Forging a Contextual Britishness: An Archaeologically Informed Social History of the Garrison of Fort de Chartres, 1765-1772. Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy At the University of Leicester By Jeffrey A. Spanbauer School of Archaeology and Ancient History University of Leicester March 2023 i Forging a Contextual Britishness: An Archaeologically Informed Social History of the Garrison of Fort de Chartres, 1765-1772. Jeffrey A. Spanbauer This thesis is an archaeologically informed social history of Fort de Chartres, 1765-1772. It analyzes documentary and archaeological sources to examine the nature of identity and seeks further to understand British impact and interactions with European and Indigenous communities. It represents an assessment of material culture, space, structure, and practice in the formation of communities of identity, but moves beyond artifactual analysis to incorporate the historical record and forces which impacted this garrison’s ability to perform identity. Evidence suggests that identity formation was less about Britishness and more about demonstrating status, class, or rank. It seeks to offer an understanding of the garrison as a community, with its martial nature impacted by space, structures, and available material goods. This project integrates the archaeological collection with a rich, but ignored, documentary record. Fort de Chartres and colonial Illinois have been interpreted over the centuries as a French fort and French colony, with their assemblages as evidence of Frenchness. The British tenancy at the fort was temporally like the French garrison, with a similarly sized population, yet underemphasized historically. Attempting to capture the stories of these British communities of identity allows for a necessary counterweight to the traditional Francocentric narrative of this area. This is necessary not merely to provide a more inclusive or holistic account, as interpretations are relative to modern discussions about identity and communities, where over-simplified origin stories, material culture, or cultural values need critical assessment and challenged with more pluralistic perspectives. It will examine the context of this ephemeral period which encompasses an important phase in American history, as Illinois transitions between French and British colony, to its rapid positioning as ‘American’ by 1776. ii Acknowledgements I’d like to begin by thanking Dr. Simon James for noticing my “pre-app” for the University of Leicester’s distance learning program. His initial email was quite supportive and encouraged me to continue with the formal application. From there, his enthusiasm for my project, and continued support academically, buoyed me through these years. This project also owes a great deal to Dr. Sarah Tarlow, whose guidance prompted me to tell a much more effective story while guaranteeing its rigor. Both advisors encouraged me to grow and develop, pushing my writing and interpretations in ways that I, frankly, didn’t see as possible. My examiners, Dr. Michael Nassaney and Dr. Alice Samson shared the expertise with me during my defense, and their comments only improved this final work. I would also like to thank DeeAnn Watt, from the Illinois State Museum, whose willingness to accommodate my research of their collections and documents, especially during a global pandemic, truly allowed for this project to occur. Dr. Steven Baule was incredibly generous with his research into the 18th Foot, sharing his thoughts and historical documents without reservation. Finally, I would like to thank my family for their unwavering support in my academic pursuits, especially this particular midlife crisis. I am the person I am today because of my parents’ work ethic, love of learning, and support, which they’ve always given freely. To my kids, who probably didn’t understand why their dad was doing this, I appreciate your support, patience, and willingness to indulge my random tangents and excursions. Lastly, to Amy, you’ve continued to be my cheerleader, providing support, encouragement, and a kick in the pants when needed. iii Table of Contents Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... ii Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ iii List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. vii List of Abbreviations ....................................................................................................................... x Chapter 1: Introduction ...................................................................................................................1 1.1. Research Premise and Questions ....................................................................................3 1.2. Historical Summary ..........................................................................................................6 1.3. Presenting Fort de Chartres .............................................................................................8 1.4. Thesis Description ...........................................................................................................13 Chapter 2: Historical and Site Context ........................................................................................17 2.1. Geography & Environment ...........................................................................................17 2.2. Site History...........................................................................................................................19 2.2.1. French Colonization and First Forts ...........................................................................19 2.2.2. British Fort de Chartres ...............................................................................................23 2.2.3. Post-occupational Farming and Environmental Concerns .....................................25 2.2. State Property: Parks and Recreation ...........................................................................31 2.3. Reconstruction, Archaeology, and Interpretations ....................................................33 2.4. Chapter Conclusions.......................................................................................................43 Chapter 3: Research Context and Methodology ........................................................................44 3.1. Literature Review ................................................................................................................44 3.1.2. Structuration and Practice...........................................................................................51 3.1.3. Current Military Research and Colonial North American Forts ...........................53 3.2. Documentary Context ........................................................................................................55 3.3. Excavated Finds....................................................................................................................61 3.4. Surface Collected Materials ...............................................................................................66 3.5. Archaeological Classification Methods and Cultural Affiliation .................................68 3.6. Chapter Conclusion ........................................................................................................72 Chapter 4: Seeking Britishness in Illinois....................................................................................75 4.1. Shifting Demographics in Illinois .....................................................................................75 4.2. What is Britishness? ............................................................................................................79 iv 4.3. Contrasting Britishness ......................................................................................................83 4.4. Location, Historical Forces, and Britishness within the Material Culture ..................89 4.4.1. Distance & Logistics .....................................................................................................90 4.4.2. Trade Competition, Legislation, and Restrictions ...................................................93 4.5. European Identities and Material Culture Preferences .................................................96 4.5.1. Food and Drink.............................................................................................................97 4.5.2. Cloth and Clothing.....................................................................................................109 4.6. Non-Europeans..................................................................................................................114 4.6.1 Enslaved Illinois (African and Indigenous) .......................................................115 4.6.2. Indigenous Illinois .....................................................................................................120 4.7. Chapter Conclusions.........................................................................................................136 Chapter 5: Intersectional Communities of Identity .................................................................137 5.1. Status, Class, and Profession ...........................................................................................140 5.2. Gender ................................................................................................................................143 5.3. Religion ...............................................................................................................................148 5.4. Illinois’ Communities: Under British Imperial Rule ...................................................151 5.4.1. Law and Government ................................................................................................153 5.4.2. The Militia ...................................................................................................................156 5.4.3. Currency and Exchange ............................................................................................157 5.6. Negotiating, Evading, and Rejecting British Imperial Rule ........................................160 5.6. Chapter Conclusions..........................................................................................................163 Chapter 6: The British Garrison & Martial Identities ..............................................................165 6.1. Insiders and Outsiders: Military Detachments within Civilian Communities .......165 6.2. Identities: Britishness, Status, and the Military ...........................................................169 6.2.1. Officers and Private Men ..........................................................................................170 6.2.2. Britishness as Europeanness: Linking to Peers .....................................................175 6.2.3. Nested and Intersectional Identities ........................................................................177 6.3. Differences in Status: Ordering Space, Structure, and Material Culture .................180 6.3.1. Spaces and Structures ................................................................................................180 6.3.2. Food, Drink, and Material Culture ..........................................................................196 6.4. A Martial Identity: Activities and Practices .................................................................221 v 6.4.1. Regulating Life: Time ................................................................................................222 6.4.2. Controlling Movement and Access .........................................................................223 6.4.3. Fatigues ........................................................................................................................229 6.4.4. Drill, Weapons, and Armaments .............................................................................233 6.4.5. Garrison Duties and Recreation ................................................................................243 6.5. Embodiment and the Soldier ...........................................................................................249 6.5.1. Body and Appearance ...............................................................................................250 6.5.2. Uniforms and Accoutrement ....................................................................................254 6.6. Transgressing, Subverting, and Rejecting a Martial Identity......................................260 6.6.1. Nonconformity and Disobeying Orders .................................................................261 6.6.2. Subversion, Exploitation, and Corruption..............................................................266 6.6.3. Desertion & Punishments .........................................................................................268 6.7. Chapter Conclusions.........................................................................................................273 Chapter 7: Conclusions................................................................................................................276 7.1. Contested, Intersectional, and Contextual Communities of Identity ........................277 7.2. The Mutability of Identities in Pre-Revolutionary Illinois ..........................................279 7.3. Final Thoughts and Directions for Future Study ..........................................................283 Appendix A: Primary Source Transcription ............................................................................286 Appendix B: Data Sets .................................................................................................................298 Appendix C: Articles and Costs in the Illinois Country .........................................................304 Medicine .................................................................................................................................304 Food, Spices, and Food Flavorings .....................................................................................304 Beverages................................................................................................................................306 Tools & Hardware .................................................................................................................307 Dining Utensils ......................................................................................................................316 Tableware, Food Prep ...........................................................................................................316 Drinking Vessels....................................................................................................................323 Weapons and Ammunition .................................................................................................324 Indigenous Trade Goods ......................................................................................................325 Clothing ..................................................................................................................................327 Cloth & Accoutrement..........................................................................................................333 vi Miscellaneous ........................................................................................................................347 Household Goods .................................................................................................................351 Bibliography...................................................................................................................................354 vii List of Figures Figure 1.1: Map locating Fort de Chartres ....................................................................................6 Figure 1.2: Aerial photo of the reconstructed fort .......................................................................9 Figure 1.3: Current portrayals of the British ..............................................................................11 Figure 2.1: Satellite image of the lands surrounding the fort...................................................18 Figure 2.2: Hutchins’ 1770 map of Illinois ..................................................................................20 Figure 2.3: Brown’s map reconstructing Nouvelle Chartres....................................................22 Figure 2.4: 1848 Illustration of the fort ........................................................................................25 Figure 2.5: Mid-19th C photo of the fort’s interior ......................................................................26 Figure 2.6: 1896 photo of the Powder Magazine........................................................................27 Figure 2.7: Newspaper account of flood prevention efforts, 1768...........................................28 Figure 2.8: Pittman’s 1766 drawing of Kaskaskia ......................................................................29 Figure 2.9: LiDAR image of Kaskaskia .......................................................................................30 Figure 2.10: Photo of 1993 flood ...................................................................................................31 Figure 2.11: Reconstructed Powder Magazine ...........................................................................32 Figure 2.12: 1823 drawing of the fort ...........................................................................................34 Figure 2.13: The reconstructed Gatehouse..................................................................................35 Figure 2.14: Master Excavation map overlaid upon a satellite image ....................................36 Figure 2.15: Features 39 and 40 of the East Barracks .................................................................37 Figure 2.16: Thurman’s drain map and excavated drain .........................................................39 Figure 2.17: Satellite image with marked drains .......................................................................40 Figure 3.1: Example of 18th century accounts .............................................................................57 Figure 3.2: Transcription of account ............................................................................................57 Figure 3.3: Matchcoat descriptions ..............................................................................................58 Figure 3.4: Detail of Traders’ accounts ........................................................................................59 Figure 3.5: 1972-1975 excavation map .........................................................................................62 Figure 3.6: Example of artifact report ..........................................................................................63 Figure 3.7: Example of the collection inventory ........................................................................63 Figure 3.8: Example of aggregated artifact database ................................................................64 Figure 3.9: Examples of Peithmann’s artifact cards and catalog record .................................68 Figure 4.1: Illinois’ historical populations ..................................................................................77 Figure 4.2: Map positioning the fort and Illinois .......................................................................92 Figure 4.3: Examples of tin-glazed earthenwares ......................................................................98 Figure 4.4: Examples of traders’ orders for ceramics ................................................................99 Figure 4.5: Chinese export porcelain cup .................................................................................100 Figure 4.6: Excavated bottles ......................................................................................................104 Figure 4.7: Account entries for alcohol......................................................................................106 Figure 4.8: Examples of striped cotton hollands ......................................................................110 viii Figure 4.9: Examples of calamanco and late 18thc illustration ...............................................111 Figure 4.10: Examples of excavated buckles ............................................................................112 Figure 4.11: Purchases for a sick Enslaved woman .................................................................119 Figure 4.12: Locations of Indigenous villages ..........................................................................122 Figure 4.13: Excerpt from Wilkins’ Journal ..............................................................................125 Figure 4.14: LiDAR image of the fort ........................................................................................128 Figure 4.15: Examples of trade goods........................................................................................129 Figure 4.16: A perforated thimble and antler-handed awl.....................................................130 Figure 4.17: Examples of French faience gaming chips and pendants .................................132 Figure 4.18: Examples of modified copper kettle pieces ........................................................132 Figure 4.19: Account of Indigenous trade goods .....................................................................135 Figure 5.1: Hutchins’ 1766 map with villages ..........................................................................139 Figure 5.2: Details of a smith’s account .....................................................................................141 Figure 5.3: Illustration of washerwomen ..................................................................................145 Figure 5.4: Reconstructed French chapel ..................................................................................149 Figure 5.5: Example of an excavated coin .................................................................................158 Figure 5.6: Example of a King’s Medal .....................................................................................161 Figure 6.1: Post-in-earth architecture ........................................................................................167 Figure 6.2: A conceptualization of ‘Fort Gage’.........................................................................168 Figure 6.3: Advice to officers (subordination) .........................................................................172 Figure 6.4: Advice to officers (paternalism) .............................................................................173 Figure 6.5: Satellite image with labelled structures. ................................................................182 Figure 6.6: Illustration of the Commandant’s house and labelled image ............................184 Figure 6.7: Drain D/Feature 25, a latrine ...................................................................................187 Figure 6.8: Foundations of the officers’ building .....................................................................188 Figure 6.9: Montly return for the 34th Foot ...............................................................................189 Figure 6.10: The reconstructed guardhouse .............................................................................191 Figure 6.11: The West Barracks ..................................................................................................193 Figure 6.12: Advice to offices (separate housing) ....................................................................194 Figure 6.13: Features 39/40, outside of the East Barracks .......................................................195 Figure 6.14: Examples of British refined ceramics ...................................................................198 Figure 6.15: Examples of excavated British ceramics ..............................................................200 Figure 6.16: Examples of excavated kettle fragments .............................................................204 Figure 6.18: Accounts of seeds brought to Illinois...................................................................212 Figure 6.19: Examples of excavated porcelain .........................................................................214 Figure 6.20: Examples of recovered colanders/strainers ........................................................218 Figure 6.21: A masonic toasting vessel......................................................................................219 Figure 6.22: Examples of lock and key fragments ...................................................................225 Figure 6.23: The storehouse and guardhouse ..........................................................................226 Figure 6.24: The soldiers’ chamber and armory of the Guardhouse ....................................227 ix Figure 6.25: Figure 6.26: Figure 6.27: Figure 6.28: Figure 6.29: Figure 6.30: Figure 6.31: Figure 6.32: Figure 6.33: Figure 6.34: Figure 6.35: Figure 6.36: Figure 6.37: Figure 6.38: Figure 6.39: Figure 6.40: Figure 6.41: Figure 6.42: Figure 6.43: Figure 6.44: Figure 6.45: Figure 6.46: The restored powder magazine ............................................................................228 Account of work fatigues ......................................................................................230 Examples of recovered tools .................................................................................232 The parade grounds ...............................................................................................234 Firing commands and positions ...........................................................................236 Excerpt from ‘Position of a Soldier under Arms,’ 1777 .....................................237 A Brown Bess sideplate .........................................................................................239 A British ‘Box Lock’ pistol .....................................................................................239 Recovered musket balls and shot .........................................................................241 Excavated scabbard clips and their placement...................................................242 Excerpt from a payment account ..........................................................................243 Excavated die ..........................................................................................................246 St. Patrick’s Day celebration account ...................................................................248 Advice to officers (uniforms) ................................................................................251 Advice to officers (clothing placement) ...............................................................252 Advice to officers (appearance) ............................................................................253 Illustrations of regimental grenadiers’ uniforms, 1760s....................................255 Examples of excavated 18th Foot buttons ............................................................258 Examples of neck stocks and buckles ..................................................................259 Example of an excavated baldric buckle and its placement .............................259 Details from a court martial ..................................................................................265 Newspaper notice of desertions ...........................................................................270 x List of Abbreviations BWM—Baynton, Wharton, and Morgan Papers (Pennsylvania State Archives). I do not reference specific reel and slide numbers (See finding aid), and added these abbreviations. AF—Franks’ Account AO—Officers’ Accounts AM—Morgan’s Account AP—Plantation Account JAK—Journal A, Kaskaskia JBP—Journal B, Philadelphia JBFdC—Journal B, Fort Chartres JCP—Journal C, Philadelphia JFC—Journal Fort Chartres JK—Journal Kaskaskia LAFC—Ledger A, Fort Cavendish SoN--Ledger, Sale of Negros MBP—Memo Book, Philadelphia ML—Morgan’s Letterbooks GP/GW—The papers of General Gage and payment warrants in the William L. Clements Library, Michigan, with the collection, volume number, and series. EX: GP46AS=Gage Papers, volume and series GW18.83=Gage Warrants, folder and number Miscellaneous Abbreviations A&CX—Alvord and Carter, Collections of the Illinois State Historical Library, 1915. A&CXI—Alvord and Carter, Collections of the Illinois State Historical Library, 1916. A&CXIV—Alvord and Carter, Collections of the Illinois State Historical Library, 1921. IHLC—Fort de Chartres Survey. Illinois History and Lincoln Collections. The University of Illinois. IP—Irvin M. Peithmann Papers. Southern Illinois University. ISA—Record Series 244.001, Parks and Memorial Division Administrative Files. Illinois State Archives. ISM—Illinois State Museum Collections. SI--Inventory of Fort de Chartres in Stirling-Gage, 18/10/1765, GP44AS WJ-Wilkins’ Journal of Transactions and Presents, GP138AS. xi NA—The National Archives of the United Kingdom, listed with title, year, and reference number. Ex: GCM-- Court Martial of Thomas Gaffney, 1774, WO 71/79 PSM—Court Martial of William Pound and Robert Shewell, 1769, WO 71/77 Currency Conversions Within the documents, currencies are listed in £ sterling, the French livre, and fiat currency. I have created ratios to exchange these sums (Gage-Reed, 6/9/1767, GP69AS). Ex: £1 (240d) British Sterling = £1 13s 4d (400d) Pennsylvania = £1 15s 7d (427d) New York. The French livre is converted at 5 livres, 12 sols to 4s 8d sterling. Dates are in the European format—day/month/year. 18th century transcriptions reflect modern English spelling/punctuation. 1 Chapter 1: Introduction Fort de Chartres and colonial Illinois have been interpreted and presented over the centuries as a French fort and colony, with its archaeological assemblages typifying Frenchness. The British period here was temporally-equivalent to the French (1765-1772 vs. 1754-1765), with British traders, farmers, servants, and artisans present through American Independence. At times, their population rivaled the French. Attempting to capture the artifacts and stories of these communities allows for a crucial counterweight to the traditional narrative of the fort and Illinois’ history, one which has been exclusively interpreted as French. This is necessary not merely to provide a more inclusive or holistic account of the past, as present interpretations are relative to modern discussions about identity and communities where over-simplified origin stories or materials need critical assessment and more pluralistic perspectives. This thesis primarily seeks to ask if we can see identity within the material culture of the British period and test its application to Britishness specifically. It does this through the inclusion of a robust documentary record, one ignored by previous studies. This allows for a much richer study of what is a limited and problematic archaeological record. These sources allow for greater understanding of the historical and cultural context of the eighteenth-century. They also inform upon how communities of identity were composed, nested, and contextualized by Illinois’ diverse inhabitants. As an archaeologically informed social history, this thesis examines communities of identity by using the archaeology in combination with the documents: letters, traders’ accounts, and other military-related records. This will reveal the complexity of identity and British martial distinctiveness. The French period at Fort de Chartres may have lasted a dozen years (Brown 2013).1 The British took control of the fort in 1765, and its garrison remained through 1772, 1 Brown details four versions of the fort. The stone fort studied here was the last, with earlier wooden forts to the northeast/east (2020). 2 with detachments in Kaskaskia until 1778. In ascribing cultural affiliation to the fort’s archaeological assemblage, previous studies (Brown 1976, Orser 1977, Keene 2002) have presented Franco-centric interpretations. This thesis challenges that premise by investigating diagnostic items, like Brown Bess musket parts, ceramics, and clothingrelated finds, seeking the contextualization of Britishness within this collection. These same works have ignored the British documents, using only those related to the fort’s measurements or descriptions, however, these documents also inform upon the British garrison purchasing and using French-made goods, problematizing our understandings of identity here. This belies the complexity of identity as it existed at Fort de Chartres, far from bases of support and supply, and which saw significant demographic shifts. The topic of military garrisons as communities, and the exploration of identity groups within has seen attention recently (Feister 1984a; Nassaney 2008; Evans 2013; Decorse and Beier 2018). Archaeologists investigating military assemblages have focused upon specific material classes or social groups within. They rarely address the garrison community as a primary research aim nor seek to explain the social history of those using these material goods (Grimm 1970; Stone 1974; Hanson and Hsu 1975). This has been the case with interpretations of Fort de Chartres. No one has integrated all the available sources of data for this site: literary sources, site plans, and the archaeological materials and records. These diverse forms of evidence allow us to sketch a more nuanced picture of how communities of identities are produced, performed, and contested. To obtain a complete image of this garrison, how they lived within these spaces and incorporated material culture, I will utilize all strands of data to investigate in a more balanced way. This project specifically looks for evidence that informs upon Britishness as a structural category of identity, not in an arbitrary manner, but in a way that details is within the context of a meaningful identity category. The archival record of this period is explicitly British, written by people who considered themselves British. I seek the investigate cross-cutting categories of identity, like class/status or profession, and their impacts upon the material culture. Personal identities and communities may remain stable or may change over time, especially in the wake of new circumstances, and displays 3 of these may also change. When I considered the British period here, I wondered how the multi-faceted components, and fluidity, of identity and community played out within a territory inhabited by the British military and its attached civilian communities, French farmers and traders, Enslaved Africans, and Indigenous peoples. This is meaningful when we consider these peoples’ lives between the fort’s construction in 1754 and its destruction in 1772. This was a period of political and economic flux which encouraged the fluidity of identity, and perhaps, national allegiance and community. The contextualization of identity may be seen within the fort’s material assemblage. 1.1. Research Premise and Questions This thesis analyzes archaeological and documentary sources to understand the nature of the British period at Fort de Chartres, and seeks to understand its impact on, and interactions with, Indigenous and European communities. It conceptualizes identity and community, and references categories like ethnicity/nationality, race, gender, age, and class by discussing the space and structures of the fort. It offers a more nuanced presentation of evidence posed by archaeology and discussed within the primary sources documents. I hope to demonstrate the fluidity of community and identity as the fort transitioned between French, British, and American hands. This is important as it contextualizes the history of Illinois and the encroaching Independence movement. The central research questions posed in this thesis is: Can we see Britishness during this period, and if so, what does it look like? How do the documents and artifacts show specific aspects of these communities of identity, perceptions of others, or 18th century values and culture? What evidence exists that supports the creation, maintenance, or rejection of these communities of identity? What do the documents, long neglected, show about identity that the artifacts cannot? Subsidiary Research Questions • Can we see Britishness as a community of identity, and how does it contrast and compare to others, like Frenchness, or other ethnic groups, such as Enslaved Africans and Indigenous peoples? What material evidence is there of this? 4 • • • Understanding the contextual nature of identity, how do other communities, based on profession, class, or status intersect with Britishness during this period? How effective were the British in establishing British communities within established French communities? What mechanisms and practices did they utilize in their attempts to bring their empire into Illinois and impose British rule? What does this say about pragmatic approaches instituted by those commanders in the field, sometimes in opposition to imperial decree and statute? How is Britishness constituted within the contextual community of the military? What spaces, structures, material culture and practices did they use to create these communities of identity? I will address these questions through an examination of the archival record and archaeology to understand the garrison as a military force, an extended social group of officers, soldiers, and ‘others.’ It considers the dynamics of the multi-level interactions of the garrison with other communities, like the French, Indigenous peoples, enslaved Africans, and traders. After having discussed the difficulties of attributing all non-British produced artifacts to the French garrison, I will offer a contextualization of the material culture to challenge the obscuring of the British period. Central to this argument is the idea that, despite a lack of French documents, or discrete French archaeological features, we can understand Britishness-as-identity and assess how they articulated with other identity groups. Based on the recovered artifacts and documentary record, I posit that this assemblage offers a better proxy argument for Britishness, especially through intersectional communities of identity, than it suggests for Frenchness. Beginning with the current historical presentation of the fort and its material culture, the thesis will pivot to discuss the theoretical backgrounds of community and identity, as they reference the interpretation of material assemblages. It will reference current studies of garrison community analyses, and position Fort de Chartres within these. At Fort de Chartres, three British regiments provided troops, some living within extramural settlements alongside European, African, and Indigenous community members. The British garrison consisted of a diverse population, comprising nested and contextual identity groups. Soldiers and officers from England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, and the colonies served as representatives of empire, while interacting with Illinois’ sundry peoples. Trade and material culture linked these communities together. Individuals and 5 groups all sought to establish, maintain, and sometimes, challenge these identities as subjects of the British Crown or as soldiers within its garrisons. This project offers a multi-pronged interpretation of the British period of Illinois history, an era largely neglected within the archaeological and historical scholarship in favor of the French and new American cultures. Although short, examining this sheds light upon aspects of British colonial and military history, and this reflects a deeper understanding of identity and materiality, both in terms of social history and material culture studies, but also in terms of understanding British identities and their intersectional nature, especially that of martial Britishness. Lastly, through a through reflection, and comparison, upon the archaeology and historical documents, it demonstrates a departure from previous historical archaeological methods as used previously in studies of Illinois. Using these sources of evidence in parallel allowed for a greater contextualization of the recovered material assemblage. 6 1.2. Historical Summary The French and British struggled for supremacy in their North American colonies throughout the 18th century. This intensified in the aftermath of the Seven Years War,2 as lands and forts changed hands, including the ‘Illinois Country,’ the land stretching between the coastal colonies and the Mississippi River and Fort of de Chartres exemplified this. This French-built fort (Figure 1.1) entered British hands in October 1765.3 Figure 1.1: This figure locates Fort de Chartres, bottom left, while detailing its relationship to the coast. (Cantonment of Forces, 11/10/1765) 2 3 For a full discussion, see Anderson (2000), Brumwell (2002), or McConnell (2004). Verbal Process, 10/10/1765, A&CXI, 100. 7 The British inhabited and altered the fort, erected new structures, and established occupancy in outlying communities. Over the next seven years (and thirteen years at Kaskaskia), outside political and economic events affected the coordination of supplies to Illinois, impacting the garrison’s relationships with French and Indigenous populations (Alvord 1920, 318). Economic issues obstructed civilian and military personnel in obtaining needed and desired material goods. Supply and trade disruptions resulted from warfare, logistics, and trade sanctions. Prior to the French and Indian War/Seven Years War (1754-1763), the British policy of salutary neglect allowed for the lax application and enforcement of laws and tax collection. This resulted in policy changes in the post-war world. Parliament began to focus its efforts upon the regulation of the Indigenous trade, and sent troops to these new frontier posts to aid in this while constraining the French populations (Houlding 1981, 17). With British officials restricting the accessibility of French goods and enforcing the strict regulation of British goods, the availability of materials affected military and civilian life. The Stamp Act (1765), Revenue Act (1767), and the boycotts and nonimportation agreements instituted by American colonists which followed these impacted trade and availability of materials in Illinois. The documents reveal this discussion and outline accounts and inventories in ways that the archaeological record does not. I hope a broader understanding of trade, and its influence on contextualized communities of identity, offers a more thorough understanding of identity and soldierly identification. Comparative examples from documents and artifacts will illuminate dimensions of identity, like ethnicity/nationality, social class, or gender. Artifacts, documents, and architecture affirm the military’s collective call for ritual and uniformity, emphasized by the 1,600 miles between Illinois and other British settlements. Information revealed in purchases could effectively reference archaeologically recovered/surfacecollected materials to occupational and habitation areas, providing linkages between space, artifact, and documents. These sources illustrate the contestation, maintenance, and negotiation of identity within the hierarchical and predictable military community. If trade and supply had significant impacts on the material culture, we may expect to see a 8 blurring of the cultural lines to more overarching identities, such as those referencing a Europeanness, professional association, or related to class. 1.3. Presenting Fort de Chartres This thesis asserts that previous interpretations of colonial Illinois approached the evidence with confirmation bias, interpreting all materials except those directly connected to the British garrison as French-produced/French-used. Archaeologists and historians examined Fort de Chartres looking to illustrate French material culture, and they found it. For example, Keene’s doctoral thesis examined Fort de Chartres’ role as a French fur trade depot (2002), and he identified the assemblage as French, excluding those items deemed diagnostically British, but ignores the issue of British recycling, purchasing, and use of French goods. Mazrim explores archaeological Frenchness stating “French goods are indeed eclipsed by British goods” due to “significant new choices” (2011, 78). This contrasts with his approach to the British purchasing or using French-made goods, as they, too, were unconstrained in this economy. The belief that so much British material culture was flowing west across land and rivers to Illinois, especially during a decade of warfare, seems simplistic. Few documents from Philadelphia traders reference Illinois or its inhabitants as a viable market prior to 1763. Predispositions like these have deleted any meaningful interpretation of British identity and have imparted only Frenchness upon Illinois. 9 Figure 1.2: This aerial figure shows the reconstructed Fort de Chartres, looking south-southeast. (Courtesy of David Horne) To increase our understanding, we should consider how the secondary scholarship references the fort (Figure 1.2). In this, we see the continued reflection of French Illinois, with the British portrayed as the villains in what is otherwise a free and democratic transition between French colony and American territory. In academic works, there are no site specific treatments of the fort outside of the French fur trade or a study of its ceramic assemblage. The British period receives little attention, with only occasional references within larger works (Ingram 2012; McConnell 2004). The British components of the assemblage have remained uninvestigated in sources which reference Fort de Chartres (Keene 2002, 1991; Martin 1991; Mazrim 2011), with those authors uncritically asserting a French cultural affiliation. Outside of brief allusion to British documents which reference the size or scope of the walls, ditches, and buildings, archaeological reports ignore the British. I will utilize the wealth of British sources to inform upon the material assemblage 10 and structures, underscoring the fluidity of nationality as a community of identity while studying intersectional communities like profession, status, gender, and religion. The excavated material assemblage consists of over 23,000 artifacts, with postoccupational artifacts and (unanalyzed) faunal materials. By including surface-collected artifacts, previously excluded, this assemblage increases to about 25,000 artifacts. I will interpret these artifacts through the archival collection, which includes the papers of the British military and those of the British traders who interacted with the French, Indigenous, and British. Specific examples from the archaeology and documents illustrate the relationship between material goods and identity formation. In terms of discussing communities of identity at Fort de Chartres, it behooves me to illustrate how modern perceptions of identity, as they apply to the imposition of historical presentations of nationality, upon Illinois. Reconstruction efforts since the 1930s have focused upon this fortification as a French site,4 perpetuating Frenchness, with the fleur-de-lis ever-present, and re-enactment groups presenting French lifeways. Museum displays outline agriculture production, religious materials, and glimpses into the French garrison and farmers’ lives. Exhibits focus upon the French prior to 1765 and leap over the British period to the celebration of the American liberation of Illinois, as discussed in my concluding chapter. The British are commemorated with a single display (Figure 1.3), while another is dedicated to the Virginians who ‘liberated’ Kaskaskia, but who never occupied the fort. 4 Luker-Jones, 22/8/1933, ISA. 11 Figure 1.3: These photos show the public presentation of the British within the fort’s museum. (Photos, author) Outside of this lone display, which emphasizes British martialness, other consideration of its garrison remains scant. The same exhibition depicts the 42nd Highland Regiment as the typical soldier, even though they spent less than two months here. The cabinet even contains a (reproduction) Scottish Highlander’s basket-hilted infantry sword, although none were recovered. The presentation of the British goods within the display reflects only the martial aspects of their existence. A single sherd of a creamware pot lid and a fragment of a salt-glazed stoneware plate summarize the domestic activities of their community. I cannot conclusive say why this has occurred, neither in recent interpretations nor in the initial archaeological and historical works dating back to the 1930s. I can only 12 speculate that the focus on the French and obscuring of the British period are related to the larger conceptualization of Illinois, and American, identities, particularly during the greatest period of reconstruction, historical research, and archaeology, as performed in the decade of the Bicentennial celebration of American Independence and afterwards.5 In this, the association with the French represented a legacy of the immediate post-Revolution world. Here the British retained the status of the enemy, while the French, who aided the colonials in their revolution, became the heroes of the story. In letters from the 1930s, we see this desire. For example, Tom Conner, resident of Prairie du Rocher, wrote the Director of the Public Works and Buildings responsible for reconstruction, commenting: an order has come from you—the very best friend of Old Fort de Chartres—to start work on the gateway. Mon cher ami, I want to thank you…[for] all those who hold dear the old relics of the people who broke ground for this great Country of ours. While you are it, why not make the replica so darn near like the original, that the shades of Macarty and Saucier will fell, as they parade through their old masterpiece on All Soul’s Night, that once again their cher France is riding herd over the country which was so close to their hearts.6 Similarly, in communications with the Daughters of the American Revolution, a community service group dedicated to ‘preserving history’ (www.dar.org), and with genealogical connections to those who served within this conflict, the Director outlined his hope for the newly-created park, stating “we have in mind gradually restoring the buildings and walls of Fort Chartres to the condition they were when first built … we plan to place objects, furniture and equipment which are strictly authentic and typical of the time when the French occupied this Fort”.7 French Illinois, then, reflected the acknowledgement of France’s contribution to independence while obscuring and clouding the British impact on Illinois. Simply put, those in Illinois, especially those seeing agricultural and commercial gain, rejected the British and disassociated their history with For example, as part of the Bicentennial celebration, officials had the French General Consul to the United States appear to dedicate the fort and contribute reproductions of French documents about the fort’s history. Southern Illinoisan, 10/5/1976. 6 Conner-Kingery, 19/4/1936, ISA 7 --Jones, 22/8/1933, ISA. 5 13 that of this garrison and its traders, recreating a separate community identity that rested on an imaginary past. Because these reconstructive efforts and museum displays have focused upon its French identity, discussing other communities of identity have been obscured, and the multi-ethnic/national components of Illinois’ populations are ignored. How can we understand the British period within this simplistic portrayal? How can we determine the extent and conditions to which Britishness, as practice, people, and material culture, was performed? There have been few attempts to problematize either the material culture excavated in the 1970s-1980s or to contextualize it through correlation with the primary documents. The scant presentation of the British period has offered a limited explanation of these populations and ignores their impact upon the fort’s structures. This thesis seeks to position and understand these identities within Illinois and its connection to its martial character. Connecting the material culture with the documentary record can help me to ask deeper questions of these identity groups as reflections of Georgian society, military structuration and practice, and intersectional communities of identity. Lastly, it may show that the use of British and French as ‘analytical’ categories of culture and identity require much more nuance in their discussion, a contextualization that goes beyond assigning material culture to a group based solely on their production. 1.4. Thesis Description This chapter outlines the main research questions and objectives of this thesis, including a summary of the rationale for challenging pre-existing interpretations of Frenchness. It has positioned the use of the documents as a primary means of answering these questions, a record previously ignored, but one offering a direct consideration of the role of material culture in historical archaeology. This approach reveals a more nuanced interpretation of British communities of identity, how these contrasted with Frenchness, Europeanness, and Indigenousness, and informs upon the creation, maintenance, and rejection of these personalities through material culture. Understanding the contextual nature of identity reflects the impact of trade and supply upon performances of identity. 14 Lastly, this thesis will examine the spaces, structures, and practices of this British military identity in Illinois. Chapter Two examines the historical and archaeological site context of Fort de Chartres and the British period. Tracing the positioning of Fort de Chartres through its geographical location and its connections to bases of supply and guidance helps us in understanding the archaeological record in terms of its context and stratigraphy but problematizes previous interpretations based solely on the archaeology. It will posit that, given the challenging nature of this assemblage, assigning rigid cultural affiliation for its materials is futile, especially as it connects to the French garrison. Examples of British material culture, on the other hand, offer a proxy argument that more of the assemblage represents the British garrison. Chapter Three presents the research context and methodology. This thesis will use theories of identity, structuration and habitus/practice, and cultural affiliation to position cultural affiliation. Historical documents provide outsider views, in terms of British perceptions of otherness and their self-reflections in contrast. These notions reflect the tropes, stereotypes, and values of British and European worlds. Examining these reveals the perspectives of groups related to the organization of the mess, regiment, occupation, or ethnicity/nationality/race. Understanding relationships contextualizes the effectiveness of usage of material culture, spaces, and practices to perpetuate, or challenge, Britishness. The inclusion of the historical record informs upon the material culture and garrison’s experiences. My efforts to create a database of named individuals helps position the British population within French and Indigenous Illinois. My database of artifacts amassed the entirety of excavated and surface collected artifacts, and assists in incorporating a more holistic view of the assemblage given its problematic stratigraphy. Previous interpretations relied on pattern analysis, and this allowed for a false equation of the culture of production with a culture of usage. Using the documentary record, then, helps associate artifacts with cultural use. Chapter Four first details Illinois’ shifting demographics, through the arrival of British troops, artisans, traders, and laborers. This contrasts with the losses of many 15 French and Indigenous members, who abandoned Illinois for Spanish territories across the Mississippi River. I seek to offer my understanding of identity, as presented within the documents, structures, and artifacts of this garrison. Specific imports reference the intentional purchase of British goods, necessary as part of their martial identity, while others illustrate the role of a greater ‘Europeanness’ reflected by this polite society. As a reflection of Britishness, Chapter Five also focuses on the ‘othering’ of peoples, contrasting this with Frenchness, and through its relationship to Enslaved Africans and Indigenous peoples. The material culture, through the documents, reveals more of the nuance of these community identifications. Chapter Five seeks to inform upon the contingent dimensions of identity performed at Fort de Chartres. It will discuss how race, rank/status, religion, gender, and profession offer intersectional dimensions of identity. This reveals Illinois’ contextual nature, where views of Indigenous peoples are filtered through their perceptions of trade and alliance. Specific material culture was bought for, traded, and gifted to these communities in ways demonstrating preferences. Lastly, this chapter discusses attempts made by the British government, through laws, bureaucratic structures, currency, and militia in imposing at least an ‘imperial’ Britishness upon Illinois. Court records reference the negotiation and rejection of this community of identity, showing the tenuous hold the Crown had over this land. Chapter Six hypothesizes the role of martial identities within the British period. It examines the structures, practices, and material culture which relate to the division of the fort by rank, with officers, as gentlemen, entitled to significant contrasts in these when compared to the private men. It will examine how paternalism, masculinity, and status projected Georgian values upon the military. These practices, spaces, and material culture reveals the subordination of the private men to their officers, as required by the tactics and technology of eighteenth-century warfare. I look to inform upon the collective experiences of the British to address the socio-cultural history of the fort, with examples underscoring military embodiment. I will explore how some garrison members pushed back against the 16 creation and maintenance of community and a military identity by examining issues of nonconformity, rejection, and even corruption. This thesis’ concluding chapter incorporates a final discussion which considers dimensions of identity and community as they applied to this garrison. Examining the availability of specific types of material culture may help us to understand how the historical forces at play in American impacted preferences for specific goods, as expressions of Britishness, Europeanness, or class/status. Given the position of the fort, as a British ‘island’ of identity within groups of others, we may be able to understand the flexible nature of these situational identities. British policies and practices failed to create a fully integrated imperial community, and the intersectional communities of identities discussed help to explain the mutability of this identity as America transformed from a British colony into an independent nation. The futures of Fort de Chartres’ officers, soldiers, and workers, demonstrates this, as many took advantage of the economic opportunities accompanying this oncoming conflict. 17 Chapter 2: Historical and Site Context This chapter will outline the history of Fort de Chartres as it transitioned from a fort into a state park and archaeological site. I will examine how the documents inform upon Illinois’ geography and topography and will explain how French colonization affected the land and its Indigenous inhabitants. After recapping the British experiences in Illinois, I will summarize the shifts in post-occupational usage, through the hands of American farmers and its purchase by the State of Illinois. Examining the impact of agricultural and environmental conditions affects our understanding of the taphonomic processes impacting the assemblage. An introduction to the site’s archaeology illustrates archaeologists’ research goals and the excavations. Understanding these allow for a greater contextualization of the cultural affiliation of material goods, especially when associated with the available documentary record, explored later. 2.1. Geography & Environment To understand how the inhabitants of Illinois situated themselves within the land and fort, we must consider the fort’s geographical position and relationship to the Mississippi River. This helps to posit a discussion of how the environment affected inhabitants’ ability to supply their material needs, in consideration of the vast distances between there, New Orleans, Philadelphia, and the East Coast. This distance impacted the quality, quantity, and types of material culture traders could import. In this way, the Mississippi River, in particular, acts as a significant non-human agent, providing boundaries but also clear markers of political control and cultural affiliation. Its presence significantly impacted the taphonomy of the fort’s archaeology and was even used to destroy the fort in 1772. Understanding this offers a better contextualization of recovered artifacts and betters our attempts to ascribe them to a particular garrison’s usage. 18 Figure 2.1: This figure illustrates a Google satellite image of the lands of Fort de Chartres (circled). Fort de Chartres sits on a wide floodplain (Figure 2.1) between the Mississippi River and limestone bluffs in modern Randolph County, Illinois. These lands are currently under agricultural cultivation, linking back to French colonists: “They raise a great deal of wheat and Indian Corn, they have also most kinds of European Fruits, & Vegetables,” as well as “vast Numbers of Buffalo & Deer And every other Species of Game.”8 British officials described the soil as “excellent, producing very fine Crops of everything that's sowed on it.”9 The Illinois Country, bound by the Great Lakes to the north, the Mississippi River to the west, and touching the Ohio River to the south, served as a key area in determining the future of the imperial powers in colonial North America. The Country of the Illinois is very extensive, comprehending all the Country on the East Side of the Mississippi from about thirty leagues above the mouth of the Ohio to a considerable distance above the Illinois River junction with the Mississippi. The name of Illinois applies to all the Country on both sides of the Illinois River and E. of the Mississippi almost to the bottom of Lake Michigan.10 Fraser-Haldimand, 4/5/1766, A&CXI, 227. Jennings’ Journal, 6/4/1766, A&CXI, 177. 10 Eddington in Carroon 1984, 89. 8 9 19 With the Mississippi River to the south and west of Fort de Chartres, and the vast floodplain surrounding it, this country contained the fertile soils which allowed the French and British farmers to take advantage of its agricultural potential. 2.2. Site History 2.2.1. French Colonization and First Forts French attempts to colonize the Illinois Country began in the seventeenth century with several colonies established between the St. Lawrence River Valley of Canada down through the Mississippi River Valley. French explorers led expeditions deep into Illinois beginning in the 1670s (Walthall 1991, 5). For the French, these lands connected fur-laden Canadian territories, agricultural lands, and New Orleans (Belting 2003, Brown 2013). Illinois served as a breadbasket for Louisiana, shipping varieties of “European grains, hops, hemp, flax, cotton, and tobacco.”11 From fruits like apples and pears to wheat, corn, and tobacco, Illinois provided diverse agricultural products. 11 Pittman 1770 in Hodder 1906, 51; Hamburgh 1763 in Mereness 1916. 20 Figure 2.2: This 1770 map shows the villages of Cahokia, Prairie du Rocher, Chartres Village [unmarked, but circled] and Kaskaskia. (Hutchins in Hicks 1904, 113) 21 Incorporated into the administrative province of Louisiana with the founding of New Orleans (1721), the French continued to settle and develop these lands. They fostered alliances with Illinois’ Indigenous people to secure valuable furs (Ekberg 1988, 3; Walthall and Emerson 1991, 8). Over the first few decades farmers, traders, and artisans settled Illinois in what historians termed a “distinctly tripartite” mode of settlement, with nucleated villages, common grounds for grazing, and strips of land for plowing. (Ekberg and Person 2015, 38). Cahokia and Kaskaskia grew rapidly and the French attempted to solidify their control through the construction of a fort, which served as the nucleus of government (Ekberg and Person 2015, 28). As their villages grew and agricultural exports increased, population growth created additional colonies like St. Phillippe, Prairie du Roche(r), and Ste. Genevieve (Figure 2.3). By 1732, the total colonial population of Illinois, including African and Indigenous slaves, numbered 281. Twenty years later, the inhabitants blossomed to 1,366, with 225 soldiers at the first Fort de Chartres (Brown 2013, 137). This first incarnation, named to honor Louis, Duc de Chartres, the son of the regent of France (Jelks and Ekberg 1984, 3), was completed by 1723, but this wooden fort soon degraded in flood-prone Illinois. While two more wooden versions existed, it was not until the War of Austrian Succession/King George’s War (1740-1748) concluded to push France to rethink their colonial possessions (Brown 2020). In the case of Illinois, this inspired a desire to strengthen their position. Circumstances led the French to fear attacks by British-allied Indigenous peoples, and Illinois’ commandant considered plans for a more robust, stone fortification (Keene 2002, 36, 41). By 1753, France’s engineer, Francois Saucier, conceived a plan for erecting a new fort west of Chartres village. Efforts began between 15 May 1753, and 14 July 1754. Reports indicate its construction over the next decade, with interruptions related to France’s participation in the Seven Years War (See Figure 2.3 for locations; Orser 1977, 127). 22 Figure 2.3: This map, created by Brown (2022, map D) positions Fort de Chartres IV, west of the originals. Only the third fort, the Laurens Site, north of the village, has been partially excavated (Jelks et al. 1989). With its stone walls and artillery, the French hoped Fort de Chartres would guard their lands, and these valuable farmlands could serve as a granary for settlers and military forces (Keene 1991, 32). In 1754, the death of a French officer and subsequent battle at Fort Necessity, southeast of Pittsburgh, prompted the frontier conflict that morphed into the Seven Years War.12 French militia ranged outwards from Illinois, meeting the British in combat as far east as Fort Duquesne (Pittsburgh). The Treaty of Paris (1763) ended the conflict and established British control over the lands from Canada to Louisiana and to the Mississippi River. The French ceded all western lands to the Spanish. The British found it difficult to occupy their new possessions due to the Indigenous revolt known as Pontiac’s Rebellion in 1763.13 To regain control of America’s interior lands, and support the French, Pontiac and his allied forces fought, and almost defeated 12 13 For the fullest treatment of this conflict, see Anderson’s (2000) Crucible of War. Dowd’s (2004) War Under Heaven explains the causes and consequences of this movement. 23 the British along the frontier. As a result, the British could not begin sending expeditions to Fort de Chartres until 1764, after Pontiac’s movement collapsed. British officials attempted to reach Illinois by heading west from Fort Pitt and northwards from New Orleans but these attempts failed. They found success in October of 1765, when Captain Thomas Stirling and his 42nd Highlanders Regiment, numbering just over a hundred, arrived to replace France’s forty-member garrison.14 It was described as “one of the Prettiest Stone Forts.”15 With the advance of British troops, most of the French abandoned Illinois, relocating across the Mississippi River into villages in Spanish territory.16 “One Opposite to Kaskaskia … called St Genevieve, and has about Twenty-five Families, the other about Twenty Leagues higher up, called St Louis, and has Forty Families.”17 Some French remained in these nucleated communities around Fort de Chartres. These satellite areas, as part of the larger community of British Illinois, will be discussed. The British now had possession of the Illinois Country but had not devised a concrete plan for dealing with its remaining Indigenous and French populations. For the next seven years, they attempted to replace French power and commerce through Fort de Chartres. With a larger military presence, attached personnel, and traders, British material goods and influence soon spread through Illinois. 2.2.2. British Fort de Chartres It is a square Fort built of stone and lime and is two hundred and ninety-two French Torsis in circumference, which is very near six hundred English yards … At the Angle of each Bastion is a sentry box of hewn Stone projecting outwards … It has a very good stone and lime barracks … and excellent store houses … In one of the Bastions is an excellent Magazine for the Ammunition, in another a very good bake house, in a third a prison and in the fourth a well of extremely good water.18 Stirling’s Journal in Carroon 1984, 7, 21. Eddington, 17/10/1765, A&CXI, 105. 16 Stirling-Gage, 15/12/1765, A&CXI, 125. 17 Eddington, 17/10/1765, A&CXI, 106; Stirling-Gage, 18/10/1765, Ibid., 108-109. 18 Eddington in Carroon 1984, 91; Cession, 10/10/1765, A&CXI, 91. 14 15 24 Early descriptions of Fort de Chartres exist,19 but Captain Stirling’s detailing of its Cession and accompanying Inventory of the Goods remain the most complete account of the fort’s architecture at the arrival of the British.20 His room-by-room, building-bybuilding, inventory reveals details of how the French garrison lived and outlined future British structural adaptations. No known plan of the fort’s original design or French documents regarding its construction have been found (Orser 1977, 10), and any references come from British military and personnel. The British continued to alter the fort’s structures, improving and adding to it. British officers and civilians bought and refurbished French homes within the villages. The British soon tired of the expenses associated with their frontier forts, particularly Illinois. As costs mounted, the Crown reconsidered the expenses associated with transporting supplies, those associated with the maintenance of Indigenous alliances, and those related to the fort’s maintenance. The nearby river, and its regular flooding, increased their consternation. In the summer of 1772, General Thomas Gage ordered the razing of the fort. The fort’s commanding officer reported he had “destroyed FortChartres in such a Manner … [by removing] the stones which protected the Banks of the River and opened Drains to admit the Water.”21 Future flooding destroyed the southern face of the fort. Leaving a detachment at Kaskaskia, the British presence in Illinois lasted until the spring of 1778. Kaskaskia numbered 100 French and British families in 1778, and the company of soldiers stationed therein left to reinforce Fort Detroit. Frenchman Philippe de Rastel, Chevalier de Rocheblave, a former lieutenant at French Fort de Chartres, had remained in Kaskaskia and St. Genevieve, and was appointed the interim commander of British Illinois. He was considered “loyal to the British and a reliable character not likely to please malcontented French colonists,” a safe choice for governing the country with the British departure (Morrissey 2015, 231). Later in 1778, however, Pittman-Gage, 17/12/1765, GP46AS; Gordon in Mereness 1916; Butricke-Barnsley, 15/9/1768, A&CXIV, 412. SI 21 Gage-Hillsborough, 2/9/1772, in Carter 1931, 332. 19 20 25 Rocheblave surrendered to the invading Virginia militia, transferring control of Illinois to the Americans.22 2.2.3. Post-occupational Farming and Environmental Concerns What occurs next informs upon a vital element of site formation process. The razing of the fort and its post-occupational usage impacts our interpretations of the archaeological record. Once Illinois became ‘American,’ locals pillaged the fort’s stone, dismantling walls and buildings. In 1787, Illinois’ American representative threatened punishments for anyone who “shall commit or cause any depredation, robbery, or destruction” at the fort (Alvord 1907, 495-496). The American Continental Congress allowed former French subjects to retain their property rights predating British rule, a nod to the assistance they offered in the war, while other territories were purchased and settled by American planters. Figure 2.4: This drawing from an 1848 publication illustrates the remnants of the curtain walls and powder magazine. (Wild and Thomas, in Garnier 1948, 62) 22 Clark-Henry, 1777, in Alvord 1907, 30-31, 47. 26 In the century following the fort’s destruction, individuals explored its ruins, and their accounts allow for a greater understanding of site formation. Lewis Beck visited in 1823 (Figure 2.4) and considered it “a splendid ruin” noting the Mississippi had “torn away the front or west face [actually, the southern]” and the buildings inside “are generally in ruins” (1828, 108-109). Thomas and Wild noted the ruins in 1831, “the whole is so thickly overgrown with trees and shrubbery … The front of the view exhibits the remains of the exterior wall … the magazine, almost entire, though covered over with a dense growth of small trees and bushes” (in Garnier 1948, 62). Figure 2.5: This photo depicts the interior of the fort in the mid-nineteenth century. Note the man standing within the Officers’ Building. (Singleton, 1864, IHLC) The fort remained a reservation, closed to settlement, until 1848/1849, when the Homestead Acts opened this area for sale (Mason 1901, 244). Tenant farmers quickly occupied these lands. “The enclosure [fort] was cleared of trees, and part of the stone from the Intendant’s House used in the foundations and chimney” of a cabin, still standing in 1889 (Marks 1889, 25; Figure 2.5). A land title search noted at least fifteen different individuals owning the fort’s lands until their purchase by the State in 1914 (Keene 1988, 136-137). The only original structure remaining was the powder magazine, used as a barn by its most recent tenants, a German family. A visitor in 1889 could still observe the ruins of the powder magazine “now used as sheepfold,” [Figure 2.6] and a farmhouse “almost 27 in the center of the enclosure”. They lamented that although the family had ‘relics,’ they would not part with “so much as a bullet” (Marks 1889, 25). This exemplifies how residents and visitors plundered the surfaces and interior structures. The Illinois Historical Society purchased the collection, which contained bullet-molds, cannon balls, glass, regimental buttons, and other items; but its current location, or description, remains unfound.23 Figure 2.6: The Powder Magazine in 1896 with the Wierschene family and livestock fences. (Courtesy of David Horne). Repeated episodes and subsequent levee construction have impacted our understanding of this garrison’s, and extant communities,’ material culture. We need to consider post-depositional processes when examining the archaeological assemblages, as the flooding and agricultural tilling has mixed and re-deposited contexts, or in the case of Kaskaskia, fully submerged its historic areas. The interpretations of this site and its materials must incorporate a consideration of these environmental impacts. The proximity of the fort and surrounding villages to the Mississippi river meant substantial flooding routinely occurred. French and British garrisons would take steps to counteract this, to 23 “Valuable Relics,” Chicago Daily Tribune, 9/5/1896, 6. 28 limited success. Within the first months of the British tenure here, engineer Philip Pittman commented, “the bank of the river is continually falling … worn away by the rapidity of the Current.”24 In 1765, the river stood one hundred yards away, and would creep closer.25 Figure 2.7: This newspaper excerpt illustrates efforts taken by one commander to protect the fort from flooding. (Pennsylvania Gazette, 10/11/1768) British commanders strove to stem the river from undermining the fort (Figure 2.7). The first British work on the bank occurred in 1766, as Lieutenant Philip Pittman received instructions to “slope the bank of the Mississippi.”26 In 1767, protective work included “Stones and Rubbish thrown opposite the South Bastion,”27 which helped to maintain the river’s distance from the walls. Captain Forbes paid soldiers to quarry stones, cut pickets, and transport these over a 138-day period to fortify the bank opposite the fort with expenses of £299.7.4 during the next year for work in fortifying the shores, as “it is only ten paces from the Fort Wall.”28 In 1770, Lieutenant-Colonel Wilkins assured General Gage “the bank is at present I think pretty secure,”29 with more stonework used along the bank in 1771.30 An engineer referenced the necessity of this due to “violent floods” in April and May of 1771, with the bank now between twelve and fifteen feet away Pittman-Gage, 17/12/1765, GP46AS. Gordon’s Journal, 20/8/1766, A&CXI, 298. 26 Pittman-Gage, 20/11/1766, GP59AS. 27 Campbell-Gage, 23/4/1768, Accounts, GP. 28 Forbes-Gage, 18/7/1768, Accounts; Forbes-Gage, 14/4/1769, GP76AS. 29 Wilkins-Gage, 30/5/1770, GP92AS. 30 Hutchins-Gage, 07/9/1771, GP106AS. 24 25 29 (Ibid). As will be discussed, the British razed the fort by ‘opening it up’ to these floods in 1772. The flooding of Illinois did not end there. Waters destroyed the nearby village of Nouvelle Chartres in 1771.31 This issue furthered the abandonment and relocation of the village of Prairie du Rocher, to the northeast. Later, defoliation of the riverbanks due to an increased demand for steamboat fuel caused further environmental degradation and the shifting of river channels (Norris 1997, 160). An 1844 flood caused the waters to overtake Kaskaskia, with subsequent floods in 1857 and 1881. These caused the Kaskaskia and Mississippi Rivers to shift, causing the final destruction of the town of Kaskaskia (Burnham 1914, 108; see Figures 2.8/2.9), and burying our ability to recover and assess material culture from this site. Figure 2.8: This figure details 1766 Kaskaskia, with the uncompleted French fort across the river, circled, and ‘Fort Gage,’ circled left. (In Pittman-Gage, 20/11/1766, GP48AS) 31 Wilkins-Gage, 20/2/1771, GP. 30 Figure 2.9: This figure offers a LiDAR image of Kaskaskia, with the French fort circled. The eastern half of the colonial village now lies under the Mississippi River. (Illinois Geospatial Data Clearinghouse) Catastrophic flooding in the 1920s prompted the passage of legislation placing the responsibility of dealing with future floods to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In 1946, discussions culminated in the construction of the current levee sitting just behind the fort’s absent southern walls (Figure 2.10).32 Despite the construction of levees, the flooding of Illinois continues to this day, with significant destruction at the fort in 1993 and throughout the early 2000s. 32 Lawlor-Department of Public Works, 25/7/1956, ISA. 31 Figure 2.10: This photo depicts the 1993 flooding, looking southwards to the broken levy in the top right-hand corner. (Courtesy of David Horne) 2.2. State Property: Parks and Recreation The state of Illinois obtained the twenty-acres surrounding Fort de Chartres in 1912.33 Petitions to transform this area for historical and recreational use began. To accommodate future visitors, state workers employed a horse drawn slip to remove “an unknown depth of soil,” as well as a “large quantity of artifacts,” kept for use in a planned museum.34 By 1917 the decaying Powder Magazine was partially rebuilt, with a peaked wooden roof over the restored building (Figure 2.11). 33 34 Miller-Emmerson, 31/1/1927; Kingery-Coleman, 8/2/1935, ISA. Interoffice memo, Brown n.d., ISA. 32 Figure 2.11: This figure illustrates the reconstructed roof, undated but likely from the early 1930s. (Courtesy of ISA) Concentrated improvements to the fort environs began in 1919 when the State legislature appropriated money for the rebuilding of the curtain walls and building foundations. Crews focused on excavating and exposing the original foundations of buildings and walls, with the “contents disposed of” (The Advertiser, 31/5/1919). It is unknown just what archaeological work or historical research formed the basis for these reconstructions beyond the initial finding of surviving foundations. Workers capped the original footings and began to construct replicas of buildings directly atop. Later archaeology revealed the misplacement of the Bakehouse structure but confirmed the positioning of the Powder Magazine and curtain walls. Work focused upon the northern gate and storehouse, which served as a Relic Room and caretaker’s quarters.35 These changes allowed the fort to serve as a picnic area and gathering place with annual attendance reaching six thousand people (Keene 2002, 78-79). This also informs upon the potential loss of archaeological data and contamination of collapsing archaeological layers which may have resulted. 35 Ibid., 4; Kingery-Coleman, 8/2/1835, ISA. 33 2.3. Reconstruction, Archaeology, and Interpretations With the state focusing upon the tourist potential of this site, reconstruction continued, supported by archaeological work to confirm locations, construction techniques, and dimensions of walls and structures. To recreate the fort, state officials sought its original plans. Letters written to Jesuit officials in Illinois and Canada revealed little.36 Communications with government officials in Canada and France also proved fruitless, as research within archives did not lead to the discovery of any related documents.37 Given the dearth of French records, historians focused upon the English documents in the Gage Papers. In these, written descriptions were used to aid reconstruction. Existing 19th century maps and illustrations were also problematic and architects concluded “everything we have is predicated on the drawings of the fortification made in the early nineteenth century” (Figure 2.12).38 Orser (1977) and Keene (2002) have detailed the issues with these maps. With the lack of blueprints or illustrations, and subsequent reconstruction based on Fort Niagara,39 our understanding of the buildings and space within this fort may be problematized. Schlarmann-Cleaveland, 3/12/1931; Cleaveland-Peace, 22/12/1931, ISA. Deputy-Consul of France-Kingery, 28/6/1933, ISA; DuVivier-Angle, 14/3/1934, ISA. 38 Nedved-Belting, 21/11/1952, ISA. 39 Fellows-Taminga, 2/8/1972, ISA. 36 37 34 Figure 2.12: This illustration is one of the only 19th century maps of Fort de Chartres. It is incorrect in the labelling of “K” and “I” as a magazine and furnace, instead of the Prison, and “C” as a small gate instead of the bakehouse bastion. (Beck 1823, 110) As the site transitioned into a state park, reconstruction efforts increased, focused upon the Powder Magazine and foundation walls. These endeavors resulted in the destruction of several structures’ cellars, most notably due to the absence of an archaeologist on staff.40 The construction of an external drainage ditch in 1934, six feet deep, four feet wide, and two and a half miles long allowed for the cleaning-up of the southern half of the fort, with sterile fill used to level the ground.41 Archaeologists later confirmed its location, and its presence helps to explain the lack of features in those areas, as well as the paucity of recoverable material culture along the southern sections. State workers began work on interior buildings, like the storehouse, guardhouse, and chapel. As with the Powder Magazine, this work resulted in the destruction of the structures’ cellars.42 Reconstruction then targeted the northern gate (Figure 2.13). Supporting Data FY74, ISA. Conner-Kingery, 4/1/1934; Teabeau-Kingery, 25/4/1934, ISA. 42 Supporting Data FY74, ISA. 40 41 35 Rudimentary archaeological work (undocumented) began, seeking its original foundations. Site custodians commented: “We dug a pit 4-1/2 feet x 20 and 3 feet deep on all four sides of the gateway walls … We found nothing of value.”43 They did not record maps, artifact descriptions, or other documentation. While state plans called for the reconstruction of other structures: Bakehouse, Prison, Curtain Walls, Barracks, Commandant’s Quarters, and Headquarters, no work occurred until the 1970s, coinciding with formal archaeological excavations. Figure 2.13: This figure illustrates the reconstruction of the northern Gatehouse and powder magazine. (Keene 1985c; Kingery to Greenlee, 11/5/1936, ISA) The Illinois State Museum’s Collection Center in Springfield, Illinois currently holds all materials (just under 23,000 artifacts) excavated between 1971 and 1987. Archaeologist Margaret Kimball Brown received a grant from the Department of Conservation to conduct preliminary investigations “with the intent to provide information for reconstruction” (Brown 1972a, 1; 1976). A historical archaeology field school completed more work in 1974. The state’s desire to locate wall and structure foundations, and their measurements, guided excavations and aided architects. Brown 43 Shea-Booton, 16/3/1936, ISA. 36 focused on the areas of a latrine along the north curtain wall and the powder magazine bastion, although her work began to expose drainage trenches which future archaeologists studied (Figure 2.14). Figure 2.14: This figure illustrates my superimposition of Keen’s ‘master’ excavation map (2002, 82) over a satellite image. Although the drawing does not directly fit, it helps to outline excavation areas. These two excavation seasons accumulated 1,074 artifacts. Ceramics represented about 16% of the total assemblage, with transparent glass sherds related to tumblers, stemware, and bottles (7% of the total assemblage) and olive-green bottle fragments (12%) rounding out the top categories of recovered artifacts. This material culture helps to illustrate garrisons’ diet, food preparation and consumption materials. One feature, interpreted by Brown as a mess hall, lay just north of the east barracks, a place which 37 Orser (1977), and the documents, reference as a blacksmith’s shop (discussed later). A feature resting atop a drain in the northwest bastion represented the Commandant’s latrine. Brown reported finding four stone drains built of “neatly cut and squared blocks” (Brown 1976, 13-22). The artifacts recovered from these drains added to the understanding of the material culture of its inhabitants. Archaeologist Charles E. Orser, Jr., who had worked with Brown, was tasked by the Department of Conservation and Southern Illinois University to excavate in 1975, with goals focused upon occupational and activity areas. This work supported tourism as well as to “preserve, restore, & interpret the French cultural heritage of Illinois.”44 Orser sought the Indian Guest House and studied the East Barracks and Bakehouse (Orser 1977). Investigations of the East Barracks confirmed the existence of remaining foundations, and the materials demonstrated artifacts of British and French manufacture. Figure 2.15: This image illustrates the location of features 39 and 40, outside of the East Barracks. Post-occupational disturbances may demonstrate a relationship between these two areas. (Orser 1977, 84) Analysis of two areas (Figure 2.15), one outside of an interior doorway along the west barrack’s western wall (Feature 39), and a blacksmith’s shop (Feature 40) offered diagnostic artifacts which reference the British period, discussed further later. Orser believed these two features may have been created by post-occupational disturbances, 44 Patterson-Brown, 20/11976, Memorandum, ISA. 38 when “upper portions of Feature 40 were scraped into the central area of Fort de Chartres during … reconstruction” (Orser 1977, 107). Feature 39 likely contained secondary deposits of Feature 40. Feature 40 yielded over 2,000 artifacts, exclusive of 4,000 faunal specimens. Melted glass or cinders represented over half (59.5%) of these artifacts, which, in combination with 25.2% of these artifacts identified as iron slag and scraps, suggested a composition like other period smithies, like at Fort Michilimackinac (Orser 1977; RoacheFedchenko 2013). Almost 500 artifacts were recovered from Feature 39, and while many represent domestic life, like ceramics and glass fragments, this area also allowed for the recovery of many blacksmith-related artifacts, such as gun parts, wrought nails, and associated slag, sprue, and scraps. It was within these features that archaeologists also recovered objects diagnostically linked to the British period within the fort. Fragments of English Whieldon wares, Creamware, Jackfield, white English salt-glazed ceramics, and English Delft all indicate goods imported by this garrison, and Orser concluded that these features were almost indisputably British (Orser 1977, 110). The presence of musket parts related to the Brown Bess, which came to Illinois post-1765, an 18th Foot regimental button, and other military-related goods underscore this feature’s cultural affiliation, which will be discussed more explicitly later. Orser’s report remains the only archaeological source to reference the British period and its potential impact on the site and its assemblage. No features were identified as containing solely French products. Post-1976, patriotic enthusiasm for rebuilding waned. The full plans for reconstruction were never fulfilled. To support the last efforts, archaeologist Melburn Thurman was contracted to continue excavation. Thurman sought “a systematic overview of the archaeological features to permit an accurate restoration of the curtain and associated features” (Thurman 1980a, 1). The size and scope of his crew is not known for these excavations (1979-1781). Thurman submitted two preliminary reports, one for 1979, filed in February 1980, and one for 1980, filed in December 1980. No preliminary report exists for the 1981 season, nor any final reports. A home fire destroyed much of the data and information, although artifacts survived (Keene 2002, 86). I re-examined Thurman’s 39 written materials and the collection to recover information, as little of it has been systematically analyzed or sorted. Figure 2.16: A photograph of Melburn Thurman’s mapping of the stone drains, along with a photo of him before an excavated drain. (Illinois Magazine 1980: 28) Thurman’s work focused on obtaining a working knowledge of the placement and purpose of the various stone drains which Orser and Brown had examined (Figure 2.16). The majority of the almost 7,500 artifacts recovered in his three seasons resulted from these drains. Ceramics comprised 15% of the assemblage, ranging from Faience and Indigenous pottery to 19th century Ironstone. Glass fragments (35%) and wrought iron nails (13%) make up the bulk of this assemblage. Still, the presence of gunflints, musket balls and grapeshot, and buckles, beads, and buttons all indicate the presence of the British garrison, with specifics referenced later. The excavation of the drains helps us to interpret better their purpose and workings. Thurman recorded these “near the corner of each bastion … which emptied into the outer fortification trench” (1980a). He continued the analysis of the latrine sitting atop one drain, designated in Stirling’s 1765 inventory as the ‘Commandant’s’ latrine.45 These features may indicate secure archaeological deposits and 45 Stirling-Gage, 18 Oct 1765, GP44AS. 40 helps us better to relate these artifacts to the buildings they originated nearest, like the commandant’s or officers’ quarters. Rebuilding efforts had the potential of damaging other fragile archaeological features on the site, and the state contracted with Dr. Vergil Noble, director of the Midwest Archaeological Research Center as principal investigator, with David Keene, who had assisted Brown (1974) and Orser (1975) as the excavation director (Keene 2002, 90). These last works were performed between 1985 and 1987, and Keene recorded an unpublished three-volume record (photographs, artifact inventory, and excavation results) which I feel comprise a more systematic and comprehensive approach to understanding this site (Keene 1988a, 1988b, 1988c). These compilations proved valuable in my own analysis. Figure 2.17: Google Earth image of the reconstructed fort with approximate locations of the excavated drains labelled. 41 The project’s focus centered upon gaining knowledge about areas potentially impacted by planned reconstructions, particularly nearest the northern curtain wall, powder magazine, and cannon bastion (Keene 1988a, 3). They explored the outer ditch/moat and excavated all the drains (Figure 2.17). Of note, Keene reported a lack of artifacts “representing secondary refuse deposition” from the outer ditch, the area these drains emptied into (1988a, 22). If the British (or French) had intended to use these drains as a general dumping ground or for trash removal, material remains should show in the fill of the exterior ditch. Within the drains, the assemblage represented a combination British and French materials. Keene suggests this as the result of a general ‘washing in’ from floodwaters rather than conscious placement (Ibid., 23). Of the almost 1,000 artifacts recovered, fragments from bottles, containers, and drinking glasses comprised 47.6%, with few ceramics (10.8%) and metal objects (16.5%) in comparison. No large-scale archaeological work has occurred since these seasons. The results of these excavations generated few academic works, and those positioned this fort as a comparator to other French sites. Beyond the reports generated as part of the compliance process, Noble (1997) produced a paper examining the excavated ceramics, focusing upon French faience styles. Zooarchaeologist Terry Martin analyzed the faunal materials from the drains and latrines as a contribution to a volume focusing upon French Colonial Archaeology (Walthall, 1991). Keene wrote a doctoral thesis which focused upon this fort as the center of a French empire and challenged its role as a fur trade depot. In this, he investigated only “diagnostic eighteenth-century French artifacts,” amounting to about 2,000 objects (2002, 139). What is problematic with this study, and references the need for a reexamination of the assemblage, is that the artifact inventories generated by Keene (1998c) allowed me to total over 21,000 recovered artifacts, exclusive of faunal materials. These are all reflective of an understanding of the assemblage as French, discounting British purchases of French goods, recycling and auctions of materials, or the issues associated with supply, and demonstrate the paucity of understanding the British garrison, and more specifically how communities of identity used material culture here. 42 Despite thousands of artifacts and years of fieldwork, these academic discussions have remained Francocentric. This thesis, however, challenges this interpretation primarily by arguing that there is little argument for a French Fort de Chartres, despite these few academic and research reports. The articles and edited contributions offer little more than the push, and wish, for finding a French Illinois as part of historical presentation and popular history, rather than a substantive analysis of all evidence and sources. This project represents a comprehensive academic study of the aggregated assemblage and documentary sources to suggest a more substantial British phase which succeeded and overlaid the French period. One last impact on our understanding of the recovered assemblage necessitates a brief discussion of surface collections. As mentioned, looting had occurred throughout the post-British tenure, right up to the lands’ transfer into state hands. Throughout the 1960s, Irvin Peithmann, an ‘avocational archaeologist,’ travelled throughout southern Illinois, prospecting for Indigenous and French Colonial sites, and collecting whatever relics he deemed interesting. He did help archaeologists locate specific sites, although to the chagrin of some. Orser “Witnessed Irvin Peithmann undertake … an unauthorized surface survey on … the Waterman Site,” which Brown had excavated in 1971 (1977, 9). The Department of Conservation had given him permission to “do surface reconnaissance and collection of materials on archaeological sites within Fort de Chartres State Park,” under the condition of turning over all relevant materials and information to fort’s historian.46 A decade after his death, forty-six boxes of recovered materials were donated to the Illinois State Museum. I point this out to reflect upon how the recovery of 15,000+ artifacts, discounts 2,000 which were removed prior to excavation. This potentially skews the information previously interpreted and reflects upon the difficulties of establishing accurate stratigraphy and provenience at the fort. Beyond a study of Peithmann’s ceramics (Mazrim 2011), little else has been studied. His metal detecting removed these objects, distorting interpretations by archaeologists seeking patterns and percentages based on 46 Tamminga-Peithmann, 4/10/1974, ISA. 43 categorical data, like Keene (2002). I will utilize his unexamined letters and papers (available only after December 2019) while analyzing his collection to see how it reflects upon the entirety of the assemblage. 2.4. Chapter Conclusions This chapter has outlined the geography and history of Fort de Chartres to contextualize the position of the British garrison within. Tracing this positioning allows an understanding of the archaeological record within terms of the archaeological contexts and stratigraphy, and problematizes previous interpretations based solely on site and archaeology. Understanding the formation processes links environmental conditions and post-occupational alterations to their impact upon the materials found within the fort. As a result, significantly connecting provenience to specific areas can be difficult, especially when attempting to ascribe cultural affiliation of artifacts to distinct occupational areas, especially the in absence of the historical record. As we have seen, archaeological excavations bolstered reconstruction efforts and presented this fort within the context of French Illinois in the period of America’s bicentennial celebration. This also reveals the difficulties faced when seeking communities of identity at Fort de Chartres, as these excavations and reconstructions sought to present Frenchness. Between the problematic stratigraphy and preconceived biases, it seems to have been quite easy to assign all cultural materials to the French garrison. Assigning these rigid cultural categories to Fort de Chartres is futile, as historical documents will illustrate. Examples of British material culture exist, based on the chronologies and places of manufacture. This is not the case for the French. My study, which has utilized the entire assemblage, has been enhanced by the integration of the British-period archival record, a record largely ignored in these Francocentric interpretations. These documents illustrate the purposeful use of French-produced/styled articles and this presents a better proxy argument that more of the previously interpreted assemblage was British, allowing for a much more substantive archaeological argument about the nature of this site and the interpretation of its assemblage. 44 Chapter 3: Research Context and Methodology 3.1. Literature Review This chapter will form my theoretical basis, exploring questions of identity and the cultural affiliation of Fort de Chartres’ artifacts. The academic underpinnings of identity, as interpreted through these diverse evidence sources, will help to relate the fluidity in articles’ usages. This contributes to our understanding of how the fort’s inhabitants dealt with Britishness in Illinois, something neglected within the secondary scholarship. It involves the explicit utilization of the documents, in combination with the archaeology, to illustrate how the garrison used buildings, space, and practices in the process of identity and community construction. This can address whether Fort de Chartres’ assemblage can challenge the singular interpretation of colonial Illinois and fort as French. This chapter addresses the scholarship surrounding communities of identity but also examines Fort de Chartres as a garrison community as one level of association. This approach integrates women, children, and attached civilian workers, and contrasts with other Europeans and Indigenous groups. This analysis focuses upon the linkages between the fort and its satellite detachments and illustrates the varieties of nested and contextual communities of identity. Lastly, this chapter reviews previous interpretations of Fort de Chartres, in terms of its archaeology and historical materials. This allows for commentary reflecting my approach in seeking identity in the British period. As an archaeologically informed social history, this project relies on the documents, written by English-speaking writers, as well as descriptions of imported trade goods. These inform upon the excavated and surface-collected artifacts and physical structures of Fort de Chartres in a way that enlightens our understanding of how, in the British period, material culture was used to reflect their communities of identity. This chapter outlines my research methods in the hopes of addressing my main topics: the dynamic interrelated issues of cross-cutting communities of identity, like class/status, occupation, gender, or Britishness. Assessing this requires a cricital reflection upon the the 45 relationships which trade, distance, and agency played in shaping the garrison’s material culture. I will outline the methodology used within this project as it relates to ascribing cultural affiliation to material goods. This will critique previous studies, which have focused upon pattern analysis and the false equation of artifacts’ producers to users which also has neglected a reflection upon the British documents. I will contrast these explanations with my own classification and quantification strategies as they relate to intersectional communities of identity. 3.1.1. Communities of Identity One of the goals of this project is to investigate communities of identity within Illinois’ British period. I hope to discover how individuals and groups dealt with the challenges of long-distance supply and trade’s influences on European and Indigenous populations to contextualize the recovered material culture. My examination considers the structures of the fort and the populations within and surrounding it. This illustrates the rituals, routines, and practices of contextualized identities. Archaeologists traditionally identify groups using specific cultural markers which expressed material preferences. These further relate to groups based upon class, ethnicity, race, or gender (Loren 2010, 8). Exploring these communities shows the creation, maintenance, and rejection of a soldierly identity, while offering the influences of how ethnicity/nationality or gender play out within these communities. Evidence from documents and archaeology reflect other identity groups, and relate to intersectional groups based on religion, status/rank, wealth/poverty, or race. By analyzing what is meant by Britishness, we gain understandings of how these groups understood their roles and positions, as insiders, but also how they contrasted with outsiders. Documents provide these outsider views in ways the archaeological assemblage does not, and these reflect the tropes, stereotypes, and values perpetuated by material culture. One strategy to explore identify formation is to focus upon how groups defined various clusters, with the explicit understanding of the nested and contextual qualities of identities. The everyday practices of people reflect individual choices, “incorporating 46 practice,” yet these choices are restricted by the material affordance of supply and local availability, and “constrained by diverse lines of identity” (Jones 1999, 228; White and Beaudry 2009, 212). In this project, I will begin to examine these diverse lines, seeking to assess the impact of available material culture upon these choices. In this way, we may see that Britishness and Frenchness, as opposing cultural periods, give way to an overarching Europeanness. Questions focusing upon ethnicity, class, and gender do not always reveal themselves in the examination of artifacts. These categories do not represent clear-cut delineations. Instead, interpretations involve a “subjective construction of identity” based on real or assumed shared cultural markers (Jones 1999, 224). While the construction of identity may reflect the wills and desire of individuals establishing agency, the imposition of outside groups and power structures also affect the ability of individuals to choose and act (Insoll 2007, 4). The architecture and use of buildings and material culture may reveal these conceptions of identity and reflect upon the functioning of these communities, as whole and contextual groups. In terms of colonial Illinois, it behooves us to examine how insiders and outsiders viewed these communities of identity, especially in terms of their creation and maintenance. Specific aspects as they relate to structures, practices, and material culture, will be referenced in Chapter 5. Here, we discuss the conception of Britishness, in opposition to other identities like Frenchness or Indigenousness. I have approached the documents and material culture as reflections of group identities, with their “origin (socially constructed) as its primary reference,” (Lucy 2005, 87) and illustrating aspects of us vs. them relationships. Britishness was still a nascent concept in the decades after 1707, when the Act of Union joined Scotland and Wales to England, and only began to be embraced in the 1750s (Conway 2001, 863; Colley 2005). It existed as a foil to Frenchness, incorporating the Irish, Welsh, English, and Scots under this umbrella. I hope to situate their conceptions of identity within these communities. Throughout this thesis, I reference the ‘British’ garrison, or ‘British’ goods in acknowledgement of a pan-national state identity to simplify discussion, but acknowledge that English, Scottish, and Welsh represent national identities or ethnicities. 47 In Illinois, identities were further contextualized through the presence of Indigenous peoples, French, Spaniards, Africans, and European colonials. Stereotypes and tropes were often associated with perceived values by these groups upon themselves and others, as evidenced by their writings. My interpretations lean on Colley (2005) and Conway (2001, 2006). For Colley, this was “imagined, communicated, debated and memorialized” through a variety of material culture, “fashioned in reaction to external and not simply internal stimuli,” namely, France and French Catholicism (2005, xii). While fighting the Seven Years War in America, the British identity united the subjects of their empire under one banner, but after Britain’s victory, newly conquered territories in Canada, Louisiana, and Illinois, juxtaposed this with French colonial identities. Britishness became defined by liberty, Protestantism, and prosperity and contrasted with France’s (and Spain’s) Roman Catholicism, slavery, and poverty (Conway 2006, 219). These stereotypes and values found their way to Illinois with Britain’s regiments and contrasted with those within its French villages. The use and consumption of British goods could offer a sense of community through its linkage to the wider empire, allowing subjects within the colonies to replicate Georgian society. This provided a needed familiarity of surroundings and structures in an unfamiliar environment. The creation of contextual or nested identities were dependent upon a variety of practices, structures, and material culture. In defining community, archaeologists and historians have offered differing interpretations of its conceptualization. Community studies theories, begun in the mid1980s, continue to evolve. Cohen used community to express “a relational idea: the opposition of one community to others or to other social entities,” but stressed the inclusion of demarcated symbolic or physical boundaries (1985, 12). While not required, communities can offer geographically bound spaces. MacSweeney refers to it “not so much a structural unit as a locus of identity, [but] a way of articulating a collective sense of ‘us’ in relation to an external ‘them’” (2011, 14). This thesis offers a shift in perspective to a broader understanding which incorporates Britishness within these communities of discrete and juxtaposed identities. 48 Community membership offers a means of distinguishing ‘us’ from ‘them,’ as referenced in identity creation. It stresses an emphasis on community as a “dynamic socially constructed institution that is contingent upon human agency” (Canuto and Yaeger 2000, 5). This expands socio-cultural groupings, moving beyond groups like kin, ethnicity, or occupation, and incorporates insider and outsider viewpoints. The community as ‘geographical cluster’ can be viewed as a cultural process, but one with roots in the interaction of people within place (Harris 2014, 78). This helps explain the relationships of communities in Illinois, with its European, Indigenous, and African populations. Illinois’ shifting demographics, within the British period, underscore the fluid nature of these communities of identity. Although populations lived within a defined geographical area, their communications and relationships, through trade, practices, and material culture, remained flexible. The British Crown’s attempt to extend their power onto these new subjects necessitated modifications of policies to fit the needs of these multi-ethnic/racial communities in Illinois, as discussed in Chapter Six. Using Anderson’s conception of the ‘imagined community’ (2006) with Colley’s (1992) contrasts of Britain and France may offer better nuance in understanding the contextual and nested natures of these communities of identity in Illinois. For example, this garrison was defined and linked to other settlements in Illinois. The circumstantial fluidity of these identities is revealed through these cross-cultural interactions. While Anderson is referring to communities within the context of nations, he offers, “It is imagined because the members … will never know most of their fellow-members … yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion” (Anderson 2006, 7). Illinois’ inhabitants had face-to-face encounters, but they experienced these within the context of larger classifications and relationships. French inhabitants still considered themselves French, in terms of culture and loyalty, yet this population lived within London’s policies, through commanders in New York, and the fort’s commandant. Furthermore, trade linked Illinois to Spanish colonies across the Mississippi River and New Orleans, French traders, and British networks originating in Britain, its Caribbean colonies, and colonial 49 centers. Through trade, policy, and relationships, individuals in Illinois saw themselves locally, but linked to the wider, imagined, communities of Imperial Europe. While using theories of community to discuss the British period in Illinois, it is important to remember the contextual nature of identity and membership within these communities. No singular British community existed, in the same way there was not a singularly French one. Nor did the British Crown attempt to institute one. The archaeological assemblages and architecture reveal the nuance of ritualized activities, like the structure and material culture associated with the officers’ mess or within barracks. While geography linked Illinois’ peoples, the turnover of regiments, arrival of provincial laborers, and the wide variety of trade goods linked its population to communities far from their localized homes. Defining the ‘other’ through observation of practices or material culture can help to offer the contrasting evidence reflective of the ‘history’ of places (Pauketat 2000). Community identity was “created and maintained through social practice,” per Bourdieu (1977). Three British regiments of foot rotated through Fort de Chartres. The 42nd Royal Highland, 34th Cumberland, and 18th Royal Irish Foot were, in theory, transitory, with detachments occupying the garrison for a few years at a time. Yet, they brought with them vast amounts of material goods, modified structures and practices, and formed relationships with Illinois’ inhabitants, rooting them in the country, with examples of officers leaving the service to seek economic opportunities in Illinois. The dynamism of mobility and influx of peoples to places of production and profit became part of the community identity. In Illinois, geography scattered diverse levels of community, and yet these were tied through commercial connections and troops’ presence in satellite garrisons. Individuals within these communities may have replicated or positioned themselves as belonging to specific identity groups, but defined others by their choices and behaviors. Here, community incorporated the shared experiences of its members, the “practices of affiliation” (Yaeger 2000), even when interpreted through diverse cultural filters. The practical considerations of living in this area incorporated 50 dynamic interactions between individuals and groups of differing nationalities, races, and religions, through a variety of experiences like sickness, violence, or trade. Regarding community, we must also consider the role of the garrison as a community. Archaeologists have narrowed in on the scope of this when studying RomanBritish garrisons, as those spaces demonstrated an interesting blend of military and civilian workplaces and practices. Gardner (1999, 2007, 2017), James (1999, 2001, 2011), and Whittaker (2000, 2004) demonstrate the garrison community as an organization worthy of study for understanding identity, material culture, and practice. They challenge fixed and homogenous interpretations of what it meant to be ‘Roman’ or ‘native’ within fortifications, but also considered the intersectionality of status, gender, or profession. The hierarchy of militaries, the traditional top-down approach to their study can be contrasted with diverse peoples and experiences, the “human organisation” of the military (James 1999, 14-15; 2001, 78). This allows for a more inclusive comprehension of the military and its various communities of identity groups, examining military roles and the supportive structures upon which it depended. In terms of North American military communities, the literature remains problematic. This stems from the nature of forts. Fortifications exist as solid, representative artifacts of the art of warfare. Focus has centered on the attributes of these physical structures in a functionalist manner (Grange 1982; Grimm 1970; Keene 2002; Orser 1977; Stotz, 1974). Studies centered upon the role of the soldier, the size of walls, or military artifacts. These did not consider the contextual use of artifacts or the documentary evidence which reflects upon them. Examining conceptual roles of garrisons that contained a variety of communities of identity (nested, contextual, and performed), allows for a much more expressive understanding of colonial identities in Illinois. Investigating the military while including attached civilian personnel, provincial troops, foreign offices, Indigenous and African populations, and European civilians into the discussion of community and identity allows us to understand Illinois’ complexity. The fluidity of regimental staffing, their position within the fort surrounded by French and Indigenous populations, and the necessity to fulfill material needs often forced changes: 51 the substituting of material goods for others, the adoption of new techniques, materials, or foods, or the amalgamation of British techniques and materials with French, Indigenous, of African. These multi-ethnic communities show the flux and negotiation of identity formation (Nassaney 2008, 311). Understanding how they viewed these communities of identity allows us to understand the garrison and Britishness. 3.1.2. Structuration and Practice It is through structure, practice, and associated material culture that communities of identity were fashioned and adapted. Identity could be created and sustained through the construction of systems and material culture akin to those in other parts of the empire. The practices related to status/class, discipline, and polite Georgian society, the habits which enforced identity. For example, living and working spaces reflected the fixed system of military hierarchy, discussed later, but this same pecking order is emblematic of Britishness and Europeanness. Other contextual and nested communities of identity existed, as demonstrated through practices and usage of specific types of material culture. Theories from sociology, like those of Giddens (1984) and Bourdieu (1977) have applicability in exploring the creation and perpetuation of the power structures related to identities. These theories underpin the connection of material culture to the spaces and practices in which they were used. They demonstrate the reproduction of socio-cultural expectations and values of civilian and martial identities. Gidden’s (1984) structuration theory suggests a practical way of interpretating intersectional identities through their association to spaces, practices, and material culture. The buildings and spaces within Fort de Chartres’ walls impacted identity, and the regulation of martialness, reinforced through subordination of private men and its associated practices. For Giddens, the “experience of the individual actor” was less important than those “social practices ordered across space and time,” or structuration (1984, 2). These individuals perpetuated familiar systems, recreating them using specific practices and material culture in a way he considers spontaneous. This reflexivity occurs because of the “continuous monitoring of action which human beings display and expect 52 others to display (Ibid., 3). At Fort de Chartres, the surveillance and discipline of the private men reinforced the social position of the officers as their ‘betters,’ but also relate to the garrison’s use of buildings and spaces in a way that supports this process. Individuals knew their place due to these restrictions. For this British garrison, situated thousands of miles from home, the use of practice, spaces, and material cultures helped in the reconstruction of a familiar system. Gardener, when examining Roman frontier garrisons in Britain, references structuration as a way of informing that “[objects] are bound up in the embodied, repetitive practices of human agents, which often act to solidify or reify the meanings attached to them” (Gardner 2001, 38). He emphasizes structuration’s allowance to “work with both written texts and material culture in a novel way, overcoming the divide between these as forms of evidence” (Ibid.). The methodology of this thesis reinforces the connection of British documents to the archaeological materials in a way which reflects this understanding. Archaeologically, we may see evidence of these practices and structures within material classes, like the distinction of class related to Chinese porcelain or creamware. Artifacts like Brown Bess musket parts help us to understand the strictures of a martial identity, as the technology relates to the standardization of parts and musketry within eighteenth-century linear combat. Structures are reflected in Bourdieu’s (1977) work on practice theory, which considers the relationship of habitus to agency. These ‘habits’ reference “a subjective but not individual system of internalized structures, schemes of perception, conception, and action common to all members of the same group” (1977, 86). These constructions and schemes provide the framework of a world view connected to “human domination and resistance” of these social patterns (Dornan 2002, 305). Investigations into habitus can reveal the difference in power, status, and wealth, components of Georgian society demonstrated within the structures and material culture of Fort de Chartres. In contrast, the documents reveal the negotiation and contestation of these same structures and practices, as soldiers and officers engaged in abuse, lawsuits, and violence. I hope the 53 integration of practices and material of identity into our discussion of identity, allows for a better understanding of these British communities. 3.1.3. Current Military Research and Colonial North American Forts The literature surrounding archaeological and historical research in colonial American forts, as stated, focused upon the military aspects; descriptions and reconstructions of forts’ physical features, or the battles and weapons used by militaries. Historical interest in forts increased with the bicentennial celebration of American Independence (1976), leading to increased archaeological work, as at Fort de Chartres. These investigations concentrated on methodological and analytical approaches rather than interpretive ones. South’s work on Fort Michilimackinac (1977; 1978) established patterns within contexts of associated artifacts, like the “Carolina” and “Frontier” patterns. Focusing on quantification, these methods allowed for the classification of material culture into ‘Artifact Groups,’ and these could be used to calculate ratios from within these groups, like Kitchen or Arms, to serve as patterns for intra-site comparison. Stone’s work (1970; 1974) quantified and categorized excavated historical materials as a basis for describing the entire assemblage. These efforts remained analytical and statistical, pursuing comparative information, or quantifying artifacts rather than informing upon material culture and identity beyond cultural affiliation. Archaeological interpretations of forts saw a shift in attention and focus after the 1980s. Moving beyond the quantitative associations of material culture, historical archaeologists considered identity as part of social history. The increased focus upon the role of theory in interpretations also became much more evident in the context of fortifications. Feister (1984b) reflected the ‘social turn’ seen in historical and archaeological studies, while examining status differences within the barracks at Crown Point, New York. Her work used the assemblage to demonstrate a shift in focus towards soldiers’ material culture through status. Fisher (1995) also discussed status differences as related to structures and artifacts of provincial officers. These studies allowed for consideration of the context of assemblages, in terms of their physical location within the 54 forts (i.e., barracks vs. officers’ quarters), qualities of quarters, and offer the corroboration of assemblages to identity groups based on status, class, or gender. Investigations of the fortification structures themselves, as indicative of identity differences, began to take place elsewhere. Bense (1999) examined a British fort in Pensacola with a view towards explaining their shifting strategies and resultant architectural adaptations. Studies viewed the living conditions of troops at Fort Michilimackinac (Heldman and Grange 1981; Evans 2001). Heldman (1986) studied the Solomon-Levy house at Michilimackinac, a Jewish trader’s home. Faunal analysis was at the center of Scott’s studies, which incorporated interpretations of gender, status, and identity at this same site (1991; 1997; 2008). These reflect broader studies which acknowledged the presence of other groups within the walls, moving beyond a focus upon the enlisted men and officers. Works like these have allowed for a shift in the application of new theoretical approaches, and interpretation of the assemblages and increased our understanding of identities. In the last few decades, there have been a few dissertations, theses, and edited monographs focusing upon specific garrison sites, and these have continued to go beyond quantification in interpretations. Contributors to Babits and Gandulla’s edited volume (2013) have produced a work which notes issues of identity, status, and social organization through French and British sites. DeCorse and Beier’s (2018) edited volume begins similarly to address this theoretical framework, with authors discussing specific aspects of identity groupings at British forts across its empire. Within the context of Fort de Chartres’ peers, there are few comparisons. Dunnigan (2020) wrote of the extra-mural settlement at Fort Michilimackinac. Other examinations have occurred at sites contemporaneous to de Chartres, but within Canada, like Québec (Ostola 2007) and Montreal (Jackson 2005), areas with dissimilar supply chains, that were impacted differently by European and Indigenous neighbors. The only other investigations of identity, as they relate to Britishness in military sites, focused upon Gibraltar (Padiak 2005; Constantine 2006), but these had a Napoleonic focus. Historians Linda Colley and Stephen Conway have specifically discussed 55 Britishness, and Conway’s application to the military has been especially helpful. What their discussions lack is the archaeological perspective, which I hope to address. This thesis fits into modern discussions of garrisons by investigating Britishness within diverse communities of identity, while contrasting these with Frenchness, Europeanness, and Indigenousness, as revealed through the material culture and documents. This shows why this approach is necessary for Fort de Chartres, to reference a Pre-Revolutionary War garrison, one occupied by French and British garrisons, but a site linked to its surrounding population, the eastern seaboard, and London. 3.2. Documentary Context The vibrant historical documents of the British offer an extensive and more inclusive window on life in Illinois in this transitional period, reflects upon the excavated assemblage, and inform upon communities of identity. The minimization of the British period has continued throughout the last century, as archaeologists and historians have focused upon the French. This is puzzling for a number of reasons. While the French did construct the fort, beginning it sometime between 1753 and 1754 (Orser 1977, 9). They occupied it at most for eleven years. With the British arrival in 1765, and their eventual evacuation of the fort in 1772, their tenure (at the fort) lasted seven years, but with substantially more soldiers, officers, and attached civilians personnel (Figure 4.1), and for an additional six years based in Kaskaskia. The sources missing from the discussion of French or British Illinois are those documents created by French Illinois. Few survive, with some translated in published volumes, like Alvord and Carter’s British Series. The only other French documents used in this study are property transfers and church records (Brown and Dean 1981). The absence of French-language documents has the potential to bias these interpretations. Previous studies have made limited use of the British records (Orser 1977; Keene 2002). These records are absolutely critical, given the dearth of French documents, and vividly demonstrate the contextualization of societal groups and their material culture usage. 56 Interpreting historical documents necessitates an analysis of their composition and an understanding of how their commentary informs their views. Thus, a need to deconstruct their purposes, biases, and audiences. The interpretation of these needs to note how categories like descriptions, labels, and terms vary, offering a “docufact [that] can be treated as an entity and examined to obtain a generalized picture” of its contents (Babits in Beaudry 1988, 120). British officers in Illinois saw their lives or imperial goals differently than General Gage, in New York, and Gage, too, filtered these letters and accounts through a different lens, even more so when communicating with his superiors in London. Written evidence “may provide answers to questions about a site or region that are difficult, if not impossible, to determine from excavations and artefactual analysis alone” (Langhorne and Babits in Beaudry 1988, 132). A refined interpretation of available documents can help us move beyond simplistic uses of cultural affiliation relating to site occupants, and can also help pinpoint how these people used materials. The archaeology may reveal that facts ‘on the ground’ differed from those revealed in letters and warrants. Thus, the material culture may illustrate a reality distinct from what was ‘officially’ thought or recorded, and could offer a separate reality from what the material culture shows. At Fort de Chartres, for example, accounts could show the reasons for the prevalence of French goods in the assemblage. The inclusion of the historical documents may reveal motivations and purposes which we could not guess from the deposited artifacts alone. Interpreting these documents as artifacts, composed within “cultural-historical contexts for specific reasons” (Wilkie 2006, 13-14), we can gain greater understanding of Illinois’ socio-cultural context. With this, it may be possible to find and contextualize cross-cutting categories of identity. 57 Figure 3.1: This figure serves as an example of the type of transcription performed herein. The top shows (AO, BWM) a sample of one account book. Figure 3.2: This figure details my transcription of Figure 3.1. Accounts list the associated individual, but also details like the measurements and types of cloths or cost per yard. Comparing the ‘wish lists’ of Illinois’ traders to the inventories of what they sent offers interesting examples of issues of supply, demand, and transportation. These 58 accounts (see Appendix A for a list of transcriptions) have the potential of referencing communities of identity related to categories like gender, age, status, or wealth, when linked with the types and values of purchased goods (Figure 3.1, 3.2), and inform upon British use of French-produced goods. Documents offer descriptions and values, and suggest identity in ways not shown by the artifacts, offering complementary types of information. No academic attention has been shown to traders’ papers. While government and military papers have been transcribed and edited, these have not. Yet, they contain a wealth of information of the types of goods imported and relate to identity communities, explicitly stated within. This project relies on these to help offer a contextualized discussion of material culture and identity. This information may then be associated with the archaeological materials to provide a much fuller story. Figure 3.3: This detail illustrates the use of English and French as designators of a style of production or design of an Indigenous trade good, a blanket coat. (AF, BWM) As mentioned, the British community bought French-made foods, drinks, and material goods. Descriptions within traders’ documents frequently detail a cultural style, materials, or denote the location of its fabrication (Figure 3.3). For example, traders sought the importation of Irish linens, Indian awl blades, London blue strouds (a plain woolen cloth used in the Indigenous trade), and Dutch scythes.47 Accounts tend to run the gamut in terms of how items are described, with some providing substantial visual details about how the cloth might look, the sizes, or quality (Figure 3.4). Military records for Fort de Chartres like ordnance inventories or supply requests rarely describe items beyond a general classification, providing few other details related to the source of the materials. For example, Major Farmar’s survey of ammunition lists 150 “Musket Flints.”48 Likely, 47 48 Crown Account (Cole-Croghan); AF, BWM. Farmar-Gage, 181/3/1766, GP49AS. 59 these gunflints were French blade or spall flints, but these styles also fit British muskets (Spanbauer 2017). Figure 3.4: This figure details an order intended for Illinois. In it are specific references to the types, styles, and qualities desired for these tomahawks, axes, and hatchets. (MBP, BWM) These descriptions reveal details related to preference, class, culture, and gender, categories which archaeology may not show. Qualities and costs relate to the performance of identity when viewing individuals’ purchases. When these sources of evidence align, we gain a much greater understanding of how people lived and organized their lives, especially amongst the diverse populations of Illinois. By creating a database of named individuals and another of costs and details of imported materials (Appendix C), this project seeks to illuminate not only those referenced within trade documents and military communications, but also women, children, Indigenous peoples, and Africans who lived and worked within the same material contexts alongside the garrison. In terms of historical sources, this thesis references two main collections: the papers of Baynton, Wharton, and Morgan, 10 reels of microfilmed letters and account books and the papers of General Thomas Gage. Gage’s papers consist of 169 volumes of correspondence between the colonies and London, and contains Account books and Warrants documenting the British military’s expenses in North America. These compilations underscore the difficulties of supply at this garrison, issues of waste and spoilage, and the use of diverse types of goods by distinct cultural groups. Other primary 60 documents, edited by Alvord and Carter (1915, 1916, 1921) comprise a collection in which British, French, Indigenous, and colonial voices speak as they relate to British Illinois. Another important archival source outlines the enlistment rosters, rolls, and other papers of Fort de Chartres’ British regiments. The National Archives in Kew, England, has possession of War Office documents, through which researchers can trace identity as they relate to nationality or ethnicity and religious affiliation. These detail the enlistments, promotions, and other statistical data of soldiers and officers from the 18th (1768-1772), 34th (1765-1768), and 42nd (Oct-Dec 1765) regiments of foot serving in Illinois. This collection also discusses issues related to provisioning, alcohol, class, and gender, through court martials. Rolls and returns illustrate sicknesses and deaths, promotions and reduction, and the addition of recruits, all of which inform upon the lived experience of this community. I have created a database which comprises the names, and pertinent details, of all individuals referenced within the British period. This list contains just over 1,040 people. I have attempted to corroborate names with ethnicity/nationality, their roles, and any other linkages. As a final component, I have attempted selective biographical research using Internet search engines and published or transcribed documents. I hope this information will illuminate perceptions of identity and community as related to fluidity and performance, as people remained in Illinois after British evacuation. The records created by military personnel offer a distinct perspective on life in Illinois. While not complete for each company and regiment, they yield crucial details about ethnicity (based on etymological and biographical research), and losses within the ranks due to disease, desertion, or illness. This data helped me with a comparison of garrison sizes with the surrounding French and Indigenous populations. Most letters resulted from correspondence between General Thomas Gage and officers/civilians in Illinois, held at the William L. Clements Library at the University of Michigan. Within Appendix A, I have listed all letters used and accounts referenced, and will submit transcriptions with my databases to the Illinois State Museum’s Collections Center. While the handwriting for the vast majority is legible, others were damaged, due 61 to water, insects, faded ink, and illegibility. In sum, I have transcribed over 300 letters from the Gage Papers and have examined over 4,000 frames of letters and accounts on these 10 rolls of microfilm of the traders’ papers. From those traders’ accounts, at least 100 letters and most ledger books/accounts, have also been transcribed. To discuss these documents, it behooves me to note potential gaps within the historical record and later archaeological/historical work. We lack the preliminary and final reports from the Thurman years, and detailed excavation maps and artifact inventories from Brown’s seasons. Orderly books which held the official orders of the military unit, registering activities like “courts martial, disposal of wastes, and assignments of duties” (Babits 1988, 120), could add to our knowledge of British Illinois and its garrison. These books, if available, could help correlate activities to areas within and outside of the fort, offering a contextualization of work and off-duty activities reflected by the archaeology record. While orderly books exist for other forts, none represent Illinois.49 The loss of official inventories, specifically during Lieutenant-Colonel Wilkins’ tenure, also impair our understanding. With the stratigraphy of the fort compromised, and the overlapping habitation of French and British garrisons, these types of documents could aid in interpreting the archaeology. 3.3. Excavated Finds This project utilizes a legacy collection, amassed through the work of four different archaeological projects spanning about fifteen years, stored within the Illinois State Museum Collections Center. I have performed no excavations at the fort. Archaeologists recorded artifacts with feature numbers, excavation levels, and units, but none of this has been digitized or synchronized to a global coordinate system. Their stratigraphy and provenance cannot be georeferenced to specific areas beyond the written reports. Attempts to analyze artifact patterns inside the fort therefore remains problematic. 49 See Wilson’s Orderly Book (O’Callaghan, ed. 1857), or Bouquet’s Expedition (Williams, ed. 1960). 62 Figure 3.5: This figure details a portion of a ‘combined’ excavation map from the 1972-1975 seasons. Note the lack of designated coordinates, unit designations, or labelling. (Orser 1977, Courtesy of the ISM) Complicating this is the removal or shifting of materials from surface collections, flooding, and reconstructive efforts. To deal with the stratigraphic issues, I first had to recalibrate the locations of features, unit designations, and ‘lots’ recorded throughout nine different excavations. This was necessary, in part, because of the combination of measuring systems used (Figure 3.5). The first season used the Imperial method and changed over to metric measurements (but not uniformly) in the second. Orser, Thurman, and Keene all used metric measurements, but excavation maps were based off earlier inaccurate or uncalibrated designations (Thurman 1980a, Appendix). After converting the English-measured units to metric, I sketched out a gridded map to aid in coordinating specific features and excavation areas to the artifacts recovered within. It proved of minimal use but assisted me in conceptualizing these find spots. I made no attempt to create a master-GIS related database, because of spotty location information. Future work could accomplish this to allow for a greater contextualization of the post-occupational 63 impact of floods, farming, and settlement. This might offer a more nuanced interpretation of recovered artifacts relating to garrison use. Figure 3.6: This figure details part of the artifact category from the 1972 season. (Courtesy of the ISM) Figure 3.7: This figure details part of the Collection Inventory for the 1975 season. It provides a description of the material within these bags. (Courtesy of the ISM) This project seeks to understand how the garrison used material culture and space as part of identity and community formation, how Britishness factored into these presentations. I needed to reconcile the disparate methods of recording artifactual data. As seen (Figures 3.6/3.7), between field cataloging and curation, some details regarding the 64 artifacts have been added. In Appendix B, I have included examples of the artifact catalogs for each of the excavations, and the tendency of these towards vaguer classifications and detail. Specifically, these lack information such as physical dimensions and commentary of diagnostic features. As a result, I felt it necessary to create a ‘Master List’ of excavated artifacts by entering the data relating to their units and pertinent information relating to descriptions, counts, or ascribed cultural affiliation into a manageable Microsoft Excel spreadsheet (Figure 3.8). Standardizing and streamlining these various sources of information might assist in finding cultural markers related to material culture. Figure 3.8: This figure details part of my database which sought to synthesize all recorded data for this collection. I entered metric measurements of diagnostic artifacts to help me to understand better the classification system used by archaeologists (for example, musket ball calibers or ceramic vessel diameters). Weights were taken with a digital scale and measurements by digital calipers. My examination of the available assemblage relied on my own observations, in which I recorded specific manufacturing and stylistic features, like leadglazed earthenwares or salt-glazed barley pattern ceramics. I relied on comparative collections from Forts Ligonier (Grimm 1970), Michilimackinac (Stone 1974; Heldman and Minnerly 1977; Roache-Fedchenko 2013), and St. Joseph (Nassaney 2019). Within these, illustrations, photographs, and descriptions aided in my identification and classification. 65 The Illinois State Museum Collections Center is switching over to a new computer system, with archaeological data slated for uploading by the winter of 2022 (Personal Communication, DeeAnn Watt, 28/3/2022). There are plans to integrate my data into the new system, including the databases, artifacts photos, and transcribed materials, although the Museum requires approval for access. My database and photos, due to their accessibility and search functionality, will allow for the wider dissemination of this aggregated data. My efforts have led me to observe discrepancies between the existing archaeological assemblage and prior interpretations. Keene, who assisted Brown and Orser and served as the director of excavation, 1985-1987, used this assemblage for his doctoral thesis (2002). He recorded 3,000 artifacts (1972-1987 seasons), placing them into artifact classifications based on Stone’s (1970) scheme. Keene’s thesis looked to ascertain whether the recovered artifacts were associated with the French fur trade, and the fort’s role within that network (Keene 2002, 8). He removed any object he deemed undiagnostic, or of British production, which decreased his total to about 2,100 artifacts (2002, 139 and 220). It is important to note: his project proposed no methodology regarding cultural affiliation or use, whether a particular sherd came from a French bottle or a British one. Cursory elaboration on the stylistic or material characteristics is provided, with linkage to cultural materials’ producers, but all other goods were considered French. This problematizes analysis with the assumption that only French peoples used French goods, recycling did not occur, or that the British did not import goods intended for the French. My evaluation excluded material culture which pre-dated and post-dated the ‘life’ of Fort de Chartres (1752-1772). For example, British potters produced the ceramic type known as Pearlware post-1779 (Hume 2001, 128). There are no reasons to think the British could have imported pearlware during their time in Illinois, although it remained in use through the mid-nineteenth century, which explains its presence here, given subsequent farming and settlement (Hume 1969). This project intends to incorporate the possible material culture of the British garrison, which also means the inclusion of French- 66 produced goods to pair documentary sources with the archaeology to illustrate other endusers of these goods and describe the life-history of these objects. Unlike Keene’s estimate of 3,000 artifacts, my count tabulated over 21,000 artifacts, excluding faunal materials. Even if the modern (i.e., 19th & 20th century) artifacts are removed, this is still a wide discrepancy. My database, when compared to counts within his thesis, show additional incongruities. For example, Keene lists one bayonet recovered from excavation (2002, 150) but it does not appear on his (1988) aggregated artifact list. My examination of the collected artifacts showed three triangular bladed bayonets. Keene reports a total of six mortar fragments (2002, 150) while my inventory tallied thirty fragments of mortar shells. These more accurate artifact counts may help with a more thorough understanding of this archaeological assemblage. I re-analyzed finds attributed to British features (Features 39 and 40), as excavated by Orser (1977). I am not using Orser’s categorization of these features as British because they help to illustrate my discussion of the garrison community but am examining their finds to ascertain why he considered them to be British features. I will also tabulate and document those artifacts of British production and/or use to incorporate them into my discussion. I feel it unlikely that French troops, garrisoned here before the arrival of British trade and soldiers, likely obtained these objects. Again, I note the hypothesis that these features, designated as British, represent activity areas associated with them. Based on the artifacts Orser excavated, and given their provenance, I am provisionally accepting these identifications, but will scrutinize them to discuss their presence within the larger context in a later chapter. 3.4. Surface Collected Materials Surface collections from Fort de Chartres and surrounding sites have yet to be fully studied. While acknowledging we lack key provenience related to find spots for these, this thesis will still consider whether Peithmann’s artifacts allow for insights into the recovered British-produced/used artifacts. As with excavated materials, I have employed Microsoft Excel to create a searchable and organized database. I have attempted to classify 67 these materials into more specific groupings than their ‘glass, ceramic, or metal’ categories. I collected more data based on counts, weights, and styles, all to identify better artifacts with potential cultural markers. I also examined Peithmann’s letters and other papers, which included correspondence with fellow prospectors, to see if geographical details related to find spots could be obtained. These records have only recently become available, in December 2019, after my project had begun. To my knowledge, they have not been used by historians or archaeologists. Peithmann’s collection lack specifics, with scant notations accompanying them, or with a ‘code’ in which he seems to reference when/who accompanied him when collecting (Figure 3.9). For example, in 1968 Peithmann journeyed to Indigenous Kaskaskia (Guebert site), where he and a friend collected a “variety of French/Indian items—metal, beads, nails, bullets, glass,” before continuing to Fort de Chartres.50 His collections contain bags of artifacts, sorted by material class, without separation by type or style. No data exists relating to the physical qualities of the assemblages. 50 21/1/1968, Journal, IP. 68 Figure 3.9: These two figures detail the recording information for Peithmann’s surface collecting. Identified artifacts had a corresponding card, although lacking in dates and locations (left). The catalog record, right, has even less information. (Courtesy of the ISM) Peithmann’s collection numbered just under 15,000 artifacts, with approximately 2,000 of these from Fort de Chartres and 3,000 from the adjacent Indigenous Metchigamia (Waterman) site. I have chosen to include his surface-collected materials to better understand the overall assemblage of the fort. The inclusion of his materials sheds greater light upon the overall presence of materials, although I acknowledge the lack of documentation challenges the validity of its inclusion. Peithmann’s metal detecting removed these objects from their contexts, skewing archaeologists seeking patterns and percentages based on categorical data, like Keene. For example, Keene noted thirteen cannon ball and mortar fragments within this collection (2002, 150), but when we consider Peithmann’s surface collection of thirty-three mortar fragments and fourteen complete and fragmented cannon balls, we can see this artifact class was much more represented than alluded to by Keene. As another example, adding Peithmann’s surface collected firearms-related materials results in the doubling of the total number of these artifacts within the collection (Ibid.). This is the case for all metal materials at the fort and helps to clarify better our understanding of these various artifact categories which previous interpretations have used. This project will use these materials, and the newly available documents related to Peithmann, to analyze the assemblage in ways earlier interpretations could not. 3.5. Archaeological Classification Methods and Cultural Affiliation To elaborate on the performance of identities like nationality, profession, or status, it is necessary to explain the theories of cultural affiliation used to do this. This thesis challenges cultural affiliation, as used at Fort de Chartres, by positing that the historical documents help to problematize the nature of the fort’s assemblage. The predominance of identifiable British goods may suggest a better proxy argument that more of the assemblage is related to their usage rather than the French, as assumed. I will use the documents to discuss object biographies as they relate to the usage of French materials by 69 the British garrison. This approach will help move cultural affiliation beyond identifying the cultural producer of materials to a more nuanced understanding of its life history, and as will be shown, informs upon Britishness and other communities of identity. Historical archaeologists discuss identity by looking for cultural markers. These specific artifacts relate to a culture of production. Specific chronological windows of manufacturing or diagnostic elements may help to identify groups who inhabited a particular site or building, and connect to identity as it relates to taste, class, or gender. For example, Jones (1971, 29) established a chronology for English wine bottles based upon a comparison of sealed, dated examples, and used these to refine dating timeframes for material changes in these bottles. Bottles offer data in terms of size, shape, and volume, when compared to finds from other British-inhabited sites. Utilizing Jones’ characteristics of the methods of manufacture, archaeologists have differentiated French-produced bottles from British ones at Fort de Chartres (Keene 2002). These methods have been used with the fort’s assemblage, the ascription of cultural affiliation based upon material elements, decorations, or styles. Fort de Chartres’s artifacts have had at least minimal analysis, even if they sometimes lack in detail. Excavations catalogued materials by their physical characteristics, like glass, metal, or ceramics with further details relating to their tangible characteristics, like green bottle glass, earthenware, or bone button blanks. Others revealed more diagnostic information, following the standard of chronologies and manufacturing/stylistic attributes established by Ivor Noël Hume (1969) and based on finds from sites like Fort Michilimackinac (Brown 1971) or Fort Stanwix (Hanson and Hsu 1975). Keene (1988a) and Orser (1977) detailed specific items, such as a tobacco pipe bowl with a maker’s mark or pewter regimental uniform buttons, based on these identifiers, but this tended to be the exception rather than rule. Academic treatments of Fort de Chartres have used pattern analysis, the quantification of artifacts to allow for comparison to similar artifacts at other sites. Keene (2002) employed Stone’s (1974) system and sought patterns of artifact ratios in the manner of South (1977). These methods created classes which they believed allowed for the 70 grouping of artifacts into categories like architecture, kitchen, or arms. This permitted ratio comparisons between east coast military sites and those elsewhere. As a result, this assemblage has been offered up as French and is used as a comparator for other French sites (Keene 2002, 1991). Walthall offered a discussion of the fort’s ceramics in an edited volume on French Colonial Archaeology (1991). Faunal analysis of the entire assemblage has factored into comparisons between Fort de Chartres and other French forts through published articles (Martin 1991; Nassaney and Martin 2017) and unpublished theses (Becker 2004, Hearns 2015). Even when discussing British-manufactured products, Franco-centric archaeologists have dismissed their presence. “Consumers across North America were offered significant new choices … often unconstrained by the color of the flags flying overhead” (Mazrim 2011, 78). Interpretations like this muddy the waters of analysis. What this does not provide is the story of these objects, their life history, which reflects issues of usage and supply at these sites. Keene’s pattern analysis is problematic, in part, because of the mixed-contexts of the site, extensively modified by agriculture, flooding, and reconstruction, which has obscured our ability to reliably interpret stratigraphy, and as a result, cultural affiliation-as-use to either garrison, outside of a few features, which seem to imply a British presence. Calling artifacts ‘French,’ i.e., French bottles, or discussing faience, leaves little room for consideration that other communities purposely used, or re-used, those same goods. French-made did not equate to French-used. Documentary evidence not used by previous commentators attest to British traders importing French goods for Illinois’ inhabitants, as well as the garrison’s forced reliance on French traders, due to conflict, environmental issues, and trade regulations. While we can use the recovered material culture to connect with cultural makers, to discuss any otherness in Illinois, we can also reference materials which fit into specific chronological periods of manufacture, i.e., post1765 British materials not available to the French garrison. We cannot understand this assemblage without considering the relationship of cultural affiliation to other communities of identity, groups which intersect with nationality, like class/status, 71 profession, or gender (Nassaney 2008, 311). We need to understand who used these goods, and in what contexts. This can help to explain the positioning of an overall Europeanness which, at times, eclipsed Britishness or Frenchness as identities. This thesis seeks to use the historical record to problematize the use and deposition of these materials in a reconsideration of established categories. While still seeking distinct occupational areas, deposits, or features to distinguish goods deposited by the French from those dumped by the British, I also intend to examine the assemblage in relation to those characteristics affecting deposition. I will undertake to re-analyze the material assemblages excavated and surface collected at the fort within the context of these cultural and chronological markers of production. The nature of mixed-use, or collapsed, features at Fort de Chartres makes this sort of work problematic, outside of artifacts linked to a particular group due to the chronology of production or supply. For example, the British garrison used the Brown Bess musket, and the French, a Charleville, but trade guns may have been used by either garrison (or meant for civilian or Indigenous use). Bottles, and ceramics pose different questions of interpretation, based on intentional purchase and re-use. While comparative categories and contexts make sense, they do not serve an interpretation of Britishness at Fort de Chartres well, where officers, soldiers, and personnel bought and traded with the French, and where their tenures make the separations of these groupings challenging. I do not seek to find ratios of arms to ceramics to ascertain occupational patterns or residential ones. Instead, I will compare specific artifacts and styles to gain an understanding of the types of goods Europeans imported, as well as to utilize the documentary record to offer commentary on the garrisons’ material culture. In terms of these documents, I cannot equate the descriptions of artifacts from accounts or letters to their ‘appearance’ in the archaeological record. These writings do not always demonstrate ‘who’ bought the goods, their usage, or where they ended up. Thus, artifact aggregations cannot reliably be linked to the texts. What I can do is to consider purchases and imported goods into Illinois seeking specific examples of these 72 goods. This will enable me to contextualize better the varieties of Britishness in Illinois as they relate to the groups referenced. In interpreting identity at Fort de Chartres, we must include the possibility that artifacts may also represent the material culture of the French garrison. As with British production/style chronologies, if goods fall outside the chronological window of British Fort de Chartres, I can dismiss them from my discussion of Britishness, like French uniform buttons. It is problematic to firmly assign any area or even material culture as French given the lack of original documents and the absence of any secure French-period contexts. Previous archaeological efforts have interpreted features: the Bake house, Latrine, Drains, and a blacksmith’s shop, as secure British-period contexts (Orser 1977). None have been ascribed to the French. Thus, I cannot address the material culture of a French garrison. Conversely, given documented references to the reuse of material culture, buildings, and spaces, I also cannot arbitrarily consider all goods as representative of the British. In my examination of Britishness, I look for specific cultural markers within the material relating to cultural production, like pontil marks, or styles, like creamware ceramics, and military accoutrement specific to the British garrison. 3.6. Chapter Conclusion This chapter has positioned the theoretical underpinnings of my research as they relate to communities of identity and the structures, practices, and material culture they utilized. Theories related to identity and community formation reveal the nuances needed in their interpretation. When considering previous studies on Fort de Chartres, the fixed, monolithic categorization of Frenchness applied does not illustrate the actual lived history of the individuals at this post, as will be discussed in Chapter Five, which positions Britishness as a community of identity which offers specific material culture preferences from the documents. These allude to the performance of Britishness and Europeanness by this garrison, as well as the purposeful use of French-produced goods. Systematically using documents, we can inform upon insider and outsider views in ways the archaeological assemblages cannot. These documents provide the 73 contextualization of British perceptions of others (Africans, Indigenous peoples, and Europeans), but also offer a reflection of self, linked to stereotypes, tropes, and values. Analyzing the communities of identity within the garrison, we will see a variety of groups, like the mess, regiment, and nationality. We can then view the materials used in places and practices that supported or separated these communities of identity. Understanding how specific spaces, material culture, and associated practices were used by the garrison demonstrates how individuals and groups performed or contextualized identity. This informs upon Britishness, but also references its martial identity components, complete with cross-cutting communities related to rank/status, profession, and religion. As discussed, previous interpretations have equated cultural affiliation with the producers of material goods. This thesis has begun to illustrate the problems with this, given the mixed-use nature and complicated post-occupational stratigraphy present at Fort de Chartres. This study moves beyond the cultural of production, outside of specific British goods which post-dated French occupation or that indicate Britishness explicitly, to consider how the documents inform upon British-used material goods within specific structures and situations. Including these documents allow for a much more effective contextualization of these communities of identity as a result and positions this project as a comprehensive academic study which suggests a substantial British phase superseding and overlaying the French period. This thesis is situated within the larger context of research on military garrisons within colonial America and studies which have involved British garrisons elsewhere. As shown, significant gaps within this literature exist, some of which I will address. The grand history of Illinois, and Fort de Chartres, has focused upon Frenchness, interpreting its material culture and buildings within that context. From there, historical accounts jump the British period to detail the American settlers. Placing the British garrison into this discussion provides a counterweight to these simplistic narratives while informing upon Britishness and material culture of this military community. In looking for conceptualizations of Britishness within military installations elsewhere, I found few which discussed this period, never mind location. Current research has investigated sites 74 in Canada, which differ in terms of the garrison’s ability to maintain and perform Britishness when we consider the impact of logistics. Britishness has been studied at forts like Gibraltar, but these have focused upon the Napoleonic period, well after the chronology of this fort. My thesis presents a unique interpretation, in terms of geography and chronology. Unlike these other studies, this thesis centers identity within this period by delving deeper into its fluidity as a community of identity, as this fort, and Illinois, transitions between French, British, and American affiliations. My database of known/named individuals allows us to see a much more significant British presence in Illinois. These shifts outline a British population which impacted the material culture illustrated in the archaeological record and link to Britishness through their practices and structures. Using the rich British documentary record will allow for more nuanced discussion of identity and communities of identity at Fort de Chartres, with specific reflections on cultural use, rather than just affiliation. Prior interpretations’ dependance on pattern analysis have biased meaningful consideration of both garrisons, relying instead upon the false equation of cultural production with cultural usage. As will be shown, a better proxy argument for the archaeological assemblage to be consider British than French exists, based on cultural markers like gun parts and ceramics which post-dated French occupation and through extensive use of the documents. Within the ensuing chapters, this methodology will focus on the axes of identity of Britishness and ‘othering,’ to demarcate levels of community, and will underscore the impact of geography, historical events, and transportation of supplies upon these same groups to demonstrate just how tenuous, and fluid, conceptions of identity were in pre-Revolution Illinois. 75 Chapter 4: Seeking Britishness in Illinois As mentioned previously, I seek to understand the impact of Britishness, through the material culture, space, and structures of the garrison within Illinois. To do this, I must define Britishness in terms of practices and material culture, especially that which relates to aspects of the military, and its association with 18th century Britishness. Documents emphasize differences between national/ethnic/racial communities in Illinois, associated with the wider British empire. This discussion will begin by examining the significance of Illinois’ shifting demographics. It assesses British perceptions of self, their values and stereotypes, and considers how these people saw ‘others,’ through the terminology used and cultural values imparted by these discussions. Examining the traders’ accounts, I seek cultural preferences related to specific material culture, and focus upon food, drink, and cloth/clothing. This chapter also seeks to contrast Europeanness, as Frenchness and Britishness, with the non-European inhabitants of Illinois. It discusses Europeans projections of identity upon Africans and Indigenous peoples by considering the documentary descriptions and associated material culture. Understanding these views contextualizes Britishness, as trade and alliance structures, projected from the fort, and at times, demonstrates just how ineffective these policies were in practice. Acceptance, rejection, and negotiation of status, in the case of Illinois Indigenous groups, impacted the viability of these structures. 4.1. Shifting Demographics in Illinois We can see significant shifts in European and Indigenous populations after 1765 by breaking down Illinois’ demographics. This reveals a British presence which impacted the material culture illustrated through the archaeological record. This population also influenced the practices and structures associated with farmers, laborers, and attached civilian workers, and shows that Britishness, at least in terms of population, was much more significant a force than previously referenced. 76 The most often cited demographic breakdown of Illinois, pre-1765, is a 1752 French census (Ekberg 2000, 152).51 My summary numbers the existing French population at 756 (including military), with an additional 592 enslaved Indigenous and Africans prior to the arrival of the British. Evidence does not number existing populations during/after this war, although the French garrison participated in skirmishes in Pennsylvania, when the fort would have been largely empty. When the British arrived, the French garrison numbered less than fifty.52 The bulk of the French abandoned their villages for parallel settlements in Spanish territory. Captain Stirling commented that they left their villages due to “fear of the English”.53 Most of the Indigenous population also relocated across the Mississippi, but later resettled in their old villages. Figure 4.1 uses archival records to offer an indication about the size and scope of these settlements to contextualize French Prairie du Rocher Chartres Village 53 40 8 100 198 89 36 2 Kaskaskia 352 246 75 Cahokia 89 24 23 50 families (perhaps 200 total) 43 families (perhaps 172 total) St. Philippe 64 45 5 0 756 444 147 Totals: Indigenous Kaskaskia Cahokia Peoria Metchigamia Census 1767, A&CXI, 469; D’abbadie-Minister, 10/1/1764, A&CX, 209. Eddington, A&CXI, 106. 53 Stirling-Gage, 15/12/1765, A&CXI, 125. 51 52 150 warriors (600) 40 warriors (160) 250 warriors (1000) 40 warriors (160) 1766-1772 British Estimates 1765 British Estimates 1752 French CensusEnslaved Indigenous 1752 French CensusEnslaved Africans 1752 French CensusEuropeans (military and civilian) ethnic/national presence within. 25 families /25 ‘souls’ (Father Meurin) 2 ‘souls’ (Father Meurin) 600 Euros/EuroAmerican, 303 slaves 60 families 3 families/4 ‘souls’ (Father Meurin) 77 Spanish/Fr ench St. Genevieve 22 2 0 St. Louis British Military British Civilians, Traders, and attached personnel 25 families 40-50 families 232 men (42nd & 34th Foot) Men Franks & Co Plantation & Stores BWM Plantations & Stores 3 named individuals 71 named individuals. 315 batteaumen in 176754 Women 195 men (18th) “Servants” (Enslaved/Indentu red) 3 named individuals 3 named individuals 21 named individuals 19 named individuals Figure 4.1: This table summarizes recorded populations of Illinois’ settlements. (Ekberg 2000, 152; A&CXI, 299; Stirling-Gage, 15/12/1765, A&CXI, 125; Enlistment Rolls, NA; Gage-Hillsborough, 6/1/1769, GP14ES; Census, A&CXI, 469). If we use Kay (1984, 272) as a basis for estimating Indigenous populations, a ratio of one warrior to four people results in these estimated populations, in parentheses. British officers, traders, and civilian personnel flocked to Illinois to take advantage of the trade opportunities with the military garrison, French villages, and Indigenous communities, shifting Illinois’ demographics. Officers and traders purchased and occupied homes in these towns and established plantations across the countryside. Deed records detail at least ten land sales within the vicinity of Fort de Chartres, with five bought by Captain James Campbell of the 42nd Foot.55 In 1767, traders brought 300 batteaumen, artisans, and laborers, resulting in a greater, if temporary, shift in population, with some batteaumen remaining in Illinois for a time, and others leaving. The purchasing of plantations and houses by various trading companies means the British presence increased, as traders brought in diverse people to manage and work these endeavors. As part of this project, I have recorded each person identified within military rolls, traders’ accounts, and British documents, tabulating 1,043 named individuals. Based on BWM-Irwin 21/9/1766, A&CXI, 384. While batteaumen travelled back to Fort Pitt or to New Orleans, Illinois’ accounts list others in records, naming eighty men and five women. 55 Brown and Dean 1981; BWM. 54 78 bibliographic research and the use of titles (like Monsieur/Mademoiselle vs. Mr./Mrs.), and the etymology of surnames, I sought the ethnic composition of British Illinois. I acknowledged that equating surnames with nationality could skew the data, but this research did not unearth widespread Anglicization of French names. Similarly, the use of different names within different contexts, such as women changing their surname upon marriage, potentially impacts this method. Yet, the inclusion of this information better contextualizes identity. Of the named individuals, over 530 (50+%) are associated with the British garrisons (42nd: 15 individuals; 34th: 85; 18th: 336; unidentified regiment: 21). Garrisons varied between 195 (18th Foot) and 215 (34th Foot) soldiers and officers. At least 82 men, 24 women, and 21 ‘servants’ (Indentured or Enslaved) worked within the fort or were employed on British plantations. This contrasts with 97 named French men and 29 women. I realize these numbers do not equate directly with the populations listed (Figure 4.1), and that ‘commoners’ (laborers, servants, etc.) are absent from official documents, but they at least illuminate these peoples’ presence. Illinois’ demographics illustrate these small populations within these scattered villages, and their likelihood of being quite familiar with one’s neighbors, and by extension, the garrison, and other settlements. They also reflect an ephemeral, and potentially volatile, change in demographics of a rapidly shifting population. This suggests the increased contextualization of identity, where Europeans may be more likely to stress what they had in common rather than focusing upon performing distinct identities in the face of other whites. National origin, language, and dress may have been softened or exaggerated in these situations. Downplaying tribal differences may have served as a strategy in European dealings with Indigenous communities. The presence of the French and Spanish across the Mississippi challenges cultural assimilation and acculturation, as they linked the Illinois French and Indigenous peoples, to a ‘greater Frenchness,’ preventing their cultural marginalization. The Anglo population of Illinois better demonstrates cultural isolation. Their presence impacted the material culture illustrated archaeologically, and linked Britishness to specific types, practices, and structured use of objects. 79 4.2. What is Britishness? Perceptions of a pan-British identity began after the passage of the Act of Union (1707), joining Scotland to England and Wales. Even then, this identity did not become solidified until the beginnings of the Victorian age. Throughout the eighteenth century, those of Great Britain “constructed and contested” Britishness, in response to “overseas development … and the commercial investment and employment opportunities it afforded” (Colley 2005, xv). A succession of wars against France formalized the contrast of Britishness with Frenchness, focusing on religious differences. These wars helped to meld the Scots, English, and Welsh together, as Protestants, against the perceived threats of French Catholicism (Colley 2005, 368). These communities of identity influenced the motivations and strategies of colonization and empire throughout, and helped to contextualize individuals living, fighting, and working within the North American colonies. Britishness emerged from the specific context of historical events but was neither ubiquitous nor uniform within the perspective of its colonies, and Illinois in particular. Colley’s (2005) studies on identity and Britishness purposely neglected the inclusion of the Irish. With Britishness equating to Protestantism to solidify Protestant support against Catholic France in this century’s wars, it meant minimizing the presence of Catholic Ireland. Britain feared a potential alliance between Ireland and France, and its location “cut [them] off still more effectively by the prejudices of the English, Welsh and Scots” (Colley 2005, 8). This othering of the Irish may be reflected in the reluctance of the Irish Catholics to embrace Britishness and British control. Prior to the American Revolution, military service abroad remained a means of advancement for Irish Catholics “debarred by the English, Scottish and Irish Test Acts” from serving as officers (Snape 2005, 10). The French recruited Irish regiments (the ‘Irish Brigade’) into their military, and these soldiers “were employed in the wars of our period against British forces” throughout the 1760s (Conway 2001, 870; 2009, 118). In Illinois, Colonel Reed related news of an Irishman named Grant “formerly of the French service … [who] gives me a great deal of 80 trouble as well as impertinence”.56 Another, Macarty Mactigue, served as France’s commandant in Illinois pre-1755, and was the individual responsible for beginning construction of ‘our’ Fort de Chartres (Brown 2013, 141). Although forbidden by British law, the recruitment of Irish Catholic soldiers for overseas service occurred, especially as the Seven Years’ War escalated. Irishness then became less equated with religion. Their identity within the empire, while not British, was emphasized. This allowed for the enlistment of Irish troops, but also the eventual deployment of the Royal Irish regiment of Foot, under the supervision of English, Scottish, and Irish Protestant officers, to Fort de Chartres. For Irish Protestants, adopting the “outward appearance of a robustly Irish patriot identity” allowed them to view themselves as “part of an essentially British world” (Conway 2001, 870), while underscoring ethnicity. In this way, Britishness offered the potential to blur identities. Reviewing the composition of Fort de Chartres’ regiments, we can see who served in Illinois, and which national/ethnic groups comprised this pan-national Britishness. Within their service as officers and soldiers of the Empire, we have the potential to consider contextual or nested communities of identity in Illinois. Historian Steven Baule has examined nativity (place of birth) on enlistment roles for the officers of the 18th Foot. My study adds to his through my research of the private men, and by incorporating nativity for the 42nd and 34th regiments, when inferred from the documents or through bibliographic research. After recording individuals from letters, accounts, and enlistment rolls, I created a list of approximately 530 officers and private men who served the British in Illinois. They represented over half of the 1760s/1770s population of Illinois (Figures 4.1).57 The 42nd Foot reflected its recruiting roots, the Scottish Highlands, but rolls recorded only the names of the officers, all Scottish. The 34th Foot, an English regiment based in Carlisle, quartered around 230 officers and soldiers in Illinois, with 85 named individuals. These correlated to nativity as: English (15), Irish (6), Scottish (9), and Americans (2). The Reed-Gage, 5/7/1766, GP65AS. The 18th’s regimental rolls list all members, but the 34 th’s records only officers. I list nativity when corroborated with biographical research. Stirling’s 42 nd rolls were not available. 56 57 81 18th Foot, raised in Ireland, detailed Irish (9) and English (11) officers, with one American, and hundreds of soldiers of unknown nativity.58 These records offer evidence of ethnicity and nationality; however, we do not know how these identities played out in Illinois. Were these emphasized, exaggerated, or minimized? Within a variety of social contexts, did individuals hide being Irish or Scottish and portray their identities as members of a British garrison? Did they identify as Irish or Scottish within more private contexts like the parade ground or while on the dance floor? Did they differentiate between Catholic or Protestant Irish, or between Highland and Lowland Scots? Were there overt or covert methods or materials which these men could utilize in the performance of identity? How did they define themselves in opposition to the English members of the garrison or with the surrounding French and Indigenous populations? Lacking documents created by the private men, and most officers, it is difficult to ascertain, and these questions cannot be fully answered nor explored as a result. Material choices might reflect purchases of ethnically non-diagnostic materials as a method of fitting into the British community, or at least, as a way not to stand apart from it. Purchases may also reference the difficulties of obtaining goods and styles which reflect these demarcations, allowing for a more ‘universal’ Britishness within the garrison. Further study of these individuals, if written commentary could be found, might help us to answer these various question and elaborate on identity formation in this period. In Illinois, we will uncover examples of these national/ethnic identities used as a means of othering individuals. As in the United Kingdom, where the British “are a highly variable and complex amalgam of people” (Lawrence 2003, 1), the contextualization of identity as Britishness in Illinois challenged the elasticity of this term, especially when viewing the garrison community, who differed in ethnicity/nationality, but also religious affiliation. Conway argues “it was the English who were the most reluctant to conceive of themselves as British,” and saw Britain itself as “an extension of England” (Conway 2001, 872). It was the Spanish, French, and Indigenous peoples in Illinois that molded Englishness and other communities of identity into this perceived Britishness. 58 Baule (2014); WO 12/3501, WO 17/143, NA; Carroon 1984. 82 Historical documents use the terms British and English synonymously. Correspondence between Morgan and Benjamin Franklin related “No English Merchants save Ourselves have yet ventured to send British Merchandize to Illinois.”59 Accounts use culturally-affiliated terms to reference styles or places of manufacture: English strouds, Irish linens, or Scotch thread. Records mention Irishness or Scottishness rarely, in reference to groups like the ‘Royal Irish’ or ‘Scottish Regiment.’ Even then, this does not necessarily reference the identities of those within these regiments, for example, English officers led the Irish regiment and Scottish soldiers served in English regiments. Highlanders are mentioned in relation to their regiment, with a reference to a “highlander’s wife” in an account, which links wives to their husbands’ regimental identities.60 In contrast, the few surviving French letters from Illinois rarely differentiate between English and British, and neglect to mention the Scots, Welsh, or Irish. Conceptions of Britishness relegated colonials into another community of identity. The removal of French authority in North America meant American colonists were “set free to see the British crown and its agents as the Other” (Colley 1992, 327). While the French could serve to galvanize the Scottish, Irish, Welsh, American, and English subjects of the British Crown into perceiving a Britishness, so too could the growing impact of trade, migration, and taxation disputes help to define provincial colonists in contrast from this Britishness. This could help to explain the fluid nature of identity as it relates to colonists who swapped allegiances to the new American government and communities at the end of this period, as will be explored in my concluding chapter. Colley begins her argument for Britishness by noting it was “imagined, communicated, debated and memorialized” (2005, xii). For this thesis, when examining this garrison and its population, Britishness was created, emphasized, and maintained through material culture. Objects and practices created a familiarity of identity especially necessary within a location like Fort de Chartres, separated by weeks/months of travel from other British garrisons and communities. The purchasing of material goods linked 59 60 Wharton-Franklin, 10/4/1767, A&CXVI, 77. AO, BWM. 83 these individuals to wider communities, and the practices and structures associated with their use furthered Britishness as a community of identity. In this way, the garrison could attempt to create familiar surroundings within unfamiliar environments. Britishness incorporated Georgian values and necessitated using specific material goods to underscore these ideals, for example, the gendering of space in relation to food preparation and consumption, or the ‘whitening’ of materials as it relates to cleanliness and moral propriety (Tarlow 2007). Outside of Protestantism, to be British implied a sense of “social openness, intellectual and scientific achievement, and a prosperity based on trade,” which all underscored liberty of law and government (Greene 2013, 283). Linkages to materials deemed exotic, detailing the reach of empire, helped to define status within Britishness (Dellino-Musgrave 2005, 231). So too the individualization of place settings through ceramics, tablewares, and other related goods and practices, as per Deetz (1996). Embracing these qualities meant the equation of individuals, through their practices and material culture, with the potential unification of Britishness, although the contextualization of its intersectionality with other communities of identity will be developed. Triangulating documents and artifacts with practices allows us to narrow down how Britishness was performed in Illinois. 4.3. Contrasting Britishness To understand what those living in Illinois considered to exemplify Britishness, we must also investigate just whom they felt were not British, contrasting otherness of Europeans, colonists, and later, other communities of identity, like Indigenous peoples, Enslaved Africans, or the contextualized communities related to status/rank, profession, religion, and socio-economic class (Chapter 5). These ‘others’ worked as a foil to British perceptions of self and helped to solidify their interpretations of identity. Through their documents, British officers and tradesmen projected the stereotypes and values associated with these peoples, reinforcing their cultural beliefs and values in contrast. Through the accounts, we can see specific purchases made by Europeans, or for the Indigenous peoples and Africans in Illinois which underscore this. 84 Within these intersectional, contextual, and contested classifications, we may find individuals defining themselves one way, when contrasted with a particular group, and differently within another. Theoretically, a man of the 18th Foot may perceive himself as Irish, in contrast to the Englishmen of his unit, but may also consider himself British, or at least a British soldier, in relation to the French. Alternatively, that same soldier, if Catholic, might identity with Illinois’ French population instead of his Protestant officers, at least during church services. In some cases, a military identity eclipsed national/ethnic affiliation. Cultural practices, like language, also reflect national/ethnic affiliation. The default language of the British army, English, did not necessarily reflect the diversity of languages spoken by the private men (Irish and Erse) as not all spoke English, or spoke it fluently (Hagist 2020, 26). The connections between the French of Illinois and their compatriots just across the Mississippi impacted any British attempts at isolating these people, whether culturally or through material culture. In my attempt to uncover Britishness, I sought the insights contained within the documents, hoping for the nuance involved in this insider/outsider dichotomy. To do this, I had to acknowledge the British projection of their views upon others, while the simultaneous lack of written documents from these people limited my understanding on their views. Only a few French documents have been recovered. Those from Catholic priests provide indications about their feelings towards the British, at least in terms of religious issues. Father Gibault separated the “Irish regiment” from previous detachments based on its Catholicism.61 Otherwise, these writers used ‘English’ to reference nationality.62 British court documents and petitions reveal French commentary, as merchants and fur traders clashed with British traders and military commanders over debts, trade restrictions, and Illinois’ civil court. In the Invitation Serieuse aux Habitants des Illinois (1772), we read of French perceptions of British rule, with claims that Illinois had “not yet enjoyed any advantages from becoming British subjects” (A&CXI, xxiii). Beyond this memorial and a few letters, little evidence exists which allows for more nuance. 61 62 Gibault-Briand, 15/6/1769, A&CXVI, 560. Meurin-Briand, 11/6/1767, A&CXI, 307. 85 The British garrison had to contend with Europeans; the French, their imperial opponent, as well as the Spanish, who took control of all lands west of the Mississippi after 1763. While numerous Europeans and colonists were present in Illinois, like the German doctor, Bernard Gibkins or George Morgan, a Philadelphia trader born to a Welsh immigrant, examples of contrasting stereotypes or identities remain scant. At other times, othering is obvious, like a reference to “MacCarty … an Irish Jew the worst of all Devils … [and] my Mulatto Wench Rose.”63 Disparaging comments, descriptors, and the perpetuation of stereotypes in these writings emphasize these people as different and are used to reflect on their role in Indigenous affairs and trade, or as threats to British imperial security and control. British views of enslaved Africans and Indigenous peoples will be elaborated upon shortly. As their main competitors for trade, the French remained a contrasting other for Britishness. As stated, the French religion, government, and role as Britain’s primary foe meant the British were forced to deal with them daily. “Imagining the French as their vile opposites, as Hyde to their Jekyll, became a way for Britons—particularly the poorer and less privileged—to contrive for themselves a converse and flattering identity” (Colley 2005, 386). Britain’s limited monarchy and strong Parliament contrasted with the absolutism of the French king. British Protestantism stood against the superstition of Catholicism. Britishness martialness differentiated the French militaries, thought to be “undisciplined” (Merrill 2015, 124) and ‘effeminate’ because of the degeneracy of their “moral, political and social state” (Wilson 1995, 77). These characteristics threatened British control while providing an effective counter of their self-perceptions. These stereotyped characteristics also existed in Illinois, exacerbated by British attempts at solidifying their control of the fur trade, establishing their legal system, and installing militias. Illinois’ French were a “a parcel of Renegades from Canada.”64 They were “for the greatest part drunk every day while they can get Drink to buy.”65 The equating of the French with alcohol, crime, and general devilry justified British regulations AO; Winston-Kennedy, 20/12/1773, BWM. Jennings’ Journal, 6/4/1766, Ibid., 191. 65 Fraser-Haldimand, 4/5/1766, A&CXI, 228. 63 64 86 of them, but also served to contrast with the proffered moral righteousness of the British. When taking control of Fort de Chartres, an officer noted those guarding the gate were “old Men looking like Invalids … Most of them had on Jackets of different colours and slouched Hats, and their Arms seemed to be old and in very indifferent order.”66 This ‘poverty’ and unprofessionalism of military standards reflected British perceptions of their own garrison. British personnel held similar views towards Illinois’ French population, and their criticisms centered on them as a “very Idle set of people,”67 contrasting to British industriousness. British documents continually reference this ‘idleness,’ suggesting that these farmers were not fulfilling Illinois’ agricultural potential. Complaining of this, Major Farmar noted “the present Inhabitants are and always have been too Insolent & lazy to bestow any pains upon cultivation.”68 Linking French laziness with Indigenous labors, Indian Agent George Croghan commented “all the People here are generally poor Wretches … Although the Land with little Labour produces plenty of Grain they Scarcely raise as much as supply their wants, in imitation of the Indians whose Manners and Customs they have entirely adopted.”69 Of course, these conceptions also linked to British perceptions of their own arduous work and hopes to turn Illinois into an Indigenous trade hub. One trader wished for “a Number of Industrious Germans, Which Would make this one of the finest Countries in the World.”70 These stereotypes allowed for creation of an alien other, one which could be used to contrast with perceptions of self, the idealized British subject (Colley 2005, 5, 368). They created a conception of a land utilization that needed the ‘civilizing’ force of British control and culture. This carried over to potential disruptions in their control of Illinois, in terms of the Indigenous trade and the government’s control over the population. Believing “the Men women and Children Speak the Indian Tongue perfectly well,”71 officials accused French Eddington in Carroon 1984, 83. Croghan’s Journal, 15/6/1765, A&CXI, 32. 68 Farmar-Gage, 18/3/1766, GP49AS. 69 Croghan’s Journal, 17/8/1765, A&CXI, 37. 70 Murray-Gratz, 24/4/1769, A&CXIV, 525. 71 Croghan’s Journal, 17/8/1765, A&CXI, 37. 66 67 87 traders, of inciting “the Savages, who are very credulous, with idle Stories and endeavor to animate them against the English.”72 The French often journeyed to Indigenous villages in noncompliance to British regulations which restricted trade to the forts, allowing them access which the British traders could not obtain. Throughout the documents, threats of French collusion with Indigenous peoples fueled this antagonism. From the British viewpoint, intrigues and hostile acts provided the chief impetus to British inability to control these alliances and their resultant trade. The French pushed back against other British laws and regulations. Again, the language used to describe these actions is informative. Ensign Butricke references the French as “a Cunning, litigious, jealous, set of people,” resulting from his observations of them within the context of Illinois’ courts.73 Lieutenant-Colonel Wilkins noted, “As Your Excellency knows the French People very well. You will Sooner Imagine than I can describe the Plague & Trouble they have & intend to give Me with their little disputes.”74 Despite these feelings, Wilkins appointed high-status Frenchmen to his courts of judiciary, a nod to compromise. Fort de Chartres’ commanders employed Frenchmen for use as interpreters and batteaumen. When it suited British officers, Frenchness pragmatically gave way to occupational identities, and as will be discussed later. Frenchness could be equated with a much more acceptable Europeanness, which allowed for shared experiences between men of status and professional occupations. With the Spanish taking control of the lands west of the Mississippi, and with the town of St. Louis opposite Cahokia, I should also consider the contrast of Britishness with Spanishness. Of note, these documents lack the negative adjectives and stereotypes the British lavish upon the French. British officials assumed that Spanish control over the lands to the west served their own interests better, despite Spanish Catholicism. They questioned how these Frenchmen would fare under Spanish rule. General Gage related this to politics: “the Rigidity of a Spanish Government, will not sit easy upon French Men, Gage-Hillsborough, 4/2/1769, A&CXIV, 492. Butricke-Barnsley, 12/2/1769, A&CXIV, 497. 74 Wilkins-Gage, 13/9/1768, A&CXI, 390. 72 73 88 more particularly such, as from Education are half Savages.”75 Most British communications blended the Spanish and French people, perhaps due to their shared Catholicism or the mixed nature of their settlements in Spanish territories in 1765, but the anti-French/Catholic bias of Britishness was not blatantly projected upon the Spanish. A tangential topic is whether the French or Spanish of Illinois viewed the British reciprocally, examining the stereotyped characteristics they applied to the garrison. The available records of Illinois and Missouri’s French and Spanish citizenry is paltry. French priests have referenced the garrison, but within the context of the Protestant and Catholic soldiers, or commanders’ policies towards church services and rites within Illinois (discussed next chapter). Beyond this, we do not have a keen sense of Britishness from their perspective. One remaining question is how British commanders viewed their fellow Englishmen within the colonies. Nationality, as it applied to the British and their American colonists references “only one of the components of a personal sense of identity, and individuals might consider changing it voluntarily for many different reasons, usually connected with expectations of personal gain or self-interest” (Smith 2010, 5-6). Within Illinois, any assignation of a particular cultural identity seems a bit tenuous. Illinois’ citizenry was connected to the larger empire, and other colonies, through trade, government policies, and military detachments, but how did their Britishness contrast with a burgeoning Americanness? Documents reference ‘American’ as an adjective rather than a distinct cultural group, like Expenses, Assemblies, or Colonies, and rarely is used to identify specific people or groups, like when Indian agent William Johnson referenced the tax schemes imposed upon the colonies “so loudly & justly complained of by the Americans.”76 References to colonists, provincials, or colonials are not routinely used to reference people but instead point to their ‘geographies.’ Even though colonists had a “shared identity as freeborn and Protestant Britons,” this was always “mediated through a set of colonial identities” (Greene 2013, 385). When 75 76 Gage-Wilkins, 2/12/1770, GP19AS. Johnson-Lords of Trade, 28/9/1765, A&CXVI, 90. 89 British officials like Gage did reference colonials, they did so by using the appellation of their specific colonies, like Pennsylvanians or Virginians, much in the same way colonists referenced themselves.77 Oblique references contrast colonials with others, a nested provincial identity. These terms instead allude to geographical or imagined communities of identity. The coming revolution embodied a “crisis of integration rather than disintegration,” as colonials adopted Americanness as a contrast to Britishness (Conway 2002, 65). Understanding this could help to explain the fluid nature of these communities of identity in Illinois, during the British period and through the years preceding the War of American Independence, some of which will be discussed later. Understanding the values and expectations of Britishness had demonstrated what these people thought of themselves but allows as well for the contextualization of what was not British, how outsiders performed identity which supported their own values, stereotypes, or priorities. Within this, the demonstration of a Europeanness, the continental cosmopolitan community of ‘taste’ and polite society can supersede Britishness or Frenchness, as it related to the intersection of wealth, status, and rank. While Illinois experienced significant demographic shifts, Britishness did not supplant colonial Frenchness. Most villages remained culturally French. The importation of Britishproduced goods did not establish Britishness. While the French consumed significant amounts of British goods, British personnel bought substantial quantities of French goods. This demonstrates that identity was less important than the overall cost/value, and their need, for those specific goods. 4.4. Location, Historical Forces, and Britishness within the Material Culture The geographical and logistical position of this fort contributes to an elaboration upon it’s connection to surrounding European and Indigenous communities. These matters directly reflect upon the garrison’s ability to perform Britishness and to the forces impacting displays of intersectional identities. Traders’ records reflect the 77 Gage-Johnson, 3/3/1766, A&CXI, 159. 90 problematization of cultural affiliation and interpretations of material’s cultural affiliation to either garrison. Examining the historical events and British trade regulations helps to identify other factors influencing the archaeology. Situating the fort within this context helps us contextualize the shifting of soldiers and detachments and their impact on Illinois. British engagement in a succession of wars throughout this century impacted all within the colonies, as it relates to the success of people in obtaining wanted and needed goods, its impact upon supply lines, or the hampering of the flow of goods from Europe. This relates to evidence within the archaeological assemblage and documents,78 and further reflects upon the fluidity of communities of identity as groups framed their lives during this rapidly shifting period of political allegiance. Prior to 1763, the British ruled their colonies through a policy of salutary neglect, an unofficial method which allowed for the lax enforcement of trade laws and tax collection to keep the number of government officials, its military presence, and their associated expenses, small within the colonies (Henretta 1972). This demonstrated a deliberate ideological and economic policies to minimize the expenses of empire, in part, to protect ‘liberty.’ After 1763, Parliament passed legislative acts to curtail the amount of French goods available in the colonies, and enforced the regulations surrounding the importation of British goods. Distance and logistics impacted trade and goods’ availability, and Illinois’ populations may not have been able to obtain desired articles, forcing their substitution. Colonial responses to these acts had similar impacts. As a result, British trade linked Illinois’ peoples. That which affects trade affects how individuals and groups within Illinois’ communities managed their own identities. 4.4.1. Distance & Logistics The French historically had a logistical advantage, as prior to 1754, goods travelled upriver from New Orleans, under Indigenous protection. As a result of war, New Orleans War of the Grand Alliance (1688/1697), War of Spanish Succession (1702-1713), the War of the Quadruple Alliance (1718-1720), War of Austrian Succession (1742-1748), Seven Years War (1754-1763), Pontiac’s Rebellion (1763), and the War of American Independence (1775-1783). 78 91 and France’s western territories were transferred to Spain, although its officials and military did not occupy these lands until the arrival of their governor and one hundred “chiefly French and German” soldiers in 1766.79 These territories were still under the control of these French civilians and traders, and French trade and alliances continued across the Mississippi. The British, conversely, had to receive permission from Spain to journey up this river, while facing potentially hostile Indigenous people, and otherwise relied upon shipping goods down the Ohio from Fort Pitt.80 The costs and trials of this passage proved tedious, long, and dangerous (Figure 4.2). After unloading goods at New York, supplies travelled overland to Philadelphia and then to Fort Pitt. Using batteaux (large flat-bottom boats) they transported their goods to Illinois if rivers proved navigable. Seasonal freezing and flooding allowed for a window, “two Months in the Spring and about two Months, in the Fall” to send troops and supplies.81 Notwithstanding the hazards of river travel, the British also faced dangers from the interior’s inhabitants, for “the French, have at all Times, the fairest opportunity of inducing inimical Indians, to cut Off” this trade.82 D’Abbadie’s Journal, A&CX, 199; Gage-Conway, 24/6/1766, A&CXI, 322. Croghan-Franklin, 12/12/1765, A&CXI, 60; Receipt Farmar, 13/12/1765, Ibid, 123. 81 A&CXI 226, 473; Carter 1969, 81. 82 A&CXI, 473. 79 80 92 Figure 4.2: This figure details North America in 1768, with Philadelphia, Fort Pitt, and Fort de Chartres circled. Fort de Chartres sits over 600 miles downriver from Fort Pitt, and distanced over 900 miles from Philadelphia. (Quebec 1768, in Society of Colonial Wars of the State of Michigan, 1911). Captain Stirling, arriving in 1765, stressed the necessity which forced him to contract with the French for provisions, wood, and candles, all at an expensive rate. He further begged Gage to note “the disagreeable Situation I am in here without … Merchandise for presents [for Indigenous communities].”83 An officer remarked “the Merchants and Inhabitants make us pay an immoderate price for everything.”84 He witnessed “a Convoy of eight large French” batteaus loaded with goods at Kaskaskia.85 With British merchants not arriving until August of 1766, the British garrison and Stirling-Gage, 18/10/1765, GP44AS. Eddington, 17/10/1765, A&CXI, 106. 85 Eddington in Carroon, 1984, 86. 83 84 93 communities, had to rely on French goods for their material needs. The likelihood of archaeologists excavating French articles, used by the British, then, is reasonable. Thus, a more sophisticated interpretation of the historical and archaeological materials needs to occur. Re-examining the artifacts through correlation with the documents allows for more nuance, one which puts the British back into Illinois’ story while allowing for a greater shading of Frenchness. The presence of the British garrison, personnel, traders, and their workers reference many influences on material culture. This solidifies my premise that interpretations have over-emphasized the French while negating, or ignoring, the British. 4.4.2. Trade Competition, Legislation, and Restrictions British traders, through their stores at Fort de Chartres, Kaskaskia, and Cahokia, consistently vied with European competitors across the Mississippi and in New Orleans. As mentioned, Captain Stirling was forced to rely upon the local French86 and this dependance affected the types of material goods available, with British goods not arriving until the following summer.87 The social bonds of extended communities were created, maintained, (or rejected) through trade, regardless of the culture producing these goods. Discussions of trade as they relate to identity should involve the social, political, and economic contexts of these exchanges (Agbe-Davies and Bauer 2016, 31), but these have not been incorporated for colonial Illinois. The hazards of shipping goods overland between Philadelphia and Fort Pitt, and downriver to Illinois, must not be overlooked. Traders shipped huge shipments, like in the fall of 1766, when they filled sixty-five batteaus (each able to transport 4-5 tons of cargo), downriver,88 or in 1768, when consignments contained a combined seventeen tons of rum and dry goods, valued at over £2,400 (Dunn 2002, 91). Traders had to contend with the weather and flooding or freezing rivers, but also Indigenous attacks. In one instance, hostiles destroyed £3,000 worth of cargo and murdered the crew.89 Reports show other Stirling-Gage, 18/10/1765, A&CXI, 109. Dobson-BWM, 9/3/1766, A&CXI, 166. 88 Smith 1997, 17; BWM-Irwin, 21/9/1766, A&CXVI, 384. 89 Wharton-Franklin, 4/10/1767, A&CXI, 76. 86 87 94 attacks on hunting and trading convoys, jeopardizing the reliable supply for British Illinois, and cost the firms (and government) thousands of pounds in lost goods.90 French goods continued to permeate Illinois through the fur trade and Indigenous gifts given to support alliances. New British policies required traders to conduct business within the fort’s purview, but French traders continued to journey to the Indigenous villages, live amongst them, and reaped the benefits of the trade.91 Captain Forbes complained the amount of French goods in Illinois, relating it to “the French on both Sides [of] the Mississippi have it in their Power to send goods into the Indian Nations without running the Risk of being Plundered.” He added that British merchandize in Illinois sold for 30% more than French articles due to transport costs.92 General Gage feared these traders’ influence, noting the spread of French goods, and furs selling for £1 more in New Orleans than in British markets, which concentrated economic power into French hands.93 Throughout the British period, commandants sought methods to deal with French contraband. Early debate centered around the building of more forts along the rivers, which could enforce trade policies, and included the confiscation of “all foreign Goods” found in British territory.94 Later commanders seized upon other means to stem the tide of French goods. In 1768, Captain Forbes required traders to carry furs to British ports by forcing them to provide bonds ensuring their deposition.95 The following year, Lieutenant-Colonel Wilkins continued this policy, but added a fee for a passport preventing any “Person whatever Officer Merchant or Inhabitants” from crossing the Mississippi,96 regulated by the construction of an “Armed Galley” to patrol the river, which had limited impact.97 Forbes-Gage, 18/7/1768, GP79AS; Morgan-BW, 20/7/1768, A&CXVI, 354; Morgan-Campbell, 4/11/1768; Pennsylvania Gazette, 9/4/1772. 91 Johnson-Lords of Trade, 8/10/1764, A&CX, 321-327; Fraser-Haldimand, 4/5/1766, A&CXI, 226-227. 92 State of Commerce, 6/1/1768, GP89AS. 93 Gage Remarks, 1766, A&CXI, 243-245. 94 Gage-Conway, 15/7/1766, A&CXI, 340. 95 State of Commerce, 6/1/1768, GP89AS. 96 Morgan-Fitzpatrick 27/7/1770, BWM. 97 Hutchins-Wilkins, 29/7/1769, GP87AS; GW25.117. 90 95 Parliament’s trade acts focused upon the regulation of raw materials through taxation and exportation. Combatting French, Spanish, and Dutch competitors, most trade laws were concerned with preventing illicit trade rather than raising revenue. This changed with the Seven Years War and the increased costs of empire, including the stationing of thousands of troops within the Americas. Massive debt pushed Parliament to seek new methods of taxation and its collection (Hageman and Rendall 2019). In the case of North America, this can be seen within a few examples. The Sugar Act of 1764 halved the legal tax on molasses/sugar, but more rigorously enforced its collection. The Stamp Act of 1765 sought to “defray the expenses of defending the colonies,” estimated at £300,00 annually (Dunn 2007, 96). The debate centered upon who should bear these costs, which included the maintenance of garrisons in the west and the regulation of the Indian trade. This prompted increased conversations within America and incited them to act. Merchant committees protested taxes and either refused to import British goods or locked up those they had received.98 Significant for Illinois, Baynton, Wharton, & Morgan joined this protest, banning imports and refusing to sell British goods, especially items destined for the Indigenous market, until its repeal.99 The strength of the colonial push-back to the Stamp Act led to another attempt to raise revenue in the colonies, instigated by Charles Townshend, in 1767. Known as the Townshend Acts, one of its provisions, the Revenue Act, taxed goods exported to the Americas, specifically glass, lead, paint, paper, and tea, severely impacting trade (Breen 2004, 285; Stern 2010, 105). This prompted the discussion surrounding colonial representation in Parliament and led to a shifting of British garrisons in the interior to deal with growing unrest in New York, Virginia, and Massachusetts. In terms of the material goods, colonial merchants responded by again forming non-importation committees, stifling British trade, and enforcing “their Prohibitions by coercive Measures.”100 Nonimportation affected Illinois’ material culture. Although Morgan’s firm supported the agreements, they noted the difficulties of keeping supplies in Illinois. For Virginia Gazette, 9/5/1766. Order on Neave, 12/1/1766, BWM. 100 Gage-Barrington in Carter 1969, 530; Virginia Gazette, 21/4/1768; Virginia Gazette, 2/8/ 1770. 98 99 96 example, Morgan, in 1769, commented “the Scarcity of Dry Goods [was] so great” he could not procure requested goods, at reasonable rates.101 His competitors noted this scarcity in “the want of the articles & Goods when the Last batteaus went on Account of nonimportation.”102 Parliament repealed the Townshend Acts in April of 1770, but boycotts affected shipments and supplies, impacting the materials available in Illinois, with an ebbing of British articles and an increase in French and Spanish materials, especially when their goods were 30% cheaper than the British articles in country. While the British abandoned the fort in 1772, the reduced profits from the colonial trade impacted traders’ ability to continue their operations in Illinois, further affecting these communities. The over-generalized interpretations which suggest French usage of French goods may, then, be related to the opportunities of contraband trade and reduced British supply. Historical forces impacted the available material culture, as much as logistics and geography. This might suggest more ‘recycling’ of goods in country, in terms of the British purchasing goods from the previous garrison or its traders or related to rotating regiments’ re-selling/trading their goods. The qualities of material culture seemed more reflective of polite society and status/purchasing power than it was of cultural affiliation and preference of goods. The documents relate to specific aspects of this and allow for the contextualization of status and class within Britishness. 4.5. European Identities and Material Culture Preferences Attempting to locate these axes of identity through the material culture relies on common categories of artifacts used by archaeologists, like food and drink-related wares, utensils, clothing/cloth, and other consumer goods. It is the contention of this project that the British garrison routinely used or recycled existing French goods, but also that British traders specifically imported French-made goods to meet material demands. What follows elaborates on this, investigating how artifact classes inform upon communities of identity. It utilizes the material culture through the lenses of the documents and archaeology to 101 102 Morgan-Fitzpatrick, 25/10/1769, BWM. Gratz-Murray, 28/12/1769, A&CXIV, 369. 97 scrutinize culturally related preferences as they relate to Britishness or Frenchness. For example, did the people of Illinois utilize specific foods, spices, or clothing to emphasize their identities? Were these preferences more related to cross-cutting considerations of class, religion, or the like? This section discusses the garrison’s material culture, as it relates to officers and soldiers, but also to that related to Indigenous diplomacy, trade, and Enslaved Africans. 4.5.1. Food and Drink As referenced, previous interpretations have focused upon the materials’ producers, obscuring any nuance of identity of preference or usage. Discussion of just how these materials made their way into Illinois, their life history, is scant. Within this assemblage, only the ceramics have received substantial study, differentiated by styles and basic chronologies. This has centered upon tin-glazed earthenwares (Figure 4.3). Noble (1988, 1997), Walthall (1991), and Waselkov and Walthall (2002) all write of the variety of earthenware, excluding British-produced goods. Noble (1997) compares these ceramics with Forts Ouiatenon and Michilimackinac’s assemblages, but without acknowledgement of the differences in these garrisons’ demographics. Archaeologists classified the bulk of the 18th century ceramics as tin-glazed earthenwares: French faience (1,681 sherds), Spanish majolica (4), and English/Dutch delft (2) (Noble 1988, 48). All tin-glazed earthenwares were lumped together as faience, even when sherds did not display diagnostic differences, and although half (541 sherds) “could be British or even Iberian products” (Noble 1998, 9-10). Despite the ‘French’ designation, the British imported delft and purchased faience, problematizing the interpretation of this solely as a French assemblage. This might suggest that delft or majolica were better represented than has been portrayed and could help our understanding of how these garrison used ceramic materials, although further investigation has not been completed at the time of this thesis. 98 Figure 4.3: This figure illustrates tin-glazed earthenwares recovered at the fort. (Photos author, Courtesy of the ISM) The documents reveal this complicated discussion of ceramics. When trader George Morgan sold his Illinois properties, the inventory illustrated his possession of French produced/styled ceramics, and other unspecified earthenwares.103 Trade accounts reference sales of “Delft Tea Pots,”104 and British civilians purchased over forty-eight Delft plates from a French trader,105 while other examples of purchased earthenwares show Lieutenant Fowler buying a teapot, and Ensign Blackwood obtained two others from a Frenchman.106. We have no way of knowing who these purchases were intended for—i.e., used by servants preparing officers’ meals or for use by these men themselves. As a AF, BWM. AF, BWM. 105 AO, Account D’alchrut, BWM. 106 3/1769, BWM. 103 104 99 reminder, while excavated earthenwares could relate to French-used products, British commanders lamented “a greater Quantity of French than English Manufactories [were] consumed” in Illinois,107 further demonstrating the idea that French-produced faience was used by the British. The documents and archaeology provide no details of pottery kilns or pottery making within Illinois, implying their importation. Figure 4.4: This figure details a portion of orders (1770, BWM), and demonstrates a variety of ceramic vessels, composed of diverse materials. Ceramic decisions may not reflect preference and instead suggest the garrison either did not care much about the national origin of these goods or had little other choice, as in-country purchases reflected availability. This could imply that Britishness was less about the cultural affiliation-as-producer than its purpose as earthenware. Traders’ papers do not typically elucidate on the style or nation of manufacture for their goods, but instead reference ceramic type, like plate or bowl, while others do elucidate specific types, for example, in Figure 4.4, the references to Burnt China and Cream Colored bowls/saucers 107 Gordon-Commerce, 6/1/1768, GP89AS. 100 illustrate vessel styles, and British creamware and porcelain represents specific desires which contrasted with French faience. Figure 4.5: This example of a recovered Chinese export porcelain cup informs upon Britishness as exotic, imperial, wares which reflected styles of taste. (Photo Author, Courtesy of the ISM) For the British, these ceramics reflected societal trends. Plates, cups, saucers, and bowls reference the individualization of place settings, a reflection of their ‘modern’ world. Deetz considers this a shift in world view, with society moving away from the communal sharing of utensils towards people as individuals. These plates, bowls, and cups were also part of matched sets, providing “order, control, and balance” within this “symmetrical” relationship of person to dish, further Georgian expressions (1996, 83). Drinking from porcelain (Figure 4.5) required the performance of style and taste, as one had to know ‘what’ to do with these articles. The nature of these fragile ceramic types linked to class, especially in Illinois, where long distance travel hampered their importation and breakage threatened identity performances. The styles and designs upon these teawares and ceramics emphasized the performance of Britishness, as taste, in two other areas. The first, discussed more later, references the whitening of goods across the British commercial spectrum. Whiteness increasingly equated to cleanliness, purity, and moral propriety (Tarlow 2007). The ability 101 to have ‘clean’ articles demonstrated status, and the capacity to keep it protected and safe contrasted with the earthiness associated with the working class. White ceramics attracted the eye, making their presentation within the room part of the performance. The incorporation of Chinese porcelain and ‘Jappaned’ objects (a style of varnished decoration) like snuff cases, pint jacks, and comb cases (AF, BWM) demonstrated this style through their connection to exotic Asia. These items, representing the cosmopolitan nature of British trade, illustrated the refinement of taste and its connection to Britishness. The ritual of tea, as status, is well documented, and its relationship with the garrison follows in the next chapter. It begins as a practice associated with “specific social manners and status,” (Dellino-Musgrave 2005, 236) and gave way to its more commonplace usage in the mid-eighteenth century. At the British fort at Crown Point, archaeologists recovered fragments of tea wares near the barracks, suggesting tea had become more common amongst the private men (Feister 1984, 131). Britishness across the spectrum equated to tea consumption. In Illinois, accounts detail 60+ individual purchases of tea, across ranks, but few by the French. Traders imported Bohea (common), Green, and Hyson versions, with green teas selling for 20 livres per pound, and Bohea for 10 livres, illustrating (literal) taste and cost variances.108 Beyond the more delicate teawares, the possession of tea service accoutrement: the strainers, kettles (tin, copper, or pewter, in a variety of sizes), sugar bowls, cannisters, and milk containers may also illustrate status differences, rather than Britishness itself.109 These communities had a variety of non-alcoholic beverages available. Like tea, the serving of coffee and chocolate as hot drinks required porcelain or ceramic cups, and these were popular throughout European Illinois. “Hot beverages were the potters domain … pewter conducted heat” and cooled the drinks quickly, detriments to the drinker (Martin 2000, 255). While cold drinks like milk, water, and alcohol were served in a variety of metal cups and glassware, coffee and chocolate necessitated ceramics, and their material composition and style reflected status as identity. 108 109 AO; JBFdC; Crown Account (Wilkins), BWM. AF, BWM. 102 The French and British purchased coffee equally, with over seventy-five entries recorded. Its cost did not seem prohibitive of its purchase, at three livres a pound (1s 13d), and cheaper than tea.110 It is likely that sales went unrecorded to specific individuals, especially when we consider the size of shipments. In July 1768, one contained nine ‘tierces’ (about 42 gallons) of tin packed with coffee beans and three casks (36 gallons) of coffee itself. These equate to about 2,000 pounds of coffee (and tin) sent to Illinois in a solitary shipment.111 The materials to prepare and serve this drink also varied in composition and sizes, reflective of class rather than culture. Firms sold many styles of bean grinders and coffee pots.112 In general, coffee offers little cultural distinction in its purchase, consumed by the wealthy and skilled classes, and by the French and British. More chocolate, however, was purchased by the British.113 Although records detail just twenty purchases, it was imported in copious quantities. In the above example, chocolate came in three casks and three kegs (over 200 gallons).114 The higher cost of chocolate (1 lb./3s 8d),115 its accoutrement, and the inclusion of sugar to this drink reinforces its association to skilled artisans and upper-class British communities. While all these beverages do not fully demonstrate cultural preferences, they reveal the intersections of class, and may suggest Britishness as a preference of hot drinks. Examining the use of specific types of bottle glass and other shipping and serving containers may also allow us to evaluate this assemblage in terms of materials of European production, as opposed to usage. What follows examines the excavated glass artifacts, cross-referenced with the documents, to assess indications of cultural preferences when it came to food and drink. These same choices might better reflect availability with the intersectionality of class and culture. Archaeologists use bottle glass to provide cultural affiliation, where material traits like the colors and types of glass, or its manufacturing styles, are offered as evidence. Using bottle glass color as the standard of cultural usage, LAFC; JK; JBFdC; Crown Account (Wilkins); AO, BWM. MBP, BWM. 112 AF; AO, BWM. 113 AF, BWM. 114 MBP 1767, BWM. 115 JBFdC, BWM. 110 111 103 however, removes the nuance of consumption and reuse in Illinois, especially with the limited supply of glass, and in the absence of documented glass makers. Illinois’ documents are rife with examples of imported and local alcohol sales, served and stored within glass bottles. Morgan commented the “annual Consumption of Spirituous Liquors … is imagined to be about Ten Thousand Gallons. Most whereof is imported by French Traders.”116 Obviously, then, we might expect a larger share of French bottle glass. Alcohol sold in massive quantities like a sixty-gallon hogshead or a thirtygallon keg, with most repackaged into gallon, quart, and pint bottles.117 The British bought a variety of French, Spanish, and Portuguese wines (Frontenac, Madeira, and Claret) as well as cider and shrub (a cocktail of vinegared syrup with spirits, infused with fruit juice and spices).118 One could buy Spanish, Jamaican, Philadelphia, and local rum and spirits. All these required glass bottles for storage and serving. The contextualization of use could reflect Britishness-as-Cosmopolitaness. Officers, for example, could ignore just who produced their drinks, and in some cases, may have preferred French or Spanish alcohol as a demonstration of taste. Officers made toasts to King George while drinking French wines, as this was not “tantamount to endorsing the rest of French culture” (Conway 2011, 125). It referenced the worldly nature of style, that French claret, for example, was superior to British wines. Their peers recognized the international flair of taste as part of Britishness within these contexts. Understanding the assemblage’s bottle glass is complicated by British traders and garrison reusing/recycling bottles. Traders charged a French woman for “6 bottles of beer the bottles to be returned.”119 Lieutenant-Colonel Wilkins charged his account for “11 ½ dz. Corks,” in May of 1769, eight dozen in December, and another twenty dozen the following January (475 corks), with other officers also buying corks.120 In a letter to Ensign Hutchins, Wilkins notes “I have now some very good Claret & … will replace with many Morgan-Hutchins, 19/12/1770, BWM. JK, BWM. 118 AO; JAK; JBFdC, BWM. 119 JK, BWM. 120 JBFdC; Crown Account (Wilkins); 20/5/1772, JK; JBFdC, BWM. 116 117 104 thanks that Quantity you were so very kind as to lend me-the trouble of Bottling it and expense of corks I will be at.”121 Officers may have been redistributing larger quantities into smaller containers for their own consumption, or to sell to private men. Given the presence of Morgan’s distillery, the serving and storage vessels associated with alcohol were prevalent, although production areas have not been identified archaeologically. Consumption in Illinois was based upon social success and the use of prestige-related articles, types of alcohol, and associated rituals reference this aspect of Britishness. Figure 4.6: Example of an excavated British bottle (left) and a mid-18th century French bottle. Note the difference in shapes, rims, and lips of these bottles. (Photos author, Courtesy of the ISM) Examining the characteristics of these bottles may help to ascribe cultural affiliation, at least in terms of the British bottles, post-dating the French garrison. The collected assemblage contained 4,565 sherds of European manufacture. French wine bottles and British brandy/wine bottles (Figure 4.6) were composed of a dark green glass 121 Wilkins-Gage, 3/3/1773, GP117AS. 105 (Jones and Smith 1985), and archaeologists classified over 57% of the sherds with this color, without separating French bottles from British ones. Complicating the use of glass color-based interpretations, we ‘see’ color differently. There is no universality when detailing colors within collections, in the absence of a comparative Munsell chart (which also demonstrates subjectivity). Using glass color in collapsed contexts like this proves of little value in assessing cultural affiliation. Even if one could use glass color to link to a place of origin, it still does not inform upon usage. Examination of the style of the bottles and other diagnostic features, like pontil marks (the mechanism by which a heated bottle attaches to an iron control rod), or rims may offer a better method to investigate this glass. Those bottles with recognizable pontil marks equate 11% (seventy artifacts) to French-made bottles, with the rest exhibiting British styles. String rims, used as attachment points to secure wire-wrapped corks, also differ culturally. French string rims (Hume 2001, 69) contrast with British V-shaped, or flat-tooled rims (Jones 1986, 43) and identified British rims comprised 42% (twenty-seven sherds) of the assemblage, with the caveat that ‘uncategorized’ rims (37%) may further alter this interpretation. While the archaeological evidence presented does not convincingly demonstrate a majority of French or British imported bottles in terms of the colors of glass, the presence of string rims and pontil marks do indicate a strong presence of British bottles, and by implication, usage. Examination of the documents, as they relate to the liquids within these bottles, may prove of more utility and offer a better understanding of Britishness. As mentioned, alcohol was part of life in Illinois: routinely and as part of special celebrations. These communal rituals reinforced identity and community as much as they demarcated it. This was true of most British garrisons, as evidenced by Kopperman’s (1996) study of alcohol and the British military. Traders’ documents illustrate a plethora of information regarding beverage types and costs and relate to culture and status. Through these, we can see examples of British preferences. 106 Figure 4.7: This figure illustrates the varieties of alcohol sold in Illinois to the British community, like beer, rum, whiskey, and taffia. (JK, 16/4/1771, BWM) As mentioned, Morgan constructed a distillery capable of brewing almost a thousand gallons of corn whiskey as well as rye and malt liquors (Figure 4.7). He believed “to Englishmen One Quart of this Liquor is more agreeable than ½ Gallon of Common Rum or Taffia [Spanish Rum].”122 Additionally, he maintained a brewery.123 Records do not document beer sales until the summer of 1771, nor do accounts reference its prior importation. Purchases of whiskey equated to 100 sales between 28 October 1770 and 23 July 1772, mostly to British civilians, like the doctor (as medicine), plantation managers, and craftsmen.124 Government agents distributed rum as payments for garrison labor and gave it as gifts to Indigenous peoples. Continental rum sold for twenty livres (about £1 Morgan-Fitzpatrick, 28/7/1770, BWM. Morgan-Hutchins, 19/12/1770, BWM. 124 JK, BWM. 122 123 107 10s) per gallon while Jamaican varieties sold more cheaply at seventeen livres and ten sols.125 Between late 1768 and spring 1771, accounts detail over 625 separate purchases of rum and 150 of spirits to French and British civilians, officers, and attached personnel, excluding the Indian Department.126 No clear cultural preference was evident for rum or spirits in terms of Europeans, although Britain’s connections to Jamaica, for rum, sugar, and slaves, may help to elaborate on its usage in Illinois. Overall, we cannot understand Britishness as separate from Frenchness in terms of alcohol. The documents reflect few direct correlations between ethnicity/nationality and drink, and differences were much more likely equated to class/cost, rather than culture, outside of whiskey and punch. Only British officers bought juices (lemon, lime, and orange) for inclusion into punch.127 In terms of wine, which sold for fifteen livres (just over £1) per bottle, French products dominated. British importers brought brandyfortified Madeira and Lisbon wines to compete,128 bought by British and French civilians (seventy-five entries)129. One unique blend of alcohol was manufactured specifically for the Indigenous peoples, ‘Savage Rum,’ with Cahokia’s commander, Captain Shee, also selling this to his men. It was boiled “with water, burnt Indian Corn & the Water of Cayenne Pepper,” and sold for half the cost of Jamaican rum.130 Of course, all these drinks required bottles for storage, serving, and shipping. Additionally, the various bottles in which specialized foods and condiments were shipped could help underline preferential purchases. Within these, merchants shipped, and consumers stored, a variety of other foodstuffs, like walnuts, pickles, capers, or olives.131 The upper class could exhibit their refinement by importing pickled sturgeon and pickled oysters (twenty-one kegs in 1768).132 These sales only link to British civilians and military personnel. Blue-green flacons (small, stoppered bottles) and general utility JBFdC; JAK; AO, BWM. JBFdC, BWM. 127 JBFdC; AO; JFdC; LAFC, BWM. 128 LAFC; Morgan-BW, 11/12/1767, A&CXVI, 138. 129 Wilkins-BWM, 1767; JBFdC; AO, BWM. 130 GCM. 131 Jones and Smith 1985, 61; JBFdC, BWM. 132 Memorandum, 29/3/1769, MBP, BWM. 125 126 108 storage bottles are typically recovered “in British military contexts of the 1750s and 1760s,” (Jones and Smith 1985, 63). At Fort de Chartres, archaeologists recovered over a thousand “aqua” and “blue-green” flacons, bottle, case bottle, and container sherds. These artifacts comprised almost 13% of the total glass assemblage and many exhibited the diagnostic tooled lips/rims and glass gather pontil marks ascribed to British-made bottles (Jones 1971, 69; 1986, 43). Traders imported a wide variety of spices and food flavorings, many of which would have been also stored in these bottles. The French may have consumed these as well, but accounts link instead to the British garrison or their use as Indigenous gifts.133 Their usage related more to purchasing power and status. Traders sold mace, cloves, cinnamon, black pepper, cayenne pepper, allspice, and powdered sugar (from Havana and Grenada),134 and imported these in great quantities. For example, one shipment contained 200 lbs. of allspice and 500 lbs. of pepper, suggesting they were used at a much higher rate than the handful of documented purchases.135 Other condiments were available, imported in similar containers. Accounts relates these to the British. A solitary mention of a bottle of ketchup in a Captain’s mess account contrasts with over fifty bottles of mustard bought by British officers, traders’ personnel, and a regimental doctor (for its medicinal qualities). The French bought none.136 Dried and stored in small, stylized bottles, mustard complimented the salted beef and pork available (McGuire 2016, 683), and connects to British usage. No mustard bottles were identified within the assemblage, but this does not preclude its existence among the multitudes of unclassified glass sherds. Archaeology did not recover the equipment which accompanied mustard use, but mustard powder required mixing with water or vinegar in pewter pots.137 These specific examples illustrate cultural preferences, allowing Crown Account (Croghan/Cole), BWM. This account shows purchases of eighty-six pounds of cinnamon and thirty-seven pounds of cloves. 134 AF, BWM. 135 MBP, BWM. 136 Ledger AFC, BWM; A&CXVI, 642-643; McGuire 2016. 137 Jones and Smith 1985, 60; AF, BWM. 133 109 for greater contextualization of the excavated material culture, but also relate to the class/status, as the accompanying materials elevated costs. 4.5.2. Cloth and Clothing Cultural preferences of these communities of identity are also shown through cloth and clothing. As with other material choices, cultural identity, at times, was less likely to be associated with these goods, and cross-sectional identities related to class, rank, or status, tended to be better expressed through these purchases. This section will evaluate this premise and look for potential preferences. Archaeologically, environmental conditions make cloth unlikely to survive, but the materials used in conjunction with these textiles: buttons, buckles, or fabrication tools, endured. Documents reveal textiles meant for clothing or household products as well as the sales of prefabricated clothing and link consumption, styles, prices, and quantities to cultural and economic preferences. Fort de Chartres’s documentary record and archaeological assemblage offer glimpses into how the community and its identity groups adorned themselves, but as with food and drink, with a consideration of the impact of supply on choice. Military-related clothing will be discussed later. 110 Figure 4.8: These figures illustrate striped cotton hollands, a superior quality linen cloth. (Montgomery, 1984, D-28A & D-28B) The Cotton Stripe you sent … the French want it for Trousers which they wear remarkably long & to buckle in their Shoes. This is their wear Summer & Winter…. The Officers & Soldiers as well as some of the French Inhabitants have constantly worn our common Cotton Hollands for Jackets & Trousers … The Flowered Lawns sent in Place of Flowered Muslins, please the Fr Ladies much but … they are only used in Summer. Whereas the Muslins are worn Winter & Summer by Men & Women.138 Traders’ accounts indicate preferences when it came to textiles and clothing, revealing desires for specific styles and fabrics. These purchases often reflected cultural affiliation or status. Hollands (a linen cloth, Figure 4.8) were used for summer clothes, which Morgan requested with “colours lively & strong. Some Blue & some Red Stripes.”139 138 139 Morgan-Partners, 10/2/1769, BWM. MBP, 1769, BWM. 111 Commissary Cole purchased one fifty-yard piece for tailors to fashion a dozen shirts.140 Another popular lightweight linen, ‘lawn’ was used for clothing and handkerchiefs, and featured a flowered or figured pattern style (Montgomery 2007, 258). Lawns came in diverse patterns, used by Europeans and intended for the Indigenous trade: Siberia, Clear, Patched, Flowered, and Pistol.141 The French and British split sales, and in similar quantities. Figure 4.9: The figure (left) illustrates distinct types of calamanco (Montgomery 2007). The figure (right) shows a late eighteenth-century man and woman, (Henry Singleton 1790), illustrating clothing and patterns. (Wikimedia Commons, Public Domain) Two other types of cloth do illustrate cultural preferences, calamanco and calico. Tailors used calamanco (Figure 4.9), a worsted wool fabric, for summer clothing (Montgomery 2007, 184). Illinois merchants requested London suppliers send them “Calamanco shaded with blue, red, & yellow of gay Colours.” Another order requested striped fabric, with references to women’s calamanco (covered) shoes.142 Two-thirds of recorded purchases were made by the French, who also preferred calico cotton cloths, Ibid. Crown Account (Croghan/Cole), BWM. 142 AF, BWM. 140 141 112 printed with flowers, colored, or dyed (Montgomery 2007, 184). Accounts delineate specific designs, like “dark ground calico red flower no 14” or “light ground purple & red calico No 3,”143 but these cannot be linked to specific archaeological or historical examples, and reference pattern books. Individual sales underscore French preferences for light or dark patterned fabrics.144 Overall, the French preferred brighter colors and lighter-weight cloth. With most British civilians working as laborers and farmers, including off-duty soldiers, more durable cloth of more muted colors seemed the norm, based on purchases. Figure 4.10: This figure shows excavated buckles: a cufflink (upper left), harness buckles (upper right), pewter buckles (center left), a cast brass buckle with glass inset (bottom left), and shoe buckle (bottom right). (Photos author, Courtesy of the ISM) Loren’s (2010) and White’s (2005) works offer a guide to interpreting identity through the small finds associated with clothing. Given the nature of Fort de Chartres’ assemblage, it is impossible to correlate these small finds to any cultural group, or to decide if or how these relate to status/class, outside of material composition. 143 144 AF, BWM. JAK, BWM. 113 Archaeologists recovered buckles (Figure 4.10), and documents offer details about these, often describing the color/material composing the buckles, price, and type. These, however, had little to do with cultural identity and instead connect to class and status. Brass shoe buckles (4 livres; 4s 8d) differed from silver (35 livres; £2 10s), and ‘Stone’ (40 livres; almost £3) variations145. Accounts list other styles, in a variety of knee, shoe, and stock buckles.146 Whether decorative or utilitarian, their addition to off-duty/civilian garments allow for distinctions beyond the military’s red coat, and for the creation of sartorial choices which underscored class (Linch and McCormack 2013, 156). Two are diagnostic enough to compare to examples found at Michilimackinac (Stone, 1974), but do not reference cultural use. Keene (2002, 200) lists all buckles excavated at Fort de Chartres as French, although this conclusion is unsupported. In terms of buttons, Keene recorded forty-four (2002, 202), while my tabulation totaled seventy-four fragmented and complete specimens. The bulk of these were brass and pewter, suggesting the lower status items related to soldiers’ off-duty or civilian clothes. These also included three French uniform buttons and three British regimental buttons (discussed later). Traders’ papers list diverse examples indicating cost, composition, styles, and colors. These buttons were fastened to coats, waistcoats, vests, knee/breeches, garters, and shirts, and were made from pewter, pinchbeck, “washed with silver,” gilt, and brass.147 Accounts illustrate buttons covered with cloth and mohair, like Lieutenant Robinson’s purchase of two dozen “scarlet buttons,” but all cloth has deteriorated and only the metal remains.148 Some resemble Fort Michilimackinac’s examples (Stone 1974, 46-68), from British and French contexts. These archaeological and documentary instances link to the performance of identity, and contextualize their relationship to specific types of clothing, status, and gender. Traders’ accounts have increased our understanding of the material culture preferences in ways the archaeology has not. Bottle glass informs upon the importation of ‘Stone’ references decorative glass (Figure 4.10), with decorative options related to class. JO; JBFdC, BWM. AF, BWM. 147 AF, BWM. 148 JAK, BWM. 145 146 114 British bottles containing British foods and drink, while the presence of French bottles complicates our understanding. With the documents we can contextualize purposeful British usage of French-produced beverages, as well as the re-use of their containers for serving or storage. At other times, these same accounts do demonstrate clear preferences and practices of Britishness (and Frenchness) as both bought specific goods, to the exclusion of others, like tea, sugar, and fine ceramics. In examining the material culture related to food, drink, and clothing (outside of the military), performing status/class was more important than demonstrating Frenchness or Britishness. The availability of goods underscored the performance of this more cosmopolitan Europeanness as a result. Of course, even then, clothing styles and fashions linked those with the knowledge to Frenchness, as British elites were aware of style trends. As Conway discusses, contextualization was common, “[they] were perfectly capable of failing to see, or even rejecting, any connections between different aspects of their lives” (2011, 119). Consumption of European wines, regardless of their culture of production, demonstrated the importance of the European continent to the elite and middling classes in Illinois. Most purchases emphasize the eighteenth-century conceptualization of status and class, though its linkage to commercialism, capitalism, and the redefining of polite society, which included the validation of taste and style. 4.6. Non-Europeans If Britishness existed as a contrast to Frenchness, how did Britishness reference other ethnic/national/racial groupings in Illinois? It follows that this project should also consider how Europeans viewed Indigenous peoples and enslaved Africans. These next sections will examine the applicability of racial categories as communities of identity in Illinois. Within the context of this thesis, race differs from ethnicity or nationality, as Europeans equated huge swathes of peoples under these broad groups of ‘Indian’ or ‘African,’ even when clear differences existed. While Britishness or Frenchness equates with nationalities, this differed from race-as ethnicity—used to delineate Indigenous peoples and Africans from Europeans (Scott 1991, 22). This section relies upon the 115 historical record to identify the terms and tropes liked to these identities. These connect to material culture specifically intended for these groups’ use, denoting clear differences between goods meant for Europeans and those meant for these others. In terms of perceptions and material culture associated with these groups, a refined understanding of the documents and archaeology can offer a contextualization of ‘ally-hood’ (as opposed to hostile, or enemy groups) and status/rank/gender, at least in terms of Indigenous peoples. For the British, diplomacy and gift-related goods often equated with a projection of the relationship commanders saw, or hoped to foster, with these peoples. 4.6.1 Enslaved Illinois (African and Indigenous) The continued use of enslaved people, and their place within these communities, is reflected in French and British views of identity. Even then, slavery in Illinois did not exist as a monolithic institution, and it functioned within contextualized worlds structured by the projection of this othering of peoples. Historians have relegated the role of slavery in colonial Illinois to a discussion of their utilization by the French (Ekberg 2000; Ingram 2012; Brown 2013). French Illinois was built on the backs of enslaved laborers, with 890 enslaved Africans (35% of the total population) and 147 enslaved Indigenous peoples in 1752 (Safiran 1988, 12). Europeans referenced Indigenous slaves as Panis, and the majority of these were female.149 For the French, “the status of Indian slaves was neither lifelong nor racially based,” unlike most Africans (Sleeper-Smith 2001, 60). Enslaved people and their masters “worked side by side on small farms” (Morrisey 2013, 541). One account noted “The Negroes, [were] for the most part workmen, blacksmiths, carpenters, joiners, brewers, masons,”150 a more diverse occupational set than exhibited within British slavery. Relations between the French and those they enslaved seemed ‘calm’ in Illinois and lacked some of the brutality seen in other European colonies. This contrasts with the experiences of enslaved people under the British, where Africans were viewed as “esteemed goods 149 150 Gage-Stuart, 18/9/1771, GP106AS; Heerman 2017, 494. Points on Jesuit Mission, A&CXI, 327. 116 and commodities within the Acts of Trade and Navigation” (Wiecek 1974, 98). As a result, the British had few restrictions upon the treatment and holding of enslaved people. The bulk of French-owned slaves were ‘local,’ as Louisiana’s governor had stopped all slave imports into Illinois in the 1740s (Heerman 2017, 500). British traders hoped to capitalize on a perceived need for laborers. With the lack of specie in Illinois, the French traded agricultural produce for Africans or bought them with bills of exchange. “We have it in our Power to make a Monopoly of all the Flour in the Country by purchasing it with Negroes.”151 European purchases of slaves correlate to our understandings of class, as slaves were not cheap. Morgan charged 400 dollars [£240] for an adult male.152 With Morgan’s importation of slaves, the French perceived a Britishness. He warned his partners, “the Monsieurs declare against having any Thing to do with” his slaves, “apprehending that as they have been so long among the English … they must have been Sent here for their Rogueries.”153 Britishness, at applied to French perceptions of slaves, linked to trickery and deception which impacted French economic interests. Britishness implied changes to these colonies post-1763, specifically in the way agricultural lands were utilized. This was seen as a projection of their empire—the exportation of systems and structures transforming their colonies in accordance with norms ‘at home’ (Lawrence 2003, 7). Enslaved people factored into this expansion, as part of their ‘civilizing’ of these frontier lands (Greene 2013, 293). The connections between Illinois and Britain’s Caribbean colonies increased the importation of enslaved Africans into the land’s interior. By this, Britishness, as agriculture based upon enslaved labor, was imprinted upon the landscape reflecting its ‘proper’ use. Few studies have documented enslaved people within British forts of this period, with the most recent by Zachary Beier, who examined African and Creole occupants of the British garrison of Cabrits on Dominica (2017). Illinois’ documents offer insight into how the British viewed the enslaved, and the imposition of identity upon them, reflected through practice, structures, and material culture. For example, the term ‘slave’ rarely Morgan-BW, 2/12/1767, A&CXIV, 126. SoN, BWM. 153 Morgan-BW, 2/12/1767, A&CXIV, 126. 151 152 117 appears in Illinois’ records: one court record, a single trade account (“Bono the Slave”), and a single letter.154 Instead, references to “Negroes,” or “Mulatto,” dominate, linking skin color to economic class and legal status. British traders relied on imports of Africans through their contacts in Philadelphia and Jamaica (Burnard 2020, 65), with Morgan’s firm bringing in almost two hundred Jamaican slaves.155 Another British trader sold Morgan an additional 20-30 “young negroes.”156 These are the only surviving British importations of enslaved Africans into Illinois. Accounts may reference a free Black man in Illinois, as a “Caesar Grandison, ye Negro,” worked as a batteaumen for traders. He received wages in 1767 and 1768, with purchases made at the firm’s store in Illinois in the fall of 1767.157 He was not described as a servant, or with appellations linking him to an owner, but instead, his race, demarcating him from white batteaumen. Of the £12 6s he earned (April 1767-February 1768), he spent just over £8 on shrub, a blanket coat, ozenbrigs, checked cloth, ‘sundries,’ and payments to a Frenchman for tailoring shirts.158 No other writings name Grandison, but his presence within these accounts illustrates at least the possibility of free Africans in Illinois. Based on Morgan’s records, I have compiled a list of the purchasers, quantities, and characteristics of these enslaved people. Accounts note 103 sales of Africans (out of the 190 imported), split between the French and British, which could imply their usage upon Morgan’s economic endeavors. Overwhelmingly, the French bought adult males (46) and boys (15), with fewer women (7) and girls (8). British farm managers and owners purchased 47 individuals, with Colonel Cole’s plantation acquiring 28, Bacon & Co (on behalf of Morgan), 13, and Wills Escott (also working for Morgan), another 6. Of these, when listed, 17 were male, 4 females, with 2 boys and 1 girl.159 Morgan used at least two men to work his distillery.160 Enslaved people played important roles in the development 6/6/1770, GP103AS; FdC, BWM; 30/5/1770, GP92AS. JCP, BWM. 156 Morgan-Rumsey, 2/5/1770, BWM. 157 Ledger AFC, JCP, BWM. 158 Ledger AFC, JCP, BWM. 159 Morgan-Lawrence, 3/7/1770; SoN, BWM. 160 Morgan-Blouin, 12/1/1774, BWM. 154 155 118 and maintenance of British Illinois, working within the fields and mills and as servants, forming groups within these communities. Their specific presence within the fort is undocumented, outside of the presence of thirteen ‘servants’ for nine officers and subalterns, with one reference to “Bona the Servant [mentioned earlier as ‘the slave’].” 161 Based on the descriptors used or references to forenames, it is probable some lived and worked within the fort, although their accommodations and duties are unremarked upon. Naming patterns can also help to connect race to individuals. In Jamaica, owners imposed upon the Enslaved names which reflected specific cultural rules and practices, offering a “guide to what whites thought of blacks.” Racial modifiers help determine this, as does the use of just forenames (Burnard 2001, 326). Accounts also demonstrate descriptive names, like Cockroach and Rose.162 Illinois’ patterns parallel this, alongside the British usage of classical names, like Bacchus, Pompey, or Caesar or when using diminutive versions of European names, [Richard becomes Dick or Elizabeth-Betty] (Ibid., 336). These naming patterns and labels had the effect of reinforcing status for enslaved people within the community in ways beyond the institution of skin color. Of course, linkages to Greek and Roman names evoked a knowledge of the classics, the cosmopolitan connection to being well-born, or at least, well-studied, a trait of Georgian society. Outside of the working or living conditions, Enslaved Africans, too, suffered the violence of hostile Indigenous people or accidental deaths: they were a part of Illinois’ communities. When a party of hostile Kickapoo attacked Morgan’s trading house in Kaskaskia, they scalped and killed “the Negro Cato.”163 Accounts reveal striking details about their treatment by Europeans. One enslaved man testified against one of Morgan’s plantation managers. The slave had absconded due to the “Barbarous Treatment” he received, and once caught, stabbed himself several times to avoid being returned. After treatment, and his return, he again escaped, living off the land for six months, until found by Indigenous Kaskaskia, one hundred miles away, almost dead. He still resisted, stating AO, JBFdC, JK, BWM. BWM. 163 Morgan-Hutchins, 11/3/1772, BWM. 161 162 119 “he’ll destroy himself should he be sent back.”164 His fate remained unrecorded. In another entry, a Frenchman had a slave taken from him by the British commandant. This confiscation occurred over an issue of the Frenchman’s right to “punish him at his own discretion.”165 The petition for his return led Gage to conclude that slave owners had the right to ‘regulate’ their property. Figure 4.11: This figure details purchases of materials like claret, brown sugar, tea, mace, and cinnamon used as medicine for an enslaved person in Illinois. (Crown Account-Wilkins, 17/1/1770, BWM) At Fort de Chartres, it is difficult to ascribe artifacts to enslaved people. Records do not fully detail their presence. Archaeological work has not occurred in areas containing larger concentrations of enslaved Africans, i.e., plantations. Instead, the goods bought by slave owners help to reflect their economic value. British owners purchased medicines, food, and drink for sick Africans and paid for doctors’ treatments.166 Purchases of “1 Bottle Claret, 2 lb. Brown Sugar, 1 Nutmeg a little Cinnamon Mace &c ¼ lb. Tea … [all for] the Negro wench when she was Sick,” equated to 19 livres, or £1 (Figure 4.11).167 Examining the value of these articles also illustrates her position of value to the household, or at least, the investment in her as a laborer/property. Accounts detail the quality of materials and costs associated with goods intended for enslaved people. European-made clothes and materials were not imported solely for use by Europeans but were also intended for enslaved Africans. Colonel Cole, for example, bought twelve linen Proceedings, 24/9/1770, BWM. Heerman 2017, 501. 166 30/12/1769, JCP, BWM. 167 Crown Account (Wilkins), 17/1/1770, BWM. 164 165 120 handkerchiefs for his slaves.168 Kaskaskia’s accounts illustrate damaged textiles used to fabricate their clothing, like when Morgan obtained ten yards of ozenbrigs “not fit for sale to make shirts for the Negros” or using damaged blankets to fashion into trousers or coats.169 Descriptions like ‘negro stockings’ or ‘negro caps’ abound to illustrate the quantities and qualities of the clothing materials bought for enslaved people’s usage, reflecting their status, and linking them to their owners and communities. 4.6.2. Indigenous Illinois Before I begin to discuss how Britishness contrasted with Indigenous Illinois, I should address how Illinois’ Indigenous peoples viewed the British, an outsider view of Britishness. Transcripts of conferences help reveal the contextual nature of their assessments of the French and British, at least in their relation to trade and alliances. Written records from these meetings often reference the pleas and hopes, on the part of the tribes, for the British to “Treat them as kindly … as the French King, had always done.”170 While this may represent stylized diplomatic language, it may also reference differences in how Europeans treated Indigenous peoples. For example, within their alliances, the French had served as a metaphorical Father. They have been bred up together like Children … the French have always adopted the Indians Customs & manners, Treated them Civilly & supplied their wants generously, by which means they gained the Hearts of the Indians … The French have … taught the Indians in that Country to hate the English.171 As discussed in Jacobs (1967), White (1991), and Spanbauer (1993), British alliances imitated France’s system. Groups like the Peoria and Metchigamia suggested their willingness to become a part of the larger British community, at least in terms of military alliance and economic reciprocity. They did not seek Britishness or even Frenchness but did strive to obtain the trade and diplomatic goods offered within alliances. AO, BWM. JK, BWM. 170 Croghan-Gage, 16/1/1767, A&CXI, 489. 171 Croghan-Johnson, 11/1765, Ibid., 53-54. 168 169 121 While the British lumped all Indigenous tribes into binary categories, as allies or enemies, we can also see the contextualization of communities of identity within these glossed-over classifications. They existed as a part and apart from the British. How they viewed themselves, as separate groups, and how they viewed themselves within European alliances and communities differed from how Europeans viewed them. Indigenous peoples’ place within trade and treaty alliances in Illinois (and beyond) were crosscut by geography and the context of these alliances, determining their place within these social and economic networks. Examples reflect individual and tribal status as this impacted the types of material goods they received. These arrangements were not necessarily viewed in the same light by Illinois’ Europeans and Indigenous peoples, and the British continued to show they did not fully comprehend the French systems. This is reflected in decisions to cut costs by removing Indian agents, smiths, interpreters, and commissaries in 1768.172 Allies saw this as a betrayal, and more hostile groups used this ‘insult’ to renew their often-violent harassment of Illinois’ British. 172 Johnson-Gage, 8/4/1768, A&CXVI, 239. 122 Figure 4.12: This figure details the locations of Indigenous Metchigamia and Peoria villages northwest of the fort and the Indigenous Kaskaskia village outside French Kaskaskia (Hutchins in Hicks 1904). In the areas surrounding Fort de Chartres lived a confederation of Algonquian Illiniwek nations dubbed the Western Confederacy, with the Kaskaskia, Peoria, Cahokia, and Michigamea the principal groups interacting with the garrison.173 French priests and traders had allied with these groups and established missions in Illinois in 1685. French civilians lived near Indigenous villages (Figure 4.12), and traders and trappers wintered with them in their camps. Distant tribes, like the Cherokee and Chickasaw to the south, the Osage and Missouri from the west, and the more hostile Potawatomi and Kickapoo to the far northeast frequently met with British commanders and traders or preyed upon the garrison and its allies.174 173 174 Gage-Croghan, 16/4/1766, A&CXI, 216. Croghan-Gage, 16/1/1767, A&CXI, 494; WJ. 123 As mentioned, many Indigenous peoples departed to Spanish territories upon Britain’s arrival but later returned to take advantage of trade and presents.175 The Metchigamia joined with the Peoria in a settlement a mile north of the fort, and Indigenous villages lay outside of Kaskaskia and Cahokia.176 The presence of these communities forced Europeans to recognize their status, and locations meant frequent interactions with Europeans. As discussed, 200-300 British troops garrisoned the fort, surrounded by Indigenous groups numbering “Six hundred & fifty able to bear Arms,”177 underscoring the precariousness of British communities. While the tribes interacted with commanders for presents, conferences, and aid, the tenuous relationships the British had with those groups from northern Illinois, Vincennes (Indiana) and St. Joseph (Michigan) only increased expenditures, stress, and disruptions to trade and alliances. If identity references multiple perspectives, we must examine how residents of communities defined themselves, considering who they considered outsiders. Here, the historical documents help, as they use repetitive stereotypes and tropes which underscore the differences between British perceptions of self and their observations of others. In the second half of the 18th century, stereotypes were applied to the Indigenous peoples, “peoples who were manifestly alien in terms of culture, religion and color” (Colley 2005, 5). While these stereotypes grouped and classified Indigenous people, they also served as reflections of British culture and expectations. The British saw their efforts in Illinois as part of a larger process of ‘civilizing’ its inhabitants. British views were derogatory, like an assertion that the Kaskaskia “are degenerated into a drunk and debauched tribe, and so indolent, as scarcely to procure a sufficiency of Skins and Furs to barter.”178 Criticizing Britain’s need to provide gifts to the tribes, one commander underscored this, “they are by the constant use of Spirituous Liquors become Effeminate and Debilitated … a Dastardly Race of Cowards.”179 Gage-Shelburne, 24/8/1767, Ibid., 596; Gordon in Mereness 1916, 472. Stirling-Gage, 15/12/1765, A&CXI, 125. 177 Fraser-Haldimand, 4/5/1766, A&CX, 288. 178 Hutchins in Hicks 1904, 108. 179 Forbes-Gage, 7/1768, A&CXI, 340. 175 176 124 Distributions of rum and whiskey as gifts were supplemented by illegal sales by “lawless and licentious Traders and frontier People [i.e., Americans].”180 Complaints of drunk warriors persist in most sources and underscore British biases which demeaned Indigenous people to justify their prejudices.181 British officers feared the continuation of French fur trade involvement, but also of their “Breeding Mischief and Spiriting up the Indians against”182 them to protect trade. The British hoped to dominate these networks but bemoaned the fact that most Indigenous people still preferred the French.183 Between French involvement in the (illegal) fur trade, and the possible recurrence of their goading tribes to violence, British officials faced real and exaggerated threats of violence throughout their tenure of Illinois. “We have been all this Spring, under the greatest apprehension of an Indian War [fearing] … several nations had entered into a League to strike the English in the Illinois.”184 Fears and pessimism are well documented within the sources and underscore policies related to gift-giving and trade. These stereotypes underscore British perceptions of self, justifying the “fury and xenophobia” which created “epidemic bravery” on the part of the British garrison (Duffy 1998, 31) when targeting the hostile Indigenous peoples. These references contrast with British descriptions of allied/friendly tribes. A Kaskaskia Chief, La Cloche, was described as a “brave fellow.”185 The Six Nations displayed “Spirit Zeal & firmness” in their support of British interests, while the Chickasaw “are of Consequence for they are truly a brave people, far Exceeding the Generality of Indians in Courage.”186 These descriptors, and the stereotypes they reinforced, reflect less personal or group traits than the British officials’ perceptions of their ‘usefulness’ through allegiance to the Crown. Well-documented in historical work is the changing relationships between European and Indigenous inhabitants of America Gage-Haldimand, 3/6/1773, GP116AS. Wilkins-Gage, 30/5/1770, GP92AS; Morgan-Lawrence, 29/10/1770, BWM. 182 Croghan’s Journal, 17/8/1765, A&CXI, 36. 183 Gage-Commanding Officer, 2/4/1768, GP75AS. 184 Butricke-Barnsley, 27/6/1769, in Stiles 1864, 10. 185 WJ, 23/8/1769. 186 Croghan-Gage, 16/1/1767, A&CXI, 494; Croghan-Johnson, 10/9/1766, Ibid., 374. 180 181 125 between the beginning of the Seven Years War/French & Indian War (1754) and 1765.187 Some reflect attempts to assimilate Indigenous Illinois women into French culture, as wives of colonists, which Belmessous references as francization (2005, 330). Studies of the history and material culture of this process are shown in works dedicated to understanding how Indigenous Illinois, through marriages and Franco-Indigenous descendants, were part of these practices (Sleeper-Smith 2001; White 2012; Morrissey 2017). There was no corresponding attempt by the British to extend Britishness to Illinois’ tribes. Marriages were not legal, and all diplomatic and trade networks were to be funneled through government channels, like the fort’s commander and his designated Indian Agent. Figure 4.13: This figure illustrates Wilkins’ Journal, in which he recorded groups, individuals, and associated events of diplomacy. It also served as an accounting of associated presents and expenses 188. (Photo author, Courtesy of the WLCL) 187 188 Jacobs 1967; White 1991. WJ, 1/6/1772. 126 Still, Indigenous peoples desired the British to “take pity on us your Children as our former Father did … [who] formerly used to credit his Children for powder & lead.”189 The British were expected to follow French practices, providing gifts as necessary parts of alliance maintenance. Between 30 September 1767 and 12 March 1772, Crown officials (Figure 4.13) documented 188 meetings with Indigenous people in Illinois, all of which required distributions of food, drink, sundries, and special/status gifts.190 British-imported material culture thus flowed through redistributive channels as trade goods, payment for services, or diplomatic gifts. For the British to replace the French in Indigenous diplomacy, encourage trade, and prevent hostilities, they needed to step in as a metaphorical Father: distributing gifts, mediating disputes, and assisting in times of need (discussed in White 1991 and Jacobs 1967). Food and drink played a role in these meetings, and over the course of just two and a half years, the Crown issued tribes 65,580 pounds of flour, 8,401 pounds of meal, 24,130 pounds of beef, 8,265 pounds of pork, 496.5 pints of bears oil, and 1,743 bushels of corn.191 British officials also used other types of aid, employing a doctor and medicines when sickness hit the Metchigamia and Peoria, totaling £153.1.3 New York (almost £86) over the course of eighteen months.192 Within the fort, archaeology has not linked artifacts to an Indigenous presence, outside of post-occupational burials, and allude to the presence of trade-related items (Keene, 2002). British commanders typically did not allow tribal members within the fort’s walls. In 1769, after the assassination of the Ottawa chief Pontiac, Britain’s allies feared a retaliatory invasion, and Wilkins reported “five or six hundred Indians near the walls … who had fled there for Protection.”193 Fearing “their Numbers would have filled the Fort … [he] permitted only 50 warriors to enter” to conference,194 where they notified Wilkins that they had fortified their village.195 “The sense of belonging to a group is particularly Croghan’s Journal, 28/9/1765, in Thwaites 1904, 158. Crown Account (Croghan/Cole), Crown Account (Cole), BWM; WJ. 191 Provisions, 25/4/1766-14/9/1768, GP89AS. 192 GW29:83. 193 Gage-Hillsborough, 12/8/1769, A&CXVI, 577. 194 WJ, 3/5/1769. 195 WJ, 18/7/1769, GP111AS. 189 190 127 relevant in times of conflict when fear can be actively manipulated to strengthen group identity” (Predovnik 2017, 69). Wilkins gifted this village ten spades to aid in building stockades, and gave presents of powder, ball, paint, and a musket to the chief. Examples of the types of good traded/gifted help our understanding of the intent of the object, but also perceptions of relationships within their alliance. To neglect this implied a rejection of these people within the scope of the British ‘family.’ The expenses of maintaining the garrison and the Indian Department severely impacted the Crown’s ability to maintain control in Illinois, but were necessary in the maintenance of these crucial alliances.196 The traders and Indian Department stored their goods within the fort, but all interactions were to occur outside of the walls, in the Indian Guest House or stores within the villages.197 This illustrates how the British viewed Indigenous people within the context of their community, through the alteration in formality of social and diplomatic relationships, as encapsulated by this structure.198 British policy pushed Indigenous peoples to bring their trade to the merchants within the towns, not the fort. Diplomatic meetings occurred outside, demonstrating the changing British-Indigenous relationship. This ‘Guest House’ was situated 255 feet (77.7 meters) away, although witnesses did not cite a point of reference for this measurement. The French described it as a “Store of posts in the ground … covered with shingles.”199 The British termed it an Indian ‘Penthouse’ (a shelter with a sloping roof). When a party of Michigamea approached the British Indian Agent at his residence in Chartres village, he “sent them to the Indian House near the fort,” demarcating how the British felt about Indigenous presence within their community as well as reflecting military security concerns.200 Gage-Johnson, 4/4/1768, A&CXVI, 221. Morgan-Lawrence, 15/5/1770, BWM. 198 SI. 199 O’Callaghan 1858, 1165. 200 Jennings’ Journal, 5/5/1768, A&CXVI, 276. 196 197 128 Figure 4.14: This figure details a LiDAR image of the fort, with the circle encompassing a 300-foot radius, as measured from the points of the bastions to explain the possible extent in which the Indian Guest House may have existed.201 Archaeologists have not identified this structure, despite geophysical efforts to locate it to the west (Orser 1975, 55). As visible in Figure 4.14, it may have existed outside the southern section of the fort, now obliterated by the dark parallel lines representing a modern levee. An argument supporting this could reference the ‘King’s Road,’ which ran between Kaskaskia and the fort, and intersected the fort’s River Gate, to the south (Brown 2020). Travelers arriving from Kaskaskia or Cahokia used this road, and it might suggest the location of this structure here. While the house cannot be described archaeologically, the documentary sources elaborate upon it in other ways, and its presence outside the fort underscores how the British structured space and control within Indigenous relationships. While the British did not extend Britishness to these people, it is at least underscored through their attempts to regulate the fur trade and alliances, and through 201 https://clearinghouse.isgs.illinois.edu/data/elevation/illinois-height-modernization-ilhmp 129 the trade and diplomatic goods they used to project themselves into these communities. Indigenous Illinois was connected to Britishness through these goods, practices, and the structures surrounding this process. A more refined contextualization of these village sites also helps to connect the Indigenous peoples to the British garrison and traders, and thus, British-made/procured materials. Archaeology and surface collection have recovered European material culture. The modification of European goods by Indigenous peoples also plays a crucial in identity formation, and helps to challenge anthropocentric terms like British, French, or Indian regarding the life history of artifacts. Figure 4.15: This figure depicts trade goods from the fort and Metchigamia village: silver crosses, brooches, and ‘ear bobs’ (upper left), clasp knives (upper right), mouth harps (lower left), and pipe tomahawks (lower right). (JCP, BWM). (Photos author, Courtesy of the ISM) Documents detail the Indigenous use of European textiles and show the importation of specific types, as well as knives, kettles, and hatchets for these people’s use (Figure 4.15). Matchcoats, made from wool blankets in a variety of styles, qualities, and decorations, came in French and English versions, for the Indigenous trade. One order 130 requested “the best twilled three Point Lettered French Matchcoating” and “English Matchcoating.” 202 Breechcloths, shirts, and moccasins, and the needles and awls to fashion these were imported, but with the appellation of ‘Indian’ to underscore their intended market. These examples emphasize the British importation of French goods, or Frenchstyled goods, for use within their own trade and alliance networks. One issue this thesis takes with prior interpretations of these Indigenous sites is how archaeologists have related these artifacts, equating a culture of production to an identity group of consumption/usage. At peer sites, interpretations of identity formation and presentation have changed. Michael Nassaney underscores this at Fort St. Joseph, a multi-ethnic (French and Indigenous) community almost four hundred miles to the northeast of Fort de Chartres, with the incorporation of hybridity and creolization to the cultural affinity of artifacts (2008, 311). Illinois’ Indigenous peoples did not live within the fort, but trade and diplomacy linked them to both French and British garrisons and to their traders. The archaeological material culture of their villages demonstrates European material culture, and Indigenous modification of these goods, with some emphasizing the reach of British material culture. Figure 4.16: These figures illustrate a perforated thimble, and an iron-tipped, antler-handed awl, recovered archaeologically. (Photo author, Courtesy of the ISM) 202 ‘Point’ references woven decorative lines (Jacobs 1950, 47; BWM). 131 European thimbles, needles, and scissors are demonstrative of sewing, used by European and Indigenous communities alike. Archaeologists recovered a lone thimble and an awl from Fort de Chartres (Figure 4.16). The pierced thimble is unique within the fort’s assemblage but has parallels elsewhere. The perforation allowed for its attachment to clothing, a noise-maker. Nassaney believes these accentuate ethnic identity because these are “embodiments of the self” (2019, 67). Material goods like these were imported in huge quantities and offered as gifts. Morgan’s inventories listed “1/2 gross Indian Awl blades” in stock.203 In the Indian Agent’s accounts, one purchase totaled over 800 thimbles.204 These artifacts illustrate the modification of European goods to meet Indigenous desires through the creation of specific forms of items which suited trade. Archaeologists recovered other modified European goods within the fort and Indigenous villages, objects that had “multiple uses and multiple meanings for their users” (Loren 2010, 18). This helps to explain these next few artifact types in relation to identity and object biography. Europeans introduced earthenware ceramics to Indigenous groups, but this does not imply these people used these ceramics for their intended purposes. They often repurposed broken ceramics or modified sherds (Figure 4.17). Modifications show the different meanings and uses objects had within communities. At the Metchigamia village (Waterman Site), excavation recovered three earthenware gaming chips, while surface collection added twenty-six. This site provided over twenty modified ceramic pendants. Similar examples of these are present at the Indigenous Kaskaskia village (Good 1972, 179). AF, BWM. Account Crown (Croghan/Cole), BWM. 203 204 132 Figure 4.17: This figure details examples of French faience, modified into gaming chips and pendants, recovered at the Waterman site. (Photo author, Courtesy of the ISM) These illustrate the creolization of cultural materials (Nassaney and Brandão 2009), the relationship between material culture and humans, and issues of agency and power when Indigenous peoples met European colonialism and economic systems. The combining and sharing of material culture, in Illinois, is exhibited by these modified goods. With the British importing French trade goods, the presence of French or modified-French goods may indicate how Indigenous Illinois repurposed British gifts within their networks. Figure 4.18: These photos illustrate modified copper kettle pieces created by Metchigamia, pendants and tinkling cones. (Photos author, Courtesy of the ISM) Brass, copper, and iron kettles demonstrate other modified European items. Only the British imported tin kettles, although traders’ accounts show they imported brass, copper, and iron as well. While traders sold kettles to Europeans and Indigenous peoples, 133 and blacksmiths could recycle old kettles as patches for new ones, Indigenous people remodeled these into new forms, like pendants or tinkling cones (Figure 4.18). The repurposing of European materials “represent new intercultural practices that contributed to the process of ethnogenesis” (Nassaney 2008, 314). Within the fort, excavation recovered sixteen tinkling cones, and 163 pieces of copper ‘scrap, strip, wire, and cuttings’ which may demonstrate other modifications. Their presence may indicate refuse from smiths’ re-workings or the accumulation of debris from the storage of trade goods. Examples from the Metchigamia (Brown 1972) and Kaskaskia (Good 1972) villages illustrate the presence of modified objects, with cut copper and brass kettle scraps, hundreds of tinkling cones, and copper pendants. The arbitrary classification of material culture with a nation of production is also demonstrated with firearms. Documents detail distinct types of flintlocks, types beyond the garrisons’ Brown Bess or Charleville muskets, like “Smooth Bored Guns, such as the Carolinians use,” and “French Guns with neat blue & Gilt Barrels,” potentially as trade guns for Indigenous people.205 Accounts describe lighter smoothbore muskets designed for hunting or as a trade gun as a fusil or ‘fuzee’ (Hamilton 1982, 67), and documents illustrate their presentation to favored men, like Corn Cob, “a Shawnee Chief of great Consequence” or trusted messenger, Silver Heels.206 Morgan requested a shipment of 400 in 1769, while another delivery contained “300 of the neatest Fusils.”207 At the Michigamea and Kaskaskia villages, trade gun musket parts, fragments, and tools are much more numerous, and suggest the larger extent, and intent, of British trade. Within the fort, surface collection yielded a single trade gun barrel fragment, while excavation recovered a fragment of a serpent side plate, a decoration for a British trade gun (Hamilton 1982, 68). Within the fort were two dedicated gunsmiths, who offered allies the repair and maintenance associated with these commodities.208 Outside of these blacksmiths, there is JBFdC; Winston-BWM, 14/11/1765; ML, 30/6/ 1768, BWM. WJ, 1/10/1770. 207 Morgan-BW, 10/2/1769; Morgan-Williamson, 6/11/1768, BWM. 208 JBFdC, BWM; Crown-Smallman, 8/9/1766, GP. 205 206 134 no mention of French gunsmiths. All musketry appears to have been available through repair or supply by the garrison or its traders. British officers maintained Indigenous alliances through gift-giving. Such ritualized exchanges have been well documented.209 Indigenous people viewed their identities within this larger community contextually. “Group identities … are flexible social constructs, which only become salient in specific historical situations for a specific set of social reasons” (MacSweeney 2011, 38). For the Kaskaskia or Potawatomi, acceptance into this alliance occurred through the exchange of symbolic and everyday material culture. The recognition, display, or rejection of gifts reflected these contextual identities. This occurred when the One-Eyed Chief, a Metchigamia, visited Wilkins but left dissatisfied. He journeyed to Spanish St. Louis and returned “in a Suit of Spanish Regimentals,” after which the garrison and inhabitants of Cahokia “treated [him] with Contempt … and laughed” at him.210 He changed his clothing, signifying his re-entrance to the British alliance, and in conformity to his own community. Gifts of finished European-styled clothing, or Indigenous-inspired clothing made with European textiles were a significant part of these connections. Excavations from the Metchigamia village reveal further evidence of these exchanges. Archaeologists recovered silver artifacts and attributed those with makers’ marks to British silversmiths; however, its principal investigator linked these objects not to the garrison, but to the Metchigamia’s allies, the Miami, who traded with the British in the east in the years prior, dating them to a 1715-1765 period (Brown 1972, 23). This interpretation better fits the narrative of a French Illinois, obscuring linkages to Illinois’ British. Documents illustrate the presence of a British agent, George Croghan, in the west in 1765, treating with the Indigenous peoples to secure a safe passage for British troops. He brought goods from Philadelphia,211 and accounts details a slew of material goods: silver arm bands, wrist bands, crosses, rings, hair plates, and brooches.212 Another White 1991; Nassaney 2008, 2019; Morrissey 2015. WJ. 211 Croghan-Johnson, 11/1765, A&CXI, 53-56; Croghan’s Journal, Ibid., 1-19. 212 Crown Account (Croghan/Cole), 6/7/1766, BWM. 209 210 135 shipment illustrates over £39 spent on silver artifacts (Figure 4.19). There is no reason, outside of specific makers’ marks and correlated dates, to assume the silver found within this village only represents objects of French manufacture or imply exchanges beyond local rituals. Figure 4.19: This figure details a portion of purchases made by traders for articles intended for the Illinois Indigenous trade. Here, we see small and large crosses, hair pipes, shirt brooches, and hair brooches. (JCP, BWM) Within this same village, archaeologists recovered brass and pewter buttons, some with London-based makers’ marks (Brown 1972, 44), alongside two pewter British 18th Foot regimental buttons. The buttons did not result from trade with the Miami, but instead came from the garrison, as the 18th Foot did not arrive in America until 1767, and Illinois in the summer of 1768, after which documents show at least forty-four formal visits (representing about 25% of recorded Indigenous visits) between the Metchigamia and the British between September 1767 and February 1772.213 The presence of British trade goods here may reflect the gifts and goods exchanged, establishing a linkage between British military and civilian communities with Indigenous ones in a way that better informs upon recovered material culture. 213 WJ; Crown Account (Cole), BWM. These sources detail a minimum of 186 formal visits. 136 These all direct us to the principle of object biography, the assumption that artifacts have a ‘life,’ in that from production to deposition, artifacts can have different meanings and relationships with the multiple people who made and used them. “Objects are imbued with and convey meanings for those creating, using, and exchanging them. These meanings are variable (they shift), multiple (they act simultaneously), and contextually embedded” (Bauer and Davies 2010, 37). An object manufactured by the British or French, like a brass kettle, or faience dish, was often repurposed into a different object. Indigenous peoples “creatively transformed imported goods into new forms and imposed new meanings on old forms” (Nassaney 2012, 11). Thus, studying individual artifacts could entail a greater understanding of the life history of these objects, as well as the contextualization of their use and agency (Nassaney and Brandão 2009, 29; Harris and Cipolla 2017, 71-80). With objects previously interpreted from surrounding Indigenous villages, a reexamination, based on the types revealed by British trade documents and established chronologies of production, could better connect Britishness—as commerce and policy—with these communities. This approach may better reveal aspects of identity, given the hybridization of trade and gift-giving within Indigenous cultures. 4.7. Chapter Conclusions This chapter opened by considering the constitution of Britishness in Illinois, linking this community of identity to Georgian values and stereotypes of self which contrasted against Frenchness and Europeanness. The significance of the shifts in population, with the inclusion of substantial numbers of British workers, farmers, and soldiers and the desertion of many French to Spanish Missouri, meant Britishness had an opportunity of being imparted upon Illinois’ citizenry. The importation of British goods did not effectively establish Britishness in Illinois, as French and British purchased Frenchproduced goods. By this same token, French Illinois embraced many facets of British trade. This demonstrates that Frenchness or Britishness was less important to them than the cost and value of these trade goods, or their ability to access preferred goods, more of which will be discussed in the next chapter. Still, examples given have shown cultural 137 preferences as they relate to specific foods, drinks, and associated material culture. The British, through purchases of tea, food additives, and porcelains, found ways to maintain their Britishness, at least through the linkage to similar material culture consumed throughout the empire. Contrasting with Europeanness and Frenchness, Britishness was expressed through imperial policies and material culture in their relationship to Enslaved Africans and Indigenous peoples. While Britishness did not extend to these groups, they were clearly part of the British economic and trade networks, as exhibited through the traffic of goods intended for them, as detailed within traders’ accounts. The Crown was not attempting to redefine race in Illinois and did not force the acceptance of these peoples into their society. These communities of identity resulted in part from British projections of race, economic status, and allied status upon them. This allowed for their separation from others, underscoring their roles within the economy/alliance system, but also detail the cross-cutting aspects of status and gender as they relate to friendly and hostile groups, contextualizing Indigenousness. Britishness, Frenchness, as national identities, would be eclipsed by Europeanness and the intersectional nature of other dimensions of identity, as will be discussed. Chapter 5: Intersectional Communities of Identity As discussed, Britishness and Frenchness vied for expression of material culture, policy, and governmental structures in Illinois. Trade, immigration, and the presence of the garrison all impacted how people viewed themselves and others. These same forces connected the garrison to the local French, Indigenous, and African communities, and through these to the larger British empire. French and Indigenous settlements predated British rule, and now had to contend with an influx of British civilians and personnel, allowing for the emergence of different socio-cultural identities as a part of, and in some cases, apart from, the Empire. While identities might partially be defined in terms of ethic 138 or national boundaries, we must remember this is a fairly new identity ideation. It is important to understand the extent to which other dimensions of identity transcended nationality/ethnicity/race, and illustrate the sharpness or permeability of these cultural boundaries. A variety of communities of identity developed in Illinois, and these communities were nested and contextualized along other lines because of the intersectionality of other identity markers, like social class/status, profession, gender, and religion. How did Britishness work within these contexts? In what cases was Europeanness, as related to status, economic class, or occupation, expressed more contextually? As Colley emphasizes, “we usually decide who we are by reference to who and what we are not” (1992, 311). In terms of cultural values, taste, or style, did officers and the social elite have more in common with each other, across national lines, than they did with their own soldiers? Did European women have more in common with each other than the masculine community of soldiers? Or, perhaps even more formally, did Europeanness connect women in a way that drew sharp boundaries between themselves and Indigenous or African women? Investigating these intersectional identity groups helps to explain the dynamics of Britishness and Europeanness by considering the relationship of gender, social class, status, and religion to national cultures. This highlights the contingent and contextual characteristics of these dimensions of identity. Lastly, after Illinois became part of the British empire, it also bears considering just how, or if, the British attempted to extend Britishness to Illinois’ communities (Figure 5.1), most explicitly through the extension of legal and governmental systems, the militia, and currency. This is important as it allows us to discuss the local dynamics of Britishness, and by exploring these, we may better understand what inhibited Britishness from taking root in Illinois. 139 Figure 5.1: This figure combines an inset map (Cantonment of Forces, 1765, Public Domain) which positions Illinois within the British colonies and details Illinois’ settlements. (Hutchins 1766, Public Domain) Britishness has referenced differences between Europeans, or how white Europeans differed from Africans and Indigenous peoples, but it needs contextualization by considering how these intersected with other communities of identity. The British record allows for the investigation of differences in status, as related to economic class, such as between salaried workers like blacksmiths or interpreters, and laborers working 140 Illinois’ farms. “Groups are composed of individuals affiliated with cross-cutting divisions by age, gender, race, ethnicity, class, status, religion, and sexual orientation,” and we need to consider how individuals emphasized or minimized these contextual identities (Nassaney and Brandão 2009, 22). Examining these documents may offer a greater understanding of how these communities of identity were expressed, contextualizing commonalities of life within Fort de Chartres. 5.1. Status, Class, and Profession Status and profession, as they relate to the British officers and soldiers was much more likely to unite them with their contemporaries, crossing national affiliations rather than those lines serving as a barrier demarcating differences. This will be explored in the next chapter. Status united officers with the civilian elite across a Europeanness that similarly transcended nationality. Status and class linked practices and material culture in Illinois, allowing French and British plantation owners, wealthy traders, and officers to find common ground within the context of status and purchasing power, cutting across social lines. These communities of identity often reflect the prestige goods, those finer, more decorative objects of taste and style. Officers, plantation owners, and traders’ general wealth enabled them to make larger purchases of better-quality goods, but this should not preclude a more refined discussion of Illinois’ other inhabitants. Class, as it relates to purchasing power, shows the ability of Illinois’ working class to perform their own communities of identity. This section will examine the evidence for class or profession differences in the material culture. Examining the texts offers the potential of informing upon the correlation of class and material culture purchases and clarifies a segment of the population ignored in previous interpretations. While specific areas and domestic sites have not been excavated, the documents inform upon the purchasing power of class and status. At times, traders’ papers detail the recruitment of specific workers which linked to nationality, as mentioned earlier when traders hoped for German farmers to come to 141 Illinois, or when Morgan sought a ‘Dutch’ distiller.214 Outside of a few examples, occupational specialization and general laborers were sought regardless of nationality. The garrison community and its traders were willing to use whomever they deemed qualified, downplaying cultural identity and emphasizing other attributes. My study of named individuals during the British period, referenced earlier, outlines various Europeans’ occupations. Outside of farmers, the named French population of Kaskaskia included: a pilot, merchants (2), fur traders (9), a miller, a hunter, a schoolmaster, bakers (2), a smith, an attorney, and a carpenter. In Cahokia, they included a judge, traders (2), and a doctor. Chartres Village and Prairie du Rocher noted a trader, wheelwright, and tailor. These contrast with a considerable number of British workers. They, too, employed fur traders/merchants in Illinois, but also: distillers (2), seamstresses (6), coopers (5), surgeons and mates (5), masons (2), butchers (2), tailors (5), a saddler, carpenters (10), bakers (2), sawyers (3) and smiths (7). This list excludes those soldiers who performed similar functions on behalf of the garrison. Further study of accounts could reference differences between status and class for these individuals, in terms of qualities and quantities of purchased goods. Figure 5.2: This image details a portion of William Davis’s account in Illinois. In this entry, the gunsmith bought rum, coffee, and brown sugar, a tin kettle and musket shot. (JBFdC, BWM) 214 Murray-Gratz, 24/4/1769, A&CXIV, 525; Morgan-Baynton, 11/1770, BWM. 142 Aside from traders, who lived beyond the means of most civilians, accounts reference wages and purchases by workers. As mentioned, on just one journey from Fort Pitt, over 300 batteaumen accompanied Morgan, serving as paddlers and teamsters. Some returned east, or journeyed to New Orleans, while others remained in country and continued to work for the firm. Specific numbers for these are hard to address based on their itinerant nature.215 Accounts reference their monthly wages as £2 10s.216 One example details the aforementioned “Caesar Grandison ye Negro,” who charged just under 600 livres/£44 of goods within a year. Purchases included yards of ozenbrigs (a coarse linen fabric like burlap), tobacco, shrub, shoes, a blanket coat, and eleven yards of checked fabrics. In comparison, see Figure 5.2, which references a gunsmith’s account. He charged just under £2 in about five weeks, mostly for rum and sugar, about two months’ salary for a private soldier. In another instance, one of Morgan’s traders purchased over 630 livres (£46) of personal goods over a seven-month period.217 These help to contextualize class identity formation which intersected with Britishness, as workers’ material culture was clearly tied less to a preference for British goods than it was to the purchasing power of their wages. Documents rarely mention laborers or farm hands, and seldom reference race or ethnicity. British society kept “all working people on the hard edge of poverty” (Frey 1981, 55) to keep them “industrious.” This demarcated social class as these laborers were kept socially and culturally ‘backwards.’ Examining skilled workers’ contracts and payments help us to correlate material culture and class-related identities. Morgan hoped to recruit a Millwright at the rate of £100/year to operate his grist and sawmills. He bought the contract of an indentured distiller for £18.218 A “Laboring Man of Honesty & Sobriety who understands … Farming Work” garnered £10-£12 annually to work his plantation.219 Morgan employed a skilled cooper for a salary of £112 Sterling per annum.220 Morgan-BW, 23/4/1768, A&CXVI, 259. Ledger, BWM. 217 LAFdC, BWM. 218 MBP; Slough-Lawrence, 18/10/1771, BWM. 219 Morgan-Bacon, 9/1769, BWM. 220 Articles of Agreement, BWM. 215 216 143 Nash’s purchases were well documented, and between August of 1766 and June of 1772, he bought at least 1,773 livres/£130 from his employers, mostly on beer, foodstuffs, clothing, and cloth. The documents reflect individuals’ ability to purchase greater quantities of goods, as well as more diverse and higher quality materials. It also demonstrates the role of class within the broader nationality ideation. 5.2. Gender If masculinity is encapsulated by a soldierly identity (discussed next chapter), just how can we consider femininity within Illinois? I offer a refinement of interpretations of military communities as masculine areas, most explicitly due to the documented presence of women within this fort. Interpretive works on military sites over-promotes males. Within secondary works, British women appear stereotyped either as ‘camp followers’ or military spouses (Mayer 2006, McConnell 2004), but this interpretation needs to be reexamined to challenge the trope of prostitutes to include a more thorough discussion of women relating to skilled work and civilian wives and daughters. Historical works have explained Indigenous women and their role in Illinois’ French society (Sleeper-Smith 2001; Ekberg 2010). Interpretations of Fort de Chartres have generalized women’s presence into a simplistic identity category, while we must consider how wives and families experienced the fort, and the impact of status, class, and other communities of identity upon life within it. Contextualizing the numbers of women underscores their presence and may help to relate the excavated material culture to structures and spaces. Keene asserts that Fort de Chartres’ French population lived extramurally (2013, 233). While this may have been accurate for their garrison, it ignores the substantial presence of British military and civilian wives, workers, and family members accompanying these regiments. At peer sites, few married couples had the luxury of private spaces, and most “were forced to share communal life in the barracks” (Frey 1981, 61). It seems likely that Fort de Chartres was little different. Deed records indicate few couples within surrounding settlements (Brown and Dean 1981). Unlike Forts Michilimackinac or Ouiatenon, no individual houses were recorded within our fort, but 144 two large barracks and separate buildings for officers existed. It is doubtful they maintained private shelters outside of the fort’s walls (and supervision), and women likely lived within these buildings. Modern scholarship references women as camp followers,221 but primary documents do not use this term. While period orderly books used ‘follower,’ it referenced civilian workers and sutlers without allusion to gender. At Fort Niagara, Peña and Seeman reference camp followers as prostitutes, women who journeyed to the fort, or with, the regiments (2004, 10), but records do not indicate this occurring in Illinois. Beyond the lack of suitable residences outside of the fort, either the cost of travel impeded their journey down river or the lack of ‘other’ employment in this area discouraged their presence. A lone example references a woman (possibly a local), and her ‘indelicacies’ with military personnel,222 while a few others reference an unnamed woman who travelled with Lieutenant-Colonel Wilkins from Fort Pitt, “[he] has a Girl with him … Mrs. Edmonstone would not certainly associate with her.”223 Another noted, when Wilkins’ servant attempted to rouse them from bed: “All the Noise [they] … could make at his door could not awake him or his Lady”.224 Wilkins does not name her, and a perusal of his personal accounts illustrate purchases delivered to/bought on his credit only by a woman referenced as Nancy, surname unrecorded. We cannot explicitly discuss local women, especially non-British women, within these communities, as documents seldom link gender to ethnicity or nationality. At this moment it is impractical to consider the British garrison community as ethnically and socially encapsulated, and in all likelihood, the permeability of the fort’s walls allowed members to enact identity reflecting other categories of individuality, linked to class and status instead of cultural identity. Women were present as indentured servants, workers, or as enslaved individuals. In practice, the British supported their presence, although they officially disapproved of marriage and families for private men. In one study of British garrisons in Long Island, Starbuck 2018; Hagist 2020. Rumsey-Clarkson, 5/1770, BWM. 223 24/7/1768, BWM. 224 Richardson-Morgan, 28/12/1770, BWM. 221 222 145 ratios of men to women averaged 8-1 (Hagist 2002, 5). If this ratio were applied to Illinois, we might expect at least twenty-five women within the fort’s walls at any point. Reality dictated that women follow troops, offering a variety of services and relationships (Figure 5.3). Women in British Illinois received full rations but only for those residing within the men’s quarters. They labored for the garrison through tailoring, washing, agricultural work, and food preparation.225 Additionally, they were expected to work in the hospitals (Knox 1769, 271). Their absence from documents is not surprising, given it was the officers or traders who recorded daily activities. Figure 5.3: This figure details women washing clothes, observed by an officer. This print may illustrate an encounter within North America. (Sayer and Bennett, 1782, The British Museum) Women are mentioned in documents in relation to violence, sickness, and death, but specific numbers, outside of named individuals, are lacking. Soldiers and their families who lived outside of the walls of the fort provided soft targets, opportunities for 225 Farmar-Gage, 18/3/1766, GP49AS. 146 enemies to inflict terror and harm. One example described the Potawatomi taking prisoner of a soldier and his wife from Chartres Village, who transported them to Michigan for ransoming.226 The next year, hostiles broke into a house and attacked a grenadier and his wife, scalping both.227 Frequent bouts of malaria impacted all. In one of the worst periods, twelve women died, while an ensign later commented, “most all the women” who arrived with the 18th Foot in 1768 had died, specific number not recorded.228 I have identified at least twenty-seven military spouses. About two-thirds of these were officers’ wives, four were sergeants’ wives, and ten were associated with private men. They rarely made personal purchases, and entries suggest them buying or delivering these goods on behalf of a husband or father. The account of “John Scot the Barber” lists the sale of “1 Silk handkerchief [delivered to] his Wife,” while Captain Campbell’s shows “1 pair Women’s Shoes delivered Mrs. Campbell.”229 Women received cash payments for washing, sewing, or other services, like the making of candles, while others received goods in lieu of pay.230 The inability of separating husbands’ and wives’ purchases, in trying to correlate material culture to usage remains difficult, and it is probable that men bought goods for the household, to be used by their wives or family. In previous studies of Fort de Chartres, women are absent or are only connected to gendered artifacts. Keene utilized Stone’s classification system (1974) which assigned artifacts to groups, categorizing them based on their functional classifications. For example, within the discussion of the ‘household’ context, Keene examined “artifacts used in the maintenance and repair of domestic goods, the preparation and consumption of food, [and] the storage of goods” (2002, 176). Within these, Keene notes needles, scissors, and a variety of cooking and food-related articles like forks, ceramics, and kettles. In the ‘clothing’ group, he lists buckles, buttons, and thimbles (Ibid., 131). His discussion, however, does not relate to who used these items, but simply relegates them to ‘female’ Jennings Journal, 5/5/1768; Morgan-BW, 20/6/1768, A&CXVI, 276 and 331. Extract, 18/5/1769, The Pennsylvania Gazette, 17/8/1769. 228 Butricke-Barnsley, 12/2/1769 in Stiles 1864, 7. 229 JBFdC; AO, BWM. 230 Ledger FdC; AO, BWM. 226 227 147 activities as supportive roles, separating their position (and the accompanying material culture) from the active positions they occupied (Spector 1993, 33). Finding representatives artifacts does not implicitly indicate usage. Artifacts used by women and men, like buttons, buckles, or pins, have traditionally been placed into the ‘clothing’ group in the same way ceramics, wine bottles, or cutlery are placed into the ‘kitchen artifact group.’ This proves of little use when attempting to discuss identity and lives of a garrison without a clear stratigraphic context. Artifacts do not exist in single, monolithic, categories, especially when considering objects’ life histories.. Any of these same wine bottles, needles, or buttons could have been used by either gender, or both, at various times. Gendering artifacts, like the equating of sewing objects to women, negates the idea that “objects often have multiple meanings in identity construction” (Loren and Beaudry 2006, 256). While the documents distinguish between men’s and women’s needles, archaeology has not identified these differences. Accounts note prices for men’s and women’s shoes, but again, archaeological correlates do not exist. One shipment contained ninety-three pairs of “women’s best fine,” alongside “girls” shoes, in a variety of styles and materials.231 Detailed entries for stockings or other specific purchases show the differences crosscutting gender to emphasize class. Women’s “best” scissors sold for 9d, while women’s “common” scissors sold for 4d.232 Women’s “Gold Laced” shoes sold for 25 livres a pair, contrasting with ‘common’ shoes for half.233 Entries illustrate women, like “6 lb. of Corset binder,” the purchase of a petticoat by Captain Campbell, and stockings, mittens, and shoes.234 Wilkins offered diverse gifts intended for Indigenous women, pointing towards an acknowledgement of femininity, with necklaces, bed gowns, silk shifts, and petticoats given to allied chiefs’ wives.235 It is necessary to consider these intersectional categories. These allow us to interpret material culture through a nuanced Account Morgan, BWM. AF, BWM. 233 AO, BWM. 234 JK; JBFdC, BWM. 235 In Wilkins-Gage, 1/6/1772, GP111AS. 231 232 148 lens, revealing connections of groups’ identity (Insoll 2007). Beyond the notation of women at the fort, and specific roles and purchases related to them, Fort de Chartres’ assemblage offers few other specifics of how femininity factored into our discussion of identity. 5.3. Religion Religion also supported identity in Illinois, serving as a contrast between Britishness and Frenchness, and in reinforcing ethnic/national differences. French Catholic missions, priests, and churches dominate historical discussions of Illinois. As mentioned, French identity equated with Roman Catholicism, which extended to the conversion efforts of missionaries, arriving in the early 1700s. Through marriage, Indigenous women ‘became’ French, adopting the material culture of their husbands and following French laws, and this allowed for the consolidation of Catholic power in Illinois (White 2012). This contrasted with marriages involving Europeans and unbaptized Indigenous women. Father Gibault wrote his superior stating: “I should prefer that the illicit intercourse of the French with the Indian women be stopped.”236 Gibault feared these mixed-race children would remain absent from the church and complicate paternity and property issues. This same consideration of Catholic identity did not extend to Africans, illustrating the “hierarchy of peoples” amongst the French (White 2012, 142). The British approached religious identity differently. The “investment in Protestantism that first allowed the English, the Welsh and the Scots to become fused together” after 1689 (Colley 2005, 367-368) allowed for the perpetuation of Britishness in opposition to French Catholicism. Scottish Highlanders and Catholic/Protestant Irish began to be perceived as British within the context of military service (Conway 2001, 876). Although regulations forbade Catholic and Presbyterian Irish recruitment, these were seldom obeyed in practice, especially with regiments destined for North American service (Conway 2009, 119). In this context, then, how did Protestant or Catholic soldiers, officers, 236 Meurin-Briand, 14/6/1769, A&CXVI, 555. 149 and attached personnel practice their religious identity in Illinois? The remaining material culture, three partial crucifixes/crosses, leaves more questions than answers. Figure 5.4: The photo displays the reconstructed French altar of the chapel, which reflects structures at peer forts. (Photo author) The fort’s reconstruction includes a chapel and priest’s quarters. While the French garrison may have used the chapel, historian Natalia Belting pinpoints their services at the chapel in Chartres village.237 French documents do not reference a priest or missionary within the fort. Stirling’s inventory referenced a room in the guardhouse, which contained “2 Chambers and a Closet for the Chapel a lodging for the missionary [priest]” (Figure 5.4; SI). Later writings designated this a “Store for Flour” which indicates the British, like the 237 Belting-Booton, 16/12/1942, ISA. 150 French, never used the chapel for its intended purpose.238 Formal excavations did not occur within/near the chapel building. Outside of this structure, if archaeological provenance helped us to correlate the faunal assemblage as it related to the Irish garrison, it might illustrate higher rates of fish consumption, as seen at other multiethnic/religious garrisons (Pippin 2010, 81), but this has not occurred. After the French expulsion of the Jesuit order in 1764, remaining priests moved into Spanish territory.239 As a result, the official practice of religion within Illinois seemed intermittent, reliant upon periodic visits from itinerant French priests, or suggests British officers did not reinforce religion as part of the garrison’s identity. Snape’s work on the role of religion and the British military argues that the ethnic diversity of the army “demanded a pragmatic spirit of religious tolerance” by its officers (2005, 9). In practice, officers allowed regiments to honor their own saints’ days. Illinois’ regiments included chaplains, but rolls indicate that none journeyed there. Instead, perhaps, Snape’s “pragmatic spirit” came into play, with commanding officers like Stirling (42nd Foot), Farmar (34th Foot), and Reed (34th Foot) opting to avoid direct confrontations with French Catholics. Snape contends that officers attended “the established church of the kingdom in which they were stationed,” (2005, 9) suggesting Protestant officers and soldiers attended Catholic services elsewhere. One French priest in Illinois noted: The Protestants are often present at our holy mysteries, masses, and benedictions, standing during the time of the adoration, the elevation, and the benediction of the blessed sacrament … [Stirling and Farmar] at my request, had forbidden their people to attend—at least unless they were willing to do as the Roman Catholics did.240 The 42nd Foot, upon returning to Fort Pitt, heard services in Erse (Scottish Gaelic) on alternating Sundays.241 Reed caused increased strife between the garrison and the church. He forbade the priests from celebrating marriages unless they purchased a license from him, a clear indication of attempts to enrich himself, but also reflecting upon his Pittman-Gage, 17/12/1765, GP46AS; Wilkins-Gage, 1/6/1772, GP111AS. Wilkins-Gage, 25/7/1770, GP94AS. 240 Meurin-Briand, 11/6/1768, A&CXVI, 307. 241 Clarkson’s Journal, A&CXI, 355. 238 239 151 potential prejudice towards Catholics.242 With the arrival of the 18th Foot, circumstances appeared to change for Catholic Illinois. Father Gibault referenced Wilkins’ offer of support, and “As it is an Irish regiment where there are many Catholics, he has asked me to treat those who are of the faith as I would my parishioners.”243 A year later, Gibault’s superior, offered: You ought not to be surprised in the difference of the conduct of the commandants on account of the difference in religion in England. The Anglicans generally are less contrary than the Puritans ... [In Quebec] we do not even notice that we are under a Protestant government.244 Services may have been less identified as a French practice and broadened to include Irish Catholics and Protestants. With the return of the 18th to Fort Pitt, Major Hamilton requested a Presbyterian minister to preach, noting this regiment “had not heard a sermon for 4 years” (Dexter 1899, 46). In Illinois, formal services may have been replaced by weekly attendance at the Divine Service, the reading of a sermon and recitation from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, required by regulations (Snape 2005, 38). With the absence of chaplains in Illinois, any officer above a captain could perform these duties (Burley 2013, 84). Peer orders reference these services “performed every Sunday at the head of the Regiment,” with “all the Men off duty to attend.”245 It seems reasonable to assume officers instituted this requirement, in addition to the attendance of soldiers and officers at the Catholic church and helped to foster identity within these communities. 5.4. Illinois’ Communities: Under British Imperial Rule Illinois’ commanders attempted to project Britishness through the outwards displays of signs and symbols. The fort’s flag, regimental flags, soldiers’ red coats, and the sounds of fife and drum all pervaded Illinois’ communities. It served as part of the contingent and contextual aspects of identity, as individuals sought to mitigate the Meurin-Briand, 11/6/1768, A&CXVI, 307. Gibault-Briand, 15/6/1769, A&CXVI, 560. 244 Briand-Meurin, 26/4/1769, A&CXVI, 533-534. 245 Hawks 1759 in Spalding 1911, 3; Bouquet 1764 in Williams 1960, 39. 242 243 152 differences of their worlds. Britishness implied the structures, practices, and material culture associated with living under British rule. We should consider, then, how Britishness, through its imperial systems, was exported and implemented into Illinois. Did the British succeed or fail to establish British communities within established French settlements? Were some mechanisms and practices more successful in terms of conveying this system, or what limited their success? The British either could not, or did not want, to assimilate the French and Indigenous peoples. “No one imagined that those in the conquered territories in Canada had become Britons simply by taking an oath of allegiance” (Conway 2002, 73). Lacking Indigenous peoples’ viewpoints, we only have European perceptions of identity for Illinois. While Fort de Chartres’ commanding officer served as the de facto governor of this colony, quite often more practical approaches to their rule were necessitated by the population’s Frenchness. British acquiescence towards French modes of government, militia, and currency illustrates the difficulties they experienced in trying to impose this imperial identity. They wanted to manifest their conception of state, projecting from this garrison, to underscore their desire to transform communities, at least politically. Their substantial military presence, when contrasted to the numbers of the French (Figure 4.1), and when combined with the introduction of British traders, farmers, and civilian personnel, altered the composition of these settlements. British attempts to reorganize this land, under their dominion and influence also changed the ways these peoples interacted. The linkage of site, in reference to community, implies the connection of political, economic, and social relationships which might extend beyond one community to its surrounding settlements (Cusick 1995, 61). Here we must think about how communities of identity factored into Illinois’ role within the context of empire, or through its connections to other North American British colonies and French villages. If Britishness contrasted with Frenchness, or became nested within Europeanness, how did the mechanisms of government demonstrate these binary, or tertiary viewpoints? While the British sought to create a system for British Illinois, at least in terms of control, the 153 mechanisms of this influenced identity, and was impacted by more realistic approaches ‘on the ground.’ 5.4.1. Law and Government The Crown defined their imperial community through the manifestation of the State: its laws, courts, flags, and monetary systems. Using these, they sought to unify Illinois into a system reinforcing Britishness (Colley 2005), or at least, communities utilizing these British enactments of State. Britishness was channeled through the apparatus of government, and for the Crown, this meant the laws, trade regulations, currency, and legal/judicial systems which reinforced individuals as their subjects. This occurred early at Fort de Chartres, as illustrated by the fort’s name. The French had christened it ‘de Chartres’ after Louis, the son of France’s regent (Jelks et. al. 1989, 13). While Stirling had used this appellation, his successor, Major Farmar, opted to rename the fort and village after his colonel, Lord Frederick Cavendish, thus ‘Fort Cavendish.’246 Farmar attempted to create a linkage to a new national (and regimental) identity, but it did not last. His replacement, Major Reed, reverted to the original name, in a nod to locals who refused to call it Fort Cavendish, and its Frenchness remained. With the arrival of the British in 1765, the fort’s French commander insisted the British should strike the flag, as “he would never lower the Pavilion François.”247 This visual act demonstrated the changing nature of community identity and these flags served as visible reminders of the transition from French to British possession. The display and maintenance of the fort’s colors, located nearest the main gate, demonstrate this symbol of identity and community.248 Other Europeans reinforced this, as when a Spanish commander demanded a group of Indigenous Osage surrender their English flag.249 As emblems, they encoded empire through material culture and the rituals related to their Farmar’s Receipt, 13/12/1765, A&CXI, 123. Stirling in Carroon 1984, 45. 248 Warrants note payments for a flag staff, ropes, and their maintenance. Crown-Franks, GW32.33; Government-Winston, 2/2/1768, GW18.88; Government-Blouin, GW18.94; T 1/449, 8/5/1766, NA 249 Reed-BWM, 8/3/1768, GW18.108; Cole’s Account in Sullivan 1928, 392. 246 247 154 use. Routine events, like the flag’s raising at dawn, or lowering at dusk, offer perspective into the maintenance of cultural identity and served as a visual representation of empire. John Jennings, a trader, revealed this when travelling to Illinois. While approaching the fort via boat, he commented, “saw the St George’s Colours hoisted, which gave us great pleasure [and we] … hoisted the Union flag.”250 The presence of the flag of England, and that of the United Kingdom illustrate nested perceptions of identity. Similarly, regimental/unit flags bore the various symbols and emblems specific to them (discussed in Chapter Six), demonstrating another overlapping layer. Captain Stirling required French inhabitants to swear an Oath of Fidelity to the Crown, an act meant to foster “a sense of collectivity” which contrasted the French from those abandoning Illinois for Spanish territories.251 This oath was intended to fold French Illinois into a community of British subjects, while shoring up laws, taxation, and rule. Loyalty oaths like these were commonplace and seen to offer evidence of subjects’ “good intentions,” and promises “not only to respond immediately to any official call to arms, but to be actively vigilant against any plot” which might hurt the community (Hilton 2010, 12-13). After six months, just ninety had pledged.252 French emigration, combined with their overall reluctance to participate in the imperial process, proved an issue for British commanders. The continued contraband trade, where “the French and Spaniards on the other Side pass and repass with Pleasure with contraband Goods … to our great Disadvantage” suggests the French took loyalty oaths lightly.253 British reluctance, or inability, to put an end to this indicates the difficulties of imposing these regulations. The French complained about the lack of a civil government in Illinois, compelling action by British commanders. Stirling advised Gage of his continuance of French legal procedures and courts, and his appointment of a Frenchman to settle disputes “According to the Laws and Customs of the Country.”254 Pragmatically, commanders retained Jennings’ Journal, 6/4/1766, A&CXI, 176. Stirling-Gage, 18/10/1765, A&CXI, 108; MacSweeney 2011, 45. 252 Farmar-Gage, 08/4/1766, GP50AS. 253 Wilkins-Barrington, 5/12/1769, A&CXVI, 633. 254 Stirling-Gage, 15/12/1765, A&CXI, 124. 250 251 155 previous institutions and preserved the Frenchness of these communities, even bowing to Europeanness as an alternative, by folding the British systems into those of the French. Lieutenant-Colonel Wilkins “granted commissions of the peace to several people, both French and English … [and formed] a Court of Judicature” to answer French complaints.255 Surviving court records illustrate a variety of suits related to debt, trade, and property. The acceptance of these regulations, or their rejection, illustrates how people dealt with changing communities of identity. They show the disobedience to community rule and the sanctions or punishments assessed, necessary to “collectively uphold” the social order (Babic 2005, 68). These actions illustrate the realism of local commanders as decision makers working through policies established by authorities far away. In Illinois, an almost perpetual negotiation of “national identity and allegiance,” underscored expressions of identity (Smith and Hilton 2010, 5). Maintaining this national commitment, at least, required its policing, the maintenance of this “volitional” loyalty (Hilton 2010, 14). Law played a crucial part in this process, as the Crown sought to define acceptable behaviors within the context of these fluid or situational aspects. Court records reference the types of crimes or punishments levied and help us to understand the fort’s prison, absent archaeology. The British had inherited a structure measuring thirty-eight feet long (width not recorded), with “four prison cells of cut stone,”256 referenced as the “Black hole.”257 Imprisonment illustrated the Crown’s desire to enforce its laws and regulations within military and civilian communities. Wilkins confined a private “377 days for killing a Comrade in a Boxing Match,”258 while civilians were also incarcerated here259. Two British men were “confined in Fort-Chartres for Murder,”260 and Morgan was placed in custody quite a few times, over debts and other allegations.261 The French, as well, were kept here awaiting judgement, like traders Bloüin Butricke-Barnsley, 12/2/1769, A&CXVI, 497 and 455-474. Stirling-Gage, 18/10/1765, GP44AS. 257 Pownall-Gage, 14/12/1765, GP46AS. 258 Wilkins-Gage, 30/5/1770, GP92AS. 259 Morgan-Blouin, 12/1/1774; Morgan-Williamson, 20/1/1769, BWM. 260 Gage-Hillsborough, 7/10/1769, in A&CXVI30. 261 Morgan-BW, 2/4/1768, A&CXVI, 165. 255 256 156 and Clajon. A “Lady of One of our best Families in the Place was sent Prisoner from Kaskaskia to Fort de Chartres for purchasing a Piece of Meat from an Indian with a Pint of Rum.”262 The extension and implementation of law to Europeans linked them within the wider community. It also illustrates the role of the British commander, as the ex officio civil governor and chief judicial officer within this system. By using French precedents and systems, Britishness became more associated with Europeanness, with less clear distinctions between these communities. 5.4.2. The Militia The organization of the European population into a militia was another method used by commanders to create a sense of belonging, at least one contrasting with ‘outsider’ violence. While the French had their own militia, the British hoped to form a combined force which might better unite and protect their communities. Captain Forbes first mustered the militia, rationalizing the potential of “striking a terror into the Savages by showing them, that the French on our side the River and His Majesty’s British Subjects were now become one people.”263 Despite orders and loyalty oaths, the French men of Kaskaskia “were determined not to appear under Arms nor fight under our Colours.”264 They sought to sustain their Indigenous relationships despite these oaths, underscoring their continued loyalty to France and their interest in material gains. The British proffered their desire of Illinois as a community of one people, but the French problematized this. Wilkins later required inhabitants to assemble into districts to form militias, and to “Choose by plurality of Voices … two persons from the most respectable Inhabitants” to command them, regardless of national identity, a more pragmatic approach to the militia’s acceptance by the French, and one that reinforced class and Europeanness over nationality.265 Attempts to establish militias, composed of French and British civilians, promotes the conception of a communal defense as well as the commonality of experience Morgan-BWM, 10/12/1767, A&CXIV, 130; Morgan-Williamson, 20/1/1769, BWM. Forbes-Gage, 15/4/1768, GP76AS. 264 Ibid. 265 Wilkins-Gage, 25/12/1771, GP108AS. 262 263 157 and the experiences of these acts remind us that this communities do not have to imply positive, peaceful experiences. 5.4.3. Currency and Exchange The British system of exchange attempted to restructure how populations purchased goods in Illinois. The Crown sought to bring the standardization of their monetary system to these colonies, and through this, further regulation of the fur trade. The Currency Act of 1764 limited the amount of hard currency available (Conway 2015, 722). The imposition of the British pound over the French livre, and their subsequent use of bills of exchange, only exacerbated this lack of hard currency. General Gage would order Major Reed to “abolish all French Currency whatever … [the regiment] to draw Bills in [New] York Currency,” an effort he hoped brought Illinois’ French into conformity with French Canadians.266 Outside of hard currency, bills of exchange formed the basis of the British colonial economy. Bills could be drawn in Fiat currency (dollars), the paper money of the American colonies (Heldman 1980, 93), and/or exchanged for sterling. Bills of exchange allowed Illinois’ communities to draw credit upon Philadelphia-based traders, who exchanged those bills with merchants in London. Those bills were exchanged for hard currency from the government (Glaisyer 2004, 464). This system proved complicated, and delays in payments often occurred. Part of the concern with integrating a uniform approach to currency lay in how the British and French integrated their larger trade networks, i.e., the connections between Illinois and its exports/imports. While the British shipped goods to Philadelphia and onwards to Fort Pitt, they, like the French, also used the Mississippi River and New Orleans. British bills of exchange problematized these transactions. French farmers and traders expressed their frustration, “they were great Sufferers … as they were obliged to Sell them [these bills], to a Loss of fifty and Sixty Per Cent, to the Merchants of New 266 Gage-Reed, 6/9/1766, GP50AS. 158 Orleans.”267 For the French, accepting British bills of exchange meant having to redeem them at a substantial financial cost, threatening merchants with ruination. This loss of value pushed the French instead to barter for local credit from British traders. Morgan found he needed to allow people to ‘pay’ their bills in livestock, produce, and furs. “The traders goods were the only medium that could be used to purchase” provisions for the garrison.268 Merchants accepted foodstuffs as payments, sold these to the military as provisions, and received bills of exchange redeemable in London.269 The British Crown had hoped to utilize their own forms of currency as a way of control, regulating trade and creating uniformity, but were unsuccessful from the start. While Crown documents references payment warrants between British subjects and organizations using sterling or fiat dollars, the French system was still used at the local level by Illinois’ populations, as a rejection of British currency, or at least, a negotiated middle ground. Most of traders’ accounts in Illinois were listed in livres and sols, with government bills listing fiat currency. Figure 5.5: This image depicts the lone coin recovered through surface collection, a half-penny of uncertain date, but one from the reign of George II. (Photo author, Courtesy of the ISM) Croghan-Gage, 12/1/1767, A&CXI, 479. Gage-Cooper, 5/8/1767, T 1/461, NA. 269 Savelle 1932, 32; Proposals to Gage, 5/1/1767, A&CXI, 472. 267 268 159 The various payment methods illustrate the difficulty of recovering currency archaeologically. Paper decays. What few coins existed in country were removed. Within Fort de Chartres, a single British half-penny, well-worn and depicting the leftward-facing head of King George II (Figure 5.5), and one smooth, yet half-penny sized copper disc, survived. Given the fort’s role, the lack of coins may at first seem incongruous, but European monetary policies explain it. These exchanges illustrate how the British tried to impose their standards and policies upon the French settlements to transition it into a British economic system, one linked to the east coast and Britain, however unsuccessfully. Trade and barter existed within the local system, demonstrating the material culture involved. Auctions allowed for the recycling of materials within this system, and are listed in Illinois’ documents. What auctions illustrate is the value associated with objects, reinforcing their place within this cosmopolitan society. At the auction of the estate of Cahokia resident Monsieur Le Duc, Captain Campbell, late of the 34th Foot, obtained “3 Goblets… [and] a large Silver Soup Spoon” [151 livres] while Ensign Hutchins acquired “a box containing sundry plates and utensils” [250 livres].270 These substantial investments explain these individual’s desire to acquire the trappings of polite society, displayable articles of wealth. Alternatively, when Campbell left Illinois, his effects were auctioned off. Doctor Thomasson bought a decanter and backgammon tables. Captain Evans bought copies of a popular English periodical, The Spectator and six volumes of Military Discipline. Lieutenant Rumsey, late of the 42nd Foot, acquired “a parcel of French and English books.”271 These examples show British officers and personnel attempting to perform their Britishness through the acquisition of the goods, and through that, expressions of taste, fashion, and lifestyle, equating class and status to a larger Europeanness. 270 271 JBFdC, BWM. Ibid. 160 5.6. Negotiating, Evading, and Rejecting British Imperial Rule Britishness—as imperial system—was embraced by some, while others worked against this to retain Frenchness and control over these structures. These demonstrate the contextualization of identity. It was possible to adopt the system of Britain while not necessarily embracing Britishness. Individuals used identity to redefine their positions and status, sanctioned mechanisms of empire, and rejected or negotiated their places within its systems. Barter and trade with other Europeans, gifts, the Indigenous fur trade and French push-back on the British legal and trade systems illustrate the negotiation of status and alliances, the fluidity of agency. French and Indigenous communities struggled to maintain their lifestyles within British restrictions. Negotiation forced compromise with British commanders, but for others, outright rejection occurred. This is illustrated by the exodus of French people, and some Indigenous peoples, to the Spanish territories. For those who remained, trade and legal recourse allowed arbitration for consensus, as well as evasion, between European systems. For Indigenous Illinois, trade and alliance could serve these same purposes. Examining this trade and these alliances offers some notion of how Europeans and Indigenous peoples viewed the contextual nature of community, as ‘loyalty’ and friendship reflected the conditional aspects of their place within British Illinois. 161 Figure 5.6: This figure details the obverse of a “King’s Medal,” commemorating the alliance between the British and their allies in 1757. (Wikimedia Commons, Public Domain) Wilkins details the role commandants played in maintaining these alliances. He sought to bring villages under the King’s influence through ritual and material culture. For example, he detailed a rejection of British patronage when a Kaskaskia chief returned a “King’s Medal” (Figure 5.6). Others from his village came to Wilkins and requested he “make them a King or Chief in the place of the worthless fellow… [who had] displeased all his nation.”272 Wilkins rewarded their loyalty through ceremony, and gifted the community rum, tobacco, and vermillion. The new chief received a medal, a “Broad laced hat,” shirt, and laced jacket. Wilkins concluded “all went home well pleased.”273 Material culture could define how individuals fit into this alliance/community system and reflected the advantages of creating an ideational relationship by these practices. These same communities leveraged their position by requiring commanders to participate in their ceremonies. For example, offering condolences (‘burying the dead’) required apologies for past indiscretions and an expression of ‘sorrow’ for deaths. This allowed for the perpetuation of good faith. Material culture played a key role in this. In 272 273 WJ, 23/9/1769. WJ, 29/9/1769. 162 one example, Wilkins reported a visit of the entire Michigamea nation to condole on the loss of two of their chiefs to hostile tribes. “As the Custom … gave them 2 Strouds to cover the bodies, 4 Gallons of Rum.”274 The Michigamea were able to negotiate their place within the alliance through this ceremony. These reinforce how groups viewed their roles in the maintenance of the alliance and the position of their settlements within this context. In terms of Europeans, we have delineated the reluctance of the French to participate fully in British systems, and commanders mention their reluctance to accept the British into their communities. The French and Spanish also provided vigorous competition for control of the fur trade. One officer complained, “our good Friends on the other side will always be ready to Spirit them [Indigenous peoples] up to Mischief, as their Traders are the worst of People, and speak the Language of most of the Nations, being continually Marrying amongst them.”275 The British forbid the marriage of Europeans with Indigenous women, and while commanders in Illinois refused to sanction them, they still occurred within Indigenous villages.276 Another shift in European-Indigenous relations occurred through the British policy requiring this trade to occur under the watch of British officers or licensed traders, within the villages and forts. Regulations prohibited British traders from journeying to Indigenous villages, while French traders skirted these rules. The 1763 Proclamation Line sought to confine colonial expansion “beyond the Heads or Sources of any of the rivers which fall into the Atlantic … [as well as to] prevent the Traffic of wandering Traders, who by cheating and misusing the natives, frequently bring on national Quarrels,” like Pontiac’s war (1763).277 This inflated the price of British goods within Illinois, but also the government’s ability to regulate illicit French and colonial trade. French residents continued to express their frustrations to General Gage over perceived impositions by the fort’s commanders and traders, often seeking redress within Illinois’ civil court. In this way, they used the British system to challenge their WJ, 4/4/1769. Reed-Gage, 28/10/1767, A&CXIV, 101. 276 Gibault-Briand, 10/1769, A&CXVI, 618. 277 Barrington’s Plan, 10/5/1766, A&CXI, 234-235). 274 275 163 competition. Gage once commented: “the French particularly Condemn the Company of Baynton, Wharton and Morgan from Philadelphia, and the Commander for protecting them … The Quarrels have all taken their Rise about the Loaves and Fishes.”278 These French traders sought lucrative supply contracts and its attendant trade. British systems and companies threatened that control. Frenchman Louis Viviat sued Morgan over the payment of debts. Lieutenant-Colonel Reed took Morgan into custody, placing him within the fort’s prison until the trial.279 These illustrate the extents to which Britishness, as imperial and political identity, could be exported into Illinois and emphasize French pushback. The imposition of Britishness-as imperial identity-through the establishment of laws, courts, and trade regulations sought to further this identification. What we have learned, though, is that the British were limited in their success. While the communities of Illinois saw significant shifts in demography, Britishness did not supersede Frenchness, or at times, was nested deeper in a cosmopolitan acknowledgement of Europeanness. Villages remained culturally French in terms of regulations and governmental policies. While the British attempted to impose their laws, trade hopes, and judicial system upon Illinois, commanders in the field gave way to the local, French styles of government. Pragmatism was more important to commanders for establishing a peaceful, and commercially viable, rule than it was about making French Illinois British. Within the militia, Europeanness further blurred communities of identity. Whether it was currency, or the fort’s name, Britishness did not last, and bent to French precedents. 5.6. Chapter Conclusions British communities of identity went beyond mere classifications of ethnicity or nationality, and were crosscut by other identities, like status, profession, gender, or religion. At times, Britishness was minimized, as individuals’ relationships amongst class or profession trumped this monolithic display. As with ethnicity, nationality, and race, 278 279 2/4/1771, GP20ES. Morgan-BW, 2/4/1768, A&CXVI, 165. 164 these communities of identity were subject to negotiation and challenge. Traders’ accounts detail the nuances of purchasing power, and potential preferences, or specific occupations amongst this garrison community. This elaborates upon the specific material culture intended for, or used by, Illinois’ non-elites. While little of the assemblage has been attributed to women at the fort, the documents outline their presence within the fort and surrounding it. Traders’ accounts show specific purchases made for women, as well as their role within this community. The contextualization of class as it relates to gender can reveal interesting details about the types, quantities, and qualities of goods associated with women. Alternatively, few examples of religious identity are visible archaeologically. Structures include the fort’s chapel, but documents allude to garrisons worshipping in the nearby village. Religion, as identity, exist in the documents, showing differences between British Protestants and French Catholics, but also how French Catholics viewed Irish Catholics. These differences underscore the difficulty in ascribing a monolithic Britishness within Illinois. Britishness could not be exported onto Illinois’ French and Indigenous populations, yet the Crown attempted to bring them into their system through their courts, regulations, currency, and militia. These methods were subject to negotiation and challenge. The British found few ways to integrate them successfully into their commercial, political, and legal frameworks, as subjects of the Crown. The French villages remained outside the British conception of community, retaining their own identities. The next chapter will discuss the variety of structures, practices, and material culture used by the military to create and sustain a British martial identity, and offer a contextualization of the relationships between status, profession, and Europeanness. 165 Chapter 6: The British Garrison & Martial Identities This chapter explores Britishness as it applies to the garrison. It examines how the military used space, structures, and material culture to create and maintain distinct identities, and contextual/nested communities of identity within these. The physical structures of the fort defined the theater in which the activities of these communities occurred, and this sphere expanded to enclose military detachments within civilian communities. Spatial elements demonstrate the creation and maintenance of a military identity while supporting the institutional structure of Fort de Chartres. These systems provided collective experiences for private men while reinforcing status differences between officers and soldiers. Physical structures help to situate life within the garrison, providing a commonality of experience essential to new recruits and revolving units. Control over space allowed for the regulation of movement and activities. Commanding officers dictated the allocation of these spaces, reinforcing status and gender divisions, all as a part of creating a soldierly identity. Practices allowed for the differentiation within the fort through rank-as-status divisions, and between companies, platoons, or occupational specialization, like the grenadiers and artificers. Material culture further reflected these, as seen through the archaeological assemblage. These communities, nested or contextualized within a martial identity, further demonstrate Britishness. 6.1. Insiders and Outsiders: Military Detachments within Civilian Communities Before discussing this garrison community, we must address the extension of politico-military control into the French communities through the detachments of soldiers within these villages. The material culture, physical structures, and practices of these small military units helped to define Britishness and its martial identity. In turn, this supported the extension of the values and cultural attitudes of these troops. Here is where conceptions of regimental identity, and the connections of detachments to the main garrison at the fort, become partially ‘imagined’ for its members, as they were outside of 166 daily contact, although all detachments were within a day’s ride. With military units positioned within (French) communities, the contrast of Britishness was more evident (Conway 2001, 893). Britishness as a connection to the military, after decades of warfare, provided for the identification of these troops with a “masculinist version of the national identity,” supported by symbols, material culture, and practices (Wilson 1995, 76). Examining those stationed within Cahokia and Kaskaskia, we might better understand the contextual nature of these communities of identity. Within Chartres village, Prairie du Rocher, Kaskaskia, and Cahokia, European peoples traded, worked, and experienced a commonality of experience. No arbitrary barriers were created between communities, at least overtly, as the British occupied French-styled accommodations, the poteaux-en-terre (post in earth), timber-framed structures (Ekberg 1998; Figure 6.1) within these villages. Some soldiers, officers, and their families lived in local housing, outside of the barracks of these detachments. Here, Eurocommunities were identified in contrast to enslaved Africans or Indigenous peoples. Community identity, as it existed, rested upon the legacy of the French but was contextualized by the influx of British soldiers and civilians into the spaces between fort and villages. These areas, plus the locations of Spanish/French villages across the river, meant more potential for the negotiation, or outright rejection, of British community, whether socially or in terms of economic and political acts. 167 Figure 6.1: This figure shows the vertical ‘post in earth’ style of colonial French architecture at Fort Michilimackinac, a style replicated in Illinois. (Photo Author) The British did not send a detachment into Prairie du Rocher, about three miles away. Its size and location were deemed unimportant to the garrison, and neither British traders nor civilians bothered to relocate there (Brown 2013, 165). It retained its Frenchness. However, commanders did send units into Cahokia and Kaskaskia. These projected Britishness through their practices and material culture, but also linked them to the larger military community at Fort de Chartres. Trade connected them to the imagined community of the British empire. This expansion included the British workforce, families, and traders. Village inhabitants saw the flag, heard the drums, and were reminded of the British garrison through the displays of uniforms and practices of drill. Through traders and military flowed material culture, and this allowed for the negotiation, display, and contestation of identity. However, in no way did these communities, outside of their garrisons, become British. The British sent their first detachment to Kaskaskia. In 1764 the French had abolished the Jesuit order, seized their possessions and sold their properties (Carter 1910, 168 75). Believing Kaskaskia to be the primary shipping depot for all of Illinois, Major Farmar seized Jesuits lands and buildings for their use, sending an ensign, serjeant, drummer, and twenty-one soldiers to garrison these properties.280 A French priest complained, “I shall always see with grief the chapel and the cemetery profaned to serve as a garden and storehouse by the English.”281 By 1769, the Crown paid for the “Digging a Trench … and Assisting in Setting up part of the Pickets [stockade] in it,” all for the “better security of the Troops and Commerce.”282 They dubbed this fortified house ‘Fort Gage,’ (Figure 6.2) a demonstrable, controlled space. Their presence served, by extension, as protection for British traders, who had also purchased homes, public trading spaces, and warehouses within the village. Figure 6.2: This figure conceptualizes the fortified Jesuit house, known as ‘Fort Gage,’ in Kaskaskia. No known period illustrations have been found. (Oaks 1976, 186) While most soldiers lived within the fortified barracks, others resided outside it, visible representations of Britishness. Lieutenant Fowler and his wife rented one house 12/1765, 34th Rolls, WO 17/143, NA; JAK, 22/5/1766, BWM; Government-Escott, 13/9/1766, GW15.58; Government-Provisions, 19/1/1767, GW15.55; Account-Carpenters, GW17.71. 281 Meurin-Briand, 11/6/1768, A&CXIV, 304. 282 Payment-Work, 4/1769, GW25.105; Receipt-Workers, 1769, GW25.102; Crown-BWM, 26/4/1769, BWM. 280 169 while private men leased another.283 This micro-community of British soldiers sought control of Kaskaskia from 1766 through 1778, six years after the abandonment of Fort de Chartres. With the advent of the American Revolution, these troops were removed to other frontier forts, and Kaskaskia was taken by the Americans.284 Still, this detachment perpetuated British martial identity and presence, with continued construction of defensive works, but also through interactions with civilians, trade, and public displays. Officers similarly seized Jesuit properties in Cahokia. Captain Forbes described these as “the best and most commodious house in this Country,” large enough to provide housing for an officer and twenty men.285 Four days after a small group of hostile Potawatomi or Kickapoo attacked a British trading house, killing three of their servants, Lieutenant-Colonel Wilkins sent forty soldiers and officers to this village.286 As at Kaskaskia, soldiers increased fortifications to stabilize their presence.287 This extended British surveillance and control over the miles between Cahokia and Chartres. They could defend local agriculture, trade routes, and maintain their management over local Indigenous peoples. Records do not offer information about the barracks and living conditions in Cahokia, other than the presence of a good stockade and an oven built within the troop’s ‘house’ (Brown and Dean 1981, 70:8:22:1). British traders had residences, stores, and warehouses within this village, selling their wares to its population. The British presence, of necessity, allowed for the expansion of British trade, but also the military/governmental presence within this community, necessary with the presence of the French/Spanish settlement of St. Louis, just across the river. 6.2. Identities: Britishness, Status, and the Military The British military, like the rest of society in the eighteenth century, was hierarchical, class-based, and with specific rules and expectations (habitus/structuration) Hutchins-Wilkins, 29/7/1769, GP86AS; Brown and Dean 1981, 70:11:23:1; Morgan-Rumsey, 12/4/1770, BWM. Gage-Wilkins, 9/3/1772, GP109AS. 285 Forbes-Gage, 23/6/1768, GP78AS. 286 Hanson-Wilkins, 24/4/1770, GP92AS. 287 Wilkins-Gage, 30/5/1770, GP92AS. 283 284 170 which differentiated gentlemen (officers) and the common men (rank and file). Within this society, space, structures, and material culture relate to the performance of this status. Cultural differences, as they relate to military ranks, reflect the experiences, knowledge, and displays of taste, a cosmopolitan Europeanness. At Fort de Chartres, the military utilized the garrison’s buildings, regulated movements and spaces, and demonstrated their understandings of status through their use of material culture. This section examines space, practice, and structure, as well as material culture, to contextualize the separation of officers and soldiers. I will examine the practices instilling this martial identity upon the common men, as a component of Britishness, through the embodiment of the soldier and through the practices, materials, and actions which restricted and controlled his body. Lastly, I examine instances of soldier and officers contextualizing these identities and values, as some pushed back against this rigid hierarchical system. 6.2.1. Officers and Private Men The aristocracy dominated the army, as exemplified through the buying of commissions. About two-thirds of officers’ commissions were obtained through purchase, where a man of means could enter the service by buying a place as an ensign, before ascending “the ranks by purchasing vacancies that appeared above them as officers retired, sold out or transferred” (Houlding 1981, 100). This system replicated Georgian society, an “exclusive club, or brotherhood, whose members were bound together” by shared values (Frey 1981, 118). Class-conscious, the hierarchy of officers, subalterns, noncommissioned officers, and private men is reflected at Fort de Chartres in how these men used specific materials, when and where they used them, and the differences in their quantity and quality. This community was composed of nested and intersectional communities, based on this system of status and rank, with its own standards, practices, and values (Conway 2021, 59). Those within were constantly reminded of their place. The impact of structuring behaviors and bodies will be discussed here, as they supported Britishness and British perceptions of a martial identity. This martial identity encoded the community’s hierarchical differences, in part, to allow for the regulation of 18th century 171 warfare, but also as a reflection of a symbolic patriarchal role for officers and through definitions of masculinity. The strictures of eighteenth-century warfare, dictated by its technology, meant the tactics emphasized these rank differences. As mentioned, Britishness within the military reflected the structures (practices and resources of societal reproduction a la Giddens 1984), but also the habitus (habitual actions and routines a la Bourdieu 1990). The strictures of warfare focused upon ‘minimizing’ violence, at least in terms of its regulation by officers. The characteristic differences between officers and private men reflected wider European values equating a sense of honor with gentlemen, allowing for the use of ‘honorable’ violence while restraining the chaotic nature of the lower classes. Military writers from this period often reference the need for discipline and subordination to instill this (Figure 6.3), and the British embraced this as a means “to make it possible for one group of people (the officers) to completely subordinate another group of people (the enlisted), such that the latter will both kill and be killed on command—and only on command” (Merrill 2015, 22). Correct discipline and subordination allowed for the creation of “harmonious action in the field” (Frey 1981, 86), and this concordant activity translated into regimented movements, firing of muskets, and shared experiences. 172 Figure 6.3: This figure details advice offered to officers regarding subordination in 18th century British armies. (Stevenson 1770, 55) Military manuals, popular throughout this period, reflect this, although Merrill cautions us that these manuals described “the army as it ought to be, rather than the army as it actually was” (2015, 9). Thomas Simes, a British captain, advocated for subordination because “a great many of the lower rank are void of honor” (1778, 29). Captain Bennett Cuthbertson wrote of the “natural profligacy of the lower class of Men” (1777, 129). Officers embodied the best attributes of this hierarchical society, embracing a loyalty to King, Country, and Honor (Hensley 2010, 7-8; Merrill 2015, 147). Officers could use these values to instill proper discipline, which lead to the more ‘civilized’ composition of violence. This is referenced in Illinois, as General Gage warned Lieutenant-Colonel Wilkins to keep his soldiers “under a proper Discipline and give no Cause to the Inhabitants to accuse them of Rapacity, violence, or Licentiousness.”288 All of this underscores the hierarchical differences in status as it related to duties, living conditions, 288 27/7/1771, GP104AS. 173 and material culture. To do this, the military needed to establish the social practices which necessitated soldiers’ subservience. Figure 6.4: This figure suggests the role of officers played in relationship to the troops. Cuthbertson compares a good officer to a ‘fond Parent.’ (1777, vii). To create this subordination, officers had to be perceived as their social betters, further reflecting Georgian society. Soldiers had to accept the idea that officers looked out for their best interests, ceding their agency and control to their officers. In this, references to this patriarchal/parental relationship abound (Figure 6.4). This is discussed in detail in Way (2005), Frey (2010), and Merrill (2015), who integrate martial understandings of this paternalism situated within eighteenth-century masculinity. Within British society, wealth and status gave individuals “the authority to direct the actions of the poor,” bestowing the powers “fathers rightfully exercised over their children” (Merrill 2015, 65). One of the key responsibilities of the notion of officers-as-parents relates to control over the private men as it related to their pay, supplies, and provisioning. From their meager pay, officers withdrew fees for supplies, food, and medical care, referenced as stoppages or offreckonings. Frey references this control as exemplifying the “Oedipal situation which characterized relations” between ranks, where “father-surrogates” became the fountainhead of necessary articles, as well as rewards and opportunities (2010, 135). This placed the men in the position of “dependent children … subjugated thoroughly to the will of their paternal commanders” (Way 2005, 1). Officers even controlled pay disbursements, emphasizing their paternal role over what were seen as ‘irresponsible’ children likely to spend the whole of their funds on alcohol, women, or frivolities 174 (Cuthbertson 1777). The structures created by this pay and stoppage system forced a dependency upon the private men, reinforcing paternalism and the martial community as ‘family.’ As we will see, soldiers did not meekly accept this, and often pushed back. A last element in contextualizing martial Britishness expands upon this conception of masculinity. This thesis has discussed femininity within Illinois, and this section examines masculinity. Through propaganda and the earliest stages of enlistment/recruiting, Britishness equated to patriotic violence (Duffy 1998, 31). Officers appealed to a martial ideal of, “making soldiers the manliest of men. Conferring hypermasculinity on soldiers achieves the military objective of preparing them to kill and be killed” (Way 2005, 4). Within Fort de Chartres, this characteristic translated into the propensity and potential of violent action. Brutality and bravery, positioned within chivalry, contrasted with “craven effeminacy,” and offered a contextualization of the traits seen as necessary for this “martial masculinity” (Hurl-Eamon 2015, 166; Merrill 2015, 117). We can see this through the relationship of weapons, embodiment, and the restrictions placed upon soldiers by the military hierarchy. Within the military, questions of masculinity, as they relate to qualities and threats to its portrayal, abound. Manliness is “inseparable from class,” and defined “not in opposition to women, but in opposition to men of other classes” (Merrill 2015, 12). For the military, specific characteristics of masculinity were to be emphasized, or recontextualized, mostly in relation to proper subordination given by lower-class men to their officers. Officers controlled most aspects of soldiers’ lives, treating them “as perennially young males who had not achieved their majority” (Way 2005, 4) as an expression of this paternal masculinity. Baule’s study of the 18th Foot illustrates this, as Lieutenant Chapman was accused of the rape of a soldier’s wife (2014, 64). Captain Evans, Cahokia’s commander, “allegedly took the wife of a private man… as his own,” and when the man came to reclaim her, Evans beat him “with a loaded Whip” (Ibid., 102). These perceptions of masculinity, as they relate to status/class, had the potential to allow for officers to overextend their reach and to encourage private men to push back against these strictures to reclaim or preserve their own perceptions of masculinity. 175 Complicating this issue is the threat of effeminacy. This relates, in part, to the material culture related to clothing and the embodiment of the military. Britishness, as discussed, reflected an understanding of Frenchness. The French were defined as “decadent,” and this soon came to be equated with “the aristocratic, the foppish … the dependent and the timid,” or effeminacy (Colley 2005, 5; Wilson 1995, 76). Within Britain, critics connected the upper class and military to a decline in the national character (HurlEamon 2015, 166), one increasingly associated with the effeminacy brought about by their connections to the French, and the nature of taste and style.289 “Georgian army officers were frequently associated with effeminacy, and condemned for their addiction to fancy uniforms, gallantry, and the niceties of politeness” (Linch and McCormack 2013, 155). Soldiers defensive of their masculinity and their status struggled with the ‘niceties of politeness,’ not because of the fashionable or cosmopolitan associations with the French, but instead because the uniformity of dress became associated with an ‘unmanly’ subordination, removing their individuality (Merrill 2015, 126). This may have propelled some of the issues related later in this chapter, where violence, court martials, and desertion contextualized their expectations and performances of masculinity. 6.2.2. Britishness as Europeanness: Linking to Peers Contextually, a British identity linked to specific positioning within the social order, reflecting crosscutting categories of status, occupation, and importance. With documents written by officers, we can only interpret the perspective of the rank and file through their court testimonies, which suggest soldiers’ acquiesce to this hierarchy, their use of the system to their own advantage (like patronage and promotion), and their resentment and rebellion towards the hierarchy of military identity. British officers considered themselves part of a larger Europeanness, relating cosmopolitan and imperial linkages to those of similar status, across nationalities. The profession, an ‘occupational fraternity,’ connected European officers while underscoring the commonality of experience and lifestyle through the uniformity of dress, weapons, and tactics. 289 For more British perceptions of French effeminacy, see Conway 2002. 176 Serving in other nation’s militaries was a way the Irish and Scots, for example, found opportunities outside of Britain. Conway discusses the “professionalism … at the heart of ‘Military Europe’… that united military men of different armies” (2011, 278). European soldiers experienced a commonality of experience and conditions which connected them. The ‘shorthand’ of practices, routines, and material culture were clear to military men. This shared knowledge was more difficult for outsiders (i.e., civilians) to understand (Conway 2021, 60), further separating them from this segment of the population. Illinois offers examples of this, with British officers regaling peers like Spanish and French officers and officials. These moments encapsulate the performance of identity as professional or social equals, transcending nationality. Lieutenant-Colonel Wilkins entertained and was entertained by the Spanish governor, Don Pedro Piernas, at St. Louis. Wilkins informed Gage that Piernas had received them “with all the Ceremony & politeness my Situation & Circumstances would admit of,” which included cannon salutes.290 Later, Wilkins again journeyed to meet him, and reported “we were Received … in Great pomp & State … and all dined together in the greatest Elegance.”291 Exchanges of ‘pleasantries’ with peers like this demonstrate the societal structures which necessitated the material culture and practices associated with performing this cosmopolitan Europeanness aligned with class. “Material culture is central to our interpretation of the performance and the appearance of capitalism, colonialism and consumption” (DellinoMusgrave 2005, 238). Officers’ consumption of European goods like French, Spanish, and Portuguese wines show Britishness as an expression of taste. British officers purchased Asian goods for their exoticness, but clothes, mannerisms, and other objects reflected French styles (Conway 2011, 119). Through these, they demonstrated cultured behaviors, knowledge, and mastery of these to their social peers, regardless of their nativity, the habitus by which they identified themselves (Bourdieu 1990, 56-61). 290 291 Wilkins-Gage, 30/5/1770, GP92AS. Wilkins-Gage, 25/7/1770, GP94AS. 177 The experiences of this aristocratic officer corps helped to shape these tastes, as officers were often educated abroad in universities or military academies (Conway 2021, 71; Linch and McCormack 2014, 33). Europeanness, could, and often did, supersede Britishness in Illinois, where aristocratic Europeanness translated into the reading of continental thinkers.292 In Cuthbertson’s recommendation for young officers, he suggests they acquire “some branches of polite and useful knowledge, particularly French” (1777, 2). Accounts detail purchases of books, including a “parcel of French” books, a copy of Discipline Militaire by Guillaume Le Blond, Montesquieu’s (1748) The Spirit of Laws in French, Fairfax’s translation of Jerusalem Delivered (1600), and Voltaire’s Philosophical Pocket Dictionary.293 These examples support the contextualization of Britishness as Europeanness, as will be further demonstrated, later this chapter. 6.2.3. Nested and Intersectional Identities Within this discussion of martial Britishness lay other communities of identity, which sometimes transcended status or rank. The “internalized structures, schemes of perception, conception, and action” of habitus offered the potential for a much wider variety of groupings (Bourdieu 1997, 86). Within this discussion lays the identification of regimental, company, or occupational uniqueness. For military leaders, the regimental identification of soldiers (and officers) provided the structures of subordination and discipline. A lack of group cohesion, due to shifts of its personnel, presented a “Danger to which the Discipline of the Army is exposed.”294 Regimental identity offered stability to the role of the private soldier, and his uniforms and accoutrements helped to visibly demonstrate his loyalty and position. Even within regimental identification, soldiers formed communities based on their company, squad, mess, or fatigue units. “The unit with which a soldier served was a focal point for his loyalty” (Linch and McCormack 2013, 156). The commonality of experience, JBP; JFdC; JBFdC, BWM. Ibid. 294 Shelburne-Gage, 14/11/1767 in A&CXI, 105. 292 293 178 and desire to protect their fellow mess or company-mate, offered bonds which could transcend nationality and ethnicity. Conway positions these loyalties as important, if not more, than national or regional affiliations (2021, 26). The structures, spaces, and material culture affiliated with these groups reproduced the ‘social cohesion’ necessary for those so far from home. A more modern example of this is described in John Hockey’s work, Squaddies (1986), which explores the lives of private soldiers within the later 20thc British army, and relates regimental and squad cohesion to loyalty, conformity of practice, and commonality of experience. Recruiting was the responsibility of regimental commanding officers, and this often meant pulling men from the same geographical areas. This might imply some companies and regiments were composed of soldiers who knew each other or demonstrate the influence of officers “who used local allegiances to attract enlistees,” solidifying the identity of regimental recruits (Conway 2001, 877). The experiences of training, drill, fatigues, and deployment created a commonality of shared experiences, which formed these companies and regiments into individual communities of identity, a “mental construct where members…feel a sense of cohesion and shared identity” (MacSweeney 2011, 19). The 42nd Foot was composed of soldiers from Argyll, Perthshire, and the eastern Highlands, recruited from a handful of prominent clans (Dziennik 2011, 24). The 34th Foot was raised in East Anglia.295 The 18th Foot, although based in Dublin in the 1760s, was comprised of recruits from all over Ireland (Baule 2014, 12). Regimental officers also drew in soldiers in Philadelphia, adding colonials (of many nationalities) to this mix. Within the context of recruiting, loyalty and identity might also be found in the contextualization of the military as a paternalistic institution, one where this symbolic kinship gave way to actual kinship. Cuthbertson advised officers, “If brothers come together, as Recruits, and are not drawn to the same Company, it would be cruel to separate them” (1777, 17). Fathers, sons, and brothers enlisted into the companies and regiments, furthering these bonds of loyalty and community groups. Frey’s study extends the loyalty of blood relations to the symbolic kinship of these units. “The army was a 295 National Army Museum (nam.ac.uk) 179 brotherhood of men. The complete severance of accustomed social relations was compensated, at least in part, by the acquiring of comrades” (1981, 118). While biographical information is scarce for Illinois’ enlisted men, an examination of named individuals illustrates at least thirty pairs of men with the same surname, two from the 34th Foot and twenty-eight men of the 18th Foot. In several cases, three men shared the same surname. Most of these were private soldiers, while others served as corporals, ensigns, and sergeants, as well as two drummers. Further research could illustrate family relationships between these men, linking them as cousins, siblings, or fathers and sons, but at this point, I only allude to these recruiting practices (Brumwell 2002, 78) and their potential bonds. As an example of other intersectional identities, we can examine the concept of ‘occupational solidarity’ as it existed within the British military. Hagist (2020) and Brumwell (2002) have researched the occupational backgrounds of soldiers, linking them to specific occupational duties ascribed to them. This may offer an additional community of identity for skilled soldiers. Hagist proposes that 3-5% of soldiers had served as tailors prior to enlisting, a job which translated into a continuance of this trade within the ranks (2020, 32). Shoemakers also served within the ranks, with one assigned per company (Brumwell 2002, 77). These skills excused these micro-communities from regular duties to perform these tasks, which also often earned them a slight bonus in pay. At Fort de Chartres, records have indicated at least two regimental tailors attached to the 18th Foot, but no shoemakers outside of traders’ employees. A last community of identity could reference those ‘specialized skills’ within the armed services. Beyond the infantry, those who had learned the art of surveying and engineering, or those who served with the regimental ‘music’ or grenadiers may have sought association with others of similar backgrounds. The documents of the 18th Foot list at least eight private men who worked as artificers or masons, performing construction/repair projects on behalf of the Engineers’ Department. Engineers Philip Pittman and Thomas Hutchins spent considerable time in Illinois. A company of grenadiers accompanied the 18th Foot to the fort, stationed in Cahokia. Each British 180 infantry regiment was assigned one drummer per company and lesser numbers of fifers (Hagist 2020, 47)., and in Illinois, at least two fifers served, as did eleven drummers. These specialized labor units, composed of men with semi- and skilled knowledge, were associated with specific material culture: ink, quills, paper, and tools. Their work at these duties may have allowed for their association with others of their group, delineating themselves from the rank and file. 6.3. Differences in Status: Ordering Space, Structure, and Material Culture The physical space of this garrison was organized around function, but reflects the relationship of status and rank. Space and structures dictated movements and activities within. While I reference the structures as the actual physical buildings in which these men lived and worked, it also suggests the “rules implicated in the production and reproduction of social systems,” and considers associated material culture (Giddens 1984, 23). The military’s use of specific goods underscored status, as did the regulation of space and buildings, reinforcing the social hierarchy and transmitting power. The ‘luxury’ at the heart of this separation suggests the “material expression of social prestige,” in the goods utilized (Dellino-Musgrave 2005, 235). Martial Britishness reflected the qualities of subordination, masculinity, and paternalism, and these communities mirrored these values. The materials, structures, and spaces dictated to the soldiers and officers who was, or was not, a part of their community of identity, while reflecting the rhythms of regimental life. 6.3.1. Spaces and Structures Space and structures were utilized to provide a clear delineation of the social hierarchy, and this relates to material culture and associated practices, which underscored Britishness. Differences did not solely regulate the separation of officers and private men, as it is important to note the presence of civilians within the fort. Within the walls, garrison personnel lived and worked; artisans and laborers, military families, and the fort’s internal and extramural components negated the clear “separation of military and 181 civilian functions” of space (James 2011, 171; Greene 2019, 150). As a military community, the nature of the fort—its pathways, buildings, and features, all structured movements (Wallas 2015, 72), providing a “hierarchy” of access which demonstrates authority and discipline but also links to the differential status of rank. The fort’s architecture created a physical perimeter which represented the boundaries of Britishness, separating insiders from outsiders. These physical surroundings impacted the structuring of lives within and point to a greater understanding of the zones of British control radiating outwards to the detachments serving within other settlements. It is important to illustrate the role of trade, civilian workers, and extramural military homes and detachments to problematize the porousness of the fort’s walls (Pezzarossi 2018, 288). Through the fort’s structures, the military sought to perpetuate this martial community and identity, although those with access to rank or wealth could accentuate their material differences and space considerations. Moving inwards, buildings and their inhabitants further orient us towards perceptions of identity related to status/rank. The placement of structures within helps to organize movement and surveillance and can contextualize military groups. 182 Figure 6.5: This figure shows a Google satellite image, upon which I have labelled the fort’s structures. Although floods obliterated the southern bastions, wall, and gate, I used photoshop to ‘paste’ them into their locations, based on SI. 6.3.1.1. The Officers’ Quarters Investigating the size, location, and contents of the fort’s buildings inform upon just who, and how, the garrison lived and reproduced their social hierarchy. Separate accommodations for the commandant and officers illustrate status differences, as did the layouts and spaces available for those within these buildings. Officers, soldiers, families, and servants experienced life within a variety of social contexts in these public and private spaces. The edifices dictate the differences in activities conducted within, and their locations reflect upon issues of privacy, security, and the movement of men and materials. 183 The material culture recovered from these areas, combined with contextual details form the documents, can help to differentiate status as it relates to these artifacts and structures. Officers’ residences (Figure 6.5) were identical in size and layout. Preliminary archaeological work in the 1920s and 1930s located their original foundations, later confirmed by archaeology (Brown 1976). Workers capped and rebuilt foundations on top of their original footings.296 Outside of these two buildings, archaeologists detected stone drains, as mentioned. Two drain trenches lead inward from the curtain walls to these buildings (Keene 1988, 1-7). Archaeologists recovered a wide variety of artifacts deposited within, and these may relate to these officers. I believe these drains relate to the wells and latrines of the fort, as at least four latrines are associated with the northern and western curtain walls. These drains may have operated as part of a ‘flushing’ system, like those at Louisbourg in Nova Scotia, where enclosed drain casements were also present (Fry 1984, 65-66) and Fort Chambly, east of Montreal, where well placements connected latrines to wooden and stone drains (Cox 1979; Beaudet and Cloutier 1989, 94), allowing for their manual sluicing. While space does not allow for this argument here, I hope to address this in a later article. 296 Excavation Data FY74, ISA. 184 Figure 6.6: The illustration depicts the Commandant’s house (1971 Tourist Pamphlet, ISA). The lower figure is a labelled image illustrating potential room designations, based on documents and foundations. (Google Maps). The French had used the western building for the commander and the eastern for their governmental representative.297 The British used one for officers, with the Commanding officer inhabiting his own residence.298 This allowed for the separation of 297 298 SI. Pittman 1770 in Hodder 1906, 45. 185 commissioned officers from the private men, and permitted the utilization of private spaces by their families and servants. Due to their status and roles in enforcing the subordination of the private men, officers insisted they had the right to “actual private lives and a concurrent right to privacy” which the barracks lacked (Merrill 2015, 78). Their location within the fort contextualizes how the military controlled the movements of people, as these quarters, in the rear of the fort, were farthest from the busy southern gate, and a bit more separated from the din and smells of the garrison. The Commandant’s building served as a secure location for the storage of military records, supplies, and personal goods, with windows allowing for the surveillance of activities and personnel within the fort. Their construction made them prestigious buildings. Measuring 2,880 ft2 (267.56 m2), these stone buildings contained kitchens and dining-rooms as well as bedrooms, closets, cellars and attics.299 The commandant’s quarters also included a “a Pidgeon House … under which is a Well.”300 They provided a degree of privacy and personal space, which allowed for entertaining and group cohesion in larger, public rooms. Based on the foundations of these (Figure 6.6), the largest room, subdivided around a fireplace on the east side, likely served as the commandant’s bed chamber. Original descriptions detailed five closets for servants, three at the west end, sharing a wall (and heating) with the kitchen, large enough for a bed and small wardrobe.301 Regulations allowed commanding officers two private men as servants, and junior officers were entitled to one (Hagist 2020, 32). Servants attended the officers, maintained their accommodations and cooked their meals. Officers had the status and wealth necessary to afford the paraphernalia necessary for diverse meals’ preparation and serving (discussed later). The separation of spaces with fireplaces allowed for warmth, light, and activities within, and the cellars beneath the dining room allowed for the secure storage of belongings and regimental items. Ibid. SI 301Belting-Booton, 5/1/1943, ISA. 299 300 186 As part of the separation of officers from private men, we must address this Georgian understanding of private space. Deetz notes a “strong emphasis on individuals and their place within the culture” as well as an increase “in items designed for individual use” (1996, 66; 84-85). While his discussion relates to food and drink consumption, it also extends to how living spaces—as personal spaces—were organized. This could have included other structures at Fort de Chartres, and related material culture, like the latrines or chamber pots. Archaeologists recovered a sole lid fragment, which may have been part of an English delft chamber pot (Noble 1988, 9). It resembled an artifact recovered at Fort Michilimackinac, attributed to a British feature (Miller and Stone 1970, figure 12c). Chamber pots and a private latrine located just to the northwest of the Commandant’s house show his status and allows for privacy. Captain Stirling had noted “2 Necessary Houses to the North in Wood and 2 to the W. in stone with Doors and Locks.”302 The locations of these latrines along, or as part of, the curtain walls have not been determined archaeologically, except for the commandant’s (Figure 6.7), which archaeology confirmed atop a drain (Thurman 1980a). At other British forts, like Crown Point in New York, individual latrines and chamber pots illustrated the separation of officers and private men, with the men forced to use the ‘communal’ latrines (Fisher 1995, 82). 302 Stirling-Gage, 18/10/1766, GP44AS. 187 Figure 6.7: This photo shows the opening over Drain D, inside the fort, which Brown, Thurman, and Keene have all interpreted as a latrine, although lacking the structure which existed above ground (Noble and Keene 1985c, C27). If the artifacts within this feature relate to the commandant’s building, those diagnostically related to the British period may offer insights into our understandings of Britishness and its social hierarchy. Of note, while Brown (1974) attributes all artifacts from this feature to the French, later excavations by Thurman note the presence of a wide variety of items, including large fragments of a faience soup tureen, Chinese export porcelain, and two nearly intact wine and case bottles (Thurman 1980a). My artifact database tabulated almost 500 glass-related artifacts from this feature, some of which had diagnostic features related to English production, including numerous fragments from tumblers and vessels. Recovered ceramic fragments included English white salt-glazed stoneware, grey salt-glazed stoneware, tin-glazed earthenwares, and porcelain. The Chinese porcelain most likely represents high status teawares like cups, bowls or saucers imported by the British (Noble 1988, 44). If we consider these items in relationship to the British commandants (like the food and drink-related wares), they offer contextualization of the ‘individualization’ of material culture, as well as associated practices. 188 Figure 6.8: This figure shows the foundations of the officers’ building, looking southwards, as depicted in a 1933 survey. (Library of Congress, Public Domain) The officers’ building mirrored the commandant’s in size and features.303 It is now capped by wood planks, obscuring the foundation below, but earlier photos (Figure 6.8) show an identical layout. Like the Commandant’s residence, this building contained five closets, a dining room and kitchen, cellar, and large bedroom allowed for separate spaces. Regulations allocated a captain one room with subalterns sharing another (McConnell 2004, 42). Illinois’ regimental rolls allow for an accounting of officers and their potential association to these structures. The 34th and 18th Foot averaged 12-18 officers and 19 noncommissioned officers and subalterns. With personnel detached to Kaskaskia and Cahokia, this fort may have quartered 12-20 commissioned officers, noncommissioned officers, and subalterns (Figure 6.9).304 Potentially, sergeants and corporals resided within the larger rooms of the barracks designated as officers’ quarters. Additionally, officers had the means to rent and purchase houses outside the fort. Title records indicate at least five bought/shared possession of houses in Chartres Village, and another two in Kaskaskia.305 Pittman 1770 in Hodder 1906, 45. WO 17/143 and WO 12/3501, NA. 305 Brown and Dean, 1981, 66:9:6:1, 66:6:20:1, 68:9:1:1, 70:5:29:1, 70:2:9:1, 70:11:23:1. 303 304 189 Figure 6.9: This figure details the monthly return for the 34th in Illinois, listing the number of officers and private men. (WO 17/143, NA) Spouses and children may have resided within these buildings. Their presence reinforced status for the simple fact that officers could afford to bring (and protect) them. The documents do not allude to many couples living in extramural settlements, so families and wives may have inhabited these buildings. Research revealed at least two captains’ wives accompanied the 34th Foot as did one sergeant’s. The 18th Foot travelled with the wives of at least two captains, one lieutenant, one ensign, three sergeants, and two corporals.306 Rank allowed for officers’ wives and partners to live within private quarters, and their economic status implied they could be fed and clothed in-country. As part of ordered space and status differences related to rooms and structures, we must also consider how environmental and material effects relate to experiences. Sources of light impacted the activities performed within. The number of windows, the location of fireplaces, the types of window glass, or the presence of candles and lamps all impacted work and play, and organized time. Linking the documents to the archaeology provides insight into how spaces and light affected fort personnel. For example, documents reference buildings’ French windows as “folding glass Windows.”307 Records do not mention the stone/wood encased windows with detail beyond their material composition and placement. For example, the commandant and officers’ buildings contained “upon the Roof 3 windows [glass] … with Shutters,” allowing for the illumination of the attic, 306 307 24/7/1768, BWM. Morgan-Partners, 10/2/1769, BWM. 190 and an additional two windows and skylight on the northern side. At ground level, four windows with shutters showed a view of the interior, allowing for officers to surveil soldiers’ activities while displaying the material culture of their rank.308 The material composition of glass contextualizes how these windows composed views and framed class. Archaeologists tabulated 136 fragments of window glass, described as ‘crown glass,’ and like artifacts excavated at Michilimackinac (Brown 1971, 127-128). Fragments were recovered from the drains which led away from the officers’/commandant’s buildings and the barracks. The shards within this assemblage are clear, thin, and green tinted, but it is unknown whether they represent the British period. Documents do not reference glass production in Illinois. Traders’ papers outline its importation, specifically as windowpanes. In Kaskaskia, Captains Rumsey and Evans purchased panes of glass.309 Indian agent Edward Cole purchased three boxes of 7”x 8” sections, and these may relate either to his house in Chartres Village or to empanel the five windows of the Indian Guest House.310 The quality and color of the glass impacted the quantity of light they allowed in, as well as their clarity. For Tarlow, glazed windows served as a means of presenting the self, allowing individuals to frame their identities, literally and symbolically, in civilian households (2007, 178). At Fort de Chartres, glass windows allowed outsiders to view the material culture within, but shutters and drapes permitted climate management and privacy controls. Further, documents allude to the French style of whitewashing walls, with trader George Morgan ordering two dozen “long and Short handled Whitewash Brushes” for this.311 Buildings’ reconstructed interiors have whitewashed walls, impacting lighting (Figure 6.10). SI. JK, BWM. 310 Crown Account (Croghan and Cole), 1766, BWM. 311 MBP, BWM; Briggs 1990, 39. 308 309 191 Figure 6.10: This figure shows the officers’ quarters of the guardhouse, with windows and whitewashed walls. (Photo Author) Beyond glass, the ways in which the garrison ‘lit’ their spaces, and through material culture, reflect more personal, status-related artifacts. Besides natural light and firelight, a variety of items illuminated these rooms, like candles and lanterns. Regulations supported hierarchical differences, with weekly rations of candles based on rank. The commanding officer was entitled to two pounds of candles per week, captains received one pound, and the ranks received a ½ pound (per dozen men).312 In addition, officers purchased candles, including more expensive spermaceti versions (made from the oil contained within the heads of sperm whales), while others purchased the moulds (tin and pewter), wicks, and oils necessary to make their own candles from traders.313 Persons of rank could purchase the materials needed to display their rooms, and these same items structured the types of activities which occurred within. Stationary and portable light sources enhanced firelight and allowed sentries, crafts, and recreational activities to continue into the night. 312 313 SI; Farmar-Gage, 9/5/1766, GP51AS. JFdC; JK; JBFdC; AF, BWM; Morgan-BW, 5/4/1768, A&CXVI, 230. 192 6.3.1.2. Barracks Life Life within the barracks underscored the structures and practices of hierarchical differences, emphasizing the subordination of the individual as it related to space and material culture. Barracks’ rooms controlled movement, related to rotating duty assignments, and reflect soldiers’ presence and activities within. “Discipline sometimes require enclosure … the protected place of disciplinary monotony” which allowed for the organization, and control, of these private men (Foucault 1995, 132-133). The barracks allowed for accommodations within the fort’s walls, and for the close supervision of the private men. Pittman described these as “two rooms each, for officers, and three rooms for soldiers; they are good spacious rooms” (in Hodder 1906, 89). The original limestone footings were found archaeologically (Figure 6.11) and demarcate the rooms within these buildings. Called “Commodious and Elegant,” the soldiers’ rooms each consisted of 484 ft2/44.9 m2, allowing for a minimum of 12-14 soldiers in each of the three rooms.314 The regimentation of life emphasized separate quarters, in part, to create the distance between the ranks, but also to reduce the ‘social distance’ of these men in a way that fostered “comradeship and community” (McConnell 2004, 55). The garrison contained 150-225 private men, and at least ten wives ventured with the 18th Foot’s private men. Women and children within these barracks made for tighter, busier, and louder living conditions. 314 Pittman 1770 in Hodder 1906, 89. 193 Figure 6.11: This figure details the West Barracks. It included an oven, which may be represented by the double chimney to the north, as an external feature. (Google Earth) Military writers recommended the distancing of sergeants from the private men, reinforcing status and command by not allowing them “to quarter or mess with them” (Cuthbertson 1777, 8; Figure 6.12), although we do not know if this occurred in Illinois. Two larger rooms, dubbed officers’ quarters by Pittman in 1770, may have provided accommodations for lieutenants, ensigns, or sergeants. To put this in perspective, the 34th Foot stationed three lieutenants and six ensigns at the fort, which may suggest these nine individuals shared the four ‘officers’ rooms within the two barracks. Alternatively, these rooms may have allowed for the sergeants to separate from their men, while remaining close enough to supervise them.315 One court martial denotes the searching of barracks “where [Sergeant] Johnston was used to keep his necessaries.”316 315 316 34th Rolls, WO 17/143, NA. Court Martial, 27/11/1766, A&CXI, 434. 194 Figure 6.12: This figure details an officer’s suggestion of housing private men within a reasonable distance from their officers to regulate their behavior. (Cuthbertson 1777, 31) Buildings structured the lived experiences of soldiers through the regulation of space and routines within (Giddens 1984, 19; Bourdieu 1977). The supervision of fatigues duties indicates the expectations of cleanliness and maintenance of these shared facilities, relating expectations of hygiene to the prevention of sickness. “It is expected that the commanding officer … will give positive orders to have the quarters and camps kept clean, as the health of the men very much depends on it.”317 Status differences were reflected in private men’s shared/public spaces, with communal equipment and facilities. Captain Stirling’s inventory detailed materials left behind by the French, informing upon the types of furniture and furnishings common for barracks. One room contained “7 common [and shared] Bedsteads” as well as a large table, rack for arms, bread shelf, and a straw bed.318 Rotating work assignments and duties allowed for at least 6-7 soldiers to reside in each room at any one time (McConnell 2004). Within, soldiers performed a variety of domestic tasks, and prepared and ate their meals in a communal space. Each barracks had fifteen windows along interior walls and eight facing the curtain wall. Windows were located on eastern and western walls, while all other buildings had windows on their northern and southern faces. Records indicate a solitary order for glass panes for the barracks. The Commanding Officers … will make a demand on the Barrack Master for the Number of Panes of Glass wanted for the Soldiers Rooms . . . [and] put them in immediately … to defend themselves from the Inclemency of the Weather.319 General Orders, 21/7/1776 in Delany and Cadwalader 1908. SI. 319 Orders for Panes, 14/11/1768, BWM. 317 318 195 Later, the men used ten quires of cartridge papers to “mend” barracks’ windows.320 Whether out of necessity or cost minimalization, the use of paper to cover broken/missing panes affected the quality of light inside and their ability to minimize heat loss. This substitution literally sheds light upon the status differences enclosing these barracks. Figure 6.13: The figure details the areas just outside the East Barracks, looking southwest, with features noted, and the guardhouse and storehouse buildings in the background. (Photo, author) The fort lacked a blacksmith’s shop, and Major Farmar ordered one built at the end of the East Barracks.321 It is not known if it was attached to the limestone structure or was apart from it (Feature 40 in Figure 6.13). Excavations first identified this area as a mess hall, and later, a latrine (Brown 1972, 2; Martin and Marsulis 1988). Orser re-examined this area and recovered over 2,000 artifacts, exclusive of faunal materials. Melted glass and cinders represented the majority (60%), with unidentified iron scraps and pieces another 25% (1977, 110 and 115). The burned/melted artifacts indicate elevated temperatures and could represent forged materials. No historical record of a glassmaker exists, and these artifacts could relate to intentional refuse deposition or post-occupational waste. A 320 321 Ordnance, in Wilkins-Gage, 1/6/1772, GP111AS. Pittman-Gage, 24/2/1766, GP49AS. 196 blacksmith’s shop at Fort Michilimackinac had a similar assemblage composition (RoacheFedchenko 2018, 50). Diagnostic artifacts like musket parts, a regimental coat button, and ceramics illustrate a British association, either as the blacksmith’s shop or an associated refuse dump. The presence of at least ten individuals working within the fort as gunsmiths and blacksmiths means this smithy was a busy, smoky, and noisy area.322 6.3.2. Food, Drink, and Material Culture Examining one class of material culture, specifically those items related to the preparation, serving, and consumption of food and drink, allows for an identifiable set which reflects upon Georgian values and references the customs associated with their use. Bourdieu offers an understanding of habitus as the practices underscoring how people identify themselves in relation to others (1990, 56-61). In this case, ceramic and glass variability, demonstrates habitual activities related to status differences. Excavations have recovered status-related objects from areas in and around the east barracks, and various drains, four of which begin near the officers’ and commandant’s buildings. Reflecting status, these men were expected to present themselves “in a style appropriate to an officer and gentleman,” which extended to the officers’ mess, where individuals contributed dues towards the maintenance of meals and drinks (Sussman 2000, 46). “Officer's messes were highly organized, employed messmen or cooks to prepare meals … and had their own specific rituals” (Ostola 2007, 78). Messes reflected the “importance of routine in social life” (Giddens 1984, 19), events where peers interacted and demonstrated the values of polite society through the conscious maintenance of social boundaries. This included specific materials associated with “good taste, lifestyle and social position” (DellinoMusgrave 2005, 235). Conway (2011, 112) links this society to the demonstration of etiquette, the performance of taste (literally and metaphorically), and exhibition of one’s knowledge of objects, trends, and their connections. Officers purchased tablewares for individual and shared usage and consumed beverages situated to their class (Fisher 1995, 80). Offices purchased alcohol and 322 GW 25.116; JBFdC; JFdC, BWM. 197 condiments on behalf of their mess, and paid dues to fund these, adjusted by rank. Morgan’s “Account with Officers” offers examples, like when Captain Forbes charged ten bottles of mustard, six pounds of pepper, ten gallons of rum, and ten pounds Muscovado sugar (March-June 1768).323 Accounts reflect the differences between personal and mess accounts, with contributions and purchases listed separately. This could mean a deemphasis on Britishness, which instead focused upon Europeanness, at least in terms of demonstrating the cosmopolitan and continental understandings of material culture linked to the dictates of French-inspired taste. 6.3.2.1. Material Culture The display of knowledge and skill associated with style and taste is show through practices and material culture. As mentioned, the role of the individual was increasingly stressed within this British world view, and offered “order, control, balance, and symmetry in the relationship between people and certain items of material culture” (Deetz 1996, 86). This ‘one-person, one-cup’ practice links to the performance of status, and their usage as purposeful constructions of cultural norms and ideas (Yentsch 1991, 193). Within dining rooms, personal dishes helped to shape a sense of individuality and refinement, in opposition to the utilitarian and communal vessels of the barracks (Shackel 1993, 30). Separating the public aspects of food consumption and the private of food preparation, when combined with the specialized plates, saucers, cups, and bowls may help us to understand performances of identity within officers’ rooms (Tarlow 2007, 170). The costs of these items are shown in Appendix C, which lists all items imported and sold in Illinois, based on Morgan’s accounts. In examining food preparation and consumption, we might expect to see displays of wealth and status as related to associated material culture. At peer sites, like Forts Ligonier (Grimm 1970) and Stanwix (Hanson and Hsu 1975), the British used refined leadglazed earthenwares like Jackfield, Whieldon, and Creamware (Figure 6.14), reflective of technology changes. English potters now offered mass-produced, cheaper ceramics to suit 323 AO, BWM. 198 a wider variety of tastes, thereby individualizing place settings. These types made up 2.2% of Fort de Chartres’ assemblage (Noble 1988, 32-34). The collection exhibits higherstatus wares like English salt-glazed stoneware and porcelain (23%-192 sherds of 1,668; Noble 1997, 41). Owners of higher-cost ceramics may also have packed them up and transported them out of country when they rotated out, deflating their presence in the assemblage. With the difficulty of transporting higher-quality ceramics during decades of war and trade instability, these ceramics probably entered Illinois with the British. Officers’ greater baggage allowance, combined with secure, private spaces illustrates the easier utilization of their material culture as a reflection of status. Figure 6.14: This figure illustrates British refined ceramics, which equated with status and the individualization of place settings. Porcelain (top), Creamware (bottom left), and Salt-glazed stoneware (bottom right). (Photos author, Courtesy of the ISM) 199 The diverse spaces existing within officers’ quarters reflect the privatization of space, but additionally equate to the gendering of spaces and material culture associated with food preparation and consumption, as seen in colonial homes of this period (Barker 2010, 13). Accompanying this shift is a whitening of articles like ceramics, reflective of purchasing power and associated with cleanliness and purity, the separation of polite society from nature (Tarlow 2007). Within kitchens, coarse and refined earthenware ceramics were used for cooking, mixing, and storage. Earth-toned ceramics and redwares became disassociated from the “masculine sphere of household food use” (Yentsch 1991, 215). Yentsch (1991, 215) and Tarlow (2007, 178) reference this in civilian households, a trend likely mirrored at least within officers’ rooms. In other words, earth-toned ceramics were used for preparation, kept to the feminine sphere of kitchens and storage rooms, rather than service and consumption areas (Figure 6.15). Whiter wares became more prevalent within public rooms, areas where visitors were separated from the household and its preparatory activities (Yentsch 1991, 201). If this applied in Illinois, we might expect faience and delft usage in these public rooms, the masculine sphere of entertainment and status performance, but also whiter wares, like the more refined, expensive, English white salt-glazed stoneware or imported porcelains. 200 Figure 6.15: This collage features excavated British ceramics: white salt-glazed stoneware plates (top left), Jackfield teapot lid (top right), Whieldon bowl (left middle), grey salt-glazed stoneware jar (right middle), Creamware (lower left), and Albany-slipped stoneware (lower right). (Photos author, Courtesy of the ISM) Beyond ceramics, polite society reflected a whitening of foods (Yentsch 1991; Tarlow 2007). At first, the garrison made “Bread of half flour & half Indian Corn meal,”324 while contractors bought local French flour. The process of associating material culture and food, with “cleanliness and purity” outlined a shift away from traditional, lower-class materials (Tarlow 2007, 169). At Fort Michilimackinac, white bread became popular, replacing “darker whole meal varieties” (Scott 1991, 168), and Tarlow associates white bread with wealthier British households (2007, 170). British documents point to later mills, where millers refined the flour by sifting out the bran and cereal, allowing for this white 324 Farmar-Gage, 8/4/1766, GP50AS. 201 flour. Traders built a “Merchant Ghrist Mill,” to furnish the garrison “with suitable flour for them to eat … [much better] than the black flour at present made here.”325 Documentary evidence suggests a difference between this local ‘dark’ flour of the French with the more refined whiter version, and British preferences for this. The whiteness of refined salt was also desired to replace “old fashioned brownish salt” (Tarlow 2007, 169). A desire for the “Best Lisbon Salt” by traders countered local French varieties. Morgan believed the European salt improved the preservation of Buffalo Beef and feared being “obliged to Use a Part of this Country Make.”326 Similarly, whiteness extended to sugar. With the Philadelphia firms’ close connections to Jamaican sellers, the importation of sugar was quite lucrative. They brought in white loaf sugar, unrefined muscovado sugar, and brown sugar (molasses-based).327 Accounts illustrate the British bought substantially more loaf (white) sugar than darker varieties. One shipment contained 77 casks and 11 kegs of loaf sugar and coffee, an additional 25 casks mixed with rice (to protect the fragile cones of sugar), and over 38 casks of muscovado sugar.328 In terms of utensils, sugar ‘nippers’ were necessary for separating bits of the white loaf sugar, sugar bowls for serving, and storage cannisters. All could be had in country, provided one had the means to do so.329 As mentioned, the luxury of class meant increased individualization of dining utensils. Accounts reveal officers purchasing eating utensils, like Lieutenant Ancrum, for a dozen “Ivory handle Knives & forks,” Captains Campbell (6 spoons and 12 pewter spoons) and Rumsey (12 silver teaspoons), and Ensign Gleadowe (2 pewter spoons). Ensign Hutchins bought a “Box containing Sundry plated Utensils” for 250 livres (£11.13.7), perhaps as part of his mess contributions.330 As opposed to the wooden and iron spoons from the barracks, officers’ utensils exhibit the costs of status and associated Morgan-Wilkins, 16/9/1770, BWM. Morgan-BW, 24/12/1767, BWM. 327 Loaf sugar was white, granulated sugar, without the molasses. Brown sugar had the molasses reintroduced after processing. Muscovado sugar was unrefined cane sugar, containing molasses. 328 MBP, BWM. Almost two thousand gallons of muscovado came in this shipment, equating to over 7,000 pounds. 329 AF, BWM. 330 AO; JBFdC; LAFC, BWM. 325 326 202 style. Pewter spoons cost one livre, while a silver teaspoon cost five (4s 8d). A dozen ivory-handled knives and forks (30 livres; £2 17s) contrasts with plain versions (10 livres; 8s 3d).331 These documents support the archaeological evidence and help to illustrate the role of these utensils and tablewares within the context of status. In contrast, the Quartering Act (1765) provided the expectation of colonial governments supplying private men “the necessary Utensils to … eat their Victuals,” and in absence of this, Gage ordered the men to find their own, authorizing an annual 9½d allowance.332 This could explain the diversity of dining utensils found within the fort. One list outlined these as: cooking kettles, wooden platters and spoons, pewter porringers and spoons, and tin saucepans.333 Utensil allowances allowed for the purchasing of wooden or pewter spoons, with neither likely to survive archaeologically. Table knives were rare due to the ubiquitous nature of clasp and case knives, part of regular possessions. 6.3.2.2. Space & Foods Officers had more room to entertain, but also separate facilities in which to prepare their foods, through private ovens and double fireplaces.334 They also utilized additional cook wares, indicative of their diverse menus. Wilkins’ accounts (September 1768-January 1771) show purchases of a cheese toaster, colanders, dripping pans, pudding pans, saucepans, and tumblers, all indicative of higher status.335 Engineer Thomas Hutchins purchased a “Dutch Oven,” possibly for an extramural home.336 These allowed for a much more varied culinary experience than the boiled salt pork and beef of the barracks. Traders had a large, diverse, supply of food preparation articles, illustrating the costs relevant to different income levels (see Appendix C).337 Officers may have brought their Ibid. Bouquet-Dobbs, 2/1758, in Stevens and Kent, 1941, 153; Feister 1984, 127. 333 Porringers were small bowls (Yentsch 1990, 40). Memorandum, 26/12/1756, Necessaries in Stevens, et. al., 1972, 45. 334 SI. 335 AO, BWM. 336 AF, BWM. 337 AF, BWM. 331 332 203 own materials, especially if they arrived with their own cooks/servants, as only a small number of frying pans, pudding pans, and saucepans were purchased in-country.338 Officers also had a wider variety of foods and flavorings to add to bland rations or prepare more ornate meals. As mentioned, officers requested the importation of sturgeon, pickled oysters, and a wide variety of spices.339 Pepper required storage in specialized tin boxes, sold by the firm and bought by subalterns, as well as mahogany pepper mills for grinding.340 One shipment contained 750 pounds of pepper and 200 pounds of allspice.341 References to other spices are scant, with allspice, cinnamon, cloves, and mace detailed as officers’ purchases.342 Still, their costs: two ounces of cinnamon or allspice sold at 4s 7d per pound, pepper—9s per pound, cloves—3 ½d per pound, and nutmeg—6 ½d per pound, and quantities underscore status differentials.343 Of note is the lack of entries related to private men buying goods. This could be explained by a lack of disposable income, or instead about traders overlooking them, and listing smaller sales as ‘sundries.’ Within the barracks, private men made and consumed their rations within their mess units, alongside any families. They shared meals, utensils, and space, the commonality of low status. Officers believed this helped to galvanize unit cohesiveness (Fisher 1995, 81). Food was prepared within a solitary oven (West Barracks) or fireplaces, and excavations within the East Barracks provided evidence of faunal materials and charcoal (Orser 1977, 88). Soldiers lacked the basic conveniences available to officers. Stew was the typical meal as it spread rations further, accommodated shifting assignments, and was necessary due to the need to soak salted meats to make them more palatable (McConnell 2004, 108; Charters 2009, 11). At Fort Pitt, companies noted their frustration over a lack of kettles, which forced them to broil their pork rather than boil it344. As the 42nd Foot journeyed to Illinois, they prepared a meal of “Buffalo, Venison, Turkey & AO; JBFdC, BWM. Memorandum of Packages, 29/3/1769, MBP, BWM. 340 JBFdC; AF, BWM. 341 Acct of Goods sent, MBP, BWM. 342 AF; AO; JBFdC; Account Wilkins, BWM. 343 Account-Crown (Croghan/Cole); AO; JBFdC, BWM. 344 Campbell-Gage, 15/7/1765, GP39AS. 338 339 204 Bear’s Meat … boiled in a Kettle to rags.”345 These kettles (Figure 6.16) were akin to opentopped pots. The general lack of burned bones in the excavated faunal materials at Fort de Chartres indicates boiled meat portions (Jolley 2013, 118). Figure 6.16: This figure illustrates excavated kettle fragments (upper left, middle lower), lugs, and a bail (lower right). (Photos author, Courtesy of the ISM) Traders stocked a variety of sizes of kettles, composed of tin, brass, or copper. The kettles equated to mess size and socio-economic status. In one shipment, Morgan desired “7000 lb. Flemish Kettles sorted from a Pint to Fifteen Gallons.”346 Accounts illustrate purchases of three tin kettles and two brass kettles by officers, ranging between a pint and a gallon.347 The variety of kettle sizes reflect their usage, with larger kettles for soldiers’ messes, and smaller sizes for smaller groups or specialty dishes. Keene’s thesis tabulated Eddington in Carroon 1984, 64. MB 1768, BWM. 347 JBFdC; JK; AF, BWM. 345 346 205 just two kettle parts (2002), but my study has referenced at least twenty-five fragments and lugs within the collection. Surface collecting added another sixty-two artifacts. These objects have not had further study for diagnostic differentiation, and some lack even material composition notations, although at least one alludes to post-occupational inhabitants, as it stamped “Stuttgart, 1881.” Still, at almost 90 fragments, kettles were prevalent within the fort and reflect food preparation, and much more represented than previously noted. Private soldiers possessed minimal equipage, constrained by the size of their packs and strength of their backs. Although it was possible for them to have shipped goods with regimental gear, no evidence suggests this, and even subalterns referenced leaving behind materials, like a chest “with everything in it I Cannot Carry.”348 They likely brought few ceramics into Illinois with them, and those were cheaper, heavier, and more durable tinglazed earthenwares, or brown/grey salt-glazed stonewares/crockery. More communal and utilitarian forms like large platters, dishes, or pie pans composed their assemblage (Yentsch 1990, 26), allowing for utilization by the mess. Archaeologists have identified earthenware plates and platters fragments and linked them to the French garrison (Noble 1988). Despite this, the British may have purchased any of these in-country. Economic class may not be visible within the barracks solely based on the material composition of utensils. Elsewhere, private men used wooden and pewter dishes, due to the cheaper cost and material durability, and similar vessels may have been used here (Feister 1984, 127; Scott 1991, 114). Traders’ accounts detail tin, pewter, and wooden dishes, bowls, and plates. Environmental conditions impacted tin and wooden vessels, explaining their absence from the archaeology. Ann Smart, who examined the role of pewter in probate inventories, noted the lack of pewter within assemblages, and related it to pewter’s durability and resale value, if recast (1989, 1). Pewter sugar bowls, basins, mugs, and plates were all imported and sold in Illinois, although none were recovered.349 348 349 Butricke-Barnsley, 22/5/1768, A&CXVI, 290. JBFdC; AO, BWM. 206 Food and drink consumption varied by rank, in quality and quantity, and in relation to diversity. Here, I explore the costs of foodstuffs and drinks as they relate to status, as their relationship to ethnic/national identity has been discussed. Fort de Chartres’ faunal/bone assemblage has not been fully analyzed, and does not allow an understanding of food consumption across the site. The bone assemblage could reference materials consumed within the barracks and officers’ buildings and this may help to illustrate differences in dietary habits, culturally learned actions as they relate to class. These insights may help us to parse the faunal remains in a more nuanced fashion and illustrate whether Illinois’ garrison used diverse sources and cuts of meat, or fruits and vegetables. An infantryman’s daily ration consisted of 1½ pounds of bread or flour, one pound of beef or a half-pound of pork, a quarter pint of peas, an ounce of butter, and an ounce of rice (McGuire 2016, 683), contrasting with the two or three rations allowed for officers which could imply their personal use or their use by their servants. The cost of Illinois’ rations equated to about 8½ d if fresh beef, and more if salted.350 A 4d/day stoppage was taken from soldiers’ regular pay of 8d/day to subsidize food costs (McConnell 2004, 103). The women of Illinois’ regiments each got a full ration, as mentioned (Padiak 2005, 139; Beier 2017, 56). As a result, the garrison subsisted at least upon these standardized, bland rations, although soldiers had the potential of supplementing their diet through fishing, hunting, or gardening. 350 Leake-Gage, 20/3/1766, GP49AS. 207 Figure 6.17: The left figure details the reconstructed bakehouse, the foundation of the original, and Eastern Curtain Wall. (Google Maps) Bakers provided bread rations within an established bakehouse. Archaeology identified a partial foundation for this structure (Figure 6.17). The garrison was privileged to have a bakehouse within its walls, providing a reliable food source. Sources note the existence of a “Company of Bakers,” attached civilians, responsible for producing copious quantities of bread, as evidenced by one example, where they made 770 lbs. The detachment in Kaskaskia bought from a Frenchwoman, and those in Cahokia employed other European bakers.351 While officers were also entitled to bread, one interesting note comes from Lieutenant-Colonel Wilkins, who requested Morgan’s firm “procure him a French Baker,” to produce a wider variety of goods for his private table.352 The military contracted with the Philadelphia firm of Levy and Franks for rations. Salted pork and beef were shipped in casks from Philadelphia, via Fort Pitt, to Illinois, 351 352 JK, JBFdC, BWM. Rumsey-Brown, 26/7/ 1769, BWM. 208 where they were deposited into the storehouse.353 Processed in Pennsylvania, there would be no detectable bones in the fort. Traders also purchased and processed local flour and meats,354 which freed the garrison from its reliance on precarious shipments. To supplement shipments, the garrison built facilities to salt fresh meat. At one point, contractors’ inventories detailed over 37,500 pounds of fresh beef in the storehouse, awaiting salting and curing.355 Some consisted of rounds (steaks and roasts cut from the rear leg/rump) for the officers, while accounts show the deposit of smoked and salted veal into government stores. Traders employed farmers in cooperative ventures to raise swine and cattle,356 and bought from the French.357 Officers, like Wilkins, Captains Shee and Lane, and several subalterns also raised cattle, hogs, and fowl.358 While these animals may have been used to supplement officers’ diets, records also indicate their sale to the contractors. At Fort Michilimackinac, faunal remains demonstrate British tendencies to consume less fresh pork than the French, but when they did, they ate better cuts (loin, ham, shoulder, and rib) in addition to the bony portions used in stews or soups (Scott 1991, 165; Walcezesky 2013, 58). Illinois’ traders reference salt-petered gammons (cured hind leg) and bacon, but do not list any other specific pork cuts.359 Socio-economic position allowed for the purchasing of these extra (and fresh) foodstuffs and allowed for their inclusion in diverse dishes. Within officers’ messes, we expect to find these steaks, roasts, and hams, and the materials associated with their preparation and consumption. Not surprisingly, troops preferred fresh provisions when possible (McConnell 2004, 111). Wild meats supplemented their diet, for officers and the private men, through off-duty hunting, fowling, and fishing. These activities were not without danger, as when Ensign Gleaddowe became lost (and died) while hunting, or when hostile Potawatomi BWM-Gage, 5/7/1766, GP65AS. Moore-Leake, 17/8/1770, AS94; Morgan-Baynton, 11/1770, BWM. 355 Leake-Gage, 28/8/1771, GP105AS. 356 Morgan-BW, 5/4/1768, A&CXVI, 228. 357 Provisions-Blouin, 1767, GW15:55. 358 GCM, NA; BWM Ledgers; Butricke in Stiles 1864, 7. 359 Morgan-his wife, 5/9/1768, in A&CXVI, 481; JK, BWM. 353 354 209 killed another soldier who “went out to Kill Ducks.”360 On one occasion, in Cahokia, Captain Shee had acquired fresh bear and venison from Indigenous peoples, and offered it to his troops as rations. All the private men accepted this option.361 Contractors regularly employed British and French hunters to bring in game. “We killed so many Buffalos that We commonly served out one a day to Each Company.”362 At one point, Fort de Chartres’ stores included almost 27,000 lbs. of salted buffalo beef363. A delicacy, tongues were salted, and in one case, shipped from Illinois to General Gage as a gift.364 The bones themselves offered another source of nutrients, with the extraction of the marrow, and rendering it into oil.365 The garrison built specialized vats for this within the fort.366 In addition to bison, the troops consumed venison. Archaeology recovered deer bones show indications of burning (which may suggest roasting instead of boiling), while others evidence butchering marks of knife and hatchet (Martin and Masulis 1988, 163). Morgan’s letters demonstrate these “venison hams” were smoked in the same way as beef or pork. One document references the British distributing fresh venison to its messes. “The Cook … Cut off some Steaks from a Leg of the Venison and hung the remainder.”367 Eighteenth-century cookbooks linked venison to the upper class (Scott 2008, 361), but along this frontier, it transcended class. Illinois flourished with “ducks, geese, swans, turkeys and pheasants,” sold to the Crown as rations and evident within the faunal assemblage.368 British garrisons at peer sites used these same birds (Scott 2008, 363). Cookbooks recommended the roasting of whole or quartered birds and their inclusion within stews and meat pies (Scott 1991, 166). The archaeological presence of lead musket shot, and accounts documenting sales of shot Reed-Gage, 14/12/1766, GP60AS; Wilkins-Turnbull, 9/4/1771, GP104AS. GCM, NA. 362 Butricke-Barnsley, 15/9/1768, A&CXVI, 409. 363 Leake-Gage, 24/5/1771, GP106AS. 364 Gage-Steel, 7/9/1767, GP69AS. 365 Morgan-his wife, 29/6/1766, A&CXI, 315; Morgan’s Journal 24/11/1766, Ibid., 440. 366 Casks furnished, GW18:60; Hogsheads purchased, GW17.69; Provisions Receipt, 1766, T 1/448, NA. 367 GCM, NA. 368 Pittman in Hodder, 1906, 51; Pittman-Gage in Reed, 19/6/1766, GP53AS; JBFdC, BWM; Martin and Marsulis 1988, 163-176. 360 361 210 in ‘goose, pigeon, and mustard’ sizes to officers help to contextualize their usage.369 Documents also reference domestic birds, passenger pigeons and chickens. Although traders did not sell chickens or eggs to the garrison for consumption, Captain Shee, at least, had chickens at Cahokia, and a soldier’s wife tended them and harvested eggs, which he sold to his men.370 Captain Stirling recorded a pigeon house above the well outside of the commandant’s building, implying the presence of pigeons and eggs, albeit for the commander’s table.371 The garrison also exploited its water-based resources. Longnose gar, catfish, redeared (sliders), and painted turtles provided nourishment. Ensign Butricke noted, “We Caught some Catfish of 100 lb. Wt.: but their Common size is 30 to 70 lb.” Butricke regarded the turtles “as good as those taken at sea for soup.”372 Baule (1999, 172) considers the red-eared turtle “common fare upon the mess tables of the British” military elsewhere, while the French ignored this as a food source. Men across the garrison fished for themselves in off-hours (Scott 1991, 146). Accounts offer more insight into this subsistence activity, through its associated materials. Traders ordered “500 Common fishhooks, from the size of the largest perch to the smallest size Cod hook,” as well as ‘cod lines’ and fishing rods.373 Exploring how the British supplemented their diet through gardens, spices, and other food flavorings further links class, practice, and material culture. Complaints about the quality of provisions, the wastage of rations due to heat, humidity, or poor preservation, routinely abound in Illinois. Officers linked bad/missing provisions to the health of the garrison. The 34th Foot reported the deaths of twenty men to scurvy and cautioned “should they be obliged to live on salt meat alone without bread or vegetables it will in a Short time kill many of them.”374 This malady continued through the winter of Crown Account (Wilkins); Account of Goods; MBP, BWM. GCM, NA. 371 SI. 372 Butricke-Barnsley 15/9/1768, A&CXVI, 409. 373 MBP; JFdC; JBFdC; Wilkins Account; AO; Crown Account (Croghan and Cole), BWM. 374 Farmar-Gage, 28/3/1766, GP50AS. 369 370 211 1765, compounded by the garrison’s reliance on salted provisions.375 Distributions of rum and consumption of vinegar and wine helped to prevent and alleviate this malady (Charters 2009, 8). Issuances of rice, peas, Indian corn, flour, and allotments of fresh meat, plus the planting of gardens, proved the best amelioration of disease.376 Seasonal bouts of malaria and food shortages threatened the garrison community. One Ensign was shocked “to see what the Poor men, women, & children have suffered for want of proper nourishment.”377 Supplementing foodstuffs was crucial, but also demarcated status through their variety and accessibility. Private men worked officers’ gardens in Chartres village, and on a threeacre plot outside of the fort. Wilkins used the men to work ‘his’ garden, “I have seeds ready & will take care that they shall have greens when the season of the year most requires.”378 Captain Shee had a farm outside Cahokia, with work there considered part of regular fatigues.379 Warrants detail labor and expenditures for materials for continued garden maintenance, so they must have been successful. Farmar-Gage, 28/3/1766, GP50AS. Leake-Gage, 28/8/1771, GS105AS. 377 Butricke-Barnsley, 12/2/1769, in Stiles 1864, 5. 378 Wilkins-Hutchins, 7/1770, GP117AS. 379 Gage-Cooper, 5/8/1767, T 1/461, NA. 375 376 212 Figure 6.18: This figure details seeds brought to Illinois, shipped in barrels of 315 pounds weight. (MBP, BWM) Morgan imported copious quantities and diverse varieties of garden, fruit, and vegetable seeds for Illinois’ farms and plantations. Archaeologists did not reference flotation samples in their reports, but within the collection is a solitary peach pit. Morgan references sending “Cling Stone Peach Stones … from Which you can raise some trees.”380 This suggests the intention of establishing orchards. The firm imported “Fall wheat, Rye, Buck Wheat, Spelts, Barley, Oats & Flax Seed,” and potatoes, all of which they believed suitable for Illinois’ climate (Figure 6.18).381 Squash, pumpkin, kidney beans, peas, and onions were all imported, with Wilkins himself buying a wide variety of vegetable seeds for his garden.382 6.3.2.3. Space & Drinks The larger, separate, private spaces of the officers permitted the consumption of a variety of drinks, allowing for continued contextualization of identity. In segregated Campbell-Morgan, 16/6/1769, A&CXI, 563. Morgan-Wilkins, 16/9/1770, BWM. 382 Account of Seeds; Wilkins’ Account, BWM. 380 381 213 messes, officers ate, socialized, and drank within their dedicated dining rooms, reflecting identity performances at dinners and parties. Excavations within other forts have provided for comparative assemblages, as detailed in Feister (1984), Fisher (1995), and Ostola (2007). These occasions are “good contexts for … displaying dinner wares, and experiencing community” (Isbell 2000, 256). While excavation has not occurred within the officers’ or commandant’s buildings, nearby spaces associated with the drains, as well as one latrine, have allowed for the recovery of cultural materials linked to drinking. Outside of water, which was accessible within two potable wells,383 Britishness, regardless of rank, was associated with drinking tea (Fisher 1995, 80). As part of polite culture, the drinking of tea meant the association of specific “social manners and status,” the routines and habits reproduced across the British empire (Dellino-Musgrave 2005, 236). Demonstrating taste, as it applied to the exoticness of Asia, and association with tea and porcelain, provided another connection to status, but also to Britishness (Conway 2011, 109). Officers could carry additional personal materials into the field, suggesting their status-related ceramics and glassware could be safely stored and brought. At peer sites, officers used porcelain, creamware, and whieldon ware teawares (Scott 1991, 126). The number of tea-related paraphernalia, their types, material composition, and associated spoons, linens, pots, and cups, may indicate officers’ usage, but are not assigned solely to them. A study of material culture differences at Crown Point (New York) suggests difficulty in assigning these materials as status differentials, as tea was ubiquitous (Feister 1984, 131). At Fort de Chartres, archaeologists recovered ceramic artifacts relating to teawares, and these could reflect non-commissioned officers or subalterns’ possessions (Orser 1977, 29). The quality of ceramics may allude to purchasers’ status, based on their expense, or demonstrate resale/recycling by rotating companies. Officers of the 18th Foot made the bulk of recorded sales of tea, although the inherent prejudice of these accounts tended to dismiss private soldiers, classifying their sales as ‘sundries’. The available Bohea (black), Green, and Hyson (a pricier green tea) varieties offered choices to suit taste and economic status, as green teas sold for twice the 383 Eddington in Carroon 1984, 91; Stirling-Gage, 18/10/1765, GP44AS; Klassen-Kingery, 1/4/1936, ISA. 214 price of Bohea.384 In one shipment, Morgan received twenty cannisters of Hyson tea weighing fifteen ounces each, and a chest (100 lbs.) of Bohea.385 In another, he requested thirty pounds of “good common green tea in Canisters.”386 Teas and their wares required users “know what to do with the props,” performing the behaviors associated with status (McDaid 2013, 81), and allowing for the contextualization of Britishness. Figure 6.19: This collage illustrates recovered porcelain vessels: bowl (upper left), teapot body (upper right/left hand corner), and saucers and cups. (Photo author, courtesy of the ISM) More expensive porcelain cups, saucers, and other tablewares at Fort de Chartres present “the largest collection of porcelains from the Illinois Country,” including Chinese porcelain cups, bowls, saucers, or teapot lids, imported by the British, but no English- AO; JBFdC; Crown Account (Wilkins), BWM. MBP, BWM. 386 Morgan-Chevalier, 15/5/1770, BWM. 384 385 215 made porcelain (Noble 1997, 67; Figure 6.19). Traders imported many of these from their distributers, like “Handled burnt China”387 cups and saucers, and complete sets of “Large Breakfast best China Cups & Saucers.”388 Traders also imported earthenware tea pots, specifically, English Delft.389 French traders sold two officers “Earthen pots,” showing the utility of incorporating French-produced goods into their table wares.390 These also may correlate to subalterns, sergeants, or private men, as related to status, as well as to the possession of tea service accessories: the strainers, kettles, sugar bowls, cannisters, and milk containers. Like the use of sugar, these illustrate status differences, with costs related to wealth, and sizes to the differences in groups.391 Lacking material descriptors in accounts, we can only use vessel forms to allude to these artifacts. As discussed, Europeans had access to a wide variety of alcoholic beverages. Within the barracks and officers’ quarters, these further reflected status. The secondary literature documents drinking culture: “Alcohol formed part of the daily diet for most men,” and in terms of the military, “drinking by the officers was considered sociable; etiquette, choice of beverage and accoutrements reinforced their position as officers and gentlemen” (Jones and Smith 1985, 7). Here, the prevalence of alcohol and drunkenness emphasized lines of status, through alcohol purchases and associated drinking vessels. As part of Georgian attitudes, Kopperman references that alcohol abuse was fostered by the boredom of life within these forts, and “drunkenness was epidemic” throughout the ranks (1996, 451, 445). This led to disciplinary and performance issues, but with officers rarely receiving equal punishments for the crime (Ibid.). On a journey to Illinois, Morgan accompanied a company of the 18th Foot, and observed the Soldiers “very drunk & in great disorder.”392 Intoxicated soldiers threatened discipline, neglected duty, and contributed to the perpetration of other crimes like fighting and theft. The detachment at Kaskaskia caused fits for Morgan, not for alcohol-related abuses, but for ‘Burnt China’ distinguished porcelain from other refined earthenwares (Roth 1961, 81). Morgan’s sales, BWM. 389 AF, BWM. 390 Noble 1988, 32-33; JBFdC and JK, BWM. 391 Invoice of Goods, Philadelphia; AF, BWM. 392 Morgan, Memorandums, BWM. 387 388 216 their unwillingness to pay their bills. He advised his agent, “No Soldiers hence forward’ to be trusted … [Soldiers] are not to expect to have Liquors retailed to them … No more Credit.”393 With rum as added payment for routine and extra fatigues, it brings to question just how prevalent was drunkenness within the garrison, especially in connection to dereliction of duty or desertion? Private soldiers and officers had little difficulty obtaining liquor, whether through distributed rations or purchases from the traders, French civilians, or their own officers. At a frontier fort like Chartres, officers’ embraced drinking and comradery even more due to their distance from peers, which “made the maintenance of custom and decorum even more important” (Smith 1983, 34). On the other hand, officers and elites’ condemnation towards private men’s drinking was also apparent. It weakened discipline and subordination by undermining officers’ ability to control and restrain the men. One trader complained “I found most of the Soldiers … very drunk & in great disorder.”394 Major Farmar complained about French tavern-keepers, who took chits from the soldiers, enabling drunkenness. He made it “forbidden … to sell any intoxicating liquor to the said soldiers.”395 The private men often bought smaller quantities of cheaper alcohols like rum or beer for immediate consumption. In contrast, officers could afford to buy more expensive and diverse drinks, and in larger quantities. The garrison had access to a disparate array of alcohol: wines, punch, distilled liquors, beer, and cider. Soldiers and officers bought shrub and wines like Frontenac (sweet French wine), Madeira, and Claret.396 Accounts illustrate the dominance of French wines, especially in the first years of British rule. Captains Shee and Cole each bought two hogsheads (108 gallons), and Ensign Hutchins and Wilkins each bought one hogshead.397 Accounts list sales to officers, subalterns, and civilian personnel, although in smaller quantities. The preference for wine amongst the upper class best reflects their taste, Morgan, Finley Memorandums, 5/1769, BWM. Memorandums, 2/4/1770, BWM. 395 Farmar Proclamation, 13/2/1766, A&CXI, 154. 396 AO, JAK, JBFdC, BWM. 397 Account Viviat, 1769; Wilkins’ Account, BWM. 393 394 217 means, and cultural attitudes. The larger (and more private) rooms of the officers allude to the safe storage of larger quantities and their ability to socialized with their peers. Morgan’s commercial endeavors included a brewery and distillery, with both products selling well. However, neither beer nor whiskey were imported prior to his venture, nor does evidence suggest the issuance of small beer (Smith 1983, 31). A gallon of beer sold for four livres (3s 9d), as compared to five livres for a gallon of claret (4s 8d). Officers commanding in Kaskaskia bought beer in larger quantities than did those at Fort de Chartres, whether for personal use or as part of their obligation to their detachments is not clear.398 Officers infrequently purchased whiskey or spirits.399 Morgan estimated the annual consumption of spirits in Illinois [civilians and military] equated to 10,000 gallons.400 Unlike whiskey and spirits, the traders sold rum in great quantities, and often to the civilian workers and private men. Officers distributed rum to soldiers as payment for work and gifted it to Indigenous people. Rum served as a bonus for garrison fatigues, especially those occurring in/near water or in cold months, to fortify health.401 In Illinois, rum took the place of small beer. Soldiers were issued about nine ounces daily, about twenty gallons a year (Dunn 2001, 75). Of course, more was purchased independently, imported from Jamaica, Philadelphia, New England, or locally made, with over 600 separate purchases listed in accounts.402 Punch and shrub are brandy-based drinks, mixed with spices, sugar, and fruit juices. These relate to the communal experience of drinking within polite society. Karen Harvey’s study of punch further contextualizes the relationship of this drink to performances of masculinity and status (2012). The celebrations and ritualized drinking surrounding punch bowls were about supervising social boundaries and includes the ‘communitas’ of the shared bowl, music, and refined conversations. These events occurred within the officers’ and commandant’s buildings rather than the shared JK, BWM. JK, BWM. 400 Morgan-Hutchins, 19/12/1770, BWM. 401 JBFdC, BWM. 402 Morgan-Peter Baynton, 29/11/1770, BWM. 398 399 218 communal space of the barracks. The costs of these drinks restricted them to officers, and imported and local shrub and punch were available.403 In one purchase, Captain Evans spent 440 livres (£12 Sterling) on six gallons of spirits, six gallons of juice, and ten gallons of shrub.404 Only officers of the 18th Foot bought juices, with simultaneous buys of sugar and spirits, illustrating punch as a higher-status drink. Figure 6.20: Shown here are two fragments of recovered colanders/strainers, with the example on the left, from an area just outside of the commandant’s house. (Photos author, Courtesy of the ISM) Prior to 1770, punch and shrub were not associated with a particular style of drinking vessel (Jones and Smith 1985, 11), but the colanders, punch bowls, and ladles they required all appear in traders’ accounts, in tin and pewter.405 Archaeologists recovered brass and copper colander fragments and punch bowls at peer forts (Jackson 2005, 327; Hanson & Hsu 1975, 134). Two fragments were recovered at Fort de Chartres, one outside of the commandant’s house (Figure 6.20). Wilkins bought pewter colanders in Illinois, but what makes this acquisition more interesting is the items purchased concurrently: two gallons of orange juice, six pounds of brown sugar, ¼ pound of nutmeg, and one hogshead (54 gallons) of wine, alongside 132 corks.406 This may suggest a punch party, or Wilkins’ intention to bottle this for future consumption or sale. While I cannot state that ‘this’ LAFC; JBFdC; JK; AO, BWM. JBFdC, BWM. 405 AF, BWM. 406 JBFdC; Wilkins’ Account, BWM. 403 404 219 colander fragment was one of those he purchased in Illinois, it does offer an interesting correlation of artifact to the documents. Figure 6.21: This image shows a toasting vessel with masonic symbols (Wikipedia; Public Domain). The variety of vessels used to consume these beverages also help to demonstrate hierarchical differences in Illinois and link to more ritualized aspects of community drinking and festivities. One interesting vessel fragment recovered from outside the officers’ building was a firing glass (Figure 6.21). These glasses had engraved masonic symbols, a European fraternal order who espoused Enlightenment ideals. Masonic lodges had burgeoned across Britain and Ireland within this century and “might also have contributed to the institutional infrastructure of intellectual exchange” (Conway 2011, 143). Masonic imagery provides another linkage to Britishness as Europeanness, allowing for the extension of this fraternity into the officer class. Morgan imported at least 120 “Free Masons Glasses,” with traders Rumsey and Murray (both former officers) buying a dozen.407 Although no other masonic symbols have been noted, this sherd’s discovery demonstrates the presence of one artifact which represented an important aspect of community building and male sociality. 407 AM; JBFdC, BWM. 220 Glass stemware and tableware allowed for the demonstration of the knowledge of style and etiquette through the taste tying drinks to drinkware. Documents from Fort de Chartres reference officers and civilians offering “compliments” through toasts to the health of King or Country with a variety of drinkware: the tumblers, wine glasses, and stemware. These also reflect the micro-community of officers and social elite, in part, through the materials composing these drinking vessels (Scott 1991, 119-120). Private soldiers did not have the means for expensive liquors or their accompanying accoutrement. Additionally, these wares did not transport safely within the limited baggage available to them, but officers could safely stow them. Stemmed glasses and tumblers offer a status display linked to officers’ ritual of dining and drinking. Examinations of these artifacts allow for the potential to connect further cultural production and usage. At Fort Michilimackinac, archaeologists found soda glass vessels and tumblers within French-affiliated features, although Brown notes the British used soda glass for utilitarian vessels (1971, 105). Leaded glassware remained a staple British export throughout the 18th century, and at Michilimackinac, is associated with British features (Brown 1971, 106; Jones & Smith 1985, 34). At Fort de Chartres, French soda glass comprised 64% of the tumblers and stemware recovered, with British leaded glass the remainder. I assume the British glass represents that garrison, while French glass could have been used by either. Surviving accounts do not illustrate British goods imported by the French in the decades before British rule, while they do demonstrate the opposite occurring. Tumbler sherds outnumbered more fragile stemmed wares, even though peer sites reported wine glasses to be the “most common drinking glass found” (Jones and Smith 1985, 39). The heavier tumbler glass could illustrate the difficulties of transporting fragile wares, as demonstrated in a request to Morgan to purchase “a Dozen silver Goblets … in lieu of Wine Glasses.”408 Tumblers’ glass weight made them more expensive, and accounts link these with officers and civilian personnel, but only two wine glasses.409 408 409 Murray-Morgan, 2/7/1769, BWM. JAK, BWM. 221 Private men used more durable and cheaper drinking vessels, composed of tin, pewter, and waxed leather. The lack of archaeological evidence for these is not surprising, due to their insubstantial durability and because of pewter’s recycling value. Accounts describe tin cups in a range of sizes (a gill to a quart), with a solitary purchase by a sergeant.410 Waxed leather, pewter, and tin jacks (handled beer tankards) were available in quart and pint sizes, and with a variety of decorations. Painted jacks sold for 4d, with those “jappaned” at 20d, while pewter quart cups sold for 50d.411 Accounts show the range of drinking vessels available to men’s messes, correlated to their economic state. As before, the lack of individual entries of sales for private men instead references their generalized obscurity in records. The differentiation of rank, and the structures in which these soldiers and officers used these vessels and drinks, supports various identity groups. Drinking within the barracks or officers’ quarters perpetuated the ritual of celebration, as well as daily consumption, needed to sustain these communities. 6.4. A Martial Identity: Activities and Practices I have contextualized etic (outsider) and emic (insider) perceptions of Illinois’ communities of identity by the relationships of categories like class, religion, ethnicity, and race. The context of the fort, its structures, and spaces have framed these. Material culture related to the experiences of those within, impacting their quality of life and ability to reinforce identities. This section examines how the experience of being a British soldier reflected the expectations of a ‘martial Britishness.’ It relates to habitus, the “subjective … system of internalized structures, schemes of perception … and action common to all members of the same group” (Bourdieu 1977, 86) and structures, which created the “importance of routine” and “social reproduction” within this system (Giddens 1984 19). Routines reflect how material culture and practice embodied soldiers, creating the discipline necessary to fight eighteenth-century conflicts. Examinations of the rejection and subversion of this soldierly identity, through nonconformity, disobeying orders, 410 411 Invoice of Goods, Philadelphia; LAFC; AF, BWM. Ibid. 222 abuses of power, and outright desertions offer a nuanced interpretation of martial identities. 6.4.1. Regulating Life: Time As part of the subordinative aspects of British military society, soldiers were bound by routines and duties indicative of their status. While this clearly had implications for daily activities; turning out for inspection, signaling the end of the workday, or designating mealtimes, the regulation of time within garrisons also reflected a key aspect of Georgian society. “Living by clock time constituted a way of being modern, more commercial, and more punctual,” with these values associated with ‘proper’ behaviors (Martin 2008, 37). Routines emphasized the habits and structures of the military and discipline began “to be imposed in specific locales” (Foucault 1977, 203). This reflected the ‘order and control’ embraced by enlightened thinkers (Deetz 1977, 40). The presence of watches or clocks have not been shown archaeologically at de Chartres, but documents allude to the presence of watchmakers’ pliers in store. At least three individuals paid for the repair of timepieces, specifically Colonel Cole, a French trader, and trader John Finley, who paid a soldier 10 livres for “mending his watch.”412 Regulated times reflect the balanced world and emphasized the structures of discipline and security. As a military institution, these routines were visible. “Every martial activity from reveille in the morning to tattoo at night had a distinct drum signal” (Hagist 2020, 48). Within and without, the call of fife and drum regulated these structures and practices, informing soldiers of their work details, guard duties, dawn, and dusk. A period orderly book allows for an understanding of this regulation of time and tasks. All ye guards to Be Relieved at ye Beat of the Troop at 9 o’clock in ye morning. That ye Drums all Beat ye Reveille at Half After Four o’clock in ye morning & Every Company Turn out immediately & Parade … That ye Commanding officers of each company See that their Men are Exercised from ten to twelve o’clock AM and from Four to Six PM … the Drums Beat ye Tattoo at Seven o’clock at Night.413 412 413 AF; MP; JK, BWM. Lyman 1757 in Ford 1899, 2. 223 The beating of the drums called the private men to inspection, while tattoo-beating at night signaled their call to quarters.414 One court martial referenced this, as Sergeant Johnston “was absent both at the beating the retreat and Tattoo [as he was drinking in a barn].”415 In Kaskaskia, officers commanded “every man should go to bed and the lights be put out at Nine o’clock.”416 The governance of time references the management of soldiers, in terms of their physical presence and as it relates to discipline. Supervision over the soldiers’ time implied control over their bodies, movements, and functions. 6.4.2. Controlling Movement and Access Governing soldiers suggests the restriction or permission of their actions. Status dictated movements, with officers allowed more freedom. Soldiers’ subordination was dictated by their own “moral and economic incompetence,” with officers “denying them the autonomy they … had as adult men” (Merrill 2015, 44). As a part of regulation, movements only occurred for soldiers within the context of “predictable routines and the ordered use of specific spaces” (Dellino-Musgrave 2005, 234). Enclosure, then, controlled soldiers’ bodies in a way which protected “disciplinary monotony” (Foucault 1995, 132) by preventing these soldiers from looting, violence, or alcohol, all endemic issues within a garrison. At Fort de Chartres, residential spaces and other structures link the flow of people and materials throughout. Structured areas authorized movements but also suggest unauthorized movements, which could connect to theft, threats to privacy, and to the security of the garrison and its materials (Walas 2015, 70). In an isolated garrison like this, the protection of personal and communal goods remained a priority. The security and privacy provided by locks allowed for a regulated, safe community. The documentary and archaeological records demonstrate issues of security and privacy, and the differential access which rank and physical space lend to this. Cuthbertson 1777, 36, 108. Court Martial, 27/11/1766, A&CXI, 435. 416 GCM, NA. 414 415 224 The fort’s inhabitants were fearful of their position, centered amidst potentially hostile European and Indigenous peoples. One commander felt the French “will make eternal professions of Friendship and good Offices to every Englishman … but their double manner of Acting should put us on our guard to trust them as little as possible & to suspect them of doing us every harm possible in private.”417 Later, intelligence suggested “several Nations of Indians were badly inclined, and even threatened us with open Rupture,” forcing Captain Forbes to store seven months of provisions within the fort.418 Frequent acts and threats of violence necessitated careful security of provisions and supplies.419 These “issues of mistrust and security, and theft” also impacted the relationships between those within the fort and those designated as outsiders (Fleming 2000, 357). Beyond military stores, the traders and Indian Commissary secured supplies inside the fort, under lock and guard. Potential larceny increased social tensions in remote communities and within congested barracks, as “issues of mistrust and secrecy, security, and theft were also heavily involved in relationships” (Fleming 2000, 261, 357). This is especially so with a British garrison existing amid French Illinois and their Indigenous allies, and with rotating regiments. Court records do not reference theft, but archaeology has pointed to these necessary protections. Safety measures could go far to protect possessions and equipment, and their presence illustrate another aspect of the regulation of space, with security measures in place to deal with the insiders and outsiders. Fraser-Haldimand, 4/5/1766, A&CXI, 229. Forbes-Gage, 14/4/1769, GP76AS. 419 Extracts, 17/7/1769, Pennsylvania Gazette; Extracts, 9/4/1772, Pennsylvania Gazette; Wilkins-Turnbull, 9/4/1771, GP104AS; Butricke-Barnsley, 27/6/1769, A&VXI, 566. 417 418 225 Figure 6.22: This figure illustrates the rear/front of a lock plate (upper) and key fragments recovered, like examples at Fort Michilimackinac. (Orser 1977; Photos Author, Courtesy of the ISM) Excavation and surface collection recovered key fragments, hasps, and lock parts, with nine lock fragments found in the featured described as a blacksmith’s shop. Documents detail the purchasing and repair of a variety of locks for the fort’s gates and interior buildings. Blacksmiths were paid for the “making of keys mending locks … for the Doors & Window Shutters of the Officers & Soldiers Barracks” (Figure 6.22). All buildings had locks, while others had closets and rooms within with lockable doors, providing additional security for regimental pay, correspondence, and personal items.420 Traders offered diverse security items: steel and brass bag locks, padlocks, drawer locks, door locks, and chest locks. Even wine casks and kegs contained keyed locks. Locking mechanisms allowed for the securing of possessions and stores, especially the military’s weapons and ammunition.421 420 421 Receipts Provisions, T 1/448, NA; SI. Invoice of Goods Philadelphia; JBFdC; Goods @ FdC; AF, BWM. 226 Figure 6.23: Detailed image of the storehouse (left) and guardhouse (right) as it may have looked with intact bastions, represented by my manipulation of a google image where I have copied the northern bastions onto the southern. For one example of security and space within the fort, I detail two specific structures, the Powder Magazine (Figure 6.25) and the Storehouse (Figure 6.23). Both contained materials subject to potential theft, danger, or sabotage. The Storehouse was positioned next to the guardhouse, just inside the fort’s main (southern) gate.422 Its location highlights the importance of the river as a highway for the shipment and regulation of trade and goods, but also for its access for military operations. It consisted of one chamber, a dining room, Commissary’s closet, and two storerooms, with storage in a vaulted cellar and attic.423 Traders stored provisions here awaiting their dispersal. Guards kept watch over stockpiled supplies to deter pilferage by soldiers and visitors alike. 422 423 Pittman in Hodder 1906, 88. Pittman-Gage, 17/12/1765, GP46AS. 227 Figure 6.24: This figure shows the soldiers’ chamber (left) and armory (right) within the Guardhouse. (Photo Author) The guardhouse mirrored the storehouse’s size and layout. It contained soldiers’ chambers, a separate room for their supervising officer, an artillery/ammunition storeroom (Figure 6.24), and the chapel, which served as a flour store.424 Guards protected supplies, provided sentries, and secured prisoners.425 Guard and sentry duties involved a quarter of the troops at any one time, who performed a variety of activities (Anderson 1984, 80). Systematized tasks organized soldiers’ workdays with scheduled time to eliminate unsoldierly behaviors, reinforced group identity, offered security of commodities, protected against attack, and prevented desertion. The ritualization of sentries, marched to and from their posts by corporals, reinforced the passage of time and the need for visible protection of these stores and buildings and served to warn or intimidate outsiders and observers. No formal archaeology has occurred in or around these buildings, and footings for the southern gate and gate wall have not been discovered, likely due to the systematic flooding and post-occupational looting. 424 425 Pittman-Gage, 17/12/1765, GP46AS. GCM, NA; Morgan-BW, 30/10/1768, BWM. 228 Figure 6.25: This figure illustrates the restored powder magazine (above), (Photo author) with the lower photo detailing the northeast bastion. (Courtesy of David Horne) The powder magazine occupied the northeastern bastion, furthest from the main gate, and was strategically situated to limit access, in part, by having to pass by the 229 officers’ quarters. An “excellent Magazine,”426 its door secure “in Stone,”427 with locks and sentries, increased the safety of powder and ammunitions. For example, ordnance stores increased from 166 pounds of powder (1765) to over 9,300 pounds (1772).428 To illustrate this in context, garrison usage between May 1771 and April 1772 equated to just over 300 pounds of gunpowder. The need for adequate stores, in case of attack, intensified the accumulation of reserves. Archaeologists recovered few artifacts at this location, despite excavation down to its footings, due to its post-occupational usage as a barn and looting by its inhabitants (Brown 1975). The Powder Magazine’s placement, and documentary evidence of its security and use allow interpretation of its role and suggest the types of materials used in its securing. 6.4.3. Fatigues Private men were expected to participate in a variety of activities that reinforced the image of the soldier as defender, laborer, and imperial agent. These duties helped to structure and control soldiers’ lives. Soldiers’ routines embrace work fatigues as part of their obligations, but also served to create bonds of fellowship, through shared labors (Frey 2010, 95). Officers at Fort de Chartres assigned laborious but necessary chores. Within their first week in Illinois, soldiers cleaned “the Fort and Barracks which were very dirty.”429 Issues of dirt and uncleanliness reflected the desire to improve health and sanitation conditions, but also reflect on stereotypes of the French, stressing their slovenly and indolent behaviors. For a professional, ordered, and masculine force like the British perceived theirs to be, fatigues surrounding cleanliness reflected discipline and subordination. They hoped to instill in the private men, the ‘group culture,’ which shaped mind, body, and action (Bourdieu 1977). Duties included manual labor: cleaning the Eddington in Carroon 1984, 91. SI. 428 Wilkins-Gage, 1/6/1772, GP111AS. 429 Eddington in Carroon 1984, 84. 426 427 230 barracks, digging trenches, or fetching stone and timber while more specialized labors (Figure 6.26) entailed making charcoal or masonry work.430 Figure 6.26: Soldiers were employed in a variety of work fatigues. This excerpt details an engineer’s account. Soldiers received extra pay for thatching a barn, cutting wood, and digging a trench. (Crown-Hutchins, 1769, GW25.92) Routine duties were part of a soldiers’ workload, part of his 8d/day pay, while others offered additional compensation (Hagist 2020, 30). Illinois’ warrants detail a wide variety of these, as when ninety-seven soldiers worked in “Quarrying and Batteauing Stones and Facing the Bank of the Mississippi with them.”431 Soldiers received extra pay for this work, and sometimes bonuses of rum. Troops weeded and cut fence pickets for a three-acre garden.432 Pay for supplementary duties differed depending upon rank and the type of work. While these sums could help in the acquisition of material goods, they Pittman-Gage, 20/3/1766, GP49AS; JBFdC, BWM; GW18.93. Payments-Fixing Bank, 1769, GW25.109. 432 Gage’s Statement, 2/10/1767, T 1/461, NA; WO 71/79, NA; Farmar-Gage, 28/3/1766, GP50AS. 430 431 231 potentially complicate our understanding of the recovered assemblage, like the presence of porcelain and finer ceramics within the barracks. Beyond the 8d/day regular pay and 5½d per day fatigue pay, soldiers serving as artificers, smiths, and carpenters could earn an additional 13d daily (GW18.82, 18.92). Officers’ personal servants earned an extra shilling per week, while more skilled soldiers working as tailors and shoemakers could earn two to three times their annual base pay (Hagist 2020, 32). Rank also equated to greater supplemental pay. Corporals supervising fatigues received an additional 11d/day, while sergeants received about 14½d.433 These all contrast to payments officers received for extra duties. Lieutenant Rumsey worked as a secretary to Wilkins, receiving £100 annually, and Colonel Cole, after his appointment as Indian agent received £200434. The difference between the regular annual pay for private men (£12) and of Lieutenant-Colonel John Wilkins salary (£137), outside of standard deductions and extra earnings, illustrates the relationship of rank and purchasing power.435 The practice of purchasing commissions (Houlding 1981; Scholz 2016) implied that most officers did not rely on their wages for their subsistence, nor for any luxuries. GW25.100. GW29:81; Indian Expenditures, 25/9/1766, A&CXI, 390. 435 List of Officers, Gage Broadsides, 139b. 433 434 232 Figure 6.27: This figure illustrates recovered tools: a shovel (top left), gouges and bits (upper right), a scythe fragment (lower left), hatchet (bottom middle), and sickle fragment (lower right). (Photos author, Courtesy of the ISM). Excavation and surface collection have recovered iron and copper tools, evidence of these fatigues. Fragments of sickles, chisel bits, gouges, and saw blade fragments (Figure 6.27) excavated near the area of the blacksmith’s shop and east barracks illustrate different activities. Soldiers worked to keep the fort clean, and twenty-one soldiers worked to dig a drainage trench and clear “the ditch round the Fort.”436 In another account, a former sergeant, discharged in Illinois, remained to work for the garrison, “carting Rubbish from the fort” twice in 1767, equating to over ten cart loads, a substantial amount of trash.437 This illustrates efforts at keeping the grounds clean, allowing mobility 436 437 GW 25.98, 25.92. GW 15.58. 233 within, but also to avoid standing pools of water or garbage. These activities help posit a cultural behavior which may explain this absence of artifacts in the exterior ditch, something which previous interpretations have overlooked. Its final dumping place is unknown, but it is an entry which is significant in helping to contextualize the material culture recovered at the fort as part of formation processes. 6.4.4. Drill, Weapons, and Armaments As discussed, the subordination of soldiers was viewed as a necessary function of eighteenth-century violence, reflecting status, rank, and masculinity. The tactics and the methods necessary for martial exercises reflected Georgian/European attitudes towards hierarchy, routine, and order. Deetz references control based on the ‘enlightened’ use of reason, which extends to the subservience of the lower ranks to their social superiors (1995, 40). Preventing men from firing was not the only part of linear warfare that went against human instinct … The formation itself, the line, went against the natural human instinct to crowd together in the face of danger, and the tactical need to preserve the formation at all costs went against both the impulse to flee danger and the impulse to fight and engage the enemy. (Merrill 2015, 25) Foucault viewed the body as the “object and target of power,” which could be manipulated and trained to obey the commands and practices positioning a soldier in a line. Individual soldiers were organized in movement and controlled as “a fragment of mobile space,” which replaced “courage or honor” with regimentation and discipline (1995, 154). These close-order tactics reproduced European society and allowed soldiers to materialize into a community of comrades through shared experiences and material culture (Frey 1981, 112). Drill and practice reinforced the conformity of the British garrison and bolstered community identity when observed by spectators (Conway 2014, 20). At Fort de Chartres, these activities may have taken place within the fort, upon the 234 large open space referenced as the parade, a space measuring just under two acres [8,093.71 m2] (Keene 2002, 146; Figure 6.28).438 Figure 6.28: This photo illustrates the open space within the fort, looking southward across its ‘eastern’ half, with the foundation of the Officers’ building and East Barracks visible. (Keene 1988, 73) Records allow for the discussion of specific aspects of activities and demonstrate how officers used these practices to entertain, and intimidate, outsiders. Wilkins allowed fifty Metchigamia warriors inside the fort, where he “had the Garrison on the parade in their view at Exercise.”439 Wilkins had a large boat converted into an armed galley (The Gage), which allowed for the projection of British control onto Illinois’ rivers. He used this to display Britain’s power during diplomatic relations with the Spanish commander at St. Louis. “In order to cut a figure,” Wilkins journeyed aboard The Gage, where “we were Received at Landing in Great pomp & State.”440 The ship’s guns were fired to honor the Spaniards, and at another time to salute Peoria Chief Black Dog and his party “to their great pleasure and Amazement.”441 Routine cannon fire helped to reinforce soldiers’ Richardson-Morgan, 28/12/1770, BWM; Morgan-BW, 4/2/1768, A&CXVI, 167. WJ, 3/5/1769, GP111AS. 440 Wilkins-Gage, 16/6/1770, GP93AS. 441 WJ, 18/3/1769, GP111AS. 438 439 235 training and abilities, but also highlighted the presence and power of the garrison, given the sounds and displays they conveyed. The regulation of the soldier, and crucial to its maintenance and perpetuation, was the practice of these maneuvers. Drills served as visible symbols and physical manifestations of this martial community’s potential for violence and strength (Figure 6.29). The upright stance, fit of uniforms, and positioning of hands, arms, and weaponry all combined to display this transformation. “Discipline defines each of the relations that the body must have with the object that it manipulates,” incorporating thoughts of how “the body interacts with the material culture of the soldier.” (Foucault 1995, 143). It allowed for practiced posture to mold the “formless clay” of the soldier, turning his action “into the automatism of habit,” which replaced the “peasant” with the soldier (Ibid., 127). Manual Exercises broke down the various steps and movements, articulating body position in relation to the individual soldier, but also his relationship to other men in the ranks. “Soldiers are to be made to understand, that constant and regular exercise is as necessary for their health as their instruction, and that an army undisciplined, and unused to any fatigue” is easy prey (Cuthbertson 1777, 165). These manuals stressed the correlation of body and its movements to create martial discipline. The multiple steps of loading and firing, and the regulation of movement allowed for synchronized volleys, the repetitious (ordered) machine of the military which eighteenth-century warfare required. 236 Figure 6.29: This figure details the positions and commands required of soldiers firing in volley. (Simes 1777, 297) Thus, the careful positioning and articulation of soldiers’ bodies defined the spaces those bodies occupied, through controlled movements (Foucault 1995, 154). Their clothing, hats, shoes, and weapons crafted the body to place itself within the larger workings of the company and created and maintained the professional soldier. Drill confirmed this context and practice, part of soldiers’ embodiment. 237 Orderly books served as the records of the regiment, containing the “general orders, regulations, &c. the returns … and all that relates to the operation and economy of the regiment” (Steppler 1988, 8). Books contained muster rolls, payrolls, and inspection reports for the regiment. Illinois’ have not been recovered, leaving a gap in our knowledge related to drill and discipline, but a few examples allude to it. Gage hoped for a more regimented system of training, more so as tensions increased along the east coast. He encouraged Illinois’ commanders to explore and exercise within the countryside, to “train them also to March and engage in the Woods and make them all good Marksmen.”442 We cannot confirm how often officers complied with Gage’s wishes, as letters rarely detail patrols outside of extenuating circumstances relating to real or imagined attacks. Figure 6.30: This figure details bodily positioning from a military guide (Simes 1777, 261). The placement of soldiers’ bodies was crucial for inculcating identity and for performing the maneuvers of warfare. Weapons and armaments relate to the soldiers’ ability to perform as soldiers, in terms of regulating their image and the allowance of their required duties. Examining the excavated material culture for specific evidence of the British garrison offers 442 Gage-Officer Commanding, 2/4/1768, GP75AS; Gage-Hamilton, 20/9/1771, GP106AS. 238 understanding by considering what they abandoned. Documents assist in this contextualization through references to supplies, maintenance, and neglect. The Crown’s Board of Ordnance provided soldiers with the means to perform their duties through the issuance of weaponry, equipment, ammunition, and powder. The weaponry of the soldier helped to define their placements (Figure 6.30), and craft the body within the larger context of the movements of line and company. For example, the Crown issued Brown Bess muskets to soldiers. The standardization of equipment increased efficiency and lessened the need for diverse equipment for repairs. With uniformity, smiths could easily replace or fix these in-country. Soldiers were financially responsible for the upkeep of weaponry, as shown when one soldier “accidentally broke the Stock of his Firelock” (6d for repairs).443 Smaller stockpiles of weapons and replacement parts within forts allowed for their continued maintenance.444 Repairs fell to Crown-employed blacksmiths and skilled soldiers, with payment warrants detailing at least three smiths at Fort de Chartres, working within the smiths’ shop, a crucial role in maintaining this community as a martial one.445 Despite a garrison averaging 200 soldiers, archaeologists recovered twenty firearms-related artifacts, like brass ramrod tubes, lock parts, and side-plates. Surfacecollected artifacts, like trigger guards, a Brown Bess ramrod terminal, or a trade gun barrel fragment, nearly double the number excavated, but do not appear in previous analyses (Keene 2002). Their scarcity relates to their value and correlates to smith’s ability to repair and recycle parts, and potentially to decades of looting, surface collection, and postoccupational activities. A few artifacts can be attributed to British muskets, like a Brown Bess trigger guard and two lock/side plates (Grimm 1970; Hanson and Hsu 1975, 66; Figure 6.31). The predominance of British firearms-related metalworks may offer a good proxy argument that much of the rest of this assemblage also reflects the British period of occupation rather than the French. GCM, NA; Brumwell 2002, 57. Forbes-Gage, 13/12/1768, GP83AS. 445 Smiths’ Account, GW18.83, GW25.116. 443 444 239 Figure 6.31: The figure (left) shows a Brown Bess sideplate (Photo author, Courtesy of the ISM), while the example on the right illustrates its placement. (Public Domain) Many of these artifacts link to smaller-caliber civilian or trade guns, but this does not preclude their purchase or use by the British garrison. Morgan’s firm imported a large variety of firearms potentially linked to recovered artifacts. His agent shipped “Nine of the French Muskets,” and “Smooth Bored Guns, such as the Carolinians use.”446 No identifiable parts or documents connect to the French Charleville musket, their standard military arms. The combination of French guns with civilian and British-issued muskets demonstrates the complexity of interpreting the assemblage as British or French, excepting those of the Brown Bess. Figure 6.32: This figure illustrates a surface-collected British ‘Box Lock’ pistol. (Left Photo Author, Courtesy of the ISM; Right photo, Public Domain) 446 Campbell-BWM, 21/8/ 1768; Campbell-Morgan 16/6/1769; Winston-BWM, 14/11/1765, BWM. 240 Officers were equipped with sidearms. A surface-collected pistol (Figure 6.32) is on display within the fort’s museum. The pistol’s style dates to the mid-late 18th century and has a unique feature, a barrel which unscrewed, thereby allowing the musket ball to be set directly into the pistol. Morgan’s firm brought “6 pair Screw Barrell Pocket & holster Pistols” into Illinois.447 Accounts do not allow for the direct association of sidearms, making any assignation other than denoting this as a British period gun problematic. Still, the cost and status of this weapon might imply an officer’s association due to its non-standard nature. Officers may have used their own sidearms and long arms or supplemented their weaponry in country, as was the case with Captain Shee who bought a pair of pistols.448 Sidearms reinforced public status displays and officers’ roles. This also contextualizes the practice and use of firearms in different activities, like recreation, hunting, and warfare. Through these recreational pursuits, similarly, the professionalism of this martial Britishness could be exhibited. Officers’ perceptions of masculinity, emphasizing “strength, endurance, and military skills,” reflected their gentlemanly status, but also the contrast between their private men, as professionals, and civilians (Torbin 2010, 697). The practice of soldiers’ drill reflected officers’ honor and accomplishments, and they saw martial Britishness in the skills of their troops. For example, while drinking wine with Captain Forbes and Colonel Cole, Morgan complimented his ‘English Hunters,’ with Forbes and Cole arguing that they did not shoot as well. Cole offered a wager to Morgan for one, the Pennsylvanian Jacob Dieverbaugh, to demonstrate his marksmanship. Dieverbaugh had to: to shoot by turns 100 Yds at a barrel head without any kind of Rest whatever—for every Time they hit the barrel he to pay me £100 every Time they missed it I to pay him the like Sum. I told him … I would Wager a Dollar each Shot for One hundred Shots Certain … Dieverbaugh was pitched upon … set up the Head of a small Keg 100 Yds & struck it 10 Times out of Eleven Shots as fast as he could load & fire. He then began at the Barrel & won the Whole of the One hundred Dollars.449 MBP, BWM. JBFdC, BWM. 449 Morgan-Williamson, 14/7/1768, A&CXIV, 350. 447 448 241 Clearly, practice might equate with success, in both hunting, sport, and war. Perceptions of Britishness as it applied to their martial identity contrasted with their expectations of civilians, especially frontiersmen as hunters. Figure 6.33: Illustrated are recovered musket balls and shot (left) and two surface-collected musket balls showing teeth marks (right). (Photos author, Courtesy of the ISM) The recovery of musket balls (Figure 6.33) reveals ammunition for drill, hunting, and active duty. It includes balls for Brown Bess-sized muskets and other firearms. Archaeology and surface collection recovered over 55 musket balls, and of those measured for diameter/caliber, five represent the size used with the British Brown Bess (0.69”) and one sized for a French Charleville (0.60-0.65”) (Sivilich 1996, 103). Six compared to sizes of smaller-bored trade guns, fusils, or carbines. Two examples of lead shot, one buckshot and one smaller birdshot round out the assemblage (Ibid.; Hanson and Hsu 1976, 80). Inventories detail the ammunition surrendered by the French, consisting of 612 pounds of “Musket Ball,” 487 pounds of carbine shot, and 370 pounds suitable for fusils, an arsenal to which the British added, or recast, over their tenure.450 Gunflints (see Spanbauer 2017), musket balls, and musketry all relate to the construction of a martial image, and performance of this identity. Outside of ball caliber, however, any attempts to assign cultural affiliation of their production is largely fruitless. 450 Farmar-Gage, 18/3/1766, GP49AS; Wilkins-Gage, 1/6/1772, GP111AS. 242 Figure 6.34: This figure illustrates two excavated brass scabbard clips and a detailed image of its placement. (Photo author, Courtesy of the ISM; Morier, Public Domain) Private men were equipped with bayonets. Keene lists one bayonet excavated (2002, 150). My examination of the collection tallied three triangular bladed bayonets, like those at other British forts (Hanson and Hsu 1975, 71; Grimm 1970, 47). Bayonets were sheathed in a scabbard attached to their belt using a metal, hook-like device inserted through a leather frog (Figure 6.34). Archaeologists recovered three brass and two iron clips within and around the barracks and associated drains (Keene 2002, 160). The brass clips compare to other British examples (Stone 1974, 279; Hanson and Hsu 1976, 69). In lieu of bayonets, officers purchased their own swords. This underscored their status as gentlemen, with the materials and decorations of swords, as well as the knowledge of using them, reinforcing rank differences (Bense 2004, 51). Surface collection did reveal evidence of swords including blade fragments, two handguard fragments, and part of a handle. These could reference the role of swords within an ‘honor culture,’ associated with these gentlemen-officers, not only as a reflection of masculinity, but also of the structures controlling gentlemanly interactions, like dueling. While gentlemen were expected to defend their honor through dueling with swords (Rudé 2003, 75), there is no indication of this occurring in Illinois. 243 6.4.5. Garrison Duties and Recreation Within the lit spaces of their buildings, the garrison could utilize diverse material culture to perform the required tasks of military administration or engage in recreational activities connected to their rank. Officers, civilians, and enlistees used their time for reading and writing. It is through the writing of officers that we have evidence of British Illinois, for no other evidence of private men’s writing have survived. The literacy level of the rank and file is unknown, but given their place in British society, it is unlikely many routinely read and wrote (McConnell 2004, 60). Surviving payment warrants (Figure 6.35), offer examples suggesting that about half of the private men were forced to make their mark upon these receipts rather than sign them. The types of activities performed within the fort’s buildings, as structured spaces, are indicative of a British martial community. Figure 6.35: This figure details a payment account which shows the variance in literacy amongst the private men. (Account Artificers, GW18.92) The army relied upon paperwork and the materials and skills necessary to communicate over long distances, tabulate stores, and coordinate activities. Writing materials were purchased to serve literate elites’ recreation and to produce written records as required by garrison duties. The accounts detail the sale of ink powder, pots, and 244 associated standishes (inkstands), in addition to quills and pen knives. By their occupation and background, officers formed an educated, although not necessarily ‘academic’ group (McConnell 2004, 61). Writing orders, keeping accounts, and communicating with their superiors (and underlings) was part of professional life. Noncommissioned officers and sergeants were “required to have had at least elementary reading and writing skills” to perform administrative duties (Ostola 2007, 62). Writing supplies, in combination with the volumes of letters preserved in collections, demonstrate the material needs and uses of writing by the garrison. In 1769, engineers bought quires of paper, ink powder, pencils, and fifty quills. Indian Agent Edward Cole bought 15 dozen Ink Potts, 20 dozen brass Ink Potts with Pen Knives, for use in his office.451 These purchases, in combination with surviving documents, demonstrate the need and uses of writing by garrison personnel. Reading and correspondence could also connect British gentlemen. For officers, books and writing materials allowed for them to associate with the wider world and demonstrate their cosmopolitan manners and taste (Conway 2011, 112). They studied military treatises and texts to improve their knowledge and training of their men.452 Traders imported French and English grammar books, dictionaries, and “Dillworth’s Spelling Books.”453 Officers sought specific texts, like Montesquieu’s The Spirit of Laws (1748), Fairfax’s Jerusalem Delivered (1600), Voltaire’s Philosophical Pocket Dictionary (1769), and de Rapin’s History of England (1727), all reflective of the display of polite, Georgian, Enlightened society. Copies of newspapers or periodicals like The Spectator allowed for the connection of Illinois to the broader world, as did the inclusion of news from Illinois within newspapers in Philadelphia and London. Music organized and structured life at the fort, as part of regular duties, and occurred with officers’ rooms, the barracks, and the parade grounds. Fifes and drums signaled the end of the day, or shifts in duties, enabling the coordination of bodies and movements. After news of an attack within Chartres village by hostile Potawatomi, “the AO; JBFdC; AF, BWM. JFdC 1769, BWM. 453 MBP, BWM. 451 452 245 drums beat to Arms, the Guards from the Fort, & Militia turned out.”454 British infantry regiments typically had at least one drummer per company, with two fifers in grenadier companies (Hagist 2020, 47). In Illinois, between five and eight drummers accompanied the 34th Foot. Twelve named musicians were attached to the 18th Foot, as drum major, drummers, and fifers, with one man dubbed “Etherington the Fife.”455 Rolls also indicate at least one drummer was each stationed in Cahokia and Kaskaskia. The organization of the day, through specific beats and tunes, allowed for the garrison’s coordination. Music provided a social outlet for officers, soldiers, and the community. Public concerts, supported by European civilians through cash payments or alcohol, offered a novel form of entertainment for the greater civilian community.456 It allowed for diverse groups to attend events alongside each other. Within the garrison, musical distinctiveness related to status. Public concerts connected the garrison to “the cultural life their social peers enjoyed in Europe’s urban centers” (Frey 1981, 66). Soldiers and officers played music, sang songs, and danced, offering a “collective experience” (Linch and McCormack 2013, 157). Barracks’ music, public concerts, and galas played a significant role in the social lives of garrisons, as well as French and Indigenous communities. Upon arriving at Fort de Chartres, one trader noted attending at a ball hosted by a former French officer, “to the French Inhabitants … it seems this is the only day of diversion among” them.457 No other occasions were recorded, although it is likely they occurred, given the presence of musical instruments and sheet music described within the documents. Performances allowed for the display of polite society and the knowledge of taste inherent in music, dancing, and other displays of rank or status. Mouth harps, hawks’ bells, and Morris bells appear within historical accounts, referenced as Indigenous gifts or trade items, but these may also reflect a hybridization of music, with members of the garrison also utilizing them. The ritual of dance depended upon ‘knowing’ the dance, but also the coordination of body movements with others. Jennings’ Journal, 5/5/1768, A&CXIV, 277. JBFdC, BWM. 456 JK, BWM. 457 Jennings,’ Journal, March-April 1766, 156. 454 455 246 This, too, references the knowledge of taste and style. Documents reference music and dancing, with a French “Dancing Master”458 and Morgan’s payment of fifteen livres for “a Fiddler at a Hop,” a community event.459 Officers purchased musically-related items. Wilkins bought rings of fiddle strings, Ensign Hutchins acquired violin and fiddle strings, while one regimental musician, Henry Daniel, purchased five. Captain Rumsey requested traders bring him a “Good German Flute … bound Round Entire with Silver or the whole Flute Ivory with some New Music.”460 Beyond the social and military aspects of music, proficiency in its playing also helped to cultivate a more gentlemanly skillset, while the private soldier performed different sets and styles. Figure 6.36: This figure illustrates one of the activities of the garrison, dice games (Bone Die Fragment, Photo Author, Courtesy of the ISM) Aside from military duties, garrison residents sought to occupy themselves with music, drinking, and conversation. If drinking served as an escape from the physical ordeals of life in the eighteenth century, then gambling was their addiction. “A passion for gambling permeated all ranks of the army as it did all classes of English society” (Frey 1981, 65). Gambling and smoking filled the void of a more urbane, city-garrisoned life. Documents reference a request for the importation of a Billiards table and the purchase of LAFC, BWM. Wilkins’ Account; JBFdC; AM, BWM. 460 Rumsey-BWM, 31/1/1770, BWM. 458 459 247 a Backgammon table461. Traders imported playing cards, with motifs like “Harry 8th,” “Highlanders,” and “Merry Andrew,” bought by officers, the Indian Department, and private men.462 Games of chance involved bone or wooden dice (Figure 6.36). One section of a solitary die was recovered, paralleling examples at Forts Michilimackinac (Tordoff 1983, 109). The documents do not reference disciplinary issues related to gambling. The recognition of holidays helped to solidify a shared community of experience through the practice of entertaining guests. Celebrations often become “boundarymarking rituals,” centered around religious or secular events, but ones which marked “locality, ethnicity, occupation, or some other significant aspect of communal identity” (Cohen 1985, 53). At peer garrisons, the firing of cannons and volleys of muskets heralded the advent of holidays like Christmas or the King’s Birthday (Rioux 1996, 26). Unless detailed, soldiers received a break from fatigues and drill, with half or the entire day free. Evening festivities might involve shared meals, drinking, and dancing, and these experiences helped to unify groups while reinforcing “emotional attachment to King and country” (Spring 2008, 108). The structuring of space offers evidence of these practices, like in officers’ dining room, drill grounds, or in the material culture of music, clothing, eating, and drinking. 461 462 Morgan-Williamson, 29/1/ 1769; JFdC, BWM. Order on Neave; LAFC; Crown Account (Croghan and Cole); AO; AF, BWM. 248 Figure 6.37: This image details an excerpt illustrating the purchasing of spirits for a detachment of the 18 th Royal Irish stationed in Cahokia on St. Patrick’s Day. (WO 71/79, NA) Little evidence exists surrounding the celebration of religious or secular holidays at Fort de Chartres. Figure 6.37 references purchases of spirits to celebrate St. Patrick’s Day, an observance of a secular and religious nature for the Irish troops in Cahokia. In this example, a lack of liquor prompted the company’s commander, Captain Shee, to buy taffia (a cheap, unaged molasses rum) from Spanish St. Louis, with the intent of distributing it to any of the men who wanted to purchase it, being the “Custom of the Regiment to Celebrate.”463 This celebration reinforced regimental identity, a vital component of this community of identity. Illinois’ garrison celebrated King George III’s birthday (June 4th), as attested at other British garrisons (Darlington 1892, 150; Hervey 1906, 148). Soldiers received a dram to toast the King’s health, culminating in feasts. In Illinois, Wilkins honored the King by celebrating with his fellow officers.464 Indigenous Kaskaskia also engaged in this act of loyalty. When a chief and warriors came to the fort to celebrate, they received gifts of rum, vermillion, and tobacco, and this act reinforced their identities within these alliances.465 Christmas and New Year’s festivities reinforced group identity. Documents reference well wishes and socialization. These events reinforced the larger community identity through the gathering of the British, French, Indigenous peoples, and others within the garrison community. It brought a unity of ritual to the communities of officers, and those soldiers and families within the barracks. Local Metchigamia attended Wilkins on Christmas Day “with the compliments of the Season,” and received gifts in kind, reinforcing and supporting the alliance.466 Trader George Morgan wrote to Engineer Thomas Hutchins with an invitation to share the beer he had brewed for the holiday, adding: “I depend on your Company to eat a Slice of the remarkable Ox. Do invite everybody in my name.”467 The holiday season at Fort Pitt was one of “wild mirth & GCM, NA. Wilkins-Gage, 3/3/1773, GP106AS. 465 WJ, 4/4/1769, GP111AS. 466 WJ, 12/1769, GP111AS. 467 Morgan-Hutchins, 19/12/1770, BWM. 463 464 249 disorder” (Dexter 1899, 107). These holidays reflected differences in the practices of Europeans, soldiers, officers, and civilians, and the materials used to celebrate them reflect issues of identity performance. As today, holidays tend to unite the communities, incorporating outsiders into their revelry, at times. 6.5. Embodiment and the Soldier In examining Britishness through a martial lens, we must discuss embodiment, the ways in which discipline was regulated through control over soldiers’ bodies, appearances, and uniforms. Studies in embodiment have referenced infantrymen’s “understanding of how to do the embodied work of their trade, this understanding being a fusion of cognitive and corporeal processes built by their bodies being engaged in habitual training processes” (Hockey 2009, 481). This is contextualized when considering the sensory practices involved with drill and patrol as they relate to the physical environment, postures, and weaponry, the “immediately lived sensations” elusive in the written records (Ibid, 482). These activities, as part of soldiers’ work and training, and the materials necessary to perform them, formed troops’ tactical efficiency and readiness. Its bravery [of individual bodies] or its strength are no longer the principal variables that define it; but the place it occupies … the good order according to which it operates its movements. The soldier is above all a fragment of mobile space before he is courage or honor. (Foucault 1995, 154) Embodiment encapsulates the subordination of soldiers’ physical bodies to the needs of eighteenth-century ranks, status, and tactics. As a result, the clothing, weapons, backpacks, and other accoutrement crafted the body, restricted its movements, and helped to form the discipline of the “automatism of habit” (Ibid., 127). The types of activities performed by officers and soldiers reinforce our understanding of body position and movement, and its relationship to materials’ use. “Routines are essential … to the ongoing sense of self-identity” (Gardner 2008, 658). British material culture at Fort de Chartres offers a tangible means of maintaining and perpetuating this martial identity through the cleaning of clothing and bodies, their outward presentation, and through more sensory 250 aspects related to the sights, smells, and sounds of garrison life. This regimentation demarcated the military’s separation from the civilian population. 6.5.1. Body and Appearance As mentioned, our understandings of Britishness offer a juxtaposition to Frenchness. Soldiers’ appearances furthered this, with a comparison between French and British uniforms. When the British first took possession of Fort de Chartres, an officer observed the French: “[they were] composed of old Men looking like Invalids without any sort of uniform. Most of them had on Jackets of different colours and slouched Hats, and their Arms seemed to be old and in very indifferent order.”468 This unprofessional, and unsoldierly image of French troops contrasted with British expectations of embodiment and presentation, through their uniforms, equipment, and physical bodies. Recruiters sought men between eighteen and thirty-five, “free from Ruptures Convulsions & Infirmities … strong & able every Way fit for Service. They are to Enlist none under Five Feet Six Inches, except growing Lads.”469 The standardization of soldiers’ bodies helped to reinforce health, discipline, and identity, but their stature and clothing also reflected the embodiment of a British military identity. 468 469 Eddington in Carroon 1984, 83. Recruiting Instructions, 2/1/1771, GP20ES. 251 Figure 6.38: This excerpt from a military manual details the specific allotments for uniforms, illustrating the diverse needs to perpetuate this soldierly image. (Simes 1778, 36.). Examining the regulations and materials associated with maintaining the body and clothing help us to understand the transformation of men into soldiers through the role of these materials in creating this display, how the uniforms (and material components) and weapons framed and structured the body of the soldier (Figure 6.38). “When once a Soldier can be brought to take a delight in his Dress, it will be easy to mold him to whatever else may be desired.”470 In this way, soldiers’ uniforms dictated how the body could (and should) move (Figure 6.39). Its cleanliness reflected professionalism and the presentation of these uniforms wrapped up this soldierly identity. Embodiment enforced group cohesion (and habits), a shared identity which de-emphasized individuality. Uniforms’ materials influenced this presentation and connected individuals to the cultural processes of experience and identity (Dornan-Fish 2012, 287). The fit, feel, and structuring 470 Cuthbertson 1777, 127-128. 252 of movements and activities framed the body and created the soldier. Figure 6.39: This figure details the sizing and position of a soldiers’ coat to illustrate the exacting expectations of soldiers’ body and clothes. (Cuthbertson 1777, 69) In terms of material culture and bodies, military standards dictated how soldiers wear their uniforms to present and perform their identities. Each soldier belonged to a “squad of inspection,” under the authority of a noncommissioned officer, which provided group cohesion, uniformity, and discipline (Hagist 2020, 40; Figure 6.40). For soldiers who improperly presented themselves, punishments could consist of two days in the ‘black hole.’ Military manuals advocated shifting linens on Sundays and Wednesdays (Cuthbertson 1777, 112) as part of soldiers’ routine cleaning and washing duties. Inspectors examined soldiers to assess their dress, the condition of clothing, and attest to soldiers’ washed and shaved faces. Regulations dictated the regular cleaning and presentation of uniforms and clothing to these inspectors. While private men washed their own materials, traders credited two private men’s wives, Mrs. Martha Fenton and Mrs. Douglas, for laundry services for officers, alongside other civilians.471 Documents allude to copious quantities of clothing soap sold to the garrison, as when five officers each bought ten pounds, or when Wilkins purchased sixty pounds.472 During periodic sickness, Morgan lamented his stores lacked “a single box or pound of Soap” and he wished “for three thousand Weight … of the best Castille.”473 The cleanliness of soldiers’ bodies, JK and JBFdC, BWM. Ibid. 473 Morgan-BW, 30/10/1768, BWM. 471 472 253 uniforms, and bedding helped in the creation and maintenance of a professional military identity and aided in the preservation of health. Furthermore, this reflected the subordination of the individual to officers’ control over their bodies. Figure 6.40: This excerpt from a manual for officers details the expectations of appearance: the cleaning, repair, and presentation of clothing, and of its washing. (Cuthbertson 1777, 108). Only the traders’ accounts demonstrate the purchasing and implied usage of cleaning-related objects as they connect to the perpetuation of image and the preservation of clothing. Accounts record sales of shoes, clothing, and hat brushes. Black ball (a waxy leather polish) colored and conditioned shoes and belts. Morgan’s firm supplied a variety of combs: fine and large ivory combs, horn combs with “Jappaned Cases,” and buckling combs (to curl hair), purchased by officers.474 One undiagnostic bone comb was recovered archaeologically. These allowed for the removal of lice in addition to helping maintain an orderly appearance. Traders sold a plethora of ribbons and tapes to the men, for holding their hair in a loose braid or queue.475 Officers bought sticks of “pomatum,” a paste which allowed them to style their hair. No specific references to barbers or shaving exist within 474 475 AF; JBFdC, BWM. Memorandums, 8/3/1770, BWM. 254 documents, although traders sold scissors and razors.476 Two references from Morgan allude to purchases of toothbrushes.477 These personal hygiene materials demonstrate the practices and behaviors of soldiers. 6.5.2. Uniforms and Accoutrement The British military used specific materials and practices, like regimental uniforms’ colors or the standardization of musketry and drill, to reinforce group cohesion and identity. Uniforms and equipment very visibly demonstrated the separation of army separated from civilians and outsiders. Uniforms offer an outstanding example of material culture used to reinforce group identity, underscoring the solidarity of nationality and masculinity while also allowing for variances related to the contextual affiliations of regiment, role (like grenadier or drummer), and rank. The practice of wearing uniforms, and its effects on the body helped construct this identity and “generate the feeling” of martial service (Jones 1999, 226), while reinforcing status and subordination. “The man wearing it had to submit his body to it” (Merrill 2015, 126). The infantry offered visual presentation of community through soldierly identity, underscoring belongingness while contrasting otherness. Environmental conditions at Fort de Chartres preclude the survival of cloth, however, clothing accoutrements, like buttons and buckles, offer insight into their prevalence and use. DiPaolo-Loren’s work on clothing’s small finds reminds us to consider the garment through a variety of sources, from ethnographic collections and documents to paintings (2010, 1). The difficulties of coordinating supply between Britain and Illinois often forced the garrison to repair or craft uniforms in-country, as exhibited by the associated material culture and purchases in accounts. Documentary sources, when combined with available artifacts, present a glimpse of how the garrison adorned themselves, but also provides insight into the impact of supply and choice upon materials’ selection. 476 477 AF; AM, BWM. Memorandums, 8/3/1770, BWM. 255 Figure 6.41: These illustrations detail grenadiers’ uniforms, the 42nd, 34th, and 18th Foot, as painted by Morier in the 1760s. These demonstrate the differences in symbols, colors, and other facets of these uniforms. (Wikimedia Commons, Public Domain) Uniforms illustrate regimental and company identities nested within British martialness. While the clothing regulation required the uniformity of the ‘redcoat,’ these coats displayed regimental differences, fostering solidarity amongst its members. The Royal Clothing Warrant of 1768, which postdated the 42nd and 34th Foot in Illinois, stipulated red as the first color of each regiment, representing Great Britain, with the second color denoting regimental differences.478 Weapons, symbols (the harp), or clothing (the kilt), helped to visibly unite the soldiers into regimental and company units, but also connected them to a larger imperial community.479 The unique mitre grenadiers’ cap contrasted to the felted, black tricorn hats of the private men (Figure 6.41; Gale 2007). Grenadiers’ hats incorporated bear fur in 1770, and this expense hampered Illinois’ 478 479 Royal Warrants WO 30/13B, 19/12/1768, and WO 30/13a, NA Ibid. 256 grenadiers ability to maintain their distinctiveness.480 Decorative elements such as these are lost to us archaeologically, but documents and paintings allow for their discussion. Soldiers wore these prescribed uniforms when on duty and had limited options for fatigue or off-duty garments. Colonels advanced uniforms’ purchases, through agents, for their manufacturing and distribution, but deducted a stoppage from soldiers’ pay for them (Bannerman 2008, 18). Illinois’ documents demonstrate the difficulties associated with material deliveries: weather, seasons, mismanagement, and accidental destruction. These delays threatened the maintenance of a soldierly image. Captain Forbes noted the arrival of fifteen new recruits, and his obligation to furnish them “with Necessaries at the Exorbitant rate of 14 or 15/ Shillings Sterling for a Shirt, Seven Shillings for a pair of Stockings and 9/4 for a pair of Shoes.”481 Uniforms and off-duty attire consisted of more than cloth, and documents detail these materials. Grenadiers’ coats had regimental buttons, but also a buttoned shirt, stock buckle, knee buckles, shoe buckles, waist belt with buckle, and buckles on their cartridge pouch and haversacks.482 With officers collecting disproportionate salaries, evidence of status differences pertained to displays of wealth and identity, especially through clothing’s associated accessories. For example, Lieutenant Chapman lamented service in Illinois. “It is utterly impossible for a Subaltern Officer to exist in this Country where the Prices of every Necessary of life are exorbitant beyond measure.”483 Archaeological evidence at Fort de Chartres does not distinguish clothing differences between officers, subalterns, and private soldiers. Documents detail purchases of imported textiles and finished pieces, with references in the accounts to officers’ utilization of tailors and seamstresses in-country, as mentioned. Accounts illustrate the quantities and types of textiles purchased, but do not always elucidate their end-product. Greater examination of these accounts could better our understanding of the linkage of class and status to identity, as detailed through the types and quantities of cloth purchased or to indicate preferences. For example, Ensign Morgan-Baynton, 29/11/ 1770, BWM. Court of Inquiry, 3/7/1769, GW21. 482 Baillie-Bouquet, 28/8/1762, BP21648, 77-78; . 483 Chapman-Gage, 26/1/1771, GP9AS. 480 481 257 Savage bought blue and red shalloons (lightweight wool fabric used for shirt/coat linings), red flannel, buckram (stiff cotton fabric), linen, thread, and buttons, indicating purchases for uniforms’ construction. On just one day, he purchased 40 livres of materials, the equivalent of about £2,484 twice the monthly wage of a private soldier. For other materialcost comparisons, please see Appendix C. In contrast, Lieutenant-Colonel Wilkins often bought better qualities, more decorative, and larger quantities of cloths and finished products: leather breeches, milled stockings, black silk cravats, and at least thirteen pairs of shoes, although records do not allude to their intended recipients485. Morgan’s accounts detail specific textiles purchased for the military, like 500 yards of “Russia drilling for soldiers Drawers,”486 or “Officers & Soldiers … have constantly wore our common Cotton Hollands for Jackets & Trowsers for want of better.”487 Traders’ accounts detail at least six officers bought (brown) hollands, and Commissary Cole purchased enough to make into a dozen shirts.488 Private men had limited choices because of their income and the impact of in-country prices. Their ‘poor’ clothing visibly demarcated them from the officers and civilians. Regarding British military buttons, archaeologists recovered five, two excavated near the East Barracks/one from surface collection, and one excavated/one surface collected from the Michigamea village less than a mile from the fort, all belonging to the 18th Foot (Figure 6.42). Earlier regiments did not possess numbered buttons, as their presence in Illinois predated requirements for their use.489 Traders imported these, with one order noting ninety-six “white [pewter] Regimental buttons” in store.490 Buttons were a tangible article which displayed regimental identities and allowed for their linkage across the miles to the remainder of their regiment, stationed in Fort Pitt and Philadelphia.491 AO, BWM. AO, BWM. 486 ‘Russia’ drilling was a lighter-weight hemp linen cloth. 487 MBP; Morgan-Partners, 10/2/1769, BWM. 488 MBP, 1769; AO, BWM. 489 Warrant for the Regulation of the Colours, 1768, NA. 490 AF, BWM. 491 18th Foot Rolls, WO 12/3501, NA. 484 485 258 Figure 6.42: Two excavated 18th Foot buttons. (Photo author, courtesy of the ISM) Neck stocks, linen bands encircling the neck over the shirt collar, served as another distinguishing element (see Figure 6.43).492 Ubiquitous in the 18thc, the quality of the cloth and buckles reflected wealth and style. Traders offered stocks in black silk (2 livres, 10 sols) and cambric (6 livres, 10 sols).493 Accounts reference at least six bought by Ensign Hutchins, and Stock ‘tape’ (a narrow cloth band) bought by Lieutenant Robinson.494 Buckles used to secure these stocks varied in quality and design. Archaeologists found examples paralleling these at Forts Michilimackinac (Stone 1974, 33, Figure DD) and Ligonier (Grimm 1970, 54, Figure 25). Stocks of leather were not introduced until the early 19 th century. JAK; JBFdC, BWM. 494 JFC; JBFdC; JAK, BWM. 492 493 259 Figure 6.43: This details the white linen neck stock of an unidentified officer from 1760 and a modern reconstruction of a stock and buckle (middle). Archaeologists recovered three near the Officers’ building (right). (Public Domain; Photo author, Courtesy of the ISM;) Archaeologists also recovered two buckles related to cartridge pouches. The first (Figure 6.44) is a brass baldric (shoulder belt) buckle. Gale (2007, 28) illustrates an identical buckle. The second is as an undecorated brass cartridge belt fragment, which resembles examples at Michilimackinac (Stone 1974, 34). These buckles were standard issue and demonstrate the uniformity of clothing accessories. Their presence challenges the assumption of ‘all’ buckles and military-items excavated as French material culture, as per Keene (2002). Figure 6.44: This figure illustrates one excavated baldric buckle (right) and a detailed image of the 18 th Regiment Morier painting with its location. (Public Domain; Photo author, Courtesy of the ISM) As before, the issue of supply proved troubling and threatened the garrison’s ability to maintain and perform identities related to rank, specialization, or martialness. 260 Goods were frequently lost on the Ohio route as swollen rivers capsized overloaded boats. Gage sent uniforms to the 34th Foot in 1767, noting its 138 men were “destitute of Clothing.” Poor troops with poor clothing reflected a poor image and performance, but these uniforms did not arrive for almost two years.495 Three years later, an 18th Foot’s lieutenant abandoned another supply of uniforms to lighten boats to cross rapids. A subsequent report noted “the want of them hath been very distressing & Expensive to the Non-Commissioned Officers,” implying their need to purchase materials in-country to maintain identity displays, as shown Morgan’s Accounts with Officers.496 The following summer, Wilkins noted Illinois’ companies of the 18th Foot were still owed three years of clothing, and these had not arrived by the fall of 1772, when they departed Illinois.497 Traders’ imports, along with the financial means necessary, allowed officers and subalterns to continue to display identity, while poorer non-commissioned officers and private soldiers could not. Substitutions and continual repair and maintenance allowed for some perpetuation of this ‘soldier-like’ identity while their lack threatened the selfimage and discipline of the professional soldier amongst the private men. Lastly, this threadbare display of British martialness threatened the professionalism of a martial Britishness, especially when centered amongst French communities. 6.6. Transgressing, Subverting, and Rejecting a Martial Identity Despite attempts to create and sustain uniformity, and more so, conformity, within this soldierly identity, officers and soldiers rebutted regulations, behaviors, and the discipline used to sustain or minimize status differences. Examples illustrate the use of space, material culture, and ritualized actions which challenged the spectrum of identity within these communities in terms of those who transgressed, subverted, and rejected this martial community. Policing transgressions of these boundaries was part of the process of constructing and maintaining group identities. Discipline was necessary to regulate Gage-Reed, 15/7/1767, A&CXI, 585. Wilkins-Gage, 30/5/1770, GP92AS; Wilkins-Gage, 9/6/1771, GP103AS. 497 Gage-Hamilton, 30/11/1772, GP115AS. 495 496 261 violence, served as an element of exhortation to King, regiment, or country, and aided in reminding these men of their place within this system. Pushback against military rules and structures, often indicated the struggle over defining one’s place in terms of identity, and its association within the military to masculinity, paternalism, and status. 6.6.1. Nonconformity and Disobeying Orders Noncompliance of orders caused dissension and challenged identities and subordination. Testimonies from court martials, and other courts of inquiry within Illinois, reveal the stresses of military life as associated with masculinity, paternalism, and subordination, tensions and anxieties which transcended the usual stress of eighteenth century life to include the unique pressures of these issues within the context of a remote, isolated, garrison community. Court records and letters provide a better understanding of how soldiers and officers contextualized identity, through their acts of transgression. While actions of non-compliance caused discord and threatened the military’s power structure, others’ agency led to violence, death, or corporal punishment. Pushback against this uniformity and conformity emphasized the self, as individuals asserted their ‘natural rights’ and liberties, while group transgression threated to subvert the authority of officers in a much more dangerous fashion. Surviving records identify just three court martials, one involving a sergeant and two with private men, although at least five others were court martialed in the years after the garrison departed for Philadelphia. The discipline of firing weapons required obedience in following officers’ commands. Noncompliance with commands led to death. In 1770, Wilkins journeyed in an armed galley to meet with the Spanish governor. Upon being honored with a cannon salute, Wilkins ordered a return of fire, only to: lose one Anthony Mauss of the artillery who in absolute Contradiction to the orders delivered him … obstinately persisted in firing the Gun without Sponging by which means he lost his life, being most cruelly mangled by the Explosion of the Cartridge.498 498 Wilkins-Gage, 25/7/1770, GP94AS. 262 In other examples, hostile warriors killed soldiers who went hunting against orders.499 Alcohol played a role in other rebellions, like when Nicholas Gaffney, “appointed to Command a Guard to Cover a Wood Cutting party,” left them to return to Kaskaskia where he “got drunk.”500 At other points, officers accused Gaffney of fighting and sitting on the steps of the barracks “at more than half after nine o’clock,” contrary to curfew (Ibid). Gaffney symbolized nonconformity in Illinois through resistance and disobedience, with different charges levied against him. His court martial serves as a valuable resource for understanding the relationship between this private man, his officers, and perceptions of living conditions. Eighteen century warfare necessitated the obedience of men within the chain of command. It reflects the negotiation of identity and expectations of status towards behaviors. “In its ideal form, the patriarchal military hierarchy was presented as a harmonious pyramid of increasing authority … Obedience was to flow smoothly up the pyramid, and orders were supposed to flow back down” (Merrill 2015, 88). Merrill’s study of masculinity suggests that some junior officers pushed back against this, questioning the “legitimacy of their superiors’ authority over them” as it was a “threat to their class status and masculinity, and had the potential to interfere with many of the enjoyable aspects of their lives” (Merrill 2015, 88). Officers were not immune from accusations of unfair treatment. Some of this represents the men’s use of this paternalist system to their own advantage, e.g., fighting for patronage, promotion, or perks, while others exploited these officers’ obligation to look after their men’s welfare and best interests. Illinois’ documents reveal tensions stemming from perceptions or defense of masculinity, status, and material possessions. One lieutenant and three ensigns informed General Gage of Lieutenant Wynne’s “Scandalous behaviors,” to which Wynne replied, “I have been near Fifteen Years in ye Regt. And never was in arrest.”501 These charges stemmed, in part, from his conduct when journeying down the Ohio with fifty men of the 18th Foot. Wynn claimed the river’s turmoil forced him to abandon a year’s worth of Reed-Gage, 14/12/1766, GP60AS; Wilkins-Turnbull, 9/4/1771, GP104AS. GCM, NA. 501 In Wynne-Gage, 6/11/1770, GP97AS. 499 500 263 uniforms, kegs of shrub, spirits, salt, and pork, forcing the regiment into a predicament.502 George Morgan, who accompanied Wynne downriver, noted the loss as resulting from Wynne’s personal disposition, for he “appeared to be idle & besotted,” and “most of the Soldiers [were] very drunk and in seeming great confusion.”503 His fellow officers “entered into a resolution not to associate” with him, depriving him of his community and placing him in a tenuous position with his commanding officer.504 Reports suggest this led to his suicide.505 Major Farmar court martialed Engineer Philip Pittman, accusing him of “disobedience of orders, obstructing the service of the Government … [and] disrespectful behavior.”506 Farmar faced a counter-suit containing sixteen charges “for being wanting to the interest of his King and Country and acting in a manner unbecoming the character of an officer and a Gentleman,” accusing him of “forming a fraudulent contract to the prejudice of the government,” and for forcibly taking Pittman’s timber and “employing Soldiers to burn it for charcoal.”507 Farmar was subjected to a court martial after his regiment transferred, but charges were dismissed.508 At the heart of this conflict lay gentlemanly claims of honor, the regulation of conduct through the rules of polite society (Conway 2011, 112; Merrill 2015, 139). Wilkins faced charges, as “his Officers are determined to bring him to a General Court Martial for Acts of Injustice, Oppression, & Extortion as well as the most flagrant Robbery of the Crown.”509 These accusations magnified the tensions inherent within the relatively small, claustrophobic, isolated community of fellow officers. Continued indictments, in combination with the costs of Illinois’ garrison, forced Gage to replace him, although he never faced a court martial.510 These documents underscore the challenging relationships between status-related Wilkins-Gage, 30/5/1770, GP92AS. Oaks 1976, 190. 504 Wynne-Gage, 6/11/1770, GP97AS. 505 Gage-Wilkins, 29/7/1771, GP104AS. 506 In Reed-Gage, 8/6/1766, GP52AS; Pittman-Gage, 18/6/1766, GP53AS. 507 Pittman-Gage in Reed-Gage, 19/6/1766, GP53AS. 508 Marsh-Haldimand, 20/11/1767, A&CXVI, 113. 509 Morgan-BWM, 10/1/1771, BWM. 510 Gage-Wilkins, 16/9/1771, GP106AS. 502 503 264 communities and practices and the expectations of officers and soldiers related to how their possessions, rooms, and properties were treated. These examples demonstrate the maintenance and administration of military discipline but also illustrate the commandant’s efforts to enforce community regulations and the temptation of subverting them for profit, well out of his superior’s oversight. These allegations and legal proceedings often reflected perceptions of masculinity, as officers dealt with issues of politeness, honor, and the role of paternalism related to their treatment of the private men.511 Officers viewed enlistees as “symbolic children,” while they themselves were expected to provide a strong moral character through example, instilling “good values of adult masculinity” in the troops (Merrill 2015, 53; HurlEamon 2015, 177). Officers could punish and restrict, but also reward with privileges or gifts. Soldiers’ deductions paid for rations and clothing, but these items stemmed from officers’ distribution, and neglect of adequate clothing and provisions equated to poor leadership and paternalistic negligence (Frey 2010, 136). Interrelations like these illustrate the connections of masculinity and class. 511 For more on masculinity in the British Army, see: Hurl-Eamon (2015), Merrill (2015), or Baule’s biographies of the 18th’s officers (2014). 265 Figure 6.45: This detail from Gaffney’s court martial illustrates the offense he took at Payne’s alleged insults and threats. (WO 71/79, NA) Masculinity and paternalism can be seen in court martials for these regiments. Nicholas Gaffney, see previous, testified that his commanding officer, Captain Benjamin Charnock Payne, swore at him, offered derogatory insults, and threatened to send him to Senegal (Figure 6.45).512 Gaffney publicly undermined military rule and order, as evidenced in this court martial, and faced charges of slander and “mutinous and disobedient behavior.”513 James Cairns’ trial in 1776 also referenced Payne’s behavior, with comparisons of his disciplinary style as “more appropriate to a West Indian plantation than a British parade square.”514 Payne’s paternalism seemed lacking, and his threats undermined soldiers’ conceptions of masculinity. The treatment of soldiers by their officers could also lead men to desert, as with William Pound, who claimed to be ill-used by his sergeant, who repeatedly beat him for “not learning his exercise.”515 As illustrated, we see private men pressing for their GCM, NA. GCM, NA. 514 Cairns’ Court Martial, WO 71/83, NA; Personal Communication, Steven Baule, 2021. 515 PSM, WO 71/77, NA. 512 513 266 perceived rights and liberties as free, adult men. This reflects upon the discipline and subordination inherent within this power structure, which gave officers “complete control over the bodies of the enlisted,” and denied them any real agency over their own bodies (Merrill 2015, 32). Subordination to authority, through their officers, translated into the regulation of all aspects of their life, and British masculinity impacted their understandings and expectations of this subordination. 6.6.2. Subversion, Exploitation, and Corruption Illinois’ regiments offer examples of individuals, typically superior officers, utilizing their military identity to work against the prescribed and established political and economic systems. Intentional subversions and outright exploitation of rank and status demonstrate individuals abusing their positions for personal profit or power. This evidence is presented in the writings of their adversaries: subordinate officers, French civilians, or traders vying for government contracts. Commanders were accused of “numerous petty tyrannies,” the need for financial inducements, and arbitrary rule. Major Farmar was accused of keeping a garden to himself, “by far the best in the village,” and for “charging Swans, Ducks, and other game as Rations to the King … when his own table was glutted.” This, while the garrison starved. The officer felt this proved Farmar’s abuse of position, to the detriment of King and Country.516 In another case, three men of the 18th Foot offered a complaint against Lieutenant Chapman, who commanded at Kaskaskia, over the “purchase of necessaries,” which forced Lieutenant-Colonel Wilkins to step in and settle the manner so “the Character of the Regiment might not suffer.”517 The profiteering by officers undermined the integrity of the unit, as well as their leadership. Accusations like these undermined the sense of solidarity amongst the officer class, and could erode troops’ loyalty, especially if they felt their officers were not acting in the best interests of subordinates. 516 517 Pittman-Gage, 3/20/1766, GP49AS; Pittman-Gage in Reed-Gage, 19/6/1766, GP53AS. Wilkins-Gage, 30/5/1770, GP80AS. 267 Captain John Reed, Farmar’s successor, appeared more frequently in documents, and if we can believe our informants, tyrannical rule had become the norm. A French priest noted that Reed forbade him from celebrating marriages “without a license, for which … [he] charged six piastres [dollars], five being for him” as well as payments for administering oaths of allegiance. Morgan accused him of extorting money, fining a French man 200 livres [over £14] for galloping a horse through town, “without being permitted to speak in his Defense.”518 Additionally, Reed had refused Morgan a contract to provide the garrison with rations, preferring his contacts within the French communities. Morgan informed his partners, “It is known to everyone that whoever desires to carry a Point with Col. Reed, must not be empty handed.”519 As Morgan relates, Reed’s “insatiable Avarice” led to the abuse of his position, the alienation of French and Indigenous people, and rifts between the British and these communities. Lieutenant-Colonel Wilkins superseded Reed in 1768, and historians have lambasted his attempts to enrich himself through his position. One suggests that, although Wilkins created a civil court, he did so to “assist the British merchants, with whom he was allied, in collecting their debts” (Alvord 1920, 266). When Wilkins journeyed to Illinois, he did so in the company of Morgan. In the early years, Morgan and Wilkins’ relationship was amicable, but based on an agreement between Wilkins and one of Morgan’s partners, Samuel Wharton. Wilkins was to promote their “Interest on all Occasions at ye Illinois,” in exchange for an advance of £500, and another £500 after a year.520 Later, Wilkins pressed Morgan for a payment £1,405. Their relationship had deteriorated, and Morgan was afraid of “making Coll Wilkins an inveterate Enemy by my refusal to comply with his Demands.” He worried Wilkins might prohibit the garrison from purchasing goods from his firm.521 Wilkins had overreached in his ability to provide the provisions contract however had also sought to enrich himself on these purchases and through extraneous ‘bonuses’ Meurin-Brian, 11/6/1768, A&CXI, 307; Carter 1910, 60; Morgan-BW, 10/12/1767, A&CXI, 130. Morgan-BW, 10/12/1767, A&CXVI, 129. 520 Baynton-Wilkins, 5/9/1770, BWM. 521 Morgan-BW, 14/5/1770, BWM. 518 519 268 from civilians. Wilkins’ “Tyrannical Behavior” impacted the garrison’s future.522 As mentioned, General Gage, unhappy with the costs of Illinois’ garrison, the repeated tales of corruption, and the increasing rebellion of American colonists, recalled Wilkins for trial to New York. Wilkins instead journeyed to New Orleans and on to England. He resigned his command and escaped trial (Alvord 1920, 282). One last example of officers’ abuse of authority is shown through officers purchases of houses, farms, and acreage in the hopes of enriching themselves, both in the short and long term. Wilkins distributed large land grants to each of the partners of Baynton, Wharton, and Morgan. Officers of all three of Illinois’ regiments purchased land, buildings, and mills, like Captain Campbell’s five purchases in and around Chartres village. Ensign Blackwood, Captain Cole, Lieutenant Pittman, Captain Shee, and Lieutenant Rumsey all bought land and structures in Illinois.523 While laws did not prohibit these purchases, the desire of these officers to profit while in-country through the sale of agricultural products to the Crown for garrison use illustrates their manipulation of their status for personal gain. 6.6.3. Desertion & Punishments If Fort de Chartres was a community, desertion demonstrated its rejection, and this occurred for many reasons. Desertion, and the subsequent theft of military goods, may have resulted from an idea that “the military moral economy had been ignored or the implied military contract had not been honored” (Conway 2021, 100). Desertions illustrate underlying tensions related to masculinity and economic class, a challenge to military subordination. Men left due to poor food or work conditions, women, alcohol, or dissatisfaction with their officers (Way 2005; Frey 2010). By fleeing their companies, soldiers stole the material goods which defined them as soldiers and spurned the discipline and uniformity of the corps. It was retaliation against their officers through the theft of martial articles they supplied (Agostini 2007, 970). This was the case with the 522 523 Morgan-BW, 10/1/1771, BWM. Brown and Dean 1981; BWM; Forbes-Gage, 23/6/ 1768, GP78AS. 269 attempted desertion of Serjeant Johnston (34th Foot), who was captured in possession of his sword, or when Captain Forbes drew into his company fifteen recruits, and obliged to outfit them with necessaries, was at a monetary loss when eight of those deserted, as mentioned earlier.524 Court records reveal the role of masculinity, or masculine honor, within these contextualized communities. Surviving court martials for desertion in Illinois are scarce. Gage references one, a soldier named Thomas Haywood, in 1771. We have full texts of desertion trials for two other soldiers and one sergeant.525 Hagist notes that regimental records like these are lacking for most detachments in colonial America (2020, 42). Still, the information provided from these few sources and court proceedings in Philadelphia which reference Illinois’ regiments, aid in the contextualization process of how individuals within this system viewed their roles, identities, and the organization of the system itself. 524 525 Court Martial, 27/11/1766, A&CXI, 436; Court of Inquiry, 3/7/1769, GW21. Gage-Chapman, 4/12/1771, GP108AS; GCM, NA; Proceedings, 27/11/1766, A&CXI, 433. 270 Figure 6.46: This figure details a notice of soldiers who deserted on their way from Kaskaskia to Fort Pitt. (Pennsylvania Gazette, 7/11/1771) Soldiers’ nativities possibly contributed to desertion. Newspaper listings often included soldiers’ backgrounds, which Agostini (2007, 961) believes may represent a rejection of Britishness. In Figure 6.46, four of the five deserters were born outside of England: two in Ireland, one in America, and one from Germany. This may show cultural conflicts, or private men’s search to establish their own identity. Alternatively, the enlisting of significant numbers of these ‘foreigners,’ as well as ’Americans,’ may have undermined the systems of subordination and paternalism required by the military, as these cultural values were not exportable. As a result, the established system of conformity of the British military may have been challenged, or at least, contextualized. Examinations of desertions in court documents relate deserters’ motives, like the “bad Provisions they received,”526 or their “ill use” by sergeants. In another, Robert 526 Marsh-Haldimand, 20/11/1767, A&CXVI, 114. 271 Shewell reported he had approached his Captain, believing he had £1 4s due him in pay. After the Captain denied him, the soldier “being vexed … drank a little too much Liquor and in the intoxication sold some of his Necessaries and afterwards went off.”527 This also references the paternalism of officers-as-paymasters, where they withheld sums to insure the morality, and perhaps sobriety, of their men. James Cairns, stationed in Cahokia, testified that his commanding officer, Captain Evans, took his wife. When he demanded her return, Evans “beat him with a loaded Whip.” When Cairns took hold of the whip, Evans deemed him insubordinate and brought him to trial. The subsequent punishment (flogging) “rendered his life a burden to him,” which induced him to desert.528 Using regimental rolls for Fort de Chartres’ garrison, I tabulated desertion rates. The 34th Foot lost seventeen men under Major Farmar (May-October 1766) and forty-four under Major Reed (March 1767-March 1768). Available rolls for the 18th Foot indicated at least twenty deserters between their arrival (1768) and October of 1771, but only a single monthly roll for Wilkins’ company has been recovered.529 This visible act, snubbing a martial identity and rejecting their regimental community, illustrates that garrison life was not an easy one, and individuals actively worked within the system to remove themselves from it. Court martials reference the role of alcohol in desertions (Hagist 2020, 64). Sergeant Johnston and private John Wells were “drinking with some others in the barn,” when Wells asked Johnston “if I would desert with him … [but after a few hours] I was so much intoxicated that I was not able to return that night to the Fort.”530 Both men were found guilty. In Gaffney’s trial, Sergeant Bell witnessed “Lowe a Deserter, taking a Drink out of a bottle and afterwards he handed it to Gaffney,” who was under arrest in the guardhouse.531 Even within the confines of the guard’s room, facing a court martial, these soldiers found and consumed alcohol. WO 71/77, 203, 207. WO 71/83, 55-57. 529 WO 12/3501; WO 17/143, NA. 530 Court-Martial, 27/11/1766, A&CXI, 433. 531 GCM, NA. 527 528 272 Desertion was a capital crime. Gage fervently wished Wilkins might make an example of “Deserters, as well as of those who excite them to Desert,” underscoring his belief that the Spanish and French, as well as soldiers’ wives, had induced soldiers to abscond.532 This underscores the lack of cohesion of this military community, with public brutality used to illustrate the ramifications of rejecting or challenging its conformity. Courts issued punishments ranging from lashing to death. Sergeant Johnston and private Wells each were sentenced to receive 1,000 lashes, with Johnston punished additionally with a reduction in rank.533 Cairn was to accept 800 (of which he received 500).534 Sentences of more than 250 lashes were distributed across several days, allowing for soldiers to heal and to prevent maiming (Hagist 2020, 54). As a capital offense, however, Patrick Brannon faced execution “by Shooting,” done by his regiment.535 These officers’ right to punish attested to their hierarchical position, and the subservient role played by the private men. The “spectacle of the scaffold,” (Foucault 1995, 36) demonstrates the impact of flogging, and executions, upon the community. Public demonstrations regulated societies through individual and group deterrence, as it “extracted retribution that is both personal and public,” to “deeply inscribe it in the hearts of men” (Ibid., 50-51). These physical punishments encapsulated masculinity and honor, with the belief that, because they lacked a gentleman’s status and honor, beating enlisted men “caused them to suffer no shame, but only the physical pain,” apt reminders of their transgressions (Merrill 2015, 147). Public punishments, performed by members of their unit, reinforced experiential solidarity, demonstrating the power of officers and subordination of the men, as officers required men to inflict this harm upon their fellows. Punishments could be reduced or commuted by commanding officers. The inherent paternalism within the military is demonstrated by this discretion, and “reinforced officers’ authority by making soldiers grateful” (Conway 2021, 108). When debating the court martial of one soldier (Haywood), General Gage considered offering Gage-Wilkins, 24/3/1769, A&CXVI, 509. Court Marial, 27/11/1766, A&CXI, 433-437. 534 Cairns’ Court Martial, WO 71/83, NA. 535 WO 71/77, 83, NA. 532 533 273 him a pardon in exchange for his enlistment into one “of the West India Regiments.”536 The court system and commanding officers could provide other punishments. Such was the case with the previously mentioned Shewell, who appealed to the members of the court that his previous behavior demonstrated his subordination. Still, he was sentenced to “be sent to the West Indies” to serve in another regiment for fourteen years. Pound, on the other hand, was sentenced to a lifetime of service there.537 Public lashings and executions, enforced by fellow soldiers, were public, ritualized acts meant to reinforce discipline and identity. Skillful use of these punishments and reductions could offer officers more effective means in subordinating their men as well as demonstrating the negotiation of status and masculinity. Lastly, lacking regimental records, companies’ muster rolls outline another form of punishment, the reduction in rank, at least for the 18th Foot. The 34th Foot’s rolls do not list private soldiers by name, nor do they record individuals’ details. As mentioned, Sergeant Johnston was reduced as punishment for drinking, but my own examination of the 18th Foot has detailed four other sergeants, three drummers, and one corporal reduced. Two faced reductions twice, illustrating they had been reinstated after each punishment only to commit offences again. Enlistment rolls, court documents, and other primary letters allows us to contextualize identity within this garrison, and illustrate nonconformity within, as well as outright rejection, of this British martial community. 6.7. Chapter Conclusions One of my subsidiary research questions considered how Britishness extended to the contextualization of communities of identity within the military. The research question sought to examine the spaces, structures, material culture, and practices used to create and maintain this martial identity and the perpetuation of Georgian values into Illinois. This chapter offered a multi-faceted discussion of these communities of identity and began to reveal the contextualization and negotiation of identity which existed here. 536 537 Gage-Chapman, 4/12/1771, GP108AS. WO 71/77, 206, 208, NA. 274 It related the control and positioning of soldiers and officers by connecting them to Georgian understandings of status, polite society, masculinity, and paternalism. Extending military detachments into villages allowed for the display of Britishness, the martial identity, in Illinois. Military units fortified and altered French houses and spaces, and the public displays of Britishness, like flags, uniforms, and drums, reinforced their identity. The structures, spaces, and material culture of Fort de Chartres allowed for the formal separation of the garrison from outsiders, while creating overlapping zones of control and authority through patrols, work details, and the extension of other martial practices. The military used these same places and objects to perpetuate status differences, underscoring societal expectations and values and to sustain a brotherhood of arms. Within this brotherhood lay communities related to regimental loyalty, occupational differences, and crosscutting categories of soldierly professionalism, which sometimes superseded Britishness. Examining the structure and material culture of the fort furthered our understanding of the habits and practices used to perpetuate, or contrast, the contextualization of Britishness, status/class, and masculinity. This chapter also detailed the embodiment of soldiers, relating the material culture of uniforms, living conditions, and practices which allowed for the control and ‘molding’ of men’s’ physical bodies. This perpetuated status differences and served to create the conditions necessary for the successful implementation of eighteenth-century warfare. The uniformity and regimentation necessitated by linear tactics was reinforced through drill, fatigues, and material culture. As a result, the creation and maintenance of this British ‘soldierly’ identity can be viewed through identifiable material culture, like musket parts, barracks, or kettles. Societal values such as masculinity, paternalism, and subordination, linked to the archaeology and the documents, offers a contextualization of these communities of identity. Historical documents show the negotiation of identities, or the role and status of soldiers vis á vis the officers, detailing attempts to reject their martial identity or even their Britishness through desertion. Disobeying commands or poor behavior demonstrates the negotiation of identity and expectations of behaviors and treatments related to status. 275 Charges between officers threatened gentlemanly status and the brotherhood of officers/status. Corruption exemplified officers abusing their position, while abuse of power underscored their power over subordinates. While the creation and maintenance of identity are demonstrated through practices and material culture, they also offer the contextualization of negotiation, and rejection, of these communities of identity. This becomes important as we view the time in which this garrison was British. The tenuous connections of Illinois’ garrison to those on the east coast, and subsequent redeployments mean some individuals shifted identities, and for some, political allegiances, rejecting the British and their military. These tied their careers and status to the Americans in the coming war, as will be discussed in the next chapter. 276 Chapter 7: Conclusions This thesis sought to contextualize the nature of the British occupation of Fort de Chartres to understand how this garrison community interacted with and impacted Illinois’ Indigenous and European communities. I return to the research questions proposed in the first chapter, which challenged interpretations of Illinois history and archaeology presenting a monolithic French presence. This has obscured any significant discussion of the British period, its garrison, attached personnel, and civilian populations. Research into the artifact assemblage, when combined with the extensive documentary record, allows for a necessary counterweight to the grand narrative of Frenchness of this fort, continues to be uncritically perpetuated. This research is necessary to reflect more judiciously upon modern conceptions of community and identity as they relate to the past. I began by examining the components of Britishness and the cross-cutting components of other communities of identity, like status, profession, gender, and religion. Traders’ documents, in combination with British letters allowed us to see more nuances into these categories. Britishness, as contrasted with Indigenousness and French/Spanishness, was emphasized within officers’ writings and in traders’ accounts, but was minimized at other times, favoring an over-arching Europeanness. This further links to demonstrations of status, class, and rank. This became evident when bringing the excavated material assemblage into more effective congruence with the documents, which shows British officers and traders using and buying French-produced goods. This project gave attention to a balanced study of material culture by moving beyond just the artifacts. This methodological approach has allowed me to address gaps within the recovered assemblage and reflect upon how artifacts show the performance or negotiation of identity and community. It included a study of the assemblage and considered those artifacts not within this collection, either due to their removal by the garrison, post-occupational forces, or their material deterioration. As discussed in Chapter 277 Two, my incorporation of the traders’ papers and military documents informed upon the coordination of supply and impact of British policies upon the fort’s available materials. My methodology shows a departure from prior interpretations of Fort de Chartres. This approach allowed for greater contextualization of the British phase, but also encouraged a dissection of how diverse peoples and groups in Illinois used and understood communities of identity. As a result, I was able to utilize an unexploited dataset from the fort and archives allowing me to delve into details which previous archaeology alone did not address. My datasets explicitly linked to the presentation of Britishness and Europeanness, and my project’s approach could inform future studies through the integration of the documents within the archaeological assemblages, i.e., the systematic study of all sources of evidence. At Fort de Chartres, the archaeology and historical sources differ, but offer nuanced details through their careful interpretation. 7.1. Contested, Intersectional, and Contextual Communities of Identity Chapter Five related my understanding of Britishness, with examples illustrating their perceptions of self and others. As shown, this too required a more nuanced discussion, as cross-cutting connections of class, Europeanness, race, and even alliance status impacted these views. As part of this discussion, this thesis offered a contextualization of the shifting demographics of Illinois which clearly illustrates a much larger British presence than has been alluded to previously. The examination of specific categories of recovered artifacts, with correlations in the documents, reflect upon how Europeans used material culture to reinforce identities. Archaeologically, in examining categories like ethnicity/nationality, it is all but impossible to offer any conclusive preferences based on the material culture recovered, due in large part to the nature of the site. For example, while the bulk of the ceramic sherds recovered were French faience, this does not imply only the French used these earthenwares. Traders’ accounts illustrate specific purchases of French ceramics but omit their style. British recycling leads us to the conclusion that British traders and garrisons also used French bottles. 278 Within this same chapter, the documents reveal preferences to demonstrate how material culture contextualized identities, especially those goods which are unlikely to survive archaeologically. We saw the British proclivity for tea, which included the accoutrement for its consumption and preparation, while both French and British consumed coffee. The linkage of Britishness to the empire and exotic goods combined with an overall Europeanness which eclipsed just British goods. Chocolate, mustard, and the whitening of sugar and salt underscore these cultural preferences. We cannot firmly differentiate between ethnic/national groups by using the recovered artifacts, outside of post-1765 British materials, but these do inform on a variety of communities of identity, even if we are not sure ‘which’ groups. These sources of evidence allowed for greater understanding upon how groups (class/profession, gender, age, and religion) used material culture to reinforce identities and communities. British documents support our ability to parse nuance regarding these preferences. Undocumented sales, those sundries listed throughout traders’ accounts, could allude more effectively to these groups’ purchases and preferences. The bulk of the buttons, buckles, and clothing-related artifacts have not been classified, and cannot be related to specific groups. But again, accounts do allow for the linkage of costs to distinct types of small finds, and allude to the class of their purchasers. This allows us to see differences in the purchasing power of artisans, soldiers, and officers. These same accounts illustrate the presence of women and children, previously ignored groups. Chapters Six and Seven revealed the nature of the garrison as a military and social community. Trade, extramural settlements, and attached personnel linked the military to European and Indigenous populations. The structuring of buildings and spaces, material culture and associated practices, allowed for the formation and demonstration of specific communities of identity. Issues related to status, modernity, and gender connect with material culture and illuminate a greater understanding of the garrison’s experiences. Examining the relationship of military articles and structures to the embodiment of soldiers supported the creation and maintenance of a martial Britishness, with specific examples of military hardware, clothing-related finds, and the material culture related to 279 eating and drinking. These all illustrate the cross-cutting aspects of rank with class and purchasing power and support the maintenance of identity within the fort’s structures, rooms, and activities. This thesis has demonstrated the performance of communities of identity through the documents and material culture, as well as highlighting its fluidity as the fort transitioned between French, British, and American hands, all of which occurred over a brief period. British policies and practices failed to create a fully integrated imperial community, and link, instead, to a much more contextual, and malleable, notion of Britishness and Europeanness when seen through intersectional communities. These situational identities reflect other ideals within British America, and the eighteenthcentury writ large, especially as it relates to British conceptions of subordination, paternalism, and masculinity. Understanding this is even more important as it contextualizes the history of Illinois and its relationship to the eastern seaboard with the encroaching of the colonial Independence movement. 7.2. The Mutability of Identities in Pre-Revolutionary Illinois One way to illustrate identity fluidity is to reference what happened to this territory after the intentional destruction of Fort de Chartres in 1772. Major Hamilton arrived that spring to relieve Wilkins and prepare for the fort’s ruin.538 By August, Hamilton left sixty men at Kaskaskia,539 and removed the remainder to Philadelphia, but only after opening the fort’s drains and removing barriers to future flooding as a means to destroy the fort. The 18th Foot remained in Philadelphia into late 1774, when five companies were sent to New York and three to Boston under Captain Shee, to be folded into the 59th Foot (Baule 2014, 22-25). Many of those who had served at Fort de Chartres found themselves within the dangerous situation that was Boston. 538 539 Wilkins-Gage, 7/4/1772, GP111AS. Hamilton-Gage, 8/8/1772, GP113AS. 280 Captain Lord commanded in Illinois until the winter of 1775, when orders sent his company to Fort Detroit.540 Lord had been a “fairly popular commander who had allowed the French to follow their own ways” (Brown 2013, 168). He left the control of British Illinois to Philippe de Rocheblave, a former French commandant in Kaskaskia who remained in Illinois during the British period (Alvord 1920, 318). This paved the way for the occupation of Kaskaskia by Virginians under George Rogers Clark in 1778 (Ibid., 326). Contextually, in the year following Boston’s ‘Tea Party’ (December 1773), where more than 300 chests of East India Company tea were dumped into the harbor, the British government issued a series of laws known as the Coercive, or Intolerable acts, which closed the harbor, imposed quartering costs upon the colonies, and extended freedom of worship to French-Canadian Catholics. By the next spring, colonial leaders like Samuel Adams and John Hancock began to stockpile weapons in preparation for their rebellion. This led to the first shots of this war in April of 1775, when British forces made the journey to Lexington and Concord to stop the uprising. Some of the members of this force had served with the 18th Foot in Illinois, and had been folded into other companies. After this, the regiment fought Washington at the Battle of Bunker Hill, resulting in the deaths of at least two soldiers and one officer who had served in Illinois (Baule 2014, 23). In terms of the other regiments who had served in Illinois, the 42nd and 34th Foot returned to Britain after their tenure in Illinois.541 The 34th Foot became part of the Irish establishment, but returned to North America in 1776 for the Canadian campaign, and then journeyed southwards to force the Americans to abandon Fort Ticonderoga. They served with General Burgoyne on his Saratoga Campaign in the fall of 1777, witnessing his surrender. They did not return to Britain until after the war (Spring 2008). The 42nd Foot first went to Ireland, and back to Scotland in 1775. They were recalled to America, and battled Washington in New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey in the fall of 1776, the siege of Charleston in 1780, and were later deployed in Nova Scotia (Ibid.). Members of 540 541 Pennsylvania Gazette, 6/12/1775. Forbes-Gage, 13/12/1768, GP83AS; Pennsylvania Gazette, 3/9/1767. 281 Illinois’ garrisons fought in some of the momentous events of the American Revolution. Their service post-1772 offers a reflection upon the manipulation of identity that resulted. The War challenged how British civilians and military personnel defined themselves. This conflict challenged identity itself, as Europeans and American-born British subjects sought to find their place within divergent conceptions of community and nationality. With the retreat of Illinois’ garrison, civilian traders, artisans, and laborers had to make choices regarding their affiliations, whether to align themselves with Illinois’ French, becoming Americans, or rejecting this and remaining loyal. For most, their choices reflected economic practicality, with their decisions hinging upon their future (or past) abilities to gain land and fortune. For traders, the economic regulations of the 1760s, like the Sugar Act (1764), Townshend Acts (1767-1768), and resultant colonial protests, soured these mercantilists against the Crown. They sought their fortunes under new management. What is telling is that these shifts occur over a fleeting period, 1765-1778. With the withdrawal of British forces from Illinois, how did the remaining population identify? Traders like Rumsey, Murray, (both former officers) and Morgan sought the wealth associated with the Indigenous trade, and moved to support the French and these new Americans (Alvord 1910, 284). These same individuals pursued their ambitions of land speculation with the garrison’s redeployment. Companies like the Wabash Land Company and Illinois Company bought properties from Illinois’ Indigenous peoples. While the British had negated any grants with the Proclamation of 1763, these speculators hoped the Americans would support their claims, and their economic opportunism. Philadelphia-based traders focused on land acquisition (Carter 1910, 140 and 160), and some representatives in Illinois covertly conspired against Rocheblave and welcomed Clark’s Virginia militia. The British accused Morgan of passing messages between the ‘representatives of the rebels’ and the French of Kaskaskia (Alvord 1910, 322). Historians assert this occurred because of the rocky relationship he had with the British government and army related to his trading ventures (Hemmis 2015; Schaff 1990). After returning to Philadelphia, Morgan 282 continued to pursue land speculation in Illinois. With the outbreak of war, the Continental Army commissioned him an officer and appointed him their agent for Indian Affairs in Pennsylvania. This brought him back to Fort Pitt (Savelle 1932, 136), where he served in this capacity throughout the war. Traders’ plantation managers and store operators stayed in Illinois after the garrison’s departure, buying land and properties. Richard Winston managed Baynton, Wharton, and Morgan’s interests in Illinois after 1773 (Dunn 202, 42). Richard Bacon, a New Englander who ran Morgan’s plantation, remained in Illinois through 1784 (Brown and Dean 1981, 75:4:5:1; 74:1:10:1). John Hanson, who worked for the firm in Cahokia married a French widow with whom he had had a long-standing relationship (Ibid, 74:1:1:1). It is unknown how many other artisans, farmers, and laborers stayed behind, or how many remained loyal to Britain. Demographic and bibliographic studies lend scant information about any of these loyalists pushing back against the American regime, nor do they reference their abandonment of Illinois for British Canada. Kaskaskia surrendered to the Americans without a fight. French Illinois’ abandonment of their sworn loyalty to the British, and acceptance by Americans, impacts and shapes our current understanding of this region, and emphasizes modern Franco-centric presentations of the fort and Illinois. Beyond civilian traders and farmers, the mutability of identity is also applicable to the military. With the advent of hostilities, how would these officers and soldiers align themselves? Did they remain loyal to Britain or consider themselves, and their futures, as American? One regimental tailor (18th Foot), Samuel Lee, may have been the first soldier captured in the war in April 1775 (Baule 2014, 23), although some suggest he may have deserted. He later re-married and opened a tailor’s shop in Concord, embracing his new American identity. Baule’s (2014) biographies of the 18th’s officers offer examples of several of these men either retiring from the service to join the Americans or to start properties elsewhere in the colonies. Lieutenant Fowler was accused of “fraternizing with known rebels” in 1774, left the service, and was appointed as an auditor of the Continentals’ Board of War at Fort Pitt in 1778, where he also set up a store (Baule 2014, 163). Ensign Trist left the army 283 in 1775 to begin his life on a 1,000-acre plantation in Louisiana (Ibid, 179). Engineer Thomas Hutchins had received grants of land totaling 3,000 acres in West Florida while serving in various British regiments. Hutchins kept his commission until 1780, resigning it after his arrest for allegedly assisting the Americans. After a brief stint in France, where he swore allegiance to America (1781), he returned and was appointed geographer to America’s southern army. He became the surveyor of lands in the Northwest Territory, which included Illinois, after the war ended and remained in Pittsburgh throughout his life (Baule 2014, 244). While many of Illinois’ officers left with their regiments before the outbreak of conflict, several chose to remain behind and change their identities, most notably, those born in the American colonies, like Colonel Edward Cole (Rhode Island), Major Robert Farmar (New Jersey), Hutchins (New Jersey) and Ensign William Kemble (Baule 2014). An argument about the mutability, or at least fluidity, of identity within this colonial period is grounded upon a discussion of the contextual nature of these communities of identity. For these officers and soldiers, Britishness was less important than were groups organized around class/status or ethnicity, with most seeking material profits from their identity shift. Britishness did not reach its peak as a unifying force until very late in this conflict, and even more so during the Napoleonic wars (Conway 2001, 863). During the decades between the French and Indian/Seven Years War and American Independence, Britishness became increasingly disassociated with British colonials (Americanness) and remained an identity separated from other contextualized or intersectional communities of identity. 7.3. Final Thoughts and Directions for Future Study While Fort de Chartres’ archaeology illustrates the lives of a garrison community spanning French and British occupations, it does not necessarily shed light on those living outside of the fort’s walls. Documents detail numerous people living in the surrounding villages and on plantations. British officers, their families, and other support personnel, as well as British traders and workers bought, rented, and constructed housing within the 284 Illinois Country. These residences existed within the French communities of Cahokia, Nouvelle Chartres, and Kaskaskia. Others worked plantations beyond these settlements’’ common fields. If located, these sites might offer interesting examples of the material cultures of diverse groups projecting outwards from the garrison. While these sites have not been found, the possibility of their existence below the plow zone may lead to future work and increase our understandings of this period. This type of work could help to contextualize further the British, then American, conceptions of identity. This project relied heavily on British documents, in part, due to their availability. While the state of Illinois unsuccessfully sought French documents, future researchers could revisit archives seeking a French equivalent of the rich history of British Illinois. These might also reveal foundational blueprints of the fort’s construction and shed light on how the French viewed communities of identity. Further investigation into just ‘why’ this fort and area remained culturally French, at least in terms of its presentation and identity, may relate to the impact of flooding upon settlements, or the lack of British military and trade reach into Prairie du Rocher. The records might illustrate some facets of this. Comparative assemblages from sites unique to British garrisons, where there is little French influence, could enhance our understanding of British material culture, especially when so far from colonial centers like Albany or Philadelphia. Fort de Chartres was supplied through British-built forts Pitt and Ligonier. In western Pennsylvania, these served as supply depots and staging grounds for expeditions westward. Examinations of their assemblages could inform upon the material culture of all these garrisons. Unfortunately, archaeological work performed on Ligonier and Pitt has proved lacking, both in the ability to observe and record assemblages and in terms of their analysis within reports. Fort Pitt was excavated, but long after industrial buildings had contaminated and ruined much of the area (Bliss 1944, 1945; Stotz 1969, Swauger 1977; Swauger and Lang 1967). Although I researched excavators’ field notes, statistical analysis, measurements, and counts were not included within them, nor were artifacts available, if they still exist, for examination. While Fort Ligonier’s excavation resulted in a few articles and one 285 summary text (Grimm 1970; Guilday 1970; Stotz 1974), it suffered from these same issues, and lacks any master inventory or documentation. This thesis positions itself as reflective of modern understandings and presentations of communities of identity. Stories of the past sometimes reflect simplistic, unproblematized interpretations of identity, especially when regarding the assignation of cultural affiliation to specific artifacts. The incorporation of my database of artifacts consolidates previous studies into a more manageable set of data that better informs upon the overall archaeological signature of Fort de Chartres. Identifying specific individuals, through these same documents, informs upon the shifting demographics of Illinois, referencing the inclusion of significant populations of British military and civilians, which suggests the British influence, and usage, of material culture is much more substantial than previously thought. My work is necessary as a critique of these stories and offers the problematization of intersectional communities of identity through a triangulation of these same artifacts with the documentary record, a source of evidence ignored by previous scholars. I hope the inclusion of these people and artifacts offers a much more representative story of Illinois’ history. 286 Appendix A: Primary Source Transcription Dates are provided in the European Format—Day/Month/Year; for Gage Papers and Warrants, the volume number and series are noted. (AS-American Series; ES-European Series; GW32.3-Gage Warrants, Box and Number) There is no provision for these transcripts to be entered into database at the Clements’ Library, as no exists. I will, however, attach them in a folder accompanying all thesis databases and photographs, and submit them to the Illinois State Museum, where they can be accessed with their permission. Documents Transcribed from the Gage Papers Gage Warrants 1766, Bill for Taffia, GW15.59 1766, Bills for Provisions, GW15.57 1766, Crown to Escott, GW15.58 1767, Account for Barrels for Beef, GW18.89 1767, Account of Carpenters, GW18.71 1767, Account of Carpenters, GW18.82 1767, Account of Hogsheads Purchased, GW18.89 1767, Account of Smiths, GW18.83 1767, Bills for Buffalo Beef, GW15.53 1767, Crown to Cole for Indian Dept., GW15. 1767, Crown to Escott, GW18.73 1767, Crown to Soldiers Employed, GW18.85 1768, Account for Artificers, GW18.92 1768, Account for Repairing Batteaus, GW18.109 1768, Account for Repairing Batteaus, GW18.110 1768, Account of Artificers, GW18.81 1768, Account of Hogsheads Purchased, GW18.80 1768, Bills for Rum, GW16 1768, Bills of Exchange Paid, GW18.43 1768, Crown to BWM, GW18.87 1767, Bills for Provisions, GW15.48 1767, Bills for Provisions, GW15.49 1767, Bills for Provisions, GW15.54 1767, Bills for Provisions, GW15.55 1767, Bills for Provisions, GW15.56 1767, Bills for Provisions, GW15.60 1767, Bills for Rum, GW15.51 1767, Crown for Artificers, GW18.74 1767, Crown for Hogsheads, GW18.69 1767, Crown to BWM, GW18.108 1768, Crown to Kennedy, GW18.93 1768, Crown to Kennedy, GW18.93 1768, Crown to Winston, GW18.77 1768, Crown to Winston, GW18.88 1768, Gage to Mortimer, GW15.47 1768, Gov’t to Blouin for Materials, GW18.94 1769, Bill for Pitch, GW25.95 1769, Bills for Artificers, GW25.110 1769, Bills for Assistant to Blacksmith, GW25.115 1769, Bills for Contracted Blacksmith, GW25.116 1769, Bills for Mason’s Repairs, GW25.9 1769, Bills for Pilot and Boatswain, GW25.114 287 1769, Bills for Repairing Batteau, 25.112 1769, Bills for Repairs, GW 25.113 1769, Bills for Sergeant of the Works, GW25.111 1769, Crown to BWM for Engineers, GW25.117 1769, Crown to Engineer, GW25.92 1769, Gage to Mortimer, GW19.57 1769, Receipt for Workers, GW25.100 1769, Receipt for Workers, GW25.101 1769, Receipt for Workers, GW25.102 1769, Receipt for Workers, GW25.104 1769, Receipt for Workers, GW25.107 1769, Receipt for Workers, GW25.109 1769, Receipt for Workers, GW25.96 1770, Commissary Bills, GW24.21 1770, Crown to Doctor, GW29.83 1770, Crown to Franks & Co., GW29.81 1770, Crown to Indian Interpreter, GW29.84 1770, Crown to Indian Interpreter, GW29.85 1770, Crown to Surgeon, GW32. 1770, Gage to Mortimer, GW24.121 1771, Abstract of Edmonstone, GW29.51 1771, Crown to Eustace, GW32.40 1771, Crown to Franks & Co, GW32.33 1771, Crown to Franks & Co, GW32.34 1771, Crown to Gunsmith, GW29.54 1771, Crown to Ross, GW29.52 1771, Gage to Mortimer, GW15. 1771, Receipt for Pay, GW29.55 1771, Surgeons and Secretaries Bills, GW32.18 1771, Wilkins to Franks & Co, GW29.82 1771, Wilkins’ Account, GW30.95 1772, Crown to Doctor, GW32.39 1772, Crown to Franks & Co, GW32.35 Gage Papers BWM to Gage, 5/7/1766, GP65AS Campbell to Gage, 10/4/1766, GP50AS Campbell to Gage, 12/7/68, GP79AS Campbell to Gage, 17/12/1765, GP69AS Campbell to Gage, 20/7/1768, GP79AS Campbell to Gage, 23/4/1768, GP76AS Campbell to Gage, 26/3/1768, GP50AS Chapman to Gage, 26/1/1771, GP99AS Commissary’s Memorandum, 20/7/1770, GP94AS Corrance to Gage, 17/8/1770, GP94AS Council Minutes, 1770, GP97AS Court of Inquiry, 3/7/1769, GW21. Court Records, 5/6/1770, GP103AS Croghan to Gage, 16/4/1766, GP50AS Dartmouth to Gage, 9/12/1772, GP23ES DeBerniere to Leake, 7/9/1771, GP106AS Edmonstone to Gage, 1/11/1771, GP107AS Edmonstone to Gage, 1/24/1770, GP89AS Edmonstone to Gage, 12/10/1771, GP107AS Edmonstone to Gage, 2/9/1767, GP69AS Edmonstone to Gage, 24/9/1771, GP107AS Farmar to Gage, 18/3/1766, GP49AS Farmar to Gage, 18/3/1766, GP49AS Farmar to Gage, 28/3/1766, GP50AS Farmar to Gage, 8/4/1766, GP50AS Forbes to Gage, 13/12/1768, GP83AS Forbes to Gage, 14/4/1769, GP76AS Forbes to Gage, 18/7/1768, GP79AS Gage to Bruere, 9/6/1771, GP103AS Gage to BWM, 10/3/1766, GP49AS Gage to BWM, 14/9/1767, GP69AS Gage to Chapman, 20/1/1772, GP109AS Gage to Chapman, 4/12/1771, GP108AS Gage to Commissioners of Customs, 23/12/1772, GP108AS Gage to Edmonstone, 6/9/1767, GP69AS Gage to Farmar, 12/3/1766, GP49AS Gage to Farmar, 12/3/1766, GP49AS Gage to Farmar, 14/3/1766, GP49AS Gage to Forbes, 15/4/1768, GP76AS Gage to Hamilton, 1771, GP104AS Gage to Hamilton, 24/2/1772, GP109AS Gage to Hamilton, 3/3/1771, GP100AS 288 Gage to Hamilton, 30/11/1772, GP115AS Gage to Hamilton, 30/11/1772, GP115AS Gage to Hamilton, 9/3/1772, GP109AS Gage to Hillsborough, 2/4/1771, GP20ES Gage to Hillsborough, 6/1/1769, GP14ES Gage to Levy & Franks, 10/1/1770, GP89AS Gage to Levy & Franks, 9/2/1771, GP99AS Gage to Lord, 30/7/1772, GP109AS Gage to McClellan, 3/9/1767, GP69AS Gage to Officer Commanding, 2/4/1768, GP75AS Gage to Reed, 6/9/1767, GP69AS Gage to Sedgwick, et. al., 4/10/1768, GP58AS Gage to Steel, 7/9/1767, GP69AS Gage to Stuart, 18/9/1771, GP106AS Gage to Wilkins 20/9/1771, GP107AS Gage to Wilkins, 18/8/1771, GP105AS Gage to Wilkins, 19/8/1771, GP105AS Gage to Wilkins, 2/4/1768, GP75AS Gage to Wilkins, 24/8/1771, GP105AS Gage to Wilkins, 27/7/1771, GP104AS Gage to Wilkins, 29/7/1771, GP104AS Gage to Wilkins, 4/1771, GP104AS Gage to Wilkins, 8/2/1770, GP89AS Gage to Wilkins, 9/3/1772, GP109AS Gage to Wynne, 9/2/1771, GP99AS Hamilton to Gage, 18/11/1771, GP107AS Hamilton to Gage, 8/9/1771, GP107AS Hillsborough to Gage, 10/12/1768, GP14ES Hutchins to Gage, 1/11/1768, GP82AS Hutchins to Gage, 7/9/1771, GP107AS Hutchins to Gage, 8/11/1770, GP97AS Indian Provisions, 25/4/1766-14/9/1768, GP89AS Instructions for Recruiting, 2/4/1771, GP20ES Invoice of Indian Goods, 17/7/1771, GP105AS Lake to Gage, 24/5/1771, GP106AS Leake to Gage, 1/2/1769, GP83AS Leake to Gage, 18/1/1772, GP109AS Leake to Gage, 2/1/1769, GP89AS Leake to Gage, 20/3/1766, GP49AS Leake to Gage, 20/9/1771, GP106AS Leake to Gage, 28/8/1771, GP105AS Leake to Gage, 7/9/1771, GP106AS List of Officers, 1765-1766, GB13b List of Provisions Bills, 17/1/1769, GP19AS Lord to Gage, 10/6/1772, GP111AS Lord to Gage, 13/11/1772, GP115AS Memorial of BWM to Gage, 27/5/1768, GP108AS Monthly Return of the 34th, 24/3/1766, GP50AS Moore to Leake, 17/8/1770, GP94AS Pittman to Gage 17/12/1765, GP46AS Pittman to Gage in Reed, 19/6/1766, GP53AS Pittman to Gage, 20/3/1766, GP49AS Pittman to Gage, 20/3/1766, GP49AS Pittman to Gage, 25/2/1766, GP48AS Pomeroy to Gage, 22/12/1768, GP83AS Pownall to Gage, 14/12/1765, GP46AS Provisions at Fort Chartres, 20/10/1769, GP82AS Reed to Gage, 19/6/1766, GP53AS Reed to Gage, 5/7/1766, GP65AS Return of Batteau, 12/11/1765, GP39AS Return of Houses in Cavendish Village, 28/3/1766, GP50AS Return of Ordnance, 18/3/1766, GP49AS Return of Provisions, 18/3/1766, GP49AS Return of Provisions, 24/5/1770, GP93AS Rules for Barracks, 1765, GP139AS State of Commerce in Illinois, 6/1/1768, GP89AS State of Provisions, 6/9/1769-1/6/1770, GP93AS Steele to Gage, 12/6/1767, GP66AS Stirling, T.-Gage, T. 18/10/1765, 44AS. Inventory of Fort de Chartres Wilkins to Gage, 1/6/1772, GP111AS Wilkins to Gage, 15/8/1768, GP80AS Wilkins to Gage, 16/5/1772, GP111AS Wilkins to Gage, 16/6/1770, GP93AS Wilkins to Gage, 16/6/1770, GP93AS 289 Wilkins to Gage, 2/4/1768, GP75AS Wilkins to Gage, 20/2/1771, GP100AS Wilkins to Gage, 25/12/1771, GP108AS Wilkins to Gage, 25/12/1771, GP108AS Wilkins to Gage, 25/7/1770, GP94AS Wilkins to Gage, 25/7/1770, GP94AS Wilkins to Gage, 27/4/1770, GP80AS Wilkins to Gage, 30/5/1770, GP92AS Wilkins to Gage, 5/5/1768, GP76AS Wilkins to Gage, 5/9/1771, GP106AS Wilkins to Gage, 5/9/1771, GP106AS Wilkins to Gage, 9/6/1771, GP103A Wilkins, J. 23/12/1768. Journal of Transactions and Presents Given to Indians. Wynn to Gage, 6/11/1770, GP97AS Documents Transcribed from the National Archives of the United Kingdom T1 448-Receipts for Provisioning, Indian Gifts, Purchases T1 449-1766 Proposal for Barracks T1 449-Receipts for Provisioning, Indian Gifts, Purchases T1 461-Provisions Letter, Thomas Gage WO 12/3501-Rolls of the 18th Regiment of Foot WO 12/4866-Muster Books and Pay Lists of the 34th Regiment of Foot WO 17/143-Rolls of the 34th Regiment of Foot WO 71/77-Court Martial of William Pound and Thomas Shewell, 21/6/1769 WO 71/79-Court Martial of Thomas Gaffney, 30/5/1774 WO 71/83-Court Martial of James Cairns, 20/11/1776 Documents and Accounts from the Papers of Baynton, Wharton, and Morgan Account of Batteauman’s Wages, 1766-1769 (88 pages) Account of Goods Sent to Fort Pitt, 1763 (6 pages) Account of Stills, 30/8/1770 Account with Franks for Merchandise sold by Rumsey and Murray, 1771 (132 pages) Account with Morgan at Illinois, 1770 (20 pages) Account with Officers at Fort de Chartres, 1767-1768 (98 pages) Account with the Crown (Cole), 1767-1768 (28 pages) Account with the Crown (Croghan and Cole), 1766 (100 pages) Account with the Crown (Wilkins), 17691771 (82 pages) Account with the Plantation, 21/3/176831/7/1770 (28 pages) Account-Writs Issued and Cash Received, 1769 Alexander’s Account of Seeds and Roots Sent to Illinois, 6/9/1768 Allsopp to BWM, 17/2/1766 Allsopp to BWM, 22/12/1766 Allsopp to BWM, 24/6/1766 Allsopp to BWM, 24/7/1766 Allsopp to BWM, 29/10/1767 Allsopp to BWM, 4/3/1767 Allsopp to Collins, 20/9/1767 Anon to Forbes, 7/3/1768 Articles of Agreement-BWM and Nash, Cooper Baynton to Brown, 26/11/1770 Baynton to Campbell, 24/11/1769 290 Baynton to Hanson, 28/11/1769 Baynton to James, 28/11/1769 Baynton to James, 3/1/1770 Baynton to Morgan, 1/3/1770 Baynton to Morgan, 12/4/1770 Baynton to Morgan, 14/10/1770 Baynton to Morgan, 17/8/1770 Baynton to Morgan, 18/5/1769 Baynton to Morgan, 28/3/1769 Baynton to Morgan, 5/3/1770 Baynton to Rumsey, 5/9/1770 Baynton to Wilkins, 5/9/1770 Bond to Morgan, 20/2/1770 Brown to Morgan, 23/9/1767 Brown to Rumsey, 18/9/1769 Brown to Rumsey, 29/9/1769 Brown to Rumsey, 8/8/1769 Brown to Rumsey, 9/1/1770 Brown to Rumsey. 29/9/1769 BWM to Fanning & Co. 20/8/1764 BWM to Finley, 9/5/1772 BWM to Finley, 9/8/1772 BWM to Wilkins, 10/10/1769 BWM to Winston, 19/4/1773 BWM to Winston, 19/4/1773 BWM to Young, 22/7/1767 BWM-Order to Neave, 26/12/1763 Callender to Cole, et. al., 20/9/1767 Campbell to BWM, 10/11/1767 Campbell to BWM, 11/11/1767 Campbell to BWM, 11/7/1768 Campbell to BWM, 16/2/1768 Campbell to BWM, 21/8/1768 Campbell to BWM, 24/6/1768 Campbell to BWM, 24/7/1768 Campbell to BWM, 26/9/1768 Campbell to BWM, 3/7/1768 Campbell to BWM, 8/4/1768 Campbell to BWM, 9/2/1768 Campbell to Morgan, 15/4/1769 Campbell to Morgan, 16/6/1769 Campbell to Morgan, 20/3/1769 Campbell to Morgan, 26/3/1770 Campbell to Morgan, 7/1769 Campbell to Wilkins, 4/7/1769 Chapman to Morgan, 10/3/1772 Chapman to Morgan, 25/5/1770 Chapman to Morgan, 26/5/1770 Clarkson to Baynton, 12/2/1770 Connolly to Franklin, 30/1/1768 Connolly to Franklin, W. 30/1/1768 Connolly to Morgan, 13/11/1770 Connolly to Morgan, 18/11/1770 Connolly to Morgan, 19/3/1771 Connolly to Morgan, 23/1/1772 Connolly to Morgan, 8/1/1772 Connolly to Morgan, 9/2/1771 Court of Inquiry, 13/9/1770 Court of Inquiry, 20/12/1768 Court of Inquiry, 24/9/1770 Court of Inquiry, 9/1/768 Court of Judicature, 5/6/1770 Court of Judicature, 6/6/1770 Crown to BWM (Cole), 1768 DeBernier to Morgan, 19/2/1771 Eldridge to BWM, 24/3/1764 Eldridge to BWM, 6/2/1764 Finley to Brown, 14/11/1769 Finley to Rumsey, 1/11/1769 Finley-List of Peltries Shipped, 1771 Finney to Brown, 4/6/1770 Freare to BWM, 16/8/1765 Fullerton, et. al. to Morgan 20/2/1770 Hanson to Morgan, 19/7/1770 Hanson to Morgan, 20/7/1770 Hanson to Morgan, 20/8/1770 Hanson to Morgan, 21/4/1770 Hanson to Morgan, 24/1/1771 Hanson to Morgan, 26/11/1770 Hanson to Morgan, 28/7/1770 Hanson to Morgan, 29/4/1770 Hanson to Morgan, 30/8/1770 Hanson to Morgan, 5/3/1771 Hanson to Rumsey, 24/3/1769 Hollingshead to Baynton, 24/4/1769 Hollingshead to Morgan, 20/9/1767 291 Hollingshead to Morgan, 24/4/1768 Hollingshead to Wharton, 25/4/1769 Hutchins and DeBernier to Viviat, 15/2/1771 Hutchins to Baynton, 28/4/1771 Hutchins to Wilkins 29/7/1769 Indian Department to BWM, 1769 Inventory of House Lot & Barn with Furniture &ca Delivered by Morgan to Williamson, 1771 Invoice of Goods, Morgan, 28/2/1772 Irwin to Clarkson, 19/6/1767 Jewell to Morgan, 19/1/1769 Journal A, Kaskaskia, 1766-1767 (53 pages) Journal B, Fort de Chartres, 1769 (369 pages) Journal B, Philadelphia, 1766-1767 (250 pages) Journal C, Philadelphia, 1767-1774 ( Journal Fort de Chartres, 1769 (118 pages) Journal Kaskaskia, 1770-1772 (200 pages) Kennedy to Morgan, 15/7/1770 Lacoze to Finley, 1771 Lampels to Morgan, 14/3/1772 Lane to BWM, 1770 Lawrence to Morgan, 12/4/1773 Lawrence to Morgan, 13/4/1773 Lawrence to Morgan, 17/2/1770 Lawrence to Morgan, 20/2/1770 Leake to Gage, 24/2/1768 Ledger A, Fort Cavendish, 24/4/1766-9/1768 Ledger C, 1767-1771(130 pages) Ledger, 9/1767-21/11/1769 Ledgers, 9/12/1767-29/10/1768 Long and Eldridge to BWM, 5/1764 McNamara to Morgan, 7/1/1767 Memo Book, 27/5/1768-17/7/1768 (200 pages) Memo Book, Philadelphia, 26/1/1767-5/1769 (200 pages) Memorandums, Morgan, 8/3/177020/10/1770 (32 pages) Milligan & McClure to Morgan, 28/3/1770 Moore to Morgan, 6/1/1770 Morgan to Bacon, 17/12/1769 Morgan to Bacon, 9/1769 Morgan to Baynton, 11/1770 Morgan to Baynton, 16/11/1770 Morgan to Baynton, 29/11/1770 Morgan to Baynton, 30/10/1768 Morgan to Baynton, 30/11/1768 Morgan to Blackwood, 9/3/1771 Morgan to Blouin, 12/1/1774 Morgan to Brown & Finley, 2/3/1773 Morgan to Brown and Finley, 27/5/1773 Morgan to Brown, 1/6/1770 Morgan to Brown, 11/11/1770 Morgan to Brown, 14/11/1770 Morgan to Brown, 16/5/1770 Morgan to Brown, 16/7/1770 Morgan to Brown, 20/4/1769 Morgan to Brown, 22/5/1770 Morgan to Brown, 24/5/1770 Morgan to Brown, 26/5/1770 Morgan to Brown, 27/5/1770 Morgan to Brown, 28/4/1770 Morgan to Brown, 29/11/1770 Morgan to Brown, 29/4/1769 Morgan to Brown, 8/11/1770 Morgan to Brown, 9/6/1770 Morgan to Burnet, 14/5/1773 Morgan to BW, 10/1/1771 Morgan to BW, 10/2/1769 Morgan to BW, 14/5/1770 Morgan to BW, 15/4/1771 Morgan to BW, 24/12/1767 Morgan to BW, 24/3/1770 Morgan to BW, 24/4/1769 Morgan to BW, 30/10/1768 Morgan to BW, 30/8/1770 Morgan to BW, 8/11/1768 Morgan to Campbell, 2/1772 Morgan to Campbell, 4/11/1768 Morgan to Chapeau, 19/1/1768 Morgan to Chapman, 30/8/1770 Morgan to Chevalier, 15/5/1770 Morgan to Chevalier, 27/3/1770 Morgan to Cole, 10/6/1770 292 Morgan to Connolly, 16/10/1773 Morgan to Croghan, 4/6/1773 Morgan to Finely, 10/9/1771 Morgan to Finley, 1/8/1771 Morgan to Finley, 4/8/1770 Morgan to Finley, 9/5/1772 Morgan to Fitzpatrick, 10/4/1771 Morgan to Fitzpatrick, 25/10/1769 Morgan to Fitzpatrick, 27/7/1770 Morgan to Fowler, 12/9/1770 Morgan to Fowler, et. al., 15/8/1771 Morgan to Hanson, 10/9/1770 Morgan to Hanson, 14/8/1770 Morgan to Hanson, 15/10/1773 Morgan to Hanson, 21/12/1770 Morgan to Hanson, 29/8/1770 Morgan to Hanson, 31/12/1770 Morgan to Hollingshead, 10/10/1769 Morgan to Hutchins, 11/3/1772 Morgan to Hutchins, 14/12/1770 Morgan to Hutchins, 18/2/1772 Morgan to Hutchins, 19/12/1770 Morgan to Janiste, 16/4/1769 Morgan to Jennings, 1/5/1769 Morgan to Lawrence, 12/6/1770 Morgan to Lawrence, 15/5/1770 Morgan to Lawrence, 29/10/1770 Morgan to Lawrence, 3/7/1770 Morgan to Livingston, 19/6/1780 Morgan to Molliere 8/3/1769 Morgan to Morgan, 10/11/1770 Morgan to Morgan, 15/10/1770 Morgan to Morgan, 8/6/1770 Morgan to Morris, 15/6/1770 Morgan to Murray, 6/5/1770 Morgan to Neave, 25/1/1774 Morgan to Pollock, 1/9/1771 Morgan to Pollock, 22/6/1771 Morgan to Ricard, 20/11/1771 Morgan to Rodney, 24/10/1771 Morgan to Rumsey, 1/7/1770 Morgan to Rumsey, 10/10/1769 Morgan to Rumsey, 12/4/1770 Morgan to Rumsey, 18/4/1770 Morgan to Rumsey, 19/9/1769 Morgan to Rumsey, 2/5/1770 Morgan to Rumsey, 24/10/1770 Morgan to Rumsey, 27/4/1770 Morgan to Rumsey, 8/6/1770 Morgan to Sample, 1/11/1770 Morgan to Shee, 19/5/1770 Morgan to Shee, 9/3/1771 Morgan to Skelton, 28/10/1769 Morgan to Trent, 1/12/1773 Morgan to Wharton, 13/1/1772 Morgan to Wharton, 14/10/1771 Morgan to Wharton, 21/12/1771 Morgan to Wharton, 22/11/1771 Morgan to Wharton, 3/1/1774 Morgan to Wilkins, 15/9/1770 Morgan to Wilkins, 22/5/1770 Morgan to Wilkins, 23/5/1770 Morgan to Williamson, 1/2/1769 Morgan to Williamson, 20/1/1769 Morgan to Williamson, 24/11/1768 Morgan to Williamson, 25/12/1768 Morgan to Williamson, 28/2/1771 Morgan to Williamson, 29/1/1769 Morgan to Williamson, 6/11/1768 Morgan to Williamson, 7/3/1769 Morgan to Wynn, 6/4/1770 Morgan’s Memorandums, 26/6/1770 (131 pages) Morgan--A List of Goods Belonging to BWM at Fort Chartres, 12/11/1766 Mulligan and McClure to Morgan, 28/3/1770 Murray to Baynton, 1/1771 Murray to Baynton, 1/2/1771 Murray to BW for Good delivered and Cash paid Batteauman’s Wags, 8/5/1770 Murray to BWM for Provisions, 1769 Murray to Morgan, 2/7/1769 Murray to Morgan, 28/5/1770 Murray to Morgan, 30/5/1770 Murray to Morgan, 4/9/1771 293 Murray to Morgan, 6/4/1770 Murray to Morgan, 6/5/1770 Murray to Wilkins, 11/5/1770 Nash to Morgan, 23/2/1769 Negro Sales at Kaskaskia Order for Panes of Glass, 14/11/1768 Parr and Buckley to BW, 21/4/1764 Parr and Buckley to BW, 29/2/1764 Parr and Buckley to BW, 6/2/1764 Parr and Buckley to BWM, 21/4/1764 Pool and Clark to BW, 16/5/1765 Pool and Clarke to BWM, 12/8/1765 Prices Current at Quebec, 26/3/1764 Proceedings of an Inquiry, 24/9/1770 Provisions Issued by Murray, 30/6/1769 Receipt Book, Morgan to BWM, 11/17692/1770 Richardson to Morgan, 28/11/1770 Richardson to Morgan, 28/12/1770 Rigby to BW, 24/6/1768 Rigby to BWM, 11/7/1768 Rigby to BWM, 24/6/1768 Rigby to BWM, 28/5/1768 Rigby to Morgan, 28/6/1769 Rumsey and Connolly to Franklin, 30/1/1768 Rumsey to Anon, 30/6/1769 Rumsey to Brown, 1/10/1769 Rumsey to Brown, 1/8/1769 Rumsey to Brown, 10/8/1769 Rumsey to Brown, 11/11/1769 Rumsey to Brown, 12/10/1769 Rumsey to Brown, 12/8/1769 Rumsey to Brown, 13/11/1769 Rumsey to Brown, 14/9/1769 Rumsey to Brown, 16/8/1768 Rumsey to Brown, 17/9/1769 Rumsey to Brown, 23/1/1770 Rumsey to Brown, 24/1/1770 Rumsey to Brown, 26/7/1769 Rumsey to Brown, 28/8/1769 Rumsey to Brown, 29/8/1769 Rumsey to Brown, 3/10/1769 Rumsey to Brown, 3/11/1769 Rumsey to Brown, 4/11/1769 Rumsey to Brown, 4/9/1769 Rumsey to Brown, 5/11/1769 Rumsey to Brown, 7/11/1769 Rumsey to Brown, 9/11/1769 Rumsey to BWM, 22/1/1770 Rumsey to BWM, 31/1/1770 Rumsey to Morgan, 7/1770 Sale of Merchandize, Viviat L D’atchurut, 1768 Sale of Peltries, 12/6/1771-16/7/1771 Sloughs to Lawrence, 18/10/1771 The Crown to Cole, 1766 Thomasson to Morgan, 10/3/1770 Thomasson to Morgan, 20/8/1770 Thomasson to Morgan, 23/1/1771 Thomasson to Morgan, 24/1/1771 VanHorne to BWM, 7/5/1765 Wharton to Morgan, 28/2/1768 Wilkins to Chapman, 13/12/1770 Wilkins to Morgan, 16/6/1769 Wilkins to Morgan, 6/5/1768 Wilkins to the King’s Commissary, 19/8/1769 Williams to Rumsey, 29/7/1769 Williamson to Anon, 11/3/1771 Williamson to Morgan, 11/3/1771 Williamson to Morgan, 27/2/1771 Winston and Song to BWM, 16/12/1765 Winston to Anon, 16/12/1765 Winston to BW, 12/9/1772 Winston to BWM, 12/9/1772 Winston to BWM, 14/11/1765 Winston to BWM, 14/12/1765 Winston to BWM, 20/12/1773 Winston to BWM, 7/12/1765 Winston to Finley, 6/5/1772 Winston to Kennedy, 20/12/1773 Winston to Morgan, 14/11/1772 Winston to Morgan, 23/7/1772 Winston to Morgan, 4/9/1773 Young to Morgan, 18/2/1768 Sample Transcription BWM-Account with Officers My Transcription 21. Ensign James Savage Dr. to Sundries, Vizt. 1767 Livs/Sols (Merchandise) Livs/Sols (Cash) Decr. 22d. To Sundries dd himself vizt 2 ½ yds blue Shalloon @ 3/ 7/10 2 yds Red flannel @ 3/ 6 ¾ yd Red Shalloon 3 ½ yd Buckram 1/10…1 yd Linen 2/10 4 2 Skanes Sil 2/ & 3 Sticks hair 3/ 5 295 10 Skanes thread 1 1 doz & 10 Large Mettle Butts. @ 5/ 9 1 doz & 10 small do. Do. @ 2/10 26th 1768 Jany 21st Feby 1st 10th 13th 4/10 40.. 1 Gallon Rum pr Order 15.. To Sunds. Dd him ye 23d. Inst. Vizt. 1 ½ Ell Cotton @9 13/10 1 ½ do. Blue & Wht. Callico @8/ 12 25..10 ½ Gall Shrub pr Order 7..10 To ¾ Yd Green Cloth 9/, Silk 1/ & 6 yds [Indec.] To 1 doz Small Moulds dd Trewallie ..10 To ¼ Yd Brown Holland To Cash pd pr Order To do. Pd McClea pr Order To do. Pd Mrs. McClea pr Order 12.. 1.. 8.. 5.. 37.. 296 Gage Papers 297 Gage to Wilkins, 3-9-1772-AS109 Transcription Sir New York March 9th, 1772 I am to desire your particular attention to the following Orders regarding the Illinois. You will rase Fort Chartres without delay in the Cheapest and most effectual manner, and reduce the Establishments dependent thereon. It is Judged the best method will be to assist the Torrents of the River. A Temporary Establishment only to be made at Kaskaskia for a Detachment; consisting of one Captain Three Subalterns, two Serjeants and Fifty Rank and File. The Surgeon or Mate to be left with the Detachment, and the Artillery and Stores absolutely necessary for the Defense of Kaskaskias to be left there. The rest of the Troops Artillery and Stores to be sent away. The Troops will receive further Orders on their arrival at Fort Pitt. In sending off the Artillery and Stores you will consider what will bear the Expense of removing from Fort Chartres to Philadelphia. I observe some of the Iron Guns are returned unserviceable, and believe they would not answer the End of Old Iron, and could only be cast into Shot; and that it is best to knock off their Trunnions and render them useless. I am of Opinion that none of the Iron [Guns] [end of page 1] 298 Appendix B: Data Sets The Ism is currently switching over to a new computer system, which anthropological and archaeological data to be uploaded by the winter of 2022 (Personal Communication, DeeAnn Watt, 28/3/2022). We have plans to integrate this data into the new system, including the searchable database my personal photos of artifacts, although approved access would still be a requirement, through the ISM, for anyone wanting to view or use the data. Note: Part of what I had to do was to ‘recalibrate’ the locations of ‘lots,’ features, and unit designations as Brown used different measuring systems than did the rest. Problem with maps noted by Thurman. Sample of Data Sheets (1972/1974 seasons under Brown) 299 (1975 season under Orser) 300 (1981 season under Thurman) 301 (1985 season under Noble and Keene) 302 (Surface Collections—Peithmann) 303 My Combined Data Set 304 Appendix C: Articles and Costs in the Illinois Country As compiled from the various accounts of Baynton, Wharton, and Morgan within their papers: • (AF) Account with David Franks for Merchandise (Shillings/Pence, PA Currency) • (AM) Account with Morgan at Illinois, 1770 • (AO) Account with Officers (Livres/Sols) • (ACCC) Account with the Crown-Croghan and Cole (Livres/Sols) • (ACW) Account with the Crown-Wilkins (Shillings/Pence NY Currency) • (JAK) Journal A Kaskaskia (Livres/Sols) • (JBFDC) Journal B Fort de Chartres (Livres/Sols) • (JK) Journal Kaskaskia (Livres/Sols) • (LAFC) Ledger A Fort Cavendish (Livres/Sols) • (GMH) Inventory of House, Lot, & Barn with Furniture delivered by Morgan to Williamson Medicine Aniseed (Basket) Jesuits’ Bark (lb) 25/ 40/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) (Livres/Sols) (ACW) Food, Spices, and Food Flavorings Allspice (lb) Allspice Bacon (lb) Beans (pint) Oil, Bears’ (Gallon) Beef, Fresh (lb) Bread (Loaf) Buffalo Beef, Fresh (lb) Buffalo Tongue Butter (lb) Cheese (lb) Cinnamon (oz) Cinnamon Cinnamon Cloves & Nutmegs Cloves (10 oz) Cloves Corn (Bushel) Duck Eggs (doz) 10/ 9½d 1/ 5/ 5/ /10 1/ /7 4/ 2/10 2/4 3/15 27/ 29/ 20/ 3/15 23/ 4/ 10/ 3/ (Livres/Sols) (ACW) PA (AF) (Livres/Sols) (JK) (Livres/Sols) (ACW) (Livres/Sols) (JK) (Livres/Sols) (ACW) (Livres/Sous) (BFDC) (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) (Lives/Sols: AO) (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) PA (AF) (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 305 Oil, Florence (Bottle) Flour (100 lb) Fowl Goose Ham (lb) Indian Corn (Bushel) Mace Molasses (1 quart) Mustard, Bottle Mustard, Bottle Mustard, Bottle Nutmeg (1) Nutmeg Oats (Bushel) Onions (Bushel) Peas (Bushel) Peas (pint) Pepper (lb) Pepper (lb) Pepper Pepper, Cayenne (Bottle) Pickles Pig, Tucking Pimento Pork, Fresh & Tallow Pork, Fresh (lb) Raisins (lb) Rice (lb) Rice Salt (Keg) Salt (Quart) Seed, Cabbage Seed, Carrot (oz) Seed, Celery (oz) Seed, Leek Seed, Parsley (oz) Seed, Parsnip (oz) Seed, Radish (oz) Seed, Turnip (lb) Sugar, Brown (lb) Sugar, Loaf (lb) Sugar, Muscovado (lb) Sugar, White (lb) 5/ 25/ 1/ 4/ 1/ 3/ 40/6 3/ 2/10 5/ 9d /10 20/ 4/ 15/ 10/ 5/ 10/ 8/ 3/3 10/ 76/ 5/ 9 1/2d 15/ /10 3/ 1/ 1 3/4d 40/ 1/10 40/ /50 2/10 20/ 2/10 /50 /50 30/ 2/10 2/10 2/10 3/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) (Livres/Sols) (JK) (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) (Livres/Sols) (JK) (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) PA (AF) (Livres/Sols) (LAFC) (Lives/Sols: AO) (Lives/Sols: AO) PA (AF) (Livres/Sols) (ACW) PA (AF) (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) (Livres/Sols) (ACW) (Livres/Sols) (ACW) (Lives/Sols: AO) PA (AF) (Lives/Sols: AO) (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) (Livres/Sols) (JK) PA (AF) (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) (Livres/Sols) (JK) (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) (Livres/Sols) (ACW) PA (AF) (Livres/Sols) (JK) (Livres/Sols) (JK) (Livres/Sols) (ACW) (Livres/Sols) (ACW) (Livres/Sols) (ACW) (Livres/Sols) (ACW) (Livres/Sols) (ACW) (Livres/Sols) (ACW) (Livres/Sols) (ACW) (Livres/Sols) (ACW) (Livres/Sols) (ACW) (Lives/Sols: AO) (Lives/Sols: AO) (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 306 Swan Sweet Marjoram (oz) Tallow (cake) Turkey Venison (1/4 lb) Vinegar (Gallon) Vinegar (Gallon) Walnuts (Bottle) Walnuts, Pickled 4/ 2/10 7/ 3/15 6/ 12/ 15/ 15/ 5/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) (Livres/Sols) (ACW) (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) (Livres/Sols) (ACW) (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) (Livres/Sols) (LAFC) (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) Beverages Beer (Barrel) Beer (Gallon) Brandy (Gallon) Brandy (Pint) Brandy (Quart) Chocolate (lb) Chocolate (lb) Coffee (lb) Coffee (lb) Juice, Lemon (1/2 Gallon) Juice, Orange (Gallon) Milk (Gallon) Rum, (½ Gallon) Rum, (Bottle) Rum, (Gallon) Rum, (Quart) Rum, Philadelphia (Bottle) Rum, Philadelphia (Gallon) Shrub (1/2 Gallon) Shrub (Bottle) Shrub, (Quart) Spirits, Best (1/2 Gallon) Spirits, Jamaican (Gallon) Taffia (Pint) Taffia (qt) Tea (1/2 lb) Tea (lb) Tea (lb) Tea (lb) Tea, Bohea (lb) Tea, Common (lb) Tea, Green (lb) 75/ (Livres/Sols) (JK) 4/ (Livres/Sols) (JK) 15/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 3/ (Livres/Sols) (JK) 6/ (Livres/Sols) (JK) 15d-16d PA (AF) 6/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 3/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 13 1/2d PA (AF) 30/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 20/ (Livres/Sols) (ACW) 1/ (Livres/Sols) (JK) 7/10 (Lives/Sols: AO) 5/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 2/6 PA (AF) 5 (Lives/Sols: AO) 4/ (Livres/Sols) (JAK) 15/ (Livres/Sols) (JAK) 10/ (Livres/Sols) (JAK) 5/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 5/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 10/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 17/ (Livres/Sols) (JAK) 2/10 (Livres/Sous) (BFDC) 5/ (Livres/Sous) (BFDC) 5/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 10/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 12/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 40/ (Livres/Sols) (ACW) 10/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 10/ (Livres/Sols) (ACW) 40/ (Livres/Sols) (ACW) 307 Whiskey (Pint) Whiskey (Quart) Wine (½ Gallon) Wine (Bottle) Wine (Gallon) Wine (Pint) Wine (Quart) Wine, Best (1/2 Gallon) Wine, Claret (Bottle) Wine, Claret (Gallon) Wine, Frontenac (Bottle) Wine, Lisbon (Keg) Wine, Madeira (1/2 Gallon) Wine, Madeira (Gallon) 2/10 5/ 7/10 5/ 15/ 2/10 5/ 10/ 3/10 15/ 3/10 108/ 7/10 15/ (Livres/Sols) (JK) (Livres/Sols) (JK) (Lives/Sols: AO) (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) (Lives/Sols: AO) (Lives/Sols: AO) (Lives/Sols: AO) (Lives/Sols: AO) (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) (Livres/Sols) (ACW) (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) (Livres/Sols) (LAFC) (Lives/Sols: AO) (Livres/Sols) (ACW) Tools & Hardware Adze, Coopers’ Adze, Coopers’ Adze, Ship Carpenters’ Augur Augur, ½-inch Augur, 1 ¼-inch Augur, 1 ½-inch Augur, 1 ½-inch Augur, 1 ¾-inch Augur, 1 ¾-inch Augur, 1-inch Augur, 1-inch Augur, 2-inch Augur, 2-inch Augur, 2-inch Augur, 3/4-inch Awl Blade Awl Blades, Pegging Awl Blades, Shoemakers’ Axe, Carpenters’ Broad Axe, Coopers,’ Streaker’s Make Axe, Falling Bails, Boat Bellows, Small Bolts, 4-inch Straight Bolts, 5-inch Crooked Plate Bolts, 5-inch Plate 15/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 8/ PA (AF) 3/9 PA (AF) 3/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 1/11 1/2 PA (AF) 3/8 PA (AF) 1/11 1/2 PA (AF) 3/8 PA (AF) 3/8 PA (AF) 5/8 PA (AF) 21d PA (AF) 3/8 PA (AF) 21d PA (AF) 3/8 PA (AF) 5/8 PA (AF) 3/8 PA (AF) 1/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 12/6 PA (AF) 6/ PA (AF) 6/3 PA (AF) 10/ PA (AF) 7/ PA (AF) 1/ PA (AF) 2/6 PA (AF) 6 ½ d PA (AF) 10 1/2d PA (AF) 10 ½ d PA (AF) 308 Bolts, 6 ½ -inch Plate 15d PA (AF) Bolts, 7-inch Crooked Plate 17d PA (AF) Bolts, 7-inch Crooked 20d PA (AF) Bolts, 8-inch Crooked 20d PA (AF) Bolts, 8-inch plate 20/ PA (AF) Bolts, 8-inch Straight 20d PA (AF) Bolts, Iron 1/10 (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) Bolts, Small Window 3 ¾ d PA (AF) Bolts, Spring 18d PA (AF) Box Irons, Large 6/3 PA (AF) Box Irons, Small 5/9 PA (AF) Box Rules, Two-feet 3/6 PA (AF) Broad Axe, House Carpenters’ 6/3 PA (AF) Broad Axe, Ship Carpenters’ 6/3 PA (AF) Bung Borer, Barrel 1/6 PA (AF) Bung Borer, Hogshead 2/ PA (AF) Butcher’s Steel 18d PA (AF) Calipers 15/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) Castors, Bed 8d PA (AF) Catches, Window with Screws & Heathers Complete 6d PA (AF) Chalk Line 4/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) Chalk Lines 10d PA (AF) Chisel, 1-inch 5/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) Chisel, Carpenters Hammer 15d PA (AF) Chisel, Carpenters 15d PA (AF) Chisel, Carpenters’ 13 ¼ d PA (AF) Chisel, Large Socket 11d PA (AF) Chisel, Large Socket 13 1/4d PA (AF) Chisel, Morticing 15d PA (AF) Chisel, Morticing 8d PA (AF) Chisel, Small Carpenters’ 4 ½ d PA (AF) Chisel, Socket 15d PA (AF) Chisel, Turners 8 1/2d PA (AF) Chisel, Turning No. 32 8 1/2d PA (AF) Compass 3/ (Lives/Sols: AO) Compass, Coopers’ 7/ PA (AF) Compass, Iron Carpenters’ 6d PA (AF) Compasses, Carpenters’ 7 ½ d PA (AF) Crow, Barrel 3/6 PA (AF) Crow, Hogshead 5/6 PA (AF) Demi-Axe, Small 3/3 PA (AF) Dial, Pocket Compass 2/ PA (AF) File 5/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 309 File, 10-inch flat File, 11-inch flat File, 12-inch large flat File, 14-inch half rounded File, 14-inch File, 8-inch File, 9-inch ½ round File, Crosscut Saw File, Crosscut Saw File, Flat File, Flat, 8 ½-inch File, Handsaw File, Handsaw File, Handsaw File, Small flat File, Three-Square File, Whip Saw File, Whip Saw, 12-inches Foot Adze, House Carpenters’ Foot Adze, Ship Carpenters’ Frow Frow Gimblet Gimblet, HM Gimblet, HU Spike Gimblet, HV Gimblet, Large Spike Gimblet, Small HU Gimblet, Small Gimblet, Spike No. 2 Gimblet, Spike No. 3 Gimblet, Spike, No. 1 Gouge Gouge, Barrel Gouge, Carpenters Gouge, Carpenters’ Gouge, Carpenters’ Gouge, Hogshead Gouge, Large Socket Gouge, Turning No. 36 Gunner’s Hammers & Screws Hammer Hammer, Claw 12/ PA (AF) 14/ PA (AF) 17d PA (AF) 20d PA (AF) 2/ PA (AF) 7d PA (AF) 14/3 PA (AF) 12/ PA (AF) 6 1/2d PA (AF) 6/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 7d PA (AF) 2/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 4/ PA (AF) 4/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 7d PA (AF) 4/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 14 ¼d PA (AF) 18d PA (AF) 3/9 PA (AF) 3/9 PA (AF) 2/6 PA (AF) 3/ PA (AF) 1/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 18d PA (AF) 6/ PA (AF) 2/6 pr doz PA (AF) 4/5 PA (AF) 2/6 PA (AF) 2d PA (AF) 5/3 pr doz PA (AF) 8/ pr doz PA (AF) 4 ½ d PA (AF) 13d PA (AF) 3/6 PA (AF) 13d PA (AF) 1/4 PA (AF) 18d PA (AF) 5/6 PA (AF) 1/4 PA (AF) 8 1/2d PA (AF) 2/ PA (AF) 2/ PA (AF) 2/2 PA (AF) 310 Hammer, Claw Hammer, Shingling Hammer, Shoemakers’ Handle, Door with Latch Steeple &c Handle, Chest Lacquered Handles & Latches, Door Handles & Latches, Smaller Door Handles, Chest (should be hinges) Handles, Door with Catches & Latches Handles, Door with Latches & Catches Handles, Door, 10 3/4-inch H Handles, Door, 10-inch H Handles, Door, 11-inch H Handles, H, 6-inch Handles, H, 7-inch Handles, H, 9-inch Handles, Chest Jappaned Handsaw Set, Simmons Handsaw, Best Paneled Handsaw, Best Steel Handsaw, Best 24-inch sharp Handsaw, Common Handsaw, Steel Plate Handsaws, Iron Plate Hatchet Hatchets or Demi Axes Hinges, 11-inch H Hinges, 11-inch H Hinges, 4-inch H Hinges, 4-inch H Hinges, 5-inch H Hinges, 5-inch H Hinges, 5-inch HL Hinges, 6-inch H Hinges, 7-inch H Hinges, 7-inch H Hinges, 8-inch H Hinges, 9-inch H Hinges, Dove Tailed Table Hinges, H Hinges, H Hinges, Large H Hinges, Small 2/3 2/ 18d 2/ 7 3/4d 2/ ea 11d 2/pair 20d 2/1 3/6 3/ 3/9 11d 15d 21d 2/6 18d 10/ 11/6 4/2 4/2 11/5 4/2 23d 3/3 3/9 6/ 11d 5½d 16d 8d 12 ½ d 1/ 15d 2/11 19d 21d 4d 3/ 7/10 10/ 4d PA PA PA PA PA PA PA (AF) (AF) (AF) (AF) (AF) (AF) (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) (Lives/Sols: AO) (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) PA (AF) 311 Hinges, Table Hinges, Table Hinges, Table, 5 ½ inch long Hinges, Table, 5 ¾ inch long Hoe Hoe, Large Weeding Hoe, Large Hoe, Larger Hoe, Largest Weeding Hoe, Largest Hoe, Small Hoe, Smallest Weeding Howell, Coopers’ Howell, Dubbing Irons, Marking [for branding wood/furniture] Irons, Sad 15 ½ lb Joiners and Irons, Large Coopers Joiners and Irons, Largest Coopers Knife, Best Philadelphia-made Knife, Buck Handled Knife, Buck Handled Butchers’ Knife, Buck Handled Cutteau No. 2 Knife, Buck Handled Cutteau No. 3 Knife, Buck Handled Cutteau No. 4 Knife, Buffalo Handled Clasp Knife, Butcher’s Knife, Butchers or Shoemakers Knife, Carving Knife, Children’s Burned Bone Handled Knife, Children’s Horn Handled Knife, Children’s Knife, Common Buck Handled Clasp Knife, Common Drawing Knife, Common Drawing Knife, Crooked Drawing Knife, Drawing Knife, Drawing 14-inch Knife, Drawing 14-inch Knife, Drawing, 15 inch Knife, French with Horn Handle Knife, French with Wooden Handle Knife, Hollowing made by Streaker Knife, Large Clasp with Buffalo Handles 14d PA (AF) 6d PA (AF) 1/ PA (AF) 9d PA (AF) 5/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 3/9 PA (AF) 4/6 PA (AF) 3/9 PA (AF) 4/2 PA (AF) 4/2 PA (AF) 3/9 PA (AF) 3/4 PA (AF) 5/ PA (AF) 5/ PA (AF) 13 ¼ d PA (AF) 6d PA (AF) 15/9 PA (AF) 20/3 PA (AF) 3/10 1/4 PA (AF) 3/10 (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 8/ pr doz PA (AF) 13/9 PA (AF) 16/3 PA (AF) 6/8 PA (AF) 10/ PA (AF) 2/10 (Livres/Sols) (LAFC) 8/ PA (AF) 3/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 4/ PA (AF) 4/ PA (AF) 3/ PA (AF) 6/ PA (AF) 2/10 PA (AF) 2/7 PA (AF) 30/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 7/10 (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 2/10 PA (AF) 3/ PA (AF) 3/ PA (AF) 10d PA (AF) 8d PA (AF) 3/6 PA (AF) 9d PA (AF) 312 Knife, Large Drawing, Streakers Knife, Large English Knife, Larger English Drawing Knife, Largest English Drawing Knife, Pruning Knife, Rounding drawing-Streaker Knife, Rounding on one Edge alias long Howels Knife, Shoe Knife, Shoemakers’ Hollowing Knife, Smaller Drawing, Streakers Knife, Smallest English Drawing Knife, Streaker’s Best Knife, Wooden Handled Ladle, Iron Melting Ladle, Large Iron Latch, Thumb Latches or Catches Latches, Brass knobbed Latches, Large Brass Door Lock Complete Latches, Middle Size Door Lock Complete Latches, Table Lead (lb) Lead, Black Lock, 4 ½-inch Closet Lock, 5-inch Closet Lock, 5-inch Closet Lock, Brass Cupboard Lock, Brass Desk Lock, Brass Saddle Bag Lock, Brass Wine Cock Lock, Chamber Door, 4x3 inches Lock, Chest Lock, Closet Lock, Cupboard Lock, Cupboard Lock, Desk Drawer Lock, Drawer Lock, Drawer Lock, Dutch Chest Lock, Large Best Cock Lock, Large Brass Cock Lock, Large Brass Cock Lock, Large Brass Knobbed 3/10 1/4 PA (AF) 2/7 PA (AF) 34/pr doz PA (AF) 36/pr doz PA (AF) 8d PA (AF) 6/ PA (AF) 5/ PA (AF) 7/6 PA (AF) 8/ PA (AF) 3/10 1/4 PA (AF) 28/ pr doz PA (AF) 3/10 PA (AF) 8d PA (AF) 2/ PA (AF) 3/6 PA (AF) 20d PA (AF) 6d PA (AF) 2/2 PA (AF) 19/ PA (AF) 14/ PA (AF) 7d PA (AF) /1 (Lives/Sols: AO) 6d PA (AF) 2/2 PA (AF) 20d PA (AF) 3/ PA (AF) 3/5 PA (AF) 2/6 PA (AF) 9d PA (AF) 7/10 (Livres/Sols) (LAFC) 2/2 PA (AF) 19d PA (AF) 2/6 PA (AF) 2/2 PA (AF) 3/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 2/6 PA (AF) 1/ PA (AF) 5/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 18 1/2d PA (AF) 12/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 2/11 PA (AF) 4/6 PA (AF) 25/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 313 Lock, Large Brass Saddle Bag Lock, Largest Brass Knobbed Lock, Room Door Lock, Room Door Lock, Small Brass Cock Lock, Small Brass Lock, Small Cupboard Lock, Small Drawer Lock, Smaller Brass Cock Magnets Mill, Large Steel Nails (1/2 lb) Nails (lb) Nails, Boat Nails, Eight penny Nails, N1, Keg Nails, Six penny Nails, Small Four penny Nails, Small Nails, Spike (lb) Nails, Spike Nails, Three penny Nails, Twelve penny Needles (50) Needles (doz) Needles Needles, Assorted Needles, Bolting Sail Needles, Large Darning Needles, Large Sail Needles, Large Stretching Needles, Middling Size Needles, Sail Needles, Small Needles, Stretching Needles, Stretching Nippers, Shoemakers’ Padlock Padlock, Brass Padlock, Double Bolt Middle-sized Padlock, Double Bolt Padlock, Large Double Bolt Padlock, Large Spring 10d PA (AF) 19/ PA (AF) 12/10 (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 18/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 3/ PA (AF) 5/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 9 1/2d PA (AF) 7/10 (Livres/Sous) (BFDC) 2/6 PA (AF) 10/ PA (AF) 160 (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 1/10 (Lives/Sols: AO) 3/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 1/ PA (AF) 8 ½ d PA (AF) 8 1/2d PA (AF) 8 ½ d PA (AF) 10 ¾ d PA (AF) 8 ½ d PA (AF) 3/ (Livres/Sols) (JK) 1/ PA (AF) 12 1/2d PA (AF) 8 ½ d PA (AF) 2/10 (Livres/Sous) (BFDC) 2/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 9/ pr M PA (AF) 9/ pr M PA (AF) 3d PA (AF) 2/ pr doz PA (AF) 20/ pr ? PA (AF) 14d PA (AF) 12/ PA (AF) 1/ (Livres/Sols) (ACW) 10/ PA (AF) 14d PA (AF) 18d PA (AF) 20d PA (AF) 4/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 6d PA (AF) 3/8 PA (AF) 2/8 PA (AF) 3/8 PA (AF) 5/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 314 Padlock, Large Padlock, Large Padlock, Secret Padlock, Small Brass Padlock, Spring Pinchers Pinchers Pinchers, Carpenters’ Pinchers, Shoemakers’ Pins (paper) Pins, Pack No. 10 Pins, Pack, Large Plane Iron, Rabbiting Plane Irons or Knives Plane Irons, 2-inch Plane, Head Plates, Best Steel Saw Plates, Common Iron Handsaw Plates, Large Tennon Saws Plates, Larger Keyhole Saws Plates, Small Keyhole Saws Pliers Pliers Pliers, Large Watchmakers’ Pliers, Shoemakers’ Pliers, Small Watchmakers’ Rabbit Irons or Planes Rule, Two-foot Rule, Two-foot Saw Sets Saw, Compass Saw, Crosscut, 5 feet 6 inches Saw, Crosscut, 6 feet 2 inches Saw, Large Tenon Saw, Small Tenon Saw, Whip, Complete Saw, Whip-Complete Scales & Beam, Brass Scales & Beam, Small Tin Scales, Tin Beam Scales, Two-feet Rules Brass Scissors (to shear the horse) Scissors, Children’s Burned Bone Handled 15/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 3/8 PA (AF) 4/ (Livres/Sols) (LAFC) 3/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 4/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 2/ PA (AF) 3/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 1/ PA (AF) 2/ PA (AF) 2/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 4/ PA (AF) 7/6 PA (AF) 5 ½ d PA (AF) 6 1/3 d PA (AF) 6/6 PA (AF) 5/ PA (AF) 10/ PA (AF) 4/2 PA (AF) 10/ PA (AF) 2/6 PA (AF) 14 ¼ d PA (AF) 20d PA (AF) 3/ (Livres/Sols) (ACW) 11d PA (AF) 2/ pr PA (AF) 8d PA (AF) 5 ½ d PA (AF) 5/ (Livres/Sous) (BFDC) 37 1/4 PA (AF) 2/6 PA (AF) 2/6 PA (AF) 25/ PA (AF) 28/ PA (AF) 10/ PA (AF) 10/ PA (AF) 100/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 52/ PA (AF) 8/9 PA (AF) 3/9 PA (AF) 25/ PA (AF) 17/6 pr dozen PA (AF) 5/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 3/ PA (AF) 315 Scissors, Common Small Scissors, Common Small Scissors, Common Scissors, Large Common Scissors, Long for Trimming Horses Scissors, Small Women’s best sort Scissors, Small Women’s Scissors, Smaller Common Scissors, Tinman’s or Gardner’s’ Scissors, Women’s Common Scissors, Women’s Fine Screw Nails, small wood Screwdriver Screwdriver Screws, Wood (20) Screws, Wood Scythe, Dutch Scythe, English Scythe, English, 52 inch Scythe, English, 54-inch long Scythe, Philadelphia—54 inch long Shavers, Coopers’ Sickle Spades Square, Steel Squares, Iron Steel Stones, Ragg Tacks, Small (130) Tap Borer Tap Borer Thimble Thimble, Brass Thimble, Brass Thimble, Tailors’ Thimble, Tailors’ Thimble, Women’s Brass Thimble, Women’s Brass Trowel, Masons’ Trowel, Plastering Twine Twine, Sail Wedge, Iron 3/6 PA (AF) 9/ PA (AF) 6/ PA (AF) 12/6 PA (AF) 18d PA (AF) 15/ PA (AF) 6/ PA (AF) 6/6 PA (AF) 10/ PA (AF) 4/ PA (AF) 9d PA (AF) 3d pr doz PA (AF) 11 ¾ d PA (AF) 18d PA (AF) 10/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 1/2d PA (AF) 3/4 PA (AF) 10/ (Livres/Sous) (BFDC) 4/6 PA (AF) 4/6 PA (AF) 4/6 PA (AF) 18d PA (AF) 7/10 (Lives/Sols: AO) 6/3 PA (AF) 1/11 PA (AF) 23d PA (AF) 70/ pr faggot PA (AF) 8d PA (AF) 1/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 12 1/2d PA (AF) 3/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 1/10 (Lives/Sols: AO) /10 (Livres/Sols) (ACW) 8d pr doz PA (AF) 8/ PA (AF) 9/ pr Gross PA (AF) 8/ pr Gross PA (AF) 8d PA (AF) 2/3 PA (AF) 3/ PA (AF) 2/3 PA (AF) 2/3 PA (AF) 3/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 316 Wimble & Bit Wimble, Coopers & 1-inch bit Yards, Steel, 1 pr. 112 lb Yards, Steel, 1 pr. 170 lbs Yards, Steel, 1 pr. 270 lbs Yards, Steel, 1 pr. 48 lbs 7/5 PA 7/6 12/6 15/ 8/1 8/ (AF) PA PA PA PA PA (AF) (AF) (AF) (AF) (AF) Dining Utensils Knives & Forks (12) Knives & Forks (6) Knives & Forks, Ivory Handled (12) Knives, Table & Forks (12) Spoons (6) Spoons, Hard metal Spoons, Pewter (1/2 doz) Spoons, Pewter (doz) Spoons, Pewter Spoons, Pewter, FM Spoons, Silver Tea (6) Spoons, Silver Tea (doz) Utensils, Sundry Plated (Box) 10/ (Livres/Sols) (LAFC) 10/ (Livres/Sols) (JAK) 30/ (Lives/Sols) (AO) 10/ (Livres/Sols) (AC-Cole) 5/ (Livres/Sols) (JAK) 3/6 PA (AF) 6/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 10/ (Lives/Sols) (AO) 3/ PA (AF) 3/6 pr doz PA (AF) 30/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 60/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 250/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) Tableware, Food Prep Bachelor Oven, Largest-Complete Bachelor Oven, Smaller Barbequing Iron-10 bars Barbequing Iron-12 bars Barbequing Iron-14 bars Barbequing Iron-15 bars Barbequing Iron-9 bars Basin, Large Pewter abt ½ gallon Basin, Large Pewter abt 3 qts Basin, Largest Pewter Basin, Pewter Assorted Basin, Pewter Large Basin, Pewter Smaller Basin, Pewter 18/9 13/9 7 1/2d 7 1/2d 7 1/2d 7 1/2d 7 1/2d 20d 20d 25/ 20d 20/ 5/ 10/ PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) (Lives/Sols: AO) PA (AF) (Livres/Sous) (BFDC) (Livres/Sous) (BFDC) (Lives/Sols: AO) 317 Basin, Pewter Basin, Pewter Basin, Pint Pewter Basin, Pint Pewter Basin, Quart Bottle Bottle, Pewter ½ Pint Bottle, Pewter Pocket Brandy Bottle, ½ Pint Pewter Bread Grater, Large Bread Grater, Large Bread Grater, Largest Bread Grater, Tin Butter Cups Cannister, ¼ lb Tin Cannister, ½ lb Tin Cannister, ½ pound Jappaned Cannister, l lb Tin Cannister, Large Painted Tin Cannister, Sugar with Partitions Cheese Toaster Cheese Toaster Chocolate Pot, Three Pint Copper Cleavers Coffee Mill, Round Ebony Coffee Pot Coffee Pot Coffee Pot, ½ Gallon Block Tin Coffee Pot, ½ Gallon Tin Coffee Pot, ½ Gallon Coffee Pot, 1 Qt Block Tin Coffee Pot, 3 Pint Tin Coffee Pot, Copper Coffee Pot, Copper, Middle Size Coffee Pot, large Copper Coffee Pot, Larger Copper Coffee Pot, Larger Copper Coffee Pot, largest Size Tin Coffee Pot, Largest Size Tin-1 Gallon Coffee Pot, Pewter Coffee Pot, Pewter Coffee Pot, Pewter Coffee Pot, Pint 15/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 20d PA (AF) 15d PA (AF) 16d PA (AF) 5/ (Livres/Sols) (JK) /30 (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 2/10 (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 2/10 (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 3/ PA (AF) 1/ PA (AF) 2/ PA (AF) 2/ PA (AF) 2/ PA (AF) 5/ (Livres/Sols) (JK) 5d PA (AF) 7 1/4d PA (AF) 15d PA (AF) 1/ PA (AF) 25/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 9/ PA (AF) 20d PA (AF) 5/ (Livres/Sols) (ACW) 15/ PA (AF) 4/ PA (AF) 9d PA (AF) 15/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 6/ (Livres/Sous) (BFDC) 5/9 PA (AF) 3/9 PA (AF) 3/9 PA (AF) 2/9 PA (AF) 2/9 PA (AF) 22/10 (Lives/Sols: AO) 16/8 PA (AF) 22/ PA (AF) 11/6 PA (AF) 14/ PA (AF) 5/6 PA (AF) 5/6 PA (AF) 14/10 1/2 PA (AF) 15/ PA (AF) 15/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 2/9 PA (AF) 318 Coffee Pot, Quart Block Tin Coffee Pot, Quart Block Tin Coffee Pot, Quart Copper Coffee Pot, Quart Tin Coffee Pot, Tin Colander Colander, Hard Metal Pewter Colander, Large Pewter Colander, Largest Size Tin Colander, Largest Tin Colander, Next Size Tin Cork Screws Cork Screws, Best Sort Cork Screws, Bone Handle Cork Screws, Steel with a Key Handle Cork Screws, Swivel Cream Jugs, Pewter Cream Pot, Pewter Cruets Dish, Copper Chasing Dishes, Hard Metal 2 lb. Dishes, Hard Metal Dishes, Pewter Dishes, Pewter Dispatches, Tin Dripping Pan, Large Dripping Pan, Larger Dripping Pan, Largest Size Tin Dripping Pan, Largest Dripping Pan, Small Dripping Pan, Smaller Drudging Box Drudging Box Drudging Box Drudging Box, Tin Dutch Oven Egg Slicer Egg Slicer Frying Pan Frying Pan Frying Pan, Middling Sized Funnel, Larger Tin Quart Funnel, Small Tin 2/9 2/9 10/6 2/ 6/ 8/ 35/ --4/ 4/ 3/ 19d 2/ 2/ 19d 19d 2/6 2/6 8/6 17/10 2/3 2/4 50/ 20/ 6/ 5/ 4/4 5/ 5/ 2/9 4/4 10d 1/5 2/ 10d 30/ 6d 9d 12/10 15/ 7/ 10d 5d PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) (Livres/Sous) (BFDC) (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) (Livres/Sous) (BFDC) PA (AF) PA (AF) (Livres/Sous) (BFDC) (Livres/Sous) (BFDC) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) PA (AF) (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) PA (AF) PA (AF) (Lives/Sols: AO) (Lives/Sols: AO) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) 319 Funnel, Tin ½ Pint Funnel, Tin Quart Funnel, Tin Funnel, Tin Pint Funnel, ½ Gallon Tin Funnel, Tin ½ Gallon Funnel, ½ Pint Pewter Funnel, Smallest Size Pewter Funnel, Larger Size Pewter Funnel, Pint Pewter Funnel, Pint Tin Funnel, Quart Pewter Funnel, Pint Pewter Funnel, Gallon Tin Funnel, Tin Barrel Funnel, Tin Gallon Funnel, Tin Gallon Gridiron Gridirons, 11 Bars Gridirons, 12 Bars Gridirons, 13 Bars Gridirons, 14 Bars Gridirons, 15 Bars, Large Gridirons, 8 Bars Gridirons, 9 Bars each Kettle (lb) Kettle, ½ Gallon Tin Kettle, Brass (lb) Kettle, Brass Kettle, Brass, 3 lb. Kettle, Brass, 5 lb. Kettle, Copper Kettle, Small (pr lb) Kettle, Smallest Size (say from a Pint to three) Kettle, Tin 1 Gallon Kettle, Tin Assorted Kettle, Tin Equal to 1 1/3 Nest Kettle, Tin from Smallest to the 8th Kettle, Tin Large Kettle, Tin Largest Size Kettle, Tin Second Kettle, Tin Third Kettle, Tin 5d PA (AF) 10d PA (AF) 2/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 16 1/2d PA (AF) 1/8 PA (AF) 1/8 PA (AF) 1/10 PA (AF) 1/10 PA (AF) 2/2 PA (AF) 2/2 PA (AF) 6 2/3 d PA (AF) 3/3 PA (AF) 3/3 PA (AF) 3/9 PA (AF) 3/9 PA (AF) 3/9 PA (AF) 3/9 PA (AF) 10/ (Livres/Sols) (LAFC) 7 1/2d PA (AF) 7 1/2d PA (AF) 7 1/2d PA (AF) 7 1/2d PA (AF) 7 1/2d PA (AF) 7 1/2d PA (AF) 7 1/2d PA (AF) 5/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 2/ PA (AF) 5/ (Livres/Sols) (JK) 2/9 PA (AF) 3/ PA (AF) 3/ PA (AF) 3/ PA (AF) 5/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 73/pr nest PA (AF) 7/6 PA (AF) 3/6 PA (AF) 73/ pr nest PA (AF) 73/ pr Nest PA (AF) 5/ PA (AF) 73/ pr nest PA (AF) 73/pr nest PA (AF) 73/pr nest 15/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 320 Ladle, Large Iron Ladle, Large Iron Measure, ½ Pint Pewter Measure, Block ½ Gallon Measure, Block Tin ½ Gallon Measure, Block Tin Gallon Measure, Pewter ½ Gallon Measure, Pewter ½ pint Measure, Pewter gill Measure, Pewter Half gill Measure, Pewter Pint Measure, Pint Measure, Tin ½ Gallon Block Measure, Tin ½ Gallon Measure, Tin ½ Pint Measure, Tin ½ Pint Measure, Tin Gallon Measure, Tin Gallon Measure, Tin Gill Measure, Tin Pint Measure, Tin Quart Measure, Gill Measure, Half-gill Mill, Iron Coffee Mill, Steel Large Mustard Pot, Pewter Nutmeg Grater Nutmeg Graters with Cases Nutmeg Graters Nutmeg Graters, bound Nutmeg Graters, Japanned, with Cases Nutmeg Graters, Larger ½ Round without Sides Nutmeg Graters, Larger ½ Round without Sides Nutmeg Graters, Larger ½ Round, with Sides Nutmeg Graters, Round Open Nutmeg Graters, Small ½ Round, with Sides Packs, Pint Pally Pans, Large Pan, Tin ½ Gallon Black /Lead Bottoms/ Pan, Frying Pan, Large Baking Pan, Large Tin Baking, No. 1 Pan, Tin Stew 2/ 3/6 2/6 3/6 20/ 3/9 12/ 2/5 2/ 18d 4/6 5d 3/6 20d 5d 5d 3/9 3/9 3 1/3d 6 2/3d 1/ 2/ 18d 12/6 100/ 20d 2/10 9d 4 1/2d 4 1/2d 1/ 5d 7 1/2d 4d 4 1/2d 3 1/2d 20d 1/ 3/6 11d 5/ 5/ 6/ PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) (Livres/Sous) (BFDC) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) (Livres/Sols) (ACW) PA (AF) (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) 321 Pan, Warming Pannikin, Tin ½ Pint Pannikin, Tin Pint with Handles Pannikin, Tin Pint Pannikin, Tin Pastry Pan, Large Pastry Pan, Middle-sized Pastry Pan, Plain Pastry Pan, Scalloped No. 1 Pastry Pan, Small No. 3 Pastry Pan, Small Pastry Pan, Smaller Pastry Pan, Smaller Plate, Eight Pound Plate, Hard Metal Shallow Plate, Hard Metal Soup Plate, Hard Metal Plate, Pewter Common Plate, Pewter Eight Pound Plate, Pewter Eight Pound Plate, Pewter Shallow & Soup Plate, Pewter Plates (doz) Porringer Porringer, Pewter Large Porringer, Pewter Large Porringer, Pewter Large Porringer, Pewter Middling Porringer, Pewter Porringer, Pewter Porringer, Pewter Small Porringer, Pewter Small Porringer, Pewter Smaller Pot, Tin Large Quart Pot, Tin Coffee Pudding Pan Pudding Pan, Tin Large Pudding Pan, Tin Large Pudding Pan, Tin Largest Size Pudding Pan, Tin Small Pudding Pan, Tin Smaller Pudding Pan, Tin Pudding Pan, Tin 15/9 PA (AF) 5d PA (AF) 6 2/3d PA (AF) 6 2/3d PA (AF) 7 ½ d PA (AF) 1/ PA (AF) 7d PA (AF) 5d PA (AF) 1/ PA (AF) 6d PA (AF) 9d PA (AF) 5d PA (AF) 6d PA (AF) 16 1/2d PA (AF) 2/ PA (AF) 2/3 PA (AF) 2/3 PA (AF) 22d PA (AF) 16/ pr doz PA (AF) 16d PA (AF) 23d PA (AF) 10/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 2/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 3/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 17/6 PA (AF) 18d PA (AF) 20/ PA (AF) 19/3 PA (AF) 16 1/2d PA (AF) 16d PA (AF) 16d PA (AF) 17/ 10 ½ PA (AF) 16/ PA (AF) 1/ PA (AF) 25/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 5/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 3/ PA (AF) 5/ PA (AF) 5/ PA (AF) 2/ PA (AF) 3/ PA (AF) 10/ (Livres/Sous) (BFDC) 2/5 PA (AF) 322 Punch Bowl Punch Ladle, Pewter Saucepan, Copper 3 Pints Saucepan, Copper One Gallon Saucepan, Tin ½ Gallon with Socket Handles Saucepan, Tin ½ gallon Saucepan, Tin ½ Gallon Saucepan, Tin 2 pint Saucepan, Tin Fourth Size Saucepan, Tin Gallon with Socket Handles Saucepan, Tin Gallon Saucepan, Tin Large Block Saucepan, Tin Largest Size Saucepan, Tin Pint Block Saucepan, Tin Pint Saucepan, Tin Pint Saucepan, Tin Pint Saucepan, Tin Quart Block Saucepan, Tin Quart with Socket Handles Saucepan, Tin Quart Saucepan, Tin Quart Saucepan, Tin Second Size Saucepan, Tin Small Block Saucepan, Tin Third Size Saucepan, Tin Saucepan, Tin Skillet, Iron w/ Handles Skillet, Iron, Large Soup Plate, Hard metal Stew Pan, Copper Large without Cover Stew Pan, Copper Small with Cover Stew Pan, Copper Small without Cover Sugar Basin, Pewter Sugar Bowl, Pewter Tea Kettle Tea Pot, Large Tea Pot, Pewter Tea Pot, Pewter, Next Size Tea Pot, Pewter Smallest Size Tea Pot, Pewter, Smaller Tea Pot, Delft Tea Kettle, Copper ½ Gallon Tea Pot, Pewter with Feet 25/ (Livres/Sols) (JK) 1/ PA (AF) 4/6 PA (AF) 8/ PA (AF) 20d PA (AF) 20d PA (AF) 20d PA (AF) 6 2/3d PA (AF) 6 2/3d PA (AF) 4/ PA (AF) 4/ PA (AF) 2/1 PA (AF) 4/ PA (AF) 15d PA (AF) 15d PA (AF) 3/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 5 2/3d PA (AF) 2/1 PA (AF) 12 ½d PA (AF) 12 ½ d PA (AF) 2/1 PA (AF) 20d PA (AF) 15d PA (AF) 12 1/2d PA (AF) 5/ (Livres/Sous) (BFDC) 7/10 (Livres/Sols) (JK) 2/9 PA (AF) 2/9 PA (AF) 2/3 PA (AF) 15/ PA (AF) 15/ PA (AF) 12/ PA (AF) 5/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 5/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 25/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 10/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 8/ (Livres/Sols) (LAFC) 5/ PA (AF) 3/6 PA (AF) 4/3 PA (AF) 4/6 PA (AF) 4/9 PA (AF) 5/3 PA (AF) 323 Tea Pot, Pewter Large Tea Pot, Pewter Larger Size Tea Pot, Pewter Largest Size w/ Feet No. 4 Trivet Warming Pan, Large 6/3 6/3 7/3 10/5 15/9 PA PA PA PA PA (AF) (AF) (AF) (AF) (AF) Drinking Vessels Bottle, Brandy, ½ pint Breakfast Cup, Pewter Cup, ½ Gill Cup, Gill Tin Cup, Pint Tin Cup, Tin ½ Gill Cup, Tin ½ pint Cup, Tin ½ Pint Cup, Tin Large Quart Cup, Tin Large Cup, Tin Pint Cup, Tin Pint Cup, Tin Quart Cup, Tin Quart Cup, Tin Quart Cup, Tin Cup, Tin Cups, Silver (12) with Cases Dram Bottle, Pewter Pint Dram Bottles, Pewter ½ Pint Funnel, ½ Gallon Funnel, Tin Quart Glasses, Free Mason’s Jack Jack, ½ Pint Jack, Black Jack, Black Jack, Painted Jack, Pint Black Jack, Pint Jappaned Jack, Pint Jack, Quart Jappaned Jack, Quart Jack, Tin Pint, Painted Jack, Tin Quart /Black/ Measure, Gallon 1/ PA (AF) 2/6 PA (AF) 1/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 3 1/4d PA (AF) 6 2/3 d PA (AF) 2 1/2d PA (AF) 3d PA (AF) 4d PA (AF) 10d PA (AF) 5/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 5 1/2d PA (AF) 5 1/2d PA (AF) 10/ pr doz 10d PA (AF) 12d PA (AF) 2/10 (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 3/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) £17..3..4 (JBFDC) 3/6 PA (AF) 3/ PA (AF) 20d PA (AF) 10d PA (AF) 3/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 20/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 2/ PA (AF) /10 (Lives/Sols: AO) 10/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 4/ PA (AF) 20d PA (AF) 20d PA (AF) 20d PA (AF) 20d PA (AF) 2/6 PA (AF) 3/ PA (AF) 2/6 PA (AF) 3/9 PA (AF) 324 Measure, Pewter Pint Measure, Tin ½ Gallon Measure, Tin Pint Mug, Pewter Bellied Pint Mug, Pewter Bellied Quart Mug, Pewter Pint Bellied Mug, Pewter Pint Mug, Pewter Quart Mug, Straight Pint Mug, Straight Quart Pint, Pewter Pint, Tin Quart Quart, Pewter Quart, Tin Tankard, Pewter Quart Tankard, Pewter Tap Borers Tap Borers Tea Cups & Saucers Tumbler Tumbler Tumbler, Large Tumbler, Small Wine Glass 4/6 PA (AF) 1/8 PA (AF) 6 2/3 d PA (AF) 30/ PA (AF) 52/ PA (AF) 2/6 PA (AF) 2/3 PA (AF) 4/ PA (AF) 2/3 PA (AF) 4/ PA (AF) 2/3 PA (AF) 5 ½ d PA (AF) 10d PA (AF) 50/ PA (AF) 1/ PA (AF) 6/ PA (AF) 5/3 PA (AF) 1/6 PA (AF) 12 1/2d PA (AF) 10/ ea (Livres/Sols) (JK) 21/0 (Livres/Sols) (ACW) 3/ (Livres/Sols) (ACW) 2/10 (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 3/ (Livres/Sols) (JK) 3/ (Livres/Sols) (JK) Weapons and Ammunition Bullet Molds Bullet Molds, 16 Balls at once Bullet Molds, Brass Set, 32 Bullet Molds, brass, 30 to each Bullet Molds, brass, made in Philadelphia Fusil Fusil Gun Flints (100) Gun Flints (doz) Gun Flints Gun Locks Complete Gun Locks with Screws Gun Screws Gun Worm Gunpowder (1 lb) 2/6 PA (AF) 55/ PA (AF) 55/ PA (AF) 55/ PA (AF) 55/ PA (AF) 80/ (Livres/Sols) (JAK) 32/ PA (AF) 5/ (Livres/Sous) (BFDC) 1/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 48/ pr M PA (AF) 5/ PA (AF) 5/ PA (AF) 5/doz PA (AF) 5d PA (AF) 5/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 325 Pistols, pair Powder Flasks with Spring Tops Powder Flasks Powder Horn Shot (lb) Shot (lb) Shot, Duck (lb) Shot, Pidgeon 40/ 5/9 5/9 15/ 1/10 2/ /30 40/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) PA (AF) PA (AF) (Livres/Sols) (JK) (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) (Livres/Sous) (BFDC) PA (AF) Indigenous Trade Goods Armbands, Middling Awl Blades Awl Blades, Indian Bands, Arm Bands, Wrist Beads, Barley Corn Beaver Trap Beaver Traps No. 2 Beaver Traps Complete Blanket Coat Blanket Breech Clout Coffee (lb) Cutteau Darts, Beaver Darts, Large Beaver Flannel, Red (yd) Fusil Fusil Gartering Gorget Gunflints Gunpowder (lb) Gunpowder (lb) Hair Plate Halfthick Coat, bound with Bed Lace Halfthicks (yd) Handkerchief, Silk Handkerchief, Silk Handkerchief, Silk Hat, Laced Hat, Laced Kettle (pr lb) 30/ (Livres/Sols) (JAK) 10/ (Lives/Sols: ACCC) 6/-12/ PA (AF) (Lives/Sols: ACCC) (Lives/Sols: ACCC) 1/9 PA (AF) 20/ (Lives/Sols: ACCC)\ 10/ PA (AF) 18/ PA (AF) 20/ (Lives/Sols: ACCC) 24/ (NY) (ACW) 8/ (Lives/Sols: ACCC) 5/ (NY) (ACW) 24/ (Lives/Sols: ACCC) 2/6 PA (AF) 2/5 PA (AF) 4/ (Lives/Sols: ACCC) 45/ (Lives/Sols: ACCC) 60/ (Lives/Sols: ACCC) 40/ (Lives/Sols: ACCC) 30 (Lives/Sols: ACCC) 10/ (Lives/Sols: ACCC) 5/ (Lives/Sols: ACCC) 8/ (NY) (ACW) 5/ (Livres/Sols) (JAK) 30/ (Lives/Sols: ACCC) 10/6 (NY) (ACW) 10/ (Livres/Sols) (JAK) 16/ (NY) (ACW) 8/ (Livres/Sols) (JAK) 30/ (Lives/Sols: ACCC) 48/ (NY) (ACW) 5/ (Lives/Sols: ACCC) 326 Knife, Scalping Knives, Cutteau No. 4 Knives, Cutteau No. 5 Knives, Cutteau No. 6 Knives, Cutteau Knives, Cutteau, 10-inch Knives, Cutteau, 11-inch Lance Points Knives, Cutteau, 12-inch Lance Points Knives, Cutteau, 12-inch Knives, Cutteau, 9-inch Lance Points Knives, Cutteau, Children’s Knives, Cutteau, Middling Size Knives, Large Knives, Scalping No. 1 Knives, Scalping No. 2 Knives, Scalping Ladles, Melting Lamp Lead (lb) Lead (lbs) Leggings Looking Glass, Large Painted Frame Matchcoat Matchcoating, English (ps) Matchcoating, French (ps) Moccasins, Men’s Musketballs (lb) Muslin (yd) Necklaces, Amber glass Ozenbrigs (for powder bags) (1 ¼ Ells) Paint (lb) Pipe, Clay (doz) Rum (Gallon) Rum (Gallon) Saddle Shalloon, Red Shirt Shirt, Calico Shirt, Plain Shirt, Plain Shirt, Ruffled Shirt, Ruffled Shirt, Ruffled 2/10 6/8 7/6 8/9 2/ 25/ 12/6 12/6 30/ 12/6 5d 7/6 16/ 10/ 10/ 8/ 16/ 18d 1/ 8/ 8/ 15/ 200/ 300/ 6/6 1/ 14/ 3/9 4/ 20/ 10/ 15/ 24/ 50/ 3/ 15/ 12/ 16/ 15/ 20/ 24/ (Livres/Sous) (BFDC) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) (Lives/Sols: AO) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) (NY) (ACW) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) (Lives/Sols: ACCC) (NY) (ACW) (NY) (ACW) (Lives/Sols: ACCC) (Lives/Sols: AO) (Livres/Sols) (JAK) (Lives/Sols: ACCC) (Lives/Sols: ACCC) (Lives/Sols: ACCC) (NY) (ACW) (Lives/Sols: ACCC) (Lives/Sols: ACCC) PA (AF) (Livres/Sols) (JAK) (Lives/Sols: ACCC) (NY) (ACW) (Lives/Sols: ACCC) (NY) (ACW) (Lives/Sols: ACCC) (Lives/Sols: ACCC) (Lives/Sols: ACCC) (Lives/Sols: ACCC) (Lives/Sols: ACCC) (NY) (ACW) (Livres/Sols) (JAK) (Lives/Sols: ACCC) (NY) (ACW) 327 Shoes, Laced Shoes, Silver Laced Shoes, Women’s Gold Laced Shot (lb) Shot, Duck (lb) Soap (lbs) Soap, Castile (lb) Stroud (ps) Stroud, Black Sugar (lb) Thread, Colored Thread, Fine White Tobacco Tomahawk Tomahawk, Pipe with Screw Pipes Tomahawk, Pipe Tomahawks, Best Vermillion (lb) Vermillion in a Keg Vermillion in Leather Bags Vermillion, Keg Marked V No. 1 Vermillion, Keg Marked V No. 5 Vermillion, Keg Marked V No. 7 Vermillion, Keg Marked V No. 8 Wampum, Black Wampum, White Wine (1/2 Gallon) Wire, Brass Wristbands 18/ 20/ 25/ 2/6 2/5 (Livres/Sous) (LAFC) (Lives/Sols: ACCC) (Livres/Sols) (JAK) (NY) (ACW) (NY) (ACW) (Lives/Sols: ACCC) 3/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 200/ (Lives/Sols: ACCC) 32/ (NY) (ACW) 4/ (NY) (ACW) (Lives/Sols: ACCC) (Lives/Sols: ACCC) (Lives/Sols: ACCC) 10/ (Lives/Sols: ACCC) 9/ PA (AF) 8/5 and 8/9 PA (AF) 12/10 (Lives/Sols: ACCC) 20/ (Lives/Sols: ACCC) 10/ PA (AF) 10/ PA (AF) 10/ PA (AF) 10/ PA (AF) 10/ PA (AF) 10/ PA (AF) 50/ (Lives/Sols: ACCC) 40/ (Lives/Sols: ACCC) 32/ (NY) (ACW) 5/ (Lives/Sols: ACCC) 7/10 (Livres/Sols) (JAK) Clothing Bonnet Box Bonnet Bonnet, Straw Boots Boots, Men’s Breeches, Buckskin Breeches, Buckskin Breeches, Leather Breeches, Leather Breeches, Leather Breeches, Worsted black Breeches, Worsted buff o.1.6 £1.3.6 10/ 40/ 35/ 22/6 30/ 22/6 30/ 40/ 16/ 19/ (JBFDC) )(JBFDC) (Lives/Sols: AO) (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) PA (AF) PA (AF) (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) PA (AF) (Livres/Sols) (JK) (Livres/Sols) (ACW) PA (AF) PA (AF) 328 Breeches, Worsted crimson 18/ PA (AF) Breeches, Worsted, scarlet 18/ PA (AF) Cap, Cotton 5/ (Livres/Sous) (BFDC) Cap, French Milled 4/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) Cap, Men’s Cotton 17 ½ d PA (AF) Cap, Men’s Double Striped Cotton 3/6 PA (AF) Cap, Men’s Silk 7/4 1/2 PA (AF) Cap, Milled Night 4/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) Cap, Negro 3/10 (Livres/Sols) (JK) Cap, Striped cotton No. 3 2/11 PA (AF) Cap, Striped Cotton 26/pr doz PA (AF) Cap, Striped Cotton 32/ PA (AF) Coat, Napped trimmed with Binding 23/ PA (AF) Cravat 7/10 (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) Cravat, Black Silk 4/ 4 1/2 PA (AF) Cravat, Black 8/ (Livres/Sols) (ACW) Gloves 4/ (Lives/Sols: AO) Gloves 5/ (Lives/Sols: AO) Gloves, Buckskin stitched No. 8 7/ PA (AF) Gloves, Buckskin 10/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) Gloves, Buckskin 8/ (Lives/Sols: AO) Gloves, Men’s Buckskin 7/4 PA (AF) Gloves, Men’s Dogskin Stitched tops 4/ PA (AF) Gloves, Men’s Germantown Milled 2/4 PA (AF) Gloves, Men’s stitched taped Dog Skin 5/ PA (AF) Gloves, Men’s worsted 3/ PA (AF) Handkerchief, Bandana 50/ (Livres/Sols) (JAK) Handkerchief, Barcelona Black Silk 24/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) Handkerchief, Barcelona Silk 4/3 ½ PA (AF) Handkerchief, Barcelona 10/ (Lives/Sols: AO) Handkerchief, Best Cotton Romall 35/ PA (AF) Handkerchief, Black Lace 12 1/2d PA (AF) Handkerchief, Black Silk 7/10 (Lives/Sols: AO) Handkerchief, Blue & white Bordered, No. 83/6 PA (AF) Handkerchief, Blue & White figured No. 2 2/3 PA (AF) Handkerchief, Blue & White figured No. 3 2/5 PA (AF) Handkerchief, Blue & White Spotted & Bordered Linen 2/4 PA (AF) Handkerchief, blue bordered Linen 3/6 PA (AF) Handkerchief, Blue linen F No. 12 5/2 PA (AF) Handkerchief, Bordered linen blue figure 3/4 PA (AF) Handkerchief, Chocolate Ground with white spots 5/2 PA (AF) Handkerchief, Cotton Pin Work Bordered 2/4 ½ PA (AF) Handkerchief, Cotton Romall 23/ PA (AF) 329 Handkerchief, Cumberland 15/ Handkerchief, Fine linen red ground with white spots Handkerchief, Finer No. 40 Star Starred 5/3 Handkerchief, Finer No. 41 No. D 5/3 Handkerchief, Gauze 5/ Handkerchief, Gauze 6/ Handkerchief, Hunting 5/ Handkerchief, Large Blue & White bordered in diamond Handkerchief, Large Fine Blue & White large flowers Handkerchief, Large Scotch, No. 4 21 1/2 Handkerchief, Light ground linen bordered red figure Handkerchief, Linen (for ye Negros) 4/ Handkerchief, Linen Calico pattern 4/9 1/2 Handkerchief, Linen Chocolate ground Diamond pattern Handkerchief, Linen 4/ Handkerchief, Linen 5/ Handkerchief, Linen 6/ Handkerchief, No. C 51, Starred 4/6 Handkerchief, Pin Work & Bordered 2/4 1/2 Handkerchief, Pin Work Cotton Bordered 3/4 Handkerchief, Purple & white bordered & figured 2/7 ½ Handkerchief, Red & White bordered No. 13B 5/3 Handkerchief, Red & White bordered 4/2 Handkerchief, Red & white Bordered, No. 6 4/ Handkerchief, Red & white Bordered, No. 8 4/ Handkerchief, Red & White Diamond & Star 5/3 Handkerchief, Red & White Figured in Circles 44d Handkerchief, Red & White Finer Diamond 5/6 Handkerchief, Red & white Linen Card pattern 4/ Handkerchief, Red & White Spotted No. 1 44d Handkerchief, Red & White Star No. 2 44d Handkerchief, Red Cotton 8/ Handkerchief, Red ground white Spots No. 6 4/ Handkerchief, Red linen fine 4/2 Handkerchief, Scotch No. 1 21/3 Handkerchief, Scotch No. 2 23/ Handkerchief, Scotch No. 4 27/6 Handkerchief, Scotch No. 9 40d Handkerchief, Sectorsoy 3/9 Handkerchief, Silk Black Ground & Striped 5/ Handkerchief, Silk Chocolate bordered blue ground Handkerchief, Silk Large bordered stone blue ground Handkerchief, Silk No. 78 4/ (Livres/Sols) (JAK) 4/2 PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) (Lives/Sols: AO) (Lives/Sols: AO) (Lives/Sols: AO) 3/9 PA (AF) 3/9 PA (AF) PA (AF) 11/ 9 1/2 PA (AF) (Lives/Sols: AO) PA (AF) 5/2 PA (AF) (Lives/Sols: AO) (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) (Livres/Sols) (JAK) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) (Livres/Sols) (JAK) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) 5/ PA (AF) 5/ PA (AF) PA (AF) 330 Handkerchief, Silk Stone blue ground Handkerchief, Silk Handkerchief, Silk Handkerchief, Silk Handkerchief, Small bordered silk Handkerchief, Small brown Handkerchief, Small Children’s Scotch Handkerchief, Small Scotch Handkerchief, White Barcelona Silk Handkerchief, White Blonde No. 14 Handkerchief, White Lace, No. 10 Handkerchief, White Linen Blue Borders Handkerchief, White Silk Barcelona Hat, Beaver Hat, Boys’ Felt No. 3 Hat, Boys’ Felt No. 4 Hat, Boys’ Felt No. 5 Hat, Castor Hat, Felt No. 4 Hat, Felt No. 5 Hat, Felt No. 6 Hat, felt No. 7 Hat, Felt No. 8 Hat, Felt No. 9 Hat, Felt Hat, Felt, No. 10 Hat, Felt, No. 11 Hat, Felt, No. 12 Hat, Felt, No. 6 Hat, Men’s best Castor No. 1 Hat, Men’s best Castor No. 3 Hat, Men’s best Castor No. 4 Hat, Men’s best Castor No. 5 Hat, Men’s best Castor No. 6 Hat, Men’s Felt No. 10 Hat, Men’s felt No. 11 Hat, Men’s Felt No. 6 Hat, Men’s felt No. 6 Hat, Men’s Felt No. 7 Hat, Men’s felt No. 7 Hat, Men’s felt No. 8 Hat, Men’s Felt No. 8 Hat, Men’s Felt No. 9 5/ PA (AF) 10/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 5/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 8/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 4/10 ½ PA (AF) 5/4 ½ PA (AF) 2 1/4d PA (AF) 15d PA (AF) 12/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 2/9 3/8 PA (AF) 3/10 1/5 PA (AF) 3/6 PA (AF) 12/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 50/ (Livres/Sols) (JK) 2/1 PA (AF) 2/8 PA (AF) 3/9 PA (AF) 20/ (Livres/Sols) (JK) 2/8 PA (AF) 3/9 PA (AF) 2/3 PA (AF) 2/1 PA (AF) 4/4 ½ PA (AF) 3/4 PA (AF) 25/ (Livres/Sols) (JK) 5/ PA (AF) 5/7 PA (AF) 6/7 PA (AF) 3/ PA (AF) 12/ PA (AF) 12/6 PA (AF) 12/6 PA (AF) 17/6 PA (AF) 19/ PA (AF) 5/ PA (AF) 5/7 PA (AF) 2/3 PA (AF) 3/ PA (AF) 2/7 PA (AF) 3/6 PA (AF) 4/2 ½ PA (AF) 4/4 1/2 PA (AF) 3/4 PA (AF) 331 Hat, Spanish Castor 15/ PA (AF) Hat, White Beaver 40/ (Livres/Sols) (JAK) Hose, Children’s spotted 13d PA (AF) Hose, Children’s 1/10 (Lives/Sols: AO) Hose, Cotton 7/10 (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) Hose, French Milled 5/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) Hose, Germantown Milled Worsted 6/8 PA (AF) Hose, Germantown Milled Yarn 4/2 PA (AF) Hose, Girls’ Worsted 5/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) Hose, Men’s Black Silk 25/ PA (AF) Hose, Men’s Fine Worsted 80/ PA (AF) Hose, Men’s Milled Yarn 4/2 PA (AF) Hose, Men’s White Silk 24/ PA (AF) Hose, Milled 7/10 (Livres/Sols) (ACW) Hose, Silk 20/ (Livres/Sols) (LAFC) Hose, Women’s Blue Silk w/ white clocks 15/3 PA (AF) Hose, Women’s White Cotton with clocks 6/ PA (AF) Hose, Women’s White Thread with clocks 4/2 PA (AF) Hose, Yellow Milled 10/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) Jacket, Blanket 10/ (Livres/Sols) (JK Jacket, Swanskin 30/ (Livres/Sols) (JK) Matchcoat, English 15/ (Livres/Sols) (JK) Matchcoat, English, Broad Black Stripe 8/6 PA (AF) Matchcoat, English, Large 10/ PA (AF) Matchcoat, French 20/ (Livres/Sols) (JAK) Matchcoat, French, Blue Striped 2 1/2pts 13/3 1/2 PA (AF) Matchcoat, French, Blue Striped 2 pts 9/6 PA (AF) Matchcoat, French, Blue Striped 3 pts 16/9 PA (AF) Matchcoat, French, Blue Striped Halifax 12/6 PA (AF) Matchcoat, French, Blue Striped Halifax 9/6 PA (AF) Matchcoat, French, Purple Large No. 146 12/ PA (AF) Matchcoat, French, Purple Striped 2 pts, Lettered H&H 9/6 PA (AF) Matchcoat, French, Purple Striped 3 Pts, Lettered H&H 14/9 PA (AF) Matchcoat, French, Purple striped H&H 9/6 PA (AF) Matchcoat, French, Purple Striped, 2 ½ pts, Lettered H&H 12/6 PA (AF) Matchcoat, Lettered Halifax 16/9 PA (AF) Mittens, Boys’ 12d PA (AF) Mittens, Men’s 17d PA (AF) Mittens, Thread 6/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) Mitts, Boys Assorted 14d PA (AF) Mitts, Boys 1/ PA (AF) Mitts, Men’s milled 2/4 PA (AF) Mitts, Men’s worsted 2/4 PA (AF) 332 Mitts, Men’s Mitts, Silk Mitts, Silk Mitts, Women’s White Silk No. 7 Mitts, Women’s white thread Molds, Button (doz) Nonsopretty (yd) Petticoat Pins, Paper Pumps Shirt, Calico Shirt, Check Shirt, Fine Calico Ruffled Shirt, Fine Ruffled Shirt, Fine Small Calico Shirt, Men’s Plain White Shirt, Plain Shirt, Ruffled Boy’s Shirt, Ruffled Shirt, Silk containing 2& ½ Handkerchiefs Shoes Best Shoes Shoes, Best Shoes, Boys’ Coarse Shoes, Calamanco Shoes, Children’s Leather Shoes, Cloth (for Betty) Shoes, Coarse Shoes, Common Shoes, Fine Shoes, Girls’ high heeled Shoes, Gold Laced Shoes, Laced Shoes, Leather Shoes, Men’s Best Shoes, Men’s Common Shoes, Men’s Shoes, Stuff Shoes, Women’s Cloth Shoes, Women’s laced gold Shoes, Women’s Stuff Shoes, Women’s Shoes, Women’s 17d 12/ 8/ 7/6 3/ 10/2 8/ 10/ 2/ 15/ 12/6 11/ 12/6 12/6 8/ 8/ 10/ 10/ 15/ 12/6 15/ 10/ 12/10 5/ 6/8 5/ 15/ 10/ 7/ 15/ 5/ 22/ 14/ 12/10 9/ 7/ 15/ 12/10 6/8 14/-15/ 12/10 7/ PA (AF) (Lives/Sols: AO) (Livres/Sols) (JAK PA (AF) PA (AF) (Lives/Sols: AO) (Lives/Sols: AO) (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) (Lives/Sols: AO) (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) PA (AF) (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) (Livres/Sols) (JK) (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) (Lives/Sols: AO) PA (AF) (Livres/Sols) (ACW) (Lives/Sols: AO) (Lives/Sols: AO) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) (Livres/Sols) (JK) PA (AF) (Lives/Sols: AO) PA (AF) (Livres/Sols) (JAK) (Lives/Sols: AO) (Lives/Sols: AO) PA (AF) PA (AF) (Livres/Sols) (ACW) (Lives/Sols: AO) PA (AF) PA (AF) (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) (Lives/Sols: AO) PA (AF) 333 Shoes, Worsted (for Jenny) Stock, Black Silk Stock, Cambrick Stock, Lock Stockings, Blue Worsted Stockings, Boys’ worsted Stockings, Children’s Spotted Stockings, Children’s Stockings, Marbled Stockings, Men’s fine worsted white Stockings, Milled Stockings, Negro Stockings, Pepper & Salt Stockings, White Cotton Stockings, White Silk No. 3 Stockings, White Silk Stockings, White Stockings, Women’s Colored Clocked Threaded Stockings, Worsted Fine Stockings, Worsted Stockings, Worsted Stockings, Youth’s Threaded Taffeta, Black (1/2 yd, for jockey cap) Trousers, Blanket Trousers, Halfthick Waistcoat, Fine Scarlet Napped 15/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 2/10 (Livres/Sols) (JAK) 6/10 (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 5/ (Livres/Sols) (LAFC) 5/10 PA (AF) 4/ PA (AF) 2/ PA (AF) 3/ (Livres/Sols) (JAK) 21/ PA (AF) 8/10 1/4 PA (AF) 15/ (Livres/Sols) (ACW) 4/ (Livres/Sols) (JK) 5/6 PA (AF) 6/ (Livres/Sols) (JAK) 24/ PA (AF) 18/ (Livres/Sols) (JAK) 24/ PA (AF) 3/10 PA (AF) 7/10 (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 15/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 5/ (Livres/Sols) (JAK) 3/6 PA (AF) 8/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 10/ (Livres/Sols) (JK) --(Livres/Sols) (JK) 66/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) Cloth & Accoutrement Apron Tape (3 Yds) Bed Lace (yd) Bed Lace (yd) Bed Lace Binding (yd) Binding, Best broad quality Binding, Black Worsted (ps) Binding, Shoe Blanket Coat Blanket, 3 point Blanket, 2 ½ Point Blanket, Blue striped Blanket, English Blanket, Halifax 2 Point Blanket, Large 3 Point /10 /10 3/ 20/ /10 18/ 5/ 9/9 3/5 22/10 20/ 15/ 16/9 15/ 9/6 20/ (Livres/Sous) (BFDC) (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) (Lives/Sols: AO) PA (AF) (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) PA (AF) (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) PA (AF) (Lives/Sols: AO) (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) (Livres/Sous) (BFDC) PA (AF) (Livres/Sols) (JK) PA (AF) (Livres/Sous) (BFDC) 334 Bobbing Bolting Cloth, No. 2 Bolting Cloth, Middling Sort Breeches Pattern, 4 threaded blue Breeches Pattern, Black silk Breeches Pattern, Scarlet silk Breeches Pattern, Scarlet Breeches Pattern, Silk Breeches Pattern, Silk Buckles, Brass Founders Buckles, Brass Knee Buckles, Brass Regimental Buckles, Brass Shoe (doz) Buckles, Brass Buckles, Copper Regimental Buckles, Founders Philadelphia pattern Buckles, Knee Buckles, Knee, Brass Buckles, Lacquered Buckles, Neat Brass Buckles, Pinchbeck Buckles, Shoe Buckles, Shoe Buckles, Shoe Buckles, Silver Shoe Buckles, Stone Buckles, White Metal Buckles, Yellow Metal Buckram (1/2 yd) Buckram (3/4 yd) Buckram Buckram, Brown Buckram, Brown, Coarse No. 6241 Buckram, Brown, Fine Buckram, White Button Molds, Large (doz) Button Moulds, Horn Button Moulds, Small (doz) Buttons, Blue Mohair Coat Buttons, Blue Mohair Vest Buttons, Blue Mohair Waistcoat Buttons, Blue Waistcoat Buttons, Brown 4/9 pr doz PA (AF) 23/ yd PA (AF) £6..10 for 5 ½ yds PA (AF) 19/6 PA (AF) 43/ PA (AF) 41/6 PA (AF) 18/ PA (AF) 35/ (Livres/Sols) (JAK) 45/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 12 1/2d PA (AF) 10d PA (AF) 12d PA (AF) 48/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 5/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 1/ PA (AF) 12/ PA (AF) 2/10 (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 10d PA (AF) 16d PA (AF) 12 1/2d PA (AF) 20/ pr (Lives/Sols: AO) 10/ (Livres/Sous) (BFDC) 4/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 5/ (Livres/Sols) (JK) 35/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 40/ (Livres/Sols) (ACW) 13 ½ d PA (AF) 16d PA (AF) 1/10 (Lives/Sols: AO) 2/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 18d PA (AF) 18d PA (AF) 18d PA (AF) 22d PA (AF) 22/ PA (AF) 1/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 3/ PA (AF) /10 (Lives/Sols: AO) 8d PA (AF) 4d PA (AF) 8d PA (AF) 4/ PA (AF) 12/ PA (AF) 335 Buttons, Coat Surtout-very large Buttons, Coat washed with silver Buttons, Coat, Silver Buttons, Double gilt Coat No. 16 Buttons, Double gilt Waistcoat No. 16 Buttons, Fine Coat Silk & Haired Buttons, Fine wired Shirt Buttons, Gilt Coat (12) Buttons, Gilt Coat No. 16 Buttons, Gilt Coat No. 9183 Buttons, Gilt Coat Buttons, Gilt Coat, No. 23958 Buttons, Gilt Coat, No. 27775 Buttons, Gilt Metal Coat Buttons, Gilt Metal Waistcoat Buttons, Gilt Vest No. 110049 Buttons, Gilt Vest No. 1300 Buttons, Gilt Vest No. 16 Buttons, Gilt Vest No. 9183 Buttons, Gilt Vest No. 9183 Buttons, Gilt Waistcoat Buttons, Glass Sleeve Buttons, Glass Vest Buttons, Glass Vest Buttons, Green Mohair Vest Buttons, Halede [?] Coat Buttons, Halede [?] Waistcoat Buttons, Jacket (doz) & Coat (3) Buttons, Jacket (doz) Buttons, Large Metal (doz) Buttons, Metal (6) Buttons, Metal Coat (doz) Buttons, Mohair (10) Buttons, Mohair (12) Buttons, Mohair Coat & Vest Complete Buttons, Mould Shirt No. A2 Buttons, Pewter Dollar Pattern Buttons, Regimental White No. 2278 Buttons, Scarlet (doz) Buttons, Shirt (doz) Buttons, Shirt (doz) Buttons, Shirt, Wired Buttons, Silk & Hair Coat 35/ PA (AF) 13d PA (AF) 13d PA (AF) 2/6 pr doz PA (AF) 15d PA (AF) 8d PA (AF) 3/ PA (AF) 5/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 2/6 PA (AF) 2/11 pr doz PA (AF) 16d PA (AF) 16/ PA (AF) 16/ PA (AF) 16 2/3d pr doz PA (AF) 8 2/3d pr doz PA (AF) 3/9 PA (AF) 3/9 PA (AF) 15d PA (AF) 17 1/2d PA (AF) 17 1/2d PA (AF) 8d PA (AF) 1 1/2d PA (AF) 5d pr doz PA (AF) 8/ PA (AF) 4d PA (AF) 9d PA (AF) 4 ½ d PA (AF) 6/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 4/ (Livres/Sous) (BFDC) 5/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 1/10 (Lives/Sols: AO) 5/ (Lives/Sols: AO) /30 (Lives/Sols: AO) 2/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 12/ PA (AF) 2/ PA (AF) 8 1/2d pr doz PA (AF) 25/ PA (AF) 3/ (Livres/Sols) (JAK) 1/ (Livres/Sols) (ACW) 8/15 (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 3/ PA (AF) 8d pr doz PA (AF) 336 Buttons, Silver (10) Buttons, Silver (do) Buttons, Silver Jacket (doz) Buttons, Sleeve Buttons, Small Whole Buttons, Snuff [?] best Buttons, Surtout No 11169 Buttons, Surtout Vest Only Buttons, Surtout, No 23548 Buttons, Twist different Buttons, Vest, Silver Buttons, Waistcoat different Buttons, Waistcoat, No. 23958 Buttons, White Metal (doz) Buttons, White metal coat Buttons, White metal waistcoat Buttons, White pewter glass Vest Buttons, White Plate Coat Buttons, White Plate for great Coats Buttons, White Regimental Buttons, Wired Shirt Buttons, Yellow gilt Metal No 9075 Buttons, Yellow gilt Metal Vest No 9075 Buttons, Yellow Metal (12) Larger Buttons, Yellow Metal (12) Buttons, Yellow metal coat, No. 5057 Buttons, Yellow metal waistcoat, No. 5058 Buttons, Yellow Plate for great Coats Cadiz, Fine Cadiz, No. 5 Cadiz, No. 6 Calamanco, Black (yd) Calamanco, Striped (yd) Calamanco, Striped ½ yd wide Calamanco, Striped ½ yd Calamanco, Striped Calamanco, Striped Calamanco, Blue, ½ yd wide Calamanco, Wide Green RW (½ Ell) Calamanco, Green ½ Ell wide Calamanco, Striped (½ Ell) Calamanco, Green Calamanco, Pink ½ yd wide 2/10 (Livres/Sols) (LAFC) 8/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 4/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 1/ (Livres/Sols) (JAK) 4/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 13/ PA (AF) 30/ PA (AF) 9d PA (AF) 31/6 PA (AF) 8d PA (AF) 6 ½ d PA (AF) 4d PA (AF) 8d PA (AF) 5/ (Livres/Sols) (ACW) 9/ PA (AF) 4/6 PA (AF) 5d/ pr doz PA (AF) 20d pr doz PA (AF) 20d PA (AF) 8d pr doz PA (AF) 3/ PA (AF) 17/ PA (AF) 8d PA (AF) 1/15 (Lives/Sols: AO) 2/10 (Lives/Sols: AO) 9/ PA (AF) 4/6 PA (AF) 2/1 PA (AF) 5/3 PA (AF) 5/3 PA (AF) 82/ PA (AF) 4/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 3/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 65/ PA (AF) 60/ PA (AF) --PA (AF) 65/ PA (AF) 75/6 pr ps PA (AF) 76/5 PA (AF) 76/5 PA (AF) 77/6 PA (AF) 88/6 PA (AF) 2/6 PA (AF) 337 Calico (1/2 yd) Calico, Blue & red ground, No. 9 Calico, Blue & White (yd) Calico, Chocolate ground white flower, No. 10 Calico, Coarser China blue, No. 2 Calico, Copper plate China blue, No. 29 Calico, Crimson ground black flowers Calico, Dark Ground (Ell) Calico, Dark ground red & blue flowers A4 Calico, Dark ground red & white flower No 4 Calico, Dark ground red flower, No. 14 Calico, Dark ground small red sprig equal to A3 Calico, Double ground purple No. 9 Calico, Double purple ground, No. 9 Calico, Fine, chocolate ground white flowers Calico, Fine, No. 44 Calico, Green (yd) Calico, Light Ground (Ell) Calico, Light ground purple & red No. 3 Calico, Light ground purple & red twining No. 4 Calico, Light ground Red Sprig No. 3 Calico, Light ground two purples Calico, Light ground two Purples, No. 1 Calico, No. 1A Blue & Red Flowers Calico, No. 3B Purple & Red Flowers Calico, No. 4C Purple & Red Flowers Calico, No. 7 A large Red Flowers Calico, Pink ground small purple flower No. 4 Calico, Purple & red ground, fine, No. 9 Calico, Purple ground red flowers Calico, Purple ground, No. 7 Calico, Purple ground, red flowers, No. 2 Calico, Red & white, chocolate ground, No. 10 Calico, Red & white, purple ground, No. 2 Calico, Red & white, purple ground, No. 3 Calico, Two purples & white, No. 9 Camblet, Blue Camblet, Brown worsted Camblet, Green Camblet, Light Colored Cambrick (yd) Cambrick Cambrick, 1 7/8 yds wide No. 65 2/10 (Lives/Sols: AO) 80/ PA (AF) 8/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 76/6 PA (AF) 99/9 PA (AF) 205/9 ½ PA (AF) 101/2 PA (AF) 6/ (Livres/Sols) (JAK) 72/ for 18 yds PA (AF) 82/for 18 yds PA 76/6 for 18 yds PA 70/ for 18 yds PA (AF) 76/5 PA (AF) 75/6 fr 18 yds PA (AF) 5/11 ½ PA (AF) 5/11 ½ PA (AF) 4/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 6/ (Livres/Sols) (JAK) 78/ for 18 yards PA 70/ for 18 yds PA (AF) 78/for 18 yards PA 70/for 18 yards PA 78/ for 18 yards PA 80/ PA (AF) 70/ PA (AF) 82/ PA (AF) 40/ PA (AF) 82/ PA (AF) 80/ PA (AF) 70/ for 18 yds PA (AF) 76/6 PA (AF) 70/ PA (AF) 76/6 PA (AF) 10/ PA (AF) 10/ PA (AF) 69/4 PA (AF) 113 for 38 yds PA (AF) 2/2 ½ PA (AF) 115/ for 38 yds PA 125/ pr piece PA (AF) 12/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 20/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 96/7 pr ps PA (AF) (AF) (AF) (AF) (AF) (AF) (AF) (AF) 338 Cambrick, 2 ½ yds wide No. 1046 Cambrick, No. 17 Cambrick, yd wide No 63 Check (3 ½ yds) Check (yd) Check (yd) Check (yd) Check, Cotton (Ell) Check, Cotton Check, Narrow (El) Chintz (yd) Chintz (yd) Chintz (yd) Chintz, Chocolate ground blue flower, No. 46 Chintz, Cotton (dff sorts) (yd) Chintz, Cotton, red sprig & yellow stripe, No. 27 Chintz, Fine Curtain, No. 21 Chintz, Full (yd) Chintz, Gold Flowered (Ell) Chintz, Painted Linen Flowers No. 19 Cloth, Blue (1/2 yd) Cloth, Bolting, No. 1 Cloth, Bolting, No. 2 Cloth, Broad Green (yd) Cloth, Coarse Green Cloth, Fine Black, 7/4 wide Cloth, Fine Blue (yd) Cloth, Green (3/4 yd) Cloth, Green Cloth, Green (yd) Cloth, Scarlet (yd) Cloth, Superfine Green Cloth, Superfine Scarlet Coat Buttons, Silver (doz) Cotton (yd) Cotton (yd) Cotton, Green (yd) Cotton, Kendle Cotton, No. 17, light ground Chintz flowers Cotton, No. 21 Cotton, No. 35 Cotton, Red & white colours Cotton, Yellow & blue flower 62/1 pr ps PA (AF) 75/ PA (AF) 94/6 PA (AF) 12/5 (Lives/Sols: AO) 2/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 3/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 5/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 4/ (Livres/Sols) (JAK) 20/ (Livres/Sols) (JAK) 9/3 (Lives/Sols: AO) 10/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 3/10 (Lives/Sols: AO) 5/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 7/4 ¼ PA (AF) 8/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 114/5 PA (AF) 281/ 13 ½ PA (AF) 18/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 18/ (Livres/Sous) (BFDC) 3/6 PA (AF) 6/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 16/4 ½ PA (AF) 23/7 ½ PA (AF) 30/ (Livres/Sous) (BFDC) 11/ PA (AF) 11/ PA (AF) 15/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 9/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 12/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 12/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 20/ (Livres/Sols) (JK) 31/ PA (AF) 32/ PA (AF) 8/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 6/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 8/ 4/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 2/ PA (AF) 11/11 ½ PA (AF) 88/ PA (AF) 7/ PA (AF) 4/ PA (AF) 4/ PA (AF) 339 Cotton, Yellow & Red Striped Crepe, Mourning Damask, Green double worsted Diaper (ps) Dowlass (1 ½ yds) Drilling, Russia (yd) Duck (yd) Durant, Blue (yd) Durant, Fine black Durant, Fine blue Durant, Fine scarlet Durant, Fine white Durant, superfine blue Durant, superfine scarlet Durant, superfine white Ferret, Six penny Silk Ferrit (Yd) Ferrit (yd) Ferrit (yd) Ferrit, Eight penny Silk Ferrit, Silk (yd) Ferrit, Six penny Silk Fistian, Brown Fistian, Fine Flannel (yd) Flannel (yd) Flannel (yd) Flannel, Embossed (Ell) Flannel, Red (yd) Flannel, Red Flannel, White (Ell) Flannel, White Fustian, Brown Fustian, Coarse (yd) Fustian, Olive colored Garlix, Coarse, B Garlix, Coarse, C Gartering (yd) Gartering, Best Scarlet Gartering, Best Scarlet Striped Gartering, Fine Star & Rose Gartering, Girth Gartering, Rose & Star 99/ for 14 yds PA (AF) 163/6 PA (AF) 4/3 1/2 PA (AF) 30/ (Livres/Sols) (JAK) 4/10 (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 5/ (Livres/Sols) (ACW) 3/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 8/ (Livres/Sous) (BFDC) 74/8v PA (AF) 75/ PA (AF) 76/9 PA (AF) 75/ PA (AF) 87/6 PA (AF) 85/ PA (AF) 87/6 PA (AF) 37/10 PA (AF) 1/10 (Lives/Sols: AO) 2/10 (Lives/Sols: AO) 3/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 48/ PA (AF) 4/ (Livres/Sous) (BFDC) 38/ PA (AF) 58/5 PA (AF) 2/5 PA (AF) 3/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 4/10 (Lives/Sols: AO) 9/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 5/ (Livres/Sols) (JK) 3/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 2/5 PA (AF) 5/ (Livres/Sous) (BFDC) 2/0 ½ PA (AF) 2/5 ¼ PA (AF) 3/ (Livres/Sous) (BFDC) 3/1 1/2 PA (AF) 38 pr piece PA (AF) 38 pr piece PA (AF) 1/10 (Lives/Sols: AO) 26/ PA (AF) 18/ PA (AF) 22/ PA (AF) 10/7 ½ PA (AF) 22/ PA (AF) 340 Gartering, Scarlet Gartering, Star Garters, Black Garters, Broad blue Silk Garters, Gold Knee Garters, Knee, Gold Garters, Knee, Silver Garters, Scarlet Garters, Silk Knee Garters, Silk Knee Garters, Silver Knee Garters, Silver Knee Garters, Silver Knee Gimp, Black Gimp, Black Gimp, Broad black Gingham (yd) Halfthicks (yd) Halfthicks, Fine white twilled Halfthicks, Green Halfthicks, Napped No. 123 Halfthicks, Napped No. 125 Halfthicks, Napped white Halfthicks, Napped Halfthicks, Plain white Halfthicks, Plain Halfthicks, Purple Halfthicks, Purple, No. 116 Halfthicks, White Multon Halfthicks, White Napped No. 80 Holland, Brown (yd) Holland, Brown (yd) Holland, Brown No. 780 Holland, Brown Holland, Brown Housing, Fringed Blue Cloth Housing, Fringed Cloth Housing, Laced & Fringed Scarlet Plush Housing, Laced Blue & Green Cloth Housing, Plain Blue Housing, Plain Scarlet Plush Huckaback (yd) Knee Garters, Scarlet 20/ PA (AF) 22/ PA (AF) 4/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 2/1 PA (AF) 12 1/2/ (Livres/Sols) (JAK) 13/9 PA (AF) 14/ PA (AF) 2/1 PA (AF) 4/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 8/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 12/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 12/10 (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 14/ pr pair PA (AF) 6/4 pr doz PA (AF) 7d PA (AF) 6 1/4d PA (AF) 7/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 4/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 2/9 PA (AF) 10/ PA (AF) 2/9 PA (AF) 2/9 PA (AF) 2/9 PA (AF) 2/9 PA (AF) 2/9 PA (AF) 3/ PA (AF) 3/ PA (AF) 3/ PA (AF) 84/ PA (AF) 2/9 PA (AF) 1/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 4/ (Lives/Sols: AO) £5 PA (AF) 1/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 2/6 PA (AF) 20/ PA (AF) 20/ PA (AF) 43/8 PA (AF) 43/8 PA (AF) 20/ PA (AF) 20/ PA (AF) 2/10 (Lives/Sols: AO) 2/1 PA (AF) 341 Lace, Bed Lace, Black silk, No. 68 Lace, Black silk, No. 7 Lace, Blond silk, No. 10 Lace, Blond silk, No. 14 Lace, Green Bed Lace, Purple Bed Lace, Scarlet Bed Lace, Yellow Bed Lawn, Flowered No. 300 Lawn, Flowered No. 3440 Lawn, Flowered Lawn, Spotted No 3451 Lawn, Spotted No. 50 Lawn, Spotted No. 53 Leggings, Stroud Linen (for towels) (yd) Linen (yd) Linen (yd) Linen, Coarse (yd) Linen, Figured (2.5 Ells) Linen, Fine China blue Printed Linen, Fine Irish No. 180 Linen, Irish (Ell) Linen, Irish, No. 14 Linen, Printed China blue Linen, White (yd) Mohair, Blue Mohair, Sticks Molds, Button (doz) & thread Molton Brown Napped Molton, Fine White Napped Twilled Muslin (yd) Muslin, Printed A No. 26 Mutton, Brown No. 190 Mutton, Brown No. 195 Nankin (ps) Nap, Scarlet (Ell) Nap, Scarlet Needles, Knitting Nonsopretty (ps) Nonsopretty Orris, Saddlers’ Broad Blue 20/ PA (AF) 3/ PA (AF) 2/7 ½ PA (AF) 3/10 ¼ PA (AF) 2/9 ½ PA (AF) 20/ PA (AF) 20/ PA (AF) 20/ PA (AF) 20/ PA (AF) 5/ PA (AF) 91/5 pr 9 yds PA (AF) 122/ forty yds PA (AF) 107/9 yards PA (AF) 39/ PA (AF) 41/ PA (AF) 8/ (Livres/Sols) (JK) 2/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 2/10 (Lives/Sols: AO) 3/15 (Lives/Sols: AO) 2/10 (Livres/Sous) (BFDC) 37/10 (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 6/ PA (AF) 6/1 3/4 PA (AF) 7/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 4/8 PA (AF) 3/ PA (AF) 2/10 (Lives/Sols: AO) 20/ PA (AF) 1/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 1/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 2/9 PA (AF) 2/9 PA (AF) 12/10 (Lives/Sols: AO) 6/ PA (AF) 84/ PA (AF) 84/ PA (AF) 20/ (Livres/Sols) (JAK) 30 (Livres/Sous) (BFDC) 25/ PA (AF) 2/ PA (AF) 2/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 11/3 PA (AF) 108/ PA (AF) 342 Orris, Saddlers’ Broad Green Orris, Saddlers’ Broad Scarlet Orris, Saddlers’ Broad Yellow Orris, Saddlers’ Narrow Blue Orris, Saddlers’ Narrow Green Ozenbrigs (yd) Ozenbrigs (yd) Pattern, Buff Breeches Pattern, Buff Pattern, Crimson Pattern, Scarlet Persian, Striped Persian, Blue Pins, No. 10 Pins, No. 11 Pins, Pack Prussinett Ribbon (yd) Ribbon (yd) Ribbon, 10d figured Ribbon, 10d No. 1 Ribbon, 10d No. 17 Ribbon, 12d figured Ribbon, 14d figured Ribbon, 6d Paduasoy Ribbon, 8d figured Ribbon, 8d Paduasoy Ribbon, 8d Ribbon, Best figured Ribbon, Black (yd) Ribbon, Black (yd) Ribbon, Black Broad Ribbon, Black Narrow Ribbon, Black Paduasoy Ribbon, Black purled edge Ribbon, Black Silk Stock Ribbon, Black Suderasoy No 1213 Ribbon, Black Ribbon, Blue Taffeta, No. 7 Ribbon, Blue Taffeta, No. 8 Ribbon, Broad (yd) Ribbon, Broad Black Satin Ribbon, Broad Green 108/ PA (AF) 108/ PA (AF) 108/ PA (AF) 54/ PA (AF) 54/ PA (AF) 2/10 (Lives/Sols: AO) 3/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 20/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 19/ PA (AF) 18/ PA (AF) 18/ PA (AF) 11/ PA (AF) 10/ PA (AF) 4/ PA (AF) 4/3 PA (AF) 8/ PA (AF) 3/ PA (AF) /30 (Lives/Sols: AO) 3/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 11/ PA (AF) 11/ PA (AF) 11/ PA (AF) 12/ PA (AF) 13/6 PA (AF) 12/6 PA (AF) 8/3 PA (AF) 18/ PA (AF) 8/3 PA (AF) 17/1 1/2 PA (AF) 2/10 (Livres/Sols) (ACW) 6/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 3/ (Livres/Sols) (ACW) 2/10 (Livres/Sols) (ACW) 18/ PA (AF) 15/ PA (AF) 30/pr pc PA (AF) 18/ PA (AF) 2/10 (Lives/Sols: AO) --PA (AF) --PA (AF) 1/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 3/2 (Lives/Sols: AO) 18/ PA (AF) 343 Ribbon, Broad Paurasoy Pink Ribbon, Broad Persian A Ribbon, Broad Satin (yd) Ribbon, Broad Straw Colored Ribbon, Broad Yellow Ribbon, Broad, Padurasoy Green Ribbon, Checkered Narrow Ribbon, Different colors 10d Ribbon, Flowered #3 (yd) Ribbon, Green Satin Ribbon, Green Taffeta Ribbon, Green Taffeta Ribbon, Green Taffeta Ribbon, Green Taffeta Ribbon, India Figured Ribbon, India Striped Ribbon, Indian (Bolt) Ribbon, Indian figured Ribbon, Indian striped Ribbon, Indian Ribbon, Ingran Ribbon, Ingran Ribbon, Light blue Taffeta Ribbon, Narrow (yd) Ribbon, Narrow Ribbon, Padurasory Blue Ribbon, Padurasory Straw Ribbon, Persian, Red & Blue Ribbon, Pink Taffeta Ribbon, Purple Taffeta Ribbon, Purple Taffeta Ribbon, Red (yd) Ribbon, Red Taffeta Ribbon, Red Taffeta Ribbon, Satin (yd) Ribbon, Satin (yd) Ribbon, Satin purled edge Ribbon, Shoe Quality Ribbon, Sky Blue Satin Ribbon, Sky Blue Taffeta Ribbon, Taffeta (yd) Ribbon, Taffeta (yd) Ribbon, Taffeta-different colours 12/ PA (AF) 14/ PA (AF) 2/10 (Lives/Sols: AO) 18/ PA (AF) 18/ PA (AF) 12/ PA (AF) 7/6 PA (AF) 24/1 1/2 PA (AF 3/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 15/ PA (AF) 12/6 PA (AF) --PA (AF) 12/6 PA (AF) 12/6 PA (AF) 3/6 PA (AF) 3/6 PA (AF) 20/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 3/6 PA (AF) 3/6 PA (AF) 3/6 PA (AF) 13/6 PA (AF) 18/ PA (AF) 12/6 PA (AF) 4/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 2/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 12/ PA (AF) 12/ PA (AF) 14/ PA (AF) 12/6 PA (AF) 12/6 PA (AF) 12/6 PA (AF) 1/10 (Lives/Sols: AO) --PA (AF) 12/6 PA (AF) 2/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 3/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 19/7 1/2 PA (AF) 9/10 PA (AF) 15/ PA (AF) 12/6 PA (AF) 1/10 (Lives/Sols: AO) 6/ (Lives/Sols: AO) --PA (AF) 344 Ribbon, very narrow resembles a Snake Ribbon, White Satin (yd) Ribbon, White Satin Ribbon, White satin Ribbon, Yellow Persian Ribbon, Yellow Satin Ribbon, Yellow Taffeta Ribbon, Yellow Taffeta Robin (ells) Romalls, Silk Russia Duck (Ell) Russia Sheeting (yd) Sattine, 10d Black Serge, Embossed Serge, Embossed Serge, German (yd) Serge, Milled scarlet Serge, Red (yd) Serge, White Serge, White (yd) Sewing Silk, Black & Cloth Colored Sewing Silk, Black Sewing Silk, Colored Sewing Silk, Light colored Sewing Silk, Light colored Shallon, Yellow (1/2 yd) Shalloon (yd) Shalloon, Black (1/4 yd) Shalloon, Black Shalloon, Blue (yd) Shalloon, Common blue Shalloon, Fine black Shalloon, Fine Green Shalloon, Fine Shalloon, Red (yd) Shoe Binding (yd) Silk & Hair Silk (Skein) Silk, 6d Ferret Silk, Blue Sewing Silk, Persian (ps) Silk, Scarlet Sewing Silk, Skein 7/6 PA (AF) 2/10 (Lives/Sols: AO) 15/ PA (AF) 15/ PA (AF) 14/ PA (AF) 15/ PA (AF) 12/6 PA (AF) 12/5 PA (AF) 2/ (Livres/Sols) (JAK) 98/ ps of 16 yds PA (AF) 6/ (Livres/Sous) (BFDC) 4/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 19/6 PA (AF) 2/10 3/5 PA (AF) 3/9 PA (AF) 5/ (Livres/Sols) (JK) 4/8 PA (AF) 4/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 4/8 ¾ PA (AF) 4/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 63/ PA (AF) 60/6 PA (AF) 63/ PA (AF) 69/ PA (AF) 79/6 PA (AF) 1/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 4/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 1/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 75/ PA (AF) 3/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 2/3 1/4 PA (AF) 2/6 PA (AF) 98/10 pr piece PA (AF) 80/pr ps PA (AF) 3/ (Lives/Sols: AO) /5 (Livres/Sous) (BFDC) 40/ pr lb PA (AF) 3/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 38/ PA (AF) 81/6 PA (AF) 175/ (Livres/Sous) (BFDC) 80/ PA (AF) 2/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 345 Silk, Skein Silk, White Skein Sticks Hair Sticks Twist Sticks Twist Stock Tape, Black silk Stripe, Broad (yds) Stroud, 6/4 wide Black N. 63 Stroud, 7/4 wide Black Stroud, 8/4 wide Black Stroud, Black (1/2 yd) Stroud, Black (Ell) Stroud, Blue 7/4 wide No 190 Stroud, Blue 7/4 wide No 231 Stroud, Blue 7/4 wide No. 185 Stroud, Blue 7/4 wide No. 550 Stroud, Blue Stroud, Blue Stroud, Fine 7/4 wd Blue Stroud, Red 7/4 white Cord Stroud, Scarlet 7/4 wide Swanskin (yd) Swanskin, Black Spotted (1 ¾ yd) Swanskin, Fine Red Spotted Swanskin, Spotted (Ell) Taffeta, Black (yd) Taggathee, Blue Tammie, Black Tammie, Black Tammie, Blue Tammie, Pink Tape Tape, Broad Coarse White Tape, Diapers No. 19 Tape, Dozen White No. 25 Tape, Dozen White No. 27 Tape, Green (yd) Tape, Striped Cotton Tape, Superfine No. 32 Tape, Twilled No. 25 Tape, White (ps) Tape, Worsted (yd) Thickset, Black 2/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 5/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 2/10 (Lives/Sols: AO) 1/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 2/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 30/ PA (AF) 5/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 9/ PA (AF) 10/ PA (AF) 10/ PA (AF) 6/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 20/ (Livres/Sous) (BFDC) 61/ [?] PA (AF) 61/ [?] PA (AF) 61/ [?] PA (AF) 61/ [?] PA (AF) 11/ PA (AF) 11/6 PA (AF) 11/6 PA (AF) 10/ PA (AF) ---PA (AF) 6/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 28/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 7/6 PA (AF) 16/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 16/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 4/8 PA (AF) 52/6 PA (AF) 69/ PA (AF) 55/ pr ps PA (AF) 60/ pr ps PA (AF) 1/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 47/9 pr Gross PA (AF) 12/3 PA (AF) --PA (AF) 18/4 PA (AF) 5/ (Livres/Sols) (JK) 6/6 PA (AF) 21/ PA (AF) 17/ PA (AF) 4/ (Livres/Sols) (ACW) /10 (Livres/Sols) (ACW) 4/18 PA (AF) 346 Thickset, Crimson Thicksett, Blue Thicksett, Eight Colored No. 29 Thicksett, Fine Black Thicksett, Fine Light Thread Thread, 3 Ounces Thread, Black (skein) Thread, Blue (skein) Thread, Coarse (Skein) Thread, Coarse Brown Thread, Fine (oz) Thread, Fine (Skein) Thread, Red & White Thread, Red Thread, Scotch, No. 10 Thread, Scotch, No. 11 Thread, Scotch, No. 12 Thread, Scotch, No. 13 Thread, Scotch, No. 14 Thread, Scotch, No. 15 Thread, Scotch, No. 16 Thread, Scotch, No. 17 Thread, Scotch, No. 18 Thread, Scotch, No. 19 Thread, Scotch, No. 20 Thread, Scotch, No. 20 Thread, Scotch, No. 24 Thread, Scotch, No. 24 Thread, Scotch, No. 26 Thread, Scotch, No. 28 Thread, Scotch, No. 32 Thread, Scotch, No. 34 Thread, Scotch, No. 36 Thread, Scotch, No. 38 Thread, Scotch, No. 40 Thread, Scotch, No. 42 Thread, Scotch, No. 44 Thread, Scotch, No. 46 Thread, Scotch, No. 47 Thread, Scotch, No. 47 Thread, Scotch, No. 48 Thread, Scotch, No. 52 7/5 5/8 81/6 116/6 81/6 1/ 3/ /10 1/ 1/ 5/ 2/10 --1/ 1/ 10/6 11/3 12/9 14/ 15/ 17/ 18/ 19/3 19/6 21/6 22/6 22/6 31/6 31/6 37/6 41/6 55/ 61/ 67/6 74/6 88/6 88/6 93/ 107/6 107/6 110/ 119/ 135/5 PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) (Lives/Sols: AO) (Lives/Sols: AO) (Lives/Sols: AO) (Lives/Sols: AO) (Livres/Sols) (ACW) PA (AF) (Livres/Sols) (ACW) (Lives/Sols: AO) (Lives/Sols: AO) (Lives/Sols: AO) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) 347 Thread, Scotch, No. 56 Thread, Scotch, No. 68 Thread, Scotch, No. 9 Thread, White (skein) Tick Tissue, Silver Twine, Sail Twist, Blue Scarf Velvet, Black Manchester Velvet, Blue Cotton (yd) Velvet, Cotton (Ell) Velvet, Scarlet Genoa Velvet, Women’s Black (Ell) Velvet, Women’s Black Silk Velvet, Women’s Black Web, Girth Web, Girth Blue worsted Web, Girth Linen Web, Green Sursingle Worsted, Sticks 150/ PA (AF) 210/ PA (AF) 11/ PA (AF) 2/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 1/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 75/6 ¾ PA (AF) 2/3 PA (AF) 60/ PA (AF) 14/ PA (AF) 15/ (Livres/Sous) (BFDC) 20/ (Livres/Sous) (BFDC) 27/6 PA (AF) 10/ (Livres/Sous) (BFDC) 21/6 PA (AF) 21/6 PA (AF) 3/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 5/6 pr ps PA (AF) 10/7 PA (AF) 11/7 PA (AF) 1/ (Livres/Sols) (ACW) Miscellaneous Beeswax Bells, Morris No. 2 Bells, Morris Bells, Silver Morris (pr) Bible, Folio Black Ball, Stick Black Ball, Stick Black Ball, Sticks Black Ball, Sticks Blue (ounce) Blue, Powder (1/4 lb) Book, Blank Book, Dilworth’s Spelling Book, Ivory Memorandum Book, Pocket Book, Spelling Box, Cart (set) Box, Cart Bridle 20d PA (AF) 48/pr Gross PA (AF) 4/pr doz PA (AF) 2/10 (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) £2..15..0 (JBFDC) 3/ (Livres/Sols) (ACW) 5/ (Livres/Sous) (BFDC) 12d PA (AF) 15d PA (AF) /12 (Lives/Sols: AO) 2/10 (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 60/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 18d PA (AF) 12/10 (Livres/Sols) (JK) 14/ (Livres/Sols) (JAK) 3/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 20/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 3/9 PA (AF) 11/ (Livres/Sols) (JAK) 348 Bridle, Curb Bridle, Snaffle Brimstone (lb) Brimstone, Neat Broaches, Silver (doz) Broaches, Small Brush, Horse Brush, Shoe Cards, Common Playing Cards, Harry ye 8th Cards, Harry ye 8th Cards, Highlander Playing Cards, Merry Andrew Playing Cards, Pack Cod Line Comb Comb, Bedding Comb, Box Comb, Buckling Comb, Coarse Comb, Curry & Brush Comb, Curry Comb, Horn with Jappaned Cases Comb, Horn Comb, Horn Comb, Ivory Comb, Large Ivory Comb, Large Tooth Comb, Small Tooth Corks (doz) Corks Cross, Small Ear Medals Earbobs Feathers for a Bed (71 lbs @ 30sous each) Fiddle Strings Fiddle Strings, Ring Fire Heels Flute, Common Halter, Plowsherd Hooks, Cat Hooks, Catfish Common Hooks, Cod (doz) 12 1/2 (Livres/Sols) (JAK) 10/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 10/ (Livres/Sols) (JK) 2d PA (AF) 10/4 (Livres/Sols) (JAK) 2/10 (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 2/3 PA (AF) 2/10 (Lives/Sols: AO) 7 ½ d PA (AF) 12/ PA (AF) 2/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 7/6 PA (AF) 7/6 PA (AF) 3/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 12/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 5/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 2/3 ½ pr doz PA (AF) 2/6 PA (AF) 2/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 1/10 (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 2/3 each PA (AF) 5/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 8/6 PA (AF) 2 ½ d PA (AF) 2/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 3/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 22d PA (AF) 2/ (Livres/Sols) (JK) 2/10 (Livres/Sols) (LAFC) 8/ (Livres/Sols) (ACW) 2/6 pr Gross PA (AF) 2/10 (Livres/Sols) (LAFC) 15/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 6/ (Livres/Sols) (JAK) /30 (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 6d PA (AF) 3/ (Livres/Sols) (ACW) 9d PA (AF) 3/9 PA (AF) 44/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 1 1/4d PA (AF) 10/6 pr ? PA (AF) 5/ (Livres/Sols) (JAK) 349 Hooks, Cod Hooks, Fish (1) Hooks, Kirby Hooks, Large Fish Horse Flames Ink Pot, Brass & Pen Knife Ink Pot, Lead Ink Pots, Lead Ink Pots, Pewter with Glasses Ink Powder Ink Powder Ink Powder, Paper Ink Stand Ink Stand, Pewter with Glasses Ink Standish, Pewter w/ Sand Box &c Jews Harp Jews Harp, Brass, No. 3 Jews Harp, Iron Jews Harps, Brass Jews Harps, Iron Jews’ Harp, Brass, No. 2 Links, Brass Gold Pattern Looking Glass Looking Glasses, 10-inch Painted Frame Looking Glasses, 11-inch Painted Frame Looking Glasses, 6-inch Painted Frame Looking Glasses, 7-inch Painted Frame Looking Glasses, 8 ½-inch Painted Frame Looking Glasses, 9-inch Painted Frame Looking Glasses, Pocket Looking Glasses, Pocket, with Cases Looking Glasses, Walnut-Frame, 7-inch Mosquito Netting Oakum (lb) Paper (Quire) Paper, Gilt (Quire) Paper, Writing (Quire) Pen Knife, Barlow Pen Knives Pen Knives, Horn Handled Pipes, Clay (doz) Pitch (lb) Pitch 2d PA (AF) /10 (Lives/Sols: AO) 10/ pr doz PA (AF) 2d PA (AF) 9d PA (AF) 1/ PA (AF) 6d PA (AF) 7d PA (AF) 2/1 PA (AF) 7/6 PA (AF) 8/ PA (AF) 3/ (Livres/Sols) (JAK) 15/10 (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) Shee 2/6 PA (AF) 9/6 PA (AF) 1/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 2/9 PA (AF) 8d PA (AF) 2/9 PA (AF) 8/3 PA (AF) 2/9 PA (AF) 8/ PA (AF) 10/ (Livres/Sols) (JAK) 10/ PA (AF) 11/ PA (AF) 6/ PA (AF) 7/ PA (AF) 8/6 PA (AF) 9/ PA (AF) 7/ PA (AF) 3/9 PA (AF) 7/ PA (AF) 7½ PA (AF) 3/ (Livres/Sols) (JK) 3/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 4/ (Livres/Sols) (LAFC) 3/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 4/ (Livres/Sols) (JK) 2/ (Livres/Sols) (JAK) 4d PA (AF) 6/ (Livres/Sols) (ACW) 3/ (Livres/Sols) (JK) 1d PA (AF) 350 Pomatium, Stick Powder Blue Prussian Blue (lb) Quills (doz) Razors, Black Handled Razors, Common Razors, Red Handled Rings, Brass Rings, Stone Saddle Cloth Saddle Cloth, Bound Saddle, Steeple Salt Peter (lb) Salt Peter Salt Peter, No. 1 Scales, 2-ft Brass Rules Sealing Wax Shaving Box, Tin Snuff (Bottle) Snuff Box Snuff Box, Jappaned Soap (5 lb) Soap (7 lb) Soap, Castile Soap, Philadelphia Spectacles Spectacles, Common with Cases Spectacles, Temple with Cases Spectacles, Temple Stirrup Irons Tinder Box for Candles & Steels Tinder Box Tobacco (Carrot) Tobacco (lb) Tobacco, Nantichoke (Carrot), 5 lbs Trunk, Middle-sized Red Leather Trunks, Complete Nests Trunks, Gilt Nests Trunks, Larger Size Gilt for 2 Nested Trunks, Red Leather 3rd & 4th Size, ¼ of a nest Umbrella, Silk Verdigrease Wax, Sealing 1/ (Livres/Sols) (ACW) 7/ PA (AF) 5/ (Livres/Sols) (ACW) 8/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 5d PA (AF) 5d PA (AF) 5d PA (AF) 7 ½ d PA (AF) 7/6 PA (AF) 15/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 10/ (Livres/Sols) (JK) 1/ (Livres/Sols) (JK) 10/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 2 PA (AF) 2/ PA (AF) 17 ½ d PA (AF) 4/6 PA (AF) 1/ PA (AF) 10 (Livres/Sous) (LAFC) 10/ (Livres/Sols) (JAK) 1/ PA (AF) 12/10 (Lives/Sols: AO) 21/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 8d/lb PA (AF) 7 1/2d/lb PA (AF) 15/ (Livres/Sols) (ACW) 8 ½ d PA (AF) 4/10 ½ PA (AF) 5/ (Lives/Sols: AO) --(Livres/Sols) (JK) 18d PA (AF) 5/ (Livres/Sols) (ACW) 9/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 3/ (Lives/Sols: AO) 6/5 (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 6/ PA (AF) 43/ PA (AF) 48/ PA (AF) 48/ PA (AF) 48/ PA (AF) 50/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC)/Shee 10/ PA (AF) 9/5 PA (AF) 351 Whip, Black Handled Whip, Chaise Whip, Horse Whip, Hunting Whip, New Market Larger Whip, New Market Switch Whip, Switch Whip, Women’s Wick, Cotton (1/2 lb) Wire, Brass (lb) 17/10 7/ 10/ 20/ 4/2 3/8 3/8 2/6 5/ 5/ (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) PA (AF) (Lives/Sols: AO) (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) (Livres/Sols) (ACW) Household Goods Blanket, English Striped Blanket, English Blanket, Large Bed Borax Box, Pepper Box, Pepper Box, Pepper Candle Box Candle Box, Jappaned Candle Box, Painted Candle Box, Tin Candle Mold, Candle Mold, Pewter Candle Mold, Tin Candle Molds, Sixes ea: Candles, Spermaceti (1/3 Box) Candlestick, Brass Knobbed Candlestick, Brass No. 3 Candlestick, Brass No. B Candlestick, Brass Candlestick, Common Candlestick, Flat Bottomed Candlestick, Flat Tin Candlestick, Iron Brass Knobs Candlestick, Iron flat with Brass Knobs Candlestick, Iron Candlestick, Large Flat Iron Candlestick, Large Flat Tin Candlestick, Larger Size with Brass Knobs Candlestick, Middle Size Candlestick, Small Varnish 20/ 20/ 20/ 13/ 1/10 2/ 4 1/2d 2/2 2/8 2/8 2/2 [?] 7/10 6d 3/ 37/7 10/ 12/ 13/5 20/ 7/ 2/ 16d 9d 4/ 5/ 20d 20d 6/ 16d 4/ (Livres/Sols) (JK) (Livres/Sols) (JK) (Livres/Sols) (JK) PA (AF) (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) (Livres/Sous) (BFDC) PA (AF) PA (AF) (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) (Livres/Sols) (ACW) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) (Livres/Sols) (ACW) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) 352 Candlestick, Smaller Tin Candlestick, Smaller Tin Candlestick, Smallest Tin Curtain Rings Fire & Shovel Tongs, Brass Knobbed Fire & Shovel Tongs, No. 3 Fire & Shovel Tongs, Plain Glass, Pane Glass, Panes Large Glass, Window, Pane Lamp, Large Standing Lamp, Small Lamp, Tin Funnel Complete Lamp, Tin Standing Lamp, Tin Lanthorn, Dark Lanthorn, Horn Lanthorn, Large Tin Lanthorn, Middle-sized Tin Lanthorn, Small Tin Lanthorn, Small Tin Lanthorn, Tin Pepper Box, Tin Shovel & Tongs, Fire No. 5 Shovel & Tongs, Spring Shovel Tongs, Brass Knob Shovel Tongs, Small Iron Snuffer Snuffer, Small Steel Snuffers, 10/ Snuffers, 12/6 Snuffers, 8/ Snuffers, Iron Snuffers, Jappaned Snuffers, larger Snuffers, largest Snuffers, smallest size steel Sugar Box, Tin Sugar Chest, Large Sugar Chest, Painted Sugar Chest, Smaller Tin Painted Sugar Chest, Tin Painted Large Tablecloth 11d 16d 1/ 38/ 20/ 20/ 14/3 1/ 1/ 1/ 2/5 6d 2/2 2/2 3/ 8/ 6/ 5/6 3/4 2/2 2/6 15/ 4 1/2d 18/ 10/ 25/ 14/3 3/ 7/ 9/6 11/3 8/3 9 1/2d 18d 8d 13 ½ d 5 3/4d 14d 35/ 9/ 9/ 12/6 25/ PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) (Livres/Sols) (JK) (Livres/Sous) (BFDC) (Livres/Sols) (JK) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) (Livres/Sols) (ACW) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) (Lives/Sols: AO) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) 353 Tea Cannister Tea Cannister, ¼ lb Tin Tea Cannister, ½ lb Tin Tea Cannister, 1 lb Tin Tea Cannister, l lb Painted Tea Chest & Cannisters w/ 6 Silver Spoons Tea Chest & Cannisters, & 6 silver spoons No. 4 Tea Chest with cannisters, No. 2 Tea Chest Tea Chest, Mahogany No. 3 Tea Chest, Mahogany No. 4 Tobacco Box, Small Tobacco Boxes, Hasp Towels 40/ 5d 7½d 1/ 1/9 ------20/ 40/ 22/ 24/ 8 1/2d 8½d ---- (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) (Livres/Sols) (JBFDC) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) PA (AF) (Livres/Sols) (JK) 354 Bibliography Unpublished Primary Sources & Manuscript Collections Baynton, Wharton, & Morgan Letterbooks 1757-1787. Manuscript Collections Inventory. Illinois History and Lincoln Collections. The University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign, Illinois. Thomas Gage Papers, William L. Clements Library, The University of Michigan. Ann Arbor, Michigan. Illinois State Archives: Planning Documents and Correspondence---- The Parks and Memorial Division Administrative Files (Record Series 244.01), Park Land Acquisition and Improvement Files (Series 244.002), and Construction, Maintenance, Remodeling, Rehabilitation, and Site Development Plans (Series 244.017). Springfield, Illinois. Peithmann Papers-Irvin M. Peithmann Papers, 1796-2015. Southern Illinois University Special Collections Research Center. Southern Illinois University. Carbondale, IL. Fort de Chartres Survey, Papers, 1847-1864. Illinois Historical and Lincoln Collections. University of Illinois Library. Urbana, IL. Military Rolls and Rosters, Court Martials—National Archives, Kew, United Kingdom. T1/448-Receipts T1/449- Bill for Indian Presents, Purchases, and Provisions T1/449-1766 Proposals for Barracks T1/461-Provisions Account WO 12/2501-18th Regiment of Foot Rolls WO 12/4866-34th Regiment of Foot Muster Books and Pay Lists WO 17/143-34th Regiment of Foot Rolls WO 71/77-Court Martial (Pound/Shewell) WO 71/79-Court Martial (Gaffney) Historical Newspapers Chicago Daily Tribune, 9/5/1896 Los Angeles Times, 25/6/1899 Pennsylvania Gazette, 10/11/1768 Pennsylvania Gazette, 17/8/1769 Pennsylvania Gazette, 19/8/1772 Pennsylvania Gazette, 3/9/1767 Pennsylvania Gazette, 9/4/1772 Pennsylvania Gazette, 17/1/1772 355 St. Louis Dispatch, 14/10/1936 The Advertiser, 31/5/1919 Virginia Gazette, 2/8/ 1770 Virginia Gazette, 21/4/1768 Virginia Gazette, 30/8/1770 Virginia Gazette, 9/5/1766 LiDar Data: Illinois Geospatial Data Clearinghouse, Illinois Height Modernization: LiDAR Data https://clearinghouse.isgs.illinois.edu/data/elevation/illinois-heightmodernization-ilhmp-lidar-data Published Primary Sources Alvord, C. 1907. Cahokia Records: 1778-1790. Springfield, IL: Illinois State Historical Library. Alvord, C. and Carter, C (eds). 1908. Invitation Serieuse aux Habitants des Illinois, reprinted in facsimile from the original edition published at Philadelphia in 1772. Providence, RI: Standard Printing Company. Alvord, C. and Carter, C. (eds) 1915. The Critical Period, 1763-1765, Collections, X, British Series, vol. I. Springfield: Illinois State Historical Library. Alvord, C. and Carter, C. (eds) 1916. The New Regime, 1765-1767, Collections, XI, British Series, vol. II. Springfield: Illinois State Historical Library. Alvord, C. and Carter, C. (eds) 1921. Trade and Politics, 1767-1769. Illinois State Historical Library Collections, XVI, British Series vol. III. Springfield: Illinois State Historical Library. Bouquet, H. In Stevens, S. and Kent, D. (eds) 1941. The Papers of Col. Henry Bouquet, Series 21644, Part II. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Historical Commission. Byars, W. 1916. B. and M. Gratz, Merchants in Philadelphia, 1754-1798; Papers of Interest to Their Posterity and the Posterity of Their Associates. Jefferson City, MO: The Hugh Stephens Printing Co. Carroon, R. (ed) 1984. Broadswords and Bayonets: The Journal of the Expedition Under the Command of Captain Thomas Stirling of the 42nd regiment of Foot, Royal Highland Regiment to Occupy Fort Chartres in the Illinois Country, August 1765 to January 1766. Springfield: The Society of Colonial Wars in the State of Illinois. 356 Carter, C. (ed) 1931. The Correspondence of General Thomas Gage, vol. 1. New Haven: Yale University Press. Carter, C. (ed) 1969. The Correspondence of General Thomas Gage, vol. 2. Hamden, CT: Archon Books. Cuthbertson, B. 1777. A System from the Complete Interior Management and Economy of a Battalion of Infantry. London: np. Delany, S. and Cadwalader, J. 1908. Orderly Book of Captain Sharp Delany. The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, 32.3: 302-308. Dexter, Franklin B. (ed) 1899. Diary of David McClure, Doctor of Divinity, 1748-1820. New York: The Knickerbocker Press. Ford, Worthington C., ed. 1899. General Orders of 1757 Issued by the Early of Loudoun and Phineas Lyman in the Campaign Against the French. New York: The Gilliss Press. Hutchins, T. 1778 in Hicks, F. (ed). 1904. A Topographical Description of Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and North Carolina. Cleveland: The Burrows Brothers Company. Jennings, J. 1907a. Journal from Fort Pitt to Fort Chartres in the Illinois Country, MarchApril 1766. The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, 31: 145-146. Jennings, J. 1907b. John Jennings’ Journal at Fort Chartres, and trip to New Orleans, 1768. The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, 31: 304-306. Knox, J. 1769. In Doughty, A. (ed). 1914. An Historical Journal of the Campaigns in North America for the Years 1757, 1758, 1759, and 1760, Vol II. Toronto: The Champlain Society. Gordon, H. In Mereness, N., (ed). 1916. Journal of Captain Harry Gordon’s Journey from Pittsburgh Down the Ohio and the Mississippi to New Orleans, Mobile, and Pensacola, 1766. Travels in the American Colonies. New York: The Macmillan Company. Pittman, P. 1770, In Hodder, F. (ed). 1906. The Present State of the European Settlements on the Mississippi. Gainesville: University of Florida Press. Simes, T. 1777. A Military Course for the Government and Conduct of a Battalion, 2nd ed. London: Self-published. 357 Stevenson, R. 1770. Instructions for Officers Detached in the Field: containing a scheme for forming a Partisan. London: Cadel, Wilson, and Payne. Secondary Sources Alvord, C. 1920. The Illinois Country, 1673-1818. Springfield, IL: Illinois Centennial Commission. Anderson, B. 2006. Imagined Communities. Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. New York: Verso. Anderson, F. 1984. A People’s Army: Massachusetts Soldiers and Society. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. Anderson, F. 2000. Crucible of War: The Seven Years’ War and the Fate of Empire in British North America, 1754-1766. New York: Vintage Books. Babits, L. 1988. Military Records and Historical Archaeology. In Beaudry, M. (ed) Documentary Archaeology in the New World, 119-125. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Babits, L. and Gandulla, S. (eds). 2013. The Archaeology of French and Indian War Frontier Forts. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. Barker, D. 2010. Producing for the Table: A View from the Staffordshire Potteries in Symonds, J. ed. Table Settings. The Material Culture and Social Context of Dining, AD 1700-1900, 6-20. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Bauer, A. and Agbe-Davies, A. (eds). 2010. Social Archaeologies of Trade and Exchange: Exploring Relationships among People, Places and Things. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Baule, S. 2014. Protecting the Empire’s Frontier: Officers of the 18th (Royal Irish) Regiment of Foot during its Northam American Service, 1767-1776. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press. Beaudry, M (ed). 1988. Documentary Archaeology in the New World. New York: Cambridge University Press. 358 Beck, L. 1828. A Gazetteer of the States of Illinois and Missouri. Albany: Charles R. and George Webster. Becker, R. 2004. Eating Ethnicity: Examining 18th century French Colonial Identity Through Selective Consumption of Animal Resources in the North American interior. M.A. thesis. Department of Anthropology, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo. Belting, N. 2003. Kaskaskia Under the French Regime. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Bense, J. 1999. Archaeology and History of the First Spanish Presidio: Santa Maria de Galve, in Pensacola, Florida. Pensacola, FL: University of West Florida. Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory or Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Breen, T.H. 2004. The Marketplace of Revolution. How Consumer Politics Shaped American Independence. New York: Oxford University Press. Briggs, W. 1990. Le Pays des Illinois. The William and Mary Quarterly, 47.1: 30-56. Brown, M. 1971. Glass from Fort Michilimackinac: A Classification for Eighteenth Century Glass. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Archaeological Society. Brown, M. 1972a. Preliminary Report on Investigations in Fort de Chartres, 1972. Illinois Department of Conservation. Illinois CRM Report Archive. Illinois State Archaeological Survey. Brown, M. 1972b. Preliminary Report on Excavations at an Illinois Indian Village Site in Fort de Chartres State Park, 1971. Illinois Department of Conservation. Illinois State Archaeological Survey. Brown, M. 1975. Preliminary Investigations at Fort de Chartres. The Conference on Historic Site Archaeology Papers 1973, 8: 94-107. Brown, M. 1976. The 1974 Fort de Chartres Excavation Project. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University. Brown, M. 2013. History as They Lived It: A Social History of Prairie du Rocher, Illinois. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Brown, M. 2020. Reconstructing an Eighteenth-Century Village: Chartres in the Illinois. Belleville, IL: Village Publishers, Inc. 359 Brown, M. and Dean, L. 1977. The Village of Chartres in Colonial Illinois, 1720-1765. Baton Rouge, LA: Provincial Press. Brown, M. and Dean, L. 1981. The Kaskaskia Manuscripts, 1708-1816. A Calendar of Civil Documents in Colonial Illinois. Chester, IL: Randolph County Archives. Brumwell, S. 2002. Redcoats: The British Soldier and War in the Americas, 1755-1763. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Burley, R.D. 2013. An Age of Negligence? British Army Chaplaincy, 1796-1844. MA Thesis. Department of History. University of Birmingham. Burnard, T. 2001. Slave Naming Patterns: Onomastics and the Taxonomy of Race in Eighteenth-Century Jamaica. The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 31.3: 325-346. Burnham, J. 1914. Destruction of Kaskaskia by the Mississippi River. Transactions of the Illinois State Historical Society, XX: 95-112. Canuto, M. and Yaeger, J. (eds). 2000. The Archaeology of Communities. A New World Perspective. New York: Routledge. Carter, C. 1910. Great Britain and the Illinois Country. Washington, D.C.: The American Historical Association. Charters, E. 2009. Disease, Wilderness Warfare, and Imperial Relations: The Battle for Quebec, 1759-1760. War in History, 16.1: 1-24. Cohen, A. 1985. The Symbolic Construction of Community. London: Routledge. Colley, L. 1992. Britishness and Otherness: An Argument. Journal of British Studies, 31.4: 309-329. Colley, L. 2005. Britons. Forging the Nation 1707-1837. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Constantine, S. 2006. Monarchy and Constructing identity in ‘British’ Gibraltar, c. 1800 to the present. The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 34.1: 23-44. Conway, S. 2001. War and National Identity in the Mid-Eighteenth-Century British Isles. English Historical Review, 1: 863-893. Conway, S. 2002. From Fellow-Nationals to Foreigners: British Perceptions of the Americans, circa 1739-1783. The William and Mary Quarterly, 59.1: 65-100. 360 Conway, S. 2006. War, State, and Society in Mid-Eighteenth-Century Britain and Ireland. New York: Oxford University Press. Conway, S. 2011. Britain, Ireland, and Continental Europe in the Eighteenth Century. New York: Oxford University Press. Conway, S. 2015. British Governments, Colonial Consumers, and Continental European Goods in the British Atlantic Empire, 1763-1775. The Historical Journal, 58.3: 711-732. Conway, S. 2021. The British Army, 1714-1783. An Institutional History. Yorkshire, PA: Pen & Sword Books, Ltd. Cusick, J. 1995. The Importance of the Community Study Approach in Historical Archaeology, with an Example from Late Colonial St. Augustine. Historical Archaeology, 29.4: 59-83. DeCorse, C. and Beier, Z. (eds). 2018. British Forts and their Communities: Archaeological and Historical Perspectives. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Deetz, J. 1996. In Small Things Forgotten: An Archaeology of Early American Life. Doubleday Anchor: Norwell, MA. Dellino-Musgrave, V. 2005. British Identities Through Pottery in Praxis: The Case Study of a Royal Navy Ship in the South Atlantic. Journal of Material Culture, 10.3: 219-243. Dornan, J. 2002. Agency and Archaeology: Past, Present, and Future Directions. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 9.4: 303-329. Dowd, G. 2004. War Under Heaven: Pontiac, the Indian Nations, and the British Empire. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Duffy, C. 1998. The Military Experience in the Age of Reason. Ware: Wordsworth Editions, Ltd. Dunn, W., Jr. 1998. Frontier Profit and Loss: The British Army and the Fur Traders, 1760-1764. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Dunn, W., Jr. 2001. The New Imperial Economy. The British Army and the American Frontier, 1764-1768. Westport, CT: Praeger. 361 Dunn, W., Jr. 2002. Opening New Markets: The British Army and the Old Northwest. Westport, CT: Praeger. Dunnigan, J. 2020. Those Beyond the Walls: An Archaeological Examination of Michilimackinac’s Extramural Domestic Settlement, 1760-1781. MA Thesis. Department of Anthropology. Western Michigan University. Ekberg, C. 2000. French Roots in the Illinois Country. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Ekberg, C. and Person, S. 2015. St. Louis Rising: The French Regime of Louis St. Ange de Bellerive. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Evans, L. 2013. Michilimackinac, a Civilian Fort. In Babits, L. and Gandulla, S. (eds). The Archaeology of French and Indian War Frontier Forts, 216-228. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. Feister, L. 1984a. Material Culture of the British Soldier at ‘His Majesty’s Fort of Crown Point’ on Lake Champlain, New York, 1759-1783. Journal of Field Archaeology, 11.2: 123-132. Feister, L. 1984b. Building Material Indicative of Status Differentiation at Crown Point Barracks. Historical Archaeology, 18.1: 103-107. Fisher, C. 1995. The Archaeology of Provincial Officers’ Huts at Crown Point State Historic Site. Northeast Historical Archaeology, 24: 65-86. Foucault, M. 1995. Discipline and Punish. The Birth of the Prison, trans. Sheridan A. New York: Vintage Books. Franklin, C. 2016. British Army Uniforms from 1751 to 1783. Barnsley: Pen & Sword Books Ltd. Frey, S. 1981. The British Soldier in America: a social history of military life in the Revolutionary period. Austin: University of Texas Press. Gale, R. 2007. “A Soldier-Like Way”: The Material Culture of the British Infantry 1751-1768. Elk River, MN: Track of the Wolf. Gardner, A. 1999. Military Identities in Late Roman Britain. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 18.4: 403-418. 362 Gardner, A. 2001. Identities in the Late Roman Army: Material and Textual Perspectives. In Davies, G., Gardner, A., and Lockyear, K. (eds). TRAC 2000: Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference, London 2000, 35-47. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Gardner, A. 2007. Fluid Frontiers: Cultural Interaction on the Edge of Empire. Stanford Journal of Archaeology, 5: 43-60. Gardner, A. 2017. ‘Romans’ and ‘Barbarians’ beyond the Frontiers: Archaeology, Ideology and Identities in the North. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Giddens, A. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Glaisyer, N. 2004. Networking: Trade and Exchange in the Eighteenth-Century British Empire. The Historical Journal, 47.2: 451-476. Good, M. 1972. Guebert Site: an 18th century Historic Kaskaskia Indian Village in Randolph County, Illinois. St. Louis, MO: Central States Archaeological Societies, Inc. Grange, R., Jr. 1982. Excavations of the Right Redoubt and Blockhouse, British Fortifications at Ile aux Noix, Quebec. Ottawa, Canada: National Historic Parks and Sites Branch, Parks Canada, Environment Canada. Greene, E. 2019. Roman Military Communities and the Families of Auxiliary Soldiers In Brice, L. (ed). New Approaches to Greek and Roman Warfare, 149-160. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. Greene, J. 2013. Creating the British Atlantic. Essays on Transplantation, Adaptation, and Continuity. Charlottesville, SC: University of Virginia Press. Grimm, J. (ed). 1970. Archaeological Investigation of Fort Ligonier 1960-1965. Pittsburgh: Annals of Carnegie Museum. Guilday, J. 1970. Animal Remains from Archaeological Excavations at Fort Ligonier. In Grimm, J. (ed). Archaeological Investigation of Fort Ligonier 1960-1965. Pittsburgh: Annals of the Carnegie Museum. Hagist, D. 2020. Noble Volunteers: The British Soldiers Who Fought the American Revolution. Yardley, PA: Westholme Publishing. 363 Hamilton, T. M. (ed). 1982. Indian Trade Guns. Union City, TN: Pioneer Press. Hanson, L., and Hsu, D. 1975. Casements and Cannonballs. Archeological Investigations at Fort Stanwix, Rome, New York. (Publications in Archeology 14.) Washington, D.C.: National Park Service. Harris, O. 2014. (Re)assembling Communities. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 21.1: 76-97. Harris, O. and Cipolla, C. 2017. Archaeological Theory in the New Millennium: Introducing Current Perspectives. London: Routledge. Harvey, K. 2012. Ritual Encounters: Punch Parties and Masculinity in the Eighteenth Century. Past & Present, 215.1: 165-203. Hearns, J. 2015. Patterns in Faunal Remains at Fort St. Joseph, a French Fur Trade Post in the Western Great Lakes. M.A. Thesis. Department of Anthropology. Western Michigan University. Heerman, M. 2017. Beyond Plantations: Indian and African Slavery in the Illinois Country, 1720-1780. Slavery & Abolition, 38.3: 489-509. Heldman, D. 1980. Coins at Michilimackinac. Historical Archaeology, 14: 82-107. Heldman, D. 1986. Michigan’s First Jewish Settlers: A View from the Solomon-Levy Trading House at Fort Michilimackinac, 1765-1781. New World Archaeology, 4.4: 2133. Heldman, D. and Grange, Jr., R. 1981. Excavations at Fort Michilimackinac, 1978-1979: the Rue de la Babillarde. Mackinac Island, MI: Mackinac Island State Park Commission. Heldman, D. and Minnerly, W. 1977. Fort Michilimackinac Archeological Investigations 1974 and 1975. Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation, National Park Service, Department of the Interior: Washington, D.C. Hemmis, T. 2015. Trading Identities: National Identity, Loyalty, and Backcountry Merchants in Revolutionary America, 1740-1816. PhD. Thesis. The University of Southern Mississippi. Hensley, K. 2010. Standards of Living: An archaeological comparison of British military households at Fort Michilimackinac, 1761-1781. M.A. thesis. Dept. of Anthropology. Illinois State University. 364 Hilton, S. 2010. Loyalty and Patriotism on North American Frontiers: Being and Becoming Spanish in the Mississippi Valley, 1776-1803. In Smith and Hilton (eds). Nexus of Empire: Negotiating Loyalty and Identity in the Revolutionary Borderlands, 1760s-1820s. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, p. 8-38. Hockey, J. 2009. ‘Switch on’: Sensory Work in the Infantry. Work, Employment and Society, 23.3: 477-493. Hockey, J. 1986. Squaddies. Portrait of a Subculture. Exeter: Exeter University Publications. Hodder, I. 2011. Human-thing Entanglement: Towards an Integrated Archaeological Perspective. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 17: 154-177. Houlding, J.A. 1981. Fit for Service. The Training of the British Army, 1715-1795. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Hume, I. 2001. A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Hurl-Eamon, J. 2015. Youth in the Devil’s Service, Manhood in the King’s: Reaching Adulthood in the Eighteenth-Century British Army. The Journal of the History of Childhood and Youth, 8.2: 163-190. Ingram, D. 2012. Indians and British Outposts in Eighteenth-Century America. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Insoll, T. (ed). 2007. The Archaeology of Identities. London: Routledge. Isbell, W. 2000. What We Should be Studying: The ‘imagined community’ and the ‘natural community’ In Canuto and Yaeger (eds). The Archaeology of Communities. A New World Perspective, 243-266. New York: Routledge. Jackson, M. 2005. Classifications by Historical Archaeologists and Eighteenth Century Montreal Merchants and Military Personnel in New France: Emic and Etic Approaches. PhD thesis, Department of Anthropology, Michigan State University. Jacobs, W. 1967. Wilderness Politics and Indian Gifts: The Northern Frontier, 1748-1763. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. James, S. 1999. The Community of the Soldiers: A Major Identity and Centre of Power in the Roman Empire. In Baker, P., Forcey, C., Jundi, S., and Witcher, R. (eds). TRAC 98: Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference, Leicester 1998, 14-25. Oxford: Oxford Books. 365 James, S. 2001. Soldiers and Civilians: Identity and Interaction in Roman Britain. IN James, S. and Millett, M. (eds) Britons and Romans: Advancing an Archaeological Agenda, 77-89. York: Bowes Morrell House. James, S. 2011. Rome & the Sword. How Warriors & Weapons Shaped Roman History. London: Thames & Hudson. Jelks, E., Ekberg, C., and Martin, T. 1984. Excavations at the Laurens Site. Probable Location of Fort de Chartres I. Springfield, IL: Illinois Historic Preservation Agency. Jolley, R. 2013. Fort Loudon, Virginia. A French and Indian War Period Fortification Constructed by George Washington. In Babits, L. and Gandulla, S. (eds). The Archaeology of French and Indian War Frontier Forts, 102-121. Gainesville: The University Press of Florida. Jones, O. 1971. Glass Bottle Push-Ups and Pontil Marks. Historical Archaeology, 5: 62-73. Jones, O. 1986. Cylindrical English Wine and Beer Bottles, 1735-1850. Ottawa, Canada: National Historic Parks and Sites Branch. Jones, S. 1999. Historical Categories and the Praxis of Identity: The Interpretation of Ethnicity in Historical Archaeology. In Funari, P, Hall, M. and Jones, S. (eds). Historical Archaeology: Back from the Edge, 219-232. New York: Routledge. Jones, O. and Smith, E. 1985. Glass of the British Military, ca. 1755-1820. Ottawa, Canada: Parks Canada. Kay, J. 1984. The Fur Trade and Native American Population Growth. Ethnohistory, 31.4: 265-287. Keene, D. 1986. Archaeological Investigations at Fort de Chartres: The West Barracks. Illinois Department of Conservation, Illinois CRM Report Archive. Illinois State Archaeological Survey. Keene, D. 1988a. Archaeological Excavations at Fort de Chartres, 1985-87. Illinois Department of Conservation. Illinois CRM Report Archive. Illinois State Archaeological Survey. Keene, D. 1988b. Fort de Chartres Archaeological Project 1985 Field Season Artifact Inventory, Vol II. Illinois Department of Conservation. Illinois CRM Report Archive. Illinois State Archaeological Survey. 366 Keene, D. 1988c. Fort de Chartres 1985 Archaeological Excavations Volume III: Photo Documentation. Illinois Department of Conservation. Illinois CRM Report Archive. Illinois State Archaeological Survey. Keene, D. 1991. Fort de Chartres: Archaeology in the Illinois Country. In Walthall (ed). French Colonial Archaeology: The Illinois Country and the Western Great Lakes. Pp: 29-41. Urbana, IL: The University of Illinois Press. Keene, D. 2002. Beyond Fur Trade: The Eighteenth Century Colonial Economy of French North America as Seen from Fort de Chartres in the Illinois Country. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Kopperman, P. 1996. ‘The Cheapest Pay’: Alcohol Abuse in the eighteenth-century British Army. The Journal of Military History, 60.3: 445-470. Langhorne, H. and Babits, L. 1988. Anthropological title searches in Rockbridge County, Virginia. In Beaudry, M. (ed). Documentary Archaeology in the New World, 132-137. New York: Cambridge University Press. Lawrence, S. 2003. Introduction: Archaeological Perspectives on the British and their Empire. In Lawrence, S. (ed). Archaeologies of the British, 1-16. London: Routledge. Linch, K. and McCormack, M. 2013. Defining Soldiers: Britain’s Military, c. 1740-1815. War in History, 20.2: 144-159. Loren, D. 2010. The Archaeology of Clothing and Bodily Adornment in Colonial America. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. Loren, D. and Beaudry, M. 2006. Becoming American: Small Things Remembered. IN Hall and Silliman (eds). Historical Archaeology, 251-271. Oxford: Blackwell. Lucy, S. 2005. Ethnic and Cultural Identities. In Diaz-Andreu, et. al. (eds). The Archaeology of Identity: Approaches to Gender, Age, Status, Ethnicity and Religion, 86-109. London: Routledge. MacSweeney, N. 2011. Community Identity and Archaeology: Dynamic Communities at Aphrodisias and Beycesultan. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI. Marks, N. 1889. Scenes at Ft. Chartres. Chicago Tribune, 9 June 1889, pg. 25. Martin, A. 2000. The Role of Pewter as Missing Artifact: Consumer Attitudes towards Tablewares in Late 18th Century Virginia. In Brauner, D. (ed). Approaches to Material 367 Culture Research for Historical Archaeologists, 2nd ed, 249-274. Uniontown, PA: The Society for Historical Archaeology. Martin, T. 1991. An Archaeological Perspective on Animal Exploitation Patterns at French Colonial Sites in the Illinois Country. In Walthall, J. (ed). French Colonial Archaeology: The Illinois Country and the Western Great Lakes, 189-200. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. Martin, T., and Marsulis M. 1988. Preliminary Report on Animal Remains from Fort de Chartres. Appendix D IN Keene, D. Archaeological Excavations at Fort de Chartres, 1985-87. Illinois Department of Conservation. Illinois CRM Report Archive. Illinois State Archaeological Survey. Mason, E. 1901. Chapters from Illinois History. Chicago: Herbert S. Stone and Company. Mazrim, R. 2011. At Home in the Illinois Country. French Colonial Domestic Site Archaeology in the Midwest 1730-1800. Springfield, IL: Illinois State Archaeological Survey. McConnell, M. 2004. Army and Empire: British Soldiers on the American Frontier, 1758-1775. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. McDaid, C. 2013. ‘The Best Accustomed House in Town’: Taverns as Reflections of Elite Consumer Behavior in Eighteenth-Century Hampton and Elizabeth City County, Virginia. PhD Thesis. School of Archaeology and Ancient History. The University of Leicester. McGuire, D. 2016. A Taste for Mustard: An Archaeological Examination of a Condiment and Its Bottles from a Loyalist Homestead in Upper Canada. International Journal of Historical Archaeology, 20: 666-692. Melzer, B. 1971. Archaeological Trench at Fort de Chartres. Illinois Department of Conservation. Illinois CRM Report Archive. Illinois State Archaeological Survey. Merrill, E. 2015. Judging Empire: Masculinity and the Making of the British Imperial Army, 1754-1783. PhD Dissertation. Department of History. The University of Pennsylvania. Montgomery, F. 2007. Textiles in America, 1650-1870. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. Morrissey, R. 2017. Le Pays des Illinois Finds its Context: The Early History of Illinois in a Continental Perspective. Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society, 111.1: 9-30. 368 Morrissey, R. 2015. Empire by Collaboration: Indians, Colonists, and Governments in Colonial Illinois Country. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Nassaney, M. 2008. Identity Formation at a French Colonial Outpost in the North American Interior. International Journal of Historical Archaeology, 12: 297-318. Nassaney, M. 2012. Decolonizing Archaeological Theory at Fort St. Joseph, an Eighteenth-Century Multi-Ethnic Community in the Western Great Lakes Region. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 37.1: 5-23. Nassaney, M. 2019. Cultural Identity and Materiality at French Fort St. Joseph (20BE23), Niles, Michigan. Historical Archaeology, 53: 56-72. Nassaney, M., and Brandão, J. 2009. The Materiality of Individuality at Fort St. Joseph: An Eighteenth-Century Mission-Garrison-Trading Post Complex on the Edge of Empire. IN White, C. (ed). The Materiality of Individuality: Archaeological Studies of Individual Lives, 19-36. New York: Springer. Nassaney, M. and Martin, T. 2017. Food and Furs at French Fort St. Joseph. In Scott, E. (ed). Archaeological Perspectives on the French in the New World, 83-111. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. Noble, V. 1988. Ceramics from Fort de Chartres III. Illinois Department of Conservation. Illinois CRM Report Archive. Illinois State Archaeological Survey. Noble, V. 1997. Eighteenth-Century Ceramics from Fort de Chartres III. Illinois Archaeology, 9.1: 36-75. Norris, F.T. 1997. The Illinois Country—Lost and Found: Assessment of the Archaeological Remains of French Settlements in the Central Mississippi River Valley, 1673-1763. PhD thesis, St. Louis University. O’Callaghan, E. (ed). 1858. Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New York, vol. X. Albany: Weed, Parsons and Company. Oaks, R. (ed). 1976. George Morgan’s ‘Memorandums’: A Journey to the Illinois Country, 1770. Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society, 69: 185-200. Orser, Jr., C. 1977. The 1975 Season of Archaeological Investigations at Fort de Chartres, Randolph County, Illinois. (Southern Illinois Studies No. 16.) Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University. 369 Ostola, L. 2007. A Very Public Presence: The British Army Garrison in the Town of Quebec, 1759-1838. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of History, Laval University, Quebec. Padiak, J. 2005. The ‘serious evil of marching regiments’: The Families of the British Garrison of Gibraltar. The History of the Family, 10.2: 137-150. Pauketat, T. 2000. Politicization and Community in the Pre-Columbian Mississippi Valley. In Canuto, M. and Yaeger, J. (eds). Archaeology of Communities: A New World Perspective, 16-42. New York: Routledge. Peña, E. and Seeman, E. 2004. Desire and Distrust: The Paradox of Women at Old Fort Niagara. New York History, 85.1: 5-21. Pezzarossi, G. 2018. Conclusion. Porous Walls and Possessive Structures. IN DeCorse, C. and Beier, Z. (eds). British Forts and Their Communities: Archaeological and Historical Perspectives, 285-301. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. Pippin, D. 2010. For Want of Provisions: An Archaeological and Historical Investigation of the British Soldier at Fort Haldimand (1778-84). Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of Anthropology. Syracuse University. Predovnik, K. 2017. Defense against ‘the Turks’: Identity Construction between Lived Experience and Political Discourse in the Early-Modern Habsburg Lands. In Brooks, A. and Mehler, N. (ed). The Country Where My Heart Is: Historical Archaeologies of Nationalism and National Identity, 69-94. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. Roache-Fedchenko, A. 2013. Technological Adaptation on the Frontier: An Examination of Blacksmithing at Fort Michilimackinac, 1715-1781. PhD. Dissertation. Department of Anthropology. Syracuse University. Roache-Fedchenko, A. 2018. Maintaining the Military: Blacksmithing at Fort Michilimackinac, Michigan. In DeCorse, C. and Beier, Z. (eds). British Forts and their Communities: Archaeological and Historical Perspectives, 49-69. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Rossi, G. 2018. Porous Walls and Possessive Structures: British Forts and Networks of the Early Modern World. In DeCorse, C. and Beier, Z. (eds). British Forts and their Communities: Archaeological and Historical Perspectives, 285-301. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Safiran, E. Jr. 1988. Archaeological Excavations at French Colonial Prairie du Rocher, Randolph County, Illinois. MA Thesis, Department of History, Illinois State University. 370 Savelle, M. 1932. George Morgan: Colony Builder. New York: Columbia University Press. Schaff, G. 1990. Wampum Belts and Peace Trees. What Ridge, CO: Fulcrum Publishing. Scott, E. 1991. ‘Such diet as befitted his station as clerk’: The Archaeology of Subsistence and Cultural Diversity at Fort Michilimackinac, 1761-1781. Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of Anthropology, The University of Minnesota. Scott, E. 1997. ‘A Little Gravy in the Dish and Onions in a Tea Cup’: What Cookbooks Reveal about Material Culture. International Journal of Historical Archaeology, 1.2: 131155. Scott, E. 2008. Who Ate What? Archaeological Food Remains and Cultural Diversity in Reitz, E., Scarry, C., and Scudder, S. (eds). Case Studies in Environmental Archaeology, 357-274. New York: Springer-Verlag. Shackel, P. 1993. Personal Discipline and Material Culture: An Archaeology of Annapolis, Maryland. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. Sleeper-Smith, S. 2001. Indian Women and French Men: Rethinking Cultural Encounters in the Western Great Lakes. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press. Smart, A. 1989. The Role of Pewter as Missing Artifact: Consumer Attitudes towards Tablewares in Late 18th Century Virginia. Historical Archaeology, 23.2: 1-27. Smith, E. 1983. Drinking Practices and Glassware of the British Military, ca. 1755-85. Northeast Historical Archaeology, 12.12: 31-39. Smith, G. and Hilton, S. (eds). 2010. Nexus of Empire: Negotiating Loyalty and Identity in the Revolutionary Borderlands, 1760s-1820s. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Snape, M. 2005. The Redcoat and Religion. New York: Routledge. South, S. 1977. Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. New York: Academic Press. South, S. 1978. Pattern Recognition in Historical Archaeology. American Antiquity, 44: 213-237. Spanbauer, J. 1993. Indian Affairs at Fort de Chartres during the British Occupation, 1765-1772. MA thesis. Department of History. Illinois State University. 371 Spanbauer, J. 2017. Sparks Fly:” Connecting Midwestern Historic Forts through a Comparative Study of Gunflints. M.S. thesis. Department of Sociology and Anthropology. Illinois State University. Starbuck, D. 2018. British Forts in Northern New York State. In DeCorse, C. and Beier, Z. (eds). British Forts and Their Communities: Archaeological and Historical Perspectives, 3148. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. Stern, M. 2010. David Franks, Colonial Merchant. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press. Stiles, H. 1864. Affairs at Fort Chartres, 1768-1781. Albany: J. Munsell. Stone, L. 1970. Formal Classification and the Analysis of Historic Artifacts. Historical Archaeology, 4: 90-102. Stone, L. 1974. Fort Michilimackinac, 1715-1781: an Archaeological Perspective on the Revolutionary Frontier. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Museum Publications. Stotz, C. 1974. The Reconstruction of Fort Ligonier the Anatomy of a Frontier Fort. Bulletin of the Association for Preservation Technology, 6.4: 2-103. Sussman, L. 1978. British Military Tableware, 1760-1830. Historical Archaeology, 12: 93-104. Tarlow, S. 1999. Strangely Familiar. In Tarlow and West (eds). Familiar Past? Archaeologies of Later Historical Britain, 263-272. New York: Taylor & Francis Group. Tarlow, S. 2007. The Archaeology of Improvement in Britain, 1750-1850. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Thurman, M. 1980a. Archaeology at Fort de Chartres, 1979 season: Preliminary Report for Illinois Department of Conservation. Springfield, IL: The Department of Conservation. Thurman, M. 1980b. Preliminary Report on the 1980 Archaeological Work at Ft. De Chartres. Springfield, IL: The Department of Conservation. Torbin, B. 2010. Wampum Belts and Tomahawks on an Irish Estate: Constructing an Imperial Identity in the Late Eighteenth Century. Biography 33.4: 682-713. Tordoff, J. 1983. An Archaeological Perspective on the Organization of the Fur Trade in Eighteenth Century New France. Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthropology. Michigan State University. 372 Walas, A. 2015. Roman Military Bases as Social Spaces. PhD Thesis. School of Archaeology and Ancient History. University of Leicester. Walthall, J., (ed). 1991. French Colonial Archaeology: The Illinois Country and the Western Great Lakes. Urbana, IL: The University of Illinois Press. Waselkov, G. and Walthall, J. 2002. Faience Styles in French Colonial North America: A Revised Classification. Historical Archaeology, 36.1: 62-78. Way, P. 2005. Engendering War: Military Masculinities and the Making of Britain’s Eighteenth Century American Empire. Institute for the Study of Culture & Society, University of Windsor. White, C. and Beaudry, M. 2009. Artifacts and Personal Identity. In Majewski, T. and Gaimster, D. (eds). International Handbook of Historical Archaeology, 209-224. New York: Springer. White, R. 1991. The Middle Ground. New York: Cambridge University Press. White, S. 2012. Wild Frenchmen and Frenchified Indians: Material Culture and Race in Colonial Louisiana. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Whittaker, C. R. 2000. Roman Frontiers and European Perceptions. Journal of Historical Sociology, 13.4: 462-482. Wild, J. and Thomas, L. 1831. The Valley of the Mississippi; Illustrated in a Series of Views. In Garnier (ed). 1948. Saint Louis, MO: Joseph Garnier, Publishers. Wilson, K. 1995. Citizenship, Empire, and Modernity in the English Provinces, c. 17201790. Eighteenth-Century Studies, 29.1: 69-96. Wiecek, W. 1974. Somerset: Lord Mansfield and the Legitimacy of Slavery in the AngloAmerican World. The University of Chicago Law Review, 42.1: 86-146. Wilkie, L. 2006. Documentary Archaeology. In Hicks, D. and Beaudry, M. (eds). The Cambridge Companion to Historical Archaeology, 13-33. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Witty, C. 1988. The Ghost Horse Site and the French Illinois Country. Illinois Antiquity, 33.3: 8-12. 373 Yaeger, J. 2000. The Social Construction of Communities in the Classic Maya Countryside: Strategies of Affiliation in Western Belize. In Canuto, M. and Yaeger, J. (eds). The Archaeology of Communities. A New World Perspective, 123-142. New York: Routledge. Yentsch, A. 1990. Minimum Vessel Lists as Evidence of Change in Folk and Courtly Traditions of Food Use. Historical Archaeology, 24.3: 24-53. Yentsch, A. 1991. The Symbolic Divisions of Pottery: Sex-related Attributes of English and Anglo-American Household Pots. In McGuire, R. and Paynter, R. eds. 1991. The Archaeology of Inequality, 192-230. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.