Month: May 2025

Matie Torrance

You know all the stuff you throw away when you’re moving out? How it’s all thrown together in a big pile? If you took 20^th Century garbage and did exactly that, you’d get Julie and I’s unit at BcGn-15, OA4: the midden. How I’m writing this may sound like I have a certain disdain for middens and garbage, but the discoveries and interesting conclusions we developed at the end of our dig were far from it. If you’re an archaeologist, or an inspiring one, the midden is the place to be! Middens provide us with excellent source materials for the habits and behaviours of previous occupants of a site. One of the major benefits of a garbage pit is the number of artifacts we yielded; this was likely close to 600—900 artifacts in a 1×2 unit, which was exceptional considering the excitement we felt finding a single artifact on BcGn-17, our previous site along Pioneer Road. Some of our coolest finds were the things we aptly named “doohickeys.” In OA4 speak, this refers to pieces of metal that we didn’t quite know what they were from, likely industrial or domestic tool pieces. When in the lab washing the artifacts, we were finally able to identify a few of these doohickeys: clothespin wire springs, eyelets from footwear, a railroad track spike, lots of nails, an entire iron, metal wire likely from fencing, and many more. Along with metal, and some of my favourites, we found a variety of small ceramic sherds, colourful glass (blue, green, brown, clear, turquoise), nylon stockings, leather, mammal bones, a skeleton key, and a rubber drain plug; it’s impossible for me to name every amazing find or else this post would go on way too long! While finding artifacts, digging, sifting, and trowelling 50cm into the earth while listening to Steely Dan was a major highlight, my favourite part of field school was all the amazing people I met while I was here. I’ve made some fantastic friends, whom I’m excited to share future classes with, and remember all the silliness and good times of ANTH-3000Y (Shoutout to my rats and fellow adopted rats!). 

Lauren Campbell

My time at field school has gone by so fast, but the first few days seem like forever ago! When we first started out at BcGn-17, we were all super excited to find any sort of artifacts in our screens, especially for those of us who started in OA3, which did not yield the most interesting or abundant of finds. Then, last week we moved to BcGn-15, where we were given the freedom to choose where we wanted to set up our 2x2m test units. Most people rushed to set up near where the house was thought to be, however, Cam, Maddy, Avery, and I chose an area a bit farther away from the group, in a little clearing, which would soon become OA7.  

We thought that the area might cover the laneway or the exterior of the house. At first, we were not the most hopeful about our unit, as we did not excavate any features or tightly-packed gravel that would be associated with a laneway of some kind. As we continued to excavate, we found a large amount of nails, glass, and ceramic sherds. It’s crazy to think how quickly I went from “oh wow, a 1x1cm piece of glass, yay!” to “seriously, another nail?”. Our unassuming OA7 quickly became quite fruitful, as we had an array of notable finds, including the buggy step, which Kate posted about earlier, a switch cover, a couple of electrical sockets, pages from a book, and several complete, or almost complete, glass bottles. The most interesting one to me was one specific bottle that we found with liquid still inside of it! 

Avery was the one to originally find the bottle, just skimming her shovel over the side of it and somehow not breaking it. 

We carefully excavated the bottle, which to our surprise, remained in one piece, and had a very distinct cap, with the name “Jordan” and a logo with grapes. 

After finding this, I tried to do some research to find out what this bottle contained. Given the grapes on the logo, I hypothesized that at one point in time it was a bottle of wine or grape juice. I thought that a reverse image search of the distinct bottle cap would help answer this question, however, it sadly did not yield any helpful results. I could not find any images of the same or similar logos. Upon further research, I discovered that there was a Canadian company called “Jordan Wines” from 1920 to 1973, before the company was renamed “Jordan & Ste Michelle” and then bought out by Bright in 1986. I was able to find images of some of their bottles, which did not bear much resemblance to the one we found, and did not appear to have the same logo.  

I also could not find any information about a “Jordan” grape juice company, leaving many questions unanswered about our mysterious bottle. Although I could not determine what the bottle originally contained, it was still an incredibly interesting find, and I am hopeful that someone else with more experience with artifacts may be able to gain more insight into the bottle! 

Haley Murtagh

Throughout my time taking part in the field school, Kate has often designated Artifact of the Day to an uncovered item that has caught her eye. So, today I would like to share mine with you. Prior to this class, I would’ve probably said the best item to uncover, or thing I’d most like to find, would be some kind of large or well-preserved animal bone. However, today I am surprising myself by choosing none other than a glass jar to receive my fictional title of Artifact of the Field School. What about this jar, you may ask, is so intriguing that it deserves such a title? Well for one, it is completely intact with the lid on – oh, and did I mention that the jar was full of some sort of jelly or topical cream which has turned a curious shade of green that I can only describe as ‘definitely expired’.

May 13^th, 2025 was my first day at the new site BcGn-15. On this morning, Enya, Trinity, and myself laid out our 2×2 meter unit, OA8, that we were to spend the following two weeks excavating and recording. I remember this day was challenging due to the large field stones, brick, and roots densely littered throughout the soil, but I also remember being overjoyed at the sheer amount of cultural material we were able to recover from the first 20 cm of our unit. Besides the jar, we uncovered a large number of glass sherds, primarily belonging to a ‘Pure Springs’ bottle, a metal pipe cover, possibly for a stove, and a porcelain insulator.

As cool as it was to find any of these artifacts and to evaluate why they were present at the site, e.g. the porcelain insulator was likely a part of the electrical work done to the dwelling being evaluated in OA8, none of these items were as revealing as the glass jar. The first thing I noticed about the jar were the seams present around the base, indicating that a mold was used in the glassmaking process. It’s also clear that the glass is machine-made, largely due to it’s symmetry and external threaded cap closure, which would require a standardized screw cap. Unfortunately for the identification of this artifact, glass bottles have been mass produced in such a way for over a century. Luckily for me, the base is embossed with information about the manufacturer and thanks to the glass, which is in great condition with no visible damages, I was able to narrow down the date of the artifact by a factor of 10.

            In the image of the jar below, there is a series of symbols and numbers that can be used to not only determine when, but where the glass was made. The first symbol, located in the very centre of the base, is the maker’s mark. With one quick look at the dot enclosed by a diamond, Kate immediately recognized the logo as that of the Dominion Glass Co. located out of Montreal, QC. With a little googling of my own, I was able to confirm two things; the first being that the jar was made by Dominion Glass Co., and the second that Kate’s always right [editorial comment from Kate — I’m not but I am very flattered!] . Although the company is based in Montreal, that doesn’t necessarily mean that that is where the jar was made. The small dot located near the logo is indicative of the location of the factory, which in this case is to the left meaning it was made in Point St. Charles, QC, a neighbourhood of Montreal.

To the left of the manufacturer logo is the month code for the jar. This symbol in particular, shaped like a 4-pane window was used from 1950 to 1969, and reveals the jar was made in the months of November or December. Opposite this logo is a single digit, a 7, representing the last digit of the year in which the jar was made. Unfortunately, this still leaves us with two potential dates, 10 years apart (1957, 1967). The other two series of numbers, located above and below the logo, are in reference to the specific mold used create the jar, largely included for quality assurance purposes. However, beginning in 1945, Dominion Glass Co. included the prefix ‘V’ in the code located above their emblem which they had then slowly phased out of production around the mid 1950s (https://sha.org/bottle/ ). As seen in the image above, this jar does have a ‘V’ above the logo, which along with the ‘7’ and the window symbol would mean that it was most likely made in November-December of 1957.

Although the jar is currently living along with our other artifacts in the archaeology centre, there’s something to be said about holding ~70 year old material in your hands that might not have seen the sun since the day the old dwelling was demolished. There is also something to be said about the fact that I sniffed the green contents, per Kate’s advice, which could possibly be as old as the jar itself. Once again, Kate was right and it wasn’t some moldy and rotting matter, but probably just some really old Vaseline – for those of you wondering, it did smell like petroleum jelly.

Zenya Lebar

The archaeology field school has been everything I had hoped it would be – the only thing I didn’t expect was for it to go by so fast! As a first-year student, who, before this course, did not have any experience in the field or lab, my learning experience has been filled with many new topics and skills, and it has been a lot to take in (which is not a bad thing!). At the pace this field school operates, over four weeks, I found myself moving around from site to site and unit to unit quickly as I gained new experiences and knowledge from each one.

I began as an Earthworm working on OA2 at BcGn-17. My first experience with field work began with picking up a shovel and taking away the topsoil of the unit. Though before even reaching 5cm down, James moved me to work on the well unit with Lorna, Hailey, and Suyang. I had just gotten the hang of using a shovel properly to excavate topsoil when I had a whole new challenge – dealing with a large feature containing many large rocks. As to not cause misunderstanding, I should say that I thoroughly enjoyed working on the well, and it was the highlight of the field school for me! I quickly progressed from basic shovel skills at OA2 to using the trowel, brush, and excavating multiple feet into the ground. The furthest I was able to get with the well was taking out the rocks from the middle and excavating the inside of it. Some of the heavy stones were a puzzle to get out, but we found a (definitely very safe) method of removing them by placing all four of our shovels underneath and using them as a lever to lift. This all took place over two days, and I was surprised at how fast we could uncover the well feature!

Before continuing, all students were required to plan the well. We used planning grids that covered the well and drew accurately each stone based on the grid squares. This was definitely a shift from the physical labour we had been doing over the past few days! As someone who enjoys art as a hobby, it was fun to experience this crossover between art/drawing and archaeology.

While the rest of the students planned the well, I switched to a different unit: the OA2-3 midden area. We had not been screening the soil that came out of the well unit, so at this new unit, I was learning how to screen effectively and efficiently. We were finding mostly ceramics, nails, glass, and bones. At this point, just over a week into the field school, I had learned to shovel, trowel, screen, plan, how to keep the walls and floors of a unit clean, and how to excavate a feature.

Bouncing around from project to project, I was now the only student who had not learned how to survey. So, yet another new skill I began to learn in the same week! Thankfully, both Jordan and Julie from the Rat Team loved surveying so much they decided to join me, and were fantastic at teaching me how to use the theodolite and total station (which we named Wilhelm). It took me a while to get a grasp on the process of making grids and squares with stakes and flags using the Pythagorean theorem, but I eventually got the hang of it. At this point, I was getting pretty good at switching gears and constantly learning something new. During this process, I also became an honourary Rat.

Following this, I joined the Rat Team at a new site: BcGn-15. During the first two weeks, I had gotten used to flat, grassless ground and damp, heavy soil. This site was a very different creature, with tall grass, trees, and sandy soils. I teamed up with Asha to excavate OA1, a possible extension of the midden area. 

After bouncing from one unit to another, this turned out to be the longest I had been able to work on one unit. It was a very fun experience, and I grew very attached to our unit, which we named Marie Antoinette while slightly delirious after a long day of work in the sun. Again, I learned a whole new skill set tailored to this forested site. We needed a new technique when screening the Minecraft-esque chunks of dirt and grass that came up from the topsoil. Also, Asha and I alone now had full responsibility of taking down the unit accurately and keeping the walls and floor clean. OA1 changed frequently as we reached different levels, from artifact filled topsoil, through a rusty coloured transitional, and to subsoil. However, the subsoil held its own mysteries, with a sandy feature appearing in the shape of an hourglass. We pondered over whether it could be evidence of a drain or post, or something entirely different. Currently, the two of us are cross-sectioning it to understand the feature better (possibly another blog post will tell more of this interesting feature after we finish uncovering it!).

As I am writing this blog post, I realize how my responsibility has shifted throughout this field school. I began as a complete beginner, not even knowing how to use a shovel properly as an archaeologist. Though I very soon progressed to excavating a more intricate feature (the well), and eventually to managing a test unit and having the responsibility for excavating a feature (OA1). It is quite amazing that all of us students have been able to learn and achieve so much in such a short amount of time. Although it has been a lot to take in, I am grateful I had the opportunity to switch between so many projects and work with many different people. What I learned will be invaluable to me as I continue in archaeology, and I also now have such amazing memories of the experiences I have had and people I met.

Nicolas Pfund

Buttons might seem like a mundane everyday object which is not given much thought, though to a Napoleonic soldier of the 18th/19th century, it held their livelihood together. Buttons are a common fastener for clothing that is found throughout the archaeological record of Ontario. Buttons come in many different shapes, sizes, and materials which reflect their purpose whether that be utilitarian or fashion. One of my hobbies is historical reenactment of a soldier from the Regiment De Meuron which served during the War of 1812 for the British Empire. The uniform I wear includes a variety of historical reproduction buttons which fasten and hold my uniform together. Before we get into that, we need to know more about the buttons themselves.

Buttons are categorized based on material, size, shape, and decoration. Within the Ontario archaeological record, bone, shell, metal and ceramic (prosser which is pressed ceramic) buttons appear the most though other materials can be found including ivory, glass or rubber. The size of buttons can give a general sense of their use. Small 8-15 mm buttons were most commonly associated with shirts but could be found on other garments. Large 16-30 mm+ buttons were most commonly used for coats and jackets. Garments were sold without buttons so it was one’s decision based on their socio-economic status to purchase buttons within their means. Large metal buttons with decoration would be the most expensive, as seen on the cuff of the uniform tunic. Small buttons made of shell or decorated prosser would be more expensive compared to bone.

The shape of the button can also tell us a story. Generally, buttons are either sew-through or shanked. Sew through buttons can be seen on the wrist of the under shirt of the uniform which have holes for the thread to run through. Shanked buttons are those seen everywhere else on the uniform. They are 1 piece concave buttons with a cone shank on the back which the thread runs through. The decoration of buttons can help us understand who was the one wearing them. Bone/shell sew-through buttons can have piecrust or sawtooth designs. Ceramic and metal buttons could be embossed or molded as seen with the De Meuron buttons. Buttons could also be painted, engraved or gilded.

What type of buttons can be found on a uniform of a soldier from the De Meuron regiment? Can you spot them all?

These buttons are found down the center of the regimental coat. They are small 1 piece pewter concave buttons with a cone shank. They have a cast decoration of the regiment name and the royal cypher of King George III. Each regiment had different button decorations, some standard with just the royal cypher, others with the regiment’s number, and some representing different units like grenadiers.

There are 2 different buttons in this picture. First are the large, decorative 1 piece pewter concave buttons with a cone shank on the cuff of the tunic. These buttons like the ones seen earlier are cast with the regiment name and the royal cypher. The other button is found on the cuff of the shirt which is a 1 piece sew-through bone button with 2 eye holes. As mentioned earlier, small buttons are most commonly found on shirts like these.

The trouser buttons in this photo are large 1 piece pewter concave buttons with a cone shank but do not have the decoration like the buttons on the regimental tunic. This is because trousers were standardized and used across all regiments with different colours of wool. Buttons lacking decoration were also cheaper to produce than decorated buttons.

Lastly are the gaiter buttons. Gaiters started as a military accessory meant to protect the laces and ankles from the outside weather conditions. This fashion would evolve to the civilian market during the Victorian times. For this reason, the buttons are worn on the outside of the leg to display the buttons to onlookers. These buttons are similar to those seen on the trousers. They are small 1 piece metal concave buttons with a loop shank.

How do these buttons compare to those we have been finding throughout the field school? The buttons we have been finding are all sew-through buttons with either 2 or 4 eye holes. They are made of bone representing the oldest buttons, shell and prosser the intermediate and modern plastic buttons. As seen, these buttons are more suited for shirts and regular day wear similar to the cuff button found on the uniform’s shirt. To my knowledge, we have yet to find a shanked button though with a couple more days of digging we can still be hopeful.