Johanna St-Denis
On May 6th, our group, the Snakes, were assigned to OA-12 of site BcGn-15.
By the 7th, we had mostly exposed a concrete wall-like structure on the northeastern part of the site. It was no wider than a foot and sat diagonally. We continued to excavate and had completed most of our work. This also included expanding our operations unit. We had moved so much material by the 3rd week that we didn’t think of revisiting our first feature.
It wasn’t until May 20th, after heavy rainfall, that we discovered our wall had a small surprise. Thanks to the rain, whatever sediment was left on it was washed away, but a bit settled into these imprints. Multiple dog prints were found all along the top of our wall. We also found more dog paw prints on other concrete fragments on the 25th.
The original house had been there since the late 1800s. Between 1929 and its demolition in the mid-1960s, an addition was made. This addition has concrete foundations, and at least one curious dog decided to have a look before the concrete had cured.
As this area would have been rural farmland, it wouldn’t have been uncommon for a dog to be kept. Most of the prints were relatively large, indicating that the breed itself would’ve been on the larger side as well. Though it isn’t possible to know the exact breed, a range could be estimated.
At the time, most dogs would’ve been working animals and not kept solely as pets, especially those living on a farm. From animal herding, pest control, hunting and trapping, the dogs would’ve been useful. It is also probable that the dog was used for security, whether to scare off larger animals like bears or coyotes, or to alert the owners of an approaching person, man’s best friend would’ve done their best. Mixed breeds were the most likely, and ‘purebreds’ like Shepards, Collies, Terriers and hounds wouldn’t have been impossible either, though they were more expensive. Either way, it was a sweet surprise.
As an animal lover myself, I was pleasantly surprised by our lucky find.
Leave a comment