FINDING FORT HARDY: COMBINING DOCUMENTARY RESEARCH, ARCHAEOGEOPHYSICS, AND EXCAVATION TO LOCATE A FRENCH AND INDIAN WAR FORT
Scott Stull
SUNY Cortland
Michael Rogers
Ithaca College
Nik Batruch
Ithaca College
Fort Hardy, a French and Indian War supply fort, was built in 1755 but never saw combat. The
ruined site of Fort Hardy was where the British Army gave up their arms after the Battles of
Saratoga, which was the first major victory of the American Revolution. While the general location of
the fort is known, the actual boundaries were forgotten through the course of the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries. Using a combination of documentary research, archaeogeophysics, landscape
analysis, and targeted excavation, the western boundary of the fort was relocated, showing the value
of this combined approach. Unrelated CRM archaeological testing served to confirm the
interpretation of the research results.
Fort Hardy, qui servit de base arrière d’approvisionnement durant la Guerre de la Conquête, a été
construit en 1755 mais n’a jamais connu le moindre combat. Le site des ruines de Fort Hardy a été le
lieu où les Anglais rendirent les armes après la bataille de Saratoga qui fut la première victoire
majeure de la révolution Américaine. Alors que la position du fort est bien connue, la place des
réelles limites de son enceinte a été oubliée au cours des XIXe et XXe siècles. En associant la
recherche documentaire, l’archéo-géophysique, l’analyse du terrain, et une excavation sélective, le
mur d’enceinte Ouest du fort a été retrouvé, démontrant la valeur de cette approche globale. La
conduite de tests archéologiques indépendants par le GRC (service de Gestion des Ressources
Culturelles) a permis de confirmer l’interprétation des résultats de cette recherche.
Fort Hardy, located in the Village of Schuylerville, Saratoga County, New York, was a French
and Indian War supply fort, first constructed in 1755, that never saw military action. At the time of
the American Revolution, Fort Hardy was in ruins. During the Battles of Saratoga, the ruins of Fort
Hardy was the site of a brief skirmish, which then served as a marker on the landscape for the Field of
Grounded Arms, where the surrendering British Army gave up their armaments to American forces.
The expansion of the Village of Schuylerville across the ruins of the fort after the American
Scott Stull • SUNY Cortland Sociology, Anthropology Department, 2108 Moffett Center, Cortland, New York 13045; email: [email protected]
Northeast Anthropology No. 79-80, 2013, pp. 125–143
Copyright ©2013 by Northeast Anthropology
125
126
Northeast Anthropology
No. 79/80, 2013
Revolution obscured its remains. While Fort Hardy remained part of local knowledge, with a portion
of the site preserved as a village park with the name “Fort Hardy Park,” the boundaries of the fort and
the location of the Field of Grounded Arms have been lost.
The American Battlefield Protection Program of the National Park Service gave a grant to the
Town of Saratoga to locate Fort Hardy and the Field of Grounded Arms (GA-225-04-010), and
Hartgen Archeological Associates, Inc., of Rensselaer, NY, was contracted to conduct an
archaeological survey. Archaeological investigations at the site were designed to inform the Town of
Saratoga while they developed a long-term management plan for a site that was pivotal in the
American Revolution.
Fort Hardy Park in Schuylerville (Figure 1) has been used for nearly a century as recreation
fields with modern baseball, basketball, and similar facilities located within the park. One boundary
of the park is the Hudson River, and another is the line of the Champlain Canal that was built between
1818 and 1823. Any visible evidence of the fort has been erased by the modification of the landscape
through the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Locating the fort using archaeological excavation is
problematic due to the size of the fort and the features involved. A waterline survey conducted by
Black Drake Consulting (2003) found a ditch-like feature in a backhoe-excavated survey trench
Figure 1. Schuylerville, New York is located approximately 36 miles north of Albany and
approximately 14 miles east of Saratoga Springs. (New York State map from
www.pdclipart.org, 2009. Schuylerville Street Map from OpenStreetMap.org, 200.9)
Stull et al.
Finding Fort Hardy
127
(Figure 2) that may be associated with the outer defenses of the fort, and a possible identification of
the northeastern boundary of the fort. The remaining boundaries of the fort lay somewhere within the
park or on nearby private property. An archaeogeophysical survey was determined to be the best
approach to find the fort without disturbing the archaeological record (Heimmer and Devore 1995,
2000) on a sensitive archaeological area that is actively used as a public resource.
Figure 2. West wall profile from mechanical test pits 3 and 7. (Courtesy of Black Drake
Consulting, 2009.)
HISTORIC OVERVIEW
French and Indian War
Fort Hardy was a French and Indian War supply fort, constructed in stages from 1755 to 1757
by the British as part of the campaign against Crown Point (Starbuck 1999). Located on the Hudson
River at the mouth of Fish Creek, it guarded a ferry crossing on the Hudson. The fort was named for
Sir Charles Hardy, the royal governor of New York (New York Military Museum 2006). Fort Hardy
was never attacked during the French and Indian War, and was abandoned when peace returned. Five
barracks buildings still standing at Fort Hardy were used as late as 1771 as homes by local residents
(Strach 1986).
American Revolution
In 1777, the British embarked on an ambitious plan to divide New England from the rest of the
colonies by a three-pronged attack through New York State. One attack was led by Col. St. Leger,
and was to sweep from Oswego on Lake Ontario past Fort Stanwix and down the Mohawk River. A
second thrust was supposed to move north up the Hudson River from New York City under the
command of General Howe. The third action was to move down Lake Champlain and the Upper
Hudson Valley under General Burgoyne. The armies were to converge around Albany, New York.
American resistance or changed plans thwarted all three attacks. General Howe sent his army to
Pennsylvania to try to catch George Washington’s forces and capture Philadelphia, and a token
movement from the south was stopped at Peekskill, near West Point, in March 1777. St. Leger was
stopped at Fort Stanwix in August. By October, Burgoyne had reached Saratoga, but his army bogged
down and had little support other than a second token movement against Peekskill on October 5, over
128
Northeast Anthropology
No. 79/80, 2013
150 miles away. A brief foray by American troops on October 11 crossed Fish Creek near the ruined
fort was driven back by British fire, but prevented a British retreat. On October 17, 1777, Burgoyne
surrendered his army when he signed the Articles of Convention (Ketchum 1997; Lowenthal
2000:21–36; Watt 2002).
The first article of the surrender document stated, “The troops under General Burgoyne are to
march out of their camp with the honours of war, and the artillery of the entrenchments, to the verge
of the river, where the old fort stood, where the arms and artillery are to be left. The arms to be piled
by word of command of their own officers” (Articles of Convention 1777). The lands around the fort,
now known as the Field of Grounded Arms, were the location where the British army gave up their
weapons of war after one of the most important campaigns of the American Revolution.
FORT HARDY DURING THE FRENCH AND INDIAN WAR
The documentary record for the location of Fort Hardy is indisputable with journals, maps, and
records indicating its location. Even though the fort is shown on several historic maps, the dimensions
and location of the fort on the landscape vary in these sources.
Construction
Strach (1986) has a plan of Fort Hardy, dated to ca. 1758–1760, when the fort would have been
in active use. This map has no indicated author, and its title is “Plan of Saratogha [sic] 36 miles N by
E from Albany” and will be referred to as the Saratogha Map. The plan reveals that the fort was
composed of two distinct elements. A small walled district was located immediately adjacent to the
Hudson River and contained several buildings, and surrounding it was a large earthwork with a
bastion to the west that extended almost to the line of the colonial road and lay above the “low
marshy ground” north of Fish Creek. The description of this earthwork says, “Line made in the
summer 1756.” Fort Hardy was constructed in two phases, with the central portion built in 1755 and
extended in 1756. Colonel James Montressor’s engineer’s report of 1757 (Brandow 1901:71–72)
indicated the fort was reconstructed, and a previous blockhouse or stockaded fort was already in place
and torn down. Montressor’s journal does not describe the origin of this blockhouse because it was
known to have been built as a temporary structure, and his responsibility was to replace it with
something more permanent. A hypothetical timeline could go as follows: a temporary fort was built in
1755 by Colonel Phinehas Lyman, expanded with earthworks in 1756, reconstructed in brick and
stone in 1757, and used as a way station for the 1758 campaign as a camping ground for 16,000
troops (Brandow 1901:74–75). The Rocque map (Figure 3), one of the most widely circulated maps
of Fort Hardy, and seemingly based on the Montressor map, shows only the small fortification
adjacent to the Hudson River, and not the full plan of Fort Hardy with its extended earthworks. It
could also explain how Fort Hardy was “in ruins” in 1771 but still had usable structures inhabited by
local townspeople.
Use of the Earthworks at Fort Hardy
In 1756, Col. Burton of the 48th regiment was stationed at Saratoga, and units passed through
Saratoga to be sent elsewhere as needed (R. Rogers 2002:54). Within the earthworks on the Saratogha
Map, there is a line of text which reads, “Encampment of the 48th Regiment,” revealing the original
fort was expanded to provide space for the 48th regiment when they were stationed at Fort Hardy.
Stull et al.
Finding Fort Hardy
129
Figure 3. Rocque 1765 Map of the central portion of Fort Hardy. Internet Archive,
www.archive.org.
The line of earthworks of the fort indicated on the Saratogha Map is quite distinct, and does not
appear to be an idealized drawing but representative of the actual line of the fortifications. The map
analysis would indicate that the modern marina is the location of the blockhouse described by
Montressor, which preceded Fort Hardy and was rebuilt in 1757 as the central portion of the fort. The
larger grounds encompassed by the earthworks would follow the line of the higher ground
immediately south of Ferry Street and where the modern line of houses are located. The earthwork
then turned north, following a complex line east of, but close to, the Champlain Canal. The plan of
Fort Hardy indicates some structures at the interior northwest and southwest corners of the
earthworks.
THE SITE OF FORT HARDY IN THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION
Skirmish at the Site of Fort Hardy During the American Revolution
The vicinity of Saratoga had many forts constructed during the French and Indian War, as was
appropriate for its strategic location in the Hudson Valley, and those forts were mapped by the British
130
Northeast Anthropology
No. 79/80, 2013
in advance of their operations planned for 1777. Forces led by General Burgoyne moved south toward
Albany for this section of the operation. The Battles of Saratoga occurred when American forces
opposed that British movement. Over the course of September and early October 1777, numerous
engagements between American and British forces occurred, mainly to the south of the modern
village of Schuylerville. In October, the British army had retreated from its more southerly positions
and took up defensive positions north of Fish Creek, in and around the village of Schuylerville. On
October 10, the American army reached Fish Creek and was prepared to cross to engage the British.
The next day, October 11, 1777, the site of Fort Hardy was the scene of a brief but intense
conflict as one of the last actions of the Battles of Saratoga (Stone 1877). The American forces
gathered on the south bank of Fish Creek, in the vicinity of the current Schuyler House and grounds.
The British forces were arrayed on the north side, with pickets placed near the creek and the main
force further north, and Burgoyne’s headquarters a mile and a half north of the creek at the Marshall
House. The Americans, however, believed the majority of the British army had retreated to Fort
Edward, while the unit which had retreated was only a small portion of the army and had been
recalled by Burgoyne. The Americans sent over an advance party to the area of Fort Hardy. The
Americans encountered two British pickets, numbering about 100 men in total and numerous boats,
with one group very close to the old fortified center of Fort Hardy at the juncture of Fish Creek with
the Hudson River. The British troops surrendered without combat, and the Americans consolidated
their position on the north shore of Fish Creek. When the fog lifted, the main forces of the British
army were within range to fire cannons and muskets on the American forces near the creek. The
American forces stopped their advance and withdrew back across Fish Creek. The British surrender
occurred six days later, on October 17, 1777 (Ketchum 1997:414–415).
The Field of Grounded Arms at the Site of Fort Hardy
The location of the Field of Grounded Arms is well described as near the ruins of Fort Hardy, at
the mouth of the Fish Kill where it enters the Hudson River. Ketchum (1997:428) describes the site as
“the flats by the river, just north of Fish Creek’s junction with the Hudson, where a few low mounds
were all that remained of the walls of Fort Hardy, a redoubt covering fifteen acres, built during the
French and Indian War.” The ruins are marked on the 1777 Faden Map (Figure 4); however, the
precise location is unclear on the modern landscape.
Stone (1877) describes the site of Fort Hardy and the Field of Grounded Arms from verbal
description fifty years after the battle itself:
From hence I proceeded to, and viewed with very great interest, the spot where
General Burgoyne, attended by his staff, presented his sword to Gen. Gates; also, the
ground on which the arms, etc., of the royal army were stacked and piled. This
memorable place is situated on the flat, north side of Fish creek, about forty rods west
of its entrance into the Hudson, and through which the Champlain canal now passes,
Contiguous to this spot is the N. W. angle of old Fort …. The tines of intrenchment
embrace, as I should judge, about fifteen acres of ground. The outer works on the
north side of Fish creek, and east on the west bank of the Hudson. Human bones,
fragments of fire-arms, swords, balls, tools, implements, broken crockery, etc., etc.,
are frequently picked up on this ground (Stone 1877:app5).
Stull et al.
Finding Fort Hardy
131
Figure 4. Plan of the position which the army under Lieutenant General Burgoyne took at
Saratoga, on the 10th of September 1777, and in which it remained till the convention was
signed. Drawn by William Faden. (LC Maps of North America, 1750-1789, No. 1178
Library of Congress Geography and Map Division Washington, D.C. 20540-4650 USA.
http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.gmd/g3803s.ar117800)
This description, from a visit to the battlefield in 1827, has the best guide to where the Field of
Grounded Arms was located. Forty rods is equal to 660 feet, which is the approximate location of the
entrance to Fort Hardy Park on Ferry Street. The Champlain Canal lies another 600 feet or so beyond
the park road, indicating that the estimate of distance is approximate, at best, but indicative of the
general distance. The Field of Grounded Arms was bounded by the northwest angle of the
entrenchments of Fort Hardy.
The Field of Grounded Arms should be located between the 1777 roadway and the low mounds
that marked the ruins of Fort Hardy. The Faden Map (Figure 4) shows the fields and roadways at the
time of the Battles of Saratoga, with the roadway being located near the terrace of the Hudson River.
The Champlain Canal was constructed in this location between 1817 and 1823 (Larkin 1998:48).
Stone (1877:app5) asserts that the site of Fort Hardy was littered with artifacts from the martial
activities on the site. Despite this, no material was found that can be conclusively tied to either the
French and Indian War or Revolutionary War. In addition to collecting, the area has had a variety of
ground-disturbing activity since 1777, including house construction, modern roads and other utilities,
and the development and maintenance of recreational facilities.
PREVIOUS RESEARCH
Black Drake Consulting conducted a survey for a waterline parallel to the Hudson River.
Testing for this waterline included a backhoe excavation below the asphalt surface of the eastern
parking lot adjacent to the Hudson River. In Mechanical Test Pit 3 (Figure 2), a deep profile indicated
a sloping lower surface that did not follow the natural stratigraphy of the surrounding soil strata; the
132
Northeast Anthropology
No. 79/80, 2013
surface was called Feature 9 (Black Drake 2003:23). No diagnostic artifacts were recovered from the
backhoe excavation in relation to this feature. Its location was suggestive of the fort’s northeastern
ditch or entrenchment, but with no artifacts or related features, this could not be confirmed. Black
Drake (2003:Figure 7) compiled a series of historic maps of Fort Hardy to better interpret Feature 9.
Once the historic maps were overlaid on each other, the mapped boundaries of the fort varied in
location on the general landscape by a significant amount, and Feature 9 was located within a broadly
defined area for the fort boundaries on the various historic maps. Documentary research alone was
not sufficient to locate the boundaries of the fort, nor could they be used to accurately place test units.
Further investigation by Black Drake followed the line of this entrenchment using remote sensing,
which supported the interpretation of the feature being the entrenchment of the fort along the
northeastern line of earthworks. The Black Drake study revealed one likely boundary of the
earthworks, but the location of remainder of the fort was still uncertain.
In March 2005, David Klinge of Hartgen Archeological Associates, Inc., supervised the
excavation of two transects of shovel tests in Fort Hardy Park. The materials recovered from these
excavations came from exclusively the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries. One transect
was parallel to Ferry Street south of the community center in the same area examined during the
remote sensing survey. A second transect was excavated west of the community center and basketball
court and east of the visitor’s center parking lot. No artifactual or subsurface features could be related
to any eighteenth-century activity (Klinge 2005). This testing revealed that minimal disturbance had
taken place within these transects, except for a railroad line and the modern park elements.
ARCHAEOGEOPHYSICAL SURVEYS
The Black Drake (2003) study revealed that the earthworks of Fort Hardy were likely still
present, but the work by Klinge (2005) indicated that shovel testing was not an effective method to
further identify the boundaries of the fort. Due to the likely proximity of the western edge of the fort
to the community building, basketball court, and modern utilities, backhoe excavation was not a
viable option for this section of the park. Archaeogeophysical survey is quite effective at locating
subsurface features and was deemed the appropriate approach to locate the earthworks of Fort Hardy
in the area surrounding the community building. In 2006, Scott Stull (then of Hartgen Archeological
Associates, Inc.; currently at SUNY Cortland), Michael Rogers (Ithaca College), and a team of Ithaca
College undergraduate students conducted archaeogeophysical surveys of portions of Fort Hardy
Park. Dr. Rogers supervised two simultaneous subsurface surveys using a dual cesium magnetometer
and ground-penetrating radar (Figure 5). Both magnetometry and ground-penetrating radar have the
potential to image subsurface archaeological features due to differences in the physical and chemical
properties of the features and fill soils (Conyers 2004; Gaffney and Gater 2003). Buried features such
as grave shafts (M. Rogers 2001), possible palisades (Gerard-Little, Rogers, and Jordan 2012),
pithouses (M. Rogers et al. 2010), trenches (M. Rogers, Cassidy, and Dragila 2005; M. Rogers,
Baham, and Dragila 2006), and stone foundations (Fisher et. al 2012; Leon et al. 2013) can be
mapped using archaeogeophysical survey methods when site conditions permit (M. Rogers et al.
2012). Thus, the earthworks like those discovered by Black Drake (2003) were likely to be discovered
using archaeogeophysical methods.
Establishing the Survey Grid
A survey grid was established using a total station and survey tapes. Nonmagnetic stakes made
from PVC plumbing pipes were used to mark the corners of the survey units. Fiberglass survey tapes
marked the meridian line (N-S running line at the western extent of the subunit) and a parallel control
Stull et al.
Finding Fort Hardy
133
Figure 5. Photograph of the cesium magnetometer and ground-penetrating
radar in use at Fort Hardy park. (Photo by authors).
line (at the eastern extent of the subunit). In the east-west direction, blaze-orange, 0.95-gauge plastic
monofilament lines served as transect lines stretching from the meridian to the parallel control line at
meter intervals (Gaffney and Gater 2003). These lines can be seen in Figure 5 and are used to keep
the instrument operator walking in a straight line. Twelve 20-m-x-20-m survey units were placed in
Fort Hardy Park (Figure 6) [Note: Unit 3 was slightly larger, and Unit 2 slightly smaller, to place the
edge of the units off of the hard-packed road to make it easier to drive in stakes holding transect
lines].
The Cesium Magnetometer Survey
The magnetic surveys used a bidirectional survey method, a nonmagnetic cart, and two cesium
magnetometers mounted side-by-side with the bottom of both sensors 15 cm from the ground to cover
two lines with each pass (Figure 5). The wheels of the cart are spaced at 0.50 m, and the
magnetometers are spaced at 0.25 m, centered on the cart. Magnetic data are efficiently collected with
a 0.25-m spacing by keeping the left wheel of the magnetometer cart on one of the marked transect
lines. During a bidirectional survey, data are collected as the operator walks forward along the first
transect and back along the second transect. The Geometrics, Inc., model G-858 magnetometer was
set to the highest sampling rate of 10 readings every second. With this sampling rate and a casual
walking pace, a reading was recorded approximately every 0.10 m along each transect (Geometrics
1995). The magnetic surveys at the Ft. Hardy Park Site were done in total field mode only, with no
134
Northeast Anthropology
No. 79/80, 2013
Figure 6. Survey unit locations overlaid on an aerial photograph of Fort Hardy
Park. Local grid north is 18 degrees east of geographic north. (Composite plot
created in Golden Software’s Surfer. Aerial photograph provided by Sean
Kelleher, Town of Saratoga Historian.)
gradient or base station. Tabbagh (2003) reports—and our own surveys at other sites confirm—that
“single sensor” surveys conducted with high sampling rates are comparable to gradiometer-based
surveys.
The magnetometers took about 37,500 readings per 20-m-x-20-m unit, for a total of 450,000
readings of the magnitude of the Earth’s local magnetic field during the surveys at the Fort Hardy
Park Site. Postacquisition processing and analysis of these data took place at Ithaca College.
Despiking and destaggering processing methods were used to remove large magnetic signals and
positional errors due to varying walking speed (Gaffney and Gater 2003). The data were then gridded
using the Kriging method, with a 0.1-m spacing and plotted as an image plot using Golden Software’s
(2002) Surfer version 8 mapping program (Figure 7). The magnetometer survey shows some
landscape scale variability, with many spatially localized anomalies and signals associated with
modern features, but no evidence suggesting Fort Hardy’s location.
Stull et al.
Finding Fort Hardy
135
Figure 7. Plan-view, shaded-relief plot of the magnitude of the earth’s local magnetic field
at Fort Hardy Park. Local grid north is 18 degrees east of geographic north.
The Ground-Penetrating Radar Survey
The GPR survey provided much more information than the magnetometer survey in regard to
the remains of Fort Hardy. Any time earth is disturbed, particularly when features such as ditches and
earthworks are created, the soils of those features take on different characteristics, such as soil
structure and the ability to retain water. These features will give a different radar reflection than
undisturbed soil (Conyers 2004; Gaffney and Gater 2003). The ground-penetrating radar survey at
Fort Hardy used a Geophysical Survey System, Inc. (2003) SIR-3000 control unit with a 400-MHz
antenna and survey control wheel. Using the same grid system as the magnetometer survey, data were
collected using east-west aligned transects spaced 0.50 m apart, with readings taken every 2 cm along
the transect. The radar signals were collected to an approximate depth of 1.25 m using an estimated
dielectric constant of 16 (80 ns two-way travel time) with a reading taken every 0.5 mm.
Geophysical Survey System, Inc.’s (2005) Radan version 6.5 program was used to examine the
individual radar profiles and create plan-view slices looking for radar reflections suggestive of Fort
Hardy’s defenses. Without the need for postacquisition processing, the ground-penetrating radar
survey at Fort Hardy yielded several locations in which radar signatures of interest were obtained.
The first area was in the eastern parking lot adjacent to the Hudson River where the Black Drake
survey located the possible ditch from the fort. This feature was relocated with the ground-penetrating
radar, and its extension to the east identified. A second set of radar signatures were located southwest
of the community center, which extended north of Ferry Street. These signatures consisted of a series
of parallel rises and dips, covering a span of approximately 14 m (45 feet) in the radar profile (Figure
8), which were traced as far north as the basketball court, at which point the modern disturbance
blocked any remaining signature from detection if they are still present (Figure 9). These signatures
136
Northeast Anthropology
No. 79/80, 2013
Figure 8. Profile-view of ground-penetrating radar transect showing reflections from
a subsurface feature with a distinct “hill-dip-hill.”
Figure 9. Plan-view plot of ground-penetrating radar 0.25-meter-thick time slice from
1.00 m to 1.25 m deep using an estimated dielectric constant of 16.
Stull et al.
Finding Fort Hardy
137
are consistent with those expected from a ditch and rampart (Elliot 2003a, 2003b; L’Abbe-Lindquist,
Downs, and Sablock 2007). The map information shown in the “Plan of Saratogha” indicated that this
was in the appropriate area for the western earthworks.
EXCAVATION
Fort Hardy Park is an active and protected public park in which large-scale excavation is not
possible, which limited us to targeted testing. In response to restricted excavation, we developed a
model for the structure of the fortification that could match the signature identified in the
archaeogeophysical survey to gain the most information from the least excavation. The “top” of the
rise should be the location of the rampart and a possible palisade or fascine. A fascine is made from
bundles of brushwood used to stabilize earthworks like those built at Fort Hardy in 1756. In 2007, a
small test unit was opened to investigate the parallel archaeogeophysical features. Scott Stull and
Michael Rogers excavated a 50-cm-x-100-cm (20-in-x-40-in) unit at the location where the radar
signature was in transition from the “rise” to the “dip” (Figure 10). If the archaeogeophysical feature
is associated with an earthen ditch and rampart, this point would mark the transition between the top
of the rampart and the slope to the ditch. Our plan was to extend the unit if necessary to locate the
point of transition between the top of the rampart and the slope down, or locate a palisade or other
subsurface remnant of the fortification. This extension was not necessary based on the results of our
initial excavation.
The first several strata in the test unit contained nineteenth- and twentieth-century material
similar to those found in the shovel tests supervised by David Klinge in the same area. The soils were
alluvial silt and sand, allowing for clearly defined excavation levels. At approximately 40 cm, mottled
Figure 10. Location of the targeted excavation unit to provide additional data to
support the ground-penetrating radar data. (Photograph by authors, 2007).
138
Northeast Anthropology
No. 79/80, 2013
soils were noted in the eastern portion of the unit. As excavation continued, a sloping soil surface was
revealed with the rise to the east. This rise coincided with the rise in the archaeogeophysical radar
feature. No indication of buried topsoil was present, which is consistent with the description of the
remains of Fort Hardy as ruins. As excavation continued, three postholes were located in the eastern
end of the unit, with two of the three postholes appearing in the profile of the eastern wall (Figures 11
and 12). These postholes are consistent in size with the anchors for fascine bundles as predicted in our
model for the earthworks. No artifacts were recovered in association with these features, which is
consistent with the short duration of the occupation of the fort, the relatively little-used portion of the
fort under investigation, and the results of the Black Drake study. The Black Drake (2003) study
exposed the full depth of the earthwork ditch and contained no diagnostic material culture. The
earthworks appear to have been used only for a brief period, while the central portion of the fort
remained inhabited up to at least the American Revolution. The subsurface feature identified by the
GPR survey and further investigated with the targeted excavation is consistent with the “low mounds”
described in the 1777 description of the ruins of Fort Hardy.
INTERPRETATION
Due to the lack of cultural material associated with our investigation, it is possible that the post
molds could have been associated with a historic feature such as a fence bordering a field boundary
ditch, as indicated on the Faden Map of 1777 (Figure 4). However, the scale of the feature at 14
meters wide and 1.5 meters high, consisting of a “hill–dip–hill” that runs horizontally for at least 40
Figure 11. Plan-view photograph of one of the post molds revealed by excavation.
(Photograph by authors, 2007).
Stull et al.
Finding Fort Hardy
139
Figure 12. Profile-view photograph of another post mold revealed by excavation.
(Photograph by authors, 2007).
meters and contains at least three post molds on one of the “hills,” provides evidence for the location
of Fort Hardy’s remains. The “hill–dip–hill” construction is consistent with a defensive ditch and
rampart with a glacis or exterior earthwork, and the scale is comparable to that found by Black Drake
on the eastern side of the fort. The GPR survey in unit 12 (Figure 6) identified the signature of the
feature found in the Black Drake survey (Figure 2), which was consistent with the results on the
western portion of the site. The ditch identified in the Black Drake (2003) profile is between 5 and 10
meters across; the dip in the GPR signature is approximately 8 to 10 meters across. Eighteenth- and
nineteenth-century field boundary ditches are typically one third the size of the subsurface features
identified here. The three postholes along with the sloping surface, the spatially large radar signature,
and the map location converge to show that the western earthworks of Fort Hardy are still present and
located in the lawn southwest of the community center and southeast of the visitor’s center (Figure
13). Complete excavation could more thoroughly investigate the nature of the ditch structure, but
would cause irreparable harm to an unthreatened archaeological resource. The clarity of the
archaeogeophysical feature, its direct comparability to the backhoe excavated feature on the
northeastern portion of the earthworks, and the documentary record provide sufficient grounds to
confidently determine this is the boundary of the Fort Hardy western earthworks. The western
earthworks of the fort also coincide with the eastern edge of the Field of Grounded Arms from the
Battles of Saratoga in 1777, revealing the location of this important site in the history of the American
Revolution.
140
Northeast Anthropology
No. 79/80, 2013
Figure 13. Plan-view plot of ground-penetrating radar overlaid on an aerial photograph with
interpretation of radar features (0.25-meter-thick time slice from 1.00 m to 1.25 m deep). A
identifies radar reflections associated with Fort Hardy, and B identifies radar reflections from
modern utilities such as water and electric lines (some of which have clear surface evidence in
the form of electrical outlets or water spigots). Local grid north is 18 degrees east of geographic
north. C identifies the location of the excavation unit.
CONCLUSION
The remains of Fort Hardy have been identified through a combination of documentary
research and field investigation. The success of the field investigation was driven by
archaeogeophysical survey, which allowed careful placement of an excavation unit to identify the
subsurface remains of the earthworks. These earthworks, constructed in 1756, would have been in
decay in 1777, but were sufficiently visible to serve as the boundary of the Field of Grounded Arms,
which extended from the colonial-era road to the ruins of Fort Hardy. The Champlain Canal prism is
now located where the colonial road had been in 1777. The Field of Grounded Arms is located
between the Champlain Canal and the Community Center in Fort Hardy Park. The existing visitor’s
center is located in the Field of Grounded Arms.
This study showed that the remnants of the short-lived earthworks at Fort Hardy have been
preserved for a significant distance within Fort Hardy Park. Because this portion of the fort is not
threatened by any current plans for construction, no further investigation is recommended for this
section of the fort. To accommodate any future development, a more complete campaign of
excavation would be worthwhile to reveal the full profile of the ditch and rampart system in this area
of the fort. Further investigation of the remaining elements of the fort would also be worthwhile,
particularly on the privately owned parcels south of Ferry Street. While this area is currently
residential, development without legal compliance archaeology is possible, making the preservation
Stull et al.
Finding Fort Hardy
141
of any other surviving elements of the fort less certain. Further investigation, particularly using
archaeogeophysical surveying, could identify additional components of the earthworks south of Ferry
Street, which would help clarify the complicated alignment of the earthworks depicted on the historic
maps. The central portion of the fort has probably been impacted by more concentrated development,
but additional survey, and excavation if elements of the fort footprint were threatened, would help
document this historic site.
The utility of archaeogeophysical survey for the discovery of the earthworks was confirmed by
the testing campaign for this project. The documentary record indicated the general location where
the earthworks should be located, but subsurface testing using shovel testing was insufficient to find
the boundaries of the fort. The backhoe trench excavated by Black Drake in association with the
waterline revealed the presence of the earthworks, and was appropriate, given that the construction
project would have destroyed the archaeological remains. For the remainder of the park, however,
backhoe testing was neither feasible nor recommended, both from the perspective of maintaining the
park as a public recreational space, proximity to the community building, and preservation of the
archaeological record. Archaeogeophysical survey allowed the boundary to be located without
needless destruction. This project serves as an example of how combining documentary research,
nondestructive archaeogeophysics, and targeted excavation can be extremely effective in the course
of archaeological research, while answering questions about the archaeological past with an effective
and efficient approach that preserves the majority of the archaeological record.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. The authors wish to thank Sean Kelleher, Town of Saratoga Historian, for advice
and support through the course of the project; Andrew Black, Black Drake Consulting, for graciously sharing
the results of his research at the site; Karen Hartgen, RPA, and the staff at Hartgen Archeological Associates,
Inc., for their support of this project, and Ithaca College physics student Kyle Stone in helping collect the data.
The comments of the anonymous reviewers of the manuscript added clarity and strength to the presentation.
Any errors, omissions, or misstatements are the responsibility of the authors; the statements, conclusions, and
opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of any who provided assistance or the U.S. Department of
the Interior, National Park Service.
REFERENCES
Articles of Convention
1777 Articles of Convention Between Lieutenant General Burgoyne and Major General Gates; October 16,
1777. The Avalon Project at Yale Law School. Electronic document, http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/
amerrev/dipldocs/burgoyne_gates.htm, accessed January 4, 2007.
Black Drake Consulting
2003 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey, Schuylerville Water Improvements, Towns of Saratoga and
Easton, Saratoga and Washington Counties, New York. Report authors Andrew T. Blake and Sarah Castle.
Black Drake Report No. 187. Black Drake Consulting, Champlain, New York. On file at New York State
Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, Waterford, New York.
Brandow, John
1901 The Story of Old Saratoga. Saratoga Springs, New York.
Conyers, Lawrence B.
2004 Ground-Penetrating Radar for Archaeology. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California.
Elliot, Daniel T.
2003a Ebenezer Revolutionary War Headquarters: A Quest to Locate and Preserve. Lamar Institute, Box
Springs, Georgia. Submitted to American Battlefield Protection Program National Park Service,
Washington, DC.
2003b Archaeological Investigations at Fort Morris State Historic Site, Liberty County, Georgia. Southern
Research Historic Preservation Consultants, Ellerslie, Georgia. Submitted to Historic Preservation
Division, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Atlanta.
142
Northeast Anthropology
No. 79/80, 2013
Faden, William
1777 Plan of the Position which the Army under Lieutenant General Burgoyne took at Saratoga on the 10th
of October, 1777 and in which it Remained till The Convention was signed. Published in History of
Saratoga County, New York 1609–1878, by Nathaniel Bartlett Sylvester. Heart of the Lakes Publishing,
Interlaken, New York.
Fisher, Kevin, Jeff Leon, Sturt Manning, Michael Rogers, and David Sewell
2012 The Kalavasos and Maroni Built Environments Project: Introduction and Preliminary Report on the
2008 and 2010 Seasons. Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus.
Gaffney, Chris, and John Gater
2003 Revealing the Buried Past: Geophysics for Archaeologists. Tempus Publishing, Stroud, Great Britain.
Geometrics
1995 G-858 MAGMAPPER Operation Manual 25309-OM REV.B. Geometrics, Inc., San Jose, California.
Geophysical Survey Systems, Inc.
2003 TerraSIRch SIR System-3000 User’s Manual. Geophysical Survey Systems, Inc., North Salem, New
Hampshire.
2005 RADAN for Windows Version 6.5 User’s Manual. Geophysical Survey Systems, Inc., North Salem,
New Hampshire.
Gerard-Little, Peregrine, Michael Rogers, and Kurt Jordan
2012 Understanding the Built Environment at the Seneca Iroquois White Springs Site using Large-Scale,
Multi-Instrument Archaeogeophysical Surveys. Journal of Archaeological Science 39:2042–2048.
Golden Software
2002 Surfer 8 User’s Guide: Contouring and 3D Surface Mapping for Scientists and Engineers. Golden
Software, Golden, Colorado.
Heimmer, Don H., and Steven L. DeVore
1995 Near-Surface, High Resolution Geophysical Methods for Cultural Resource Management and
Archeological Investigations. Revised edition. National Park Service, Denver.
2000 Near-Surface, High Resolution Geophysical Methods for Cultural Resource Management and
Archeological Investigations. In Science and Technology in Historic Preservation, edited by Ray A.
Williamson and Paul R, Nickens, pp. 53–73. Advances in Archaeological and Museum Science, Volume 4.
Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.
Ketchum, Richard
1997 Saratoga: Turning Point of America’s Revolutionary War. Henry Holt, New York.
Klinge, David
2005 Unpublished field notes. Hartgen Archeological Associates, Inc., Rensselaer, New York.
L’Abbe-Lindquist, Dylan, Christine Downs, and Peter Sablock
2007 A Geophysical Survey of an American Revolutionary War Fort. Poster presented at the annual meeting
of the Geological Society of America, Denver, Colorado.
Larkin, F. Daniel
1998 New York State Canals: A Short History. Purple Mountain Press, Fleischmanns, New York.
Leon, Jeff, Kevin Fisher, Sturt Manning, and Michael Rogers
2013 Interim Report on the Kalavasos and Maroni Built Environments Project: The 2011 Field
Season. Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus.
Lowenthal, Larry
2000 Marinus Willett, Defender of the Northern Frontier. Purple Mountain Press, Fleischmanns, New York.
New York Military Museum
2006 Fort Hardy. New York State Military Museum and Veterans Research Center. Electronic document,
http://www.dmna.state.ny.us/forts/fortsE_L/hardyFort.htm , accessed November 15, 2006.
Rocque, Mary Ann
1763 A Plan of the Fort at Saratoga. Published in A Set of Plan and Forts in America. Mary Ann Rocque,
London, England.
Stull et al.
Finding Fort Hardy
143
Rogers, Michael
2001 Detection of Burials at the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians Historic Period Cemetery, Oregon: A
Comparison of Ground-Based Remote Sensing Methods. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of
Anthropology, Oregon State University, Corvallis.
Rogers, Michael, John Baham, and Maria Dragila
2006 Effect of Soil Iron Content on Magnetometer Survey’s Ability to Locate Subsurface Agricultural
Drainage Pipes. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 22(5):701–704.
Rogers, Michael, James Cassidy, and Maria Dragila
2005. Ground-Based Magnetic Surveys as a New Technique to Locate Subsurface Drainage Pipes: A Case
Study. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 21(3):421–426.
Rogers, Michael, Kevin Faehndrich, Barbara Roth, and Greg Shear
2010 Cesium Magnetometer Surveys at a Pithouse Site near Silver City, New Mexico. Journal of
Archaeological Science 37:1102–1109.
Rogers, Michael, Jeff Leon, Kevin Fisher, Sturt Manning, and David Sewell
2012 Comparing Similar Ground-Penetrating Radar Surveys Under Different Moisture Conditions at
Kalavasos-Ayios Dhimitrios, Cyprus. Archaeological Prospection 19:297–305.
Rogers, Robert
2002 The Annotated and Illustrated Journals of Major Robert Rogers. Annotated and with an Introduction
by Timothy J. Todish. Purple Mountain Press, Fleischmanns, New York.
Starbuck, David
1999 The Great Warpath: British Military Sites from Albany to Crown Point. University Press of New
England, Hanover and London.
Stone, William L.
1877 The Campaign of Lieut. Gen. John Burgoyne and The Expedition of Lieut. Col. Barry St. Leger. Joel
Munsell, Albany, New York. Electronic document, http://threerivershms.com/burgoyne1.htm , accessed
January 5, 2007.
Strach, Stephen
1986 The Saratoga Estate of General Phillip Schuyler 1745-1839: An Interpretive and Historic Grounds
Report. Eastern National Park and Monument Association, Philadelphia.
Tabbagh, Jeanne
2003 Total Field Magnetic Prospection: Are Vertical Gradiometer Measurements Preferable to Single
Sensor Survey? Archaeological Prospection 10:75–81.
United States Geological Survey
1967 Schuylerville, New York Quadrangle 7.5’ Series. United States Geological Service, Reston, Virginia.
Watt, Gavin K.
2002 Rebellion in the Mohawk Valley: The St. Leger Expedition of 1777. Dundurn Press, Toronto.