Content uploaded by David Maki
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by David Maki on Mar 07, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Mark Axel Tveskov
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mark Axel Tveskov on Mar 01, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
ARTICLE
EVERY RUSTY NAIL IS SACRED, EVERY RUSTY NAIL IS GOOD:
CONFLICT ARCHAEOLOGY, REMOTE SENSING, AND COMMUNITY
ENGAGEMENT AT A NORTHWEST COAST SETTLER FORT
Mark Axel Tveskov, Chelsea Rose, Geoffrey Jones, and David Maki
Archaeological investigations at Miners’Fort, a mid-nineteenth-century settler fort located in the US Northwest, is part of a
larger inquiry into conflict archaeology and historical memory of settler colonialism and warfare in the region. Built by gold
miners, Miners’Fort overlooked the Pacific Ocean and was used significantly when the Tututni, Joshua, and Mikonotunne
besieged it for a month during the Rogue River War of 1855–1856. Archaeological excavation targeting anomalies discovered
through remote sensing revealed several features in context, including an indigenously designed hearth built by one or more
Native American women who were wives of some settlers. Public archaeology created an opportunity for community building
that included descendants of both settlers and indigenous people of the area. Although excavation is destructive to archaeo-
logical deposits, by implementing remote sensing and involving the public in the excavationprocess, a more accurate historical
narrative can emerge, as well as a sense of ownership and inclusion among diverse stakeholders.
Investigaciones arqueológicas en el Fuerte de Mineros (Miners’Fort), un fuerte del siglo 19, ubicado en el noroeste de norte
américa, son parte de una investigación más grande de la arqueología del conflicto y memoria histórica de colonialismo y
guerra en la región. Construido por mineros de oro, el Fuerte de Mineros dio vista al Océano Pacifico y fue utilizado inten-
samente cuando los grupos indígenas Tututni, Joshua, y Mikonotunne lo cercaron por un mes durante la guerra “Rogue
River”de 1855–1856. Excavaciones arqueológicas fueron diseñadas para investigar anomalías identificadas por percepción
remota, y descubrieron unas estructuras arqueológicas ‘in situ’, incluyendo un fogón de diseño indígena construido por la
esposa nativa americana de un colono europeo. La arqueológica publica dio la oportunidad de conectarse con la comunidad,
incluyendo con los descendentes de ambos colonos europeos e indígenas. Aunque la excavación es destructiva a los restos
arqueológicos, sostenemos que combinar la percepción remota, la excavación, y la arqueología publica puede permitir
que emerja una narrativa histórica más matizada y un sentido de propiedad e inclusión entre diversas partes interesadas.
Since at least the 1970s, archaeological sites
have been conceptualized as nonrenewable
resources that require conservation, and
excavation has been recognized as destructive
to that resource. In North America, the entrée
and involvement of descent communities in the
archaeological process has accelerated concerns
about site preservation, the necessity of consult-
ation, and the need to incorporate the protocols
of these communities in archaeological research
designs and interpretations (see Gonzalez
2016). In this context, the noninvasive nature of
remote sensing can be an asset (Arnott and
Maki 2019; Sunseri and Byram 2017; see also
Bevan 1998; Conyers 2013; Heimmer and De
Vore 1995; Horsley et al. 2014; Mussett and
Khan 2000). Why excavate an archaeological
site and destroy those cultural deposits when
seemingly ever-improving technology can allow
us to see beneath the ground without digging?
Mark Axel Tveskov ▪Southern Oregon University Laboratory of Anthropology, Southern Oregon University, 1250 Siskiyou
Blvd., Ashland, OR 97520, USA (tveskovm@sou.edu, corresponding author)
Chelsea Rose ▪Southern Oregon University Laboratory of Anthropology, Southern Oregon University, 1250 Siskiyou Blvd.,
Ashland, OR 97520, USA
Geoffrey Jones ▪Archaeo-Physics, LLC, 4150 Dight Avenue #110, Minneapolis, MN 55406, USA
David Maki ▪Archaeo-Physics, LLC, 4150 Dight Avenue #110, Minneapolis, MN 55406, USA
American Antiquity 84(1), 2019, pp. 48–67
Copyright © 2019 by the Society for American Archaeology
doi:10.1017/aaq.2018.80
48
Further, Sunseri and Byram (2017:1) caution that
archaeological excavation disrupts stratigraphic
subtleties, risking “desecration of the sacred.”
Miners’Fort was built by gold miners on the
southern coast of Oregon during the Rogue River
War of 1855–1856 and has remained an import-
ant signifier of settler colonialism in local and
regional historical memory. The Southern
Oregon University Laboratory of Anthropology
(SOULA), in collaboration with local descent
communities, conducted archaeological excava-
tions at the site in 2016. Among our project’s
goals were to have an informed public dialogue
about settler colonialism and to facilitate access
to and a sense of ownership of the archaeological
process through public archaeology on the site.
This combination of remote sensing, horizontal
excavating, and inclusive public programing
fostered a critical dialogue about the site and its
significance. We argue that this dialogue would
have been less rich, nuanced, and inclusive
had we regarded the original stratigraphic prove-
niences of the artifacts at Miners’Fort as de facto
sacrosanct and subject solely to remote sensing
and light archaeological testing for an audience
of heritage officials and academics (Figure 1).
The technology and accessibility of remote
sensing have improved in recent years (Whittaker
2009:57; see also Arnott and Maki 2019;
Conyers 2006,2013; Gaffney and Gater 2006;
Hanna 2011; Horsley et al. 2014; Kvamme
2001,2003; McBride and McBride 2011; Orr
and Steele 2011; Somers 1998; Sunseri and
Byram 2017; Witten 2006). Remote sensing
applications gather geospatial information to
capture subtle changes in topography, vegeta-
tion, or other geomorphological and anthropo-
genic landscape characteristics and include
studying aerial photographs, collecting and
analyzing light detection and ranging (lidar)
data,
1
and applying geophysical survey methods
such as ground-penetrating radar (GPR), mag-
netometer, electromagnetic induction (EMI), or
earth resistance survey (see Arnott and Maki
2019; Byram 2005,2013; Clark, 1996; Conyers
2013; Hanna 2011; Kvamme 2001,2003;
Somers 1998; Whittaker 2009). Historic maps,
like other remote sensing tools, yield geospatial
information with their own characteristic set of
opportunities and limitations and have been
used analogously by archaeologists with greater
frequency (e.g., Byram 2013; Panich et al.
2018; Tveskov and Johnson 2014).
All these techniques have been applied in
conflict archaeology when battlefield artifacts,
fortifications, trenches, and other substantial fea-
tures are found (Byram 2005,2013; Hanna 2011;
Hargrave 1999; Nassaney et al. 2004; Parrington
1979; Williams and Shapiro 1982). Somers
(1998) used resistivity and magnetic gradient
survey to identify artifact scatters and architec-
tural features at Fort Laramie, Wyoming; Whit-
taker (2009) used GPR to study the interior of
nineteenth-century US Army fortifications in
Iowa and Wisconsin; Arnott and Maki (2019)
used lidar and GPR survey to demonstrate how
US Army forts in the Dakotas were often pur-
posely situated over indigenous burial mounds;
and Maki (2013) used lidar and earth resistance
survey to detect temporary rifle pits and trenches
from the Battle of Wood Lake (the final battle of
the US-Dakota War of 1862) in Minnesota.
Metal detectors are amenable to the study of
battlefields characterized by broadly dispersed
distributions of lead munitions (Hanna 2011:12)
and have been used to great effect in the survey
and forensic interpretation of the 1876 Little
Big Horn battlefield (Scott et al. 1989), the
1778 Monmouth battlefield of the Revolutionary
War (Starbuck 2011:12), the 1637 Mystic Fort
battle of the Pequot War (McBride et al. 2017),
and the 1812 Battle of Caulk’s Field in Maryland
(Lucas and Schablitsky 2014). In addition, metal
detector survey was combined with EMI survey
to map projectiles and other battle artifacts
from the battlefield of Wood Lake (Arnott and
Maki 2016).
Along the north Pacific coast of North
America, Allan (1997) employed a magnetom-
eter survey to identify features at the early nine-
teenth-century Russian outpost of Fort Ross on
the northern California coast. In addition, Cross
and Voss (1996) used magnetometer and GPR
surveys to identify subsurface features at the Pre-
sidio de San Francisco. Byram (2013) reviewed
the 1852 field notes and archived maps of the
United States Coast Survey to triangulate the
location of significant historic-era sites on the
West Coast, including several mid-nineteenth-
century US Army and settler fortifications.
Tveskov et al.] 49EVERY RUSTY NAIL IS SACRED, EVERY RUSTY NAIL IS GOOD
Magnetometer, GPR, EMI, and earth resistance
surveys are routinely used by the National Park
Service to manage and interpret the archaeo-
logical record at Fort Vancouver National His-
toric Site on the banks of the Columbia River,
the location of the Hudson’s Bay Company’s
headquarters in the early nineteenth century,
and, later, the locale of the US Army’s Vancou-
ver Barracks (e.g., Bell 1991; Conyers 2000;
Conyers and Amanti 2003; Dalan-Daut, 1986;
De Vore 2012; Edwards and Thorsgard 2013;
McDonald 2000). GPR survey was also used
by the University of Oregon at the US Army’s
Fort Klamath (1864–1890) to identify the
location of subsurface features (O’Grady 2014;
see also Tveskov et al. 2015a).
Remote sensing has been part of SOULA’s
research on sites associated with the Rogue
River War. Cartographic, lidar, and magnetom-
eter surveys were used to identify the subsurface
remains of structures at the US Army’s Fort Lane
(Tveskov and Johnson 2014; McDonald 2008),
and a metal detector and lidar survey was used
to identify and evaluate the location of the Battle
of Hungry Hill (October 31–November 1, 1855),
when a small group of Native Americans defeat a
larger force of US Army dragoons and citizen
volunteers in a two-day battle (Tveskov 2015,
Figure 1. The location of Miners’Fort on the southern Oregon coast at the time of the northern California and southern
Oregon gold rush. Locales mentioned in the text are noted as well.
50 [Vol. 84, No. 1, 2019AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
2017). Byram’s coast survey research identified
the Camp Castaway site, which included the
remains of the Captain Lincoln, a US Army
schooner used to transport US Army dragoons
to the Oregon Territory in 1852. The ship
wrecked on the north spit of Coos Bay that Janu-
ary, marooning the men and a large cache of sup-
plies on the beach (Byram 2013; Tveskov et al.
2015b). GPR was used during the Camp Cast-
away project and helped identify clusters of arti-
facts remaining from the camp, including parts of
the ship. Metal detectors were also employed to
investigate the locale of the Battle of Big Bend
(May 26–27, 1856), where the indigenous forces
of southern Oregon were finally defeated by the
United States Army (Applen 1997; Tveskov
and Johnson 2018).
At times, dialectic and even tension seem to
exist between the literature and the on-the-
ground application of remote sensing. In avail-
able articles and reports, geophysical survey is
presented with a promise of archaeology that is
less destructive to the archaeological record
(e.g., Sunseri and Byram 2017:1; see also
Conyers 2013; Horsley et al. 2014). A resource
thus preserved and interiorgraphed will be avail-
able for future consideration as the technology of
geophysical survey advances (cf. Sunseri and
Byram 2017). However, our experiences and a
review of the literature suggest that in practical
application, the results of geophysical surveys
often remain underreported, and the results can
be ambiguous, especially when only one
technique is used or when not verified through
excavation. Published results often document
noise from less ideal soil conditions or modern
disturbances that obscure remote sensing
signals and reduce the clarity or usefulness of
the resulting data (e.g., Cross and Voss 1996;
Horsley et al. 2014:84; O’Grady 2014; Whittaker
2009). In the case of the work at Fort Klamath,
for example, soil anomalies possibly associated
with significant features remained subject to
interpretation because construction disturbance
was present and excavation was not performed
to assess the actual nature of the identified
features (O’Grady 2014:13).
A better understanding of the physical struc-
ture of a site is often achieved when several
remote sensing techniques are employed, and
their results are verified through excavation
(McKinnon and Haley 2017; Tveskov and John-
son 2014; Wilson and Langford 2011). McKin-
non and Haley (2017) and Horsley and
colleagues (2014:84) point out that this is espe-
cially the case when remote sensing is guided
by anthropological or management questions
posed in a research design. At Fort Vancouver
and Fort Lane, remote sensing and traditional
archaeological excavation were used in a prob-
abilistic manner to allow the interior of the sites
to be delineated to assist ongoing site manage-
ment, conservation, and interpretation (Tveskov
and Johnson 2014; Wilson and Langford
2011). At these Pacific Northwest fortifications,
additional value was added by combining remote
sensing and excavation with public archaeology
programs, open houses, and field schools that
engaged local stakeholders (Wilson and Lang-
ford 2011; Tveskov and Cohen 2014; Tveskov
and Rose 2019). Tapping into some notion of
how archaeology is conducted—where students
from the local university uncovered the past
with their trowels—community efforts asso-
ciated with the Fort Lane project led the State
of Oregon to acquire the property to develop it
as a State Heritage Area in the Oregon State
Parks system.
At Miners’Fort, we hoped to learn about
the integrity, research potential, and physical
boundaries of the site; teach students excavation
techniques; and engage the local and statewide
community (including both settler and indigen-
ous descendants) in a public dialogue about
history, archaeology, and settler colonialism
(Figure 2). We used several remote sensing tech-
niques and conducted archaeological excavation
at the site. While in the field, we hosted on-site
open houses and organized a weekly evening lec-
ture and discussion series. Miners’Fort, a small
earthen revetment, is amenable to these activities
because it is relatively small (less than 2,500 m
2
),
thereby reducing the logistical complexity and
cost of the fieldwork. It was occupied for about
one month in a manner described in some detail
in primary documentation. The site was not over-
written by subsequent construction, essentially
leaving it to dilapidate in a relatively flat pasture.
Miners’Fort remained in the historical memory
of the local community, and although discing
Tveskov et al.] 51EVERY RUSTY NAIL IS SACRED, EVERY RUSTY NAIL IS GOOD
and some looting have occurred, a significant
community investment protected it from the
depredations of large-scale pot-hunting. In the
1970s (as detailed below), a local surveyor
marked the corners of the fort with brass pins,
and the local community maintained signage at
the site and held periodic picnics and historic
reenactments on the property.
2
The site was
used by settlers, several indigenous people, and
at least one person of African descent. Families
from at least three indigenous groups —the Con-
federated Tribes of Siletz, the Coquille Indian
Tribe, and the Tolowa Dee-ni´—have oral histor-
ies linked to Miners’Fort and the Rogue River
War generally.
Research by SOULA and Archaeo-Physics
included GIS-based aerial photography and
lidar analysis, magnetic field gradient survey,
and earth resistance survey. After these were
completed, Southern Oregon University hosted
an archaeological field school and public archae-
ology program at the site, where excavations
sampled areas of the fort identified by remote
sensing. A rich and diverse assemblage of period
artifacts associated with several domestic and
architectural features was recovered. Despite
taking place in a very rural area, the open houses
and weekly lectures were attended by hundreds
of people, several of whom claimed settler or
indigenous ancestry directly related to people
living there during the Rogue River War.
Some individuals donated artifacts excavated
informally from the site over the years or
provided anecdotes, newspaper clippings, and
insights about the site’s history. Others contribu-
ted family oral histories drawn from their settler
or indigenous ancestors relating to the Rogue
River War, including the experiences of named
individuals who were participants in the events
at the fort. Several newspapers and a regional
correspondent for National Public Radio (NPR)
reported on the project. The NPR story was
picked up by the Here and Now program,
bringing the voices of settler and indigenous des-
cendants and archaeologists to an international
audience.
3
Miners’Fort and the Rogue River War,
1855–1856
While Spanish and English imperialism exerted
influence to the north and south during the
early nineteenth century, settler colonialism
was slow to directly intrude on the mountainous
region that straddles the border of the modern
states of California and Oregon. Following the
Figure 2. Excavations underway at Miners’Fort during the summer of 2016. The site has remained relatively undevel-
oped and undisturbed in a field since June 1856 (Southern Oregon University Laboratory of Anthropology).
52 [Vol. 84, No. 1, 2019AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
assertion of United States hegemony in far west-
ern North America and the discovery of gold
in the late 1840s, tens of thousands of settlers
immigrated to the region, with thousands arriv-
ing virtually overnight (Beckham 1971; Douthit
2002; Schwartz 1997; Tveskov 2017; Tveskov
and Rose 2019; Whaley 2010). Hostility between
the settlers and indigenous people was immedi-
ate and persistent, punctuated by attempts at
peacemaking initiated by both sides. In 1853,
agents of the United States government nego-
tiated a treaty with the leaders of the Takelma,
Shasta, and Athapaskan-speaking people of the
interior Rogue River valley, and the Table Rock
Reservation was established. Simultaneously,
the US Army built two forts to help maintain
peace: Fort Orford on the coast and Fort Lane
in the interior Rogue River valley.
Although many settlers and indigenous peo-
ple attempted to make the terms of the treaty
work, peace was short-lived. In the fall of
1855, open war broke out after settler vigilantes
attacked a Takelma community, murdering
most of the inhabitants. Subsequently, most of
the Takelma, Shasta, and Athapaskan-speaking
people opted to fight, abandoning the reservation
to embark on a guerilla campaign against the
American settlers. After defeating a combined
force of US Army dragoons and citizen
volunteers at the Battle of Hungry Hill at the
end of October 1855, the Shasta, Takelma, and
Athapaskan-speaking people fortified them-
selves in the relatively inaccessible Rogue
River canyon that separated the interior valley
from the Pacific coast.
In that winter of 1855–1856, the small gold-
mining community at the mouth of the Rogue
River was less than two years old and was effect-
ively accessible to distant settler population
centers only by foot, a light ship, or pack mule,
given the shallow sand bar at the river mouth
and the rugged terrain of the surrounding region.
Although some families had established home-
steads, most the immigrants were young men
pursuing gold mining in the “black sand”of
the ocean beaches. At the outbreak of the war,
the only civil authorities in the region were an
agent of the federal Superintendency of Indian
Affairs, one US customs officer, and a small con-
tingent of US Army soldiers, all located at Fort
Orford some 30 difficult miles away. As conflict
erupted in the interior valleys in October 1855,
the Gold Beach settlers feared that the Tututni,
Joshua, and Mikonotunne—the Athapaskan-
speaking people who lived on either side of the
mouth of the Rogue River—would join the
fight. That fall, they began construction of what
would eventually be called Miners’Fort on the
narrow open coastal plain between the ocean
beaches and the hills to the east (Anonymous
1856a; W. J. Berry to J. Lane, letter, 30 October,
1856, Joseph Lane papers, mss 1835–1906,
Knight Library, University of Oregon, Eugene,
Oregon; R. Bledsoe to the Adjutant General of
Oregon, letter, 29 February, 1856, Yakima and
Rogue River War, document file B, reel 2, docu-
ment 566, Oregon State Archives, Salem,
Oregon).
The indigenous people of the southern
Oregon coast joined the rebellion on February
22, 1856. That night, the federal Indian Agent
and the captain of the local volunteer militia
were assassinated, and in a surprise attack,
many other settlers were murdered or taken cap-
tive. By the following afternoon, the settlement
of Gold Beach and the outlying homesteads
were in flames, and the survivors retreated into
Miners’Fort with minimal rations, firearms,
and ammunition. The siege lasted until March
20, when the settlers were rescued by 150 US
Army soldiers from Crescent City, California,
with orders to quell the indigenous rebellion in
southern Oregon (Glisan 1874:282–292; Jones
1856; Webster 1884:235–240). The number of
people within Miners’Fort varied over the
course of the siege but included about 100
white men, at least 1 African American man
(named “Negro Ned”in the documents), 5 indi-
genous men (some of whom may have been
captives), 11 children, 8 white women, and at
least 4 Indigenous women who had come to
the fort as partners of white male settlers
(Berry to Lane, 30 October, 1856; Berry et al.
1856; Bledsoe to the Adjutant General of
Oregon, 29 February, 1856; R. W. Dunbar to
J. Lane, letter, 17 March, 1856, Joseph Lane
papers, mss 1835–1906, Knight Library, Univer-
sity of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon; Glisan 1874;
Jones 1856; E. Meservey to the Adjutant General
of the Oregon Territory, letter, 9 May, 1856,
Tveskov et al.] 53EVERY RUSTY NAIL IS SACRED, EVERY RUSTY NAIL IS GOOD
Yakima and Rogue River War, document file B,
reel 2, document 574, Oregon State Archives,
Salem, Oregon; J. Walker to the Adjutant
General of the Oregon Territory, letter, 19
April 1856, Yakima and Rogue River War, docu-
ment file B, reel 2, document 574, Oregon State
Archives, Salem, Oregon; O. W. Weaver on
behalf of 42 signatories, memorial to Joseph
Lane, 1856, Joseph Lane papers, mss. 1835–
1906, Knight Library, University of Oregon,
Eugene, Oregon; Webster 1884).
Some information is available about the
architecture and internal features of Miners’
Fort. One account, penned 42 years after the
fort was abandoned and settler hegemony was
secure, described Miners’Fort proudly as an
impregnable log fort complete with a flagpole,
a wide moat “always filled with water,”and
even a drawbridge (Dodge 1898:75). More
sober narratives written at the time of the siege
indicate a more modest structure: a small revet-
ment of breast-high earthen or grass sod walls
(Dunbar to Lane, 17 March, 1856; Glisan
1874:282–292). Inside the walls were two log
cabins, the larger of which housed the settler
women, who had segregated themselves from a
small contingent of Native American women
(Jones 1856:522; Webster 1884:235–240). The
men, presumably, split between these two
cabins. One eyewitness described the cabins as
crowded “almost to suffocation,”with little
privacy to allow for modesty. Several accounts
describe muddy conditions throughout the fort,
suggesting that the cabins had unfinished floors
(Jones 1856:522). One eyewitness describes the
inhabitants smoking tobacco in the cabins and
a woman “frying pork over the fire,”but no
written descriptions of fireplaces, hearths, or
similar features are extant (Jones 1856:522).
During the siege, the fort’s inhabitants wrote a
few letters and, on at least one occasion, mana-
ged to smuggle them out to Port Orford by row-
boat. The return trip was less successful. An
attempt to resupply the fort by a whaleboat
from Port Orford met with disaster, as six men
drowned when the open boat overturned in the
surf (Berry to Lane, 30 October, 1856; Berry
et al. 1856; Bledsoe to the Adjutant General of
Oregon, 29 February, 1856; Dunbar to Lane,
17 March, 1856; Glisan 1874; Jones 1856;
Merservey to the Adjutant General of the Oregon
Territory, 9 May, 1856; Weaver memorial to
Lane 1856; Webster 1884).
The inhabitants of Miners’Fort were under
duress not only because of the primitive condi-
tions and overcrowding, but also from hunger
and the threat of violence from the besieging
force. On March 2, with rations short, six men
were killed when a group was ambushed while
venturing from the fort to forage in an abandoned
potato patch. The low fort walls offered minimal
protection, and musket fire from the besieging
forces was said to have knocked “splinters off
the roof”onto those huddled inside the cabins,
and the sentinels on duty in the fort’s bastions
had to keep their heads down under the “shower
of bullets”(Webster 1884:235–240). The defen-
ders had lost much of their ammunition and their
best weapons during the surprise attack of Febru-
ary 22, leaving them, by their own account, with
mostly “fowling pieces”(i.e., shotguns) rather
than muskets or rifles (Anonymous 1856b; Web-
ster 1884:235–240). When the army finally
arrived and lifted the siege, children emerged
from the fort and played in the surrounding
field, “glad of a chance to get out after their
month’s confinement”(Jones 1856:522). While
the settler and Native American children played
together, the settler women attempted, unsuc-
cessfully, to persuade the army officers to kill
the Native American women who had been
inside the fort with them for a month (Jones
1856:522). According to one officer, when one
white woman was informed of the Army’s reluc-
tance to murder these indigenous women, she
offered “in Lady MacBeth style to do the bloody
work with her own hands”(Jones 1856:522).
Remote Sensing at Miners’Fort
In some form, Miners’Fort had been subject to
remote sensing investigation since at least the
1960s. Local historians Dorothy Sutton and
Jack Sutton (1969:208) published a book that
included a black-and-white aerial photograph
of the area, showing a rectangular cropmark
with circular bastions in the northeast and south-
west corners. According to community members
who visited our excavations, the eroded walls
of the fort were still visible until at least the
54 [Vol. 84, No. 1, 2019AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
mid-1960s. When historian Stephen Dow Beck-
ham recorded Miners’Fort for the Oregon State
Historic Preservation Office in 1974, he learned
from Robert Knox, the property owner, that
the field had been recently disced and leveled
(Beckham 1974). According to letters on file
with the Curry County Historical Museum, that
same year, with the outline of the fort now barely
perceptible on the ground surface of the more
level pasture, local civil surveyor Howard New-
house marked the structure’s four corners with
survey monuments (“Fort Milner has been per-
manently marked,”undated anonymous docu-
ment, Forts File, Curry County Historical
Society, Gold Beach, Oregon).
Building on Sutton and Sutton (1969),
SOULA identified and scanned a time series of
aerial photographs of the site area dating to
1939, 1940, 1951, 1952, 1965, and 1969 at the
Map and Aerial Photography Library at the Uni-
versity of Oregon, and these were georeferenced
in SOULA’s GIS (ArcGIS v. 10.3). The outline
of the fort is clearly visible in the 1939 and
1940 images, showing a small rectangular struc-
ture with circular features (hypothesized to
represent bastions) in two opposite corners,
with the northeast bastion considerably larger
than the southeast (Figure 3). The site area is
washed out in the 1950s photographs, but the
fort is still evident in the 1965 image. The fort
is no longer visible in the 1969 photograph,
which also shows the results of the physical
improvements to the surrounding field, with
now very homogeneous vegetation and appar-
ently reduced local relief.
Little surface indication of the fort walls was
apparent during our initial site visits, but lidar
data was collected to determine whether any sur-
face expression remained. The lidar investigation
began by downloading raw, discrete-response
lidar data in LAZ format from the USGS Earth-
Explorer web portal.
4
The LAZ point cloud
was parsed to eliminate responses classified as
other than bare ground and exported as an x, y,
zdatafile using LAStools.
5
Data resolution was good, with lidar returns
spaced an average of 0.25 m apart, resulting in
an overall data sample density of 6.7 discrete
returns per square meter.
6
The x, y, z data file
was gridded to a uniform density of four samples
per square meter using the gridding method
known as kriging. Gridding was accomplished
using SURFER (Version 10.7.972) surface
mapping software by Golden Software.
After appropriate processing, the gridded data
were used to create imagery using lidar visualiza-
tion and analysis methods tailored for archaeo-
logical prospection (Bennett 2011; Bennett
et. al. 2012; Challis et al. 2008,2011; Hesse
2010; Kokalj et al. 2011;Štular et al. 2012).
These visualization methods have proven effect-
ive for mapping burial mounds and earthworks
during several recent projects conducted in
Minnesota (Arnott and Maki 2019; Arnott,
Brosowske, and Maki 2013; Arnott, Jones, and
Maki 2013; Artz et al. 2013; Riley et al. 2010).
Visualization methods included shaded-relief
imagery using multiple light-source azimuths,
constrained shading elevation maps, visible
sky, and solar insolation. We also used intensity
(a measure of the absorbance/reflectance of the
infrared laser pulses) as well as local relief mod-
eling to suppress large-scale topographic trends
and enhance small changes in local topography.
The shaded-relief and local-relief modeling
were most effective, and showed a rectangular
earthwork matching the images on the 1939,
1940, and 1965 aerial photographs (Figure 4).
The rectangle—presumably the walls of Miners’
Fort—measures approximately 35 m × 21 m,
with the long axis of the rectangle oriented 13
degrees east of north. The height of the walls
varies from just a few centimeters to more than
30 cm above the local surroundings. The north-
east and southwest corners of the rectangle
possess the highest elevations, representing
the bastions visible in the aerial photography.
Although there is a subtle elevated rise near the
center of the rectangular earthwork, the lidar
data yielded little evidence of internal features.
Magnetic survey was conducted at the
Miners’Fort site in March 2016 using a Geoscan
Research FM256 fluxgate gradiometer. Magnetic
field gradient survey responds to local variations
in Earth’s magnetic field that are created by sub-
surface materials. The instrument can detect very
subtle anomalies caused by organically enriched,
disturbed, or compacted soils. It is rapid and
capable of very high resolution. The chief limi-
tation is that subtle anomalies are often obscured
Tveskov et al.] 55EVERY RUSTY NAIL IS SACRED, EVERY RUSTY NAIL IS GOOD
by extraneous materials of ferrous metal,
brick, or igneous rock, and by postdepositional
disturbance (Somers 1998). Possible magnetic
survey targets that tend to be very strongly
expressed include iron and steel objects (debris
or elements of features) and brick or stone
architecture (if igneous rock was used). Where
these highly magnetic materials are not immedi-
ately present, magnetic survey can map very sub-
tle features that can be associated with
organically enriched, disturbed, or compacted
soils and sedimentary rock. Although the radius
Figure 3. Detail of a 1939 aerial photograph showing the hypothesized outline of Miners’Fort evident in crop marks.
Note the rectangular form and the bastions in the southwest and northeast corners. (Map and Aerial Photography
Library at the University of Oregon.)
Figure 4. Shaded-relief lidar image of the feature hypothesized to represent Miners’Fort, southeast light source. Despite
not being apparent to the naked eye while on site, the walls of a fort 35 m by 21 m with the bastions in the two corners are
evident.
56 [Vol. 84, No. 1, 2019AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
of response to subtle features is usually less than
a meter, metal objects may be detected at some-
what greater depth or distance. A 150 m ×
150 m grid was established centered over the
fort, as delineated by the aerial photography and
lidar survey, and this was subdivided into 50 m
x 50 m squares, referred to as survey grids. Within
the grids, data was collected at 1 m transect inter-
vals, with eight data points recorded per meter
along each transect (data sample density = 8 sam-
ples/ m
2
). With this instrument, the radius of
response to subtle features is usually less than a
meter, although strongly magnetic objects may
be detected at a somewhat greater depth or
distance.
Based on the results of the magnetic survey, a
smaller area was selected for coverage with
resistance survey, encompassing a 40 m × 60 m
area divided into 40 m × 30 m grids. A Geoscan
Research RM15 resistance meter was used to
perform the resistance survey, used in a twin-
probe configuration. An attached MPX15
multiplexer allowed simultaneous data collection
with two different mobile probe spacings (50 cm
and 100 cm). The narrower electrode spacing is
capable of higher resolution but is limited in
depth of investigation to approximately 75 cm.
The wider electrode spacing achieves approxi-
mately twice the depth of investigation but
sacrifices resolution of smaller features. The
data sample density was four samples per square
meter with the narrower electrode spacing and
two samples per square meter with the wider
electrode spacing.
Processing of both magnetic and resistance
data was performed using Geoplot software
(version 4.0). Data quality with both instruments
was very good, and only very minimal process-
ing was required. Processing of magnetic data
included a zero mean traverse filter, which com-
pensates for defects caused by instrument drift
and orientation and interpolation to a uniform
number of data points (eight per meter) in both
the x and y directions. Resistance survey data
processing included removal of extreme statis-
tical outliers (despike), merging data collected
with the two 50 cm parallel array, and interpol-
ation to a uniform number of data points ( four
per meter) in both the x and y directions. After
processing and initial analysis, resistance and
magnetic data were exported to SURFER map-
ping software for display as image maps. The
maps used in this analysis were plotted on the
archaeological site grid system rather than the
grid used for the geophysical survey.
The results of geophysical surveys of archaeo-
logical sites are generally presented graphically
because anomalies of cultural origin are gener-
ally recognized by their pattern rather than by
their numeric values. When rendered graphic-
ally, one can better recognize cultural and natural
patterns and visualize the physical phenomena
causing the detected anomalies. The magnetic
survey showed the location of a substantial rect-
angular feature with circular bastion-like features
on the northeastern and southeastern corners, a
number of internal features, and other anomalies
associated (presumably) with ferrous metal
artifacts (Figure 5). The footprints of what are
hypothesized to be the two reported cabins
within the fort’s walls were distinct, and the
northern of the two features is shown as larger
than the southern, an observation that matches
documentary evidence describing a large cabin
used by the settler women and a smaller cabin
used by the indigenous women (see Tveskov
and Rose 2019). Clusters of iron artifacts were
indicated across the fort, and four very strong
anomalies near the corners represented the steel
and brass posts placed vertically in the corner
of the fort by Howard Newhouse in 1974.
7
While the earth resistance survey did not
detect as many small features as the magnetic
data, the results were complementary (Figure 6).
It revealed features not detected magnetically,
particularly those interpreted as the fort’s walls
and bastions, which are in close concordance
with the aerial photography and lidar data, as
well as a shallow ditch outside the fort’s walls
that could represent the borrow pit of cut sod
used in the fort’s construction. It also showed
correlation with magnetic data that suggest fea-
tures of interest, including the walls of the two
cabins and the presence within each of internal
features. In particular, the earth and magnetic
surveys identified relatively discrete features,
one in the middle of what is interpreted to
be the southern portion of the large cabin and
another in the southeast corner of what is inter-
preted to be the southern cabin. These were
Tveskov et al.] 57EVERY RUSTY NAIL IS SACRED, EVERY RUSTY NAIL IS GOOD
Figure 5. The feature hypothesized to represent Miners’Fort as revealed by the magnetic survey. The locations of the
walls and bastions are delineated, as are footprints of two cabins with internal features. The northern cabin is larger.
The four strong signals in each corner indicate poles placed vertically, and two of these (in the bastions) were revealed
through excavation to be copper survey markers placed by local surveyor Howard Newhouse in 1974. Each was
left in situ.
Figure 6. The feature hypothesized to represent Miners’Fort as revealed by the earth resistance survey. These data
delineate the sod walls of the fort and bastions and some internal features, but the cabin footprints were less clear.
58 [Vol. 84, No. 1, 2019AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
hypothesized to represent hearths and were
subsequently examined with traditional archaeo-
logical excavation.
Public Archaeology
Archaeological excavation was conducted at
Miners’Fort in 2016 through a Southern Oregon
University archaeological field school. A total of
109 m
2
were excavated, including 26 individual
2 m x 2 m units and 19 individual 50 cm ×
50 cm test pits used to delineate the distribution
of artifacts around the perimeter of the site
(Figure 7). Units were placed to sample areas
of interest indicated by the geophysical survey:
several were placed around the southeast and
northwest corners of the site to determine the
footprint of the fort’s walls and bastions, and
block excavations were placed over the areas
hypothesized to be the north and south cabin
areas to target and expose some of the internal
features identified by the geophysical survey. In
all, less than 5% of the surface area of the site
and less than 30% of each cabin was excavated.
Most of each sampled feature was left in situ.
These excavations yielded a large assemblage
of mid-nineteenth-century artifacts, including
cut and hand-wrought iron nails, lead musket
balls (both fired and freshly molded), ceramic
and glass fragments, tobacco pipes, glass
beads, firearm parts, crucibles for melting lead
or gold, gunpowder container stoppers, and
many other items (Figure 8).
Most artifacts were found within 25 cm below
the ground in an organic-rich, dark brown/black,
fine, clayey loam mottled with gray fine silt. This
matrix contained little to no coarse content other
than manuports of beach or river cobbles discon-
tinuously distributed across the excavation.
While no obvious sedimentary change or com-
paction marked the floor of the fort or the internal
cabins, the artifact count clearly dropped off
below that. Several features were observed that
corresponded to those identified by the remote
sensing. The outer walls and bastions of the
fort were the most ephemeral. Relatively few
iron nails were found in these areas, and the
architecture was visible only as a slightly more
mottled and slightly more clayey soil unit that
could be followed and contoured with a trowel
only with great difficulty. This is in concordance
with the primary documents that indicate the
walls of the fort were constructed expediently
of stacked grass sod and were not significantly
reinforced with logs or other material, as some
later memoirs claimed. The west wall of the
south cabin, identified by the magnetic gradient
survey, was revealed to be a paving of river or
beach cobbles brought to the site to serve as a
wall footing or flooring in the otherwise muddy
cabin. The south wall of the southern cabin was
also identified and was a sharply linear boundary
of burned and compacted red sediment in con-
cordance with the line of the wall in the geophys-
ical plans.
Excavations within the walls of two cabins
revealed a rich signature of life within the fort.
The feature in the middle of the southern side
of the north cabin, assumed to represent the lar-
ger cabin, was a hearth composed of several
rounded cobbles in a roughly 1 m diameter
area. Inside the feature was a basin-shaped stain
of heavily burned, compacted, and oxidized red
and yellow sediment that continued up to
50 cm below the ground (Figure 9). The hearth
in the southern cabin was composed of a large
cobble pile adjacent to a burn pile of heavily oxi-
dized iron artifacts. This hearth was built in the
style of a camas oven, a lenticular platform of
cobbles used as a subterranean or semisubterra-
nean roasting oven, a feature of indigenous
design found commonly in archaeological sites
in western Oregon and elsewhere in the far
West (Figure 10).
The artifacts recovered in context through
excavations at Miners’Fort indicate something
about the social experience of the inhabitants
while under siege. The presence of clay tobacco
pipes, alcohol bottles, medicine bottles, inkwells,
lantern glass, and other domestic artifacts point
to a desperate normality inside the fort that is
belied by the dearth of faunal remains other
than miniscule particles of calcined bone, the
spread of fired musket balls found across the
fort, and burned wagon and firearms parts
found within the hearths, indicating duress from
starvation, hostile fire, and scarcity of firewood.
The urgency of their situation is also indicated
by the large number of freshly molded musket
balls and associated slag and sprues that were
Tveskov et al.] 59EVERY RUSTY NAIL IS SACRED, EVERY RUSTY NAIL IS GOOD
scattered across Miners’Fort, which was occu-
pied for one month, in number and density
greater by several orders of magnitude than
recovered from Fort Lane, which was occupied
for three years (Tveskov and Cohen 2014; Tves-
kov and Rose 2019). In contradiction to the
Figure 7. Plan view of the archaeological excavations at Miners’Fort showing the locations of the fort’s walls, bastions,
and internal cabins as identified by the remote sensing.
60 [Vol. 84, No. 1, 2019AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
written accounts, these lead munitions came not
just in the form of small pellets but also larger
round balls of a variety of calibers, indicating
that several kinds of functional weapons besides
shotguns were used. The fragments of transfer-
ware dishes and robust leaded glass vessels, as
Figure 8. Clay tobacco pipe recovered from the north cabin at Miners’Fort (Southern Oregon University Laboratory of
Anthropology).
Figure 9. Hearth feature of rounded cobbles—some displaced by field plowing—and an internal sediment matrix
of burned and reddish-yellow compacted earth located within the north cabin within Miners’Fort (Southern Oregon
University Laboratory of Anthropology).
Tveskov et al.] 61EVERY RUSTY NAIL IS SACRED, EVERY RUSTY NAIL IS GOOD
well as the large quantities and kinds of glass
beads, suggest that even in desperate flight, the
settlers prioritized saving some of the more sym-
bolic trappings of culture and status.
Summary and Conclusion
At Miners’Fort, Fort Lane, Camp Castaway, and
the Hungry Hill and Big Bend battlefields, we
would not have been able to orient ourselves as
effectively as we did by using only traditional
excavation. At Miners’Fort, remote sensing
identified surface features not visible to the
naked eye and efficiently identified subsurface
architectural and domestic features. Subsequent
excavations leveraged these data to reveal details
about the architecture of the fort’s earthen walls
and the configuration of two internal cabins
and their constituent features. The hearths inside
the cabins were identified based on the size and
geometry of the magnetic anomalies, the ampli-
tude of the detected signal, and the alignment
of the positive and negative components of this
signal with respect to the earth’s magnetic
field, suggesting that they were caused by a
local increase in soil magnetic susceptibility
values, likely due to thermal enhancement rela-
tive to the surrounding natural soils. What was
not apparent from the geophysical survey was
that one of these features was a hearth of indigen-
ous rather than settler design. The identification
of this hearth, which was probably built by one
or more indigenous women who were in the
fort with their settler husbands, challenges the
public memory of Miners’Fort as a bastion of
settler colonialism (see Tveskov 2017).
In our experience in archaeology in the
Northwest, Midwest, and the Northeast of
North America and with many projects coordi-
nated with the PBS television show Time Team
America, remote sensing techniques spark
considerable interest and enthusiasm among
nonarchaeologists, including, as Sunseri and
Byram (2017) point out, our partners from
Figure 10. Camas oven hearth feature of indigenous design—a lenticular pile of rounded cobbles used as a roasting
platform or earth oven—uncovered within the south cabin at Miners’Fort. Several indigenous women were inside
the fort with their settler husbands during the siege, and they likely built and used this feature (Southern Oregon
Laboratory of Anthropology).
62 [Vol. 84, No. 1, 2019AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
descent communities. While any avenue to bring
archaeology to a wider audience should be
explored, it seems that the interest in remote
sensing is often grounded on the novelty of the
technology and the promise (not always the
reality) of useful results at site interiography or
conservation.
A range of remote sensing techniques and
traditional excavation can provide insights
based on previously unseen associations and
contexts among artifacts, ecofacts, and features.
When coupled with an inclusive public archae-
ology program, they can also engender enthusi-
asm, dialogue, and multivalent discussions and
insights among diverse stakeholders. The public
access to the Miners’Fort excavations attracted
people who shared stories of ancestors who had
been there or nearby. Through the intersection
of archaeology, remote sensing, and public
engagement, we saw the diversity of people
who used the fort, the desperation and power
dynamics at play, and the creative ways that
different residents used their backgrounds and
knowledge to negotiate this colonial moment.
Finally, we think and hope we were successful
at leaving students and members of the local
community—whether indigenous, descendants
of settlers, or more recently arrived—feeling
challenged, listened to, and positive about
archaeology as an educational, reflexive, and
community-building enterprise.
A conservation ethic in archaeology is essen-
tial, as is recognizing the sovereignty, cultural
perspectives, and protocols of our indigenous
partners. In addition, the use of an explicit
research design followed by the professional
publication and public dissemination of results
are foundational values of our field. The points
raised by Sunseri and Byram (2017) are well
taken, particularly when and if remote sensing
techniques are employed in a planned and prob-
abilistic (opposed to an ad hoc) manner; when we
can have some confidences that the geophysical
results mean what they suggest they mean; and
that these results, whether positive or negative,
are reported in a way that truly realizes their
curatorial potential as nondestructive agents of
archaeological conservation.
Although descendant communities often see
excavation as unnecessarily intrusive, sometimes
it is seen as an opportunity to provide detail to
their histories, particularly when long-term
partnerships with archaeologists have been
established (e.g., Gonzalez 2016; McBride
et al. 2017; Murry 2011; Silliman 2014; Tush-
ingham and Brooks 2017; Tveskov 2007,
2015). There is also, we believe, added value
and an obligation to bring archaeology to a
diverse range of stakeholders, including resi-
dents, students, and the general public. We do
not think it is wise to set ourselves up a priori
as defenders, through a role as gatekeepers or
priests of technological esoterica, of an assumed
sacredness that may or may not actually be
asserted by a community or that may be con-
tested or fluid among or within a set of
communities.
It may be true that one day the “repose and
conformation of an archaeological object will
be regarded much as the original provenience
of excavated objects is regarded today”(Sunseri
and Byram 2017:1422). In the meantime, we still
enjoy the benefit of engaging the materialities of
the past on site, outside, and with a crowd. Some
of the discussions over Miners’Fort were diffi-
cult, such as when historical memories tied to
notions of manifest destiny were challenged or
when ideas about amateur or professional exca-
vation were contested. Others were joyful, such
as when students identified diagnostic artifacts
or participants chatted amiably over a screen on
a spot where their respective ancestors had
fought a bloody battle. Overall, the public
archaeology fostered, however modestly, a
sense of trust between diverse stakeholders,
including those who have felt alienated from
the archaeological process, whether rural people,
local settler descendants, or indigenous people.
This alienation results, in part, from the gate-
keeping and exclusivity of academic and regula-
tory archaeological praxis. A hands-off approach
may be the best measure in some cases, and
advocating this approach certainly signals con-
siderable virtue. Nonetheless, our role as archae-
ologists is not solely to preserve but also to help
provide access, engagement, and professional
consultation to a richly textured and contested
past to constituencies that extend beyond aca-
demia, as well as beyond tribal, state, or federal
historic preservation officials.
Tveskov et al.] 63EVERY RUSTY NAIL IS SACRED, EVERY RUSTY NAIL IS GOOD
Notes
1. Although the term LiDAR is commonly used, one
reviewer of this manuscript suggests that the term Airborne
Laser Scanning (ALS) may be more appropriate, as not all
survey instruments that use the operating principle are air-
borne or used in a scanning mode.
2. Examples of community investment in Miners Fort
can be found articles in the Curry County Reporter of Gold
Beach Oregon, c.f., May 18, 2011 and the August 11 and
23, 2004 editions.
3. http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2016/08/16/pro-
file-battlefields, accessed January 9, 2018.
4. http://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/, accessed January 15, 2016.
5. http://rapidlasso.com/lastools/,accessed January 15, 2016.
6. The projection of the LiDAR data is Lambert Con-
formal Conic, horizontal datum is NAD83, units are feet
(EPSG:2992). This projection is somewhat unusual, but the
GIS raster images can be easily re-projected into a more suit-
able projection system. Vertical datum is NAVD88.
7. Two of these survey markers, each marked with a
brass cap stamped “Fort Corner 1974”were found 5-10 cm
below the ground surface during the 2016 project during
the bastion excavations in the northeast and southwest corners
of the fort, respectively. These were left in situ.
Acknowledgments. The authors would like to thank Karen
and Scott Knox, Ron Crook, Steve Donovan, Mark Kramer,
Richard Watson, and the community of Gold Beach, Oregon,
for their hospitality. We are grateful for the support of Chief
Donald Ivy, Betty Hockema, Bridgett Borchman-Wheeler,
and Kassandra Rippee from the Coquille Indian Tribe; Robert
Kentta from the Confederated Tribes of Siletz; David Harrel-
son of the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde; and Joel
Bravo, Loren Bommelyn, and Suntayae Steinruck from the
Tolowa Dee-ni´. The Miners’Fort project was supported in
part by the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department, and
we thank Nancy Nelson and Trevor Taylor.A terrific archaeo-
logical field school executed the project, and we are grateful
for sharing those experiences with the students. We also
appreciate the continued support of Dan DeNeui, Mark Shib-
ley, and Joanne Preston at Southern Oregon University and
Sigrid Arnott, Andrew Bastier, Amy Cohen, Ashley Cordes,
Kyle Crebbin, Dan Edgerton, Lynn Gamble, Dennis Griffin,
Katie Johnson, and Ben Truwe, who contributed to the
project. Finally, the lead authors would like to thank David
Maki and Geoffrey Jones, who transfixed us with their
mystical gizmos and the phantasms that they conjured.
Data Availability Statement. The Miners’Fort excavation
was conducted under an archaeological permit (AP 2147)
issued by the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office to
the Southern Oregon University Laboratory of Anthropology
(SOULA). All field notes and artifacts from the project are
curated at the SOULA lab at Southern Oregon University in
Ashland, Oregon, under curation number 2016.03.
References Cited
Allan, James M.
1997 Searching for California’s First Shipyard: Remote
Sensing Surveys at Fort Ross.Kroeber Anthropological
Papers 81. University of California Berkeley, Berkeley.
Anonymous
1856a “Arrival of Schooner Gold Beach”Crescent City
Herald, February 27, 1856:2.
1856b “Further from Northern California”Sacramento
Daily Union, March 21, 1856:1.
Applen, Jeffrey
1997 Battle of Big Bend. MA thesis, Department of Inter-
disciplinary Studies, Oregon State University, Corvallis.
Arnott, Sigrid, and David Maki
2016 Results of a Phase I Archaeological Survey of the
Wood Lake Battlefield, Yellow Medicine County,
Minnesota. American Battlefield Protection Program
Project: GA-2287-14-021. Sigrid Arnott Consulting,
Minneapolis, Minnesota.
2019 Forts on Burial Mounds: Interlocked Landscapes of
Mourning and Colonialism at the Dakota-Settler Fron-
tier, 1860–1876. Historical Archaeology 53(1), in press.
Arnott, Sigrid, Scott Brosowske, and David Maki
2013 National Register of Historic Places Nomination
Form for Fort Juelson, Otter Tail County, Minnesota.
United States Department of the Interior, National
Park Service, Washington, DC.
Arnott, Sigrid, Geoffrey Jones, and David Maki
2013 National Register of Historic Places Nomination
Form for Indian Mounds Park. United States Depart-
ment of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington,
DC.
Artz, Joe Alan, Emilia L. D. Bristow, and William
E. Whittaker
2013 Mapping Precontact Burial Mounds in Sixteen
Minnesota Counties using Light Detection and Ranging
(LiDAR). Contract Completion Report 1976. Office of
the State Archaeologist, University of Iowa, Iowa City.
Beckham, Stephen Dow
1971 Requiem for a People: The Rogue Indians and the
Frontiersmen. The University of Oklahoma Press,
Norman.
1974 Fort Miner. Inventory Forms of Historic Places,
Various Counties. Includes Curry, Deschutes, Douglas,
Gilliam, Grant, Harney, Jefferson, Klamath, Lake,
Umatilla, Washington, Wheeler, and Yamhill Counties
from Multiple Years, Approximately from 1970–1990.
Oregon State Historic Preservation Office,Salem, Oregon.
Bell, James W.
1991 Report of the Remote Sensor Survey at Fort
Vancouver National Historic Site. Manuscript on file
at Fort Vancouver National Historic Site, Vancouver,
Washington.
Bennett, Rebecca
2011 Archaeological Remote Sensing: Visualization and
Analysis of Grass-dominated Environments Using Air-
borne Laser Scanning and Digital Spectra Data. PhD
dissertation, Bournemouth University, University in
Poole, England.
Bennett, Rebecca, Kate Wilhelm, Ross A Hill, and
Andrew Ford
2012 A Comparison of Visualization Techniques for
Models Created from Airborne Laser Scanned Data.
Archaeological Prospection 19:41–48.
Berry, William J., Alex Sutherland, and O.W. Weaver
1856 Letter of March 7, 1856. Crescent City Herald,May
21, 1856.
Bevan, Bruce W.
1998 Geophysical Exploration for Archaeology: An
64 [Vol. 84, No. 1, 2019AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
Introduction to Geophysical Exploration. Midwest
Archeological Center Special Report No. 1, United
States Department of the Interior National Park Service
Midwest Archeological Center, Lincoln, Nebraska.
Byram, R. Scott
2013 Triangulating Archaeological Landscapes: The US
Coast Survey in California, 1850–1895. Contributions
of the Archaeological Research Facility 65, University
of California, Berkeley.
2005 The Work of a Nation: Richard D. Cutts and the US
Coast Survey Map of Fort Clatsop. Oregon Historical
Quarterly 106(2):254–271.
Challis, Keith D., Žiga Kokalj, Derek Moscrop, and Andy
J. Howard
2008 Airborne Lidar and Historic Environment Records.
Antiquity 82(318):1055–1064.
Challis, Keith D., Paolo Forlin, and Mark Kincey
2011 A Generic Toolkit for the Visualization of Archaeo-
logical Features on Airborne LiDAR Elevation Data.
Archaeological Prospection 18:279–289.
Clark, Anthony
1996 Seeing Beneath the Soil: Prospecting Methods in
Archaeology. B.T. Batsford, London.
Conyers, Lawrence B.
2000 Final Report on Ground-penetrating Radar Map-
ping, Hudson’s Bay Company Cemetery, Fort Vancou-
ver Barracks (US Army), Vancouver National Historic
Reserve, Washington. Manuscript on file at Fort Van-
couver National Historic Site, Department of Anthropol-
ogy, University of Denver, Denver, Colorado.
2006 Ground Penetrating Radar. In Remote Sensing in
Archaeology: an Explicitly North American Perspec-
tive, edited by J.K. Johnson, pp. 131–160. University
of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
2013 Ground-Penetrating Radar for Archaeology.
AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California.
Conyers, Larry, and Lindsay Amanti
2003 Report on the Ground-Penetrating Radar Mapping:
Fort Vancouver Cemetery. Manuscript on file at Fort
Vancouver National Historic Site, Department of
Anthropology, University of Denver, Denver, Colorado
Cross, Guy, and Barbara Voss
1996 Geophysical Remote Sensing of Spanish Colonial
Archaeological Remains: Presidio de San Francisco.
Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology
9:330–336.
Dalan-Daut, Rinita
1986 Letter report to Bill Willingham, USACE, Portland
District, on the results of a magnetic survey at Vancou-
ver Barracks. Geo-Recon International, Seattle, WA.
De Vore, Steven L.
2012 Geophysical Survey of the East and South Vancou-
ver Barracks at Fort Vancouver National Historic Site,
Clark County, and a Two Acre Area at Whitman
Mission National Historic Site, Walla Walla County,
Washington (April 9–27, 2012). National Park Service,
Midwest Archeological Center, Lincoln, Nebraska.
Dodge, Orville
1898 Pioneer History of Coos and Curry County, Oregon.
Capital Printing Company, Salem, Oregon.
Douthit, Nathan
2002 Uncertain Encounters: Indians and Whites at Peace
and War in Southern Oregon, 1820s–1860s. Oregon
State University Press, Corvallis.
Edwards, Briece R., and Erik Thorsgard
2013 Ground Penetrating Radar of Four Areas at Fort
Vancouver National Historic Site. THPO Report No.
2013-029 Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde
Community of Oregon.
Gaffney, Chris, and John Gater
2006 Revealing the Buried Past: Geophysics for Archae-
ologists. Tempus, Stroud, United Kingdom.
Glisan, Rodney
1874 Journal of Army Life. A.L. Bancroft and Company,
San Francisco.
Gonzalez, Sara L.
2016 Indigenous Values and Methods in Archaeological
Practice: Low-Impact Archaeology through the Kashaya
Pomo Interpretive Trail Project. American Antiquity
81:533–549.
Hanna, William F.
2011 Geophysics: Some Recommendations and Applica-
tions. In Historical Archaeology of Military Sites:
Method and Topic, edited by Clarence R. Geier,
Lawrence E. Babits, Douglas D. Scott, and David
G. Orr, pp. 11–20. Texas A&M University Press,
College Station.
Hargrave, Michael L. (editor)
1999 Geophysical and Archaeological Investigations of
Historic Sites at Fort Riley, Kansas. US Army Construc-
tion Engineering Research Laboratory, Champaign,
Illinois.
Heimmer, Don H., and Steven L. De Vore
1995 Near-Surface, High Resolution Geophysical Meth-
ods for Cultural Resource Management and Archaeo-
logical Investigations, revised edition. Interagency
Archaeological Services, National Park Service,
Denver, Colorado.
Hesse, Ralf
2010 LiDAR-derived Local Relief Models—aNew
Tool for Archaeological Prospection. Archaeological
Prospection 17:67–72.
Horsley, Timothy, Alice Wright, and Casey Barrier
2014 Prospecting for New Questions: Integrating Geo-
physics to Define Anthropological Research Objectives
and Inform Excavation Strategies at Monumental Sites.
Archaeological Prospection 21:75–86.
Jones, Sgt. [i.e., Captain Edward O.C. Ord]
1856 Soldiering in Oregon. Harper’s Magazine, Vol.
XIII:52–26.
Kokalj, Žiga, Klemen Zakšek, and Krištof Oštir
2011 Application of Sky-view Factorfor the Visualization
of Historic Landscape Features in Lidar-Derived Relief
Models. Antiquity 85(327):263–273.
Kvamme, Kenneth L.
2001 Final Report of Geophysical Investigations Con-
ducted at the Mandan/Arikara Village, Fort Clark State
Historic Site (32ME2), 2000. Submitted to the Paleo-
Cultural Research Group, Flagstaff, Arizona, and the
State Historical Society of North Dakota, Bismark.
2003 Geophysical Surveys as Landscape Archaeology.
American Antiquity 68:435–458.
Lucas, Michael, and Julie M. Schablitsky (editors)
2014 Archaeology of the War of 1812. Left Coast Press,
Walnut Creek, California.
McBride, Kevin, David Naumec, Ashley Bissonnette, and
Noah Fellman
2017 Site Identification and Documentation Plan: Battle
of Mistick Fort: English Withdrawal and Pequot Coun-
terattacks II. Technical Report (GA-2287-13-014).
Mashantucket Pequot Museum and Research Center,
Mashantucket, Connecticut.
Tveskov et al.] 65EVERY RUSTY NAIL IS SACRED, EVERY RUSTY NAIL IS GOOD
McBride, W. Stephen, and Kim A. McBride
2011 Methods in the Archaeology of Colonial Frontier
Forts: Examples from Virginia and West Virginia. In
Historical Archaeology of Military Sites: Method and
Topic, edited by Clarence R. Geier, Lawrence
E. Babits, Douglas D. Scott, and David G. Orr, pp.
123–134. Texas A&M University Press, College
Station.
McDonald, Kendal
2000 Hudson’s Bay Company Cemetery Site, Vancouver
Barracks, Vancouver, Washington, Magnetic Survey,
September 2000. Report to Fort Vancouver National
Historic Reserve, National Park Service. Z-Too, Archae-
ogeophysical Prospection, Beaverton, Oregon.
2008 Magnetic Survey Results. Southern Oregon
University Laboratory of Anthropology Research
Report 208–1, Southern Oregon University, Ashland.
McKinnon, Duncan, and Brian S. Haley
2017 Archaeological Remote Sensing in North America:
Innovative Techniques for Anthropological Applica-
tions. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa
Maki, David
2013 A Geophysical Investigation at the Wood Lake
Battlefield Monument: LiDAR and Sub-surface Geo-
physical Investigations at the Site of the Final Battle of
the US-Dakota War of 1862, Yellow Medicine County,
Minnesota. Archaeo-Phyiscs Report of Investigations
#196, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Murry, Tim
2011 Archaeologists and Indigenous People: A Maturing
Relationship? Annual Review of Anthropology
40:363–378.
Mussett, Alan E., and M. Aftab Khan
2000 Looking into the Earth: An Introduction to Geo-
logical Geophysics. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Nassaney, Michael S., William Cremin, and Daniel P. Lynch
2004 The Identification of Colonial Fort St. Joseph, Mich-
igan. Journal of Field Archaeology 29(3–4):309–321.
O’Grady, Patrick
2014 Results of Ground Penetrating Radar Surveys at For
Klamath Grids A, B, and C, (Barracks, Officer’s Quar-
ters, and Gazebo Locations), Klamath County, Oregon.
Museum Report 2014–009. Museum of Natural and
Cultural History, University of Oregon, Eugene.
Orr, David G., and Julie Steele
2011 Mapping Early Modern Warfare: The Role of Geo-
physical Survey and Archaeology in Interpreting the
Buried Fortifications at Petersburg, Virginia. In Histor-
ical Archaeology of Military Sites: Method and Topic,
edited by Clarence R. Geier, Lawrence E. Babits, Doug-
las D. Scott, & David G. Orr, pp. 75–82. Texas A&M
University Press, College Station.
Panich, Lee M., Tsim D. Schneider, and R. Scott Byram
2018 Finding Mid-19th Century Native Settlements:
Cartographic and Archaeological Evidence from Central
California. Journal of Field Archaeology. 43(2):152–
165.
Parrington, Michael
1979 Geophysical and Aerial Prospecting Techniques at
Valley Forge National Historical Park, Pennsylvania.
Journal of Field Archaeology 6:193–201.
Riley Melanie, A., Joe Alan Artz, William E. Whittaker,
Robin M. Lillie, and Andrew C. Sorensen
2010 Archaeological Prospection for Precontact Burial
Mounds Using Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR)
in Scott and Crow Wing Counties, Minnesota. Contract
Completion Report 1768. Office of the State Archaeolo-
gist, University of Iowa, Iowa City.
Schwartz, E.A.
1997 The Rogue River Indian War and Its Aftermath:
1850–1980. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Scott, Douglas D., Richard A. Fox, Jr., Melissa A. Conner,
and Dick Harmon
1989 Archaeological Perspectives on the Battle of Little
Big Horn. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Silliman, Stephen
2014 Archaeologies of Indigenous Survivance and Resi-
dence: Navigating Colonial and Scholarly Dualities.
In Rethinking Colonial Pasts through Archaeology,
edited by Neal Ferris, Rodney Harrison, and Michael
V. Wilcox, pp. 57–75. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Somers, Lewis E.
1998 Geophysical Remote Sensing Survey of the
Quartermaster Depot Dump at Fort Laramie National
Historic Site. In Archeology at the Fort Laramie Quar-
termaster Dump Area, 1994–1996, edited by Danny
N. Walker, 13:81–90. Cultural Resource Selections,
Intermountain Region, National Park Service, Denver
Colorado.
Starbuck, David R.
2011 The Archaeology of Forts and Battlefields. Univer-
sity Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Štular, Benjamin, Žiga Kokalj, Krištof Oštir, and Laure
Nuninger
2012 Visualization of Lidar-derived Relief Models for
Detection of Archaeological Features. Journal of
Archaeological Science 39:3354–3360.
Sunseri, Jun, and R. Scott Byram
2017 Site Interiography and Geophysical Scanning:
Interpreting the Texture and Form of Archaeological
Deposits with Ground-Penetrating Radar. Journal of
Archaeological Method and Theory. 24(4):1400–1424.
Sutton, Dorothy, and Jack Sutton (editors)
1969 Indian Wars of the Rogue River. Josephine County
Historical Society, Grants Pass, Oregon.
Tushingham, Shannon, and Richard Brooks
2017 A Synergistic Study of Indigenous Persistence and
Colonial Entanglements at Hiouchi (Xaa-yuu-chit).
Oregon Historical Quarterly 118(1):108–139.
Tveskov, Mark A.
2007 Social Identity and Culture Change on the Southern
Northwest Coast. American Anthropologist 109:431–41.
2015 Archaeological Investigations at the Battle of
Hungry Hill Site, Josephine County, Oregon. SOULA
Report No. 2015.1. Southern Oregon University,
Ashland.
2017 A “Most Disastrous Affair”: The Battle of Hungry
Hill, Historical Memory, and the Rogue River War.
Oregon Historical Quarterly 118(1):64–95.
Tveskov, Mark A., and Amy Cohen
2014 Frontier Forts, Ambiguity, and Manifest Destiny:
The Changing Role of Fort Lane in the Cultural Land-
scape of the Oregon Territory, 1853–1929. In Rethink-
ing Colonial Pasts through Archaeology, edited by
Neal Ferris, Rodney Harrison, and Michael V. Wilcox,
pp. 191–211. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Tveskov, Mark, and Katie Johnson
2014 The Spatial Layout and Development of Fort Lane,
Oregon Territory, 1853–1856. In Alis Volat Propriis:
Tales from the Oregon Territory, 1848–1859, edited
by Chelsea Rose and Mark Tveskov, pp. 115–134.
66 [Vol. 84, No. 1, 2019AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
Association of Oregon Archaeologists Occasional
Papers No. 9.
2018 The Archaeology of the Battle of Big Bend. South-
ern Oregon University Laboratory of Anthropology
Report No. 2008-01. Southern Oregon University
Laboratory of Anthropology, Ashland.
Tveskov, Mark, and Chelsea Rose
2019 Disrupted Identities and Frontier Forts: Enlisted
Men and Officers at Fort Lane, Oregon Territory,
1853–1856. Historical Archaeology, in press.
Tveskov, Mark, Kyle Crebbin, and Katie Johnson
2015a Archaeological Investigations at the Fort Klamath
Site (35KL3311), Klamath County, Oregon. Southern
Oregon University Laboratoryof Anthropology Research
Report 2015.07. Southern Oregon University, Ashland.
Tveskov, Mark, Chelsea Rose, and Katie Johnson
2015b Archaeological Investigations of Camp Castaway
and the Wreck of Captain Lincoln. Southern Oregon
University Laboratory of Anthropology Research
Report 2012.07. Southern Oregon University, Ashland,
Oregon.
Webster, G.
1884 The Rogue River Indian War of 1855–56. Overland
Monthly, September 1884:235–240.
Whaley, Gray H.
2010 Oregon and the Collapse of Illahee: U.S. Empire
and the Transformation of an Indigenous World, 1792–
1859. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Whittaker, William E.
2009 Testing the Effectiveness of Ground-Penetrating
Radar at Three Dragoon Forts in Iowa and Wisconsin.
Historical Archaeology 43(4):56–74.
Williams, J. Mark, and Gary Shapiro
1982 A Search for the Eighteenth Century Village at
Michilimackinac: A Soil Resistivity Survey. Archaeo-
logical Completion reports No. 4. Mackinac Island
State Park Commission, Mackinac Island, Michigan.
Wilson, Douglas C., and Theresa E. Langford (editors)
2011 Exploring Fort Vancouver. Fort Vancouver National
Trust, in association with University of Washington
Press, Seattle, and London.
Witten, A.J.
2006 Handbook of Geophysics and Archaeology. Taylor
and Francis, London.
Submitted April 3, 2018; Revised August 3, 2018; Accepted
September 19, 2018
Tveskov et al.] 67EVERY RUSTY NAIL IS SACRED, EVERY RUSTY NAIL IS GOOD
