Thesis Proposal Meeting

Creating a Chronological Classification Using Analyses of Buttons from British Period Fur Trading Posts throughout the Upper Midwest, 1763-

1821

May 6, 2015Stewart Hall, Room 221

by Brett R. EwaldMaster's Candidate

Cultural Resource Management Archaeology (CRM A)St. Cloud State University

Thanks!

• I want to say and express thanks to my committee for agreeing to be on my committee, for reading my proposal, for facilitating approvals and signatures, and for attending this meeting.

• Now, onto my presentation…

Meeting Overview• Introduction• Problem Statement• Research Question• Data Needed

– Buttons – Historic Context– Archaeological Context

• Post-Depositional Processes

• Differential Preservation• Archaeological Recovery

• Classification• Button Parts• Orientation

• Analysis– DAACS– Radius Measurements– Comparison

• Material• Size• Photographs

• Expected Outcomes & Conclusions

Introduction• The British Fur Trade Period in North America, 1763 -1821. • The nexus of the fur trade was the trading post, where North American furs and European goods were exchanged.

• During this time innumerable buttons were packaged, shipped, and portaged to hundreds of dispersed posts.

• These buttons were deposited in historic times and recovered in modern times by archaeologists.

• Little research into buttons from this period and within the Upper Midwest has been undertaken.

• Archaeologically recovered buttons may yield historical context, insights into cultural affiliation, and determine site function.

• This study aims to classify buttons chronologically, by employing analyses of excavated buttons from numerous short term, historically documented trading posts from the Upper Midwest.

Problem Statement

Chambers’ Cyclopædia: or, an Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences, 1728

“Major diagnostic features of each button category are described briefly; detailed verbal descriptions have been avoided since most specimens are

illustrated.” Stone, Fort Michilimackinac,1974

Through history there exists a lack of descriptive detail concerning buttons, as demonstrated in the above quotes. This same lack of detail towards buttons is consistent in modern archaeological literature.

RESEARCH QUESTION

In this research I propose to address the question of dating buttons by constructing a classificatory system using information gleaned from the buttons as artifacts, the history of transactions at those trading posts they were recovered from, and the history of the many processes that went into designing, manufacturing, trading, and using buttons.

1) Is it possible to construct a chronological classification for buttons using comparisons and analyses of examples recovered from trading posts dating to the British Period of the Fur Trade in North America, 1763-1821?

Historical BackgroundThe North American Fur Trade spurned international trade of both goods and ideas between the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, and a bit beyond.

It was to be a large part of one of the great cultural exchanges in history.

The fur trade brought a certain artifact suite, Trade Goods, into the interior of the continent to places that likely would not have seen the same artifacts until decades later. The traders themselves brought trade goods and their own goods into this interior and traded, used, and lost the same.

It was this concerted international trade that left behind what this study aims to research through classification and analysis, the glorious, nearly indispensable button!

Data NeededThe buttons come from mostly British Period HBC posts, with a few from NWC posts, and some from a single XY Co post, which is adjacent to a NWC post.

The Horseshoe Bay site, dated to beginning after the end of the British Period, may actually have origins from the later part of the British Period.

Post Nam e Site No. Locality Period Date Range Excavated Ow nership Contact Person No. of Buttons

Connor's Post 21PN0011 Pine City, M N NW C 1802-03 1963-64, 66 M N State M NHS 24

Grand Portage N. M . 21CK0006 Grand Portage, M N NW C 1765-18041936-37, 62-64, 70-71 Federal Bill Clayton 233

Fort Charlotte 21CK0007 Grand Portage, M N NW C 1765-1804 1972-76 Federal Bill Clayton 50Horseshoe Bay 21CA0201 W alker, M N unk ~1830's-60's 1989-90 Federal CNF & SNF 86

Forts Folle Avoine 47BT0026 Danbury, W I NW C & XYC 1802-18031970, 1978-

79 PrivateM r. Steve W ierschem 27

Fort W illiam Thunder Bay, ON Fr., NW C & HBC NW C 1803-20 1970 ProvincialPaige Cam pbell/ Robert von Bitter 3

Longlac Post DkIp-1 Oakes, ON Fr., NW C & HBC 1750-1830 1964; 1997 unkPaige Cam pbell/ Robert von Bitter 95

M artin Falls House EjIp-1 unk, ON HBC 1794-1923 unkPaige Cam pbell/ Robert von Bitter

W hitefish Lake HBC Post , ON HBC unk unk unk Paige Cam pbellSand Point HBC Post DiJa-2 Kilkenny, ON HBC unk 1970-72 unk Paige Cam pbellSipiwesk Lake House GgLk-19 Central M B HBC 1792-96 TM M Kevin BrownleeThreepoint House GkLr-3 Pukatawagan, M B HBC 1795-97 TM M Kevin BrownleeW uskwatim Post GjLp-20 W innipeg, M B HBC 1793-pre1821 2000 TM M Kevin Brownlee 33Poplar Point HeLu-2 W innipeg, M B HBC & NW C likely early 1800's 1996 TM M Kevin BrownleePine Fort DkLt-1 , M B NW C unk TM M Kevin BrownleeFort Rivière Trem blante EiM k-1 Kam back, SK NW C 1791-98 1980's TM M Kevin Brownlee 112

663

Data Needed, Historic Context

Hudson’s Bay and North West Companies Records

• Available in person at The Manitoba Museum (TMM), Hudson’s Bay company Archives (HBCA) located in Winnipeg, MB or through microfilm loanCreator

Record Num ber Record Title

Date Range Location Codes Short Com m ents

Governor and Com m ittee 8710 W arehouse account books 1734-1791 A.56/1-A.56/4

Records contain paym ents to em ployees, officials involved in the landing of HBC ships, suppliers and tradesm en.

Governor and Com m ittee 8179

Invoice book of shipm ents to Hudson Bay 1684-1911 A.24/1-A.24/45

Details of the type, quantity, destination, and value of shipm ents. Contains stock books of the Packing Departm ent, showing stocks of packing m aterial on hand and nam es of suppliers of goods.

Governor and Com m ittee 8188

Book of m erchandise exported to HBC posts 1737-1854 A.25/1-A.25/7

M erchandise ordered for export to Hudson's Bay Com pany posts, including food supplies, clothing, linens, tools, guns, equipm ent for ships, and stationery.

Governor and Com m ittee 8190

Indent books for HBC factory stores 1738-1831 A.26/1-A.26/21

Orders for provisioning various Hudson's Bay Com pany factory stores. Com m odities listed include food, stationery, cloth and clothing, m edicines, garden seeds, hardware, tobacco and snuff, and toiletries.

Governor and Com m ittee 8196

Order books of goods for posts 1799-1819 A.27/1-A.27/4

Orders for goods and provisions for HBC posts, listing supplies in alphabetical order and noting the quantity ordered by each post.

Posts varies B.1-B.258Post journals, account books, reports on districts, correspondence books, correspondence inward, and m iscellaneous item s.

Ships' M iscellaneous Papers 1695-1972 C.7/1-C.7/190

Includes accounts, receipts, bills of lading, inventories, cargo m anifests and other records of provisions and stores.

Fond #1-7 F.1 North W est Com pany 1768-1851

Data Needed, Archaeological Context

• One of the rare locations with contemporaneous and adjacent competing trading company posts.

• Forts Folle Avoine, NW and XY Co.’s Posts, near Danbury, WI

Data Needed, Archaeological Context

• Post-Depositional ProcessesThis portion of the excavation will be studied

if it was initially recorded, and added to the site report.

• Differential PreservationNature of metallic and organic buttons.Site specific preservation.

• Archaeological RecoveryGather documentation of the time that the buttons

were discovered or recovered, and the events that have transpired since.

Classification Overview Stone -1974Formal Artifact Classification

DAACS -2014 Physical Button Attributes

Jackson -2005 Summary of Button Research Physical Attributes

Ewald Thesis -2015Button Chronological Classification

ClassificationFORMAL CLASSIFICATION CONSTRUCTION

Stone, Lyle M. 1974 Fort Michilimackinac 1715-1781, An Archaeological Perspective on the Revolutionary Frontier, pp. 19-23.1. Identify button physical properties2. Determine button classificatory attributes3. Rank attributes based on chronological

importance4. Name and describe ranked levels5. Sort by group and assign descriptive categories6. Measure and note and observed relationships7. Compare buttons to the historic record8. Describe the findings

Classification• Digital Archaeological Archive of Comparative

Slavery (DAACS), 2014Artifa

ct Co

unt

Comp

leteness

Material

Manufacturing Te

chnique

Button Type

Button S

hape

Button C

olor

Button Me

tal C

olor

Decoration?

Eye

Shank M

aterial

Shank S

tyle

Shank C

ondition

Button W

eight

Button H

eight (T

hick

ness

)

Button D

iameter

Button L

ength

Button Width

Button B

ack S

tamp

Decorative Te

chnique

Jewe

l/Inlay

Material

Decorative T

echniqu

e Co

lor

Decorative Mo

tif

Button F

ace Ma

terial

Button Fa

ce Manu.Te

ch.

Button Join Meth

od

Burned

Post-Manufa

cturing M

odific

ation

Conservation

Spatial

Temporal

Them

atic

Archaeologica

l Context

DAACS (2014) 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 4.1 4.2 4.3 5.1 5.2 5.3 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4Em ilio (1911) x x x xJohnson (1948)W oolworth (1960) x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xOlsen (1963) x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xSouth (1964) x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xNystuen (1969) x x x x x x x x x xStone (1974) x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xHanson & Hsu (1975) x x x x x x x x x x x x x ? x x x x x x xSouth (1975)Ross (1976) x xForsm an (1979) x x x xW hite (2002)

ContextM ain M easurm ents Decor/Back Stam p 2 Piece Info Condition

ClassificationSUMMARY OF BUTTON PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES

Jackson, Misty M. 2005 Classifications by historical archaeologists and eighteenth century Montreal merchants and military personnel in New France: Emic and etic approaches, pp. 163-165. Dissertation.

1st 2nd 3rd 4thGENERAL M ethod of m anufacture M aterial Decoration Shape

Grim m (1970) Construction M aterial Decoration n/aGood (1972) M aterial Shape M ethod of attachm ent M ethod of attachm entStone (1974) M aterial Shape Decoration Function

Hanson and Hsu (1975) Construction, SeriesM aterial and additional

m anufacture details, Type Decoration, Variety n/aBrian (1979) M aterial Shape Construction M ethod of attachm ent

Hulse (1977) [Buckles?] M aterial Shape Decoration n/aStan. South (Hum e, 1991) M ethod of m anufacture M aterial Decoration Shape

M arier (1996) M aterial M ethod of attachm ent Form of face and back DecorationJackson (2005) M ethod of m anufacture M aterial Decoration Shape

Classification• This table shows a sampling of additional button classification schemes

encountered during this research. • From the beginning of archaeological button research attributes of

material type and method of manufacture have often been ranked first or second.

• Hinks’ “Number of Components”, borrowed from the 1960’s, encompasses material type, method of manufacture, and method of attachment. This has become more popular in recent decades.

1st 2nd 3rd 4thWoolworth (1960) M aterial Size M ethod of attachm ent Quality M arks (Backm arks)

Olsen (1963) M ethod of m anufacture M aterial M ethod of attachm ent DecorationS outh (1964) M ethod of m anufacture M aterial M ethod of attachm ent Profile

Dawson (1969) M aterial M ethod of m anufacture M ethod of attachm ent DecorationNysteun (1969) Olsen (1963) & South (1964) M aterial Size Quality M arks (Backm arks)Grim m (1970) M ethod of m anufacture M aterial Decoration n/aGood (1972) M aterial Shape M ethod of attachm ent M ethod of attachm entStone (1974) M aterial Shape Decoration Function

Hanson and Hsu (1975) M ethod of m anufacture, Series

M aterial and additional m anufacture details, Type Decoration, Variety n/a

Decoration Additional m anufacture detailsShank 'Type' Decoration

Hulse (1977) [Buckles ] M aterial Shape Decoration n/aBrian (1979) M aterial Shape Construction M ethod of attachm ent

Oerichbaeur (1982) Olsen (1963) Decoration Quality M arks (Backm arks) ProfileHinks (1988) Num ber of com ponents M ethod of m anufacture M aterial M ethod of attachm ent

Stan. South (Hum e, 1991) M ethod of m anufacture M aterial Decoration ShapeM arier (1996) M aterial M ethod of attachm ent Form of face and back DecorationWhite (2002) Num ber of com ponents M ethod of m anufacture M aterial

Variety (shank type, finishing, m aterial types, and others)

Jackson (2005) M ethod of m anufacture M aterial Decoration Shape

Birk (2008) M aterialM ethod of m anufacture/ Num ber of com ponents M ethod of attachm ent n/a

Birk (2013) M ethod of m anufacture Decoration M aterial Size

M aterial M ethod of m anufactureR oss (1976)

Button Parts• The orientation section aims to create standardization of

buttons with descriptions and definitions.• This will enable an archaeologist to orient a button in the

field, thereby quickly determining what parts are present or absent and what is the front or back, top or bottom, and determine an date range.

Orientation• The orientation section aims to create standardization of buttons with

descriptions and definitions.

• Orientation will enable an archaeologist to field identify what parts are present or absent, which is the front or back, top or bottom, and determine a date range.

U.S. Air Force “Coat” Button U.S. Air Force “Coat” Button U.S. Air Force “Epaulet” Button Showing button ‘bottom’ and Showing button ‘bottom’ and Showing button ‘side’ and‘horizontal’ shank. ‘horizontal’ shank. ‘vertical’ shank.

Analysis, DAACS• DAACS Button Manual (2014) is the basis for

classification and analysis for this study. Additional analyses are noted in radius, material, and other sections. DAACS 2014

1.1 Artifact Count 2.1 Decorative Technique1.2 Completeness 2.2 Jewel/Inlay Material1.3 Manufacturing Technique 2.3 Decorative Technique Color1.4 Type 2.4 Decorative Motif1.5 Shape 3.1 Burned1.6 Material 3.2 Conservation

1.7 Material, Face 3.3 Post-Manufacturing Modification

1.8 Manufacturing Technique, Face1.9 Join Method

1.10 Color1.11 Eye1.12 Shank Style1.13 Shank Material1.14 Shank Condition1.15 Metal Color1.16 Back Stamp

Analysis, Radius Measurements• Buttons are often round in shape and composed of a combination of round

and flat parts.

• By employing radius measurement tools in button analyses, it may be possible to better understand the methods of manufacture and design.

• Subtle variations of button attributes may yield diagnostic markers or more detailed seriation.

Analysis, Comparison• Material, DAACS 2014

Determining the type or types of material(s) present in or on a button has always proven difficult. There are low tech., non-invasive methods for certain metals, such as a magnet, to invasive lead content tests, to high-tech, minimally invasive XRF. For the purposes of this study, mostly low-tech., and non-invasive methods will be employed.

Geochem icalHardnessStreak

ReactivityMagnetivity

W eight to size ratioUltra-Violet (UV) Lighting

X-RayMicroscopyDiaphaneity

Luster

Metal or Non-m etal

AnalysisCommon and Uncommon Measurements

AnalysisCommon and Uncommon Measurements

AnalysisRoss, Lester A. (1983)Dunning, Phil (2004/2005)Franzen, John G. (2004)W ilson, Douglas et alli (2003)Dailey, Robert C. et alli (1972)

Shank Measurem ent Brown (1975)Shank Eye Bore Measurem ent Brown (1975)

Shape Dailey, Robert C. et alli (1972)Oerichbauer, Edgar S. (1981)Dunning, Phil (2004/2005)Dailey, Robert C. et alli (1972)Tice, W arren (2002)Johnson, David F. (1948)Claasen, Cheryl I. (1994)Miller, Carl F. (1960)Stone, Lyle (1974)Gerow, Peggy (2004)Birk, Douglas A. (2008)

Button Diam eter Frequencies Kaklins, Karlis (1983)Com pleteness W ilson, Douglas et alli (2003)Edge/Border/Rim Dailey, Robert C. et alli (1972)

Profile

Comparative

Length

Measurements

Cross-Section

Ross, Lester A. (1983)Dunning, Phil (2004/2005)Franzen, John G. (2004)Ferris, Glenn J. (1985)Sm ith, C. W ayne (2002)W ilson, Douglas et alli (2003)Dailey, Robert C. et alli (1972)

Inches Ferris, Glenn J. (1985)Ross, Lester A. (1983)Ferris, Glenn J. (1985)Ross, Lester A. (1983)Ross, Lester A. (1983)Ferris, Glenn J. (1985)Ross, Lester A. (1983)Dailey, Robert C. et alli (1972)

Metrological (Absolute)

Lignes or Lines

Size

Relative

METRIC (Millim eters or Centim eters)

Analysis, ComparisonButton diameter is the most constant metrological measurement used in North American archaeological button research.

The table shown below is an Excel spreadsheet for inputting the button diameter measurements in millimeters or if incomplete, the radius measurement. [Diameter = 2 Radius]

The first two columns, ‘Metric, mm’, are for entering each button diameter twice. These two columns must match, otherwise the third column will show ‘fix’. If they match it shows ‘OK’.

The visible columns, and many more hidden columns, are all active formulas that contain conditional statements, indexing rounding, and others. The headers contain additional information, including the sources of the historic measurements.

M etric, m m M etric, m m OK 10th/inch Inch, 8th Inch, 32nd Lignes (Fr) Lines (Br) Button Size Garm ent Size Coin Equivelant18.78 18.78 OK 0.7 3/4 3/4 8.5 30 Large W aistcoat or Coat Cent21.22 21.22 OK 0.8 3/4 27/32 9.5 34 Large Coat Nickle

25 25 OK 1.0 1 0/8 31/32 11 40 Large Coat 012.33 12.33 OK 0.5 1/2 1/2 5.5 20 M edium 0 0

1 1 OK 0.0 1/32 0.5 2 Sm all 0 033.3 33.3 OK 1.3 1 1/4 1 5/16 15 52 Large Coat 027.8 27.8 OK 1.1 1 1 3/32 12.5 44 Large Coat 016 16 OK 0.6 5/8 5/8 7 26 M edium Sleeve* or W aistcoat 0

25.4 25.4 OK 1.0 1 1 11.5 40 Large Coat 055.5 55.5 OK 2.2 2 1/8 2 3/16 24.5 88 Large Coat 023.55 23.55 OK 0.9 7/8 15/16 10.5 38 Large Coat Quarter

15 15 OK 0.6 1/2 19/32 6.5 24 M edium Sleeve* or W aistcoat 03.5 3.5 OK 0.1 1/8 1/8 1.5 6 Sm all 0 0

11.99 11.99 OK 0.5 4/8 15/32 5.5 18 Sm all 0 038 37 fix 1.5 1 4/8 1 15/32 16.5 58 Large Coat 0

5.64 5.64 OK 0.2 2/8 7/32 2.5 8 Sm all 0 018 18 OK 0.7 6/8 23/32 8 28 Large W aistcoat or Coat Dim e

Expected Outcomes and Conclusions

• A chronological classification should be able to be constructed using Stone’s formal artifact classification outline, supplemented by existing typologies, derived from analyses on the physical properties of buttons, and historic sources on button design, manufacturing, trade, and use.

• Existing and new analyses, of measurements and comparisons, will be of varied use in constructing the classification. Individual results will be recorded, summarizing which new or existing analyses ‘worked’ and which did not. Research into historic button manufacturing processes, used as another line of evidence in the classification, should prove useful. Research at the HBCA, of trade goods, bills of lading, post inventories and histories, will yield copious amounts of data.

• Combining multiple lines of historical and archaeological evidence will culminate in a useable chronological classification of buttons from the British Period of the Fur Trade, 1763-1821. This study will reveal insights into button technology, design, manufacturing, trade, and use. These will yield further detailed chronological markers for buttons. These markers will allow archaeologists to better date and define fur trade era sites.

• Multiple, geographically dispersed single or dual component trading post sites within limited temporal periods should yield more constricted button date ranges than are currently known. The beginnings of a button “tool kit” for buttons recovered from British Period trading posts, either HBC or NWC may be revealed. This may culminate in a larger trade goods tool kit of period artifacts at posts.

Thank you again.