminate Blade, rnd

British French French? French? French

Dorsal Ventral Ventral/Dorsal Dorsal Dorsal?

Comments Ventral retouch, lateral notching(?), deep step scar back ventral Large scalar scars on ventral surface, notch at heel Very small fragment, broken transversely; possibly French Coarser material, possibly homemade; striking platform and bulb visible Heavy use damage; notch at heel Diagonal fracture at heel, possibly from use Heat fractured, crazing lines Small fragment, retouch on dorsal and ventral surfaces Very small amount of use wear Ventral retouch; heel steeply retouched, concave, possibly broken and reshaped; crazing lines Crazing lines, crenated fracture off working edge; probably French Very small amount of use wear; crazing lines Possible ventral retouch Two margins broken, retouched; one margin possibly used Small notch at heel Square shape Ventral retouch back & front, back edge possibly used, notch at heel Very small amount of use wear Broken transversely One lateral margin possibly used Broken in half longitudinally Possible ventral retouch Broken in half longitudinally Still in lead patch; notch at heel Possibly broken & reused; possible use on other margins Use on retouched lateral margin; notch at heel Very light ventral damage; possible use on dorsal lateral margin Crazing, pot lids; color fire darkened Angular fragment apparently reused; notch at possible heel Heavily used, both ventral lateral edges and front dorsal Small area of possible use on one lateral margin Broken transversely; one margin dorsally retouched, two margins ventrally retouched Small, heat fractured fragment Retouch on lateral margins, not on heel; heat fractured, crazing lines Retouch on lateral margins, not on heel; heat fractured, crazing lines Small wedge-shaped fragment Very small fragment Large hinge scars on ventral surface

Fort Brooke Gunflints

Austin

105

Appendix I, continued. Gunflint data, Fort Brooke, 8HI13. L (mm)

W (mm)

Th (mm)

366-1 08027-49.3

24.5 19.5

24.9 21.8

6.7 4.8

Honey Honey

Blade, rnd, atypical Blade, rnd

French French

Ventral Ventral

08027-62.04 08027.66.18.03 BC284-1 BC480-1

19.7 29.9 21.3 27.5

16.2 27.8 27.3 28.1

4.4 7.0 7.0 8.5

Honey Gray Honey Honey

Blade, rnd blade, rnd Blade, rnd Blade, rnd

French French French French

Dorsal/Ventral Dorsal Dorsal/Ventral Ventral

BC480-2 DG-1 DG-2 G-001

29.9 27.2 29.7 19.8

27.6 27.7 24.9 20.7

7.0 8.0 6.9 7.7

Indeterminate Blade, rnd Blade, rnd Blade, rnd

French? French French French

Indeterminate Dorsal Ventral Dorsal

QB-1 QB-2

31.0 17.5

26.0 15.0

11.0 6.0

Blade, rnd Blade, sq

French British

NA Indeterminate

QB-3 QB-4

30.5 18.0

26.0 15.5

9.0 7.0

Honey Honey Dark grayish-brown Honey Dark yellowishbrown Dark grayish-brown Dark yellowishbrown Dark olive

Blade, rnd Blade, sq

French British

NA Indeterminate

QB-5

18.0

17.0

NM

Dark gray

Blade, sq

British

Indeterminate

WW-1 WW-2 WW-3 WW-4 WW-5

30.4 27.0 25.7 25.8 29.4

27.8 27.4 20.9 26.4 27.6

8.3 5.6 5.8 7.8 7.0

Light brown Grayish-brown Grayish-brown Honey Gray

Blade, rnd Blade, rnd Blade, rnd Blade, dbl Blade, rnd

French French French French? French

Dorsal Ventral Dorsal/Ventral Dorsal Ventral

WW-6

26.8

28.4

8.1

Honey

Blade, rnd

French

Ventral

WW-7

27.4

27.4

8.0

Honey

Blade, rnd

French

Ventral

Specimen No.

WW-8

23.7

29.7

9.4

WW-9 WW-10* WW-11 WW-12 WW-13 WW-14*

20.0 22.3 33.1 29.9 27.9 8.6

30.3 15.2 29.7 31.2 27.2 25.2

7.2 6.6 7.4 10.0 7.6 6.4

WW-15

25.7

25.8

7.0

WW-16*

24.6

27.9

7.7

WW-17

24.3

26.3

7.2

WW-18 WW-19 WW-20* WW-21 WW-22

28.4 23.0 26.7 24.8 21.3

27.2 23.0 14.0 26.4 27.7

10.2 5.6 5.6 6.6 5.9

WW-23* WW-24* WW-25*

25.5 28.6 28.7

29.7 26.3 27.5

5.3 8.1 7.0

Material

Type

Origin

Position

Comments Only one margin retouched to form rounded heel possible strike-a-light Heavily reworked flint; striking edge concave with rounding and scarring on dorsal and ventral surfaces, possible strike-a-light; both lateral margins have scarring on ventral surfaces; right ventral has a notch Snap fracture on striking edge Heavily worn; resharpened ventrally Heaviest wear on lateral margin Steep, deep step scars on heel, possible strike-a-light

Retouch on all four margins, notch at heel Strike-a-light, found in a fire steel Attached to corroded iron projectile point Larger scalar scars on ventral, possible retouch? Cortex on heel

Broken corner of striking edge Retouched on ventral surface, steep, regular; notch on left lateral edge Large, flat flakes on ventral surface; striking edge at an angle, possibly broken

Honey

Blade, rnd

French

Ventral/Dorsal

Grayish-brown Honey Honey Grayish-brown Grayish-brown Gray Dark yellowishbrown

Blade, rnd Indeterminate Blade, rnd Blade, dbl Blade, rnd Indeterminate

French French? French British French Indeterminate

Ventral Ventral Dorsal Ventral/Dorsal Ventral Indeterminate

Blade, rnd

French

Ventral

Striking edge oblique, steep retouch, steep retouch on ventral also, possible strike-a-light Retouched on ventral surface, steep; notch at heel; possible strike-a-light Broken fragment Broken corner of striking edge Large bulb on ventral surface Retouch on ventral Broken in half; heel only left Broken & retouched on lateral margin; retouch on ventral surface

Ventral?

Large hinge fracture removed a corner of striking edge; notch at heel on ventral surface

Honey

Blade, rnd

French

Honey

Blade, rnd

French

Ventral

Grayish-brown Honey Grayish-brown light brown Gray

Blade, rnd Blade, rnd Blade, rnd Blade, rnd Spall

French French French French Spall

Ventral/Dorsal Ventral Ventral Dorsal/Ventral Ventral

Honey Honey Honey

Indeterminate Blade, rnd Blade, rnd

French? French French

Ventral Ventral Dorsal

Blade, rnd Blade, rnd

French French

Dorsal/Ventral Ventral

WW-26* 26.6 16.2 5.1 Honey WW-27 30.3 29.0 NM Honey * Incomplete specimen , NM=Not measurable

Broken corner on striking edge; retouch on ventral surface, notch on hell, ventral surface Turned over, flat retouch, small notch on heel Retouch on ventral; split longitudinal Notch at heel Retouch on ventral Broken heel, partially broken striking edge Oblique fracture Oblique fracture heel to side Split longitudinally, possible strike-alight In flint patch