FINAL REPORT ON THE 2012 EXCAVATIONS AT

THE WILSON-VICTOR (41HR1031)

AND RUTHVEN (41HR1070) SITES

BY THE RICE UNIVERSITY

ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD TECHNIQUES CLASS

(ANTHROPOLOGY 362/562)

DR. JEFFREY FLEISHER (RICE UNIVERSITY)

MR. ROBERT MARCOM (CARI)

DR. CAROL MCDAVID (CARI)

EDITED BY JEFFREY FLEISHER

2

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction 7

Jeffrey Fleisher

2. History of Houston and Freedmans Town 9

Annie Kuhl

3. Excavation Methods and Excavated Levels 19

Patricia Young

4. Ceramics 35

Payton Dillinger and David French

5. Glass Artifacts 45

Grace Apfeld and Stephanie Stutts

6. Metal Artifacts 63

Marie Hopkins and Steven Rich

7. Building Materials, Personal Adornments, and Miscellaneous Artifacts 73

Amanda Salinas and Katherine Humphreys

8. Faunal and Shell Remains 81

Annie Hsiao

9. Comparative Analysis of Faunal Remains from Freedmans Town Sites:

Rutherford B. H. Yates, Wilson-Victor, and Ruthven Properties 95

Yvana Rivera

10. Conclusion 109

Jeffrey Fleisher

11. References Cited 111

11. Appendix 1: Analyzed Artifact Catalog 117

12. Appendix 2: Analyzed Faunal Remains Catalog, Unit D 158

4

5

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are grateful to the Board of Directors and Advisory Board, Rutherford B. H. Yates

Museum, Inc. (RBHY), the Yates Community Archaeology Project (YCAP), and the Communi-

ty Archaeological Research Institute (CARI), for their support of excavations at the Yates House

by the Rice University Archaeological Field Techniques class. CARI/YCAP co-directors, Carol

McDavid and Robert Marcom gave generously of their time and energy during class time and

while excavations were ongoing. In the field, thanks are due especially to Robert Marcom who

helped oversee the excavations. Thanks also to Ruth Marcom, who helped orient the students to

the Yates cataloging system and provided important lab support during the excavations. Finally,

we gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Center for Civic Engagement and the

College of Social Sciences at Rice University, which made our collaboration with the Yates Mu-

seum possible. Stephanie Post, Executive Director of the CEC, has been extremely supportive of

this research, and helped ensure that funding was available.

We are pleased by another successful season at the Yates House, and look forward to fu-

ture, productive collaborations with the Rutherford B. H. Yates Museum and CARI.

Jeffrey Fleisher

Assistant Professor of Anthropology

Rice University

6

7

INTRODUCTION

Jeffrey Fleisher

Background and Goals

During the spring 2012 semester Rice University students and faculty conducted archae-

ological excavations at the Ruthven and Wilson-Victor properties, both owned by the Ruther-

ford B. H. Yates Museum. These excavations were part of the University’s course entitled

‘Archaeological Field Techniques’ (ANTH 362). Students were supervised by Rice faculty

member Dr. Jeffrey Fleisher as well as Mr. Robert Marcom and Ms. Ruth Marcom, both affili-

ated with the Yates Community Archaeology Project (YCAP) and the Community Archaeologi-

cal Research Institute (CARI). Dr. Carol McDavid consulted on the research as well. Students

were guided through a hands-on course of excavation during four weekends in late January and

February, followed by artifact analysis and interpretation at the Rice University Archaeology

Laboratory. The aims of the excavation reflected objectives of both the Archaeological Field

Techniques course and the Yates Community Archaeology Program.

This is the fifth year of collaborative work between Rice University’s Anthropology De-

partment, the Yates Museum, and CARI; this collaboration has provided students with a unique

and important opportunity for Rice students to learn archaeological excavation and analysis

techniques, and to think about the place of public and community archaeology in the discipline

today. Excavations at Yates Museum properties have proven to be rich in historical artifacts

(see previous reports, 2008-11) and the research provides students ample opportunity to exam-

ine how archaeological materials can connect with historical documentation and community

interests. From a technical standpoint, these excavations offer an important setting for the field

techniques class in that it is generally possible to excavate, over the course of one month, to

sterile soil, providing a full stratigraphic accounting for a trenches that we excavate.

In 2012, excavations were carried out first on the Ruthven property, where four 1 x 1 m

units were begun. These units were placed in an area that would have been between two shot-

gun houses that once occupied the lot. Unfortunately, heavy rains after the first weekend of ex-

cavations flooded the property and left deep standing water in the area of these trenches. We

decided to leave these units and begin again at the Wilson-Victor property, a city lot that once

8

contained a general store and houses. Two units placed on a high part of the property quickly

revealed deep redeposited clay subsoil, and so these trenches were also closed. We subse-

quently opened three 1 x 1 meter trenches to the south, in area with intact cultural deposits and

dug these units to subsoil. This report thus reports primarily on the final three units, but de-

scribes the work completed at the other units as well. Decisions about unit placement and ex-

cavation techniques were carried out in consultation with YCAP and, as in the previous sea-

son, we followed the excavation and analysis protocols established by them.

The Report

As part of their coursework, each student was assigned a particular class of archaeolog-

ical data, and asked to analyze, record and interpret patterns within these data. The goal is the

creation of an excavation report that summarizes thoroughly the material recovered during the

research. The results are found in the following chapters. One undergraduate student, Yvanna

Rivera, took the class in fulfillment of her capstone course requirement at Rice, and thus car-

ried out a more extensive project, analyzing faunal material from a previous excavation at the

Yates Museum and comparing it to the material excavated by Rice students since 2008. Her

report is included as a chapter in this report as well.

9

HISTORY OF HOUSTON AND FREEDMEN’S TOWN

Annie Kuhl

The history of Freedmen’s Town is the focus of this chapter. However, to fully under-

stand the history of Freedmen’s Town, it is necessary to examine the history of Houston as

well. A relatively young city, Houston was about thirty years old when the Civil War ended,

and so as Houston grew and developed, Freedmen’s Town grew and developed as well. It is

important to note that Freedmen’s Town was not built in a well established and old city, it was

built in a rapidly growing and changing metropolis. Houston and Freedmen’s Town share histo-

ries that are intertwined, and for this reason this chapter will examine Houston and the Ward

system, the Fourth Ward specifically, and then the various factors that have affected Freed-

men’s Town.

Early Houston and the Wards

Houston was officially declared a city in the Republic of Texas on June 5, 1837

(Houston Texas Online 2012). At the time, it served as the capital as well and encompassed an

area of roughly 15 square miles, considerably smaller than the 579 square miles that it occupies

today (Tutt 2006:A-37). At this time, Texas was still an independent country, newly freed from

Mexico, with a government struggling to get on its feet. The area surrounding Houston was

characterized by its large plantations, and had a culture not dissimilar from the rest of the Amer-

ican south. Slavery was still legal, and as Figure 1 shows, by 1840, a significant portion of the

African American population in Texas was concentrated in the eastern region surrounding Hou-

ston. Most African Americans were slaves at this time (University of Texas 2011).

In 1839, several major events began to change the shape of Houston. First, the capital

was moved to Austin (Tutt 2006:A-38). Though it would move back to Houston briefly, Austin

eventually became the permanent capital of Texas. Following the move, there was a charter in

1839 to create the Four Wards of Houston. Creating wards in major cities was fairly common at

the time. Many major cities like New York, Chicago, Boston and New Orleans already had

these systems in place. The motivation behind creating the wards was political; it helped estab-

lish a more coherent political system for the newly formed city of Houston. Each ward acted

like a district, and was able to elect two aldermen. When the system was institutionalized, the

10

Figure 1: Population of black slaves as a percentage of the total population in 1840;

the largest populations surround Houston (University of Texas 2011)

11

only people who could run for the position of alderman were white males who owned at least

$100 in property (Chapman 2011a:30). This meant that only select groups of people (usually

businessmen) were able to hold these positions. These early aldermen began to shape the

growth of Houston in ways that can still be seen today. Since most business at the time was

centered on trade, specifically the port, infrastructure was a priority. In the business-oriented

days of Houston’s early years, we can begin to see the creation of a great wealth disparity that

still exists in the city today. For example, in the years between 1850 and 1860, the share of

wealth held by the richest ten percent of the population increased from about half of the city’s

ernings to about two thirds, a significant increase. From its inception, the government of Hou-

ston has very much acted on behalf of the booming businesses that characterize this unusual

city (Chapman 2011a:30).

As Houston continued to grow, the main events that would continue to shape Houston’s

growth would be Texas admission to the United States in 1845 and then Civil War not long af-

ter (Houston History 2011). Even though Texas was a part of the Confederacy, because of its

relative isolation from the main battlegrounds, Houston’s economy remained relatively un-

scathed and bounced back a lot faster than the rest of the American South after the Civil War

(Chapman 2011a: 30). The biggest setback to the economy was not the war itself, rather the

sudden loss of slave labor and the crippling effect that had on plantations. The Civil War and its

aftermath not only changed the economic landscape of Houston, but would eventually re-shape

almost every aspect of the city as well (Wintz 1990:98).

The Fourth Ward Demographics over Time

Narrowing our focus to the Fourth Ward, we can see how the macro-politics of the Unit-

ed States, Texas and Houston greatly affected the inner functioning of this ward. The Fourth

Ward is now known as the “Mother Ward” for the African American community in Houston

and has a reputation for being a historically African American neighborhood and the home of

Freedmen’s Town – the area inhabited by freed slaves after the Civil War.

When it was first created in 1839, the Fourth Ward was a neighborhood with a mixed

race population. Houston had a significant slave population at the time, and unlike plantation

slaves, many of the slaves who lived in Houston lived in separate residences from their owners

(Chapman 2011a). At the time there was no particular concentration of African American resi-

12

dences – they were scattered across the wards more or less evenly. Up until the Civil War, there

was not much of a change in the demographics of the Fourth Ward or Houston in general

(Wintz 1990:97).

Slavery remained legal in Houston until after the Civil War ended in 1865: after that, the

African American population in Houston, and the Fourth Ward in particular, grew exponential-

ly. For example, the census of 1860 states that only 8 free African Americans lived in all of

Houston. After the 1865, over one thousand slaves received their freedom, and thousands more

came to Houston from the surrounding plantations. Between 1870 and 1910, the population of

African Americans in the Fourth Ward grew from 1,314 to 6,366 (Wintz 1990:99). This kind of

population growth is remarkable.

Despite the significant spike in African American residences in the Fourth Ward, it was

still a diverse neighborhood. In fact, African Americans were not a majority in the Fourth Ward

until after 1915. Interestingly, censuses from 1870 indicate that 54%, over half, of black fami-

lies in the Fourth Ward were living next store to white residents, and even more surprising was

that 5% of black family homes had white boarders. The kind of racial segregation that would

soon characterize the American South did not end up taking place until well into the 20th centu-

ry – the Fourth Ward was not anomalous in this respect. (Wintz 1990:99) However, the Fourth

Ward is still known for its importance to the African American community in Houston at large.

This is due in large part, to the population increase, but also because of the important cultural

establishments built during this time including:

1866: the first African American Church, Antioch Baptist is established in the Fourth

Ward (Wintz 1990:105).

1870: the first public school for African Americans, the Gregory School opens in the

Fourth Ward (Wintz 1990:106).

1910: the first hospital for African Americans, Union Hospital is built in the Fourth

Ward (Wintz 1990:106).

1913, the first library for African Americans, the Carnegie Library is brought to the

Fourth Ward. (Chapman 2011b: 41)

For these, and other institutions, the Fourth Ward is known for being the “Mother Ward” to

many African Americans in Houston and is still considered culturally relevant, even today

(McDavid 2011:74).

13

African American Businesses and Property Ownership

Another remarkable thing about the Fourth Ward besides its cultural institutions, was

the concentration of African American owned businesses, and the remarkable rate of home

ownership in the Fourth Ward. For example, right after the Civil War, in 1870, 4.2% of African

Americans in the Fourth Ward owned their own homes (Wintz 1990:102). This has puzzled

many historians; the fact that after only five years of freedom, African American families man-

aged to be financially independent enough to own their own homes is extremely telling about

the rapid changes occurring in Houston at this time. One theory explaining the ability of Afri-

can Americans to buy homes so soon after the Civil War has to do with the nature of slavery in

ante-bellum Houston. First of all, slaves often did not live in the same houses as their owners

and second of all, they were allowed to take jobs outside of their owner’s home. They could

‘hire out’ their free time and be paid for their work, so it is possible that some African Ameri-

cans who were freed from slavery in Houston already had money saved up from their time as

slaves in Houston (Chapman 2011a:31).

What is even more remarkable than the rate of home ownership, which kept growing,

was the length of time that families were able to hold onto their property. In 1900 already

12.1% of African Americans owned their own homes in the Fourth Ward – a significant in-

crease from 1870 (Wintz 1990:102). However, studies conducted at the time (that stopped un-

fortunately in 1900) indicated that African Americans on average held onto their property for

over twenty years. The length of time that families could hold onto property was important, be-

cause it was a sign of the community’s economic independence and stability. People were not

losing their property three or four years after buying it. In particular, the Yates family was able

to hold onto their property well into the 20th century (Day 1982:12). This indicates that not only

was a strong community being fostered institutionally, through the churches and schools, but

also the household units were very important and very strong during this time period.

During this time, African American businesses flourished in the Fourth Ward. In 1910,

about 32.8% of African American owned businesses were in the Fourth Ward, and also the ma-

jority of African American professionals worked in the Fourth Ward as well (Chapman

2011b:41). The majority of these businesses were proprietorships, meaning that the vast majori-

ty of these businessmen were self employed small business owners. At most, they probably em-

ployed three or four other people. But, the significant number of businesses and jobs in the

14

Fourth Ward still made it the destination for Houston’s African American business class

(Joseph 1974:147).

Political Changes and the Fourth Ward

Right after the Civil War, the period known as the Reconstruction began in the South.

The Reconstruction period was one where many political and business opportunities emerged

for African Americans. In 1868, African American males were allowed to vote, and under Re-

construction, an African American was appointed as an alderman in each of the wards. When

there were elections in 1872, African Americans still made their voices heard, electing at least

one African American alderman in the Third, Fourth and Fifth Wards (Chapman 2011a:33).

However, after Reconstruction ended in the late 1870s, many politicians in the South began

passing laws to restrict the rights given to African Americans.

Beginning in 1866, Texas began passing laws known as the “Black Codes”. These codes

gave African Americans basic property rights, the right to make wills and other various liber-

ties. They also however, greatly restricted their rights by imposing heavy fines for ‘vagrancy’

and legalizing the ‘apprenticeship’ of a person. An employer could apprentice a minor without

parental consent. The apprentice would learn a trade and in return the master would provide

them food, shelter and education. However, the master could use corporal punishment and if an

apprentice tried to quit, there were heavy fines and other legal consequences (Moneyhon 2012).

These laws, while extreme, were passed during the Reconstruction, meaning that at least the

Federal Government was there and attempting to rectify the situation. However, after the Feder-

al Government receded in the 1890s, the Texas Legislature began passing what are now known

as the ‘Jim Crow’ Laws. The first of these, passed in 1891, required separate railroad coaches

for blacks and whites and also made it difficult for African Americans to vote by enforcing poll

taxes and reading tests. Because of these laws, African Americans lost much of their political

power (Women in Texas History 2011). Additionally, in 1906 the Ward system in Houston was

dissolved. Instead of electing representatives from each Ward, the people of Houston elected

representatives for the whole city, and it was much more difficult for African Americans elect a

candidate (Chapman 2011a:33).

However, there were still significant strides made in Texas and in the United States to

reverse the effects of the Jim Crow Laws through much of the twentieth century. In general, the

15

politics of Houston in the twentieth century represents a mix of triumphs and setbacks for not

only African Americans, but other minorities living in the city as well.

The ‘Decline’ of the Fourth Ward

The Fourth Ward had a flourishing African American community in the early twentieth

century. Despite its promise at the turn of the century, it gradually lost its prominence over the

next few decades. Gradually the center of the African American community began to change,

moving towards the Third Ward. In the 1920s, the Third Ward surpassed it in African American

population. The Third Ward also gained one of the first public colleges for African Americans

and had the first park for African Americans as well. (Wintz 1990:107) However, there were

other events that began to change the community of the Fourth Ward itself. These events would

lead to the so-called ‘decline’ of the Fourth Ward and further establish the Third Ward as the

new center for Houston’s African American community.

The main event that is cited as the beginning of the end for the Fourth Ward is the build-

ing of the San Felipe Housing Projects, now known as Allen Parkway Village. These public

housing units were built in the 1938 and were intended as low-income housing for Houston’s

white residents. The construction of these projects brought an influx of white residents

(McDavid et al 2008:38). Even more devastating to the community was the construction of the

Gulf Freeway from 1948-1952 (McDavid 2011:76). Originally when the Fourth Ward and

Freedmen’s Town were built, they were near the fringes of the city. However, in the twentieth

century they found themselves in the middle of an increasingly growing city and right at the

heart of Houston, in an area perfect for a downtown business district.

As these businesses and housing projects were emerging, the landscape of the Fourth

Ward began to change drastically. While it was once a neighborhood dotted with businesses and

schools, it became increasingly notorious as a deteriorating neighborhood. In its ‘deteriorated’

state, many developers took the opportunity to come in and ‘improve’ the neighborhood, replac-

ing the former, historic homes with new ones. And with these new homes came new residents

as the neighborhood became gentrified. While in the past many residents owned their homes,

most of the inhabitants by the late twentieth century were tenants. By 1990, almost 80% of the

land in the Fourth Ward was owned by a single company: Metropolitan Development and Real

Estate (Baird 1990). While the land has changed hands from company to company, even today,

16

the majority of people who own land in the Fourth Ward do not actually live there anymore – a

drastic change from the days when many people lived, owned homes and worked in the blos-

soming business district.

Efforts to Preserve Freedmen’s Town

After a bitter campaign, Freedmen’s Town was officially added to the National Register

of Historic Places in 1984 (McDavid et al. 2008:37). This 40-block area is remarkably large and

is dotted with historic sites, such as the Yates House that are preserved. Despite it’s historic

designation, many of the buildings in Freedmen’s Town have been demolished (McDavid

2011:78). A number of neighborhood and community associations have been formed to prevent

(and in some cases to aid) the demolition of these buildings.

One particular group, Freedmen’s Town Association started by Gladys House in 1981

has done much work to preserve the Fourth Ward buildings. Other organizations have formed in

response to hers, for example some ministers and other community leaders formed Freedman’s

Town Association / Fourth Ward Neighborhood Association after some inter-organizational

strife (Gill 1991). Another organization, the Fourth Ward Property Owners Association was

formed later; some would say it was formed in direct opposition to the other two, since it was

adamantly opposed to the large size of the historic district in the ward (Watson 1984). However,

all these groups claimed to have the best interests of the Fourth Ward and the community in

mind as they grapple to try to breathe new life into a rapidly deteriorating neighborhood.

Archaeological Efforts in Freedmen’s Town

Without a doubt, the most extensive archaeological dig done in Freedmen’s Town was

the one organized by Rachel Feit and Bradford M. Jones in 2007. Their main goals were to look

for evidence of a burial ground, analyze the household material culture in the area, and to estab-

lish whether or not more archaeological research was necessary in the area. The area that they

focused their investigation on was bounded on the north by Robin Street, on the east by

Genessee Street, on the south by Gray Street and on the West by Taft Street. In total, it was

about an eight-block area. After conducting an extensive dig with 55 trenches dug throughout

this large section of Freedmen’s Town, the burial ground was not located and that the need for

further archaeological work there warranted more investigation. However, the archaeologists

17

did find an abundance of household artifacts and were able to interpret. They used these to draw

conclusions about the ‘mundane’ lives of the people who lived in Freedmen’s Town. While

some older artifacts were found, the majority of them were from the twentieth century (Feit and

Jones 2007).

In addition to Feit and Jones, other archaeologists began to work in Freedmen’s Town.

This lead to the creation of the Rutherford B. H. Yates Museum and the subsequent Yates Com-

munity Archaeological Project (YCAP). This organization works to preserve and learn more

about Freedmen’s Town. It also runs field schools for various universities in the area and pro-

motes community awareness about the Fourth Ward and Freedmen’s Town (Rutherford B.H.

Yates Museum 2005). There is another particularly prominent organization that does archaeolo-

gy in the Fourth Ward that was created by Dr. Carol McDavid and Robert Marcom. The Com-

munity Archaeology Research Institute, or CARI also works in the Fourth Ward conducting

digs, research, and fostering community awareness through the unique community archaeology

approach (Community Archaeology Research Institute, Inc. 2012).

Carol McDavid’s work in Freedmen’s Town is important to note because it has been an

enormous influence on Rice’s work in the Fourth Ward. In her writing about her work at the

Levi Jordan Plantation outside of Houston, McDavid emphasizes the idea of public archaeology

being a ‘conversation’ (McDavid 2002:305). It is meant to include the community and create a

platform where ideas are shared. When dealing with historic sites that have such strong ties to

the present day community, such as Freedmen’s Town, one should conduct archaeology with

sensitivity and respect to the community. McDavid continues to employ her public archaeology

approach in her publications about Freedmen’s Town. A lot of her publications do not focus

exclusively on the archaeological data. Instead, there is an emphasis placed on archaeology and

its interaction with the community. Archaeology becomes activism in a way, challenging the

stereotypes commonly believed about the Fourth Ward (McDavid 2011:83). McDavid’s work

includes archaeology, ethnography, oral histories, interviews and community dialogue. All of

these are used to understand the complex history of Freedmen’s Town and to write a history

that is not only embraced but also created by the community (McDavid 2011).

Rice University has produced reports of their work in 2008 and 2009. In summary, their

work included:

18

The 2008 Archaeological Field Techniques class dug behind the Yates House Museum

in an effort to ascertain whether or not a schoolhouse was there. Though they did find

toys and other artifacts they could not conclude with any certainty that there was a

schoolhouse there.

The 2009 Archaeological Field Techniques class dug outside of the Yates House again

looking for a possible outbuilding. After their findings showed evidence of old building

materials, they realized that they could support the claim of an outhouse’s existence, but

could not say so with absolute certainty.

Archaeological Sites in 2012

This year we focused our archaeological research on two different lots. Using the

Sanborn Insurance Maps, we were able to ascertain what used to exist on these lots. The first lot

was at 1314 Ruthven. Today it is the site of an abandoned lot, but it the past it had two shotgun

houses on it. These homes were demolished a few years ago and so the lot itself has been left to

its own devices for a while. While it is inside the Freedmen’s Town Historic District, the site

itself is not designated as historic.

The second lot was the site at 1404 Victor Street. This site at one point had three differ-

ent buildings on it according to the Sanborn Insurance maps: a store, a home and a barbershop

(Sanborn Insurance Maps 1954). According to a newspaper article, the home was built in 1924

and was a barbershop and home in the 1920s. During the 1920s two African American barbers

James Williams and Earl T. Randon owned it. It was still functioning as a barbershop in the

1950s, this time owned by Flossie Davies and Faye Tarver. While none of the three original

buildings remain, the old shotgun house behind it still does and is being renovated. After exca-

vations and renovations are complete, this site will eventually be made into a barbershop muse-

um (Staff 2008).

19

EXCAVATION METHODS AND LEVELS

Patricia Young

The Rice University field techniques class began excavating on January 28, 2012 in

conjunction with the Rutherford B. Yates Museum on a vacant lot (site designation 41HR1070)

south of the museum on Ruthven Street. According to tax records, the lot previously had two

shot-gun houses and four trenches were laid out in the area between the houses. These were di-

vided into two units, RC and RD, composed of two 1 m subunits each. Students spent one

weekend working at this site, Saturday January 28th from 8 AM -12 PM and 1-5 PM and Sun-

day January 29th from 12-4 PM. On the next weekend, the site area was flooded because of

heavy rainfall and the trenches, which were situated in a low-lying area, were covered with up

to six inches of water. These trenches were abandoned and Saturday February 4th was spent

processing artifacts from those trenches.

A new site was found on the corner of Victor and Wilson Street (site designation

41HR1031) in between a barber shop and a general store, both of which were no longer stand-

ing. On February 5th, two 1 x1 m trenches were laid out, Q4 and Q5, in an area close to a stand-

ing shotgun house. After removing the root mat and digging approximately 5 cm, it became ap-

parent that the soil had been disturbed —a mix of two distinct clays formed the mound of rede-

posited clay, rather than natural deposition. These trenches were also abandoned.

A third trench, Q6, was begun in the afternoon in the area where the porch of the gen-

eral store was located. This area proved to have undisturbed deposits. The following weekend

trenches two more trenches were started Q7 and Q8. Q8 was directly to the northwest of Q7

and Q6 was two meters to the west of Q7 (Fig. 1).

Excavated Methodology

The units were first laid out using string and nails to form the outer boundaries, using

triangulation to make sure the corners were exactly a meter apart on north south parallel. The

excavation began with removing the root mat until the soil was relatively free of roots, although

some large, deep roots remained. After clearing the root mat, levels were dug in arbitrary 5 cm

levels with reference to stratigraphic layers. Levels were measured using a builder’s level.

20

When a new stratigraphic layer appeared, a new level was begun, resulting in levels of differing

depths.

In trenches Q6, Q7, and Q8, groups of three to four students worked on each trench at a

time, while the remaining students washed excavated artifacts. One student supervisor would

maintain the unit forms, recording information such as opening and closing levels, Munsell soil

colors, soil types, artifacts found in the level, any possible features and other observations.

Summaries of these forms for each level of each unit can be found at the end of this chapter in

Table 1. The other students excavated and screened the soil. In cases of notable features, scale

sketches were drawn. Opening and closing photographs of each level were taken. Closing pro-

files and plans noting features, rocks, and artifacts were also made in Q6, Q7, and Q8, but not

those trenches that were abandoned. In order take the closing profiles, the walls were cleaned

using trowels and measurements were taken from a level string at ground level and scale draw-

ings were made.

Trowels were the main excavation tool used in the trenches. Shovels were used to re-

move the root mat cleanly and efficiently. Dabas —which are an African tool with a foot and

half long wooden handle with a flat blade attached at one end at a 90 degree angle— were used

to remove dirt in fairly even thin layers, more quickly, but less precisely than trowels. Any roots

were cut with root cutters. The excavated soil was put into buckets and screened through ¼”

screens. Each subunit used its own screen so as not to mix the soil with other units’ soil. From

the screens, the artifacts were placed into paper bags, labeled with the specific lot number of the

level as well as the date, level, depth, unit, site and initials of the person screening. The paper

bags allowed the excess moisture of the soil to evaporate. Approximately a third of the artifacts

were washed on site while the excavation was occurring and the rest of the artifacts were

washed in the Rice Archaeology Laboratory after excavation had finished. The artifacts were

catalogued according the Yates Museum’s catalogue system and placed in clear plastic bags.

Artifacts were grouped into several categories: faunal, metal, ceramics, glass, personal adorn-

ment, building materials, plastics and miscellaneous.

All weekends except February 4th and 5th were dry. However, it rained heavily that

weekend resulting in the closure of the RC and RD units. Additionally, while those weekends

were not rainy, it should be noted that it did rain a fair amount throughout this time period dur-

21

ing the week. This resulted in fairly moist soil which may have altered the Munsell soil colors

slightly due to the pre-saturated soil.

Excavated Levels

The stratigraphic and artifact contents of each level are discussed in detail here. Units

RC and RD were dug until the middle of Level 2 at which point they were flooded and excava-

tion was halted. Units Q4 and Q5 were dug one level down until it was realized the soil had

been redeposited. Q6, Q7, and Q8 were dug until sterile soil (Figs. 2 and 3).

Unit RC at the Ruthven site was composed of two subunits, RC-2 and RC-3. RC-2 Lev-

el 1 contained sandy, loam with clay. A fair amount of artifacts were found including glass and

plastic fragments, ornamental metal, a terracotta shingle, cement chunks, nails, and bone. A

large cement block was found in the southwestern quadrant. Many thick roots in the trench

slowed excavation. RC-3 Level 1 had black loam with clay content, along with many roots and

rocks. Artifacts found in this subunit included glass, more building material, shell, metal, bottle

caps, bone, a light bulb, and part of a seat belt. In Level 2, the soil changed to a thick clay. No-

table artifacts include: a bone button, a marble, blue glass fragments, nails, mortor and brick. At

this point the units were abandoned and there are no closing records for the trench because of

flooding.

Unit RD at the Ruthven site was also composed of two subunits, RD-2 and RD-3. RD-2

Level 1 had wet, crumbly clay/loam with little friability. The subunit had objects such as glass

shards, a door handle, ceramic shards and unidentified silver pole like object protruding from

the south wall. The similar damp soil conditions continued into RD-3 Level 1, which had more

clay soil. In addition to glass fragments, brick pieces, and nails, notable artifacts include a bro-

ken record, a battery and some string. Level 2 of RD-3 had crumbly clay soil but no other ob-

servations were noted before the trenches were flooded.

Units Q4 and Q5 at the Wilson Victor site had mottled, clay of yellow, red and gray.

Some artifacts such as shell, a few pieces of ceramic, a 1969 penny, and nail were gathered be-

fore excavation was halted. In Q5, a 20 x20 cm hole was dug in the northwest corner and yel-

low clay was found beneath the composite clays (Fig. 4). This mixture of clays above the natu-

ral clay indicated a disturbance and these units were therefore abandoned.

22

Unit Q6 (Fig. 5) contained two features— a trash pit in the northeast quadrant and a

concrete slab in the southwest corner. Level 1 contained black loam and was dug from to eleva-

tion of 7-8 cm below grade. A watch strap, a full glass bottle, a plastic toy, a marble, a blue selt-

zer bottle and a pan as well as ceramic and glass shards, nails, shells, and cement pieces were

found.

In Level 2, the soil consisted of a dry, heavy and crumbly loam. In this level, the trash

pit first became distinct in the NE corner and the other feature, a concrete tile in the SW corner,

became visible. Glass, metal and shell were throughout the unit, but the trash pit contained a

greater amount of shell and metal and glass. In the other areas of the trench, a new, sandier soil

was found and the level was closed at an elevation of roughly 7-11 cm.

The soil in Level 3 was a light loam with loose clay and sandy. Feature 1, the trash pit,

cut through the NW corner and a concrete surface took up the SE corner. Bits of shell, iron,

glass, coal, and fair amount of bone were excavated. The level was very thin as the soil quickly

changed to clay. A large amount of rubble was found in the southeast corner, thought to be re-

lated to the trash pit.

Level 4 was dug at a depth of 11-16 cm. The soil was clayey. There were some sandy

inclusions present in the soil with mainly rocks and metal artifacts found. The trash pit contin-

ued to cut through the level.

Level 5 was composed of two different soils from a depth of 16-21 cm. In the western

half of the trench, it was more clayey, whereas in the eastern half, it was loamier. The amount

of artifacts began to decrease dramatically, but many rocks, some charcoal and a few pieces of

glass were found.

The difference in soils continued in Level 6. Overall, it changed to a compact clay after

the rocky layer was cleared, but the southeast corner contained heavy loam. There were almost

no artifacts, except in the SE corner which continued to produce cultural deposits: a few pieces

of metal and some charcoal. The SE corner was 3-4 cm deeper than the rest of the trench, re-

sulting in a very sloped trench.

In Level 7, just the southeast corner was dug down 3 cm, until the natural clay present in

the rest of the trench appeared. The only artifact found in this area of the trench was a single

piece of glass. This level concluded the Q6 unit as all areas of the trench had reached sterile

soil.

23

The trash pit feature began at the end of Level 2 and continued down 10 cm until water

pooled in the bottom of the pit. The soil was a very loose loam throughout the pit and got pro-

gressively wetter as the trench got deeper. Artifacts were densely packed within the pit and in-

cluded a large amount of shell and metal, glass fragments, unbroken glass bottles, and bone

fragments.

Unit Q7 (Fig. 6) was two meters to the east of Q6 and catty-corner to Q8 to the north-

west. Level 1 contained very loose, moist black loam. Most of the artifacts found in the level

were glass, shell and ceramic fragments, but notable artifacts include: a marble, automotive

safety glass, roofing material, hair product, rusted nails and a button. In addition to these arti-

facts, there were many rocks, pebbles and root knots. This level was dug to a depth of 6 cm be-

low the grade.

Level 2 was a 1 cm layer because of change in soil types. Rust spots and streaks began

to appear and a new level was opened. In this level, artifacts such as glass, nails, bone, ceramic

and the beginning of these metal objects were found.

Level 3 was dug from a depth of 7 -15 cm and had a variety of different loams. The SE

quadrant had oily clay, there was loam and clay in the NE quadrant, clay in the NW quadrant

and a mixture in the SW quadrant. The clay type changed around rust stains, but at the bottom

of the level was one homogenous clay type. A large amount of bone was associated with these

rust stains. Nails, bone, metal rivets, a blue lego and a glass bottle filled with bone were found.

Level 4 spanned from 15-19 cm and was composed of a thick, wet clay in the northern

quadrants. In the southern quadrants, there was a slightly loamier, darker clay. As the level pro-

gressed, the clay became loamier. Artifact frequency dramatically decreased in comparison with

the previous level. One ceramic fragment and one glass fragment were found towards the top of

the trench, with one rusted metal piece in the middle, and no artifacts towards the bottom. This

had a similar dark clay to that found in Q8, but was lighter than that of Q6. This level concluded

the Q7 unit.

Unit Q8 (Fig. 7), Level 1 went down exactly 5 cm below the root mat. The soil was a

light, moist, black clay. There was a large amount of rocks extending from the center. Shell,

glass, ceramic, brick, plastic, and bone were found throughout the trench along with one metal

screw and plastic button.

24

In Level 2, the same moist, dark, light clay continued until a new soil type was encoun-

tered. The elevation of the level was from 15.271-15.231 m. Bricks and the circular cross sec-

tion of a gas pipe were encountered in the northeast corner. Artifacts found in this level include

a button, a tooth, glass and ceramic fragments, bone, and screws.

Level 3 was 8 cm deep everywhere except the NW corner where it was not dug because

of a pipe. A light clay soil was throughout the trench.

Level 4 contained the same light clay as the previous level and was dug from 15.231-

15.19 m in the just the southern half of the trench. Artifacts in this level included a glass,

shells, ceramics, a marble, metal and charcoal. A sewage pipe was unearthed in the southwest

quadrant, surrounded by a different type of soil that contained metallic rust. This soil was dug

down further to unearth the pipe.

Level 5 was a section of the northern third of the trench, ending at the gas pipe. It also

had a light clay soil.

Figure 1: Location of Units Q4, Q6, Q7, and Q8 in relation to previous units excavated, Wilson-Victor Site

25

Figure 2: Plan of Q6 at closing

No. Elevation

1 15.121

2 15.101

3 15.021

4 15.311

5 15.051

26

Figure 3: Plan of Q8 at closing

No. Elevation

1 15.121

2 14.941

3 14.931

4 15.111

5 15.091

6 15.101

7 15.171

8 15.021

27

Figure 4: North Wall Profile of Unit Q5

Label Description Associated

Levels

A Mottled yellow, red, and black clays, soft and clumped,

few artifacts, re-deposited clay 1

B Natural yellow clay 1

Deposits in Q5 profile

Label Description Associated

Levels

A

Medium to fine black loam, dry and crumbly, sub-

stantial number of artifacts, Feature 1 begins in NE

corner 1, 2

B

Sandy light loam, with loose clay, consistent number

of artifacts, Feature 1 cuts through, very thin (Not

pictured) 3

C Clay with streaks of sand, Feature 1 cuts through,

rocky and wet 4

D

Light loamy with some clay content, not many arti-

facts, more clay-like in Western half of trench, more

loamy in Eastern half of trench 5

E Heavy clay, few artifacts found 6, 7

F Heavy loam only in SE corner 6

Deposits in Q6 profiles

Relation of Excavated Levels to Stratigraphy

28

Figure 5: Q6 Wall Profiles; objects in black are artifacts (see soil descriptions on facing page)

29

Deposits in Q7 profiles

Figure 6: Q7 east and west profiles (see key for soil descriptions)

Label Description Associated

Levels

A Black 1oam, loose and moist, rocks and root knots

prevalent, large amount of artifacts 1,2

B Clay with some loam content, moderate amount of

artifacts found 3

C Loamy sand, dry, chunky, not many artifacts found 3

D Heavy clay, wet and thick, few artifacts 4

30

Figure 7: Q8 profiles (see key for soil descriptions)

Deposits in Q8 profiles

Label Description Associated

Levels

A Black, light clay, moist, many artifacts 1, 2

B Loam, many artifacts 3

C Light clay, dark, less artifacts, contained rust stains

around sewer pipe 3-6

31

Un

it

Leve

l O

E C

E M

un

sell

AH

N

Arti

fact

Ob

serv

atio

ns

Ge

ne

ral O

bse

rvati

on

s

Q4

1

15

.50

1

15

.46

1

7.5

YR

, 7/4

&

7/6

; 2.5

3/1

Cla

y

( R

ede-

po

site

d)

very

litt

le-

wh

ite

cera

m-

ic

Un

nat

ura

l lay

erin

g o

f cl

ay-

sto

pp

ed e

xcav

atio

n

Q5

1

15

.58

1

15

.55

1

7.5

YR

6/5

;

2.5

YR

2.5

/1

Cla

y

( R

ede-

po

site

d)

Pe

nn

y (1

969

), n

ail,

shel

l

Mix

of

2 c

lays

ind

icat

es d

istu

rb-

ance

Q6

1

15

.33

1

15

.27

1

10

YR

2/1

,

Bla

ck

Loam

glas

s, s

hel

ls, p

an, c

e-

men

t, g

lass

bo

ttle

s, a

mar

ble

Q6

2

15

.27

1

15

.23

1

10

YR

2/2

E, H

eavy

Loam

gl

ass,

met

al, s

hel

l

Co

nta

ins

Feat

ure

1,

tile

sq

uar

e

in S

W c

orn

er, n

ew s

and

y so

il at

bo

tto

m

Q6

3

15

.23

1

15

.23

1

10

YR

3/1

C, L

igh

t

Loam

iro

n, b

on

e, s

hel

l, gl

ass,

coal

Du

g in

NW

co

rner

mai

nly

Fea

-

ture

1 c

uts

th

rou

gh, r

ub

ble

in S

E

corn

er

Q6

4

15

.23

1

15

.19

1

10

YR

3/1

C

lay

rock

s, m

etal

Ver

y m

ois

t so

il w

ith

str

eaks

of

san

d, F

eatu

res

-Co

ncr

ete

Tile

and

Tra

shp

it

Q6

5

15

.19

1

15

.13

1

7.5

YR

3/1

C, L

igh

t

Loam

less

arti

fact

s- r

ock

s,

char

coal

, few

gla

ss p

iec-

es

Cla

y in

wes

tern

hal

f, m

ore

loam

y

in e

aste

rn h

alf

Q6

6

1

5.1

31

1

5.1

01

7

.5 Y

R 3

/1

Hea

vy

clay

Few

pie

ces

of

char

coal

and

met

al

E, H

eavy

Lo

am (

SE c

orn

er),

oth

-

erw

ise

hea

vy c

lay

Q6

7

1

5.0

51

(SE)

15

.02

1

(SE)

1

0 Y

R 3

/2

G, C

lay

1 p

iece

of

glas

s

All

dig

gin

g d

on

e in

SE

corn

er, u

n-

til c

lay

laye

r

Tab

le 1

: El

eva

tio

ns,

Mu

nse

ll so

il co

lor,

arti

fact

des

crip

tio

ns

and

gen

eral

ob

serv

atio

ns.

O

pen

ing

and

clo

sin

g el

eva

tio

ns

are

abb

revi

ated

to

OE

and

CE.

32

Un

it

Leve

l O

E C

E M

un

sell

AH

N

Arti

fact

Ob

serv

atio

ns

Gen

eral

Ob

serv

atio

ns

Q6

Fe

a-

ture

1

15

.13

1

15

.03

1

7.5

YR

2.5

/1

D, L

oam

lots

of

shel

l, lo

ts o

f m

et-

al, g

lass

, bo

ttle

s, b

on

e

frag

me

nts

Tras

h p

it t

akes

up

alm

ost

en

tire

NE

qu

adra

nt,

ver

y lo

ose

so

il in

pit

, du

g u

nti

l hit

wat

er, c

lay

ou

t-

lined

th

e fe

atu

re

Q7

1

15

.28

1

15

.21

1

5 Y

R 2

.5/2

bla

ck lo

am

D lo

am

nai

ls, g

lass

, cer

amic

s,

shel

l, co

ncr

ete,

on

e

bu

tto

n

very

mo

ist

soil

on

2/1

1/1

2

Q7

2

1

5.2

11

1

5.2

11

5 Y

R 2

.5/2

bla

ck

D lo

am

glas

s, n

ails

, pla

te, b

egin

-

nin

g o

f m

etal

ob

ject

s

chan

ge in

so

il n

ear

rust

sp

ots

,

very

dam

p s

oil

Q7

3

15

.21

1

15

.13

1

2.5

YR

2.5

/1

E

nai

ls, b

on

e, g

lass

bo

ttle

fille

d w

ith

bo

ne

Mix

ture

of

loam

an

d c

lay

soil,

bo

ne

asso

ciat

ed w

ith

mo

st r

ust

stai

ns

Q7

4

15

.13

1

15

.08

1

10

YR

3/1

F

few

arti

fact

s p

ast

firs

t

cen

tim

eter

s- c

eram

ic,

glas

s an

d r

ust

ed m

etal

pie

ce

Cla

y go

t m

ore

loam

y to

war

ds

bo

tto

m

Q8

1

15

.31

1

15

.27

1

2.5

YR

2.5

/1

Ligh

t

Cla

y

shel

l, gl

ass,

cer

amic

s,

bri

ck, p

lasti

c, b

on

e, o

ne

bu

tto

n

Mo

ist

soil.

Lo

ts o

f ro

cks

fro

m

cen

ter

spre

adin

g o

ut

Q8

2

15

.27

1

15

.23

1

2.5

YR

2.5

/2

Ligh

t

Cla

y

Bo

ne,

sh

ell,

glas

s,

bu

tto

n x

1, t

oo

th x

1,

scre

ws,

cer

amic

s N

ew s

oil

leve

l hal

fway

Q8

3

1

5.2

31

1

5.1

51

1

0 Y

R 3

/1

Ligh

t

Cla

y

Q8

4

15

.15

1

15

.19

1

10

YR

3/1

Ligh

t

Cla

y

glas

s, s

hel

l, ce

ram

ics,

mar

ble

x1,

met

al, c

har

-

coal

Soil

in t

his

are

a d

iffer

ed f

rom

th

e

no

rth

ern

par

t o

f th

e tr

ench

, wit

h

som

e m

etal

lic r

ust

33

Un

it

Leve

l O

E C

E M

un

sell

AH

N

Arti

fact

Ob

serv

atio

ns

Gen

eral

Ob

serv

atio

ns

Q8

5

1

5.2

11

1

5.1

71

1

0 Y

R 3

/1

Lon

g

tub

e

Q8

6

1

5.1

51

1

4.9

31

1

0 Y

R 3

/1

Ligh

t

Cla

y

Wet

RC

2

1

15

.08

05

15

.04

05

10

YR

3/2

Lo

am

glas

s, c

eram

ic, n

ails

,

con

cret

e ch

un

ks, s

om

e

bo

ne,

pla

stic

frag

men

t

Larg

e ce

men

t b

lock

in S

W q

uad

-

ran

t

RC

2

2

15

.04

05

RC

3

1

15

.07

05

14

.99

05

10

YR

2/2

C

lay

glas

s, b

rick

, pla

stic,

bee

r

bo

ttle

fra

gme

nts

, so

me

bo

ne,

sh

ell,

seat

bel

t

Man

y ro

ots

, ro

cks;

So

me

rust

spo

ts; D

ug

too

mu

ch

RC

3

2

14

.99

05

1

0 Y

R 3

/1

Cla

y ru

bb

er p

ipe,

gla

ss, b

rick

, ch

arco

al, s

trin

g- e

ast

wal

l

RD

3

1

15

.03

05

15

.01

05

7.5

YR

2.5

/1

Cla

y

glas

s, c

eram

ic, d

oo

r h

and

le, fl

at m

etal

str

ips-

eas

t w

all,

Sil-

ver

ob

ject

- SW

qu

adra

nt

RD

3

2

15

.01

05

2

.5 Y

R 3

/1

Thic

k

Cla

y

a b

utt

on

, a m

arb

le, n

ails

, mo

rto

r in

NE

qu

ad, a

bu

tto

n, m

ar-

ble

, bri

ck

RD

2

1

15

.05

1

4.9

9

7.5

YR

3/1

C

lay

glas

s, b

rick

s, b

roke

n r

eco

rd, n

ails

, batt

ery,

wir

e/ca

ble

s,

stri

ng,

co

ncr

ete

and

mo

rto

r

RD

2

RD

2

14

.99

10

YR

3/2

Cru

mb

ly

Cla

y

34

35

CERAMICS

Payton Dillinger and David French

Introduction

This chapter examines the ceramic artifacts, including discussions on materials, the

methodology used to analyze them, and the subsequent conclusions drawn. The ceramics in this

chapter were excavated from the Ruthven site (41HR1070, including subunits RC2, RC3, RD2,

and RD3) and from the Wilson-Victor site (41HR1031, including subunits Q4, Q5, Q6, Q7, and

Q8) in Freedman’s Town. The excavated artifacts were sorted into sub-material categories and

artifact classes based on the Yates Museum cataloguing system. After separating artifacts and

classifying them based on the Yates Museum cataloguing system, the artifacts were then

weighed. Any further qualitative information was written in the “Comments” section of the

analysis (e.g. type of decoration). Also included in the “Comments” section in some cases, were

possible interpretations of artifact use.

Description

Ceramics are often the most commonly found material in archaeological assemblages.

At the Ruthven and Wilson-Victor sites, five different types of sub-materials were found: earth-

enware, stoneware, porcelain, china, and fired clay. There was also Pyrex, a glass-like sub-

stance, which was classified under the sub-material category of “indeterminate”.

With respect to earthenware, there are different classifications within the sub-material

itself: whiteware, pearlware, and Fiestaware. Of these three types, pearlware is the oldest form

of earthenware found at the sites. Pearlware usually has a distinct blue tint to an otherwise

transparent color. However, in some cases this blue hue is found only near the base of the ce-

ramic or along crevices of the ceramic where the glaze can pool up. Whiteware was later devel-

oped from pearlware (Miller 1980:2). Whiteware was the most common earthenware at the

Ruthven and Victor sites. This form of earthenware is usually white, but it can be colored by

glazes. Fiestaware is a form of earthenware that began production in the 1930’s, and “often con-

tained elevated levels of naturally-occurring radionuclides,” such as uranium (EPA 2012).

These radioactive elements gave the Fiestaware their vibrant colors, and caused them to glow in

the dark. However, after discovering that the glow was caused by radiation, the line was discon-

tinued in 1970 before being restarted with depleted uranium particles.

36

Analysis

Unit RC had over three times the quantity of ceramics than that of RD, based on count

and weight. It should be noted that artifacts from Level 1 of RC and RD were not included in

our data. At the Wilson-Victor site, Unit Q6, including Feature 1, had the highest total quantity

of ceramics based on count and weight, followed by Q8, Q7, Q4, and Q5 (Fig. 1). There was no

distinct pattern across units in the number of artifacts per level or weight of artifacts per level.

Ceramics were generally more prevalent in upper levels than lower ones.

Figures 2 through 6 show the weight of sub-materials by level in Units Q6, Q7, and Q8,

as well as the distribution of sub-materials within Feature 1. Weight was used as it provides a

better measure of the quantity of the ceramic material present in each level than a simple arti-

fact count. Otherwise, more fragmented ceramic pieces would be disproportionately represent-

ed. In Unit Q6 (Figs. 3 and 4), porcelain was present only in level 1, while stoneware was pre-

sent only in level 2. Also, earthenware was present in the first two levels but was absent in the

lower levels. China was present in every level that contained ceramic material, with the excep-

tion of level 2. Over 90% of the ceramic material found in Feature 1 in Unit Q6 was either

stoneware or earthenware, with stoneware having a slightly higher incidence (Fig. 4). Nearly

half of the remaining portion was porcelain, followed by an equal incidence of china and Pyrex.

The distribution of ceramics in Unit Q7 (Fig. 5) showed a much different trend than in

Q6. Of note is the complete absence of china in Unit Q7 despite it being found at almost all lev-

els of Q6. Furthermore, while earthenware was present only in the first two levels of Q6, it was

found in all levels of Q7. Also of note is the appearance of Pyrex within the unit.

The distribution of ceramics within Unit Q8 (Fig. 6) is much more varied than either of

the previously analyzed units. The unit contained earthenware in every level, as in Unit Q7.

Furthermore, most levels contained stoneware. Lastly, unlike other units, Unit Q8 contained all

five ceramic categories.

Decoration on the ceramics were categorized primarily by whether or not they were

marked with colored or textured designs. Sherds glazed in a solid hue were not considered to be

decorated. For the Wilson-Victor site, three-quarters of the sherds had no decoration, while

15% had colored decoration, 9% had colored decoration, and a single sherd had both a colored

decoration and a textured decoration (Fig. 7). At the Ruthven site (Fig. 8), ceramics were more

37

commonly decorated, with 38% bearing a decoration of some kind. The frequency of sherds

with colored glazes at both sites was roughly equal at about 14%.

Special Finds

A number of the ceramics represented good examples of the decorative and formal vari-

ability within the assemblage on different types of fabrics, including earthenwares (Fig. 9), chi-

na (Fig. 10), stoneware (Fig. 11), pearlware (Fig. 12), and Fiestaware (Fig. 13). Some forms

were difficult to assess, such as the green leaf sherd from Feature 1 in Unit Q6 (Fig. 14).

Conclusion

Overall, earthenware was both the most common most distributed form of ceramic ma-

terial. Its frequency is due likely to the prevalence of serving vessels found at the sites, which

includes items like plates and bowls. Stoneware was also was also very common, but present in

non-food related items like sewage pipes. China sherds were distritbuted unevenly across the

site. The presence of these finer, more expensive, ceramic items may indicate that the people

who lived at the Wilson-Victor site during the first half of the 20th century may have been mid-

dle-class community members with the financial means to support the purchase of certain deco-

rative luxury items. Also of note is the fact that porcelain was found only in the upper levels of

the units, and they all appeared to be from toilets or sinks. This pattern could indicate that the

pieces came from broken bathroom appliances.

The majority of sherds at both excavation sites were undecorated. These undecorated

sherds were generally from pipes, roof tiles, flowerpots, and other objects that are rarely orna-

mented. Most decorations were floral designs. Our data also indicates that most of the excavat-

ed sherds were deposited in the 20th century. Whiteware is a common form of earthenware that

succeeded pearlware and is commonly used today, so any true dating is not possible for these

sherds. However, based on the color of the Fiestaware plate, a glaze known as Old Ivory, this

piece of ceramic can be dated to between 1936 and 1969, when it was produced (Smith 2012).

The fact that Pyrex was found only within Levels 1-3 of any of the units suggests that it was

recently deposited; this finding is consistent with the history of Pyrex, which was first marketed

in 1915 but did not become widely used for a number of years (Mauzy 1998:1-12). No other

ceramics can be dated by makers mark.

38

Figure 1: Number of ceramics found in each level

Figure 2: Weight of ceramics found in each level

39

Figure 3: Weight frequency distribution of ceramics in Unit Q6

Figure 4: Weight frequency distribution of ceramics in Feature 1, Unit Q6

40

Figure 5: Weight frequency distribution of ceramics in Unit Q7

Figure 6: Weight frequency distribution of ceramics in Unit Q8

41

Figure 7: Decoration types by frequency from site 41HR1031

Figure 8: Decoration types by frequency from site 41HR1070

42

Figure 9: Earthenware vessel sherds from Feat. 1, Unit Q6

Figure 10: China fragment with floral design from Unit Q8, Level 2

43

Figure 11: Stoneware rim sherd with high-fired glaze from Unit Q8, Level 2

Figure 12: Pearlware sherds with imprinted design along rim from Unit RC2, Level 2

44

Figure 13: Fiestaware plate sherd from Unit Q7, Level 3

Figure 14: Decorative piece shaped like a green leaf from Feat. 1, Unit Q6

45

GLASS ARTIFACTS

Grace Apfeld and Stephanie Stutts

Introduction

The spring 2012 excavations led by Rice University's Field School in Freemen's Town

were carried out at sites 41HR1070, initially, and later at 41HR1031. A total number of seven

trenches, two containing subunits, were dug in four weekends. Within the archaeological as-

semblage, glass artifacts were often prevalent across all trenches and both sites. The glass

found was incredibly fragmented and variable. Thus, identification of specific uses and produc-

tion were difficult. When artifacts were diagnostic, it was possible to find a relative date, which

could then be used to give an overall time frame to the sites and the levels excavated. The

dates, uses, and production origins, however, must be attributed to the artifact assemblage care-

fully. The amount of glass that was identifiable represents a small portion of the archaeological

assemblage, and thus, it is hard to generalize about the uses of the artifacts prior to deposition.

The purpose of this chapter is to provide a comprehensive summary of glass artifacts

found at 41HR1070 and 41HR1031, their distribution within trenches and more horizontally

across the sites. Trenches at 41HR1070 were located in the outdoor space that would have been

between two shotgun houses. Trenches at 41HR1031 were located adjacent to the site of a gen-

eral store. Especially in conjuncture with the analysis of other materials found in the artifact

assemblage, the glass artifacts from both sites can lead to an idea of what unconfined, outdoor

space was used for in nineteenth and twentieth century Freedmen's Town.

Methods

The focus of the analysis in this chapter is on glass artifacts from the 2012 excavations

in Freedmen's Town. The sorting of glass artifacts, as well as the later cataloguing, was deter-

mined by the Yates Community Program Cataloguing System. The cataloguing system sepa-

rates each glass artifact into sub-materials, delineated by the color of the glass, and 46 other ar-

tifact classes. The artifact class to which glass fragments are assigned depends on shape, deco-

ration, and application. Glass was either curved or flat, with decoration or no discernible mark-

ings. Some curved glass was categorized as a certain vessel part (i.e. a rim, a base, or a neck).

The Yates Community Program Cataloguing System did pose challenges in the cata-

46

loguing and later analysis. Within sub-material, often color, clarity, and thickness of glass var-

ied. Within artifact class, not all glass material under the same entry had the same markings. In

these cases, notations were made in the comments column. Certain artifacts were particularly

difficult to catalogue, such as kitchenware and tableware. Furthermore, there was no artifact

class for the glass slag found in 41HR1070.

All artifacts taken to the Rice University archaeology lab were processed and cata-

logued, not all of the archaeological assemblage can be used in this report. Glass artifacts from

the first levels of trenches RC and RD, and their subunits RC2, RC3, RD2, and RD3, of

41HR1070 were excluded. In the analysis that follows, RC and RD will be excluded, but cata-

logued. Trenches Q4 and Q5 of 41HR1031 were quickly closed because the deposits were ster-

ile. Therefore, these artifacts will just be catalogued.

A study of the glass artifacts of Q6, Q7, and Q8 from site 41HR1031 will be carried out

by level. As the majority of recovered glass was extremely fragmented, it will be looked at ac-

cording to weight distribution across the site and within trenches, as well as rate of fragmenta-

tion. There was some consideration as to the use of color as an informative category to assess

the fragments. Color provides a less useful means for comparison than weight and decoration,

and won’t be used in analysis. The amount of diagnostic objects was small, and for the most

part included the bottle bases and whole bottles. Maker's marks and some decoration were used

to pinpoint locations of production and possible date ranges.

Analysis

The following analysis will examine the material and possible patterns by level within

each trench, with parallels drawn across the site. Identifiable glass artifacts will be discussed

after the initial analysis. As mentioned in the methods section, the trenches from site

41HR1070 will not be analyzed in this chapter due to missing material, although they are in the

catalogue at the end of the chapter.

In an initial comparison of artifact classes, a distinction can be made between flat glass

and curved glass. Flat glass is generally used for windowpanes, whereas curved glass generally

comes from bottles. The presence of flat glass, then, may suggest that a window was broken

near the area where the flat glass artifacts are recovered. The amount of flat glass present in

Trenches Q6, Q7 and Q8 is consistent with the historical presence of the shops on the site, as-

47

suming that windows were broken at one time. However, glass is easily carried across distanc-

es, so it is difficult to say whether or not the glass found within these trenches was initially and

permanently deposited in the soil before this season’s excavation.

At site number 41HR1031 five trenches were excavated (Q4, Q5, Q6, Q7 and

Q8). Trenches Q4 and Q5 yielded very little glass material, and only 7 glass fragments were

recovered with a combined weight of 14 grams. Trench Q4 Level 1 yielded two fragments of

clear plain curved glass, weighing 6 grams combined. Q5 Level 1 yielded two clear flat glass

fragments with a weight of 2 grams, and three fragments of plain curved glass—two of which

were clear, one of which was light blue—for a combined weight of 6 grams. While digging

these two trenches, orange and yellow mottled clay was discovered closer to the surface than is

typical in this area. After much discussion, it was agreed upon that a plausible explanation for

the presence of this clay was that the area in which the trenches are located was re-deposited at

some point in the past. For this reason, these trenches were not excavated past Level 1.

Trenches Q6, Q7 and Q8—a few yards south of Q4 and Q5—proved to be more produc-

tive. In these trenches, variations in color and possible function of glass artifacts were recov-

ered, leading to an initial hope of recognizable patterns through time, however, as will be dis-

cussed at greater length in the conclusions section, this did not prove to be the case.

Trench Q6 was excavated in five levels. A pit feature, Feature 1, was excavated, which

cut levels 2-5. This glass will be analyzed separately from the levels of Q6. Within the five

levels excavated outside of the pit feature glass artifacts from multiple artifact classes were re-

covered. As can be seen in Figure 1, the distribution of material by weight declines from Level

1-4 with an increase in material in Level 5. Of course, this decline has an inverse relationship

with age (as the levels go down, relative age should go up), indicating that through the years,

glass materials were deposited at an increasing rate in the area of this trench. Glass is found to

be more fragmentary at higher levels of the statigraphy (Table 1). This could indicate that glass

was initially deposited in more complete fragments in the lower levels of stratigraphy; or the

layers of higher fragmentation closer to the top of the stratigraphy could correlate with higher

levels of activity during the corresponding time period. A high amount of human activity

would create pressure that would fragment glass. However, it is difficult to say with any cer-

tainty because the sample size of glass materials in this trench only represents a localized por-

tion of the area.

48

In Q6 Level 1, the total combined weight of all 196 fragments from all artifact classes

was 297.4 g. Curved glass was most prevalent at 106 g, followed by flat glass at 77.4 g, bottle

pieces as 62 g, tableware fragments at 2 g, one whole bottle at 40 g, a marble and a small glass

insulator tube (Fig. 2). Q6 Level 2 yielded a decreased amount of glass material with a com-

bined weight of 171 g corresponding to its 51 fragments. Bottle pieces (specifically bottle

necks, bottle bases and bottle rimes) had the most weight at 114 g. Curved glass came in at 46

g, followed by flat glass at 11 g, with no other artifact classes recovered from Level 2. Level 3

had a greater amount of flat glass at 63 g, with curved glass only weighing 22.9 g and no other

artifact classes present. Level 4 yielded only 7 fragments weighing 4.3 grams, with curved

glass and flat glass weighing 2.3 g and 2 g respectively. From Level 5, an increase in material

was found with 8 fragments weighing 27 g combined—4 curved glass fragments weighing 21

g, 1 flat glass fragment weighing 1 g and a bottleneck fragment weighing 5 g.

Feature 1, located at the top of Q6 Level 2 and cutting down through Level 6, is a pit.

The ratio of weight to glass fragment number is the highest, indicating that more complete frag-

ments of objects were recovered from this feature. While curved and flat glass fragments far

out weighed the bottle pieces, tableware and whole bottles (Fig. 2), these artifact classes had the

greatest representation within this feature. Many bottle bases in a variety of sizes and shapes

were recovered and found to have maker’s marks, helping to identify a date range for the pit

and trench. The earliest maker’s mark found in the pit was from the Knox Bottle Company,

indicating that while the pit contains material common to the present, it cannot predate 1924

(Fig. 3). Of these bases, a good portion seem to flask shaped. In addition to the bottle bases,

one whole bottle and a whole jar were recovered.

Trench Q7 was excavated in 4 levels. Unlike Q6, neither weight nor weight to number

ratio presented a pattern of increase or decrease (Fig. 4, Table 1). Level 1 yielded 90.9 g of ma-

terial with a weight to fragment number ratio of 2.22. Curved glass fragments weighed the

most at 66 g, followed by flat glass at 24.9 g. No other artifact classes were recovered from

Level 1. In Level 2, roughly the same amount of curved and flat glass was present—weighing

29.1 g and 22 g respectively—with a ratio of 1.25, meaning that the fragments recovered were

generally smaller than those from Level 1. One of these flat pieces had a floral starburst pattern,

which was also found on 2 fragments in Q6 Level 1. These similar artifacts are located in same

corresponding stratigraphy across trenches, indicating that they could be fragments of the same

49

original piece of decorative glass; however the pieces are too small to indicate the function of

the glass. Q7 Level 3 yielded a much-increased weight of artifacts at 346.2 g with a ratio of

3.93, an increase from Levels 1 and 2. This is in part due to the recovery of two large pieces of

a dinner glass with a combined weight of 65 g. Two more large pieces of a separate glass were

also found with a combined weight of 140 g. In addition to these artifacts, an olive green mar-

ble and button were also recovered (Fig. 5). However, Q7 Level 4 only yielded one bottle base

fragment weighing 6 g. Again, as in Q6, an increase in fragmentation ratio in higher levels

could indicate that perhaps these levels might have experienced more pressure, perhaps by hu-

man activity.

Trench Q8 was excavated in six levels. Going down, each level yielded less weight than

the level before; however the ratio of weight to number of fragments did not follow a pattern

(Fig. 6, Table 1). This could mean that there was no particular time period where the stratigra-

phy underwent a great amount of pressure or human activity. In Level one, we recovered 211

fragments with a combined weight of 470.3 g, resulting in a ratio of weight to fragments of

2.23. Curved glass weighed the most at 141.3 g, followed by flat glass at 177 g, bottle pieces at

67 g, tableware at 34 g and a marijuana pipe at 50 g (Fig. 7). Level 2 yielded 162 fragments

weighing 277 g combined with a ratio of 1.71. Curved glass fragments out-weighed the other

classes at 160 g, again followed by flat glass at 69 g, bottle pieces at 16 g and tableware at 3

g. In addition to these artifacts, a round bottle stopper that weighed 12 g (Fig. 8). From Q8

Level 3, 75 fragments weighing 166.2 g were recovered, resulting in a ratio of 2.22. In this lev-

el, flat glass out-weighed the other classes at 74 g, followed by curved glass at 49 g and table-

ware at 43.2 g. This level yielded 67 fragments with a combined weight of 172 g and a ratio of

2.57. Curved glass in this level weighed 94 g, with flat glass weighing in at 54 g, tableware at

13 g and bottle pieces at 6 g. A half white, half black marble weighing 5 g was also recovered

(Fig. 5). Only 20 fragments were recovered from Level 5 of this trench with a combined weight

of 29.6 g and a ratio of 1.48. As in Level 3, flat glass, at 16 g, outweighed curved glass at 9.6

g. No other fragments from the artifact classes were recovered. In Level 6, 11 fragments

weighing 21 g were recovered.

Identifiable Glass Artifacts

As stated previously, the large amount of glass recovered from site 41HR1031 in Q6,

50

Q7, and Q8 was fragmentary. Even those fragments that contained designs were often not large

enough to be diagnostic. The majority of artifacts that were diagnostic came from Q6, especial-

ly within Feature 1. As shown by the graph, detailing rate of fragmentations (Table 1), the

glass within Feature 1 sustained the least amount of fragmentation.

An array of soda bottles was found in all of the excavated trenches of both 41HR1070

and 41HR1031. The diagnostic bottle fragments were identified as being produced by the Nehi

-Royal Crown Bottling, Co. Nehi bottle fragments were present in levels 2, 3, 4, and 6 of

Q8. It was only the fragments from Level 4, however, that were helpful in both identifying

Nehi as the bottling company and the possible dates (Lockhart 2010). These fragments have

the white on red Nehi title between raised diagonal lines (Fig. 9). An original image of the

whole bottle, which would have been produced between 1956 and 1965, can be seen in Figure

9. The location of these Nehi bottles throughout several levels of Q8 lead one to believe that

the fragments could have been disturbed from their original deposition; or Nehi soda could have

been a popular drink throughout the time period represented by the Freedmen’s Town stratigra-

phy.

The first identifiable glass artifact from Q6 is a medicinal bottle found in Level 1, the

level above the cut of Feature 1. The decoration reads in raised lettering across the body of the

small bottle: "BROMO SELTZER EMERSON DRUG, CO. BALTIMORE" (Fig. 10). The bot-

tle lacks any maker's mark. It is a mold made bottle, made after 1910 (Lindsey 2009). The suc-

tion scars, present on the base, are the distinctive mark of the earlier bottles made by the Owens

Automatic Bottle Machine (Fig. 11). Due to the slight roughness of these suction scars, it can be

inferred that earlier Owens machines made the bottle, from 1910 into the late 1920s (Lindsey

2009). Lastly, the closure of the Emerson Co. bottle is a cork/stopper closure, which were

made to 1928 at the latest (Lindsey 2009). After researching the changes in bottle morphology,

we are confident in dating this bottle c. 1915-28. Because it is so close to the surface, this date

could indicate that the original deposition was disturbed.

The next identifiable glass artifact is a Ball Corp. bottle found in Feature 1 of Q6. The

bottle (Fig. 12) has a narrow, screw top mouth. The shape of this bottle suggests that it is a

sauce or liquid bottle of some kind, though it is unclear if Ball ever produced sauce bottles. The

most distinguishable feature on the bottle is the Ball Corp. logo, located on the bottom of the

bottle, which appears to be of a later design in the twentieth century (Fig. 12; Roller 1984). The

51

smooth Owens Automatic Bottle Machine mark on its base signifies a later date, of a machine

make, most likely in the 1960s and 1970s (Fig. 11; Lindsey 2009). It is a machine made bottle,

due to the screw top and the mold seam present on the entire length of its side.

The Ball bottle is one of two whole bottles found in Feature 1 of Q6. The second is a

Duraglas jar; in form of a standard mason jar, but it is perhaps half the size (Fig. 13). The tex-

tured effect on the base of the bottle, called stippling or knurling, was a feature of machine-

made bases of the mid to late twentieth century (Lindsey 2009). The distinct seams on its sides,

up to the screw-top rim, confirm this. The maker's mark, an 'I' within both an elongated dia-

mond and oval, indicate it was a product of the Owens-Illinois Glass Co. (Fig. 14). The loca-

tion of a ‘15’, to the left of this maker’s mark, notes the plant location, Okmulgee, Oklahoma;

this plant was only operating between 1930 and 1940 (Lockhart 2004). It is therefore possible

to accurately date this jar to between 1930 and 1940. Thus, Feature 1 is shown to have both

objects dating between 1930 and 1970, possibly, with the layer above Feature 1 containing a

bottle dating to around the 1920s. Perhaps taphonomic processes moved these glass artifacts

within the ground, or glass artifacts were kept in use far after their production date.

Maker's marks, as shown above in the example of the jar from Feature 1, are a good way

of dating the production of glass artifacts. Unfortunately, most of the artifacts recovered from

Q6, Q7, and Q8 lack maker's marks, or the maker's marks are too worn to be diagnostic. The

only other glass company found represented in the artifact assemblage is a "Half Pint" bottle,

from Feature 1 of Q6 (Fig. 3). The mark is 'K' within a keystone, which represents Knox Bot-

tle Company/Knox Glass Associates, operating from 1924 until 1968, dates that fit with other

objects from Feature 1 (Whitten 2012).

Conclusion

It is difficult to see a clear picture of the use of this space through time. Not only is the

amount of datable material limited, but also the stratigraphy seems to suggest a mixing of mate-

rial rather than distinct occupational episodes. As mentioned in the Analysis section, fragmenta-

tion does seem to increase in more recent years, suggesting that the material has been perhaps

been crushed.

The material found seems to fit in with the history of this site. The nearby presence of

the barbershop and general store could account for the kinds of glass found. The flat glass re-

52

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1586 (Lvl 1) 1588 (Lvl 2) 1595 (Lvl 3) 1596 (Lvl 4) 1598 (Lvl 5)

We

igh

t (g

)

Lot Number

Distribution of Material by Weight (g) in Q6

Figure 1: Unit Q6, Glass distribution by weight

covered could have come from a broken store window. Curved glass and bottle pieces might

have been purchased at the store. However, it is quite possible that neither of these explana-

tions is accurate because glass can come from many sources in this residential area.

The pit feature presents an interesting opportunity for analysis and hypothe-

ses. Within Trench Q6, the pit is very near a cement block, which could be associated with the

barbershop nearby. The greater amount of large and complete glass artifacts found in this pit

relative to the surrounding trenches suggests that the pit was used to dispose of trash. It is curi-

ous, though, that this area was chosen to dig at pit rather than area more secluded from the shop

front.

Of course, the material and analysis presented in this chapter should be considered with

the other chapters in this report. When placed side by side, a more complete sense of the site

will present itself, giving a richer and fuller picture of the activities in this area. Future excava-

tion and study, too, should be considered to gain more insight into site activity.

53

Lot # Total # Frag-

ments Total Weight

(g) Fragmenta-tion (g/#)

1584 (Q4 L1) 2 6 3.00

1583 (Q5 L1) 5 8 1.60

1586 (Q6 L1) 196 297.4 1.52

1588 (Q6 L2) 51 171 3.35

1589 (Q6 F1) 513 4769.5 9.30

1595 (Q6 L3) 19 85.9 4.52

1596 (Q6 L4) 7 4.3 0.61

1598 (Q6 L5) 8 27 3.38

1585 (Q7 L1) 41 90.9 2.22

1591 (Q7 L2) 41 51.1 1.25

1592 (Q7 L3) 88 346.2 3.93

1599 (Q7 L4) 1 6 6.00

1587 (Q8 L1) 211 470.3 2.23

1590 (Q8 L2) 162 277 1.71

1593 (Q8 L3) 75 166.2 2.22

1594 (Q8 L4) 67 172 2.57

1597 (Q8 L5) 20 29.6 1.48

1600 (Q8 L6) 11 21 1.91

1579 (RC3 L2) 189 429 2.27

1582 (RC2 L2) 235 691.2 2.94

1580 (RD2 L2) 146 470.3 1.07

1581 (RD3 L2) 75 197 2.63

Table 1: Fragmentation of glass, by Lot Number

54

0%

10

%

20

%

30

%

40

%

50

%

60

%

70

%

80

%

90

%

10

0%

15

86(Q

6

L1)

15

88(Q

6

L2)

15

89(Q

6

F1)

15

95(Q

6

L3)

15

96(Q

6

L4)

15

98(Q

6

L5)

15

85(Q

7

L1)

15

91(Q

7

L2)

15

92(Q

7

L3)

15

99(Q

7

L4)

15

87(Q

8

L1)

15

90(Q

8

L2)

15

93(Q

8

L3)

15

94(Q

8

L4)

15

97(Q

8

L5)

16

00(Q

8

L6)

Percentage of Total Material Weight (g)

Lot

# (I

n S

trat

agra

ph

ic O

rde

r)

Art

ifac

t Cla

ss D

istr

ibu

tio

n b

y Le

vel

Oth

er

Wh

ole

Bo

ttle

Kit

che

nw

are

Tab

lew

are

Bo

ttle

Pie

ce

Fla

t

Cu

rved

Figu

re 2

: Dis

trib

uti

on

of

glas

s cl

asse

s, b

y Lo

t N

um

ber

55

Figure 3: Knox Bottle Company maker’s mark

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1585 (Lvl 1) 1591 (Lvl 2) 1592 (Lvl 3) 1599 (Lvl 4)

Wei

ght (

g)

Lot # (In Stratagraphic Order)

Distribution of Material by Weight (g) in Q7

Figure 4: Glass distribution in Unit Q7, by Lot Number

56

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

1587 (Lvl 1) 1590 (Lvl 2) 1593 (Lvl 3) 1594 (Lvl 4) 1597 (Lvl 5) 1600 (Lvl 6)

We

igh

t (g

)

Lot # (In Stratigraphic Order)

Distribution of Material by Weight (g) in Q8

Figure 6: Glass distribution in Unit Q8, by Lot Number

Figure 5: Glass marbles

57

Figure 7: Glass pipe

Figure 8: Glass bottle stopper

58

Figure 9: Nehi bottle fragments (left), full examples (right)

Figure 10: Bromo Seltzer bottle

59

Figure 11: Owens Bottle Machine marks (example at top, Bromo bottle at bottom)

60

Figure 12: Ball sauce jar

61

Figure 13: Ball Mason jar with Ball logos at top

Figure 14: Duraglas jar and maker’s marks

62

63

METALS

Marie Hopkins and Steven Rich

Introduction

Metal artifacts were analyzed from two sites at 1404 Victor Street and 1314 Ruthven

Street. The original trenches were RC2, RC3, RD2, and RD3. However, the excavation at this

site could not be completed, due to heavy flooding which was exacerbated by the site’s low

elevation. These trenches therefore have less information available for analysis. Next, the

Wilson-Victor lot was excavated. The first trenches, Q4 and Q5, consisted of re-deposited

soil, yielding minimal data. Trenches Q6, Q7, and Q8, also at the Wilson-Victor lot, were

then dug to subsoil.

Metals can help with the understanding of a historic site because certain diagnostic

materials assist with chronology. However, there are a few caveats when working with metals

that can prevent precise dating. When examining metals, it may be difficult to identify partic-

ular objects due to severe corrosion. Many metallic objects that were found could only be

identified by weight and submaterial due to their severe corrosion. In addition, some objects,

such as round nails, which existed throughout the twentieth century, span too broad a period

to be temporally pinpointed.

Background

Objects such as coins and tokens, which may contain a written year, can be used to

help date a site by establishing the greatest possible age of a layer. There are also three types

of nails that can be used to approximate dates: hand-forged, cut, and wire nails (Sutton and

Arkush 2002:163). Wire nails were first developed around 1855, but did not begin to out-

number cut nails, which are square, in the United States until the 1890s (Sutton and Arkush

2002:163). Wire nails comprised 90% of all nails by 1913 (Visser 1997) and are still com-

monly used today. Round wire nails were the only type identified.

Analysis

In all units 2,366 separate metal fragments were recorded for a total weight of 8,472

grams. Many of these fragments were either indeterminate (124 fragments, 956 g) or flakes of

64

metal (807 fragments, 796 g). In addition, a large percentage of the identifiable metal artifacts

were nails, totaling 804 with a weight 1814 g. Of these 804 nails, 326 had a head intact and 478

did not. Nails were found in every level. The number of nails found in most trenches increased

until Level 3 and declined with subsequent Levels (Figs.1 and 2). Seventy-four fragments were

construction materials or hardware besides nails, which according to Sutton and Arkush

(2002:173-174), includes bolts, screws, brackets, braces, spikes, staples, wire and other similar

materials. The majority of the materials throughout all the trenches were not diagnostic.

A large number of the fragments came from Feature 1 in Q6. The feature contained

1316 metal fragments. Most of the fragments were not diagnostic. When creating charts, the

feature had to be separated in order to avoid skewing the representation of the data (Fig. 3).

In addition to separating the materials by artifact class, the cataloguing process of the

Yates Community Archaeology Program organizes metals based on sub-material, or type of

metal present in the artifact. The overwhelming majority of objects found on the site were iron,

with a total of 2278 iron fragments. In every level except RD2 Level 2 and Q8 Level 2, at least

half of the weight of the artifacts was iron or steel. The majority of the weight in Q8 Level 2

came from lead; however, this was due to a single large object.

The only objects that had a definite date of manufacture were three copper pennies. Oth-

er objects could be placed in rough time periods, such as pull-tabs or bottle caps, but exact dates

could not be determined

Artifacts of Interest

The metal artifacts included some noteworthy objects, including:

RC2 Level 2

- Large, iron, three link chain (Fig. 4), 178 g

- Unmarked round can top with the pull tab removed

RD3 Level 2

- Steel pot handle of uncertain date (Fig. 5)

- Rectangular can made of tin

Q6 Level 1

- Circular band with two opposite protruding clumps

Q6 Feature 1

65

- Partial token, a tin-covered plastic disc (Fig. 6); writing on it is illegible due to corrosion

- Iron strap hinge folded (Fig. 7)

- Small metal gear (Fig. 8)

Q7 Level 2

- Large rusted iron pipe, likely from a gasline (Fig. 9).

- Six pull-tabs, dating to 1963-1975 (Stack 2011)

Q7 Level 3

- Small clothing rivet. It has the word “Grippers” along with something indecipherable

inscribed on the front and “Covilv_s” with some other indecipherable lettering on the

back.

- Small copper oval object; could be the inside of a locket

Q8 Level 1

- 1919 penny

Q8 Level 4:

- 1920 penny

- Bottle cap with “CRUSH” written in green

Q8 Level 6

- 1978 penny

Conclusion

It is difficult to reach any large conclusion concerning the metal evidence found in the

units. The fact that older pennies were found on the higher levels while newer pennies were

found on some of the lower levels indicates that the ground may have been disturbed. Many of

the objects found are associated with the construction or the maintenance of a building. The

large quantity of fragments found in Feature 1 suggests it was a trash pit. Since all the nails

were round nails it suggests that all the sites date after the introduction of the round nail in

1885. However, we cannot determine when exactly between the invention of the round nail and

current times the nails were crafted.

66

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Ave

rage

Wei

gth

(g)

Unit-Level

Grams/Nail Fragment, by Level

Head Present

Headless Nails

Figure 1: Grams/Nail fragment, by Unit and Level

67

0

20

40

60

80

1 2 3 4 5 6

Qu

anti

ty

Level

Unit Q6 - Nails by Level

Head Present

Headless Nails

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 2 3

Qu

anti

ty

Level

Unit Q7 - Nails by Level

Head Present

Headless Nail

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 2 3 4 5 6

Qu

anti

ty

Level

Unit Q8 - Nails by Level

Head Present

Headless Nail

Figure 2: Nail by Level in Unit Q6, Q7, and Q8

68

Metal artifacts in Feature 1, Unit Q6

Iron/Steel

Copper/Brass

Lead

Pewter/Tin

AluIndeterminatenum

Indeterminate

Mixed Material

Unit Q6 - Feature 1: Nails by Weight

Headless Nail

Head Present

Non Nails

Figure 3: Feature 1, Unit Q6, metal artifacts (top) and nails (bottom)

69

Figure 4

Figure 5

70

Figure 6

Figure 7

71

Figure 8

Figure 9

72

73

BUILDING MATERIALS, PERSONAL ADORNMENTS, AND

MISCELLANEOUS ARTIFACTS

Amanda Salinas and Katherine Humphreys

Introduction

The fragments of miscellaneous artifacts found at the Ruthven Site (Units RD and RC)

and Wilson-Victor Site (Units Q6, Q7, and Q8) range from concrete to food wrappers and but-

tons. While building materials themselves were by far the most abundant artifacts found, there

were also a fair number of small plastic artifacts ranging from fragments of styrofoam to Lego

pieces. Although the variation of artifacts found did not seem to change too significantly

throughout the excavation of Wilson-Victor, fewer and fewer miscellaneous artifacts were

found below Level 2 in the units, with only three different material types being found in Unit

Q8 at Level 6 (concrete, brick, and the top fragment of a plastic coat hanger). Where weight and

numbers are concerned, there were consistently more building materials found in all of the

trenches than any other miscellaneous artifacts, whereas there was more variation among the

types of plastics found throughout the excavation.

Building Materials

Concrete or brick fragments were found at almost every level of both the Ruthven and

Wilson-Victor sites (though not in every unit). While the weight and number of building materi-

al artifacts tended to be consistently higher than any other miscellaneous artifact for the first

three levels of the Ruthven site and Level 2 of the Wilson-Victor site, this consistency dropped

off at Levels 4 and 5. The largest concentration of building materials were found in Unit Q8 at

Level 6, with over 1.3kg combined weight of concrete and brick, largely due to the presence of

practically a whole brick found in the trench (Figs. 1 and 2).

Other types of building materials were found as well, such as asphalt, thin pieces of dry-

wall, and some fragments of an asbestos ceiling tile. The asphalt pieces were found consistently

throughout the first four Levels of Q8 at the Wilson-Victor site, and in both the RC and RD

trenches in the Ruthven site. Although the asphalt pieces at the Ruthven site tended to be multi-

74

colored (separate pieces had green, red, or quartz coloring), asphalt pieces at the Wilson-Victor

site were predominantly only green or contained some gray flecks.

Plastics/Rubber

Plastics and rubber were, by far, the most variable in terms of size, physical characteris-

tics and number of diagnostic features. The Ruthven site’s variation across Level 2 ranged from

small, non-diagnostic fragments of hard and soft plastics, to commercial wrappers and sections

of plastic cabling. Most plastics found within the RC trenches at Level 2 were associated with

the first category, with numerous plastics weighing less than 1g a piece, but (in terms of num-

bers) were the bulk of the miscellaneous objects found there. The RD trenches, which also had

quite a few small plastic items, tended to have a larger number of hard, heavy plastics such as

red cabling, dense black plastics, and spray paint nozzles. Many of the plastics found at the

Ruthven site also contained some form of lettering or other clearly identifying feature, such as a

commercial wrapper which still had most of the Frito Lay™ logo on it.

The trenches at the Wilson-Victor site, in comparison, did not have as high of a percent-

age of plastics found (on any of the levels) as the Ruthven site did. However, the plastics found

there( while also being predominantly small and weighing in at less than 1g a piece) also a

proved to have more distinguishing marks than those found at the Ruthven site. Of these were

another Frito Lay™ label (similar to the one found at the Ruthven site, except the entire brand

name could be clearly seen), a Burger King ketchup packet, as well as the cap of a green pen

(Fig. 3). In case of the Wilson-Victor), the number of plastics found did drop off after Level 2,

with a minimal spike at Level 4 in Q8 (Fig. 4).

One interesting find was the shard of Bakelite with human figures and Latin characters

engraved on one of its sides (Fig. 5). Bakelite was produced in the early twentieth-century, but

has since fallen out of usage. This particular fragment was found in Level 1 of Q8, while a ny-

lon-plastic (invented over twenty years after Bakelite) fragment of a coat hanger was found on

Level 6.

Cloth/Fiber Materials

Not many cloth or fiber materials were found at either the Ruthven or Wilson-Victor

site. The few materials that were found tended to be either cardboard/fiber wrappers depicting

75

an ingredients list, or a piece of thread. The most distinguishing of materials was a combined

mass of tan plastic, red cloth, and threading found in the RC trench at Level 2 (Fig. 6). Alt-

hough too damaged to get a clear perception on its utilization, the piece curves around and pre-

sents itself as a covering of some kind. Two pieces of rope were also found a small green one

found in the RD and a short, thick, tan one found in RC.

In the Wilson-Victor site, there was piece of tan hosiery found within Feature 1, Unit

Q8. Approximately four inches, the tan piece of nylon fabric not only was still stretchable, but

also had a triangular pattern of stitching, which made one end in the shape of a cone. There

were also a couple of paper labels found in Unit Q7, one of which was blue and stated

“WHEAT AND SOY INGREDIENTS.”

Personal Adornments

Despite the large amount of miscellaneous artifacts recovered at both sites, only a small

number were classified as personal adornments. In addition, all the personal adornments were

taken from Wilson-Victor with the majority being from Units Q6 and Q8. The artifacts ranged

from beads to a watchstrap though most were modern plastic buttons, of various color and size.

The watchstrap appeared to be faux leather with a modern plastic clasp and the bead was multi-

faceted and spherical in shape. Of the buttons found, a few interesting artifacts stood out from

the rest; one very small white button which appeared to be made from an oyster shell (Fig. 7).

The former, due to its wear, indicated that it was significantly older than the other buttons dis-

covered at the site. The latter was a plain button made out of wood (Fig. 7).

Miscellaneous Objects

A few artifacts proved very interesting and unique but difficult to classify for several

reasons. The majority of unclassifiable objects remained so due to the fact that they were mixed

material. For instance, the complete sink handle recovered in Q6, Level 2 (the word “Cold” was

still legible) was composed of both porcelain and metal (Fig. 8). One object which we were un-

able to identify consisted of a metal base, plastic cap with the brand name “Clairol” printed and

a type of faux-fur lining found in Unit Q7, Level 1 (Fig. 9). Other miscellaneous objects includ-

ed electric cables with thick, rubber insulation. Wall or ceiling insulation as well as a couple of

lighting fixtures were recovered from Feature 1.

76

Feature 1, Unit Q6

Feature 1 in Unit Q6 contained numerous artifacts which ranged from building materials

(concrete and brick) to asbestos to soft and hard plastics in various shapes and colors. Brick and

concrete in particular comprised a large percentage of the materials recovered from the feature.

In total, Feature 1 contained 1,458g of building materials. Plastics made up the next largest

group of materials although only one piece of soft plastic was found in the feature. Hard plastics

were plentiful and appeared to be from assorted objects although most pieces were not large

enough to determine their function. One peculiar item found was a small plastic fragment in the

shape of a bear’s arm holding a mug. A few articles of cloth were recovered though they were

very fragile and falling apart. The most unique of the personal adornments, the small shell but-

ton was, excavated from Feature 1 along with one other white plastic button.

Conclusion

Despite being in two different locations which historically held different types of build-

ings, both the Ruthven and Wilson-Victor site had common patterns in the types of Miscellane-

ous Artifacts found and the rate at

which they were found. The upper two

levels contained a greater number of

plastics, with many building materials

found (almost) consistently through-

out all the levels. However, there were

few other similarities as the other arti-

facts represented the different func-

tions of the two sites.

Figure 1: Brick from Wilson-Victor Site,

Unit Q8, Level 6

77

Figure 2: Weight of Brick and Concrete found between each Unit.

Figure 3: Pen cap, Wilson-Victor Site, Unit Q6, Level 2.

78

Figure 5: Bakelite fragment, deep purple with two human figures imprint-

ed, Wilson-Victor Site, Unit Q6, Level 1

Figure 4: Number of plastic pieces found per Unit, per level

79

Figure 6: Piece of cloth and plastic covering, Ruthven, RC, Level 2

Figure 7: Oyster shell button, Wilson-Victor Site, Feature 1, Unit Q6 (left);

Wood button, Ruthven, RD, Level 2 (right)

80

Figure 8: Sink handle, porcelain and steel, Wilson-Victor Site, Unit Q6, Level 2.

Figure 9: Fragment of a Clairol product, Wilson-Victor Site, Unit Q7, Level 1.

81

FAUNAL AND SHELL REMAINS

Annie Hsiao

Introduction

Faunal analysis has the potential to determine significant aspects of African American

culture in Houston’s Fourth Ward. Diet and food consumption patterns can be understood

through categorizing and identifying bone fragments. Modifications such as butcher cuts,

burning, and bleaching can yield information about socioeconomic status and daily activities.

Additionally, cataloging the shell and coal remains provides further reconstruction of daily life

in historical Freedman’s Town.

Methodology

All faunal remains were sorted, weighed, and if possible, identified by species or modi-

fication, then catalogued by lot number, unit and level. Shells were classified as either oyster

or other. Bones were first divided into diagnostic versus non-diagnostic, with diagnostic bones

as those containing visible landmarks or any other features that could help in identifying spe-

cies and/or element. Each diagnostic bone was individually weighed and labeled by lot num-

ber. Then both categories were further separated by modified versus unmodified, with the pre-

vailing modifications being butcher cuts, burning, and bleaching. Finally, identification of spe-

cies and element was completed through comparison with HAS Faunal Collection in the Rice

Archaeology Lab.

Artifact Frequency

At site 41HR1070, Unit RC had the highest frequencies of shell, coal, and bone in Sub-

unit 2. Simlarly, Unit RD also had the highest frequencies of shell and bone in Subunit 2 with

equally high frequencies of coal in Subunits 2 and 3. These numbers all refer to the remains

found in Level 2.

At site 41HR1031, Unit Q3 had low frequency of shell (4 grams) and bone (1 gram)

with no coal remains recovered, while Unit Q4 had only 1 gram of shell. Only one level was

excavated at these two units.

82

Figure 1 shows the overall distribution of faunal remains from Units Q6, Q7, and Q8.

Unit Q6 had the highest frequency of shell, coal, and bone in Feature 1. Figure 2 shows the dis-

tribution of animal bones in Q6, Q7, Q8, and Feature 1. In Unit Q6, Level 2 had the next high-

est frequency of shell, with an increasing trend from Levels 1-2 and a general decreasing trend

from Levels 3-6 (Fig. 3). Levels 5 and 6 had the next highest frequencies of coal, and the other

levels had relatively low frequencies (Fig. 4). Level 3 had the next highest frequency of bone,

with an increase from Levels 1-3 and a general decreasing trend from Levels 4-6 (Fig. 5).

For Unit Q7, level 3 had the highest frequency of shell, with moderate frequencies in

Levels 1 and 2 but a low frequency in Level 4 (Fig. 3). Level 3 had the highest frequencies of

coal, with an increasing trend from Levels 1-3 and none found in Level 4 (Fig. 4). Level 3 had

the highest frequency of bone, with a similarly high frequency in Level 2 but low frequencies in

Levels 1 and 4 (Fig. 5).

For Unit Q8, Level 1 had the highest shell frequency, with no obvious trend since all

levels except for Level 5 had similarly high frequencies (Fig. 3). Level 4 had the highest fre-

quencies of coal, with an increasing trend from Levels 1-4 and a decreasing trend from Levels 5

-6 (Fig. 4). Level 4 had the highest frequency of bone, with a general increasing trend from

Levels 1-4 and low frequencies in Levels 5 and 6 (Fig. 5).

Analysis of Modified Bone

Figure 6 shows the frequency of modified versus unmodified bones in the various levels

of Q6, Q7, and Q8. In most cases, the amount of unmodified bone was greater than modified

bone per level, although there were a few exceptions in Levels 4 and 6 of Q8. Since these ex-

ceptions were isolated in Q8, it is difficult to predict any causes.

The majority of modifications were butcher cuts, specifically by saw. Cleaved butcher

cuts display a more roughened surface with shallow parallel grooves. Burnt bones were rela-

tively evenly distributed among half of the levels in each unit. A large majority of the burnt

bones were also sawed/cleaved with butcher cuts. This possibly indicates the presence of a

butcher or at least the sale and consumption of butchered meats at the site.

A variety of cuts were distinguishable, but with no visible pattern correlating to socioec-

onomic status. The identified cuts were shank, chuck, pork roast, shoulder blade roast, and ham

steak. In Sus scrofa, cuts in the vertebrae were designated pork roast cuts and those in the distal

83

femur were ham steak cuts (Fig. 7) In Bos taurus, a rib cut resembled a chuck cut (Fig. 8). And

for both species, cuts in long bones were shank cuts. Common cuts for beef and pig are shown

in Figure 9.

Bleached bone was only present in Q6 and Q8 among Levels 2, 3, and Feature 1. Since

bone is most commonly bleached by long exposures out in the sun, the small number of

bleached bone implies layers in the units were either deposited within a short time frame or the

bones had been independently exposed before being deposited. Another interesting finding was

that 32% of butchered bones belonged to young specimen, which could be explained by the ten-

derness of young animal meats and therefore they were more desirable products.

Species Identification

99% of the shell remains were most likely Crassostrea virginica (Eastern Oyster),

which is the dominant species along the Gulf of Mexico coast (Fig. 10). The other shell spe-

cies, exhibiting a coiled shape, was not identified (Fig. 10).

Only three species were identified from the diagnostic bones: Sus scrofa (domesticated

pig), Bos taurus (domesticated cow), and Gallus gallus domesticus (domesticated chicken). Sus

scrofa was the most common species found (Table 1). At site 41HR1070, only Sus scrofa was

identified. In Q6, only one Sus scrofa bone was identified outside of Feature 1, where both Sus

scrofa and Gallus gallus domesticus were found. All three species were recovered from Q7 but

only from Level 3. Q8 displayed the most evenly distributed array of Sus scrofa and Bos tau-

rus, but no Gallus gallus domesticus was identified. These discoveries show no discernable

patterns. Figure 11 shows the distribution of species based on the number of fragments identi-

fied in each of the units and Feature 1; Appendix 1 provides a more comprehensive view of all

the diagnostic bones with the bone element and any modifications if present.

Among the identified elements of Sus scrofa, there appeared to be many carpal bones.

This fits with the standard practice of using pig feet for making stew and explains why the car-

pals were mainly unmodified (Fig. 7). The most commonly identified Bos taurus elements

were segments of shaft bones, modified by butcher cuts (Fig. 8). For Gallus gallus domesticus,

the bones were mainly fragmentary long bones.

I chose not to analyze species based on weight because it would bias larger species with

greater bone densities; however, analyzing by number of individual specimen (NISP) has its

84

own limitations due to loss of the bones from smaller species, like chicken, birds, and rats.

Some smaller bones might be recovered with better screening techniques, but smaller species

with more fragile bones are still more prone to fragmentation and preservation issues. I was

unable to calculate the minimum number of individuals (MNI) because of the fragmentary na-

ture of the identifiable remains; nor could I confirm that any of the unmodified bones resulted

from food production and consumption.

Conclusions

Unfortunately, heavy rains forced us to stop excavating at site 41HR1070, so it is diffi-

cult to draw any conclusions, especially without the information from the first level missing.

Feature 1 in Q6 was a trash/burn pit with a high frequency of faunal remains and the

large amounts of fragmentary and burnt remains. Excluding Feature 1, Levels 3 and 4 on aver-

age had the highest frequencies among units Q6, Q7, and Q8, which may indicate that the great-

est amount of activity occurred during that timeframe. Those levels may correspond to the times

during which the general store was in operation, or when the general store was particularly

prosperous. Since frequencies decreased the further down we excavated, the lower levels may

indicate a time before the general store when private families left the remains.

Level 2 in Q6 and Level 3 in Q7 had the highest amounts of shell. These high frequen-

cies show a moderate correlation with the actual opening and closing elevations of the levels in

unit Q6 and Q7 at 15.331,15.271 meters and 15.211 and 15.131 meters, respectively (there was

no correlation found for the level with the highest amount of shell in Q8, which was Level 1).

In this case, the levels seem to encompass the same elevations near the end Level 2 of Q6 and

the beginning of Level 3 of Q7. This overlap provides a rough time estimate for periods of in-

creased activity at the site.

The same correlation was observed for the coal and bone remains. Level 4 of Q6 had

opening and closing elevations of 15.231 and 15.191 meters, Level 3 of Q7 was at 15.211 and

15.131 meters, and Level 4 of Q8 was at 15.151 and 15.191 meters. These measurements all

show a slight overlap and correlate with the highest frequencies of coal found. Similarly, Level

3 of Q6 had opening and closing elevations of 15.231 and 15.231 meters, Level 3 of Q7 was at

15.211 and 15.131 meters, and Level 4 of Q8 was at 15.151 and 15.191 meters. These measure-

ments all show a slight overlap and correlate with the highest frequencies of animal bone found.

85

These findings are consistent in identifying a period of high activity around the elevation of

15.2 meters.

The large amount of shell was likely used in the pathways constructed for the neighbor-

hood. The coal was likely used for heat. Animal bone remains were primarily waste from food

production processes like butchering and consumption.

Q8 contained the highest overall frequencies of faunal and shell remains. Therefore, due

to its location and the location of the store, Q8 may have been closest to trash areas at the back

of the store where there were larger and/or more numerous paths needed.

Since Feature 1 was most likely a trash pit dug into the ground, we assume that it repre-

sents the most recent level. Looking at the distribution of identified animal bones, it appears

that Bos taurus remains appear mostly in the lower levels of Q7 and Q8, specifically Levels 3-

6. Gallus gallus domesticus appears around the middle layers and in the most recent layer of

Feature 1. Sus scrofa appears throughout the timescale and must have been the most popular

meat of consumption.

Underrepresentation and various other limitations discussed above make broad interpre-

tations unfeasible. Nevertheless, the modified animal bones show that the population had ac-

cess to relatively good meats.

86

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Q6 Q7 Q8

We

igh

t (g

)

Unit

Fauna Distribution by Unit

Shell

Coal

Non-DiagnosticAnimal Bone

DiagnosticAnimal Bone

Figure 1: Faunal distribution by weight in grams in Units Q6, Q7, Q8

Q612%

Q727%

Q828%

F133%

Total Animal BoneDistribution by Unit

Figure 2: Total animal distribution by weight

87

0

100

200

300

400

500

1 2 3 4 5 6

We

igh

t (g

)

Level

Q6 Shell Distribution

0

50

100

150

200

1 2 3 4

We

igh

t (g

)

Level

Q7 Shell Distribution

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1 2 3 4 5 6

We

igh

t (g

)

Level

Q8 Shell Distribution

0

5

10

15

20

1 2 3 4 5 6

We

igh

t (g

)

Level

Q6 Coal Distribution

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1 2 3 4

We

igh

t (g

)

Level

Q7 Coal Distribution

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1 2 3 4 5 6

We

igh

t (g

)

Level

Q8 Coal Distribution

Figure 3: Shell distribution by weight, in Q6 (top), Q7 (middle), Q8 (bottom)

Figure 4: Coal distribution by weight, in Q6 (top), Q7 (middle), Q8 (bottom)

88

Figure 5: Diagnostic and undiagnostic ani-mal bone in Units Q6 (top), Q7 (middle)

and Q8 (bottom)

Figure 6: Animal bone modification in Units Q6 (top), Q7 (middle) and Q8

(bottom)

89

Figure 7: Sus scrofa bones: unmodified maxilla with molars from Q7, Lev. 3 (top), distal femur and carpals from Q6, F1 (middle), and possible vertebrae from Q7, Lev. 3 (bottom)

90

Figure 8: Bos taurus bones: shaft bones modified with butcher shank cuts (top), unmodified tubor calcis middle), and rib fragment modified with butcher chuck cut (bottom)

all from Q7, Lev. 3

91

Figure 9: Common cuts of pig (top) and cow (bottom)

Figure 10: Crassostrea virginica (left) and unidentified shell (right) all from Unit Q6, F1

92

R

D2

RC

2

Q 6

Q

7

Q

8

SP

EC

IE

S

2

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

F1

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

Su

s S

cro

fa (

pig

)

1

2

0

0

1

0

0

0

5

0

0

7

0

1

2

1

1

0

0

Bo

s T

au

ru

s

(co

w)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

0

0

0

1

1

0

1

Gall

us g

allu

s

do

mesti

cu

s

(ch

icken

)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

4

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Tab

le 1

: Nu

mb

er o

f In

div

idu

al S

pec

ies,

by

Un

it a

nd

Lev

el

93

Figure 11: Identified species in Feature 1, Unit Q6 (top), Unit Q7 (middle) and Unit Q8 (bottom)

94

95

COMPARATIVE FAUNAL ANALYSIS: YATES, WILSON-VICTOR,

AND RUTHVEN SITES

Yvana Rivera

Introduction

Animal bone analysis at archaeological sites shed light upon the activities of the inhabit-

ants as well as species distributions in the area. These types of analyses are particularly im-

portant because “the collection and treatment of food constitutes a significant part of human

behavior” (Hill 1979:739). Not only can these analyses allow archaeologists to begin construct-

ing ideas about the inhabitants’ diet and health, butchery practices, ritual practices, or other life-

style practices involving the animal remains, but they can also reveal the distribution and abun-

dance of species present naturally for other reasons than previously stated. Food consumption

preferences as well as socioeconomic status can be carefully inferred acknowledging the limita-

tions of preservational bias. This study hopes to provide more insight into the daily lives of the

residents in Houston’s Freedmen’s Town by analyzing several sites excavated by the Rice Field

School as well as one other site excavated by Dr. Robert Marcom. The Rice Field School sites

will include those from the years 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2012, which already have individual

faunal analysis reports completed. The other site excavated by Dr. Marcom is named FTFS–S04

and is located behind the Yates’ household. Initially, I explore previous research concerning

faunal analysis of other African American sites in the United States so as to gain perspective

about African American faunal patterning. Noting the previous conclusions made concerning

subsistence behaviors, use of space, meat processing, and different faunal assemblages and rep-

resentations, I will then reveal exactly what was present at the sites I have chosen to analyze

and discuss the differences. I hope to be able to demonstrate that the faunal patterning is similar

to other African American sites as well as note the differences and suggest claims of socioeco-

nomic status. By completing this cross-site analysis, important information such as common

species, butchery cuts, and animal bone abundance can be known further supporting particular

interpretations about socioeconomic status and food consumptions trends of the Freedmen’s

Town residents, which would allow to recover historical data rejecting the “traditional stereo-

96

types about race, poverty, and class” in the present time concerning what used to be considered

the “Mother Ward” of the African American class in Houston (McDavid 2011:74).

African American Archaeological Faunal Patterning and Consumption Trends

Previous research concerning African American archaeological faunal analysis make

claims about African American faunal patterning and consumption trends revealed either in

modern day residents, plantation sites, or slave quarter sites. These studies reveal the different

types of species consumed by the enslaved or the descendants of slaves, the different use of

space with respect to the faunal remains, and the different types of subsistence activities related

to the faunal remains aiding in the interpretation of meat processing, butchering practices, and

disposal behaviors. This previous research allows future studies to be able to identify the

“African American signature” of subsistence activity (Tuma 2006:3). The importance of study-

ing faunal analysis and its relationship with food consumption trends is emphasized by Scott

who explains:

Food and social position, in particular, are intimately connected, and this con-

nection may be seen in the taken-for-granted routines of daily life as well as in

unusual occasions of ritual and ceremony. How various foods are produced, ob-

tained, prepared, and consumed; who is responsible for that procurement and

preparation; who has access to which foods; what is symbolized by particular

foods and the occasions or settings in which they are consumed-these are all

questions that articulate the biologically necessary activity of food consumption

with the social, political, and economic relations among men, women, and chil-

dren in a particular society (Scott 2001:671).

Therefore, it is crucial to review the patterns which have been identified in previous re-

search to be able to contextualize the findings and make interpretations about the resi-

dents’ lives at Freedmen’s Town.

Tuma and his colleagues studied the subsistence behaviors of modern day descendants

of previously enslaved African Americans in rural southern Mississippi from 1997 to 1999,

with the hopes that these studies would help interpret the faunal remains at Saragossa Plantation

in Mississippi. They found that both in the modern day archaeological context and the slave

quarter archaeological context, the dominant species were cow, pig, and chicken whose remains

97

demonstrated clear evidence of comprising the residents’ diets. Other animals such as sheep,

goat, deer, raccoon, opossum, rabbit, squirrel, turtle, and fish supplemented this diet (Tuma

2006:19). The different subsistence activities associated with both groups included the raising

of animals for food, butchering animals, and cooking in yard areas around the cabins. The pro-

cessing of low quality meat included elements such as vertebrae, feet, head, and limb elements

(Tuma 2006:2). Butchery practices included cutting, chopping, sawing, and breaking. Burnt

bone was associated cooking techniques such as frying, baking, and roasting. Interestingly,

burnt bone was also associated with a disposal practice known as yard sweeping which would

clear debris from a particular area in the yard into a pile which was then burned. Bone recov-

ered from these piles showed extensive amount of burning. Disposal practices varied and most

often leftover bones were disposed in eating areas whereas butchery waste was disposed most

often near butchery areas. Butchery areas were often located away from eating areas and both

types of areas were moved throughout the year; therefore, modern day observations helped ar-

chaeologists consider this factor while analyzing the slave quarter site. High densities of bone

were often found in trash pits as well. Another practice that was noted was that poultry was of-

ten kept near the resident’s quarters (Tuma 2006).

Reitz conducted studies on different archaeological sites in South Carolina and along the

coast of Georgia which was occupied by diverse peoples during the late 18th and the middle of

the 19th centuries. Both urban and rural sites were compared which included several plantations

and urban residential areas. These studies revealed that both cattle and pig remains were the

most abundant at both types of sites (Reitz 1986:51). Pork was easier to cure and it was noted

that its representation may be underrepresented because of the acid which may have dissolved

the bones during the preservation process. Chickens were the most abundant bird at both of the

different types of sites and suggestions include that they may have been sold and raised. Urban

sites consumed a larger variety of domestic meat and may indicate that wild species were more

commonly eaten in rural areas. In other words, hunting and trapping may have been accom-

plished more easily on large plots of land than in residential areas. Urban sites also showed evi-

dence of butchering domestic species making domestic meat more accessible so that it would

also be sold commercially. Urban areas also consumed deer, opossum, rabbit, squirrel, raccoon,

mink, turtles, alligators, and fish (Reitz 1986:53-6).

98

Crader discusses the faunal analysis at Monticello to interpret the slaves’ diets, which

mostly included pork and corn as the main staples (Crader 1990:690). The protein portion of

their diet mostly consisted of pork, but also included beef. Crader notes that fish and bird bone

may be underrepresented because of their fragility causing preservational bias. Other practices

included the extraction of bone marrow which was represented as fractures on long bone shafts

which had been flaked intentionally. The slave diet was also supplemented by deer and other

wild animals. The domestic animals which were most common at the Monticello site included

cow, pig, and sheep. Domestic animals were also raised so as to help reduce the cost to feed the

slaves. Crader (1990:699) makes an important observation that “non-bony meats” may also not

be represented in the archaeological faunal context such as bacon and sausage. He also states

that taste preferences should be considered when attempting to make socioeconomic inferences

about a faunal assemblage because inhabitants may have merely chosen to consume certain

types of meat mainly based upon reasons of preference and not for economic reasons. Crader

(1990) observes that higher quality pig meat included the meat from limbs and the lower verte-

brae and that almost half of the butchery marks observed included cuts of higher quality meat.

Scott (2001) discussed the meat quality trends of the Nina Plantation and observes that

higher quality meat most often included: loin, short loin, rib, and round; while low quality meat

included neck, foreshank, hindshank, and head meat. Medium quality meat included the rump,

chuck and arm meat. Pig meat most often included meat from the shoulder, rib, jowl, head and

foot parts (Scott 2001:674).

At the Hermitage Plantation, Thomas discovered that the main source of meat also came

from domesticated animals which included mainly pig as well as sheep, cows, and chicken.

However, the pigs were primarily raised for food. Chickens were also raised and traded. Wild

animals were also to supplement the diet; however, Thomas acknowledges that their existed a

“great deal of diversity in how households acquired food” (Thomas 1998:543). He also explains

that the relationships between the slaves and masters also affected the food consumption of the

enslaved African Americans. Fishing and hunting should also be considered as recreational ac-

tivities and not solely for dietary purposes. These activities also may have been conducted to

“break up a monotonous diet” (Thomas 1998:545).

Heath and Bennet also discuss the importance of the yard in African American culture.

They explain: “Beyond gardening, socializing, and relaxing out-of-doors, enslaved African

99

Americans living in the South used the spaces around their cabins for performing household

chores such as cooking, laundering, butchering, and raising animals “ (Bennet and Heath

2000:43). Therefore, it would make sense that some of these activities would be passed down to

the descendants which in the case of the descendants of the Saragossa Plantation this proved to

be true.

Mullins explains that “African Americans were caricatured as being racially unsuited to

those citizen privileges in consumption and labor space”; however, previous research shows

disproves this assumption because previously enslaved African Americans developed food con-

sumption strategies which allowed them to have access to high quality cuts and sustain them-

selves (Mullins 1999:22). Therefore, as previously stated we should consider the possibility of

taste preferences and other activities which may have been social or recreational rather than pri-

marily for dietary reasons. The overall trends of food consumptions reveal that mostly pig and

cow comprised and still comprise the diet of African Americans. Wild game was employed to

supplement the diet and domestic animals were raised for sell, trade, or self-sufficiency. Urban

areas were associated with more domestic animals and domestic butchering, while rural areas

employed more wild animals. However, urban areas still consumed small amounts of wild ani-

mals for the reasons stated above. The African American food consumption trends discussed

included a variety of species and activities regarding disposal and butchery practices. It must be

noted that these food resources were acquired in many different ways and that the assemblages

varied with regards to species distributions. However, these are the general trends acknowledg-

ing the preservational biases of bird, fish, and other small animal bones. Burnt bone was associ-

ated with cooking techniques as well as trash pit burning and yard sweeping. Butchery areas

were often located away from consumption areas and often changed locations; therefore a care-

ful eye must analyze and take these cases into consideration. The faunal patterning therefore

consists of several characteristic “African American” signatures. My hope is to prove that the

faunal assemblages at the different sites in Freedmen’s Town differ in some ways, but also ex-

press an African American signature.

Methodology

Since animal bone remains of the previous Rice Field School years have already been

catalogued, processed, and documented, the methods for analyzing Unit D of site FTFS-S04 are

100

described here. All of the animal bone remains were bagged by level, unit, and lot number at

the field site. Animal bones were also weighed and recorded in the YCAP system, and divided

into: non-diagnostic and diagnostic elements. Non-diagnostic bones were those that that lacked

identifying attributes due to fragmentation. They were weighed separately from the diagnostic

bones. Diagnostic bones were those that could be identified based upon attributes such as artic-

ular surfaces, shape and size. Each diagnostic bone was weighed individually and identified as

to species and type of bone. Modifications of bone, including burning, holes, butchery marks,

and bleaching were recorded. For bone identification, the HAS comparative collection in the

Archaeology Laboratory at Rice University was consulted. For the cross-site analysis, I em-

ployed the previous Rice Field School reports from 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2012. The main

characteristics concerning the animal bone assemblage of each site will be described and com-

pared across all of the sites involved in this study.

FTFS-S04 Unit D Animal Bone

Since no previous data from this unit has been documented, it is necessary to describe

the results of the animal bone analysis at this site. Unit D was a 2 x 2 m unit located in the back

yard of the Yates’ residence subdivided into sub and sub sub units. For this analysis, each subu-

nit was considered by level. The subunit with the most animal bone is subunit 2, followed by

1,4, and 3 (Figs. 1-4). No distinctive patterns arise across all of the levels. However, the inter-

mediate levels do seem to have contained more animal bone than the beginning and ending lev-

els, except for subunit 2. The subunit with the most modified bone is subunit 2. Interestingly,

burnt bone fragments make up most of the modified bone remains found in Unit D (Fig. 4). Be-

fore excavating, Dr. Marcom had thought that the area would have low artifact density since no

structures appeared over the unit area on any Sanborn Map. However, they discovered high arti-

fact density and developed a hypothesis that perhaps temporary structures may have been built

over the unit or close to the unit which would explain the high artifact density. Also, since much

of the modified bone was burnt, bleached, or both, it could be that the unit was once a trash pit

that had been burned. It is known that trash pits contain high artifact densities since most of the

waste is gathered into a pile and then burned. As seen in Fig. 4, much of the bone had also been

modified by butchering practices lending to the idea that the residents either butchered animals

in the area or consumed professional meat cuts bought at the local supermarket since most of

101

the butchered bone were saw cuts. Both activities may have also occurred over time since

cleave cuts are found as deep as in level 9 and saw cuts in level 10. Both types of butchery

marks are found throughout the levels in the subunits; however, saw cuts were more commonly

found. The majority of the burnt bone found in subunit 1 were in levels 3, 4, and 7 (Fig. 4). In

subunit 2, a significant amount of burnt bone was found in level 4. Subunit 3 had the majority

of the burnt bone located in level 3 while subunit 4 had burnt bone all throughout levels 3-10

with no significant amount in any level. The burnt bone was extensively burnt which supports

the trash pit hypothesis, a practice which may have been repeated throughout time as the levels

indicate. Saw and cleave cuts were distributed throughout the levels. Few bone remains were

recovered with cut marks or cleave cuts which may indicate that some butchering may have oc-

curred on site, although, no teeth, skulls, or many feet bones were recovered from the site ex-

cept what seems to have been much of a chicken skeleton. Due to the presence of remains

which seem to comprise much of a chicken skeleton, chickens could have been raised in the

back yard since the unit was located behind the Yates’ residence. None of the chicken bones

were modified, lending support to this hypothesis. The species identified in this unit (Fig. 2)

included Bos tauras, Sus scrofa, Gallus gallus domesticus, fish (unidentified species), opposum

(unidentified species), and deer (unidentified species). The most amount of bone recovered

from the identifiable bones was the chicken bones comprising much of a chicken skeleton.

Next, pig and fish bone fragments comprise most of the assemblage. One must also

acknowledge however that these representations may not accurately depict the abundance of

species due to preservational bias. Pig remains were found all throughout the levels indicating

that the residents consumed or raised pigs over long periods of time. A high quality t-bone cut

was found in level 6. No other meat cuts could be identified except for shank cuts which could

not be identified to animal. Deer, fish and chicken were found starting in levels 6-7. Cow and

pig comprised the deepest levels (Appendix 2). Concerning the interpretations that can be made

concerning the faunal record, Lam and Pearson (2005:100) explain that “zooarchaeologists rely

heavily on the concept of bone ‘utility’, the nutrient value represented by each element…”, and

that in some cases low-utility elements such as foot bones may be more likely to be preserved

than high-utility bone such as the femur due to the high fragmentation of shaft bones and their

unidentifiable shaft fragments. The meat cuts found at the site included shank cuts, rib cuts, ver-

tebrae cuts, and one t-bone cut. It must be kept in mind that these were the only cuts that were

102

able to be identified and may not represent the actual butchery assemblage. Fish, Bos taurus,

Sus scrofa, Gallus gallus domesticus, fish, and possible deer may have been part of the resi-

dents’ diets living near the Yates’ house which is consistent with the African American diets

observed in previous studies. Opposum may also have been consumed as was suggested by

many of the sites discussed earlier; however, since only part of the mandible was recovered

with no modifications it is difficult to say with a great amount of certainty that this was so. The

possibility that the opossum may have died naturally is also a possibility.

Yates’ Household Site Units

Three of the units being analyzed are from the Yates’ household which include the sites

from the years 2008, 2009, and Unit D; therefore, it is important to recognize and compare

these units together so as to determine the kinds of activities and differences in activities at the

Yates’ household. The Rice Field School site excavated in 2008 (Unit P) and is an assemblage

similar to that of Unit D in that the greatest percentages of bone were mostly cow and pig.

Chicken, fish, other medium-sized mammals, and deer were also present in the assemblage. At

this site several long bovine bones showed evidence of being hollowed out lending to the hy-

pothesis that some bones were being harvested for their marrow, which was also seen in previ-

ous research of the African American faunal patterning. This unit yielded very fragmented

bone. Several premature fragments were also present as well. One hypothesis mentioned in the

report concerning the small amount of bone present in the beginning levels with an increase into

the intermediate levels might be because the tendency to dispose of waste outside has decreased

in recent times. In earlier times, residents may have thrown their waste outside their houses and

then burnt their trash pit. However, at thw 2008 site there was no evidence of burning. The ma-

jority of the butchered bone in this unit includes both cow and pig elements which is consistent

with Unit D. A deer element was recovered from level 2 and was probably used to supplement

the residents’ diets as observed in previous research. Chicken and fish remains were found be-

ginning in level 5 indicating that in earlier times their diet relied more heavily upon cow and pig

meat. Over time, they may have incorporated fish and chicken. However, this representation

may also be skewed due to the preservational bias of the small chicken and fish bones. Because

this unit did not contain any burnt bone, it could be that the unit may have represented an area

of eating activity. Most of the butchery marks were saw cuts and supports the idea that the resi-

103

dents may have been purchasing professionally cut meat. Expensive cuts of meat were also be-

ing consumed throughout time as evidenced in their distribution throughout the levels.

The 2009 site (Unit YC) had an assemblage that was composed of cow, chicken, deer,

pig, and dog, which was believed to have died from natural causes. Again, much of the bone

was very fragmented and difficult to identify. However, most of the bones identified belonged

to the domestic chicken which may lend support that chickens may have been raised at this site

as well as near Unit D. Cow teeth were also present at this site which may indicate that cows

had been raised in the area or that unusual cuts of beef were being consumed by the residents.

At this site, there was also burnt and bleached bone fragments lending support to trash pit fires;

however, this cannot be confirmed since the little amount of burnt bone may not indicate the

contents were purposefully burned. Butchery cuts included: shoulder chop, loin chop, shank

cuts, and chuck cuts. Most were professionally sawn; however, a butchered cow femur present

in the unit may have indicated that some butchering was also done near the site. Species present

naturally included a dog and rat bone fragments. Fish were found as deep as level 8 and chicken

was found as deep as level 7. The unbutchered cow remains were found in level 9, which may

indicate that in earlier times, cows may have been raised or butchered in the area.

As previously mentioned in the Unit D analysis, Unit D may have possibly included re-

mains from a trash pit fire as well as Unit YC. Due to the amount of extensive burning of bone

in these two units, it is possible that these units may have represented disposal/butchery sites

while Unit P may have represented an area of eating activity. All of the sites indicate that fish,

deer, and chicken were secondary food material as compared to cow and pig meat. These three

units also indicate that the Yates’ residents consumed expensive cuts of meat throughout time.

These food consumption trends and faunal patterning agree with those of the previous research

previously mentioned. These units do in fact show an “African American signature” of faunal

patterning.

The 2012 sites (41HR1070,31) was also consistent the sites excavated by the Rice Field

School. The species identified included: Bos Taurus, Gallus gallus domesticus, and sus scrofa.

Sus scrofa comprised most of the assemblage. Cow and chicken were nearly equally represent-

ed. At the 41HR1070 site there were also burnt and bleached bone fragments lending support to

a trash pit fire. Also, many pig feet bones were recovered and may explain that pigs were either

raised or consumed since pig feet meat is commonly used in stews. A pig maxilla was also re-

104

covered lending support again to the the raising of pigs in the area or roasting whole pigs.

Butcher cuts were mostly saw cuts; however, there were some cleave cuts. Meat cuts included

shank cuts, shoulder roast, pork roast, ham steak, and chuck cuts. These food consumption

trends and faunal patterning agree with those of the previous research previously mentioned.

These units do in fact show an “African American signature” of faunal patterning.

Cross-Site Animal Bone Analysis

The 2011 site (Unit A and B) is also consistent with the other units in that pig, cow, and

chicken make up most of the assemblage. However, at this site sheep bone remains were found

which introduces a new species that may have been consumed or raised in the area. Bird, crow,

and rat fragments are expected to have been present naturally. Burnt bones were also found at

this site along with bleached fragments as well. Butchered cuts are mostly from cow and pig.

Sheep cuts are also evident as well as other probable ungulate cuts lending support that the resi-

dents also consumed other animals such as sheep and deer

In comparison to the Yates’ household, the sites discussed above follow the same food

consumption trends. However, there were some differences. The 2011 site did not have any

fish, chicken, or deer remains, which may indicate that the residents may have primarily relied

on cow and pig meat in this area. The 2012 site did not have any fish or deer remains as well

which may also indicate that cow and pig meat were the primary source of protein in this area.

The units from 2011 and 2012 seem to have been either disposal/butchery areas because of the

extensive burning of the animal bone and presence of animal bone indicating that animals were

either raised or butchered on site. Given that the Yates’ residence may have been wealthier than

other individuals in Freedmen’s Town, it could be that the Yates’ residents enjoyed a wider va-

riety of meat sources which is supported by the faunal data.

Conclusion

The trends common to almost all of the sites include the facts that cow, pig, and chicken

were consumed not necessarily more often, but most commonly. Secondly, sheep, deer, and fish

were also consumed by residents in Freedmen’s Town. Expensive cuts such as sirloin, t-bone,

and some cuts of rib are more expensive that the other economical cuts of meat such as shank

cuts, the seven-bone steak cut, and chuck roast. It is difficult to say with a great degree of cer-

105

tainty that the residents were of a high socioeconomic status because of the preservational bias

of bone and other cuts that were not successfully identified. However, what can be said is that

Freedmen’s Towns residents were buying expensive cuts of meat as well as eating economical

cuts of meats. One can infer that some of the residents particularly those related to these sites

were economically advantaged in this way. In other words, had there been no expensive cuts of

meat present one could state the possibility that the residents were economically disadvantaged

with respect to their dietary consumption. However, this is not the case. Animals such as dog,

crow, and rat are expected to be species that are present naturally in Freedman’s town. There is

no evidence in any of the assemblages that these animals were being eaten. Activities that may

have been part of the residents’ may have included trash pit burning, raising of cows, chickens,

and pigs, and butchering their own meat at the sites. Given that cow, chicken, and pigs com-

prised the majority of the assemblages it would make sense for the residents to raise these ani-

mals if they were their main source of dietary protein. The assemblages allow for this possibil-

ity. There is evidence that either professional cuts of meat were being purchased or that they

were perhaps cutting their own meat with band saws and cleaves. From the assemblages, one

can infer that the Freedmen’s Town residents were capable of being obtaining expensive cuts of

meat as well as providing their own sources of meat. The Yates’ residents seemed to have en-

joyed a wider variety of meat, while the other sites relied primarily upon cow and pig. All of

these units provide evidence for an “African American signature” of the faunal patterning in

that cow and pig comprised the main source of protein and were consistent with many of the

activities mentioned in previous research on African American faunal patterning. Because

Freedmen’s Town is an urban location, many of the animal bone remains recovered that were

butchered were from domestic animals. Wild animals supplemented the diets of the residents

and activities such as animal raising and trash pit burning/disposal are visible in the faunal pat-

terning of Freedmen’s Town.

106

Figure 1

Figure 2

107

Figure 3: Diagnostic/non-diagnostic animal bone by subunit, Unit D

108

Figure 4: Modified animal bone by subunit, Unit D

109

CONCLUSION

Jeffrey Fleisher

The 2012 excavations with the Yates Museum and CARI offered some significant chal-

lenges. Over the course of four weekends we opened nine different units but were able to ex-

cavate only three of these to subsoil. Due to the short time frame provided for excavations

within the bounds of a semester, decisions need to be made about what can and cannot be com-

pleted. Both rain and the deposits themselves prevented us from completing six of these units,

as will be discussed below. However, the three trenches that we completed at the Wilson-

Victor property all seemed to contain intact deposits, related to the life of a general store that

was once located on the property, and the subsequent changes that occurred on that city lot.

Here, I will briefly discuss the units that we were unable to finish, and then on the archaeology

documented in this report.

The four units that we began at the Ruthven site offered the potential to reveal much

about the yard deposits related to two early 20th-century shotgun houses. Unfortunately, the

topography of the property and the intense rain that occurred after the first weekend of excava-

tion made it impossible for us to return to those trenches. The potential of that site should not

be under estimated, however, as the archaeological deposits appeared to be both intact and

quite robust. We have reported on some of the materials that we did recover but these repre-

sent only the uppermost levels in the units. If this site could be excavated in a season with less

rain, it would be well worth the effort as the archaeology would surely reveal early 20th-century

yard deposits.

At the Wilson-Victor properties, our first two trenches, just south of the standing shot-

gun house revealed the presence of a deep layer of redeposited clayey fill. The fill itself looks

like subsoil, and it was possibly deposited to level the property after the general store was de-

molished. After we realized that this was a deep deposit of this fill, we decided to close these

units as well, in the interest of time. It should be noted that even after we dug a small portion

of one of these trenches deeper, the clayey fill remained and therefore it may be that this fill is

in fact the subsoil and that the cultural layers have been removed.

The three units that we excavated fully at the Wilson-Victor site, Q6, Q7, and Q8, rep-

resent the a series of deposits related to the general store once located on the property, its de-

110

struction and subsequent dumping on the site. Unit Q8 contained the clearest evidence of mate-

rial connected to the general store, with a possible brick pier in the eastern profile, and a capped

gas line directly to the west. This might suggest that this unit is directly adjacent to the back of

the structure. The stratigraphy of this unit was complicated in that that area had been cut by a

sewer line and the presence of a flat piece of wood at its base. It is not clear if this wood was

installed to line a gas line or sewer trench, but it was remarkably well preserved. Unit Q6 also

revealed some structural features, with a corner of a concrete pad in the southwest corner of the

unit. This may be related to the original support for the barbershop that stood directly west of

the unit, now moved to the north. Unit Q6 also contained a pit feature that contained a large

number of artifacts reported here. This material suggests that it was likely a trash pit that was

dug and filled during the lifetime of the general store, but likely in the mid-20th century, based

on the artifacts cataloged here. Unit Q7 contained simple stratigraphy with no significant fea-

tures or intrusions. There were relatively fewer artifacts found in Unit Q7, with smaller num-

bers of glass and ceramics in comparison to Q6 and Q8. This may suggest that this unit was

under the general store itself; it is noteworthy that the highest number of nails located in Q7

were found in the deepest levels, suggesting that these materials may have been related to the

construction of the building.

In terms of chronology, most of the artifacts appear to date from mid to late 20th century,

with smaller numbers of materials from the first half. In some units, like Q8, there has been

significant disturbance of the earlier cultural layers by later activities on the site. This is exem-

plified by finds of three pennies in Q8, with the most recent penny (1978) found in the lowest

levels, and the earliest penny (1919) found in the uppermost level. Trench digging at the site

seems to have flipped the stratigraphy in significant ways. It is striking, however, that, consid-

ering the proximity of these trenches to the sidewalk on Victor Street, there were not more re-

cent artifacts in the deposits. This suggests that after the general store was removed from the

site, there has been little or no activity on the property.

In sum, the excavations on the Wilson-Victor property demonstrated the ability of ar-

chaeology to locate structural features related to the historic buildings at the site, as well fea-

tures that relate to human activities from the time of the general store. The analysis of materials

in this report suggests that most of the archaeological materials relate to functioning of the store

and its subsequent demolition in the 20th century.

111

REFERENCES CITED

Bahorich, Ben.

2008 Nails. Final Report on the 2008 Excavations at the R.B.H. Yates House. S.K. McIn-

tosh and B.T. Clark eds. Pp 65-71. Houston: Rice University.

Baird, Jane

1900 More Details on the 4th Ward Plan. Houston Post 2 February: Houston, TX.

Bennet, Amber and Heath, Barbara J.

2000 ‘The Little Spots Allow’d Them’: The Archaeological Study of African American

Yards. Historical Archaeology 34(2): 38-55.

Chapman, Betty

2011a When There Were Wards: A Series. Houston History Magazine 8(1):30-33.

2011b Brief History of the Fourth Ward. Houston History Magazine 8(2):37- 41.

Community Archaeology Research Institute, Inc.

2012 Services. Community Archaeology Research Institute, Inc. <http://

www.publicarchaeology.org/CARI/> Accessed April 4, 2012.

Crader, Diana C.

1990 Slave Diet at Monticello. American Antiquity 55(4):690-717.

Day, Barbara

1982 Texas Freedmen and Houston’s Fourth Ward, 1865-1900. Houston, Texas: University

of St. Thomas.

Dwyer, Ben

2009 Metal Artifacts (Non-Nails). Final Report on the 2009 Excavations at the Rutherford

B.H. Yates House Site. Jeffrey Fleisher ed. Pp. 93-108. Houston: Rice University.

112

Feit, Rachel and Bradford M. Jones

2007 ‘A Lotta People Have Histories Here’: History and Archaeology in Houston’s Vanish-

ing Freedman’s Town, Results of Field Investigations at the Gregory-Lincoln/HSPVA 4th

Ward Property. Houston Independent School District and Texas Historical Commission,

Archaeology Report No. 184. Austin.

Galveston Bay Status and Trends.

http://www.galvbaydata.org/Habitat/OysterReefs/tabid/836/Default.aspx

Gill, Dee

1991 Force in Fourth Ward. Houston Chronicle 17 February: A(1). Houston, TX.

Hill, Andrew

1979 Butchery and Natural Disarticulation: An Investigatory Technique. American Antiqui-

ty 44(4):739-744.

Houston History

2011 The Formative Years (1840-1850). Houston History. <http://

www.houstonhistory.com/decades/history5a.htm> Accessed: April 4, 2012.

Houston Texas Online

2012 Houston. Houston Texas Online. <http://www.houston-texas-online.com/

htoframes.html> Accessed: April 4, 2012.

Joseph, Brophy William

1974 The Black Texan, 1900-1950: A Quantitative History. Nashville, Tennessee: UMI.

Lam, Y.M. and O.M. Pearson

2005 Bone Density Studies and the Interpretation of the Faunal Record. Evolutionary An-

thropology 14:99-108.

113

Lindsey, Bill.

2009 Bottle Dating. Electronic document, http://www.sha.org/bottle/, accessed March 31,

2012.

Lockhart, Bill.

2010 Bottles on the Border: The History and Bottles of the Soft Drink Industry in El Paso,

Texas, 1881-2000. Electronic document, http://www.sha.org/bottle/pdffiles/

EPChap10a.pdf, accessed April 1, 2012.

McDavid, Carol

2002 Archaeologies that hurt; descendants that matter: a pragmatic approach to collabora-

tion in the public interpretation of African-American archaeology. World Archaeology 34

(2):303-314.

2011 When is ‘Gone’ Gone? Archaeology, Gentrification, and Competing Narratives about

Freedmen’s Town, Houston. Historical Archaeology 45(3):74-88.

McDavid, Carol, David Bruner and Robert Marcom

2008 Urban Archaeology and the Pressures of Gentrification: Claiming, Naming, and Nego-

tiating “Freedom” in Freedmen’s Town, Houston. Bulletin of the Texas Archaeological

Society 79: 7-52.

Mauzy, Barbara E.

1998 Pyrex: The Unauthorized Collector’s Guide. New York, NY: Schiffer Books.

Miller, George L.

1980 Classification and Economic Scaling of Nineteenth Century Ceramics. Historical Ar-

chaeology 14:1-40.

Moneyhon, Carl H.

114

2012 Black Codes. Texas History Online. <http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/

articles/jsb01> Accessed: April 4, 2012.

Mullins, Paul R.

1999 Race and the Genteel Consumer: Class and African-American Consumption, 1850-

1930. Historical Archaeology 33(1):22-38.

Environmental Protection Agency,

2012 Radioactive Materials in Antiques. April 16, 2012. http://www.epa.gov/radtown/

antiques.html.

Reitz, Elizabeth

1986 Urban/Rural Contrasts in Vertebrate Fauna from the Southern Atlantic Coast Plain.

Historical Archaeology 20(2):47-58.

Roller, Dick.

1984 Ball Jar Progression. Electronic document, http://www.balljars.net/

ball_jar_progression.htm, accessed March 29, 2012.

Rutherford B.H. Yates Museum

2005 Yates Community Archaeology Program. Public Archaeology. <http://

www.publicarchaeology.org/yates/mission.html>. Accessed April 4, 2012.

Sanborn Insurance Company

1954 Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps. Houston, TX.

Scott, Elizabeth M.

2001 Food and Social Relations at Nina Plantation. American Anthropologist 103(3):671-

691.

Smith, Marie T.

115

Fiestaware Old Ivory. April 17, 2012.

www.microwavecookingforone.comFiestaOldIvory.html.

Spurrier, Brittany.

2008 Metal Artifacts (Non-Nails). Final Report on the 2008 Excavations at the R.B.H. Yates

House. S.K. McIntosh and B.T. Clark eds. Pp 65-71. Houston: Rice University.

Stack, Steve

2011. 21st Century Dodos: A Collection of Endangered Objects (And Other Stuff). New

York: Harper Collins Publishers.

Staff, Betty L. Martin

2008 Freedmen’s Town / Historic Fourth Ward houses to become museum school of histo-

ry. Houston Chronicle. [Online]. Available: <http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/

archive.mpl/2008_4573955/freedmen-s-town-historic-fourth-ward-houses-to-

bec.html>Accessed: April 4, 2012.

Sutton, Mark, and Brooke Arkush.

2002 Archaeological Laboratory Methods: An Introduction. 3rd. Pp 161-174. Dubuque:

Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.

Tannahill, Dustin.

2009 Nails. Final Report on the 2009 Excavations at the Rutherford B.H. Yates House Site.

Jeffrey Fleisher ed. Pp. 93-108. Houston: Rice University.

Thomas, Brian W.

1998 The Archaeology of Slavery at the Hermitage Plantation. American Antiquity 63

(4):531-551.

Tuma, Michael W.

116

2006 Ethnoarchaeology of Subsistence Behaviors within a Rural African American Com-

munity: Implications for Interpreting Vertebrae Faunal Data from Slave Quarters Areas of

Antebellum Plantation Sites. Historical Archaeology. 40(4):1-26.

Tutt, Bob

2006 Houston Historic Wards work to reverse fortunes. Houston Chronicle 4 August: A(37-

38). Houston, TX.

Visser, Thomas D.

1997 Nails: Clues to a Building's History. Historic Preservation Research. University of

Vermont. http://www.uvm.edu/histpres/203/nails.html, accessed April 2, 2012.

Watson, Burke

1984 ‘Historic’ Fourth Ward: Battle brewing over depressed area’s future. Houston Chroni-

cle 19 July: A(28). Houston, TX.

Whitten, David.

Glass Manufacturers’ Marks on Bottles. Electronic document, http://

www.myinsulators.com/glass-factories/bottlemarks.html, accessed April 1, 2012.

Wintz, Cary D.

1990 The Emergence of a Black Neighborhood: Houston’s Fourth ward, 1865-1915. In Ur-

ban Texas: Politics and Development, Char Miller and Heywood Sanders, editors, pp. 96-

109. Texas A&M Press, College Station.

Women in Texas History

2011 Timeline. Women in Texas History. <http://www.womenintexashistory.org/timeline/

#to1899>. Accessed: April 4, 2012.

117

APPENDIX 1: ANALYZED ARTIFACT CATALOG

118

CERAMICS Lot Unit Subunit Level Material Submaterial Class Quantity Weight Comments

1584 Q4 1 I CC 1001 1 12 Whiteware rim sherd

1584 Q4 1 I CC 1001 1 8 White glaze on one face and naked clay on the other

1584 Q4 1 I CC 1003 1 12 Triple bands lining the rim 1584 Q4 1 I CC 1003 1 <1 Whitewar rim sherd

1583 Q5 1 I CC 1003 1 <1 Whiteware with faint floral design on one face 1586 Q6 1 I CC 1001 1 <1 Glazed blue 1586 Q6 1 I CC 1001 1 <1 Glazed brown

1586 Q6 1 I CC 1001 1 8 Whiteware. Crackle pattern with fire or rust stains

1586 Q6 1 I CC 1001 1 <1 Terra cotta sherd from a plant pot 1586 Q6 1 I CF 1003 1 <1 Sherd with a fading blue stripe 1586 Q6 1 I CF 1003 1 4 Imprinted design along rim with a blue stripe 1586 Q6 1 I CA 1021 1 4 Porcelain household appliance 1586 Q6 1 I CF 1033 1 1 1588 Q6 2 I CB 1001 1 6 Glazed brown with reduced iron spots

1588 Q6 2 I CC 1001 1 2 Glazed white on one face and black on another face

1588 Q6 2 I CC 1001 1 2 Glazed blue 1588 Q6 2 I CC 1027 1 60g broken piece of brick;brownish color 1595 Q6 3 I CF 1001 2 <1 1596 Q6 4 I CF 1003 1 <1 Printed with a plant design and metallic marks 1601 Q6 6 I CF 1001 1 2 Rim sherd 1589 Q6 F1 I CB 1001 7 416 Brown glaze with salt spots 1589 Q6 F1 I CB 1001 1 106 1589 Q6 F1 I CB 1001 1 <1

119

1589 Q6 F1 I CC 1001 2 116 Whiteware plate printed with insignia of a ship and enscription

1589 Q6 F1 I CC 1001 4 178 Whiteware. Significant rust stains on body 1589 Q6 F1 I CC 1001 1 2 Terra cotta plant pot 1589 Q6 F1 I CC 1001 1 <1 Terra cotta plant pot

1589 Q6 F1 I CF 1001 1 14 Plate bottom with enscription: "O.P.CO./ Syracuse/ China/ 2-Q"

1589 Q6 F1 I CF 1001 1 <1 Possibly from the handle of a teacup

1589 Q6 F1 I CL 1001 1 6 Pyrex? Possibly a stopper from a Mason jar. The word "genuine" is imprinted on it.

1589 Q6 F1 I CL 1001 1 5 Pyrex? 1589 Q6 F1 I CL 1001 1 1 Pyrex? 1589 Q6 F1 I CL 1001 1 1 Pyrex?

1589 Q6 F1 I CB 1003 2 46 Rim and wall sherd from a plant pot with blue glaze

1589 Q6 F1 I CC 1003 1 26 Whiteware decorative servingware decorated to look like a green leaf.

1589 Q6 F1 I CC 1003 3 36 Whiteware rim fragments with imprinted design 1589 Q6 F1 I CC 1003 1 4 Whiteware printed with a faint red rose

1589 Q6 F1 I CC 1003 12 166 Whiteware bowl with blue and pink stripes along the rim and significant rust stains on the body

1589 Q6 F1 I CF 1003 2 8 Rim and wall piece of a vessel with imprinted design

1589 Q6 F1 I CA 1021 1 52 Heavy white ceramic fragment with two polished edges.

1589 Q6 F1 I CC 1033 1 2 1585 Q7 1 I CB 1001 1 14 Rim of vessel glazed blue 1585 Q7 1 I CB 1001 1 4 Pipe sherd. Brown glaze with salt spots

120

1585 Q7 1 I CB 1001 1 4 One face is glazed black and the other has clear glaze

1585 Q7 1 I CC 1001 1 2 Whiteware 1585 Q7 1 I CC 1001 1 3 Whiteware 1585 Q7 1 I CL 1003 2 4 Pyrex? Striations along rim. 1585 Q7 1 I CC 1027 4 71g broken pieces of brick;medium size

1585 Q7 1 I CC 1033 1 2g small piece of charcoal with an indention on one side

1585 Q7 1 I CI 1033 1 32g broken piece of dark red clay 1591 Q7 2 I CC 1001 1 <1 Glazed green

1591 Q7 2 I CA 1021 1 72 From a porcelain appliance, such as a toilet or sink

1592 Q7 3 I CB 1001 1 12 Likely wheel-thrown with black glaze

1592 Q7 3 I CC 1001 1 76 Fiestaware rim and base of a cream colored plate 1592 Q7 3 I CC 1001 1 14 Terra Cotta wall sherd of a plant pot 1592 Q7 3 I CC 1001 3 40 Whiteware with burn marks 1592 Q7 3 I CL 1025 1 5 Tile possibly from a bathroom floor 1592 Q7 3 I CL 1025 1 5 Tile possibly from a bathroom floor 1599 Q7 4 I CC 1001 1 4 Whiteware 1587 Q8 1 I CB 1001 1 <1 1587 Q8 1 I CC 1001 1 4 Whiteware wavy rim with dark burn mark 1587 Q8 1 I CC 1001 3 <1 1587 Q8 1 I CC 1001 2 2 Terra cotta plant pot fragments 1587 Q8 1 I CC 1001 1 <1 Glazed green 1587 Q8 1 I CC 1001 1 8 Rim of plate 1587 Q8 1 I CC 1001 1 2 Tan glaze 1587 Q8 1 I CC 1001 1 6

1587 Q8 1 I CC 1001 1 10 Terra cotta plant pot fragment with burn marks

121

1587 Q8 1 I CF 1001 2 2 Fragments from a crème colored teacup handle 1587 Q8 1 I CB 1003 1 8 Blue stripe lining the rim 1587 Q8 1 I CC 1003 1 <1 Whiteware printed with a blue pattern

1587 Q8 1 I CC 1003 2 6 Whiteware rim fragments imprinted with design 1587 Q8 1 I CF 1003 1 6 Teacup saucer base with faint plant design 1587 Q8 1 I CF 1003 1 <1 Printd with plant design

1587 Q8 1 I CA 1021 3 20 Porcelain appliance with an imprint on the largest piece

1587 Q8 1 I CA 1021 3 56 Porcelain appliance, possibly from a toilet or sink 1590 Q8 2 I CC 1001 1 6 small broken piece of earthenware 1590 Q8 2 I CC 1001 1 18 Glazed whiteware rim sherd 1590 Q8 2 I CC 1001 1 2 Whiteware crackle pattern 1590 Q8 2 I CF 1001 4 4 1590 Q8 2 I CF 1001 1 <1 1590 Q8 2 I CL 1001 1 9 Pyrex?

1590 Q8 2 I CB 1003 1 28 Brown and yellow glazed pattern on one face and clear glaze on the other face

1590 Q8 2 I CF 1003 2 6 Metallic floral design with "X"s 1590 Q8 2 I CL 1003 1 2 Rim sherd with striations 1590 Q8 2 I CL 1023 1 3 Broken tile possibly from a bathroom floor 1590 Q8 2 I CC 1027 6 16g small pieces of broken brick

1590 Q8 2 I CL 1033 3 8g small pieces of broken indeterminate stone; fragmented bits embedded in the surface

1593 Q8 3 I CC 1001 3 16 Whiteware. Crackle pattern with fire or rust stains

1593 Q8 3 I CC 1001 1 8 From the base of a whiteware vessel 1593 Q8 3 I CA 1021 1 6 Part of a porcelain household appliance

122

1593 Q8 3 I CC 1027 5 156g broken pieces of brick; 4 smaller pieces and one large rectangular piece

1593 Q8 3 I CC 1027 2 98g two pieces of dark red brick;semi-smooth surface

1593 Q8 3 I CC 1027 4 152g broken pieces of brick; 3 small pieces and one larger rectangular piece

1594 Q8 4 I CB 1001 6 114 Glazed brown with salt spots 1594 Q8 4 I CC 1001 1 <1 1594 Q8 4 I CC 1001 6 16 Crackle pattern 1594 Q8 4 I CC 1001 1 <1 Floral design along rim 1594 Q8 4 I CL 1001 1 <1 Pyrex? 1594 Q8 4 I CC 1003 1 4 Floral design along rim 1594 Q8 4 I CA 1021 1 2 Porcelain household appliance

1597 Q8 5 I CC 1001 6 14 Whiteware crackle pattern with signs of fire damage

1597 Q8 5 I CF 1001 1 6 Part of a teacup handle 1600 Q8 6 I CB 1001 2 82 Glazed brown with salt spots 1600 Q8 6 I CC 1001 5 20 Whitewar base and wall sherds 1600 Q8 6 I CF 1001 1 <1 1600 Q8 6 I CL 1001 1 <1 Pyrex?

1600 Q8 6 I CC 1027 12 1.3kg broken pieces of brick; one very large, almost whole piece of brick

1582 RC 2 2 I CB 1001 1 2 Pearlware. Possibly a rim fragment of a thick vessel

1582 RC 2 2 I CC 1001 1 <1 Pearlware. Glazed light blue rime sherd

1582 RC 2 2 I CC 1001 1 2 Whiteware. Crackle pattern with fire or rust stains

1582 RC 2 2 I CH 1001 2 31 terra cotta plant pot

1582 RC 2 2 I CC 1003 2 6 Pearlware with imprinted design along the rim

123

1582 RC 2 2 I CC 1003 1 2 Blue/green glazed spot on brown background 1582 RC 2 2 I CC 1003 1 6 Traces of dark blue paint on the sherd 1582 RC 2 2 I CF 1003 1 2 Rim sherd with red stripe 1582 RC 2 2 I CC 1027 2 28g broken red brick 1582 RC 2 2 I CA 1029 1 48 Porcelain household appliance 1582 RC 2 2 I CB 1033 1 194 From either a sewage pipe or a plant pot 1579 RC 3 2 I CB 1001 6 170 Glazed brown with salt spots 1579 RC 3 2 I CC 1001 1 4 Terra cotta plant pot 1579 RC 3 2 I CC 1001 2 8 Whiteware sherds with burn marks 1579 RC 3 2 I CC 1001 1 5 Dark red terra cotta 1579 RC 3 2 I CH 1003 10 210 Vessel with striations 1580 RD 2 2 I CC 1001 1 <1 Light yellow color 1580 RD 2 2 I CH 1003 5 94 Terra cotta clay with vertical striations 1580 RD 2 2 I CC 1027 21 144g broken pieces of brick 1581 RD 3 2 I CH 1003 3 50 Vertical imprinted striations

124

GLASS Lot Unit Subunit Level Material Submaterial Class Quantity Weight Comments

1584 Q4 1 II GA 2005 2 6 1583 Q5 1 II GA 2001 2 2 1583 Q5 1 II GA 2005 2 4 1583 Q5 1 II GD 2005 1 2 light blue 1586 Q6 1 II GA 2001 105 62 some bubbled from heat (?) 1586 Q6 1 II GC 2001 1 0.3 1586 Q6 1 II GD 2001 2 0.6 1586 Q6 1 II GF 2001 4 2 one has bubbling from heat? 1586 Q6 1 II GA 2002 2 10 floral/starburst pattern 1586 Q6 1 II GA 2002 2 0.5 have black on outside and inside 1586 Q6 1 II GB 2002 1 2 red with raised line 1586 Q6 1 II GA 2005 48 84 1586 Q6 1 II GC 2005 2 4 1586 Q6 1 II GF 2005 9 6 1586 Q6 1 II GA 2006 1 4 raised cursive writing 1586 Q6 1 II GA 2006 3 4 two have raised bumps 1586 Q6 1 II GD 2006 1 2 "NO" or "ON" 1586 Q6 1 II GK (pink) 2006 1 2 pink with raised line 1586 Q6 1 II GA 2007 2 4 1586 Q6 1 II GA 2009 2 28 one large, one small 1586 Q6 1 II GC 2009 1 18 bottom of green bottle 1586 Q6 1 II GD 2009 1 12 bottom of small blue bottle 1586 Q6 1 II GA 2013 1 2 bottom of plate?

1586 Q6 1 II GA 2031 4 4 glass insulator; 4 fragments, one still has wire in it

1586 Q6 1 II GK 2037 2 6 one whole green w/ inner stripes, one fragment painted on outside

125

1586 Q6 1 II GD 2042 1 40 BROMO-SELTZER EMERSON DRUG, CO. BALTIMORE, c. 1915-1920

1588 Q6 2 II GA 2001 13 11 1588 Q6 2 II GA 2005 19 31 1588 Q6 2 II GC 2005 1 3 1588 Q6 2 II GD 2005 3 3 1588 Q6 2 II GF 2005 4 4

1588 Q6 2 II GA 2006 3 5 Dura in cursive on one; Two others = frosty, ripple

1588 Q6 2 II GA 2007 2 19 1588 Q6 2 II GC 2008 1 2 raised bumps; "WINE" 1588 Q6 2 II GA 2009 4 13 1588 Q6 2 II GA 2045 1 80 strange & large cracks 1595 Q6 3 II GA 2001 8 61 1595 Q6 3 II GA 2002 1 2 raised geometrical lines 1595 Q6 3 II GA 2005 5 9 1595 Q6 3 II GF 2005 3 9 1595 Q6 3 II GI 2005 1 0.9 opaque 1595 Q6 3 II GC 2006 1 4 curved ridges 1596 Q6 4 II GA 2001 4 2 1596 Q6 4 II GA 2005 2 0.3 1596 Q6 4 II GF 2005 1 2 1598 Q6 5 II GA 2001 3 1 1598 Q6 5 II GA 2005 1 5 1598 Q6 5 II GD 2005 1 3 1598 Q6 5 II GA 2006 1 2 raised ridges (chipped) 1598 Q6 5 II GD 2006 1 11 C CO, part of star shape; crossing lines 1598 Q6 5 II GF 2045 1 5 1589 Q6 F1 II GA 2001 78 2303 1589 Q6 F1 II GA 2005 269 599

126

1589 Q6 F1 II GC 2005 15 12 variety of color 1589 Q6 F1 II GD 2005 6 14 1589 Q6 F1 II GE 2005 6 6 1589 Q6 F1 II GF 2005 31 191 1589 Q6 F1 II GG 2005 1 0.5

1589 Q6 F1 II GA 2006 39 249

a) 22 have ridges, some refit; b) raised geometric (sideways cubes); c) raised lines (2); d) dots (3); e) 1 w/ raised leaves; f) lettered: "ORY N", "ELF", "O", "FEDERAL", "N", "2", "ONE", "OR RE", "S BOTTLE"

1589 Q6 F1 II GA 2007 22 138 1589 Q6 F1 II GF 2007 1 1 1589 Q6 F1 II GC 2009 2 46 refit 1589 Q6 F1 II GA 2010 6 93 1589 Q6 F1 II GF 2010 1 98 makers mark, numbers: 26, 3, CB 2100 1589 Q6 F1 II GA 2011 3 14 8

1589 Q6 F1 II GA 2011 11 266

a) "Duraglass", large, maker's mark, 18, 4, "-ALE" side; b) maker's mark, 20, 24, 32-, "Duraglass" on side, broke during analysis; c) "4/5 QUART" side; d) 3 ridges up side; e) ridge; f) "~NT" side; g) "81 NOT"; h) "HALF PINT" side, in circle 25/45, keystone makers mark with k, circle R 76; i) "~aglass" cursive, C2954 side, bottom 5; j) maker's mark; k)"E PIN~" side

1589 Q6 F1 II GA 2012 8 119 ridged with flat rim; some refit, from same source

1589 Q6 F1 II GA 2014 3 81 refit; ridged up side & base; bowl

1589 Q6 F1 II GA 2030 1 18 geometric cuts/shaping; possible drawer knob

127

1589 Q6 F1 II GK 2037 2 11 1) red & white swirls; 2) orange & white swirls

1589 Q6 F1 II GA 2042 2 301

a) "Ball" cursive, star, 3 (base), thinner botter with ridges; b) mason jar, 15, 3, 10; (c. 1930-1940, Oklahoma)

1589 Q6 F1 II GA 2043 1 4

1589 Q6 F1 II GA 2045 3 141 a) 2 refit, jar with handle; b) plain, skinny

1589 Q6 F1 II GF 2045 2 64 1585 Q7 1 II GA 2001 7 24 1585 Q7 1 II GC 2001 1 0.1

1585 Q7 1 II GA 2002 1 0.8 geometric, linear, incised design (cut?) part of floral/sunburst pattern

1585 Q7 1 II GA 2005 28 62 1585 Q7 1 II GF 2005 4 4 1591 Q7 2 II GA 2001 13 19 1591 Q7 2 II GA 2002 1 3 flowery, starburst pattern; incised 1591 Q7 2 II GA 2005 23 23 1591 Q7 2 II GC 2005 1 0.3 1591 Q7 2 II GF 2005 1 0.8 1591 Q7 2 II GB 2006 1 1 ridged 1591 Q7 2 II GF 2006 1 4 LEW... SALE... E THIS 1592 Q7 3 II GA 2001 19 16 1592 Q7 3 II GA 2005 35 28 1592 Q7 3 II GC 2005 3 11 1592 Q7 3 II GF 2005 6 3

1592 Q7 3 II GA 2006 18 75

some wide, flattened ridges (cup?); dots; raised ridges; "U"; some with red/blue backing?

1592 Q7 3 II GA 2012 2 140 cup; flattened ridges

128

1592 Q7 3 II GA 2014 2 65 refit, cup; with flattened ridges 1592 Q7 3 II GA 2019 1 0.2 1592 Q7 3 II GK 2037 1 6 olive green, hints of white swirl 1592 Q7 3 II GF 2045 1 2 1599 Q7 4 II GA 2010 1 6 17 1587 Q8 1 II GA 2001 85 175 1587 Q8 1 II GC 2001 3 2 1 foggy olive, 1 lime, 1 kelly 1587 Q8 1 II GA 2005 74 90 1587 Q8 1 II GC 2005 5 14 1 lime, 1 olive, 3 kelly

1587 Q8 1 II GF 2005 12 16 1 has Bud Light wrapper, 1 is really old looking (weird looking)

1587 Q8 1 II GA 2006 4 8 different sources, all have raised bumps/lines

1587 Q8 1 II GA 2006 1 1.5 floral/starburts pattern again 1587 Q8 1 II GA 2006 3 4 all have lines 1587 Q8 1 II GA 2006 2 1.3 have paint on outside 1587 Q8 1 II GA 2006 1 0.5 cut? 1587 Q8 1 II GA 2006 4 6 all have raised shit

1587 Q8 1 II GA 2007 5 18 one has part of a kneck with raised bumps

1587 Q8 1 II GF 2007 1 2 1587 Q8 1 II GA 2009 2 14 1 part of small rectangular bottle 1587 Q8 1 II GC 2009 1 8 light green 1587 Q8 1 II GF 2010 1 8 maker's mark is keystone with L inside 1587 Q8 1 II GC 2014 2 34 part of green glass 1587 Q8 1 II GA 2045 4 17 two frags refit 1587 Q8 1 II GK 1 50 marijuana pipe, containing dirt 1590 Q8 2 II GA 2001 46 69 1590 Q8 2 II GA 2005 67 75 1590 Q8 2 II GC 2005 8 21 varying color; possible bottle shard

129

1590 Q8 2 II GD 2005 4 12 1590 Q8 2 II GE 2005 1 2 1590 Q8 2 II GF 2005 16 15

1590 Q8 2 II GA 2006 11 35

a) 5 with raised bumps; b) lines within lines; c) "27"; d) raised lines; e) "DIET" with bumps; f) geometrical indentation; g) "RAL"

1590 Q8 2 II GA 2010 3 16 a) "D-1" bottom; b)"RT" side; c)"CHE" bottom

1590 Q8 2 II GA 2011 2 1 1590 Q8 2 II GB 2012 1 2 flat rim, below geometric raised 1590 Q8 2 II GA 2030 1 6 geometrical cut 1590 Q8 2 II GA 2033 1 12 bottle stopper 1590 Q8 2 II GA 2039 1 11 closet door knob?? 1593 Q8 3 II GA 2001 31 74 1593 Q8 3 II GA 2005 28 22 1593 Q8 3 II GD 2005 5 2 1593 Q8 3 II GF 2005 2 8 1593 Q8 3 II GA 2006 3 10 a) ridges, b) "NE", c) lines within lines 1593 Q8 3 II GC 2006 2 5 ridges flat 1593 Q8 3 II GD 2006 1 2 N 1593 Q8 3 II GA 2007 1 0.2 1593 Q8 3 II GD 2009 1 34 1593 Q8 3 II GA 2010 1 9 Z 1594 Q8 4 II GA 2001 31 54 1594 Q8 4 II GA 2005 19 32 1594 Q8 4 II GC 2005 1 3 1594 Q8 4 II GF 2005 7 11

1594 Q8 4 II GA 2006 5 48

4 = bottles, lines inside lines, "NEHI" white lettering on red square background; 1 = ridges

130

1594 Q8 4 II GA 2009 1 4 1594 Q8 4 II GA 2010 1 2 maker's mark, I inside circle, "21" 1594 Q8 4 II GA 2016 1 13 ridges around rim; large jar thing 1594 Q8 4 II GK 2037 1 5 half black, half white 1597 Q8 5 II GA 2001 10 14 1597 Q8 5 II GA 2002 2 6 flat dots 1597 Q8 5 II GA 2005 6 6 1597 Q8 5 II GC 2005 1 3 1597 Q8 5 II GA 2006 1 0.6 ridge 1600 Q8 6 II GA 2001 8 9 1600 Q8 6 II GA 2005 1 1 fine cracks 1600 Q8 6 II GA 2006 1 5 lines within lines 1600 Q8 6 II GA 2012 1 6 smooth, with squigly rim 1582 RC 2 2 II GA 2001 22 40 1582 RC 2 2 II GA 2003 2 1.2 1582 RC 2 2 II GA 2005 142 252 1582 RC 2 2 II GC 2005 17 38 1582 RC 2 2 II GD 2005 7 16 light blue 1582 RC 2 2 II GF 2005 21 34

1582 RC 2 2 II GA 2006 5 20

1) 2 shards with bumps; 2) 1 shard with far apart, raised lines; 3) shards with spotted white on them (????)

1582 RC 2 2 II GC 2006 2 22 1) indented bumps; 2) olive green, wavy

1582 RC 2 2 II GD 2006 1 12 raised fat column bottle (3); (looks kinda like soda bottle)

1582 RC 2 2 II GC 2007 1 4 1582 RC 2 2 II GA 2009 3 12 1582 RC 2 2 II GF 2009 3 24

131

1582 RC 2 2 II GA 2010 3 106

1) whole circular, makers mark, 4, 8, 82; 2) circular, makers mark, 81; 3) squared, 3 K makers mark

1582 RC 2 2 II GA 2041 1 52 seems to be neck of chalice type cup, no decoration (???)

1582 RC 2 2 II GG 5 58 glass slag? 1579 RC 3 2 II GA 2001 39 68 1 thick clearer piece 1579 RC 3 2 II GA 2005 116 201 some are frosted 1579 RC 3 2 II GC 2005 4 7 1579 RC 3 2 II GD 2005 2 3 1 is true blue, 1 is light bluish grey 1579 RC 3 2 II GF 2005 16 36 some have chips

1579 RC 3 2 II GA 2006 1 3 raised cross and bumps, and raised platform type thing

1579 RC 3 2 II GA 2006 2 7 1 has bumps, 1 has lines 1579 RC 3 2 II GF 2006 1 3 small raised bumps 1579 RC 3 2 II GA 2007 3 12 1 is from a jar? all vary in size 1579 RC 3 2 II GA 2009 3 11 1 is flat w/ numbers

1579 RC 3 2 II GA 2040 1 12 square slightly curved, chipped projection on back, raised design

1579 RC 3 2 II GG 1 66 large piece of slag 1580 RD 2 2 II GA 2001 15 29 2 frosted 1580 RD 2 2 II GF 2001 16 19 small shards 1580 RD 2 2 II GA 2005 52 58 1580 RD 2 2 II GC 2005 8 16 1580 RD 2 2 II GD 2005 1 0.3 1580 RD 2 2 II GF 2005 19 41 1580 RD 2 2 II GA 2006 9 9 bubbled, raised lines 1580 RD 2 2 II GC 2006 1 4 pyramidal 1580 RD 2 2 II GF 2006 5 23 small raised bumps, same bottle as next

132

1580 RD 2 2 II GF 2006 4 43

2 refit "OES OF PROPER(LY)," "ERLY D" w/ 2 seams, "DIS," probably same as large bottle rim

1580 RD 2 2 II GA 2007 2 8 1580 RD 2 2 II GF 2007 1 3 1580 RD 2 2 II GA 2009 5 17 1580 RD 2 2 II GC 2009 1 36 wicked thick 1580 RD 2 2 II GF 2009 3 7 1580 RD 2 2 II GA 2010 1 42 liquor bottle w/ 22 9B... 1580 RD 2 2 II GA 2010 1 19 seam on side, weird designs

1580 RD 2 2 II GF 2010 1 18 Duraglas 9 4 21 30, raised bumps, makers mark

1580 RD 2 2 II GF 2045 1 78 blue aluminum cap bottom, looks like a 40

1581 RD 3 2 II GA 2001 16 14 1581 RD 3 2 II GA 2005 29 54 1581 RD 3 2 II GC 2005 6 8

1581 RD 3 2 II GD 2005 2 24 large light blue piece has seam, small dark blue

1581 RD 3 2 II GF 2005 17 33 some have reaction 1581 RD 3 2 II GA 2006 1 8 THIS BOT 1581 RD 3 2 II GC 2006 1 6 double-sided waves

1581 RD 3 2 II GF 2006 1 42 Y COMPANY circled, seam, shiny filmy reaction

1581 RD 3 2 II GA 2009 1 2 1581 RD 3 2 II GK 2037 1 6 look up type

133

METAL Lot Unit Subunit Level Material Submaterial Class Quantity Weight Comments

1583 Q5 1 III MB 3164 1 3 1969 Penny 1583 Q5 1 III MA 3176 1 3 1586 Q6 1 III MH 3035 1 <1 Similar to a paper clip 1586 Q6 1 III MA 3147 1 6 Child's size, protruding on one side 1586 Q6 1 III MA 3171 1 4 1586 Q6 1 III MA 3173 1 4 1586 Q6 1 III MH 3176 8 <1

1586 Q6 1 III MH 3179 1 <1 Has a hole on each end, thick square part, thin rectangle, thick rectangle

1588 Q6 2 III MA 3002 3 6 Square end, clean of rust (rest is highly rusted)

1588 Q6 2 III MA 3007 1 82 Round end 1588 Q6 2 III MA 3009 4 4 1588 Q6 2 III MA 3031 2 8 Sliding eyelet 1588 Q6 2 III MA 3035 2 4 Wire bent into tight U 1588 Q6 2 III MA 3101 1 6 Small edge fragment 1588 Q6 2 III MA 3172 1 5 Short partial bottle cap fragment 1588 Q6 2 III MA 3172 8 4 Fragment less than half, crushed 1588 Q6 2 III MA 3173 3 13 1588 Q6 2 III MA 3175 6 23 1588 Q6 2 III MA 3176 1 11 Indeterminate 1588 Q6 2 III MA 3176 1 1 Corrugated metal square 1588 Q6 2 III MA 3176 1 10 Bent metal wire 1595 Q6 3 III MA 3007 1 22 1595 Q6 3 III MA 3010 1 1 1595 Q6 3 III MA 3136 2 8 VERY small tubes 1585 Q6 3 III MA 3171 5 16 Varying degrees of completeness 1585 Q6 3 III MA 3173 3 42

134

1595 Q6 3 III MA 3175 42 14

1595 Q6 3 III MA 3178 4 96 Large thick piece of metal with a circular projection on one side

1596 Q6 4 III MA 3136 1 <1 very small; hole in middle 1596 Q6 4 III MA 3171 3 14 1596 Q6 4 III MA 3173 3 8 1596 Q6 4 III MA 3175 11 14 1598 Q6 5 III MA 3172 7 4 1598 Q6 5 III MA 3173 1 4 1598 Q6 5 III MA 3176 6 12 1601 Q6 6 III MA 3007 1 30 1601 Q6 6 III MA 3010 1 <1 1601 Q6 6 III MA 3176 1 6 1589 Q6 F1 III MA 3007 3 14 Screw driver or chisel bit 1589 Q6 F1 III MA 3007 4 114 1589 Q6 F1 III MA 3009 1 <1 Corners mostly 1589 Q6 F1 III MA 3010 3 5 1589 Q6 F1 III MA 3012 1 6 Half pipe 1589 Q6 F1 III MA 3018 1 <1 1589 Q6 F1 III MF 3027 1 <1 1589 Q6 F1 III MA 3031 1 11 Eyelet 1589 Q6 F1 III MA 3035 1 3 Aluminum foil 1589 Q6 F1 III MB 3035 1 2 Covered in a black material 1589 Q6 F1 III MA 3042 1 67 One prong of a plug 1589 Q6 F1 III MA 3043 3 27

1589 Q6 F1 III MA 3044 1 193 Metal loop with chain attached fed through a holder

1589 Q6 F1 III MA 3047 1 8 Small metal mesh fragments 1589 Q6 F1 III MA 3049 3 20 Vessel fragment: base/side 1589 Q6 F1 III MI 3049 1 1 Pipe fragment

135

1589 Q6 F1 III MA 3078 23 29 Lump of lead 1589 Q6 F1 III MA 3081 1 30 Lightbulb base 1589 Q6 F1 III MA 3089 13 22 Small hollow tube 1589 Q6 F1 III MH 3131 146 14

1589 Q6 F1 III MA 3136 1 52 Very thin tube with hole through the middle

1589 Q6 F1 III MA 3136 2 6 Sliding buckle that a belt slides through and wraps back on itself

1589 Q6 F1 III MA 3136 2 416 Foil 1589 Q6 F1 III MI 3136 1 <1 1589 Q6 F1 III MF 3166 1 1 1589 Q6 F1 III MA 3171 35 11 Varying degrees of completeness

1589 Q6 F1 III MA 3171 1 9 Metal plate with carbonized wood attached

1589 Q6 F1 III MA 3171 78 3 1589 Q6 F1 III MA 3173 23 184 1589 Q6 F1 III MA 3173 2 239 1589 Q6 F1 III MI 3173 1 9 Straps 1589 Q6 F1 III MA 3174 9 13 Small bottle cap fragment 1589 Q6 F1 III MA 3174 1 114 Indeterminate: Bent, twisted Metal Strip 1589 Q6 F1 III MA 3174 2 42 1589 Q6 F1 III MA 3175 2 200 1589 Q6 F1 III MA 3175 331 341

1589 Q6 F1 III MA 3176 1 214 Many different sized lumps of corroded materia

1589 Q6 F1 III MA 3176 1 495 Indeterminate chunks of metal 1589 Q6 F1 III ME 3176 1 10 Strap Hinge 1589 Q6 F1 III ME 3176 238 475 Head 1589 Q6 F1 III MA 3178 1 73 Full bottle cap 1589 Q6 F1 III MH 3178 6 <1 Twisted Bands

136

1589 Q6 F1 III MH 3178 8 4 Iron covered bar flattened on one side against something

1589 Q6 F1 III MH 3178 2 26 1585 Q7 1 III MA 3015 2 16 1585 Q7 1 III MH 3080 1 >1 Can see D and Ht of Budlight can 1585 Q7 1 III MA 3173 1 2 Both slightly rounded

1585 Q7 1 III MH 3177 1 >1

Small and circular at one end, curves over itself and tapers off in triangular form

1591 Q7 2 III MA 3171 2 9 Complete 1591 Q7 2 III MA 3172 18 18 Fragments 1591 Q7 2 III MA 3172 1 32 Complete 1591 Q7 2 III MA 3176 6 16 1591 Q7 2 III MH 3178 6 <1 Foil 1591 Q7 2 III MA 3179 1 9 1592 Q7 3 III MA 3010 6 15

1592 Q7 3 III MA 3020 1 >1 inscription visible: G. Pipper Co. Other side: Scovil__

1592 Q7 3 III MA 3031 9 24 Square

1592 Q7 3 III MA 3035 1 12 Slightly curved, ends seem to be rounded

1592 Q7 3 III MA 3171 1 37 Varying degrees of completeness 1592 Q7 3 III MA 3173 8 152 1592 Q7 3 III MA 3175 4 105

1592 Q7 3 III MA 3176 1 4 rectangular, changes direction at an angle

1592 Q7 3 III MB 3176 1 >1 Small oval object, can see beginning of ridge

1592 Q7 3 III MF 3176 1 2 Curved, thin, has spokes coming out of it 1592 Q7 3 III MG 3176 1 >1 Curved and curled over at parts 1592 Q7 3 III MA 3178 1 30 chuncks of rust

137

1599 Q7 4 III MH 3173 1 <1 1599 Q7 4 III MA 3176 5 18 1587 Q8 1 III MA 3007 1 108 Top curves over 1587 Q8 1 III MA 3015 1 36 Head of bolt 1587 Q8 1 III MA 3019 1 18 1587 Q8 1 III MB 3164 1 2 Penny from 1919

1587 Q8 1 III MH 3167 1 <1 Small round item about the size of a quarter

1587 Q8 1 III MH 3172 1 2 Says" Product of 7Up" and "twist on" 1587 Q8 1 III MA 3173 1 8 1587 Q8 1 III MA 3176 8 58 1587 Q8 1 III MH 3176 4 <1 1590 Q8 2 III MA 3015 1 38 Bolt head 1590 Q8 2 III MB 3018 1 2 1590 Q8 2 III MH 3019 1 6 1590 Q8 2 III MH 3171 1 2 1590 Q8 2 III MA 3173 1 8 1590 Q8 2 III MA 3175 3 12 1590 Q8 2 III ME 3175 15 182 1590 Q8 2 III ME 3176 1 24 1590 Q8 2 III MH 3176 1 <1.0g small piece of aluminum foil

1590 Q8 2 III MH 3176 9 4 small rounded cylinder that appears to be broken off

1593 Q8 3 III MA 3136 128 6 Small tube with a hole in middle 1593 Q8 3 III MA 3171 17 4 1593 Q8 3 III MA 3173 1 34 1593 Q8 3 III MA 3175 36 35 1593 Q8 3 III MA 3176 4 110

1593 Q8 3 III MB 3177 7 <1 Pencil (the metal that keeps in the eraser)

138

1594 Q8 4 III MA 3007 1 112 1594 Q8 4 III MA 3008 6 16 1594 Q8 4 III MA 3017 2 2 1594 Q8 4 III MB 3164 1 4 Penny from 1920 1594 Q8 4 III MA 3171 2 14 1594 Q8 4 III MH 3172 1 2 Has CRUSH on it 1594 Q8 4 III MA 3173 1 24

1594 Q8 4 III MB 3175 2 16 Small, as ridges coming up from 3 of its sides

1597 Q8 5 III MA 3014 18 13 1597 Q8 5 III MA 3172 5 8 Small 1597 Q8 5 III MA 3176 1 39 1600 Q8 6 III MA 3136 1 600 Large pipe with cross section at one end 1600 Q8 6 III MB 3164 5 2 Penny from 1978 1600 Q8 6 III MA 3171 1 28 1600 Q8 6 III MA 3173 1 48 1600 Q8 6 III MH 3173 12 <1 1600 Q8 6 III MA 3176 16 100 1582 RC 2 2 III MA 3017 1 6 One side is missing 1582 RC 2 2 III MA 3018 1 6 1582 RC 2 2 III MA 3038 1 178 3 parts to the chain 1582 RC 2 2 III MF 3101 1 4 Top of the can 1582 RC 2 2 III MH 3172 1 <1 Has traces of red paint 1582 RC 2 2 III MA 3173 1 4 1582 RC 2 2 III MI 3177 1 <1.0g ballpoint-pen tip; BIC still legible 1579 RC 3 2 III MI 3035 1 >1 Encased in black material

1581 RC 3 2 III MH 3172 7 4 It has a white covering and it says "OPEN --> TURN TO OPEN"

1579 RC 3 2 III MA 3173 1 >1 1581 RC 3 2 III MA 3173 1 <1

139

1579 RC 3 2 III MA 3175 1 14 1581 RC 3 2 III MH 3178 1 <1 Foil 1579 RC 3 2 III MH 3179 3 >1 1580 RD 2 2 III MA 3010 1 2 1580 RD 2 2 III MA 3017 2 5 1580 RD 2 2 III MA 3019 2 8 Wingnut 1580 RD 2 2 III MA 3035 1 2 1580 RD 2 2 III MB 3035 5 <1 1580 RD 2 2 III MA 3079 1 95 Pot Handle 1580 RD 2 2 III MH 3101 1 16 Beer Can 1580 RD 2 2 III MA 3173 1 4 1580 RD 2 2 III MA 3174 1 3 1580 RD 2 2 III MA 3176 4 5 1580 RD 2 2 III MH 3179 9 2

1581 RD 3 2 III MF 3102 1 20 Does not have top, has one tiny mark of green on rim of short side

1581 RD 3 2 III MA 3173 1 6 1581 RD 3 2 III MA 3176 3 6

140

RUBBER AND LITHICS Lot Unit Subunit Level Material Submaterial Class Quantity Weight Comments

1586 Q6 1 IV RA 4014 12 1g thin, white pieces of plastic; ridges in the surface

1586 Q6 1 IV RA 4014 2 <1.0g thin sheets of black, soft plastic 1586 Q6 1 IV RA 4014 1 <1.0g soft, black sheet of plastic 1586 Q6 1 IV RA 4014 1 <1.0g dark green plastic wrapper

1586 Q6 1 IV RA 4014 2 <1.0g clear plastic wrapper; partial white and green label still attached

1586 Q6 1 IV RA 4014 2 <1.0g white plastic wrapper

1586 Q6 1 IV RD 4014 1 1g flat piece of light blue plastic; appears to be a rim

1586 Q6 1 IV RD 4014 1 2g top piece of a cigarette lighter; yellow discoloration

1586 Q6 1 IV RD 4014 1 <1.0g clear plastic; corner piece 1586 Q6 1 IV RD 4014 1 <1.0g thin, flat blue plastic piece

1586 Q6 1 IV RD 4014 1 <1.0g light blue plastic, ridges pattern on top surface

1586 Q6 1 IV RD 4014 1 <1.0g flat, thin, light blue piece of plastic 1586 Q6 1 IV RD 4014 2 <1.0g light blue plastic pieces, flat and thin 1586 Q6 1 IV RD 4014 2 <1.0g small white plastic 1588 Q6 2 IV RD 4014 1 <1.0g small, white piece of hard plastic

1588 Q6 2 IV RD 4014 1 <1.0g thin piece of bright yellow plastic; curved surface

1589 Q6 F1 IV RA 4014 1 <1.0g thin yellow strip of pliable plastic

1589 Q6 F1 IV RD 4014 1 1.8g black plastic bottle cap; broken diagonally

1589 Q6 F1 IV RD 4014 1 <1.0g red plastic; curved surface with small hole at one end

141

1589 Q6 F1 IV RD 4014 1 <1.0g small red plastic; appears to be in the shape of an animal's arm, holding a can

1589 Q6 F1 IV RD 4014 1 <1.0g small piece of dark blue plastic 1589 Q6 F1 IV RD 4014 2 <1.0g 2 small pieces of white plastic

1589 Q6 F1 IV RD 4014 2 <1.0g

small white plastic, pieces from the same object, ridges on all sides, circular end

1589 Q6 F1 IV RD 4014 1 <1.0g thin piece of plastic; tan color 1589 Q6 F1 IV RD 4014 1 <1.0g thick, white piece of plastic, triangular

1589 Q6 F1 IV RD 4011 1 <1.0g plastic lip to a bottle or something, clear plastic bottom with a dark blue edge

1585 Q7 1 IV RC 4011 5 <1.0g shreds of clear plastic, largest is ~3" long

1585 Q7 1 IV RC 4011 9 <1.0g shreds of plastic tarp/contractor bagging

1585 Q7 1 IV RD 4011 3 <1.0g cream colored shreds of plastic

1585 Q7 1 IV RD 4011 1 <1.0g shard of hard plastic, malleable, white on one side and red on the other

1585 Q7 1 IV RC 4014 3 <1.0g curled shreds of purple faux leather, largest is ~1.2" long

1585 Q7 1 IV RD 4014 1 <1.0g rounded piece of greed, hard plastic, a semi circle can still be seen on one side

1585 Q7 1 IV RD 4014 1 <1.0g tip of a white plastic knife 1592 Q7 3 IV RD 4004 1 <1.0g fragment of a yellow button

1592 Q7 3 IV RD 4011 1 <1.0g shredded piece of clear plastic, ~1.5” long

1592 Q7 3 IV RA 4014 1 <1.0g clear, thin piece of plastic 1592 Q7 3 IV RD 4014 1 <1.0g modern blue lego; corner piece

1592 Q7 3 IV RD 4014 1 <1.0g ivory plastic; curved shape;appears to have had a handle

1592 Q7 3 IV RD 4014 1 <1.0g small piece of brown plastic; thin, tubular shape

142

1592 Q7 3 IV RD 4014 1 <1.0g cylindrical piece of thin, white plastic; twisted at one end

1587 Q8 1 IV RD 4004 1 <1.0g

purple/deep red colored hard plastic remains of a button- only the rounded siding remains

1587 Q8 1 IV RA 4011 1 <1.0g green plastic shard,~.5” long 1587 Q8 1 IV RA 4011 9 <1.0g thin pieces of plastic tarp 1587 Q8 1 IV RC 4011 1 <1.0g remains from a plastic band-aid

1587 Q8 1 IV RD 4011 1 1g

peach colored, rounded piece of hard plastic; one edge is smooth and the other looks like it was cut with something.

1587 Q8 1 IV RD 4011 1 <1.0g

short (~1"), thin, rounded piece of red plastic, has small grooves on inside indicating it may have lined something

1587 Q8 1 IV RD 4011 4 6g chunks of melted, hard, brown plastic

1587 Q8 1 IV RD 4011 1 1g green piece of hard rubber, flexible, has multiple layers. ~2.5" long

1587 Q8 1 IV RD 4011 1 1g long piece (~2.5") of hard, gray plastic, has a section that is ~1cmx2cm

1587 Q8 1 IV RD 4011 2 <1.0g

hard malleable piece of cream colored plastic, ~1.5" long, has same groove markings as a soda straw

1587 Q8 1 IV RD 4011 1 <1.0g small piece of green hard plastic

1587 Q8 1 IV RD 4011 1 <1.0g

small purple bakelite shard, possibly from a plastic coin; barely visible is the bottom half of a person wearing a rope whose hand is reaching out to someone sitting on the ground. ~.75" across

143

1587 Q8 1 IV RD 4011 1 <1.0g

remains of a straw- one end is smooth and open and the other end is torn and chewed, ~3" long

1587 Q8 1 IV RD 4011 4 <1.0g

remains of a thin plastic covering for something, presumably something square shaped given the squared off corner predominant in one of the pieces not falling apart

1587 Q8 1 IV RD 4011 1 <1.0g

hard, rounded, plastic piece with an indentation in the middle, presumably for fitting over something

1587 Q8 1 IV RD 4011 4 <1.0g clear pieces of plastic with indeterminate purpose

1587 Q8 1 IV RD 4011 3 <1.0g

brittle pieces of hard plastic, white exterior, brown interior, with ragged edges

1587 Q8 1 IV RD 4011 1 <1.0g cream colored plastic ring, ~1" diameter

1587 Q8 1 IV RA 4014 2 <1.0g

two pieces of thin plastic with a small air pocket in the middle, looks a lot like a wrapper for a small straw

1587 Q8 1 IV RD 4014 1 1g

hard piece of plastic, has a rounded lip like on a plastic cup, with gray paint smeared across the lip

1587 Q8 1 IV RD 4014 2 <1.0g

hard rounded piece of presumably plastic piping, has a lip and grooves for fitting into something.

1587 Q8 1 IV RD 4014 1 <1.0g translucent yellow shard, ~2" long, has light blue/green painting on one end

1590 Q8 2 IV RA 4011 1 <1.0g

malleable piece of plastic, white on one side and yellow on the other, feels like part of a plastic tablecloth or tarp

144

1590 Q8 2 IV RA 4011 1 <1.0g black piece of plastic sheeting or contractor bag, ~1” long

1590 Q8 2 IV RA 4011 1 <1.0g clear piece of crumpled plastic 1590 Q8 2 IV RD 4011 1 <1.0g green plastic shard 1590 Q8 2 IV RD 4014 1 <1.0g clear plastic wall/mirror tack

1590 Q8 2 IV RD 4014 1 <1.0g hard yellow connector of some kind- looks like a k'nex toy

1593 Q8 3 IV RA 4014 2 <1.0g pieces of fragile, black plastic 1592 Q8 3 IV RD 4014 1 2g clear plastic wall/mirror tack 1594 Q8 4 IV RA 4014 2 <1.0g clear plastic wrapper 1594 Q8 4 IV RA 4014 2 <1.0g black plastic wrapper 1594 Q8 4 IV RA 4014 1 <1.0g thin, pliable black plastic 1594 Q8 4 IV RD 4014 1 <1.0g green piece of plastic; curved surface 1594 Q8 4 IV RD 4014 1 <1.0g small piece of white plastic 1597 Q8 5 IV RA 4014 2 <1.0g thin, clear plastic with brown tint

1597 Q8 5 IV RA 4014 1 5g broken piece of clear plastic with hole in the center

1600 Q8 6 IV RD 4014 1 3g top of a plastic coat hanger, ~2.5” from one end of the curve to the other

1582 RC 2 2 IV RA 4011 1 <1.0g small white tube, ~2" long, 1cm diameter

1582 RC 2 2 IV RA 4011 4 <1.0g thin pieces of clear plastic, of indeterminable use

1582 RC 2 2 IV RA 4011 1 <1.0g

~1" long piece of hard, dark green plastic. Textured on one side and smooth on the other

1582 RC 2 2 IV RA 4011 2 <1.0g cream colored plastic shards, one has a noticeable lip

1582 RC 2 2 IV RA 4011 1 <1.0g light green malleable plastic shred

145

1582 RC 2 2 IV RC 4011 1 1 g

layered piece of plastic, possibly plastic tiling for a floor, the top layer has strips of different colored orange plastic

1582 RC 2 2 IV RD 4011 1 <1.0g triangular piece of black hard plastic, ~0.3" long

1582 RC 2 2 IV RD 4011 1 2g malleable, light blue-green, plastic which is folded over on itself. ~2.5" long

1582 RC 2 2 IV RD 4011 1 2g yellow plastic shard, ~2" long, has a 2cm deep indentation

1582 RC 2 2 IV RD 4011 1 4g

black, hard piece of plastic that forms a square corner where three sides connect. Looks like it was once the frame for something

1582 RC 2 2 IV RD 4011 1 1g brown rounded peg, ~1" long, resembles a dowel

1582 RC 2 2 IV RD 4011 1 <1.0g

orange plastic shard, has lettering, "RE(S)", "JU", and "T" on one side in black lettering

1582 RC 2 2 IV RD 4011 1 <1.0g

rounded lime green piece of hard plastic, some texturing on one side and smooth on the other, ~1in long

1582 RC 2 2 IV RD 4011 1 <1.0g clear hard plastic shard with a small lip 1582 RC 2 2 IV RD 4011 2 <1.0g small hard plastic white shards 1582 RC 2 2 IV RD 4011 1 <1.0g rose colored hard plastic shard

1582 RC 2 2 IV RD 4011 2 <1.0g

hard black plastic pieces, one of which has a round section the other has a rounded corner

1582 RC 2 2 IV RD 4012 2 1 g 2 small shards from a record album, ~2" long

146

1582 RC 2 2 IV RD 4014 1 32g

plastic piping filled with a metal conductor; the end that hasn't been forcibly cut has a light, black, plastic wrapping that is peeling off

1582 RC 2 2 IV RD 4014 2 <1.0g cream colored cap, has grooves along the outer and inner rim, shattered

1582 RC 2 2 IV RD 4014 1 <1.0g

yellow hard plastic shard, has the lettering, "s, Texas. USA" engraved on one side, with a circle and an "E" directly above that. ~1.5" long

1579 RC 3 2 IV RA 4014 3 <1.0g very thin, clear plastic pieces, wrinkled, yellow discoloration

1579 RC 3 2 IV RD 4014 1 <1.0g yellow, plastic piece, possibly the corner of a light switch cover

1580 RD 2 2 IV RC 4014 1 31g Plastic cabling, red, possibly for lighting

1580 RD 2 2 IV RB 4010 3 <1.0g fragments from a small type of tire- has grooves for treads

1580 RD 2 2 IV RA 4011 7 <1.0g

cream colored shreds of plastic remains- looks like the shredded remains of a plastic cup

1580 RD 2 2 IV RA 4011 1 <1.0g translucent orange plastic shred

1580 RD 2 2 IV RC 4011 1 2g

malleable, but still firm, ~2" long, looks like it's made of other plastic particles, white

1580 RD 2 2 IV RD 4011 2 1g Hard black plastic shards, ~1" long

1580 RD 2 2 IV RD 4011 1 <1.0g small hard plastic shard, white, possibly the lip of a cup

1580 RD 2 2 IV RD 4011 1 <1.0g small piece of white plastic, blue on one side

1580 RD 2 2 IV RD 4011 1 <1.0g tiny (<1" long) shard of tan plastic 1580 RD 2 2 IV RD 4014 1 1g nozzle for a can of spray paint

147

1580 RD 2 2 IV RD 4014 1 <1.0g

plastic tab of some sort- rounded on one end and ends in a point on the other

1580 RD 2 2 IV RD 4014 1 <1.0g

~1" long plastic shard, tan colored, has a rim and grooves indicating an edge of some sort

1581 RD 3 2 IV RD 4008 12 5g

~1.2" tall, ~1.2" diameter, plastic bottle top. Outside has grooves to provide friction for fingers to grip onto, inside has grooves for something screw into the top

1581 RD 3 2 IV RD 4008 1 <1.0g nozzle for a small spray bottle, ~.5 " long

1581 RD 3 2 IV RA 4011 1 <1.0g <1" long, white plastic that as "FCW-6" in blue lettering on one end

1581 RD 3 2 IV RD 4011 1 <1.0g small, blue edge to something, ~1" long

1581 RD 3 2 IV RD 4011 1 <1.0g

translucent orange plastic bottom to something, has "URBANA" imprinting on the bottom

1581 RD 3 2 IV RD 4011 1 <1.0g

bright pink strip of plastic, malleable, resembles one of the plastic strips you rip away from milk caps

1581 RD 3 2 IV RA 4014 1 <1.0g remains of black piece of plastic (presumably tarp or contractor bag)

1581 RD 3 2 IV RD 4014 1 5g

heavy piece of skinny plastic, ~3.3" long. The bottom is flat with horizontal plastic edges sticking out (~1cm long), the top sticks up from the bottom at a perpendicular angle and ends in a smooth edge

1581 RD 3 2 IV RD 4014 6 3g thin pieces of plastic longest ~2" long, tan colored

148

1581 RD 3 2 IV RD 4014 1 2g cut off top from a plastic milk carton, ~1" round diameter

1581 RD 3 2 IV RD 4014 1 <1.0g

shard of hard plastic, white and cream colored, has smooth sides indicating it was the edge for something

1581 RD 3 2 IV RD 4014 1 <1.0g remains of a pen clip, black, ~1" long

1582 RC 2 2 V LJ 5017 1 <1.0g

~1.2" long, thin piece of graphite/lead, writes on paper and can be erased reasonably well with an eraser

149

OTHER Lot Unit Subunit Level Material Submaterial Class Quantity Weight Comments

1586 Q6 1 VII OA 7001 7 174g

pieces of concrete, one side being rough and covered in rocks and the other being relatively smooth, insides also have concave curvatures

1586 Q6 1 VII CH 7002 1 <1.0g small piece of red brick 1586 Q6 1 VII OE 7002 1 <1.0g piece of styrofoam

1586 Q6 1 VII OG 7002 1 2g watch strap; black leather band with metal clasp still attached

1586 Q6 1 VII OF 7004 1 <1.0g

small piece of plastic, probably from a bag, the words "Frito" and "Lay" are in red and are barely legible.

1586 Q6 1 VII OE 7706 2 <1.0g

small piece of a wrapper, on one side it's white with a blue and black trim, on the other are small black words, obscured by soot

1588 Q6 2 VII OF 7002 1 2g plastic top of a pen; green with criss-cross pattern;clip still attached

1588 Q6 2 VII OG 7002 1 66g

old sink handle; porcelain handle and metal base; the word "cold" is still legible

1589 Q6 F1 VII OG 7001 1 45 Tin covered plastic chip

1589 Q6 F1 VII CH 7001 11 287g pieces of brick, sizes range from large to tiny

1589 Q6 F1 VII OA 7001 41 820g pieces of concrete, sizes range from large to tiny

1589 Q6 F1 VII OF 7001 1 15g fragment of insulation piping, possibly ceramic

1589 Q6 F1 VII OG 7001 10 351g pieces of concrete and brick that have metal fused to them

150

1589 Q6 F1 VII OG 7001 11 56g

wall or ceiling insulation of some kind, possibly drywall; peels away in layers, still has some rust fused to the outside

1589 Q6 F1 VII OG 7001 2 9g asbestos wall/ceiling tiling, white with black parallel lines

1589 Q6 F1 VII OF 7002 1 <1.0g small, plastic button; appearance of a multi-colored surface; ivory colored

1589 Q6 F1 VII Of 7002 1 <1.0g small, shell button

1589 Q6 F1 VII OF 7002 7 <1.0g

indeterminate material; flaking, light blue coloring on one side and white on the other side

1589 Q6 F1 VII OG 7002 1 21g

base of a lightbulb, no wiring, glass, or other mechanisms remain. White, with an indentation of approx. 5 cm

1589 Q6 F1 VII OG 7002 1 21g

part of lighting fixture; black base, both curved and rounded on one side, other side has one prong from an Edison plug and two screws

1589 Q6 F1 VII OG 7002 1 <1.0g piece of styrofoam, ~5 cm long

1589 Q6 F1 VII OE 7005 1 <1.0g

tan fabric, ~4 in long, triangular, stitching reaches toward the center and rounds out the structure (possibly a piece of panty-hose)

1589 Q6 F1 VII OE 7005 2 <1.0g cloth fragments, rough and falling apart 1585 Q7 1 VII OA 7001 1 2g small, thin piece of concrete

1585 Q7 1 VII OF 7002 2 <1.0g pieces of styrofoam; one side is colored yellow

1585 Q7 1 VII OF 7002 1 8g broken piece of concrete

1585 Q7 1 VII OG 7002 1 20g

cylindrical container;metal body;white plastic cap; "Clairol" on cap; faux-fur like outside lining

151

1585 Q7 1 VII RC 7004 1 <1.0g

shred of clear plastic labeling, some ingredients are listed in black lettering along with "WHEAT AND SOY INGREDIENTS" framed in a black box

1591 Q7 2 VII OF 7002 1 <1.0g black piece of plastic; torn

1591 Q7 2 VII OF 7002 1 <1.0g green plastic;long thin piece torn and thin

1591 Q7 2 VII OG 7002 1 <1.0g small pieces of white styrofoam; crumpled

1599 Q7 4 VII OF 7004 1 <1.0g blue plastic wrapper

1587 Q8 1 VII CH 1027 4 69g

brick, dark colored, the two bigger pieces have smoothed out sides around where the sides meet in a corner

1587 Q8 1 VII OA 7001 5 301g

concrete, possibly used for sidewalks- one side completely smooth while the other side has been broken

1587 Q8 1 VII OC 7001 6 18g

asphalt, smooth on one side with black and gray rubber flecks on the other; one piece is curved.

1587 Q8 1 VII OC 7001 2 <1.0g asphalt, small, rubber flecks are green but the tar is black

1587 Q8 1 VII OF 7002 1 <1.0g broken half of plastic white button; thick plastic

1587 Q8 1 VII OG 7002 5 <1.0g styrofoam, has curved, smooth lip

1587 Q8 1 VII OE 7004 1 <1.0g

small wrapper piece, red on one side and reflective on the other, currently in the process of disintegrating

1587 Q8 1 VII OE 7004 2 <1.0g

red wrappers, folded into itself making unwrapping very difficult, the thicker one has blue and yellow, along with red, layers

152

1587 Q8 1 VII OG 7004 1 <1.0g

wrapper, one side white with blue lettering the other reflective; words state: "Energy Now... energizing...formulated...anytime!... Directions: Ta(ke)... (yo)ur favori(te)"

1587 Q8 1 VII OG 7004 1 <1.0g

small piece of a dense wrapper; clear with a white line which contains 4 black 2 sided triangles

1587 Q8 1 VII OG 7004 1 <1.0g rolled up piece of sky blue wrapper

1587 Q8 1 VII RC 7004 1 <1.0g

food wrapper, orange on one side reflective on the other, has blue text, "way to energize!" and the very tip of a "(O)Y" below that

1587 Q8 1 VII RC 7004 1 <1.0g

blue plastic label for presumably a bottled beverage; most of the barcode is still apparent, along with the white lettering, "...of reach...exception...supervision...for Kicks Inc..."

1587 Q8 1 VII OF 7008 1 <1.0g

small chip that is yellow-green on one side, white on the other, looks and feels like it flaked off of something

1590 Q8 2 VII OC 7001 7 <1.0g broken pieces of asphalt; green color on top

1590 Q8 2 VII OA 7002 1 2g small piece of broken concrete

1590 Q8 2 VII OF 7002 1 4g clear, plastic bead, multi-faceted; somewhat spherical in shape

1590 Q8 2 VII OF 7002 1 <1.0g small, white, plastic button 1590 Q8 2 VII OF 7004 1 2g Jack in the Box ketchup wrapper 1590 Q8 2 VII OF 7004 1 <1.0g unidentifiable plastic wrapper

1593 Q8 3 VII OC 7001 1 <1.0g broken piece of asphalt with green coloring on top

153

1593 Q8 3 VII OA 7002 2 276g 2 pieces of concrete and lead used to seal underground piping, both curved.

1593 Q8 3 VII OA 7002 3 76g

3 fragmented pieces of concrete; one piece appears to be a part of larger curved surface

1593 Q8 3 VII OA 7002 9 52g small fragmented pieces of concrete

1593 Q8 3 VII OA 7002 3 76g

broken pieces of concrete; one piece appears to be part of a larger curved surface;see bag above

1593 Q8 3 VII OF 7002 1 8 small piece of stone; cannot determine what type

1594 Q8 4 VII OA 7001 1 <1.0g concrete piece 1594 Q8 4 VII OC 7001 1 <1.0g asphalt with green flecks 1594 Q8 4 VII OG 7002 4 <1.0g styrofoam

1594 Q8 4 VII OG 7004 2 <1.0g

old wrapper, possibly foam based, it's white on one side and mostly violet on the other. Under the flap of the larger piece a violet "9" and "5" are imprinted

1594 Q8 4 VII OE 7006 1 <1.0g frayed string 1600 Q8 6 VII OA 7002 3 12g small, broken pieces of concrete 1582 RC 2 2 VII OE 7000 2 <1.0g small pieces of rope

1582 RC 2 2 VII OA 7001 9 94g various pieces of concrete, two of which are pink on both sides

1582 RC 2 2 VII OC 7001 2 8g

asphalt, one of the pieces has quartz flecks and the larger has red and green rubber flecks

1582 RC 2 2 VII CH 7002 3 26g fragments of red brick 1582 RC 2 2 VII OA 7002 1 <1.0g small piece of concrete

1582 RC 2 2 VII OF 7002 1 <1.0g blue fragment of either a tarp or plastic table cloth

154

1582 RC 2 2 VII OF 7002 3 2g crumpled pieces of what looks to be burned wrapper, either paper or plastic

1582 RC 2 2 VII OF 7002 2 <1.0g plastic pieces; indeterminate source

1582 RC 2 2 VII OG 7002 1 4g

combined mass of plastic, thread, and cloth - possibly wrapped around something to protect it from outside elements

1582 RC 2 2 VII OG 7002 1 54g aluminum wiring with copper insulation piece

1582 RC 2 2 VII OG 7002 1 14g glass bottle top with metal cap attached 1582 RC 2 2 VII OF 7004 1 <1.0g Coca-Cola plastic wrapper 1582 RC 2 2 VII OF 7004 1 <1.0g clear plastic wrapper 1582 RC 2 2 VII OG 7004 1 <1.0g silver duct tape, ~2" long

1582 RC 2 2 VII OE 7006 1 <1.0g

short piece of rope (made up of smaller intwined ropes) that is frayed on one end and burned on the other

1582 RC 2 2 VII OE 7006 1 <1.0g a type of foam fragment, was white

1582 RC 2 2 VII OE 7006 6 3g shredded pieces of what looks like paper towel

1580 RD 2 2 VII OC 7001 14 4g

small broken pieces of asphalt, both green and red plastic fragments on the top surface

1580 RD 2 2 VII OF 7002 1 <1.0g small piece of black plastic

1580 RD 2 2 VII RA 7004 1 <1.0g

plastic wrapping for chips, the "Fritos" label is still faintly visible with the "tos" in white lettering

1580 RD 2 2 VII OE 7006 1 <1.0g small piece of dark green rope

1581 RD 3 2 VII RA 7004 2 <1.0g plastic wrap for candy/chips, bigger piece has some blue coloring

155

ECOLOGY Lot Unit Subunit Level Material Submat. Class Qt. Wt. Comments Species Element Modification Cut

1595 Q6 3 VI EB. 6001 1 1 young specimen

Sus Scrofa (pig) Carpal /

1589 Q6 F1 VI EB. 6001 1 4 Sus Scrofa (pig) Phalanges /

1589 Q6 F1 VI EB. 6001 1 3 probable Sus Scrofa (pig)

probable Vertebrae /

1589 Q6 F1 VI EB. 6001 1 3 young specimen

probable Sus Scrofa (pig)

probable Vertebrae /

1589 Q6 F1 VI EB. 6001 1 2 Sus Scrofa (pig) Carpal /

1589 Q6 F1 VI EB. 6001 1 1

Gallus gallus domesticus (chicken)

Proximal Tibia /

1589 Q6 F1 VI EB. 6001 1 1

Gallus gallus domesticus (chicken)

Distal Femur /

1589 Q6 F1 VI EB. 6040 1 5 young specimen

Sus Scrofa (pig) Vertebrae Butcher

(saw) Pork Roast

1592 Q7 3 VI EB. 6001 1 50 Bos Taurus (cow)

Tuber Calcis /

1592 Q7 3 VI EB. 6001 1 18 With Molars

Sus Scrofa (pig) Maxilla /

1592 Q7 3 VI EB. 6001 1 2 Sus Scrofa (pig) Rib /

1592 Q7 3 VI EB. 6001 1 1 Sus Scrofa (pig) Carpal /

1592 Q7 3 VI EB. 6001 1 1 Sus Scrofa Carpal /

156

(pig)

1592 Q7 3 VI EB. 6001 1 1

probable Gallus gallus domesticus (chicken)

Rib /

1592 Q7 3 VI EB. 6001 1 1

probable Gallus gallus domesticus (chicken)

probable Metatarsus /

1592 Q7 3 VI EB. 6001 1 1

Gallus gallus domesticus (chicken)

Proximal Tibia /

1592 Q7 3 VI EB. 6001 1 1

Gallus gallus domesticus (chicken)

Distal Femur /

1592 Q7 3 VI EB. 6040 1 22 young specimen

Sus Scrofa (pig)

Distal Femur

Butcher (saw)

Ham Steak

1592 Q7 3 VI EB. 6040 1 16 young specimen

probable Sus Scrofa (pig)

Vertebrae Butcher (saw)

Pork Roast

1592 Q7 3 VI EB. 6040 1 7 probable Bos Taurus (cow)

Shaft Butcher (cleave) Shank

1592 Q7 3 VI EB. 6040 1 7 Bos Taurus (cow) Rib Butcher

(saw) Chuck

1592 Q7 3 VI EB. 6040 1 5 young specimen

probable Sus Scrofa (pig)

Vertebrae Butcher (saw)

Pork Roast

157

1587 Q8 1 VI EB. 6001 1 3 probable Sus Scrofa (pig)

Vertebrae /

1587 Q8 1 VI EJ 6007 1 <1.0g peanut shell, dried out

1590 Q8 2 VI EB. 6001 1 4 probable Sus Scrofa (pig)

probable Carpal /

1590 Q8 2 VI EB. 6001 1 1 probable Sus Scrofa (pig)

Canine /

1593 Q8 3 VI EB. 6001 1 13 probable Bos Taurus (cow)

probable Tarsal /

1593 Q8 3 VI EB. 6001 1 2 probable Sus Scrofa (pig)

probable Vertebrae /

1594 Q8 4 VI EB. 6040 1 22 Bos Taurus (cow) Shaft Butcher

(cleave) Shank

1594 Q8 4 VI EB. 6040 1 22 Sus Scrofa (pig)

Distal Femur

Butcher (saw)

Ham Steak

1600 Q8 6 VI EB. 6040 1 9 probable Bos Taurus (cow)

Shaft Butcher (cleave) Shank

1582 RC 2 2 VI EB. 6001 1 3 Sus Scrofa (pig) Phalanges /

1582 RC 2 2 VI EB. 6040 1 12 Sus Scrofa (pig) Ulna Butcher

(saw) Shank

1580 RD 2 2 VI EB. 6040 1 22 Sus Scrofa (pig) Scapula Butcher

(saw)

Shoulder Blade Roast

APPENDIX 2: ANALYZED FAUNAL REMAINS CATALOG, UNIT D

158

UNIT D FAUNAL ANALYSIS

Lot # Subunit Level Sub Material Artifact

Class Weight

(g) Observations 702 1.1 6 EB 6040 6.0 saw, cleave; rib fragment

0454 1.1.1 6 EB 6040 23.0 saw cut 0705 1.2 6 EB 6040 11.6 saw cut 0762 1.2 7 EB 6040 11.0 saw cut 0762 1.2 7 EB 6040 13.0 saw cut 0206 1 2 Unknown 6001 0.2 metacarpal/metatarsal? 0223 1.4 3 Unknown 6001 3.0 small animal bone 0231 1 3 Unknown 6001 0.2 wing-like fragment 0231 1 3 Unknown 6001 0.4 vertebrae fragment 0231 1 3 Unknown 6001 0.4 vertebrae fragment 0233 1.4 3 Unknown 6001 0.1 small animal tooth 0341 1.4 4 EE 6001 0.3 0417 1.1 5 Unknown 6001 1.2 vertebrae of small animal 0684 1 5 Unknown 6001 1.4 vertebra of small animal 0458 1.1.3 6 Unknown 6001 2.0 shaft of small animal? 0457 1.1.3 6 Unknown 6001 0.4 metacarpal/metatarsal? 0457 1.1.3 6 Unknown 6001 2.6 body of small animal/insect? 0457 1.1.3 6 Unknown 6001 0.4 vertebrae of small animal 0469 1.3.1 6 Unknown 6001 0.2 shaft of small animal? 0469 1.3.1 6 Unknown 6001 0.1 small vertebrae fish? 0469 1.3.1 6 Unknown 6001 0.1 fish rib? 0469 1.3.1 6 Unknown 6001 3.3 vertebral column of small animal 0761 1.1 7 EB 6001 6.6 leg/arm cut 0761 1.1 7 Unknown 6001 2.4 shaft of small animal? 0763 1.3 7 Unknown 6001 0.4 tooth of small animal 0763 1.3 7 Unknown 6001 2.5 metacarpal/metatarsal? 0763 1.3 7 Unknown 6001 2.2 shaft of small animal? 0188 1 1 Unknown 6001 0.3 0189 1 1 Unknown 6001 1.0 0206 1 2 Unknown 6001 6.0 0205 1 2 Unknown 6001 2.8 0231 1 3 Unknown 6001 0.8 0330 1.2 4 Unknown 6001 0.3 0341 1.4 4 Unknown 6001 1.0 0333 1.3 4 Unknown 6001 5.8

0672 1.3 4 Unknown 6001 2.2 some vertebrae fragments/vertebral column

159

0327 1.1 4 Unknown 6001 0.2 0329 1.1 4 Unknown 6001 0.2 0326 1.1 4 Unknown 6001 1.6 0330 1.2 4 Unknown 6001 0.1 vertebrae fragment; fish? 0328 1.1 4 Unknown 6001 4.3 1 premature bone fragment 0340 1.4 4 Unknown 6001 1.5 0334 1.3 4 Unknown 6001 1.5 0335 1.3 4 Unknown 6001 0.1 0420 1.3 5 Unknown 6001 1.7 0417 1.1 5 Unknown 6001 0.3 vertabrae fragments 0415 1.1 5 Unknown 6001 0.1 1176 1.2 5 Unknown 6001 1.3 460 1.1.4 6 Unknown 6001 0.3

0482 1.4.3 6 Unknown 6001 1.8 0476 1.3.4 6 Unknown 6001 0.5 0468 1.2.4 6 Unknown 6001 0.6 0458 1.1.3 6 Unknown 6001 0.3 0704 1.2 6 Unknown 6001 0.3 0469 1.3.1 6 Unknown 6001 5.4 0464 1.2.2 6 Unknown 6001 0.6

0457 1.1.3 6 Unknown 6001 1.4 vertebrae fragments and other unknown

0705 1.2 6 Unknown 6001 0.3 0475 1.3.3 6 Unknown 6001 6.0 0472 1.3.2 6 Unknown 6001 0.8 0703 1.1 6 Unknown 6001 0.5 0463 1.2.1 6 Unknown 6001 0.4 0457 1.1.3 6 Unknown 6001 0.7 0461 1.2.1 6 Unknown 6001 0.6 0702 1.1 6 Unknown 6001 0.9 0483 1.4.4 6 Unknown 6001 0.9 0762 1.2 7 Unknown 6001 13.0 0761 1.1 7 Unknown 6001 6.0 0764 1.4 7 Unknown 6001 7.5 0763 1.3 7 Unknown 6001 11.9 0815 1.1 7 Unknown 6001 0.4 0765 1.4 7 Unknown 6001 2.4 0795 1.3 7B Unknown 6001 1.2 0791 1.1 7B Unknown 6001 0.4 800 1.1 8 Unknown 6001 7.0

160

0822 1.1? 8 Unknown 6001 1.0 0801 1.2 8 Unknown 6001 16.0 some shaft fragments 0802 1.4 8 Unknown 6001 4.2 0803 1.4 8 Unknown 6001 9.5 0837 1.2 9 Unknown 6001 7.2 1 big shaft fragment 0838 1.3 9 Unknown 6001 1.7 0836 1.1 9 Unknown 6001 3.0 1 metatarsal/metacarpal 0839 1.4 9 Unknown 6001 16.6 1001 1 All? Unknown 6001 0.2 1002 1 All? EB 6001 13.6 1 premature bone fragment

0206 1 2 Unknown 6040 1.4 saw cut? Vertebrae; premature fragment

0206 1 2 Unknown 6037 2.4 burnt bone fragments; some w/brown gloss and orange stains

0232 1 3 Unknown 6037 7.0 burnt bone 0231 1 3 Unknown 6037 12.9 burnt bone fragments 0232 1 3 Unknown 6037 13.8 burnt bone fragments

0232.1 1.3 3 Unknown 6037 1.0 burnt bone fragments 0231 1 3 Unknown 6040 3.2 saw cut 0340 1.4 4 Unknown 6037 6.0 burnt bone fragments 0340 1.4 4 Unknown 6037 0.4 bleached bone fragment 0331 1.2 4 EB 6037 2.5 burnt bone fragments 0328 1.1 4 Unknown 6037 1.8 burnt bone fragments 0341 1.4 4 Unknown 6037 0.2 burnt bone fragments 0341 1.4 4 Unknown 6037 0.8 bleached bone fragments 0341 1.4 4 Unknown 6037 7.0 burnt bone fragments 0326 1.1 4 Unknown 6037 11.2 burnt bone fragments 0330 1.2 4 Unknown 6037 32.0 burnt bone fragments 0338 1.4 4 Unknown 6040/6037 0.5 burnt bone; saw cut 0326 1.1 4 Unknown 6037 0.2 burnt bone 0326 1.1 4 Unknown 6040 2.0 saw cut 0338 1.4 4 Unknown 6049 0.4 saw or cleave cut? 0334 1.3 4 Unknown 6037 0.6 burnt bone fragments 0338 1.4 4 Unknown 6037 2.0 burnt bone fragments 0336 1.3 4 Unknown 6037 2.2 burnt bone fragments 0327 1.1 4 Unknown 6040 0.7 saw cut

0418 1-1.2 5 Unknown 6040 0.6 burnt bone fragments/ 1 w/ brown gloss

1176 1.2 5 Unknown 6040/6037 2.1 burnt and sawed fragments 0416 1.1 5 Unknown 6040 1.8 cleaved cut

161

0421 1.4 5 Unknown 6037 4.0 burnt bone fragments 0417 1.1 5 EB 6040 4.8 saw cut 0421 1.4 5 Unknown 6037 0.8 bleached bone fragments 0421 1.4 5 Unknown 6037 0.8 burnt bone fragment 0468 1.2.4 6 Unknown 6040 0.4 saw cut 0478 1.4.1 6 Unknown 6040 3.2 saw cut 0468 1.2.4 6 Unknown 6037 0.9 burnt bone fragments 0468 1.2.4 6 Unknown 6037 3.3 bleached bone fragments 0469 1.3.1 6 Unknown 6037 0.8 burnt tooth fragment 0469 1.3.1 6 Unknown 6040 4.0 saw cut/premature fragment 0472 1.3.2 6 Unknown 6040/6037 1.6 saw cut burnt bone fragment 0454 1.1.1 6 Unknown 6040 2.1 cut mark; rib 0455 1.1.2 6 Unknown 6037 2.4 burnt bone fragment 0454 1.1.1 6 Unknown 6040 0.9 saw cut 0457 1.1.3 6 Unknown 6040 7.3 saw cut? 0471 1.3.2 6 Unknown 6037 0.4 burnt bone fragment 0704 1.2 6 Unknown 6040 0.8 saw cut 0704 1.2 6 Unknown 6040 0.7 cut mark 0483 1.4.4 6 Unknown 6037 0.7 bleached bone fragments 0705 1.2 6 Unknown 6037 0.2 bleached bone fragment 0482 1.4.3 6 Unknown 6037 1.6 burnt bone fragments 0457 1.1.3 6 Unknown 6040 1.4 saw cut 0460 1.1.4 6 Unknown 6037 0.4 burnt bone fragment 0762 1.2 7 EB 6040 8.0 arm/leg; saw cut

0761 1.1 7 Unknown 6037 14.2 burnt bone fragments; some w/brown gloss

0761 1.1 7 Unknown 6037 0.2 burnt bone fragment 0762 1.2 7 Unknown 6037 0.7 bleached bone fragment 0764 1.4 7 Unknown 6040 2.7 saw cut 0764 1.4 7 Unknown 6037 0.2 bleached bone fragments 800 1.1 8 EB 6040 1.9 saw cut?

0801 1.2 8 Unknown 6040 7.6 saw cut ? 1.1 9 EB 6040 12.0 shaft of some sort; cleave?

837 1.2 9 Unknown 6037 0.3 burnt/bleached fragment 0836 1.1 9 Unknown 6037 0.1 burnt bone fragment 0858 1.1 10 Unknown 6037 0.3 burnt bone fragment 428 2.2 5 EB 6040 23.0 cleave cut marks

0718 2.2.3 6 EB 6040 5.2 saw cut 0714 2.2 6 EB 6040 4.7 saw cut 0717 2.2.2 6 EB 6040 2.7 rib saw cut

162

845 2.4 9 EB 6040 18.0 cut marks; maybe saw marks? 0844 2.3 9 EB 6040 58.4 cow rib cut 0869 2.3 10 EB 6040 11.0 saw cut 0237 2.1 3 Unknown 6001 1.6 metacarpal/metatarsal? 0239 2.2 3 Unknown 6001 0.5 round circular facet fragment 0241 2.3 3 EB 6001 1.0 vertebrae fragment 0241 2.3 3 EB 6001 1.0 metacarpal/metatarsal? 0345 2.1 4 Unknown 6001 0.8 0345 2.1 4 Unknown 6001 0.3 round circular facet fragment 0346 2.1 4 Unknown 6001 0.2 round circular facet fragment 0343 2.1 4 Unknown 6001 3.1 0343 2.1 4 Unknown 6001 0.5 0356 2.3 4 Unknown 6001 0.6 scapula-like 0353 2.3 4 Unknown 6001 0.2 small animal shaft

0353 2.3 4 Unknown 6001 0.1 small animal shaft; radius-like head

0722 2.3.2 6 EB 6001 14.5 rib fragment 0825 2.4 8 EB 6003 6.3 teeth fragments dog? 0845 2.4 9 EB 6001 14.0 vertebrae fragment 0845 2.4 9 EB 6001 27.0 vertebrae fragment 0845 2.4 9 EB 6001 2.0 rib fragment 0844 2.3 9 EB 6003 1.0 teeth of small animal dog? 0192 2 1 Unknown 6001 0.3 0210 2 2 Unknown 6001 4.8 0650 2.1 2 Unknown 6001 2.5 some rib fragments 0306 2.3 2 Unknown 6001 0.1 0195 2 1 Unknown 6001 0.4

0241 2.3 3 Unknown 6001 6.0

small rib fragments, other small animal fragments; 1 premature fragment

0664 2.4 3 Unknown 6001 2.3 0239 2.2 3 Unknown 6001 2.7 1 premature bone cap 0237 2.1 3 Unknown 6001 3.6 0236 2.1 3 Unknown 6001 0.3 1 vertebrae fragment 0245 2.4 3 Unknown 6001 0.4 0242 2.3 3 Unknown 6001 0.7 0238 2.1 3 Unknown 6001 2.3 0322 2.4 3 Unknown 6001 3.2 3 round small facet fragments 0662 2.2 3 Unknown 6001 0.1 0243 2.3 3 Unknown 6001 2.8 1 premature fragment 0661 2.1 3 Unknown 6001 0.4

163

0240 2 3 Unknown 6001 2.2 1 round facet fragment 345 2.1 4 Unknown 6001 0.4

0355 2.3 4 EB 6001 1.4 rib fragments 0363 2.4 4 Unknown 6001 0.2 0344 2.1 4 Unknown 6001 0.2 0408 2.1 4 Unknown 6001 1.3 0356 2.3 4 Unknown 6001 1.7 0354 2.3 4 Unknown 6001 4.6 some rib fragments 0346 2.1 4 Unknown 6001 0.2 0360 2.4 4 Unknown 6001 0.2 0353 2.3 4 Unknown 6001 0.6 0343 2.1 4 Unknown 6001 5.1 some young fragments 0351 2.2 4 Unknown 6001 2.4 0357 2..3 4 Unknown 6001 0.8 0344 2.1 4 Unknown 6001 0.2 0349 2.2 4 Unknown 6001 0.3 0359 2.4 4 Unknown 6001 3.2 0358 2.3 4 Unknown 6001 2.2 1 premature fragment 0361 2.4 4 Unknown 6001 4.5 0362 2.4 4 Unknown 6001 0.7 0348 2.1 4 Unknown 6001 1.4 0682 2.2 4 Unknown 6001 0.8 0690 2 5 Unknown 6001 0.2 0430 2.3 5 Unknown 6001 0.2 0427 2.2 5 Unknown 6001 0.7 0429 2.2 5 Unknown 6001 2.5 rib fragments 0428 2.2 5 Unknown 6001 3.3 727 2.4.2 6 Unknown 6001 0.1

0724 2.3.3 6 Unknown 6001 5.0 0710 2.1.3 6 Unknown 6001 0.2 0712 2.1.4 6 Unknown 6001 0.3 0726 2.4.1 6 Unknown 6001 1.0 0485 2.1.1 6 EB 6001 2.2 0717 2.2.2 6 Unknown 6001 0.3 0718 2.2.3 6 Unknown 6001 1.1 0710 2.1.3 6 EB 6001 4.0 some rib fragments 0725 2.4 6 Unknown 6001 1.3 0722 2.3.2 6 Unknown 6001 2.6 0721 2.3.1 6 Unknown 6001 1.5 0720 2.3 6 Unknown 6001 0.2

164

0729 2.4.4 6 Unknown 6001 0.8 0728 2.2.4 6 Unknown 6001 0.3 0711 2.1.4 6 Unknown 6001 4.2 0725 2.4 6 Unknown 6001 1.4 0767 2.1 7 Unknown 6001 0.9 0766 2.1 7 Unknown 6001 5.3 0766 2.1 7 Unknown 6001 5.6 0771 2.4 7 Unknown 6001 0.6 0769 2.2 7 Unknown 6001 0.1 0770 2.3 7 Unknown 6001 5.6 one premature epiphysis 0824 2.2 8 EB 6001 9.0 rib fragment/shaft fragment 0824 2.2 8 Unknown 6001 1.0 small animal bones (shafts) 0805 2.3 8 Unknown 6001 7.1 805 2.3 8 EB 6001 4.0 rib fragments?

0804 2.1 8 Unknown 6001 4.5 0825 2.4 8 Unknown 6001 18.7 0823 2.1 8 Unknown 6001 3.4 845 2.4 9 EB 6001 3.0 some rib fragments

0844 2.3 9 EB 6001 8.3 some rib fragments; one small animal shaft

0841 2.1 9 Unknown 6001 13.3 0843 2.2 9 Unknown 6001 3.1 0865 2.4 10 Unknown 6001 0.3 0869 2.3 10 Unknown 6001 0.3 0862 2.1 10 Unknown 6001 1.6 0363 2.4 4? Unknown 6001 0.2 0796 2.2 7B Unknown 6001 0.5 0798 2.3 7B Unknown 6001 0.7 1003 2 All Unknown 6001 0.3 1004 2 all Unknown 6001 0.3 0210 2 2 Unknown 6040 1.9 saw cut 245 2.4 3 Unknown 6037 4.0 bleached bone fragment

0238 2.1 3 Unknown 6040 1.5 saw cut 0237 2.1 3 EB 6040 2.7 saw 0238 2.1 3 Unknown 6037 1.6 burnt bone fragments 0238 2.1 3 Unknown 6037 0.2 bleached bone fragment 0240 2 3 Unknown 6037 4.1 burnt bone fragments 0239 2.2 3 Unknown 6037 3.7 burnt bone fragments 0236 2.1 3 Unknown 6037 0.3 burnt bone fragments 0236 2.1 3 Unknown 6037 0.1 bleached bone fragment

165

0242 2.3 3 Unknown 6037 4.0 some fragments with brown gloss

0242 2.3 3 Unknown 6037 0.3 bleached bone fragment 0312 2.3 3 Unknown 6037 0.1 burnt bone fragment 0236 2.1 3 Unknown 6040 0.2 saw cut 0238 2.1 3 Unknown 6040 2.5 saw cut 0235 2 3 Unknown 6037 0.3 burnt bone fragment 0241 2.3 3 Unknown 6037 1.9 burnt bone fragments 0347 2.1 4 Unknown 6037 1.2 burnt bone fragments 0348 2.1 4 Unknown 6040/6037 0.9 burnt/saw cut fragments 0359 2.4 4 Unknown 6037 0.1 bleached bone fragment 0362 2.4 4 Unknown 6040/6037 0.3 burnt/saw fragment 0345 2.1 4 Unknown 6037 15.3 burnt bone fragments 0345 2.1 4 Unknown 6037 62.2 burnt bone fragments 0359 2.4 4 Unknown 6040 0.8 saw cut 0354 2.3 4 Unknown 6040 4.1 cleave cut 0358 2.3 4 Unknown 6040 1.2 saw cut 0359 2.4 4 Unknown 6037 0.9 bleached bone fragment 0354 2.3 4 Unknown 6040 1.4 cleave cut 0354 2.3 4 Unknown 6040 1.0 saw cut 0682 2.2 4 Unknown 6037 3.5 burnt bone fragment 0349 2.2 4 Unknown 6037 0.9 Burnt bone fragments 0351 2.2 4 Unknown 6037 7.6 burnt bone fragments 0356 2.3 4 Unknown 6037 4.6 burnt bone fragments 0356 2.3 4 Unknown 6037 1.2 bleached bone fragments 0363 2.4 4 Unknown 6037/6040 1.1 cleave cut/burnt bone fragment 0345 2.1 4 Unknown 6040 1.9 cleave cut 0357 2.3 4 Unknown 6037 3.2 burnt bone fragments 0357 2.3 4 Unknown 6037 0.8 bleached bone fragments 0343 2.1 4 Unknown 6040 5.5 saw cut 0345 2.1 4 Unknown 6037 0.5 bleached bone fragments 0344 2.1 4 Unknown 6037 0.3 bleached bone fragment 0360 2.4 4 Unknown 6037 0.2 burnt bone fragment 0356 2.3 4 EB 6040 8.0 cleave cut; rib fragment 0412 2.2 4 Unknown 6037 2.1 burnt bone fragments 0343 2.1 4 Unknown 6037 0.3 burnt bone fragments 0348 2.1 4 Unknown 6037 0.2 burnt bone fragments 0358 2.3 4 Unknown 6037 0.5 burnt bone fragments 0354 2.3 4 Unknown 6037 49.9 burnt bone fragments 428 2.2 5 EB 6040 2.0 saw cuts

166

424 2.1 5 Unknown 6037 0.1 burnt small bone animal fragments

1331 2.3 5 Unknown 6037/6040 1.4 burnt saw cut fragments

1331 2.3 5 Unknown 6037 6.2 burnt bone fragments; 1 premature fragment

0428 2.2 5 Unknown 6037 1.0 sawed bone fragments 0427 2.2 5 Unknown 6037 0.7 burnt bone fragment 0427 2.2 5 Unknown 6037 1.0 bleached bone fragments 0427 2.2 5 Unknown 6037 1.2 burnt bone fragments 0439 2.3 5 Unknown 6037 1.9 burnt bone fragments 0427 2.2 5 Unknown 6037 1.0 burnt bone fragments 0439 2.3 5 Unknown 6037/6040 0.8 burnt bone/saw cut fragments 0429 2.2 5 Unknown 6037 1.3 727 2.4.2 6 Unknown 6037 0.8 burnt bone fragment

0485 2.1.1 6 Unknown 6037 0.7 burnt bone fragments 0485 2.1.1 6 Unknown 6037 0.4 bleached bone fragments 0726 2.4.1 6 Unknown 6037 1.0 bleached bone fragments 0726 2.4.1 6 Unknown 6037 0.9 burnt bone fragment 727 2.4.2 6 Unknown 6037 0.4 burnt bone fragments

0721 2.3.1 6 Unknown 6037 0.4 burnt bone fragments 0715 2.2 6 Unknown 6037 0.5 burnt bone fragments 0487 2.1.2 6 Unknown 6037 0.7 burnt/saw cut 711 2.1.4 6 Unknown 6037 2.2 burnt bone rib fragment

0488 2.4.2 6 Unknown 6037 0.5 burnt bone fragment 0729 2.2.4 6 Unknown 6037 0.2 burnt bone fragment 0722 2.3.2 6 Unknown 6040 0.6 saw cut fragment 0716 2.2.1 6 Unknown 6037 2.0 burnt bone fragments 0717 2.2.2 6 Unknown 6040/6037 4.2 saw cut burnt fragments 0725 2.4 6 Unknown 6040 1.1 saw cut 0485 2.1.1 6 Unknown 6040 1.2 saw cut 0722 2.3.2 6 Unknown 6037 0.4 burnt bone fragment 0712 2.1.4 6 Unknown 6037 0.3 burnt bone fragment 0725 2.4 6 Unknown 6037 2.5 bleached bone fragment 0715 2.2 6 Unknown 6037 0.9 burnt bone fragment 0725 2.4 6 Unknown 6037 0.3 burnt bone fragments 0729 2.4.4 6 Unknown 6037 0.2 burnt bone fragment 0718 2.2.3 6 Unknown 6037/6040 2.5 saw cut; burnt bone fragments 0724 2.3.3 6 EB 6040 7.8 saw cut; rib fragments 0726 2.4.1 6 Unknown 6037 0.4 burnt bone fragment 0718 2.2.3 6 Unknown 6037 0.8 burnt bone fragment

167

0487 2.1.2 6 Unknown 6037 0.1 burnt bone fragment 0722 2.3.2 6 Unknown 6037 1.9 burnt bone fragments 0719 2.2.4 6 Unknown 6040/6037 2.1 glossy burnt/saw cut fragments 0724 2.3.3 6 Unknown 6037 0.5 burnt bone fragments 0718 2.2.3 6 Unknown 6037 2.9 burnt bone fragments 0717 2.2.2 6 Unknown 6037 1.6 burnt bone fragments 0716 2.2.1 6 Unknown 6037/6040 2.3 burnt saw cut 0716 2.2.1 6 Unknown 6037 0.3 burnt bone fragments 0717 2.2.2 6 Unknown 6037 1.8 bleached bone fragments 0766 2.1 7 Unknown 6040 0.6 saw cut fragment 0772 2.4 7 EB 6040 8.1 cleave cut; leg cut 0767 2.1 7 Unknown 6037 0.4 burnt bone fragment 0766 2.1 7 Unknown 6037 1.3 burnt bone fragments 805 2.3 8 EB 6040 1.0 saw cut?

0804 2.1 8 Unknown 6040 6.5 saw cut 805 2.3 8 EB 6040 6.0 1 rib fragment; other meat cut

0825 2.4 8 Unknown 6037 0.5 burnt bone fragment 0825 2.4 8 Unknown 6037 12.4 burnt bone fragments 0805 2.3 8 Unknown 6040 15.0 saw cut? 0843 2.2 9 Unknown 6037 1.2 burnt bone fragments 0844 2.3 9 EB 6040 15.9 cleave cut? 0841 2.1 9 Unknown 6040 4.8 saw cut 0845 2.4 9 Unknown 6037 0.5 burnt bone fragment 869 2.3 10 EB 6040 8.0 bleached fragments

0796 2.2 7B Unknown 6037 0.8 bleached bone fragment 0797 2.2 7B Unknown 6037 0.3 burnt bone fragment 0797 2.2 7B Unknown 6037 0.2 bleached bone fragment 1004 2 all Unknown 6037 0.2 burnt bone fragment 218 3.2 2 EB 6040 5.0 rib fragment; saw cut?

0776 3.2 7 EB 6040 29.6 saw cut 0252 3.4 3 EB 6040 7.1 saw/cleace cut? 0496 3.2.4 6 EB 6040 33.8 rib fragment; saw cut/cut marks 0251 3.2 3 EB 6040 10.4 saw cut;leg/arm cut 0212 3 2 Unknown 6001 4.0 Small animal ulna 0218 3.2 2 EB 6001 1.0 vertebrae 0218 3.2 2 EB 6001 2.0 vertebrae; premature 0218 3.2 2 EB 6001 2.0 vertebrae 0218 3.2 2 EB 6001 1.0 0218 3.2 2 EB 6001 1.0 foramen 0218 3.2 2 EB 6001 1.0 rib fragment

168

0218 3.2 2 EB 6001 2.0 rib fragment 0213 3 2 Unknown 6001 0.9 small animal bone shaft 0250 3.1 3 Unknown 6001 1.8 small animal bone shaft 0808 3.2 3 Unknown 6001 0.4 small round facet fragment 0808 3.2 3 Unknown 6001 0.1 small round facet fragment 0377 3.4 4 Unknown 6001 0.3 metacarpal/metatarsal? 0371 3.2 4 Unknown 6001 0.3 metacarpal/metatarsal? 0434 3.1 5 Unknown 6001 0.3 small round facet fragment 0778 3.3 7 Unknown 6001 1.2 shaft fragment 0826 3.1 8 EB 6001 5.0 metacarpal/metatarsal? 0196 3 1 Unknown 6001 0.4 0199 3 1 Unknown 6001 3.6 0320 3.2 1 Unknown 6001 0.1 0198 3 1 Unknown 6001 2.8 0218 3 2 Unknown 6001 0.2

0218 3.2 2 EB 6001 8.0 vertabrae fragments; 1 premature fragment

0214 3.1 2 Unknown 6001 0.2 round facet fragment 0212 3 2 Unknown 6001 0.1 0214 3.1 2 Unknown 6001 0.8 0308 3 2 Unknown 6001 2.1 0218 3 2 Unknown 6001 0.2 small rounded fact fragment 0213 3 2 Unknown 6001 0.7 0215 3.4 2 Unknown 6001 4.8 1 rib fragment 0251 3.2 3 Unknown 6001 1.3 0257 3.4 3 Unknown 6001 0.2 0323 3.2 3 Unknown 6001 3.3 0665 3.4 3 Unknown 6001 0.3 1 round facet fragment 0252 3.4 3 Unknown 6001 1.7 0314 3.4 3 Unknown 6001 1.5 0253 3.3 3 Unknown 6001 0.3 0250 3.1 3 Unknown 6001 0.9 premature fragment 0254 3.3 3 Unknown 6001 0.2 0247 3 3 Unknown 6001 0.8 677 3.4 4 Unknown 6001 0.2

0369 3.2 4 EB 6001 5.6 rib fragment 0371 3.2 4 Unknown 6001 3.1 1 young fragment 0374 3.3 4 Unknown 6001 0.5 0375 3.3 4 Unknown 6001 1.9 1 round facet fragment 0372 3.3 4 Unknown 6001 0.4 round facet fragment

169

0434 3.1 5 Unknown 6001 4.7 rib fragment, other unknown 0442 3.4 5 Unknown 6001 0.6 0436 3.2 5 Unknown 6001 2.1 0438 3.3 5 Unknown 6001 2.3 0441 3.4 5 Unknown 6001 0.6 1465 3.1 5 Unknown 6001 0.3

0735 3.3 6 Unknown 6001 1.9 rounded fragment with white glossy spot

0490 3.7.1 6 Unknown 6001 1.2 0489 3.1 6 Unknown 6001 0.3 0493 3.1.4 6 Unknown 6001 8.6 0508 3.3.1 6 Unknown 6001 1.5 0505 3.2.2 6 Unknown 6001 2.4 0492 3.1.3 6 Unknown 6001 1.3 0734 3.3 6 Unknown 6001 1.0 0739 3.4 6 Unknown 6001 1.4 0511 3.3.4 6 Unknown 6001 2.5 0491 3.1.2 6 Unknown 6001 1.4 0497 3.4.2 6 Unknown 6001 0.5 0735 3.3 6 Unknown 6001 0.2 0504 3.2.1 6 Unknown 6001 3.5 1 premature fragment 0497 3.4.2 6 Unknown 6003 0.6 tooth fragment of animal 0513 3.4.3 6 Unknown 6001 1.7 0731 3.1 6 Unknown 6001 0.2 0774 3.1 7 EB/Unknown 6001 17.0 some rib fragments 0776 3.2 7 Unknown 6001 0.4 0779 3.3 7 Unknown 6001 2.4 0778 3.3 7 Unknown 6001 0.9 0774 3.1 7 Unknown 6001 2.5 0778 3.3 7 Unknown 6001 0.3 barbell shaped fragment 0826 3.1 8 Unknown 6001 6.3 0827 3.2 8 Unknown 6037 0.4 0806 3.1 8 Unknown 6001 8.8 0830 3.4 8 Unknown 6001 0.8 0828 3.3 8 Unknown 6001 2.5 0829 3.4 8 Unknown 6001 0.4 0846 3.1 9 Unknown 6001 3.5 some rib fragments 0848 3.2 9 Unknown 6001 2.2 0868 3.2 10 Unknown 6001 0.2 0817 3.2 7B Unknown 6001 1.1

170

0816 3.1 7B Unknown 6001 2.8 0818 3.3 7B Unknown 6001 0.3 1006 3 all Unknown 6001 0.2 0638 3 1-6 Unknown 6001 0.3 0199 3 1 Unknown 6040 0.3 saw cut 0198 3 1 Unknown 6040 2.4 saw cut

218 3.2 2 EB 6040 4.0 cleave cuts; 1 vertabrae fragment; 1 rib fragment

218 3.2 2 EB 6040 2.0 cut marks 218 3.2 2 EB 6040 1.0 saw cuts

0214 3.1 2 Unknown 6040 0.6 saw cut

0215 3.4 2 Unknown 6040 0.2 modified half circle bone w/ orange spots

0218 3 2 Unknown 6040 1.9 saw cut 0216 3.2 2 Unknown 6037 0.2 burnt bone fragment 0254 3.3 3 Unknown 6040 0.8 cleave cut 0252 3.4 3 Unknown 6037 4.0 burnt bone 0365 3.1 4 Unknown 6037 0.2 burnt bone

0314 3.4 3 Unknown 6037 3.0 burnt bone pieces; shiny coal color

0251 3.2 3 Unknown 6037 3.0 burnt bone fragments 0246 3.1 3 Unknown 6037 0.8 burnt bone fragments 0247 3 3 Unknown 6037 0.7 burnt bone fragments 0247 3 3 Unknown 6037 0.4 bleached bone fragment 0250 3.1 3 Unknown 6037 3.7 burnt bone fragment 0255 3.4 3 Unknown 6037 2.3 burnt bone fragments 0373 3.3 4 EB 6037 1.1 bleached bone fragments 0698 3.3 4 Unknown 6037 0.3 bleached bone fragment 0369 3.2 4 Unknown 6037 0.5 bleached bone fragment 0365 3.1 4 Unknown 6037 3.2 burnt bone fragments 0442 3.4 5 Unknown 6040 0.6 cleave cut 0442 3.4 5 Unknown 6037 1.3 burnt bone fragment 0436 3.2 5 Unknown 6037 0.4 burnt bone fragments 1465 3.1 5 Unknown 6037 1.1 burnt bone fragments 0436 3.2 5 Unknown 6040 0.7 saw cut 0731 3.1 6 Unknown 6037 0.2 bleached bone fragment 0496 3.2.4 6 Unknown 6040 1.9 saw cut 0490 3.1.1 6 Unknown 6037 0.1 bleached bone fragment 0491 3.1.2 6 Unknown 6037 0.2 burnt bone fragment 0504 3.2.1 6 Unknown 6040 1.0 saw cut

171

0494 3.2.2 6 Unknown 6040/6037 0.8 saw cut burnt fragments 0499 3.4.4. 6 Unknown 6037 0.8 saw cut burnt fragments 0494 3.2.2 6 Unknown 6037 0.5 burnt bone fragment 0735 3.3 6 Unknown 6040 0.9 saw cut 0780 3.4 7 Unknown 6040 0.9 light brown gloss 0774 3.1 7 EB 6040 3.9 saw cuts 0780 3.4 7 Unknown 6040 0.6 cleave cut? 0778 3.3 7 Unknown 6040 4.8 saw rib cut 0778 3.3 7 Unknown 6037 0.3 bleached bone fragment 0780 3.4 7 Unknown 6037 1.3 burnt bone fragments 0780 3.4 7 Unknown 6037/6040 0.5 burnt bone fragment 0826 3.1 8 Unknown 6040 4.2 cleave cuts 0830 3.4 8 Unknown 6037 0.7 bleached bone fragment 0828 3.3 8 Unknown 6037 1.8 burnt bone fragments 0828 3.3 8 Unknown 6037 0.4 burnt bone fragments 0849 3.3 9 Unknown 6037 1.1 burnt bone fragments 0849 3.3 9 Unknown 6037 0.4 bleached bone fragment 0638 3.3. 1-6 Unknown 6040 3.1 light brown gloss 0779 3.3 7 Unknown 6040 2.5 saw cut? 0491 3.1.2 6 Unknown 6037 0.4 bleached bone fragments 0260 4.1 3 EB 6040 6.9 saw cut; rib fragment 0748 4.2.3 6 EB 6040 6.3 saw cut; leg/arm cut 0747 4.2.2 6 EB 6040 3.9 rib saw cut 782 4.1 7 EB 6040 7.0 cut mark; leg bone 831 4.1 8 EB 6040 26.0 cut marks; cleave marks

0832 4.2 8 EB 6040 17.0 saw cut; arm bone? 0832 4.2 8 EB 6040 11.0 saw cut; round facet 0447 4.0.2 5 EB 6040 2.3 saw cut 261 4.1 3 Unknown 6001 1.3 small animal shaft

0274 4.3 3 Unknown 6001 2.1 small jaw bone with teeth 0274 4.3 3 Unknown 6001 0.2 metatarsal/metacarpal? 0271 4.3 3 Unknown 6001 0.7 small animal bone 0271 4.3 3 Unknown 6001 0.6 small animal bone 0678 4.2 4 Unknown 6001 0.4 small animal bone 0402 4.1 4 Unknown 6001 0.9 foot bone? 0451 4.4 5 EB 6001 4.0 vertabrae fragment 0447 4.0.2? 5 Unknown 6001 0.2 round circular facet fragment 0501 4.3.4 6 Fish? 6001 0.2 fish bone? 0749 4.2.4 6 fish? 6001 0.1 rib fragment? 0748 4.2.3 6 Unknown 6001 1.1 shaft of small animal

172

0746 4.2.1 6 Unknown 6001 0.5 wish bone-like fragment 0746 4.2.1 6 Unknown 6001 1.3 scapula-like fragment 0746 4.2.1 6 Unknown 6001 0.5 vertebrae fragment 0743 4.1.4 6 Unknown 6001 2.0 rib of small animal 0782 4.1 7 EB 6001 1.0 rib fragment 0782 4.1 7 EB 6001 2.0 rib fragment 0832 4.2 8 Unknown 6001 12.0 vertebral column of small animal 0832 4.2 8 Unknown 6003 0.4 small animal tooth 0820 4.2 7B EB 6001 5.0 Vertebrae fragment 0820 4.2 7B EB 6001 2.0 Vertebrae fragment 0648 4.4 1 Unknown 6001 3.1 0202 4 1 Unknown 6001 0.7 0304 4.1 1 Unknown 6001 0.2 0219 4 2 Unknown 6001 0.3 0228 4 2 Unknown 6001 0.4 0220 4 2 Unknown 6001 0.9 0223 4 2 Unknown 6001 0.9 0656 4.3 2 Unknown 6001 0.3 0228 4 2 Unknown 6001 0.1 261 4.1 3 Unknown 6001 3.0 some rib fragments

0666 4.2 3 Unknown 6001 0.3 0269 4.2 3 Unknown 6001 0.2 0264 4.2 3 Unknown 6001 1.0 0266 4.2 3 Unknown 6001 0.1 0272 4.3 3 Unknown 6001 0.3 0318 4 3 Unknown 6001 0.9 shaft fragment 0260 4.1 3 Unknown 6001 3.5

0270 4 3 Unknown 6001 8.6 vertebrae fragment/foot bone fragment/round facet fragments

0262 4.2 3 Unknown 6001 3.0 0268 4.2 3 Unknown 6001 0.7 1 round facet fragment 0667 4.3 3 Unknown 6001 0.1 0271 4.3 3 Unknown 6001 4.4 1 round facet fragment 0265 4,2 3 Unknown 6001 0.1 0259 4.1 3 Unknown 6001 2.3 0267 4.2 3 Unknown 6001 0.8 0401 4.4 4 Unknown 6001 2.5 0681 4.4 4 Unknown 6001 0.2 0385 4.1 4 Unknown 600 0.2 round facet fragment 0678 4.2 4 Unknown 6001 0.3

173

0680 4 4 Unknown 6001 0.3 0386 4.1 4 Unknown 6001 1.7 rib fragment 0391 4.2 4 Unknown 6001 2.0 0402 4.1 4 Unknown 6001 0.3 0388 4.1 4 Unknown 6001 0.7 0399 4.4 4 Unknown 6001 0.6 0411 4.3 4 Unknown 6001 0.7 small animal shaft fragments 0683 4.4 4 Unknown 6001 0.2 0389 4.2 4 Unknown 6001 0.1 0400 4.4 4 Unknown 6001 0.9 0392 4.3 4 Unknown 6001 0.6 0453 4.4 5 Unknown 6001 0.5 0696 4.4 5 Unknown 6001 0.2 0450 4.3 5 Unknown 6001 0.1 0452 4.4 5 Unknown 6001 0.8 0447 4.0.2 5 Unknown 6001 0.2 0748 4.2.3 6 Unknown 6001 0.6 0515 4.3.3 6 Unknown 6001 0.4 0750 4.3 6 Unknown 6001 0.3 0759 4.4.3 6 Unknown 6001 0.6

0757 4.4.1 6 Unknown 6001 0.5 vertebrae fragment of small animal

0743 4.1.4 6 Unknown 6001 2.4 0747 4.2.2 6 Unknown 6001 4.1 one round facet fragment 0746 4.2.1 6 Unknown 6001 1.7 0781 4.3 6 Unknown 6001 0.1 0741 4.1.2 6 Unknown 6001 0.5 0749 4.2.4 6 Unknown 6001 1.7 0760 4.4.4 6 Unknown 6001 1.1 1 round facet fragment 0516 4.3.3 6 Unknown 6001 0.4 0755 4.3.4 6 Unknown 6001 0.6 0740 4.1.1 6 Unknown 6001 1.9 0782 4.1 7 EB 6001 0.6 0787 4.4 7 Unknown 6001 0.6 small animal shaft; white color 0785 4.2 7 Unknown 6001 0.5 0786 4.3 7 Unknown 6001 8.0 0787 4.4 7 Unknown 6001 4.8 0788 4.4 7 Unknown 6001 0.7 0799 4.4. 7B Unknown 6001 1.3 832 4.2 8 EB 6001 0.2

174

0807 4.4 8 Unknown 6001 19.6 1 vertebrae fragment?/premature fragment

0832 4.2 8 Unknown 6001 4.8 0833 4.3 8 Unknown 6001 4.0 0851 4.1 9 Unknown 6001 8.9 some rib fragments 0854 4.2 9 Unknown 6001 14.6 0856 4.4 9 Unknown 6001 1.3 0855 4.3 9 Unknown 6001 0.8 0855 4.3 9 Unknown 6001 1.6 0873 4.3 10 Unknown 6001 0.4 0871 4.1 10 Unknown 6001 0.3 0872 4.2 10 Unknown 6001 4.8

0820 4.2 7B EB 6001 5.0 1 premature fragment; other fragment

0857 4.4 9B Unknown 6001 2.0 0200 4 1 Unknown 6001 2.1 1 premature epiphysis fragment 1007 4 all Unknown 6001 0.3 0228 4 2 EB 6037 1.1 burnt bone fragment 0220 4 2 Unknown 6040 4.1 saw cuts 0223 4 2 Unknown 6040 3.7 saw cut 0244 4.2 3 Unknown 6037 2.2 burnt bone fragments 0269 4.2 3 Unknown 6040 0.8 saw cut

0325 4.4 3 Unknown 6037 7.2 burnt bone fragments w/ orange stains

0269 4.2 3 Unknown 6037 0.6 burnt bone fragments 0666 4.2 3 Unknown 6037 0.4 bleached bone fragment 0259 4.1 3 Unknown 6001 0.4 burnt bone fragment 0272 4.3 3 Unknown 6037 0.2 burnt bone fragment 0273 4.3 3 Unknown 6037 0.1 burnt bone fragment 0264 4.2 3 Unknown 6037 0.8 burnt bone fragments 0402 4.1 4 Unknown 6037 0.2 bleached bone fragment 0399 4.4 4 Unknown 6040 1.1 saw cut 0402 4.1 4 Unknown 6037 0.3 bleached bone fragment 0397 4.3 4 Unknown 6049 0.7 saw cut fragment/premature 0391 4.2 4 Unknown 6037 1.1 burnt bone fragments 0400 4.4 4 Unknown 6037 2.8 burnt bone fragments 0400 4.4 4 Unknown 6040 0.3 saw cut 0403 4.4 4 Unknown 6037/6040 0.8 bleached saw cut 0399 4.4 4 Unknown 6037 1.4 bleached bone fragments 0392 4.3 4 Unknown 6037 0.2 burnt bone fragment 0681 4.4 4 Unknown 6037 4.4 burnt bone fragments

175

0386 4.1 4 Unknown 6037 0.4 bleached saw cut 0453 4.4 5 Unknown 6037 0.4 burnt bone 0450 4.3 5 Unknown 6037 0.2 burnt bone fragment 0444 4.1 5 Unknown 6037 8.2 burnt bone fragments 0750 4.3 6 Unknown 6037 0.7 burnt bone

0501? 4.3.4 6 EB 6040 0.9 saw cut 0747 4.2.2 6 Unknown 6037 0.5 bleached fragment 0749 4.2.4. 6 Unknown 6037 2.0 burnt bone fragments 0748 4.2.3 6 Unknown 6040 1.9 cut mark fragments 0747 4.2.2 6 Unknown 6037 0.1 burnt bone fragment 0752 4.3.1 6 Unknown 6037 0.1 burnt bone fragment 0741 4.1.2 6 Unknown 6037 3.6 burnt bone fragment 0746 4.2.1 6 Unknown 6040 4.6 saw cut; leg cut 0782 4.1 7 EB 6040 4.0 saw cuts 0786 4.3 7 Unknown 6040 3.1 saw cuts 782 4.1 7 EB 6037 2.0 bleached bone

0783 4.2 7 Unknown 6037 2.4 burnt bone fragments 0787 4.4 7 Unknown 6037 1.5 bleached bone fragment 0782 4.1 7 Unknown 6037/6040 1.0 burnt bone fragment/sawed 0786 4.3 7 Unknown 6037 0.3 burnt bone fragments 0787 4.4 7 Unknown 6040 2.7 cleave cut 0786 4.3 7 Unknown 6037 1.4 burnt bone fragments 0786 4.3 7 Unknown 6037 0.2 bleached bone fragments 0786 4.3 7 Unknown 6040 0.3 saw cut? 0831 4.1 8 Unknown 6037 1.2 0833 4.3 8 Unknown 6037 0.2 burnt bone fragment 0831 4.1 8 Unknown 6037 0.4 burnt bone fragment 0807 4.4 8 Unknown 6037 2.1 burnt bone fragments 0854 4.2 9 Unknown 6037 2.6 burnt bone fragments 0854 4.2 9 Unknown 6040 1.2 saw cut fragments 0873 4.3 10 Unknown 6037 5.9 burnt bone 0871 4.1 10 Unknown 6040 1.0 saw cut 0871 4.1 10 Unknown 6037 0.6 bleached bone fragments 0872 4.2 10 Unknown 6037 0.1 burnt bone fragment 0857 4.4 9B Unknown 6040 0.6 saw cut 0853 4.2 9B EB 6040 0.8 saw cut 0853 4.2 9B Unknown 6037 1.5 burnt bone fragment 0260 4.1 3 EB 6040 6.9 saw cut; rib fragment 0748 4.2.3 6 EB 6040 6.3 saw cut; leg/arm cut 0747 4.2.2 6 EB 6040 3.9 rib saw cut

176

782 4.1 7 EB 6040 7.0 cut mark; leg bone 831 4.1 8 EB 6040 26.0 cut marks; cleave marks

0832 4.2 8 EB 6040 17.0 saw cut; arm bone? 0832 4.2 8 EB 6040 11.0 saw cut; round facet 0447 4.0.2 5 EB 6040 2.3 saw cut 261 4.1 3 Unknown 6001 1.3 small animal shaft

0274 4.3 3 Unknown 6001 2.1 small jaw bone with teeth 0274 4.3 3 Unknown 6001 0.2 metatarsal/metacarpal? 0271 4.3 3 Unknown 6001 0.7 small animal bone 0271 4.3 3 Unknown 6001 0.6 small animal bone 0678 4.2 4 Unknown 6001 0.4 small animal bone 0402 4.1 4 Unknown 6001 0.9 foot bone? 0451 4.4 5 EB 6001 4.0 vertabrae fragment 0447 4.0.2? 5 Unknown 6001 0.2 round circular facet fragment 0501 4.3.4 6 Fish? 6001 0.2 fish bone? 0749 4.2.4 6 fish? 6001 0.1 rib fragment? 0748 4.2.3 6 Unknown 6001 1.1 shaft of small animal 0746 4.2.1 6 Unknown 6001 0.5 wish bone-like fragment 0746 4.2.1 6 Unknown 6001 1.3 scapula-like fragment 0746 4.2.1 6 Unknown 6001 0.5 vertebrae fragment 0743 4.1.4 6 Unknown 6001 2.0 rib of small animal 0782 4.1 7 EB 6001 1.0 rib fragment 0782 4.1 7 EB 6001 2.0 rib fragment 0832 4.2 8 Unknown 6001 12.0 vertebral column of small animal 0832 4.2 8 Unknown 6003 0.4 small animal tooth 0820 4.2 7B EB 6001 5.0 Vertebrae fragment 0820 4.2 7B EB 6001 2.0 Vertebrae fragment 0648 4.4 1 Unknown 6001 3.1 0202 4 1 Unknown 6001 0.7 0304 4.1 1 Unknown 6001 0.2 0219 4 2 Unknown 6001 0.3 0228 4 2 Unknown 6001 0.4 0220 4 2 Unknown 6001 0.9 0223 4 2 Unknown 6001 0.9 0656 4.3 2 Unknown 6001 0.3 0228 4 2 Unknown 6001 0.1 261 4.1 3 Unknown 6001 3.0 some rib fragments

0666 4.2 3 Unknown 6001 0.3 0269 4.2 3 Unknown 6001 0.2 0264 4.2 3 Unknown 6001 1.0

177

0266 4.2 3 Unknown 6001 0.1 0272 4.3 3 Unknown 6001 0.3 0318 4 3 Unknown 6001 0.9 shaft fragment 0260 4.1 3 Unknown 6001 3.5

0270 4 3 Unknown 6001 8.6 vertebrae fragment/foot bone fragment/round facet fragments

0262 4.2 3 Unknown 6001 3.0 0268 4.2 3 Unknown 6001 0.7 1 round facet fragment 0667 4.3 3 Unknown 6001 0.1 0271 4.3 3 Unknown 6001 4.4 1 round facet fragment 0265 4,2 3 Unknown 6001 0.1 0259 4.1 3 Unknown 6001 2.3 0267 4.2 3 Unknown 6001 0.8 0401 4.4 4 Unknown 6001 2.5 0681 4.4 4 Unknown 6001 0.2 0385 4.1 4 Unknown 600 0.2 round facet fragment 0678 4.2 4 Unknown 6001 0.3 0680 4 4 Unknown 6001 0.3 0386 4.1 4 Unknown 6001 1.7 rib fragment 0391 4.2 4 Unknown 6001 2.0 0402 4.1 4 Unknown 6001 0.3 0388 4.1 4 Unknown 6001 0.7 0399 4.4 4 Unknown 6001 0.6 0411 4.3 4 Unknown 6001 0.7 small animal shaft fragments 0683 4.4 4 Unknown 6001 0.2 0389 4.2 4 Unknown 6001 0.1 0400 4.4 4 Unknown 6001 0.9 0392 4.3 4 Unknown 6001 0.6 0453 4.4 5 Unknown 6001 0.5 0696 4.4 5 Unknown 6001 0.2 0450 4.3 5 Unknown 6001 0.1 0452 4.4 5 Unknown 6001 0.8 0447 4.0.2 5 Unknown 6001 0.2 0748 4.2.3 6 Unknown 6001 0.6 0515 4.3.3 6 Unknown 6001 0.4 0750 4.3 6 Unknown 6001 0.3 0759 4.4.3 6 Unknown 6001 0.6

0757 4.4.1 6 Unknown 6001 0.5 vertebrae fragment of small animal

0743 4.1.4 6 Unknown 6001 2.4

178

0747 4.2.2 6 Unknown 6001 4.1 one round facet fragment 0746 4.2.1 6 Unknown 6001 1.7 0781 4.3 6 Unknown 6001 0.1 0741 4.1.2 6 Unknown 6001 0.5 0749 4.2.4 6 Unknown 6001 1.7 0760 4.4.4 6 Unknown 6001 1.1 1 round facet fragment 0516 4.3.3 6 Unknown 6001 0.4 0755 4.3.4 6 Unknown 6001 0.6 0740 4.1.1 6 Unknown 6001 1.9 0782 4.1 7 EB 6001 0.6 0787 4.4 7 Unknown 6001 0.6 small animal shaft; white color 0785 4.2 7 Unknown 6001 0.5 0786 4.3 7 Unknown 6001 8.0 0787 4.4 7 Unknown 6001 4.8 0788 4.4 7 Unknown 6001 0.7 0799 4.4. 7B Unknown 6001 1.3 832 4.2 8 EB 6001 0.2

0807 4.4 8 Unknown 6001 19.6 1 vertebrae fragment?/premature fragment

0832 4.2 8 Unknown 6001 4.8 0833 4.3 8 Unknown 6001 4.0 0851 4.1 9 Unknown 6001 8.9 some rib fragments 0854 4.2 9 Unknown 6001 14.6 0856 4.4 9 Unknown 6001 1.3 0855 4.3 9 Unknown 6001 0.8 0855 4.3 9 Unknown 6001 1.6 0873 4.3 10 Unknown 6001 0.4 0871 4.1 10 Unknown 6001 0.3 0872 4.2 10 Unknown 6001 4.8

0820 4.2 7B EB 6001 5.0 1 premature fragment; other fragment

0857 4.4 9B Unknown 6001 2.0 0200 4 1 Unknown 6001 2.1 1 premature epiphysis fragment 1007 4 all Unknown 6001 0.3 0228 4 2 EB 6037 1.1 burnt bone fragment 0220 4 2 Unknown 6040 4.1 saw cuts 0223 4 2 Unknown 6040 3.7 saw cut 0244 4.2 3 Unknown 6037 2.2 burnt bone fragments 0269 4.2 3 Unknown 6040 0.8 saw cut

0325 4.4 3 Unknown 6037 7.2 burnt bone fragments w/ orange stains

179

0269 4.2 3 Unknown 6037 0.6 burnt bone fragments 0666 4.2 3 Unknown 6037 0.4 bleached bone fragment 0259 4.1 3 Unknown 6001 0.4 burnt bone fragment 0272 4.3 3 Unknown 6037 0.2 burnt bone fragment 0273 4.3 3 Unknown 6037 0.1 burnt bone fragment 0264 4.2 3 Unknown 6037 0.8 burnt bone fragments 0402 4.1 4 Unknown 6037 0.2 bleached bone fragment 0399 4.4 4 Unknown 6040 1.1 saw cut 0402 4.1 4 Unknown 6037 0.3 bleached bone fragment 0397 4.3 4 Unknown 6049 0.7 saw cut fragment/premature 0391 4.2 4 Unknown 6037 1.1 burnt bone fragments 0400 4.4 4 Unknown 6037 2.8 burnt bone fragments 0400 4.4 4 Unknown 6040 0.3 saw cut 0403 4.4 4 Unknown 6037/6040 0.8 bleached saw cut 0399 4.4 4 Unknown 6037 1.4 bleached bone fragments 0392 4.3 4 Unknown 6037 0.2 burnt bone fragment 0681 4.4 4 Unknown 6037 4.4 burnt bone fragments 0386 4.1 4 Unknown 6037 0.4 bleached saw cut 0453 4.4 5 Unknown 6037 0.4 burnt bone 0450 4.3 5 Unknown 6037 0.2 burnt bone fragment 0444 4.1 5 Unknown 6037 8.2 burnt bone fragments 0750 4.3 6 Unknown 6037 0.7 burnt bone

0501? 4.3.4 6 EB 6040 0.9 saw cut 0747 4.2.2 6 Unknown 6037 0.5 bleached fragment 0749 4.2.4. 6 Unknown 6037 2.0 burnt bone fragments 0748 4.2.3 6 Unknown 6040 1.9 cut mark fragments 0747 4.2.2 6 Unknown 6037 0.1 burnt bone fragment 0752 4.3.1 6 Unknown 6037 0.1 burnt bone fragment 0741 4.1.2 6 Unknown 6037 3.6 burnt bone fragment 0746 4.2.1 6 Unknown 6040 4.6 saw cut; leg cut 0782 4.1 7 EB 6040 4.0 saw cuts 0786 4.3 7 Unknown 6040 3.1 saw cuts 782 4.1 7 EB 6037 2.0 bleached bone

0783 4.2 7 Unknown 6037 2.4 burnt bone fragments 0787 4.4 7 Unknown 6037 1.5 bleached bone fragment 0782 4.1 7 Unknown 6037/6040 1.0 burnt bone fragment/sawed 0786 4.3 7 Unknown 6037 0.3 burnt bone fragments 0787 4.4 7 Unknown 6040 2.7 cleave cut 0786 4.3 7 Unknown 6037 1.4 burnt bone fragments 0786 4.3 7 Unknown 6037 0.2 bleached bone fragments

180

0786 4.3 7 Unknown 6040 0.3 saw cut? 0831 4.1 8 Unknown 6037 1.2 0833 4.3 8 Unknown 6037 0.2 burnt bone fragment 0831 4.1 8 Unknown 6037 0.4 burnt bone fragment 0807 4.4 8 Unknown 6037 2.1 burnt bone fragments 0854 4.2 9 Unknown 6037 2.6 burnt bone fragments 0854 4.2 9 Unknown 6040 1.2 saw cut fragments 0873 4.3 10 Unknown 6037 5.9 burnt bone 0871 4.1 10 Unknown 6040 1.0 saw cut 0871 4.1 10 Unknown 6037 0.6 bleached bone fragments 0872 4.2 10 Unknown 6037 0.1 burnt bone fragment 0857 4.4 9B Unknown 6040 0.6 saw cut 0853 4.2 9B EB 6040 0.8 saw cut 0853 4.2 9B Unknown 6037 1.5 burnt bone fragment

181