CHAPTER 3F_ BLOCK 9 Paul A. Shackel BLOCK 9_ LOT 4 Block 9_ Lot 4 by userlpf

VIEWS: 7 PAGES: 24

More Info
									                              CHAPTER 3F: BLOCK 9
                                 Paul A. Shackel
BLOCK 9, LOT 4
Block 9, Lot 4 History
The earliest records associated with this lot indicate that Anson Grey had no
improvements on the lot in 1867. In 1875, Benjamin Grey was taxed for this lot and he
officially acquired the deed in 1884. One year earlier he was taxed for $20 worth of
improvements on the lot. The 1870 and 1880 Federal Census lists Grey as a blacksmith.
In 1880, he was married to Lizzie and they had three daughters. In all likelihood, Grey’s
blacksmith shop was located on another property. In 1884 Grey sold the lot to George
Kimbrew and M. Kimbrew. They held the land until 1909. Oral histories indicate that the
“negro schoolhouse” was located on this lot until about 1872. When the Kimbrews
acquired the lot and the schoolhouse, they partitioned the house, creating a duplex, with
each brother living in one section. The deed, tax, and census information follow. The
italicized names are those who may have resided on the lot, since they appear in both the
deed and census records.

DEED TRANSACTIONS
Year   Seller                           Purchaser            Reference (page, line)
1884   Benjamin Gray                    George Kimbrew/
                                        Matt Kimbrew                   55, 17
1909     Laura Allen                    W. D. Watts                    55, 20
1910     Laura Allen                    W. D. Watts                    55, 21
1915     William Watts                  Martha McWorter                55, 23

HADLEY TOWNSHIP RECORDS
Year Name Assessed                          Value of Lot           Improvements
1867 Anson Gray                             $3.00                  $0.00
1868 Anson Gray                             $0.00                  $0.00
1869 Anson Gray                             $0.00                  $0.00
1870 Anson Gray                             $0.00                  $1.50
1871 Anson Gray                             $0.00                  $0.00
1872 Anson Gray                             $0.00                  $0.00
1875 Anson Gray/Benjamin Gray               –                      $10.00 (Anson Gray’s
                                                                   name crossed out)
1878   Benjamin Gray                        –                      $0.00
1883   Benjamin Gray                        –                      $20.00
1888   Martin Kinebra                       –                      $15.00

1880 FEDERAL CENSUS
NAME       FIRST NAME                AGE    SEX     RACE   OCCUPATION ORIGIN
Gray       Benj.                     41     M       W      Blacksmith     IL
           Eliz.                     32     F       W      Keeping house  PA
           Lena                      10     F       W      At home        IL
           Gerta                     8      F       W      At home        IL
           Nina                      1      F       W      At home        IL



                                                                                        1
Block 9, Lot 4 Archaeology
Archaeologists identified a large concentration of artifacts on the western edge of this lot
during the 2002/2003 walkover survey. A heavy concentration of nails in the southwest
corner also exists and suggests the presence of structural remains. The 1939 aerial
photograph also shows a structure in the southwest corner of the lot. The geophysical
survey identified two anomalies in the southwest corner and the center of the lot. Based
on the above information, the archaeology team decided to ground truth these two
anomalies. This work sought to provide information about the earliest uses of the lot (the
school house), the Kimbew occupation, and a possible unknown habitation in the west–
central portion of the lot.

Excavation Units 1, 2, and 3 were placed in the southwest corner of Lot 4 with the goal of
ground truthing an anomaly and finding the remains of the schoolhouse that later served
as the Kimbrew residence (Figure 3F.1). The archaeologists excavated in 0.5 ft. arbitrary
levels until they encountered natural stratigraphy. At that point, they excavated according
to natural stratigraphy. Generally the plow zone tended to be a 10YR 3/2 (very dark
grayish brown) silt and it contained a large quantity of nineteenth– and twentieth–
century materials. The subsoil tended to be a 10YR 4/4 (dark yellowish brown) fine grain
clay. Generally the subsoil is deeper in the southwestern portion of the lot and
archeologists reached it at an average depth of about 0.5 ft. below the surface. In
Excavation Unit 4, which is located 60 ft. north of the southwest boundary of the lot, the
soil tended to be a 10YR 5/3 (brown) silty clay. The subsoil is about 0.2 to 0.3 ft. below
the surface.




                                                                                               2
            Figure 3F.1. Location of excavation units in Block 9, Lot 4 (Drawn by
            Christopher Valvano).

Feature 6 is located in the northwest portion of Excavation Unit 1 (Figure 3F.2 and 3F.3).
It is probably a stone pier that supported a building. The base of the pier rests upon the
subsoil and it measures 1.5 ft. north–south. Its western edge is in an unexcavated portion
of the site, directly to the west of Excavation Unit 1 and closer to Ann St.




                                                                                         3
            Figure 3F.2. Plan view of Feature 6 in Excavation Unit 1 (Drawn
            by Carrie Christman and Christopher Valvano).




     Figure 3F.3. Fieldstone Pier in Block 9, Lot 4 (Photograph by Christopher
     Valvano).

Excavation Units 5 and 6 were placed in the center of Lot 4 in order to ground truth an
identified anomaly. The soil tended to be a 10YR 5/3 (brown) fine grained silt. The


                                                                                          4
subsoil is about 0.2 ft. below the surface. Few artifacts dating to the nineteenth and
twentieth century were found in these units. The disking scars are still visible on the top
of the subsoil.

It appears that while a large proportion of top soil remains in the southwest portion of this
lot, erosion has impacted the rest of the lot. Subsoil is only 0.2 ft. below the surface in the
central portion of the lot. The stone pier is likely to be associated with the Kimbrew
residence that may have previously served as the “negro schoolhouse.”

BLOCK 9, LOT 5
Block 9, Lot 5 History
Frank McWorter sold Block 9, Lot 5 to Kizie (also known as Kessiah and Casiah) Clark
in 1854. While Kizie Clark does not show up in the 1855 State Census records, Kizie is
Casiah Clark, who is noted in the 1850 federal census. The Hadley township records
indicate that Casiah owned lot 5 until her death in 1888. The lot had $25 in improvements
in 1867, although in 1868 the improvements decrease to $3. In 1871, the improvements
were again assessed at $25. Casiah’s son, Thomas, listed as 11 years old in the 1850
federal census, sold the lot to William Butler in1888 with a small structure or some other
type of improvement on the lot. Both the Clarks and the Butlers appear in the census
records and, based on oral histories we are certain that the Butlers resided in New
Philadelphia on Block 9, Lot 5. The following are the deed, tax and census information.
The italicized names are those who may have resided on the lot, since they appear in both
the deed and census records.

DEED TRANSACTIONS
Year Seller                    Purchaser               Reference (page, line)
1854 Frank McWorter            Kizie Clark             55, 2
1888 Thomas Clark              William Butler          55, 18
1911 William Butler            Alonzo Leonard          55, 22

HADLEY TOWNSHIP RECORDS
Year Name Assessed                             Value of Lot            Improvements
1867 Kessiah Clark                             $3.00                   $25.00
1868 Kessiah Clark                             $5.00                   $3.00
1869 Kessiah Clark                             $5.00                   $3.00
1870 Kessiah Clark                             $0.00                   $12.00
1871 Kessiah Clark                             $0.00                   $25.00
1872 Kessiah Clark                             $0.00                   $25.00
1875 Kessiah Clark                             –                       $0.00
1878 Kessiah Clark                             –                       $25.00
1883 Kessiah Clark                             –                       $25.00
1888 Kessiah Clark/William Butler              –                       $25.00




                                                                                              5
1850 FEDERAL CENSUS
NAME          FIRST NAME            AGE SEX RACE OCCUPATION ORIGIN
Clark         Casiah                44      F       M       not given           KY
              Simeon                24      M       M       not given           KY
              Alexander             13      M       M       not given           IN
              Mary A.               16      F       M       not given           IL
              James                 19      M       M       not given           IL
              Thomas                11      M       M       not given           ME
              Alex                  18      F       B       not given           VA
              John S.               80      M       B       not given           MD
(**Note: Kizie Clark is probably Casiah Clark. She is living with Louisa McWorter in
the 1870 and 1880 Federal Census)

1880 FEDERAL CENSUS
NAME       FIRST NAME                 AGE    SEX     RACE    RELATION       ORIGIN
Butler     Wm.                        27     M       B       Head           MO
           Katie                      22     F       M       Wife           MO
           Mary                        1     F       M       Daughter       IL

Block 9, Lot 5 Archaeology
Excavation Units 1, 2, and 3
The walkover survey indicates that Block 9, Lot 5 had a very large concentration of
artifacts with a mean ceramic date of 1859. The 1939 aerial photograph shows a structure
in the southwestern edge of Block 9, Lot 5. Oral histories indicate that this structure
served as a storage place; the main domestic dwelling inhabited by the Butlers no longer
survived on the landscape. Because of the high density of artifacts, and the probability of
finding a domestic structure in the area, a geophysical survey was performed on Block 9,
Lots 4 and 5 by Michael Hargrave in April, 2004 (Figure 3F.4).




                                                                                          6
             Figure 3F.4. Resistivity survey of Block 9, Lot 5 (By Michael
             Hargrave, grid overlay by Christopher Fennell).

While a strong anomaly could not be detected in the southwest corner of Lot 5,
Excavation Units 1, 2 and 3 were placed in the approximate location of the structure
identified on the aerial photograph (Figure 3F.5). Generally, the plow zone exists to a
depth of about 0.8 ft. to 0.9 ft. below the surface. The soil tends to be a 10YR3/2 (very
dark grayish brown) silty loam and clayey silt. Large quantities of brick and mortar as
well as household goods are present. Under the plowzone, archaeologists noticed a darker
colored (10YR3/2 – very dark grayish brown) soil when compared to the surrounding
(10YR4/4 – dark yellowish brown) subsoil and designated this area as Feature 1. Most of
the feature lies in Excavation Unit 2. The western boundary is in the eastern half of
Excavation Unit 1 and the northern portion of the feature is in the southern part of
Excavation Unit 3 (Figures 3F.6, 3F.7, and 3F.8). The entire feature measures about 5.0 x
5.0 ft. and it extends to a depth of about 0.5 ft. below the plow zone. It has a concave
shape and is probably a shallow pit cellar. The archaeology team bisected the feature on a
north–south axis and excavated the western portion. Soil samples were also retrieved for
flotation. The materials from the feature date from the 1850s–1860s and are probably
associated with Casiah Clark’s occupation of this lot. Casiah acquired the deed to the lot
in 1854, but by 1870 Casiah and her son Thomas lived with Louisa McWorter in Block
13. The earliest tax records indicate that a small structure sat on this lot valued at $25,
and in 1875 the value of improvements is listed as $0. This devaluation may coincide
when a structure was dismantled and the cellar filled with debris. Subsequent tax records



                                                                                          7
(1878, 1883, and 1888) show a small structure on the lot. The material objects from the
feature include miniature pewter toys, a large quantity of buttons and thimbles, as well as
ceramics, glassware, and iron hardware. The faunal assemblage has a large quantity of
pig and wild game. Most notable are a few passenger pigeon bones (Figure 3F.9). While
passenger pigeon is found in nineteenth–century archaeological assemblages, their
presence decreases after the middle of the century and they are extinct in Illinois by about
1900 (Schorger 1973).




           Figure 3F.5. Location of units excavated in Block 9, Lot 5 (Drawn
            by Christopher Valvano).




                                                                                           8
Figure 3F.6. Plan view of Feature 1 in Excavation Units 1, 2, and
3, in Block 9, Lot 5 (Drawn by Carrie Christman and Christopher
Valvano).




Figure 3F.7. Feature 1 bisected (Drawn by Carrie Christman and
Christopher Valvano).



                                                                    9
 Figure 3F.8. West profile of Feature 1 in Block 9, Lot 5 (Drawn by Carrie Christman
 and Christopher Valvano).




       Figure 3F.9. Passenger pigeon bone identified in Feature 1, Block 9, Lot 5
       and associated with Cassiah Clark’s occupation of the site (Photograph by
       Terrance Martin).

 During the excavation of the pit feature, a local resident visited the site and remembered
walking past a structure in the vicinity on his way to attend the New Philadelphia
schoolhouse in the 1930s (Figure 3F.10). He described the structure near the location of
Excavation Units 1–3 as small and very old with a metal roof and an overhang on the
north side. He remembered the structure as dilapidated and in poor repair (personal
communications, William White). It may have been the building constructed after the
1875 tax assessment and associated with the Butler occupation.




                                                                                          10
     Figure 3F.10. Identifying the boundaries of Feature 1, Block 9, Lot 5 (Photograph
     by Paul Shackel).

However, the artifacts from Feature 1 date from about the1850s/1860s. While the lot is
recently known for the Butler occupation, the refuse from the pit feature are associated
with Casiah Clark’s ownership of the lot. She had farmland in Hadley Township by the
late 1840s and she acquired this lot from Frank McWorter in 1854. The tax records show
improvements on the lot from at least 1867 until 1875. Casiah Clark was head of her
household in the 1850 Federal Census, and the cellar pit was probably under the house
that she lived in for a short time. The Federal Census shows her living in Quincy, Illinois
in 1860. The 1870 census indicates that she and her son Thomas lived with Louisa
McWorter in Block 13. The 1880 census reports only Casiah living living with Louisa
McWorter. There is a good chance that her dwelling was dismantled soon after she
moved in with Louisa McWorter (which could be as soon as 1861, or as late as 1869).
After the structure was dismantled refuse was deposited into the feature and there are no
improvements on the lot listed on the 1875 tax records. Following is a description of the
ceramic and faunal assemblage associated with the Clark occupation.


Minimum Vessel Analysis Feature 1, Block 9, Lot 5, by Caitlin L. Bauchat
and Emily Helton (NSF–REU 2005)

Feature 1 Ceramic Assemblage
The 2004 walkover survey report indicates an 1859 mean ceramic date for Block 9, Lot
5, and Feature 1 dates to about this era (Gwaltney 2004). In Feature 1, the minimum
number of ceramic vessels is 25. The ceramic vessels recovered from the feature were
primarily refined earthenwares (n=17, 68%); followed by stoneware (n=5, 20%), then
unrefined earthenware (n=3, 12%) (Table 3F.1).


                                                                                         11
Refined earthenwares in this assemblage include whitewares, hard paste whitewares, and
pearlwares. Each of the eight whiteware vessels from Feature 1 are decorated; the
decorations include transfer printing (blue on one vessel, and in cranberry on another),
painting (two vessels), blue sponge/spatter (three vessels), one shell–edged decorated
vessel, and one flow blue vessel. Out of the eight hard paste whiteware vessels, only one
is decorated; this decoration is a blue transfer printed design. Pearlware accounts for only
1.6% of the assemblage.

Out of 17 unique vessels there are four saucers, two plates, two teacups, and one cup.
Two of the whiteware vessels, a teacup and a saucer, both have a painted floral design
and may be part of a matched set. Two yellowware vessels (8% of the assemblage) are
present and one is a bowl with an annular slip, with black and white bands, with a clear
glaze interior. This design was produced beginning in 1840, and continued to be
fashionable throughout the early twentieth century. The other yellowware vessel has a
Rockingham–Bennington glaze, with coloring from yellow to dark brown; this glaze
dates from 1845 to 1900. The functional type is difficult to identify even with diameter
measurements.

The single redware vessel identified is a lead–glazed rim piece; however, the piece is too
small to ascertain even a rim diameter, much less to assume a vessel form. The five
stoneware vessels account for 20% of the assemblage. Two vessels are a gray–paste
stoneware; one is salt–glazed and the other has an opaque glaze, both glazes date from
1840–1900. Out of the two buff–paste stoneware vessels, only one is glazed, with a dark
brown Albany–type slip glaze. One red–paste stoneware was recovered, and has a
manganese glaze. None have identifiable forms.

The preponderance of whiteware vessels in comparison to the dearth of stoneware in this
assemblage is mirrored at other places, like the Gibb farmstead, an eastern Tennessee
farm occupied by the same family from approximately 1792 to 1913. Here the
archaeologists interpreted this distribution as evidence that “although they discarded a
substantial amount of ceramics, for the most part, the Gibbs family was conservative or
frugal consumers when it came to purchasing ceramics, especially utilitarian ware or
everyday tableware that presumably possessed a short use–life" (Groover 2005:273).
However, in Gibbs’ assemblage, there was an even greater number of redware shards
recovered than whitewares, and a much lower percentage of the assemblage was made up
of hardpaste whiteware. This complicates the picture of strictly economically–motivated
vessel purchases; why would the individuals associated with Feature 1 opt for so many
hardpaste whitewares, particularly in forms such as saucers, which are not strictly
necessary items?

Additionally, the low proportion of both stonewares and unrefined earthenwares presents
a puzzling picture for the occupation at Block 9, Lot 5; these are the materials that would
makeup ceramic storage and cooking vessels. Additionally, the pieces of these vessels are
so small as to make their form indeterminable, with the exception of one yellowware
bowl. This leads to the interpretation that the minimum vessel count for stonewares and



                                                                                           12
unrefined earthenwares is probably an underestimate. The minimum count is derived
primarily from differences in glaze–type, rather than by form or decoration.
Alternatively, this could provide evidence that non–ceramic containers were used for
food preparation and storage. This is a likely scenario since beginning in the late 1850s
glass storage containers became popular. However, the glass vessel is also relatively
small (see below).

Feature 1 Glass Assemblage
There are 10 glass vessels, however, the small sherd size and relatively few mends of the
fragments made it difficult to ascertain form, function, and date ranges for most of the
assemblage. Five bottle vessels (50% of the assemblage) are present, two of which may
be medicinal, and one of which is most likely part of a snuff bottle. The bottle colors
include aquamarine, brown and colorless glass. An aquamarine base was identified as
part of a scroll flask, and the molded design that was visible suggests the approximate
date of production of 1840–1860. A larger vessel of colorless glass had a fluted design,
indicating that it was part of a tumbler. This decorative type became popular in the 1820s.

Table 3F.1. Feature 1 Ceramic and Glass Assemblage Description.
Refined Earthenware
Material # Level        NP #    Vessel    Vessel Form      Decoration       Date Measurements
                                 Part                                      Range / Comments
Whiteware 1 Above 21.8         Base      Tableware       Transfer Print,   1828+
            F4                                           cranberry
                                                         geometric
Hard Paste   1 Above   21.10 Rim and Plate               Undecorated       1840+ Approx. 7”
Whiteware      F4            Base                                                diameter
Hard Paste   1 Above   21.10 Rim and Indeterminate Undecorated             1840+
Whiteware      F4            Footring
Hard Paste   1 Above   21.10 Rim      Plate        Undecorated             1840+ Approx. 6”
Whiteware      F4                                                                diameter
Hard Paste   1 Above   21.10 Rim         Tableware       Undecorated       1840+
Whiteware      F4
Whiteware    1 Above   21.15 Rim         Teacup          Painted,          1828+
               F4                                        Polychrome
                                                         floral
Whiteware 1 Above      21.19 Rim         Teacup          Sponge/Spatter,   1840– 3 ½ ”
             F4                                          blue              1880  diameter
Whiteware 1 Above      21.19 Rim         Tableware       Sponge/Spatter,   1840–
             F4                                          blue              1880
Whiteware 1 Above      21.23 Rim         Flatware        Shell Edge,       1800– Possible plate
             F4                                          Molded, blue      1835
Whiteware 1 Above      21.24 Rim         Tableware       Flow Blue         1840–
             F4                                                            1860
Hard Paste 1 Above     21.27 Rim         Indeterminate Undecorated         1840+
Whiteware    F4
Whiteware 1 a1                 Base      Saucer          Painted,        1820+ 4.5”–5.5”
                       38.49                             Polychrome            diameter
                                                         floral
Whiteware 1 a1         38.51 Rim         Cup             Sponge/Spatter, 1840– Interior


                                                                                            13
                                                            blue                1880  undecorated
Hard Paste 1 a1            38.52 Rim and    Saucer          Undecorated         1840+ 6.25”
Whiteware                        Base                                                 diameter
Pearlware 1 a1             38.68 Body       Tableware       Annular Slip:       1815– Int.
                                                            blue, white,        1820  undecorated
                                                            brown
Hard Paste 1 a1            38.74 Rim        Saucer          Transfer Print,     1840+ 2”–6”
Whiteware                                                   blue linear               diameter
Hard Paste 1 a1            38.77 Rim        Saucer          Undecorated         1840+ Less than 5”
Whiteware                                                                             diameter
Total Vessels: 17


Unrefined Earthenware
              # Level       NP #   Vessel   Vessel Form            Decoration           Date Measurements/
Material                            Part                                                Range Comments
Yellowware 1 Above 21.18 Rim                Hollowware    Rockingham/Bennington 1845–
             F1                                           Glaze                 1900
Redware    1 Above 21.29 Body               Indeterminate Lead Glaze            1750–
             F1                                                                 1900
Yellowware 1 a1    38.50 Rim                Bowl          Annular Slip: black,  1840–            Approx. 6”
                                                          white                 1930             diameter
Total Vessels: 3

Stoneware
 Material    #     Leve    NP #    Vessel Vessel Form       Decoration          Date     Measurements
                      l             Part                                        Range     / Comments
Grey Paste   1     Abov    21.5    Body   Indeterminat    Salt Glaze,         1840–      Wheel–thrown
                   e F1                   e               dark brown          1900
Buff Paste   1     Abov    21.17   Body   Indeterminat    Unglazed
                   e F1                   e
Buff Paste   1     Abov    21.20   Body   Indeterminat    Albany–Type         1805–      Int. unglazed,
                   e F1                   e               Slip Glaze          1920       wheel–thrown
Red Paste    1     Abov    21.25   Body   Indeterminat    Manganese
                   e F1                   e               Glaze
Grey Paste   1     a1      38.66   Rim    Indeterminat    Alkaline            1840–
                                          e               Glaze               1900
Total Vessels: 5


Glass
  Man.       #     Level Vessel
                           NP #              Vessel       Decoration          Color     Date    Measurements/
  Tech.                   Part               Form                                       Range    Comments
Molded    2 Above 21.82 Body                Bottle       Undecorated Colorless
            F1
Pontil,   1 Above 21.85 Base                Bottle       Undecorated Aquamarine                 Patinated
Generic     F1
Technique 1 Above 21.88 Body                Container Paneled            Olive Green
Unknown     F1


                                                                                                14
Molded     1 Above 21.87 Base            Scroll      Impressed     Aqua/Green   1840–
             F1          and             Flask                                  1860
                         Body
Molded     2 Above 21.90 Body            Container Fluted          Brown                Possibly
             F1                                                                         medicinal,
                                                                                        patinated
Molded      2 Above 21.91 Rim and        Tumbler     Fluted        Colorless    1820+
                F1        Body
Molded      1 Above 21.92 Body           Container Undecorated Brown                    Patinated,
                F1                                                                      worn
Molded      3 Above 21.93 Neck           Bottle      Undecorated Brown
                F1        and
                          Shoulder
Molded      1 Above 21.96 Body           Container Undecorated Light Olive
                F1
Automatic 1 a1      38.12 Finish         Bottle      Undecorated Aquamarine             Patinated
Machine
Molded
Total Vessels: 10


Faunal Analysis of Feature 1, Block 9, Lot 5, by Andrea Torvinen (NSF–
REU 2005) and Terrance Martin (ISM)
Feature 1 is associated with the Clark family, who migrated to New Philadelphia from
Kentucky. The data include the number of identified specimens (NISP), minimum
number of individuals (MNI) and biomass. The biomass was figured for each identifiable
taxa, excluding amphibians, freshwater mussels and unidentified vertebrates. Biomass for
each taxon was estimated using an allometric scaling technique developed by Reitz and
Wing (1999: 70–72).

The breakdown of the assemblage found within Feature 1 is listed in Tables 3F.2 and
3F.3. Students, under the supervision of Terrance Martin (Illinois State Museum),
identified 31.3% of the faunal remains by count, however this percentage includes 333
pieces of unidentified eggshell that were found within the feature (see Table 3F.4). When
these pieces are excluded, a total of 63.5% of the assemblage was identified.

The faunal assemblage found in Feature 1 is mostly comprised of swine, chicken, small
mammals (rabbits, squirrels, opossums and rats), fish (Buffalo and Freshwater Drum),
and birds (Bobwhite and Passenger Pigeon) (see Table 3F.2). This assemblage is lacking
in cattle, sheep/goat and white–tailed deer. The lack of domesticated animals in this
assemblage only further supports the assemblage’s strength as an example of an Upland
South diet. However, the lack of white–tailed deer remains in this feature is odd for an
Upland South diet. White–tailed deer makes up only 0.3% of the total NISP and 0.7% of
the total biomass, but this may only reflect a lack of this animal in the vicinity of New
Philadelphia at this time (Price 1985: 49). The term Upland South is used to define a
cultural tradition founded in the areas of Kentucky, Tennessee, and the Carolinas. Most
people in these areas subsisted on a diet dominated by swine and chicken, which was


                                                                                        15
supplemented with wild game like white–tailed deer, rabbit, squirrel and fish. However,
as people migrated west into places like Illinois and Missouri, they brought these cultural
traditions with them (McCorvie 1987).

It is interesting to note that according to Table 3F.4, swine and small mammals each
comprise 28.8% of the total NISP for Feature 1. However, the classification of small
mammals includes rats. Old World Rat (Rattus sp.) and small rodents together make up
about half of the small mammals category included in Table 5, 14.6% of the total NISP
and 4.84% of the total biomass (see Table 3F.2). Rats were not a source of food in this
area and are therefore considered intrusive – they are considered part of the assemblage,
but when analyzing the diet they are removed. The obvious presence of these animals
helps to explain the high percentage of rodent–gnawed bones found in Feature 1 (see
Table 3F.5). Their presence may also help to explain the lack of other small, delicate
bones, which could have been consumed altogether.

Other modifications were observed among the animal remains and are summarized in
Table 6. None of the other types of modification are quite as substantial as rodent
gnawing. Carnivore gnawing did not appear on any of the bones included in this
assemblage. Butchering cuts that included marks left behind from a saw, cleaver, or knife
were present on 18 of the remains recovered from Feature 1 (see Table 3F.5). There were
also some bones that were calcined from burning, but all of these were found outside of
Feature 1.

The Feature 1 faunal assemblage suggests that the Clark family depended more heavily
on smaller game. This in turn may imply a shortage of large game, such as the white–
tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in the area. Feature 1 included 12 specimens of
eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), 15 specimens of squirrel (Sciurus sp.), and two
specimens of opossum (Didelphis virginiana).

The Clark family also supplemented their diets with wild birds; Feature 1 contains three
specimens each of Bobwhite (Colinus virginianus), Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) and
Passenger Pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius). There were also other sources of
supplemental food like fish, freshwater mussels and turtles, which were found in Feature
1. The main specimens of fish found in Feature 1 were freshwater drum (Aplodinotus
grunniens) and Buffalo (Ictiobus sp.). These were most likely caught in either the Illinois
and/or Mississippi Rivers (Smith 1979). There were no freshwater mussels found in
direct association with Feature 1, but there was one specimen of Three–Ridge (Amblema
plicata) and three specimens of marine bivalves (Trachycardium sp.) found in the mixed
context areas around Feature 1. It is most likely that freshwater mussels did not play as
important of a role in the economy of the Clarks. Perhaps the shells were sought as a raw
material for buttons, while the small marine shells may have been souvenirs.

Tables 3F.6–3F.8 illustrate the skeletal portions of swine, cattle, and white–tailed deer
within Feature 1. There were a total of 130 skeletal portions found within Feature 1 and
the surrounding mixed context. Out of those, only seven were from cattle and one was
from a white–tailed deer. The skeletal portions from cattle that were recovered are mostly



                                                                                          16
vertebrae, ribs, and one proximal radius (see Table 3F.7). These are all prime cuts of beef
and, therefore, are table scraps brought back to the house from the butchering site and
discarded after the meal. There was only one white–tailed deer skeletal portion (a distal
humerus) found, which shows that this deer was not butchered at this site and that this cut
was consumed at the house (see Table 3F.8).

All of the skeletal portions from swine included in Table 3F.6 are balanced except for the
foot bones. This pattern suggests that the Clark family used all parts of the swine for
consumption. The presence of the skull and foot bones in this feature is curious, but it is
most likely that these parts were used in some kind of meal like head cheese. Perhaps the
foot bones were just discarded from other cuts of meat before preparation.




                                                                                         17
Table 3F.2. Composition of animal remains recovered from Block 9, Lot 5, Feature 1.

Table 1. Composition of Animal Remains recovered from Block 9 Lot 5 Feature 1

                                                       NISP (MNI)   % NISP      Weight (g)   Biomass (kg)    % Biomass

MAMMALS
Cow, Bos taurus                                           3(1)        1.46         41.6         0.754             13.4
Opossum, Didelphis virginiana                             2(1)        0.98         1.3          0.033             0.59
White-tailed Deer, Odocoileus virginianus                 1(1)        0.48         3.1          0.073             1.3
Swine, Sus scrofa                                        59(2)       28.78        194.8         3.024            53.75
Eastern Cottontail, Sylvilagus floridanus                12(3)        5.85         10.6          0.22             3.91
Squirrel, Sciurus sp.                                    15(2)        7.32         6.8          0.148             2.63
Old World Rat, Rattus sp.                                26(2)       12.68         10.2         0.213             3.79
Rodent, sm                                                4(1)        1.95         0.1          0.003             0.05
Unidentified Large Mammal                                61(-)          -          36.8         0.675               -
Unidentified Medium/Large Mammal                          4(-)          -          0.7          0.019               -
Unidentified Medium Mammal                                2(-)          -          1.4          0.036               -
Unidentified Sm all/Medium Mammal                         8(-)          -          1.3          0.033               -
Unidentified Sm all Mammal                                3(-)          -          0.3          0.009               -
Unidentified Very Large Mammal                            2(-)          -          10.6          0.22               -

BIRDS
Bobwhite, Colinus virginianus                             3(1)        1.46        0.7           0.015             0.26
Chicken, Gallus gallus                                   44(8)       21.46        44.9          0.651            11.57
Turkey, Meleagris gallopavo                               3(1)        1.46        10.9          0.179             3.18
Canada Goose, Branta canadensis                           1(1)        0.48        0.2           0.005             0.09
Blue-wing/Green-wing Teal, Anas carolinensis/discors      1(1)        0.48        0.5           0.011             0.2
Duck, Anatinae                                            1(1)        0.48        2.2           0.042             0.75
Passenger Pigeon, Ectopistes migratorius                  3(1)        1.46        0.7           0.015             0.27
Unidentified Large Bird                                   1(-)          -         0.2           0.005               -
Unidentified Medium Bird                                  22(-)         -         3.8           0.069               -
Unidentified Bird (Eggshell)                             333(-)         -         3.4           0.062               -

FISH
Yellow Bullhead, Amerius natalis                          2(1)       0.98          0.3          0.006             0.11
Freshwater Drum, Aplodinotus grunniens                    2(1)       0.98          1.3          0.047             0.84
Buffalo sp., Ictiob us sp.                               20(4)       9.76          9.9          0.185             3.29
Crappie sp., Pomoxis sp.                                  1(1)       0.48          0.4          0.013             0.23
Sunfish Fam ily, Centrarchidae                            1(1)       0.48          0.1          0.004             0.07
Unidentified Fish                                        14(-)         -           2.2          0.056               -

AMPHIBIANS
Toad, Bufo sp.                                            1(1)       0.48          0.1            -                -

Unidentified Vertebrate                                   1(-)         -           0.5            -                -

FRESHWATER MUSSELS
Unidentified Mussels                                      1(-)         -           2.2            -                -

Total Specimens                                         657            -          404.1         6.825              -
Total NISP(MNI)                                       205(37)       99.94         340.7         5.641            100.28
Percentage Identified                                  31.2                        84.3          82.7
**NISP = Number of Identified Specimens; MNI = Minimum Number of Individuals




                                                                                                            18
Table 3F.3. Identifiable Specimens Recovered from Feature 1 by
Class
     Class       Identified Unidentified Total % Total NSP
Mammals              122          80        202       30.8
Birds                 56         356        412       62.8
Fish                  26          14         40        6.1
Fw Mussels            0           1          1         0.2
Amphibians             1          0          1         0.2
Total                205         451        656       100.1
% Total IDed         31.3        68.8      100.1




                                                                 19
Table 3F.4. Cross–Site Comparison between New Philadelphia and other Nineteenth–Century Faunal
Assemblages*
                                                                                                                     Other
                     Site                        Swine    Cattle   Sheep/Goat     Deer    Sm Mams       Chicken      Birds    Others***

NISP(%)
New Phil – Feature 1 (n=205)                         28.8      1.5        0          0.5      28.8         21.5        5.8      13.2
New Phil – B9 L5 non–feat (n=152)                    46.7      2.6       1.3          0       18.4         16.5        9.2       5.3
Fair View Farm (n=223)                               80.3      2.7       1.3         4.5       2.2          2.7        4.9       1.3
Huggins (n=466)**                                    61.8      4.7       0.6        10.7       7.1          4.7        2.1       8.3
Davis (n=544)**                                      36.8     1.5        0.4        11.4      28.7           7         2.3      11.9
Washburne (n=568)                                    20.8      44        9.7         0.2       0.4          7.7        4.9      12.3
Jackson House (n=878)                                25.9     29.5       8.5          0        0.3         28.5        4.7       2.6
BIOMASS (%)
New Phil – Feature 1 (n=5.641kg)                     53.8     13.4        0          1.3       11          11.6        4.8       4.5
New Phil – B9 L5 non–feat (n=5.626kg)                 69      11.7       1.9          0        6.9          5.2        4.4       0.9
Fair View Farm (n=23.4kg)                            71.6     17.6       3.9         4.6       0.6          0.3        1.4        0
Washburne (n=87.2kg)                                  14      73.2       6.8         0.8       0.2          1.2        1.5       2.3
Jackson House (n=81.9kg)                             20.5      63        6.8          0        0.1          3.9        3.2       2.5
*Calculations for Fair View Farm, Huggins, Davis, Washburne and Jackson House were borrowed from Martin and Richmond (1992:
283)
**No biomass info available for the Huggins and Davis Sites
***For New Phil NISP(%): Others includes all fish, mussels & amphibians
***For New Phil BIOMASS (%): Others includes all fish




                                                                                                                                  20
Table 3.F.5. Frequency of Bone Modification
                                          B9
    Modification       Feature 1     %    L5              %         Total        Total %
Carnivore gnawed            0        0     0               0          0             0
Rodent gnawed              58       47.2  43             34.9        101          82.1
Butcher cuts               13       10.5   5              4.1         18          14.6
Burned/Calcined             0        0     4             3.3          4            3.3
Total                      71       57.7  52             42.3        123           100
**Calculations were made excluding shells




Table 3F.6. Types of Skeletal Portions of Swine Recovered at New Philadelphia
                                                                                               Long
                  Site                  Skull   Teeth    Pelvis     Vertebrae       Scapula    Bones     Ribs      Feet       Total
New Phil – Feature 1                       6       1       0            6              0         4         7        35          59
% of Feature 1 portions                  10.2     1.7      0          10.2             0        6.8      11.9      59.3       100.1
New Phil – B9 L5                           4      18       0            4              0        13         4        28          71
% of B9 L5 portions                      5.6     25.4      0          5.6              0       18.3      5.6       39.4       99.9
Total of Feature 1 & vicinity             10      19       0           10              0        17        11        63         130
% of Feature 1 & vicinity                7.7     14.6      0          7.7              0       13.1      8.5       48.5       100.1



Table 3F.7. Types of Skeletal Portions of Cattle Recovered at New Philadelphia
                                                                                               Long
                  Site                  Skull   Teeth    Pelvis     Vertebrae       Scapula    Bones     Ribs      Feet       Total
New Phil – Feature 1                        0        0          0              3           0         0         0          0         3
New Phil – B9 L5                            0        1          0              0           0         1         2          0         4
Total                                       0        1          0              3           0         1         2          0         7
%                                           0     14.3          0           42.9           0      14.3      28.6          0     100.1




                                                                                                                                        21
Table 3F.8. Types of Skeletal Portions of White–tailed Deer Recovered at New Philadelphia
                                                                                                       Long
                  Site                      Skull    Teeth     Pelvis     Vertebrae       Scapula      Bones    Ribs       Feet       Total
New Phil – Feature 1                             0         0         0                0            0        1          0          0         1
New Phil – B9 L5                                 0         0         0                0            0        0          0          0         0
Total                                            0         0         0                0            0        1          0          0         1
%                                                0         0         0                0            0      100          0          0       100
*Individual percentages were not calculated for cattle and white–tailed deer due to lack of data




                                                                                                                                                22
Coring Block 9, Lot 5
Since the excavations in Block 9, Lot 5 produced a significant number of artifacts from a
pit feature, archaeologists conducted soil core sampling in order to locate additional
features and possibly define foundations associated with the structure. Two transects of
19 cores each ran in a north–south direction at 5.0 ft. intervals (Figure 3F.11). The
southernmost portion of transect 1 (T1) is 20 ft. north and 20 ft. east of the southwest
corner of Block 9, Lot 5. The southernmost portion of transect 2 (T2) began 20 ft. east of
T1, and T2N1 is located 20 ft. north and 40 ft. east of the southwest corner of Block 9,
Lot 5.




                  Figure 3F.11. Coring transects in Block 9, Lot 5
                  (Drawn by Christopher Fennell).

Generally, each core sample reached a depth of 1.8 ft. below the surface. The uppermost
layer consists of a 10YR 3/2 (very dark grayish brown) soil and is located to an average
depth of 0.9 ft. below the surface. The soil is the plow zone. The subsoil underlies this




                                                                                        23
layer and generally consists of a 10YR 4/4 (dark yellowish brown) or 10YR 4/3 (brown)
mottle 10YR 3/2 (very dark grayish brown).

Resistance to the core probe generally occurred in the northern portion of T1 and through
the majority of T2. At T1N14, T1N15, T1N16, and T1N19, and T2N2, T2N3, T2N4,
T2N7, T2N10–T2N17 resistance occurred at an average depth of 0.5 ft. below the
surface. At T1N1, T1N17, T2N18, T2N9 resistance occurred at a depth that ranged from
1.0 ft. to 1.5 ft. below the surface. Because of this resistance, the archaeology team
placed several excavation units along the two transects in order to determine the nature of
this coring anomaly (see Excavation Unit Summaries). Originally, the archeology team
believed that this resistance may be a stone feature, like a fieldstone foundation. The
archaeological investigations revealed that hard–packed clay caused the resistance.

Other Excavation Units – 4, 5, 6, and 7
Because of the coring results and the resistance found in several cores, archaeologists
decided to work to decipher the meaning of these anomalies. Excavation Units 4, 5, 6,
and 7 were placed in areas where the 1 in. diameter core met resistance. The plow zone
varied considerably in this area and subsoil exists anywhere from 0.5 ft. to 1.0 ft. below
the surface. The soil tends to be a 10YR3/2 (very dark grayish brown) silty loam, and the
subsoil is a 10YR4/4 (dark yellowish brown). The area where the subsoil is closer to the
surface may have occurred because of erosion. After excavating these units,
archaeologists determined that hard packed clay caused the high resistance during the
coring. This area had significantly fewer artifacts than found in the area of Feature 1.




                                                                                         24

								
To top