University of South Carolina University of South Carolina

Scholar Commons Scholar Commons

Archaeology Month Posters Archaeology and Anthropology, South Carolina Institute of

10-2016

Santa Elena-450Santa Elena-450thth Anniversary: 1566 - 1587 Anniversary: 1566 - 1587

South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology--University of South Carolina

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/archmonth_poster

Part of the Anthropology Commons

Publication Info Publication Info Published in 2016. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology--University of South Carolina. Archaeology

Month Poster - Santa Elena-450th Anniversary: 1566 - 1587, 2016. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, 2016. http://artsandsciences.sc.edu/sciaa/ © 2016 by University of South Carolina, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology

This Poster is brought to you by the Archaeology and Anthropology, South Carolina Institute of at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Archaeology Month Posters by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact digres@mailbox.sc.edu.

Background map by Diego Gutiérrez and Hieronymus Cock, 1562Pedro Menéndez de Avilés engraving by Francisco de Paula Marti (1791) from a painting by Tiziano Vecellio

25th AnnualSouth Carolina

Archaeology MonthOctober 2016

S. C. Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology�1321 Pendleton Street Columbia, SC 29208

(803) 576-6573 www.artsandsciences.sc.edu/sciaa�

Santa Elena450th anniversary

1566-1587

Santa Elena 1566-1587450th anniversary

Stanley A. South1928-2016 Stanley A. South was aninternationally known archaeologistconsideredoneofthefoundersofmodernhistoricalarchaeology.HejoinedtheSouthCarolina Institute of Archaeology andAnthropology at the University of SouthCarolina in1969,andworked thereuntilhis retirement in 2011. Stan excavatedat Charles Towne Landing, Ninety-Six,FortMoultrie, andmanyother importanthistoric sites in South Carolina, but hismost lasting and important work was attheCharlesfort/SantaElenasiteonParrisIsland.Stanbeganhisworktherein1979,and conducted his last Santa Elena fieldworkin2006(Figure1). As a memorial to Stan’s longcareer and to his interest in supportingyoung archaeologists, the Stanley SouthStudent Archaeological Research Fundhasbeen established at theUniversityofSouthCarolinainhishonor.Grantsfromthis fund will support archaeologicalresearchbyUSCundergraduateandgraduatestudentsworkinginSouthCarolina.Tax-deductibledonationscanbemadewithacheckormoneyordermadeouttotheUSCEducationalFoundationdesignatedfortheStanleySouthFund.Mailto:StanleySouthFund,S.C.InstituteofArchaeologyandAnthropology,1321PendletonStreet,Columbia,SC29208.

Figure 1: Stanley A. South

Charlesfort and Santa Elena TheParrisIsland-relatedsagasoftheFrenchCharlesfort(1562-1563)andtheSpanishtownofSantaElena(1566-1587)arewelldocumentedinbothprimarydocumentsandinthesecondaryliterature.Beginninginthelatefifteenthcentury,theentireeastcoastofNorthAmericawaspartofSpain’sclaimtoterritoryintheNewWorld.Inthefirsthalfofthesixteenthcentury,effortsweremadetoexploreandcolonizethisvastregion,anareatheSpanishcalledLaFlorida,buttheseearlyeffortsdidnotleadtopermanentsettlement. InApril,1562,twoFrenchvesselscommandedbyJeanRibaultarrivedinPortRoyalSoundonthecoastofpresent-daySouthCarolina.TheFrenchHuguenotsaboardthoseshipswerescoutingalocationtoestablishacolonyfreeofthereligiouspersecutiontheysufferedinFrance.Ribaultbuiltafort,Charlesfort,andleftagarrisonof27meninitwhilehereturnedtoFranceforsuppliesandadditionalcolonists.Ribault’sreturnwasdelayedbycivilwarinFrance.ThemenleftatCharlesfortmutinied,killedtheircommander,andreturnedtoFranceinaboattheyconstructed.Ayearlater,asecondFrenchexpeditionledbyRenéGoulainedeLaudonnièreestablishedanewFrenchoutpost,FortCaroline,ontheSt.JohnsRivernearpresent-dayJacksonville,Florida. Upon learningof theseattemptedFrenchsettlements ina land longconsideredSpanishterritory,SpanishKingPhilipIIdispatchedPedroMenéndezdeAviléstoFloridatodealwiththeFrenchintrusion.MenéndezarrivedinFloridainSeptember,1565,andwithinweekshehadkilledor captured nearly all of the 200 Frenchmen then residing in Fort Caroline, and more than 200othersfromFrenchre-supplyships.Uponhisarrival,MenéndezhadestablishedasmalloutpostatSt.AugustineontheAtlanticcoastofFloridatoserveasabaseforoperationsagainsttheFrench.FollowinghisvictoryovertheFrench,MenéndezstrengthenedthedefensesatSt.Augustineagainstcounterattack,andthenestablishedseveralothermilitaryoutpostsontheFloridapeninsulaanduptheGeorgiacoast.First Spanish Occupation at Santa Elena (1566-1576) InJanuary,1566,MenéndezreceivedareportthattheFrenchplannedtoattemptanothersettlementinFlorida,sohegatheredafleetofshipsandsailednorthfromSt.Augustinetocounterthateffort.HediscoverednoFrenchpresenceonthistrip,butMenéndezestablishedanoutpostonpresent-dayParrisIslandnearBeaufort,SouthCarolina,onthesiteofRibault’sinitialsettlementof1562-1563(Figure2).ThusSantaElenabecamethesecondofthe“twoorthreetowns”MenéndezhadagreedtoestablishinFloridaunderhiscontractagreementwithPhillipII. Menéndez’outpostatSantaElenaconsistedofasmallfort,FortSanSalvador(thelocationofwhichiscurrentlyunknown),withagarrisonofabout80men.Inlatesummer,1566,CaptainJuan Pardo arrived at Santa Elena with an additional force of 250 men, and they built a largerfort,FortSanFelipe. InDecember,1566,CaptainPardoand125ofhismenmarched inlandonanexpedition intended toestablish friendly relationswith interior Indiansandultimately to findan overland route to Mexico.This was the first of two Pardo expeditions inland in 1566-1568;neitheroftheexpeditionsreachedbeyondtheAppalachianMountains.WhilePardowasinvolvedintheinterior,PedroMenéndezfocusedonstrengtheninghisholdonallofSpanishFlorida.InhiscontractwithPhilipII,PedroMenéndezhadagreedtobring100farmersamongthoseinhisinitialexpeditionaryforce,andhewasalsoobligatedtobringanadditional400settlerstoFloridawithinthreeyearsofhisarrival.HebegansettlingcivilianfarmersandartisansatSantaElenain1568,andbyAugust,1569,therewerenearly200settlerslivinginacommunitycomposedofabout40houses;thetownwascontrolledbyanorganizedcitygovernment.JesuitmissionariesworkedtoconverttheIndiansaroundSantaElenatoCatholicismbeginningin1569,buttheireffortswerefrustratedbecausethelocalIndiansweremobileandrefusedtosettleinpermanenttowns.DiseaseepidemicsplaguedtheSantaElenacolonistsduringtheirfirstyears,withmajoroutbreaksoccurringin1570and1571.Supplyshipsarrivedatirregularintervals,andthereweretimeswhenbothsettlersandsoldierssufferedgreatlyasaresult.ShortsuppliescausedtheresidentsofSantaElenatoturntolocalIndiansforhelp,andbeforelongtheIndianswereinrevoltduetoexcessivedemandsforfoodbytheSpanish. Menéndez’firstsettlementwasatSt.Augustine,buthesoonmadeSantaElenahiscapitalinFlorida,andhiswifeandherattendantssettledtherein1571.InAugust,1572,SantaElenawasasmall,strugglingcommunitywithatotalpopulationof179settlersand76soldiers.Settlerswereprimarilyfarmers,whobythistimeweregrowingavarietyofcropsincludingcorn,squash,melons,barley,andgrapes;livestock,includinghogsandcattle,aswellaschickens,hadbeenintroducedand

werebeingraisedwithlimitedsuccess. PedroMenéndezdeAvilés,Adelantado of Florida, diedin 1574 while on a missionto Spain. During Menéndez’absence,DonDiegodeVelasco,one of Pedro Menéndez twosons-in-law and LieutenantGovernor, served as interimgovernor;hecontinuedinthatpositionfollowingMenéndez’death. Menéndez’ daughter,Catalina, inherited the titleof Adelantado of Florida,and ultimately her husband,Hernando de Miranda, wasappointedGovernor.Miranda,however, did not actuallyarrive at Santa Elena untilFebruary, 1576. During thetime that Velasco served asinterim governor, he hadseveral disputes with settlers,and he mistreated the Indiansresiding in the vicinity. Thispoor relationship with theIndians led to a series ofattacks on Santa Elena. Thelossof thirtysoldiers in theseattacks ultimately forced the

temporaryabandonmentofSantaElena in latesummer,1576.As thesoldiersandsettlers sailedfromPortRoyalSound,theywereabletoseethetownandfortbeingburnedbyIndians.Second Spanish Occupation at Santa Elena (1577-1587) InOctober,1577,SantaElenawasre-occupiedbyamilitaryforcecommandedbyPedroMenéndez Marqués, who had been appointed Governor of Santa Elena to replace Hernando deMiranda. Miranda was in Spain facing charges resulting from his abandonment of Santa Elena.MenéndezMarquésanticipatedthattheIndiansmightattackanyforcethattriedtoreturntoSantaElena,sohetookwithhimfromSt.Augustineaprefabricatedfortthatheandhis53menwereabletoerectinonlysixdays. Atthispoint,SantaElenawasonlyamilitaryoutpost,andSt.Augustineretaineditsnew-foundpositionasFlorida’scapital.GutierredeMiranda,brotherofformerGovernorHernandodeMiranda,wasappointedtoserveasGovernorandCaptainofthenewSantaElenafortwhichwascalledSanMarcos.MenéndezMarquéssoonfoundotherdutiesforMiranda,however,andCaptainTomásBernaldodeQuiroswasappointedinterimgovernoratSantaElenainAugust,1578.Between1577and1580,SantaElena’sGovernorMirandaandinterimgovernor,BernaldodeQuiros,attackedandsubduedtheseveralIndiangroupswhohadbeeninvolvedinthedestructionofthefirsttownofSantaElena.OncetheIndianshadbeensubdued,afewsettlersmayhavereturnedtoSantaElena.BernaldodeQuirosrebuiltthetownduringhistenure,andwhenhedepartedinNovember,1580,thetowncontainedmorethanthirtyhouses.By1580,thepopulationofSantaElenahadgrowntoabout300people.GutierredeMirandaresumedhiscommandatSantaElenainNovember,1580,andhebuiltasizableestatenearby.FollowingthedefeatoflocalIndianpopulations,existenceinSantaElenawasrelativelypeaceful. In1584, theEnglishmade their first effort to claimpart ofSpanishFloridaby settlinga colony at Roanoke on the North Carolina coast.Two years later word arrived in Florida thatFrancisDrakeanda largeexpeditionaryforcehadattackedseveralmajorSpanishsettlements intheCaribbean,andthathemightleadanattackagainstFlorida.AneffortwasmadetostrengthenfortificationsatbothSt.AugustineandSantaElena.GutierredeMirandaundertook theworkatSantaElena, and soonFortSanMarcoswas surroundedbyanewlyexcavatedmoat, reinforcedcurtainwalls,andnewcasematesandgunplatforms.InJune,1586,FrancisDrake’sEnglishfleetattackedanddestroyedthetownofSt.Augustine.AlthoughSantaElenawasnotattackedbyDrake,thecrisisforcedtheSpaniardstoconsolidatetheirlimitedresourcesandpersonnelinasingleFloridaoutpost,andSt.AugustinewaschosenduetoitsproximitytoCuba.SantaElenawasabandonedinthesummerof1587;thetownandfortweredismantled,andmaterialsnotworthyofsalvagewereburned. Followingthissecondabandonment,SantaElenawasneverreoccupied.Inthesubsequentdecades,theSpanishmaintainedaseriesofmissionsextendingalongtheGeorgiacoastwithpriestsoccasionallyvisiting theIndians in thevicinityofSantaElena,but the townofSantaElenawasneverreestablished.

Figure 2: Santa Elena and the Port Royal Sound vicinity.

Archaeology at Santa Elena, 1979-2007 StanleySouthandtheSouthCarolinaInstituteofArchaeologyandAnthropologybeganarchaeological investigations at Santa Elena in 1979. Over the next three decades South, joinedbyChesterDePratterin1991,conductednearly30researchexpeditionsrangingfromafewdaysto10weeksinlength.Archaeologicaltestingonthe35-acresitehasestablishedtheextentoftheSpanishoccupation,andexcavationshaveexaminedseveralareasofSantaElenaindetail.Theseareasincludebothofthefortsitesidentifiedthusfar,residentialareas,andapotteryproductionsite(Figure3).Thisfieldresearchhasrevealedawiderangeofarchitecturalevidence,andhasresultedintherecoveryofmorethan100,000artifactsthatreflectthelivesofsoldiersandsettlersatSantaElena. Inhisfirstseasonofwork,StanleySouthconfirmedthepresenceofalarge,16thcenturySpanishtown,hetestedFortSanMarcosII,andhelocatedtheremainsofasecondSpanishfort,ultimatelyidentifiedasFortSanFelipeI.Inthenextseveralyearsheexcavatedabastionofthisfort,aswellasa50’X70’buildinginsidethefort.SouthalsofurtherdefinedandinvestigatedtheresidentialcomponentatSantaElenainthe1980’s.Beginningin1991,SouthandDePratterdevotedseveralmajorexcavationseasonsonthetwolotsoccupiedbyGovernorGutierredeMirandabetween1580and1587. In1993,DePratterandSouthdiscoveredaSpanishpotterykilnandpotterycomplexlocatednearthepresentgolfcourseclubhouse;thekilnsiteeventuallyproducedalargecollectionofpotterymadeatSantaElenaoflocalclays.Themajor1994fieldseasonwasdevotedtoasystematicshoveltestingsurveyovertheentire35acreSpanishoccupation;thisworkallowedrefinementofthetownboundariesandidentifiedanumberofindividualhouseholdswithinthesitearea.In1996,SouthandDePratterannouncedthediscoveryofFrenchCharlesfort,whichwaslocatedbeneaththeremainsofSpanishSanFelipeI.

Fromthelate1990’sthrough2007,theSantaElenaprojectexploredaremarkablevarietyofcomponentsatSantaElena.Thisworkincludedexpansionsonthepreviousexcavationsintwoforts,thegovernor’shouse,andthepotterysite,aswellasnewinvestigationsinotherresidentialareas,andinsearchofadditionalSantaElenaforts.AttherequestoftheMarineCorpstheSantaElenaProjectconductedextensivetestingtodefinethelimitsofthelarge(butunmarked)AfricanAmericancemeteryatSantaElenathatdatesfromtheearly18thtotheearly20thcentury;thatworkalsoshedadditionallightontheremainsofthenorthernendofCharlesfort,andonanadditionalSpanishresidentialarea. Throughout the threedecadesofSantaElena research, theUSMarineCorps,primarilythroughtheParrisIslandMuseum,hasbeenthesinglemostimportantsupporteroftheproject.Inadditiontosomedirectfunding,ParrisIslandhasprovidedcrewhousing,logisticalandengineeringsupport,publicity,andmostimportantly,access. Themany fieldcrewsassembled for thevariousSantaElenaseasonshaveconsistedofSCIAApersonnel,professionalarchaeologistsandarchaeologystudentshiredonaprojectbasis,andmanyvolunteers,bothexperiencedexcavatorsandnovices.Particularlyinthe1990’s,thevolunteercrewcomponentallowedtheSantaElenaProjecttoaccomplishfarmorethanwasotherwisepossiblegiventhefundingavailablefromvarioussources.

Figure 3: The Santa Elena site.

Fort San Marcos II Excavations Spanish Fort San Marcos II wasin use at the time of the final evacuationof Santa Elena in 1587, when its timberstructureswereburned(Figure4).ThemoatofthefortremainedvisibleuntilWorldWarI,whenitwasdeliberatelyfilledinduringthedevelopmentoftheManeuverGroundsbasictrainingcamp.Beginninginthe19thcentury,theremainswerepopularlymisidentifiedastheFrenchCharlesfort,asthestoryoftheFrencheffortatPortRoyalwaswellknown,whilethestoryofSantaElenawasstilllargelyburiedintheSpanishArchives.FortSanMarcosII(as“Charlesfort”)wasextensivelyexcavatedbynon-archaeologistsinthe19thcenturyandinthe1920’s.Thework in the1920’s resultedinthere-excavationofthefilled-inmoat,andthe erection of the Charlesfort monument.Theresultingpublicity led toanassessmentoftheexcavatedmaterialsbymoreinformedauthorities, who recognized that the artifactassemblagewasSpanish,notFrench,andthatthefortwasprobablyrelated to theSpanishsettlementofSantaElena,1566-1587. The records of the early amateurexcavations are apparently lost, but SCIAAexcavations since1979have revealedmuchoftheearlierdigging(Figure5).Themorerecentresearchhasalsoshownthatmostoftheinterioroftheun-eroded40%orsoofFortSanMarcosremainsundisturbed,includingthesiteoftheheavy

timber blockhouseandbarracksbuildingshown on the 1586plan. When thatstructurewasburnedin1587,itcontainedaquantityofsuppliesthatapparentlycouldnot be evacuated.A r c h a e o l o g i c a ltesting has verifiedthe presence ofa large burnedbuilding of thecorrect dimensions,andthesmallsampleof the structure thathas been excavatedshows evidence fortheburnedsupplies.

Figure 4: A 1586-87 Spanish plan of Fort San Marcos II, showing the improvements made in response to the threat of an attack by the English under Francis Drake.

Figure 5: Stan South during the 1979 test excavations in Fort San Marcos II.

Fort San Felipe and Charlesfort Excavations In1979,theonlyvisibleremainsofSantaElenaweretherestoredmoatofFortSanMarcosII,andveryfainttracesofanotherearthworklocatedontheshorelineabout550feettothenorth.ThelocationofasecondSpanishfortwasverifiedin1979,duringtheinitialarchaeologicaltestingof Santa Elena.The fort was initially identified as Fort San Felipe II, but subsequent historicalresearchandarchaeologicalindicationshavedemonstratedthatitisclearlyFortSanFelipeI,whichwasinusefrom1566-1570.Severalmajorexcavationseasonsexposedtheentireinterioroftheun-erodedportionofthefort,aswellasthecompletenorthwestbastion(Figure6)andothersamplesofthedrymoatsurroundingthefort.Militaryartifactsincludingcannonballs,gunparts,leadshotandcrossbowboltpointswererecovered(Figure7).Apatternofunusuallylargestructuralpostholesintheinteriorofthefortwasoriginallyinterpretedasevidencefora“casafuerte,”orstronghouse,

Figure 6: The northwest bastion of Fort San Felipe I after excavation in 1982.

thatwasknowntobe inFortSanFelipeII. In fact it isprobablyaSantaElenachurchwhich isdocumentedashavingstoodonthesiteofFortSanFelipeI. The extensiveexcavations in and aroundFort San Felipe have alsorevealed evidence of asmaller,irregularearthworkfortification that pre-datesthe Spanish fort, whichwas built directly on topof the earlier fortification.Given that there is alsoa concentration of 16thcenturyFrenchpotteryintheinteriorofFortSanFelipe,the earlier fortification isprobably the remains ofthe French Charlesfort. Itis likely that the Spanishdeliberately placed the1566FortSanFelipeontheCharlesfort site to effaceany lingering claim oflegitimacy attached to theFrenchsettlementattempt.

Figure 7: A group of Spanish military artifacts from Santa Elena, including cannon balls, crossbow bolt points, lead shot, a jack plate from quilted armor, and an arquebus or crossbow trigger.

Residential Component Excavations BeginningwithStanleySouth’sinitialtestingin1979,theSantaElenaprojecthassoughttolocateandinvestigatetheresidencesofthevariousclassesofsettlersatSantaElena.Southreasonedthatcertaincombinationsofmaterialevidenceina3x3’testunit,particularlynailswitharchitecturalclaydaub,probablyindicatedhousesites.Inthe1979seasonhefoundasmall,irregular,butwell-defineddomesticstructurethatwasinterpretedasalow-statusresidence,perhapsthatofaservantorasoldier.InkeepingwithSouth’smodel,this“hut”wasinitiallyseenasadenseconcentrationofclaydaubinassociationwithnails;apostholeoutlinelayunderthedaub. Larger excavations have borne out the daub and nail association, but it has remainedsurprisinglydifficulttodefineindividualhouseseveninlargeblockexposures.Moststructuresarealsomarkedbylinesorclustersof“daubprocessingpits,”whichareindicativeofconstructionastheyrepresentthemixingofclayandsandtopreparearchitecturaldaub,orclayplaster(Figure8).Ahouselocationusuallyexhibitsdaub,nails,daubpits,andpostholes,alongwithdomesticrefuse,butthese

elements seldom forma complete, coherentshape. The chiefdifficultyisthatmostofthe postholes formingthe outline of a givenstructure are essentiallyinvisible in the sandymatrixofthesite–housesarecertainlypresent,butsatisfying rectangulararrays of postholes donotemerge. One of the mostthoroughly examinedpartsoftheSantaElenasite is a residentialarea located betweenFort San Marcos IIand Fort San Felipe I.Excavations there haveproduced evidence forseveral large, higherstatus house lots, eachwith several structures.

ThemostcompletelyexcavatedoftheselotsisprobablythatofthegovernorofSantaElenaduringthesecondoccupationofthecolony.Nineverylargepostholesdefinetheprimaryresidence,whichwasastructureabout30’square,ofatleasttwostories,withafinishedplasterroof.Therewereatleastfivewellsonthislot,andtheoutbuildingsincludethe“hut”excavatedin1979.Numerousotherhouses,apparentlyofmoreordinarystatus,havebeendetected(ifnotdefined)intheareasnorthandwestofFortSanFelipeI,andwestofFortSanMarcosII. Excavations of residential lots has provided architectural information for the primarydwellings as well as outbuildings, and their arrangements on the lots. Residential sites are alsorichsourcesofinformationregardingtheeverydaylivesofSantaElenasettlers,particularlytheirsubsistence.Trashpits,wells,andgeneralscattersofrefusearoundhousesyieldmaterialsuchasbrokenpottery,foodbone,shellfishremains,andcarbonizedfoodplantremains.

Figure 8: A typical daub processing pit excavated in 1997. Like most Santa Elena daub processing pits, this example served a secondary function as a trash pit.

The Kiln Complex In1993,archaeologiststestingonthewesternedgeofSantaElena,nearthegolfcourseclubhouse,discoveredanunusualbrickandclaystructurethatwassoonidentifiedasaSpanishpotterykiln(Figures10and11).Furtherworkrevealedasmallcomplexincludingthekiln,aworkshed,thepotter’swheellocation,thepotter’shouse,awell,andtrashdepositsthatincludedlargenumbersofunglazedredwarepotteryfragments.ThepotteryappearstodatetothelatterpartoftheSantaElenasettlement, in the1580’s, and it is the earliestEuropeanpotterymanufacturing site identified inNorthAmerica north ofMexico. Archaeologicalevidence suggests thatthekilnthatwaslocated(theremaybemore)wasused only twice, and itappearstohavecollapsedinitsfinalfiring.Itwasthen substantially dugout, perhaps to recoverusable vessels andbricks, before beingre-filled with potterywasters and otherrefuse. The vessels andother ceramic productsrepresented comprisea remarkably diversecollection, seeminglya samplerofdifferent formsandsizes.Noneof thewareswereglazed, includingmany familiarformsthatwouldnormallyhavebeenglazedbyaSpanishpotter.Overall,theSantaElenaredware

assemblage suggestsan abortive, trialeffort at potteryproduction.ThelocalParris Island clayproduces a friable,poorly consolidatedearthenware that isentirely usable, butit may not have metthe standards of theSpanishpotter.

Figure 10: A reconstruction of the possible appearance of the Santa Elena kiln during use, based on the archaeological evidence and comparative information about the form and functioning of Spanish-tradition kilns of the period. Here the potter is adding additional fuel to the firebox underneath the pot chamber.

Figure 11: Overhead view of the Santa Elena kiln after excavation in 1993.

Wells The brackish waterin the tidal creek runningthrough the marsh adjacentto Santa Elena was notdrinkable. Fortunately, thewater table was only a fewfeet deep under the townsite,providingareadysourceof fresh (if not particularlypalatable)water.TheSpanishdug shallow wells to accessthewatertable.Whileitwasrelativelysimple todigapitthat reached the water, thefairly loose, sand subsoildid not allow for a stableexcavation – the saturatedsand would not maintain avertical wall. The solutionwastodigalargepitthatpenetratedseveralfeetintothewatertable,inwhichwaserectedacentralcolumnoftwoorthreelargebarrelswiththeirtopsandbottomsremoved.Thelargerpitwasthenbackfilledaroundthebarrelcolumn,leavingasturdywoodenwellshaftthatpenetratedthewatertable(Figure9). ExcavationsatSantaElenahaveidentifiedanumberofthesewells,andseveralhavebeencompletelyexcavated.Theportionsofthewellsthathaveremainedunderthehistoricwatertablefeatureremarkablepreservationoforganicmaterial,includingthebarrelbodiesandotherwoodenartifacts,thatchfragments,nuts,seedsandinsects.ThesesamebarrelwellswereusedbytheSpanishin16thand17thcenturySt.Augustine,andduringtheCivilWarbothUnionandConfederatetroopsontheseaislandsdugidenticalbarrelwellsintheircamps.

Figure 9: Profile of a Spanish barrel well undergoing excavation in 2000. Pumps were employed to lower the water table by several feet to permit excavation.

Other Archaeological Components When archaeology began at Santa Elena in 1979, it was soon apparent that there wasmuchmorethanthe16thcenturyEuropeanpresenceonthesite.Everyareathathasbeentestedorexcavatedhasproducedabundantarchaeologicalevidenceofhumanactivitybothbeforeandafterthe16thcentury. The oldest artifacts found in SantaElenaexcavationsarestonetoolsdatingtotheEarlyArchaicperiod,about10,500yearsago.Later stone tools,pottery, andother artifactsspan the entire Native American culturalsequence up to the16th century, and a post-Santa Elena, 17th century Native Americanoccupation is also present (Figure 12). Thestrongestprehistoriccomponentonthesiteiscomprisedofdistinctivepotteryandstonetoolsdating to the LateArchaic- Early Woodlandperiods,ca.5000to2500yearsago. By the 1720’s there was a ParrisPlantationoperatingonthesouthendofParrisIsland,includingthesiteofSantaElena(Figure13). A planter’s house and outbuildings,two sets of slave quarters, and a large slavecemeterywerealladdedtothearchaeologicalrecordatSantaElena.Theplantationoperatedinsomeform,throughseveraldifferentfamilies,untiltheCivilWar.AftertheUnionoccupationoftheBeaufortarea,theplantationpropertiesonParrisIslandwerebrokenupforsaleinsmallparcelstofreedslaves.ThesiteofSantaElenaremainedincultivationaftertheCivilWar,butnooneactuallylivedonthesite. In1916theMarineCorpsbegantousetheSantaElenaareaforfieldtraining.AftertheUnited States entered World War I in 1917, a large, temporary basic training camp for severalthousand recruits was built over the entire site. Every archaeological excavation at Santa Elena

revealsarchitectural featuresandartifacts from the World War IMarine Corps presence. Severallargetrashdumpsofmaterialfromthe 1916-1920 period have beenlocated in the vicinity. In 1918,the United States purchased alloftheprivatepropertyremainingon Parris Island for inclusionin the permanent Marine Corpsreservation.Beginninginthelate1930s, the Santa Elena vicinitywas used as a field artillery andaerialbombingrange,butin1947the site was included in the newParrisIslandGolfCourse.

Figure 12: A variety of prehistoric stone tools recovered during Santa Elena excavations.

Figure 13: Stan South and a field technician recording 18th or 19th century agricultural field ditches of` the sort that occur over most of the Santa Elena site.

The Artifact Collection

The Charlesfort/Santa Elena site artifact collection is an impressive assemblage of thematerialcultureofthesite’sformerinhabitants.Itopensawindowintothelives,traditions,andstrugglesforsurvivalofthosewhocalledthetipofParrisIslandhomeduringthepast11,000years.Collectedfrom1979-2007duringnearly30researchexpeditions,thecollectionoccupiesalmost900cubicfeetofspace.Beginningin2014,aprojecttoreanalyzeandre-curatetheentirecollectionwasbegun,fundedbytheUSMarineCorps, Parris Island, and theSouth Carolina Legislature.The accumulated knowledge of37 years is allowing for morerefined analysis, in addition tooffering the opportunity to pulltogether parts of the collectionthat have never been topicallyorganizedbefore.Thishasbeenmade possible by access to alarge laboratory space providedby the University of SouthCarolina. During the reanalysisprocess, the packaging of theentire collection is also beingbrought up to current curatorialstandards(Figure14). The Native Americanfirst occupants of the site leftbehind a diverse assortment ofstonetools,ceramics,andmodifiedshellobjects.ParrisIslandisacoastalsitelackinglithicresources,andtheimportedstonetools,whilerelativelysmallinnumber,offeraglimpseintothemigrationsortradenetworksoftheNativeAmericans.Thesitehasoneofthelargestknowncollectionsofceramicabradersandhones,apoorlyunderstoodclassoftools,andoffersthepotentialtogreatlyexpandourknowledgeandunderstandingofthistechnology.WeknowfromhistoricaldocumentationthatthelocalNativeAmericanswereinteractingwiththeSpaniardsatSantaElena;thisisamplyborneoutbytheregularoccurrenceof16thcenturyNativeAmericanpotteryinSantaElena.Asmanyas50%oftheceramicvesselsusedbytheresidentsofSantaElenawereofNativeAmericanmanufacture. TheevidenceinthecollectionfortheFrenchoccupationofCharlefortisminimal.StonewarefromtheNormandyregionandearthenwarefromtheSaintongeregionaretheonlydefinitiveFrenchartifacts.CertainlyotherFrenchartifactssuchasleadshotandnailshavebeenrecovered,butsortingthemoutfromthe laterSpanishandplantationeraoccupations isdaunting.Thecurrent trendofapplyingadvancedanalyticaltechniques,suchasx-rayfluorescence(XRF),offersthepossibilitythatsuchdifferentiationswillbepossible. TheSpanishoccupationportionofthecollectionisbyfarthelargestandmostdiverse.GiventhebrieftwentyyearsthatthetownofSantaElenawasinexistence,thiscollectionoffersa“snapshot”intolifeonthe16thcenturySpanishfrontier.Ceramicsformthebulkofthecollection,andofferaglimpseintothetradenetworksof16thcenturySpain,withceramictypesfromSpain,Portugal,Germany,Italy,andChinarepresented,aswellasNative-madeceramicsfromFloridaandMexicothattheSpanishbroughttoSantaElena.Inaddition,apotterykilnwasbuiltbytheSpanish,andit

producedlimitedamountsof a coarse redwareceramic. Iron artifactscomprise another largecomponentoftheSpanishcollection, mostly in theform of hand-wroughtnails and spikes (Figure15). Barrel bands thathave been reworked foralternate purposes aresuggestive of the thriftand ingenuity necessaryfor life far removedfrom ready access tomanufactured goods.The military aspect ofthe site is representedby iron fragments frommatchlock arquebusesand crossbows, iron and

brass armor fragments, sword fragments, cannonballs, crossbow bolt points, and numerous leadshot.Despitebeingontheedgeofcivilization,therewereitemsofluxuryorwealthpresentatSantaElenawhicharedocumentedinthehistoricalrecord.Suchmaterialisnotwidespreadacrossthesite,butwherefoundoffersindicationsofelevatedstatus.Asizeableassortmentofdelicateglassvesselshards, likelyboth ItalianandSpanish, finelyworkedcopperandgoldwirebordado,cutcrystalandjetornaments,andbrassbookbindinghardwareareexamplesofartifactsrepresentativeofahighersocio-economicbracket.Fromthemundanetothedecorative,theSantaElenacollectionhasalittlebitofeverything,offeringarepresentativecross-sectionoflifeinthesecondhalfofthe16thcentury. Within150yearsof theabandonmentofSantaElena,Europeanshad returned toParrisIsland,bringingwiththemenslavedAfricans.Fromthe1720’suntilthe1860’s,SantaElenawasthe site of a working plantation.A full range of coarse and refined earthenware and stonewareceramicsattesttothechangingtastesoftheplantationowners,whilecolonoware,acoarse,low-firedearthenware,isindicativeoftheenslavedpopulation.Glassshardsareverycommon,mostlydarkolivegreenutilitarianbottlefragmentsfromtheearlierPlantationera,withotherformsandcolorsbecomingmorecommoninlaterperiods.Anassortmentofworn-out,broken,anddiscardedhoesattesttotheagriculturaluseoftheland,complementingtheagriculturalditchfeaturesthatcrisscrossthesite.Therearelargeanddiverseassemblagesofsmallfindssuchasbuttonsandbeads. RoundingoutthecollectionandrepresentingtheactivitiesandpresenceoftheMarineCorpsonParrisIslandisanassortmentofartifactsprimarilyfromtheWorldWarIera,whenthesitewasusedasatrainingcampforrecruits.Metallichardwarefrommilitarygearformsthebulkofthiscollection(Figure16),butitalsoincludesanarrayofbuttons,coins,andothercivilianpersonaleffectslostbyrecruits.Aerialpracticebombsandfragmentsofartilleryroundsattesttothevicinitybeingusedasabombingrangeinthe1930’s-1940’s.ReflectingthefinalimpactontheCharlesfort/SantaElenasiteisthedetritusofgolfingactivities-balls,tees,markers,cleats,pulltabs, and other modern artifacts from the Parris Island GolfCoursethatoccupiedthesitefrom1947to2000.

Figure 14: A portion of the Santa Elena collection that has been reanalyzed and brought up to current curatorial standards.

Figure 15: A group of 16th century artifacts from Santa Elena, including imported and locally made ceramics, a wrought iron trivet, and wrought iron nails.

Figure 16: A USMC hat device from Santa Elena.

Poster information: Designed by Heathley A. Johnson. Images on the front of the poster are of Pedro Menéndez de Avilés, from a 1791 engraving by Francisco de Paula Marti of a portrait painted by Tiziano Vecellio (Titian), and a 1562 map of the Americas entitled “Americae sive qvartae orbis partis nova et exactissima descriptio” by Diego Gutiérrez and Hieronymus Cock. Both images are from the Library of Congress and were modified through digital wizardry. All text on the back of the poster written by Dr. Chester B. DePratter, James B. Legg, and Heathley A. Johnson.The activity that is the subject of this poster has been financed, in part, with Federal funds from the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, and administered by the South Carolina Department of Archives and History. However, the contents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of the Interior, nor does the mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendations by the Department of the Interior. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the U.S. Department of the Interior prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, or handicap in its federally assisted programs. If you believe you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility as described above, or if you desire further information, please write to: Office of Equal Opportunity, U.S. Department of the Interior Washington, DC 20240. In addition to the above, the consultant agrees to comply with the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, 42 U.S.C. 6 101 Et.Seq., which prohibits discrimination in hiring on the basis of age.