Archaeology Magazine - July 1976 - 66

THE
ARCHAEOLOGIST'S
BOOKSHELF
Fort Michilimackinac
1715-1781, An Archeological
Perspective on the
Revolutionary Frontier
by LyleM.Stone. 367 pages, 213
textfigures,bibliography.MichiganState
University,in cooperationwithMackinac
State Park Commission1974(AnthropologicalSeriesII,Publicationsof the
Museum)$12.50
Likeanthropologists,
archaeologists
whoare investigating
historicalsites are
increasinglyconcernedwithrelating
theirfindingsby statisticalanalysisto
culturalquestionswhichmaynot be
readilyansweredby historicalremains.
Indeed,even historiansthemselves
have been moreand moreconcerned
withthe quantification
of archaeological
remainswhichreflectupon lifeways,
economicsand otheraspects of human
existence.Suchevidencemaydiverge
considerablyfromthe dicta and
memorabilia
of contemporaryobservers
and subsequentscholars.Hereis an effort
by LyleM.Stoneto producea reference
workon militaryarchaeologyalongthe
GreatLakesfrontier.Despitesome
the effort
shortcomingsof organization,
is successfuland the data is useful.
Thistype of bookis best read by
beginningwiththe firsttwochaptersof
introduction,
description,historyand
excavationand then skippingto the final
chapterof synthesisand interpretation.
The reader is then prepared to utilize,
as he wishes,Stone's systemof
for artifactsfrom
descriptiveidentification
this eighteenth-century
frontierfort,
involvingfourlevelsof taxonomie
distinction:(1) Class, (2) Series, (3) Type
and (4) Variety.Non-aboriginal
ceramic
fragmentsare ordered thus: Class A.
Earthenware:
GroupI, Tin-Glazed
Earthenware;TypeA, Blueand White;
TypeB, Polychrome;TypeC, Brownand
White;and Type D, PowderedBlueor
Purple.EnglishCream-Colored
Earthenware,Coarse Earthenware,Fine
Earthenware,Stonewareand Porcelain
are similarlybrokendown intogroups,
each group havinga numberof types.
Claysmokingpipes, the favoriteceramic
210

indicatorof timefor historical
archaeology,are treated in depth. A
widevarietyof non-ceramicartifacts
such as pins, thimbles,cutleryand
hardwareare givenequallymeticulous
quantificationand study.
To combinethe data and artifacts
fromthe excavation,the authorhas
organizedthe volumeby chapters on the
personaland militaryequipmentand
activitiesof the Frenchand English
occupants of the fort,beginningwith
history,excavationsand the formal
classificationof data. Nextcome
descriptiveand analyticalchapters, all
organizedon the themeof utilization:
PersonalContext(clothing,ornament,
groomingand recreationaland writing
activities);HouseholdContext
(maintenanceand repair,preparation
and consumptionof food,furnishings
and storage);StructuralContext(building
components,hardware);Craftor Activity
Context(subsistenceresources,
commercial,skillsor crafts,measuring);
StructuralDescriptions;and Synthesis
and Interpretation,
the last includinga
comparisonof the Frenchand British
social systems.
The descriptionsof structuresbased
on archaeologicalevidenceare by
period:I. EarlyFrench,1715;II.Middle
French,1725-1751;III.Late French,
1751-1755;British,1755-1780.The final
chapter on archaeologicalsynthesisand
interpretationdiscusses the evidenceof
these fourperiods,notingthe relative
dependenceof the Frenchpopulationon
localresourcesand the minimalstatus
distinctionscharacterizingthe firstperiod,
an increasingfrequencyof trade goods
in the second, togetherwithan
expandedstockadeand population.
Largequantitiesof fineceramicssuch as
whitesalt-glazedstonewareand
porcelainrevealedan increasingsocial
in PeriodIII,the last
differentiation
Frenchoccupation.In the finalBritish
period,an even more highlystratified
systemwas indicatedby artifactsboth
for the civilianand militaryranks.Also,
the evidenceof garbage bone debris
showsthat the Britishwere more largely
dependent on importedfoods,especially

domesticatedanimals.
The reader may wellconcludethat
the archaeologicalevidencepointsto
majorculturaldifferencesbetweentypes
of historicsites and withinsinglesites of
differentnationalcomponents.The
Frenchwere trade-orientedand the
populationwas largelyhomogeneousin
culturalbehavior,whilethe Britishwere
highlydifferentiatedand morecomplex
in socialorganization,particularlyin the
militarysector of the camp. However,
there is a hintof suspicionin the
reviewer'smindthat had it not been for
historicalrecords,the materialevidence
could not have led to such confident
conclusions.
Ifthere is any regretin relationto the
study,it may be that once morea
publicationhas used Diderot'splatesof
craftsand industrywithoutprintinghis
text explainingthe objectswhichare
illustrated.On the wholethe publication
is well-produced.
The reportstands as a
to Americanfrontier
majorcontribution
site archaeologyand is a definitivereply
to any whomay stillbelievethat
historicalarchaeologydoes not
contributeto solvinganthropological
problems.
John L. Cotter
Philadelphia,Pennsylvania
Casements and Cannonballs:
Archeological Investigations
at Fort Stanwix, Rome, New
York
by LeeHanson and DickPing Hsu.xii,
39 blackand
177pages, frontispiece,
whitephotographs,25 text figures,1
map, 13 plans, 38 tables. National Park
Service,Washington,D.C.1975
in Archeology14)$3.60
(Publications
Underthe controlof American
from1776 to 1781, the
revolutionaries
Britishcolonialoutpostof FortStanwix
was the scene of intense
British-American
fighting,and according
to the authorsof this monograph,
"playeda key role in the American
Revolution,servingas a plugto one of
the two maininvasionroutesbetween
Archaeology Magazine - July 1976

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Archaeology Magazine - July 1976
