Category: Student Blog

Dee Vaz

When we (Team Fox) arrived at the area of operation we were assigned, we were greeted by an intriguing hollow in the ground covered loosely in sticks with what appeared to be an intentional build-up of large stones in the ground (Fig. 1).

We deliberated for several minutes about where to place our unit before we began digging so that we would be able to expose what we could see in the hollow, as well as attempt to find a wall which lined up with the previously excavated house walls in OA-8 to the west. Initially we settled on a centrally placed 3x2m unit (Fig. 2), but quickly realized that we would need to extend it eastward in order to more substantially uncover what seemed to be a rapidly appearing stone wall. Therefore, we continued our excavations with a 3x3m unit removing the topsoil/organic layer or context 1 (removing a significant number of stones and rocks along the way). By the time we stopped to revaluate context identifications we had the presence of a substantial stone wall that visually appeared to be collapsing to one side and held several large stones in the centre that likely fell from the top of the wall, as the stones still in tact on the highest level were rather loose (Fig. 3).

Before making any further decisions regarding the assigning of any further contexts we attempted to further define what we could already see. Of particular interest was the southeast corner of the unit, the wall seemed to slant downwards in that direction and unlike the northeast corner of the unit, where we had what appeared to be a corner of the wall, the architecture here was much less clear. After a considerable amount of troweling (my new favourite way to disassociate), I revealed several more nonsensical rocks and a few voids (Fig. 4). Nothing much could be concluded other than we needed to go deeper. We cleaned up a few more areas in the unit in preparation for planning. Following that, we assigned new contexts and readied ourselves for the next steps; dig down and continue the great game of “Is it a Rock or Did I Just Accidentally Destroy a Piece of Wall?”.

Now we get serious, and steadily remove context 107 (the central fill and debris on the inside of the wall). Finally some things start to reveal themselves as we find two large cut stones that connect the northeast corner of the wall to the thus far non-descript, collection of partially revealed stones in the northwest corner (Fig. 5). We hypothesized that these stones may be set lower than the other walls in order to act as a door jamb of sorts, but further excavation proves that this is unlikely. Instead, the upper wall material was likely pushed into the fill during the destruction period.  

In the inner corner of the stone wall, we reveal a large broken iron pipe behind some stone debris (Fig. 6), and hypothesize that it may have some connection to the thinner pipe and divot in the ground found just to the east of OA-11. At this point we thought perhaps it might’ve been a well, the pipe connecting to an irrigation system of sorts. As it turns out, this piece of pipe was actually connected to a pipe that was built into the stone wall leading directly toward what we thought might’ve been a well, more on that later.  

We’re finally getting somewhere, our feature looks much more like a wall as opposed to a collection of rocks and stone that happens to fall in a rectangular shape (Fig. 7). However, the southeast corner is still presenting an issue, we have still not found the continuation, if there even is one.  

Now what do we do when we need to work through a small, specific area that’s covered in stones that may or may not be associated with a portion of wall? If you said grab a trowel and disassociate, you’re absolutely correct. I uncovered the remaining portion of the wall in the southeast corner of OA-11 and confirmed that it continued directly into the south wall of the unit. At the same time, I revealed a clump of large stones held together with mortar resembling those within the wall, but these were not inline with it (Fig. 8). This is likely a piece of the same wall that was broken and pushed out of line during the destruction phase.  

We’ve now established the extent of the wall’s boundaries within OA-11 (Fig. 9). Now, we find the floor. We knew, thanks to Grace’s expert analysis (falling through the floor) and many voids in the unit, that we still had quite a way to dig before we reached it and since we were closing in on the final few days of excavation, we knew it would be a time crunch but the end was in sight, and we were determined to complete the unit.

Remember how I said all we had to do was dig down context 107 to find the floor of the basement and the end was nearly in sight 5 seconds ago? Forget I said that, I lied. On the second last day of excavation me and meddling trowel hit an evenly poured ledge of concrete at the base of the stone wall that spanned the entire length of it (Fig. 10). Thus far we’d been hypothesizing that these stone walls were part of the original house’s cellar, but if the stonework was supported by a concrete foundation, that would push our wall dates significantly earlier. Don’t worry, we still had only a single day of excavation to figure this out…no big deal.

As it turns out, the stone walls still likely belonged to the original house when this area made up a crawl space (crisis averted), the concrete was added later as an extension to turn the crawl space into a more proper cellar. We concluded this, following the completion of our approximately 1x1m sondage where we also reached the basement floor, a flat slab of concrete (Fig. 11). The method that was most likely used to add additional depth to the crawlspace was called underpinning; measured sections were dug out from under the stone wall at a diagonal and filled with concrete one at a time to prevent a total collapse of the wall while they extended it. This is why there were virtually no gaps between the top of the concrete and the bottom of the stones. It is also not a great way to build in an extension. Underpinning is generally used to support shifting foundations, but when installing it under a loose stonework foundation, it has the potential to significantly weaken the original structure making an already precarious construction even more susceptible to damage from erosion, weathering, and moisture infiltration. Moisture from say…a septic tank that slowly leaks its contents into the surrounding soils.

Remember that possible well and pipe in the wall I mentioned earlier? The well is actually a septic tank (OA-11B), it was briefly excavated by the Ladybugs in the last couple days of the season (Fig 12), and that iron pipe in OA-11 connects directly into it. The concrete underpinning was likely added partially to facilitate the installation of the septic system into the house.  

And just like that the season is over, the unit is backfilled and we’re left with nothing but photos, memories, plans and buckets and buckets full of burnt nails (and other artifacts but a lot of nails). Until next time!

Jazmine Marie Aquintey

Archaeology, and especially actually being in the field, was not something I was expecting to do…ever. As an anthropology student specializing in biological anthropology, I spend most of my time at Trent in the lab with bones. But when the opportunity arose to participate in this field school, I took it! I thought: “Why not try something new?”, and such a welcome surprise it was!

I really didn’t know what to expect; my perception of archaeology was quite limited to digging and sifting, which, in fairness, is still a big part of it. I was worried I wouldn’t be able to get the full experience due to an injury that kept me from lifting much, but there were a surprising number of things, both on and off the field, that I could do!

My on-field days were mostly spent helping sift (with a teammate holding the sifter). We found so many fascinating artifacts, it was almost unreal to think they were items someone once held decades ago. My group, the Ladybugs, worked in the midden for one of our sites, and all I thought was: “Someone’s trash is another person’s treasure”, with how excited we’d become finding items in what was essentially someone’s trash pit. Amongst the many bones, glass, ceramics, and nails, some fun finds were a safety razor handle (design patented in 1912), a piece of an eclectric oil bottle, a marble, and parts of a ceramic doll’s eye/eyebrow.

During lab days, I helped wash and sort all the artifacts, both from our group and the others. It was really fun being able to see what the other groups had found, but it still had its challenges when it came to identifying what things were. After all, we were mainly working with tiny fragments of larger items. Learning how to set up and use a theodolite, map, and transfer information to QGIS were also fun days where I found out I didn’t really mind archaeology trigonometry (something I once vowed not to ever do after high school, haha).

By the end, archaeology, either working in the field or in the lab with artifacts, became something I would actually consider doing again!

Rajiv Dutta

Being in team Snake, we had the advantage of a lower ground elevation. Team Foxes and Team Bears, both did not have this advantage. They had, instead, very low areas with deep pits and rocks and walls to deal with, which was, of course, a hassle. On May 14th, in particular, the Foxes faced a threat in the form of a gigantic rock. This rock, as shown below, along with an image of their site, had to weigh at least 200 pounds, if not more. On top of this, it was extremely awkward. I came in with my gloves to assist Konrad and Lucas in attempting to move this after they had not been able to. We managed to pick it up a few feet high before failing once again and setting it down for our own safety.

Just then, David suggested that he would grab some straps from his car to pull it out after James actually confirmed that it needed to be removed. Within 20 minutes, James had confirmed, and David grabbed his straps. The straps were placed twice on the sides and once from the front to the back of the rock, along with two ropes to secure everything. Lucas and I grabbed the right end with Konrad, David, and now Cristian, grabbing the right end. Unsurprisingly, this was easy and took around 10 seconds (Possibly less) to get out of the pit and was a great team effort that also doubled as a fun moment. Once it was out, a lot of new digging opportunities arose.

This relates to me because it was a combination of teamwork, fun, and critical thinking (Though David should be given the most credit for that last part). Additionally, this is very relatable as I moved a rock around less than half of that rock’s weight by myself (Not a good idea) out of my own pit (OA 12) once it got in the way. The removal of these big rocks opens the ground up more and removes obstacles for us to dig in. On top of this, the weather was not too hot or cold with a nice sun and slight breeze, and this remains among one of the best days of this excavation. Nothing really is ultra special about this, though sometimes these small types of events make my day.

Kendra Tamar

During my time at the Trent Peterborough BcGn-15 field school one of my favourite things to find in the dirt while sifting were the old nails, particularly the machine cut nails that typically had more of a rectangular like shape to them. They struck my interest as they looked distinctly different from the other nails. I’m used to seeing the nails used commonly nowadays, which are wire, and I found it fascinating to see this kind of nail, especially at the rate in which I was finding them.

Through a bit of research I found out that the wire nail was actually patented in France in 1806 and by 1819 it was being produced in and in more localized quantities (Adams, 2002, p. 69). In the 1790s, the machine cut nail was created instead of using the older blacksmithing method of individually creating each nail through a process of hammering and manoeuvring. Machine nails were made out of a flat sheet of metal where small strips were cut out of it in order to create the nail shaft, which is an issue of sorts as it made these nails cross grained making them weaker as the sheets of metal were rolled out in one direction, then being cut in another going against the grain that was originally created when rolling it (Adams, 2002, p. 67).  I found this really fascinating, as on site there was a presence of both wire and machine cut nails. Which could either indicate that the previous residents of the area use both kinds of nails or that they had originally used a certain type of nail, then switched over to another after period of time which then shows the presence of globalization as mentioned before, wire nails were invented in France, but our site is an Ontario Canada which is extremely mind blowing to think about. All in all, my experience with site BcGn-15 has been nothing short of amazing and I’m happy to walk away from it with the knowledge that I do now.

References

Adams, W. H. (2002). Machine cut nails and wire nails: American production and use for dating 19th-century and early-20th-century sites. Historical Archaeology, 36(4), 66–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03374370

Mischa Williams

Finding whole artifacts with OA11 was extremely exciting. Finding whole artifacts that were not rusty nails was even more exciting. So when an intact, complete glass bottle was found, including a discernable label, I was instantly excited. We (Fox) found the bottle on the last few days of site, in context 107 or the “destruction layer”, touching the northern stone wall. Finding this bottle gives a surprising amount of insight into the history of the site. 

The bottle, held by Fox member Lucas, showcases the red “Kist Beverages” logo. Kist is a by-product of the Citrus Products Company, which was created in 1919 Chicago. Kist was most famous for its orange flavoured soda, with its only competitor at the time being Crush orange soda. These were the earliest orange sodas on the market, and Kist eventually branched out from Chicago, with retailers and manufacturers within North and South America . It was eventually bought out in 1965, and discontinued in 2008. The bottle can be identified due to the glasses having been designed to look like an orange peel, although this design was originally intended for Crush bottles. 

This particular bottle is relatively local, as it was “bottled under license” (see image) in Stratford. The label on the back of the Kist bottle has not withstood the test time, possibly from being pushed against the stone wall for around 60 years. The embossing of the glass just below the writing shows that this was a 10 oz bottle, as opposed to the 7oz bottle they also sold. There is more embossing on both sides of the “10 oz”, however it is difficult to make out the full word.

What can be read shows “… ONT 10 oz. F L.”, with the F L standing for fluid ounces. 

The base of the bottle gives the most useful information when it comes to dating. “4873” is the mold number, which tells us the style of the bottle. Above that is a “Diamond-D”, which is a maker’s mark. This tells us about the company that manufactured the bottle. In this case, it would be the Dominion Glass Co. We know that this mark was used between 1928 to the early 1970s, so that is the earliest and latest the bottle could have been made. Above the Diamond-D is a dot, which is not an error, but rather tells us where the bottle was made. If it is above the Diamond-D, the bottle was created in Hamilton. We also know that production in Hamilton started in 1940, thus narrowing the timeline. To the left of the Diamond-D is a month’s code.

This particular one is the May-June code, which looks a bit like a square U. Although the mouth is a bit ambiguous for dating, this particular month codes only appeared post-1949. Thus the bottle had to be post-1949 to the early 70’s. Our final clue on the bottle itself is the Year code. This is a single digit number to the right of the Diamond-D, this one being a 4. Therefore, the bottle must have been made in or around either 1954 or 1964. Although these two dates are relatively close together, we must look at the site to figure out the actual date. We know that the house in BcGn-15 was demolished around 1964. As the bottle was found near the floor of the site, one could argue that a worker happened to be drinking a Kist soda, and threw it in the pit as it was being demolished. This theory would make the most sense, as it is unlikely that the previous owner kept a soda bottle for 10 years. Thus, the mystery of the intact bottle is solved, and helped in the dating of the destruction of OA11.